Leon FL Lawyers | Sonja P Mathews -- eLawyers

02-004560 SHARON LETT vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF STATE GROUP INSURANCE (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 22, 2002

Whether the surgery to correct complications from non- covered cosmetic surgery are covered under the State of Florida self-insured health plan?Respondent showed the terms of the coverage had been amended to exclude complications from non-covered services.

03-000975 KENNETH A. HARDY vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF STATE GROUP INSURANCE (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 24, 2003

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s claims for health insurance coverage, which arise from treatments he received for lower back pain, should be denied pursuant to the policy’s exclusion for “experimental or investigational” services.Respondent failed to prove that Petitioner`s claims for health insurance coverage should be denied pursuant to the policy`s exclusion for "experimental or investigational services."

03-000437 ELSA L. LOPEZ vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF STATE GROUP INSURANCE (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 06, 2003

The issue in this case is whether the unused balance in a state employee’s flexible spending account must be forfeited as a result of her failure to file claims exhausting the account before the April 15, 2002, deadline.Unused balance in state employee`s flexible spending account must be forfeited as a result of her failure to file exhausting the account before the April 15, 2002, deadline.

99-004038 AUSBON BROWN, JR. vs DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (1999)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 27, 1999

The issue is whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in September 1999.There was no evidence of discrimination presented to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory hiring decision, and the Petition for Relief must be dismissed.

01-003123 OLIVER WALKER vs AGENCY FOR WORKFORCE INNOVATION (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 09, 2001

Whether Respondent acted properly in refusing to post a job order for Petitioner's business, an "adult maid service."Business hires workers as "independent contractors," not "employees," and therefore is not entitled to listing by state job service as an "employer."

99-004281RU FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES COUNCIL 79 AFSCME, ALTAMESE THOMPSON, AND SUE EZELL vs DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (1999)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 07, 1999

The issue in the case is whether the Department of Labor and Employment Security (Department), in implementing a workforce reduction that resulted in layoffs and demotions for employees, should have adopted by rulemaking, policies related to compensation reductions that occurred during the workforce reduction.Compensation reduction affects the private interest of the employee.

00-002577 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF WORKFORCE AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY vs NESTOR SALES COMPANY, INC., D/B/A ACE TOOL COMPANY (2000)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 22, 2000

At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, a tool company, should be required to repay funds that the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workforce and Employment Opportunity (the "Department") alleges were erroneously paid under a North American Free Trade Agreement- Transitional Adjustment Assistance ("NAFTA" or "NAFTA-TAA") job training program for equipment that Respondent provided to two NAFTA-TAA trainees.Respondent ordered to reimburse overpayments made erroneously through the Department`s administration of the North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance job retraining program.

96-003265BID ENABLING TECHNOLOGIES COMPANY vs DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 15, 1996

Petitioner has protested the intended award of bid No. 96-036-VA to a competing bidder (Intervenor). Because Petitioner's bid was disqualified for non-responsiveness, the threshold issue is whether Petitioner has standing to protest the intended award. Petitioner contends that Intervenor's hardware fails to meet bid specification minimum requirements for speed and noise. If standing is established, the issue then is whether the agency's intended award to Intervenor is fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal or dishonest.Petitioner whose own bid was properly disqualified did not have standing to protest award to competing bidder. Agency did not violate Groves-Watkins standard.

92-005465BID HARRELL ROOFING, INC. vs FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 09, 1992

Whether Allstate Construction's (Allstate) bid was delivered in time. Whether Florida State University (FSU) had the authority to waive the lateness of Allstate's bid if it was late. Whether the failure by Allstate to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 was a bidding irregularity. Whether Allstate's failure to acknowledge receipt of Addendum No. 2 could be waived by FSU.BID delivered 4 minutes late and lack of acknowledgement of change addendum held to be minor irregularities which agency could waive.

91-006594BID ALBRITTON WILLIAMS, INC. vs FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 15, 1991

Petitioner challenged the Respondent's decision to reject Petitioner's bid in lieu of space available on property owned by the Respondent. To resolve the dispute the case was submitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing. The case was received by the Division on October 17, 1991. The case was to be heard on October 30-31, 1991 before Stephen F. Dean, Hearing Officer. Given a pending real estate transaction between Hearing Officer Dean and William Moore, an attorney representing the Respondent, Hearing Officer Dean recused himself from further participation in the case. The case was then taken over by the present hearing officer.Rejection of all bids for lease space in favor of space belonging to owner held acceptable.

Sonja P Mathews