HCA Health Services of Georgia, Inc. v. Roach, s. S95A0089
| Decision Date | 12 June 1995 |
| Docket Number | Nos. S95A0089,S95A0126,s. S95A0089 |
| Citation | 458 S.E.2d 118,265 Ga. 501 |
| Parties | HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA, INC. v. ROACH et al. HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF GEORGIA, INC. v. STATE HEALTH PLANNING AGENCY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
H. Wayne Phears, Victor L. Moldovan, Richard E. Harris, Phears & Moldovan, Norcross, for HCA Health Services of Ga., Inc.
Stanley S. Jones, Jr., Jennifer D. Malinovsky, Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., William W. Calhoun, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, for Roach et al. and State Health Planning Agency.
In 1986, the State Health Planning Agency (SHPA) "grandfathered" a health care facility into the Certificate of Need (CON) program and, in 1992, a proposal by Surgical Healthcare Corporation (SHC) to relocate the facility within three miles of its existing location was determined by SHPA to be exempt from CON requirements. HCA Health Services (HCA), as a competitor of SHC, challenged both of SHPA's decisions by filing separate petitions for judicial review and mandamus relief. The trial court dismissed HCA's actions. On appeal, however, this court reversed the dismissal of HCA's mandamus action and remanded for a consideration on the merits. HCA Health Services, Inc. v. Roach, 263 Ga. 798, 439 S.E.2d 494 (1994).
Before the trial court ruled on the merits of HCA's mandamus action, SHPA promulgated a new rule which would authorize, without any CON review under the Act, the relocation of a health care facility anywhere within three miles and would also exempt facilities, such as SHC's, which previously had requested and received a favorable relocation ruling from SHPA. HCA then filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that SHPA's new rule was invalid. HCA was denied both the mandamus and declaratory relief that it sought. HCA appeals from the denial of mandamus relief in Case Number S95A0089 and from the denial of declaratory relief in Case Number S95A0126. The two cases have been consolidated for appeal.
1. As to SHPA's 1986 grandfathering decision, HCA urges that the trial court erred in limiting its review to the administrative record. However, in HCA Health v. Roach, supra at 801(3)(a), 439 S.E.2d 494, we held that "[t]he trial court was required to determine whether any evidence supported the agency's decision to grandfather the facility." By so holding, we confined the trial court's review to the administrative record, in a manner analogous to that provided in the Administrative Procedure Act, OCGA § 50-13-19(g). Consequently, the trial court did not err in considering only the evidence that was before SHPA.
HCA further contends that, even if review is limited to the administrative record, the trial court erred by upholding SHPA's 1986 grandfathering decision. However, the 1986 decision had been based upon a determination that the facility had been operated as an "ambulatory surgical center" (ASC) prior to the effective date of the CON statutes and, under the evidence before SHPA, the facility met the definition of an ASC at the time the CON statutes were enacted in 1979. According to that definition, there was no requirement that all types of surgeries be performed. Ga.L.1979, pp. 1109, 1110, § 1. HCA urges that the facility could not have been an ASC, because it had not obtained an ASC permit pursuant to OCGA §§ 31-7-1(1)(D) and 31-7-3(a) before seeking a CON exemption. However, an ASC permit is not a prerequisite to obtaining a CON or CON exemption. To the contrary, a CON or CON exemption is a prerequisite to obtaining an ASC permit. See OCGA § 31-6-45(b); ABC Home Health Services, Inc. v. Ga. Dept. of Med. Assistance, 211 Ga.App. 461, 465(1), 439 S.E.2d 696 (1993). It follows that the trial court did not err in upholding SHPA's 1986 grandfathering decision.
2. As to the 1992 relocation decision, a CON is generally required for new institutional health services, including the relocation of an existing facility. The General Assembly has provided for exemptions from the Act, but "[t]he relocation of a facility such as that proposed does not fall within any of the ... statutory exemptions." HCA Health Services, Inc. v. Roach, supra at (3)(b), 439 S.E.2d 494. SHPA contends that it is authorized to add to the legislative list of exemptions pursuant to § 31-6-47(c) and that, by promulgation of the new rule, it has done so. That statute provides:
By rule, the planning agency shall establish a procedure for expediting or waiving reviews of certain projects the nonreview of which it deems compatible with the purposes of this chapter, in addition to expenditures exempted from review by this Code section.
HCA contends that OCGA § 31-6-47(c) is not authority for the promulgation of SHPA's new rule and that the new rule cannot, therefore, support the relocation decision.
A distinction must be drawn between the General Assembly's constitutional authority to enact legislation and SHPA's administrative authority to promulgate rules for the enforcement of the General Assembly's enactments. " " Department of Transp. v. Del-Cook Timber Co., Inc., 248 Ga. 734, 738(3)(a), 285 S.E.2d 913 (1982). SHPA's authority can extend only to the performance of the latter administrative function, as it has no constitutional authority to legislate. See generally Sundberg v. State, 234 Ga. 482, 216 S.E.2d 332 (1975). SHPA's construction of its authority under OCGA § 31-6-47(c) would permit it to do far more than merely administer and effectuate an existing enactment of the General Assembly. SHPA would have complete and unbridled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Premier Health Care Invs., LLC v. Uhs of Anchor, L.P.
...of the statutory CON scheme at issue in this case and concluded that it did. Twenty-five years ago, in HCA Health Services of Georgia Inc. v. Roach , 265 Ga. 501, 458 S.E.2d 118 (1995), this Court examined an agency rule that authorized a health care facility's relocation without any CON ap......
-
Uhs of Anchor, L.P. v. Dep't of Cmty. Health
...with the Act’s CON requirements, or unilaterally create exclusions from those requirements."); HCA Health Servs. of Ga., Inc. v. Roach , 265 Ga. 501, 502-03 (2), 458 S.E.2d 118 (1995) ("SHPA’s construction of its authority under OCGA § 31-6-47 (c) [ (now OCGA § 31-6-47 (b) ) ] would permit ......
-
Heron Lake II Apartments, LP v. Lowndes Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors
...that would be unconstitutional, that meaning or construction will be applied which will sustain the act." HCA Health Svcs. v. Roach , 265 Ga. 501, 503 (2), 458 S.E.2d 118 (1995) (citation and punctuation omitted).In this case, the Board has failed to carry its heavy burden of demonstrating ......
-
North Fulton Medical Center v. Stephenson
...1. 263 Ga. 814, 440 S.E.2d 18 (1994). 2. OCRR § 272-2-.07(1)(u) (1994). 3. 265 Ga. 125, 453 S.E.2d 463 (1995). 4. HCA Health Serv. v. Roach, 265 Ga. 501, 458 S.E.2d 118 (1995). 5. These 19 subsections of the codified CON program, far too detailed to delineate here, comprise approximately 94......
-
Administrative Law - Mark H. Cohen and David C. Will
...v. State Health Planning Agency, 211 Ga. App. 407, 408, 438 S.E.2d 912, 914 (1993)). 15. See HCA Health Servs. of Ga., Inc. v. Roach, 265 Ga. 501, 502-03, 458 S.E.2d 118, 120-21 (1995). 16. 237 Ga. App. at 458-59, 517 S.E.2d at 339. 17. 230 Ga. App. 563, 497 S.E.2d 50 (1998). 18. O.C.G.A. S......