As a Licensee facing revocation, the most severe
punishment possible, the Licensee has a fundamental
due process right to meaningful notice and opportunity
to be heard. By legislation, the Agency has to consider
causation, substantial causes, and mitigating evidence,
and cannot cabin evidence within a strict-liability
analysis. Against that legislation with its governing
rules and regulations granting pre-hearing discovery,
the Licensee was precluded from discovery and presenting evidence in key defenses showing the nursing
home deaths were legally, proximately caused by the
failures of others to properly plan, prepare, and manage a natural-hazards emergency, and to take responsive action despite those third-parties' promises to do
so. The Licensee was also precluded from presenting
evidence of another key defense: that it followed the
same standard of care that virtually every other nursing home in the state followed. Despite legislative
mandate that a license not be revoked under a strict-
liability rationale and despite no notice of strict liability in the charging documents, the Administrative Law
Judge ("ALJ") and the Agency revoked Petitioner's license without considering causation (deemed not relevant), and imposed strict liability on the basis that the
decedents were the Licensee's residents when the Hurricane barreled up Florida.

The questions presented, therefore, are:

1. Does the refusal to consider causation, substantial causes, and mitigating evidence—
central to this licensure revocation—violate
the Due Process Clause of the Constitution?

2. Does the imposition of strict liability without
notice of this standard to the Licensee violate
the Due Process Clause?

3. Does the denial of discovery into causation
and mitigating circumstances preclude the Licensee's "opportunity to be heard" and violate
the Due Process Clause?

Does the refusal to consider causation, substantial causes, and mitigating evidence—central to this licensure revocation—violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution?