Court Opinion

ID: 9621358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:56:46.511021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:01.032154
License: Public Domain

*652Chief Judge Eagles
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
G.S. § 131E-183 mandates compliance in all substantive aspects with its review criteria, including Criterion 5. See Retirement Villages v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 124 N.C. App. 495, 477 S.E.2d 697 (1996); Presbyterian-Orthopedic Hospital v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 122 N.C. App. 529, 470 S.E.2d 831 (1996); Britthaven v. Dept of Human Resources, 118 N.C. App. 379, 455 S.E.2d 455, disc. rev. denied, 341 N.C. 418, 461 S.E.2d 754 (1995).
In light of this mandate, it is clear that G.S. §§ 131E-185 and 186, when read in conjunction with G.S. § 131E-183, grant DHHS limited power to conditionally approve deficient CON applications only where the additional information sought by the Agency by means of conditions is not essential to an applicant’s compliance with the mandatory review criterion in the first place. See G.S. § 131E-182 (applicants “shall be required to furnish . . . that information necessary to determine whether the proposed new institutional health service is consistent with the review criteria implemented under G.S. [§] 131E-183”). Consequently, I would hold that 10 N.C.A.C. 3R.0313, relied upon by DHHS and BMA here, exceeds the Agency’s statutory authority to the extent that it purports to grant the Agency the power to conditionally approve CON applications pending receipt of information which is “necessary” for compliance with G.S. § 131E-183.
Despite this Court’s specific approval of the Agency’s authority to issue conditional approvals, see Humana, Burke, and In re Conditional Approval, we have never held that the Agency has unbridled authority to sidestep G.S. § 131E-183’s clear mandate that applicants provide all necessary information in their initial filings. Prior cases upholding conditional approvals have noted that the information omitted by applicants (and sought by means of the imposition of conditions by the CON Section) was not “essential” to a finding of conformity with G.S. § 131E-183. See Burke, 135 N.C. App. at 576, 522 S.E.2d at 102 (finding that the conditions placed on nonconforming applications “were not essential to its approval” because additional Criterion 5 documentation sought by the Agency “was not crucial to a finding of financial feasibility”); In re Conditional Approval of Certificate of Need, 88 N.C. App. at 566, 364 S.E.2d at 152, citing Humana (approval conditioned on the later provision of information which “did not change the proposal in any material or practical sense and was not unauthorized”). Requiring conformity *653with G.S. § 131E-183 would not, however, confine the Agency to approving CON applications “precisely as submitted or not at all,” see Burke, 135 N.C. App. at 576, 522 S.E.2d at 102, citing Humana, 81 N.C. App. at 632, 345 S.E.2d at 237, because not all deficiencies would relate to essential prerequisites. For instance, the Agency would be well within its power to condition approval on the provision of additional details clarifying information already contained in conforming applications.
' In the “Required State Agency Findings” attached to the CON Section’s letter conditionally approving BMA’s application, CON Section project analyst Mary Edwards found that (1) BMA “did not provide any documentation that [MNA] has $180,000 available and committed [for the owner’s equity portion of the capital costs for] .. . this project,” and (2) “it is not clear if Fresenius Medical Care ... is funding [the lessee’s $539,076 portion of the capital cost and for start-up and initial operating expenses of] the project.” Based on these findings of nonconformity with Criterion 5,1 would reverse on grounds that (1) the omitted financial information was essential and “necessary” for the CON section to determine BMA’s initial conformity with Criterion 5, (2) the omission could not be cured by the imposition of conditions pursuant to G.S. §§ 131E-185 and 186 or relevant agency rules, and (3) the omission should have precluded the issuance of a CON to the nonconforming applicant under G.S. § 131E-183.