Court Opinion

ID: 9657262
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:18:26.28291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:42.608744
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Justice
(concurring in result).
For all of the reasons articulated by Justice Henderson, the trial court’s and Department’s decisions could be reversed. However, because this case has languished so long in “the system,” Heritage will probably be better off by starting all over again. Since the 1988 Legislature, by S.L. Chapter 277, repealed the certificate of need provisions, it would seem consideration of Heritage’s expansion plans would now be less complicated and time consuming.
A chronology demonstrates that this case has been unforgivably protracted: *
October 31, 1984— Heritage filed its application for a certificate of need with Department.
December 12, 1984— A public hearing was held on the application.
March 13, 1985— Department denied application.
April 11, 1985-Heritage filed a request for reconsideration with Department.
May 14, 1985— A second public hearing was held.
June 12, 1985— Department again denied the application.
July 1, 1985— Heritage filed a notice of appeal in circuit court.
August 5, 1985— Counsel entered into a stipulation regarding the record.
October 16, 1986— Counsel entered into another stipulation regarding the record.
November 5, 1986— Heritage filed its brief with the circuit court.
Date Unknown— Department’s brief was filed with the circuit court.
August 4, 1987— Trial court issued its memorandum decision.
September 8, 1987— Trial court issued an addendum to its memorandum decision.
September 21,1987— Trial court judgment was entered affirming Department.
October 22, 1987— Notice of appeal was filed with the Supreme Court.
February 3, 1988— Heritage filed its brief with this Court.
April 6, 1988— Department filed its brief with this Court.
April 25, 1988— Heritage filed its reply brief with this Court.
August 29, 1988-Case was considered on briefs by this Court.
Four years have transpired in this proceeding. All litigants in this state are entitled to a prompt adjudication of their claims. The “system” malfunctioned here. From the foregoing chronology, it is impossible to point the finger and attach complete fault to any individual. One must ponder, however, why Heritage’s trial brief was not submitted until fifteen months af*74ter the first stipulation regarding the record, or, why the trial court’s memorandum decision was not handed down until nine months after that.
In any event, it is clear that the evidence is now stale. (For example, much of the evidence centered around population projections for the years, 1984 and 1986, projections of bed shortages for 1985, occupancy rates for November 12, 1984, waiting lists for February 21, 1985, vacancy lists for May 21, 1985, and the 1983 Health and Human Services study on Medicaid and nursing home care.) Although a reversal would be a “moral victory” for Heritage, the victory would be most shallow. However, as stated earlier, Heritage is probably placed in a better posture through the af-firmance. Now it has the opportunity to begin anew under the new law, using current statistical data and updated information. It is further given the opportunity to reevaluate its own projected plans. One must hope (and assume) that new proceedings will receive the.appropriate, prompt attention deserved.

 Every time I look at it, I am reminded of the ‘Tm Mad Too, Eddie” bumper stickers. Undue court proceeding delays make me as angry as government spending angers Eddie Childs.