Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
EDWARD K. FEWOX, JR. vs CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, 89-004098 (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Jacksonville, Florida Jul. 31, 1989 Number: 89-004098 Latest Update: Jan. 22, 1990

The Issue May Petitioner be granted credit for Questions 11, 12, and 18 on his February 1989 Certified General Contractor Examination so as to be considered to have successfully passed the examination?

Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the certified general contractors' examination on February 18, 1989. Petitioner has passed two parts of the examination, but scored 65 on the part of the examination containing the three challenged questions which serve as the basis for the appeal. The Petitioner requires a score of 69.01 to pass the third part of the examination. Petitioner timely and properly challenged the grading of three examination questions for which he received no credit, to wit: Questions 11, 12, and 18 in Test Booklet GC 421-0749. Petitioner alleged that his answers to Questions 11 and 12, which had been marked incorrect, were equally correct with those selected as correct by Respondent. He also contended that the network drawn in the critical path method which formed the reference point for each of these questions was so illegible, due to labelling of the network diagram, that no ore, including Petitioner, could have been expected to successfully complete it in the timeframe allotted. Additionally, he contended that his answer of "B" to Question 18, amounting to $6642 should be counted correct, the same as Answer A which amounted to $6400 because Petitioner's answer amounted to only a few dollars more than the answer Respondent designated as correct. With regard to the illegibility issue, Petitioner did not object to legibility at any time during the course of the examination itself, nor did he fill out a comment form at the time of turning in his examination or claim to have a defective test booklet at those times. He did, however, later challenge legibility as to the specified questions, and he has been permitted to present evidence of lack of legibility on that basis. Apparently, Petitioner's concern was based on a misunderstanding that certain letter-number configurations in Questions 11 and 12 could be used more than once, when, in fact, each could be used only one time. He did not understand that letters appear always above a line while numbers always appear below a line and that based on the legend, some of his interpretations of component parts of the diagram could not have logically occurred. Petitioner also thought some numbers and/or letters could be repeated and so became confused. As a result, he worked some problems presented by the diagram incorrectly. These interpretations, as opposed to lack of a legible diagram, appear to have accounted for his mistakes. Also, George Bruton, who was qualified as an expert on the requirements of certified general contractors in Florida, was able to correctly answer Questions 11 and 12 without utilizing those symbols the Petitioner stated were illegible. Therefore, it must be concluded that the quality of the diagram did not prevent the Petitioner from correctly answering the questions. Question 18, a multiple choice question, required the Petitioner to estimate the cost of construction for a perimeter fence built with certain materials. The Petitioner utilized materials not included in the question and his perimeter did not accomplish the goal set by the problem. Among other problems, the Petitioner used six corner posts instead of four corner posts. Therefore, he answered the question incorrectly. Under this set of circumstances, Petitioner's dollar amount answer in excess of the correct answer also is clearly incorrect and not subject to "rounding off" simply because it is "close." Questions 11, 12, and 18 are each worth 4 points. Petitioner failed to demonstrate his entitlement to have his score of 65 raised above 65 by 4 (69), 8 (73), or 12 (77) points respectively.

Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Professional Regulation enter a final order continuing to keep sealed the exhibits herein, finding that Petitioner abandoned his challenges to all questions except Questions 11, 12, and 18 of Test GC 421-0749, denying Petitioner's challenge to the foregoing questions, and denying a raise in the test score therefor. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 89-4098 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1 and 2 are rejected as not supported by the record. 3 is accepted but immaterial to the facts ash found and issue raised herein. Respondent's PFOF: 1 is subordinate and a conclusion of law 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Edward K. Fewox, Jr. 3924 Wormwood Circle Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

Florida Laws (2) 120.57489.113
# 1
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs JONES SHELTER AND CARE, INC., 00-002219 (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Jacksonville, Florida May 26, 2000 Number: 00-002219 Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
# 2
EUGENE T. BOATRIGHT vs CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, 89-005207 (1989)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Jacksonville, Florida Sep. 20, 1989 Number: 89-005207 Latest Update: Jan. 12, 1990

The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, Eugene Boatright, is entitled to licensure as an alarm systems contractor by virtue of a passing grade on the January 26, 1989, examination.

Findings Of Fact Eugene Boatright was an unsuccessful candidate for the alarm systems contractor's licensure examination given on January 26, 1989. Mr. Boatright made a score of 74. A score of 75 was required for licensure. Each correct answer had a grade value of one point. Mr. Boatright originally challenged the answers to questions 22, 95 and At the formal hearing he abandoned his challenge to question 22. Question 95 dealt with standards for the installation, maintenance and use of Remote Station Protective signaling devices. The reference was to N.F.P.A. Chapter 72C, Section 1-3.1. Mr. Boatright contended that telephone exchange was a correct answer. DPR contended that telephone exchange was incorrect because all telephone exchanges do not have personnel on duty at all times trained to receive alarm signals. The reference section contains an exception which states: Exception: Where such an agency is unwilling to receive alarm signals, the authority having jurisdiction shall be permitted to accept another location with personnel on duty at all times trained to receive the alarm and immediately transmit it to the fire department. While a telephone exchange may, under the circumstances set forth in the exception, receive alarm signals, telephone exchange is not a correct answer to question 95. The instructions on the examination specifically advised the candidates that they were to use the general rule and were only to use the exception where it was directly indicated in the question. Question 99 invovled the mounting requirements for all installed fire warning equipment. The reference sections asserted by DPR were N.F.P.A. Chapter 75-1.1.2 and 1.1.3 and Chapter 74-4.1. Chapter 75 refers to "Installation." Chapter 74 refers to "Equipment Performance." Question 99 contains three possible answers: All installed household fire warning equipment shall be mounted so as to be supported independently of its attachment wires. so jaring [sic] or vibration will not cause accidental operation. so that the failure of any non- reliable or short-life component, which renders the detector inoperative shall be readily apparent without the need for a test. Mr. Boatright contends that the correct answer does not include part III of the answer. DPR contends that this portion of the answer is correct and refers to Chapter 74 on equipment performance to support its position. Chapter 75-1.1.2 and 1.1.3, in the chapter relating to installation, states: 5-1.1.2 All devices shall be so located and mounted that accidental operation will not be cause by jarring or vibration. 5-1.1.3 All installed household fire warning equipment shall be mounted so as to be supported independently of its attachment to wires. [Emphasis supplied]. Chapter 74-1, in the chapter relating to equipment performance, states: General. The failure of any nonreliable [sic] or short-life component which renders the detector inoperative shall be readily apparent to the occupant of the living unit without the need for test. Chapter 74-1 is only peripherally related to mounting and relates primarily to performance of the equipment. Question 99 is ambiguous and the answer given by Mr. Boatright is a correct answer. Mr. Boatright is entitled to one additional point on his examination and he therefore should have received a passing grade of 75 on the examination.

Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order granting the examination challenge of Eugene Boatright and awarding one additional point to the score achieved by Mr. Boatright on the January 26, 1989, examination. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO 89-5207 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Eugene Boatright Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(5); 10(10 & 11); 12(14 & 15); 18(17; and 19(18). Proposed findings of fact 2-6, 8, 11, and 13-17 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 7 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 9 is unsupported by the competent, substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 & 2); 2(4); and 3(3). Proposed findings of fact 4 and 5 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 6 and 7 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred C. Scott Attorney at Law 125 North Market Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 4
MOLINA HEALTHCARE OF FLORIDA, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 13-004101BID (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Tallahassee, Florida Oct. 17, 2013 Number: 13-004101BID Latest Update: Oct. 28, 2013

Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement based on their mutual interests. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Bascd on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED on this the 24 eas bole e003. in Tallahassee, Florida. ELIZABE Agency for DUDEK, SECRETARY alth Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW. WITH THE DISTRCIT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Filed October 28, 2013 9:02 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Copies furnished to: William M. Blocker II, Esq. Agency for Health Care Administration (Inter-office Mail) Oertel. Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Attn. Segundo Fernandez 2060 Delta Way Tallahassee. Florida 32303 Shutts & Bowen, LLP. Attn, Joseph Goldstein 200 East Broward Boulevard Suite 2100 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Vezina, Lawernce & Piscitelli, P.A. Attn. W. Robert Vezina, II] 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee. Florida 32301 Vezina, Lawernce & Piscitelli, P.A. Attn. Eduardo S. Lombard 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ] HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregging Spy has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail on this theZ 9S ay of Cet», 2013. Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, FI. 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630

# 5
IHS AT GREENBRIAR vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 01-003145 (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Aug. 13, 2001 Number: 01-003145 Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
# 6
DARALL JEROME MOORE vs. BOARD OF PODIATRY, 87-001725 (1987)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 87-001725 Latest Update: Jul. 10, 1987

Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Darall J. Moore, graduated from the Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine in 1983 with a D.P.M. degree. T. 10. The Petitioner took the podiatry examination in July 1986, and did not receive a passing grade. On October 1, 1986, the Petitioner conducted a review of his examination. He arrived at 8:30 a.m. and left the review session at 1:30 p.m. R. Ex. 1. The review was conducted pursuant to the procedures outlined in P. Ex. 1, a copy of which was provided to the Petitioner by the Respondent before the review took place. The purpose of the review was to give the Petitioner an opportunity to examine the answer key and the questions asked on the examination, and to note in writing (on challenge sheets provided) his objections to the grading of particular questions by number. The procedure for examination review also provided that: Candidates may not copy any material provided for the review. No reference materials or electronic recording or photographic equipment may be brought into the review. No material may be taken out of the review. All reviews are subject to Departmental security requirements in order to insure the integrity of the examination. The review session on October 1, 1986, was conducted in a small room. The room was used by other people as well, and during the review there were conversations of people, phones ringing, and people coming in and out. Nonetheless, there does not appear to be any direct evidence that these distractions substantially impaired the Petitioner's ability to review his examination. During the review, the Petitioner submitted challenges to 20 examination questions by number. R. Ex. 1. Each of these written challenges identifies the examination question by number and provides a space for comments concerning the challenge. The procedure for examination review and challenge provides in part that "[a]ll objections must be submitted within sixty (60) days from the date of your request for a review. Objections will be analyzed by a committee of the Board of Podiatry and you will be notified of any decision." P. Ex. 1. (E.S. in original.) Before the review took place, the Petitioner was informed that he had a right "to appeal" from the "results" of his examination review. The "appeal" was to be initiated within thirty (30) days of his "receipt of . . . examination review results." The "appeal" was to contain specific reasons for the challenge, including why the Petitioner was "appealing," "what actions of the examiner(s) were unfair, and any objections made at your review." P. Ex. 1. (E.S. in original.) The Petitioner timely requested a formal administrative hearing. At the formal administrative hearing, the Petitioner presented evidence concerning five examination questions. T. 30. None of this evidence was by expert testimony, but the Petitioner referred to expert treatises in the field. The first question was to state the nerve located around the neck of head of the fibula. T. 30. Petitioner contends that his answer to the question, the common peroneal, is correct. Id. This question is not discussed or objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2; T. 71. The second question challenged at the hearing by the Petitioner was "what dorsal cutaneous nerve communicates with the sural nerve." T. 44, 45. The Petitioner contends that the correct answer to this question, his answer, is the lateral dorsal cutaneous nerve. Id. This question is not discussed or objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2; T. 71. The third question challenged by the Petitioner at the hearing was "what is the largest reservoir of blood in the body." T. 46. The Petitioner contends that his answer, the veins, is the correct answer. T. 47. This question is not discussed or objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2; T. 71. The fourth question challenged by the Petitioner at the hearing was what is the characteristic of metatarsus adductus. T. 48. The Petitioner contends that his answer, "styloid process, prominent styloid process, based on the concave in the concavity being reversed," is the correct answer. T. 49. This question is not discussed or objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2; T. 71. The fifth question challenged by the Petitioner at the hearing was never clearly stated by the Petitioner, but concerned "pathopneumonic of gouty arthritis." T. 49. The Petitioner never clearly identified the answer that he gave, but contended that his answer was partially right and that there was no other answer that he could have chosen. T. 49-50. It appears that this question was discussed and objected to in the written exam item challenges prepared by the Petitioner at the review session on October 1, 1986. R. Ex. 2, question 88. However, since the Petitioner never clearly demonstrated what the question was, or what the answer was, the testimony of the Petitioner was too unclear for there to be a finding that the answer he gave to the question was correct. The Petitioner admitted that during the review session (see R. Ex. 2) he did not provide the Respondent with all of the questions to which he had objections. T. 38. The Petitioner did not provide the Respondent with written objections to the first four questions discussed above within sixty (60) days of the review, and indeed, did not provide any such notice to the Respondent until the formal administrative hearing began. There is no evidence that the Petitioner would have passed the examination if the Respondent accepted his answer to the fifth question. The Petitioner testified that his ability to prepare for this hearing was impaired because he was not allowed to take anything into the review session and was not permitted to take anything out of the review session. He states that he could not adequately prepare for the hearing because he did not have references during the review session, and did not have a copy of the questions objected to in the review session or a copy of the examination for use at the hearing. The Petitioner represented himself without representation of a lawyer. There is no evidence that the Petitioner knew about the procedures for conducting discovery prior to a formal administrative hearing, and there is no evidence that prior to the hearing he sought any discovery of the written objections he made during the review session or of the examination questions.

Recommendation For these reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Podiatry, enter its final order finding that the Petitioner, Darall Jerome Moore, has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his 1986 examination for licensure as a Podiatrist was improperly graded, that the procedures for review of his examination were unfair, or that he should be given a passing grade on the 1986 examination. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, 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 10th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NUMBER 87-1725 The following are rulings upon findings of fact proposed by the parties, by number, which have been rejected. Findings of fact proposed by the Petitioner: 1. The record does not contain evidence (testimony or exhibits) to allow any conclusion as to the numerical grade received by the Petitioner. Thus, the finding proposed that the grade was 71.9 is rejected. There is insufficient evidence that the distractions during the review in fact substantially impaired the ability of the Petitioner to review the examination. The Petitioner did not testify that the noise or traffic caused him to be unable to concentrate or to fail to review the entire exam. See T. 28-29. The Petitioner completed twenty objections and left at 1:55 P.M., three hours before 5:00 P.M. The first sentence is rejected as not relevant. The Petitioner did not present any evidence to show how he was caused to be unable to prepare his case due to the scheduling of the hearing. It is officially recognized that the case was set for final hearing to commence August 10, 1987, by an order dated and entered May 1, 1987, and that the hearing date was changed to June 8, 1987, at the request of an attorney, Marc A. Tenney, received May 4, 1987. For these reasons, the second sentence is also rejected. Rejected for the reasons set forth in conclusions of law 2-4. The finding that it was very difficult to prepare for final hearing is rejected in finding of fact 19 and conclusion of law 6. Rejected in finding of fact 19 and conclusion of law 6. These findings are rejected in finding of fact 19 and conclusion of law 6. Rejected in findings of fact 11 through 14. Rejected in findings of fact 11 through 14. Findings of fact proposed by the Respondent: 2. The second sentence is rejected for lack of evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Marcelle Flanagan Executive Director Board of Podiatry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Darall Jerome Moore, D.P.M. 5455 27th Street South, Apt. 87 St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Chester G. Senf, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

# 8
OSPREY POINT NURSING CENTER vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 04-002450MPI (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:St. Petersburg, Florida Jul. 14, 2004 Number: 04-002450MPI Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2024
# 9
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs JUAN I. SEGUROLA, M.D., 11-004003MPI (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Aug. 10, 2011 Number: 11-004003MPI Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2012

Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED on this the /; day of , 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. MY : Oe: Dudek, Secfetary Agency for Health Care Administration Filed June 26, 2012 2:36 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies Furnished to: Ignacio J. Segurola, P.A. Mike Blackburn, Bureau Chief 3301 Ponde De Leon Boulevard, 3rd Floor Medicaid Program Integrity Coral Gables, Florida 33134 2727 Mahan Drive (Via U.S. Mail) Building 2, Mail Station 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Shena Grantham, Esquire Robert E. Meale Agency for Health Care Administration Administrative Law Judge 2727 Mahan Drive Division of Administrative Hearings Building 3, Mail Station 3 The Desoto Building Tallahassee, Florida 32308 1230 Apalachee Parkway (Interoffice Mail) Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (Via U.S. Mail) Inspector General Finance & Accounting (Interoffice Mail) (interoffice Mail) Health Quality Assurance Gordon McCleary (nteroffice Mail) (Interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been furnished to the person(s) named the above by the indicated means of delivery, on this as day of ae, 2012. . -- Richard Shoop, Esquire” Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Fax: (850) 921-0158 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 11-4003 MPI PROVIDER NO.: -67166500 vs. C.1. NO.: 12-0014-000 JUAN |. SEGUROLA, MD , Respondent. / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Petitioner, the STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, ("AHCA” or “Agency”), and Respondent, JUAN 1. SEGUROLA, MD, (‘PROVIDER’), by and through the undersigned, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1, The parties enter into this agreement for the purpose of memorializing the resolution to this matter. 2. PROVIDER is a Medicaid provider in the State of Florida, provider number 0671665-00, and was a provider during the audit period. 3. In its Sanction Only Final Audit Report, dated July 19, 2011, the Agency notified PROVIDER that the Agency was terminating PROVIDER'’s participation in the Medicaid program pursuant to Florida Statutes § 409.913(14), stating: (14) If the provider has been suspended or terminated from participation in the Medicaid program or the Medicare program by the Federal Government or any state, the agency must immediately suspend or terminate, as appropriate, the provider's participation in this state's Medicaid program for a period no less than that imposed by the Federal Government or any other state, and may not enroll Agency for Health Care Administration v. Juan |. Segurola. MD (Case No.: 11-4003MP1) Setilement Agreement Page 10f 5 such provider in this state’s Medicaid program while such foreign suspension or termination remains in effect. 4. In response to the audit report dated July 19, 2011, PROVIDER filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. 5. Subsequently, on August 15, 2011 and September 19, 2011, PROVIDER submitted documentation to AHCA illustrating that PROVIDER had voluntarily surrendered his medical license in Texas, which led to his exclusion from the Texas Medicaid program. Thus, PROVIDER was not “suspended or terminated" from the Medicaid program, in the manner contemplated by Florida Statutes §409.913(14). 6. The parties moved to relinquish jurisdiction back to the Agency pending settlement, and the Administrative Judge granted this request on October 5, 2011. 7. In light of the documentation submitted by PROVIDER, the Secretary has agreed to rescind the sanction that would terminate the PROVIDER from the Florida Medicaid program, pursuant to Florida Statutes §409.913(16)(j), stating that “[t]he Secretary of Health Care Administration may make a determination that imposition of a sanction or disincentive is not in the best interest of the Medicaid program, in which case a sanction or disincentive shall not be imposed.” 8. AHCA, accordingly, hereby rescinds the sanction imposed in the July 19, 2011 Sanction Only Audit Report 9. AHCA reserves the right to enforce this Agreement under the laws of the State of Florida, the Rules of the Medicaid Program, and all other applicable rules and regulations. 10. This settlement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or error by either party with respect to this case or any other matter. Agency for Health Care Administration v. Juan |. Segurola, MD (Case No.: 11-4003MPI) Settlement Agreement Page 2 of 5 11. The signatories to this Agreement, acting in a representative capacity, represent that they are duly authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties. 12. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the provisions of the laws of Florida. Venue for any action arising from this Agreement shall be in Leon County, Florida. 13. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between PROVIDER and AHCA, including anyone acting for, associated with or employed by them, concerning all matters and supersedes any prior discussions, agreements or understandings, there are no promises, representations or agreements between PROVIDER and AHCA other than as set forth herein. No modification or waiver of any provision shall be valid unless a written amendment to the Agreement is completed and properly executed by the parties. 14. This is an Agreement of Settlement and Compromise, made in recognition that the parties may have different or incorrect understandings, information and contentions, as to facts and Jaw, and with each party compromising and settling any potential correctness or incorrectness of its understandings, information and contentions as to facts and law, so that no misunderstanding or misinformation shall be a ground for rescission hereof. 15. PROVIDER expressly waives in this matter its right to any hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 or 120.57, Florida Statutes, the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Agency, and all further and other proceedings to which it may be entitled by law or rules of thé Agency regarding this proceeding and any and all Agency for Health Care Administration v. Juan |. Segurola, MO (Case No.: 11-4003MP!) Settiement Agreement Page 3 of 5 issues raised herein. PROVIDER further agrees that it shall not challenge or contest any Final Order entered in this matter which is consistent with the terms of this settlement agreement in any forum now or in the future available to it, including the right to any administrative proceeding, circuit or federal court action or any appeal, 16. PROVIDER does hereby discharge the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, and its agents, representatives, and attorneys of and from all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, damages, losses and expenses, of any and every nature whatsoever, arising out of or in any way related to this matter, AHCA’s actions herein, including, but not limited to, any claims that were or may be asserted in any federal or state court or administrative forum, including any claims arising out of this agreement. 17. The parties agree to bear their own attorney's fees and costs, if any. 18. This Agreement is and shall be deemed jointly drafted and written by all parties to it and shall not be construed or interpreted against the party originating or preparing it. 19. To the extent that any provision of this Agreement is prohibited by law for any reason, such provision shall be effective to the extent not so prohibited, and such prohibition shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement. 20. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding on each party's successors, assigns, heirs, administrators, representatives and trustees. 21. Alltimes stated herein are of the essence of this Agreement. 22. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect upon execution by the respective parties in counterpart. Agency for Health Care Administration v. Juan | Segurola, MD (Case No.. 14-4003MPI) Settlement Agreement Page 4 of 5 JUAN |. SEGUROLA, MD, poy rot Dated: (oe fre (ei 2014 BY: Neves LT. S fqQute ty hrf, (Print name) AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. 3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, FL 32308-5403 spettor Géner. William Roberts General Counsel! CDep uly) . J2a— Dated: fe I ,20TT /2— Dated: z/1 ae , 20477 /?— Kim Kellum Chief Medicaid Counsel Tub Dated: JU q , 20tT yi Shera Grantham} Assistant General Counsel Dates [Nog (aol Agency for Health Care Administration v. Juan |. Segurola, MD (Case No.: t1-4003MPI) Settlement Agreement Page 5 of 5

# 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