The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Carolinas HealthCare System and Presbyterian Healthcare System d/b/a Presbyterian Hospital-York, LLC, Petitioners,
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Respondent, Of whom Presbyterian Healthcare System d/b/a Presbyterian Hospital-York, LLC is Appellant/Respondent, and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority d/b/a Carolinas Healthcare System is Respondent/Appellant, and Amisub of South Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Piedmont Healthcare System d/b/a Fort Mill Medical Center, Respondent/Appellant.
H. Toal C.J.
and Respondent/Appellant Amisub of South Carolina, Inc. filed
notices of appeal in the Court of Appeals from an order of
the Administrative Law Court (ALC) dated December 9, 2009.
That order granted Amisub's motion for partial summary
judgment, granted petitioners motion for summary judgment,
and remanded the case to the Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC) for a determination as to which
party, if any, was entitled to a certificate of need. The
Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals.
Presbyterian Healthcare System has now filed a motion to
certify the appeals to this Court pursuant to Rule 204(b),
SCACR, and a motion to expedite the proceedings. Neither
Petitioner Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority nor
Amisub oppose the motions. We hereby certify the appeals to
this Court pursuant to Rule 204(b), SCACR. However, we
dismiss the appeals because the order of the ALC is not
right of appeal arises from and is controlled by statutory
law. Ex parte Capital U-Drive-It, Inc., 369 S.C. 1,
630 S.E.2d 464 (2006). South Carolina Code Ann. §
14-3-330(1) (1976) provides that an interlocutory order is
immediately appealable if it involves the merits. However,
where there is a specialized statute, § 14-3-330 does
not govern the right to review. Ex parte Capital
U-Drive-It, Inc., supra.
Carolina Code Ann. § 1-23-610(A)(1) (Supp. 2009)
provides that judicial review may only be sought from a
final decision of the ALC. Therefore, although
§ 14-3-330 permits appeals from interlocutory orders
which involve the merits, that section is inapplicable in
cases where a party seeks review of a decision of the ALC
because the more specific statute, § 1-23-610, limits
review to final decisions of the ALC. Ex parte Capital
U-Drive-It, Inc., supra. See also Spectre, LLC v.
S.C. Carolina Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control,
386 S.C. 357, 688 S.E.2d 844 (2010) (a specific statute
prevails over a more general statute). To the extent
Canteen v. McLeod Reg'l Med. Ctr, 384 S.C. 617,
682 S.E.2d 504 (Ct. App. 2009). and Oakwood Landfill,
Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 381
S.C. 120, 671 S.E.2d 646 (Ct. App. 2009), rely on
§14-3-330 to permit the appeal of interlocutory orders
of the ALC or an administrative agency, those cases are
order of the ALC in this case is not a final order. If there
is some further act which must be done by the court prior to
a determination of the rights of the parties, the order is
interlocutory. Hooper v. Rockwell, 334 S.C. 281, 513
S.E.2d 358 (1999); Mid-State Distributors, Inc. v.
Century Importers, Inc., 310 S.C. 330, 426 S.E.2d 777
(1993); Adickes v. Allison & Bratton, 21 S.C.
245 (1884). A judgment which determines the applicable law,
but leaves open questions of fact, is not a final judgment.
Hooper v. Rockwell, supra; Mid-State
Distributors, Inc. v. Century Importers, Inc.,
supra; Good v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity
Co., 201 S.C. 32, 21 S.E.2d 209 (1942). A final judgment
disposes of the whole subject matter of the action or
terminates the particular proceeding or action, leaving
nothing to be done but to enforce by execution what has been
determined. Good v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity
ALC's order upholds DHEC's finding that Amisub was a
competing applicant for the certificate of need at issue in
this matter. However, the ALC found DHEC erroneously
interpreted the State Health Plan to allow only existing
providers to obtain a certificate of need. Based on this
finding, the ALC remanded the matter to DHEC to determine
whether any of the applicants were entitled to the
certificate of need. Although the ALC decided questions of
law involved in this matter, a final determination as to the
certificate of need has not been made. Therefore, the order
of the ALC is interlocutory and is not a final decision which
is immediately appealable under § 1-23-610. Accordingly,
we dismiss this matter.
M. Pleicones J., Donald W. Beatty J., John W. Kittredge ...