St. Charles Cty. Amb. v. Mo Dept. of Health

• Decision Date: 22 January 2008
• Docket Number: No. WD 67521.,WD 67521.
• Citation: 248 S.W.3d 52
• Parties: ST. CHARLES COUNTY AMBULANCE DISTRICT, INC., Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and SENIOR SERVICES, et. al.; Mission Care of Missouri d/b/a Abbott Ambulance, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

248 S.W.3d 52

ST. CHARLES COUNTY AMBULANCE DISTRICT, INC., Appellant, v. MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and SENIOR SERVICES, et. al.; Mission Care of Missouri d/b/a Abbott Ambulance, Respondent.

No. WD 67521.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

January 22, 2008.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 4, 2008.

Application for Transfer Denied April 15, 2008.

Brian E. McGovern, Esq., Brian M. Kaemmerer, Esq., Chesterfield, MO, for St. Charles County Ambulance.

Glen D. Webb, Esq., Jefferson City, MO, for Missouri Dept. of Health & Senior Services.

Lynn S. Brackman, Esq., Winthrop Blackstone Reed, III, Esq., St. Louis, William E. Quirk, Esq., Kansas City, MO, for Mission Care of Missouri.

Before NEWTON, P.J., SPINDEN and HARDWICK, JJ.

LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Judge.

The St. Charles County Ambulance District ("District") appeals from the dismissal of its Petition for Review before the Administrative Hearing Commission ("AHC"). In the Petition, the District sought revocation of a new ambulance service license issued to Abbott Ambulance, Inc. ("Abbott") in November 2004 by the Missouri Department of Health & Senior Services ("Department"). After the Petition was filed, the Department realized it issued the new license in error and withdrew it. Abbott thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the District's Petition for Review as moot. The AHC granted the dismissal motion, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Section 190.171, RSMo 2000,¹ because the proceeding no longer involved a licensing issue.

On appeal, the District contends the AHC erred in determining that it lacked jurisdiction. The District argues that while the Department withdrew the 2004 license, it also allowed Abbot to continue to operate under an existing license issued to Abbott's corporate predecessor in 2000. The District asserts the Department in effect granted Abbott a new license by allowing it to operate under the preexisting license, but the Department failed to follow the requirements of Section 190.109.3 for issuing a new license.² Thus, the District contends the AHC had subject matter jurisdiction under Section 190.171 because the Petition effectively challenged the issuance of a new license.

In reviewing this appeal from an administrative agency, we must consider whether the AHC decision was unsupported by competent and substantial evidence based upon a review of the whole record, was unauthorized by law, was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or involved an abuse of discretion. Section 536.140.2. As a general matter, questions of law are reviewed de novo, findings of fact are reviewed to determine if they are supported by the evidence, and discretionary determinations are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Coastal Mart, Inc. v. Dep't of Natural Res., 933 S.W.2d 947, 951 (Mo. App.1996).

As a basic tenet of administrative law, "`an administrative agency has only such jurisdiction as may be granted by the legislature.'" Livingston Manor, Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 809 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Mo.App.1991) (quoting State ex rel. Mo. Health Care Ass'n v. Mo. Health Facilities Review Comm., 768 S.W.2d 559, 562 (Mo. App.1988)). If the agency lacks statutory authority to consider a matter, it is without subject matter jurisdiction. Id. "The agency's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be enlarged or conferred by consent of agreement of the parties." Id. Without subject matter jurisdiction, the agency can take no action other than to dismiss the proceeding. Beach v. Dir. of Revenue, 934 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Mo.App.1996).

The AHC has subject matter jurisdiction in ambulance licensing cases pursuant to Section 190.171, which provides:

Any person aggrieved by an official action of the department of health and senior services affecting the licensed status of a person pursuant to the provisions of sections 190.001 to 190.245 and sections 190.525 to 190.537, including the refusal to grant, the grant, the revocation, the suspension, or the failure to renew a license, may seek a determination thereon by the administrative hearing commission pursuant to the provisions of section 631.045 RSMo....

(emphasis added). In this case, the AHC initially had jurisdiction under Section 190.171 because the District's Petition for Review challenged the Department's issuance of a new ambulance service license to Abbott in November 2004. When the Department withdrew the new license in June 2005, the AHC lost jurisdiction because the proceeding no longer involved "an official action of the [D]epartment ... affecting the licensed status" of Abbott. Accordingly, the AHC had no alternative but...