{
  "id": 12023471,
  "name": "ABC HOME HEALTH OF ARKANSAS, INC., Appellant v. ARKANSAS HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellee; Care Network, Inc., Intervenor; Visiting Nurse Association of Arkansas, Intervenor",
  "name_abbreviation": "ABC Home Health of Arkansas, Inc. v. Arkansas Health Services Commission",
  "decision_date": "1996-11-11",
  "docket_number": "96-486",
  "first_page": "573",
  "last_page": "575",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "326 Ark. 573"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "932 S.W.2d 331"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "313 Ark. 407",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1914648
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "409"
        },
        {
          "page": "315"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/313/0407-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 208",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907754
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "212",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Haynes v. State, 313 Ark. 407, 409, 855 S.W.2d 313, 315 (1993)"
        },
        {
          "page": "389",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Haynes v. State, 313 Ark. 407, 409, 855 S.W.2d 313, 315 (1993)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0208-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 Ark. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1904368
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/308/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 20-8-103",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 3598,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.823,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.392147806818433e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3960360237218463
    },
    "sha256": "f9daca696315c58b6ef124601c8a984ab1580bd0701cbc075d24b22843a54d4f",
    "simhash": "1:cec11f6b438d132a",
    "word_count": 560
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:12:03.555215+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ABC HOME HEALTH OF ARKANSAS, INC., Appellant v. ARKANSAS HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellee; Care Network, Inc., Intervenor; Visiting Nurse Association of Arkansas, Intervenor"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice.\nAppellant, ABC Home Health of Arkansas, Inc., appeals the order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court affirming the decision of Appellee, Arkansas Health Services Commission, to deny Appellant\u2019s applications for permits to operate a home health services company in numerous Arkansas counties. This appeal requires our interpretation of the statute on the powers and duties of the Arkansas Health Services Commission and the Arkansas Health Services Agency, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 20-8-103 and 20-8-104 (Repl. 1991). Therefore, jurisdiction is in this court pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. l-2(a)(17)(vi). We cannot reach the merits of the appeal, however, due to a flagrantly deficient abstract. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2 (a) (6).\nAppellant makes two arguments for reversal. First, Appellant contends the Commission exceeded its statutory authority when it denied Appellant\u2019s applications based on Appellant\u2019s inability to demonstrate need. Second, Appellant contends alternatively that the Commission arbitrarily and capriciously applied its review criteria and methodology for determining need when it denied Appellant\u2019s applications. On review of an agency decision, the circuit court is limited to a review of the evidence to determine whether there was substantial evidence to support the agency\u2019s decision, and on appeal, this court\u2019s review is similarly limited. Beverly Enter.\u2014Ark., Inc. v. Health Servs. Comm\u2019n, 308 Ark. 221, 824 S.W.2d 363 (1992). To set aside the Commission\u2019s denial of Appellant\u2019s permits as an arbitrary and capricious agency decision, Appellant must demonstrate that the decision was a willful and unreasoning action, made without consideration and with a disregard of the facts or circumstances of the case. Id.\nWe cannot address the merits of Appellant\u2019s arguments because we do not have an abstract of the Commission\u2019s decision. Although the abstract does contain a summary of the trial court\u2019s decision to affirm the Commission\u2019s decision, that is not sufficient for our review as it is the Commission\u2019s decision that is at issue on appeal. Id. It is impossible for us to determine whether the Commission\u2019s decision exceeded the scope of its statutory authority or whether the Commission\u2019s decision was arbitrary and capricious when we do not know what the Commission\u2019s decision was or the factors that led to it. The abstract of the trial court\u2019s decision lends no clarity in this regard. The Commission\u2019s decision is therefore necessary for an understanding of the questions presented for our decision, and its omission from the abstract renders the abstract flagrandy deficient. Rule 4-2 (a) (6). We have said that \u201c[w]hen an abstract\u2019s deficiencies are so flagrant that a decision is well nigh impossible, we will affirm.\u201d Carmical v. City of Beebe, 316 Ark. 208, 212, 871 S.W.2d 386, 389 (1994) (quoting Haynes v. State, 313 Ark. 407, 409, 855 S.W.2d 313, 315 (1993)). Accordingly, we affirm the order of the circuit court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William H. Trice, III, and Scott G. Lauck, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Harold W Hamlin, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee Arkansas Health Services Commission.",
      "Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., by: John W. Fink, for intervenor Visiting Nurse Association of Arkansas."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ABC HOME HEALTH OF ARKANSAS, INC., Appellant v. ARKANSAS HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION, Appellee; Care Network, Inc., Intervenor; Visiting Nurse Association of Arkansas, Intervenor\n96-486\n932 S.W.2d 331\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 11, 1996\n[Petition for rehearing denied December 16, 1996.]\nWilliam H. Trice, III, and Scott G. Lauck, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Harold W Hamlin, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee Arkansas Health Services Commission.\nJack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., by: John W. Fink, for intervenor Visiting Nurse Association of Arkansas."
  },
  "file_name": "0573-01",
  "first_page_order": 575,
  "last_page_order": 577
}