Executive Committee of Baptist Convention of State of Ga. v. Metro Ambulance Services, Inc., 38972

• Decision Date: 20 October 1982
• Docket Number: No. 38972,38972
• Citation: 250 Ga. 61,296 S.E.2d 547
• Parties: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF the BAPTIST CONVENTION OF the STATE OF GEORGIA d/b/a Georgia Baptist Medical Center v. METRO AMBULANCE SERVICES, INC.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 547

296 S.E.2d 547

250 Ga. 61

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF the BAPTIST CONVENTION OF the STATE

OF GEORGIA d/b/a Georgia Baptist Medical Center v. METRO AMBULANCE SERVICES, INC.

No. 38972.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Oct. 20, 1982.

Edwin Pearce, Mikel L. Purcell, Poole, Pearce, Cooper & Smith, Atlanta, for Executive Committee of the Baptist Convention of State of Georgia.

Randall L. Hughes, Kim H. Roeder, H. Boyce Connell, Jr., Dodd, Driver, Connell & Hughes, Atlanta, for Metro Ambulance Services, Inc.

CLARKE, Justice.

This appeal calls for a determination of the question of who was standing to bring an action to enforce the provisions of the State Health Planning and Development Code (Code Ann. Ch. 88-33). We hold that only the State Health Planning and Development Agency, or such other governmental agency as authorized by law, has standing.

Metro Ambulance Services, Inc. brought this action against Georgia Baptist Medical Center praying that Georgia Baptist be enjoined from operating a helicopter ambulance service without first obtaining a certificate of need from the State Health Planning Agency as required by the statute. Georgia Baptist moved to dismiss the action on the ground that Metro had no standing to bring a court action to enforce the statute. The trial court denied the motion and we granted the application for interlocutory appeal.

In support of its argument that it had standing to bring a court action, Metro relies upon Code Ann. § 88-3320(c): "For purposes of this section [dealing with sanctions], the State of Georgia, acting by and through the State Health Planning and Development Agency, shall have standing in any court of competent jurisdiction, in addition to any other proper parties, to maintain an action for injunction or other appropriate relief to enforce the provisions of this Chapter." Metro insists that it is a "proper party" under this Section. In furtherance of this argument, Metro points out that Code Ann. § 88-3311 requires that any person proposing to develop or offer a new institutional health service or health care facility must first obtain a certificate of need and that an application by Georgia Baptist for such a certificate for the exclusive lease of a helicopter was denied in 1981. Metro contends that Georgia Baptist is presently operating a helicopter ambulance service in defiance of the denial. On the other hand, Georgia Baptist insists that it is merely purchasing helicopter flights on a fee for service basis from a vendor of helicopter service.

We do not deal here with the merits of the case but are merely called upon to determine the question of standing. In dealing with this question, we do not find the cases from other jurisdictions cited by Metro to be persuasive. Metro relies upon In the Matter of the Construction of a Health Care Facility by Wilkesboro, Ltd., 55 N.C.App. 313, 285 S.E.2d 626 (1982); Suburban Medical Center v. Olathe Hospital, 226 Kan. 320, 597 P.2d 654 (1979); Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Health, 257 N.W.2d 343 (Minn.1977); and Memorial Hospital of Southern California v. State Health Planning Council, 28 Cal.App.3d 167, 104 Cal.Rptr. 492 (1972). These cases are all distinguishable. In Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v. Minnesota State Board of Health, supra, the licensing agency was one of the defendants in a declaratory judgment action. Suburban Medical Center v. Olathe Hospital, supra, involved a statute specifically authorizing a "potentially" adversely affected health facility to seek judicial review of an agency decision. In Memorial Hospital of Southern California v....