Dialysis Solutions, LLC v. Mississippi State Department of Health, 96 So. 3d 713

Background

MDH issued a final order disapproving Dialysis Solutions’ CON; Dialysis Solutions appealed under Section 41-7-201; the Court questioned the constitutionality of the amended direct-appeal provision; the 1984 Mississippi Constitution vests appellate jurisdiction in the Legislature; MDH’s process for CON includes a hearing officer and an extensive record; MDH final orders and similar agency rulings have quasi-judicial characteristics but may not be traditional judicial decisions.
The 2011 amendment to Section 41-7-201 provides a direct appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court within 20 days, ostensibly bypassing chancery court review for CON decisions; before July 1, 2011, appeals went to the chancery court with potential Supreme Court review.
The majority treats MDH’s final order as a non-court tribunal lacking the attributes of a court; the direct-appeal statute, as amended, thus confers original jurisdiction on this Court, violating Article 6, Section 146.
The concurrence discusses similarities to the Workers’ Compensation regime but agrees neither agency decision fits traditional “judicial decision” criteria; it emphasizes separation of powers concerns and maintains the same constitutional flaw in both statutes.
There are noted inconsistencies in the statutory scheme, such as timing provisions and ancillary issues (bonds, fees) being foisted onto the Court notwithstanding the direct-appeal mechanism.
Conclusion: direct appeal to this Court is unconstitutional; the appeal is dismissed, and an appropriate chancery-court path remains available.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether direct appeal of MDH final CON order to the Supreme Court is constitutional	Dialysis Solutions argues the amended statute is unconstitutional under art. 6, §146	MDH argues the Legislature validly authorized direct appeals to the Supreme Court	Unconstitutional; direct appeal dismissed
Whether MDH final CON order is a judicial decision for purposes of §146 review	Dialysis Solutions contends MDH is not a court; thus no judicial decision	MDH proceedings are quasi-judicial with final order by State Health Officer	Unconstitutional because MDH lacks judicial-trial characteristics required for direct appellate jurisdiction
Whether pre/post amendment structure creates constitutional conflict and other issues	Direct appeal conflicts with other remedies and timing provisions	Statutory scheme streamlined appeals	Unconstitutional; scheme inconsistent with constitution and creates jurisdictional conflicts

Key Cases Cited

Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Dodd, 105 Miss. 23, 61 So. 743 (1913) (Miss. 1913) (limits appellate review to judicial decisions by courts of competent authority)
Le Blanc v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 73 Miss. 463, 19 So. 211 (1896) (Miss. 1896) (requires a court clothed with judicial power for review of decisions)
Fortune v. Lee County Bd. of Supervisors, 725 So.2d 747 (Miss. 1998) (Miss. 1998) (separation-of-powers principle governing appellate jurisdiction)
Albritton v. City of Winona, 178 So. 803 (Miss. 1938) (Miss. 1938) (legislature may not confer appellate jurisdiction beyond constitutional grant)
Drummond v. State, 184 Miss. 738, 185 So. 207 (1938) (Miss. 1938) (discusses Supreme Court jurisdiction and appellate review limits)
McCaffrey’s Food Market, Inc. v. Mississippi Milk Comm’n, 227 So.2d 459 (Miss. 1969) (Miss. 1969) (quasi-judicial agency decisions and review characteristics)
Boyles v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 794 So.2d 149 (Miss. 2001) (Miss. 2001) (distinguishes administrative proceedings from typical adjudication)
Short v. Wilson Meat House, LLC, 36 So.3d 1247 (Miss. 2010) (Miss. 2010) (review standards for agency decisions and final orders)
Glenn v. Herring, 415 So.2d 695 (Miss. 1982) (Miss. 1982) (limits on non-judicial decision review; review requires tribunal with judicial power)