DCH was not authorized to impose the maximum civil penalty against a personal care home where it did not show that the deficiencies placed hospice patient at risk of harm, discomfort, or death.
Maximum civil penalty not authorized Read More
DCH erred by denying prior Medicaid authorization for a bilateral nipple/areola reconstruction and nipple tattooing procedure incident to bilateral breast reduction surgery, the fact that both procedures were not performed simultaneously notwithstanding, where the surgeon seeking Medicaid coverage for the procedure proved, through his own testimony, that the procedure was medically necessary.
Staged procedures may be covered by Medicaid where shown to be medically necessary. Read More
The Paulding County Airport Authority (PCAA) did not require a buffer variance in order to obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for the purpose of piping a trout stream because the pipe constituted a roadway drainage structure and was therefore exempt from the statutory prohibition against construction activity within fifty feet of a
An applicant for an outdoor advertising sign challenged the Georgia Department of Transportation’s (“GDOT’s”) denial of his application for a permit to erect a sign alongside State Route 20 because the proposed sign would be within 500 feet of a sign permitted to Georgia 400, which was forbidden under Georgia law. Citing other signs purportedly
The owner of a timber hauling company who caused an overweight vehicle and load to be operated on a county-maintained road was not subject to a fine because the vehicle was picking up a load of timber, which the owner had earlier left alongside the road due to inclement weather.
Exception for pickups and deliveries on county-maintained roads. Read More
The Department of Human Services, Division of Child Support Services (CSS), was authorized to intercept a child support obligor’s tax refund, notwithstanding the existence of an income deduction order in Texas, where the obligor resided, because the Texas order solely intercepted the obligor’s Social Security benefits, which were discounted by the Georgia order CSS sought
