The issue in this administrative proceeding is whether the Florida Department of Transportation’s ("DOT" or "the Department") denial of Petitioner’s, Network Engineering Services, Inc. d/b/a Bolton Perez & Associates ("BPA"), 2019 application for qualification pursuant to section 337.105, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 14-75, was for good cause due to Petitioner’s participation in the construction of the Florida International University ("FIU") City Prosperity Project ("FIU Bridge project").DOT's reliance on the OSHA report and NTSB's investigation into the FIU bridge collapse was insufficient "good cause" to deny BPA's request for qualification for 2019. DOT failed to demonstrate BPA failed to exercise independent judgment as a CEI.

The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice dentistry based upon the alleged violations of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint.Dept did not prove dentist failed to meet mnm stnds; Dept's expert did not consider impact of work preformed by subsequent treating dentist.

The issue in this case is whether the Board of Dentistry should discipline the Respondent on charges set out in the Administrative Complaint in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Case No. 91-011671. The Administrative Complaint charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, for incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. It alleged: that the Respondent treated a patient identified by the initials V. G. for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction from August 14, 1986, through July, 1991; that the treatment included maxillary brackets and other orthodontic treatment from August, 1987, through May, 1991; that the patient's TMJ problems recurred during the orthodontic treatment; that the length of time of the Respondent's orthodontic treatment was excessive, resulting in the recurrence of the TMJ problems; that the Respondent utilized an inappropriate circuitous method to accomplish tooth movement (i.e., moving teeth back and forth); that the Respondent's orthodontic treatment had to be corrected by a subsequent treating dentist; and that the "Respondent failed to provide written documentation informing the patient . . . of expected results . . .."Petitioner didn't prove Respondent fell below minimum standards. TMJ case complicated. Lengthy treatment not excessive and didn't cause recurrence. Petitioner expert misled by patient.

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code.Dentist won admin hrg; not entitled to attys fees; filing of admin compl was just in view of evid before panel; DPR just in cont action after witn w/drew

The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of failing to provide and maintain reasonable and sanitary facilities and conditions in his dentistry office and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner failed to prove unsanitary conditions at one dentist office inspected by Petitioner while Respondent was out of country and the office closed.

The issue is whether respondent's license as a dentist should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the amended administrative complaint.Dentist found to have unsanitary office, lacking records, improper prescribing of drugs, and operating office below minimum standards.

The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to registration as an associated person of First American National Securities, Inc. (FANS).Petitioner pled guilty to retail theft a dishonest dealing therefore absent a registration agreement affording supervision not entitled to registration.

Whether the Petitioner, Financial Funding Mortgage Corporation, is entitled to licensure by the Respondent, the Department of Banking and Finance, as a mortgage brokerage business.Petitioner denied license as mortgage brokerage business for prior violation of officer and shareholder of petitioner.

Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to license/registration due to Respondent agency's failure to grant or deny the application within 90 days. Whether or not Powell and Satterfield Inc.'s application for registration as a broker/dealer and Trognetti's application for associated person/principal for Powell & Satterfield, Inc., should be granted.No entitlement to ""Deemer"" license; disciplinary history is prima facie un- worthiness to transact securities business;Prima Facie unworthiness overcome

Whether Petitioner is qualified for registration as an associated person.Failure to disclose criminal convictions on application for licensure constitutes grounds for denying application. Evidence insufficient to determine moral turpitude