Attala County Bd. Of Supervisors v. Miss. State Dep't. of Health, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-01957-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-26-2004 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Certificate of need - Methodology for comparative review - Disclosure of capital expenditure Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith and Waller, P.JJ., Cobb, Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Graves, JJ. Procedural History: Admin / Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-21-2002 Appealed from: Attala County Chancery Court Judge: John Love, Jr. Disposition: Affirmed the Department of Health's award of a CON to Appellees. Case Number: 2002-184 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Attala County Board of Supervisors d/b/a Attala Care Center |
JULIE ANN BOWMAN
ANDY LOWRY
THOMAS L. KIRKLAND, JR. |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi State Department of Health and Garry V. Hughes d/b/a The Kennington | ROBERT RICHARD CIRILLI, JR. EDMUND L. BRUNINI, JR. SARAH E. BERRY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Certificate of need - Methodology for comparative review - Disclosure of capital expenditure |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi State Department of Health awarded a certificate of need to Garry Hughes d/b/a the Kennington, for the construction of a 60-bed nursing home in Attala County. There were four applicants: Hughes d/b/a the Kennington; the Attala County Board of Supervisors d/b/a Attala Care Center; Attala Health Care Center, Inc.; and Sentry North, L.P. d/b/a Sentry Attala. The Board was the only applicant to timely appeal the MSDH's decision to chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the CON award to Hughes and denied the Board's motion for reconsideration. The Board appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Methodology The Board argues that the methodology utilized by the MSDH in its comparative review of the competing CON applications was arbitrary and capricious. The methodology used in any given case should not be carved in granite, but some flexibility is required. Under MSDH's ten-factor comparative scoring methodology, Hughes finished in first place with a composite score of 16, while the Board finished in last place with a composite score of 34. The Board contests Hughes's projection and statements as to square footage,capital expenditure, cost per square foot, staffing, medicare utilization, and certification. Given the evidence in the record, the chancery court did not err in finding substantial evidence to support the decision of the hearing officer. The MSDH's decision was not arbitrarily or capriciously made. Issue 2: Disclosure of capital expenditure The Board argues that Hughes received an unfair advantage because the MSDH disclosed the Board's capital expenditure on its web site. However, the Board failed to prove that Hughes actually used the disclosed information to alter his projection and therefore, there is no basis to reverse the decision of the chancery court. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
