Best v. Adhs
1 CA-CV 15-0439
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2017Background
- Best of Europe Adult Home Care (Best) operates a licensed 10‑bed assisted living home regulated by the Arizona Department of Health Services (Department).
- After a resident’s death allegedly linked to over‑anticoagulation, the Department investigated and issued a Statement of Deficiencies (SOD) finding two rule violations and directed Best to submit a Plan of Correction; it initially assessed a $500 penalty but later reissued the SOD by letter dated December 3, 2014, stating there would be no enforcement action "at this time" and imposing no discipline.
- Best disputed the SOD, refused to submit a Plan of Correction, and later obtained evidence in a separate wrongful‑death suit that it argued undermined the SOD’s findings.
- Best sought an administrative hearing; the Department declined, calling the December 3 letter non‑appealable and non‑final, and Best filed a superior court appeal under the Arizona Administrative Review Act (ARA).
- The superior court dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; Best appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the December 3 letter (including the SOD) was not an appealable "administrative decision" and the court had no independent constitutional jurisdiction to hear Best’s due‑process claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the December 3, 2014 letter (including the SOD) is an appealable "administrative decision" under A.R.S. § 12‑901(2) | Best: The SOD harms reputation and may be used in future discipline or to increase penalties, thus affecting legal rights and terminating proceedings | Dept.: The letter imposes no discipline, expressly defers enforcement, and is a nondisciplinary advisory requiring correction, so it neither alters legal status nor terminates proceedings | Held: Not appealable; it does not affect legal rights/duties/privileges nor terminate the administrative proceeding |
| Whether the superior court has independent constitutional subject‑matter jurisdiction to review nonfinal agency action for due‑process violations | Best: Fox and due‑process principles permit courts to hear constitutional challenges to nonfinal agency action | Dept.: ARA confers jurisdiction by statute; superior court lacks jurisdiction over nonfinal agency action absent statutory authorization | Held: No independent constitutional jurisdiction; ARA limits superior court review to appealable final administrative decisions |
| Whether case law cited by Best (e.g., Fox, Comeau) supports immediate judicial review here | Best: Fox and other precedents allow review or vindication of due‑process rights despite absence of formal sanction | Dept.: Fox addressed federal APA/due‑process in a different context; Comeau involved explicit statutory disciplinary orders, unlike this case | Held: Fox does not confer jurisdiction to review nonfinal agency action here; Comeau is distinguishable because it involved disciplinary sanctions enumerated by statute |
| Whether the December 3 letter terminated the Department’s proceedings (so it is final) | Best: Letter effectively ends enforcement and thus terminates proceedings | Dept.: Letter expressly reserves enforcement (“at this time”) and requires Plan of Correction; proceedings remain open | Held: Letter did not terminate proceedings; not final agency action |
Key Cases Cited
- Guminski v. Arizona State Veterinary Med. Examining Bd., 201 Ariz. 180 (App. 2001) (standard for reviewing dismissals for lack of jurisdiction and limits of ARA jurisdiction)
- Murphy v. Board of Medical Examiners of State of Arizona, 190 Ariz. 441 (App. 1997) (advisory/concern letters that are nondisciplinary and speculative do not constitute appealable final administrative decisions)
- Bolser Enterprises, Inc. v. Registrar of Contractors, 213 Ariz. 110 (App. 2006) (revocation of license is final agency action that terminates proceedings)
- F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307 (2012) (federal due‑process analysis for notice of changing enforcement policy; does not itself establish jurisdiction over nonfinal state agency action)
- Comeau v. Arizona State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 196 Ariz. 102 (App. 1999) (censure and probation constituted disciplinary final orders subject to judicial review)