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.