813 S.E.2d 719
S.C.2018Background
- In 2005 four entities, including Petitioner (a North Carolina hospital) and Amisub (a South Carolina hospital), applied for a certificate of need (CON) to build an acute-care hospital in Fort Mill, SC.
- In 2006 DHEC granted the CON to Amisub and denied it to Petitioner; DHEC relied in part on its reading of the South Carolina Health Plan to limit additional beds to existing York County providers.
- Petitioner challenged DHEC's interpretation at the Administrative Law Court (ALC), and alternatively argued the Health Plan violated the dormant Commerce Clause; the ALC ruled DHEC's interpretation was incorrect and remanded, making the dormant Commerce Clause question unnecessary at that time.
- On remand DHEC granted a CON to Petitioner; Amisub sought relief in a second ALC contested case, which reversed and awarded the CON to Amisub. Petitioner appealed to the court of appeals, which held the dormant Commerce Clause claim was unpreserved for appellate review.
- The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted certiorari as to preservation and related issues, reversed the court of appeals as to preservation, and remanded for consideration of the dormant Commerce Clause merits, ordering expedition given the long delay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Petitioner preserved its dormant Commerce Clause claim for appellate review | Petitioner says the issue was preserved because the earlier ALC ruling resolved Health Plan-based Commerce Clause concerns in its favor; it could not reasonably anticipate the ALC would later rely on protectionist reasoning, so raising the claim during the second proceeding was unnecessary; it raised the claim promptly in a Rule 59(e) motion after the second ALC order | Respondents (and court of appeals) argued Petitioner failed to present the Commerce Clause challenge in the second ALC proceeding and waited until a post-judgment motion, so the issue is unpreserved | Reversed court of appeals: the claim was preserved because Petitioner reasonably lacked notice the ALC would adopt a new, protectionist basis; remanded for merits review |
| Whether the ALC's second-order violated the dormant Commerce Clause (merits) | Petitioner contends the ALC's order protected an in-state competitor (Amisub) from out-of-state competition, thereby burdening interstate commerce | Respondents contend the order was a permissible application of CON law and Health Plan criteria, not protectionism | Not decided by this opinion; Court remanded to the court of appeals to decide whether the ALC's order impermissibly interfered with interstate commerce and to expedite consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (explaining the dormant Commerce Clause framework cited by the Court)
- Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794 (defining the dormant Commerce Clause concept relied upon by the Court)
- Herron v. Century BMW, 395 S.C. 461 (state precedent advising practical approach to issue preservation)
- In re Timmerman, 331 S.C. 455 (state rule that a party receiving an unanticipated adverse order must move under Rule 59(e) to preserve appellate issues)
- Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 387 S.C. 265 (prior procedural posture noted regarding appealability)