Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
3 B 27/17, 3 B 27/17 (3 C 14/18) ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2018:230718B3B27.17.0 AI generated

Hospital plan admission: personnel capacity via exclusive partner-hospital medical cooperation

Case Number 3 B 27/17, 3 B 27/17 (3 C 14/18)
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Germany (DE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) granted the plaintiff's complaint and admitted the revision on the grounds that the case posed a question of fundamental significance, thereby allowing the matter to proceed to the full court for resolution. The dispute concerned the admission of a hospital to the state hospital plan, specifically challenging whether the facility lacked the required professional capacity ("Leistungsfähigkeit") in terms of personnel because it relied on a cooperation agreement with another hospital, where the treating physicians were exclusively or predominantly employed by the partner institution rather than the hospital itself. The decisive legal basis is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which permits the admission of an appeal to the Federal Administrative Court if the case involves a question of fundamental legal significance, alongside the substantive requirements for hospital plan admission under §§ 1 and 8 KHG.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, § 52 Abs. 1 GKG, § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG, § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 1 GKG; Hospital plan admission: personnel capacity via exclusive partner-hospital medical cooperation: The dispute concerned the admission of a hospital to the state hospital plan, specifically challenging whether the facility lacked the required professional capacity ("Leistungsfähigkeit") in terms of personnel because it relied on a cooperation agreement with another hospital, where the treating physicians were exclusively or predominantly employed by the partner institution rather than the hospital itself. The decisive legal basis is § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO, which permits the admission of an appeal to the Federal Administrative Court if the case involves a question of fundamental legal significance, alongside the substantive requirements for hospital plan admission under §§ 1 and 8 KHG.

Keywords

AI generated
administrative cooperation exclusive agreements substantive requirements partner hospital and medical care grounds for revision

Cited Legislation

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO
Main ground for the verdict, cited to admit the revision because the case involves a question of fundamental significance.
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG
§ 52 Abs. 1 GKG; die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 63 Abs.
§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied to provisionally determine the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.
§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 1 GKG
Procedural rule applied to determine the amount in dispute for the complaint proceedings.
AI generated
3 C 14/18
Hospital plan admission: validity of inter-hospital cooperation for medical personnel capability under SGB V § 107 and KHG § 8
3 C 6/20
Inclusion of planned specialist hospital in framework hospital plan: necessity of selection decision despite aggregate bed counts and financing proof requirements
3 B 45/18, 3 B 45/18 (3 C 6/20)
Legal consequences of hospital plans lacking per-specialty bed allocations for selection decisions under § 8 Abs. 2 Satz 2 KHG
B 12 R 20/18 R
Status of hospital honorararzt: Integration into hospital organization and lack of entrepreneurial risk establish dependent employment under § 7 SGB IV
3 C 17/10
Hospital plan admission survives new plan adoption; supply contracts do not pre-judge selection among competing suitable hospitals

Key legal questions extracted by Legislator

AI generated
§ 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO

Main ground for the verdict, cited to admit the revision because the case involves a question of fundamental significance.

§ 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied to determine the amount in dispute for the complaint proceedings.

§ 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG

Procedural rule applied to provisionally determine the amount in dispute for the revision proceedings.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revisionszulassung; Leistungsfähigkeit für die Aufnahme in den Krankenhausplan in personeller Hinsicht

[GRUENDE]

Die Beschwerde der Klägerin hat Erfolg. Der Rechtssache kommt die geltend gemachte grundsätzliche Bedeutung im Sinne von § 132 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 VwGO zu. Das Revisionsverfahren wird dem Bundesverwaltungsgericht voraussichtlich Gelegenheit zur Klärung der Frage geben, ob einem Krankenhaus die erforderliche Leistungsfähigkeit für die Aufnahme in den Krankenhausplan (§ 1 Abs. 1, § 8 Abs. 1 Satz 3 und Abs. 2 KHG) in personeller Hinsicht fehlt, wenn es zur Sicherstellung seiner ärztlichen Personalausstattung eine Kooperation mit einem anderen Krankenhaus eingeht und die Erbringung der ärztlichen Behandlungsleistungen ausschließlich oder überwiegend durch ärztliches Personal des Kooperationspartners erfolgt.

Die Streitwertfestsetzung für das Beschwerdeverfahren folgt aus § 47 Abs. 1 und 3 i.V.m. § 52 Abs. 1 GKG; die vorläufige Festsetzung des Streitwerts für das Revisionsverfahren beruht auf § 63 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GKG.