The issue is whether the Agency for Health Care Administration should approve Petitioner’s application for a Certificate of Need to establish a 54-bed freestanding long-term care hospital in Escambia County.Petitioner established need for a proposed 54-bed, long-term care hospital in Escambia County. Recommend that the Certificate of Need application be approved.

Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.Two applciants for long-term care hospital Certificates of Need proved that there is a need for 130 long-term care hospital beds in the Agency for Health Care Administration District 9. Recommend that the applications be granted.

Kindred Hospitals East, LLC ("Kindred") and Select Specialty Hospital-Palm Beach, Inc. ("Select-Palm Beach"), filed applications for Certificates of Need ("CONs") with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or the "Agency") seeking approval for the establishment of long-term care hospitals ("LTCHs") in Palm Beach County, AHCA District 9. Select-Palm Beach's application, CON No. 9661, seeks approval for the establishment of a 60-bed freestanding LTCH in "east central" Palm Beach County about 20 miles south of Kindred's planned location. Kindred's application, CON No. 9662, seeks approval for the establishment of a 70-bed LTCH in the "north central" portion of the county. The ultimate issue in this case is whether either or both applications should be approved by the Agency.Two applciants for long-term care hospital Certificates of Need proved that there is a need for 130 long-term care hospital beds in the Agency for Health Care Administration District 9. Recommend that the applications be granted.

The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for a Certificate of Need to establish a new hospice program in Hospice Service Area 8B should be approved.The Agency should deny the Certificate of Need application for a new hospice in Service Area 8B, as the existing provider is adequately serving the area. Petitioner did not prove any unmet need or other "special circumstances" as required by agency rule.

The issue is whether the Agency should approve the Certificate of Need applications filed by Bethesda and/or JFK, each of which proposes to establish an 80-bed satellite hospital in the West Boynton area of Acute Care Subdistrict 9-5.The Agency for Health Care Administration should deny both certificate of need applications that wanted to establish a satellite hospital in the West Boynton area of South Palm Beach County. The applicants failed to show a need for a new hospital.

The issue is whether the Agency should approve the Certificate of Need applications filed by Bethesda and/or JFK, each of which proposes to establish an 80-bed satellite hospital in the West Boynton area of Acute Care Subdistrict 9-5.The Agency for Health Care Administration should deny both certificate of need applications that wanted to establish a satellite hospital in the West Boynton area of South Palm Beach County. The applicants failed to show a need for a new hospital.

The issue is whether the Agency should approve the Certificate of Need applications filed by Bethesda and/or JFK, each of which proposes to establish an 80-bed satellite hospital in the West Boynton area of Acute Care Subdistrict 9-5.The Agency for Health Care Administration should deny both certificate of need applications that wanted to establish a satellite hospital in the West Boynton area of South Palm Beach County. The applicants failed to show a need for a new hospital.

The issue is whether the Agency should approve the Certificate of Need applications filed by Bethesda and/or JFK, each of which proposes to establish an 80-bed satellite hospital in the West Boynton area of Acute Care Subdistrict 9-5.The Agency for Health Care Administration should deny both certificate of need applications that wanted to establish a satellite hospital in the West Boynton area of South Palm Beach County. The applicants failed to show a need for a new hospital.

Counts 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 11 Whether the Respondent, or its agents, servants or employees, did unlawfully sell a controlled substance, to wit: powder cocaine, on the licensed premises, in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, on the following dates: July 14, 20, August 4, 12, 19, 25 and September 10, 1999. Count 3 Whether the Respondent, or its agents, servants or employees, did unlawfully sell a controlled substance, to wit: powder cocaine, on the licensed premises on July 28, 1999, in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Count 5, 9 and 10 Whether the Respondent, or its agent, servants or employee, did unlawfully sell a controlled substance, to wit: methylenediozymethamphetamine, on the licensed premises, in violation of Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, on the following dates: August 10, 25 and September 1, 1999. Whether Respondent permitted another on the licensed premises to sell a controlled substance, in violation of Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes.Petitioner failed to prove that controlled substances were sold on the licensed premises; that Respondent`s employees were involved; or that Respondent permitted others to sell drugs. Hearsay cannot be used to prove allegations; charges dismissed.

Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13 and 14: Whether, pursuant to Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Respondent, by and through its agents, servants, and/or employees, did knowingly or negligently permit another to violate a state statute [Section 893.13, Florida Statutes] to wit: possession of cannabis (less than 20 grams) on the licensed premises on the following dates: September 9, 2001, October 28, 2001, November 2, 2001, January 5, 2002, January 6, 2002, February 16, 2002, and March 3, 2002. Count 3: Whether, pursuant to Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Respondent, by and through its agents, servants, and/or employees, did knowingly or negligently permit another to violate a state statute [Sections 893.13 and 893.147, Florida Statutes] to wit: possession of cannabis (less than 20 grams) and possession of drug paraphernalia on the licensed premises on October 28, 2001. Count 8: Whether, pursuant to Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Respondent, by and through its agents, servants, and/or employees, did knowingly or negligently permit another to violate a state statute [Sections 893.13 and 843.01, Florida Statutes] to wit: possession of cocaine and resisting arrest with violence on the licensed premises on November 25, 2001. Count 9: Whether, pursuant to Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Respondent, by and trough its agents, servants, and/or employees, did knowingly or negligently permit another to violate a state statute [Sections 893.13 and 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes] to wit: possession of cannabis (more than 20 grams) with intent to distribute on the licensed premises on December 25, 2001. Counts 10 and 11: Whether, pursuant to Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Respondent, by and through its agents, servants and/or employees, did knowingly or negligently permit another to violate a state statute [Section 893.13, Florida Statutes] to wit: sale of cannabis and possession of cannabis (less than 20 grams) on the licensed premises on January 5, 2002. Count 15: Whether, pursuant to Section 561.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Respondent, by and through its agents, servants, and/or employees, did knowingly or negligently permit another to violate a state statute [Section 843.01 Florida Statutes] to wit: possession of heroin on March 3, 2002. Count 16: Unlawfully maintaining a nuisance on the licensed premises contrary to Sections 561.29(1)(a) and 561.29(1)(c), Florida Statutes, from September 9, 2001 through March 3, 2002.Licensee`s efforts to keep drugs off club premises were sufficient, in light of evidence as a whole, to avoid revocation of license for negligence and drug-related nuisance.