Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Raleigh Radiology LLC v. N.C. Department of Health And Human Services

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

August 6, 2019

RALEIGH RADIOLOGY LLC d/b/a RALEIGH RADIOLOGY CARY, Petitioner,
v.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF HEALTH SERVICE REGULATION, HEALTH CARE PLANNING & CERTIFICATE OF NEED, Respondent, and DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM, Respondent-Intervenor.

          Heard originally in the Court of Appeals 13 March 2019.

          Appeal by Respondents and cross-appeal by Petitioner from an amended final decision entered 16 March 2018 by Judge J. Randolph Ward in the Office of Administrative Hearings No. 17 DHR 04088. This matter was reconsidered in the Court pursuant to an order allowing Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing. This opinion supersedes the opinion Raleigh Radiology v. NC DHHS, No. 18-785, __ N.C.App. __, 827 S.E.2d 337 (2019), previously filed on 7 May 2019.

          Brooks, Pierce, McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by James C. Adams, II, for Petitioner Raleigh Radiology LLC.

          Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Bethany A. Burgon, for Respondent N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Health Service Regulation, Health Care Planning & Certificate of Need.

          Poyner Spruill LLP, by Kenneth L. Burgess, William R. Shenton, and Matthew A. Fisher, for Respondent-Intervenor Duke University Health System.

          DILLON, JUDGE.

         Petitioner Raleigh Radiology LLC ("Raleigh") and Respondents N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Health Care Regulation, Healthcare Planning and Certificate of Need (the "Agency"), and Duke University Health System ("Duke") all appeal a final decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings ("OAH") regarding the award of a Certificate of Need ("CON") for an MRI machine in Wake County.

         I. Background

         In early 2016, the Agency determined a need for a fixed MRI machine in Wake County and began fielding competitive requests. In April 2016, Duke and Raleigh each filed an application for a CON with the Agency.

         Section 131E-183 of our General Statutes sets forth the procedure the Agency should use when reviewing applications for a CON. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-183 (2016). The Agency uses a two stage process: First, the Agency reviews each application independently to make sure that it complies with certain statutory criteria. See Britthaven, Inc. v. N.C. Dep't of Human Res., 118 N.C.App. 379, 385, 455 S.E.2d 455, 460 (1995) (citing N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-183(a)). Typically, if only one application is found to have complied with the statutory criteria, that applicant is awarded the CON. But if more than one application complies, the Agency moves to a second step, whereby the Agency conducts a comparative analysis of the compliant applications. Britthaven, 118 N.C.App. at 385, 455 S.E.2d at 461.

         In the present case, the Agency approved Duke for the CON, denying Raleigh's application, on two alternate grounds. First, the Agency determined that Duke's application alone was compliant. Alternatively, the Agency conducted a comparative analysis, assuming both applications were compliant, and determined that Duke's application was superior.

         In October 2016, Raleigh filed a Petition for Contested Case Hearing. After a hearing on the matter, the administrative law judge (the "ALJ") issued a Final Decision, determining that both applications were compliant but that, based on its own comparative analysis, Raleigh's application was superior. Accordingly, the ALJ reversed the decision of the Agency and awarded the CON to Raleigh.

         Duke and the Agency timely appealed. Raleigh also timely cross-appealed.

         II. Standard of Review

         We review a final decision from an ALJ for whether "substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced[.]" N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-51(b) (2018). We use a de novo standard if the petitioner appeals the final decision on grounds that it violates the constitution, exceeds statutory authority, was made upon unlawful procedure, or was affected by another error of law. N.C. Gen. Stat. ยง 150B-51(b)(1)- (4), (c) (2018). And we use the whole record test if the petitioner alleges that the final decision is unsupported by the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.