Court Opinion

ID: 9822923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 09:32:27.596527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:11.974216
License: Public Domain

CARLTON, J.,
dissenting:
¶ 32. I respectfully dissent. ■ The majority errs in affirming the chancellor’s dismissal of the action filed by CES. See Miss. Div. of Medicaid v. All. Health Ctr., 174 So.3d 254, 262 (¶21) (Miss.2015) (“Our common law holds that chancery court jurisdiction exists to review an administrative agency decision ‘where there is no statutory scheme for appeal from a decision of a state board or agency ....”’ (citation omitted)).
¶ 33. DOM similarly argued in Alliance Health Center that the involved hospitals failed to exhaust administrative requirements and remedies. Id. at 258 (¶ 10). However, the Mississippi Supreme Court found DOM’s recoupment decisions to be quasijudicial. Id. at 260 (¶ 17). Additionally, the supreme court stated DOM’s decisions pertained to reimbursement rates for 2001, which required application of law, rules, and regulations to the facts instead of rule-making or fixing rates for the future. Id. at 260-61 (¶ 17). The supreme court found that such cases presented questions of law and that relief was available by writ of certiorari or by chancery court review. Id. at 262 (¶ 20). I would therefore remand the present case to chancery court for further proceedings.5
GRIFFIS, P.J., JOINS THIS OPINION.

. See Alan E. Schabes et al., 2006 Health Law Handbook § 6:7 (Alice G. Gosfield ed,), West-law (database updated May 2013) (discussing that state agencies set state Medicaid reimbursement rates and that state courts serve as a check on the state agencies' power by determining the lawfulness of the methodology of a challenged reimbursement rate to see whether the rate was irrational, arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful). See also Visiting Nurse Serv. of N.Y. Home Care v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health, 13 A.D.3d 745, 786 N.Y.S.2d 623, 625-26 (2004) (finding that the provider possessed a property interest in Medicaid pay-*735merits and was entitled to procedural due process rights and that the department of health was not- entitled to recoup the payments until after a final determination baséd on a hearing).