Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 18.07.081 (2026)
Proceedings for modification, suspension, and revocation
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 18.07.081. Proceedings for modification, suspension, and revocation.
(a) The department, a member of the public who is substantially affected by activities authorized by the certificate, or another applicant for a certificate of need may initiate a hearing conducted by the office of administrative hearings (AS 44.64.010) to obtain modification, suspension, or revocation of an existing certificate of need by filing an accusation with the commissioner as prescribed under AS 44.62.360. A revocation, modification, or suspension of an outstanding certificate may not be undertaken unless it is in accordance with AS 44.62.330 — 44.62.630.
(b) The certificate holder may obtain modification of an existing certificate by utilizing the application procedure enumerated in regulations adopted under this chapter.
(c) A certificate of need shall be suspended if an accusation is filed before the commencement of activities authorized under AS 18.07.041 or 18.07.043 that charges that factors upon which the certificate of need was issued have changed or new factors have been discovered that significantly alter the need for the activity authorized. A suspension of a certificate may not exceed 60 days. At the end of this period or sooner, the department shall revoke or reinstate the certificate.
(d) A certificate of need may be revoked if
(1) the sponsor has not shown continuing progress toward commencement of the activities authorized under AS 18.07.041 or 18.07.043 after six months of issuance;
(2) the applicant fails, without good cause, to complete activities authorized by the certificate;
(3) the sponsor fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter or regulations adopted under this chapter;
(4) the sponsor knowingly misrepresents a material fact in obtaining the certificate;
(5) the facts charged in an accusation filed under (c) of this section are established; or
(6) the sponsor fails to provide services authorized by the terms of the certificate.
(e) A person may not file an accusation seeking suspension or revocation of a certificate of need under this section, knowing that the charges stated in the accusation are untrue or that the charges do not constitute grounds for revocation or suspension under this chapter.
(a) The department, a member of the public who is substantially affected by activities authorized by the certificate, or another applicant for a certificate of need may initiate a hearing conducted by the office of administrative hearings (AS 44.64.010) to obtain modification, suspension, or revocation of an existing certificate of need by filing an accusation with the commissioner as prescribed under AS 44.62.360. A revocation, modification, or suspension of an outstanding certificate may not be undertaken unless it is in accordance with AS 44.62.330 — 44.62.630.
(b) The certificate holder may obtain modification of an existing certificate by utilizing the application procedure enumerated in regulations adopted under this chapter.
(c) A certificate of need shall be suspended if an accusation is filed before the commencement of activities authorized under AS 18.07.041 or 18.07.043 that charges that factors upon which the certificate of need was issued have changed or new factors have been discovered that significantly alter the need for the activity authorized. A suspension of a certificate may not exceed 60 days. At the end of this period or sooner, the department shall revoke or reinstate the certificate.
(d) A certificate of need may be revoked if
(1) the sponsor has not shown continuing progress toward commencement of the activities authorized under AS 18.07.041 or 18.07.043 after six months of issuance;
(2) the applicant fails, without good cause, to complete activities authorized by the certificate;
(3) the sponsor fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter or regulations adopted under this chapter;
(4) the sponsor knowingly misrepresents a material fact in obtaining the certificate;
(5) the facts charged in an accusation filed under (c) of this section are established; or
(6) the sponsor fails to provide services authorized by the terms of the certificate.
(e) A person may not file an accusation seeking suspension or revocation of a certificate of need under this section, knowing that the charges stated in the accusation are untrue or that the charges do not constitute grounds for revocation or suspension under this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1982–2011 · leading case: Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2009).
Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2009). “A contrary interpretation, they argue, (1) would "render meaningless" the provisions of AS 18.07.081 that provide guidelines for when a CON may be revoked due to the sponsor's non-compliance with its terms, [51] and (2) would be inconsistent with the 1976 legislative mandate…”
Fuhs v. Gilbertson, 186 P.3d 551 (Alaska 2008). “Fubs has therefore waived any argument he may have had under the regulation, and we look only to the CON statutes to determine whether Fuhs has standing to challenge the Providence CON under either AS 18.07.081 or .091. Fubs argues that he is "substantially affected" by the…”
Sisters of Providence in Washington, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 648 P.2d 970 (Alaska 1982). “In this case, we think the administrative remedies provided by AS 18.07.081 17 (administrative revocation) and AS 18.”
Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1148 (Alaska 2009). “A contrary interpretation, they argue, (1) would “render meaningless” the provisions of AS 18.07.081 that provide guidelines for when a CON may be revoked due to the sponsor’s non-compliance with its terms, 51 and (2) would be inconsistent with the 1976 legislative mandate…”
Alaska Spine Inst. Surgery Ctr., LLC v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 266 P.3d 1043 (Alaska 2011). “As to Alaska Spine's second argument, it is true that after construction a CON may be revoked under AS 18.07.081. 7 But rather than maintain a live controversy, as Alaska Spine suggests, AS 18.”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.07.081(2) — 1 case
Fuhs v. Gilbertson, 186 P.3d 551 (Alaska 2008). “Fubs has therefore waived any argument he may have had under the regulation, and we look only to the CON statutes to determine whether Fuhs has standing to challenge the Providence CON under either AS 18.07.081 or .091. Fubs argues that he is "substantially affected" by the…”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.07.081(a) — 3 cases
Fuhs v. Gilbertson, 186 P.3d 551 (Alaska 2008). “Fubs has therefore waived any argument he may have had under the regulation, and we look only to the CON statutes to determine whether Fuhs has standing to challenge the Providence CON under either AS 18.07.081 or .091. Fubs argues that he is "substantially affected" by the…”
Sisters of Providence in Washington, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 648 P.2d 970 (Alaska 1982). “In this case, we think the administrative remedies provided by AS 18.07.081 17 (administrative revocation) and AS 18.”
Alaska Spine Inst. Surgery Ctr., LLC v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 266 P.3d 1043 (Alaska 2011). “As to Alaska Spine's second argument, it is true that after construction a CON may be revoked under AS 18.07.081. 7 But rather than maintain a live controversy, as Alaska Spine suggests, AS 18.”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.07.081(d) — 2 cases
Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2009). “A contrary interpretation, they argue, (1) would "render meaningless" the provisions of AS 18.07.081 that provide guidelines for when a CON may be revoked due to the sponsor's non-compliance with its terms, [51] and (2) would be inconsistent with the 1976 legislative mandate…”
Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1148 (Alaska 2009). “A contrary interpretation, they argue, (1) would “render meaningless” the provisions of AS 18.07.081 that provide guidelines for when a CON may be revoked due to the sponsor’s non-compliance with its terms, 51 and (2) would be inconsistent with the 1976 legislative mandate…”
— Alaska Stat. § 18.07.081(d)(6) — 2 cases
Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1154 (Alaska 2009). “A contrary interpretation, they argue, (1) would "render meaningless" the provisions of AS 18.07.081 that provide guidelines for when a CON may be revoked due to the sponsor's non-compliance with its terms, [51] and (2) would be inconsistent with the 1976 legislative mandate…”
Beal v. McGuire, 216 P.3d 1148 (Alaska 2009). “A contrary interpretation, they argue, (1) would “render meaningless” the provisions of AS 18.07.081 that provide guidelines for when a CON may be revoked due to the sponsor’s non-compliance with its terms, 51 and (2) would be inconsistent with the 1976 legislative mandate…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.