214 N.C. App. 522
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- AHHC challenged DMA's new PCS hours methodology and third-party assessments under Budget Bill 2009-451 § 10.68A(a).
- DMA implemented a scoring algorithm to determine PCS eligibility and contracted independent assessments in response to that law.
- ALJ preliminarily enjoined DMA from using the scoring algorithm and from conditioning PCS hours on prior authorization.
- DMA sought certiorari in superior court, which dissolved the injunction and dismissed the contested case; AHHC appealed.
- In 2010–2011, Session Law 2010-31 repealed the challenged Budget Bill provisions and replaced PCS with IHCA/IHCC pending CMS approval.
- CMS subsequently approved the State Plan Amendment implementing IHCA/IHCC, terminating PCS/PCS-Plus on May 31, 2011 and transitioning to new services on June 1, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot due to PCS termination? | AHHC argues issues remain live despite repeal and CMS issues. | DMA contends repeal and CMS changes render issues moot. | Yes; but court vacates and remands to dismiss as moot. |
| Do mootness exceptions apply to preserve review? | Contested issues fall within exceptions (public interest, repetition). | No applicable exceptions; events mooted the controversy. | No exceptions persuasive; mootness governs. |
| Did CMS approval cure mootness and foreclose relief? | Relief could affect ongoing policy interpretations despite repeal. | CMS approval eliminated the controversy's practical effect. | CMS approval ended the controversy; mootness stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roberts v. Madison County Realtors Assn., 344 N.C. 394, 474 S.E.2d 783 (1996) (mootness requires practical effect on controversy)
- Simeon v. Hardin, 339 N.C. 358, 451 S.E.2d 858 (1994) (exceptions to mootness when issues repeat)
- Thomas v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 124 N.C.App. 698, 478 S.E.2d 816 (1996) (mootness and public-interest considerations)
- Matthews v. Dept. of Transportation, 35 N.C.App. 768, 242 S.E.2d 653 (1978) (practice when a case becomes moot on appeal)
- Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 289 N.C. 286, 221 S.E.2d 322 (1976) (mootness handling on appeal; dismissal as default disposition)