Kennestone Hospital, Inc. v. Cartersville Medical Center, Inc.
341 Ga. App. 28
Ga. Ct. App.2017Background
- DCH issued a CON batching notice for ambulatory surgery services (no numeric need; atypical barrier exception available). Kennestone applied for a CON to build an ambulatory surgery center in Cobb County.
- DCH’s initial decision granted Kennestone a CON; the CON Appeal Panel’s hearing officer reversed and denied it after an evidentiary hearing.
- Kennestone appealed to the DCH commissioner (designee), who issued a Final Decision reversing the Panel and granting the CON.
- CMC and MOS filed for judicial review in Fulton County superior court. The hearing was continued by court order and held March 31, 2015; the superior court entered an order reversing DCH’s Final Decision on May 18, 2015.
- Under OCGA § 31-6-44.1(b), when a judicial-review hearing is continued to a date certain and held later than the 90/120-day deadlines, the administrative decision is affirmed by operation of law if no dispositive order is entered within 30 days after the continued hearing. The appellate court found the superior court’s order was entered after that 30-day window and thus was a nullity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court’s post-hearing order was void because DCH’s Final Decision was affirmed by operation of law under OCGA § 31-6-44.1(b) | CMC/MOS: The hearing was not closed March 31, 2015 because court asked for proposed findings and parties submitted them April 22, 2015; thus the 30-day clock had not yet started | Kennestone/DCH: The hearing closed March 31, 2015 when the court took matter under advisement; the 30-day period ran from that date and expired before May 18, 2015 | Held: The hearing closed March 31, 2015; because no dispositive order was entered within 30 days (by May 1, 2015), DCH’s Final Decision was affirmed by operation of law and the May 18 order was a nullity |
| Whether requesting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law extended the judicial-review hearing for purposes of the statute | CMC/MOS: Request for proposed orders kept the hearing open until submissions were filed | Kennestone/DCH: Submission of proposed orders does not equal an order continuing the hearing to a date certain under the statute | Held: Submission of proposed orders does not constitute a continuance to a date certain; it does not extend the statutory deadline |
| Whether the appellate court should impose a particular ritual or language to mark the closure of a hearing | CMC/MOS: Court did not expressly say "hearing closed" so it remained open | Kennestone/DCH: Court’s statement taking matter under advisement and concluding proceeding indicated closure; no specific formula required | Held: No special words required; taking matter under advisement and concluding the proceeding signaled closure |
| Whether any remaining substantive challenges to the Final Decision could be addressed after determining the order was void | Kennestone/DCH: Urged merits errors under atypical barrier analysis | CMC/MOS: Sought judicial relief on merits | Held: Because the superior court’s order was void, appellate court vacated it and declined to address substantive enumerations of error; nothing remained to consider |
Key Cases Cited
- Lakeview Behavioral Health Sys., LLC v. UHS Peachford, LP, 321 Ga. App. 820 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory construction principles; give words plain meaning)
- Tanner Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Vest Newnan, LLC, 337 Ga. App. 884 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (discussing CON statutory framework and affirmance by operation of law)
- Buschel v. Kysor, 213 Ga. App. 91 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (orders entered after statutory deadline under analogous workers’ comp statute are nullities)
- Brassfield & Gorrie v. Ogletree, 241 Ga. App. 56 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (superior court lost authority after expiration of affirmance-by-operation deadline)
- Pine Timber Trucking Co. v. Teal, 230 Ga. App. 362 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998) (order entered after deadline was a nullity)
- Center for a Sustainable Coast v. Coastal Marshlands Prot. Comm., 284 Ga. 736 (Ga. 2008) (administrative decision affirmed by operation of law where superior court failed to act within statutory time)
- Rouse v. Dep’t of Nat. Res., 271 Ga. 726 (Ga. 1999) (failure to enter order within statutory period results in affirmance by operation of law)
- Labovitz v. Hopkinson, 271 Ga. 330 (Ga. 1999) (discussion of statutes demanding automatic dismissals or affirmance by operation of law)
- Coronet Carpets v. Reynolds, 199 Ga. App. 383 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991) (court cannot avoid statutory consequences of missed deadlines)
- Truckstops of Am., Inc. v. Engram, 229 Ga. App. 616 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997) (superior court lost jurisdiction when it did not timely enter order)
- Borden, Inc. v. Holland, 212 Ga. App. 820 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (if disposition on threshold grounds, appellate court need not reach other enumerations of error)