Phoebe North Decision Reversed by Hearing Judge

Press release from the issuing company

Wednesday, October 8th, 2014

The parties to the pending matter involving Phoebe’s north campus have received an order from an Administrative Hearing Officer with the State of Georgia totally reversing a Determination Letter issued by a Division of the Department of Community Health last June.  The June letter had indicated no CON would be necessary if the FTC required a divestiture of the north campus and separated it for sale to a third party.  A result of the June letter has been the resumption of administrative litigation before the FTC in Washington.  The June determination was contrary to and not consistent with the analysis by Phoebe, the Authority and the FTC itself.  The parties’ analysis had led to the Authority, Phoebe and the FTC agreeing in August of last year to a settlement of the pending case with certain conduct remedies as opposed to divestiture.  This decision confirms the FTC and the Authority and Phoebe were right not to continue litigation at that time and the same is true today.  In a statement issued today Phoebe’s Sr. Vice President and General Counsel, Thomas S. Chambless has said:

“We are, of course, pleased with the very clear order of the Hearing Officer who reviewed DCH’s Determination Letter and reversed it.  This order, entered after the Hearing Officer received extensive briefing and oral argument by the parties, makes clear that the analysis done by the Federal Trade Commission last year when it entered into a settlement with Phoebe Putney and the Hospital Authority was and is correct.  A divestiture of the Phoebe North Campus facility is not a remedy which can be effectuated as a result of the proceeding by the FTC.  The Hearing Officer’s Order affirms the conclusion the Federal Trade Commission staff and, then, the Commission itself reached last year.  We are hopeful the Commissioners will now act in accordance with this affirmation of their own earlier analysis and bring this matter to a conclusion, rather than continue with administrative litigation.”