Court Opinion

ID: 9894516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 22:12:18.913517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:24.120102
License: Public Domain

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
                                                                              FILED
LOGAN GENERAL HOSPITAL, LLC,                                              November 1, 2023
d/b/a LOGAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER                                        EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK

and RURAL HEALTH ACCESS CORPORATION,                                     INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                               OF WEST VIRGINIA
d/b/a COALFIELD HEALTH CENTER,
Respondents Below, Petitioners

vs.) No. 23-ICA-134         (CON File No. 22-2-12445-P)

BOONE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,
Applicant Below, Respondent

and

WEST VIRGINIA HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY,
Respondent

                             MEMORANDUM DECISION

       Petitioners Logan General Hospital, LLC, d/b/a Logan Regional Medical Center
(“Logan Medical”), and Rural Health Access Corporation, d/b/a Coalfield Health Center
(“Coalfield”) appeal the March 20, 2023, decision of the West Virginia Health Care
Authority (“Authority”), which granted the Certificate of Need (“CON”) application of
Respondent Boone Memorial Hospital (“Boone Memorial”) for the development of a new
ambulatory care center in Chapmanville, Logan County, West Virginia. Respondents
Boone Memorial and the Authority each filed a response. 1 Logan Medical and Coalfield
filed a joint reply. The primary issue on appeal is the sufficiency of the Authority’s
decision.

       This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2022). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds that the Authority’s order lacks sufficient findings of fact
and conclusions of law for a meaningful appellate review Accordingly, a memorandum
decision vacating the Authority’s decision and remanding the matter to the Authority for

       Logan Regional Medical Center is represented by Alaina N. Crislip, Esq., and Neil
       1

C. Brown, Esq., and Coalfield Health Center is represented by Brock Malcolm, Esq. Boone
Memorial Hospital is represented by L. Elizabeth King, Esq., and Caleb P. Knight, Esq.
The Authority is represented by Heather A. Connolly, Esq.
                                             1
entry of amended decision is appropriate under the “limited circumstances” requirement of
Rule 21(d) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

       On June 13, 2022, Boone Memorial filed a CON application, proposing to develop
an ambulatory care center in Chapmanville, Logan County, West Virginia. According to
the CON, the stated objective of this project is to develop an ambulatory care center staffed
by an employed, mid-level provider to provide primary care services to residents from
Boone County, Lincoln County, and Logan County. Both Logan Medical’s and Coalfield’s
requests for affected party status and an administrative hearing were granted by the
Authority. Although details about the hearing are absent from the Authority’s decision,
based upon the designated record, the administrative hearing on the CON application was
held on October 20, 2022. On March 20, 2023, the Authority issued a forty-page decision
granting Boone Memorial’s CON application.2 This appeal followed.

       Pursuant to West Virginia Code §§ 16-2D-16a (2021) and 29A-5-4(g) (2021), our
standard of review is as follows:

       The court may affirm the order or decision of the agency or remand the case
       for further proceedings. It shall reverse, vacate, or modify the order or
       decision of the agency if the substantial rights of the petitioner or petitioners
       have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences,
       conclusions, decision, or order are:
       (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
       (2) In excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency;
       (3) Made upon unlawful procedures;
       (4) Affected by other error of law;
       (5) Clearly wrong in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence
       on the whole record; or
       (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly
       unwarranted exercise of discretion.

       On appeal, Logan Medical and Coalfield argue that the Authority’s decision lacks
findings as to the evidence adduced, as well as any analysis to support its findings that
Boone Memorial had met all CON criteria. See generally W. Va. Code § 16-2D-12 (2016).
We agree.

       Upon review, the Court finds that the Authority’s forty-page decision fails to contain
adequate findings of fact and conclusions of law to support its decision to grant Boone
Memorial’s CON application. Instead, the decision merely contains the procedural history
of the case prior to the administrative hearing and recites the arguments of the parties for

       2
        This Court granted Logan Medical’s and Coalfield’s joint motion for stay of this
decision on June 2, 2023.
                                              2
each of the CON factors the Authority must consider. The decision offers no analysis or
rationale by the Authority to support its findings that these several factors were met. Rather,
the Authority uses several single sentences and conclusory statements to find that each
factor had been satisfied. Our review of the record reveals that the Authority heard
testimony from several witnesses and admitted several exhibits during the administrative
hearing; however, the decision is devoid of any findings or discussion as to the testimony
of those witnesses or the exhibits in the record. In fact, as previously noted, the Authority’s
decision even fails to make any findings acknowledging that the administrative hearing
was held at all.

        Pursuant to West Virginia Code § 16-2D-13(g)(3) (2017), “[t]he [A]uthority shall
conduct the administrative hearing in accordance with administrative hearing requirements
in section twelve, article twenty-nine-b of this chapter and article five, chapter twenty-nine-
a of this code.” West Virginia Code § 16-29B-12(e) (2017) further requires:

       After any hearing, after due deliberation, and in consideration of all the
       testimony, the evidence and the total record made, the board shall render a
       decision in writing. The written decision shall be accompanied by findings
       of fact and conclusions of law as specified in section three, article five,
       chapter twenty-nine-a of this code, and the copy of the decision and
       accompanying findings and conclusions shall be served by certified mail,
       return receipt requested, upon the party demanding the hearing, and upon its
       attorney of record, if any.

Additionally, West Virginia Code § 29A-5-3 (1964) mandates:

       Every final order or decision rendered by any agency in a contested case shall
       be in writing or stated in the record and shall be accompanied by findings of
       fact and conclusions of law. Prior to the rendering of any final order or
       decision, any party may propose findings of fact and conclusions of law. If
       proposed, all other parties shall be given an opportunity to except to such
       proposed findings and conclusions, and the final order or decision shall
       include a ruling on each proposed finding. Findings of fact, if set forth in
       statutory language, shall be accompanied by a concise and explicit statement
       of the underlying facts supporting the findings.

W. Va. Code § 29A-5-3, in part. Therefore, we find that under the plain language of these
statutes, Authority decisions “must contain the requisite findings of fact and conclusion of
law for meaningful appellate review.” State v. Redman, 213 W. Va. 175, 178, 578 S.E.2d
369, 372 (2003) (citations omitted).

      Without the Authority providing sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law
as required by statute, this Court is left to speculate as to the reasonings behind the

                                              3
Agency’s rulings. However, courts cannot engage in speculation, and we refuse to do so
here. As our Supreme Court of Appeals has recognized:

       Without findings of fact and conclusions of law, [an appellate court] is unable
       to determine the basis for the court's decision and whether any error has
       occurred. Consequently, in cases where there is an absence of adequate
       factual findings, it is necessary to remand the matter to the lower court to
       state or, at a minimum, amplify its findings so that meaningful appellate
       review may occur.

Mullins v. Mullins, 226 W. Va. 656, 662, 704 S.E.2d 656, 662 (2010). We find this rationale
equally instructive when considering the sufficiency of decisions issued by administrative
tribunals. Here, because the Authority’s decision makes no findings of fact or conclusions
of law relevant to the substantial evidence adduced at the administrative hearing, and also
fails to set forth any analysis or rationale for any of its findings and conclusions related to
the statutory CON factors it is required to consider, we are unable to determine the bases
for the Authority’s decision and whether any error has occurred. Therefore, we must
remand the matter to the Authority for entry of an amended decision with the required
findings of fact and conclusions of law.

        Accordingly, we vacate the Authority’s March 20, 2023, decision and remand the
matter to the Authority. Upon remand, the Authority shall enter an amended order setting
forth findings of facts and conclusions of law, sufficient to allow for meaningful appellate
review should Logan Medical or Coalfield elect to file another appeal.

                                                                     Vacated and Remanded.

ISSUED: November 1, 2023

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Daniel W. Greear
Judge Thomas E. Scarr
Judge Charles O. Lorensen

                                              4