High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. v. Dept. of Public Health
Citations
- 347 Conn. 317
Syllabus
Pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (UAPA) (§ 4-166 et seq.), only an agency's final decision in a contested case is appealable to the Superior Court. Pursuant further to the UAPA (§ 4-166 (4)), a ''contested case'' is ''a proceed- ing . . . in which the legal rights, duties or privileges of a party are required by state statute or regulation to be determined by an agency after an opportunity for hearing or in which a hearing is in fact held . . . .'' The plaintiff, a nonprofit substance abuse treatment facility in Kent, appealed to the Superior Court from the decision of the named defendant, the Department of Public Health, which approved the application of the defendant B Co. for a certificate of need to establish another substance abuse treatment facility in Kent. In 2017, B Co. submitted its application to the Office of Health Care Access (OHCA). Thereafter, the OHCA sent a letter to B Co. notifying it that a public hearing on its application would be held on a certain date. The letter stated that a mandatory hearing would be held pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2017) § 19a-639a (e)) if, after the hearing notice was published in a newspaper, the OCHA received a properly filed request for a hearing from the requisite number of members of the public. The letter further stated that the hearing notice was being issued pursuant to § 19a-639a (f) (2), which provides that the OHCA ''may'' hold a public hearing with respect to any certificate of need application. Included with the letter was a copy of the hearing notice, which advised the public that any person who wished to request status in the public hearing could do so by filing a written petition. Prior to the scheduled hearing, the plaintiff filed a notice of appearance with the OHCA and submitted a petition requesting to be designated as an intervenor with full procedural rights to oppose B Co.'s application, including the opportunity to call witnesses, to present evidence, and to cross-examine B C
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.