The issue is whether Petitioner's application for reinstatement of his license as a general contractor should be granted or denied.Petitioner's financial circumstances constituted an unusual hardship which prevented him from timely completing continuing education requirements. Recommend reinstatement of his license.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Luis Garcia, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on December 6, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner has authority to revoke contractor`s license which was obtained with an invalid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency obtained by Respondent without knowledge that the Certificate had been inproperly issued.
The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Gerardo Quintero, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on December 6, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner has authority to revoke Respondent`s license, which was obatined with an invalid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency, and obtained by Respondent without knowledge that the Certificate had been inproperly issued.
Whether amendments to the City of Bonita Springs Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance 17-08 (Ordinance) on June 7, 2017, are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017).1/The City of Bonita Springs determination that Ordinance 17-08 is in compliance under section 163.3184 is fairly debatable. The Petitioner did not prove beyond fair debate that the Ordinance is not in compliance.
The issues to be determined in these consolidated cases are whether All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC (“the Applicant”), and Florida East Coast Railway, LLC (“FECR”), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification authorizing the construction of a stormwater management system and related activities to serve railway facilities, and a verification of exemption for work to be done at 23 roadway crossings (collectively referred to as “the project”).Applicants demonstrated their entitlement to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification and a Verification of Exemption for a stormwater management system to serve express passenger train facilities.
Applicants demonstrated their entitlement to an Environmental Resource Permit Modification and a Verification of Exemption for a stormwater management system to serve express passenger train facilities.
At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Gainesville Woman Care, LLC, d/b/a Bread & Roses Well Woman Care (“Bread & Roses”), provided services in excess of the scope of its license by providing abortions to five patients beyond the first trimester of pregnancy, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.Agency failed to prove that the clinic provided abortion services beyond the scope of its license.
Whether Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, Inc. (Petitioner), is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent or AHCA) pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b), Florida Statutes,1/ and, if so, in what amount(s).Petitioner entitled to attorneys' fees incurred in unadopted rule challenge prior to, but not after, the agency's publication of a Notice of Proposed Rule.
The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award Intervenor Prestige Health Choice, LLC ("Prestige"), a contract to provide Medicaid managed medical assistance services as a provider service network in Region 11 (covering Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties), Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. (In this protest, Petitioner Care Access PSN, LLC ("Care Access"), challenges AHCA's intended award to Prestige in Region 11, and only that award. Care Access does not seek to upset any other intended awards in Region 11 or in any other Region.)The agency's intended contract award, being contrary to the statutes and project specifications, is clearly erroneous and should be rescinded.
The issue to be determined by this Recommended Order of Dismissal is whether the Petitioners have standing to challenge a Settlement Agreement in OGC File No. 07-0177 (the Settlement Agreement), entered into by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Respondents, Allied Universal Corporation (Allied) and Chem-Tex Supply Corporation (Chem-Tex), for the assessment and remediation of contamination at a bleach- manufacturing and chlorine-repackaging facility in St. Lucie County.Petitioners failed to prove that they had standing under s. 120.569 and, since section 403.412(6) is not applicable to enforcement proceedings, and failed to prove that they had standing.
