Texas Health Facilities Commission v. West Texas Home Health Agency, 6063
| Decision Date | 27 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 6063,6063 |
| Parties | TEXAS HEALTH FACILITIES COMMISSION, Appellant, v. WEST TEXAS HOME HEALTH AGENCY, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal by the Texas Health Facilities Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) from judgment of the trial court, reversing and setting aside an order of the Commission, ordering West Texas Home Health Agency (hereafter referred to as Health Agency), to "CEASE and DESIST" the operation of "consultation offices and/or work rooms" located in Brady, Junction, New Braunfels, Brownwood, Wheeler and Graham, within 30 days of the date of the order.
The Commission administers portions of the Texas Health Planning and Development Act; (Article 4418h VATS); Health Agency provides home health care in some 150 Texas counties.
In January 1977 Mrs. Betty J. Girling of Girling and Associates Home Health Care Services, Inc. complained to the Commission that Health Agency was operating "work rooms" in several towns in violation of the Health Planning and Development Act (Article 4418h VATS) in not having first obtained proper certification from the Commission.
The Commission ordered Health Agency to "show cause why it should not be found in violation" of Article 4418h.
After hearing the Commission entered its Administrative Order finding that Health Agency had established the six offices above mentioned and had not acquired a certificate of need or exemption certificate from the Commission; that establishment of such offices violated the Health Planning and Development Act in several particulars and ordered the Health Agency to cease and desist the operation of such offices within 30 days.
Health Agency filed this case for review of the Commission's order; asserted the Commission erred in finding violations of Article 4418h or of the Commission rules; and prayed the court set aside the order of the Commission.
The Commission answered by general denial; and that the case is governed by the substantial evidence review provisions of Article 6252-13a, Section 19; and prayed the Commission be sustained.
The Commission later filed plea to the jurisdiction of the court, asserting Health Agency had not exhausted its administrative remedies prior to filing suit in the court.
The trial court denied the Commission's plea to the jurisdiction; and after hearing rendered judgment reversing and setting aside the administrative order of the Commission. Such judgment held the Commission's order was not supported by substantial evidence, and that as a matter of law establishment of the six offices without first obtaining a certificate of need did not constitute a violation of Article 4418h VATS.
The Commission appeals on 3 points.
Point 1 contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider Health Agency's appeal from the order of the Commission.
The Commission asserts the trial court erred in overruling its plea to the jurisdiction in that Health Agency had not exhausted its administrative remedies prior to filing suit in the court.
The proceeding before the Commission was a hearing in which Health Agency was required to "show cause" why it should not be found in violation of Article 4418h.
Section 1.04 of Article 4418h provides: "The Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act applies to all proceedings under this Act except to the extent inconsistent with this Act".
Section 19(a) of the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act (Article 6252-13a) provides: .
The "Cease and Desist" order the Commission issued after hearing on the "show cause" order was a final decision in a contested case, and the trial court had jurisdiction of the case.
The fact that Section 3.03 of Article 4418h which provides that an adverse "Declaratory Ruling" on application of a person describing a proposed project may not be appealed to the courts until after denial of a certificate of need does not preclude the trial court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Texas Prot. & Reg. Serv. V. Mega Child Care
...Courts of Appeals concluded that section 19(a) of the APTRA provided a right to judicial review. See Tex. Health Facilities Comm'n v. W. Tex. Home Health Agency, 588 S.W.2d 655, 657 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1979, no writ); Moore v. Tex. Employment Comm'n, 565 S.W.2d 246, 247 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston......