welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Tana Duden Storey
Tana Duden Storey
Tana Duden Storey
Visitors: 94
0
Bar #514772(FL)     License for 24 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Tana Duden Storey? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

19-005428N  BRANDI L. JENNINGS AND EVAN M. MABE, ON BEHALF OF AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF KILLIAN MABE, A MINOR CHILD vs FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 30, 2019
The issue to determine in this matter is whether the minor child should be awarded compensation under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association Plan.The infant sustained a “birth-related neurological injury.” However, obstetrical services were not delivered by a “participating physician” as defined in section 766.302. Therefore, Petitioners’ claim does not meet the requirements for eligibility for com
20-001138BID  AMBAR TRAIL, LTD vs NARANJA LAKES HOUSING PARTNERS, LP, SLATE MIAMI APARTMENTS, LTD., AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that they could receive funding under any scenario or that the process was otherwise fundamentally unfair; therefore, recommended dismissal for lack of standing.
20-001139BID  SIERRA MEADOWS APARTMENTS, LTD vs NARANJA LAKES HOUSING PARTNERS, LP, SLATE MIAMI APARTMENTS, LTD., AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that they could receive funding under any scenario or that the process was otherwise fundamentally unfair; therefore, recommended dismissal for lack of standing.
20-001140BID  QUAIL ROOST TRANSIT VILLAGE IV, LTD vs NARANJA LAKES HOUSING PARTNERS, LP, SLATE MIAMI APARTMENTS, LTD., AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that they could receive funding under any scenario or that the process was otherwise fundamentally unfair; therefore, recommended dismissal for lack of standing.
20-001141BID  PARC GROVE, LLC vs NARANJA LAKES HOUSING PARTNERS, LP, HARBOUR SPRINGS, LLC, AND FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 02, 2020
Whether the Petitions filed by Ambar Trail, Ltd.; Sierra Meadows Apartments, Ltd.; and Quail Roost Transit Village IV, Ltd., should be dismissed for lack of standing.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that they could receive funding under any scenario or that the process was otherwise fundamentally unfair; therefore, recommended dismissal for lack of standing.
SC10-364, SC10-390  Bennett v. ST. VINCENT'S MEDICAL CENTER  (2011)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Jul. 07, 2011 Citations: 71 So. 3d 828
71 So. 3d 828 (2011) Robert BENNETT, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. ST. VINCENT'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., et al., Respondents. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, Petitioner, v. St. Vincent's Medical Center, Inc., et al., Respondents. Nos. SC10-364, SC10-390. Supreme Court of Florida. July 7, 2011. Rehearing Denied September 22, 2011. *832 Rebecca Bowen Creed of Creed and Gowdy, P.A., Jacksonville, FL; and James W. Gustafson, Jr. of Searcy, Denney, Scarola, Barnhart, ..
17-005769  AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs REHABILITATION CENTER AT HOLLYWOOD HILLS, LLC  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 17, 2017
The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent, Rehabilitation Center at Hollywood Hills, LLC ("Hollywood Hills"), violated Florida law as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA" or "Agency"); and, if so, what sanctions should be imposed.AHCA demonstrated Hollywood Hills commited several Class 1 violations resulting in, or contributing to, the deaths of 9 patients and a mass casualty incident in the aftermath of a loss of A/C from Hurricane Irma. Recommend license revocation.
17-005388RE  FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF HOMES AND SERVICES FOR THE AGING, INC., D/B/A LEADINGAGE FLORIDA vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, AND DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 26, 2017
Whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rules 58AER17-1 and 59AER17-1 (collectively referred to as “the Emergency Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority and whether an immediate danger justified issuance of the Emergency Rules.Respondents failed to demonstrate the existence of an immediate danger. Also, Petitioners demonstrated that the Emergency Rules are invalid.
17-005409RE  FLORIDA ASSISTED LIVING ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT FOR PROFIT CORPORATION vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 27, 2017
Whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rules 58AER17-1 and 59AER17-1 (collectively referred to as “the Emergency Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority and whether an immediate danger justified issuance of the Emergency Rules.Respondents failed to demonstrate the existence of an immediate danger. Also, Petitioners demonstrated that the Emergency Rules are invalid.
17-005445RE  FLORIDA ARGENTUM vs DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 29, 2017
Whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rules 58AER17-1 and 59AER17-1 (collectively referred to as “the Emergency Rules”) are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority and whether an immediate danger justified issuance of the Emergency Rules.Respondents failed to demonstrate the existence of an immediate danger. Also, Petitioners demonstrated that the Emergency Rules are invalid.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer