Leon FL Administrative law, Government and Litigation Lawyer -- eLawyers

16-005781EC IN RE: CARY PIGMAN vs * (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 06, 2016

The issue is whether Representative Cary Pigman violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by linking his efforts to obtain legislative funding for the Okeechobee School District ("School District") to retaliate and/or attempt to retaliate against an employee of the School District and; if so, what is the appropriate penalty.Advocate failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent, a State Respresentative, misused his position in violation of section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes.

93-2594 Devine v. State (1994)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Apr. 29, 1994 Citations: 636 So. 2d 179

636 So. 2d 179 (1994) Robert M. DEVINE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 93-2594. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. April 29, 1994. *180 James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Anne Moorman Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Robert M. Devine was placed on probation for dealing in stolen property in 1992. In 199..

16-003251PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs CHARLES ROBERT BOYD (2016)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 13, 2016

The issue in this case is the appropriate penalty to impose on the Respondent for: proceeding on a job without obtaining the applicable local building department permits and inspections, in violation of section 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes1/; failing to notify a customer of the Florida Homeowners’ Construction Recovery Fund, in violation of section 489.1425; and failing to place his license number on a construction contract, in violation of section 489.119(5)(b).Parties agreed to violations and penalty, which was appropriate. DOAH had jurisdiction because the parties agreed to s. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

15-005549CON NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, D/B/A BROWARD HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER vs SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, D/B/A MEMORIAL REGIONAL HOSPITAL, AND AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 02, 2015

Whether Certificate of Need (CON) applications 10386 and 10388 filed by South Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Memorial Regional Hospital (Memorial), to establish a pediatric kidney transplantation program at Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital and an adult kidney transplantation program at Memorial Regional Hospital in Broward County, both of which are proposed for organ transplantation service area (OTSA) 4, should be approved. Alternatively, do competing CON applications 10387 and 10389 filed by North Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Broward Health Medical Center (Broward Health), to establish a pediatric kidney transplantation program at Chris Evert Children’s Hospital and Broward Health Medical Center, on balance, better satisfy the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for award of a CON to establish a pediatric or adult kidney transplantation program in OTSA 4?As between two competing applicants to establish adult and pediatric kidney transplant programs in OTSA 4, Memorial's proposals are superior to those submitted by Broward Health, and should therefore be approved.

15-005550CON NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, D/B/A BROWARD HEALTH MEDICAL CENTER vs SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, D/B/A MEMORIAL REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 02, 2015

Whether Certificate of Need (CON) applications 10386 and 10388 filed by South Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Memorial Regional Hospital (Memorial), to establish a pediatric kidney transplantation program at Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital and an adult kidney transplantation program at Memorial Regional Hospital in Broward County, both of which are proposed for organ transplantation service area (OTSA) 4, should be approved. Alternatively, do competing CON applications 10387 and 10389 filed by North Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Broward Health Medical Center (Broward Health), to establish a pediatric kidney transplantation program at Chris Evert Children’s Hospital and Broward Health Medical Center, on balance, better satisfy the applicable statutory and rule review criteria for award of a CON to establish a pediatric or adult kidney transplantation program in OTSA 4?As between two competing applicants to establish adult and pediatric kidney transplant programs in OTSA 4, Memorial's proposals are superior to those submitted by Broward Health, and should therefore be approved.

15-000129CON SOUTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, D/B/A MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 08, 2015

Whether Certificate of Need (CON) Application No. 10235, filed by Plantation General Hospital Limited Partnership, d/b/a Plantation General Hospital (PGH) to establish a 200-bed replacement, acute care hospital in Davie, Broward County, Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) acute care District 10, satisfies, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria.Due to the physical constraints of its existing facility and other factors, Plantation General Hospital established the need for its proposed replacement hospital. Impact on competitors not sufficient to warrant denial.

14-000010RX LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2014)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 03, 2014

The issue is whether the Agency’s Lowest Charge Rule as identified in the petition filed in this matter is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented as prohibited by section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (2013).Pursuant to joint motion of the parties, Consent Final Order holds that Respondent's "Lowest Charge Rule" is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented.

13-004113BID CARE ACCESS PSN, LLC vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 17, 2013

The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award Intervenor Prestige Health Choice, LLC ("Prestige"), a contract to provide Medicaid managed medical assistance services as a provider service network in Region 11 (covering Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties), Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. (In this protest, Petitioner Care Access PSN, LLC ("Care Access"), challenges AHCA's intended award to Prestige in Region 11, and only that award. Care Access does not seek to upset any other intended awards in Region 11 or in any other Region.)The agency's intended contract award, being contrary to the statutes and project specifications, is clearly erroneous and should be rescinded.

13-000706BID LITTLE HAVANA ACTIVITIES AND NUTRITION CENTERS OF DADE COUNTY, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 22, 2013

The issues in the case are (1) whether the decision of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to not select Little Havana Activities and Nutrition Centers of Dade County, Inc. (Little Havana), for the award of a contract for the provision of long-term care managed care services pursuant to AHCA Invitation to Negotiation Solicitation No. AHCA ITN 011- 12/13, entitled "Statewide Medicaid Managed Care--Long Term Care, Region 11" (ITN) was contrary to the AHCA's governing statutes, rules, polices or any applicable ITN specification, and, if so, whether such selection decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious; whether Little Havana's response to the ITN was responsive; whether Little Havana was a responsible vendor; and (4) whether Little Havana's protest is barred for failure to submit the required protest bond.Protestor did not have standing to protest contract awards because it was neither responsive nor responsible.

20-000446 TARGET CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO (2020)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 27, 2020

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Target Corporation ("Target"), is entitled to a consumption-on-premises alcoholic beverage license for its store at 1200 Linton Boulevard Delray Beach, Florida ("Target Delray").The Division properly exercised its discretion under the Beverage Laws when it denied the application of Target Corporation for a consumption-on-premises (4COP) liquor license.

D Ty Jackson