Ex Parte Affinity Hospital, 2100614 (ala.civ.app. 12-9-2011)
85 So. 3d 1033
Ala. Civ. App.2011Background
- Trinity sought a CON to relocate its hospital from the Montclair campus to Irondale; the Irondale CON was issued in 2008 but Trinity did not relocate.
- Trinity then applied for a CON to relocate to the Highway 280 site and surrendered the Irondale CON; Brookwood and St. Vincent's opposed the new CON.
- A contested-case hearing was held; the ALJ recommended a CON for the Highway 280 site and the CONRB granted it in September 2010.
- Irondale sued Trinity after Trinity obtained the Highway 280 CON; discovery produced deposition testimony and documents not produced in the original hearing.
- On discovering 16 documents about Trinity’s consideration of Highway 280, Brookwood and St. Vincent’s sought reconsideration; after a hearing, the CONRB denied reconsideration.
- The circuit court remanded the case to SHPDA for additional evidentiary proceedings, citing 41-22-20(i) and (k); Trinity sought mandamus; this opinion holds the remand was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had authority to remand to SHPDA for additional evidence | Brookwood/St. Vincent's argue remand under 41-22-20(i) | Trinity argues no authority since evidence already before CONRB; Kirby controls | Remand under 41-22-20(i) not authorized; remand vacated. |
| Effect of SHPDA Rule 410-1-8-.09(2)(b) on reconsideration | Rule allows reconsideration for newly discovered information | Regulation compatible with AAPA; Kirby not controlling | Rule 410-1-8-.09(2)(b) valid; 16 documents properly before CONRB on reconsideration. |
| Whether Kirby precludes considering new documents on reconsideration | Kirby forbids new evidence not presented to the agency | SHPDA rule creates an additional ground for reconsideration | Kirby does not control; SHPDA rule valid; documents properly considered. |
| Role of 41-22-20(k) in remand authority | Remand authority broad under (k) | Remand limited by (i) and does not broaden to new evidence | Remand authority constrained by (i); (k) provides no independent remand power. |
| Impact on ripe claims and mandamus remedy | Remand affected ripe claims; mandamus appropriate | Remand was interlocutory, ripe issues may be appealed later | Mandamus vacates remand; appeal not proper for interlocutory order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte United Serv. Stations, Inc., 628 So.2d 501 (Ala. 1993) (mandamus remedy for administrative actions viewed as improper)
- Ex parte Empire Fire Marine Ins. Co., 720 So.2d 893 (Ala. 1998) (standard for extraordinary writs in admin appeals)
- Kirby, Alabama Dep’t of Mental Health v. Kirby, 579 So.2d 675 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) (Council for rehearing/new evidence under §41-22-20(i))
- Ex parte Wilson, 70 So.3d 335 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) (mandamus relief when agency duty not performed)
- Alabama Dep’t of Youth Servs. v. State Pers. Bd., 7 So.3d 380 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) (remand/clearance of agency ambiguities)