STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
ANTHONY GLENN ROGERS, M.D., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 06-1940FC
) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF ) MEDICINE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this case on August 21, 2006, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Patricia M. Hart, a duly-designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: C. William Berger, Esquire
One Boca Place, Suite 337W 2255 Glades Road
Boca Raton, Florida 33486
For Respondent: John E. Terrel, Esquire
Michael D. Milnes, Esquire Department of Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Pursuant to the order of the First District Court of Appeal dated October 18, 2005, the issue before the Division of Administrative Hearings is a determination of the amount of
attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded for the administrative proceeding in Department of Health v. Anthony Glenn Rogers,
M.D., DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL, and for the appellate proceeding styled Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D. v. Department of Health, Case No. 1D04-1153 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 18, 2005).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On October 18, 2005, the District Court of Appeal for the First District of Florida issued an opinion in the case of Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D. v. Department of Health, Case
No. 1D04-1153 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 18, 2005), in which it reversed in part the Final Order of the Department of Health ("Department") and remanded the matter to the Department of Health for entry of a final order consistent with the court's opinion. The First District Court of Appeal also entered an order on October 18, 2005, that provided:
Appellant's motion for attorney's fees is granted on the authority of
section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, and the cause is remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a determination of the amount to be awarded for the administrative proceeding and the appellate proceeding.
Anthony Glenn Rogers filed his Petition to Set Attorney's Fees and Costs Amount with the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 30, 2006, together with his own affidavit and the affidavits of his attorneys, Lisa Shearer Nelson and C. William Berger.
Pursuant to notice, the hearing on the amount of attorney's fees and costs was held on August 21, 2006.
At the hearing, Mr. Berger, Dr. Rogers' counsel, requested permission to submit amended affidavits for himself and Lisa Shearer Nelson to correct the amounts of attorneys' fees and costs identified in the original affidavits and to amend the Petition to Set Attorney's Fees and Costs Amount to reflect the corrected amounts. The Department objected to the amendment of Ms. Nelson's affidavit, in which an additional 17.3 hours were claimed for May and an additional 1.9 hours were claimed for June 2006. After hearing argument from counsel, Dr. Rogers was granted leave to file an amendment to his petition and to file an amended affidavit for Mr. Berger , in which he decreased the number of hours claimed, and an amended affidavit for
Ms. Nelson, together with supporting documentation. Dr. Rogers was given 10 days from the date of the hearing to file these documents or to request an extension of time to file the documents, and the Department indicated that it would not contest the number of hours claimed in Ms. Nelson's amended affidavit.
Dr. Rogers filed Mr. Berger’s amended affidavit and the amendments to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the petition on August 24, 2006, followed by a correction to the amended paragraph 10, which was filed August 28, 2006. Dr. Rogers filed Ms. Nelson's
Supplemental Affidavit of Lisa Shearer Nelson Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs on September 5, 2006, outside the 10- day period within which he was to file the amended. The total number of hours claimed by Ms. Nelson in the Supplemental Affidavit is the same as the number of hours reflected in the statements provided to the Department on August 17, 2006, and in Mr. Berger's representations at the hearing. In its Proposed Final Order, the Department objected to Ms. Nelson's Supplemental Affidavit being considered because it was filed untimely. The Department having shown no prejudice because of the late-filing, Ms. Nelson's Supplemental Affidavit dated August 29, 2006, is accepted.
At the hearing, Dr. Rogers testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of Mr. Berger. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 6 were offered and received into evidence; Petitioner's Exhibit 6 was Mr. Berger's amended affidavit. The Department did not present the testimony of any witnesses, but Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 5 were offered and received into evidence.
At the Department's request, official recognition was taken of Sections 57.071 and 120.595, Florida Statutes (2006),1 and of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-8.001 (effective
May 1998).
The one-volume transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 6, 2006.
The parties had agreed to file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than September 20, 2006. On September 15, 2006, Dr. Rogers filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time for Filing Declaration of Albert J. Garcia and for Filing Petitioner's PRO.2 The time for filing proposed orders was extended to September 29, 2006; the Department timely filed its proposed order, and Dr. Rogers filed his proposed order on October 2, 2006. Both proposed orders have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Final Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made:
The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, and the Board of Medicine ("Board") within the Department is the entity responsible for entering final orders imposing disciplinary action for violations of the laws regulating the practice of medicine. See
§§ 455.225 and 458.331(2), Fla. Stat.
On January 4, 2002, the Department of Health filed an Administrative Complaint charging Dr. Rogers with violations of Section 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (1998).3 The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which assigned the matter DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL.
The case was heard on May 7, 2002, by Administrative Law Judge Michael J. Parrish. Judge Parrish entered his Recommended Order on February 21, 2003, in which he found that the Department had failed to prove violations of Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998), and recommended dismissal of those charges. Judge Parrish found that the Department had proven a violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), failing to keep medical records as required by rule, and he recommended that Dr. Rogers be required to pay a $1,000.00 administrative fine and attend a Florida Medical Association record-keeping course as the penalty for the violation.
The Board entered its Final Order on February 17, 2004, in which it adopted its own findings of fact and conclusions of law; found Dr. Rogers guilty of all three charges in the Administrative Complaint; and imposed a penalty on Dr. Rogers consisting of a $10,000 administrative fine, completing of a drug course sponsored by the University of South Florida, completion of a Florida Medical Association record-keeping course, and two years' probation, during which he was not permitted to practice medicine unless his practice was monitored quarterly by a physician approved by the Board.
Dr. Rogers appealed the Board's Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal, challenging the Board's determination that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(q)
and (t), Florida Statutes (1998). Dr. Rogers filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs based on Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes.
In addition, Dr. Rogers filed a Motion for Stay of Final Order, which the Board opposed. The district court denied the motion for stay in an order entered April 2, 2004, and
Dr. Rogers proceeded to comply with the terms of the two-year probationary period imposed by the Board, as well as fulfilling the other requirements set forth in the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004.
In an opinion issued on October 18, 2005, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Board's Final Order with respect to its determination that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998), and remanded the matter to the Board for entry of a Final Order consistent with its opinion. The district court held in its opinion that the Board had erroneously re-weighed the evidence and had rejected findings of fact in the administrative law judge's Recommended Order that were supported by competent substantial evidence. The district court also entered on October 18, 2005, the order granting Dr. Rogers's motion for attorneys' fees and costs that is the subject of this proceeding.
The district court's mandate issued on February 23, 2006, and, on April 21, 2006, the Board entered a Final Order on Remand adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law in Judge Parrish's Recommended Order, finding that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), and imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine on Dr. Rogers and requiring him to attend a medical record-keeping course.
Based on the Amended Affidavit of C. William Berger filed August 24, 2006, the total number of hours Mr. Berger spent in representing Dr. Rogers in the administrative proceeding in DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL is 79.75, a total that the Department does not challenge. Mr. Berger's billing rate was
$300.00 per hour, a rate that the Department accepts as reasonable. The total amount of attorney's fees paid to Mr. Berger for his representation of Dr. Rogers through the
administrative proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings was, therefore, $23,925.00.
Dr. Rogers was ultimately found to have violated one count of the three-count Administrative Complaint filed against him by the Department, the count in which the Department alleged that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), by failing to keep adequate medical records related to the patient that was the subject of the charges against him. Mr. Berger did not record in his billing
statements the amount of time he spent researching this charge, preparing for hearing on this charge, or addressing this charge in the Proposed Recommended Order he filed in 02-0080PL.
It is reasonable that Mr. Berger spent 10 percent of the hours included in his billing statements preparing
Dr. Rogers's defense to the charge that he failed to keep adequate medical records.4 Accordingly, Mr. Berger's attorney's fees will be reduced by 10 percent, or by $2,392.50, for a total of $21,532.50.
In reaching the percentage by which Mr. Berger's fees should be reduced, consideration has been given to the amount of the fees in relationship to the failure to prevail on the medical-records violation, to the seriousness of the alleged violations on which Dr. Rogers prevailed before both the administrative law judge and on appeal,5 and the penalty ranges that the Board could impose for the violations with which
Dr. Rogers was charged.6
Based on the Supplemental Affidavit of Lisa Shearer Nelson Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed September 5, 2006, Ms. Nelson claimed that she spent a total of 187.1 hours "from the issuance of the final order of the Board of Medicine through the appeal and remand and initial preparation of the petition for attorney's fees and costs." Ms. Nelson's billing statements reflect that she represented Dr. Rogers during the
appellate proceedings before the First District Court of Appeal in Case No. 1D04-1153 and before the Board on remand from the district court. Ms. Nelson's billing rate was $250.00 per hour, a rate that the Department accepts as reasonable. The total amount of attorney's fees paid by Dr. Rogers to Ms. Nelson for her representation was, therefore, $46,775.00.
A review of the billing statements attached to Ms. Nelson's supplemental affidavit reveals that the final
billing statement, dated June 9, 2006, was for "preparation of petition for fees and costs; preparation of affidavit re same." Dr. Rogers was billed for 1.9 hours in this billing statement, for a total of $475.00. Because the work done by Ms. Nelson reflected in this billing statement did not involve the appellate proceeding arising out of the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004, the hours claimed by Ms. Nelson are reduced by 1.9 hours, for a total of 185.2 hours. Accordingly,
Ms. Nelson's attorney's fees for her representation of Dr. Rogers on appeal total $46,300.00.
The total costs identified in Mr. Berger's Amended Affidavit and in the billing statements attached to the Amended Affidavit is $4,462.55. This amount is reduced by $1,000.00 attributable to a retainer paid to a Dr. Spanos, who was initially retained as an expert witness but who ultimately did
not testify on Dr. Rogers's behalf. The total allowable costs for the administrative proceeding, therefore, are $3,462.55.
The total costs identified by Ms. Nelson in her Supplemental Affidavit and in the billing statements attached to the Supplemental Affidavit is $1,005.01. The total costs for both the administrative and the appellate proceedings are, therefore, $4,467.56.
Dr. Rogers submitted an affidavit in which he claimed that he expended total costs of $154,807.23 in fulfilling the terms of the penalty assessed against him in the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004, which was reversed by the district court.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of the parties thereto pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes, and the order of October 18, 2005, in Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D. v. Department of Health, Case No. 1D04-1153 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 18, 2005), awarding Dr. Rogers attorneys’ fees and cost pursuant to Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes.
Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:
APPEALS. . . . Upon review of agency action that precipitates an appeal, if the court finds that the agency improperly rejected or
modified findings of fact in a recommended order, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and reasonable costs to a prevailing appellant for the administrative proceeding and the appellate proceeding.
Attorneys' fees
The method for determining reasonable attorneys’ fees, which is founded on the federal "lodestar approach," is well established in Florida. In Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145, 1151-1152 (Fla. 1985), the Florida Supreme Court summarized the steps to be followed in computing attorney's fees:
In summary, in computing an attorney fee, the trial judge should (1) determine the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation; (2) determine the reasonable hourly rate for this type of litigation; (3) multiply the result of
and (2); and, when appropriate, (4) adjust the fee on the basis of the contingent nature of the litigation or the failure to prevail on a claim or claims. [Emphasis added].
Based on the findings of fact herein and the procedure for calculating the lodestar figure set forth in Rowe,
Ms. Nelson's attorney's fees totalled $46,300.00. Ms. Nelson's fees should not be adjusted since she did not pursue an appeal of the Board's determination that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998).
The Department argued that the attorney's fees charged by Mr. Berger for his representation of Dr. Rogers during the administrative proceedings should be reduced because Dr. Rogers
did not challenge on appeal the Board's conclusion that
Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and because the Board ultimately prevailed on this issue.
In Rowe, the Court stated the following concerning the need to reduce the lodestar figure based upon the "results obtained":
The "results obtained" may provide an independent basis for reducing the fee when the party prevails on a claim or claims for relief, but is unsuccessful on other unrelated claims. When a party prevails on only a portion of the claims made in the litigation, the trial judge must evaluate the relationship between the successful and unsuccessful claims and determine whether the investigation and prosecution of the successful claims can be separated from the unsuccessful claims. In adjusting the fee based upon the success of the litigation, the court should indicate that it has considered the relationship between the amount of the fee awarded and the extent of success.
472 So. 2d at 1151.
Based on the findings of fact herein and on consideration of the factors set forth in Rowe, the "lodestar" figure for Mr. Berger's attorney's fees, $23,925.00, should be reduced by 10 percent, for a total of $21,532.50.
Costs
Based on the findings of fact herein, Dr. Rogers has established that the costs of pursuing the administrative proceeding disputing the violations alleged against him and the
appeal of the Board's February 17, 2004, Final Order totalled
$4,467.56.
Dr. Rogers also argues that he is entitled to recover as "costs" pursuant to Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, the amounts he expended in fulfilling the terms of the penalties imposed upon him by the Board in the Final Order that was reversed as to the violations of Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes. The cases cited by Dr. Rogers, Lone Star Industries, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 688 So. 2d 950, 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), Certain Lands v. City of Alachua,
518 So. 2d 386, 389 (Florida 1st DCA 1987), Centennial Mortgage, Inc. v. SG/SC Ltd., 864 So. 2d 1258, 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), and Gordon International Advertising, Inc. v. Charlotte County Land and Title Co., 170 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965), do not support Dr. Rogers's right to recover these costs.
The costs referenced in Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, and in the cases cited, are the expenses arising out of litigating a claim or defense. Such costs are governed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a), which provides that "taxable costs shall include '(1) fees for filing and service of process; (2) charges for preparation of the record;
(3) bond premiums; and (4) other costs permitted by law.'" Centennial Mortgage, Inc., 864 So. 2d at 1260-61.
Dr. Rogers has cited no legal basis for recovering as costs the expenses he incurred as a result of the Board's erroneous Final Order. Recovery of such expenses would also be contrary to the express terms of Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, which limits the award of attorneys' fees and costs related to, as here, an agency's improperly rejecting findings of fact in an administrative law judge's recommended order to costs "for the administrative proceeding and the appellate proceeding."
This limitation on the award of attorneys' fees and costs in Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, to "the administrative proceeding and the appellate proceeding" also prohibits Dr. Rogers from recovering attorneys fees incurred by Mr. Berger and Ms. Nelson in this proceeding to determine the amount of attorneys' fees and costs that should be awarded in accordance with the district court's October 18, 2005, order.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D., is awarded
reasonable attorneys' fees for the administrative proceeding in DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL and for the appellate proceeding in Case No. 1D04-1153 in the amount of $67,832.50, and
reasonable costs for the administrative proceeding in DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL and for the appellate proceeding in
Case No. 1D04-1153 in the amount of $4,467.56. These sums are to be paid to Dr. Rogers by the Department of Health, with interest accruing at the statutory rate from October 18, 2005.
DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
PATRICIA M. HART
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of November, 2006.
ENDNOTES
1/ All references to the Florida Statutes herein are to the 2006 edition unless otherwise noted.
2/ During the hearing, Mr. Berger requested leave to file the affidavit of Albert J. Garcia, a California attorney representing Dr. Rogers in administrative proceedings against his license initiated by the State of California, setting out his fees and costs related to the California proceeding.
Mr. Berger sought to include these fees as part of the costs incurred by Dr. Rogers as a result of the Final Order of the Board of Medicine that was overturned by the District Court of Appeals. Without ruling on whether these fees and costs could be recovered in this proceeding, leave was granted to file the affidavit and supporting documentation, so long as Mr. Garcia was made available to the Department for deposition. Mr. Berger was directed to file Mr. Garcia's affidavit and supporting
documentation within 10 days after the date or the hearing or to file a request for an extension of time within 10 days after the hearing. Dr. Rogers did not file the affidavit and documentation within the 10-day period, and the request for an extension was also filed outside the 10-day period. As a result, the request for an extension for filing Mr. Garcia's affidavit was denied in an order entered September 21, 2006.
3/ Neither party asked that official recognition be taken of the record of the Division of Administrative Hearings or of the Board of Medicine in DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL or of the record of the First District Court of Appeal in Case No. 1D04-1153. It is not possible, however, to address the issues raised herein without reference to documents in those records, and it does not appear that either party will be prejudiced by reference to the necessary documents. Dr. Rogers included most of the documents that will be referred to herein as attachments to his Petition to Set Attorney's Fees and Costs, and the contents of the remaining documents referred to herein are part of the record of either the Division of Administrative Hearings or of the district court and were referenced by the Department in its proposed order.
4/ This percentage is based on Mr. Berger's testimony at the hearing; the number of questions regarding the sufficiency of Dr. Rogers's medical records that Mr. Berger asked Dr. Brookoff, Dr. Rogers's expert witness, during his deposition; the discussion of the adequacy of Dr. Rogers's medical records in the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Proposed Recommended Order Mr. Berger submitted on behalf of Dr. Rogers; and a review of Mr. Berger's billing statements.
5/ The Department charged Dr. Rogers with violating
Section 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (1998), which provides that the Board can impose discipline on a physician for:
(m) Failing to keep legible, as defined by department rule in consultation with the board, medical records that identify the licensed physician or the physician extender and supervising physician by name and professional title who is or are responsible for rendering, ordering, supervising, or billing for each diagnostic or treatment procedure and that justify the course of
treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories; examination results; test results; records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered; and reports of consultations and hospitalizations.
* * *
(q) Prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug, including any controlled substance, other than in the course of the physician's professional practice. For the purposes of this paragraph, it shall be legally presumed that prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing legend drugs, including all controlled substances, inappropriately or in excessive or inappropriate quantities is not in the best interest of the patient and is not in the course of the physician's professional practice, without regard to his or her intent.
* * *
(t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of
s. 766.102 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in indemnities being paid
in excess of $25,000 each to the claimant in a judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and
treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances," shall not be construed so as to require more than one instance, event, or act. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require that a physician be incompetent to practice medicine in order to be disciplined pursuant to this paragraph.
6/ Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-8.001(1)(m), in effect in 1998, provided that the penalty for a violation of
Section 458.331(m), Florida Statutes, ranged from "a reprimand to denial or two (2) years suspension followed by probation, and an administrative fine from $250.00 to $5,000.00." Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-8.001(1)(q), in effect in 1998, provided that the penalty for a violation of Section 458.331(q), Florida Statutes, ranged from "one (1) year probation to revocation or denial, and an administrative fine from $250.00 to
$5,000.00." Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-8.001(1)(t), in effect in 1998, provided that the penalty for a violation of Section 458.331(t), Florida Statutes, ranged from "two (2) years probation to revocation or denial, and an administrative fine from $250.00 to $5,000.00."
COPIES FURNISHED:
C. William Berger, Esquire One Boca Place, Suite 337W 2255 Glades Road
Boca Raton, Florida 33486
Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
John E. Terrel, Esquire Department of Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
Dr. M. Rony Francois, Secretary Department of Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Larry McPherson, Executive Director Department of Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Edward A. Tellechea, Esquire Office of Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Rosanna Catalano, Esquire Office of Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 29, 2006 | DOAH Final Order | On remand from an order of the First District Court of Appeal, Petitioner shall be awarded $67,832.50 in attorneys` fees and $4,467.05 in costs for the administrative proceeding in Case No. 02-0080PL and the appellate proceeding in Case No. 04-1153. |
