Kindred filed a motion for an emergency protective order after the trial allowed limited discovery on the sole issue of whether the arbitration agreement executed on behalf of the resident was void. Among the matters over which Kind sought protection was the relationship between Kindred and the service that administers the ADR program, as well as Kindred’s ADR training program. Kindred then petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial judge from presiding over the challenge to the ADR agreement or from enforcing his discovery order. The court of appeals denied the application. The Supreme Court affirmed.
(Not reported in S.W.3d or on Lexis). Online at: http://floridaarbitrationlaw.com/cases/kindred_v_peckler.pdf.
On April 22, 2024, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced a new final…
In Creamer v. Manley, decided March 14, 2024, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment…
On February 21, 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals decided the case of In Re…
The Georgia Court of Appeals decided the case of In re Bessie Mae Blake on…
The Social Security Administration pays various benefits including retirement benefits, disability benefits and Supplemental Security…
Effective April 1, 2024, the statewide averaged nursing facility private pay rate used in determining…