Alabama Renal Stone Institute, Inc. v. TRUSTEES OF SUSIE PARKER STRINGFELLOW MEMORIAL HOSP.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Alabama Renal Stone Institute, Inc. v. TRUSTEES OF SUSIE PARKER STRINGFELLOW MEMORIAL HOSP.

680 So. 2d 358, 1996 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 503, 1996 WL 361351

CourtCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJune 28, 1996

Docket2941006

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 680 So. 2d 358 (Alabama Renal Stone Institute, Inc. v. TRUSTEES OF SUSIE PARKER STRINGFELLOW MEMORIAL HOSP.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alabama Renal Stone Institute, Inc. v. TRUSTEES OF SUSIE PARKER STRINGFELLOW MEMORIAL HOSP., 680 So. 2d 358, 1996 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 503, 1996 WL 361351 (Ala. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Alabama Renal Stone Institute, Inc. (ARSI), appeals from a circuit court's reversal of a decision by the Alabama State Health Planning and Development Agency (SHPDA).

In September 1993, Susie Parker Stringfellow Memorial Hospital (Stringfellow) filed a certificate of need (CON) application with SHPDA to become a designated site for mobile renal lithotripsy. SHPDA removed the application from the review cycle and Stringfellow petitioned for judicial review. Ultimately, the trial court entered an order returning the matter to SHPDA, but without citing specific reasons for its reversal.

On appeal, ARSI persuasively argues that the trial court's decision is deficient because it failed to state the reasons for reversing the Board's decision. The standard of review applied to an administrative decision is extremely limited. The statute is clear that the trial court "shall set out in writing, which writing shall become a part of the record, the reasons for its decision." Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-20(l) (emphasis added). A trial court cannot merely recite the statutory grounds for reversal, but must give specific reasons in its order to support its conclusions. Alabama MedicaidAgency v. Peoples, 549 So.2d 504 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989); seeAlabama Medicaid Agency v. Beverly Enterprises, 504 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987).

It appears that the trial court's judgment may have been proper, nonetheless, the trial court failed to comply with the statutory requirements. Therefore, its judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion. *Page 359

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and MONROE, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Alabama Renal Stone Institute, Inc. (ARSI), appeals from a circuit court's reversal of a decision by the Alabama State Health Planning and Development Agency (SHPDA).

In September 1993, Susie Parker Stringfellow Memorial Hospital (Stringfellow) filed a certificate of need (CON) application with SHPDA to become a designated site for mobile renal lithotripsy. SHPDA removed the application from the review cycle and Stringfellow petitioned for judicial review. Ultimately, the trial court entered an order returning the matter to SHPDA, but without citing specific reasons for its reversal.

On appeal, ARSI persuasively argues that the trial court's decision is deficient because it failed to state the reasons for reversing the Board's decision. The standard of review applied to an administrative decision is extremely limited. The statute is clear that the trial court "shall set out in writing, which writing shall become a part of the record, the reasons for its decision." Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-20(l) (emphasis added). A trial court cannot merely recite the statutory grounds for reversal, but must give specific reasons in its order to support its conclusions. Alabama MedicaidAgency v. Peoples, 549 So.2d 504 (Ala.Civ.App. 1989); seeAlabama Medicaid Agency v. Beverly Enterprises, 504 So.2d 1211 (Ala.Civ.App. 1987).

It appears that the trial court's judgment may have been proper, nonetheless, the trial court failed to comply with the statutory requirements. Therefore, its judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded for the entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion. *Page 359

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

ROBERTSON, P.J., and MONROE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

680 So. 2d 358, 1996 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 503, 1996 WL 361351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alabama-renal-stone-institute-inc-v-trustees-of-susie-parker-alacivapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack