Court Opinion

ID: 9522473
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:26:30.429284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:02:53.553032
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
Appellant health care facilities have provided no authority for the proposition that a comparative review may not be carried out in the absence of a state medical facilities plan; the statute simply fails to provide for such an eventuality. Accordingly, I agree with the circuit court’s excellently reasoned opinion finding that the Department of Public Health’s use of the acute care bed need method as a surrogate for the nonexistent facilities plan in this comparative review was consistent with the legislative intent, particularly in view of the inclusion of the acute care bed need method in the state medical facilities plan. See MCL 333.22154; MSA 14.15(22154) (repealed).
*401Moreover, I am unhappy that the result of the majority opinion is to undermine the purpose of the certificate of need legislation, which was to attempt to exercise some restraint on runaway health care costs. Following extensive and detailed investigation, which has been subject to exhaustive and impartial review, the competent authority has determined that there is no need for the proposed projects. Therefore, there is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by requiring further proceedings in this case.
Because none of the issues raised on appeal warrant reversal, I would affirm.