RALEIGH — North Carolina’s highest court ruled Friday that a lower court should reconsider the constitutionality of a state law that requires health regulators to sign off before expanded health care services can be offered to the public.
An eye doctor originated the challenge to the series of statutes known as the certificate of need law. Dr. Jay Singleton, owner of Singleton Vision Center of New Bern, argued the requirement that regulators approve his ability to perform surgeries at his office violates his constitutional rights.
The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous unsigned opinion, ordered that Singleton’s case be returned to a trial court.
The justices wrote in part that the trial court that originally heard the case and a panel on the intermediate-level Court of Appeals mistakenly treated the lawsuit as one that challenged the law solely as it related to Singleton’s situation.
In fact, Friday’s decision read, the lawsuit also contains allegations of “facial challenges” that “if proven, could render the Certificate of Need law unconstitutional in all its applications.” That could eliminate fully the requirement that a medical entity seeking to expand bed space or use expensive equipment receive formal approval from the Department of Health and Human Services.
The agency is supposed to determine whether the services are necessary due to things like population growth or patient needs. Republican lawmakers and right-leaning think tanks have sought to reform or do away with certificate of need, replacing them with more free-market forces.
The facial challenge found in the lawsuit means three trial judges could now preside over the case instead of one.
Singleton sued the state health agency and executive and legislative branch leaders in 2020, alleging he was essentially unable to expand his New Bern practice and offer less costly surgeries because state regulators have calculated there’s no need in his area for additional operating room space. Singleton had been performing most of his surgeries at a New Bern hospital.
The ruling that vacates the 2022 Court of Appeals decision sets no date for the case to be heard.