Case Name: LAUREL WOOD OF HENDERSON, INC., Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, Respondent and PARK RIDGE HOSPITAL and PIA-ASHEVILLE, INC., d/b/a Appalachian Hall, Intervenor-Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1995-12-08
Citations: 342 N.C. 400
Docket Number: No. 102A95
Parties: LAUREL WOOD OF HENDERSON, INC., Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, Respondent and PARK RIDGE HOSPITAL and PIA-ASHEVILLE, INC., d/b/a Appalachian Hall, Intervenor-Respondents
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 342
Pages: 400–400

Head Matter:
LAUREL WOOD OF HENDERSON, INC., Petitioner v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, Respondent and PARK RIDGE HOSPITAL and PIA-ASHEVILLE, INC., d/b/a Appalachian Hall, Intervenor-Respondents
No. 102A95
(Filed 8 December 1995)
Appeal by petitioner pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 117 N.C. App. 601, 452 S.E.2d 334 (1995), affirming an order entered by Bowen (Wiley, F.), J., on 1 August 1993, in Superior Court, Walce County. On 4 May 1995, we allowed petitioner’s petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 November 1995.
Bode, Call & Green, by Robert V. Bode and Diana E. Ricketts, for petitioner-appellant.
Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by James A. Wellons, Special Deputy Attorney General, for respondent-appellee N. C. Department of Human Resources.
Petree Stockton, L.L.P., by Noah H. Huffstetler, III, Barbara B. Garlock, and Gary S. Qualls, for intervenor-respondent-appellee Park Ridge Hospital.
Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore, L.L.P., by Maureen Demarest Murray, William K. Edwards, and Terrill Johnson Harris, for intervenor-respondent-appellee PIA-Asheville, Inc., d/b/a Appalachian Hall.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Lewis. The petition for discretionary review as to additional issues was improvidently allowed.
REVERSED; DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.