CopyCited 275 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14237, 2009 WL 1856537
hours in any period of 8 consecutive days.” FMCSR § 395.3(b) (emphasis added). This regulation specifies
CopyCited 16 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 132159
...Unquestionably, that debate took place in a public forum in the context of a statutorily formalized, political administrative process. It was then, and is now, illegal to open and operate a hospital in Florida without a license from the State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services [HRS]. See § 395.003(1)(a), Fla....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1997 WL 402107
...[1] A brief history of the litigation involving the parties is in order. In 1994, UH and two other hospitals challenged Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.004(2)(i), which required certificate-ofneed (CON) review for hospitals applying for a consolidated license for multiple healthcare facilities under section 395.003(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1993)....
...First, the hearing officer found the new rules to be invalid, holding that the rules improperly permitted the license to include material beyond that which the statute required. This court reversed, concluding that the rules constituted a permissible interpretation of section 395.003(2)(d); therefore, the agency could continue to issue single licenses containing separate hospital classifications for the separate facilities....
...v. University Hosp., Ltd.,
670 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied,
679 So.2d 774 (Fla.), and,
679 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1996). In the circuit court, UH and other hospitals filed petitions for writs of mandamus, which the court issued, holding that section
395.003(2)(d) entitled licensees to a single license for facilities on separate premises, and that such license must be unrestricted so that the hospitals would be entitled to Medicaid reimbursement. This court reversed, stating that nothing in section
395.003(2)(d) required that the license consolidate each facility under the same hospital classification....
...UH stated that it had learned that AHCA had issued Class I licenses to other similarly situated multiple-facility hospitals which previously had consolidated licenses, by construing as single premises what AHCA had previously considered to be "separate premises" under section 395.003(2)(d)....
...e pendency of the above earlier appeals, AHCA had issued single, Class I licenses to other similarly situated hospitals whose facilities were located on a single premises, yet those hospitals had previously obtained consolidated licenses pursuant to section 395.003(2)(d), which required facilities to be on separate premises....
...The agency dismissed UH's petition with prejudice on the basis only of collateral estoppel, stating that during two years of litigation in administrative and judicial forums, UH had consistently represented its facilities as being located on "separate premises," pursuant to section 395.003(2)(d); accordingly, it was estopped from thereafter alleging that the two facilities are situated on the same premises....
...More importantly, the gravamen of UH's complaint is that AHCA has perpetrated an injustice to it based upon its allegedly fluid interpretation of the term "single premises" vis-a-vis "separate premises." UH readily acknowledges that it sought licensure under section 395.003(2)(d), which applies only to facilities on separate premises, but claims that it did so because that was the means by which AHCA had hitherto licensed separate but related facilities. Later, however, according to UH, AHCA changed its policy by issuing single Class I licenses to separate facilities that it had previously licensed under section 395.003(2)(d), by determining that such facilities are located on a single premises....
...a section
120.57(1) hearing. REVERSED and REMANDED. BENTON, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur. NOTES [1] See §
409.905(5), Fla. Stat. (1995) (precluding Medicaid eligibility for licensed hospitals operated primarily for psychiatric patients). [2] Section
395.003(2)(d) provides in part: The agency shall, at the request of a licensee, issue a single license to a licensee for facilities located on separate premises....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56928, 2015 WL 1968799
...nable because it would fundamentally alter its zoning scheme. See Motion at 16. . It is also worth mentioning that the proposed facility would not be licensed as a hospital, which, under Florida law, is required to operate a hospital. See Fla. Stat. § 395.003 (l)(a)....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...astian Hospital, Inc. and Haines City HMA, Inc. PER CURIAM. The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) appeals issuance of two writs of mandamus directing the Agency to issue "consolidated" hospital licenses to appellees. We quash the writs. Section 395.003(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1993), provides, in part: (d) The agency shall, at the request of a licensee, issue a single license to a licensee for facilities located on separate premises....
...[1] University Hospital, Ltd. (University) challenged the rule requiring an applicant for a single license to go through the CON process. In a final DOAH order ( University I ), the rule was found to be invalid and in excess of the legislative directive of section 395.003(2)(d), which unequivocally mandates the issuance of a single license to a licensee for facilities located on separate premises on request of a licensee....
...endered at the psychiatric facilities were eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. The appellees subsequently filed complaints in circuit court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. [2] Appellees argued that section 395.003(2)(d) entitles a party seeking a single license for such separate hospital facilities to have the facilities "consolidated" on the face of the license and thereby make the specialty psychiatric hospitals, which were previously separately identified, eligible for full Medicaid participation. Appellees also argued this result was mandated by the final order in University I, which appellees asserted construed the plain language of section 395.003(2)(d) to require a consolidated license. A hearing on University's complaint was held before Judge L. Ralph Smith, Jr. Judge Smith issued a writ of mandamus noting that section 395.003(2)(d) was clear on its face....
...bursement for services rendered at the psychiatric facility. A hearing on the complaints of Sebastian and Haines City was held before Judge Davey. Judge Davey issued a writ of mandamus, noting that the appellees had complied with all requirements of section 395.003(2)(d) and it appeared the Agency had no discretion to deny issuance of consolidated licenses....
...We agree with the Agency that the trial judges improperly issued writs of mandamus. In each instance, the Agency issued a single license for facilities located on separate premises, specifically stating the location of the facilities, the services, and the licensed beds available on each separate premises, in accordance with section 395.003(2)(d). Nothing in the language of section 395.003(2)(d) requires that the license consolidate each facility under the same classification of hospital....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2228, 1996 WL 100793
...of Skelding, Labasky, Corry, Eastman, Hauser & Jolly, P.A., Tallahassee, for Sebastian Hospital, Inc. and Haines City HMA, Inc., for Appellees. PER CURIAM. The Agency for Health Care Admininistration (Agency) appeals a final order which invalidated proposed Rules 59A-3.203(2)(i) and (6). We reverse. Section 395.003(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1993), provides, in part: (d) The agency shall, at the request of a licensee, issue a single license to a licensee for facilities located on separate premises....
...University Hospital, Ltd. (University) challenged the rule requiring an applicant for a single license to go through the CON process. In a final DOAH order ( University I ) [1] , the rule was found to be invalid and in excess of the legislative directive of section 395.003(2)(d), which unequivocally mandates the issuance of a single license to a licensee for facilities located on separate premises on request of a licensee. The Agency did not appeal the order. After issuance of the order in University I, the Agency issued proposed rules regarding issuance of a single license under section 395.003(2)(d)....
...The license for hospitals having facilities on more than one premises shall specifically state the location of each facility, their general or specialty classification, their services, and the licensed beds available on each separate premises. Cited as law implemented by the proposed rules were sections
395.001,
395.003,
395.004, *1039 395.1005,
408.035,
408.036, and 455.239, Florida Statutes....
...Appellees filed petitions to determine the invalidity of the proposed rules. Appellees argued that a license issued pursuant to the proposed rules would not result in the consolidation of a psychiatric hospital under the Class I general license of the general hospital. It was argued that section 395.003(2)(d), in clear and mandatory terms, directs the agency to issue a single license and that no legislative enactment or change has occurred that would alter the benefits that flow from obtaining a single license. Appellees contended that the proposed rules directly conflict with section 395.003(2)(d) and also directly conflict with the order in University I....
...The hearing officer found the proposed rules to be invalid. The hearing officer noted that it was obvious that the law does not require the license to state the general or specialty classification for the separate facilities. The hearing officer concluded that section 395.003(2)(d) dictates what the license must include and the proposed rules embellish the statute by requiring more. The hearing officer also concluded that section 395.003(2)(d) was interpreted and construed in University I, and because that final order was not appealed the construction of the statute in that order was binding precedent. Portions of the University I order relied on by the hearing officer included: Section 395.003(2)(d) unequivocally mandates the issuance of a single license for facilities located on separate premises on request of a licensee....
...The AHCA's assertion that there is a type or kind of licensing procedure or "consolidation" other than as addressed in chapter 395 finds no support or authority expressed in any other statute or rule ... As a matter of law, there is only one kind of license "consolidation" and it is expressed in section 395.003....
...The hearing officer stated that any present agency interpretation of the statute which conflicted with University I could not support the validity of the proposed rules. We agree with the Agency that the proposed rules constitute a permissible interpretation of section
395.003. We also agree with the Agency that the order in University I did not set forth a considered interpretation of the form and effect of a single license issued pursuant to section
395.003(2)(d). Section
395.003(2)(d) requires the license to specifically state the location, the services, and the licensed beds available on each separate premises. As noted in Agency for Health Care Administration v. Sebastian Hospital, Inc.,
670 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), nothing in the language of section
395.003(2)(d) requires that the license consolidate each facility under the same classification of hospital. Section
395.003(4) provides that the agency shall issue a license which specifies the services categories and the number of hospital beds in each category for which a license is issued. Section
395.003(6) provides that no specialty hospital shall provide any service or regularly serve any population group beyond those services or groups specified in its license. The Agency indicated that section
395.003 was one of the statutory provisions implemented by the proposed rules....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 2070
...father eligibility when HRS issued its proposed agency action. Finally, appellant claims that the findings are not supported by the competent and substantial evidence. Following a review of the record, we find this last argument to be meritless. [2] Section 395.003(4), F.S....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8473, 1991 WL 167278
...ainment Board against the appellant for the year 1987. We do so because (a) there is neither statutory nor any other authority for imposing assessments against the owner of a hospital for revenues earned prior to its acquisition of the property, see § 395.003, Fla.Stat....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1967, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9662
...ith two hundred beds. It challenges the validity of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ (“HRS”) inventory of specialty beds. We affirm. In 1983, the legislature, pursuant to Chapter 83-244, Section 4, Laws of Florida, amended Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, as follows, the emphasized language representing the language added by the amendment....
...ended order. Horizon raises several points on appeal. First, it argues that the amended statutes were not intended to affect already existing licenses or CON’s, but only new ones. We reject this argument. The plain language of the amended statute, Section 395.003(4), Florida Statute (1983), requires HRS to develop specialty bed need methodologies....
...many beds are currently existing in a given specialty. In addition, license renewal occurs every two years, and a license will not be renewed unless applicants “meet the requirements established under this part and rules promulgated thereunder.” Section 395.003(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1983)....
CopyPublished | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 16840, 2014 WL 5151621
...(2011) (emphasis added).
The Hospital is a facility that is certified, licensed, and regulated by the
Florida Agency for Health Care Administration; among other things, it is required
to have a license issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration in order to
operate as a hospital. § 395.003(1)(a), Fla....
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1987).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
...inimum standards with respect thereto." No person or governmental unit, as defined in s.
395.002 (5), may establish, conduct, or maintain a hospital or ambulatory surgical center in this state without first obtaining a license under Part I, Ch. 395. Section
395.003 (1)(a), F.S....
CopyAgo (Fla. Att'y Gen. 1980).
Published | Florida Attorney General Reports
otherwise extensively revised by the Legislature. Section 395.03 requires that `no person [as defined in s.
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2233
PER CURIAM. The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) appeals issuance of two writs of mandamus directing the Agency to issue “consolidated” hospital licenses to appellees. We quash the writs. Section 395.003(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1993), provides, in part: (d) The agency shall, at the request of a licensee, issue a single license to a licensee for facilities located on separate premises....
...1 University Hospital, Ltd. (University) challenged the rule requiring an applicant for a single license to go through the CON process. In a final DOAH order (University I), the rule was found to be invalid and in excess of the legislative directive of section 395.003(2)(d), which unequivocally mandates the issuance of a single license to a licensee for facilities located on separate premises on request of a licensee....
...rendered at the psychiatric facilities were eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. The appellees subsequently filed complaints in circuit court seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. 2 Ap-pellees argued that section 395.003(2)(d) entitles a party seeking a single license for such separate hospital facilities to have the facilities “consolidated” on the face of the license and thereby make the specialty psychiatric hospitals, which were previously separately identified, eligible for full Medicaid participation. Appellees also argued this result was mandated by the final order in University I, which appellees asserted construed the plain language of section 395.003(2)(d) to require a consolidated license. A hearing on University’s complaint was held before Judge L. Ralph Smith, Jr. Judge Smith issued a writ of mandamus noting that section 395.003(2)(d) was clear on its face....
...bursement for services rendered at the psychiatric facility. A hearing on the complaints of Sebastian and Haines City was held before Judge Davey. Judge Davey issued a writ of mandamus, noting that the appellees had complied with all requirements of section 395.003(2)(d) and it appeared the Agency had no discretion to deny issuance of consolidated licenses....
...We agree with the Agency that the trial judges improperly issued writs of mandamus. In each instance, the Agency issued a single license for facilities located on separate premises, specifically stating the location of the facilities, the services, and the licensed beds available on each separate premises, in accordance with section 395.003(2)(d). Nothing in the language of section 395.003(2)(d) requires that the license consolidate each facility under the same classification of hospital....
CopyPublished | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2013 WL 3784160, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102765
...riefs, address whether HHS, or any government agency for that matter, has the statutory authority under Touhy to prescribe by regulation the conduct of state employees pertaining to their legally mandated state activities. See generally Fla. Stat. §§
395.003 (1)(a),
395.003(7),
408.811,
408.815....
...A state employee, operating under the agreement between HHS and the state, and performing investigatory functions required by Florida law, is not subject to the control of HHS-or CMS. In fact, AHCA was required to investigate the occurrence here, irrespective of any federal law. See generally Fla. Stat. §§
408.811 ,
395.003(7) (2008). AHCA was charged with suspending or revoking the hospital’s licensure if it found there was a substantial failure to comply with the requirements established under Florida law. See Fla. Stat. §
395.003 (7) (2008)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 12502, 1992 WL 365441
...ll past due assessments have been recouped.” Hospital Corporation asserts there is neither statutory nor any other authority for imposing assessments against the owner of a hospital for revenues earned prior to its acquisition of the property. See section 395.003, Florida Statutes (1987)....
