Court Opinion

ID: 9588369
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:33:33.648562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:13.614900
License: Public Domain

STEELMAN, Judge
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in parts IV and V of the majority opinion, but must respectfully dissent as to the balance of the opinion.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-188(a) (2004) provides that:
After a decision of the Department to issue, deny or withdraw a certificate of need or exemption or to issue a certificate of need pursuant to a settlement agreement with an applicant to the extent permitted by law, any affected person, as defined in subsection (c) of this section, shall be entitled to a contested case hearing under Article 3 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.
Pursuant to this provision and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-22, the Department of Health and Human services (DHHS) was permitted to enter into settlement agreements with Presbyterian Hospital and Forsyth Memorial Hospital. Following these settlements, Mooresville Hospital initiated this contested case proceeding. Mooresville had a full and complete opportunity to litigate and challenge the settlement agreements. This procedure is clearly set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-188. The additional procedural requirements set forth in the majority opinion are not found in either Chapter 131E or Chapter 150B.
I would also hold that the findings contained in the Final Decision of DHHS are supported by the evidence, and petitioner can show no prejudice. Bio-Medical Applications of N.C., Inc. v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Resources, Div. of Facility Servs., Certificate of Need Section, 136 N.C. App. 103, 523 S.E.2d 677 (1999); Britthaven, Inc. v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Resources, Div. of Facility Servs., 118 N.C. App. 379, 455 S.E.2d 455 (1995).
Under the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-34(c), DHHS was required to “state the specific reason, based on the evidence, for not adopting the findings of fact” of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). This provision, applicable only to cases under Chapter 131E, sets forth a lesser standard for final agency decisions than under N.C. *657Gen. Stat. § 150B-36, for rejection of the findings of fact of the ALJ. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-36(bl) provides that in cases other than Chapter 131E, the final agency decision:
shall set forth separately and in detail the following:
(1) The reasons for not adopting the findings of fact.
(2) The evidence in the record relied upon by the agency in not adopting the finding of fact contained in the administrative law judge’s decision.
I would hold that the specific reasons cited in the Final Decision of DHHS for rejecting the findings of fact of the AU were sufficient. The recommended decision of the AU was 39 pages long, and contained 101 separate findings of fact. The final Decision of DHHS was 103 pages long. Each rejected finding of the AU was set out verbatim and the reason for the rejection stated. Some of the reasons stated for rejection were lengthy and some were short. Some of the reasons stated incorporated specific documents into the decision. I would hold that the Final Decision complied, with the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-34(c), which only require that DHHS state the specific reason for rejection of the finding of fact made by the AU.
Finally, the majority opinion specifically authorizes Presbyterian Hospital North to continue in operation without a CON pending DHHS’ reconsideration of this matter. The majority cites no authority for this directive, and I know of none.
I would affirm the final agency decision in this matter.