Leon FL Administrative law, Appeals and Government contracts -- eLawyers

5D15-3143 Jeremie Platt v. State (2016)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Feb. 29, 2016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JEREMIE PLATT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D15-3143 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed March 4, 2016 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Jenifer M. Davis, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Steven N. Gosney, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Jeremie Platt, Milton, pro se. Pamela Jo Bondi..

2D10-1152 Porrata v. State (2011)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: May 20, 2011 Citations: 65 So. 3d 524

65 So. 3d 524 (2011) PORRATA v. STATE. No. 2D10-1152. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. May 20, 2011. DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION Affirmed.

4D08-4327 O'FARRELL v. State (2010)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Apr. 28, 2010 Citations: 34 So. 3d 16

34 So. 3d 16 (2010) O'FARRELL v. STATE. No. 4D08-4327. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. April 28, 2010. Decision Without Published Opinion Affirmed.

19-005502BID ARNAMY, INC. vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 14, 2019

The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether the Department’s intended award of state term contracts for information technology staff augmentation services was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.Pets failed to show Dept's intended award of state term contract was contrary to governing stats, solicitation specs, erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious, with exception of scoring criteria for 1 proposal for which info overlooked.

19-005504BID SEVA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 14, 2019

The issue to determine in this bid protest matter is whether the Department’s intended award of state term contracts for information technology staff augmentation services was contrary to its governing statutes, rules, or the solicitation specifications.Pets failed to show Dept's intended award of state term contract was contrary to governing stats, solicitation specs, erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious, with exception of scoring criteria for 1 proposal for which info overlooked.

18-001848MPI AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs HCR MANOR CARE SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC, D/B/A HEARTLAND HOME HEALTH CARE (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2018

The issues in this case are: Whether Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (“Petitioner” or “AHCA”), is entitled to recover Medicaid funds paid to Respondent, HCR Manor Services of Florida, LLC, d/b/a Heartland Home Health Care and Hospice (“Respondent” or “Heartland”), for hospice services Respondent provided during the audit period between July 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014; Whether Heartland should be required to pay an administrative fine, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(7)(e); and The amount of any investigative, legal, and expert witness costs that AHCA is entitled to recover, if any.AHCA is entitled to repayment of two of three claims. Respondent must also pay a fine.

17-006655RU DACCO BEHAVORIAL HEALTH, INC.; OPERATION PAR, INC.; AND ASPIRE PARTNERS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 11, 2017

The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rule 65DER17-2 (the “Emergency Rule”) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2017 version.) More specifically, on September 19, 2017, the Florida Department of Children and Families (the “Department”), published the Emergency Rule, which dealt with the need for and licensing of new methadone medication-assisted treatment centers for persons dealing with opioid addiction. Pursuant to the Emergency Rule, the Department decided which providers would receive approval notices to submit licensure applications in certain counties based on the order in which complete and responsive applications were received by the Department. A number of parties are challenging the validity of the Emergency Rule.The Emergency Rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

15-005903RP G. B.; Z. L., THROUGH HIS GUARDIAN K. L.; J. H.; AND M. R. vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 19, 2015

The issues for disposition in this case are whether: (1) proposed rules 65G-4.0213 through 65G-4.0218 of the Florida Administrative Code (“the Proposed Rules”) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2015)1/; and whether (2) the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (“APD”) failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures in seeking to adopt the Proposed Rules.Proposed rules 65G-4.0213 through 65G-4.0218 are not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

17-005800BID FLUOR-ASTALDI-MCM, JOINT VENTURE vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 19, 2017

Whether Respondent, Department of Transportation’s (“Department” or DOT”), notice of intent to award a contract to Intervenor, Archer Western De-Moya, Joint Venture (“AWD”), for a transportation project involving the design and reconstruction of federal and state roadways in Miami, Florida (“the Project”), is contrary to governing statutes, DOT’s rules, or the bid specifications; and, if so, whether the award is contrary to competition, clearly erroneous, or arbitrary and capricious.Petitioner did not prove the Department's intended award to the Intervenor for a design-build project pursuant to section 334.30, Florida Statutes, was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.

2D08-4159 Plasencia v. State (2010)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Apr. 07, 2010 Citations: 32 So. 3d 631

32 So. 3d 631 (2010) PLASENCIA v. STATE. No. 2D08-4159. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. April 7, 2010. Decision Without Published Opinion Affirmed.

Brittany Adams Long