North Fulton Medical Center, Inc. v. Roach, s. S93A1931
| Decision Date | 21 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | S93A1932,Nos. S93A1931,s. S93A1931 |
| Citation | 440 S.E.2d 18,263 Ga. 814 |
| Parties | NORTH FULTON MEDICAL CENTER, INC. v. ROACH et al. (two cases). |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
David J. Bailey, Ruth H. Gershon, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Atlanta, for North Fulton Medical Center, Inc.
Dennis R. Dunn, Asst. Atty. Gen., Michael J. Bowers, Atty. Gen., William W. Calhoun, Staff Atty., State Law Dept., Randall L. Hughes, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Atlanta, for Dotty W. Roach et al.
This appeal from the dismissal of North Fulton Medical Center, Inc.'s (North Fulton) actions for mandamus and judicial review is controlled by our recent opinion in HCA Health Services, Inc. v. Roach, 263 Ga. 798, 439 S.E.2d 494 (1994). Here, as in HCA Health Services, a hospital owner brought an action against the State Health Planning Agency (SHPA) contending SHPA acted without authority in determining a competitor was not required to obtain a certificate of need under the Certificate of Need program, OCGA § 31-6-40 et seq., in order to relocate a facility.
1. In HCA Health Services, we rejected the argument, also asserted in this appeal, that SHPA has discretion to exempt health care providers from the review procedures established by the CON program, and from the requirement of obtaining a certificate of need where, as here, the provider seeks to relocate a facility operating under the CON program (i.e., with a certificate of need or properly grandfathered as a facility pre-existing the CON program), in this case more than ten miles from its existing location. We pointed out in HCA Health Services that nothing in the State Health Planning and Development Act (which includes the CON program) or in SHPA's rules promulgated pursuant to the Act, gives it discretion to exempt a facility like that in HCA Health Services, or the facility in this case, from CON requirements if the facility is relocated. Accordingly, the trial court erred by holding to the contrary.
2. North Fulton raised its claims regarding SHPA's improper actions in two counts, one for judicial review and one for mandamus. The trial court dismissed the action in its entirety. Although North Fulton's action for judicial review, if it had a valid one, was timely (compare HCA Health Services, Division 1), it is unclear from the record whether that remedy was available. If it were, the trial court erred in dismissing North Fulton's action for judicial review, but did not err in dismissing the petition for mandamus. Henderson v. Carter, 229 Ga. 876, 880(5), 195 S.E.2d 4 (1972). If North Fulton did not have a proper remedy through judicial review of SHPA's determination, its claim for relief by mandamus was appropriate.
(a) North Fulton's claim for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act asserted that SHPA's letter determination that the relocation of the facility in question would not require a CON was a "declaratory ruling" under the APA, OCGA §§ 50-13-11; 50-13-19(b). It is not apparent from the record whether the letter exempting the facility from CON review is, in fact, a "declaratory ruling," from which North Fulton, as a competitor and aggrieved party 1, could seek judicial review. OCGA § 50-13-19(a); Chattahoochee Valley Home Health Care, Inc. v. Healthmaster, 191 Ga.App. 42, 43(1)(a), 381 S.E.2d 56 (1989). Accordingly, the trial court's dismissal of North Fulton's action for judicial review is reversed and remanded for a determination of whether that review is available, and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2
(b) If the trial court determines judicial review is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Northside Hosp., Inc.
...in this case. See Chattahoochee Valley, supra, 191 Ga.App. at 43(1)(a), 381 S.E.2d 56; see also North Fulton Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Roach, 263 Ga. 814, 815(2)(a), n. 1, 440 S.E.2d 18 (1994). 2. In several enumerations of error, the Department contends that the superior court erred in its vaguen......
-
North Fulton Medical Center v. Stephenson
...was appellant's only viable remedy in this matter, we affirm in the cross appeal, No. S98X0486. In North Fulton Medical Center v. Roach ("North Fulton I"),1 this Court addressed SHPA's decision that Northside Hospital was not required to obtain a CON under OCGA § 31-6-40 before relocating a......
-
ALBANY SURGICAL v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
...501 S.E.2d 798 (1998); Phoebe Putney Mem. Hosp. v. Roach, 267 Ga. 619, 620-621(1), 480 S.E.2d 595 (1997); North Fulton Med. Center v. Roach, 263 Ga. 814(1), 440 S.E.2d 18 (1994); HCA Health Svcs. v. Roach, 263 Ga. 798, 800-801(3), 439 S.E.2d 494 (1994). "All doubts should be resolved in fav......
-
Dept. of Community Health v. Gwinnett Hosp.
...did not hold that all replacement facilities had to be assessed as if they were new facilities. It held in North Fulton Med. Center v. Roach, 263 Ga. 814, 440 S.E.2d 18 (1994), that proposed replacement facilities must apply for a CON. It held in HCA Health Svcs. of Ga. v. Roach, 265 Ga. 50......