York Hosp. v. Dep't of Human Servs.

Maine Superior

York Hosp. v. Dep't of Human Servs.

DecidedMarch 17, 2004

DocketKENap-03-24

StatusUnpublished

This text of York Hosp. v. Dep't of Human Servs. (York Hosp. v. Dep't of Human Servs.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

York Hosp. v. Dep't of Human Servs., (Me. Super. Ct. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. _,,~OCKE~~? AP-O~-~~ (,"~' l )., .' l ' ",-- 9 Q'') b /i' ,. ,) ) _.__ ~ ~:_ I ~ L "0"

YORK HOSPITAL, et ai.,

Petitioners

v. DECISION

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, et ai.,

Respondents

Petitioners York Hospital and Wentworth-Douglass Hospital filed with the court

a petition for judicial review of final agency action of the Deparbnent of Human

Services through its Commissioner granting a Certificate of Need to the Maine Medical

Center and Southern Maine Medical Center to construct a cancer radiation therapy

center, to deny petitioners' competing application for a Certificate of Need and denying

a request for reconsideration of the Commissioner's decision. On March 17, 2004, this

court issued its decision affirming the February 4, 2003 decision of the Commissioner of

the Deparbnent of Human Services. On March 21, 2005, the Law Court affirmed the

Superior Court's judgment in most respects but concluded that the court erred when it

denied the petitioner's motion to correct or modify the record, vacated the judgment

and remanded the matter to the Superior Court to "take action regarding electronic

correspondence that has recent!y been turned over by the Deparbnent." In its

discussion, the Law Court gave the following guidance:

If the court expands the record to include any of the disputed e-mail correspondence, the court must then determine whether the entire record as augmented establishes that the Deparbnent was biased or prejudiced in favor of MMC/SMMC 1 or against the Collaborative. 2

1 Maine Medical Center/Southern Maine Medical Center. 2

2005 ME 41, p. 9 of the advance sheets.

Accordingly, on remand, the court should first determine whether the correspondence should have been made a part of the record pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C(f), or was additional evidence outside the record that may demonstrate bias or prejudice. M.R. Civ. P. 80C(e). The court should then address the Collaborative's claim of bias in light of the entire record.

2005 ME 41, p. 11.

Finally, the Law Court made clear that it made no decision on the question

presented by the petitioners "to address the question of whether the Department acted

arbitrarily and capriciously."

On July 19, 2006, this court granted four motions by petitioners to modify the

record, a motion by respondents to modify the record, and a motion by Southern Maine

Medical Center to modify the record. An additional respondents' motion to modify the

record was granted on August 17, 2006. Pursuant to those motions, certain records

were determined to be appropriate to be part of the record pursuant to M.R. Civ. P.

80C(f) and others were determined to be additional evidence outside the record that

may demonstrate bias or prejudice pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C(e). Upon the

admission of said records, the court addresses the claim of bias in light of the entire

record.

The court has carefully examined over 1,000 documents presented and admitted

into the record either as appropriately part of the official record or as additional

evidence. There can be no question that the activities and the relationship between a

health care financial analyst with the Certificate of Need Unit in the Department of

Human Services and the Director of Planning for MaineHealth, an organization of

2 The Collaborative applying for the Certificate of Need consisted of York Hospital, Wentworth-Douglass Hospital and Goodall Hospital. Goodall Hospital was not a party to the appeal and, in fact, has joined MMC/SMMC in its cancer center. 3

Maine Medical Center, was completely improper, displayed unequivocal bias and

displayed evidence of communications completely at odds with the principles of a

competitive review. In addition, the health care financial analyst displayed a profound

bias and prejudice against the Wentworth-Douglass Hospital, appearing to actively

assist a New Hampshire hospital actively competing with Wentworth-Douglass

Hospital for a Certificate of Need in the State of New Hampshire.

While representatives of both of the competing entities were entitled to an

exchange of information with staff in order to assist the Department in making its final

determination and which did, in fact, take place, the communications between the

analyst and the director took on an aura of advance notice, rendering advice in the

application process and disclosure of competing information in an unofficial way.3

The analyst performed prior review of materials to be submitted by the

successful applicant, copies of the unsuccessful applicant's material was provided to the

successful applicant in advance, unofficial instructions were given to the Director,

discussions of advertisements, editorials, letters and the like took place between the

analyst and the successful applicant, the analyst ridiculed portions of the

Collaborative's application and ridiculed persons associated with the Collaborative,

including counsel. The analyst discussed bias and prejudice in other matters, including

questioning whether a certain entity would ever receive approval from the Department.

Prior to the Collaborative making a request for reconsideration of the award,

contemplating such a request, the analyst sought advice from the Director of Planning

as to how to deny the request. The individuals discussed efforts by the Collaborative to

3 While some of the activities might be appropriate and helpful in a singular application for a Certificate of Need, the court believes it is reasonable to infer that a simple concept of governmental fair play requires all parties to be treated equally in a competitive review. 4

obtain support in their favor through the Commissioner's office and ridiculed the

efforts.

When the analyst was notified by an acquaintance in New Hampshire that

Wentworth-Douglass Hospital was unsuccessful in its request for a Certificate of Need

losing to an Exeter hospital, the analyst ridiculed the efforts by Wentworth-Douglass

Hospital suggesting that hospital "take care of business at home."

These activities were going on at the same time that the analyst was advising

other members of the staff that the entire process must be handled with objectivity and

should do everything to avoid it becoming a political issue.

From these and many other conclusions to be drawn from the record, the court

concludes that, at least with one individual within the analyst's staff there is clearly bias

and prejudice in favor of Maine Medical Center and Southern Maine Medical Center,

there was clearly bias against Wentworth-Douglass Hospital and there was such

contempt for the public discussion initiated by a member of the Collaborative that it

created an atmosphere of highly negative and insulting communications regarding the

unsuccessful applicant. 4 It is also clear that the analyst played no small part in the staff

report that found its way to the Commissioner and upon which the Commissioner

made his decision. Given these circumstances, the court must follow its mandate and

determine whether there is evidence that the Department acted arbitrarily and

capriciously and with bias and prejudice. (Emphasis supplied).

The court has carefully examined the staff report, both the preliminary and final

recommendation.

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