207 Conn.App. 397
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- High Watch Recovery Center (plaintiff), an existing substance‑abuse treatment provider in Kent, opposed Birch Hill Recovery Center’s (Birch Hill) certificate of need application to open a facility nearby.
- Birch Hill applied to the Office of Health Care Access (OHCA); OHCA issued a notice stating it was holding a hearing pursuant to § 19a‑639a(f)(2) (which says OHCA may hold a public hearing).
- High Watch filed a notice of appearance and a March 22, 2018 letter seeking intervenor status with full rights (including cross‑examination) but did not explicitly request a public hearing under § 19a‑639a(e) or identify the numerical supporters required by that subsection.
- OHCA granted intervenor status, conducted hearings (a hearing officer announced the proceeding would be conducted as a contested case), and ultimately the department and Birch Hill entered an agreement approving the application subject to conditions (the final order).
- High Watch appealed to the Superior Court claiming agency abuse; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of an appealable final decision in a contested case and lack of aggrievement.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding the hearing was discretionary under § 19a‑639a(f)(2) (not statutorily required), so no contested case/final decision existed; High Watch appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the OHCA proceedings constituted a "contested case" under UAPA § 4‑166(4) so High Watch could appeal under § 4‑183 | A contested case exists because § 19a‑639a as a whole provides an opportunity for a hearing and a hearing was in fact held (so § 4‑166(4) is satisfied) | The notice invoked § 19a‑639a(f)(2), which is discretionary ("may" hold hearing), so no statutory right to a hearing existed; a gratuitous hearing does not create contested case status | Affirmed dismissal: no contested case or appealable final decision because § 19a‑639a(f)(2) is permissive and does not mandate a hearing |
| Whether High Watch’s March 22, 2018 letter requesting intervenor status satisfied § 19a‑639a(e) to trigger a mandatory public hearing | The letter should be liberally construed as a request for a public hearing under § 19a‑639a(e) | The letter sought only intervenor status and did not (1) expressly request a hearing or (2) show the statute’s numerical support (3 individuals or representation of an entity of 5+) | Affirmed dismissal: the letter did not meet § 19a‑639a(e)’s written request and numerical requirements, so it did not convert the discretionary hearing into a mandatory one |
Key Cases Cited
- Middlebury v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 283 Conn. 156 (2007) (a gratuitous hearing not required by statute does not create a contested case for judicial review)
- Herman v. Division of Special Revenue, 193 Conn. 379 (1984) (three‑part test for contested‑case status: legal right at issue; statutory requirement to determine it; hearing opportunity or hearing held)
- Summit Hydropower Partnership v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 226 Conn. 792 (1993) (contested case requires a party’s statutory right to have agency determine legal rights; gratuitous hearings insufficient)
- New England Dairies, Inc. v. Commissioner of Agriculture, 221 Conn. 422 (1992) (agency holding a hearing absent statutory mandate does not create contested case status)
- Canterbury v. Rocque, 78 Conn. App. 169 (2003) (reaffirming that contested case status depends on statutory entitlement to a hearing)