Hernando FL Estate planning, Probate and Real estate Lawyers -- eLawyers

12-001545RP FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, INC.; FLORIDA OSTEOPATHIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; AND FLORIDA PODIATRIC MEDICAL ASSOCIATION vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF NURSING (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 25, 2012

The issue to be determined is whether proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.005 (rule 64B9-8.005 or "the proposed rule") constitute an invalid exercise of legislatively delegated authority? Specifically, the Second Amended Petition raises the following issues with respect to the proposed rule: a) whether the Board exceeded its rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by section 120.54(3)(a)1., Florida Statutes; b) whether the proposed rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by section 120.54(3)(a)1.; c) whether the proposed rule is vague; whether the Board has complied with the essential requirements of rulemaking provided in sections 120.54 and 120.541; and e) whether the proposed rule amendments are supported by the necessary facts.Proposed rule 64B9-8.005 is an invalid exercise of degelated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8)(a)(b)(c) and (d).

11-003136BID PROMETHEAN, INC. vs ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 21, 2011

The issue in this case, a bid protest, is whether the intended decision of Respondent, Orange County School Board (the "School Board"), to award a contract for interactive devices and associated equipment to Intervenor, SMART Technologies Corporation ("Smart"), instead of to Promethean, Inc. ("Promethean"), is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner could not prove that Respondent's award of contract to Intervenor was arbitrary, capricious, erroneous or contrary to competition.

07-001265CON TIDEWELL HOSPICE AND PALLIATIVE CARE, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, INC. (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 16, 2007

The issue is whether Suncoast's application for a Certificate of Need (CON) to establish a new hospice program in Service Area 6C should be approved.Suncoast's CON application for a new hospice in Service Area 6C, Manatee County, should be approved.

10-001605CON ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., D/B/A ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA vs HPH SOUTH, INC., AND AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 25, 2010

Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.Neither applicant for a CON proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in Service Area 5B.

10-001862CON THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, D/B/A SUNCOAST HOSPICE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND HPH SOUTH, INC. (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2010

Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.Neither applicant for a CON proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in Service Area 5B.

10-001863CON HPH SOUTH, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION; THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, D/B/A SUNCOAST HOSPICE, AND ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., D/B/A ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE OF CENTRAL FLORIDA (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2010

Whether the Certificate of Need (CON) applications filed by Odyssey Healthcare of Collier County, Inc., d/b/a Odyssey Healthcare of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Odyssey), and HPH South, Inc. (HPH), for a new hospice program in the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or the Agency) Service Area 5B, satisfy, on balance, the applicable statutory and rule review criteria to warrant approval; and whether such applications establish a need for a new hospice based on special circumstances, and, if so, which of the two applications best meets the applicable criteria for approval. Holding: Neither applicant proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of an additional hospice program in Service Area 5B. Although neither application is recommended for approval in this Recommended Order, both applicants, on balance, satisfy the applicable statutory and rule criteria. Of the two, HPH best satisfies the criteria.Neither applicant for a CON proved the existence of special circumstances warranting approval of a new hospice in Service Area 5B.

07-003485CON HCA HEALTH SERVICES OF FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A ST. LUCIE MEDICAL CENTER AND LAWNWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, INC., D/B/A LAWNWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 26, 2007

Whether an application for a new hospital to be constructed in Agency for Health Care Administration Planning District 9, Subdistrict 2, should be approved.Applicant demonstrated a sufficient change in circumstances and public interest in the approval of its Certificate of Need application to construct an 80-bed hospital in the western portion of the county.

07-005133RP ST. ANTHONY`S HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A ST. ANTHONY`S HOSPITAL vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 09, 2007

The issue in these cases is whether certain rules proposed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) related to adult interventional cardiovascular services are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Proposed rules authorizing licensure of hospital-based adult cardiovascular service programs are not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

07-005193RP MARTIN MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 09, 2007

The issue in these cases is whether certain rules proposed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) related to adult interventional cardiovascular services are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Proposed rules authorizing licensure of hospital-based adult cardiovascular service programs are not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

07-002906RX THE HOSPICE OF THE FLORIDA SUNCOAST, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 29, 2007

Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d)3. is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?Petitioners proved that the parenthetical language included in Rule 59C-1.0355(4)(d)3. (the 48-hour rule) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, whereas the remaining portions are not invalid and remain intact.

Paul H. Nessler, Jr.