You are here: / / Wage Parity Law Which Conditions Medicaid Reimbursement Upon Paying Home...
, , ,

Wage Parity Law Which Conditions Medicaid Reimbursement Upon Paying Home Health Services Workers a Minimum Wage Is Constitutional

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice McCarthy, the Third Department determined the Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law section 3614-c), which conditions Medicaid reimbursement upon paying home health services providers a minimum wage as set in New York City’s Living Wage Law, was constitutional. The court rejected arguments that: (1) the Legislature improperly delegated its authority to New York City; (2) the law improperly incorporated the Living Wage Law by reference; (3) extending the New York City law violated the home rule provision of the NY Constitution; and (5) the statute violated the substantive due process requirements.  Matter of Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc v State of New York, 515737, 3rd Dept 7-3-13

 

You might also like
EXOTIC DANCERS WERE EMPLOYEES.
Criteria for Interpreting a Settlement Agreement Which Is Incorporated But Not Merged Into the Judgment of Divorce
Supreme Court Properly Declined to Give Husband Credit for Separate Property Contributions to Marital Residence—Husband Subsequently Conveyed Property to the Parties Jointly
IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER (LCSW) CONSTITUTED COMPETENT EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF SUFFERS FROM POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD), PTSD IS A ‘SERIOUS INJURY’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF INSURANCE LAW 5102 (THIRD DEPT).
FLAWED EVIDENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT OF SMUGGLING CHARGES.
DATE OF LOSS DEEMED TO BE DATE THE CLAIM FOR A STOLEN CAR WAS DENIED, NOT THE DATE THE CAR WAS STOLEN (THIRD DEPT).
Delivery Driver Was an Independent Contractor, Not an Employee
FATHER, WHO WAS INCARCERATED IN PENNSYLVANIA, INFORMED FAMILY COURT HE WISHED TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE IN THE CUSTODY MATTER; FAMILY COURT DENIED THE REQUEST STATING THE COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER FATHER; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT HELD FATHER, WHO HAD NOT CHALLENGED THE COURT’S JURISDICTION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO APPEAR BY PHONE (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Employer Policy Re: Firing of Employees Injured in Preventable Accidents Was... “Employer” of Independent Contractor Not Liable for Contractor’s Alleged...