Court Opinion

ID: 9671402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:35:55.391319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:09.808197
License: Public Domain

Riley, J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority that the circuit court properly issued an order of superintending control over the Certificate of Need Board to determine whether the board “ ‘had jurisdiction, whether or not it exceeded that jurisdiction and proceeded according to law.’ ” Genesee Prosecutor v Gen-esee Circuit Judge, 386 Mich 672, 681; 194 NW2d 693 (1972), quoting In re Fredericks, 285 Mich 262, 267; 280 NW 464 (1938). I write separately to express my belief that Rivergate Manor’s request to change subareas, inter alia, did not, as a matter of law, constitute a modification and should have been submitted for consideration to the department in the form of a new application for a certificate of need. Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to decide whether the Certificate of Need Board has the authority to modify a certificate of need.
A
Through 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.22123(2); MSA 14.15(22123)(2), the Legislature granted the department the authority to
promulgate rales necessary to implement this part. The rules may include:
*510(c) Procedures for state and local review of applications for issuance of a certificate of need and modification ....
(d) The duration, modification, and extension of certificates issued under this part. [Emphasis added.]
Pursuant to MCL 333.22123(2); MSA 14.15(22123)(2), the department promulgated rules, including 1986 AACS, R 325.9413(1), specifically addressing amendment of certificates:
An applicant may make a written request to the department for an amendment to a certificate of need. After consultation with the appropriate health systems agency, a determination shall be made by the department whether the amendment does or does not require another review. A certificate of need issued after a concurrent comparative review shall not be amended to increase the scope of the project. Unless waived by the department, amendments to a certificate of need shall be subject to the same conditions and stipulations imposed on the original certificate.
Because the request in this case involved an entirely new project in a different subarea, it is not necessary to decide whether, in an appropriate case in which the request for modification does not change the “scope” of the project, the Certificate of Need Board has the power to modify a certificate of need it has issued.
B
In response to the National Health, Planning and Resources Development Act, 42 USC 300k et seq. (now repealed), the Legislature enacted 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.22101 et seq.; MSA 14.15(22101) et seq., as part of the Public Health Code. Both were intended to contain rising health care costs and avoid unneces*511sary duplication of facilities and services while continuing to provide for the health of citizens. See Shannon, Certificate of need: Where it has been and where it is going, 67 Mich B J 592 (1988). The Legislature declared that the certificate of need program was established in order to:
(a) Provide for review and determination of need before new institutional health services, facilities, and organizations are offered or developed or substantial expenditures are undertaken in preparation for the offering or development.
(b) Provide that only needed services, facilities, and organizations shall be offered or developed in this state.
(c) Meet the policies and procedures governing the issuance of certificates of need required for projects under federal grant-in-aid programs and federal loan guarantee programs. [MCL 333.22111; MSA 14.15(22111) (emphasis added).]
The Court of Appeals has noted that the underlying purpose of the legislation was to prevent “the construction of unneeded health facilities.” Greenbriar Convalescent Center, Inc v Public Health Dep’t, 108 Mich App 553, 558; 310 NW2d 812 (1981). To that end, the state established subareas designated by county, except Wayne, which is divided into three subareas. Determinations of the existence of a need for health facilities was then evaluated by subarea. MCL 333.22131(1); MSA 14.15(22131)(1) established a litany of criteria that the department and a health systems agency must consider when determining whether to issue a certificate of need. The criteria is weighted on a scale of one to three.1 The following *512criteria were given a weight of three, i.e., “very important”:
(c) The need of the population served or to be served for the health care facilities or services being reviewed.
(d) The feasibility and availability of less costly alternatives or more effective methods of providing the health care facilities or services being reviewed.
(e) The relationship of the health care facilities or services being reviewed to the existing health care systems of the health services areas in which the facilities or services are provided or proposed, including the probable impact on the costs of providing health services in the areas served. [Emphasis added.]
C
Mindful of the evaluating criteria and, hence, the specific purposes of the legislation, we must closely review Rivergate’s request in this case. After the department denied Rivergate’s certificate of need, Rivergate appealed to the Certificate of Need Board. On October 28, 1987, the board granted a certificate of need to Rivergate, stating that “[t]his project involves the construction of a long-term care facility which would be licensed for 200 long-term nursing care beds and 23 home for the aged beds. The facility would be located on a site which fronts on Pennsylvania Avenue and is adjacent to Fort Street in Riv-erview (Wayne County).” In 1990, Rivergate requested that the location of the project be changed from the City of Riverview to the City of Westland, which is located in a different subarea, and changed the project costs from $5.4 million to approximately $7 million.
*513Rivergate’s request to change the subarea in the existing. certificate of need would require a totally new evaluation using the criteria listed in MCL 333.22131(1); MSA 14.15(22131)(1).2 This request for “modification” strikes at the very heart of the legislation.3 Given that the entire purpose of the legislation was to control the number of beds in a given subarea, to allow such a modification by amendment of an existing certificate of need would frustrate the purpose of the act. Such a modification would not only extend the “scope” of the project,4 it contemplates a totally new project that would require a wholly new determination of the need for such a facility in the proposed subarea. This would require the same process previously used by Rivergate to obtain the original certificate of need. Accordingly, Rivergate’s request to build a facility in a different subarea should have been in the form of a new certificate of need.
D
Finally, having characterized Rivergate’s request as more than a mere modification or amendment, it is *514unnecessary for me to decide whether the Certificate of Need Board had the authority to modify the certificate of need. In this case, the board exceeded its authority by approving what was essentially a new certificate of need. The request to change subareas should have been in the form of a new certificate of need submitted to the department and then, if denied, appealed to the Certificate of Need Board. Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals on this basis.
Weaver, J., concurred with Riley, J.

 See 1986 AACS, R 325.9208.

 See Downriver Nursing Associates v Public Health Dep’t, 193 Mich App 594; 484 NW2d 748 (1992), in which the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that a certificate of need could be modified to change the site of a proposed nursing home even though the proposed change was within the same subarea as the specified city in the original certificate of need. Finding that an issued certificate of need conveys a property interest, the Court held that “[t]he [certificate of need], as issued, did not provide plaintiffs a property interest in any project outside the City of Dear-born.” Id. at 601.

 Indeed, the majority acknowledges that resolution of Rivergate’s request requires a new determination whether there is a need in a different subarea.

 1986 AACS, R 325.9413 prohibits an amendment of a certificate of need that would “increase the scope of the project.”