Leon FL Administrative law, Health care and Licensing Lawyer -- eLawyers

06-004804 NATIONAL STATES INSURANCE COMPANY vs OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION (2006)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 28, 2006

Whether the Office of Insurance Regulation (the Office) correctly calculated the New Business Rate in accordance with statutory authority provided by Section 627.9407(7)(c), Florida Statutes, with regard to National States Insurance Company’s (National States or Company or Insurer) request for a rate increase.Petitioner`s rate request exceeds the legal rate prescribed by Section 627.9407(7)(c), Florida Statutes. Recommend that the request be denied.

05-002803RP THE FLORIDA INSURANCE COUNCIL, INC.; THE AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION; PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANIES vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION, AND THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 03, 2005

At issue in this proceeding is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-125.005 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.The proposed rule regulating the insurance companies` use of credit scoring to establish rates was impermissibly vague.

05-001012RP THE FLORIDA INSURANCE COUNCIL, INC.; THE AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION; AND THE PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION AND FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 18, 2005

At issue in this proceeding is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 69O-125.005 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.The proposed rule regulating the insurance companies` use of credit scoring to establish rates was impermissibly vague.

05-003595 NATIONAL STATES INSURANCE COMPANY vs OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION (2005)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 30, 2005

Whether National States Insurance Company should be granted a rate increase for its four home health care policy forms HNF- 1, HHF-3, HNC-1, and HHC-1 (HHC policies).The evidence showed that Petitioner is entitled to a 38 percent rate increase; the shock lapse theory is rejected; and the credibility rules are discussed.

04-001149RX RICHARD W. MERRITT, D.C. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 02, 2004

The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B-3.004(2) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.The evidence demonstrated that inclusion of surface electromyography in the proposed rule was arbitrary and capricious, since surface electromyography did not meet statutory criteria for inclusion on the list.

04-001828RX THE FLORIDA RETAIL FEDERATION, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 19, 2004

The issue in this case is whether the methodology that Respondent uses to determine the amounts payable to pharmacies for prescription drugs dispensed to Medicaid beneficiaries constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the ground that the methodology in question, which is incorporated by reference in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-4.250, enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented.Rule challenge dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, or as moot, in light of recently enacted statutes largely superceding the rule in question. The rule`s definition of "usual and customary" constitutes a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

04-003976BID NCS PEARSON, INC., D/B/A PEARSON EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT vs DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 02, 2004

Whether Respondent, Department of Education's ("Respondent"), Notice of Intent to Award the contract for Request for Proposal No. 2005-01 ("RFP"), for Administration of the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test ("FCAT"), is contrary to Respondent's governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid or proposal specifications. Whether Respondent's proposed action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.After receiving 3 bids to administer the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, Respondent`s evaluation committee sought additional information from bidders, but did not violate basic requirements of statutes or the Request for Proposal. Notice upheld.

04-003000 RELIANCE-ANDREWS ASSOCIATES, LTD. vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION (2004)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 23, 2004

The issues in this case are whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) employed an unadopted rule when it used rounding on a competing application to place Petitioner’s application for Low Income Housing Tax Credits (“HC” or “Tax Credits”) in the 2004 Universal Application Cycle in the “B” leveraging tie-breaker group, and if so, whether Florida Housing complied with the requirements of Section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes, when it employed rounding.Respondent`s statement at issue in this case was not a rule.

03-001151BID R. CHRISTOPHER GOODWIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 01, 2003

The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Department of Military Affairs acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it awarded RFP-DMA-39 to Intervenor, Southeastern Archeological Research, Inc.Evidence did not show that Agency acted arbitrarily, capriciously or outside the Request for Proposal specifications.

01-001427RU FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF INSURANCE AGENTS AND PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE AGENTS OF FLORIDA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND WINDSTROM UNDERWRITING ASSOCIATION (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 12, 2001

In this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes, Petitioners Florida Association of Insurance Agents (the "FAIA") and Professional Insurance Agents of Florida, Inc. (the "PIA") (collectively, the "Agents") allege that a process governing so-called "renewal keep-outs," which is set forth in a manual that was produced by Respondent Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association (the "Association") and approved by Respondent Department of Insurance (the "Department"), constitutes a rule-by-definition that was not adopted under, and therefore violates, Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. This case presents several issues. As a threshold matter, it must be determined whether the Agents have standing. If they do, the ultimate issue will be whether the challenged process constitutes a rule-by-definition in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Embedded in the ultimate issue, however, is the first-impression question whether the Association is an "agency" subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.Procedures governing "renewal keep-outs," as set forth in a manual produced by the Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association and approved by the Department of Insurance, constitute a rule-by-definition in violation of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.

Cynthia Skelton Tunnicliff