Florence Surgery Center, L.P., d/b/a Shoals Outpatient Surgery, and SCA-Florence, LLC v. Eye Surgery Center of Florence, LLC; Valley Surgery Center, L.L.C.; and Alabama State Health Planning and Development Agency

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 02/08/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110812 F l o r e n c e Surgery Center, L.P., d/b/a Shoals O u t p a t i e n t Surgery, and SCA-Florence, LLC v. Eye Surgery Center o f F l o r e n c e , L L C ; V a l l e y Surgery Center, L.L.C.; and Alabama S t a t e H e a l t h P l a n n i n g and Development Agency Appeal from C e r t i f i c a t e o f Need Review Board (Declaratory Ruling-141) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g MOORE, J u d g e . T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f November 30, 2012, i s w i t h d r a w n , and the f o l l o w i n g i ss u b s t i t u t e d therefor. 2110812 On November 30, 2012, t h i s court issued an opinion r e v e r s i n g a d e c i s i o n o f t h e Alabama S t a t e H e a l t h P l a n n i n g and Development Agency's C e r t i f i c a t e CONRB") c o n c l u d i n g o f Need R e v i e w B o a r d ( " t h e t h a t Eye S u r g e r y C e n t e r o f F l o r e n c e , LLC ( " E S C " ) , was n o t r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n a new c e r t i f i c a t e o f n e e d to operate an e y e - o n l y ambulatory surgery owned b y V a l l e y P r o p e r t i e s , L L C , upon Center, L.L.C., h a d f o r m e r l y o p e r a t e d surgery center. center at a which V a l l e y an e y e - o n l y Following the issuance site Surgery ambulatory of that opinion, the A l a b a m a S t a t e H e a l t h P l a n n i n g a n d D e v e l o p m e n t A g e n c y ("SHPDA") timely filed an subsequently Association, application granted f o r rehearing. the motions This o f t h e Alabama Hospital t h e A s s i s t e d L i v i n g A s s o c i a t i o n o f Alabama, t h e Alabama Hospice and P a l l i a t i v e Alabama Nursing Home A s s o c i a t i o n t o be d e s i g n a t e d curiae for and t o f i l e rehearing. After court briefs Care i n support Organization, and t h e as a m i c i o f SHPDA's a p p l i c a t i o n See R u l e 29, A l a . R. App. P. SHPDA a n d t h e a m i c i curiae the attorney filed their briefs i n support of rehearing, f o r the Florence Surgery Center, L.P., d o i n g b u s i n e s s as S h o a l s O u t p a t i e n t S u r g e r y , a n d i t s g e n e r a l p a r t n e r S C A - F l o r e n c e , LLC ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o 2 2110812 collectively as " F S C " ) , t h e o n l y p a r t i e s t h a t the o f t h e CONRB, decision stating, i n pertinent filed a letter appealed with this from court part: "... I am w r i t i n g t o i n f o r m t h e C o u r t t h a t a f t e r e n t r y o f t h e C o u r t ' s November 30, 2012 o p i n i o n , t h e i n t e r e s t o f my c l i e n t [ s ] , F l o r e n c e S u r g e r y C e n t e r , L.P. d/b/a S h o a l s Outpatient Surgery a n d SCAFlorence, LLC, i n t h i s matter was resolved. C o n s e q u e n t l y , my c l i e n t [ s ] w i l l n o t f i l e a b r i e f i n response t o t h e Alabama S t a t e H e a l t h P l a n n i n g and Development Agency's a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , and d o [ ] n o t want t o p a r t i c i p a t e f u r t h e r i n t h i s c a s e . " This court ordered ESC, V a l l e y S u r g e r y C e n t e r , SHPDA, as w e l l as t h e a m i c i c u r i a e , t o f i l e t h e y so e l e c t e d , r e g a r d i n g contents on t h e a p p e a l . L.L.C., 1 and letter briefs, i f the e f f e c t of that l e t t e r and i t s I n t h e i r l e t t e r b r i e f , SHPDA a n d t h e a m i c i c u r i a e a r g u e t h a t t h e i s s u e s on a p p e a l have become moot and that this court o r i g i n a l submission. may withdraw as a m o t i o n t o v o l u n t a r i l y the appeal, j u s t i f y i n g t h e w i t h d r a w a l SHPDA a n d t h e a m i c i on dismiss o f t h e o p i n i o n i s s u e d on We e l e c t t o f o l l o w t h e p a t h o u t l i n e d b y curiae. V a l l e y Surgery Center, b r i e f with t h i s court. 1 issued ESC a r g u e s i n i t s l e t t e r b r i e f t h a t t h e l e t t e r s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d o r i g i n a l submission. i t s opinion L.L.C., 3 d i d not f i l e a letter 2110812 In (1920), C a l d w e l l v. the a p p e a l was interests Loveless, Alabama pending, i n the Court absence of that a of A l a . App. Appeals 381, noted the p a r t i e s to the appeal s u b j e c t of had s e t t l e d t h e c a s e . determined 17 the present the appeal had So. had to other p a r t i e s controversy. the of The stated: "The necessary requisite to appellate jurisdiction is the existence of an actual c o n t r o v e r s y ; t h e r e f o r e i t i s not w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e of t h i s court to decide a b s t r a c t or h y p o t h e t i c a l q u e s t i o n s , which are d i s c o n n e c t e d from the g r a v i t y of a c t u a l r e l i e f , or from the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of which no p r a c t i c a l r e s u l t can f o l l o w . Nor i s i t the p r o v i n c e of t h i s c o u r t t o c o n s i d e r a fictitious case, submitted merely f o r the purpose of t e s t i n g t h e r i g h t t o do a p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g . "The g e n e r a l r u l e i s , i f p e n d i n g an a p p e a l , an event occurs which renders i t i m p o s s i b l e f o r the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t t o g r a n t any r e l i e f , t h e a p p e a l may be d i s m i s s e d . T h e r e a r e many i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h s u c h c o n d i t i o n may a r i s e . I t may a r i s e b y t h e a c t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t h i m s e l f . W o o d r u f f v. A u s t i n , 16 M i s c . Rep. 543, 38 N.Y. Supp. 787 [ ( 1 8 9 6 ) ] .... S i m i l a r l y i t a r i s e s where a l i t i g a t i o n has c e a s e d t o be b e t w e e n p a r t i e s h a v i n g a d v e r s e i n t e r e s t s , e t c . I t has a l s o b e e n h e l d , where a l l s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s y has b e e n p a r t e d w i t h o r e x t i n g u i s h e d , the c o u r t w i l l not hear the appeal merely to d e t e r m i n e t h e r i g h t s t o c o s t s . R a n d o l p h v. R o s s e r , 7 P o r t . 249 [ ( 1 8 3 8 ) ] ." 17 A l a . App. a t 382, 85 So. a t 307-08. 4 an sold their become moot b e c a u s e justiciable 307 that, while B a s e d on t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , appeal 85 and court the court 2110812 In his letter informed to this court, the attorney f o r FSC the c o u r t t h a t i t had " r e s o l v e d " i t s i n t e r e s t t h i s c o u r t i s s u e d i t s o p i n i o n on o r i g i n a l s u b m i s s i o n . after Whether t h a t r e s o l u t i o n o c c u r r e d v i a a s e t t l e m e n t , through conveyance, o r b y some o t h e r means i s n o t a p p a r e n t , b u t , b e c a u s e FSC, t h e only a p p e l l a n t , no l o n g e r h a s an i n t e r e s t i n t h e outcome o f t h i s a p p e a l , t h e a p p e a l h a s become moot b e c a u s e o f t h e a b s e n c e of a c o n t i n u i n g a c t u a l c o n t r o v e r s y . presented w o u l d no l o n g e r a f f e c t t h e r i g h t s o f FSC o r p r o v i d e FSC with can follow." decide Any o p i n i o n on t h e i s s u e s any " a c t u a l r e l i e f " from which a " p r a c t i c a l C a l d w e l l , supra. Any o p i n i o n w o u l d , i n f a c t , only "abstract or h y p o t h e t i c a l questions," c o u r t i s g e n e r a l l y f o r b i d d e n from answering. see a l s o Alabama N u r s i n g result which this Caldwell, supra; Home A s s ' n v . A l a b a m a S t a t e Health P l a n n i n g A g e n c y , 554 So. 2d 1032 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 9 ) . FSC's r e s o l v i n g i t s i n t e r e s t i n t h e a p p e a l court issued an d i f f e r e n t outcome. opinion does not present only a f t e r the a I n R o t h e n b e r g v. C o n n e c t i c u t basis for a Mutual Life I n s u r a n c e Co., 161 So. 2d 875 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . App. 1 9 6 4 ) , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f A p p e a l o f F l o r i d a h a d i s s u e d an o p i n i o n i n a mortgage-foreclosure dispute. 5 Before the time had l a p s e d 2110812 f o r f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g and b e f o r e a "mandate" had b e e n i s s u e d by t h e c o u r t , t h e p a r t i e s i n f o r m e d t h e c o u r t the i s s u e s had investigated settled in the and be appropriate parties." faith. determined that The court held by the given p a r t i e s or such consistent 161 So. 2d M c K e n z i e v. C h a s t a i n , effect with at 181 the the The 807, 184 parties under had those the i t s decision court court S.E. court a d i s m i s s a l on allow as the subsequent 876. Ga. to The that, i t had d i s c r e t i o n " t o g r a n t requested stand through settlement. m a t t e r and good circumstances, basis been r e s o l v e d that may action deem of the that, noted 276 to in (1936), a case i n which the p a r t i e s s e t t l e d the matter a f t e r the appeal had been d e c i d e d , motion for but while i t was still pending r e h e a r i n g , t h e G e o r g i a Supreme C o u r t had as h a v i n g become moot, v a c a t e d o p i n i o n and d i s m i s s e d t h a t the s e t t l e m e n t finding no "recognized i t s j u d g m e n t and the cause." 161 So. the cause withdrew i t s 2d a t 877. had r e n d e r e d i t s o p i n i o n moot, and circumstances requiring preservation o r i g i n a l o p i n i o n , t h e c o u r t w i t h d r e w and v a c a t e d o p i n i o n and on dismissed the appeal. 6 the Finding further of its original 2110812 I n U.S. U.S. 18 B a n c o r p M o r t g a g e Co. (1994), the United " ' [ j ] u d i c i a l precedents to the legal States community as vacatur.'" that the 513 a whole. public U.S. K a b u s h i k i K a i s h a v. U.S. (Stevens, J., Supreme C o u r t at 26 would (quoting be Izumi served the Alabama by Kogyo 27, 40 (1993) jurisprudence further have become moot, t h e i f i t i s i n the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t do s o . W i l l i s v. Buchman, 240 A l a . 386, (1940) (on This case, a Seimitsu P h i l i p s C o r p . , 510 U.S. decided rehearing). that should stand unless a court interest dissenting)). y e t be noted They a r e n o t m e r e l y r e c o g n i z e s t h a t , a l t h o u g h an a p p e a l may a p p e a l may 513 a r e p r e s u m p t i v e l y c o r r e c t and v a l u a b l e p r o p e r t y o f p r i v a t e l i t i g a n t s and concludes v. B o n n e r M a l l P ' s h i p , 387, 199 however, So. does 892, not to 894 fall w i t h i n the p u b l i c - i n t e r e s t e x c e p t i o n t o the mootness d o c t r i n e . "'The c r i t e r i a f o r a p p l y i n g the p u b l i c i n t e r e s t exception t o the mootness d o c t r i n e i n c l u d e the p u b l i c nature of the q u e s t i o n , the d e s i r a b i l i t y of an a u t h o r i t a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f g u i d i n g p u b l i c o f f i c e r s , and t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n w i l l g e n e r a l l y r e c u r . ' [1A C.J.S. A c t i o n s § 81 (2005)] ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) . However, this ' e x c e p t i o n i s c o n s t r u e d n a r r o w l y ... and a c l e a r showing of each c r i t e r i o n i s r e q u i r e d to b r i n g a case w i t h i n i t s terms.' In re A d o p t i o n of Walgreen, 186 I l l . 2d 362, 365, 238 I l l . Dec. 124, 710 N.E.2d 1226, 1227 (1999)." 7 2110812 Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So. 2 d 972, 989 ( A l a . 2007) added). I n t h i s case, i t i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e p r e c i s e issue before its (emphasis t h i s court i s l i k e l y i n i t i a l briefs to this to recur. court, As FSC a r g u e d i n the issues raised i n the a p p e a l i n v o l v e t h e f i r s t and o n l y t r a n s a c t i o n o f i t s k i n d i n the history o f t h e CONRB obtaining a certificate the leasing, without o f n e e d , b y one h e a l t h - c a r e of t h e s i t e and equipment f o r m e r l y used by another first provider health-care p r o v i d e r t o o p e r a t e an e y e - o n l y a m b u l a t o r y s u r g e r y c e n t e r . its reply brief, raise broader transactions without FSC p a r t i c u l a r l y issues disclaimed i n v o l v i n g other types In any a t t e m p t t o o f more common t h a t h a d b e e n p r e v i o u s l y a p p r o v e d b y t h e CONRB the issuance o f a new c e r t i f i c a t e o f need. Furthermore, i n c o n s i d e r i n g the m e r i t s o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n for of rehearing f i l e d b y SHPDA, t h i s c o u r t r e c o g n i z e s t h e language present i n the opinion issued t h a t some on original s u b m i s s i o n c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d as e x c e e d i n g t h e s c o p e o f t h e issues presented. this the Had FSC n o t f i l e d i t s l e t t e r , i t i s likely c o u r t w o u l d have a t l e a s t r e v i s e d t h e o p i n i o n t o remove misleading particular language transaction and t o narrow at issue, 8 i t s holding rendering to the any subsequent 2110812 opinion inapplicable to the vast majority of transactions the CONRB c o n s i d e r s . Therefore, have h a d l i t t l e any r e v i s e d o p i n i o n l i k e l y t o no i m p a c t on t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e CONRB h a n d l e s more common b u s i n e s s providers. As such, necessary to are not present rule that this This court interest further finds t o withdraw submission t o assure f u t u r e CONRB a c t i o n s . Accordingly, issued appeal. To c l a r i f y , will i n this would on o r i g i n a l case and t h a t that i t would the general serve the opinion applies. the public on i t does n o t i m p r o p e r l y original influence See U.S. B a n c o r p M o r t g . Co., s u p r a . 30, 2012, a n d d i s m i s s e s by w i t h d r a w i n g and v a c a t i n g submission, we i n t e n d f o r c e and e f f e c t , that our opinion that 9 opinion By d i s m i s s i n g we i n t e n d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w i l l be r e t u r n e d same p o s i t i o n t h e y o c c u p i e d b e f o r e this as i f i t h a d n e v e r been See U.S. B a n c o r p M o r t g . Co., s u p r a . the appeal, have h a d the p u b l i c - i n t e r e s t n o t d e c i d e moot a p p e a l s on November have no l e g a l issued. under and v a c a t e that opinion health-care t h i s c o u r t hereby withdraws and v a c a t e s i t s opinion issued will among Hence, we c o n c l u d e t h a t a l l t h e proceed exception court transactions any r e v i s e d minimal precedential value. factors would the f i l i n g to the of the appeal, 2110812 with t h e CONRB d e c i s i o n g o v e r n i n g their rights. See G a r y Powers Dev., I n c . v. S t a t e Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e So. 2d 778, 781 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) (quoting B d . , 852 FDIC v. E q u i t a b l e L i f e A s s u r a n c e S o c ' y o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , 289 A l a . 192, 196, 266 So. 2d 7 5 2 , 754 (1972)) appeal ordinarily as i f no a p p e a l APPLICATION leaves the appellant ("The d i s m i s s a l o f an ' i n t h e same p o s i t i o n had been t a k e n . ' " ) . GRANTED; OPINION OF NOVEMBER 30, 2012, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , concur. 10 Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . ,

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.