Whether Louis John Tsavaris should be relicensed to practice medicine in this state.Petitioner presented evidence of rehabilitation sufficient to have license restored

At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a professional land surveyor should be approved.No demonstated nexus between applicant's conviction for possession of mari- juana and professional responsibilities of land surveyor that bars licensure.

Doctor's application granted as personal conflicts with coworkers do not constitute lack of good moral character

The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement.Petitioner adequately explained his nolo plea; did not practice without license; and met burden to show entitlement to licensure.

This is a rule challenge proceeding in which the Petitioner originally sought a determination pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, that Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code, was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. This case began with the filing of a Petition For Administrative Determination on December 23, 1986. On March 26, 1987, this Hearing Officer issued a Final Order of Dismissal which granted the Department's motion to dismiss. The Final Order Of Dismissal concluded that the Petitioner had failed to allege standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006, because his allegations were insufficient to show that his substantial interests were affected by those subsections of the rule. The Final Order Of Dismissal went on to conclude that the Petitioner had sufficiently alleged standing to challenge Subsection (1) of the challenged rule, but also concluded that the Petitioner had failed to sufficiently allege facts sufficient to show the invalidity of the rule. In this regard the Final Order Of Dismissal specifically stated at paragraph 12: In order to sufficiently allege the invalidity of an existing rule, a rule challenge petition must assert, at a minimum, that the challenged rule is in some specified way a departure from statutory authority granted to the rule enacting agency by the Legislature. Where, as here, the rule is nothing more than a repetition of the statutory provision, the rule may be unnecessary, but it is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it does not in any way depart from the statutory mandate. Because of the identical provisions of the subject rule language and the applicable statute, the Petitioner has not, and cannot, allege any facts sufficient to show that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because he has not, and cannot, allege any differences between the statutory mandate and the rule mandate. The Petitioner sought appellate review of the Final Order Of Dismissal. In Diaz v. Florida Department of Corrections, 519 So.2d 41 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), appeal dismissed, 525 So.2d 877 (Fla. 1988), the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion which primarily addressed the constitutionality of the statutory authority for the challenged rule. In that opinion the court concluded as follows: Accordingly, we declare section 945.10(2) Florida Statutes (1985), to be unconstitutional. The case is remanded to the DOAH hearing officer for further proceedings to determine the validity of Rule 33-6.006(1) in light of this opinion. On March 21, 1988, the appellate court issued its mandate and the case was once again before the Hearing Officer for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion. The appellate court decision left undisturbed the conclusion that the Petitioner lacks standing to challenge Subsections (2) through (9) of Rule 33-6.006. Accordingly, the issue on remand is limited to a determination of the validity of Subsection (1) of Rule 33-6.006, Florida Administrative Code. As discussed in the conclusions of law, that determination involves a consideration of statutory amendments which took effect after the appellate court decision and were, therefore, not considered by the appellate court. At the final hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and the Petitioner also offered several exhibits. During the course of the hearing the Petitioner was granted leave to file two late exhibits consisting of selected portions of the Department's Policy and Procedure Directives and selected portions of the Florida State Prison Institutional Operating Procedures. The Respondent was granted leave to file post-hearing objections to any late-filed exhibits. The late-filed exhibits were submitted by the Petitioner and the Respondent promptly filed objections to same. Upon consideration, the objections to the exhibits are overruled and the late-filed exhibits are received as part of the record in this case. Following the hearing, a transcript of tide proceedings at hearing was also filed. Thereafter, both parties filed timely proposed final orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties' proposed final orders have been carefully considered during the preparation of this final order. Specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated herein.Rule 33-6.006(1) is more restrictive than the statute and is, to that extent, invalid.

Petitioners, inmates at Baker Correctional Institution, filed a petition pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1987), challenging the validity of Respondent's Rules 33-3.002, 33-3.0025, 33-3.0275, 33-3.0045, and 33-3.006, Florida Administrative Code, as invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Additionally, Petitioners have challenged a December 29, 1987, memorandum issued by O. J. Phillips, Superintendent of Baker Correctional Institution, as an unpromulgated rule. Respondent filed a Motion to Strike portions of the Petition and a Motion to Dismiss the Petition. By order of February 18, 1988, the Hearing Officer reserved ruling on the motions until after the February 22, 1988, hearing. At the hearing, several of the Petitioners testified as witnesses. The Petitioners also presented the testimony of several other witnesses and offered several exhibits that were received in evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of one witness and did not offer any exhibits. Subsequent to the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings was filed on March 14, 1988, and by agreement of the parties, their proposed final orders were due to be filed by no later than fifteen days thereafter. All parties filed timely proposed final orders on March 29, 1988. The findings of fact proposed in those documents are specifically addressed in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Final Order.Inmate challenges to numerous rules in Ch. 33-3 FAC, dismissed for failure of the evidence to demonstrate invalidity of rules.

This is a rule challenge proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, in which the Petitioner, an inmate confined at Lake Correctional Institution, has filed a petition seeking a determination that Rule 33-11.017, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The challenged rule governs awards of administrative gain time, which is one of several types of statutorily authorized gain time. At the hearing the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and requested that official recognition be taken of several applicable statutory and rule provisions. The request for official recognition was granted. The Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties requested, and were granted, 20 days within which to file their proposed final orders. Thereafter, the Petitioner requested an extension of time. By order issued May 12, 1988, the parties were allowed until June 3, 1988, within which to file their proposed final orders. The Petitioner has not filed a proposed final order. The Respondent filed a timely proposed final order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact are addressed in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this final order.Portion of Rule 33-11.017 enlarges and contravenes statutory provisions and is, therefore, invalid.

This is a rule challenge petition in which the Petitioners are challenging both an existing rule pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, and a proposed rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. The Petitioners contend that portions of both the existing rule and the proposed rule are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. The challenged rule is Rule 33-3.0051, Florida Administrative Code, both as it exists and as the Department proposes to amend it. Rule 33-3.0051 is a rule of the Department of Corrections that deals with the subject of photocopying services for inmates. At the hearing the Petitioners testified on their own behalves and also presented the testimony of several other witnesses. The Petitioners also offered several exhibits into evidence. The Respondent did not call any witnesses, nor did it offer any exhibits. Subsequent to the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings at hearing was filed on January 25, 1988. The parties were allowed until February 9, 1988, [later extended to February 11, 1988] within which to file their proposed final orders. Both parties filed proposed final orders, which have been carefully considered in the preparation of this final order. All findings of fact proposed by all parties are specifically addressed in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this final order.Evidence at hearing was insufficient to show that either existing rule or proposed rule was invalid