Opinion ID: 1900201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Scope of Appellate Review

Text: Title 22 M.R.S.A. § 311 provides: Any person aggrieved by a final decision of the department made under the provisions of this Act shall be entitled to review in accordance with Title 5, chapter 375, subchapter VII, of the Administrative Procedure Act. A decision of the department to issue a certificate of need or to deny an application for a certificate of need shall not be considered final until the department has taken final action on a request for reconsideration under section 310. The plaintiffs argue that section 311 provides for direct review in the courts of the Department's decision to issue or deny a certificate of need. We disagree. Section 311 merely provides who is entitled to review, i. e., any person aggrieved by a final decision. By stating that the Department's decision to issue or deny a certificate of need is not final until final action has been taken on a request for reconsideration, the statute limits the class of people who are entitled to review, i.e., because a person aggrieved by a decision to issue or deny a certificate when no final action has been taken on a request for reconsideration is not a person aggrieved by a final decision, he is not entitled to review. Once final action on the reconsideration request has been taken, then he is a person aggrieved by a final decision, and is entitled to review. But section 311 does not articulate what a person aggrieved by a final decision is entitled to have reviewed. Rather, it merely provides that a person entitled to review is entitled to review in accordance with [5 M.R.S.A. §§ 11001-11008] of the Administrative Procedure Act. Title 5 M.R.S.A. § 11001(1) does provide what a person aggrieved is entitled to have reviewed. It states in part that any person who is aggrieved by final agency action shall be entitled to judicial review thereof in the Superior Court in the manner provided by this subchapter. (Emphasis added.) Final agency action is defined in the APA as a decision by an agency which affects the legal rights, duties or privileges of specific persons, which is dispositive of all issues. . ., and for which no further recourse, appeal or review is provided within the agency. 5 M.R.S.A. § 8002(4) (emphasis added). Thus, the Department's initial decision to issue or deny a certificate of need is not reviewable, since further recourse is provided within the Department, i.e., by a request for reconsideration. Rather, it is the Department's decision to deny the request for reconsideration that is reviewable. The plaintiffs suffer no prejudice from this limitation on review, however. The bases upon which the Department may find good cause for granting a request for a rehearing are set forth in 22 M.R.S.A. § 310: 1. New Information. Presents significant, relevant information not previously considered by the department; 2. Changes in circumstances. Demonstrates that there have been significant changes in factors or circumstances relied upon by the department in reaching its decision; 3. Failure to follow procedures. Demonstrates that the department has materially failed to follow its adopted procedures in reaching its decision; or 4. Other bases. Provides other basis for a hearing that the department has determined constitutes good cause. The scope of review under the APA is set forth in 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4): 4. Decision. The court may: A. Affirm the decision of the agency; B. Remand the case for further proceedings, findings of fact or conclusions of law or direct the agency to hold such proceedings or take such action as the court deems necessary; or C. Reverse or modify the decision if the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by bias or error of law; (5) Unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. We interpret the four bases listed in 22 M.R.S.A. § 310 broadly so as to encompass all of the plaintiff's contentions which fall within the scope of review set forth in 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4). Thus, the plaintiffs could raise in their request for reconsideration any issue which they would have been able to raise on direct appeal of the decision to issue or deny a certificate of need, were such direct review possible. The net result of these statutory provisions is to require the plaintiffs to raise all of their issues in their request for reconsideration, since failure to raise an issue in the request will foreclose judicial review of that issue (because only the Department's denial of the request for reconsideration is before the court on appeal). Requiring presentation of all allegations of error to the Department in the request for reconsideration furthers our policy that the agency and not the appellate court should have the first opportunity to hear and determine alleged errors in the administrative process. See Mechanic Falls Water Co. v. Public Utilities Commission, Me., 381 A.2d 1080, 1105 (1977).