welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Gerald Lee Pickett
Gerald Lee Pickett
Gerald Lee Pickett
Visitors: 93
0
Bar #559334(FL)     License for 39 years; Member in Good Standing
Lealman FL

Are you Gerald Lee Pickett? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

03-002929F  GUARDIAN CARE, INC., D/B/A GUARDIAN CARE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 11, 2003
The issues for determination are whether Petitioner is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs (fees and costs) pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2003), and Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2002), and, if so, what amount of fees and costs should be awarded.Petitioner is not entitled to fees and costs from Respondent. Amendments to 57.105 that became effective on 6/4/03 do not apply retroactively to 9/27/02 when Respondent filed administrative complaint. Motion for fees was filed after RO was issued.
03-001998  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs SAFE HAVEN INN, INC., D/B/A CARDEN HOUSE  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 28, 2003
Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what sanctions, if any, should be imposed.Petitioner demonstrated that the facility had several uncorrected deficiencies that merited imposition of administrative fines.
03-000165  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs TAMPA HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATES, LLC., D/B/A HABANA HEALTH CARE CENTER  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 17, 2003
The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Evidence establishes minor Class III deficiency; warrants imposition of fine, but not conditional rating.
03-001446F  HEALTH CARE CENTER OF NAPLES, D/B/A THE ARISTOCRAT vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 21, 2003
Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.Petitioner is not entitled to award of attorney`s fees and costs. The Agency for Health Care Administration established that it was substantially justified in citing the facility when it determined that the resident had significant weight loss.
02-004269  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs GUARDIAN CARE, INC., D/B/A GUARDIAN CARE NURSING & REHABILITATION CENTER  (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 01, 2002
The issues for determination are whether Respondent admitted new residents in violation of Section 400.141(15)(d), Florida Statutes (2001); and, if so, whether Petitioner should reclassify Respondent's license from standard to conditional, impose an administrative fine of $7,500, and impose costs pursuant to Sections 400.23(8)(b) and 400.419(10), Florida Statutes (2001). (References to chapters and statutes are to Florida Statutes (2001) unless otherwise stated.)Nursing home did not violate minimum staffing requirements. Initial reports to surveyor omitted nurses on duty and improperly included bed-holds in resident census.
02-001917  CHARLOTTE HARBOR HEALTHCARE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 03, 2002
The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncomplianceDiscontinuation of facility sponsored off-site trips policy and lack of appropriate supervision and documentation for 93-year-old resident prone to falling led to Conditional licensure status and $5,000 fine.
02-001586  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs THE HEALTHCARE CENTER OF PORT CHARLOTTE, D/B/A CHARLOTTE HARBOR HEALTHCARE  (2002)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 18, 2002
The issues for determination are: (1) whether the noncompliance as alleged during the August 30, 2001, survey and identified as Tags F324 and F242, were Class II deficiencies; (2) whether the "Conditional" licensure status, effective August 30, 2001, to September 30, 2001, based upon noncompliance is appropriate; and (3) whether a fine in the amount of $5,000 is appropriate for the cited noncomplianceDiscontinuation of facility sponsored off-site trips policy and lack of appropriate supervision and documentation for 93-year-old resident prone to falling led to Conditional licensure status and $5,000 fine.
00-000461CON  BETHESDA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC., D/B/A BETHESDA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Whether the adult open heart surgery rule in effect at the time the certificate of need (CON) applications were filed, and until January 24, 2002, or the rule as amended on that date is applicable to this case. Which, if any, of the applications filed by Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (Martin Memorial); Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda); and Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCH) meet the requirements for a CON to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Health Planning District 9, for Okeechobee, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.With four existing open heart programs all CON-approved, well dispersed geographically, declining in case volumes, and a new program at approximately 350 cases, no need established for another open heart provider in AHCA District 9.
00-000462CON  BOCA RATON COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., AND ST. MAR vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.; MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; AND BETHESDA HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC.  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Whether the adult open heart surgery rule in effect at the time the certificate of need (CON) applications were filed, and until January 24, 2002, or the rule as amended on that date is applicable to this case. Which, if any, of the applications filed by Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (Martin Memorial); Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda); and Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCH) meet the requirements for a CON to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Health Planning District 9, for Okeechobee, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.With four existing open heart programs all CON-approved, well dispersed geographically, declining in case volumes, and a new program at approximately 350 cases, no need established for another open heart provider in AHCA District 9.
00-000463CON  MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., D/B/A MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 28, 2000
Whether the adult open heart surgery rule in effect at the time the certificate of need (CON) applications were filed, and until January 24, 2002, or the rule as amended on that date is applicable to this case. Which, if any, of the applications filed by Martin Memorial Medical Center, Inc. (Martin Memorial); Bethesda Healthcare System, Inc., d/b/a Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda); and Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. (BRCH) meet the requirements for a CON to establish an adult open heart surgery program in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Health Planning District 9, for Okeechobee, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, Florida.With four existing open heart programs all CON-approved, well dispersed geographically, declining in case volumes, and a new program at approximately 350 cases, no need established for another open heart provider in AHCA District 9.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer