Facts: As required by Washington Revised Code §70.38, Swedish Medical Center applied for a certificate of need in anticipation of establishing a liver transplant program. Pursuant to §70.38’s public comment provisions, the respondent University of Washington Medical Center subsequently objected to the application and requested a public hearing. After considering the evidence presented by both Swedish Medical Center and the University of Washington Medical Center, the petitioner Department of Health granted Swedish Medical Center the certificate of need. The University of Washington Medical Center appealed the decision to a health law judge, who affirmed the Department of Health’s decision after restricting the new evidence that could be presented to evidence directly relevant to the record that the decision was based upon. The University of Washington Medical Center sought judicial review in the Superior Court for Thurston County, which reversed the health law judge’s limitation of the scope of admissible evidence to evidence that existed at the time the public comment period closed and vacated the decision to grant Swedish Medical Center a certificate of need. The Department of Health appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Did the health law judge abuse their discretion by restricting the scope of admissible evidence to evidence that existed at the time the public comment period closed?

If not, did substantial evidence support the Department of Health’s decision to grant Swedish Medical Center a certificate of need?

Was Swedish Medical Center’s application for a certificate of need fatally flawed by its failure to consider the impact of establishing a second liver transplant program in the state of Washington upon the University of Washington Medical Center’s training program?

Conclusion: Justice Chambers’ opinion for a unanimous Court reversed the Superior Court for Thurston County, concluding that the health law judge did not abuse their discretion by restricting the scope of admissible evidence to evidence that existed at the time the public comment period closed given that §70.38 and its associated administrative regulations clearly contemplate that final decisions regarding certificates of need will be made expeditiously within 90 days of an application being submitted. Thus, as the Court also held that substantial evidence supported the Department of Health’s decision to grant Swedish Medical Center a certificate of need and that Swedish Medical Center’s application for a certificate of need was not fatally flawed insofar as applicants are not required to evaluate the impact of a program upon a potential competitor, the Court reinstated the certificate of need.

Docket No. 80264-5 (from Thurston Case No. 04-2-01506-2)

Petitioner: Department of Health

(Counsel: Peter Scott Ehrlichman, Brian William Grimm, Richard Arthur McCartan, and Alan D. Copsey)

Respondent: University of Washington Medical Center

(Counsel: Kathleen Dell Benedict and Narda D. Pierce)

Briefs:

Argument: Thursday, May 8, 2008 1:30pm

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, July 10th, 2008

Prevailing Party: Department of Health (Petitioner)

Vote: 9-0

Citation: Pending

Court: Alexander4 Court (2008-2009)

Alexander

Johnson

Madsen

Sanders

Chambers
(Majority)

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens