Manasota-88, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manasota-88, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

500 So. 2d 705, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 229, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6210

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 1987

DocketNo. BK-402

StatusPublished

This text of 500 So. 2d 705 (Manasota-88, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manasota-88, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 500 So. 2d 705, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 229, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6210 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellants seek review of an administrative order entered in a section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, rule challenge proceeding. The administrative order was entered after an evidentiary hearing, and it was determined that the contested rules had not been shown to be invalid. We affirm the order appealed.

Appellants Manasota-88 Inc. and Concerned Citizens of Citrus County sought to contest the validity of Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services proposed rules 10D-91.1101 through 91.1109. These rules establish radiation standards for new dwellings constructed on certain affected lands. After an evidentiary hearing was held the hearing officer determined that Concerned Citizens had not made the necessary showing to demonstrate standing. Concerned Citizens was therefore dismissed as a party.

Appellant Manasota was found to have standing, and the hearing officer considered the merits of Manasota’s rule challenge.¹ Manasota contended that the proposed rules are statutorily and constitutionally inadequate in that they do not fully abate radiation or entirely preserve the public health. Manasota also suggested that economic considerations and legislative influence had impermissibly intruded into the rule making process. The hearing officer rejected these challenges, entering a thorough and detailed order addressing each contention, and finding that Manasota had not shown any invalidity with regard to the proposed rules.

We agree with the hearing officer’s conclusions, as espoused in the final order. We thus determine that no point of reversible error has been presented for our review, and we affirm the order appealed.

BOOTH, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur.

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

WENTWORTH, Judge.

Appellants seek review of an administrative order entered in a section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, rule challenge proceeding. The administrative order was entered after an evidentiary hearing, and it was determined that the contested rules had not been shown to be invalid. We affirm the order appealed.

Appellants Manasota-88 Inc. and Concerned Citizens of Citrus County sought to contest the validity of Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services proposed rules 10D-91.1101 through 91.1109. These rules establish radiation standards for new dwellings constructed on certain affected lands. After an evidentiary hearing was held the hearing officer determined that Concerned Citizens had not made the necessary showing to demonstrate standing. Concerned Citizens was therefore dismissed as a party.

Appellant Manasota was found to have standing, and the hearing officer considered the merits of Manasota’s rule challenge.¹ Manasota contended that the proposed rules are statutorily and constitutionally inadequate in that they do not fully abate radiation or entirely preserve the public health. Manasota also suggested that economic considerations and legislative influence had impermissibly intruded into the rule making process. The hearing officer rejected these challenges, entering a thorough and detailed order addressing each contention, and finding that Manasota had not shown any invalidity with regard to the proposed rules.

We agree with the hearing officer’s conclusions, as espoused in the final order. We thus determine that no point of reversible error has been presented for our review, and we affirm the order appealed.

BOOTH, C.J., and ZEHMER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 So. 2d 705, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 229, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manasota-88-inc-v-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-fladistctapp-1987.