Ex parte RCHP-Florence, LLC, d/b/a Eliza Coffee Memorial Hospital and Shoals Hospital. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: RCHP-Florence, LLC, d/b/a Eliza Coffee Memorial Hospital and Shoals Hospital v. Colbert County Northwest Alabama Health Care Authority, d/b/a Helen Keller Hospital, et al.)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/13/2013 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2013 2110963 Ex p a r t e RCHP-Florence, LLC, d/b/a E l i z a Coffee Memorial H o s p i t a l and Shoals H o s p i t a l PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: RCHP-Florence, LLC, d/b/a E l i z a Coffee Memorial H o s p i t a l and Shoals H o s p i t a l v. C o l b e r t County Northwest Alabama H e a l t h Care A u t h o r i t y , d/b/a Helen K e l l e r H o s p i t a l , e t a l . ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, CV-11-272) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g 2110963 PITTMAN, J u d g e . T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f A p r i l 12, 2013, the i s withdrawn, following i s substituted therefor. RCHP-Florence, Coffee Memorial Florence"), LLC, an Hospital petitions entity and this doing business Shoals court for set aside b e l o w , we On discovery Health to § Florence's a writ and the doing business to of mandamus reasons court") discussed petition. RCHP-Florence Ala. Code Development filed 1975, Agency petition the State ("SHPDA"). RCHP- 1 with a o f Need R e v i e w CONRB") t o i s s u e a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g t h a t C o l b e r t Northwest Alabama Health Care Authority, an entity as H e l e n K e l l e r H o s p i t a l ("Helen K e l l e r " ) , cease outpatient-surgery In provides affected ... w i t h or s t a t e 2010, For Eliza ("RCHP- circuit p e t i t i o n a s k e d SHPDA's C e r t i f i c a t e B o a r d ("the 1 3, 41-22-11(a), Planning required order. deny R C H P - F l o r e n c e ' s November pursuant County a as Hospital d i r e c t i n g t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t ( " t h e to and performing center surgical located on procedures its campus at was an ("the p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975, t h a t , " [ o ] n t h e p e t i t i o n o f any p e r s o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y by a r u l e , an a g e n c y may i s s u e a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g r e s p e c t t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o any p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y o f f a c t s o f any r u l e o r s t a t u t e e n f o r c e a b l e by i t . " 2 2110963 outpatient-surgery center") u n t i l i t obtained a c e r t i f i c a t e of need ("CON") from t h e CONRB. On November 12, 2010, H e l e n K e l l e r i n t e r v e n e d i n o r d e r t o oppose R C H P - F l o r e n c e ' s p e t i t i o n . The CONRB h e l d a h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g R C H P - F l o r e n c e ' s p e t i t i o n on November 17, 2010. A t presenting before the evidence the parties' CONRB entered that hearing, i n support of i t s p e t i t i o n ; presentation and t h e p a r t i e s , RCHP-Florence began however, o f e v i d e n c e was c o m p l e t e d , a t the request i n t o an a g r e e m e n t on t h e r e c o r d o f t h e CONRB, ("the a g r e e m e n t " ) t o e x t e n d t h e 45-day p e r i o d s p e c i f i e d b y § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975 ("the 45-day p e r i o d " ) , ruling regarding r e g u l a r l y scheduled 2 f o r t h e CONRB t o i s s u e an e x p r e s s RCHP-Florence's petition until the next m e e t i n g o f t h e CONRB on J a n u a r y 19, 2 0 1 1 . However, on J a n u a r y 18, 2 0 1 1 , t h e g o v e r n o r p l a c e d a m o r a t o r i u m on m e e t i n g s o f t h e CONRB, a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y , 2011, m e e t i n g o f t h e CONRB was t h e J a n u a r y 19, canceled. W i t h r e s p e c t t o p e t i t i o n s f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o § 41-2211(a), § 41-22-11(b) p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part, that " [ f ] a i l u r e o f t h e a g e n c y t o i s s u e a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g on t h e m e r i t s w i t h i n 45 d a y s o f t h e r e q u e s t f o r s u c h r u l i n g s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l o f t h e r e q u e s t a s w e l l as a d e n i a l on t h e merits of the request a n d s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o j u d i c i a l review." 2 3 2110963 On February 4, 2011, RCHP-Florence filed a notice a p p e a l w i t h SHPDA, a n d , on M a r c h 4, 2 0 1 1 , R C H P - F l o r e n c e a complaint i n the c i r c u i t court stating three of filed claims. 3 The f i r s t c l a i m sought j u d i c i a l review o f t h e d e n i a l by o p e r a t i o n of law of the p e t i t i o n pursuant to § RCHP-Florence 41-22-11(a). The had f i l e d second with claim SHPDA sought a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g b y t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22¬ 10, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , 220 to e t seq., cease surgery 4 and t h e D e c l a r a t o r y A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , performing center until 5 surgical Judgment A c t , t h a t H e l e n K e l l e r was procedures i t obtained § 6-6¬ required at the outpatient- a CON f r o m t h e CONRB. The S e c t i o n 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s t h a t a p r o c e e d i n g f o r r e v i e w o f a f i n a l d e c i s i o n o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y i n a c o n t e s t e d c a s e may be i n s t i t u t e d b y f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h t h e p e r t i n e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency and by filing a petition seeking judicial review of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency's d e c i s i o n i n t h e a p p r o p r i a t e circuit court. 3 I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 41-22-10 p r o v i d e s that "[t]he v a l i d i t y o f a r u l e may be d e t e r m i n e d i n an a c t i o n f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment o r i t s enforcement s t a y e d by i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f Montgomery C o u n t y , unless o t h e r w i s e s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e . " 4 p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 6-6-222, A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s that "[c]ourts of record, within their respective j u r i s d i c t i o n s , s h a l l have power t o d e c l a r e r i g h t s , s t a t u s , a n d other l e g a l r e l a t i o n s whether o r not f u r t h e r r e l i e f i s or c o u l d be c l a i m e d . " 5 In 4 2110963 third claim sought an i n j u n c t i o n f r o m the c i r c u i t p u r s u a n t t o § 2 2 - 2 1 - 2 7 6 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , 6 court, e n j o i n i n g Helen K e l l e r from p e r f o r m i n g s u r g i c a l procedures a t the outpatient- surgery i t obtained center until a CON from t h e CONRB. T h e r e a f t e r , Helen K e l l e r propounded c e r t a i n d i s c o v e r y requests t h a t RCHP-Florence c o n s i d e r e d o b j e c t i o n a b l e , and RCHP-Florence filed a motion for a protective order. The circuit court o r a l l y denied t h a t motion. Subsequently, RCHP-Florence t i m e l y f i l e d a p e t i t i o n a s k i n g t h i s c o u r t t o i s s u e a w r i t o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the c i r c u i t court t o s e t aside i t s order denying the motion f o r a p r o t e c t i v e order. Because t h e c i r c u i t not rendered for and e n t e r e d a p r o t e c t i v e order P., t h i s order, Thereafter, Keller a w r i t t e n o r d e r r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n as r e q u i r e d b y R u l e court i n s t r u c t e d the c i r c u i t and t h e c i r c u i t filed we c o u r t had 58, A l a . R. C i v . court t o enter s u c h an court d i d so. called an a n s w e r , f o r an answer and b o t h and b r i e f s . RCHP-Florence Helen and Helen In pertinent part, § 22-21-276(a) provides that " [ i ] n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f a g a i n s t v i o l a t i o n s o f t h i s a r t i c l e o r any r e a s o n a b l e r u l e s a n d r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e SHPDA may be o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Montgomery C o u n t y , A l a b a m a , a t t h e i n s t a n c e o f SHPDA, any h o l d e r o f a c e r t i f i c a t e o f n e e d t h a t i s a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f p r i v i l e g e s thereunder by s u c h v i o l a t i o n o r a n y member o f t h e p u b l i c d i r e c t l y a n d a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by such v i o l a t i o n . " 6 5 2110963 Keller f i l e d b r i e f s . A l t h o u g h R C H P - F l o r e n c e h a d named SHPDA as a defendant i n the complaint RCHP-Florence had f i l e d circuit In court, 7 SHPDA d i d n o t f i l e reviewing mandamus p e t i t i o n Helen K e l l e r , the filed did with and t h e answer t o t h a t over RCHP-Florence's had not addressed. and Helen K e l l e r n o t . Because RCHP-Florence's petition filed by the j u r i s d i c t i o n of first Accordingly, p a r t i e s t o submit l e t t e r b r i e f s Florence an answer o r b r i e f . we n o t e d an i s s u e r e g a r d i n g c i r c u i t court parties the papers i n the addressing we claim called that the for the t h a t i s s u e . RCHP- f i l e d l e t t e r b r i e f s ; h o w e v e r , SHPDA "'jurisdictional m a g n i t u d e t h a t we t a k e n o t i c e matters are of such o f them a t a n y t i m e a n d do so e v e n ex mero m o t u , W a l l a c e v . Tee J a y s M f g . Co., 689 So. 2d 210, 2d 211 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997) ( q u o t i n g Nunn v . B a k e r , 518 So. 7 1 1 , 712 (Ala. 1987)), we must first determine whether RCHP-Florence's claims invoked the j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the c i r c u i t court. In pertinent part, § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( h ) , A l a . Code 1975, provides that "[t]he p e t i t i o n f o r review [ o f the f i n a l d e c i s i o n o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u i t c o u r t f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] s h a l l name t h e a g e n c y as r e s p o n d e n t " In p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 41-22-10 p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t ] h e a g e n c y s h a l l be made a p a r t y t o [ a n ] a c t i o n [ b r o u g h t pursuant t o § 41-22-10]." 7 6 2110963 Because RCHP-Florence's first claim sought judicial r e v i e w o f a d e c i s i o n o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y a n d b e c a u s e the t i m e l y f i l i n g o f a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l i s n e c e s s a r y t o invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n an of the c i r c u i t court t o review a d e c i s i o n of administrative a g e n c y p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-20, A l a . Code 1975, see Krawczyk v. S t a t e 1035, 1037 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) notice Dep't o f Pub. S a f e t y , ("[A] t i m e l y 7 So. 3 d filing [ o fa o f a p p e a l ] u n d e r § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( d ) [ , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , ] i s jurisdictional."), timely filed we must i t s notice determine whether of appeal whether RCHP-Florence's f i r s t of t h e c i r c u i t Section i n order RCHP-Florence t o determine claim invoked the j u r i s d i c t i o n court. 41-22-20(d), A l a . Code notice o f a p p e a l from a f i n a l agency such 1975, p r o v i d e s that a d e c i s i o n o f an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e as t h e CONRB o f SHPDA must be f i l e d with the p e r t i n e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y w i t h i n 30 d a y s o f t h e d a t e t h e petitioner receives notice of, or other decision r e n d e r e d by t h a t decision of the administrative petition or application administrative agency's administrative by agency operation failure 7 to rule service agency. of, the When t h e i s the denial of a o f l a w due t o t h e on t h a t p e t i t i o n o r 2110963 a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d p e r i o d , a n o t i c e of a p p e a l from s u c h a d e n i a l must be or a p p l i c a t i o n was Health Servs., So. 3d 1074, seeking denied by operation I n c . v. S t a t e H e a l t h 1081-82 ( A l a . 2010) judicial expressly f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e review r u l e d upon by of the of Planning law. petition See & Dev. Agency, 4 4 ( h o l d i n g t h a t the p e r i o d denial of CON CONRB b e g i n s t o r u n 41-22-11(b) p r o v i d e s t h a t , when a p e t i t i o n ruling an with 41-22-11(a), " [ f ] a i l u r e ruling on the ruling shall merits administrative of the at the merits of the r e q u e s t and provides t h a t , i f t h e l a s t day 1-3-8, A l a . Code for such s h a l l be 4 5 t h day to after the December 18, 1975, o f a p e r i o d w i t h i n w h i c h an "or a day on which the w h i c h t h e a c t must be done s h a l l c l o s e as p e r m i t t e d 8 a subject on a Sunday, a l e g a l h o l i d a y as d e f i n e d 1975, § declaratory a S a t u r d a y . However, § 1-1-4, A l a . Code must be done f a l l s § Section declaratory request f i l i n g o f R C H P - F l o r e n c e ' s p e t i t i o n w i t h SHPDA was w h i c h was time r e q u e s t as w e l l as j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . " In the p r e s e n t case, the 2010, not agency p u r s u a n t to days of the c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l of the d e n i a l of the for a agency to i s s u e a w i t h i n 45 for application t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n has b e e n d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w ) . is filed Noland office by any act in in law 2110963 of this state, the l a s t d a y a l s o must be e x c l u d e d , and t h e n e x t s u c c e e d i n g s e c u l a r o r w o r k i n g d a y s h a l l be c o u n t e d as t h e last day w i t h i n which t h e a c t may be done." Consequently, b e c a u s e SHPDA, l i k e many a g e n c i e s o f t h i s S t a t e , i s c l o s e d f o r b u s i n e s s on S a t u r d a y , 8 t h e l a s t day a l l o w e d by § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) f o r t h e CONRB t o i s s u e an e x p r e s s r u l i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o RCHPFlorence's petition was Monday, December 20, 2010. However, R C H P - F l o r e n c e a r g u e s t h a t t h e 45-day p e r i o d d i d not expire says, 19, until January 19, 2 0 1 1 , b e c a u s e , RCHP-Florence t h e a g r e e m e n t e x t e n d e d t h e 45-day p e r i o d u n t i l 2 0 1 1 . Thus, from January according t o RCHP-Florence, 19, 2 0 1 1 , t o f i l e a notice January i t h a d 30 d a y s of appeal, and, i t a s s e r t s , i t t i m e l y f i l e d t h a t n o t i c e o f a p p e a l on F e b r u a r y 4, 2011. We disagree. Section of 41-22-11(b) e x p r e s s l y t h e agency to issue states that the " [ f ] a i l u r e a declaratory ruling on t h e m e r i t s w i t h i n 45 d a y s o f t h e r e q u e s t f o r s u c h r u l i n g s h a l l c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l o f t h e r e q u e s t as w e l l as a d e n i a l o f t h e m e r i t s o f the r e q u e s t a n d s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w , " and i t C f . A l a . Admin. Code (SHPDA), r . 410-1-3-.05 ( e x c l u d i n g f i n a l S a t u r d a y s from c a l c u l a t i o n s o f p e r i o d s e s t a b l i s h e d by SHPDA r u l e s ) . 8 9 2110963 contains agency no l a n g u a g e such initiated 11(a) authorizing as t h e CONRB by t h e f i l i n g t o extend either or the parties periods rulings t h e 45-day period f o r administrative i n response administrative to a of a p e t i t i o n pursuant to § 41-22- When t h e e x t e n s i o n s by agreement agencies to petitions proceeding by agreement. l e g i s l a t u r e has i n t e n d e d t o a u t h o r i z e of an to issue express or a p p l i c a t i o n s , i t has i n c l u d e d language e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z i n g such e x t e n s i o n s i n t h e pertinent (expressly the s t a t u t e . S e e , e . g . , § 2 2 - 2 1 - 2 7 5 ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975 authorizing CONRB t o r u l e on a CON a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a p e r i o d e x c e e d 30 d a y s w i t h and SHPDA t o e x t e n d t h e 90-day p e r i o d t o extend that consent omitting not to or without the consent o f the a p p l i c a n t 90-day p e r i o d w i t h o u t l i m i t a t i o n w i t h t h e of the applicant). language for from Consequently, § 41-22-11(b) that the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s would expressly a u t h o r i z e e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d b y a g r e e m e n t c l e a r l y and unambiguously evidences the i n t e n t o f the l e g i s l a t u r e not to authorize such extensions. "The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t o a s c e r t a i n and g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n e n a c t i n g t h e s t a t u t e . Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n their natural, plain, o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n language i s u s e d a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t 10 2110963 t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f t h e language o f t h e s t a t u t e i s unambiguous, t h e n t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n a n d t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n e f f e c t . T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Comm'n v . D e p u t y S h e r i f f s ' A s s ' n o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , 589 So. 2d 687 ( A l a . 1991)." IMED C o r p . v. Systems Eng'g A s s o c s . C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344, 346 (Ala. 1992). In t h e case o f § 41-22-11(b), t h e p l a i n of the statute means what i t s a y s i f an language administrative a g e n c y does n o t i s s u e an e x p r e s s r u l i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o a § 4 1 22-11(a) petition within 45 d a y s , t h e p e t i t i o n i s d e n i e d on the m e r i t s by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w , and t h a t d e n i a l i s s u b j e c t t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . A c c o r d i n g l y , i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e agreement therefore, t h e 45-day p e r i o d e x p i r e d on December 20, 2010. In t h e l e t t e r our request that circuit claim, d i d n o t e x t e n d t h e 45-day p e r i o d a n d t h a t , court brief RCHP-Florence the p a r t i e s asserted i n response t o address the issue had j u r i s d i c t i o n RCHP-Florence filed over that whether t h e RCHP-Florence's § 41-22-11(b) first authorizes e x t e n s i o n s o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d by agreement b e c a u s e , i t s a i d , e x t e n s i o n s b y agreement agreements o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d a r e a n a l o g o u s t o of the p a r t i e s to extend the period for a trial c o u r t t o r u l e on a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 . 1 , 11 2110963 Ala. R. C i v . P. However, we do n o t f i n d an e x t e n s i o n by a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d t o be a n a l o g o u s t o an e x t e n s i o n by agreement of the period for a trial postjudgment motion pursuant t o Rule expressly authorizes for a trial an e x t e n s i o n t o r u l e on a 59.1 b e c a u s e R u l e 59.1 by agreement o f t h e p e r i o d c o u r t t o r u l e on a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n , w h e r e a s § 41-22-11(b) does not expressly a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 45-day In court authorize an e x t e n s i o n by period. i t s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing and s u p p o r t i n g brief, R C H P - F l o r e n c e h a s a r g u e d (1) t h a t i t was l u l l e d i n t o i n a c t i o n by t h e CONRB's r e q u e s t t h a t i tenter i n t o t h e agreement and that, therefore, the doctrine of equitable t o l l i n g s h o u l d be a p p l i e d s o as t o e x t e n d t h e 30-day p e r i o d f o r R C H P - F l o r e n c e t o file i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h SHPDA; (2) t h a t , i f t h i s court h o l d s t h a t t h e 45-day p e r i o d c a n n o t be e x t e n d e d b y a g r e e m e n t , it should only; cannot make t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h a t (3) t h a t , i fthis court holds be e x t e n d e d by a g r e e m e n t , holding that i twill prospective t h e 45-day period be t h w a r t i n g t h e i n t e n t o f § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) as e v i d e n c e d by t h e Commentary t o t h a t Code s e c t i o n ; (4) t h a t , i f t h i s court holds that p e r i o d c a n n o t be e x t e n d e d by a g r e e m e n t , i t w i l l 12 t h e 45-day n o t be g i v i n g 2110963 the CONRB's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of deference i t i s due; 9 § 41-22-11(b) the great a n d (5) t h a t , b e c a u s e § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) i s s i l e n t r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r t h e 45-day p e r i o d c a n be e x t e n d e d b y agreement, t h i s c o u r t s h o u l d l o o k beyond t h e p l a i n language o f § 41-22-11(b) regarding t o determine the i n t e n t whether agreement. t h e 45-day RCHP-Florence could period have of the l e g i s l a t u r e c a n be presented extended by a l l of those a r g u m e n t s i n i t s l e t t e r b r i e f , b u t i t d i d n o t do s o . I n s t e a d , it has p r e s e n t e d application those arguments f o r rehearing. f o r the f i r s t I t i s well settled time on that an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r a r g u m e n t s made f o r t h e f i r s t time on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g . Operating James Co. v. S t e p h e n s , 996 So. 2d 833, 843 ( A l a . 2008) ("'"The w e l l - s e t t l e d precludes See, e . g . , F o r t r u l e o f [the Alabama appellate courts] c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a r g u m e n t s made f o r t h e f i r s t on r e h e a r i n g . " ' " time ( q u o t i n g R i s c o r p , I n c . v . Norman, 915 So. 2d 1142, 1155 ( A l a . 2005) ( o p i n i o n on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ) , quoting i n t u r n Water Works & Sewer Bd. o f Selma v. R a n d o l p h , 833 So. 2d 604, 608 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) ) ) . T h i s r u l e a p p l i e s even i f Although the record indicates that t h e CONRB h a s i n f o r m a l l y h o n o r e d e x t e n s i o n s by a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 45-day period, RCHP-Florence has n o t c i t e d a rule formally p r o m u l g a t e d by SHPDA t h a t a u t h o r i z e s s u c h e x t e n s i o n s . 9 13 2110963 the arguments raised rehearing pertain Fort for t o an the first time important issue. James O p e r a t i n g Co., the on application Id. For supreme c o u r t for example, in stated: " S t e p h e n s has r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t time on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g h i s argument t h a t t h i s Court misapprehended the setoff provision in § 2 5 - 5 - 5 7 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, by g r a n t i n g Fort James a s e t o f f f o r wages S t e p h e n s e a r n e d t h r o u g h a c t u a l l a b o r , n o t by way o f a 'sympathy' s a l a r y p a i d by Fort James b e c a u s e o f S t e p h e n s ' s i n j u r y and i n a b i l i t y t o work. '"The w e l l - s e t t l e d r u l e of t h i s C o u r t p r e c l u d e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a r g u m e n t s made f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on r e h e a r i n g . " ' Riscorp, Inc. v. Norman, 915 So. 2d 1142, 1155 ( A l a . 2005) (opinion on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g ) ( q u o t i n g W a t e r Works & Sewer Bd. o f Selma v. R a n d o l p h , 833 So. 2d 604, 608 (Ala. 2002)). Accordingly, because Stephens a t t e m p t s t o r a i s e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r argument f o r t h e f i r s t time i n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r rehearing, we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r i t . B e c a u s e t h i s i s an i m p o r t a n t i s s u e i n t h e a r e a o f w o r k e r s ' c o m p e n s a t i o n law t h a t does n o t a p p e a r t o have b e e n d e f i n i t i v e l y a d d r e s s e d by t h i s C o u r t , we w i l l a w a i t a p r o c e e d i n g i n w h i c h t h i s issue i s both squarely before t h i s Court f o r a d j u d i c a t i o n and a d e q u a t e l y b r i e f e d . " 996 So. 2d the arguments agreement at of r e h e a r i n g and 843-44 (emphasis added). A c c o r d i n g l y , RCHP-Florence the 45-day makes period Fort in its extensions application s u p p o r t i n g b r i e f have been r a i s e d f o r t h e t i m e on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , See regarding because James O p e r a t i n g Co., we supra. 14 will not by for first c o n s i d e r them. 2110963 A s s e r t i n g t h a t i t i s an a m i c u s c u r i a e , SHPDA h a s f i l e d a b r i e f i n support of RCHP-Florence's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r i n w h i c h SHPDA a r g u e s (1) t h a t i t s i n t e r p r e t i n g § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) as a u t h o r i z i n g e x t e n s i o n s r e a s o n a b l e and s h o u l d rehearing b y a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d i s be g i v e n d e f e r e n c e by t h i s court, 1 0 (2) Although the record indicates that t h e CONRB h a s i n f o r m a l l y honored extensions by a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d , SHPDA h a s n o t c i t e d a r u l e i t h a s f o r m a l l y p r o m u l g a t e d t h a t a u t h o r i z e s e x t e n s i o n s by a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d . SHPDA's r u l e r e g a r d i n g § 41-22-11 does n o t c o n t a i n s u c h an a u t h o r i z a t i o n . That r u l e s t a t e s : 1 0 "(1) The CON R e v i e w B o a r d may i s s u e declaratory r u l i n g s t o a n y p e r s o n s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d by a r u l e , with respect to the v a l i d i t y of the r u l e , or w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y t o any p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y , o r s t a t e o f f a c t s o f any r u l e o r s t a t u t e e n f o r c e a b l e by t h e s t a t e a g e n c y , o r w i t h r e s p e c t t o the meaning and scope o f any o r d e r o f t h e s t a t e a g e n c y . Such r u l i n g s s h a l l be i s s u e d p r o v i d e d : "(a) t h e p e t i t i o n e r makes h i s r e q u e s t i n w r i t i n g no l a t e r t h a n f o u r t e e n (14) d a y s p r i o r t o t h e r e g u l a r l y s c h e d u l e d m e e t i n g o f t h e CON Review Board; and "(b) the p e t i t i o n e r shows that he i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y a f f e c t e d by t h e r u l e i n q u e s t i o n ; and "(c) sufficient facts are supplied i n the request to permit the C e r t i f i c a t e o f Need R e v i e w B o a r d t o make a v a l i d d e t e r m i n a t i o n ; a n d "(d) t h e r e q u e s t a r i s e s f r o m an a c t u a l or c o n t r o v e r s y . 15 question 2110963 t h a t i t s i n t e r p r e t i n g § 41-22-11(b) as a u t h o r i z i n g e x t e n s i o n s by a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d f u r t h e r s t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t , § 41-22-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, a n d (3) t h a t i n t e r p r e t i n g § 41-22-11(b) as n o t a u t h o r i z i n g e x t e n s i o n s b y a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d will have a n e g a t i v e i m p a c t on o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s . H e l e n Keller argues t h a t SHPDA c a n n o t be an a m i c u s c u r i a e i n this mandamus p r o c e e d i n g b e c a u s e i t i s a p a r t y t o R C H P - F l o r e n c e ' s action i n the c i r c u i t court. 1 1 However, we n e e d n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r SHPDA i s a p a r t y o r an a m i c u s c u r i a e i n t h i s mandamus p r o c e e d i n g b e c a u s e we c a n n o t c o n s i d e r i t s a r g u m e n t s of whether i t i s a party o r an a m i c u s curiae. regardless If i tis a p a r t y , we a r e p r e c l u d e d f r o m c o n s i d e r i n g i t s a r g u m e n t s b e c a u s e it has r a i s e d rehearing. hand, them f o r the f i r s t on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r See F o r t James O p e r a t i n g Co., s u p r a . On t h e o t h e r i f i t i s an a m i c u s arguments time because they curiae, were we cannot not timely consider i t s raised by RCHP- "(2) Such r u l i n g s w i l l be made i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t , Code o f Ala. Ala. 1975, § 41-22-11." Admin. Code (SHPDA), r . 410-1-9-.01. See s u p r a note 7 and accompanying t e x t . 11 16 2110963 Florence. See L l o y d N o l a n d Hosp. v. Durham, 906 So. 2d 157, 173 n. 4 ( A l a . 2005) ( d e c l i n i n g arguments insofar arguments). as they Accordingly, t o c o n s i d e r an a m i c u s c u r i a e ' s differed we will from not the appellant's consider SHPDA's arguments. B e c a u s e we c o n c l u d e t h a t § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) does n o t a u t h o r i z e extensions b y a g r e e m e n t o f t h e 45-day p e r i o d a n d b e c a u s e t h e CONRB d i d n o t i s s u e an e x p r e s s Florence's on o r b e f o r e petition ruling i n response December t o RCHP- 20, 2010, RCHP- F l o r e n c e ' s p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w on December 20, 2010, s e e § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) , a n d t h e 30-day p e r i o d f o r RCHP- F l o r e n c e t o f i l e a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h SHPDA began t o r u n on December Health 2 1 , 2010. See N o l a n d H e a l t h Planning & Dev. A g e n c y , Servs., supra. That I n c . v. 30-day State period e x p i r e d on J a n u a r y 19, 2 0 1 1 , a n d R C H P - F l o r e n c e d i d n o t f i l e its notice of appeal Consequently, filed, the with SHPDA until February RCHP-Florence's n o t i c e of appeal was 4, 2 0 1 1 . untimely and, t h u s , RCHP-Florence's f i r s t c l a i m d i d n o t invoke j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . See K r a w c z y k v. S t a t e Dep't o f Pub. S a f e t y , supra. 17 2110963 RCHP-Florence a l s o argues t h a t , even i f i t s f i r s t f a i l e d to invoke the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s c l a i m , which s t a t e d a c l a i m circuit court pursuant Judgment A c t , and to jurisdiction, for a declaratory § 41-22-10 and i t s second ruling the claim by Declaratory i t s t h i r d c l a i m , w h i c h s t a t e d a c l a i m f o r an i n j u n c t i o n t o be i s s u e d by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 21-276(a), However, we Section invoked the jurisdiction of the circuit the failure 41-22-11(b) provides t o a § 41-22-11(a) p e t i t i o n shall be 22- court. disagree. that a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y t o i s s u e an e x p r e s s r u l i n g constitute the ... a d e n i a l of subject also provides, to w i t h i n the the judicial in pertinent merits review." the the i n response 45-day p e r i o d of of "shall [petition] (Emphasis added.) and It part: "A d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g i s b i n d i n g on t h e a g e n c y and the person r e q u e s t i n g i t u n l e s s i t i s a l t e r e d or s e t a s i d e by a court i n a proper proceeding. Such r u l i n g s are s u b j e c t to review i n the C i r c u i t Court o f Montgomery C o u n t y ... i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d i n S e c t i o n 41-22-20 f o r t h e r e v i e w o f d e c i s i o n s i n contested cases." (Emphasis added.) Moreover, § 41-22-20(j), pertinent part, that Ala. Code 1975, " [ t ] h e r e v i e w s h a l l be 18 provides, in c o n d u c t e d by the 2110963 court without the review a j u r y a n d , e x c e p t as h e r e i n p r o v i d e d , of contested c a s e s be c o n f i n e d shall i n t o t h e r e c o r d and t h e a d d i t i o n s t h e r e t o as may be made u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n this s e c t i o n . " Furthermore, § 41-22-20(k), (I) A l a . Code 1975, provides: " [ T ] h e a g e n c y o r d e r s h a l l be t a k e n as p r i m a f a c i e just and r e a s o n a b l e and t h e c o u r t s h a l l not s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e a g e n c y as t o t h e w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e on q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t , e x c e p t where o t h e r w i s e a u t h o r i z e d by s t a t u t e . The c o u r t may a f f i r m t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n o r remand t h e case t o t h e agency f o r t a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l t e s t i m o n y and e v i d e n c e o r f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . The c o u r t may r e v e r s e o r m o d i f y t h e d e c i s i o n o r g r a n t o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f from t h e agency a c t i o n , e q u i t a b l e or l e g a l , i n c l u d i n g d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f , i f t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n i s due t o be s e t a s i d e or m o d i f i e d under standards s e t f o r t h i n appeal o r r e v i e w s t a t u t e s a p p l i c a b l e t o t h a t agency o r i f substantial r i g h t s o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r have b e e n p r e j u d i c e d b e c a u s e t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n i s any one o r more o f t h e f o l l o w i n g : "(1) In v i o l a t i o n statutory provisions; of constitutional or "(2) I n e x c e s s o f t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y of t h e agency; "(3) In v i o l a t i o n o f any p e r t i n e n t agency "(4) Made upon u n l a w f u l "(5) A f f e c t e d by o t h e r e r r o r o f l a w ; rule; 19 of procedure; 2110963 Unreasonable, arbitrary, or c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y an abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n or a c l e a r l y unwarranted exercise of discretion." RCHP-Florence's arguing independently invoked tantamount t o arguing t h a t i t s second and t h i r d the c i r c u i t court's claims jurisdiction i s t h a t RCHP-Florence i s e n t i t l e d t o seek a new a d j u d i c a t i o n b y t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f t h e same i s s u e was decided judicial on t h e m e r i t s b y t h e CONRB i n s t e a d of that seeking r e v i e w o f t h e CONRB's d e c i s i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h §§ 41-22-11(b) a n d 41-22-20. The language in § 41-22-11(b) s t a t i n g t h a t a f a i l u r e o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency t o i s s u e an express ruling i n response t o a § 41-22-11(a) petition w i t h i n t h e 45-day p e r i o d c o n s t i t u t e s a d e n i a l o f t h e p e t i t i o n on t h e m e r i t s , judicial t h a t s u c h a d e n i a l on t h e m e r i t s review, and t h a t such a denial i s subject t o on t h e m e r i t s i s b i n d i n g on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y a n d t h e a p p l i c a n t it i s altered judicial by t h e c i r c u i t court i n a proceeding unless seeking r e v i e w i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h § 41-22-20 i n d i c a t e s t h a t , once R C H P - F l o r e n c e s o u g h t a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g f r o m t h e CONRB p u r s u a n t t o § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) a n d i t s p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d on t h e 20 2110963 merits in b y t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e CONRB t o i s s u e an e x p r e s s response t o the p e t i t i o n Florence's only recourse w i t h i n t h e 45-day p e r i o d , was t o s e e k j u d i c i a l CONRB's d e c i s i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h RCHP-Florence review would issued an e x p r e s s petition have argues been ruling RCHP- review ofthe § 41-22-20. that, although seeking i t s only recourse i f t h e CONRB h a d ruling i n response w i t h i n t h e 45-day p e r i o d , new a d j u d i c a t i o n b y t h e c i r c u i t to i t s § judicial 41-22-11(a) i t i s e n t i t l e d t o seek a court o f t h e i s s u e i t s § 41- 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n p r e s e n t e d t o t h e CONRB b e c a u s e , i t s a y s , i t s § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d b y o p e r a t i o n t h a n b y an e x p r e s s r u l i n g . I t i swell settled o f law rather t h a t , when t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y i s s u e s an e x p r e s s r u l i n g d e n y i n g a § 4 1 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n w i t h i n t h e 45-day p e r i o d , only recourse e.g., Civ. State thep e t i t i o n e r ' s i s j u d i c i a l r e v i e w p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-20. See, Pers. Bd. v. W a l l a c e , 659 So. 2d 683, 686 App. 1995) ("[The p e t i t i o n e r ' s ] [the administrative only recourse, agency] (Ala. after requesting that issue declaratory r u l i n g p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-11, was an a p p e a l t o the C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Montgomery C o u n t y f o r a j u d i c i a l of the declaratory ruling issued 21 by a review [the administrative 2110963 agency]."). which an issue However, appellate whether a a d j u d i c a t i o n by the court express As 11(a) has the circuit support not squarely is cited decided entitled court of the agency i f the operation its § d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n a d j u d i c a t i o n by 41-22-11(a) cites to case in specific seek a new issue presented of law to 41-22-11(a) rather than Inc., 505 So. because i t s § of law, by circuit court petition raised before 2d cases, 298 Inc. (Ala. v. of the the Stuart 1986) Sizemore, v. 1149 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) . same CONRB, Historic (overruled 565 So. 1 9 9 0 ) ) , and A l a b a m a S t a t e P e r s o n n e l B o a r d v. 2d 41-22- i t is entitled the d i c t a i n two Alabama C e l l u l a r S e r v i c e , So. a the petitioner's § f o r i t s argument t h a t , p e t i t i o n was Warehouse, 575 have ruling. RCHP-Florence (Ala. has been d e n i e d by t o s e e k a new issue parties petitioner administrative petition the In by 2d 199 Brashears, Stuart, p e t i t i o n e r s s o u g h t a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g and t h e i s s u a n c e the of an i n j u n c t i o n by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10 w i t h o u t first seeking a declaratory ruling by the pertinent a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y p u r s u a n t t o § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) . The court dismissed the petitioners' action 22 on the circuit ground that 2110963 t h e y h a d f a i l e d t o e x h a u s t t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s , and t h e p e t i t i o n e r s a p p e a l e d . On a p p e a l , supreme court was the s o l e i s s u e before "whether a l i t i g a n t i s required the t o seek a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g by a s t a t e a g e n c y u n d e r § 41-22-11, Code o f 1975, before circuit 300. he may ask for a declaratory c o u r t u n d e r § 41-22-10, Holding that judgment i n the Code o f 1975." 505 So. 2d a t a petitioner d i d indeed have to seek a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y p u r s u a n t t o § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) as a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o s e e k i n g a declaratory ruling by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10, t h e supreme stated in dicta that " i f the agency express] r u l i n g , t h e p e t i t i o n e r may 41-22-10, action circuit to an court." 505 for a So. 2d So. 2d 199 required seek administrative prerequisite court stated 302. Service, ( A l a . 1990), which h e l d to a declaratory agency to seeking pursuant i f a petitioner § 23 as p r o v i d e d judgment [an in § i n the Stuart a petitioner by was the i s not pertinent 41-22-11(a) ruling In d i c t a , elects issue I n c . v. S i z e m o r e , 565 ruling to to However, that a declaratory p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10. that, resort, declaratory at o v e r r u l e d by A l a b a m a C e l l u l a r fails court by t h e as circuit the Sizemore t o seek a a court declaratory 2110963 r u l i n g from the p e r t i n e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-11(a), "[t]he days request of [the] the failure of the constitutes agency t o a c t w i t h i n a denial r e q u e s t and i s s u b j e c t t o j u d i c i a l a t 204 (emphasis of the merits r e v i e w . " 565 So. 45 of 2d added). In B r a s h e a r s , s u p r a , the p e t i t i o n e r s sought a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g from the p e r t i n e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency p u r s u a n t t o § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) , and, w i t h i n t h e 45-day p e r i o d , t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y i s s u e d an e x p r e s s r u l i n g d e n y i n g t h e i r p e t i t i o n on t h e ground that i t was not timely filed. The petitioners then t i m e l y f i l e d a n o t i c e of a p p e a l w i t h the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-20 and f i l e d a p e t i t i o n with the circuit c o u r t s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10 and t h e D e c l a r a t o r y Judgment A c t . The the petitioners the administrative declaratory agency circuit relief appealed and they argued court granted had sought. that the The circuit c o u r t had e r r e d i n f a i l i n g t o adhere t o the s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w s p e c i f i e d by § 41-22-20 f o r a p p e a l s f r o m a d v e r s e d e c i s i o n s administrative agencies. the administrative of The p e t i t i o n e r s a r g u e d t h a t , b e c a u s e agency had p e t i t i o n on t h e g r o u n d t h a t i t was 24 based i t s denial of their n o t t i m e l y f i l e d , t h e y were 2110963 entitled to seek a declaratory ruling p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10. R e v e r s i n g court, this sought a court held declaratory that, ruling the decision by accordance w i t h the 20. of dictum, In obiter [administrative period in response to the court § 41-22-10." 575 court d i d not So. the was stated done n o t h i n g the petitioners' § agency agency that, within had l i m i t e d to administrative court circuit administrative circuit court petitioners p e t i t i o n ] , t h e n c l e a r l y t h e r e w o u l d be n o t h i n g c o u r t t o r e v i e w , and circuit o f r e v i e w s p e c i f i e d by this a g e n c y ] had the the standard the the judgment of the because pursuant to § 41-22-11(a), the reviewing by in § 41-22¬ " [ i ] f the [the 45-day 41-22-11(a) f o r the circuit [ p e t i t i o n e r s ] c o u l d have r e s o r t e d 2d a t 1151. have b e f o r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y had i t a to Because, i n Brashears, this f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n which the f a i l e d t o i s s u e an e x p r e s s r u l i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o a § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n w i t h i n t h e 45-day p e r i o d , the q u o t e d s e n t e n c e does n o t holding is 266 not constitute part of t h i s court's i n B r a s h e a r s ; i t c o n s t i t u t e s mere o b i t e r d i c t u m binding Ala. 675, on 680, this 98 court. So. a p p l i c a t i o n for rehearing) See, 2d 435, e.g., 440 Wilkinson (1957) Rowe, (opinion ( " I f we were t o e x p r e s s an 25 v. that on opinion 2110963 based on facts not shown by the record in this o p i n i o n w o u l d be d i c t a and w o u l d n o t be b i n d i n g case, that i n subsequent cases."). Moreover, that obiter dictum is erroneous in stating t h a t , i f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y had done n o t h i n g w i t h i n 45-day p e r i o d , t h e r e w o u l d be n o t h i n g review. First, § failure of administrative the r u l i n g w i t h i n the 41-22-11(b) f o r the c i r c u i t c o u r t expressly agency 45-day p e r i o d to provides issue that an r e v i e w . S e c o n d , § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( I ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , court to remand the matter to the 12 to the express c o n s t i t u t e s a d e n i a l of 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n on t h e m e r i t s t h a t i s s u b j e c t t o circuit the a § judicial authorizes the administrative agency f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s i f the c i r c u i t c o u r t f i n d s t h a t 1 2 Section 41-22-20(i) provides, in part: " I f , before the date s e t f o r h e a r i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of agency a c t i o n i n a contested c a s e , i t i s shown t o t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t t h a t a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e i s m a t e r i a l and t h a t t h e r e were good r e a s o n s f o r f a i l u r e t o p r e s e n t i t i n t h e contested case p r o c e e d i n g b e f o r e the agency, the c o u r t may remand t o t h e a g e n c y and o r d e r t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e be t a k e n b e f o r e t h e a g e n c y upon c o n d i t i o n s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e c o u r t . The a g e n c y may m o d i f y i t s f i n d i n g s and d e c i s i o n i n t h e c a s e by r e a s o n o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e and s h a l l file t h a t e v i d e n c e and any m o d i f i c a t i o n , new f i n d i n g s , o r d e c i s i o n w i t h t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t and m a i l c o p i e s o f t h e new f i n d i n g s , o r d e c i s i o n t o a l l p a r t i e s . " 26 2110963 additional reasons evidence f o r the f a i l u r e agency previously. reviewing circuit the an petition within w o u l d be n o t h i n g that 41-22-20(k) an remand testimony Thus, express § of ... additional proceedings." § Third, "may and there t o present i t to the decision court taking issue i s material an and case ruling in provides response t h e 45-day p e r i o d f o r the c i r c u i t that, agency, or for the further agency's failure to 41-22-11(a) a § does n o t mean t h a t court in t o the agency f o r evidence administrative good administrative administrative the were to there to review pursuant to 41-22-20. Although this court d i d not address the s p e c i f i c issue w h e t h e r t h e d e n i a l o f a p e t i t i o n e r ' s § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n by operation o f l a w r a t h e r t h a n by e x p r e s s r u l i n g w i t h i n t h e 45- day p e r i o d e n t i t l e s t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o s e e k a new adjudication by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10 i n A u b u r n C e n t e r , I n c . v. State 814 ( A l a . C i v . App. So. 2d 263 Health Planning Medical & Development Agency, 2001) ("Auburn I I " ) , our h o l d i n g i n t h a t case n e c e s s a r i l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t a d e n i a l of a § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w does n o t e n t i t l e a p e t i t i o n e r t o s e e k a new a d j u d i c a t i o n by t h e c i r c u i t 27 court. 2110963 In that case, Auburn Medical Center filed a § 41-22-11(a) p e t i t i o n w i t h SHPDA s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g b y t h e CONRB before the e f f e c t i v e date o f A c t No. 98-341, A l a . A c t s 1998, w h i c h amended § 22-21-275, A l a . Code 1975, t o p r o v i d e t h a t a party aggrieved request b y a d e c i s i o n b y SHPDA i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o reconsideration or a fair hearing j u d i c i a l review of that d e c i s i o n pursuant its before seeking t o § 41-22-20. A f t e r § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d , A u b u r n M e d i c a l sought j u d i c i a l review of the d e n i a l pursuant Center t o § 41-22-20 w i t h o u t r e q u e s t i n g a f a i r h e a r i n g , w h i c h was a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o seeking judicial petition before review of the d e n i a l of a § the adoption o f A c t No. 98-341. The c o u r t d i s m i s s e d Auburn M e d i c a l C e n t e r ' s t h a t i t had f a i l e d 41-22-11(a) t o exhaust a c t i o n on t h e g r o u n d i t s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s by r e q u e s t i n g a f a i r h e a r i n g , and Auburn M e d i c a l Center appealed. In a d e c i s i o n d e l i v e r e d i n 2000, i . e . , A u b u r n M e d i c a l Inc. circuit Center, v. S t a t e H e a l t h P l a n n i n g & D e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y , 814 So. 2d 258, 260 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) ("Auburn I"), this court held t h a t A c t No. 98-341 s h o u l d be a p p l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y t o A u b u r n Medical judgment Center's of the § 41-22-11(a) circuit court; 28 petition and r e v e r s e d t h e however, in a decision 2110963 delivered in 2001, Ex parte Authority, 814 So. 2d 260, 263 East Alabama Health Care ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , t h e supreme court h e l d t h a t A c t No. 98-341 c o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y t o Auburn M e d i c a l Center's § 41-22-11(a) p e t i t i o n , r e v e r s e d this c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n A u b u r n I , and remanded the cause t o t h i s court with f o r f u r t h e r proceedings consistent the supreme c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n . On remand, A u b u r n M e d i c a l C e n t e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f i t s § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n was by o p e r a t i o n of l a w due t o t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e CONRB t o i s s u e an e x p r e s s ruling w i t h i n t h e 45-day p e r i o d and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , A u b u r n Medical C e n t e r was circuit e n t i t l e d to j u d i c i a l court pursuant to the review o f t h a t d e n i a l by t h e provision of § 41-22-11(b) s t a t i n g t h a t a d e n i a l o f a § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n by o p e r a t i o n of l a w was subject to j u d i c i a l review. In the alternative, A u b u r n M e d i c a l C e n t e r a r g u e d t h a t i t was e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l review circuit of the d e n i a l of i t s § 41-22-11(a) c o u r t b a s e d on § 41-22-10. r e j e c t e d b o t h arguments, In petition by Auburn I I , t h i s stating: "Whether [ t h e d e n i a l o f A u b u r n M e d i c a l C e n t e r ' s § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n ] was an a f f i r m a t i v e a c t o r was merely a denial by operation of law is inconsequential. Auburn M e d i c a l Center d i d not r e q u e s t r e v i e w by a f a i r - h e a r i n g o f f i c e r , t h e f i n a l r e v i e w p r o c e s s f o r SHPDA. B e c a u s e t h e f a i r - h e a r i n g 29 the court 2110963 officer, the i n d i v i d u a l responsible f o r the f i n a l r e v i e w p r o c e s s , n e v e r r u l e d on t h e p e t i t i o n , t h a t p r o v i s i o n o f § 41-22-11(b) p r o v i d i n g f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w h a s n o t been i m p l i c a t e d , a n d A u b u r n M e d i c a l Center i s not e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l review of the CONRB's d e n i a l o f i t s p e t i t i o n . "Auburn M e d i c a l C e n t e r a r g u e s a l t e r n a t i v e l y t h a t § 41-22-10 p r o v i d e s j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f t h e CONRB's d e c i s i o n . We d i s a g r e e . A u b u r n M e d i c a l C e n t e r s o u g h t declaratory relief with SHPDA pursuant to § 41-22-11, r a t h e r t h a n s e e k i n g d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10. A u b u r n Medical Center i s not e n t i t l e d t o seek relief p u r s u a n t § 41-22-10 once i t d e c i d e d t o p r o c e e d u n d e r § 41-22-11. Alabama Cellular Serv., I n c . v. Sizemore, 565 So. 2d 199 ( A l a . 1990); State P e r s o n n e l Bd. v . W a l l a c e , 659 So. 2d 683 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) ; a n d A l a b a m a S t a t e P e r s o n n e l Bd. v. B r a s h e a r s , 575 So. 2d 1149 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 1 ) . " 814 So. 2d a t 265 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . Thus, t h i s c o u r t h e l d i n A u b u r n I I t h a t a p e t i t i o n e r who was completely pursuant t o §§ foreclosed from seeking judicial review 41-22-11(b) a n d 41-22-20 by i t s f a i l u r e to r e q u e s t a f a i r h e a r i n g was n o n e t h e l e s s p r e c l u d e d f r o m s e e k i n g relief of from t h e c i r c u i t i t s previous administrative court pursuant election agency to pursuant t o § 41-22-10 b e c a u s e seek to § relief from 41-22-11(a). p e t i t i o n e r who i s c o m p l e t e l y f o r e c l o s e d f r o m s e e k i n g review, pursuant of the If a judicial t o §§ 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) a n d 41-22-20, o f t h e d e n i a l h i s , h e r , o r i t s § 41-22-11(a) 30 petition i s nonetheless 2110963 p r e c l u d e d from s e e k i n g r e l i e f from the c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10, t h e n , a f o r t i o r i , to a petitioner seek r e l i e f from the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 41-22-11(a) i s not e n t i t l e d who has elected agency p u r s u a n t t o § t o seek r e l i e f from the c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10 m e r e l y b e c a u s e t h e d e n i a l o f h i s , her, o r i t s § 41-22-11(a) petition was by o p e r a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y ' s i s s u i n g r u l i n g w i t h i n t h e 45-day Moreover, although address the s p e c i f i c law an e x p r e s s period. this court i n Auburn II declaratory did i s s u e w h e t h e r a d e n i a l by o p e r a t i o n o f a § 41-22-11(a) p e t i t i o n e n t i t l e s a p e t i t i o n e r a new of law not of t o seek r u l i n g by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10, t h e h o l d i n g i n t h a t c a s e i s n o n e t h e l e s s dispositive r e g a r d i n g t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e d e n i a l by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w o f RCHP-Florence's § 41-22-11(a) p e t i t i o n new e n t i t l e s i t t o seek a a d j u d i c a t i o n by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10 because RCHP-Florence's situation is analogous to Auburn M e d i c a l C e n t e r ' s s i t u a t i o n i n Auburn I I . Auburn M e d i c a l C e n t e r was completely p u r s u a n t t o §§ foreclosed 41-22-11(b) from seeking judicial review and 41-22-20 b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t request a f a i r h e a r i n g ; RCHP-Florence i s completely f o r e c l o s e d 31 2110963 from seeking judicial r e v i e w p u r s u a n t t o §§ 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) a n d 41-22-20 b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t t i m e l y f i l e with SHPDA. Although the procedural i t s notice of appeal deficiencies that f o r e c l o s e j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i n t h e two s i t u a t i o n s a r e d i f f e r e n t , those d i f f e r e n c e s are not m a t e r i a l t o a determination RCHP-Florence i s e n t i t l e d whether t o s e e k a new a d j u d i c a t i o n b y t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10. I n A u b u r n I I , t h i s held that seeking a p e t i t i o n e r who was c o m p l e t e l y judicial d e f i c i e n c y was n o n e t h e l e s s p r e c l u d e d a new a d j u d i c a t i o n b y t h e c i r c u i t 41-22-10 because from r e v i e w p u r s u a n t t o §§ 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) a n d 41-22¬ 20 b y a p r o c e d u r a l seeking foreclosed court i t had previously from court pursuant t o § elected to seek a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-11(a). completely §§ it In the present case, RCHP-Florence f o r e c l o s e d from s e e k i n g j u d i c i a l review p u r s u a n t t o 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) a n d 41-22-20 b y a p r o c e d u r a l also i s also h a s made a p r e v i o u s d e f i c i e n c y , and e l e c t i o n t o seek a declaratory r u l i n g by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-11(a). Therefore, Auburn I I c o n s t i t u t e s b i n d i n g precedent r e q u i r i n g us t o c o n c l u d e t h a t R C H P - F l o r e n c e ' s p r e v i o u s a declaratory e l e c t i o n t o seek r u l i n g b y t h e CONRB p u r s u a n t t o § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) 32 2110963 precludes by i t from seeking the c i r c u i t a new a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e same i s s u e c o u r t p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-10. F u r t h e r m o r e , i f a p e t i t i o n e r whose § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) p e t i t i o n has been d e n i e d review process, standard i s not allowed i n which to circumvent the c i r c u i t of review s p e c i f i e d pursuant allowed issue apply the circuit the a new a d j u d i c a t i o n court a t h e same i s s u e b y t h e c i r c u i t t o § 41-22-10, h e , s h e , o r i t s h o u l d t o do so by s e e k i n g by must i n § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( k ) , by s e e k i n g new d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g r e g a r d i n g court court the j u d i c i a l - pursuant to the n o t be o f t h e same Declaratory Judgment A c t o r § 2 2 - 2 1 - 2 7 6 ( a ) . C f . A l a b a m a Pub. S e r v . Comm'n v. AAA M o t o r L i n e s , Inc., 272 A l a . 362, 369, 131 So. 2d 172, 177 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . I n AAAA M o t o r L i n e s , t h e supreme c o u r t the rule that "an a c t i o n f o r declaratory made a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a p p e a l " were otherwise, determine whether erroneous, litigation." Florence's jurisdiction a and a there prior would Id. Accordingly, second claim declaratory be " [ i ] f the rule proceeding no end would l i e to proceeding to that court. 33 claim was kind we c o n c l u d e t h a t n e i t h e r nor i t s t h i r d of the c i r c u i t j u d g m e n t c a n n o t be and s t a t e d t h a t declaratory acknowledged invoked of RCHPthe 2110963 "Mandamus i s a d r a s t i c a n d e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t , t o be i s s u e d o n l y where t h e r e i s (1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n t h e p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r s o u g h t ; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; a n d (4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court." Ex parte Because Integon none jurisdiction establish Corp., of of that 672 So. 2d 497, 499 RCHP-Florence's the c i r c u i t i t i s entitled ( A l a . 1995) . claims court, invoked RCHP-Florence to the writ the cannot o f mandamus i t s e e k s . T h e r e f o r e , we deny t h e p e t i t i o n . APPLICATION WITHDRAWN; OPINION Thompson, GRANTED; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; P.J., OF APRIL 2013, PETITION DENIED. a n d Moore a n d D o n a l d s o n , Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t 34 12, J J . , concur. writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.