Legal Opinion · Dissent

Daniel Senior Living of Inverness I, LLC v. STV One Nineteen Senior Living, LLC

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama

Decided February 3, 2012No. 2100476Published

1DissentThompson, Presiding Judge

I disagree with the main opinion’s narrow reading of § 22-21-268, Ala.Code 1975. That reading appears to limit the granting of an emergency certificate of need (“CON”) for capital expenditures to an “emergency” situation arising from an equipment failure or from equipment damaged in a manmade or natural disaster. However, § 22-21-268 also provides for authorization of “capital expenditures made necessary by unforeseen events which endanger the health and safety of the patients.” The statute states that authorization of capital expenditures may be granted pursuant to an emergency CON…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ex Parte State Dept. of RevenueSupreme Court of Alabama · 1996
  2. Hulcher v. TauntonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1980
  3. Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid AgencyCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 1985
  4. State Health Planning v. W. Walker Hospice, Inc.Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2008

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API