High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health, 347 Conn. 317

High Watch Recovery Center (plaintiff), a licensed nonprofit substance-abuse facility in Kent, opposed Birch Hill’s certificate-of-need (CON) application to open another treatment facility in Kent.
OHCA deemed Birch Hill’s application complete, published a notice of a public hearing, and told the applicant that a mandatory hearing would be held if a statutorily sufficient written request was received under § 19a-639a(e); the notice also cited § 19a-639a(f)(2) (agency may hold hearings).
High Watch filed a written petition to intervene, requesting full procedural rights including presenting evidence, calling witnesses, and cross-examining—OHCA granted intervenor status and the hearing officer stated the hearing would be conducted as a contested case.
After hearings and a recommended denial, Birch Hill and the Department entered an agreed settlement approving the CON; High Watch appealed to Superior Court claiming agency abused its discretion.
Trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (no final decision in a contested case); Appellate Court affirmed, finding the hearing discretionary and High Watch’s petition insufficient to trigger § 19a-639a(e).
The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed: it held High Watch’s written petition satisfied § 19a-639a(e) (and the plaintiff met the numerosity requirement), so the Department’s approval was a final decision in a contested case and the Superior Court had jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the OHCA proceeding a "contested case" (so its final order is appealable)?	Hearing was mandatory under § 19a-639a(e) because High Watch submitted a timely written request; therefore the proceeding was a contested case.	The hearing was discretionary under § 19a-639a(f)(2); a gratuitously held hearing does not create contested-case status, so no appeal lies.	Reversed Appellate Court: proceeding was a contested case because High Watch made a sufficient written request and met numerosity; final order was appealable.
Did High Watch’s petition to intervene qualify as the statutorily required "written request" under § 19a-639a(e), and did it need to expressly state it represented an entity with 5+ people?	The petition’s request to present evidence, call witnesses, and cross-examine is inherently a request for a hearing; statute does not require particular form or talismanic language.	Petition was insufficient because it did not expressly request a hearing or state the plaintiff was an entity with five or more people satisfying § 19a-639a(e).	Petition was sufficient: statutory text imposes no formality; OHCA knew High Watch was a licensed facility meeting the 5+ persons requirement; therefore the petition triggered § 19a-639a(e).

Summit Hydropower Partnership v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 226 Conn. 792 (Conn. 1993) (contested-case status limited to statutorily mandated hearings)
Ferguson Mechanical Co. v. Dept. of Public Works, 282 Conn. 764 (Conn. 2007) (three-part test for contested-case status)
Peters v. Dept. of Social Services, 273 Conn. 434 (Conn. 2005) (examine statutory scheme to determine whether agency must decide legal rights)
Marchesi v. Board of Selectmen, 328 Conn. 615 (Conn. 2018) (rejects hypertechnical, form-over-substance constructions)
Cannata v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 239 Conn. 124 (Conn. 1996) (agency may treat a communication as a petition when it substantively requests relief)