FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D17-2897 _ KEYSTONE AIRPARK AUTHORITY, Appellant, v. PIPELINE CONTRACTORS, INC., a Florida corporation; THE HANOVER INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire corporation; and PASSERO ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellees. _ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County. Don H. Lester, Judge. January 25, 2019 WOLF, J. On consideration of appellee’s motion for clarification and appellant’s response, this Court grants the m..

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JEFFERY L. GIBBS, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Petitioner, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED v. CASE NO. 1D14-3151 STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. _/ Opinion filed November 10, 2014. Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel - Original Jurisdiction. Jeffery L. Gibbs, pro se, Petitioner. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. The amended petition alleg..

115 So. 2d 442 (1959) CURTIS POOLS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. George L. FULTON, Appellee. No. 1447. District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District. November 4, 1959. *443 W.H. Carmine, Jr., Fort Myers, for appellant. Julian D. Clarkson; Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Fort Myers, for appellee. ALLEN, Chief Judge. The appellant was the plaintiff and the appellee was the defendant in the lower court. A complaint was filed against the defendant seeking a temporary and per..

The issues are whether the Respondent, a licensed physician, violated section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by mistakenly injecting a one-percent solution of Xylocaine® into an unintended site on a patient’s left hip in advance of performing a right-side trochanteric bursa steroid injection; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.DOH proved physician used local numbing agent on the wrong side before correcting her mistake and proceeding with local numbing and then trochanter bursa sac steriod injection on the correct side. RO: no violation of 456.072(1)(bb).

917 So. 2d 295 (2005) Cristina VARELA, a/k/a Cristina B. Varela, Appellant, v. Carlos Alberto BERNACHEA, Appellee. No. 3D05-105. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. December 21, 2005. *296 Jennifer S. Carroll and David Noel (Palm Beach); Randolph W. Adams (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant. Craig Blinderman and Arie Mrejen (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellee. Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and ROTHENBERG, JJ. PER CURIAM. Cristina Varela ("Varela"), appeals from a Final Judgment, which declared Ca..

Whether Florida Administrative Code Rules 64B8-50.003(2) and 64B8-56.002(2)(a) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority in violation of section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (2014). Whether the following four statements are unadopted rules as defined by section 120.52(20): (i.) The Electrolysis Council is a de facto party to a petition for declaratory statement filed with the Board of Medicine concerning the practice of electrology and need not intervene in the proceeding before the Board when considering rules and statutes related to the practice of electrology; (ii.) The Electrolysis Council is a de facto party to a petition to adopt, amend, or repeal an agency rule filed with the Board of Medicine concerning the practice of electrology and need not intervene in the proceeding before the Board when the rules concern the practice of electrology; (iii.) No additional materials can be submitted to the Board of Medicine prior to the meeting of the full Board for consideration of a draft order on a petition for declaratory statement; and (iv.) The Board of Medicine will not consider any materials submitted for consideration within 48 hours of a full Board of Medicine meeting unless the Board Chair allows their distribution to the members.Petitioners demonstrated "petitions for declaratory statement" in rule 64B8-50.003(2) is an invalid rule, but did not meet burden for the challenge to other section of the rule, rule 64B8-56.002(2)(a), and four alleged unadopted rules.

The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Physician did not violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, when he left a deflated blood pressure cuff on a patient during surgery.

The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed violations of Section 458.331(1), (t), (q), and (m), Florida Statutes, justifying the imposition of disciplinary measures against Respondent's medical license, and if so, what penalties should be imposed.Standard of care is violated when Respondent spent six hours in resuscitative measures on patient in office instead of calling for ambulance transport to hospital.

The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Jose Anibal Cruz, M.D., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on December 30, 2002, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.Respondent had sexual relationship with a patient. Recommend revocation of Respondent`s license.

Whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(q), 458.331(1)(t), 458.331(1)(nn), 458.347(4), and 456.072(1)(o), Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-30.008, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Recommend revocation of license for a Physician`s Assistant who prescribed controlled substances and inappropriate medications.