Miami-Dade FL Lawyers | Gerald Barry Sternstein -- eLawyers

96-005406CON PETERSEN HEALTH CARE, INC. vs MORTON PLANT MEASE HEALTH CENTER, INC., AND AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 15, 1996

This proceeding involves competing Certificate of Need (CON) applications for nursing home beds in AHCA District 5, Subdistrict 1, Pasco County. The issue for determination is which of the three applicants should be awarded a CON for 57 nursing home beds for the January 1999 planning horizon.Among three competing applicants, all of whom meet criteria, the nursing home bed Certificate of Need (CON) should go to the applicant proposing innovative approach to service delivery.

95-002319CON BROOKWOOD-EXTENDED CARE CENTER OF HOMESTEAD vs MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER OF GREATER MIAMI, INC., D/B/A MOUNT SINAI MEDICAL CENTER (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 09, 1995

Whether the CON application of Brookwood, Mount Sinai, or FCA should be approved to meet the need for 60 additional community nursing home beds in Dade County, Florida. Nursing home Certificate Of Need (CON) approved in area of high over-age-75 population at statutory teaching hospital. Consider donations for financial feasibility.

96-005531RU ALL CHILDREN`S HOSPITAL, INC., AND VARIETY CHILDREN`S HOSPITAL, D/B/A MIAMI CHILDREN`S HOSPITAL vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 19, 1996

The issues for determination in this case are: 1) whether Respondent, the Agency for Health Care Administration has made a nonrule policy statement which constitutes a “rule” as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes, which in substance states that a hospital, licensed as a general hospital as defined in Section 395.002(10), Florida Statutes, may use the term “children’s hospital” and otherwise hold itself out and advertise as a “children’s hospital” without obtaining a license as a specialty hospital for children as defined in Section 395.002(27), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59A-3.02, Florida Administrative Code; 2) whether such agency policy statement, if made, constitutes a “rule” as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes; 3) whether such agency policy statement, if made, has been adopted by rule as provided for in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes; and, 4) whether such agency policy statement, if made, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.AHCA not required to adopt rule restricting advertisement of children's hospitals.

95-004684CON LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 20, 1995

Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) should award Life Care Centers of America, Inc., Certificate of Need 8069 which would authorize both the transfer of an existing certificate of need and the combination of the transferred certificate with another certificate of need. The combination would allow Life Care to operate a 130-bed nursing facility to be built on Cypress Boulevard in Winter Haven within 1000 feet of a nursing home owned and operated by Florida Convalescent Center, Inc., a site on which Life Care intends and is authorized to build a 57-bed facility regardless of the outcome of this case.Combination Certificate Of Need to authorize facility in Winter Haven recommended to be denied because one of underlying Certificate Of Need's required to be in Lake Alfred.

94-006250CON OSCEOLA HEALTH CARE, LTD., D/B/A OSCEOLA HEALTH CARE CENTER vs ARBOR HEALTH CARE COMPANY, D/B/A LAKE HIGHLANDS RETIREMENT AND NURSING CENTER (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 04, 1994

The issue presented is which of three competing Certificate of Need (CON) applications should be approved for the construction of new nursing home beds in Osceola County.Arbor's application is best of three competitors and should be awarded contested Certificate Of Need.

94-006893 FLORIDA CONVALESCENT CENTERS, INC., D/B/A PALM GARDEN OF WINTER HAVEN vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (1994)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 09, 1994

In an attachment to the joint prehearing stipulation filed on February 18, 1996, the parties describe their resolution of all issues in these consolidated cases with the exception of this issue: Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration, through audit adjustments, properly removed working capital interest from the patient care cost centers and reallocated those costs to the operating cost centers of the individual providers.Medicaid providers' working capital interest costs belong in operating cost center rather than patient cost center for reimbursement.

92-006237 FLORIDA CONVALESCENT ASSOCIATES, D/B/A PALM GARDEN OF NORTH MIAMI vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 07, 1995

Whether Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., (FCC) and National Health Corporation, LP (NHC) are "related parties" by either ownership or control for the purposes of Medicaid reimbursement.Owner and management company are not ""related parties"" by either ownership or control for medicaid reimbursement purposes.

95-003913RU ALL CHILDREN`S HOSPITAL, INC., AND VARIETY CHILDREN`S HOSPITAL, D/B/A MIAMI CHILDREN`S HOSPITAL vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 07, 1995

The issues for determination in this case are whether the following statement was made by Respondent, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; whether the statement violates the provisions of Section 120.535, Florida Statutes; whether the statement constitutes a declaratory statement under Section 120.565, Florida Statutes; whether Petitioner, ALL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, INC., has standing to maintain this action; and whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs. The alleged agency statement which is at issue in this case is: The Agency for Health Care Administration takes the position that a shared service agreement may be modified, without prior approval of the Agency, as long as each party continues to contribute something to the program, and the shared service contract remains consistent with the provisions of Rule 59C-1.0085(4), Florida Administrative Code. In addition, the Agency takes the position that modifications to a shared service agreement do not require prior review and approval by the Agency.Agency statement regarding shared services agreement did not constitute a rule; petition dismissed.

93-001476RP SHERMAN COLLEGE OF STRAIGHT CHIROPRACTIC vs BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 11, 1993

The above consolidated cases are challenges to existing rule 21D- 11.001(2)(c), F.A.C. and proposed rule 21D-17.0045(1). Both reflect the policy of the Board of Chiropractic (Board) that candidates for licensure examination or for a training program must have graduated from a chiropractic college with regional and professional accreditation recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) and the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA). The petitioners/intervenor assert that the dual accreditation requirement is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Respondent contends that the rules are valid and that the challengers lack standing to bring this action.Rule amends. that require 2 types of accreditation when statute does not are invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority college has standing to challenge.

93-000244RP FLORIDA NUTRITION COUNSELORS ASSOCIATION vs BOARD OF MEDICINE, DIETETICS AND NUTRITION PRACTICE COUNCIL (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 21, 1993

The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Board of Medicine's proposed amendments to Rules 21M-49.002(6), 21M-50.002(3)(f) and (j), 21M-50.003(1), 21M-50.007(3) and (18), and 21M-50.009(1), F.A.C., are invalid because of being vague and an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.All proposed rules under challenge held valid except that which states counselors "should" report apparent rule violations which was invalid as vague.

Gerald Barry Sternstein