{
  "id": 8521826,
  "name": "COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRIC CENTERS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Community Psychiatric Centers v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources",
  "decision_date": "1991-07-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 8910OAH1256",
  "first_page": "514",
  "last_page": "516",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 514"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "365 S.E.2d 635",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8521513
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/89/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 S.E.2d 291",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "292"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.C. App. 122",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358130
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/83/0122-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 4803,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.732,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5347140454875812e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6717737211706165
    },
    "sha256": "b5267180c2ac0d851b6797731483a24f1444d8c7a46dc9ea853e17cca1ca6350",
    "simhash": "1:1eaad079583f8440",
    "word_count": 754
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Wells and Phillips concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRIC CENTERS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nPetitioner is not a \u201cparty in a contested case hearing\u201d within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-188(b) (1988). This appeal must therefore be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\nThe Administrative Law Judge (A.L.J.) found the following facts. The Department of Human Resources (DHR) mailed petitioner notice that DHR had denied petitioner\u2019s application for a certificate of need on 26 December 1988. DHR first received a letter from petitioner captioned \u201cPetition for Contested Case Hearing\u201d on 20 January 1989. This letter was not verified or supported by affidavit. DHR received a second document from petitioner on 30 January 1989 requesting a contested case hearing. This document was verified.\nFrom these findings the A.L.J. concluded the letter received on 20 January 1989 was not a valid petition and the second document received on 30 January 1989 was not timely filed. As a result the Office of Administrative Hearings did not have subject matter jurisdiction. The A.L.J. then entered an order granting DHR\u2019s motion to dismiss.\nIn Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources, 83 N.C. App. 122, 349 S.E.2d 291 (1986), we held that a \u201ccontested case hearing\u201d is a jurisdictional prerequisite under G.S. \u00a7 131E-188(b) for a direct appeal to this Court from a final agency decision. A contested case hearing is distinguishable from a contested case. The phrase \u201ccontested case\u201d extends beyond an adjudicatory hearing to include \u201cany agency proceeding, by whatever name called, wherein the legal rights, duties and privileges of a party are required by law to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing.\u201d Charlotte-Mecklenburg, at 124, 349 S.E.2d at 292; see N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-2(2) (1987).\nThe result of petitioner\u2019s ineffective attempts to file a petition for a contested case hearing was only a contested case. A contested case hearing was not held because the A.L.J. granted DHR\u2019s motion to dismiss. See Rowan Health Properties, Inc. v. North Carolina Dept. of Human Resources, 89 N.C. App. 285, 365 S.E.2d 635 (1988). Without this jurisdictional prerequisite petitioner cannot utilize G.S. \u00a7 131E-188(b) to appeal to this Court.\n\u201cAny person who is aggrieved by the final decision in a contested case ... is entitled to judicial review of the decision under this Article. . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-43 (1987) (emphasis added). \u201cTo obtain judicial review of a final decision under this Article, the person seeking review must file a petition in the Superior Court of Wake County or in the superior court of the county where the person resides.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-45 (1987). Petitioner\u2019s relief was to be found under these statutory provisions rather than G.S. \u00a7 131E-188(b).\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Wells and Phillips concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hunton & Williams, by John R. McArthur, and McGlinchey, Stafford, Mintz, Cellini & Lang, by Donna G. Klein and Eve Barrie Masinter, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General James A. Wellons, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "COMMUNITY PSYCHIATRIC CENTERS v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIVISION OF FACILITY SERVICES, CERTIFICATE OF NEED SECTION\nNo. 8910OAH1256\n(Filed 16 July 1991)\nAdministrative Law \u00a7 56 (NCI4th); Hospitals \u00a7 2.1 (NCI3d)\u2014 certificate of need case \u2014 no contested case hearing \u2014 dismissal of appeal\nPetitioner\u2019s appeal in a certificate of need case is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 131E-188(b) where no \u201ccontested case hearing\u201d was held because the Administrative Law Judge granted DHR\u2019s motion to dismiss upon finding that a letter from petitioner was not a valid petition for a contested case hearing because it was not verified or supported by affidavit and that a verified petition thereafter received from petitioner was not timely. The result of petitioner\u2019s ineffective attempts to file a petition for a contested case hearing was only a contested case, and judicial review was available to petitioner only in the Wake County Superior Court or the superior court of the county of petitioner\u2019s residence pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-45.\nAm Jur 2d, Administrative Law \u00a7 731.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from order entered 23 May 1989 by Administrative Law Judge Beecher R. Gray in the Office of Administrative Hearings. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 May 1991.\nPetitioner\u2019s appeal arises from a decision of the North Carolina Department of Human Resources which denied petitioner\u2019s application for a certificate of need. Petitioner sought to challenge this decision in a contested case hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings. From an order dismissing the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, petitioner appeals.\nHunton & Williams, by John R. McArthur, and McGlinchey, Stafford, Mintz, Cellini & Lang, by Donna G. Klein and Eve Barrie Masinter, for petitioner-appellant.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General James A. Wellons, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0514-01",
  "first_page_order": 544,
  "last_page_order": 546
}