Leon FL Administrative law, Constitutional and Government La -- eLawyers

Daniel Elden Nordby

Visitors: 133

Bar #14588(FL) License for 20 years

Tallahassee FL

Are you Daniel Elden Nordby? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

CFR: 42 CFR 40.255, 42 CFR 40.255, 42 CFR 40.255, 42 CFR 431.200, 42 CFR 431.200, 42 CFR 431.200, 42 CFR 431.220, 42 CFR 438.400, 42 CFR 438.400, 42 CFR 438.400, 42 CFR 440.230, 42 CFR 440.230, 42 CFR 440.230, 42 CFR 440.255, 42 CFR 440.255, 42 CFR 440.255, 42 CFR 440.255, 42 CFR 447.253, 42 CFR 447.253, 42 CFR 447.253

Florida Laws: 1.01, 120.52, 120.525, 120.536, 120.54, 120.541, 120.542, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.68, 282.703, 286.011, 287.001, 287.012, 287.057, 350.0611, 366.02, 366.04, 366.093, 366.8255, 381.0065, 409.901, 409.902, 409.903, 409.904, 409.905, 409.906, 409.907, 409.908, 409.912, 409.9128, 409.913, 409.9131, 409.919, 409.920, 409.975, 414.095, 445.024, 6.01, 6.03, 713.04

Florida Administrative Code: 59G-1.010, 59G-9.070, 64E-6.009, 65-2.042, 65-2.066, 65A-1.715

19-006137RP OFFICE OF PUBLIC COUNSEL vs FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 15, 2019

I. Whether the Office of Public Counsel (Petitioner or the Public Counsel) and Florida Industrial Power Users Group (Florida Industrial) have standing. II. Whether proposed rules 25-6.030(3)(d), 25-6.030(3)(e), 25-6.030(3)(j), 25-6.031(6), and 25-6.031(7)(c), proposed by the Florida Public Service Commission (Respondent or the Commission), are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority.Petitioner and Intervenor had standing to challenge the proposed rules, but the evidence showed that the proposed rules are not invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.

14-003606MPI AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs CAPE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A CAPE CORAL HOSPITAL (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 05, 2014

Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Petitioner) is entitled to recover certain Medicaid payments made to Cape Memorial Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Cape Coral Hospital (Respondent).Petitioner may receive Medicaid overpayment from provider.

15-003271MPI AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., D/B/A LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEMS (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 04, 2015

Petitioner presented evidence to support overpayment to Respondent.

14-004171MPI AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM, D/B/A LEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 09, 2014

Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency or AHCA) is entitled to recover certain Medicaid funds paid to Lee Memorial Health System, d/b/a Lee Memorial Hospital (Respondent or Lee Memorial), for services provided to undocumented aliens: between January 1 through December 31, 2006, as alleged in AHCA’s Amended Final Audit Report, dated July 25, 2014 (DOAH Case 14-4171); and January 1 through December 31, 2007, as alleged in AHCA’s Final Audit Report, dated March 12, 2015 (DOAH Case 15-3271).Petitioner presented evidence to support overpayment to Respondent.

15-003876MPI AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs LEE MEMORIAL HEALTH SYSTEM GULF COAST MEDICAL CENTER (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 13, 2015

The issue for determination is whether an amount of up to $46,901.85, which Petitioner paid on behalf of eligible aliens for emergency hospital inpatient services that Respondent provided during the period from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2007, constitutes an overpayment that Respondent must return, on the grounds that the services are not covered by Medicaid, despite having been included in claims of Respondent's that were prior authorized by Petitioner before payment.Sums paid on behalf of eligible aliens for emergency services provided by Respondent did not constitute an overpayment because the services were covered by Medicaid, as Petitioner had determined originally when it gave prior authorization to the claims.

14-003960 PLASTIC TUBING INDUSTRIES, INC. vs ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC., AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 21, 2014

The issues are whether Petitioner's substantial interests are determined by the issuance of the subject variance to Respondent Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. (ADS) for the sale of an alternative drainfield system in Florida and whether, pursuant to section 120.542, Florida Statutes, on the grounds of substantial hardship or unfairness, ADS is entitled to this variance from three provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.009(7) that, as to onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDSs), require innovative system testing and prohibit an alternative drainfield system with an area smaller than the area required for a mineral-aggregate drainfield.No variance for rules that do not apply to variance applicant. Variance on fairness ground for rule setting minimum area of drainfields. BOP on variance applicant to prove entitlement by preponderance. Economic injury OK for standing.

11-001662BID INFINITY SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 01, 2011

The issue in this case is whether Respondent's intended award of a contract to Intervenor pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate No. 2011-18 is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, Respondent's rules and policies, and the specification of the solicitation.Vendor did not submit a responsive reply to invitiation to negotiate; therefore, vendor was not eligible to enter into negotiations.