reimbursement decisions to be made on an ad hoc basis. Id. at 549. Of note here, we explained that “even if the Commission had promulgated fee guidelines, the provider would not have a statutory right or privilege to be paid the amount set out in the guideline.” Id. According to East Side, Vista is, likewise, neither entitled to a fee guideline nor entitled to any set amount of reimbursement. See id. Given that no specific reimbursement amount is required, even where the Division has established fee guidelines, and that the Division can reason ng statute and rule as whole to find broad definition of “prohibited activities” and absence of definition for “market power” as providing constitutionally permissible notice of type of prohibited conduct contemplated); Tinning, 875 S.W.2d at 409 (<HOLDING>). The language in these cases, similar to
holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance holding term share legal fees although not expressly defined provides adequate notices of type of conduct it would include holding that when a term is defined in the statute it need not be further alleged in the indictment holding that although term was not limited by the specification it was expressly defined in a narrow manner in the prosecution history holding that the statute was ambiguous because it provides no definition of the term violation and provides no specific direction as to the proper unit of prosecution