# Sacred Heart Health System, Inc. v. Infirmary Health System

> Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama · September 24, 2010 · 155 So. 3d 969

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816835

## Case

- **Full name:** SACRED HEART HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. v. INFIRMARY HEALTH SYSTEM and South Baldwin Regional Medical Center Infirmary Health System and South Baldwin Regional Medical Center v. Sacred Heart Health System, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama
- **Decided:** September 24, 2010
- **Citations:** 155 So. 3d 969; 2010 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 276; 2010 WL 3722565
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Pittman
- **Judges:** Application, Bryan, Deny, Moore, Pittman, Thomas, Thompson, Writing
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816835

## Opinion text

PITTMAN, Judge,
dissenting.
The plain language chosen by the legislature in “the physician’s office exemption” excludes from the scope of regulated “health care facilities]” the “offices of private physicians or dentists ... for ... group practices ... regardless of ownership.” Ala.Code 1975, § 22-21-260(6) (emphasis added). The facility at issue in this case, with the exception of an ambulatory-care center (which, as the main opinion notes, has already been the subject of administrative CON proceedings) and separate areas intended for sublease and for retention by the owner, is intended for the exclusive use of a single group practice: Sacred Heart’s affiliated physicians, whose patient billings are fully centralized. In my view, the main opinion penalizes Sacred Heart for being too successful in recruiting and retaining its numerous physicians by preventing it from establishing a medical office for those physicians in Gulf Shores. Because I believe that the facility at issue falls within the physician’s office exemption as set forth by the legislature and as reasonably interpreted by the ad *980 ministrative agency with primary implementation authority, I respectfully dissent from the reversal of the trial court’s judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4816835. Public record. Not legal advice.