The last couple of years have been a full on battle with little payoff in the fight for the right to build a hospital in Fort Mill. Follow this timeline...
- March 31, 2014: Judge Phillip Lenski gave PMC the required certificate of need, ruling that if Carolinas HealthCare built a Fort Mill hospital it would adversely affect the Rock Hill hospital and other independent physicians in York County financially and affect the quality of medical care offered.
- April 9, 2014: Carolinas HealthCare asked Lenski to reconsider his decision.
- May 21, 2015: Lenski vacated his order giving PMC permission to build, pending a decision on Carolinas HealthCare’s request. Vacating his order means it no longer exists, said Debra Gammons, a professor at the Charleston School Law, and Rock Hill lawyer Dan Ballou. Gammons said vacating the order was an unusual step and that neither Carolinas HealthCare nor PMC has the state’s approval to build a Fort Mill hospital.
- December 15, 2014: The S.C. Administrative Law Court filed an amended final order that awarded a certificate of need for the long-discussed hospital to Piedmont Medical.
- February, 2015:
S.C. Administrative Law Judge Phillip Lenski granted Carolinas HealthCare System a stay that would block Piedmont Medical Center from beginning construction of its planned hospital.
Two days later, Lenski issued an order vacating that ruling because Piedmont's response objecting to that stay was "apparently misrouted to another judge on the Administrative Law Court."
The order for a stay is vacated pending further review by the court.
- March 17, 2015:
Carolinas HealthCare System filed a motion requesting relief from the bond requirement and issuing a stay to prevent Piedmont Medical Center from building a Fort Mill hospital while the matter is being litigated.
Carolinas HealthCare System argues the Legislature overstepped its authority when it required companies appealing a certificate-of-need decision to post a bond before a case can be heard by the state Court of Appeals. Carolinas HealthCare System said the bond requirement is unconstitutional under federal and state law and that under the current legislation, “there is no right for judicial review; rather, judicial review is a legislatively created privilege available to those who are able and willing to purchase it.”
The legislative requirement interferes with the state court’s constitutional authority to set its own rules, Carolinas HealthCare System attorneys said in filings last month with the state Court of Appeals. The court system has its own procedures covering appeal bonds that gives the appellate court “considerable discretion” in determining whether a bond is appropriate, Carolinas HealthCare System argued.
