welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Ryland Terry Rigsby
Ryland Terry Rigsby
Ryland Terry Rigsby
Visitors: 123
0
Bar #202045(FL)     License for 50 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Ryland Terry Rigsby? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

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.
74-32  Fullerton Metal Company v. Abell Howe Company  (1974)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Aug. 06, 1974 Citations: 299 So. 2d 151
299 So. 2d 151 (1974) FULLERTON METAL COMPANY and Zurich Insurance Company, Appellants, v. ABELL HOWE COMPANY and Central Air Conditioning Company, Appellees. No. 74-32. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. August 6, 1974. Rehearing Denied September 6, 1974. *152 Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy, and Glenn P. Falk, Miami, for appellants. Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellees. Before HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge. PER CU..
81-1878  Hansen v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.  (1981)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Dec. 29, 1981 Citations: 408 So. 2d 658
408 So. 2d 658 (1981) William M. HANSEN, Petitioner, v. DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC. and Phillip Pauze, Respondents. No. 81-1878. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. December 29, 1981. Rehearing Denied January 28, 1982. *659 Fowler, White, Burnett, Hurley, Banick & Strickroot and Curtis Carlson, Miami, for petitioner. Smathers & Thompson and Hugh J. Turner, Jr., Miami, for respondents. Before SCHWARTZ, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ. BASKIN, Judge. By Petition for Writ of Certior..
15-003656RX  THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, INC., D/B/A SUNCOAST HOSPICE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 24, 2015
The issue in this existing rule challenge filed pursuant to section 120.56(3), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule subparagraphs 59C-1.008(2)(a)2. and (2)(a)3. are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioner.Petitioner failed to prove that challenged parts of the fixed need pool rule are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority under section 120.52(8)(b), (c), or "flush-left" paragraph, or that they are illegal procedural rules that are void.
14-001367CON  HERNANDO-PASCO HOSPICE, INC. vs HOSPICE OF CITRUS COUNTY, INC., D/B/A HOSPICE OF CITRUS AND THE NATURE COAST, AND AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 24, 2014
Did Nature Coast demonstrate special circumstances to justify approval of its Certificate of Need (CON) application to establish a new hospice program in Service Area 3D, Hernando County, in the absence of published numeric need? If Nature Coast demonstrated special circumstances to justify approval, does Nature Coast's proposal satisfy the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355, and section 408.035, Florida Statutes (2014)?1/Minors' need for CMS services that only hospices can provide established special circumstances showing need. Hospice didn't prove reasonable utilization projections and financial feasibility. Failure outweighed need. Denial recommended.
13-002558CON  NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A NCH NORTH NAPLES HOSPITAL CAMPUS vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 11, 2013
The issue in this case is whether the certificate of need (CON) application filed by Lee Memorial Health System (LMHS) to establish a new 80-bed hospital in Lee County, Florida, should be approved or denied.The applicant failed to demonstrate need for its proposed 80-bed hospital.
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.

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