ORDERS:
ORDER ENFORCING AUTOMATIC STAY
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
This
matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC”) on the motion of the
Petitioners, MRI at Belfair, LLC; Hilton Head Regional Medical Center; and Hilton Head Imaging, Inc. (“Petitioners”), to enforce a statutory automatic stay
against Respondent Southern MRI. The court held an expedited hearing on this
motion on April 29, 2008. Upon consideration of the parties’ written memoranda
and oral argument at the motions hearing, the court grants the Petitioners’ motion.
On
September 19, 2007, Respondent South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (“Department”) granted Southern MRI’s request for a
non-applicability determination (“N/A Determination”) regarding its proposal to
purchase and operate a magnetic resonance imaging (“MRI”) unit and computer
tomography (“CT”) unit in Beaufort County, South Carolina. Upon exhaustion of
the administrative process with the Department, MRI at Belfair, LLC and Hilton Head Regional Medical Center timely filed a request for a contested case hearing
before the ALC challenging the Department’s determination. Hilton Head
Imaging, Inc. later intervened as a Petitioner.
The
South Carolina Certificate of Need (“CON”) program for health care facilities
and services is comprised of the State Certification of Need and Health
Facility Licensure Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 44-7-110 to 44-7-370 (2002 &
Supp. 2007) (“CON Act”); the associated CON regulations, 24A S.C. Code Ann.
Regs. 61-15 (Supp. 2007); and the State Health Plan. The
purpose of the CON program is to “promote cost containment, prevent unnecessary
duplication of health care facilities and services, guide the establishment of
health facilities and services which will best serve public needs, and ensure
that high quality services are provided in health facilities in this State.” S.C.
Code Ann. § 44-7-120 (2002).
DISCUSSION
The
issue before the court is whether a formal determination by the Department
pursuant to 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-15 § 102.3 that the certificate of need
requirements are not applicable to a particular project (an N/A
Determination) constitutes a “license” as defined in the South Carolina
Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), thus triggering the automatic stay found
in S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(G)(2). Because an N/A Determination constitutes
permission from the Department to forego CON review, and because the
Department’s permission to eschew the CON process is required by law when a
question exists as to the particular project, the court finds that the
Department’s N/A Determination in this matter is automatically stayed pursuant
to § 1-23-600(G)(2).
The CON Act
provides:
A person or health
care facility as defined in this article is required to obtain a Certificate of Need from the department before
undertaking any of the following:
. . .
(6) the acquisition of medical
equipment which is to be used for diagnosis or treatment if the total project
cost is in excess of that prescribed by regulation; . . .
S.C. Code Ann. §
44-7-160(6) (emphasis added). The Department’s regulations specify the
applicable monetary threshold as $600,000. 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-15 §
102.1.f. Thus, a health care facility is required to obtain a CON from the
Department prior to undertaking the acquisition of medical equipment which is
to be used for diagnosis or treatment if the total project cost is in excess of
$600,000. The regulations go on to state, “When any question exists, a
potential applicant shall forward a letter requesting a formal determination by the Department as to the applicability of the certificate of need
requirements to a particular project.” Id. § 102.3 (emphasis added).
The
APA defines “license” as “the whole or part of any agency permit, franchise, certificate,
approval, registration, charter, or similar form of permission required
by law. . . .” S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-310(4) (emphasis added). The APA further provides for an automatic stay of an
agency decision to issue a new license when a contested case hearing is
requested. § 1-23-600(G)(2) (“A request for a contested case hearing
for a decision to issue a new license stays all actions for which the license
is a prerequisite.”). After a contested case hearing is initiated before the
ALC, any party may move for the presiding administrative law judge to lift the
automatic stay. § 1-23-600(G)(4).
The
central question before the court is whether an N/A Determination constitutes
an agency decision to issue a new license triggering the automatic stay. “The primary rule of
statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the
legislature.” Mid-State Auto
Auction of Lexington, Inc. v. Altman, 324 S.C. 65, 69,
476 S.E.2d 690, 692 (1996) (citing Gilstrap v. S.C. Budget & Control Bd., 310 S.C. 210, 423
S.E.2d 101 (1992)). “What a legislature says
in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of the legislative
intent or will.” Knotts
v. S.C. Dep’t of Natural Res., 348 S.C. 1, 10, 558 S.E.2d 511, 516 (2002). Further,
the court should construe each part or section of the CON statutes
and regulations together. See Grant v. City of Folly Beach, 346 S.C. 74, 79, 551 S.E.2d 229, 231 (2001) (“It is well settled that statutes dealing with the
same subject matter are in pari materia and must be construed together,
if possible, to produce a single, harmonious result.”). “The language must
also be read in a sense which harmonizes with its subject matter and accords
with its general purpose.” Hitachi Date Systems Corp. v. Leatherman, 309
S.C. 174, 178, 420 S.E.2d 843, 846 (1992).
The
Petitioners argue that an N/A Determination falls within the statutory
definition of “license” because it constitutes permission to proceed in a
particular manner—without CON review. Additionally, they contend that such a construction
of the term “license” is consistent with the legislative purposes behind the CON
Act, specifically with regard to cost containment, as well as the expressed
intent of 2006 S.C. Act No. 387—which
contained the automatic stay provision codified at § 1-23-600(G)(2)—to have
uniformity of procedures for contested cases and appeals from administrative
agencies.
By
contrast, Southern MRI argues that an N/A Determination is not a license under the APA’s definition,
but rather is simply a determination by the Department that a license is not
needed. Further, it contends that an N/A Determination, unlike a CON, is not
required by law, since a person or health care facility is free to proceed
without one if no question exists regarding the applicability of the CON
requirements.
The
court finds, reading the CON Act and the Department’s regulations together, that
the law requires: (1) that a person or health care facility must obtain
a CON before it acquires medical equipment to be used for diagnosis or
treatment whose total project cost exceeds $600,000; and (2) that when any
question exists, the potential applicant must obtain a formal
determination by the Department that the CON requirements do not apply to its
proposed project. This “formal determination” falls within the APA’s expansive
definition of “license” in that it constitutes a form of agency permission
required by law. Accordingly, the automatic stay of § 1-23-600(G)(2) applies.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Petitioners’ motion to enforce the automatic stay of § 1-23-600(G)(2)
is GRANTED. It is further
ORDERED that Southern MRI is prohibited from proceeding with the project that is the
subject of the instant contested case proceeding or in any other way acting
upon the Department’s determination of non-applicability dated September 19, 2007 during the pendency of this matter before the ALC, unless otherwise
ordered by the court.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
PAIGE
J. GOSSETT
Administrative
Law Judge
April 30, 2008
Columbia, South Carolina
|