Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

485 So. 2d 871, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 741, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7003

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 26, 1986·No. No. 85-1577·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm and, in doing so, acknowledge that we have approved the appellee administrative agency’s interpretation of its rule, Rule 10-5.08(l)(e), to allow for a grace period for competing applicants for a certificate of need only where no other letter of intent has been filed more than five working days prior to the filing deadline. In other words, the agency permits a grace period for seeking certificates of need for competing applicants when the only other applications have been filed within five days of the deadline. We believe this to be a fair and reasonable interpretation of the rule. An agency’s interpretation of its own rule is entitled to deference and the party challenging the agency’s interpretation must establish that the interpretation * is clearly erroneous. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 427 So.2d 716 (Fla.1983).

ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., and CO-WART, EDWARD D., Associate Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm and, in doing so, acknowledge that we have approved the appellee administrative agency’s interpretation of its rule, Rule 10-5.08(l)(e), to allow for a grace period for competing applicants for a certificate of need only where no other letter of intent has been filed more than five working days prior to the filing deadline. In other words, the agency permits a grace period for seeking certificates of need for competing applicants when the only other applications have been filed within five days of the deadline. We believe this to be a fair and reasonable interpretation of the rule. An agency’s interpretation of its own rule is entitled to deference and the party challenging the agency’s interpretation must establish that the interpretation * is clearly erroneous. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 427 So.2d 716 (Fla.1983).

ANSTEAD and WALDEN, JJ., and CO-WART, EDWARD D., Associate Judge, concur.

Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 485 So. 2d 871, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 741, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7003 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

485 So. 2d 871 (Good Samaritan Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related