Hughston Surgical Institute, LLC “HSI” applied to the Department of Community Health “the Department” for a certificate of need to develop an orthopedic ambulatory surgery center in Columbus, Georgia. The Department, including its hearing officer and the State Health Planning Review Board, denied HSI’s application. HSI then appealed the Review Board’s decision to the superior court, which held that the Department had abused its discretion in denying HSI’s application. We granted the application of The Surgery Center, LLC “TSC”, another ambulatory surgery center in Columbus, to determine whether the superior court erred when it reversed the Department’s denial of a certificate to HSI. We now reverse the decision of the superior court because it improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the Department. The Review Board’s decision is, by operation of law, the final decision of the Department. See OCGA § 31-6-44 j. We treat the Department’s final decision with deference because “agencies provide a high level of expertise and an opportunity for specialization unavailable in the judicial or legislative branches.” Bentley v. Chastain , 242 Ga. 348, 350-351 1 249 SE2d 38 1978.Review overbroad in scope would have the effect of substituting the judgment of a judge or jury for that of the agency, thereby nullifying the benefits of legislative delegation to a specialized body. Since the agency is exercising neither judicial nor legislative, but administrative, powers, the separation of powers doctrine along with this policy of respect must play a role in determining the nature of the review of agency decisions by the courts.Id. Accordingly, and as we recently emphasized in another appeal concerning the Department’s denial of a certificate of need, the superior court may reverse or modify the Department’s decision
only if the appellant’s substantial rights have been prejudiced because the procedures used 1 violated constitutional or statutory provisions; 2 exceeded the Department’s statutory authority; 3 were unlawful; 4 were affected by legal error; 5 were not supported by substantial evidence; or 6 were arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by an abuse or unwarranted exercise of discretion.Ga. Dept. of Comm. Health v. Satilla Health Svcs. , 266 Ga. App. 880, 885 1 598 SE2d 514 2004, citing OCGA § 31-6-44 m. “When this Court reviews a superior court’s order in an administrative proceeding, our duty is not to review whether the record supports the superior court’s decision but whether the record supports the final decision of the administrative agency.” Citations and punctuation omitted. Davis v. Brown , 274 Ga. App. 48, 50 1 616 SE2d 826 2005.
