Case Name: ROPER HOSPITAL, Respondent v. BOARD OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, and St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Appellants
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1991-10-07
Citations: 306 S.C. 138
Docket Number: 23490
Parties: ROPER HOSPITAL, Respondent v. BOARD OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, and St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Appellants.
Judges: Gregory, C.J., and Harwell and Finney, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 306
Pages: 138–145

Head Matter:
23490
ROPER HOSPITAL, Respondent v. BOARD OF SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, and St. Francis Xavier Hospital, Appellants.
(410 S.E. (2d) 558)
Supreme Court
Walton J. McLeod, III, and William A. Ready, III of S.C.D.H.E.C., Columbia, for appellant S.C.D.H.E.C.
Gary E. Clary of Hall, Daniel, Winter & Clary, Gaffney, for appellant St. Francis Xavier Hosp.
M. Elizabeth Crum and Elizabeth A. Holderman of the McNair Law Firm, Columbia, Michael A. Molony of Young, Clement, Rivers & Tisdale, Charleston Correspondent.
Heard May 2, 1991;
Decided Oct. 7, 1991.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 3, 1991.

Opinion:
Chandler, Justice:
The Board of South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (Board) appeals Circuit Court's reversal of its order denying Respondent Roper Hospital's (Roper) application for a certificate of need (CON). We reverse.
FACTS
Roper filed a CON application with the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) to construct a new general hospital west of the Ashley River. It further requested permission to transfer 100 beds from its existing hospital in Charleston to this new facility. From DHEC's denial of the application, Roper sought review by the Board.
The special commissioner appointed to take testimony recommended to the Board that it reverse DHEC's decision and grant the CON. The Board rejected the recommendation and reinstated DHEC's original determination, holding that there was substantial evidence supporting denial of the CON.
On appeal, Circuit Court reversed and ordered the CON granted.
ISSUE
The sole issue: Was the Board's decision supported by substantial evidence?
DISCUSSION
A. Scope of Review
It is well established by decisions of this Court that judicial review of administrative agency orders is limited to a determination of whether they are supported by substantial evidence. Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E. (2d) 304 (1981) [Judicial review of administrative agency orders is controlled by S.C. Code Ann. § l-23-380(g) (1986)]. "[T]his Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the [agency] upon a question as to which there is room for a difference of intelligent opinion." Chem Leaman Tank Lines v. South Carolina Public Service Commission, 258 S.C. 518, 189 S.E. (2d) 296 (1972).
B. Review of the Record
We disagree with Circuit Court that the record contains no substantial evidence to support the Board's denial of the CON.
Included in the Board's order are findings that: (1) the proposed hospital would result in an unnecessary duplication of services, creating added expense for patients; (2) the proposed hospital would have a negative impact on the occupancy rates of existing hospitals; and (3) 90% of the population, including citizens residing west of the Ashley River, can reach existing hospitals within thirty minutes.
These findings are adequately supported by evidence in the record, including testimony of the DHEC staff and other witnesses. Albeit there is evidence contrary to the findings made by the Board, under Lark, supra, the Board's findings are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence.
We find Roper's additional sustaining grounds to be without merit.
Reversed.
Gregory, C.J., and Harwell and Finney, JJ., concur.
Toal, A.J., dissenting in separate opinion.
DHEC also denied a CON to St. Francis Xavier Hospital for transfer of 55 beds from its existing hospital to a new facility west of the Ashley. After Roper and St. Francis were granted invervenor status in one another's appeals, St. Francis abandoned its action.
The Board is vested with the statutory authority to utilize DHEC's "experience, technical competence and specialized knowledge . in the evaluation of the evidence." S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-330(4) (1986).