CopyCited 36 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 5, 2020 | 310 Ga. 32
...because the Rule impermissibly expanded the Department’s
authority. Southern Crescent intervened in the administrative
appeal, arguing that Flint River’s operation of more than 12
psychiatric/substance-abuse beds was beyond the scope of its CON
in violation of OCGA §
31-6-41 (a) (pertaining to the valid “scope” of
CONs), and that Flint River was required under OCGA §
31-6-40 (a)
and the Psychiatric Rule to obtain a new CON before redistributing
psychiatric/substance-abuse beds....
...nal Order of the Department,”
which vacated the cease-and-desist order. Among other things, the
Commissioner disagreed “that the reconfiguration of [Flint River’s]
beds within existing licensed capacity by [Flint River] is governed
by OCGA §
31-6-41 (a)” and “that the CON statute does not allow for
the flexing of beds between categories,” and concluded that “the
controlling statute governing analysis of whether [Flint River]
impermissibly expanded the number of beds in its acute care adult
psychiatric and substance abuse inpatient program is ....
...buse facility requires a
CON,” and that “[t]his rule is consistent with the statutory
specification that CONs are ‘valid only for the defined scope . . .
approved by the department.’” Id. at 43 (emphasis in original)
(quoting OCGA §
31-6-41 (a)).
The Court of Appeals thus concluded that the Rule was not “an
unauthorized ‘enlargement’ of the scope of the CON statute,” but
rather that,
in the context of the statutory scheme as a whole, the
most sensib...
...a CON issued under OCGA §
31-6-1 et seq. “shall be valid only for
the defined scope, location, cost, service area, and person named in
an application . . . and as such scope, location, service area, cost, and
person are approved by the department[.]” OCGA §
31-6-41 (a).
(b) Relevant regulations.
The statutory framework that sets forth the CON program is
not the only text relevant to our inquiry....
...ded
that result. . . . We thus read the statute as written to avoid the significant
constitutional and federalism questions raised by [the agency’s] interpretation,
and therefore reject the request for administrative deference.”).
(g) OCGA §
31-6-41 (a)’s “scope” provision does not enable
expansion of the enumerated list of new institutional health services
requiring CON approval under OCGA §
31-6-40 (a).
Finally, Southern Crescent contends that the Psychiatric Rule
is valid and requires Flint River to obtain a CON to redistribute beds
for psychiatric/substance-abuse patients because the Rule is
“necessitated” by OCGA §
31-6-41 (a), which provides that “[a]
certificate of need shall be valid only for the defined scope, location,
cost, service area, and person named in an application, as it may be
amended, and as such scope, location, service area, cost, and person
are approved by the department[.]” OCGA §
31-6-41 (a).
Specifically, Southern Crescent argues that if a hospital
exceeds the number of psychiatric beds its CON authorizes, then the
hospital has exceeded the “scope” of the CON the Department
approved. See OCGA §
31-6-41 (a). According to Southern Crescent,
that is because the Rule harmonizes OCGA §
31-6-40, which
“prescribes when a CON is needed,” and OCGA §
31-6-41 (a), which
“limits a CON to its defined scope.” The Court of Appeals agreed,
reasoning that “the Department saw fit to require by its Rules that
the expansion of an existing psychiatric and/or substance abuse
facility requires a CON,” and that “[t]his rule is consistent with the
statutory specification that CONs are ‘valid only for the defined
scope . . . approved by the department.’” UHS of Anchor, 351 Ga.
App. at 43 (emphasis in original) (quoting OCGA §
31-6-41 (a)).
We disagree....
...But that argument ignores that OCGA §
31-6-40 (a), not OCGA § 31-
6-41 (a), governs which services constitute a new institutional
health service that requires a CON, and — as we determined above
— the reallocation of beds is not one of them.25 In other words,
OCGA §
31-6-41 (a) — a statute through which the General
Assembly has generally ensured that Department-approved CONs
are limited in scope — does not alter the text of OCGA §
31-6-40 (a),
a statute through which the General Assembly has specified...
...exhaustive list of new institutional health services for which a CON
is required. See State v. Hamilton,
308 Ga. 116, 124 (839 SE2d 560)
(2020) (noting that typically, more general statutory provisions do
not override more specific ones). Rather, OCGA §
31-6-41 (a)
ensures that new institutional health services that do require CON
approval, as required by OCGA §
31-6-40 (a), do not then exceed the
scopes of the CONs as they are approved by the Department....
...25 In its final order in the administrative proceedings, the Department
concluded that it “disagree[d] with the Hearing Officer’s interpretation that
the reconfiguration of [Flint River’s] beds within existing licensed capacity by
[Flint River] is governed by OCGA §
31-6-41 (a).”
psychiatric/substance-abuse program without exceeding the total
number of approved inpatient beds for the facility, the Rule is
invalid because it purports to create a new category of new
institutional health service that is not enumerated in OCGA § 31-6-
40 (a).
4....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 27, 1985 | 254 Ga. 500
...aint fails to state a claim for relief. 1. The Certificate of Need Program is codified at OCGA §
31-6-40 et seq., as part of the State Health Planning and Development Act (the Act). OCGA §
31-6-1 et seq. (former Code Ann. § 88-3301 et seq.). OCGA §
31-6-41 (a) provides that, "A certificate of need shall be valid only for the defined scope, location, cost, service area, and person named in an application, as it may be amended, and as such scope, location, area, cost, and person are approved b...
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 6, 2024
...relationship” with existing health care services in the same area.
OCGA §
31-6-42 (a) (2), (3), (8).
When the Department awards a CON, it is “valid only for the
defined scope, location, cost, service area, and person named in [the]
application.” OCGA §
31-6-41 (a). Further, the recipient has 12
months to use the CON—that is, to begin to develop the “new insti-
tutional health service” proposed in the application—or it lapses.
See OCGA §
31-6-41 (b)....
...23
to convert the holder’s property from a hospital that does not offer
general acute care to one that does, see OCGA §
31-6-40 (a) (5), and
it ties that authorization to the “location” specified in the CON ap-
plication, see OCGA §
31-6-41 (a)....
...or use their property for a new health care service or facility, OCGA
§
31-6-40 (b), and when issued, a CON is not only tied to the “loca-
tion” specified in the application but also “valid only for” the person
who applied for it. OCGA §
31-6-41 (a); see Ga....
...within a geographic area—that have no analog in traditional prop-
erty rights. On the restrictions side, Emory notes that the use and
development rights conferred by a CON, unlike traditional property
rights, can lapse after a year of nonuse, see OCGA §
31-6-41 (b), and
the CON may be revoked by the State for any number of reasons,
see OCGA §
31-6-45 (a)....
