MARTIN COUNTY HOME HEALTH CARE v. CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, FORMERLY KENTUCKY HEALTH POLICY BOARD; AND KINGS DAUGHTERS MEDICAL CENTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
JANUARY 12, 2007; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2005-CA-002616-MR
MARTIN COUNTY HOME HEALTH CARE
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE ROGER L. CRITTENDEN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 96-CI-00010
v.
CABINET FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES,
FORMERLY KENTUCKY HEALTH POLICY BOARD; AND
ASHLAND HOSPITAL CORPORATION, D/B/A
KINGS DAUGHTERS MEDICAL CENTER
APPELLEES
OPINION
VACATING AND REMANDING WITH DIRECTIONS
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: TAYLOR, JUDGE; ROSENBLUM,1 SENIOR JUDGE; MILLER,2
SPECIAL JUDGE.
TAYLOR, JUDGE:
Memorial Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Martin County
Home Health Care, (MCHH) brings this appeal from a November 18,
2005, order of the Franklin Circuit Court upholding the decision
of the Kentucky Health Policy Board (Board) to deny MCHH’s
1
Senior Judge Paul W. Rosenblum sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the
Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 21.580.
2
Retired Judge John D. Miller sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the
Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution.
application for a certificate of need to expand its existing
home health services to Lawrence County, Kentucky.3
We vacate
and remand with directions.
MCHH is a licensed home health agency approved to
operate in Martin County, Kentucky.
On May 16, 1995, MCHH filed
an application to obtain a certificate of need for the purpose
of expanding its services into adjoining Lawrence County.
Ashland Hospital Corporation d/b/a King’s Daughters’ Medical
Center operated Lawrence County Home Health (LCHH) and opposed
MCHH’s application for a certificate of need.
The Board was charged with the duty of approving or
denying certificates of need.
216B.040.4
1995.
Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS)
The Board conducted a public hearing on August 29,
KRS 216B.085.
The Board designated a member to act as
hearing officer and to render a recommendation to the full
Board.
KRS 216B.085.
Before and during the hearing, MCHH
requested access to certain staff reports.
At the hearing, the
following exchange occurred:
3
The Kentucky Health Policy Board (Board) was created by KRS 216.2903; that
statute was repealed effective July 15, 1996. The Board’s functions were
transferred to the Cabinet for Human Resources (Cabinet) by KRS 216B.010,
enacted effective July 15, 1996. The Cabinet’s functions were later
transferred to the Cabinet for Health Services by amendment to KRS 216B.010,
effective July 15, 1998. KRS 216B.010 was again amended effective June 20,
2005, and the Cabinet for Health Services became known as the Cabinet for
Health and Family Services.
4
The statutes in effect at the time of the administrative hearing and, thus,
relevant to disposition of this appeal, were enacted effective July 15, 1994.
Our opinion shall reference these versions of the statutes.
-2-
[Counsel for MCHH:] And I also -– and I
realize that you have ruled on this several
times and may be tired of doing it. But
just for the record, I want to ask for the
staff report and evaluation that was
prepared for your use in this hearing on the
basis that we’re entitled to see that if you
rely on it in anyway.
[Hearing Officer:] Inasmuch as it’s
prepared for the Hearing Officer to use as a
review of the application and the supporting
documents, I’m going to deny that motion.
Anything else? Are you ready to proceed?
MCHH was denied access to the staff reports, and the record
reveals that these reports were never made part of the
administrative record.
The hearing officer ultimately recommended that MCHH’s
application be denied.
On October 26, 1995, the Board adopted
the hearing officer’s recommendation.
MCHH filed a request for
reconsideration which was subsequently denied.
KRS 216B.085.
On January 2, 1996, MCHH filed a “Petition For Review
And Appeal And For Declaration Of Rights” in the Franklin
Circuit Court.
KRS 216B.115.
The circuit court concluded the
Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and,
thus, “denied” MCHH’s petition for review.
This appeal follows.
MCHH maintains the Board erred by denying its
certificate of need.
MCHH specifically asserts that the Board
erroneously denied it access to “staff reports” in violation of
-3-
KRS 216B.085(4) and KRS 216B.015(17).
For the reasons
hereinafter elucidated, we agree.
As an appellate court, we stand in the shoes of the
circuit court and review the Board’s decision for arbitrariness.
See Am. Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville and Jefferson County
Planning and Zoning Comm’n, 379 S.W.2d 450 (Ky. 1964).
Arbitrariness has many facets; in this appeal, we must decide
whether the Board properly interpreted and applied KRS
216B.085(4) and KRS 216B.015(17).
379 S.W.2d 450.
See Am. Beauty Homes Corp.,
As interpretation of a statute is a matter of
law for the court, our review shall proceed de novo.
See Halls
Hardwood Floor Co. v. Stapleton, 16 S.W.3d 327 (Ky.App. 2000).
Under KRS 216B.085(4), “[a]ny decision of the board to
issue or deny a certificate of need shall be based solely on the
record established with regard to the matter.”
The legislature
provided us with a clear definition of “record” in KRS 216B.015.
Subsection (17)(d) of KRS 216B.015 specifically provides that
the record shall include “[a]ny staff reports or recommendations
prepared by or for the cabinet or the board[.]”
By juxtaposing KRS 216B.085(4) and KRS
216B.015(17)(d), we believe it was clear and reversible error
not to include the staff reports in the administrative record
and to deny MCHH access to such reports.
KRS 216B.085(4)
clearly requires that the Board’s decision to deny a certificate
-4-
of need be based solely upon the evidence in the record.
From
the exchange between MCHH’s counsel and the hearing officer, it
is apparent that the staff reports were considered by the
hearing officer in making the decision to deny MCHH’s
application for a certificate of need.
In any event, KRS
216B.015(17) explicitly mandated that such staff reports be
included in the administrative record.
Accordingly, we hold that the Board committed
reversible error by failing to include the staff reports in the
administrative record and by failing to grant MCHH access to
such reports.
Upon remand, the Board shall include the staff
reports in its record and shall grant MCHH access to same.
Thereafter, the Board shall reconsider MCHH’s application for a
certificate of need in accordance with KRS Chapter 216B.
We view MCHH’s remaining contentions to be either moot
or without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Franklin
Circuit Court is vacated and this cause remanded with directions
for the circuit court to remand to the Cabinet for Health and
Family Services, formerly the Kentucky Health Policy Board, for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ALL CONCUR.
-5-
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:
Colleen McKinley
HALL, RENDER, KILLIAN, HEATH
& LYMAN, P.S.C.
Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE, CABINET
FOR HEALTH AND FAMILY
SERVICES:
Ann Truitt Hunsaker
Frankfort, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE, ASHLAND
HOSPITAL CORPORATION, D/B/A
KINGS DAUGHTERS MEDICAL
CENTER:
Stephen R. Price, Sr.
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP
Louisville, Kentucky
-6-
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.