The 2023 Florida Statutes
|
||||||
|
Plaintiff has argued in its papers and at the hearing that section 489.147(4)(b), which prohibits any "unlicensed person" from engaging in acts prohibited by section 489.147, can plausibly be read to prohibit covered speech by any member of the general public in Florida. For example, in the wake of a damaging hurricane, one need not fear a $10,000 fine or criminal prosecution for engaging in "unlicensed contracting" in the event she orally encourages her neighbor to contact a roofer for the purpose of filing an insurance claim. However, Plaintiff argues, based on the plain language of the new law, the same may not be true if that individual calls, texts, or emails her neighbor to communicate the same message via "electronic communication." While this Court understands Plaintiff's argument, the statute could also be read to prohibit actors who already engage in "unlicensed contracting," under section 489.13( 1), from engaging in additional prohibited acts set out in section 489.147. In other words, the challenged law may be read to expand the scope of what constitutes "unlicensed contracting," in the context of how "unlicensed contracting" has already been defined under… As explained above, the defense of in pari delicto requires that the parties be wrongdoers of relatively equal fault. In the instant case, petitioners contend that the parties are in pari delicto because T & G knew that Earth Trades was unlicensed. They point out that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) may issue a cease and desist notice to and impose fines of up to $5,000 on anyone who knowingly hires an unlicensed contractor. § 455.228(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). This fact, however, means only that T & G is also a wrongdoer. Petitioners fail to mention that unlicensed contracting is a crime for which a first offense is a first-degree misdemeanor and a second is a third-degree felony. § 489.127(1)-(2), Fla. Stat. (2005). In addition, DBPR may impose a fine of $10,000 on any person found guilty of unlicensed contracting. § 489.13( 3), Fla. Stat. (2005). More importantly, as explained above, the Legislature in 2003 amended section 489.128, removing language that made contracts with unlicensed contractors unenforceable by either party and declaring instead that only the unlicensed contractor had no enforceable contract or lien rights with regard… . . . . § 489.13(d)(l)(i) permitted it to avoid South Coast’s Medicare liabilities simply by submitting, along . . . Mission argues that its submission of this form complied with § 489.13(d) (effective until September . . . the alternative, Mission' maintains it is entitled to the benefit of the retroactivity provision in § 489.13 . . . until that date, the Laguna Beach campus did not meet,“all requirements” within the meaning of section 489.13 . . . to shoehorn its predicament • into the retroactivity provisions of the special rule in 42 C.F.R. § 489.13 . . .
. . . . §§ 424.57, 489.13(c)(2) (2005). . . .
. . . . § 489.13(3), Fla. Stat. (2005). . . .
. . . . § 489.13(c)(2), a NSC reviews a supplier’s initial application to determine whether to issue the supplier . . .
. . . . § 489.13(d)(l)(i) instead of 42 C.F.R. § 489.13(c)(2) because it was previously accredited by the Joint . . . See 42 C.F.R. § 489.13(c)(2)(H). . . . it can be granted an ECD. 42 C.F.R. § 489.13(d)(l)(i) (emphasis added). . . . 42 C.F.R. § 489.13(d)(2). . . . As applicable here, section 489.13(d) provides: (1) General rule. . . .
. . . . § 489.13(a), which is found in the regulations governing “Provider Agreements Under Medicare” (see . . . Plaintiff contends that the Secretary violated § 489.13(a) in denying plaintiff’s request to be certified . . . The Secretary argues that § 489.13(a), upon which plaintiff relies, simply governs “when the provider . . . Relying on § 489.13(b), the Secretary argues that a facility will not be accepted into the Medicare program . . . Section 489.13(b) provides: (b) All Federal requirements are not met on the date of the survey. . . .
. . . . § 489.13, which provides in relevant part, with respect to providers: Section 489.13 Effective Date . . . In both instances, 42 C.F.R. § 489.13 was applied to plaintiffs’ ESRD facility, with the result that . . . The AU stated that although BMA was “technically correct” in its assertion that § 489.13 was a provider . . . It specifically rejected the applicability of § 489.13, however, on the theory that it applied only to . . .
. . . As a result, Olive paid the asserted $99,727.39 estate tax deficiency and $12,-489.13 additional interest . . .
. . . The additional estate tax of $99,727.39 was paid on October 19, 1976, and additional interest of $12,-489.13 . . .
. . . Thus, the remaining $489.13 is disallowed. See Vecchione v. . . .
. . . 3,629.96 One large spiral notebook seized during tbe raid revealed net wagering income in 1965 of $489.13 . . .
. . . Profit at 10 percent on the foregoing operations_ 489.13 5,380. 39 Before it filed this suit, the plaintiff . . .
. . . is deducted the salary due the agent from April 1 to July 28, 1865, the assumed date of his death — $489.13 . . .