State of Ohio, ex rel. Pia Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc., Dba Psychiatric Institute of Columbus v. State of Ohio Certificate of Need Review Board,., 90-LW-1489
| Decision Date | 19 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | 88AP-759,90-LW-1489 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, ex rel. PIA PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS, INC., dba Psychiatric Institute of Columbus, Relator, v. STATE OF OHIO CERTIFICATE OF NEED REVIEW BOARD, Respondent. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTIONS TO REFEREE'S REPORT
Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, and Thomas W. Hess; and Bonner & O'Connell, and John T. Brennan, Jr., for relator.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney General, and Cordella A. Glenn, for respondent.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney General; McCarthy, Palmer, Volkema & Becker, and William C. Becker; and Ransier & Ransier, Kathleen Hayes Ransier and Frederick L. Ransier, III, Special Counsel, for intervenor Ohio Department of Mental Health.
Carlile, Patchen, Murphy & Allison, and Donald A. Antrim; and King & Spalding, and Robert L. Shackelford, for intervenor Charter Hospital of Akron, Inc.
Bricker & Eckler, Gretchen A. McBeath and Scott W. Taebel, for intervenors Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron and Harding Hospital.
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, James P. Friedt and Terry M. Miller, for amicus curiae Children's Hospital.
Relator, PIA Psychiatric Hospitals, Inc., has filed this original action requesting this court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, State of Ohio Certificate of Need Review Board, to issue relator a certificate of need for a child and adolescent psychiatric facility in Health Service Area 5 (`HSA 5'), pursuant to R.C. 3705.58.
The cause was referred to a referee pursuant to Civ. R. 53 and Section 13, Loc. R. 11 of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. On February 18, 1989, the referee recommended that this court sustain the motions to intervene filed by Harding Hospital, Charter Hospital of Akron, Inc., Children's Hospital Medical Center of Akron, and the Ohio Department of Mental Health. Further, the referee also permitted Children's Hospital to file a brief as amicus curiae.
The facts in this case have been stipulated. On August 31, 1987, relator filed an application for a Certificate of Need to construct, own, and operate a sixty-bed child and adolescent psychiatric care facility in HSA 5. This application was filed pursuant to Section 12, Am. Sub. H.B. 499, which became effective on June 30, 1987. Am. Sub. H.B. 499 gave the Ohio Department of Mental Health (`ODMH') the authority to grant or deny certificate of need applications for child and adolescent psychiatric care facilities. Thus, the applicants who were dissatisfied with the ODMH's decisions could appeal to the Certificate of Need Review Board.
When relator applied for its certificate, there were nine other applicants also seeking to obtain such a certificate in HSA 5. On October 27, 1987, the director of ODMH denied all the applications. Five of the applicants, including relator, then appealed to the board. In response, the board appointed a hearing examiner to conduct an adjudication hearing and render a report on the merit of the appeals.
The hearing examiner conducted such a hearing and filed his report with the board. His report recommended reversal of the decision of the ODMH and that the board should issue certificates of need to relator and Harding Hospital.
On August 4, 1988, the board convened to act on the referee's recommendation. Contrary to the recommendation, the board voted to affirm the decision of the director of ODMH, which denied all of the nine applications. On September 1, 1988, the board's chairman signed the order and, on September 6, 1988, the board entered the order into its journal and mailed it to the parties.
Thereafter, relator filed a notice of appeal with the board and with the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Relator also filed the present mandamus action with this court.
In this court, intervenors Harding and Charter Hospitals and respondent, have filed motions to dismiss, which the referee converted to motions for summary judgment. In response, relator filed a cross- motion for summary judgment. The referee considered these motions and rendered a report on October 27, 1989. That report recommended that this court grant summary judgment for intervenors and the board, and deny summary judgment to relator.
The referee found that relator had failed to show any genuine issue of material fact and that the moving parties were entitled to judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to Civ. R. 56. He reasoned that relator had failed to show a clear legal right to mandamus and that relator had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal to the common pleas court. See State, ex rel. Berger, v. McMonagle (1983), 6 Ohio St. 3d 28.
Relator has filed objections to the report, arguing that the referee erred in concluding that R.C. 3702.58(A) does not apply to Section 12 proceedings, such as the one in this case.
R.C 3702.58(A), which was subsequently repealed on July 1, 1988 by H.B. 322, effective August 5, 1989, was an `automatic adoption provision,' which provided that, upon the failure of the board to issue a decision within the prescribed time limits, the report and recommendation of the hearing examiner shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial