HIGH WATCH RECOVERY CENTER, INC. v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH et al., SC 21107

Judicial District of New Britain

Administrative Appeal; Whether Plaintiff, Who Holds Certificate of Need for Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Same Vicinity as Applicant for Same Certificate and Intervened in Proceedings on Application, Has Standing to Appeal to Superior Court from Granting of Application by State Department of Public Health. The defendant, Birch Hill Recovery Center, LLC (Birch Hill), filed an application for a Certificate of Need (CoN) with the Office of Health Care Access (OHCA) for approval to establish a for-profit substance abuse treatment facility in Kent. OHCA granted the petition of the plaintiff, High Watch Recovery Center, Inc. (High Watch), a non-profit substance abuse treatment facility in Kent, to intervene with rights to cross-examination at the hearing, to inspect and copy records on file with OHCA related to the subject CoN, and to be copied on all pleadings, correspondence and filings until the issuance of a final decision by OHCA. Following a hearing, OHCA's hearing officer recommended in a proposed final decision that Birch Hill's application be denied. Birch Hill filed a brief in opposition. After oral argument, Birch Hill and the defendant, the state Department of Public Health (DPH), entered a settlement agreement approving Birch Hill's application subject to certain conditions. High Watch filed an administrative appeal from the decision to the Superior Court. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, claiming that High Watch lacked standing to challenge the decision approving Birch Hill's application. The trial court granted the motions, finding that (1) High Watch could not establish aggrievement by its intervenor status alone or by its allegations of procedural failures at the administrative agency level; (2) protecting the business models of competitors is not within the zone of interests protected by the relevant CoN statute, General Statutes § 19a-639, and, therefore, High Watch is asserting a legal interest that is not protected by the statute; and (3) general claims of future financial injury are too speculative to support aggrievement. High Watch appealed to the Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court transferred the appeal to itself. On appeal, High Watch claims that the trial court's decision dismissing its administrative appeal for lack of standing is improper because High Watch, as an existing holder of a CoN in the immediate geographic vicinity of an applicant for the same certificate, falls within the zone of interests protected by General Statutes § 19a-639, and because it also has standing as an intervenor with the procedural rights granted to it to appeal a fundamentally unfair administrative proceeding.