Whether Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, Inc. (Petitioner), is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA) pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b), Florida Statutes,1/ and, if so, in what amount(s).Petitioner entitled to attorneys' fees incurred in unadopted rule challenge prior to, but not after, the agency's publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule.
Whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(d), 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(t), 458.331(1)(ll), and 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2001),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Respondent advertised that he was board-certified by the American Board of Medical Specialties, when he was not; failed to timely provide medical records; and continued to visit the patient in the hospital after she requested that he not do so.
The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for licensure as a physician by endorsement.Petitioner misrepresented and concealed material facts and failed to update her application to advise Respondent that she was under investigation in New York. Recommend that Petitioner`s application for licensure by endorsement be denied.
The issue in the case is whether the Respondent should grant the Petitioner’s application for licensure in Florida as a physician. Specifically, the Respondent asserts that the Petitioner’s application should be denied based on alleged inability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety, and on the Petitioner’s alleged material misrepresentations made during the course of the licensing process.Evidence fails to establish applicant is unable to practice with reasonable skill and safety.
The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a psychologist by the State of Florida.Evidence fails to establish petitioners' internship meets rule requirements for licensure.
Whether Respondent’s Rule 59R-11.001, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Rule was not an invalid exercise of legislative authority.
Whether the Respondent properly denied the Petitioner’s request to be a “recognizing agency” within the parameters of Rule 59R-11.001, Florida Administrative Code.Respondent properly denied Petitioner`s request to be a recognizing agency.
The issue for determination is whether a proposed amendment to existing Rule 54Q-16.001(1), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Board of Dentistry is not authorized to regulate ginival curettage by dental hygienists and proposed rule is accordingly invalid.
The issue is whether Rule 60Y-2.004(2)(e) and Rule 60Y-5.004, Florida Administrative Code, delegating to the Executive Director of the Florida Human Relations Commission the authority to make reasonable cause determinations pursuant to Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?Statute does not authorize delegation to executeive director of authority to determine reasonable cause, and is invalid exercise of authority by comm.
The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to be licensed as a physician in Florida.Application denied when applicant failed to disclose Pennsylvania license on Florida application, especially given medicaid fraud conviction and other indications of nondisclosure.
