Opinion ID: 1810729
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Certification and Agreement

Text: ¶ 54. The Board contests the fact that Hughes did not certify the supplemental information to the original application that was filed. However, Armstrong's testimony established that the MSDH does not require that supplemental information have additional certification. Hughes's original application contained a certification as required for submission of a CON application. [4] Armstrong testified that [t]he additional information becomes the application in addition to what was originally filed. Armstrong testified that he had no knowledge of any requirement that a certification be sent with the additional information if the applicant is later required by the MSDH to submit supplemental information. ¶ 55. The Board also argues that Hughes's application did not contain a signed agreement that he would not transfer ownership of the facility for three years. The MSDH reduced Hughes's score by one point for the agreement even though Hughes's application contained a separate unsigned written agreement not to transfer. The chancery court found that it was whimsical for the MSDH to deduct this point from Hughes's score. ¶ 56. This Court finds that the chancery court did not err in not allowing the deduction of one point from Hughes's score for failing to sign the agreement. As stated by the chancery court, the minor alterations of the ranking scores had no effect on the overall ranking of the applicants.