welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Lorraine Marie Novak
Lorraine Marie Novak
Lorraine Marie Novak
Visitors: 135
0
Bar #23851(FL)     License for 31 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Lorraine Marie Novak? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

USC: 33 U.S.C 1319, 33 U.S.C 1365

CFR: 40 CFR 122.4, 40 CFR 122.4, 40 CFR 122.4, 42 CFR 418.20, 42 CFR 418.20, 42 CFR 418.20, 42 CFR 418.3

Florida Laws: 1.01, 101.20, 11.07, 120.52, 120.54, 120.541, 120.542, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.595, 120.60, 120.68, 17.43, 26.012, 373.403, 373.406, 373.4595, 395.002, 400.021, 400.23, 400.235, 400.601, 400.609, 400.6095, 403.031, 403.067, 403.813, 408.031, 408.032, 408.033, 408.034, 408.035, 408.036, 408.0361, 408.037, 408.039, 408.040, 408.042, 408.043, 408.045, 408.0455, 408.07, 408.15, 408.7071, 409.967, 418.22, 456.073, 57.105, 57.111, 7.37, 768.28, 90.803

Florida Administrative Code: 28-106.201, 28-106.217, 59A-3.2085, 59A-3.253, 59C-1.008, 59C-1.018, 59C-1.0355, 59C-1.040

10-009381CON  COMPASSIONATE CARE HOSPICE OF FLORIDA vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 29, 2010
Did Compassionate Care demonstrate not normal or special circumstances exist to justify approval of its Certificate of Need (CON) application to establish a new hospice program in Service District (Service Area) 11 in the absence of published numeric need? If Compassionate Care demonstrated not normal or special circumstances to justify approval, does Compassionate Care's CON application satisfy the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355, and section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2010)?1/Newly approved hospice acquisition of existing provider made "default to zero" requirement have no weight in need determination. Without "default," need for new hospice shown. Applicant did not prove barriers to access for Hispanics and ALF residents.
08-000614CON  FLORIDA HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER, INC., D/B/A TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 01, 2008
Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9992, filed by Sun City Hospital, Inc., d/b/a South Bay Hospital to establish a 112-bed replacement hospital in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.The applicant for a replacement hospital did not prove that, on balance, it met the applicable statutory criteria for approval of its CON application.
08-000615CON  ST. JOSPEH`S HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A ST. JOSEPH HOSPITAL vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND SUN CITY HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 01, 2008
Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9992, filed by Sun City Hospital, Inc., d/b/a South Bay Hospital to establish a 112-bed replacement hospital in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.The applicant for a replacement hospital did not prove that, on balance, it met the applicable statutory criteria for approval of its CON application.
08-001205CON  SUN CITY HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A SOUTH BAY HOSPITAL vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 10, 2008
Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 9992, filed by Sun City Hospital, Inc., d/b/a South Bay Hospital to establish a 112-bed replacement hospital in Riverview, Hillsborough County, Florida, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for approval.The applicant for a replacement hospital did not prove that, on balance, it met the applicable statutory criteria for approval of its CON application.
10-001865CON  COMMUNITY HOSPICE OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; UNITED HOSPICE OF FLORIDA, INC.; AND VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2010
Does Certificate of Need (CON) Application 10065 of VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida (VITAS) or CON Application 10064 of United Hospice of Florida, Inc. (United), or both, best meet the CON criteria to establish a new hospice program in Service Area 4A (Area 4A), consisting of Duval, Clay, Baker, Nassau, and St. Johns Counties?With a numeric need for one hospice, can't rely on special circumstances approval. The new theory is an impermissible amendment. CON applicant with a stronger plan for increasing African-American utilization was on balance better.
10-001866CON  UNITED HOSPICE OF FLORIDA, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION AND VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2010
Does Certificate of Need (CON) Application 10065 of VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida (VITAS) or CON Application 10064 of United Hospice of Florida, Inc. (United), or both, best meet the CON criteria to establish a new hospice program in Service Area 4A (Area 4A), consisting of Duval, Clay, Baker, Nassau, and St. Johns Counties?With a numeric need for one hospice, can't rely on special circumstances approval. The new theory is an impermissible amendment. CON applicant with a stronger plan for increasing African-American utilization was on balance better.
10-001867CON  VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA vs AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION; UNITED HOSPICE OF FLORIDA, INC.; AND ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., D/B/A ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2010
Does Certificate of Need (CON) Application 10065 of VITAS Healthcare Corporation of Florida (VITAS) or CON Application 10064 of United Hospice of Florida, Inc. (United), or both, best meet the CON criteria to establish a new hospice program in Service Area 4A (Area 4A), consisting of Duval, Clay, Baker, Nassau, and St. Johns Counties?With a numeric need for one hospice, can't rely on special circumstances approval. The new theory is an impermissible amendment. CON applicant with a stronger plan for increasing African-American utilization was on balance better.
10-001605CON  ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., D/B/A ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA vs HPH SOUTH, INC., AND AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 25, 2010
Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.Neither applicant for a CON proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in Service Area 5B.
10-001862CON  THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, D/B/A SUNCOAST HOSPICE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND HPH SOUTH, INC.  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2010
Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.Neither applicant for a CON proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in Service Area 5B.
10-001863CON  HPH SOUTH, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, D/B/A SUNCOAST HOSPICE, AND ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., D/B/A ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2010
Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.Neither applicant for a CON proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in Service Area 5B.

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