Vna Hospice v. Dept. of Health, 105, September Term, 2007.
Citation | 406 Md. 584,961 A.2d 557 |
Decision Date | 11 December 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 105, September Term, 2007.,105, September Term, 2007. |
Parties | VNA HOSPICE OF MARYLAND v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Stephen J. Sfekas, Baltimore, for petitioner.
Kathleen A. Ellis, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, and David Wagner, Staff Attorney, Baltimore), on brief, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., RAKER,* HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, JOHN C. ELDRIDGE (Retired, specially assigned), and DALE R. CATHELL (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.
John C. ELDRIDGE, J., Retired, Specially Assigned.
This is an action for judicial review of a final adjudicatory administrative decision by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. In that decision, the Department amended the petitioner VNA Hospice of Maryland's hospice care license to exclude VNA from providing home-based hospice services in Carroll and Prince George's Counties. The decision was based upon Maryland Code , § 19-906 (c)(3) of the Health-General Article.1 In deciding to rescind that part of VNA's license relating to Carroll and Prince George's Counties, the Department rejected VNA's interpretation of § 19-906(c)(3) of the Health-General Article. The Department also rejected VNA's alternative arguments that, if § 19-906(c)(3) precluded VNA from performing home-based hospice services in Carroll and Prince George's Counties, the statute as applied to VNA was unconstitutional on several grounds.
The Circuit Court for Baltimore County reversed the administrative decision on state constitutional grounds. The Court of Special Appeals, however, rejected VNA's constitutional arguments, reversed the Circuit Court's judgment, and directed the Circuit Court to affirm the Department's final decision. Dept. of Health v. VNA, 176 Md.App. 475, 501-502, 933 A.2d 512, 527 (2007).
This Court granted VNA's petition for a writ of certiorari which presented numerous constitutional questions. VNA Hospice v. Department of Health, 402 Md. 355, 936 A.2d 852 (2007). Although we recognize that some of VNA's constitutional arguments are substantial, we shall not decide any of the constitutional issues. Instead, we shall vacate the decision of the Court of Special Appeals and direct an affirmance of the Circuit Court's judgment on the ground that the Department's interpretation of the statutory provisions, and particularly § 19-906(c)(3), was not legally correct.
VNA, before the Department's action complained of here, was licensed to provide and had been providing home-based hospice services, to "dying individuals and their families,"2 in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Cecil, Harford, Howard, and Prince George's Counties, as well as Baltimore City. As a result of the Department's final decision in this case, VNA could no longer provide home-based hospice services in Carroll and Prince George's Counties unless it applied for and received a Certificate of Need (hereafter sometimes referred to as a "CON").
As more requirements were subsequently added in order to obtain a CON for a hospice program, existing programs continued to benefit from grandfathering provisions. This history was described by the Maryland Health Care Commission, Division of Health Resources, in a report entitled An Analysis and Evaluation of Certificate of Need Regulation in Maryland, Working Paper: Hospice Services, at 23-24 (2000), as follows (footnotes omitted):
The report continued (id. at 24):
As explained above, licensed hospice programs that qualified under grandfathering provisions were authorized to provide services throughout the State of Maryland. Moreover, because hospice care programs were, and are, freely transferable, a provider seeking to serve the entire State of Maryland could simply acquire one of the grandfathered, CON-exempted licenses, and thereby acquire a license allowing it to serve the entire State without meeting the CON requirements.
Consequently, CON-exempt licenses allowing providers to serve the entire State became a highly valued commodity. In one transaction, described in the Department of Legislative Services' Bill File on Senate Bill 732 of the 2003 General Assembly's legislative session, a program licensed to provide state-wide services without a CON was transferred to a large out-of-state organization, which then announced its intention to expand the program's capacity to serve more people in more areas of Maryland than any of the previous owners of that program. To address the competition felt by smaller local hospices competing with these larger providers, Senate Bill 732 was introduced at the 2003 Session of the General Assembly. One member of the Senate supporting the Bill, in testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on March 6, 2003, testified that it was "these little hospices around the State that we are trying to protect."4
New § 19-120(o) also stated:
"The Commission may not issue a certificate of need or a determination with respect to an acquisition that authorizes a general hospice to provide home-based hospice services on a statewide basis."
With regard to the dispute in the present case, the key provision added by Ch. 404 of the Acts of 2003 w...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Comptroller of the Treasury v. Zorzit
- Latty v. St. Joseph's Soc'y of The Sacred Heart Inc.
-
Bourgeois v. Live Nation Entm't, Inc.
... ... See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, I will deny ... (c) Scope; term; fee. (1) Each such license shall ... 3, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 ... Calif. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th ... Equity Act of 1999.” The Act extended “health, leave, and survivor benefits comparable to those ... 349, 131 A. 801, 803 (1925); see VNA Hospice of Maryland v. Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene, ... 13–157, which went into effect on September 18, 2013, and repealed Article 15, Subtitle 21 ... ...
- Carter v. State
-
ENFORCING A WALL OF SEPARATION BETWEEN BIG BUSINESS AND STATE: PROTECTION FROM MONOPOLIES IN STATE CONSTITUTIONS.
...Johnson, 123 A. at 65, 67. (93) Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene v. VNA Hospice, 933 A.2d 512, 526 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007), vacated, 961 A.2d 557 (Md. 2008). This case was vacated by the Court of Appeals on procedural grounds and the merits of the constitutional claims were not (94) I......