Dept. of Health v. SW Miss. Med. Ctr.

580 So. 2d 1238
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedMay 3, 1991
Docket89-CA-1337
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 580 So. 2d 1238 (Dept. of Health v. SW Miss. Med. Ctr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dept. of Health v. SW Miss. Med. Ctr., 580 So. 2d 1238 (Mich. 1991).

Opinion

580 So.2d 1238 (1991)

MISSISSIPPI StATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
v.
SOUTHWEST MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER.

No. 89-CA-1337.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 3, 1991.

Mike C. Moore, Atty. Gen., Stephanie L. Ganucheau, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellant.

Barry K. Cockrell, Richard G. Cowart, Watkins Ludlam & Stennis, Jackson, Robert W. Brumfield, Brumfield & Austin, McComb, for appellee.

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and McRAE, JJ.

ROBERTSON, Justice, for the Court:

I.

This is another health services licensing dispute. At issue is whether the State Health Officer (SHO) acted arbitrarily and capriciously when he denied the applicant's request for a Certificate of Need (CON) to offer cardiac catheterization services in Southwest Mississippi. The SHO denied the CON on grounds of an inadequate population base in the area the applicant serves. The Chancery Court held the SHO's action impermissible and reversed.

For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and reinstate the SHO's order denying the CON.

II.

Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center (SWMRMC) is a 160-bed hospital and medical center situated in McComb, Mississippi, and is jointly owned by Pike County, the City of McComb, and Supervisor *1239 Districts Four and Five of Amite County, Mississippi. SWMRMC has a medical staff of fifty-six physicians and provides more than 44,000 days of patient care on an annual basis. The Center is a major health resource for Pike County and the surrounding area. As a publicly-owned community hospital, SWMRMC is charged by law "to promote, develop and institute any [health care] services having an appropriate place in the operation of a hospital offering complete community health care." Miss. Code Ann. § 41-13-35(5)(m) (Supp. 1990).

On December 1, 1987, SWMRMC filed with the Mississippi State Department of Health an application for a CON to offer cardiac catheterization services at its facility in Pike County, Mississippi. As it was received by the Department prior to January 1, 1988, SWMRMC's application was subject to review under the 1986 State Health Plan ("SHP").

The Statewide Health Coordinating Council (SHCC) developed and promulgated the 1986 SHP. A lengthy public process preceded the SHP which, once finalized, served as the benchmark for all of the next succeeding year's CON decisions. State law admonishes the State Health Officer, on pain of personal liability, that he approve only applications which substantially comply with the projection of need as reported in the State Health Plan in effect at the time the application is submitted. Miss. Code Ann. § 41-7-193(1) (Supp. 1990); Grant Center Hospital of Mississippi, Inc. v. Health Group of Jackson, Mississippi, Inc., 528 So.2d 804, 808-10 (Miss. 1988).

SWMRMC amended its application several times, and the Department began its review process in April of 1988. Shortly thereafter, Kings Daughters Hospital in Brookhaven, Mississippi, requested a hearing on the matter. All evidence was submitted by August 10, 1988, and the Hearing Officer's report and recommendation was submitted to the SHO, Dr. Alton B. Cobb, on September 20, 1988. On September 29, 1988, the Department of Health, acting through Dr. Cobb, denied SWMRMC's application on the grounds it did not meet the minimum population base criterion as set forth in the 1986 SHP.

SWMRMC appealed to the Chancery Court of Pike County, Mississippi, which reversed. In an opinion released November 7, 1989, the Chancery Court found:

... that the action of the Department in denying a Certificate of Need was unreasonable, unjustified, arbitrary and capricious, was an attempt to formulate rules and regulations without authority, and was not supported by substantial evidence.

The Chancery Court ordered the Department of Health and the SHO "to issue to Southwest Mississippi Regional Medical Center a Certificate of Need for the establishment of cardiac catheterization services."

The Department now appeals to this Court.

III.

This is a proceeding for judicial review of administrative action, and it is important that we understand and accept what this fact implies. The Legislature has directed that an SHO's CON order be subject to judicial review, but that it

... shall not be vacated or set aside, either in whole or in part, except for errors of law, unless the Court finds that the order ... is not supported by substantial evidence, is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, is in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the ... Department . .., or violates any vested constitutional rights of any part involved in the appeal.

Miss. Code Ann. § 41-7-201(4) (Supp. 1990). This is nothing more than a statutory restatement of familiar limitations upon the scope of judicial review of administrative agency decisions. Magnolia Hospital v. Mississippi State Department of Health, 559 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Miss. 1990); Melody Manor Convalescent Center v. Mississippi State Department of Health, 546 So.2d 972, 974 (Miss. 1989); Grant Center Hospital of Mississippi, Inc. v. Health Group of Jackson, Mississippi, Inc., 528 So.2d at 808 (courts may alter the administrator's action *1240 only if convinced it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or is not supported by substantial evidence).

The terms "arbitrary" and "capricious" are open-textured and not susceptible of precise definition or mechanical application. We find helpful meanings North Carolina has assigned in a not-dissimilar context:

"Arbitrary" means fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure. An act is arbitrary when it is done without adequately determining principle; not done according to reason or judgment, but depending upon the will alone, — absolute in power, tyrannical, despotic, non-rational, — implying either a lack of understanding of or a disregard for the fundamental nature of things.
"Capricious" means freakish, fickle, or arbitrary. An act is capricious when it is done without reason, in a whimsical manner, implying either a lack of understanding of or a disregard for the surrounding facts and settled controlling principles... .

In Re Housing Authority of City of Salisbury, 235 N.C. 463, 468, 70 S.E.2d 500, 503 (1982).

The Chancery Court was constrained by these familiar principles. On further appeal, we perform our function under a like regimen. Put otherwise, we review de novo the action of the Chancery Court.

IV.

We need be clear of an issue that is not before us. The wisdom vel non of the CON program is a legislative matter. We are not moved by its federal sacking, see Grant Center, 528 So.2d at 806-07, nor by the powerful policy arguments that may be leveled against it, made in the name of deregulation of enterprise. The program is a constitutionally permissible stratagem for addressing the health care needs of the people. See, e.g., McCaffrey's Food Market, Inc. v. Mississippi Milk Commission, 227 So.2d 459, 461-62 (Miss. 1969); Craig v. North Mississippi Community Hospital, 206 Miss.

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

Related

State of Mississippi Board of Nursing v. Ann Hobson
Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2019
MSDH v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL HOSP.-DeSOTO, INC.
984 So. 2d 967 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2008)
Greenwood Leflore v. State Dept. of Health
980 So. 2d 931 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2008)
MISS. REAL ESTATE APPRAISER v. Schroeder
980 So. 2d 275 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2007)
St. Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hosp. v. HEALTH DEPT.
910 So. 2d 1077 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2005)
Pannell v. Tombigbee River Valley Water Mgmt. Dist.
909 So. 2d 1115 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2005)
Howell v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM'N
906 So. 2d 766 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2004)
Mississippi Transp. Com'n v. Anson
879 So. 2d 958 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2004)
Attala Bd. of Sup'rs v. Ms Dept. of Health
867 So. 2d 1019 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2004)
Electronic Data Sys. Corp. v. MS DIV. OF MEDICAID
853 So. 2d 1192 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2003)
Harrison County Bd. of Supr's v. Carlo Corp.
833 So. 2d 582 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2002)
Jeff Anderson Rmc v. Mississippi State Dept. of Health
798 So. 2d 1264 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2001)
Walley v. Mississippi Department of Corrections
766 So. 2d 60 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2000)
Flowers v. Mississippi Department of Human Services
764 So. 2d 493 (Court of Appeals of Mississippi, 2000)
Cain v. MISSISSIPPI STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH
666 So. 2d 506 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1995)
Watkins v. Mississippi Bd. of Bar Admissions
659 So. 2d 561 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1995)
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality v. Weems
653 So. 2d 266 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1995)
MISS. DEPT. OF ENVIRON. QUAL. v. Weems
653 So. 2d 266 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
580 So. 2d 1238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dept-of-health-v-sw-miss-med-ctr-miss-1991.