CopyCited 10 times | Published | Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit | 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26374, 2 Soc. Serv. Rev. 133
...It “disallowed” the $167,392 of GDMA’s medicaid expenses attributable to abortion services, finding that the Hyde Amendment *628 precluded federal assistance. In conformity with the procedures governing “disallow-ances”, see 42 U.S.C.A. § 1316 (d) (West Supp.1983); 45 C.F.R. § 201.13 (1982), GDMA asked the Departmental Grant Appeals Board to reconsider HHS’s decision....
...l receive a reconsideration. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1316 (d) *630 (West Supp.1983). The procedures governing disallowance reconsiderations are considerably less formal than those applicable where the state challenges a noncompliance determination. 45 C.F.R. § 201.13 (1982)....
0 red0 yellow10 green0 procedural
Cited as authorityLedbetter (1993)phrase: "rule_authority"
Cited as authoritySullivan (1991)phrase: "rule_authority"
CopyCited 4 times | Published | District Court, S.D. Florida | 81 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2312, 1972 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11842
...A similar situation was apparently presented by the West Islip teachers case. There the Board of Education sought to stay arbitration of the teachers' demand for retroactive payment during Phase II of salaries due in Phase I. But under Pay Board regulation § 201.13 issued on November 13, 1971, all such retroactive payments required prior Pay Board approval....
...oard approval. Similarly, Pay Board regulations make it clear that defendants were free to make retroactive payments during Phase II for work performed during Phase I by those of their employees earning less than $2.00 per hour. Pay Board regulation § 201.13, "Scheduled increases in wages and salaries for services rendered after August 15, 1971, and before November 14, 1971," as first issued on November 13, 1971, required prior Pay Board approval of all retroactive increases. Yet the possibility of an exception was left open by subsection 201.13(c) for cases where "it is demonstrated that the proposed retroactive payment satisfies such further criteria as the Pay Board may hereafter establish to remedy severe inequities." 36 Fed.Reg. 21791. In an interpretive decision adopted November 19, 1971, the Pay Board ruled as follows: "For purposes of permitting retroactivity in cases of severe inequities under § 201.13(c) during the freeze period, payments of retroactive increases may be made to employees who would have become eligible for a pay increase during the freeze and *417 whose rate of pay prior to the freeze was $2.00 per hour or less." 36 Fed....
0 red0 yellow4 green0 procedural
