Lakeview Behavioral Health System, LLC v. UHS Peachford, LP
321 Ga. App. 820
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Lakeview appeals the superior court’s denial of attorney fees under OCGA § 31-6-44.1(c) after Lakeview successfully defended a CON challenge by UHS to Lakeview’s CON for a new acute care psychiatric/hospital.
- UHS opposed Lakeview’s CON from the start, including an initial opposition and subsequent appeals through the Appeal Panel and final DCH order before judicial review in Fulton County.
- UHS argued the DCH decision conflicted with DBHDD policy on public mental health treatment and thus exceeded the regulatory framework and statutory duties.
- The superior court found the UHS challenge fell within the jurisdictional exception in OCGA § 31-6-44.1(c) and denied fees.
- Lakeview contends the term “jurisdiction” means general power to act, not a challenge to a specific CON, and that the exception should not swallow the fee rule.
- The court reverses, holding that “jurisdiction” refers to DCH’s general power to act, not to the DCH’s authority over a particular CON, so UHS’s petition did not qualify for the jurisdictional exception; case remanded for fee amount determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jurisdictional exception applies to UHS’s challenge. | Lakeview: jurisdiction means general power, not case-specific. | UHS: challenge targeted DCH’s authority by conflicting with DBHDD policy. | No; the challenge did not fall within the jurisdictional exception. |
| What does the term “jurisdiction” mean in OCGA § 31-6-44.1(c)? | Lakeview: jurisdiction equals general power to act; broader than case-specific authority. | UHS: jurisdiction encompasses DCH’s authority to act in a given matter. | Jurisdiction refers to DCH’s general power to act, not its case-specific authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hopkins v. Hopkins, 237 Ga. 845 (Ga. 1976) (definition of jurisdiction in context of broad power vs. case-specific jurisdiction)
- Ga. Dept. of Community Health v. Ga. Society of Ambulatory Surgery Centers, 290 Ga. 628 (Ga. 2012) (addressed exhaustion/ultra vires distinctions in agency action)
- Ga. Society of Ambulatory Surgery Centers v. Ga. Dept. of Community Health, 309 Ga. App. 31 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (agency authority vs. jurisdiction; exhaustion context)
- We, the Taxpayers v. Bd. of Tax Assessors of Effingham County, 292 Ga. 31 (Ga. 2012) (exhaustion and jurisdiction distinctions in administrative challenges)
- City of Atlanta v. Hotels.com, L.P., 285 Ga. 231 (Ga. 2009) (exhaustion/administrative review principles)