42 C.F.R. § 442.105
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1982–2008 · leading case: Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2008).
Woodruff v. Mason, 542 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2008). “See 42 C.F.R. § 442.105 . The facility must first submit a "written plan for correcting the deficiencies," and the ISDH must approve that plan.”
Legacy Healthcare, Inc. v. Barnes & Thornburg, 837 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “32 42 CFR. § 442.105. Facilities with such deficien-cles may be certified pursuant to 42 C.”
Sensitive Care, Inc. v. Texas Dep't of Human Servs., 926 S.W.2d 823 (Tex. App. 1996). “Instead, the Department decision rests expressly upon 42 C.F.R. § 442.105 (d). This regulation requires a state to terminate certification when an inspection reveals a repetition of deficiencies that existed in a preceding certification period unless the state is able to show…”
Jackson Ex Rel. Jackson v. Fort Stanton Hosp. & Training Sch., 757 F. Supp. 1243 (D.N.M. 1990). “42 C.F.R. § 442.105 . Additionally, the regulations require that, where a facility is found to be in compliance with all conditions of participation, but not with all standards, the facility must submit for approval a plan of correction to address each deficient standard prior…”
Woodruff v. Wilson, 484 F. Supp. 2d 876 (S.D. Ind. 2007). “with 42 C.F.R. § 442.105 . In a PCR follow-up survey on June 3,1999, ISDH cited a deficiency in program implementation.”
Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727 (1st Cir. 1984). “It noted that under the federal standards, 42 C.F.R. § 442.105 (1983), the existence of a “plan of correction” permitted certification of compliance with the regulations to be obtained, notwithstanding persisting deficiencies.”
Mississippi Medicaid Com'n v. US DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERV., 633 F. Supp. 78 (S.D. Miss. 1985). “31, 1984 that: (1) the state survey agency could not validly certify the nursing facility with one or more conditions out of compliance; (2) the oral testimony of various state officials and the owner and employees of the facility to the effect that the health and safety of the…”
Mississippi Medicaid Comm'n v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 633 F. Supp. 78 (S.D. Miss. 1985). “31, 1984 that: (1) the state survey agency could not validly certify the nursing facility with one or more conditions out of compliance; (2) the oral testimony of various state officials and the owner and employees of the facility to the effect that the health and safety of the…”
Woodruff, Randall L. v. Mason, Jo Ann (7th Cir. 2008). “See 42 C.F.R. § 442.105 . The facility must first submit a “written plan for correcting the deficiencies,” and the ISDH must approve that plan.”
Sensitive Care, Inc. D/B/A HEB Nursing Ctr. v. Texas Dep't of Human Servs. (Tex. App. 1996). “Instead, the Department decision rests expressly upon 42 C.F.R. § 442.105 (d). This regulation requires a state to terminate certification when an inspection reveals a repetition of deficiencies that existed in a preceding certification period unless the state is able to show…”
Wilson v. Texas (In re Missionary Baptist Found. of Am., Inc.), 19 B.R. 194 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1982). “Trustee contends that even if Texas Department of Health, the survey agency, did not certify the facility DHR itself had authority to certify a facility “with deficiencies” pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 442.105 . 3 The “contract” reflected on its face that the facility had, in *198…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.