Court Opinion

ID: 9778939
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:26:56.730073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:16.225315
License: Public Domain

GAITAN, Judge,
concurring.
While I concur with the majority opinion, as the author of State v. Mo. Health Facilities Rev. Com, 768 S.W.2d 559 (Mo.App.1988) I must state that the facts of that case are distinguishable from those of West County. There, the Missouri Health Care Association (MHCA) raised both in the writ of prohibition and in their briefs that the continuance by the review committee beyond the statutory 130 days prevented its right to be heard pursuant to section 197.-330.1(2), (3), and (6) RSMo 1986. This was not the case in West County. Additionally, MHCA acted on the 131st day or as soon as it reasonably could rather then twenty-three days later as in West County. Consequently, the mootness argument in West County is distinguishable.
Having raised the issue of the granting of the certificate of need (CON) by operation of law and without the opportunity to be heard pursuant to section 197.330.1(2), *481(3) and (6), I believe the decision in State ¶. Mo. Health Facilities Rev. Com. to be correct, but agree with the majority that it may be overbroad.