Sanitarium v. DeBuono

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanitarium v. DeBuono

247 A.D.2d 928, 668 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1302

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 4, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Substantial evidence supports the [929]*929determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health that petitioner did not sustain its burden of proving that the involuntary transfer of respondent Edith Langeveld from its facility was necessary (see, 10 NYCRR 415.3 [h] [2] [iii]). We reject the contention that the determination that Langeveld needs the services provided by petitioner (see, 10 NYCRR 415.3 [h] [1] [i] [a] [2]) was improperly based upon her classification under the Resource Utilization Group-II (RUG-II) methodology used to calculate Medicaid reimbursement rates (see, 10 NYCRR Appendix 13-A). In our view, the RUG-II classification and the detailed information in the Patient Review Instrument underlying that classification are relevant to the issue whether Langeveld needs nursing home services (see generally, New York State Assn, of Counties v Axelrod, 78 NY2d 158, 162; Matter of Teresian House Nursing Home Co. v Chassin, 218 AD2d 250). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J.)

Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Determination unanimously confirmed without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Substantial evidence supports the [929]*929determination of respondent Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health that petitioner did not sustain its burden of proving that the involuntary transfer of respondent Edith Langeveld from its facility was necessary (see, 10 NYCRR 415.3 [h] [2] [iii]). We reject the contention that the determination that Langeveld needs the services provided by petitioner (see, 10 NYCRR 415.3 [h] [1] [i] [a] [2]) was improperly based upon her classification under the Resource Utilization Group-II (RUG-II) methodology used to calculate Medicaid reimbursement rates (see, 10 NYCRR Appendix 13-A). In our view, the RUG-II classification and the detailed information in the Patient Review Instrument underlying that classification are relevant to the issue whether Langeveld needs nursing home services (see generally, New York State Assn, of Counties v Axelrod, 78 NY2d 158, 162; Matter of Teresian House Nursing Home Co. v Chassin, 218 AD2d 250). (CPLR art 78 Proceeding Transferred by Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J.)

Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Sanitarium v. DeBuono, 247 A.D.2d 928, 668 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

247 A.D.2d 928 (Sanitarium v. DeBuono) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related