contested case hearing in North Carolina

2026Dep’t of Env’t & Natural Res. v. Carroll, 358 N.C. 649, 652 (2004), because there the respondent, Carroll, filed the original petition for a contested case hearing but the N.C.

2017As our Supreme Court has explained, "the ALJ who conducts a contested case hearing possesses those institutional advantages that make it appropriate for a reviewing court to defer to his or her findings of fact." Carroll , 358 N.C. at 662 , 599 S.E.2d at 896 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). *14 III.

2020Id. at 448 , 810 S.E.2d at 228 ; see also id. at 446-47 , 810 S.E.2d at 227-28 (discussing DHHS regulations and provisions of the NCAPA which specifically require Medicaid providers to request a reconsideration review and file a petition for a contested case hearing before obtaining judicial review).

2020Id. at 448 , 810 S.E.2d at 228 ; see also id. at 446-47 , 810 S.E.2d at 227-28 (discussing DHHS regulations and provisions of the NCAPA which specifically require Medicaid providers to request a reconsideration review and file a petition for a contested case hearing before obtaining judicial review).

1994Dept. of Corrections, 326 N.C. 338 , 389 S.E.2d 35 (1990), held that the APA does not provide for the right to a contested case hearing, but only provides for the method of hearing when the organic statute which delineates a substantive right provides for such a hearing.

1994Dept. of Corrections, 326 N.C. 338 , 389 S.E.2d 35 (1990), held that the APA does not provide for the right to a contested case hearing, but only provides for the method of hearing when the organic statute which delineates a substantive right provides for such a hearing.

2022“This Court has interpreted subsection (a) to mean that the ALJ in a contested case hearing must determine whether the petitioner has met its burden in showing that the agency substantially prejudiced the petitioner’s rights.” Surgical Care Affiliates, 235 N.C.

2022“This Court has interpreted subsection (a) to mean that the ALJ in a contested case hearing must determine whether the petitioner has met its burden in showing that the agency substantially prejudiced the petitioner’s rights.” Surgical Care Affiliates, 235 N.C.

2014Substantial Prejudice After the Agency decides to issue, deny, or withdraw a CON or exemption or to issue a CON pursuant to a settlement agreement, “any affected person [as defined by section 131E-188(c)] shall be entitled to a contested case hearing under Article 3 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.” Id. at 535, 696 S.E.2d at 192 (citation omitted).

2014In addition to meeting this “prerequisite[] to filing a petition for a contested case hearing regarding CONs,” the petitioner must also satisfy “the actual framework for deciding the contested case [as laid out in section 150B-23(a) of] Article 3 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes.” Parkway Urology, 205 N.C.

2022App. 528, 531 , 796 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2017) (cleaned up). ¶ 24 The sole disputed evidentiary issue at the contested case hearing in this matter was whether Petitioner’s 20 March 2020 Grievance Form was timely filed.

2022App. 528, 531 , 796 S.E.2d 361, 365 (2017) (cleaned up). ¶ 24 The sole disputed evidentiary issue at the contested case hearing in this matter was whether Petitioner’s 20 March 2020 Grievance Form was timely filed.

2022Id.; see Lithium Corp. of Am. v. Town of Bessemer City, 261 N.C. 532, 535 , 135 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1964) (“Ordinarily, when the conjunctive ‘and’ connects words, phrases or clauses of a statutory sentence, they are to be considered jointly.”) (citation omitted). ¶ 72 The Commission denied Petitioners’ request for a contested case hearing under N.C.

2022Id.; see Lithium Corp. of Am. v. Town of Bessemer City, 261 N.C. 532, 535 , 135 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1964) (“Ordinarily, when the conjunctive ‘and’ connects words, phrases or clauses of a statutory sentence, they are to be considered jointly.”) (citation omitted). ¶ 72 The Commission denied Petitioners’ request for a contested case hearing under N.C.

1991Id. at 288, 365 S.E.2d at 637 (emphasis in original).

1991See Rowan Health Properties, Inc. v. North Carolina Dept. of Human Resources, 89 N.C.

2018Dept. of E.H.N.R. , 337 N.C. 569 , 592-93, 447 S.E.2d 768 , 782 (1994) (citation and parentheses omitted) ("[The relevant organic] statute *334 makes no provision for petitioner to commence a contested case hearing, nor does it expressly deny him that right.

2018Dept. of E.H.N.R. , 337 N.C. 569 , 592-93, 447 S.E.2d 768 , 782 (1994) (citation and parentheses omitted) ("[The relevant organic] statute *334 makes no provision for petitioner to commence a contested case hearing, nor does it expressly deny him that right.

2002App. 675, 677 , 392 S.E.2d 113, 114 (1990) (holding that a petition for a contested case hearing must be filed within thirty days and this leaves “no room for judicial construction”).

1993App. 675 , 392 S.E.2d 113 (1990) (upholding ALJ’s order dismissing a petition for a contested case hearing where the petition was mailed, but not filed, within the 30-day deadline); Lewis, 92 N.C.

1994Third parties do not have the right to a contested case hearing to challenge an administrative decision concerning an NPDES permit, Citizens for Clean Industry, Inc. v. Lofton, 109 N.C.

1994App. 229, 234 , 427 S.E.2d 120, 123 (1993); however, pursuant to Section 143-215.5 of Article 21 which states that “Article 4 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes governs judicial review of a final decision of the Secretary or of an order of the Commission under this Article . . . ,” they are entitled to judicial review under N.C.

1993Stat. § 143-215.1 (e) created a cause of action providing that only the permit applicant or permittee may commence a contested case hearing, Yates v. North Carolina Dep’t of Human Resources, 98 N.C.

1993App. 402, 404 , 390 S.E.2d 761, 762 (1990), third parties had no right to a contested case hearing under Article 3 of Chapter 150B.

2026See id. at 740 , 566 S.E.2d at 826 .

2026See id. at 740 , 566 S.E.2d at 826 .

2024App. 572, 580 , 532 S.E.2d 192, 197 (2000) (“Our review of the individual statutes within the CON Statute . . . indicates that this article grants applicants a full contested case hearing at which they are allowed to present testimony and evidence contained in their applications.” (emphasis added)).

2018Stat. § 126-34.02 against Vincoli and ordered that Vincoli be provided with a contested case hearing before OAH[.]" Id. at ----, 792 S.E.2d at 817 .

2018App. at ----, 792 S.E.2d at 814 (footnote and quotation marks omitted).

2017See Peace , 349 N.C. at 327 , 507 S.E.2d at 280-81 (observing that "[a] terminated State employee may avail himself not only of administrative review incorporating full discovery of information and an evidentiary hearing, but may also *30 obtain judicial review of the final agency decision[,]" and concluding "that this procedure fully comports with the constitutional procedural due process requirements mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and no additional safeguards are needed to avoid erroneous deprivation") (emphasis added).

2017See Peace , 349 N.C. at 327 , 507 S.E.2d at 280-81 (observing that "[a] terminated State employee may avail himself not only of administrative review incorporating full discovery of information and an evidentiary hearing, but may also *30 obtain judicial review of the final agency decision[,]" and concluding "that this procedure fully comports with the constitutional procedural due process requirements mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment, and no additional safeguards are needed to avoid erroneous deprivation") (emphasis added).

2017In the contested case hearing in the OAH, an ALJ concluded that just cause did not exist to support the petitioner's termination for unacceptable personal conduct because the decision was, inter alia , "arbitrary and capricious because it failed *27 to consider a known, underlying medical condition[.]" Id. at 3 , 732 S.E.2d at 376 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2017In the contested case hearing in the OAH, an ALJ concluded that just cause did not exist to support the petitioner's termination for unacceptable personal conduct because the decision was, inter alia , "arbitrary and capricious because it failed *27 to consider a known, underlying medical condition[.]" Id. at 3 , 732 S.E.2d at 376 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2016“No appeal lies from an order or decision of an administrative agency of the State or from judgments of special statutory tribunals whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law, unless the right is granted by statute.” In re Assessment of Sales Tax, 259 N.C. 589, 592 , 131 S.E.2d 441, 444 (1963).

2016“No appeal lies from an order or decision of an administrative agency of the State or from judgments of special statutory tribunals whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law, unless the right is granted by statute.” In re Assessment of Sales Tax, 259 N.C. 589, 592 , 131 S.E.2d 441, 444 (1963).

2014See 112 N.C.