Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
John Laurance Reid
John Laurance Reid
Visitors: 35
0
Bar #317070(FL)     License for 24 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you John Laurance Reid? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 120.569120.57120.68440.01440.02440.03440.10440.105440.107440.38

18-2923  ADOPTION SERVICES, INC. v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES  (2019)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Feb. 01, 2019
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT In the Interest of M.S., a child. ) _ ) ) ADOPTION SERVICES, INC., ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2923 ) DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND ) FAMILIES and GUARDIAN AD LITEM ) PROGRAM, ) ) Appellees. ) _ ) Opinion filed February 1, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for DeSoto County; Kimberly C. Bonner, Judge. Robert L. Webster III, B.C.S. of Jeanne T. Tate, P..
17-001229  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs BEST BUILD, LLC  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 22, 2017
The issues are whether Respondent, Best Build, LLC (“Best Build”), failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (“Department”), correctly calculated the penalty assessment imposed against Respondent.Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation coverage for a portion of the time covered by the imputed income of its employees. The assessment sought should be partially approved.
17-001608  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs STUCCO DRYWALL CONTRACTORS, INC.  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 20, 2017
Whether Respondent, Stucco Drywall Contractors, Inc. ("Respondent"), failed to comply with the coverage requirements of the Workers’ Compensation Law, chapter 440, Florida Statutes; and, if so, whether Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation ("Department"), correctly calculated the penalty assessed against Respondent. Respondent does not contest the Stop-Work Order for Specific Worksite Only ("SWO"). Rather, Respondent asserts that the penalty contained in the 2nd Amended Penalty Assessment inappropriately includes two business entities ("HT Consulting Contractors" and "NDDS Services") that were "independent contractors" performing non-construction work, rather than "subcontractors" for whom Respondent has statutory liability.Petitioner sufficiently proved that Respondent failed to carry workers' compensation coverage and that penalty was appropriate. Respondent failed to prove entities were independent contractors not working in the construction industry.
16-001143  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs STEVE MUNDINE CONSTRUCTION, INC.  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 01, 2016
Whether the Respondent, Steve Mundine Construction, Inc., timely challenged the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and, if not, whether pursuant to the doctrine of equitable tolling Respondent’s untimely filed challenge should be accepted.Respondent failed to timely request a hearing and thereby waived his right to challenge the proposed agency action. The agency did not lull the Respondent into inaction or mislead him in any manner that would constitute estoppel.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer