Opinion ID: 1432114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Contested-Case Proceedings Apply to Certificate-of-Need Public Meetings

Text: States choosing to participate in the federal funding program authorized by the National Health Planning and Resources Development Act must abide by the procedural due-process requirements of the Act. The federal district court of New York, in Park East Corporation v. Califano, 435 F. Supp. 46 (D.C.N.Y. 1977), enjoined state officials from terminating a hospital's participation in the medicare/medicaid program prior to a hearing required by the Act. Noting that congress, in passing the Act, intended federal preemption in the field of health planning, the court ruled that the state must adhere to the Act's mandatory review process. 435 F. Supp. at 50. Similarly, in Greater St. Louis Health Systems Agency v. Teasdale, 506 F. Supp. 23 (D.C.Mo. 1980), the federal district court of Missouri, adopting a supremacy-clause argument, declared invalid portions of that state's certificate-of-need law which conflicted with the federal act. The court determined that the restrictive statutory method for selecting board members thwarted the federal objective of encouraging broad participation in the selection process. In examining Wyoming's certificate-of-need statute, we find that we can uphold the review procedures by looking to the federal law for the nature and format of the public meeting to be held prior to the Board's decision. Section 35-2-206(f), supra. The federal law contemplates a trial-type hearing in line with that prescribed by the contested-case provisions of our Administrative Procedure Act. Such a hearing is mandatory, under the federal act, if requested by either the applicant or other affected entities following notification of the review process. If no request is made, an informal meeting would satisfy federal procedural requirements. The overall statutory scheme of the certificate-of-need review process supports a reading in which public meeting is consistent with trial-type hearing. The notice requirement of § 35-2-206(e) goes hand-in-hand with the notion of a formal hearing upon request. See Board of County Commissioners of Teton County v. Teton County Youth Services, Inc., Wyo., 652 P.2d 400, 413 (1982). The availability of judicial review under § 35-2-214 contemplates the development of a record for review  appropriately accomplished in these types of situations under trial-type conditions. Board of County Commissioners of Teton County v. Teton County Youth Services, supra, 652 P.2d at 410. Contested-case proceedings are particularly appropriate for ruling upon controversial, often complex, certificate-of-need applications which are likely to be finally determined in court. We hold, then, that the public-meeting requirement of § 35-2-206(f) derives meaning and substance from the corresponding federal enactment. We hold further that the notice and public-meeting requirements of our certificate-of-need review process comprise a contested case within the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act. Any affected person, as defined by pertinent federal and state certificate-of-need regulations, is entitled, upon request, to participate as a party in such contested-case proceedings. This reading of § 35-2-206 effectuates the purpose of the legislature to adopt a certificate-of-need review process that complies with federal requirements and qualifies the state for financial assistance. When we can affirm the validity of a statute and further the legislative intent in enacting the measure, we are bound to do so. McGuire v. McGuire, Wyo., 608 P.2d 1278, 1285 (1980). Respondent HCA contends that even if our statutes require a trial-type hearing in this case, Lander Valley waived its right to such a hearing by failing to raise the issue at the public meeting. No waiver occurred by reason of petitioner's silence at the public meeting. Lander Valley was entitled to rely on the duly promulgated Board rules which provided a fair hearing to any person adversely affected by a Board decision. Therefore, Lander Valley did not need to object to the public-meeting proceedings in order to preserve its right to a hearing. We reverse the grant of the certificate of need and remand this matter so that, prior to rendering its decision, the Board may afford petitioner a trial-type hearing as prescribed by the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act.