Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448The burden of proof shall be on the appellant. Appellants or applicants shall proceed first with their cases before the hearing officer in the order determined by the hearing officer, and the department, if a party, shall proceed last. In the event of a consolidated hearing on applications which were joined for comparative review pursuant to subsection (f) of Code Section 31-6-43, the hearing officer shall have the same powers specified for the department in subsection (f) of Code Section 31-6-43 to order the issuance of no certificate of need or one or more certificates of need.
(Code 1981, §31-6-44, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 1566, § 1; Ga. L. 1986, p. 744, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 1469, § 1; Ga. L. 1990, p. 1903, § 8; Ga. L. 1994, p. 684, § 3; Ga. L. 1999, p. 296, § 22; Ga. L. 2008, p. 12, § 1-1/SB 433.)
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2008, a second occurrence of the word "of" was deleted preceding "the date of" in the last sentence of subsection (i).
- Ga. L. 2008, p. 12, § 3-1/SB 433, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section shall only apply to applications submitted on or after July 1, 2008.
- Administration, Official Compilation of the Rules and Regulations of the State of Georgia, Health Planning Review Board, Chapter 274-1.
- For annual survey of administrative law, see 38 Mercer L. Rev. 17 (1986). For annual survey of administrative law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 31 (2004).
Residents who oppose plans to build a new hospital do not have standing to appeal to the Health Planning Review Board (now Certificate of Need Appeal Panel) a decision by the State Health Planning and Development Agency (now Department of Community Health) for a certificate of need approving construction of the new hospital. Loyd v. Georgia State Health Planning & Dev. Agency, 168 Ga. App. 850, 310 S.E.2d 738 (1983).
- Review Board (now Certificate of Need Appeal Panel) could use not only the considerations listed in O.C.G.A. § 31-6-42, but also Health Planning Agency (now Department of Community Health) standards and criteria interpreting those standards to make a decision in the case before the board. North Fulton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning & Dev. Agency, 168 Ga. App. 801, 310 S.E.2d 764 (1983).
Ex parte contacts between the assistant attorney general representing the state's interest and the chair of the Review Board (now Certificate of Need Appeal Panel) were not prejudicial to the fair conduct of the hearing when the contacts did not affect an issue of standing, the legal effect of a legislative resolution, and the manner in which votes were taken, nor did the contacts affect the full consideration of each party's interest before the Review Board. North Fulton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning & Dev. Agency, 168 Ga. App. 801, 310 S.E.2d 764 (1983).
Ex parte contacts between the assistant attorney general and the chair of the Review Board (now Certificate of Need Appeal Panel) regarding findings of facts and conclusions of law two weeks after the decision of the Review Board had been reached were not prejudicial when the contacts were for the sole purpose of drafting an opinion to support the decision already reached and announced. North Fulton Community Hosp. v. State Health Planning & Dev. Agency, 168 Ga. App. 801, 310 S.E.2d 764 (1983).
- Health Planning Review Board (now Certificate of Need Appeal Panel) is a solely adjudicatory, quasi-judicial body, and is an inappropriate party to an appeal of the board's rulings in court. A decision by the Health Planning Review Board is a final administrative decision for purposes of judicial appeal, and the Health Planning Agency, not the Review Board, is the proper party respondent to a petition seeking judicial review of the board's determination. Loyd v. Georgia State Health Planning & Dev. Agency, 168 Ga. App. 850, 310 S.E.2d 738 (1983).
- Review board, in reversing a decision of the Health Planning Agency (now Department of Community Health) which had denied a certificate of need for construction of a nursing home in Alpharetta County, acted beyond the board's powers of administrative review of contested cases by deeming the "County Deficit Rule" of the planning agency inapplicable in a controversy to which the rule applied by the rule's express terms, or by applying the rule to part of the county instead of to the entire county. Dogwood Square Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. State Health Planning Agency, 255 Ga. 694, 341 S.E.2d 432 (1986).
Review Board's reliance upon the principles of res judicata to deny an application for a certificate of need was authorized since the original application had been denied on the basis of the "County Deficit Rule" and the applicant did not introduce evidence upon reapplication which was sufficient to show that the applicant's proposed facility would comport with the same rule. State Health Planning Agency v. Cribb Indus., Inc., 204 Ga. App. 285, 419 S.E.2d 123 (1992).
- Determination by the State Health Planning Agency (now Department of Community Health) that the establishment of open heart surgery service at two applying hospitals would adversely impact existing service was supported by evidence that open heart service at another hospital would be reduced to less than 350 procedures annually and by more than ten percent of the total annual volume. Hospital Auth. v. State Health Planning Agency, 211 Ga. App. 407, 438 S.E.2d 912 (1993).
Given the ability of an area's patients to secure adult open-heart surgery service at a significant rate, the Georgia Health Planning Review Board (now Certificate of Need Appeal Panel) did not exceed the board's authority, abuse the board's discretion, act arbitrarily or without substantial evidence, or otherwise err by rejecting the hearing officer's determination that a certificate of need (CON) should be issued to the area's medical center under a geographical barrier exception to the Georgia Department of Community Health's CON regulations. The Board determined that neither the use of out-of-state services, nor the reluctance of the area's physicians to refer patients to in-state facilities, created a geographical barrier warranting an exception. Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Satilla Health Servs., 266 Ga. App. 880, 598 S.E.2d 514 (2004).
Appellate court reinstated the agency denial of a Certificate of Need to establish an inpatient psychiatric hospital because the agency's conclusion that the applicant did not meet the applicant's burden of establishing no adverse impact on similar existing programs was supported by substantial evidence, in particular, expert testimony and exhibits regarding the applicant's unrealistic projections, overinflated market share, and failure to account for an existing facility's additional 30 pediatric beds. Tanner Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Vest Newnan, LLC, 337 Ga. App. 884, 789 S.E.2d 258 (2016).
Reversal of the agency and denial of a Certificate of Need (CON) was affirmed because the atypical barrier exception did not support the agency's grant of the CON as the agency's interpretation of the atypical barrier exception in the rule was inconsistent with the plain language of the rule, clearly erroneous, and prejudiced the substantial rights of the challenging hospitals who already provided the same services. ASMC, LLC v. Northside Hosp., Inc., 344 Ga. App. 576, 810 S.E.2d 663 (2018).
- Trial court erred in reversing the grant of a certificate of need on the ground that the applicant was attempting to circumvent a cease-and-desist order issued to a corporation owned by the same individual as the applicant; by seeking the certificate of need, the applicant was not doing anything that the law did not allow, the Department of Community Health held an extensive evidentiary hearing before granting the application, and the trial court improperly disregarded the corporate forms of the corporation and the applicant based on the fact that they were owned by the same individual. Global Diagnostic Dev., LLC v. Diagnostic Imaging of Atlanta, 284 Ga. App. 66, 643 S.E.2d 338 (2007).
Superior court erred in reversing a decision of the Georgia Department of Community Health, which awarded a medical center a certificate of need, because the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and the department's interpretation of the applicable regulations, as requiring only an amendment of the center's application, rather than a new application, was not plainly erroneous. Northeast Ga. Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Winder HMA, Inc., 303 Ga. App. 50, 693 S.E.2d 110 (2010).
- Trial court properly affirmed an administrative decision cancelling a nursing home's certificate of need as the nursing home failed to comply with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements with regard to completing the project timely and providing documentation that ongoing construction was being undertaken. Further, several site inspections established that, in fact, no construction was being undertaken for the project. Southern Crescent Rehab. & Ret. Ctr., Inc. v. Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health, 290 Ga. App. 863, 660 S.E.2d 792 (2008), cert. denied, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 679 (2008).
- Two hospitals that opposed an application for a certificate of need for perinatal services failed to show any harm resulting from alleged deficiencies in the initial decision issued by a hearing officer of the Department of Community Health which prejudiced the hospitals' ability to present the hospitals' case to the hearing officer. The hospitals could have, but did not, present additional evidence pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 31-6-44. Palmyra Park Hosp., Inc. v. Phoebe Sumter Med. Ctr., 310 Ga. App. 487, 714 S.E.2d 71 (2011).
- Trial court erred by reversing a decision of the Department of Community Health denying an ambulatory surgery center's application for a certificate of need to develop an orthopedic center in a city as the trial court substituted the court's own judgment for that of the agency since the Department made a finding that the service area already had a surplus of operating rooms, which were significantly underutilized, and the ambulatory surgery center failed to prove that any specific patient population was in need of the new center or that any barrier to quality care existed. Surgery Ctr., LLC v. Hughston Surgical Inst., LLC, 293 Ga. App. 879, 668 S.E.2d 326 (2008).
Cited in St. Joseph's Hosp. v. Hospital Corp. of Am., 795 F.2d 948 (11th Cir. 1986); American Medical Int'l, Inc. v. Charter Lake Hosp., 186 Ga. App. 204, 366 S.E.2d 795 (1988); HCA Health Servs. of Ga., Inc. v. Roach, 265 Ga. 501, 458 S.E.2d 118 (1995); Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health, Div. of Health Planning v. Gwinnett Hosp. Sys., 262 Ga. App. 879, 586 S.E.2d 762 (2003); Greene v. Dep't of Cmty. Health, 293 Ga. App. 201, 666 S.E.2d 590 (2008); Lakeview Behavioral Health Sys., LLC v. UHS Peachford, LP, 321 Ga. App. 820, 743 S.E.2d 492 (2013).
- Prior to the 1983 reenactment, applicants proposing a capital expenditure, as well as health systems agencies and persons who qualify as a "party" or "persons aggrieved" under the Georgia Administrative Procedure Act, O.C.G.A. Ch. 13, T. 50, have a right to appeal to the State Health Planning Review Board (now Certificate of Need Appeal Panel) decisions of the State Health Planning and Development Agency (now Department of Community Health) relative to § 1122 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-1(a). 1981 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 81-8.
Total Results: 8
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-02-20
Snippet: administrative appeals to a hearing officer. See OCGA § 31-6-44 (d). The hearing officers are part of a “Certificate
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2024-02-06
Snippet: judicial review in the su- perior court. OCGA § 31-6-44.1 (a). Finally, the CON Act also empowers
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-06-30
Snippet: the Superior Court of Fulton County. See OCGA § 31-6-44.1. The superior court reversed the DCH’s decision
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2014-06-30
Citation: 295 Ga. 446, 761 S.E.2d 74, 2014 WL 2925207, 2014 Ga. LEXIS 543
Snippet: the Superior Court of Fulton County. See OCGA § 31-6-44.1. The superior court reversed the DCH’s decision
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-06-12
Citation: 265 Ga. 501, 458 S.E.2d 118
Snippet: right to a full evidentiary appeal hearing. OCGA § 31-6-44 (c), (d), (f). A complete administrative record
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-02-20
Citation: 265 Ga. 125, 453 S.E.2d 463, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 92
Snippet: Health Planning Agency & Development Act, OCGA § 31-6-44. Alternatively, the trial court held it lacked
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-02-21
Citation: 440 S.E.2d 18, 263 Ga. 814, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 641, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 102
Snippet: directly to the Health Planning Review Board, OCGA § 31-6-44 (a). The Board's review is limited to SHPA decisions
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1986-02-18
Citation: 341 S.E.2d 432, 255 Ga. 694, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 672
Snippet: repealed by Ga. L. 1983, pp. 1566, 1585. OCGA § 31-6-44 (g) currently provides that "The decision of the