Southeast Georgia Health System, Inc. v. Frank W. Berry, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Court of Appeals
    of the State of Georgia
    ATLANTA,____________________
    April 21, 2021
    The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:
    A21D0275. SOUTHEAST GEORGIA HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. v. FRANK W.
    BERRY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER et al.
    Southeast Georgia Health System, Inc. seeks discretionary review of the
    superior court’s order dismissing its mandamus petition. Southeast Georgia contends,
    however, that it is entitled to appeal the ruling directly. For the reasons that follow,
    we agree.
    The application materials show that Southeast Georgia operates two hospitals
    in Brunswick, Georgia. Southeast Georgia alleges that one of its rivals, Premier
    Surgery Center, has a certificate of need (CON) authorizing two operating rooms
    (ORs), but that Premier is improperly operating a third OR. Southeast Georgia
    requested that the Department of Community Health investigate its allegation and
    issue a cease and desist order. By letter dated March 13, 2020, the Department
    informed Southeast Georgia that it was declining to investigate the allegation.
    Southeast Georgia requested an administrative appeal, but the Department denied the
    request.
    Southeast Georgia then filed a mandamus petition in superior court seeking to
    compel Frank W. Berry, the Commissioner of the Department, to investigate whether
    Premier was improperly operating a third OR. The Commissioner moved to dismiss
    the petition, arguing that Southeast Georgia was not entitled to mandamus relief. The
    trial court granted the motion, and Southeast Georgia filed this application for
    discretionary appeal.
    OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) requires an application to appeal “from decisions of the
    superior courts reviewing decisions of the State Board of Workers’ Compensation,
    the State Board of Education, auditors, state and local administrative agencies, and
    lower courts by certiorari or de novo proceedings.” The issue here is whether the
    Commissioner’s decision not to investigate constituted a “decision” within the
    meaning of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1).
    Agency determinations may be considered executive, legislative, or
    adjudicative; drawing the distinction between the three is not always an easy task. See
    State v. Intl. Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 
    299 Ga. 392
    , 400-401 (4) (a) (788
    SE2d 455)       (2016). A discretionary application is required only for those
    determinations considered adjudicative. See id.; Schumacher v. City of Roswell, 
    301 Ga. 635
    , 637 (1) (803 SE2d 66) (2017). An adjudicative decision involves judgment
    on the merits after consideration of the facts and, if appropriate, the law. See Keystone
    Knights, 299 Ga. at 402 (4) (a). Executive actions, on the other hand, include “the
    day-to-day management of agency personnel and resources, the dissemination of
    information to the public, the undertaking of law enforcement and compliance
    investigations, and prosecutorial determinations to initiate or decline to bring
    enforcement proceedings.” Id. at 400-401 (4) (a).
    Here, the Department’s decision not to investigate an alleged CON violation
    is properly characterized as an executive action. Accordingly, OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1)
    is not implicated. See, e. g., Mid Georgia Environmental Mgmt. Group, v. Meriwether
    County, 
    277 Ga. 670
    , 672 (1) (594 SE2d 344) (2004) (no discretionary application
    required to appeal denial of mandamus petition involving Board’s refusal to issue a
    verification letter).
    We will grant a timely application for discretionary appeal if the lower court’s
    order is subject to direct appeal. See OCGA § 5-6-35 (j). Accordingly, this
    application is hereby GRANTED, and Southeast Georgia shall have ten days from the
    date of this order to file a notice of appeal with the superior court. The clerk of the
    superior court is DIRECTED to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted
    to the Court of Appeals.
    Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
    Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________
    04/21/2021
    I certify that the above is a true extract from
    the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
    Witness my signature and the seal of said court
    hereto affixed the day and year last above written.
    , Clerk.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A21D0275

Filed Date: 4/30/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/30/2021