University Medical Park of Tampa, Ltd. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

University Medical Park of Tampa, Ltd. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

501 So. 2d 692, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 415, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6519

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 1987

DocketNo. 85-2679

StatusPublished

This text of 501 So. 2d 692 (University Medical Park of Tampa, Ltd. 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

University Medical Park of Tampa, Ltd. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 501 So. 2d 692, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 415, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6519 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

University Medical Park of Tampa has appealed from a final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) denying its application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 130-bed acute care hospital providing obstetrical and gynecological services.

We have considered each of the appellant’s points on appeal and have examined the voluminous record. We have concluded that the certificate of need was not improperly denied. HRS’ factual findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and this court is powerless to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. We are compelled to defer to the agency’s findings of fact even in the circumstance where our assessment of the evidence would persuade us to a different conclusion. §§ 120.68(10) and 381.494(8)(e), Fla. Stat. (1985). We note in particular that HRS considered the competitive effect of the proposed hospital upon existing institutions providing obstetrical and gynecological services. The factual findings as to that issue are supported by competent substantial evidence.

Moreover, HRS did not improperly limit discovery or exclude relevant evidence. HRS evaluated the record before it consistent with the criteria governing its review of the hearing officer’s recommended order.

Section 381.494(8)(e), Florida Statutes (1985), imposes rigid strictures upon our review powers; it directs that we affirm final agency action unless we find the agency’s decision to be arbitrary, capricious, or not in compliance with Chapter 381. See University Community Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 472 So.2d 756, 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Based upon the record before us, we cannot find any impermissible conduct on the part of HRS.

Mindful of our role in matters of this kind, we affirm the final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

HALL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

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

FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.

University Medical Park of Tampa has appealed from a final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) denying its application for a certificate of need to construct and operate a 130-bed acute care hospital providing obstetrical and gynecological services.

We have considered each of the appellant’s points on appeal and have examined the voluminous record. We have concluded that the certificate of need was not improperly denied. HRS’ factual findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and this court is powerless to substitute its judgment for that of the agency. We are compelled to defer to the agency’s findings of fact even in the circumstance where our assessment of the evidence would persuade us to a different conclusion. §§ 120.68(10) and 381.494(8)(e), Fla. Stat. (1985). We note in particular that HRS considered the competitive effect of the proposed hospital upon existing institutions providing obstetrical and gynecological services. The factual findings as to that issue are supported by competent substantial evidence.

Moreover, HRS did not improperly limit discovery or exclude relevant evidence. HRS evaluated the record before it consistent with the criteria governing its review of the hearing officer’s recommended order.

Section 381.494(8)(e), Florida Statutes (1985), imposes rigid strictures upon our review powers; it directs that we affirm final agency action unless we find the agency’s decision to be arbitrary, capricious, or not in compliance with Chapter 381. See University Community Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 472 So.2d 756, 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Based upon the record before us, we cannot find any impermissible conduct on the part of HRS.

Mindful of our role in matters of this kind, we affirm the final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.

HALL and SANDERLIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 So. 2d 692, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 415, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/university-medical-park-of-tampa-ltd-v-department-of-health-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack