The North Carolina Supreme Court recently issued an order in the Singleton v. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services case, setting a 30-day deadline for new briefs to answer key questions. The case challenges the state’s certificate-of-need law, with plaintiff Dr. Jay Singleton arguing that the law prevents him from performing eye surgeries at his own facility.
In a separate ruling in the Askew v. City of Kinston case, the high court rejected the argument that residents needed to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging property condemnation practices. This decision has implications for Singleton’s case, as it raises questions about whether plaintiffs need to exhaust administrative remedies and whether their constitutional claims are facial or as-applied challenges.
Singleton, represented by lawyers from the Institute for Justice, argues that the state’s CON law violates his constitutional rights by granting CarolinaEast hospital exclusive rights to perform surgeries with a CON. The debate during oral arguments centered on whether Singleton’s challenge is as-applied or facial, with justices questioning the state’s defense of the CON law.
Singleton’s lawyers argue that the CON law is not reasonably necessary to protect the public and harms real patients. They assert that the legislature has crossed constitutional lines with this law and that the court has a duty to declare it unconstitutional in Singleton’s case.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for health care regulation in North Carolina and beyond, as it raises questions about the constitutionality of CON laws and their impact on patient access to care.
Source
Photo credit www.carolinajournal.com