Appeals Court declines rehearing, accepts publication of CON ruling

NC Court Of Appeals Building Sign Source: Jacob Emmons, Carolina Journal

Listen to this story (12 minutes)

  • The full 15-member state Court of Appeals will not consider a certificate-of-need dispute from western North Carolina. Instead the court will publish its original decision in the case, giving the ruling greater value as a precedent.
  • AdventHealth had challenged the state's 2022 decision to award a CON for a new emergency department to Mission Health. AdventHealth argued that state regulators failed to hold a public hearing required by law.
  • A three-judge Appeals Court panel agreed that the absence of a public hearing amounted to "agency error." But appellate judges rejected AdventHealth's argument that the agency error itself would determine the case in AdventHealth's favor.

The full 15-member state Court of Appeals will not rehear a case from western North Carolina involving a certificate-of-need dispute. The court announced that decision Wednesday, along with its decision to publish its original March opinion in the case.

Publication will give the Appeals Court’s ruling in the case, Fletcher Hospital v. NC DHHHS, greater value as a precedent.

Lawyers for AdventHealth had asked the full court for a rare “en banc” rehearing. The Appeals Court usually conducts hearings and makes decisions through three-judge panels.

A court order Wednesday indicated that no judge voted to grant the en banc hearing. A separate order granted Mission Health’s competing request to convert the court’s March 19 decision from an “unpublished opinion” with limited value as precedent into a “published opinion.”

The Appeals Court determined that state regulators should have held a public hearing before awarding a CON to Mission Health in 2022 for a new emergency department in Candler. Not holding a hearing amounted to “agency error” in legal terms.

But that error by itself did not lead to “substantial prejudice” against AdventHealth. Appellate judges ruled that AdventHealth would have to prove that the absence of a public hearing caused a legal violation that would force state regulators to revoke the CON.

Healthcare providers in North Carolina must secure a CON from state government before they can build new facilities, add hospital beds, or purchase major pieces of medical equipment.

In seeking the “en banc” hearing, AdventHealth’s lawyers argued in April that the Fletcher decision “potentially decides the substantial prejudice issue on two other cases pending before this Court that are either at different stages of the proceedings and/or involve different parties, without the parties having the opportunity to exhaust their arguments on appeal.”

The Appeals Court panel also “misinterpreted and misapplied the petitioner’s burden” in case, according to AdventHealth. The March 19 decision “conflicts with prior decisions in this Court and overrules this Court’s long-standing precedent concerning a petitioner’s burden to establish substantial prejudice under circumstances where the Agency fails to follow the certificate of need law,” according to the petition.

On the other side of the argument, lawyers for Mission Health and the state Department of Health and Human Services urged the Appeals Court to stand by its decision.

“[T]his opinion clearly articulates the burden of proof imposed upon a petitioner by [state law},” DHHS lawyers wrote. “Specifically, the opinion affirms that a petitioner must independently establish substantial prejudice in addition to any alleged Agency error, which continues to be one of the most litigated issues in CON cases. The publishing of this opinion would provide further clarity and guidance to CON litigants and the Administrative Law Judges who hear and decide CON cases.”

“In addition, this opinion provides clarity on the issue that Agency error cannot establish substantial prejudice as a matter of law,” DHHS lawyers wrote.

An administrative law judge ruled in favor of AdventHealth in 2023. The Appeals Court overturned that decision in March.  

“Here, AdventHealth satisfied its burden of proof in showing Agency error, but it failed to forecast particularized evidence of substantial prejudice,” wrote Judge Fred Gore. “Yet, our determination in this case should not be misconstrued. AdventHealth may ultimately satisfy its burden; it may not.”

Regulators with DHHS held no CON public hearings during more than two years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“[W]e recognize the COVID-19 pandemic presented a wide range of unique and complex challenges, but neither the Agency nor Mission directs this Court to any statute, rule, regulation, or case law that would authorize the Agency to implement its own procedures as a substitute to the public hearing provision, or any other provision mandated by statute,” Gore wrote.

“Respondents may argue that strict compliance with § 131E-185(a1)(2) would have been irresponsible under the circumstances, have undermined the Agency’s statutory duties, or that the public hearing provision in § 131E-185(a1)(2) should yield to broader public policy concerns,” Gore added. “Yet, ‘we must decline’ respondents’ ‘invitation to engage in public policy considerations here in light of the unambiguous and specific language chosen by the General Assembly in drafting and enacting …’ the CON law.”

“[W]e determine that the Agency was required to hold a public hearing under the facts in this case, and its failure to do so was error,” Gore wrote.

Yet AdventHealth must do more to make its case. “[W]e agree with respondents’ position that substantial prejudice must be proven; it is not presumed to exist per se on this record,” Gore wrote. “A mere showing that the Agency’s action was erroneous ‘does not absolve the petitioner of its duty to separately establish the existence of prejudice, i.e., to show how the action caused it to suffer substantial prejudice[ ]’ to satisfy each element of its claim for relief.”

Gore and fellow Judges Jefferson Griffin and Michael Stading held oral arguments in the case in February. Much of the hearing focused on whether the CON public hearing requirement is mandatory.

“It is the agency’s position that it is discretionary, not mandatory,” argued Derek Hunter, the state special deputy attorney general representing DHHS.

State health officials canceled all in-person CON public hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic, Hunter explained. That decision was consistent with state officials’ role in protecting health. “It is undisputed that the agency must — even in light of the CON process — maintain the public’s health,” Hunter argued.

“To be clear on that issue, you’re using the overall public policy approach” from other health care laws, “not citing anything from within [the CON law] that would grant that discretion, correct?” Gore asked.

“That is correct. There is nothing specific in [the CON law] that would grant that discretion,” Hunter replied.

Mission Health’s lawyer, Iain Stauffer, noted that the absence of a public hearing did not block AdventHealth from challenging the CON. “There is no prejudice to AdventHealth from the lack of a public hearing in this review,” Stauffer argued. “AdventHealth was fully aware of the Mission application. It submitted written comments in opposition to the Mission application, which were considered by the agency.”

UNC Health played no direct role in the Mission-AdventHealth dispute. But the Appeals Court allowed UNC Health lawyer Noah Huffstetler to take part in oral arguments.

“It … strains credulity to believe that the General Assembly — in the midst of a worldwide pandemic, an unprecedented healthcare emergency — would have wanted a needed healthcare facility, an emergency room, not to be built because of an inconsequential failure by the agency,” Huffstetler argued.

On the other side of the argument, attorney Frank Kirschbaum made AdventHealth’s argument that Mission Health and DHHS cannot get around clear requirements in state law.

“They are essentially saying that the agency is free not to follow the rule of law as long as they take away some of your rights, but not all,” Kirschbaum argued.

“Assume it is error not to have a public hearing. What’s the substantial prejudice?” Griffin asked.

“The error is the failure to have that hearing,” Kirschbaum responded. “The taking away of the right that is granted to all of the public and to AdventHealth is substantial prejudice.”

In March 2023, Administrative Law Judge David Sutton reversed the state’s CON decision. Sutton cited the lack of a public hearing during the CON process.

A state law — NC Gen. Stat. § 131E-185(a1)(2) — calls on DHHS to “ensure that a public hearing is conducted at a place within the appropriate service area” in a CON case if an affected party requests a hearing or if the CON involves a project of at least $5 million. Mission’s new emergency department is estimated to cost more than $14.7 million.

Mission filed a brief in October 2023 explaining how Sutton’s ruling could impact other CON cases.

“It is undisputed that during the period from February of 2020 through September of 2022, the Agency did not hold public hearings with respect to any CON applications because of the COVID pandemic and out of concern for public safety,” Mission’s lawyers wrote. “During that time period, the Agency conducted eighty-six (86) CON application reviews which, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-185(a)(2), would have required a public hearing because they were competitive reviews or involved projects costing more than five million dollars ($5,000,000.00).”

“Those eighty-six (86) reviews involved a total of one hundred and fifty-two (152) applicants and proposed projects,” the Mission brief continued. “The vast majority of those reviews resulted in at least one CON application being approved, including Mission’s. The projects involved ranged from new hospitals to the acquisition of major medical equipment such as fixed cath labs, MRIs, PET Scanners, linear accelerators, new diagnostic centers, new facilities such as hospices and home health agencies, new hospitals, and a wide range of other services and facilities.”

Affected providers included “not only Mission, but Pardee Hospital; UNC Hospitals (with multiple projects approved including a new hospital in Durham County and new diagnostic centers); Duke University Health System; Novant Health; Cone Health; Wake Forest Baptist Hospital; Atrium Health; and others.”

Mission reminded the court of public health conditions in April 2020, when state law called for a public hearing on the Candler emergency department CON. “North Carolina and the entire United States were under an ongoing federal and state declared public health emergency due to the COVID pandemic,” according to the brief. “While conditions related to COVID were generally improving at that time, the pandemic was far from over.”

The challenge to state regulators’ decision argued that the “failure to hold a public hearing regarding the Mission Application during the COVID pandemic was Agency error which substantially prejudiced” AdventHealth, according to Mission’s brief.

Sutton’s ruling “was based entirely on his conclusion that the Agency’s failure to hold a public hearing in connection with its review of the Mission … Application was a violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131E-185(a)(2) that substantially prejudiced” AdventHealth’s rights.

UNC Health explained in a friend-of-the-court brief how the “theory” advanced by Sutton’s decision could affect its own projects. “This same theory has been advanced against UNC in a contested case hearing in which Duke University Health System, Inc. challenged the Agency’s approval of UNC’s application to expand its already-approved … new community hospital in Durham County, which is also pending appeal in this Court.”

“UNC offers the perspective of another frequent participant in the CON process that would have its growth hampered based on an alleged error that it had no part in causing,” the motion added.