ÿWPC ¢°“b~¿µý>ãjW¸h¶¦?¿ý<ãÌe3»:ªc8¯Q½q â‹)-²Q«?u1Š=ÄuLp¶gEÿ:ÔéÁcø2_oÃ;©¸Úb˜ †›áÄ¡|%b‚b™™5kHíÑÇ\ð ^éaG­ÕI}OÚ9wñèg@t% Êyë! 3þ°çP;-g, þÄWÛŠ>Y~ãëLÒ§ŽÈ”æ¬Lv]^¯Êý™£Am8v…ïJPy¶Që‘Ù&Ë 6©)bÙpi@þ„¯ñ6éi5¹…æàbOÒóÉp,›v“ñ—©AMÃã: JH±* ¹Úf~Áq±!¹åÁ&CÑÏð¹| pÞT%C½ê¥"í8ÙÆôž*svÚ«ô`˜”° ¿‘(Z ŠY*oÁ6·„•¤î C7÷cê f,«C› -ú”é÷À"}T¯{L{¯E„SÝuGvNãõQÏÝ|B`dP¸«2µøÃê8©_ÿÕoNò­U}ÏK9fÉ¿x&³;ÉÌœ›í6SdÚå­ë„y)ü—Ò$ÝH¶ü¤ÇnWAС¿¦ÿ|6äWàI¿øF¯cy`¸æ|÷m ¸¤„lUˆ¦òs)l9ã“OÍÉ°¼Rœï${`‰d”$£b#É\ %% ^ + 0ˆ7 UN¿ w 4 z% ÒŸ q € m‚ ‚ Æ™ Æ_ Æ%Æë 0D±Nõ÷úÿEùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùùbûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûûû 0ë Bîî 0¤  D3¯ D-â 0K ASZÆ­ 0¤s 0D A«[˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»‘/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  ðÝ ƒRc„$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ5ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€Inasmuch€as€the€entirety€of€the€proceedings€below€took€place€pursuant€to€the€Tennessee€Health€Planning€andÐ ° ÐResource€Development€Act€of€1987,€which€was€repealed€by€the€legislature€effective€July€1,€2002;€2002€Pub.€Acts,€c.€780,Ð tÄ Ððð€9,€the€citations€in€this€opinion€shall€be€to€the€statutes€as€they€appeared€prior€to€this€repeal.- ù-(|G2c„$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ne»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâ5ò»»Ô d(|3‰Y$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ne»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰Y$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ne»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ne»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ne»»»ÔÑ8€ IXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îH´î»¼NeÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Ne»îîH´ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€3,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X IX»¼NeÔÌò òÔ#†¼Ne»XX Iö#ÔÔ_ÔMORRISTOWNÔ_Ô€SURGERY€CENTER,€LLCòòóó€v.€TENNESSEE€Ð úJ ÐHEALTH€FACILITIES€COMMISSION,€òòET€ALóó.€Ô‡X IX»¼NeÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€02„258„III€€€€€€Ellen€Ô_ÔHobbsÔ_Ô€Lyle,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02872„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€15,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ԀР¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€under€the€Administrative€Procedures€Act€challenges€a€chancery€court€order€affirmingÐ ŒÜ Ðthe€dismissal€of€the€Appellantððs€Petition€for€Contested€Case€Review.€€We€affirm.€€Ð xÈ ÐÓ;ÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Ð P  ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ <Œ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Ne»àX IÎ#ÔÔ‡X IX.¼NeÔWilliam€B.€Cain,óó€J.,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó€andÐ d ÐòòJames€L.€Ô_ÔWeatherfordÔ_Ô,€Sr.€J.óó,€joined.Ð P ÐÌMichael€D.€Brent,€W.€Davidson€Ô_ÔBroemelÔ_Ô,€Melissa€Ô_ÔBallengeeÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellant,Ð Ø( ÐÔ_ÔMorristownÔ_Ô€Surgery€Center,€LLC.€Ð Ä ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Sara€E.€Sedgwick,€Assistant€Attorney€General;Ð œì ÐSue€Ann€Sheldon,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€Tennessee€Health€FacilitiesÐ ˆØ ÐCommission.Ð t Ä ÐÌWarren€L.€Gooch,€Robert€W.€Ô_ÔKnoltonÔ_Ô,€Knoxville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellee,€Associates€of€theÐ L"œ! ÐMeridian€Health€Outpatient€Center,€LLC.Ð 8#ˆ" ÐÓÅÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Ne»XX Iô#ÔÔ‡X IX»¼NeÔÐ %` $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Ne»XX I #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X IX»¼NeÔà  àThis€dispute€originated€with€the€filing€of€two€applications€for€Certificates€of€Need€(CON).€Ð è&8"& ÐÔ_ÔMorristownÔ_Ô€Surgery€Center,€LLC€(Ô_ÔMSCÔ_Ô)€sought€a€CON€for€its€proposed€facility€across€SeventhÐ Ô'$#' ÐStreet€North€on€the€campus€of€Ô_ÔLakewayÔ_Ô€Regional€Hospital.€€Associates€of€the€Meridian€HealthÐ À($( ÐOutpatient€Center,€LLC€(Meridian)€sought€a€CON€for€its€proposed€facility€to€be€located€on€WestÐ ¬)ü$) ÐFourth€Street€North,€adjacent€to€Ô_ÔMorristownÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔHamblenÔ_Ô€Hospital.€€The€Tennessee€Health€FacilitiesÐ ˜*è%* ÐCommission€(the€Commission)€scheduled€these€applications€for€simultaneous€review.€€During€theÐ „+Ô&+ Ðcourse€of€the€Commissionððs€hearing,€a€suggestion€was€made€that€Ô_ÔMSCÔ_Ôððs€certificate€may€have€beenÐ p,À', Ðsubstantially€amended€by€the€addition€of€certain€other€putative€owners,€namely€a€Dr.€Robert€Lane,Ð \-¬(-ýÿ ÐÔ_Ôwho€had€previously€registered€opposition€to€both€applications.€€Shortly€after€this€suggestion€wasÐ ° Ðmade€upon€the€Commissionððs€record,€MSC€deferred€its€application,€leaving€Meridianððs€applicationÐ œì Ðremaining.€€During€consideration€of€the€Meridian€application,€the€Commission€heard€only€from€Dr.Ð ˆØ ÐLane€in€opposition.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àPrior€to€the€deferral€of€MSCððs€application,€in€opening€statements,€counsel€for€MSC€madeÐ L œ Ðcertain€comments€comparing€MSCððs€application€to€that€of€Meridian,€stating€that€for€various€reasonsÐ 8 ˆ ÐMSCððs€facility€would€be€a€better€alternative€to€that€of€Meridian.€€Further,€after€the€deferral,€andÐ $ t Ðdespite€the€continued€presence€of€representatives€of€MSC€in€the€Commission€hearing,€MSC€madeÐ  ` Ðno€further€statements€in€opposition€on€the€record.€€After€the€hearing€on€December€13,€2000,€theÐ ü L  ÐCommission€issued€a€Certificate€of€Need€to€Meridian.Ð è 8  ÐÌà  àOn€January€12,€2001,€MSC€filed€a€Petition€for€Contested€Case€Review€challenging€theÐ À  ÐCommissionððs€issuance€of€a€CON€to€Meridian.€€The€Commission€and€Meridian€filed€separateÐ ¬ü  Ðmotions€to€dismiss€challenging€MSCððs€standing€to€contest€the€CONððs€issuance€under€TennesseeÐ ˜è  ÐCode€Annotated€section€68„11„109.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€After€hearing€oral€argument€on€the€motions,€and€uponÐ „Ô  Ðconsideration€of€the€Commissionððs€record,€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€dismissed€MSCððs€PetitionÐ pÀ Ðfor€Contested€Case€Review€and€entered€findings€of€fact€consistent€with€the€above€recitation.€€OfÐ \¬ Ðparticular€note€in€those€findings€is€the€following€description€of€Dr.€Laneððs€role€in€the€applicationÐ H˜ Ðprocess€for€both€MSC€and€Meridian:€€Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  à2)à ` àPrior€to€the€December€13,€2000€meeting€of€the€Commission,€a€writtenÐ  \ Ðobjection€was€received€from€Dr.€Robert€Lane,€who€entered€an€objection€to€both€theÐ øH ÐPetitionerððs€and€the€Respondentððs€applications€for€certificates€of€need.€€No€otherÐ ä4 Ðwritten€objections€were€received€regarding€the€Respondent€Meridianððs€proposedÐ Ð  Ðproject.м Ð Ð  Ðà8  à3)à ` àAt€the€December€13,€2000€Commission€meeting,€Mr.€Michael€Brent,€counselÐ ¨ø Ðfor€the€Petitionerððs€proposed€Morristown/Lakeway€project,€was€present€to€advanceÐ ”ä Ðthe€Petitionerððs€interest€in€receiving€a€CON€from€the€Commission.€€When€Mr.€BrentÐ €Ð Ðintroduced€to€the€Commission€those€persons€present€who€would€be€speaking€onÐ l¼ Ðbehalf€of€the€project,€Mr.€Brent€did€not€include€Dr.€Robert€Lane€among€those€he€hadÐ X ¨ Ðassembled€to€speak€to€the€Commission€that€day€on€behalf€of€the€Petitionerððs€project.ÐD!”Ð Ð  Ðà8  à4)à ` àDr.€Lane€appeared€at€the€December€13,€2000€meeting€of€the€Commission,€andÐ 0"€  Ðdescribed€his€participation€in€physician€discussions€with€supporters€of€both€theÐ #l! ÐMorristown/Lakeway€project€and€the€Meridian€project.€€Dr.€Lane€stated€to€theÐ $X" ÐCommission:Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à.€.€.€I€invited€all€of€the€surgeons€in€town€to€my€house€to€discuss€theÐ Ì&"% Ðpossibility€[of€building€an€ambulatory€surgical€treatment€center].€€AllÐ ¸'#& Ðof€them€were€enthusiastic€about€the€opportunity€to€provide€a€centerÐ ° Ðlocally.€€As€currently,€patients€desiring€to€go€to€this€type€of€facilityÐ œì Ðmust€go€elsewhere€[sic].€€We€decided€at€that€time€to€approachÐ ˆØ ÐMorristown„Hamblen€Hospital€[the€Meridian€project],€intending€toÐ tÄ Ðwork€with€them€to€make€this€concept€a€reality.€€We€subsequently€hadÐ `° Ðdiscussion€with€both€hospitals,€and€as€a€group€have€decided€toÐ L œ Ðsupport€the€application€of€Lakeway€Regional€Hospital.€€WhyÐ 8 ˆ ÐLakeway€and€not€Morristown„Hamblen,€or€both?€€Well,€it€was€feltÐ $ t Ðthat€our€community€could€not€keep€two€centers€busy.€€Our€assessmentÐ  ` Ðwas€that€the€opportunity€for€physician€input,€guidance€and€directionÐ ü L  Ðwas€better€with€the€former.€€This€decision€was€made€two€days€ago€atÐ è 8  Ðthe€meeting€to€which€all€procedure„oriented€physicians€were€invitedÐ Ô$  Ðafter€animated€discussion€and€vote.ÐÀ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àDr.€Laneððs€comments€were€in€support€of€the€Morristown/Lakeway€project,€andÐ ˜è  Ðappeared€to€be€related€to€his€belief€that€the€region€could€not€support€two€centers,€andÐ „Ô  Ðhis€belief€that€the€terms€of€the€Morristown/Lakeway€project€would€be€more€favorableÐ pÀ Ðto€the€surgeons€he€had€organized€to€discuss€the€projects.€€And,€as€noted€above,€Dr.Ð \¬ ÐLane€informed€the€Commission€that€ð ðthis€decision€was€made€two€days€ago€at€theÐ H˜ Ðmeeting€to€which€all€procedure„oriented€physicians€were€invited€after€animatedÐ 4„ Ðdiscussion€and€vote.ðð€€Dr.€Lane€then€ended€his€remarks.Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` à.€.€.€.Ð øH ÐÌà8  à8)à ` àAs€noted€above,€at€one€point€during€the€December€13,€2000€meeting€of€theÐ Ð  ÐCommission,€Petitioner€Morristown/Lakeway€requested€that€consideration€of€itsÐ ¼  Ðapplication€be€deferred€to€the€January€meeting€of€the€Commission€for€theirÐ ¨ø Ðconsideration€at€that€time.€€Mr.€Michael€Brent,€Counsel€for€the€PetitionerÐ ”ä ÐMorristown/Lakeway,€then€apparently€left€the€Commission€meeting€and€did€notÐ €Ð Ðreturn.€€Accordingly,€Petitioner€Morristown/Lakeway€did€not€formally€object€to€theÐ l¼ ÐRespondent€Meridianððs€application€at€the€Commission€meeting.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  Ðà8  àà ` àAdditionally,€at€no€point€did€Dr.€Lane,€clearly€and€unequivocally€acting€onÐ D!” Ðbehalf€of€the€Petitioner€Morristown/Lakeway,€indicate€that€he€was€objecting€to€theÐ 0"€  ÐMeridianððs€application€on€behalf€of€Morristown/Lakeway.€€Indeed,€Dr.€Laneððs€statusÐ #l! Ðat€the€Commission€meeting€seemed€from€the€record€to€be€more€that€of€a€nebulouslyÐ $X" Ðfloating€ð ðbelleðð€awaiting€the€approach€of€the€most€favorable€dance€partner.€€BecauseÐ ô$D # Ðthe€status€of€Dr.€Lane€(and€with€whom€he€was€actually€affiliated€and€representing€atÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€Commission€meeting,€or€with€whom€he€was€not€actually€affiliated)€is€ambiguousÐ Ì&"% Ðin€the€record€of€the€Commissionððs€proceedings,€and€Dr.€Lane€did€not€clearly€identifyÐ ¸'#& Ðhimself€for€all€present€and€concerned€as€representing€Petitioner€Morristown/Ð ¤(ô#' ÐLakeway,€the€undersigned€will€not€infer€such€representation,€especially€in€light€of€theÐ )à$( ÐPetitionerððs€counselððs€deferral€of€the€Petitionerððs€CON€application,€in€order€to€clarifyÐ |*Ì%) Ðwhether€Dr.€Laneððs€statements€to€the€Commission€triggered€concerns€of€aÐ h+¸&* Ðð ðsubstantive€amendmentðð€to€the€Petitionerððs€CON€application.€€The€record€before€theÐ ° ÐCommission,€at€most,€indicates€that€Dr.€Lane€was€opposing€both€the€PetitionerððsÐ œì Ðapplication€and€the€Respondentððs€application€on€his€own€behalf.€€Anything€more,€onÐ ˆØ Ðthis€record,€is€sheer€speculation.€ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€addition€to€such€findings,€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€made€the€following€conclusionsÐ L œ Ðof€law:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà8  à1)à ` àT.C.A.€ðð€68„11„108(h)€provides€two€ways€in€which€a€health€care€institutionÐ  ` Ðor€other€person€may€object€to€a€CON€application.€€As€explained€in€section€108(h)(1),Ð ü L  Ða€party€opposed€to€a€CON€application€ð ðmust€file€a€written€objectionðð€with€theÐ è 8  ÐCommission€15€days€before€a€Commission€meeting.€€In€the€alternative,€T.C.A.€ðð€68„Ð Ô$  Ð11„108(h)(2)€provides€that€a€party€objecting€may€appear€before€the€Commission€andÐ À  Ðexpress€opposition.€€Only€a€party€that€has€objected€to€a€CON€application€in€one€ofÐ ¬ü  Ðthese€ways€may€appeal€the€Commissionððs€decision€granting€a€CON.Иè Ð Ð  Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  à2)à0 ` àT.C.A.€ðð€68„11„109(a)(1)€provides€as€follows:ÐpÀ` (#` (# ÐÌà  àà8 ` àWithin€thirty€(30)€days€from€the€date€of€the€commissionððs€meeting€atÐ H˜ Ðwhich€action€was€taken€on€an€application,€the€applicant,€òòany€healthÐ 4„ Ðcare€institution€which€filed€a€written€objection€in€accordance€with€ððÐ  p Ð68„11„108(h)(1),€or€any€other€person€who€objected€to€the€applicationÐ  \ Ðpursuant€to€ðð€68„11„108(h)(2)€may€petition€the€commission€in€writingÐ øH Ðfor€a€hearing,€in€the€case€of€a€commission€approval€or€denial€of€anÐ ä4 Ðapplication.óó€€Notwithstanding€any€other€provision€of€law,€all€personsÐ Ð  Ðare€and€shall€be€barred€from€filing€any€petition€for€a€contested€caseÐ ¼  Ðhearing€after€such€thirty„day€period,€and€the€commission€shall€haveÐ ¨ø Ðno€jurisdiction€to€consider€any€late„filed€petition.Дä` x` x ÐÌà8  àThis€statute€identifies€only€three€entities€which€may€petition€the€Commission:€€theÐ l¼ Ðapplicant,€a€health€care€institution€which€has€filed€a€written€objection,€or€a€personÐ X ¨ Ðwho€objected€to€the€application€at€the€Commission€hearing.€€This€interpretation€isÐ D!” Ðconfirmed€by€the€Commission€regulations€which€provide:Ð0"€ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àEligibility€to€appeal.€€òòAny€person€with€legal€standing,€and€who€meetsÐ $X" Ðthe€requirements€of€T.C.A.€ðð€68„11„109óó€may€petition€the€CommissionÐ ô$D # Ðfor€a€contested€case€hearing€regarding€the€grant€or€denial€of€aÐ à%0!$ Ðcertificate€of€need.ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àRule€0720„6„.01(2)€of€the€Rules€of€the€Tennessee€Health€Facilities€Commission.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  à3)à ` àPetitioner€Morristown/Lakeway€did€not€file€a€written€objection€to€RespondentÐ |*Ì%) ÐMeridianððs€CON€application.€€Counsel€for€Petitioner€Morristown/Lakeway€did€notÐ h+¸&* Ðstate€any€verbal€opposition€to€Respondent€Meridianððs€CON€application€at€theÐ ° ÐDecember€13,€2000€Commission€meeting.€€At€no€time€did€Dr.€Lane€make€anyÐ œì Ðstatements€to€the€Commission€that€unequivocally€established€that€he€was€speakingÐ ˆØ Ðas€a€representative€of€Morristown/Lakeway.€€In€fact,€when€Mr.€Brent€introducedÐ tÄ Ðthose€persons€who€were€with€him€who€were€representing€Morristown/LakewayððsÐ `° ÐCON€application,€he€did€not€list€Dr.€Lane€as€one€of€these€representatives.€€[page€4,Ð L œ ÐTranscript€of€December€13,€2000€proceedings€before€the€Tennessee€Health€FacilitiesÐ 8 ˆ ÐCommission.]€€Accordingly,€one€can€only€conclude€that€Dr.€Laneððs€comments€at€theÐ $ t ÐCommission€meeting€were€his€gratuitous€comments€given€to€further€his€ownÐ  ` Ðinterests,€and€that€he€was€not€representing€Petitioner€Morristown/Lakeway€during€theÐ ü L  ÐCommission€meeting.Ðè 8 Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  à4)à ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€IT€IS€HEREBY€DETERMINED€that€PetitionerÐ À  ÐMorristown€Surgery€Center,€LLC€lacks€standing€to€file€a€Petition€for€a€ContestedÐ ¬ü  ÐCase€Hearing,€and€it€is€HEREBY€ORDERED€that€the€Petitionerððs€petition€should€be,Ð ˜è  Ðand€is€hereby,€DISMISSED.Ð„Ô Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThis€order€was€entered€October€10,€2001.€€MSC€filed€its€Petition€for€Reconsideration€onÐ \¬ ÐOctober€25.€€The€Administrative€Law€Judge€denied€that€petition€on€November€8,€2001.€€The€initialÐ H˜ Ðorder€became€final€on€November€26,€and€from€that€final€order€MSC€filed€its€Petition€for€JudicialÐ 4„ ÐReview€in€chancery€court€on€January€24,€2002.€€In€a€Memorandum€and€Order€entered€October€23,Ð  p Ð2002,€the€chancery€court€affirmed€the€dismissal€by€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€and€dismissed€theÐ  \ ÐPetition€for€Judicial€Review€with€prejudice.€€It€is€from€this€order€that€MSC€appeals.Ð øH ÐÌà  àMSC€asserts€that€its€opposition€to€Meridianððs€application€for€certificate€of€need€wasÐ Ð  Ðexpressed€first€by€counsel€for€MSC€in€his€opening€remarks€in€the€portion€of€the€simultaneousÐ ¼  Ðproceeding€dealing€with€MSCððs€application.€€MSC€further€argues€that€its€ð ðcontinued€presenceððÐ ¨ø Ðduring€the€consideration€of€Meridianððs€application€for€certificate€of€need,€and€comments€of€otherÐ ”ä Ðwitnesses,€ð ðwhile€not€specifically€mentioning€Meridian,ðð€supported€MSCððs€application€and€opposedÐ €Ð ÐMeridianððs€application.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àAdministrative€decisions€in€contested€cases€rise€or€fall€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÐ D!” ÐAnnotated€section€4„5„322(h).€€The€decision€of€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€dismissing€theÐ 0"€  Ðcontested€case€must€be€upheld€unless€MSC€can€show€that€the€decision€violated€constitutional€orÐ #l! Ðstatutory€provisions,€exceeded€the€statutory€authority€of€the€agency,€was€made€upon€unlawfulÐ $X" Ðprocedure,€was€arbitrary€or€capricious€or€unsupported€by€substantial€and€material€evidence.€€Tenn.Ð ô$D # ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€4„5„322(h).€€MSC€specifically€argues€that€the€dismissal€of€its€petition€for€contested€caseÐ à%0!$ Ðviolated€Tennessee€law,€was€unsupported€by€evidence€which€is€substantial€and€material,€andÐ Ì&"% Ðotherwise€a€clear€abuse€of€discretion.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÌÌÐ h+¸&* ÐI.€€Violation€of€Tennessee€LawÐ ° ÐÌà  àMSC€argues€that€the€ALJ€misapplied€section€68„11„108(h)(2)€in€excluding€statements€ofÐ ˆØ Ðcounsel€and€parties€unrelated€to€MSC€as€expressions€of€oppositions€required€by€that€section.€€In€soÐ tÄ Ðarguing,€MSC€requires€application€of€subsection€2€consistent€with€the€well€settled€principles€ofÐ `° Ðstatutory€construction.€€Under€these€principles€we€must€give€effect€to€the€statuteððs€reasonableÐ L œ Ðinterpretation€in€light€of€the€purposes,€objectives€and€spirit€of€intent€of€the€Legislature€as€it€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðexpressed€in€the€words€of€the€statute.€€òòSeeóó€òòFreeman€v.€Marco€Transportation€Co.óó,€27€S.W.3d€909,€Ð $ t Ð911€(Tenn.2000);€òòDorrier€v.€Darkóó,€537€S.W.2d€888,€892€(Tenn.1976).€€This€intent€is€deciphered€firstÐ  ` Ðfrom€the€plain€meaning€of€the€statutory€language,€affording€words€of€daily€parlance€their€ordinaryÐ ü L  Ðmeaning€without€tortured€construction.€€òòSee€Carson€Creek€Vacation€Resorts,€Inc.€v.€State€Dept.€ofÐ è 8  ÐRevenueóó,€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.1993).€€Throughout€Appellantððs€argument,€it€asserts€the€ððobviousððÐ Ô$  Ðnature€of€its€opposition€to€Meridianððs€application.€€However,€in€illustrating€its€position€before€theÐ À  ÐALJ,€the€chancellor€and€this€Court,€MSC€points€to€a€set€of€circumstances€from€which€opposition€mayÐ ¬ü  Ðbe€inferred.€€More€specifically,€MSC€urges€that€the€nature€of€simultaneous€review€creates€a€contextÐ ˜è  Ðin€which€any€statement€in€support€of€MSCððs€application,€whether€it€remained€in€the€company€ofÐ „Ô  ÐMeridianððs€application€or€was€deferred,€as€the€record€suggests,€amount€to€opposition€of€MeridianððsÐ pÀ Ðapplication.Ð \¬ ÐÌòòóóA.à0  àSIMULTANEOUS€REVIEWà0À(#(#àÐ4„À(#À(# ÐÌà  àThe€Commission€scheduled€the€CON€applications€for€simultaneous€review€pursuant€toÐ  \ ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€68„11„106.€€MSC€argues€that€section€106€is€to€be€interpreted€inÐ øH Ðsuch€a€way€as€to€require€that€petitions€so€reviewed€are€automatically€competing€petitions.€€In€suchÐ ä4 Ða€context,€the€very€hearing€process€would€suggest€the€appearance€of€opposition.€€The€appellantÐ Ð  Ðbuttresses€this€argument€with€citation€to€the€administrative€rule€which,€notwithstanding€theÐ ¼  Ðapplicable€statutory€language,€had€yet€to€be€amended€to€account€for€simultaneous€review.€€ThisÐ ¨ø Ðargument€fails€to€consider€that€the€rules€of€administrative€agencies€go€no€further€than€the€statutoryÐ ”ä Ðauthority€granted€to€them.€€òòSee,€generally,€Tenn.€Pub.€Serv.€Commððn€v.€Southern€Rwy.€Co.óó,€554Ð €Ð ÐS.W.2d€612,€613€(Tenn.1977).€€The€statute€provides€only€for€simultaneous€review€and€thisÐ l¼ Ðsimultaneous€review€may€be€of€competing€or€comparable€or€companion€applications€for€CertificatesÐ X ¨ Ðof€Need.€€Furthermore,€this€argument€ignores€the€obvious€discretion€placed€with€the€health€facilitiesÐ D!” Ðcommission€in€ruling€on€simultaneous€applications,€namely€that€it€may€grant€or€deny€one€or€the€otherÐ 0"€  Ðor€both.€€As€appellant€argues,€the€statutory€scheme€had€previously€provided€for€consideration€ofÐ #l! Ðcompeting€applications.€€However,€prior€to€the€filing€of€the€application€which€is€the€subject€of€thisÐ $X" Ðappeal,€the€portion€of€the€statutes€dealing€with€competing€review€had€been€replaced€with€theÐ ô$D # Ðð ðsimultaneousðð€review€provisions.€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àAll€of€the€events€in€this€case€occurred€between€September€of€2000€when€both€parties€filedÐ ¸'#& Ðtheir€respective€applications€for€Certificates€of€Need€and€November€26,€2001€when€the€order€of€theÐ ¤(ô#' ÐALJ€became€final.€€This€time€frame€is€important€in€this€case€because€all€events€occurred€after€theÐ )à$( Ðâ âeffective€date€of€Chapter€627€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2000€(April€5,€2000)€and€prior€to€the€effectiveÐ |*Ì%) Ðdate€of€Chapter€780€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2002€(July€1,€2002)€which€latter€Act€repealed€TennesseeÐ ° ÐCode€Annotated€section€68„11„106€in€its€entirety.Ð œì Ðâ âÌà  àWhile€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€section€68„11„106,€prior€to€April€5,€2000,€envisionedÐ tÄ Ðð ðcompeting€applicationsðð€Chapter€627€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2000€specifically€deleted€from€theÐ `° Ðstatute€all€references€to€ð ðcompeting€applicationsðð€and€instituted€in€lieu€thereof€a€system€ofÐ L œ Ðð ðsimultaneous€review.ððÐ 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àMeticulous€comparison€between€Chapter€627€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2000€and€preexistingÐ  ` ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€68„11„106€through€109€leads€to€the€inescapable€conclusion€thatÐ ü L  Ðthe€legislature€completely€abolished€ð ðcompeting€applicationsðð€and€substituted€in€lieu€thereof€aÐ è 8  Ðsystem€of€ð ðsimultaneous€reviewðð€and€made€it€clear€that€the€mere€filing€of€an€application€was€not€anÐ Ô$  Ðobjection€to€another€application€that€might€previously€have€been€referred€to€as€ð ðcompeting.ððÐ À  ÐÌà  àAfter€deleting€all€references€to€ð ðcompeting€applicationsðð€section€2€of€the€Act€amendedÐ ˜è  ÐTennessee€Code€Annotated€section€68„11„106(d)(2)€by€deleting€it€in€its€entirety€and€substituting:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(2)€€Persons€desiring€to€file€a€certificate€of€need€application€seeking€aÐ \¬ Ðsimultaneous€review€regarding€a€similar€project€for€which€a€letter€of€intent€has€beenÐ H˜ Ðfiled,€shall€file€with€the€commission€a€letter€of€intent€within€ten€(10)€days€afterÐ 4„ Ðpublication€of€the€first€filed€letter€of€intent.€€A€copy€of€any€letter€of€intent€filed€afterÐ  p Ðthe€first€letter€of€intent€shall€be€mailed€or€delivered€to€the€first€filed€applicant,€andÐ  \ Ðshall€be€published€in€a€newspaper€of€general€circulation€in€the€proposed€service€areaÐ øH Ðof€the€first€filed€applicant€within€ten€(10)€days€after€publication€by€the€first€filedÐ ä4 Ðapplicant.€€The€applications€shall€be€considered€and€decided€by€the€health€facilitiesÐ Ð  Ðcommission€simultaneously.€€The€commission€may€refuse€to€consider€theÐ ¼  Ðapplications€simultaneously,€if€it€finds€that€the€applications€do€not€meet€theÐ ¨ø Ðrequirements€of€ð ðsimultaneous€reviewðð€under€the€rules€of€the€commission.ДäÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àSection€4€of€the€Act€specifically€òòdeletedóó€the€portions€of€previous€section€68„11„106(d)(1)Ð l¼ Ðproviding:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àà ` àThe€published€letter€of€intent€must€contain€a€statement€(1)€that€any€health€careÐ 0"€  Ðinstitution€wishing€to€oppose€the€application€must€file€written€notice€with€theÐ #l! Ðcommission€not€later€than€fifteen€(15)€days€before€the€commission€meeting€at€whichÐ $X" Ðthe€application€will€be€heard€and€(2)€that€any€other€person€wishing€to€oppose€theÐ ô$D # Ðapplication€must€file€a€written€objection€with€the€health€facilities€commission€at€orÐ à%0!$ Ðprior€to€the€consideration€of€the€application€by€the€health€facilities€commission.ÐÌ&"%Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àSection€6€of€the€Act€provided:Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà8  àà ` àTennessee€Code€Annotated,€Section€68„11„106(d)(4),€is€amended€in€the€firstÐ |*Ì%) Ðsentence€by€deleting€the€language€ð ðif€two€(2)€or€more€applications€are€competing,ððÐ h+¸&* Ðand€substituting€in€lieu€thereof,€the€language€ð ðif€there€are€two€(2)€or€moreÐ ° Ðapplications€to€be€reviewed€simultaneouslyðð;€and€in€the€second€sentence€by€deletingÐ œì Ðthe€language€ð ðas€competing.ððЈØÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àSection€9€of€the€Act€added€a€new€subsection,€codified€as€section€68„11„108(h)€whichÐ `° Ðprovided:Ð L œ ÐÌà8  àà ` à(h)(1)€€Subject€to€subdivision€(2)€below,€any€health€care€institution€wishingÐ $ t Ðto€oppose€a€certificate€of€need€application€must€file€a€written€objection€with€theÐ  ` Ðhealth€facilities€commission€and€serve€a€copy€on€the€contact€person€for€the€applicant,Ð ü L  Ðnot€later€than€fifteen€(15)€days€before€the€commission€meeting€at€which€theÐ è 8  Ðapplication€will€be€heard.€€An€application€for€which€the€commission€has€receivedÐ Ô$  Ðopposition€shall€be€designated€on€the€commissionððs€agenda€as€an€opposedÐ À  Ðapplication.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà ` à(2)€€A€health€care€institution€or€other€person€may€appear€before€theÐ „Ô  Ðcommission€and€express€opposition€to€an€application€without€complying€with€theÐ pÀ Ðrequirements€of€subdivision€(1),€provided€that€if€a€health€care€institution€does€notÐ \¬ Ðprovide€notice€of€its€opposition€as€required€by€subdivision€(1),€and€if€such€health€careÐ H˜ Ðinstitution€initiates€a€contested€case€pursuant€to€Section€68„11„109,€then€such€healthÐ 4„ Ðcare€institution€shall€be€solely€responsible€for€the€commissionððs€costs€of€the€contestedÐ  p Ðcase€proceeding€and€shall€reimburse€to€the€applicant€the€filing€fee€paid€by€theÐ  \ Ðapplicant,€notwithstanding€any€other€provision€of€law.€€Noncompliance€withÐ øH Ðsubdivision€(1)€shall€not€preclude€a€health€care€institution€from€intervening€in€aÐ ä4 Ðcontested€case€proceeding€initiated€by€the€applicant.ÐÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àFinally,€section€10€of€the€Act€provided:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` àSECTION€10.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated,€Section€68„11„109(a),€is€amendedÐ €Ð Ðby€deleting€from€the€first€sentence€the€phrase€ð ðor€any€person€who€filed€directly€withÐ l¼ Ðthe€commission€a€prior€objection€to€the€granting€of€a€certificate€of€need,ðð€andÐ X ¨ Ðsubstituting€instead€the€phrase€ð ðany€health€care€institution€which€filed€a€writtenÐ D!” Ðobjection€in€accordance€with€section€68„11„108(h)(1),€or€any€other€person€whoÐ 0"€  Ðobjected€to€the€application€pursuant€to€section€68„11„108(h)(2)ðð;€and€by€deletingÐ #l! Ðfrom€the€second€sentence€the€phrase€ð ðor€a€petition€for€intervention.ðð€Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€legislative€history,€unnecessary€to€consider€in€the€absence€of€ambiguity,€only€reinforcesÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€appelleeððs€position€that€simultaneous€review€does€not€automatically€create€competingÐ Ì&"% Ðapplications.€€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àIndeed,€a€review€of€the€administrative€record€reveals€that€each€application€retains€itsÐ )à$( Ðindividual€character€despite€the€simultaneous€consideration.€€Both€applications€retain€their€ownÐ |*Ì%) Ðapplication€numbers,€and€the€consideration€of€each€is€individualized.€€It€is€also€well€to€note€that€atÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€time€Meridianððs€application€was€considered,€the€nature€of€that€consideration€had€lost€itsÐ ° Ðsimultaneous€character€due€to€MSCððs€deferral€of€consideration€of€its€own€application€beforehand.€Ð œì ÐIn€our€review€of€the€administrative€record€we€note€that€at€each€of€the€Commission€invitations€forÐ ˆØ Ðopposition,€the€only€individual€responding€to€each€request€would€have€been€Dr.€Lane€had€he€not,€asÐ tÄ Ðthe€Administrative€Law€Judge€had€suggested,€sought€a€different€dance€partner.€€The€review€of€theÐ `° Ðapplications€as€borne€out€in€the€administrative€record€shows€that€the€only€effect€of€simultaneousÐ L œ Ðreview€is€to€take€up€two€applications€in€the€same€session.€€That€simultaneous€character€does€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðconvert€simultaneous€applications€to€competing€applications.€€To€apply€this€reasoning€would€be€toÐ $ t Ðgive€a€tortured€construction€to€the€simultaneous€review€language€in€Tennessee€Code€AnnotatedÐ  ` Ðsection€68„11„106„109,€in€a€situation€where€statutory€construction€is€not€required.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àIn€addressing€the€effect€of€Chapter€627€of€the€Public€Acts€of€2000€both€the€ALJ€and€theÐ Ô$  Ðchancellor€implemented€the€long€standing€admonition€of€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€relative€toÐ À  Ðan€unambiguous€statute:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà8  àWhere€the€language€contained€within€the€four€corners€of€a€statute€is€plain,€clear,€andÐ „Ô  Ðunambiguous€and€the€enactment€is€within€legislative€competency,€ð ðthe€duty€of€theÐ pÀ Ðcourts€is€simple€and€obvious,€namely,€to€say€òòsic€lex€scriptaóó,€and€obey€it.ðð€€òòMiller€v.Ð \¬ ÐChildressóó,€21€Tenn.€(2€Hum.)€319,€321„22€(1841).€€The€rule€stated€in€òòMilleróó€hasÐ H˜ Ðretained€its€pertinence€as€a€guide€to€modern€courts€in€statutory€construction.€€òòSee,Ð 4„ ÐAustin€v.€Memphis€Publishing€Companyóó,€655€S.W.2d€146€(Tenn.1983).Ð pÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` àà ¸ à.€.€.€if€[the€legislative€intent]€is€expressed€in€a€manner€devoidÐ øH Ðof€contradiction€and€ambiguity,€there€is€no€room€for€interpretation€orÐ ä4 Ðconstruction,€and€the€judges€are€not€at€liberty,€on€consideration€ofÐ Ð  Ðpolicy€or€hardship,€to€depart€from€the€words€of€the€statute;€that€theyÐ ¼  Ðhave€no€right€to€make€exceptions€or€insert€qualifications,€howeverÐ ¨ø Ðabstract€justice€or€the€justice€of€a€particular€case€may€require€it.Дä` x` x ÐÌà8  àòòAustinóó,€supra€at€148,€quoting€òòHeiskell€v.€Loweóó,€126€Tenn.€475,€499,€153€S.W.€284,Ð l¼ Ð290€(1912).ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌòòCarson€Creek€Resorts€v.€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,€865€S.W.2d€1,€2€(Tenn.1993).à  àÐ 0"€  ÐòòóóÌà  àNeither€the€ALJ,€the€chancery€court,€nor€this€Court€has€any€authority€but€to€implement€€thatÐ $X" Ðmandate€of€the€legislature.Ð ô$D # ÐÌB.à0  àEXPRESSED€OPPOSITIONÐÌ&"%(#(# ÐÌà  àIn€this€simultaneous€review€context€each€applicant€was€given€the€opportunity€to€introduceÐ ¤(ô#' Ðtheir€representatives.€€The€party€expressing€opposition€to€each€application€was€given€a€separateÐ )à$( Ðopportunity€to€do€so.€€The€clerk€would€have€been€made€aware€of€any€formal€opposition€due€to€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðfiling€requirement€under€68„11„108(h)(1).€€The€only€opposition€registered€to€Meridianððs€applicationÐ h+¸&* Ðwas€that€of€Dr.€Lane,€who€had€registered€written€opposition€to€MSCððs€application€also,€as€didÐ ° ÐMeridian.€€For€whatever€reason,€MSC€did€not€register€any€written€opposition€to€MeridianððsÐ œì Ðapplication.€€Likewise,€MSC€did€not€express€oral€opposition€at€the€three€opportunities€afforded€it€byÐ ˆØ Ðthe€Commission.€€Rather,€MSC€urges€as€opposition€the€comments€of€counsel€during€theÐ tÄ Ðconsideration€of€its€own€application€and€the€statements€of€Dr.€Lane,€who€is€admittedly€unaffiliatedÐ `° Ðwith€MSC.€€This€argument€not€only€flies€in€the€face€of€the€language€of€the€statute,€but€also€in€the€faceÐ L œ Ðof€plain€logic.€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àSince€the€ALJ€and€the€trial€court€applied€this€plain€and€common€sense€interpretation€to€theÐ  ` Ðstatutory€language,€this€Court€finds€no€violation€of€Tennessee€law€therein.Ð ü L  ÐÌII.à0  àSubstantial€and€Material€EvidenceÐÔ$ (#(# ÐÌà  àConsidering€the€substantial€and€material€evidence€standard,€this€Court€recognizes€that€theÐ ¬ü  ÐALJððs€determination€was€reviewed€in€the€first€instance€by€the€chancellor,€who€affirmed€the€ALJððsÐ ˜è  Ðfindings€of€fact.€€As€our€supreme€court€has€stated:Ð „Ô  ÐÌà8  àà ` àFindings€of€fact€made€by€the€agency€may€not€be€reviewed€òòde€novoóó€by€the€trialÐ \¬ Ðor€appellate€courts,€and€courts€should€not€substitute€their€judgment€for€that€of€theÐ H˜ Ðagency€as€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€on€factual€issues.€€òòSouthern€Ry.€Co.€v.Ð 4„ ÐTennessee€Bd.€of€Equalizationóó,€682€S.W.2d€196,€199€(Tenn.1984);€òòCF€Indus.€v.Ð  p ÐTennessee€Pub.€Serv.€Commððnóó,€599€S.W.2d€536€(Tenn.1980);€òòNational€Council€onÐ  \ ÐCompensation€Ins.€v.€Gaddisóó,€786€S.W.2d€240,€242€(Tenn.Ct.App.1989).€€However,Ð øH Ðthe€ð ðsubstantial€and€material€evidence€standardðð€in€Tenn.Code€Ann.€ðð€4„5„€322(h)(5)Ð ä4 Ðrequires€a€searching€and€careful€inquiry€that€subjects€the€agencyððs€decision€to€closeÐ Ð  Ðscrutiny.€€òòWayne€County€v.€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Control€Bd.óó,€756€S.W.2d€274,€280Ð ¼  Ð(Tenn.Ct.App.1988).€Ð¨øÐ Ð  ÐÌòòSanifill€of€Tennessee,€Inc.€v.€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€Control€Boardóó,€907€S.W.2d€807,€810Ð €Ð Ð(Tenn.1995).€€Furthermore,€our€supreme€court€has€provided€the€following€guidance€when€theÐ l¼ Ðchancellor€and€the€administrative€law€judge€concur€in€their€findings:Ð X ¨ ÐÌà8  àWe€cannot,€as€a€general€rule,€ð ðafford€any€broader€or€more€comprehensive€review€toÐ 0"€  Ðcases€arising€under€the€Act€than€is€afforded€to€them€by€the€trial€court€in€the€firstÐ #l! Ðinstance€.€.€.€.ðð€€òòHumana€of€Tenn.€v.€Tenn.€Health€Facilities€Comððn.óó,€551€S.W.2d€664,Ð $X" Ð668€(Tenn.1977).€€Further€a€concurrent€finding€between€the€agency€and€the€trial€courtÐ ô$D # Ðon€any€issue€of€fact€is€conclusive€upon€this€Court.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ÐÌòòCF€Industries€v.€Tennessee€Public€Service€Commððnóó,€599€S.W.2d€536,€540€(Tenn.1980).Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà  àThe€ALJ€and€the€chancellor€agreed€that€Dr.€Lane€was€no€ally€of€MSC€and€expressed€noÐ )à$( Ðâ âopposition€on€its€behalf.€€In€addition,€the€petitions€for€certificates€of€need€in€the€record€before€theÐ |*Ì%) ÐCommission€suggest€no€competition€between€the€two.€€We€find€that€substantial€and€materialÐ ° Ðevidence€support€the€conclusions€of€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€and€the€chancellor.Ð œì Ðâ âÌIII.à0  àArbitrary€and€Capricious€StandardÐtÄ(#(# ÐÌà  àHaving€examined€the€statutes€as€they€existed€at€the€time€of€the€simultaneous€review€ofÐ L œ ÐMSCððs€and€Meridianððs€applications,€and€having€reviewed€the€administrative€record€in€its€entirety,Ð 8 ˆ Ðthis€Court€cannot€find€that€the€Commission€or€the€Administrative€Law€Judge€made€a€clear€error€inÐ $ t Ðjudgment.€€òòSee€Jackson€Mobilphone€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Public€Service€Commððnóó,€876€S.W.2d€106,€110„Ð  ` Ð11€(Tenn.Ct.App.1993).€€On€the€contrary,€we€find,€in€light€of€MSCððs€tacit€appearance€during€theÐ ü L  Ðconsideration€of€Meridianððs€application,€after€the€deferral€and€eventual€withdrawal€of€its€ownÐ è 8  Ðapplication,€and€in€the€face€of€three€requests€for€the€expression€of€opposition,€a€denial€of€the€motionÐ Ô$  Ðto€dismiss€would€be€arbitrary€and€capricious.€€The€action€of€the€chancellor€is€affirmed.€€Costs€onÐ À  Ðappeal€are€assessed€against€Appellant€for€which€execution€may€issue.€€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àÌ€Ìà8  àÐ Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 4„ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGE