The issues in this case are as follows: Whether a refund request submitted by Petitioner, FICURMA, Inc. (Petitioner or FICURMA), to Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation (Respondent or Department), on January 21, 2010, requesting a refund of assessments paid during 2005 and 2006, is barred pursuant to section 215.26(2), Florida Statutes (2009),1/ because the refund request was not submitted within three years after the assessment payments were made. Whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel can be raised to allow a refund that would otherwise be time-barred by section 215.26(2), and, if so, whether the facts show the sort of rare circumstances that would justify application of that doctrine against a state agency.Petitioner's refund requests, filed more than 3 years after payments of unlawful assessments imposed by Respondent are barred by s. 215.26. Equitable estoppel not proven; Petitioner waived clear points of entry to challenge assessments.

The issue in this case is whether the amendments to Miami- Dade County’s Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), adopted through Ordinance Nos. 08-44 and 08-45, are “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).1The County`s adoption of Ordinance 08-44 (Lowe`s Amendment) is not in compliance. The County`s adoption of Ordinance No. 08-45 is in compliance.

The issues in this case are whether the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan amendments which changed the future land use designations for a 97.55-acre parcel and a 26.23-acre parcel through the adoption, respectively, of Ordinance 2006-28 and Ordinance 2006-29, are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007).1Two amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan are not in compliance with state law because they create internal inconsistancies.

The issue is whether the City of Boca Raton's (City's) amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Transportation Element of its Comprehensive Plan (Plan) adopted by Ordinance Nos. 4987 and 4991 on December 11, 2007, are in compliance.A change in the City`s Future Land Use Map and new text amendment are found to be in compliance; Multi-Modal Transportation District and the City`s Evaluation and Appraisal Report are inapplicable in a compliance review.

The issue in this case is whether Amendment 06-19 to the Martin County Comprehensive Plan (the Plan), adopted by Ordinance 757 on August 7, 2007, is "in compliance," as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007)1.Petitioners did not prove beyond fair debate that Future Land Use Map change was inconsistent with affordable housing requirements.

On August 6, 1993, the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) published a Notice of Adult Open Heart Surgery Program Fixed Need Pool in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 19, No. 31. The Agency projected need for one additional adult open heart surgery (OHS) program in District X for the January 1996 planning horizon. District X consists entirely of Broward County, Florida. Five hospitals in Broward County, including Petitioner Columbia Hospital Corporation of South Broward d/b/a Westside Regional Medical Center (Westside), timely filed Letters of Intent and submitted Certificate of Need (CON) applications seeking to establish an adult OHS program at their respective facilities. The Agency assigned CON Action No. 7455 to Westside's CON application. On January 21, 1994, AHCA published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 20, No. 3, notice of its intent to preliminarily deny all CON applications for an adult OHS program in District X. Four of the five applicants timely filed petitions to challenge AHCA's decision, including Cleveland Clinic Florida Hospital d/b/a Cleveland Clinic Hospital (Cleveland Clinic) (DOAH Case No. 94- 1019), Westside (DOAH Case No. 94-1020), North Broward Hospital District d/b/a North Broward Medical Center (NBMC) (DOAH Case No. 94-1022), and Plantation General Hospital, L.P. (DOAH Case No. 94-1023).Petitioner did not prove that there was a need for another open heart surgery program in District X. Petitioner's proposal did not meet statutory and rule criteria.

The issue for determination in this matter is which of the below- referenced applications should be approved for the issuance of a Certificate of Need (CON) for nursing home beds in District 7, Subdistrict 2, Orange County, Florida.Nursing home beds Certificate of Need preference entitles applicants with most cost effective proposal, broad services, and best continuum of care.

Whether this case presents "not normal circumstances" that lead to award to St. Anthony's Hospital, Inc., of a certificate of need for an Open Heart Surgery program?Not normal circumstances not present in open heart surgery case that would lead to grant of a Certificate of Need.

The issue for resolution is which of two competing certificate of need applications should be approved for nursing home beds in District 5, subdistrict 2, Pinellas County, Florida.Beverly's proposal for 120 bed nursing home provided greater access and better specialized services than CLCS conversion from shelter to community Nursing Home beds.

Whether the applications for certificates of need filed by Petitioners Alachua General Hospital, Inc., Oakhurst Manor Nursing Corporation and Florida Convalescent Centers, Inc., meet the requirements of law and should be approved based on application of the statutory review criteria or upon other considerations.Applicant's failure to file financial data is fatal.