Case ID: nc_328/html/0081-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "EXUM, Chief Justice. Justice WHICHARD", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RECOVERY CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., d/b/a NEW BEGINNINGS OF NORTH CAROLINA, Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION, Respondent-Appellee and DUKE UNIVERSITY, Intervenor-Respondent-Appellee
    No. 126PA90
    (Filed 10 January 1991)
    On petitioner-appellant’s petition for discretionary review (prior to a determination by the Court of Appeals) of the 11 August 1989 final decision of the Department of Human Resources by I.O. Wilkerson, Jr., Director, Division of Facility Services. Submitted on briefs without oral argument 10 December 1990.
    
      Thompson & Burgess, by Kenneth L. Burgess, for petitioner-appellant.
    
    
      Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by James A. Wellons, Assistant Attorney General, for North Carolina Department of Human Resources, respondent-appellee.
    
    
      Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, by Roddey M. Ligón, Jr., and M. Elizabeth Gee, for Duke University, intervenorrespondent-appellee.
    
   EXUM, Chief Justice.

Under the rationale and holding in HCA Crossroads Residential Ctrs. v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res., 327 N.C. 573, 398 S.E.2d 466 (1990), the final decision of the Department of Human Resources entered 11 August 1989 is vacated. The Department must issue the Certificate of Need for which the petitioner-appellant has applied. The matter is remanded to the Department for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision. Durham Meridian Partnership v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res., 327 N.C. 586, 398 S.E.2d 474 (1990).

Vacated and remanded.

Justice WHICHARD

concurring.

While I continue to adhere to the reasoning in my dissenting opinion in HCA Crossroads Residential Ctrs. v. N.C. Dept. of Human Res., 327 N.C. 573, 398 S.E.2d 466 (1990), the majority opinion there is now the law governing this case. For this reason, I concur in the foregoing opinion.

Justice FRYE joins in this concurring opinion.