Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5 (2026)

2006] (§§ 71-5-2001 — 71-5-2007)Section 71-5-2001 - [Expires 7/1/2025] Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This part is known and may be cited as the "Annual Coverage Assessment Act of 2024."

Amended by 2024 Tenn. Acts, ch. 953,s 1, eff. 6/30/2024.

Added by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 232, s 1, eff. 6/30/2023.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: In Re: Est. of Martha M. Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2009).
In Re: Est. of Martha M. Tanner, 295 S.W.3d 610 (Tenn. 2009). · cites it 8× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5 - 116(d)(1)(D) (Supp.”
Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Tennessee Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., Labor Standards Div., 402 S.W.3d 218 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “In that opinion, the Attorney General opined on the question of whether a demand by an agent of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation made pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 71-5- 118 and Executive Order 87 that a physician participating in the Medicaid program produce…”
United States v. Anesthesia Servs. Assocs., PLLC (M.D. Tenn. 2019). · cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5 - 182(a)(1). II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 The first qui tam complaint against CPS alleging violations of the FCA was filed under seal in this court on March 9, 2016, entitled United States ex rel.”
In re: Est. of Roy W. Barnett (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5 - 118(l) (2003). Therefore, we are not persuaded by the Bureau’s argument that the notice provision does not apply because of its appearance in section 71-5-118 rather than section 71-5-116.”
Emergency Med. Care Facilities, P.C. v. Div. Of Tenncare (Tenn. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “” The court further held that Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5 - 102(d) did not exempt TennCare from rule-making procedures.”
United States v. Anesthesia Servs. Assocs., PLLC (M.D. Tenn. 2019). · cites it 2× “]) with Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5 - 182(a)(1)(A) (“[A]ny person who[] [k]nowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval under the medicaid program .”
United State of Am. v. Se. Eye Specialists, PLLC (M.D. Tenn. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 3730 (b)(4)(B); Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5 - 183(b)(4)(B). The Court ordered the complaint be unsealed and served on the defendants on August 13, 2019.”
In Re Est. of Dana Ruth Johnson Gregory (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “3d at 615 (mentioning 2007 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5 - 116); see id. at 622 (“[Tenn.”
In the Matter of: Chase B.S. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 654 and Tennessee Code Annotated § 71-5-115 and in light of the assignment of rights provided in section 71-5- 117. Although it cites no case law in its brief to support its contention that an action for medical support of a child is distinct from an action for child support…”
Carol Crisel v. Thomas Crisel (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 71-5 - 121. A. TDHS asserts that the trial court erred in implicitly denying the motion to intervene because it had a “duty under federal and state law to ensure that Medicaid eligibility requirements [were] applied correctly to institutionalized persons and…”
Taylor Brown v. Jerry Nowlin (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “The trial court specifically found that Taylor Brown was not made whole by her recovery from Nowlin. TCCN does not suggest that this finding was in error.”
Franklin Miller v. Dept. Human Serv. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “T.C.A. § 71-5- 106 provides, in relevant part: -4- .”
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.