Birchwood Nursing Home v. Whalen

70 A.D.2d 1020, 418 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12654
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 21, 1979
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 1020 (Birchwood Nursing Home v. Whalen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Birchwood Nursing Home v. Whalen, 70 A.D.2d 1020, 418 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

— Cross appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered December 9, 1977 in Albany County, which granted in part and denied in part petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, to review a determination which adjusted the expenses reported by petitioner for the years 1969-1971 and recalculated its Medicaid reimbursement rate for those years. Petitioner is a nursing home which is reimbursed by the State for certain expenses incurred in accepting Medicaid patients. Following an audit conducted in 1974, respondent made certain adjustments to the expenses reported by petitioner for the years 1969-1971. The adjustments included the reduction of the allowable chaplain’s salary from $7,500 to $1,200 for each year and reclassified the amount spent for patient diapers during 1969 and 1970 as a laundry rather than a nursing expense. These adjustments resulted in a finding by respondent that overpayments were made to petitioner for the years in question exceeding $55,000. Petitioner was unable to obtain a hearing for the purpose of challenging this determination and instituted the instant article 78 proceeding on August 13, 1975 to direct the respondent to approve the $7,500 annual chaplain’s salary and reclassify the cost of patient diapers as a nursing expense. Special Term granted the petitioner relief with respect to the chaplain’s^ salary only, and these cross appeals ensued. As a preliminary matter, we note that this article 78 proceeding is an improper vehicle to challenge the action taken by the Department of Health in this matter. Since petitioner was not entitled to notice and a hearing in order to contest the adjustments made following [1021]*1021the audit,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Siddiqui v. New York State Department of Social Services
116 A.D.2d 909 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Siddiqui v. New York State Department of Social Services
126 Misc. 2d 132 (New York Supreme Court, 1984)
Klein v. Axelrod
81 A.D.2d 935 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
Schwartzberg v. Whalen
75 A.D.2d 273 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
Solnick v. Whalen
401 N.E.2d 190 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Hartman v. Whalen
68 A.D.2d 466 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 A.D.2d 1020, 418 N.Y.S.2d 212, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/birchwood-nursing-home-v-whalen-nyappdiv-1979.