STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
SUNRISE COMMUNITY, INC., | ) | |
) | ||
Petitioner, | ) | |
) | ||
vs. | ) CASE NOS. | 95-5579 |
) | 95-5580 | |
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE | ) | 95-5581 |
ADMINISTRATION, | ) | 95-5582 |
) | ||
Respondent. | ) |
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on March 11 - 13, 1996, in Miami, Florida, before Errol H. Powell, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Steven M. Weinger, Esquire
Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33133-3003
For Respondent: Steven A. Grigas, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building Number3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue for determination at final hearing is whether Petitioner should be granted interim rate adjustments.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Sunrise Community, Inc. (Petitioner) requested interim rate adjustments for the Sunrise Main Facility and several of its other facilities. By letters dated October 9, 1995, and October 11, 1995 the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent) notified Petitioner that its request was denied. The reasons for the denial were that, pursuant to Section IV.G.4 of the Intermediate Care Facility for the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled (ICF/MR-DD) Reimbursement Plan, Respondent was prohibited from considering any costs incurred prior to June 15, 1995 and that the allowable costs incurred failed to meet the minimum amount required by Section IV.G.2 of the ICF/MR-DD Reimbursement Plan. By petition filed October 27, 1995, Petitioner challenged the denial and requested a formal hearing.
On November 17, 1995, this matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. A hearing was scheduled pursuant to written notice.
Prior to hearing, Respondent was permitted to amend its denial letter. 1/ The amended denial letter, dated February 7, 1996, added an additional reason for the denial and provided that Petitioner's request was also denied due to Petitioner's failure to obtain prior approval from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Developmental Services pursuant to Section
of the ICF/MR-DD Reimbursement Plan. Approximately one month prior to the hearing, on February 12, 1996, Respondent filed notice that only the reason provided in its amended denial letter of February 7, 1996, i.e., lack of prior approval, was the reason for denial of the interim rate adjustment requests. As a result, the focal point of this case was whether Petitioner had prior approval for the expenses that it incurred.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of five witnesses and entered 31 exhibits into evidence, with one exhibit being deposition testimony and one exhibit (Exhibit 1) consisting of four parts. Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses and entered seven exhibits into evidence.
transcript of the hearing was ordered. The parties filed proposed findings of fact which have been addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Sunrise Community, Inc. (Petitioner) is a charitable organization which serves individuals with developmental disabilities. Petitioner is a licensed Medicaid provider which owns, and/or operates Intermediate Care Facilities for the Mentally Retarded and Developmentally Disabled (ICF/MR-DD).
The Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent) is the state agency responsible for the administration and implementation of the Florida Medicaid Program.
In August 1995, Petitioner submitted interim rate requests, i.e., requests for interim changes in its Medicaid reimbursement rate, for costs incurred associated with several of its facilities. The costs were incurred to comply with existing state and federal regulations.
Petitioner submitted requests for the following Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs): Sunrise Main Facility Number 285013, St. Petersburg Cluster Number 280186-01, Greentree Court Cluster Number 280283-01, McCauley Cluster Number 280208-1, Mahan Cluster Number 280291-01, Bayshore Cluster Number 280313- 01, Dorchester Cluster Number 280496-01, Cape Coral Cluster Number 285331-01, 26th Terrace (Number 12) Number 285528, County Meadows (Number 13) Number 285536, 138th Court Number 285480-00, 62nd Place Number 285471-00, 55th Court Number 285609-00, 53rd Court Number 285595-00, Wentworth Number 285617-00, Oakmont Number 285587-00, and 148th Court Number 285579-00.
Reimbursement to participating ICF/MR-DD for services provided must be in accordance with Florida Title XIX ICF/MR-DD Reimbursement Plan, Version VI, dated November 15, 1994 (Reimbursement Plan).
Respondent timely denied Petitioner's interim rate requests. 2/
Section III.G.7 of the Reimbursement Plan provides:
After June 30, 1984, additional costs incurred after enrollment in the program that are due to capital additions or expansions must have
prior approval by the HRS Office of Developmental Services if such costs exceed 1 percent of the provider's current total reimbursement rate,
with the exception of the addition of new beds which are approved through the state's Certificate of Need process. Costs for specific expansion
or additions that exceed the 1 percent limit shall not be reimbursable if not previously approved. Further, financing costs for approved expansions or additions shall be limited by the prudent buyer limits established in Section
III.G.4. above.
Section IV.G of the Reimbursement Plan provides in pertinent part:
Requests for rate adjustments for increases
in property-related costs due to capital additions, expansion, replacements or repairs shall not be considered in the interim between cost report submissions, except for the addition of new beds
or if the cost of the specific expansion, addition, repair, or replacement would cause a change of 1 percent or more in the provider's total per diem reimbursement rate.
Requests for interim rate changes reflecting increased costs occurring as a result of resident care or administration changes or capital replace- ment other than that specified in (1) above shall be considered only if such changes were made to comply with existing state or federal rules, laws, or standards, and if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause a change of 1.0 percent or more in the provider's current total per diem rate. The provider must submit documentation showing that the changes
made were necessary to meet existing state or federal requirements.
Around February or March 1993, Petitioner's representatives discussed with the then Assistant Secretary of Development Services (DS) its plans for the ICFs, including the day centers, six-bed facilities, and office building. No costs were discussed because only the approximate costs, not the actual costs, for the projects were known at that time. The then Assistant Secretary verbally gave Petitioner's representatives approval to proceed with their plans.
Following numerous public hearings, Petitioner executed leases for properties from Regional Properties, Inc., which acquired the properties through its tax exempt bond issue in October 1993. Regional Properties is a not-for- profit corporation, exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Subsequently, a new Assistant Secretary took the helm of DS. Around March 1994, Petitioner representatives met with the new Assistant Secretary and discussed the ICF projects with him. He advised Petitioner's representatives to continue with the projects.
Respondent required that the costs be incurred before requesting reimbursement.
Petitioner submitted interim rate adjustment requests for the costs associated with the ICF projects. Medicaid had received approval from DS for the property items in the interim rate requests. Since the requests involved items which were required as part of the ICF/MR-DD program, DS took the position that it could not disapprove the requests.
The Assistant Secretaries of DS did not give Petitioner written prior approval for the costs associated with the projects.
However, although not written, the new Assistant Secretary did give prior approval for the costs. This finding is consistent with the approval of all of Petitioner's requests for interim rate adjustments (for reimbursement) of the costs associated with the projects submitted during the tenure of the new Assistant Secretary.
In 1995, the new Assistant Secretary of DS was replaced by the present Acting Assistant Secretary.
The present 1995 interim rate adjustment requests are a continuation of costs associated with the ICF projects which have already been approved.
The identification of costs, as for capital additions or expansions, by a provider is accepted and not questioned or challenged by DS. The costs in the 1995 interim rate requests were accepted by DS.
The costs in the 1995 interim rate change requests were considered by DS to be a continuation of costs for the ICF projects previously approved. As a result, the Acting Assistant Secretary of DS took the position that DS could not disapprove the requests.
Written prior approval was not required by DS prior to Petitioner's 1995 interim rate change requests.
Petitioner was entitled to rely upon the terms of the Reimbursement Plan and the past practice of Medicaid, DS, and Respondent regarding prior approval. In reliance on the past practice, Petitioner proceeded and continued with the ICF projects and incurred costs associated with the projects.
Petitioner leases properties from Regional Properties, Inc. The Phineas Corporation controls both Petitioner and Regional Properties. Petitioner leases the properties from a "related" party or organization.
The lease payments are not costs for capital additions or expansions under the Reimbursement Plan.
Repairs and replacements are not capital additions or expansions under the Reimbursement Plan.
Each facility must be evaluated separately regarding capital additions or expansions in terms of the 1 percent requirement of Section III.G.7 of the Reimbursement Plan.
In the 1995 interim rate adjustment requests, there are no capital additions or expansions beyond those identified by Petitioner in its requests.
The 1 percent requirement of Section III.G.7 does not apply to any of Petitioner's 1995 interim rate adjustment requests.
The costs submitted by Petitioner in the 1995 interim rate adjustment requests are reasonable and necessary and are, therefore, allowable subject to audit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner bears the burden of showing that it is entitled to the interim rate changes as requested. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.
W. C. Company, 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla 1st DCA 1981); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
The Reimbursement Plan has been adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 59G-6.040, Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner has met its burden of proof. Petitioner has demonstrated that, in accordance with the Reimbursement Plan, it received prior approval, although not in writing, for the interim rate adjustment requests submitted in August 1995; that, even though it received prior approval, the interim rate adjustment requests submitted in 1995 are not subject to the 1 percent requirement of Section III.G.7 of the Reimbursement Plan; and that the costs in the interim rate adjustment requests are reasonable and necessary subject to audit.
Having found and determined that Petitioner is entitled to the interim rate adjustment requests, all other arguments are moot.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final
order granting Petitioner's interim rate adjustment requests submitted in August 1995, subject to auditing.
DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of August 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August 1996.
ENDNOTES
1/ This Hearing Officer is not persuaded that the ruling granting Respondent's emergency motion to amend its denial letter should be reconsidered. The ruling is affirmed.
2/ Ibid.
APPENDIX
The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact
General Findings
A. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 3-5. Also, see Preliminary Statement.
- C. Rejected as being subordinate.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 15, 17, 21, and 26-28.
Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 15.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 10.
Partially accepted in findings of fact 9-11 and 14-17.
Partially accepted in findings of fact 12, 13, 15, and 17.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 16.
Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 13.
Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 27.
Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 27.
Partially accepted in findings of fact 22 and 23.
Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 27.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 25.
Q - T. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary.
U. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 28. V - W. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary.
Specific Findings
A. Mitchell: 1 - 21, B. Leech: 1 - 18, C. Hughes: 1 - 47, D. Vaughn: 1 - 7, E. Weeks:1 - 23, F. Allen: 1 - 17 -- Petitioner addresses the testimony of each of these witnesses, and where its findings are inconsistent with the findings of fact, they are rejected as being subordinate, irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, recitation of testimony, not supported by the more credible evidence, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact
Partially accepted in finding of fact 1.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 2.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 5.
Rejected as being subordinate.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 8.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 3.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Also, see Preliminary Statement.
See Preliminary Statement and Endnotes.
See Preliminary Statement.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 7.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 8.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 22.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 22.
Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary.
Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, or not supported by the greater weight of the evidence.
Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, or not supported by the greater weight of the evidence.
Rejected as being not supported by the more credible evidence, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law.
Rejected as being recitation of testimony, unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law.
Rejected as being not supported by the more credible evidence, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law.
Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.
Rejected as being recitation of testimony.
Rejected as being recitation of testimony.
Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion of law.
NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, recitation of testimony, not supported by the more credible evidence, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Steven M. Weinger, Esquire
Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue
Miami, Florida 33133
Steven A. Grigas, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building Number 3
Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Sam Power Agency Clerk
Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel
Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
SUNRISE COMMUNITY, INC.,
Petitioner, CASE NO.: 95-5579 95-5580
vs. 95-5581
95-5582
STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR RENDITION NO.:
HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AHCA-96-FOF-MDR
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Sunrise owns and operates intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded, known in regulatory jargon as ICF/DDs. At issue in this case is the Medicaid per diem rate to be paid for each Medicaid resident at 17 of Sunrise's ICF/DD's. Specifically, Sunrise challenges the denial of its requests for interim rate increases. The requested rate adjustments reflect costs incurred for a major program expansion begun in 1993 including acquisition of facilities for an off-site day training program for residents and an office building.
Interim rate increases for the expansion were approved in 1993 and 1994. Off- site day training is a required part of services to be provided to residents of an ICF/DD. The reason given for the denial decisions at issue was that Sunrise did not obtain the prior approval of HRS for the program expansion. The Florida Reimbursement Plan (Plan) requires prior approval by HRS before a provider incurs additional costs for capital additions or expansions when such costs are expected to increase the current reimbursement rate by one percent or more. An interim rate increase can be granted only for costs which have already been incurred by a provider. Thus, the requirement for prior approval of planned capital expenditures must be distinguished from review of a request for an interim rate increase. Sunrise's capital improvements under the circumstances of this case are in effect publicly funded by the Medicaid program; thus, cost containment through a requirement of prior approval is clearly appropriate.
RULING ON EXCEPTIONS BY AHCA
Counsel excepts to the findings in paragraph 3 that the costs were incurred to comply with state or federal regulatory requirements. It is not disputed in the record that a major part of the expenditures at issue were to acquire facilities for off-site day training and that such training is required by state and/or federal regulations. The exception is denied.
Counsel excepts to the finding in paragraph 9 that in early 1993 HRS's Assistant Secretary of Developmental Services verbally approved Sunrise's expansion plans. There is ample support in the record that Sunrise undertook
the expansion plan with the knowledge of the Assistant Secretary. However, having reviewed the record it is fair to say that the issue is whether HRS gave its approval, not just to the projects, but to the costs of those projects and whether Sunrise had to obtain that approval in writing. There was no substantial competent evidence to support a finding that any prior approval was obtained for the costs of the project from the then Assistant Secretary, much less that the approval was in writing.. The exception is granted. Likewise, the exceptions to paragraph 11 is granted; there is no substantial competent evidence identifying which specific "projects" were discussed with the new Assistant Secretary.
Counsel for the Agency also excepts to the finding in paragraph 13 of the Recommended Order in that the record contains no substantial competent evidence to prove that Developmental Services gave its approval to the property items in the interim rate request submitted by Petitioner. The exception is granted.
The finding is contrary to the evidence in the record that approval of interim rate requests is not even within the authority of Developmental Services; it being a function of the Agency in administering the Medicaid Program.
Counsel excepts to paragraph 15 of the Recommended Order in that the finding contradicts the record evidence. The testimony of Donna Allen ( T560-
585) clearly demonstrates that only the Assistant Secretary of Developmental Services had the authority to give prior approval for such project costs and that such prior approval had never been given for these costs. What's more, the finding is inconsistent with other evidence which indicates that DS does not have the authority to approve interim rate requests. The exception is granted.
Counsel excepts to paragraph 17 wherein the hearing officer found that the interim rate request is a continuation of costs approved in two prior requests for interim rate increases. The testimony of staff persons from HRS and AHCA support the hearing officer's finding. The exception is denied.
Counsel excepts to paragraph 18 on the grounds that the record evidence from the testimony of Donna Allen and related exhibits shows that no prior approval was given by her for the 1995 costs. The exception is granted.
Likewise the exception to paragraph 19 is granted.
Counsel excepts to the finding in paragraph 20 that written prior approval was not required prior to Sunrise's 1995 interim rate request. The evidence is uncontradicted that no written prior approval of HRS was obtained prior to this case, but the prior interim rate requests were approved by Medicaid.
Counsel excepts to paragraph 21 on the grounds that it is a legal conclusion. The Agency is not bound to accept legal conclusions that have been erroneously designated as findings of fact. Department of Community Affairs v. Killearn Properties, Inc., 15 FALR. 1827, 1829-30. These conclusions necessarily involve legal and policy determinations which are clearly within the expertise of the Agency and where the Agency's determinations should be given deference. Bayonet Point Regional Medical Center v. DHRS., 516 So,2d 995,996-
97. (Fla. 1st DCA, 1987). The legal conclusion that Petitioner was entitled to rely on past practice for approval of its added costs is clearly erroneous. As a general rule estoppel applies only rarely against the state. North American Company v. Green, 120 So.2d 603, 610 (Fla. 1959); State Department of Revenue v. Anderson, 403 So.2d 397,400 (Fla. 1981); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Belveal, 663 So.2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA. 1995). Mistaken statements of law can not estop the State. Austin v. Austin, 350 So.2d 102,105 (Fla. 1st DCA. 1977, cert. denied, 357 So.2d 184 (1978); Department of Revenue v. Hobbs, 368
So.2d 367 (Fla. 1st DCA. 1977), appeal dismissed, 378 So.2d 345 (1979). This case demonstrates the reason why prior approval in writing is necessary.
Without a clear written statement of approval there is the potential for confusion as to what costs have and have not been approved. Since these projects may extend over several years, memories may fade and personnel may change. The potential for unintended approval of runaway costs is great. The exception is granted.
Counsel excepts to the legal conclusion in paragraph 23 that the lease payments to Regional Properties for the off-site day training facilities are not capital expenditures. In paragraph 22 the hearing officer found that Sunrise and Regional Properties are related organizations; thus, Sunrise is deemed to be the owner of the facilities it leases from Regional Properties. Under this circumstance the lease obligation constitutes a capital expenditure. The exception is granted. Likewise, the exception to paragraph 26 is granted.
Counsel excepts to paragraph 25 which concludes that each facility must be evaluated separately as to whether the one percent threshold requirement is met. This is correct for evaluation of the requests for interim rate requests, but not for the prior approval required for planned capital expenditures by a provider. For planned capital improvements or expansion, the one percent threshold is applied to the total planned expenditure for all facilities affected. In other words, the provider must present the total planned spending package for prior approval. This facilitates the cost control function of the requirement for prior approval. The exception is granted.
Counsel excepts to the legal conclusion in paragraph 27. Again this interpretation is one which is within the authority of the Agency to make. The Agency interprets the Section 111.G.7 of the plan which requires prior HRS approval of planned capital expenditures to apply in this case to the costs covered by this interim rate request.
Paragraph 28 of the Recommended Order is a legal conclusion labeled as a finding of fact. It is rejected as erroneous and not supported by substantial competent evidence. The reasonableness of the costs was never demonstrated.
Paragraph 32 reiterates findings already addressed and is modified to conform the above rulings on exceptions. Paragraph 33 is likewise modified.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The agency hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order except where inconsistent with the rulings on the exceptions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The agency hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order except where inconsistent with the rulings on the exceptions.
Based upon the foregoing, it is
ADJUDGED, that the interim rate request submitted by Sunrise in August 1995 be denied.
DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida.
STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
Douglas M. Cook, Director
A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Steven Grigas, Esquire Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Senior Attorney, Agency for Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Health Care Administration Tetzell, P. A.
2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 2650 SW 27th Avenue, 2nd Floor Fort Knox Building III Miami, Florida 33133 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
Errol H. Powell Hearing Officer
The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addresses by U.S. Mail this 8th day of January, 1996.
Charlene Thompson for
R.S. Power, Agency Clerk State of Florida, Agency for
Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive
Fort Knox 3, Suite 3431
Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
(904) 922-3808
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 03, 1997 | Notice of Appeal filed. (filed by: ) |
| Jan. 13, 1997 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 05, 1996 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held March 11-13, 1996. |
| Jul. 17, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Supplemental Authority filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1996 | Agency for Health Care Administration`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Apr. 26, 1996 | Notice of Filing Petitioner`s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law filed. |
| Apr. 18, 1996 | (5 Volumes) Transcript filed. |
| Mar. 18, 1996 | Sunrise Community Hearing Exhibits (2 Boxes TAGGED) filed. |
| Mar. 13, 1996 | Respondent`s Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogs.; Agency for Health Care Administration Answers to Interrogs. filed. |
| Mar. 11, 1996 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Mar. 04, 1996 | Petitioner`s Notice of Supplemental Answer to Interrogatories filed. |
| Mar. 04, 1996 | (Petitioner) Response to Respondent`s First Request for Admissions; Petitioner`s Answers to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Mar. 04, 1996 | (Petitioner) Notice of Availability; (2) Subpoena Ad Testificandum From S. Weinger; (2) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Mar. 01, 1996 | Respondent`s Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories filed. |
| Feb. 26, 1996 | Order Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for March 11-12 & 14, 1996; Miami; 10:30am) |
| Feb. 26, 1996 | Order Expediting Discover sent out. |
| Feb. 22, 1996 | (AHCA) Notice of Hearing filed. |
| Feb. 14, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Compliance; CC: Letter to Steven Weinger from Steven Grigas (RE: available dates for hearing) filed. |
| Feb. 14, 1996 | Respondent`s Motion to Expedite Discovery filed. |
| Feb. 13, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Compliance; Letter to Steven M. Weinger from Steven A. Grigas Re: Dates for hearing filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | Order Granting Leave to Amend and Continuance sent out. (hearing cancelled) |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Compliance filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | Respondent`s First Request for Admissions; Respondent`s Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories, and First Request for Admissions to Petitioner; Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner filed. |
| Feb. 12, 1996 | (Respondent) Notice of Agreement to Limit Scope of Hearing filed. |
| Feb. 09, 1996 | Respondent`s Notice of Availability; Letter to Steven Weinger from Steven Grigas Re: Agreeable dates for hearing filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1996 | (Respondent) Emergency Motion for Continuance; (Respondent) Emergency Motion to Amend Denial Letters filed. |
| Feb. 05, 1996 | (Steven M. Weinger) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Feb. 05, 1996 | (Respondent) Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Jan. 29, 1996 | (Respondent) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Dec. 27, 1995 | (Respondent) Response to Petitioners Request for Production filed. |
| Dec. 27, 1995 | (Steven A. Grigas) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for February 13-15, 1996 beginning at 11:00am on February 13th and 9:00am each day thereafter; Miami) |
| Dec. 19, 1995 | Prehearing Order sent out. |
| Dec. 18, 1995 | Order sent out. (Motion to quash denied) |
| Dec. 18, 1995 | Order Granting Consolidation sent out. (Consolidated cases are: 95-5579, 95-5580, 95-5581, 95-5582) |
| Dec. 08, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion to Quash filed. |
| Nov. 30, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion to Consolidate (with DOAH Case No/s. 95-5579, 95-5580, 95-5581, 95-5582); Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Nov. 29, 1995 | Petitioner`s Election of Venue filed. |
| Nov. 21, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| Nov. 17, 1995 | Notice Of Related Petitions (Case nos. 95-5579 thru 95-5582); Notice;Petition Initiating Formal Proceeding Regarding State Of Florida Agency For Health Care Administration Letter Dated October 9, 1995 Referencing "Sunrise Main Fac ility No.285013 7-1-95 I |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 08, 1997 | Agency Final Order | |
| Aug. 05, 1996 | Recommended Order | Petitioner demonstrated that it is entitled to interim rate adjustments, sub ject to audit/obtained prior approval to incur costs although not written. |
