Preview:

REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 388 SEPTEMBER TERM, 1998 ______________________________

CARRIAGE HILL-CABIN JOHN, INC. v. MARYLAND HEALTH RESOURCES PLANNING COMMISSION, ET AL. ______________________________ Murphy, C.J. Hollander, Kenney, JJ. ______________________________ Opinion by Hollander, J. ______________________________ Filed: February 25, 1999

This appeal arises from a fierce competition that began in 1991, pitting three health care providers in a battle to obtain the requisite Certificate of Need from the Maryland Health Resources Planning Commission (the "Commission"), appellee, for the

development of new nursing home beds in Montgomery County (the "County"). ("Carriage The Hill" competitors, or "CHCJ"), Carriage Hill-Cabin Marriott John, Inc.1

appellant,

Retirement

Communities, Inc. ("MRCI" or "Marriott"),2 appellee, and Montgomery InterCare Associates ("InterCare"), all sought the right to develop a maximum of 84 comprehensive care beds,3 allocated to the County under the State Health Plan. Ultimately, on November 13, 1995, the Commission issued a Final Decision approving Marriott's proposals and denying the

Appellant has alternately spelled its name with and without a hyphen. At the time, MRCI was a wholly owned subsidiary of Marriott Corporation. In October 1993, as part of a corporate reorganization of Marriott Corporation, the assets of the parent corporation and its subsidiaries were divided between two companies--Host Marriott Corporation and Marriott International, Inc. As part of this reorganization, MRCI became HMC Retirement Properties, Inc., a subsidiary of Host Marriott Corporation. Unless otherwise indicated, we shall refer generically to MRCI and HMC as "Marriott," and we shall use the name Marriott Corporation when we mean the original parent corporation. We shall discuss in Section V, infra, the issues spawned by Marriott Corporation's reorganization. A "comprehensive care facility" ("CCF") is defined as "a facility which admits patients suffering from disease or disabilities or advanced age, requiring medical service and nursing service rendered by or under the supervision of a registered nurse." COMAR 10.07.02.01B(6). A comprehensive care bed is commonly called a nursing home bed.
3 2

1

competing applications submitted by Carriage Hill and InterCare. Thereafter, Carriage Hill and InterCare sought review of the Commission's decision in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. In April 1997, following a stipulated remand to the Commission, the Commission issued a lengthy "Final Decision Revised on Remand" (hereinafter, the "Revised Decision"), again approving Marriott's applications. In a written opinion dated November 17, 1997, the Only Carriage Hill has challenged that

circuit court affirmed.

decision;4 InterCare is not a party to the appeal. Appellant presents the following questions for our review, which we have reformulated slightly: I. Did the circuit court adequately address and resolve all of the potentially dispositive legal issues raised below by Carriage Hill and, if not, should this Court remand the matter to the circuit court to do so? Did the circuit court err in concluding that the Commission complied with the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Commission's own procedural regulations?

II.

III. Did the circuit court err in concluding that the Commission's denial of Carriage Hill's application was based on the Commission's valid interpretation and application of its regulations? IV. Did the circuit court err in concluding that, in approving Marriott's applications, the Commission complied with its regulations?

For the reasons set forth below, we shall affirm.

Several months after noting its appeal, appellant sought to stay enforcement of the Revised Decision. That request was denied by this Court on April 9, 1998. 2

4

I.

Statutory and Regulatory Framework

The Maryland Health Planning and Development statute (the "Act"), Md. Code (1982, 1996 Repl. Vol., 1998 Cum. Supp.),5

Download Carriage Hill v. Md. Health Resource.pdf

Maryland Law