Leon FL and Administrative law Lawyers | Peter Allan Lewis, -- eLawyers

17-006888 DELRAY GROUP, LLC, D/B/A LAKE VIEW CARE CENTER AT DELRAY vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 22, 2017

Whether Petitioner’s request for extension of deadlines relating to Certificate of Need (CON) Nos. 10176 and 10231, and Exemption No. E140013 was timely filed, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.018(3), and section 408.040(2)(c), Florida Statutes.1/Petitioner's request for extension of CON validity periods was not timely filed and, accordingly, CONs and Exemption terminated by operation of law.

15-000619 BAYOU SHORES SNF, LLC, D/B/A REHABILITATION CENTER OF ST. PETE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 05, 2015

The issues in these cases are whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) should discipline (including license revocation) Bayou Shores SNF, LLC, d/b/a Rehabilitation Center of St. Pete (Bayou Shores) for the statutory and rule violations alleged in the June 10, 2014, Administrative Complaint, and whether AHCA should renew the nursing home license held by Bayou Shores.AHCA proved the allegations in the Administrative Complaint; conditional licensure status followed by revocation or denial of renewal license appropriate.

15-005469 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs BAYOU SHORES SNF, LLC, D/B/A REHABILITATION CENTER OF ST. PETE (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 29, 2015

The issues in these cases are whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) should discipline (including license revocation) Bayou Shores SNF, LLC, d/b/a Rehabilitation Center of St. Pete (Bayou Shores) for the statutory and rule violations alleged in the June 10, 2014, Administrative Complaint, and whether AHCA should renew the nursing home license held by Bayou Shores.AHCA proved the allegations in the Administrative Complaint; conditional licensure status followed by revocation or denial of renewal license appropriate.

15-004847 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs FLAMINGO PARK MANOR, LLC (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 01, 2015

Whether Respondent violated section 429.26(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 58A-5.0182(1) by failing to appropriately supervise one of its residents, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed. Whether Respondent failed to follow its own elopement policy, in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 58A- 5.0182(8), and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent did not provide appropriate supervision for assisted living facility resident, or that Respondent did not follow its own elopement policy.

14-000024 VENICE NH, LLC, D/B/A SUNSET LAKE HEALTH AND REHAB CENTER vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 07, 2014

The issue in this case is whether a tax on a warranty deed is an allowable property cost, as claimed in Petitioner’s Medicaid cost report.Petitioner did not prove that doc stamp tax on warranty deed was an allowable property cost, as an ad valorem property tax, on Medicaid cost report.

13-001451 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs DAYSPRING VILLAGE, INC. (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 18, 2013

At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Dayspring Village, Inc. (“Dayspring Village”), committed the two Class II deficiencies alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 20, 2013, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Also at issue is Dayspring Village’s contention that the enforcement action undertaken by the Agency for Health Care Administration (“AHCA”) in this proceeding constitutes the imposition of an unadopted rule.Agency proved both counts of Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence; allegations contained in complaint did not constitute unadopted rules.

13-003826 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs KABIRHU ASSOCIATES, LLC, D/B/A GOLDEN GLADES NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 01, 2013

Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalties Petitioner should impose against Respondent.No sanction should be imposed after a nurse tried to revive a resident with a do not resuscitate order because AHCA did not prove nursing home's policies or staff training was deficient. Alleged verbal abuse of a resident not proven.

13-001836RU DAYSPRING VILLAGE, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 15, 2013

The issue is whether the purported agency statements identified by Petitioner, Dayspring Village, constitute rules that have not been properly adopted through formal rulemaking procedures.By definition, allegations in an administrative complaint are not "rules;" therefore, summary dismissal of Petitioner's unadopted rule challenge is warranted.

09-005214 APOLLO HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 22, 2009

The issue in the case is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent) used the correct nursing home bed capacity in calculating the Medicaid per diem rate for Apollo Health and Rehabilitation Center (Petitioner) for the rate period beginning July 1, 2009.Correct identification of nursing home beds requires amendment to reimbursement rate.

08-001691 MADISON POINTE REHABILITATION AND HEALTH CENTER vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 07, 2008

The issues in this case are whether Respondent applied the proper reimbursement principles to Petitioners' initial Medicaid rate setting, and whether elements of detrimental reliance exist so as to require Respondent to establish a particular initial rate for Petitioners' facilities.Petitioners did not meet their burden of proof. The Agency`s actions were proper and correct. No estoppel applies to the facts of this case.

Peter Allan Lewis, Jr.