Bradley Home v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs.

905 S.E.2d 73

BRADLEY HOME, Caring for Wake Community and the Carolinas, Inc. d/b/a/ Bradley Home (MHL #092-319) and d/b/a Bradley Home Extension – Kimberly House (MHL #092-412), Petitioner,

v.N.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Division of Health Service Regulation, Mental Health Licensure and Certification Section, Respondent.

No. COA24-107

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 16, 2024

Appeal by Respondent from order entered 5 October 2023 by Judge Bryan Collins in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 June 2024. Wake County, No. 23 CVS 5430-910

Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC., by Matthew W. Wolfe and E. Bahati Mutisya, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Kerry M. Boehm, for Respondent-Appellant.

GRIFFIN, Judge.

Respondent North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services appeals from the Superior Court’s order reversing and remanding an order of an Administrative Law Judge dismissing Petitioner Bradley Home’s section 150B-23 petition for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. DHHS argues North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e), the Mailbox Rule, does not apply to extend the statutorily mandated sixty-day deadline for a party aggrieved by a State agency decision to file a petition contesting that decision. We agree.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

DHHS is a State agency tasked with the licensing and oversight of mental health care facilities operating within the State. Petitioner is licensed by DHHS to operate two mental health care facilities: (1) Bradley Home at Kelly Road in Garner, NC (Bradley Home) and (2) Bradley Home Extension - Kimberly House in Raleigh, NC (Kimberly House). In June 2021, after Petitioner submitted License Renewal Applications for both the Bradley Home and Kimberly House facilities, DHHS, pursuant to its authority under Chapter 122C of the North Carolina General Statutes, conducted surveys of both facilities. The surveys identified numerous violations of the North Carolina Administrative Code at both of Petitioner’s facilities.

On 21 June 2021, DHHS notified Petitioner by certified mail that it was citing both facilities for these violations and imposed monetary penalties totaling $7,000. In each of the letters, DHHS notified Petitioner it had the right to contest the penalties by filing a petition for a contested case hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings within thirty days from the date the letter was mailed. Accordingly, the deadline to contest the penalties was 21 July 2021.

On the same day that DHHS imposed the penalties, it also notified Petitioner via certified mail that it would be suspending admissions from both of Petitioner’s facilities (collectively, the "SOA Letters"). For each SOA Letter, Petitioner had the right to contest the suspensions by filing a petition for a contested case hearing with the OAH within twenty days from the date the letter was placed in the mail. Accordingly, the deadline to contest the SOA Letters was 11 July 2021.

Finally, and at issue here, on 3 August 2021, DHHS notified Petitioner by certified mail that it was revoking its licenses to operate its facilities. In each of the letters, DHHS notified Petitioner that under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23(f), it had the right to file petitions contesting the revocations within sixty days from the date the letter was mailed. Accordingly, the deadline to file the petitions was 4 October 2021.¹ On 5 October 2021, Petitioner filed a petition appealing the revocations and the other administrative actions.

Eight months later, on 3 June 2022, Petitioner—with DHHS’s consent—filed a Consent Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice, allowing Petitioner "to re-file its contested case petition to include claims concerning the Revocation Notices, Suspension Notices, and Penalty Notices, and associated surveys." On 5 July 2022, Petitioner re-filed its petition with the OAH, challenging: (1) the 21 June 2021 penalties; (2) the 21 June 2021 suspensions of admission; and (3) the 3 August 2021 revocation of Petitioner’s licenses to operate its facilities. DHHS moved to dismiss arguing that, because the petition was filed outside the respective specified time-periods for filing with regard to all three notices, the OAH lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case. The ALJ agreed with DHHS and dismissed the petition regarding all three notices. Petitioner timely appealed to Wake County Superior Court, arguing that, under the Mailbox Rule, it had an extra three days to file the initial petition for a contested case hearing with the OAH.

The Superior Court held that Petitioner’s initial petition, filed on 5 October 2021, was untimely as to the suspension of admissions and administrative penalties because the deadlines were 11 July 2021 and 21 July 2021, respectively. However, applying the Mailbox Rule, the Superior Court held that the petition contesting the license revocations was timely even though it was filed past the sixty-day deadline. The trial court concluded that the OAH had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the merits regarding the license revocations and reversed and remanded the decision to the OAH. DHHS timely appealed.

IL Analysis

A. Standard of Review

[1] Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes, the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act, " ‘governs trial and appellate court review of administrative agency decisions.’ " Harnett Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Ret. Sys. Div., Dep’t of State Treasurer, 291 N.C. App. 14, 19, 894 S.E.2d 275, 279 (2023) (quoting Amanini v. N.C. Dep’t of Hum. Res., 114 N.C. App. 668, 673, 443 S.E.2d 114, 117 (1994)). Pursuant to the APA, an aggrieved party may seek review of an ALJ’s final decision by a superior court. Id.; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-43 (2023). In this context, the superior court sits in an appellate capacity and reviews errors of law de novo. Bernold v. Bd. of Governors of Univ. of N.C., 200 N.C. App. 295, 297-298, 683 S.E.2d 428, 430 (2009) (citations and internal marks omitted); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-51(b)–(c) (2023). Following an appeal of an ALJ’s decision to a superior court, the APA affords litigants the right to "appeal from the superior court’s final judgment to the appellate division." EnvironmentaLEE v. N.C. Dep’t of Env’t and Nat’l Res., 258 N.C. App. 590, 595, 813 S.E.2d 673, 677 (2018); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-52 (2023).

[2] On review, we examine "the trial court’s order for errors of law; this ‘twofold task’ involves: ‘(1) determining whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review and, if appropriate, (2) deciding whether the court did so properly.’ " Hardee v. N.C. Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 164 N.C. App. 628, 633, 596 S.E.2d 324, 328 (2004) (citation and internal marks omitted).

DHHS asks this Court to reverse the Superior Court’s decision and affirm the ALJ’s initial decision dismissing Petitioner’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Both the ALJ and Superior Court’s decisions turn on whether the Mailbox Rule applies to extend the sixty-day filing deadline provided in section 150B-23(f). As the parties agree about when the pertinent filings were made, we address whether the Superior Court erred in reaching the conclusion of law that the Mailbox Rule applies.

B. Superior Court Standard of Review

[3] The Superior Court reviewed the ALJ’s order de novo. As the ALJ engaged in the statutory construction of section 150B-23(f) to determine the petition was untimely, de novo review was appropriate. See Moore v. Proper, 366 N.C. 25, 30, 726 S.E.2d 812, 817 (2012) ("[W]hen a trial court’s determination relies on statutory interpretation, [appellate] review is de novo because those matters of statutory interpretation necessarily present questions of law.") (citation omitted).

Having determined the Superior Court applied the correct standard of review, we now address whether its conclusions of law were proper.

C. Conclusions of Law

[4] The dispositive issue here is whether the Mailbox Rule applies to extend the section 150B-23(f) sixty-day period during which an aggrieved party may file a petition to contest a decision of an administrative agency. If it does not apply, then the petition was untimely and deprived the ALJ from having the necessary subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. See Gray v. N.C. Dep’t of Env’t, Health & Hum. Res., 149 N.C. App. 374, 378, 560 S.E.2d 394, 397 (2002) ("[W]e agree that timely filing of a petition is necessary to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the agencies as well as the courts[.]") (citation omitted).

[5–7] " ‘Statutory interpretation properly begins with an examination of the plain words of the statute.’ " Belmont Ass’n v. Farwig, 381 N.C. 306, 310, 873 S.E.2d 486, 489 (quoting Correll v. Div. of Soc. Serve., 332 N.C. 141, 144, 418 S.E.2d 232, 235 (1992)). When interpreting the language of a statute, "[w]e presume that the Legislature chose its words with due care and comprehension of their ordinary meaning." C Invs. 2, LLC v. Auger, 383 N.C. 1, 10, 881 S.E.2d 270, 278 (2022) (citation omitted). To this point, "it is the duty of this Court to give effect to the plain meaning of the statute, and judicial construction of legislative intent is not required." State v. Washington, 386 N.C. 265, 268, 900 S.E.2d 657, 659 (2024) (quoting In re R.L.C., 361 N.C. 287, 292, 643 S.E.2d 920, 923 (2007)) (internal marks omitted). Moreover, where the language of a statute is clear, we do not "delete words used or [ ] insert words not used." Lunsford v. Mills, 367 N.C. 618, 623, 766 S.E.2d 297, 301 (2014) (citations and internal marks omitted).

Section 150B-23 of the APA codifies the process by which a party aggrieved by a State Agency decision may contest said decision. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-23(a) (2023). That process includes filing a petition with the Office of Administrative...