welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Andrea Ruth Bateman
Andrea Ruth Bateman
Andrea Ruth Bateman
Visitors: 47
0
Bar #178728(FL)     License for 50 years
Winter Park FL

Are you Andrea Ruth Bateman? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

06-004648  JANNEL CHERRINGTON vs BARRY UNIVERISTY SNHS-ANESTHESIOLOGY  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 16, 2006
The issue is whether either respondent bore a relationship to Petitioner, as described in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, that confers jurisdiction upon the Florida Commission on Human Relations to investigate Petitioner's claims of racial discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes.Petitioner failed to prove that the university or internship provider employed her, for jurisdiction under Section 760.10(1) and (4), Florida Statutes, or was an individual responsible for giving her an exam for licensure, under Section 760.10(5).
06-004650  JANNEL CHERRINGTON vs WOLVERINE ANESTHESIA CONSULTANTS  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 16, 2006
The issue is whether either respondent bore a relationship to Petitioner, as described in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, that confers jurisdiction upon the Florida Commission on Human Relations to investigate Petitioner's claims of racial discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes.Petitioner failed to prove that the university or internship provider employed her, for jurisdiction under Section 760.10(1) and (4), Florida Statutes, or was an individual responsible for giving her an exam for licensure, under Section 760.10(5).
04-002347  DANA D. RIPLEY vs PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF`S OFFICE  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 07, 2004
The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based upon his handicap in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended ("FCRA"), more specifically Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004).2/Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was denied employment due to his handicap of a prescription drug dependency. There is no evidence that the prospective employer was ever made aware of the alleged handicap.
93-002716  ANDREA BATEMAN vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES  (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 06, 1994
Whether the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, discriminated against the Petitioner, Andrea Bateman, on the basis of age, sex or a perceived handicap?Petitioner failded to present prima facie case of discrimination based on sex (female), age (42) or perceived handicap.
90-001588  BOARD OF MEDICINE vs JORGE D. PAEZ-SANCHEZ  (1990)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 13, 1990
Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?Doctor did not violate statute by directing unlicensed, but trained and experi- enced employer to render physical therapy service under Doctor's supervision.
89-006874  BOARD OF MEDICINE vs ANACLETO GUZMAN CAPUA  (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 15, 1989
The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license to practice medicine of Anacleto Capua (Respondent) based upon violations of Section 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this case.Licensee placed on probation for failing to keep accurate medical records which explained test performed, treatment and reason for discharge.
90-000545  BOARD OF MEDICINE vs HENRY D. MESSER  (1990)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 30, 1990
This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent. By Administrative Complaint the Respondent has been charged with a violation of Section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations that disciplinary action was taken against the Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of New York.Guidelines in Rule 21M-20.001 are so broad as to provide little guidance in case involving violation of 458.331(1)(b); probation recommended.
89-004840  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs WILLARD ALBRITTON  (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 05, 1989
Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's certified roofing contractor's license based upon the alleged violations of Sections 489.129(1)(m), (j) and/or 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes, as contained in the Administrative Complaint.While tile roof was not installed according to manufacturer's specifications, it was applied according to standard practices in the community.
89-004835  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs RICHARD L. MELVIN  (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 05, 1989
Whether or not Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be disciplined because he aided or abetted an uncertified or unregistered person, knowingly combined or conspired with an uncertified or unregistered person by allowing his certificate or registration to be used by an uncertified or unregistered person with the intent to evade Chapter 489; acted in the capacity of a contractor under an unregistered or uncertified name; engaged in fraud, deceit, or gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct in the practice of contracting as alleged, in violation of Subsections 489.129(1)(e),(f),(g) and (m), Florida Statutes.Whether Respondent engaged in misconduct in the contracting business.
89-004839  CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs JOHN A. BENNETT  (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 05, 1989
Whether Respondent's license as a pool contractor should be disciplined and, if so, what penalty to recommend.Evidence failed to prove respondent was qualifying contractor for pool company.

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