Opinion ID: 1405512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: SRMC's Appeal

Text: In its brief, SRMC argues six separate issues on appeal related to the ALC's order. Given our scope of review, however, the determinative issue in this case is whether there is substantial evidence to support the ALC's findings and/or whether the ALC made an error of law. See S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-380(5). More specifically, we must decide whether the ALC's conclusion that the two applications are not competing is legally correct. We hold it is. We note initially that the purpose of the CON Act is to promote cost containment, prevent unnecessary duplication of health care facilities and services, guide the establishment of health facilities and services which will best serve public needs, and ensure that high quality services are provided in health facilities in this State. S.C.Code Ann. § 44-7-120 (2002). As noted above, the CON Act defines competing applicants as two health care facilities who apply for CONs to provide similar services or facilities in the same service area within a time frame as established by departmental regulations and whose applications, if approved, would exceed the need for services or facilities. S.C.Code Ann. § 44-7-130(5) (emphasis added). It is well-settled that [t]he construction of a statute by the agency charged with its administration will be accorded the most respectful consideration and will not be overruled absent compelling reasons. Dunton v. S.C. Bd. of Examiners in Optometry, 291 S.C. 221, 223, 353 S.E.2d 132, 133 (1987). The ALC found that granting both CON applications would not exceed the need, and therefore, the applications were not competing. From a factual perspective, there is abundant evidence in the record to support this based on CCC's data projections. Moreover, it is hard to interpret the plain language of section 44-7-130(5) any other way than the manner in which the ALC interpreted it: If granting both applications would not exceed the need, then the applications are not competing and both may be granted (provided all other relevant criteria are met). See Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 515, 560 S.E.2d 410, 414 (2002) (Where the terms of the statute are clear, the court must apply those terms according to their literal meaning.). The ALC also specifically found that both SRMC and CCC met the relevant project criteria. Again, there is an abundance of evidence to support this finding. While the ALC correctly noted that each proposed project has its strengths and advantages, this does not mean the other completely lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision to grant both CONs. We find the evidence substantially supports the legal conclusion that the two applications were not competing. Moreover, based on the evidence presented, the granting of both CONs does not violate the State Health Plan and will further the overall purpose of the statute. See § 44-7-120. We have reviewed SRMC's individual arguments raised on appeal and find that two merit brief discussion. First, SRMC argues the ALC failed to make specific findings of fact. This Court has made clear that [t]he findings of fact of an administrative body must be sufficiently detailed to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether the law has been properly applied to those findings. Able Communications, Inc. v. S.C. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 290 S.C. 409, 411, 351 S.E.2d 151, 152 (1986). To simply recite conflicting testimony is insufficient. Id. In Able, the Public Service Commission's order contained no findings of fact at all and a conclusory finding that the proposed paging service rates were reasonable. The Able Court held that appellate review was impossible because all it could do was speculate as to the reasons underlying the decision. Id. SRMC argues the ALC failed to choose one set of data projections over another and therefore ran afoul of the Able holding. We disagree. The ALC's order was far from conclusory. There are findings of fact, credibility determinations, conclusions of law, and legal analysis in the written order. Although SRMC correctly notes that in the findings of fact section the ALC lists both sets of data projections, the legal analysis outlined in the ALC order demonstrates an acceptance of CCC's predictions and specifically reflects that the ALC took into account the aging population. Only CCC's data projections separated the data by age cohorts. Therefore, we need not speculate about why the ALC reached the decision it did because the written order makes the reasons manifest. In other words, the rule outlined in Able and its progeny has not been breached. SRMC also argues the circuit court order must be vacated because it included improper findings of fact and credibility determinations. We agree. Because the circuit court was sitting in an appellate capacity, it was bound by the same scope of review discussed above. It was error for the circuit court to go beyond that scope and make additional findings. Accordingly, we affirm as modified and vacate the circuit court order. The Board's decision which affirmed the ALC's ruling to issue both CONs stands.