Pursuant to the authority of W. Va. Code §§ 16-2D-5(l)(1) & (2), HCA has proposed and the governor has approved amendments and/or modifications to the following certificate of need standards:
Long-term
Acute Care Hospitals (approved 7/10/00); Cardiac Surgery Services (approved 5/5/04);
Lithotripsy Services (approved 7/7/00); Hospice Services (approved 6/21/01);
Cardiac Catheterization (approved 8/22/02); Megavoltage Radiation Therapy Services
(approved 10/9/02); Addition of Acute Care Beds (approved 10/9/02); Renovation-
Replacement of Acute Care Facilities and Services(approved 10/9/02); Ambulatory
Care Centers (approved 10/5/92); Ambulatory Surgical Centers (approved 10/5/92);
Positron Emission Tomography (approved 7/7/00); Fixed Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Services (approved 11/5/97); Birthing Centers (approved 10/5/92); Home Health
Services(approved 11/13/96); Behavioral Health/Developmental Disabilities (approved
11/13/95); ICR/MR Group Homes (approved 10/5/92); In-home Personal Care Services
(approved 5/4/99); and End Stage Renal Disease and Home Training (approved 10-
5-92). (See footnote 3)
One of
the above certificate of need standards, Renovation-Replacement of Acute Care
Facilities and Services, (See
footnote 4) contained a 5 mile geographical limitation (See
footnote 5) which the majority found was not set forth in W. Va.
Code § 16-2D-6 or a regulation. Consequently,
the majority held that HCA and the governor had no authority to impose the
5 mile geographical limitation. Implicit in this decision is that all of the
above certificate of need standards are invalid because they provide factors
that are not contained in W. Va. Code § 16-2D-6 or a regulation.
A decision
reached this Term of Court illustrates the implications of the majority decision
today. In Family Medical Imaging, LLC v. West Virginia Health Care Authority,
___ W. Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (No. 32565 Nov. 17, 2005), two physicians were
denied a certificate of need to provide ultrasound diagnostic services to patients
referred to them by other physicians. One of the issues raised in the case was
whether HCA relied upon the standard for acute care facilities in denying the
certificate of need. This Court concluded that HCA did not rely on that standard,
but instead relied upon the Ambulatory Care Centers standard. Ultimately, this
Court affirmed the denial of the certificate of need. Under the decision rendered
in the instant case, the two physicians may now reapply for a certificate of
need and do not have to comply with the Ambulatory Care Centers standard, because
that standard cannot be found in W. Va. Code § 16-2D-6 or a regulation.
It is therefore invalid under the majority decision. I do not believe the majority
intended such an outcome.
The
record is clear. At the time United applied for a certificate of need, the
certificate of need standard did not allow United to build its replacement
facility outside of 5 miles of its existing facility. United was prepared to
build the replacement facility 8 miles outside of its existing facility. Clearly,
under the standards existing at the time of United's application, it did not
satisfy the geographical limitation of the certificate of need standards. Even
so, HCA found that the additional 3 miles was harmless. I disagree.
This
Court has consistently held that “[a]n administrative body must abide by
the remedies and procedures it properly establishes to conduct its affairs.” Syl.
pt. 1, Powell v. Brown, 160 W. Va. 723, 238 S.E.2d 220 (1977). See also Appalachian
Power Co. v. State Tax Dep't of West Virginia, 195 W. Va. 573, 583 n.8, 466
S.E.2d 424, 434 n.8 (1995) (“[A]n agency must follow and apply its rules
and regulations in existence at the time of agency action.”). Insofar as
United did not satisfy the 5 mile limitation at the time of its application,
HCA should have denied the certificate of need. Otherwise, HCA would have empowered
itself to make arbitrary decisions regarding the geographical limitation.
Although
HCA should have denied United's application when the decision was rendered, I
would have upheld issuance of the certificate of need because the 5 mile limitation
was extended to 15 miles during the pendency of the case. That is, United has
now satisfied the current geographical limitation. I believe it would be an unnecessary
waste of funds and administrative resources to have United reapply for a certificate
of need when the
only impediment to its issuance has been removed.
Based
upon the foregoing analysis, I respectfully concur.