{ "id": 11918185, "name": "CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "Cape Fear Memorial Hospital v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources", "decision_date": "1996-02-06", "docket_number": "No. COA95-394", "first_page": "492", "last_page": "495", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "121 N.C. App. 492" } ], "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": "257 S.E.2d 597", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "606" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568416 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "56" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "451 S.E.2d 284", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "339 N.C. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2558127 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "419" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/339/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "453 S.E.2d 170", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 N.C. 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2518720, 2520833, 2521058, 2518610, 2519734 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/338/0524-02", "/nc/338/0524-05", "/nc/338/0524-03", "/nc/338/0524-01", "/nc/338/0524-04" ] }, { "cite": "447 S.E.2d 438", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "443" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "116 N.C. App. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523001 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "195" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/116/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "402 S.E.2d 430", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "328 N.C. 98", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2539448, 2545427, 2542900 ], "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/328/0098-03", "/nc/328/0098-01", "/nc/328/0098-02" ] }, { "cite": "397 S.E.2d 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "354" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527049 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "502" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0498-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 454, "char_count": 8103, "ocr_confidence": 0.761, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0800141125313868e-07, "percentile": 0.5622516988442183 }, "sha256": "ba3823ebd798ac741e290b4959977eaf6764ddeadd310ee6971e02c5d92bf4ce", "simhash": "1:6b2956c2f2f774d0", "word_count": 1239 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:54:48.563497+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges EAGLES and MARTIN, John C., concur." ], "parties": [ "CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Respondent-Appellee" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Mark D., Judge.\nPetitioner Cape Fear Memorial Hospital (Cape Fear) appeals from final agency decision issued by respondent North Carolina Department of Human Resources (Department) requiring Cape Fear to obtain a certificate of need (CON) before purchasing a 13\u201d image intensifier and a cine camera (new equipment).\nOn 28 March 1991 Cape Fear purchased a Siemens Angiostar (Angiostar), which can be used for cardiac catheterization procedures. Less than one year after accepting the Angiostar, Cape Fear informed the Department of its intent to purchase a 13\u201d image intensifier and cine camera in an effort to upgrade and expand the capabilities of the Angiostar. On 22 October 1993 the Department, through its CON Section, informed Cape Fear that it must secure a CON prior to purchasing the new equipment. Cape Fear filed a timely request for a contested case hearing challenging the CON Section\u2019s ruling.\nOn 15 August 1994 Administrative Law Judge Robert Roosevelt Reilly, Jr., concluded Cape Fear was barred from acquiring the new equipment without first receiving a CON. On 7 November 1994 the Director of the Department\u2019s Division of Facility Services adopted the recommended decision as the final agency decision.\nCape Fear appeals directly to this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. 7A-29(a). We consolidate the numerous assignments of error into one issue \u2014 whether the Department erred by holding Cape Fear was required to obtain a CON before purchasing the new equipment.\nA final agency decision may be reversed if the agency\u2019s findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are based on an error of law. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51(b) (1995). Moreover, this Court reviews the agency\u2019s findings and conclusions de novo when considering alleged errors of law. Walker v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 100 N.C. App. 498, 502, 397 S.E.2d 350, 354 (1990), disc. review denied, 328 N.C. 98, 402 S.E.2d 430 (1991).\nAt the outset we note that the Department\u2019s determination the purchase of the new equipment required a CON was based on its interpretation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-175, el seq. As an erroneous interpretation of a statute is an error of law, Taylor Home of Charlotte v. City of Charlotte, 116 N.C. App. 188, 195, 447 S.E.2d 438, 443, disc. review denied, 338 N.C. 524, 453 S.E.2d 170 (1994), we review the Department\u2019s finding that Cape Fear\u2019s new equipment falls within the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-178(a) de novo.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-178(a) provides, in pertinent part, \u201cno person shall offer or develop a new institutional health service without first obtaining a certificate of need from the Department . . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-178(a) (1994). A \u201cnew institutional health service\u201d is defined to include, among other things, \u201c[t]he acquisition by purchase of . . . cardiac catheterization equipment.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-176(16)fl.3 (1994). \u201cCardiac catheterization equipment\u201d is defined as \u201cthe equipment required to perform diagnostic procedures or therapeutic intervention in which a catheter is introduced into a vein or artery and threaded through the circulatory system to the heart.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-176(2f) (1994).\nThe Department concluded that the new equipment, by itself, is \u201ccardiac catheterization equipment\u201d and, therefore, Cape Fear must obtain a CON prior to purchasing such equipment. This Court must now determine whether, according to the statutory definition, the new equipment is \u201ccardiac catheterization equipment.\u201d This issue must necessarily be resolved by recourse to well-established principles of statutory interpretation.\n\u201cThe primary goal of statutory construction is to give effect\u201d to the legislative intent. Bowers v. City of High Point, 339 N.C. 413, 419, 451 S.E.2d 284, 289 (1994). Indeed, the words of a statute must be construed as part of a composite whole and accorded only that meaning which other modifying provisions coupled with the intent and purpose of the act will permit. State v. Johnson, 298 N.C. 47, 56, 257 S.E.2d 597, 606 (1979).\nWe believe the expansive interpretation proposed by the Department, thereby allowing micro-management over relatively minor capital expenditures, does not effectuate the overriding legislative intent behind the CON process, i.e., regulation of major capital expenditures which may adversely impact the cost of health care services to the patient. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 131E-175(l)-(2), (4), (6)-(7) (1994). Nevertheless, the legislature clearly did not intend to impose unreasonable limitations on maintaining, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-184(a)(7) (1994) (CON not required for replacement parts), or expanding, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-176(16)b (1994) (CON not required for expansion of present health service costing less than $2,000,000), presently offered health services. See also N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-176(14f) (1994) (CON not required for purchase of unit or system to provide new health service which costs less than $750,000). Therefore, we believe, construing N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-175, et seq., as a whole, that the legislature intended \u201ccardiac catheterization equipment\u201d to include only the actual unit capable of performing cardiac catheterization procedures, not the component parts used to maintain, upgrade, or expand a unit.\nThe present record indicates, and we agree, that the Angiostar, as presently configured, falls within the statutory definition of \u201ccardiac catheterization equipment.\u201d Put simply, the proposed acquisitions merely expand and upgrade the current cardiac catheterization service already offered by the Angiostar. Accordingly, consistent with the legislative intent, we believe the new equipment is not \u201ccardiac catheterization equipment\u201d as defined by section 131E-176(2f).\nAlthough the new equipment is not \u201ccardiac catheterization equipment,\u201d it does expand the capabilities of the Angiostar. The proposed acquisitions, therefore, implicate N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-176(16)b. Under section 131E-176(16)b, a CON is required for \u201c[t]he obligation by any person of a capital expenditure exceeding [$2,000,000] . . . to . . . expand a health service.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 131E-176(16)b. \u201cThe cost of any studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications, and other activities, including staff effort and consulting and other services, essential to the . . . expansion ... of any . . . equipment...\u201d should be considered in calculating the total cost for expanding a presently offered health service. Id.\nIn the present case, the Department found the total cost of acquiring the new equipment to be $232,510 \u2014 well below the $2,000,000 statutory limit for expanding present health services. Accordingly, we conclude Cape Fear does not need a CON before purchasing the new equipment.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges EAGLES and MARTIN, John C., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Mark D., Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Bode, Call & Green, by Robert V. Bode and Diana E. Ricketts, for petitioner-appellant.", "Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Sherry C. Lindquist, for respondent-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CAPE FEAR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Petitioner-Appellant v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, Respondent-Appellee\nNo. COA95-394\n(Filed 6 February 1996)\nHospitals and Medical Facilities or Institutions \u00a7 10 (NCI4th)\u2014 acquisition of equipment by hospital \u2014 requirement of certificate of need \u2014 error\nRespondent erred by holding that petitioner was required to obtain a certificate of need before purchasing new equipment valued at $232,510, since the equipment in question was purchased to expand and upgrade petitioner\u2019s existing heart catheterization capabilities; the new equipment was not \u201ccardiac catheterization equipment\u201d as defined by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 131E-176(2f), the acquisition of which would have required a certificate of need; and the equipment did not exceed the $2,000,000 statutory limit for expanding present health services without a certificate of need.\nAm Jur 2d, Administrative Law \u00a7 388.\nAppeal by petitioner from decision entered 7 November 1994 by the North Carolina Department of Human Resources. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 January 1996.\nBode, Call & Green, by Robert V. Bode and Diana E. Ricketts, for petitioner-appellant.\nAttorney General Michael F. Easley, by Assistant Attorney General Sherry C. Lindquist, for respondent-appellee." }, "file_name": "0492-01", "first_page_order": 526, "last_page_order": 529 }