What did the court decide?

The court affirmed the Agency for Health Care Administration's decision and denied the challenge brought by 200 Venice Operating LLC.

Who is affected by this decision?

The primary parties affected are 200 Venice Operating LLC (the appellant) and the Agency for Health Care Administration (the appellee); the ruling upholds the Agency's administrative action.

Does this opinion explain the legal reasoning?

No; the court issued a brief per curiam affirmance without extended written reasoning, so the opinion does not provide detailed analysis.

Can this decision be further appealed?

A timely and authorized motion for rehearing or other post-judgment relief may be filed under Florida appellate rules, and further review (such as discretionary review) may be available depending on the case specifics.

200 Venice Operating LLC, Venice Center for Independent and Assisted Living v. Agency for Healthcare Administration

Docket 1D2025-0449

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

AdministrativeAffirmed

Filed: Apr 27, 2026 · 4 days ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Administrative
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 1D2025-0449

Appeal from the Agency for Health Care Administration.

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Agency for Health Care Administration's decision in a dispute with 200 Venice Operating LLC, which operates the Venice Center for Independent and Assisted Living. The appeal challenged an administrative action by the Agency; the appellate court issued a brief per curiam opinion on April 27, 2026, concluding the Agency's action should stand. The opinion provided no extended discussion and the three-judge panel concurred, leaving the Agency's ruling intact and the appellant's challenge unsuccessful.

Issue Decided

Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration's decision adverse to 200 Venice Operating LLC should be reversed on appeal.

Court's Reasoning

The court issued a per curiam affirmance without an extended written opinion, indicating the panel found no reversible error in the Agency's action. Because the opinion contains no detailed analysis, the appellate court presumably concluded the administrative record and applicable law supported the Agency's decision. The concurrence by all three judges shows a unanimous determination that the Agency's decision should be upheld.

Parties

Appellant: 200 Venice Operating LLC, d/b/a Venice Center for Independent and Assisted Living
Appellee: State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration
Attorney: Bruce D. Lamb
Attorney: John A. Schifino
Attorney: Savannah Spears
Attorney: Christopher B. Lunny
Attorney: M. Drew Parker
Attorney: Robert W. Skrob
Judge: Per Curiam (Bilbrey, Nordby, and Treadwell, JJ.)

Key Dates

Decision date: 2026-04-27

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider post-judgment motions
If the appellant wishes to challenge the result further, they should evaluate and, if appropriate, file a timely motion for rehearing or rehearing en banc under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330 or 9.331.
2
Consult appellate counsel about further review
Discuss with counsel whether to seek discretionary review (for example, via a petition to the Florida Supreme Court) and assess jurisdictional grounds and deadlines.
3
Comply with the Agency decision
If no further appellate relief is sought or available, the appellant should take steps to comply with the Agency for Health Care Administration's decision and any accompanying administrative requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court affirmed the Agency for Health Care Administration's decision and denied the challenge brought by 200 Venice Operating LLC.
Who is affected by this decision?: The primary parties affected are 200 Venice Operating LLC (the appellant) and the Agency for Health Care Administration (the appellee); the ruling upholds the Agency's administrative action.
Does this opinion explain the legal reasoning?: No; the court issued a brief per curiam affirmance without extended written reasoning, so the opinion does not provide detailed analysis.
Can this decision be further appealed?: A timely and authorized motion for rehearing or other post-judgment relief may be filed under Florida appellate rules, and further review (such as discretionary review) may be available depending on the case specifics.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2025-0449
                 _____________________________

200 VENICE OPERATING LLC,
d/b/a VENICE CENTER FOR
INDEPENDENT AND ASSISTED
LIVING,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR
HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________


On appeal from the Agency for Health Care Administration.
Kimberly R. Smoak, Deputy Secretary.


                        April 27, 2026

PER CURIAM.

    AFFIRMED.

BILBREY, NORDBY, and TREADWELL, JJ., concur.
               _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________


Bruce D. Lamb, John A. Schifino, and Savannah Spears of
Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Christopher B. Lunny, M. Drew Parker, and Robert W. Skrob of
Radey Law Firm, Tallahassee, for Appellee.




                             2