South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
McLeod Regional Medical Center vs. SCDHEC et al.

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

PARTIES:
Petitioner:
McLeod Regional Medical Center

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and QHG Of South Carolina, Inc., d/b/a Carolinas Hospital System
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
95-ALJ-07-0132-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

This matter comes before this Court pursuant to Petitioner's Second Motion to Compel production of documents filed October 18, 1995, and Respondent QHG's Response thereto, filed October 27, 1995. Also at issue is Respondent QHG's Second Motion to Compel Petitioner to Produce Documents and for Appropriate Sanctions filed October 20, 1995, and Petitioner's Return thereto, filed October 27, 1995. Pursuant to this Court's Order dated September 18, 1995, these prehearing motions are decided upon briefs without oral argument. After giving careful consideration to the motions and to the supporting and opposing memoranda of counsel, all motions are hereby denied.

I.PETITIONER'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

Petitioner moved the Court to compel Respondent QHG to produce the following documents:

1. All documents relating to Carolinas' (QHG's) methodology as contained in its Certificate of Need ("CON") application.

2. All documents supporting data contained in Carolinas' (QHG's) Table 5 and its assertion that "For the calendar year 1993, the total inpatients with malignant DRG's was 978."

3. All documents regarding the number of inpatients transferred from Carolinas to McLeod for radiation therapy treatment for fiscal years 1993 and 1994.

Regarding the documents sought by Petitioner, QHG responded that it has already provided Petitioner with all available documents that fall within these requests. Other documents that may have been responsive to the first and second requests were inadvertently discarded when a former QHG employee left his job. Documents responsive to the third request are in the possession of Petitioner. My Order of September 13, 1994, stated that "[t]o the extent that records relating to transfers from Carolinas Hospital System are already in the possession of McLeod, QHG is not required to provide these documents." Because QHG has represented that no additional documents exist which are responsive to these requests, Petitioner's Motion to Compel is hereby denied. However, if any responsive information has become available subsequent to QHG's response, QHG has an ongoing responsibility to supplement and update the information provided.

II. RESPONDENT QHG'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL

Respondent QHG moved the Court to compel Petitioner to produce the following documents:

1. Budgets and Related Information.

2. Documents Showing Charges of Other Providers.

3. Documents Showing the Curative/Palliative Mix of Radiation Therapy Patients.

4. Documents Relied Upon or Provided to Expert Witnesses.

5. McLeod's Financial Statements.

6. Documents Showing the Location and Number of Patients Treated by McLeod for Cancer.

7. Documents Used by McLeod to Calculate ESTV's.

Request 1. As to this request, Petitioner represented that it has been met by the furnishing of computerized reports from fiscal years 1993 and 1994 to QHG. Petitioner asserts that these reports provide more accurate and useful information than a budget or financial statement. Additionally, Petitioner represented that it has produced to QHG radiation therapy department budgets for fiscal years 1993 and 1994. Because Petitioner has furnished QHG with the computerized reports and budgets, as well as cost reports (as requested), QHG has fully complied with this request. To the extent that QHG's Motion to Compel seeks budgetary information other than what has been provided by Petitioner, it is hereby denied.

Request 2. As to this request, Petitioner asserts the requested information is irrelevant to this case because it concerns providers located outside the "territory" as defined by QHG. I find that this information is irrelevant for the stated reason and order that Petitioner is not compelled to disclose it to QHG.

Request 3. As to this request, Petitioner asserts that it is too burdensome and that the information sought is irrelevant to this case because the curative/palliative mix is not germane to a determination of whether an additional linear accelerator should be approved. I find that this information is irrelevant for the stated reason and order that Petitioner is not compelled to disclose it to QHG.

Request 4. As to this request, Petitioner asserts that it has provided QHG with all documents relied upon or provided to expert witnesses. Because Petitioner has represented that no additional documents exist which have been relied upon or provided to experts, QHG's Motion to Compel on this ground is denied. However, if any responsive information has become available subsequent to Petitioner's response, Petitioner has an ongoing responsibility to supplement and update the information provided.

Request 5. As to this request, Petitioner asserts that its financial information is proprietary and confidential and is irrelevant to this case because McLeod is not the CON applicant. I find that this information is irrelevant for the stated reason and order that Petitioner is not compelled to disclose it to QHG.

Request 6. As to this request, Petitioner asserts the location and number of patients it has treated for cancer is irrelevant to this case. Petitioner argues that it has already provided information regarding the type of services at issue (radiation therapy) in this case. I find that this information is irrelevant for the stated reason and order that Petitioner is not compelled to disclose it to QHG.

Request 7. As to this request, Petitioner asserts that it has provided QHG with all documents it has used to calculate ESTV's. Because Petitioner has represented that no additional documents exist which have been used to calculate ESTV's, QHG's Motion to Compel on this ground is denied. However, if any responsive information has become available subsequent to Petitioner's response, Petitioner has an ongoing responsibility to supplement and update the information provided.

III.RESPONDENT QHG'S MOTION FOR APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS

QHG moves this Court to impose sanctions on Petitioner upon allegations that Petitioner wilfully withheld requested information and mislead this Court. As is evidenced by the denial of all grounds of QHG's Motion to Compel, QHG has patently failed to demonstrate that sanctions should be imposed upon Petitioner. Therefore, QHG's Motion for Appropriate Sanctions is hereby denied.

IV. RESPONDENT QHG'S REQUEST THAT PETITIONER IDENTIFY THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR PETITIONER'S RESPONSES.

At the close of its supporting memorandum, QHG requests that Petitioner be ordered to identify the individuals who were responsible for the preparation of Petitioner's responses to QHG's discovery requests. This request is opposed by Petitioner. Because QHG failed to identify any reason why I should compel Petitioner to identify such individuals, the request is hereby denied.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



______________________________

STEPHEN P. BATES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

October 31, 1995

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2021 South Carolina Administrative Law Court