Court Opinion

ID: 9564592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:03:48.73887+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:32.467033
License: Public Domain

Sears, Presiding Justice.
Appellant David Ferguson has filed a direct appeal and a discretionary application from the superior court’s denial of mandamus relief, seeking to reverse the decision of the Georgia Composite State Board of Medical Examiners to deny the reinstatement of his medical license. We have previously reviewed Ferguson’s application to appeal, and denied it on the merits. As for his direct appeal, even though it is brought from the denial of mandamus relief, a ruling that is included in the direct appeal statute,1 the appeal’s underlying subject matter falls within the discretionary appeal statute.2 Reaffirming our rule enunciated in Rebich v. Miles,3 we hold that the underlying subject matter listed in the discretionary appeal statute prevails over the procedural judgment listed in the direct appeal statute. Therefore, Ferguson’s direct appeal must be dismissed.
Ferguson was licensed to practice medicine in Georgia and Virginia from 1987 until 1992, when his medical license was revoked by appellee Georgia Composite State Board of Medical Examiners (“the Board”). Six years later, Ferguson petitioned for reinstatement of his license. Following Ferguson’s appearance before it in November 1998, the Board passed a motion granting reinstatement of his license. In December 1998, Ferguson received a letter from the Georgia Department of Law advising him it intended to prepare a preliminary consent order authorizing his license reinstatement. The consent order never materialized.
On June 14, 1999, the Board informed Ferguson that it had reconsidered its decision and was denying reinstatement of his medical license. In May 2000, Ferguson appeared before the Board to make a statement regarding the denial of reinstatement. Thereafter, the Board affirmed its decision. In January 2001, Ferguson filed a petition in superior court for a writ of mandamus, asking the court to require the Board to reinstate his license. The superior court denied mandamus relief, and Ferguson filed both a direct appeal to this *256Court and a discretionary application. The application was denied on the merits, and for the reasons explained below, we now dismiss the direct appeal.
1. This Court has a duty to consider its jurisdiction over any case that is brought before it, regardless of whether jurisdiction is challenged by one of the parties.4 Of course, we have already properly considered Ferguson’s claims when we reviewed and rejected his discretionary application to appeal. That being so, he has no right to file a direct appeal and obtain a second review of those same claims.
However, pretermitting the fact that Ferguson has already had an appellate review of his claims, we take this opportunity to reiterate our ruling in Rebich v. Miles, supra. This particular matter is a direct appeal from the denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Board, a state agency. It is true, of course, that “[a]ll judgments or orders granting or refusing to grant mandamus” may be appealed directly from the trial court.5
6However, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) requires that all appeals from “decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of. . . state and local administrative agencies” must be brought to this Court by way of the discretionary appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-35.® OCGA § 5-6-35 was enacted by the Legislature in order to reduce the massive caseload of Georgia’s appellate courts;7 “ ‘[t]he clear intent of [OCGA § 5-6-35] was to give the appellate courts . . . the discretion not to entertain an appeal where the superior court had reviewed a decision of certain specified lower tribunals (i.e., two tribunals had already adjudicated the case).’ ”8
This is a case in which the trial court issued a judgment listed in the direct appeal statute (mandamus), concerning subject matter that is covered under the discretionary appeal statute (administrative agency review). In that situation, this Court established in Rebich, supra, that an application to appeal is required, because the underlying subject matter is listed in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a).9 “[When] a judgment or an order . . . [is] subject to direct appellate review . . . it is subject to the discretionary application procedure if the underlying subject matter of the appeal is one contained in OCGA § 5-6-35.”10 *257Where both the direct and discretionary appeal statutes are implicated, it is always the underlying subject matter that will control whether the appeal must be brought pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-34 or § 5-6-35. Accordingly, we again caution litigants that before proceeding to this Court, a party should always “ ‘review the discretionary application statute to see if it covers the underlying subject matter of the appeal. If it does, then the party must file an application for appeal as provided under OCGA § 5-6-35.’ ”11 This is true even where the order being appealed from concerns a trial court’s ruling on mandamus relief.12 While mandamus may be subject to a direct appeal as a matter of procedure, if the underlying subject matter requires an application to appeal, then the discretionary appeal procedures must be followed.13
Were our precedent to hold otherwise, litigants could avoid OCGA § 5-6-35’s discretionary application requirements by seeking relief in the trial court that triggers the right to direct appeal, regardless of the underlying subject matter at issue. Our precedent has repeatedly emphasized that this is not permitted, as litigants cannot under any circumstances dictate the procedural or jurisdictional rules of this Court.14
2. In light of the foregoing discussion of this Court’s jurisdiction, we must reexamine our recent opinion in Sprayberry v. Dougherty County ,15 That opinion reasoned that this Court had jurisdiction over an appeal because the “[a]ppellants did not file an appeal to the superior court seeking review of [an] . . . administrative decision . . . [but rather] brought a mandamus action directly against the Board.”16 Thus, on its face Sprayberry supports the proposition that in the present case, Ferguson’s filing of a mandamus action against the Board entitled him to file a direct appeal to this Court.
As explained above, however, our precedent establishes that even where the trial court decision being appealed concerns mandamus relief, if the underlying subject matter requires an application to appeal, the discretionary appeal statute must be followed. Futhermore, if (as in Sprayberry), a request for mandamus relief “attack[s or defends] the validity”17 of an administrative ruling “and *258seek[s] to prevent [or promote] the enforcement thereof,”18 the trial court must necessarily “review” the administrative decision before ruling on the request for mandamus relief.
Accordingly, to the extent Sprayberry holds that a litigant is not seeking “review” of an administrative decision by filing a mandamus action in superior court to attack or defend that decision, Sprayberry is hereby overruled. Similarly, to the extent Sprayberry holds that no application to appeal is required when a litigant appeals the superior court’s decision in a mandamus action, it is also overruled.19
3. In the present appeal, the underlying subject matter concerns the review of an administrative agency decision, a subject that falls squarely within the purview of OCGA § 5-6-35. Accordingly, even though Ferguson sought to review that decision by mandamus, his proper vehicle for appellate review was the discretionary appeal procedures set forth in OCGA § 5-6-35. It follows that his direct appeal is hereby dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

All the Justices concur, except Hunstein and Carley, JJ, who concur specially.

 OCGA § 5-6-34.

 OCGA § 5-6-35.

 264 Ga. 467, 468 (448 SE2d 192) (1994).

 Davidson v. Callaway, 274 Ga. 813 (559 SE2d 728) (2002).

 OCGA § 5-6-34.

 Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. at 468; Olin Corp. v. Collins, 261 Ga. 849 (413 SE2d 193) (1992).

 Rebich, 264 Ga. at 468.

 Id., quoting C & S Nat. Bank v. Rayle, 246 Ga. 727, 730 (273 SE2d 139) (1980).

 Rebich, 264 Ga. at 468; Crymes v. Smith, 260 Ga. 730 (401 SE2d 11) (1990). See Bedford v. Bedford, 246 Ga. 780 (273 SE2d 167) (1980).

 Prison Health Svcs. v. Ga. Dept. of Admin. Svcs., 265 Ga. 810, 811 (462 SE2d 601) (1995).

 Rebich, 264 Ga. at 469 (quoted by Prison Health Svcs., 265 Ga. at 811) (emphasis supplied).

 Rebich, 264 Ga. at 468-469; Crymes, 260 Ga. at 730.

 Rebich, 264 Ga. at 468-469; Crymes, 260 Ga. at 730.

 See Rebich, 264 Ga. at 469; OS Advertising Co. v. Rubin, 267 Ga. 723, 725 (482 SE2d 295) (1997).

 273 Ga. 503 (543 SE2d 29) (2001).

 273 Ga. at 504.

 Id.

 Id.

 As an aside, we note that this Court may have had jurisdiction in Sprayberry for reasons not explained in the Sprayberry opinion. Our independent review of the record in Sprayberry shows that in that case, the county commission granted the appellee’s application for a zoning variance. Appellants, the owners of adjoining property, brought a mandamus action challenging issuance of the variance. Although zoning is a subject matter falling within the scope of the discretionary appeal statute, OCGA § 5-6-35, the Sprayberry appellants sought relief for the first time in the superior court. This Court has not yet addressed whether a similarly-situated litigant who attacks an administrative ruling for the first time in superior court is bound by the requirements of the discretionary appeal statute when the subject matter of the appeal falls within OCGA § 5-6-35. But see King v. City of Bainbridge, 272 Ga. 427 (531 SE2d 350) (2000).
As explained above, the discretionary appeal statute gives appellate courts “discretion not to entertain an appeal where . . . two tribunals [have] already adjudicated the case.” •Rebich, 264 Ga. at 468. In Sprayberry, it appears that two tribunals had not already adjudicated the variance insofar as it related to the appellants. Thus, it is possible — but uncertain — that the Sprayberry appellants were excused from the discretionary application requirements. Resolving this particular issue would depend upon a number of considerations — including, among other things, whether the Sprayberry appellants had standing to challenge the variance at the administrative level, yet purposely “opted out” at that level in order to obtain a direct appeal. See note 14, supra, and accompanying text.
We need not address this issue in the present appeal, though, as it is undisputed that Ferguson was a party at both the administrative and superior court levels, and hence undoubtedly should have followed the discretionary appeal procedures.