Leon FL and Government Lawyers | Kyle Christopher -- eLawyers

Kyle Christopher

Visitors: 58

(850

) 617-8893

Bar #40853(FL) License for 17 years; Member in Good Standing

Tallahassee FL

Are you Kyle Christopher? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

USC: 18 U.S.C 1341, 18 U.S.C 371

Florida Laws: 1.01, 119.071, 120.569, 120.57, 120.574, 120.68, 17.001, 17.002, 20.165, 219.06, 440.02, 440.05, 440.10, 440.107, 440.12, 440.13, 440.192, 440.20, 440.38, 455.227, 455.2273, 456.072, 456.073, 458.331, 475.25, 486.125, 489.105, 489.111, 489.113, 489.115, 489.119, 489.1195, 489.126, 489.127, 489.129, 489.13, 489.1425, 548.003, 548.006, 548.0065, 548.007, 548.008, 548.041, 548.071, 553.62, 57.105, 57.111, 570.11, 627.8405, 812.014, 838.014, 838.016, 90.301, 90.803, 90.805

Florida Administrative Code: 60Q-6.105, 61G4-17.001, 61G4-17.002

19-002533 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs LEONARD SMITH, D/B/A SITE DEVELOPMENT AND PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION, INC. (2019)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 15, 2019

Whether Leonard Smith, d/b/a Site Development & Pipeline Construction, Inc., violated the provisions of chapter 440, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure the payment of workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.The Department proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent failed to secure required workers' compensation coverage for its "employees" during the period of non-compliance. The Department property calculated the penalty, with two exceptions.

18-005545 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs ALPHA AND OMEGA BUILDER OF JACKSONVILLE, INC. (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 19, 2018

The issues to determine in this matter are whether Respondent Alpha and Omega Builders of Jacksonville, Inc., failed to secure workers’ compensation coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether Petitioner Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Department), correctly calculated the penalty assessment it imposed against Respondent.The Department did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Alpha and Omega Builders of Jacksonville, Inc., failed to obtain workers' compensation insurance coverage for its employees on January 30, 2018, or during the audit period.

18-003845 LAKELAND REGIONAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 20, 2018

The issues in these cases are whether two Petitions for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute (Petitions), filed pursuant to section 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2018),1/ were untimely; and, if so, whether the untimeliness should be excused under the equitable tolling defense asserted by Petitioners.Petitions for reimbursement dispute resolution were not timely filed. Equitable tolling defense not proven to excuse the late-filed petitions. Recommend dismissal.

18-003846 LAKELAND REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 20, 2018

12-002312F AHMAD LABIB BALTAGI vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 06, 2012

Whether Petitioner, Ahmad Labib Baltagi (Mr. Baltagi), should be awarded attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011), and section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2011).Petitioner not entitiled to attorney's fees and costs, or sanctions. Petitioner failed to prove status as a small business party.

13-000238PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs MARK ANTHONY MCGUIRE (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 17, 2013

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes (2009), by violating section 489.126(2)(a), as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?Petitioner proved that Respondent accepted a 30% deposit and did not apply for a permit within the timeframe required by statute.

12-000142 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, STATE BOXING COMMISSION vs AMERICAN AMATEUR MIXED MARTIAL ARTS, INC., A/K/A UNITED STATES AMATEUR MIXED MARTIAL ARTS, INC. (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 11, 2012

Whether Respondent, American Amateur Mixed Martial Arts, Inc.'s (AAMMA), license as an amateur mixed martial arts sanctioning organization, should be disciplined and, if so, the penalty therefore.Document incorporated by rule created unintelligable standards that were subject to variable interpretations. Evidence did not show violations of such vague rules or violation of statute for unprofessional/unethical conduct.

12-001970PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs LARRY M. PROVENCAL (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 01, 2012

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), by being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime directly related to the practice or the ability to practice contracting. If so, it must also be determined what penalty should be imposed for the violation.Respondent's guilty plea to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud is directly related to contracting. Two-year suspension, three-year probation and $5000 fine imposed.

08-005456PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs RICHARD H. LINDLEY D/B/A HCL, INC. (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 31, 2008

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Richard Lindley, committed the offenses alleged in a four-count Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on March 20, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent is guilty of abandonment of a project and committing incompetency or misconduct in the practice of contracting. Respondent failed to complete the re-roofing project.

07-005720 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION vs JAMES DELAUGHTER (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 18, 2007

The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting. Recommend a fine of $5,000.00.