Pitman v. Richard F. Daines, M.D.

90 A.D.3d 421, 933 N.Y.2d 554

This text of 90 A.D.3d 421 (Pitman v. Richard F. Daines, M.D.) 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
Pitman v. Richard F. Daines, M.D., 90 A.D.3d 421, 933 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

[422]*422Respondents’ determination that private 24-hour nursing care may have provided the deceased with “optimal care” but was not “essential” care that was “medically necessary” for purposes of Medicaid reimbursement is based on substantial evidence. The agency’s determination is entitled to deference because it involves the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations and the legislation under which it functions (Matter of Schlossberg v Wing, 277 AD2d 41 [2000]).

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.E, Catterson, Abdus-Salaam and Román, JJ.

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

Related

Schlossberg v. Wing
277 A.D.2d 41 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 A.D.3d 421, 933 N.Y.2d 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pitman-v-richard-f-daines-md-nyappdiv-2011.