FRANKLIN AMBULANCE SERVICE, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Franklin Ambulance Service appeals the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' revocation of its ambulance service license. The court affirms the revocation, finding the service violated multiple administrative rules concerning EMT availability, telephone access, and record-keeping.
The court affirmed the license revocation, holding that the administrative rule requiring a certified EMT to attend patients means the EMT must be free to attend patients rather than driving the vehicle, and the service violated this requirement as well as rules on telephone access and record-keeping.
[1] An administrative agency's interpretation of its own rule is entitled to great weight.
[2] Failure to maintain continuous telephone access by the public constitutes a violation of administrative rules governing ambulance services.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“failure to have a certified emergency medical technician ... free to attend the patient (rather than driving the vehicle) constitutes a violation”
The hearing officer's and HRS's interpretation that an EMT must be available to attend to patients rather than driving, establishing the violation of the administrative rule
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFranklin Ambulance Service transported patients in ambulances with certified EMTs driving the vehicles while non-certified drivers attended patients i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Franklin Ambulance Service, Inc. (Service) appeals from a final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) revoking the Service’s ambulance service license. We affirm.
HRS alleged the Service was guilty of numerous statutory and administrative rule violations. Following an administrative hearing, the hearing officer issued a Recommended Order recommending the Service’s license not be renewed, but without prejudice to the filing of a new license application after 90 days. The hearing officer concluded the service: 1) failed to maintain continuous telephone access by the public in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-66.55(2)(c), and former Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-66.32(l)(b); 2) failed to have a certified emergency medical technician attending the patient in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-66.49(2)(d), and former Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-66.32(4)(b); and 3) kept false records in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-66.60(2), and the implicit requirement of former Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-66.33(2). HRS issued a final order adopting the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The Service admits that on occasion it transported patients in an ambulance with a certified emergency medical technician (EMT) driving the ambulance and the regular ambulance driver, a non-EMT, in the back of the ambulance with the patient. Yet the Service contends the administrative rule that a certified EMT attend patients being transported in ambulances does not preclude the attending EMT from also driving the ambulance. The hearing officer found, and HRS agrees, that “failure to have a certified emergency medical technician ... free to attend the patient (rather than driving the vehicle) constitutes a violation....”
An administrative interpretation of an agency’s own rule is entitled to great weight. State, Dept. of Commerce, Division of Labor v. Matthews Corp., 358 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In addition, HRS’ interpretation comports with the plain meaning of the rule. There is competent substantial evidence that the Service, on several occasions, failed to have a certified EMT attending the patient.
The findings that the Service failed to maintain continuous telephone access by the public and kept false records are also supported by competent substantial evidence.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Birdie Woodley v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 505 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…exception request is only submitted if the applicant first requests an extension of time. An agency’s interpretation of, its own rule is entitled to great weight. E.g., Franklin Ambulance Service v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 450 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). But judicial deference to agency interpretation is not absolute. When the agency’s construction clearly contradicts the unambiguous language of the rule, the construction is clearly erroneous and cannot stand. Kearse v. Departme…
-
Citizens OF the State OF Fla. v. Wilson, 568 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1990)…gency’s interpretation of its own rules is entitled to great deference. E.g., Woodley v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 505 So. 2d 676, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Franklin Ambulance Serv. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 450 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The burden is on the party seeking review to “overcome the presumption of correctness attached to orders of the PSC.” Pan Am. World Airways, 427 So. 2d at 717; Manatee County, 504 So. 2d at 765. That burden is satisfied if…
-
Dykes M. Young v. Dep't of Admin., 524 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…give deference to an agency’s construction of its own rules, it is also our duty to adopt and approve a construction of the rule, if possible, that will sustain its validity. Franklin Ambulance Service v. Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 450 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). We conclude that the quoted language of the rule is not applicable to a contingent beneficiary such as Dykes Young, who was designated by the plan member to receive benefits under the plan should the primary beneficiary predece…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Matthews Corp., 358 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)