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: 04/12/2013 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 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 (Montgomery CKierlcl e r HCourt, lCV-11-272) uit ospita , et a l . ) 2110963 PITTMAN, J u d g e . RCHP-Florence, Coffee Memorial Florence"), LLC, an Hospital petitions entity and this doing Shoals court for set aside b e l o w , we On discovery Health to § Florence's 3, 2010, and For writ ("the the court") discussed petition. Ala. Code Development filed 1975, a the State ("SHPDA"). Agency with petition RCHP- 1 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 doing business to mandamus 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 Eliza ("RCHP- of reasons RCHP-Florence 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 a 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 to business 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 performing center surgical located on procedures its campus at was an ("the o u t p a t i e n t - s u r g e r y center") u n t i l i t obtained a c e r t i f i c a t e of need ("CON") f r o m In provides affected ... w i t h or s t a t e 1 the CONRB. On November 12, 2010, Helen 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 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 hearing, i n support and t h e p a r t i e s , RCHP-Florence of i t s p e t i t i o n ; the p a r t i e s ' presentation CONRB entered evidence that 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 o f t h e CONRB, i n t o an a g r e e m e n t on t h e r e c o r d t o e x t e n d t h e 45-day p e r i o d 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 p e t i t i o n until r u l i n g i n response t o the next r e g u l a r l y 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 . 18, began 2 scheduled However, on J a n u a r y 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 , CONRB was On t h e J a n u a r y 19, 2011, canceled. February 4, 2 0 1 1 , R C H P - F l o r e n c e a p p e a l w i t h SHPDA, a n d , on M a r c h 4, 2011, a complaint meeting of the with the c i r c u i t filed a notice of RCHP-Florence court s t a t i n g three claims. filed 3 The 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 § 41-221 1 ( a ) , § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t " [ f ] a i l u r e o f t h e agency 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 as w e l l as a d e n i a l on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e 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 review." 2 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 3 3 2110963 f i r s t c l a i m sought j u d i c i a l of law of the p e t i t i o n pursuant to § review o f t h e d e n i a l by o p e r a t i o n 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 1975, a n d t h e D e c l a r a t o r y Judgment A c t , § 6-6¬ 220 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, t h a t H e l e n K e l l e r was r e q u i r e d t o cease p e r f o r m i n g s u r g i c a l procedures a t the outpatient-surgery c e n t e r u n t i l i t o b t a i n e d a CON f r o m t h e CONRB. The t h i r d c l a i m s o u g h t an i n j u n c t i o n f r o m 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 § 2221-276(a), A l a . Code performing surgical center until 1975, e n j o i n i n g procedures i t obtained a CON at from Helen the Keller outpatient-surgery t h e CONRB. Thereafter, 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 Florence considered t h a t RCHP- o b j e c t i o n a b l e , and RCHP-Florence f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r . The c i r c u i t c o u r t o r a l l y that motion. petition Subsequently, asking from this court RCHP-Florence to issue a timely writ denied filed a 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 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 appeal 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 c i r c u i t court. 4 2110963 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 a n d e n t e r e d 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 a p r o t e c t i v e order P., t h i s c o u r t had 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 o r d e r , and t h e c i r c u i t 58, A l a . R. C i v . c o u r t t o e n t e r s u c h an court d i d so. "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 r e m e d y ; 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 p a r t e In Integon C o r p . , 672 So. 2d 497, 499 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . reviewing mandamus p e t i t i o n the papers filed with RCHP-Florence's and t h e answer t o t h a t p e t i t i o n filed by H e l e n K e l l e r , we n o t e d an i s s u e r e g a r d i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f the circuit court that the p a r t i e s had not addressed. A c c o r d i n g l y , we c a l l e d f o r t h e p a r t i e s t o s u b m i t l e t t e r addressing t h a t i s s u e , a n d t h e p a r t i e s have done s o . Because review briefs RCHP-Florence's first claim sought judicial 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 of a n o t i c e of appeal i s necessary t o invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c i r c u i t c o u r t t o review a d e c i s i o n of an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency pursuant 5 t o § 41-22-20, A l a . Code 2110963 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 [ofa 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 i n order RCHP-Florence t o determine whether RCHP-Florence's f i r s t c l a i m invoked t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c i r c u i t Section court. 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( 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 a s 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 o f , or other decision r e n d e r e d by t h a t decision of the administrative petition or a p p l i c a t i o n administrative agency's administrative by agency operation failure service agency. of, the When t h e i s the denial o f l a w due of a to the t o r u l e on t h a t p e t i t i o n o r 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 o f appeal from s u c h a d e n i a l must be f i l e d w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e p e t i t i o n or a p p l i c a t i o n was d e n i e d Health Servs., by o p e r a t i o n I n c . v. S t a t e H e a l t h o f l a w . See N o l a n d Planning & Dev. A g e n c y , 4 4 So. 3d 1074, 1081-82 ( A l a . 2010) ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e p e r i o d f o r 6 2110963 seeking expressly judicial review of denial o f CON a p p l i c a t i o n not r u l e d upon b y t h e CONRB b e g i n s t o r u n a t t h e t i m e t h a t a p p l i c a t i o n has been d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f l a w ) . 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s for a declaratory ruling i s filed t h a t , when a with an agency p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-11(a), " [ f ] a i l u r e issue a declaratory ruling request f o r such Section petition administrative o f t h e agency t o 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 ruling shall constitute 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 a denial of the o f t h e r e q u e s t and 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 . " I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , t h e 45th day a f t e r the f i l i n g of RCHP-Florence's p e t i t i o n with SHPDA was December 18, 2010. However, § 1-1-4, A l a . Code 1975, provides t h a t , i f t h e l a s t d a y o f a p e r i o d w i t h i n w h i c h an a c t must be done f a l l s § 1-3-8, A l a . Code on a Sunday, a l e g a l h o l i d a y as d e f i n e d i n 1 9 7 5 , " o r a d a y on w h i c h the o f f i c e i n 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 of this state, the l a s t by any l a w 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 d o n e . " C o n s e q u e n t l y , 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 7 2110963 b u s i n e s s on S a t u r d a y , t h e l a s t day a l l o w e d 4 by § 41-22-11(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 p e t i t i o n 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 the CONRB t o i s s u e an e x p r e s s ruling d i d not expire for until J a n u a r y 19, 2 0 1 1 , b e c a u s e , R C H P - F l o r e n c e s a y s , t h e CONRB a n d t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e d t o e x t e n d t h e 45-day p e r i o d f o r t h e CONRB to issue an e x p r e s s according 2011, ruling t o RCHP-Florence, to f i l e a notice until contains administrative no 19, 2 0 1 1 . T h u s , i t h a d 30 d a y s f r o m J a n u a r y 19, of appeal, 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. 22-11 January language and i t t i m e l y We d i s a g r e e . authorizing filed S e c t i o n 41¬ either an a g e n c y s u c h a s t h e CONRB o r t h e p a r t i e s t o a proceeding i n i t i a t e d by t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n pursuant t o § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( a ) t o e x t e n d b y a g r e e m e n t t h e 45-day p e r i o d w h i c h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y must i s s u e an e x p r e s s Had that the l e g i s l a t u r e intended to authorize within ruling. such extensions by a g r e e m e n t , i t c o u l d e a s i l y have i n c l u d e d l a n g u a g e i n § 41-22¬ 11 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 . Cf., e.g., § 22-21- 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 Saturdays from c a l c u l a t i o n s o f time 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 ) . 4 8 2110963 2 7 5 ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975 ( e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z i n g SHPDA t o e x t e n d the 90-day p e r i o d f o r t h e 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 n o t t o e x c e e d 30 d a y s w i t h o r w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t of the applicant l i m i t a t i o n with and t o e x t e n d that 90-day p e r i o d without the consent of the a p p l i c a n t ) . "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 used a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t 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, then 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. S y s t e m s Eng'g A s s o c s . C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344, (Ala. 1992). A p p l y i n g v. Systems E n g i n e e r i n g 346 t h e p r i n c i p l e s s e t f o r t h i n IMED C o r p . Associates C o r p . , we must c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a b s e n c e f r o m § 41-22-11 o f l a n g u a g e 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 s p e c i f i e d by § 41-22-11(b) c l e a r l y and unambiguously e v i d e n c e s a l e g i s l a t i v e to authorize such e x t e n s i o n s . intent not Therefore, i n the present case, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a g r e e m e n t o f t h e CONRB a n d t h e p a r t i e s t o extend t h e 45-day p e r i o d f o r t h e CONRB t o i s s u e 9 an e x p r e s s 2110963 r u l i n g i n response t o RCHP-Florence's p e t i t i o n d i d not extend that period and, t h e r e f o r e , December 20, 2 0 1 0 . Because that that period expired on 5 t h e CONRB d i d 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 R C H P - F l o r e n c e ' s p e t i t i o n on o r b e f o r e December 20, 2010, R C H P - F l o r e n c e ' s 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 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 for to RCHP-Florence 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 r u n on December 2 1 , 2010. See N o l a n d H e a l t h S e r v s . , I n c . v. S t a t e H e a l t h P l a n n i n g & Dev. A g e n c y , s u p r a . T h a t 30-day 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 its period notice of appeal with Consequently, RCHP-Florence's filed, SHPDA until notice and, t h u s , RCHP-Florence's period d i d not f i l e February 4, 2 0 1 1 . o f a p p e a l was u n t i m e l y first claim d i dnot invoke RCHP-Florence argues t h a t , d e s p i t e t h e absence from § 41greement 22-11 o f l a n g u a g e a u t h o r i z i n g e x t e n s i o n s b y aa g r e e m e n t o f 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 ) , we none t h e l e s s s h o u l d g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e a g r e e m e n t o f t h e CONRB a n d t h e p a r t i e s t o e x t e n d t h a t 45-day p e r i o d i n t h i s c a s e b e c a u s e , RCHP-Florence says, that agreement i s a n a l o g o u s t o an agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s t o e x t e n d t h e p e r i o d f o r a t r i a l 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 , Ala. R. C i v . P.; however, we do n o t f i n d t h a t argument p e r s u a s i v e b e c a u s e R u l e 59.1 c o n t a i n s l a n g u a g e e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o e x t e n d by agreement t h e p e r i o d f o r a t r i a l 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 § 4 1 ¬ 22-11 c o n t a i n s no l a n g u a g e a u t h o r i z i n g an e x t e n s i o n b y a g r e e m e n t o f 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 ) . 10 2110963 the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c i r c u i t court. Dep't o f Pub. S a f e t y , 6 See K r a w c z y k v. S t a t e supra. 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 t o invoke the c i r c u i t court's c l a i m , which s t a t e d a c l a i m circuit court pursuant jurisdiction, f o ra declaratory to § 41-22-10 claim i t s second r u l i n g by t h e and t h e Declaratory Judgment A c t , a n d 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 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 § 2 2 - The p a r t i e s h a d n o t c o m p l e t e d t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n o f e v i d e n c e t o t h e CONRB a t t h e November 17, 2 0 1 0 , h e a r i n g ; however, i f RCHP-Florence had t i m e l y f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h SHPDA, e i t h e r p a r t y o r b o t h p a r t i e s c o u l d have s o u g h t an o r d e r f r o m t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r e m a n d i n g t h e m a t t e r t o t h e CONRB f o r t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e p u r s u a n t t o § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( i ) , A l a . Code 1975. I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t statute provides: 6 " I f , before the date s e t f o r hearing 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 o f agency a c t i o n i n a c o n t e s t e d 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 evidence i s m a t e r i a l and t h a t there 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 t h e agency, t h e c o u r t may remand t o t h e a g e n c y a n d 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 b y t h e c o u r t . The a g e n c y may modify 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 case by reason o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l evidence and s h a l l file t h a t e v i d e n c e a n d 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 . " 11 2110963 21-276(a), invoked the However, § 41-22-11(b) jurisdiction provides, of the circuit court. i n pertinent 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 c o u r t i n a p r o p e r p r o c e e d i n g . Such r u l i n g s are subject 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.) I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( j ) , 1975, p r o v i d e s court without the review that "[t]he review be c o n d u c t e d by the a j u r y and, 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 t h e a d d i t i o n s t h e r e t o as may this shall section." Moreover, § A l a . Code shall in to the r e c o r d be made u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n 41-22-20(k), (i) of A l a . Code 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 reasonable and the court shall 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 or 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 or 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 been 12 and 1975, 2110963 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) statutory In v i o l a t i o n provisions; of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or "(2) I n e x c e s s o f t h e s t a t u t o r y of t h e agency; "(3) In v i o l a t i o n "(4) Made upon u n l a w f u l authority o f any p e r t i n e n t agency rule; procedure; "(5) A f f e c t e d b y o t h e r e r r o r o f l a w ; "(6) C l e a r l y erroneous i n view of the r e l i a b l e , p r o b a t i v e , and s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e on t h e w h o l e r e c o r d ; o r "(7) Unreasonable, arbitrary, or c a p r i c i o u s , o r 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 d e c i d e d b y t h e CONRB i n s t e a d o f s e e k i n g the CONRB's d e c i s i o n 41-22-20. i n accordance with The l a n g u a g e i n § 41-22-11(b) that j u d i c i a l review of § 41-22-11(b) a n d § i n d i c a t i n g 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 a g e n c y i n r e s p o n s e t o a p e t i t i o n f o r 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 § 41-22-11(a) i s b i n d i n g 13 2110963 on t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency and t h e a p p l i c a n t unless a l t e r e d by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n a p r o c e e d i n g s e e k i n g review i n accordance with RCHP-Florence sought a declaratory p u r s u a n t t o § 41-22-11(a) Florence's only § 41-22-20 once t h e CONRB review of the § 41-22-20. Caselaw also I n Alabama C e l l u l a r S e r v i c e , I n c . v. S i z e m o r e , 565 So. 2d 199, 204-05 that that, from r e c o u r s e was t o s e e k j u d i c i a l supports that conclusion. held ruling judicial a n d i t s p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d , RCHP- 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 court indicates i t is ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) , t h e supreme p e t i t i o n i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e declaratory r u l i n g regarding agency for a the v a l i d i t y or a p p l i c a b i l i t y of a r u l e o f t h a 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) is not regarding a prerequisite to a declaratory the v a l i d i t y or a p p l i c a t i o n of that r u l e by t h e c i r c u i t t h a t , when a p a r t y administrative The supreme c o u r t also indicated has a r i g h t t o seek a d e c l a r a t o r y the v a l i d i t y administrative ruling court pursuant to e i t h e r the Declaratory Judgment A c t o r § 41-22-10. regarding seeking agency, or a p p l i c a b i l i t y the party of a rule ruling o f an may e l e c t e i t h e r t o s e e k a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g from 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) o r t o seek such a d e c l a r a t o r y 14 ruling from t h e 2110963 circuit court pursuant to Judgment A c t . The § 41-22-10 supreme c o u r t and the Declaratory stated: " I t i s c l e a r that the L e g i s l a t u r e , i n adopting t h e [ 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 ('APA')], d i d n o t i n t e n d t o l i m i t d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t a c t i o n s i n any way. By t h e i n c l u s i o n o f § 41-22-10 i n t h e APA, t h e drafters of this legislation ensured that the v a l i d i t y and a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f a s t a t e a g e n c y r u l e o r r e g u l a t i o n c o u l d be t h e b a s i s o f a 'justiciable controversy' as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n o u r U n i f o r m Declaratory Judgments Act. Section 41-22-11 was intended to force t h e s t a t e a g e n c y t o make a d e c i s i o n , n o t t o be a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n . ... "We agree w i t h t h e a n a l y s i s e s p o u s e d by t h e H o n o r a b l e A l v i n P r e s t w o o d , who c h a i r e d t h e c o m m i t t e e r e s p o n s i b l e i n l a r g e p a r t f o r the passage o f the A l a b a m a 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 , and who f i l e d an a m i c u s b r i e f w i t h t h i s c o u r t i n S t u a r t [ v. H i s t o r i c Warehouse, I n c . , 505 So. 2d 298 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ] . S e c t i o n 41-22-10 p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y o [ r ] a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f a r u l e o f a s t a t e a g e n c y may be d e t e r m i n e d i n an a c t i o n for a declaratory judgment 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 . Section 41-22-11 allows a person who is 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 o f a s t a t e a g e n c y t o p e t i t i o n t h e a g e n c y f o r d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f , and t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t may r e v i e w t h e a g e n c y a c t i o n u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n . The f a i l u r e o f the agency t o a c t w i t h i n 45 d a y s o f t h e r e q u e s t c o n s t i t u t e s a d e n i a l of the m e r i t s o f a r e q u e s t and i s s u b j e c t to judicial review. Each section has a field of o p e r a t i o n . I t i s u n n e c e s s a r y as a p r e c o n d i t i o n f o r b r i n g i n g such a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a c t i o n t o f i r s t p e t i t i o n t h e s t a t e a g e n c y u n d e r § 41-22-11. 8 " 'The a p p l i c a t i o n of the e x h a u s t i o n p r i n c i p l e s [§ 41-22-10] c e r t a i n l y w o u l d n o t enhance t h e 8 to 15 2110963 orderly progress of proceedings and judicial d e c i s i o n s u n d e r t h e APA. S e c t i o n [41-22-11] s h o u l d be l e f t t o i t s own s p h e r e o f o p e r a t i o n , and [§ 41¬ 22-10] s h o u l d be allowed to serve i t s purposes unfettered. It is r e s p e c t f u l l y submitted that p e r s o n s who want r e l i e f a v a i l a b l e o n l y t h r o u g h [§ 41-22-11] s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o a d o p t t h a t r o u t e , and t h o s e s e e k i n g r e l i e f a v a i l a b l e o n l y u n d e r [§ 41¬ 22-10] s h o u l d be l e f t t o t h a t remedy. I n t h o s e c a s e s where an a f f e c t e d p e r s o n had s t a n d i n g and s o u g h t r e l i e f a v a i l a b l e u n d e r e i t h e r s e c t i o n , he s h o u l d be a l l o w e d t o e l e c t w h i c h o f t h e r e m e d i e s he w o u l d e x p l o r e . I t seems t h a t any o t h e r a p p r o a c h w o u l d c r e a t e a m o n s t e r w h i c h w o u l d , as a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r , h a u n t t h e c o u r t s f o r some t i m e t o come.' 505 So. 2d 298, a t 302 (Maddox, J . d i s s e n t i n g ) . " 565 So. 2d a t 204-05 (emphasis added). In S t a t e Personnel (Ala. Civ. App. B o a r d v. W a l l a c e , 1995), this court held 659 So. that, of a r u l e of an 686 initially, a the v a l i d i t y party d e s i r i n g a declaratory r u l i n g regarding applicability 2d 683, or a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y has the o p t i o n t o seek such a 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 directly from to the § 41-22-11(a) circuit court or to seek pursuant such to § administrative agency pursuant to § ruling 41-22-10; however, i f t h a t p a r t y e l e c t s t o seek such a r u l i n g pertinent a from the 41-22-11(a) i n s t e a d of s e e k i n g i t d i r e c t l y 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 a t p a r t y i s b o u n d by party's only recourse t h a t d e c i s i o n and that i n t h e e v e n t o f an a d v e r s e d e c i s i o n 16 by 2110963 the administrative agency i s to seek j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency's d e c i s i o n . This court stated: "As n o t e d p r e v i o u s l y , W a l l a c e f i l e d w i t h [the State Personnel Board ('Personnel')] a p e t i t i o n f o r a h e a r i n g and a r e q u e s t f o r 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 A l a . Code 1975, § 41-22-11. P e r s o n n e l i s s u e d a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g , w h i c h was a d v e r s e t o W a l l a c e . S e c t i o n 41-22-11(b) p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : '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 t h e p e r s o n 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 o r s e t a s i d e by a c o u r t i n a p r o p e r p r o c e e d i n g . ' "Wallace's only recourse, a f t e r requesting that Personnel issue a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g pursuant to § 41-22-11, was an a p p e a l t o t h e 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 r e v i e w o f the d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g i s s u e d by P e r s o n n e l . See Ala. Code 1975, § 4 1 - 2 2 - 1 1 ( b ) . The s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w w h i c h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t must f o l l o w i n r e v i e w i n g t h e d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g i s s u e d by P e r s o n n e l i s s e t f o r t h in Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-20. A l a b a m a State P e r s o n n e l B o a r d v. B r a s h e a r s , 575 So. 2d 1149 ( A l a . C i v . App. 19 9 1 ) . "We w o u l d n o t e t h a t , i n i t i a l l y , W a l l a c e had t h e o p t i o n o f f i l i n g an a c t i o n f o r d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t as t o t h e v a l i d i t y o r a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f [ A l a . Admin. Code ( P e r s . B d . ) , ] R u l e 6 7 0 - X - 1 0 - . 0 1 [ , ] d i r e c t l y with the circuit court of Montgomery County, p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 41-22-10. A l a b a m a C e l l u l a r S e r v i c e , I n c . v. S i z e m o r e , 565 So. 2d 199 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . However, W a l l a c e e l e c t e d n o t t o p u r s u e t h a t avenue and i s now b o u n d by t h a t d e c i s i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f Montgomery C o u n t y i s now r e q u i r e d t o r e v i e w P e r s o n n e l ' s d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g pursuant to the [ A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure] Act." 659 So. 2d a t 686 (emphasis added). 17 the 2110963 I n A u b u r n M e d i c a l C e n t e r , I n c . v. S t a t e H e a l t h P l a n n i n g & Development Agency, 814 So. 2d 263, 265 (Ala. C i v . App. 2001), Auburn M e d i c a l C e n t e r had e l e c t e d t o seek a d e c l a r a t o r y ruling f r o m t h e CONRB p u r s u a n t to § 41-22-11(a) i n s t e a d o f s e e k i n g such a r u l i n g d i r e c t l y from t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t pursuant to § 41-22-10. This court held that [was] n o t e n t i t l e d t o s e e k r e l i e f "Auburn M e d i c a l Center 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 under § 41-22-11." A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t , once R C H P - F l o r e n c e to seek a d e c l a r a t o r y r u l i n g elected f r o m t h e CONRB p u r s u a n t t o § 4 1 - 22-11(a), i t s only recourse a f t e r i t s p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d was t o s e e k 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 i n a c c o r d a n c e with § third Consequently, RCHP-Florence's second and claims d i d not invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c i r c u i t court. Because circuit clear 41-22-20. none o f RCHP-Florence's claims c o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n , RCHP-Florence invoked the does n o t have a l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e w r i t 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 . PETITION DENIED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 18

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.