1

No. 2 3

- ICA

- 265

– St. Joseph's Hospital of Buckhannon, Inc. d/b/a St. Joseph's Hospital v. Stonewall Jackson Memorial Hospital Company and the West Virginia Health Care Authority

LORENSEN, J., dissenting :

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review an Authority reviewability decision

. 1 St. Joseph’s
asks this Court to reverse the Authority’s July 12, 2023, Amended Decision, declining to require Stonewall to submit a proposed relocation of its hospital to the Authority’s certificate of need review process

. When St. Jo se ph’s appealed the Authority’s decision to

us, Stonewall timely c hallenged our jurisdiction

.

West Virginia Code § 51

- 11

- 4 (2022) is the primary statute setting forth the general scope of our Court’s jurisdiction. T he statute flatly states that “[t] he Intermediate Court of Appeals has no original jurisdiction. ” Id. at § 51

- 11

- 4(a). Without any original jurisdiction, this Court sits exclusively as a court of appeal with limited jurisdiction over certain matters

.

1 A request for a ruling o n reviewability asks the Authority to “determine whether a proposed health service is subject to the certificate of need or exemption process.” W. Va. Code § 16

- 2D

- 7 (2016)

. 

### FILED May 23, 2024 released at 3:00 p.m. ASHLEY N. DEEM , DEPUTY CLERK INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF WEST VIRGINIA2 O ur appellate jurisdiction to review an appeal of the Authority’s decision at issue is derived , if at all, fr om West Virginia Code § 16

- 2D

- 16 a(a)(2) (2021) which provides that : “ An appeal of a final decision in a certificate of need review

... shall be made to the West Virginia Intermediate Court of Appea ls...

. ” (Emphasis added). 2 This jurisdictional statute limi t s our appellate review concerning Authority decisions to final decisions arising from a certificate of need review. 3 Authority r eviewability determinations

are distinct and separate from Authority certificate of need review decisions following an extensive proceeding whereby the Authority evaluates and passes upon a n application for

a certificate of need

. T he Authority’s Amended Decision only addressed the issue of reviewability . T he appeal before us does not arise from a final decision in a certificate of need review.

2 Immediately prior to the creation of this Court , appeals of Authority decisions were initially heard by the Office of Judges pursuant to West Virginia Code § 16

- 2D

- 16 . The Legislature had amended this statute restricting the appeal of Authority decisions to “the authority’s final decision in a certificate of need review.” Compare W. Va. Code § 16

- 2D

16(a) (2016) (“The authority's final decision shall upon request of an affected person be reviewed by the Office of Judges.”) with W. Va. Code § 16

- 2D

- 16(a) (2017) (“An applicant or an affected person may appeal the authority's final decision in a certificate of need review to the Office of Judges.”). Accordingly , the statutory text that once permitted administrativ e review of “the authority’s final decision” was purposefully changed by the Legislature in 2017 to allow only appeal s of final decision s in a “ certificate of need review ” which does not in my opinion include reviewability determinations

.

3 “The general r ule of statutory construction requires that a specific statute be given precedence over a general statute relating to the same subject matter[.]” Robinson v. City of Bluefield , 234 W. Va. 209, 214, 764 S.E.2d 740, 745 (2014) (quoting Syl. Pt. 1, UMWA by Trumka v. Kingdon , 174 W. Va. 330, 325 S.E.2d 120 (1984)).3 By concluding that Stonewall’s proposed relocation was not subject to certificate of need process, observing its long

- standing past practice, the Authority decline d
to undertake the extensive review

. The Petitioner asks this Court to compel the Authority to subject Stonewall’s proposed relocation to a rigorous regulatory process that the Legislature in 2023 significantly circumscribed

. W hether the law imposes a duty upon the Authority to act contrary to its past practice regarding prior relocation matters is simply not an appropriate question for this Court

. T he relief St. Joseph’s seeks sounds in mandamus , an extraordinary writ, over which this Court expressly has no jurisdiction. See W. Va. Code § 51

- 11

- 4 (d)(10) (2022)

. 4

F or these reasons , I respectfully dissent

.

4 See also W. Va. Code § 51

- 1

- 3 ( 1915) (“The Supreme Court of Appeals shall have original jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus, mandamus and prohibition.”).