welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Adrienne C. Rodgers
Adrienne C. Rodgers
Adrienne C. Rodgers
Visitors: 58
0
Bar #630071(FL)     License for 22 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Adrienne C. Rodgers? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

USC: 18 U. S. C. 2252, 18 U. S. C. 2252A, 18 U. S. C. 2256, 18 U.S.C 2252

Florida Laws: 120.569, 120.57, 120.60, 120.68, 17.002, 409.141, 455.275, 456.001, 456.072, 466.001, 466.003, 466.017, 466.024, 466.028, 468.631, 489.105, 489.1195, 489.129, 489.131, 489.132, 489.140, 489.1401, 489.141, 489.142, 489.143, 490.009, 57.111, 713.35, 877.21, 922.12, 943.04, 943.0435, 95.11

Florida Administrative Code: 28-106.103, 28-106.216, 28-106.217, 64B5-13.005, 64B5-17.002

12-004024PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF DENTISTRY vs STEVEN COURTENS, D.D.S.  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 17, 2012
The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a dentist, failed to maintain adequate records regarding his treatment of patient M.C. and/or provided M.C. dental care, including root canal therapy, that fell below minimum standards of performance, as Petitioner alleges; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary action should be taken as a result.Petitioner established that Respondent failed to maintain certain dental records and failed to meet the minimum standards of performance concerning the use of a rubber dam in violation of sections 466.028(1)(m) and 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes.
12-001705PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs UMESH MADHAV MHATRE, M.D.  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 15, 2012
The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Umesh Madhav Mhatre, M.D. ("Dr. Mhatre" or "Respondent"), has violated section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?Petitioner did not demonstrate that Respondent violated section 458.331(1((t) by allowing patient to appear in presentations with him.
11-005995PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY vs NETTA SHAKED, PH.D.  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 21, 2011
The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the manner in which Respondent terminated her professional relationship with marital therapy clients constitutes a departure from the minimum standards of performance.
03-003540  LARRY E. SHIMKUS vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 2003
The issues in each case are whether, pursuant to Sections 489.141 and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), a claimant is entitled to payment from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, and, if so, whether, pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (2003), Respondent may automatically suspend the residential contractor's license of Petitioner until Petitioner reimburses Respondent for the paid claim.Two of the 9 claimants failed to file claims against the Constuction Industries Recovery Fund w/in 2 years. The other claimants are entitled to payment. Resp. may not suspend license because judgments are against corporate contractor, not the licensee.
03-003541  LARRY E. SHIMKUS vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 2003
The issues in each case are whether, pursuant to Sections 489.141 and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), a claimant is entitled to payment from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, and, if so, whether, pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (2003), Respondent may automatically suspend the residential contractor's license of Petitioner until Petitioner reimburses Respondent for the paid claim.Two of the 9 claimants failed to file claims against the Constuction Industries Recovery Fund w/in 2 years. The other claimants are entitled to payment. Resp. may not suspend license because judgments are against corporate contractor, not the licensee.
03-003542  LARRY E. SHIMKUS vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 2003
The issues in each case are whether, pursuant to Sections 489.141 and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), a claimant is entitled to payment from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, and, if so, whether, pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (2003), Respondent may automatically suspend the residential contractor's license of Petitioner until Petitioner reimburses Respondent for the paid claim.Two of the 9 claimants failed to file claims against the Constuction Industries Recovery Fund w/in 2 years. The other claimants are entitled to payment. Resp. may not suspend license because judgments are against corporate contractor, not the licensee.
03-003543  LARRY E. SHIMKUS vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 2003
The issues in each case are whether, pursuant to Sections 489.141 and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), a claimant is entitled to payment from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, and, if so, whether, pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (2003), Respondent may automatically suspend the residential contractor's license of Petitioner until Petitioner reimburses Respondent for the paid claim.Two of the 9 claimants failed to file claims against the Constuction Industries Recovery Fund w/in 2 years. The other claimants are entitled to payment. Resp. may not suspend license because judgments are against corporate contractor, not the licensee.
03-003544  LARRY E. SHIMKUS vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 2003
The issues in each case are whether, pursuant to Sections 489.141 and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), a claimant is entitled to payment from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, and, if so, whether, pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (2003), Respondent may automatically suspend the residential contractor's license of Petitioner until Petitioner reimburses Respondent for the paid claim.Two of the 9 claimants failed to file claims against the Constuction Industries Recovery Fund w/in 2 years. The other claimants are entitled to payment. Resp. may not suspend license because judgments are against corporate contractor, not the licensee.
03-003545  LARRY E. SHIMKUS vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 2003
The issues in each case are whether, pursuant to Sections 489.141 and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), a claimant is entitled to payment from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, and, if so, whether, pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (2003), Respondent may automatically suspend the residential contractor's license of Petitioner until Petitioner reimburses Respondent for the paid claim.Two of the 9 claimants failed to file claims against the Constuction Industries Recovery Fund w/in 2 years. The other claimants are entitled to payment. Resp. may not suspend license because judgments are against corporate contractor, not the licensee.
03-003546  LARRY E. SHIMKUS vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 2003
The issues in each case are whether, pursuant to Sections 489.141 and 489.143, Florida Statutes (2003), a claimant is entitled to payment from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, and, if so, whether, pursuant to Section 489.143(7), Florida Statutes (2003), Respondent may automatically suspend the residential contractor's license of Petitioner until Petitioner reimburses Respondent for the paid claim.Two of the 9 claimants failed to file claims against the Constuction Industries Recovery Fund w/in 2 years. The other claimants are entitled to payment. Resp. may not suspend license because judgments are against corporate contractor, not the licensee.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer