Opinion ID: 1980709
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Subsequent Review Decision

Text: [¶ 31] The Collaborative argues that the Superior Court's finding that subsequent review was within the Department's authority was in error because the Department did not have jurisdiction to modify SMMC/MMC's CON through the substantive review process. [10] We agree that jurisdiction over SMMC/MMC's CON project was removed from the Department and vested in the courts of Maine on May 5, 2003, the date on which the Collaborative appealed from the CON Decision. [¶ 32] Questions of law, such as whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, are subject to de novo review. State v. Dhuy, 2003 ME 75, ¶ 8, 825 A.2d 336, 341. [¶ 33] We have clearly limited an agency's authority to exercise power over final agency actions that have been appealed. In Gagne v. City of Lewiston, 281 A.2d 579 (Me.1971), we considered for the first time the authority of an agency to reconsider or modify its decision while an appeal was pending. We held that the appeal terminates the authority of the tribunal to modify its decision unless the court remands the matter to the tribunal for its further action, thereby reviving its authority. Gagne, 281 A.2d at 583. The establishment of such a rule is in accord with the reasoned concept that an appeal removes the matter from the administrative tribunal to the Superior Court. More importantly, the rule [e]nsures the stability of the decision while undergoing judicial review. Id. (citations omitted). [¶ 34] This rule has been reaffirmed in Eastern Maine Medical Center v. Health Care Finance Comm'n, 601 A.2d 99, 101 (Me.1992) ([A]n appeal from final agency action automatically removes jurisdiction from the administrative agency to the court system), and Portland Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Town of Gray, 663 A.2d 41, 43 (Me.1995) ([A]n agency loses jurisdiction over a pending matter.... when a party aggrieved by a decision of the agency seeks direct judicial review of that decision in the Superior Court.). [¶ 35] SMMC/MMC argues that the Commissioner was not correcting a mistake, as was the case with the Board of Appeals in Gagne. Rather, the Commissioner was acting on a new matter, a request for subsequent review. [¶ 36] Subsequent review is not a process that can be separated from the issuance of a CON. [11] Any changes approved after subsequent review are incorporated by amending the CON already issued. 22 M.R.S.A. § 304-B(2) (2001). When the Department makes an amendment in this manner, it is modifying its original decision, not making a new one. We have expressly held that modifications to agency decisions are unauthorized if the matter being modified is on appeal and the court has not directed the agency to take further action. Gagne, 281 A.2d at 583; E. Me. Med. Ctr., 601 A.2d at 101. [¶ 37] The Department's jurisdiction over the CON issued to SMMC/MMC on February 4, 2003, ceased upon the filing of the Collaborative's appeal on May 5, 2003. The Department did not have the authority to review or approve any changes to SMMC/MMC's CON until the CON Decision appeal was completely and fully resolved. The Superior Court's judgment affirming the Department's subsequent review is therefore vacated. The entry is: Regarding AP-03-24, judgment affirmed as to the CON Decision. Regarding AP-04-61, judgment affirmed as to the Commencement Decision. Regarding AP-04-78, judgment vacated as to the Subsequent Review Decision. Remanded to the Superior Court for the entry vacating the decision of the Department and for remand to the Department for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.