704 So. 2d 630 (1997) Michael PIZZARELLI and Michele Pizzarelli, as parents and natural guardian of Carlene Pizzarelli, a minor, Appellants, v. Jane ROLLINS and Dasha Marie Cates, Appellees. No. 96-3628. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. November 19, 1997. Clarification Granted December 19, 1997. *631 Julie H. Littky-Rubin and Michael J. Overbeck of Lytal, Reiter, Clark, Sharpe, Roca, Fountain & Williams, West Palm Beach, for appellants. Garrison M. Dundas of Brennan, Hayskar,..

455 So. 2d 488 (1984) Steven Lawrence BORGESS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. AT-100. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. August 14, 1984. Rehearing Denied October 2, 1984. *489 Glenna Joyce Reeves, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., David P. Gauldin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. WENTWORTH, Judge. Appellant was charged and convicted on two counts of lewd and lascivious assault in violation of § 800.04, Florida Statutes, with consecutive..

The issue in these proceedings is whether proposed rules comprising chapter 38I-74, published by the Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Safety, are an invalid exercise of the agency's delegated legislative authority.Proposed rule chapter is valid and consistent with legislative intent even if not the best alternative. Petitioner did not give agency specifics on economic impact.

Whether the proposed changes in the conditions for certificate of need number 3998, initially issued to The Willough in 1986, constitutes a substantial change in health care services. Whether the authority of the Agency for Health Care Administration to modify certificate of need number 3998 is limited by a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement of August 22, 1986. If AHCA has the authority to modify the conditions placed on certificate of need number 3998 and the proposed modification is not a substantial change in health care services, whether there is "good cause" for the modification as defined in Rule 59C-1.019, Florida Administrative Code.Change from treating eating disorders and incidental all psychiatric disorders to treating psychiatric disorders is substantial change; requires certificate of need review

This is a license discipline case in which the Department of Insurance, in a multi-count Second Amended Administrative Complaint, has charged the Respondent with several statutory violations. The issues in the case concern whether the Respondent committed the violations and, if so, what disciplinary penalty should be imposed.Evidence insufficient to prove numerous allegations of violations by insurance agent.

The issue in this case is whether the license of Michael Joseph Calderone (Respondent) should be disciplined by the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Petitioner) based upon actions he is alleged to have taken between March, 1988 and January, 1989, involving various insureds, as more particularly set forth in the Administrative Complaint issued herein on or about September 21, 1989, and the Amendment thereto which was allowed by Order entered on April 23, 1990.No evidence of willful misrepresentation , fraudulent or dishonest practices lack of trustworthiness, nor any false or incomplete compromises.

The issue for determination in these proceedings is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Insurance, should discipline the Respondent, Richard Sidney Cole, under charges made in a three- count Amended Administrative Complaint. 1/ Count I charges essentially that the Respondent misrepresented to Edith Kastel the terms of a National States Insurance Company (National States) Medicare supplement insurance policy by failing to disclose the six-month waiting period for preexisting conditions and misleading her into believing that she would be fully covered under the policy immediately upon its issuance, in violation of Sections 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(8), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9521, 626.9541(1)(a)1., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (1989). Count II charges essentially that the Respondent (1) failed to disclose on the applications for National States medical/surgical expense coverage he completed on behalf of the Ogletrees the policies and coverages then in effect on the insured as required by the application and (2) misrepresented Jack Ogletree's physical condition by failing to disclose his heart disorder and hospitalization within five years before the application date, in violation of Sections 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(8), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9521, 626.9541(1)(a)6., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., 626.9541(1)(k)1. and 626.9541(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1989). Count III alleges essentially that the Respondent (1) sold Gunnar Sundstrom a National States Medicare supplement policy, telling him it was superior to the Old Southern Life Insurance Company (Old Southern) policy Sundstrom already had, (2) failed to disclose on the application he completed for Sundstrom the Old Southern policy Sundstrom already had, and (3) falsely stated on the application that the insurance being applied for was not intended to replace the Old Southern policy, in violation of Sections 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(8), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(6), 626.9521, 626.9541(1)(a)6., and 626.9541(1)(e)1., 626.9541(1)(k)1. and 626.9541(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1989), and F.A.C. Rule 4-46.003(2).Agent knowingly made material false statements on application for Medicare supplement insurance (no preexisting condition) and stating not replacement policy

The Petitioner filed a one-count Administrative Complaint against the Respondent on September 21, 1989. The Complaint alleged that the Respondent had made certain misrepresentations to Forrest and Viola DePeugh for the purpose of inducing the DePeughs to cancel their existing insurance coverage and purchase an insurance policy from the Respondent. The Complaint alleged that the Respondent's misrepresentations to the DePeughs constituted a violation of one or more of the following provisions of the Florida Insurance Code: Sections 624.11(1), 626.611(4), 626.611(5), 626.611(7), 626.611(8), 626.611(9), 626.611(13), 626.621(2), 626.621(5), 626.621(6), 626.9521, 626.9541(1) (a)4.,Complainant testimony not persuasive that respondent committed alleged violations Respondent denied charges and testified to proper sales presentation for Medical supplies