Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION vs SAVE OUR SCHOOLS AND MICHAEL SAHM, 08-006385 (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Lauderdale Lakes, Florida Dec. 22, 2008 Number: 08-006385 Latest Update: Oct. 06, 2009
Florida Laws (2) 120.57120.68 Florida Administrative Code (1) 28-106.204
# 1
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs FELISIA HILL, 18-005312PL (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:West Palm Beach, Florida Oct. 04, 2018 Number: 18-005312PL Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 2
JOHN WINN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs ALAN GYORFFY, 06-003723PL (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Jacksonville, Florida Oct. 02, 2006 Number: 06-003723PL Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 3
RUBY L. BYRD, D/B/A JOY'S FAMILY LIVING BOARDING HOME vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 88-003036 (1988)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 88-003036 Latest Update: Nov. 30, 1988

Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns and operates an ACLF in Tampa, Florida, and has been continuously licensed by the Respondent as an ACLF since at least 1984. The Administrator, President and major stockholder of Petitioner is Ruby Byrd. On or about October 9, 1987, Petitioner applied for license renewal, and the Respondent requested additional information by letter dated October 15, 1987. According to Respondent's witness, John C. Morton, the Petitioner's license expired on December 25, 1987. However, the Department sent letters purporting to deny Petitioner's renewal on March 28 and May 12, 1988, which both state that Petitioner's license expired on March 25, 1988. This discrepancy between the testimony offered by Respondent and the Respondent's letters of denial is unexplained, and no finding can therefore be made as to when the Petitioner's most recent license did, in fact, expire. ACLF licenses are issued for a period of one year, and must be renewed annually. The sole specific reason for renewal denial set forth in the Respondent's March 28, 1988, letter is the Petitioner's "failure to provide proof of business liability insurance and proof of surety bond coverage." The Respondent's May 12, 1988, letter specifically deleted this reason as a basis for renewal denial, and superseded the previous letter by setting forth three reasons for denial. First, it is alleged that Ruby Byrd was arrested for grand theft from a former resident of the ACLF and was awaiting trial. Second, it is alleged that the facility lacks the financial ability to operate. Third, it is alleged that the facility has committed multiple and repeated violations as evidence by surveys and follow-up visits from 1985 through 1987. The only witness called as a representative of Respondent testified that he did not make a recommendation regarding Petitioner's license renewal application. The parties have stipulated that Ruby Byrd was found not guilty of the charge of grand theft. Competent substantial evidence was not presented to support the charge that Petitioner lacked the financial ability to operate. This ACLF has been in operation since at least 1984, and the evidence did not show the facility's failure to meet any of its financial obligations. Evidence produced by the Respondent was unclear in its distinction between Ruby Byrd, individually, and the corporate Petitioner in this case. The parties stipulated that representatives of the Respondent found what they believed to be violations which are enumerated in survey deficiency reports prepared in 1985 through 1987. The evidence establishes that all deficiencies noted in reports prepared in 1987 had been either corrected, administratively deleted, or the time for corrective action had not arrived by the time of hearing. Survey reports prepared prior to 1987 predominately indicate corrective action taken prior to 1987. In any event, these reports which precede the license year for which renewal is at issue in this case, are irrelevant, as is a report of a survey conducted subsequent to the Respondent's May 12, 1988 letter. The Petitioner operated under a conditional license issued by Respondent from March 26, 1988 until September 25, 1988. There is no evidence that Respondent issued any conditional license or otherwise responded to Petitioner's renewal application for the period between December 25, 1987 and March 26, 1988, assuming testimony at hearing is correct and this license expired on December 25, 1987. Similarly, there is no evidence that the Respondent has issued a conditional license, or otherwise responded to the Petitioner's renewal request for the period of September 25, 1988 until the date of hearing, which period of time would be relevant regardless whether the Petitioner's license expired in December, 1987, or March, 1988. According to the Respondent's witness, Petitioner's facility does not present any danger to the public health, safety and welfare. The Respondent does proceed against licensed ACLFs, and seek to administratively suspend or revoke their licenses during a period of licensure.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent issue a Final Order approving the Petitioner's application for renewal of its ACLF license at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of November, 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3036 Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2 Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings of Fact 2 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 6, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected in Finding of Fact 2 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 2. 4-5 Rejected as irrelevant since the Respondent has the burden of proof in this case as discussed in the conclusions of law. 6-9 Rejected in Finding of Fact 6, and otherwise as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: William Park, Esquire 8001 North Dale Mabry Building 601, Suite B Tampa, Florida 33614 Edward Haman, Esquire Office of Licensure and Certification 7827 North Dale Mabry Tampa, Florida 33614 Sam Power, Clerk 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory Coler, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, General Counsel 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 4
RICHARD CORCORAN, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs ERINN MORIARTY, 19-003635PL (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Jul. 08, 2019 Number: 19-003635PL Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 5
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs GLENESHA MILNER, 17-001222PL (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Panama City, Florida Feb. 22, 2017 Number: 17-001222PL Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 6
FLORIDA ELECTIONS COMMISSION vs MICHAEL A. PIZZI, JR., 05-000164 (2005)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Jan. 20, 2005 Number: 05-000164 Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 7
DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE vs SOUTH FLORIDA TITLE CORP., 01-001864 (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Fort Lauderdale, Florida May 14, 2001 Number: 01-001864 Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 8
PAM STEWART, AS COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION vs ROSEMARY GROSSMAN, 14-002543PL (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Land O Lakes, Florida May 29, 2014 Number: 14-002543PL Latest Update: Dec. 24, 2024
# 9
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs OASIS CAFE AT KEY BISCAYNE, 13-003847 (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Oct. 02, 2013 Number: 13-003847 Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2013

Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by Rules 9.110 and 9.190, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Attn: Ronda L. Bryan, Agency Clerk, 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 92, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 and a second copy, accompanied by the filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Florida Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via Certified U.S. Mail to Oasis Cafe at Key Biscayne, c/o Carlos Flores, 19 Harbor Drive, Miami, Florida 33149; by regular U.S. Mail to the Honorable Darren A. Schwartz, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 3060; and by hand delivery to Marc Drexler, Chief Attorney, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business and Professional Regulations, 1940 North Monroe Styeet, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202, this |@¥day of Yezember , 2013. msn For the Division of Hotels and Restaurants 7196 4008 G11) 4516 1240 | SENDERS, RECORD

# 10

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