Florida DCA: Montone v Department of Health Florida Appeal Docketed

• Adam Montone has filed an administrative appeal against the Florida Department of Health.
• The case, identified as `2D2025-1869`, is before the Florida Second District Court of Appeal.
• The appeal was noted on September 2, 2026, with Montone representing himself `pro se`.
• Sarah Young Hodges, Chief Appellate, is representing the Florida Department of Health.
• The specific details of the underlying administrative dispute are not disclosed in the available record.

Crucially, the court's opinion, the specific facts of the dispute, or the nature of the Department of Health's original decision are not available.

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal has formally docketed an administrative appeal, identified by the case number `2D2025-1869`. This proceeding, titled `Montone v Department of Health Florida`, involves Adam Montone as the appellant, who is representing himself `pro se`. The appellee in this matter is the Florida Department of Health, which is represented by Chief Appellate Sarah Young Hodges. The appeal was filed or noted on September 2, 2026.

This legal action originates as a direct challenge to a decision or action taken by the Department of Health. While the specific details of the underlying dispute are not disclosed in the available record, the case name indicates a formal challenge to an administrative ruling. Such appeals are a standard mechanism for individuals to seek judicial review of state agency determinations, ensuring due process and adherence to legal standards within the Florida legal framework.

The `Florida Second District Court of Appeal` functions as an intermediate appellate court within the state's judicial system, primarily tasked with reviewing decisions from lower courts and administrative agencies. In the context of an `Administrative appeal Florida`, this court assesses whether the agency's actions complied with statutory requirements, constitutional principles, and whether its findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence. The `Florida Department of Health appeal` specifically falls under this purview, as the Department is a state agency with broad regulatory powers, including the oversight of various professional licensing boards.

The Department of Health supervises numerous professional boards, including the Board of Physical Therapy, which is relevant given the source's title `Montone v Board of Physical Therapy`. While the immediate appellee in this case is the Department of Health, the underlying administrative action could pertain to a licensing decision or a disciplinary matter initially handled by one of these boards, subsequently reviewed or affirmed by the Department. Adam Montone's decision to proceed `pro se` means he is navigating the complexities of the appellate legal system without legal counsel, a common but often challenging path in administrative appeals. Sarah Young Hodges, serving as Chief Appellate, represents the Department of Health, indicating the agency's formal defense of its prior decision.

The `2D2025-1869 case` signifies a formal challenge to a state agency's decision, highlighting the avenues available for individuals to contest administrative rulings in Florida. However, the current public record provides only the procedural identification of this `Florida Department of Health appeal`. Crucially, the court's opinion, the specific facts of the dispute, or the nature of the Department of Health's original decision are not available. This absence of substantive information means that while the case's existence is confirmed, its broader legal implications or specific impact on `Florida physical therapy licensing appeal` or other regulatory areas cannot be assessed at this stage.

Without access to the underlying administrative order or the appellate court's reasoning, it is impossible to determine the precise legal questions being addressed or the potential precedents that might arise from this case. The filing on September 2, 2026, marks a point in the appellate process, but the outcome or any substantive rulings remain to be seen. This case, therefore, currently serves as a procedural marker in the ongoing interaction between a citizen and a state regulatory body, awaiting further judicial development.

This article provides only case identification details for an appeal. Without the court's opinion or the underlying facts, there is no practical legal implication or actionable advice for lawyers or compliance officers.

Source: Information derived from court filing.