welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Matt Bryant
Matt Bryant
Matt Bryant
Visitors: 59
0
Bar #93190(FL)     License for 13 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Matt Bryant? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

19-005831  CARMEN DIAZ vs NORTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND PALAFOX, LLC  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 30, 2019
Whether Environmental Resource Permit No. IND-073-288406-1 (the “Permit”) should be issued as proposed in the notice issued by Respondent Northwest Florida Water Management District (the “District”).Respondent proved entitlement to attorney's fees under section 120.595, Florida Statutes, because Petitioner participated in the proceeding for an improper purpose.
17-006655RU  DACCO BEHAVORIAL HEALTH, INC.; OPERATION PAR, INC.; AND ASPIRE PARTNERS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 11, 2017
The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rule 65DER17-2 (the “Emergency Rule”) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2017 version.) More specifically, on September 19, 2017, the Florida Department of Children and Families (the “Department”), published the Emergency Rule, which dealt with the need for and licensing of new methadone medication-assisted treatment centers for persons dealing with opioid addiction. Pursuant to the Emergency Rule, the Department decided which providers would receive approval notices to submit licensure applications in certain counties based on the order in which complete and responsive applications were received by the Department. A number of parties are challenging the validity of the Emergency Rule.The Emergency Rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
17-000792MPI  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 06, 2017
Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover certain Medicaid funds paid to Respondent pursuant to section 409.923(1), Florida Statutes, for hospice services Respondent provided through three program locations (Melbourne, Boynton Beach, and Dade) during the audit period between September 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012; and the amount of sanctions, if any, that should be imposed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e).Petitioner proved that Respondent must repay Medicaid overpayments for certain paid claims for hospice services, but failed to prove that Respondent was overpaid for other Medicaid claims. Petitioner proved that Respondent must pay a fine.
17-000793MPI  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 06, 2017
Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover certain Medicaid funds paid to Respondent pursuant to section 409.923(1), Florida Statutes, for hospice services Respondent provided through three program locations (Melbourne, Boynton Beach, and Dade) during the audit period between September 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012; and the amount of sanctions, if any, that should be imposed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e).Petitioner proved that Respondent must repay Medicaid overpayments for certain paid claims for hospice services, but failed to prove that Respondent was overpaid for other Medicaid claims. Petitioner proved that Respondent must pay a fine.
17-000794MPI  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 06, 2017
Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover certain Medicaid funds paid to Respondent pursuant to section 409.923(1), Florida Statutes, for hospice services Respondent provided through three program locations (Melbourne, Boynton Beach, and Dade) during the audit period between September 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012; and the amount of sanctions, if any, that should be imposed pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e).Petitioner proved that Respondent must repay Medicaid overpayments for certain paid claims for hospice services, but failed to prove that Respondent was overpaid for other Medicaid claims. Petitioner proved that Respondent must pay a fine.

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