West Florida's Motion for Summary Recommended Order Dismissing Azalea Trace (the Motion) has two grounds: That the letter of intent of Petitioner is fatally flawed because the Executive Committee of Azalea Trace, acting for the Board of Directors, lacked the authority to commit the Petitioner to a project costing in excess of $250,000 without the approval of Baptist Health Care Corporation. That the letter of intent of Petitioner is fatally flawed because the Executive Committee filed the letter of intent and appropriate resolution which the Executive Committee had passed on May 17, 1993, but the Board of Directors did not approve the resolution until May 24, 1993.HO Dism'd Pet because P's Bd lacked auth. to obligate Corp. to project under bylaws. HRS remanded finding a distinction betw commitment & approval.Settle

Whether the Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice was timely filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Petition was not timely filed.Petitioner failed to file petiton within 35 days of notice; claim barred; excusable neglect not shown.

Whether respondent's proposed amendment to Rule 59C-1.008(5)(g), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?Proposed repeal of prohibition against Certificate Of Need applicant's use of combined financial statements is not arbitrary.

Which of the competing applications for nursing home beds should be approved? Whether the Respondent should have accepted the partial application for nursing home beds filed by Health Quest.Combined financial statement met criteria. Financial statement which didn't reflect operations of licenced facility didn't meet criteria. Financial statement of shell company met statute requirements.

Whether Petitioners (collectively referred to as "Humana") are entitled to exemptions from the Certificate of Need ("CON") Law, to establish certain services at their facilities, pursuant to Subsection 381.713(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1989), (a provision which was repealed by Chapter 91-282, Laws of Florida). Whether Intervenors have standing to contest the exemption requests of Humana.HMO exemption for inpatient institutional, but not tertiary services; HMO control via voting agreement.

The issues in these cases are as follows: As to Case No. 90-7563: Whether Coordinated Care Inc.'s (Coordinated Care) application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a new, 120 bed nursing home in Orange County, Florida, should be approved; and whether such applicant's proposal is superior, when comparatively reviewed, to the proposal submitted by Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc. (Florida Convalescent) which has been preliminarily approved by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department). As to Case No. 90-7565: Whether Marriott Retirement Communities, Inc.'s (Marriott) application for a certificate of need for 39 beds to be operated in association with an adult congregate living facility should be approved as preliminarily decided by the Department as it meets statutory and rule criteria for approval; or, whether it should be denied based upon the challenge filed by Health Quest Management Corporation (Health Quest), an existing provider.Comparative review of nursing home applicants recommended approval of Marriot's and Florida convalescent's proposals.

The issue in these consolidated cases is whether proposed amendments to Rule 10-5.039, F.A.C., relating to certificates of need (CON) for hospital inpatient comprehensive medical rehabilitation (CMR) services, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority, as defined in Section 120.52(8), F.S. An ancillary issue raised by Intervenor, Healthsouth, is whether an intervenor may challenge portions of a proposed rule not specifically identified by an original petitioner. In a prehearing stipulation filed on December 6, 1991, the parties stipulated that the following subsections of the proposed amendments remained at issue: Subsection (2)(b): definition of charity care; Subsection (2)(k): definition of specialty bed; Subsection (5)(c): CMR bed need methodology; Subsection (5)(d): existing CMR bed occupancy threshold; Subsection (5)(e): existing provider expansion (at issue from perspective of whether proposed amendment unreasonably restricts expansion of existing CMR providers); Subsection (5)(f)2: conversion of acute care beds for CMR expansion; Subsection (5)(g): priority considerations for CON review; Subsection (10): required utilization reports; and Subsection (11): applicability of amendments. Also remaining at issue was the sufficiency of the economic impact statement. The validity of the following additional provisions were raised only by intervenors, Continental Medical Systems of Florida, Inc. or Healthsouth: Subsection (3)(c): 60-bed minimum unit size for freestanding facilities; Subsection (5)(e): existing provider expansion (from perspective of whether proposed amendment unreasonably allows expansion of existing providers); and Subsection (7)(b): CARF accreditation.Proposed Comprehensive Medical Rehabilitation Certificate Of Need rules valid and needed to meet current conditions in med rehab service delivery. Issues by Intervenor not timely raised.

Whether the proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 10- 5.011(1)(f), the "open heart rule", constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Separate certificate of need and need methodology for pediatric open heart surgery upheld. Requirement that each existing provider meet 350 minimum number of procedures valid.

Whether University Community Hospital, Inc.'s letter of intent filed to support its certificate of need application complies with the minimum context requirements of Section 381.709(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Whether University Community Hospital, Inc.'s application for a certificate of need complies with the minimum contest requirements of Sections 381.707(2)(a) and 381.707(4), Florida Statutes. Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is estopped to deny the completeness of University Community Hospital, Inc.'s application for a certificate of need.Statutory requirments for letters of intent are mandatory and require exact compliance as a condition precedent to consideration of Certificate of Need approved.

The issue is whether the application of Petitioner for a certificate of need complies with the minimum content requirements of Section 381.707(2)(a), Florida Statutes.No certificate of need when application omits capital projects.