Baptist Memorial Hospital-Desoto, Inc. v. Mississippi State Department of Health
214 So. 3d 277
Miss.2017Background
- Methodist Healthcare–Olive Branch (Methodist) applied for a certificate of need (CON) to perform percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) after the 2014 State Health Plan allowed PCI without an on-site open-heart program.
- Baptist Memorial Hospital–DeSoto (Baptist), a competing provider in the same service area, contested the application and requested a hearing.
- MSDH held a public hearing, considered testimony and exhibits, and the hearing officer recommended approval; the State Health Officer granted the CON.
- Baptist appealed to Hinds County Chancery Court arguing MSDH misapplied Criterion 1 (minimum population base) and Criterion 9 (minimum annual diagnostic catheterizations). The chancellor affirmed MSDH.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court reviewed under the substantial-evidence/administrative-review standard and affirmed, holding MSDH’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and within its discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Baptist) | Defendant's Argument (MSDH/Methodist) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MSDH erred applying Criterion 1 (100,000 minimum population) | MSDH must use market-share analysis to allocate population; without it Methodist’s market share doesn’t meet 100,000 | MSDH may use different, reasonable methodologies; its chosen method here complied with Plan objectives | Court held market-share analysis is not mandatory; MSDH’s methodology was permissible and supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Criterion 9 (300 diagnostic procedures/yr for prior two years) barred Methodist | Criterion 9 disqualifies applicants that haven’t met the 2-year/300-procedure history | Criterion 9 applies only to providers seeking to establish a therapeutic program; Methodist already had an approved therapeutic program; MSDH could also reasonably defer strict application until later years | Court held Criterion 9 did not apply to Methodist or was reasonably treated given hospital’s recent start; MSDH’s conclusion supported by substantial evidence |
| Standard of review / burden | N/A (procedural) | Challenging party must prove MSDH erred; courts defer to MSDH when supported by substantial evidence | Court reaffirmed heavy deference; Baptist failed to meet its burden |
Key Cases Cited
- CLC of Biloxi, LLC v. Miss. Dep’t of Health, 91 So. 3d 633 (Miss. 2012) (MSDH decisions upheld when supported by substantial evidence despite imperfect analysis)
- Miss. State Dep’t of Health v. Rush Care, Inc., 882 So. 2d 205 (Miss. 2004) (affirming deference to MSDH and substantial-evidence review)
- Miss. State Dep’t of Health v. Natchez Cmty. Hosp., 743 So. 2d 973 (Miss. 1999) (discussing deference to hearing officers and State Health Officer)
- HTI Health Servs. of Miss., Inc. v. Miss. State Dep’t of Health, 603 So. 2d 848 (Miss. 1992) (methodology to determine population base is case-specific; no single mandatory method)
- Sw. Miss. Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Miss. State Dep’t of Health, 580 So. 2d 1238 (Miss. 1991) (upholding alternative methodologies to measure need)
- Delta Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Miss. State Dep’t of Health, 759 So. 2d 1174 (Miss. 1999) (discussing MSDH’s market-share methodology as permissible)
- Miss. State Dep’t of Health v. Golden Triangle Reg’l Med. Ctr., 603 So. 2d 854 (Miss. 1992) (examining market-share analysis in CON review)
- Queen City Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Miss. State Dep’t of Health, 80 So. 3d 73 (Miss. 2011) (decision arbitrary and capricious when not based on substantial evidence)