The North Carolina Supreme Court has granted Mission Hospital\u2019s request for a temporary stay of a lower court\u2019s decision to grant 67 acute care beds to AdventHealth nearly three years ago.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The\u00a0order<\/a>, delivered without comment, came just two days after attorneys for Mission Hospital filed a motion seeking the temporary stay and arguing that a three-judge panel\u2019s ruling in the state\u2019s appellate court this June should remain up for debate. The motion,\u00a0first reported by\u00a0Asheville Watchdog<\/a>,\u00a0created further uncertainty about whether the region would see additional healthcare competition.<\/p>\n The 67 beds are part of Florida-based AdventHealth\u2019s plans to build a 222-bed hospital in Weaverville that would serve Buncombe, Madison, Yancey, and Graham counties. The company had started grading work at a 30-plus acre site west of I-26.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Supreme Court\u2019s allowance of a stay halts legal action until further consideration can take place. There is currently no deadline for a Supreme Court decision.<\/p>\n \u201cMission Hospital accepts thousands of transfers each year from other hospitals that have available beds \u2013 including facilities currently seeking approval to expand \u2013 because patients need high-level medical care only available in Western North Carolina at our hospital,\u201d Mission Health spokesperson Nancy Lindell said. \u201cNot all acute care beds are the same. Instead of adding more beds at facilities that are unable to provide the complex medical and surgical care needed, the region would be better served by expanding bed capacity at Mission Hospital. We consider it a privilege to care for our region\u2019s sickest patients but need more beds to do so.\u201d<\/p>\n AdventHealth said the stay says nothing about what North Carolina\u2019s highest court thinks about the case.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is important to note that this stay is not an indication of the court\u2019s thinking,\u201d AdventHealth spokesperson Victoria Dunkle said when asked for the system\u2019s response to the judge\u2019s order.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThis would be like ordering a combo meal at a drive-thru and then taking credit for securing the drink and fries in the deal \u2013 the drink and fries automatically come with the combo and everybody gets them,\u201d she said. \u201cIn these situations, a stay is in place whenever a petition for discretionary review is filed. HCA\/Mission filed an unnecessary motion to obtain a stay that was already in place.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n This complex legal battle for beds is being staged on the field of certificate of need (CON) law, a North Carolina requirement that medical facilities seek the state\u2019s permission when they want to expand, add services, or buy expensive equipment.\u00a0<\/p>\n AdventHealth won approval for beds in 2022<\/strong><\/p>\n AdventHealth won approval for the 67 acute care beds in late 2022, but Mission\u00a0 disputed the decision, using the CON\u2019s appeal process. In June, a three-court panel of the state\u2019s appellate court ruled in AdventHealth\u2019s favor, a ruling that some saw as the final decision in the case.<\/p>\n On July 23, Mission attorneys filed a motion with the North Carolina Supreme Court seeking the temporary stay and requesting the court consider two factors: \u201csubstantial prejudice\u201d on the part of DHSR in rejecting Mission\u2019s application and AdventHealth\u2019s proposal for the beds not meeting NCDHHS policy requiring new hospitals have a general operating room.\u00a0<\/p>\n Both NCDHHS and AdventHealth are defendants in the case.<\/p>\n Mission alleged substantial prejudice because \u201cDHHS did not allow eight attendees to speak at a certain time at the public hearing because they were purported employees of Mission Memorial or employees of one its affiliated hospitals or entities,\u201d according to a summary in the June 18 appellate court decision. The public hearing was held shortly after AdventHealth, Mission and Novant Health applied for the 67 beds.<\/p>\n \u201cThe partial answers that the Court of Appeals has given are contradictory and confusing,\u201d Mission\u2019s attorneys wrote in their July 23 motion, arguing the appellate court failed to precisely define the criteria for a finding of \u201csubstantial prejudice.\u201d<\/p>\n The motion asked the court to decide whether NCDHHS had violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it changed its requirement on the general operating room and then to decide whether \u201cthis error substantially prejudiced Mission.\u201d<\/p>\n According to AdventHealth\u2019s current\u00a0proposed plans<\/a>, the Weaverville hospital would have \u201cA state-of-the-art Surgery Suite for general and specialty.\u201d<\/p>\n AdventHealth will file a response in the case, Dunkle told\u00a0The Watchdog\u00a0last Friday.<\/p>\n Asheville Watchdog is a nonprofit news team producing stories that matter to Asheville and Buncombe County. Andrew R. Jones is a Watchdog investigative reporter. Email arjones@avlwatchdog.org. The Watchdog\u2019s reporting is made possible by donations from the community. To show your support for this vital public service go to\u00a0avlwatchdog.org\/support-our-publication\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n Republish This Story<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdventHealth-Buncombe-scaled.jpeg.webp\")
An aerial view photo shows the Weaverville site where AdventHealth is proposing to build a 222-bed hospital in the coming years. Credit: AdventHealth<\/a><\/p>\n
![\"Creative](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/cc-by-nd-4.0.png\"\/)
<\/a><\/p>\n