STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

THE RETREAT, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-4219RP

) STATE OF FLORIDA, HEALTH CARE ) COST CONTAINMENT BOARD, )

)

Respondent, )

and )

)

CITIZENS OF THE STATE )

OF FLORIDA, )

)

Intervenor. )

)

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to written notice a formal hearing was held in this case before Larry J. Sartin, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on November 20, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Michael J. Glazer, Esquire

Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor

Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

For Respondent: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire

Newell & Stahl, P.A.

817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313

For Intervenor: Peter Schwarz, Esquire

David R. Terry, Esquire Office of the Public Counsel c/o The Florida Legislature 801 Claude Pepper Building

111 W. Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether the challenged portion of Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, as proposed by the Respondent, the Health Care Cost Containment Board, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 28, 1989, the Petitioner, The Retreat, filed a Petition to Determine The Invalidity of a Proposed Rule with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition was assigned case number 89-4219RP by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The case was consolidated with Division of Administrative Hearings' case numbers 89-3436RU and 89-3579H. A Recommended Order has been issued in case number 89-3579H and a separate Final Order has been issued in case number 89-3436RU.

The Citizens of the State of Florida, represented by the Office of the Public Counsel, intervened in the consolidated cases.

Prior to the commencement of the formal hearing, The Retreat filed a Motion to Stay and Petitioner's Motion to Quash. At the commencement of the formal hearing The Retreat indicated that the issues raised in those Motions had been resolved.

Official recognition of Chapter 407, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and Chapter 88-394, Laws of Florida, was taken.

The parties filed a Stipulation prior to the commencement of the formal hearing. To the extent that the parties stipulated to relevant facts concerning this case, they have been incorporated into this Final Order.

At the formal hearing The Retreat presented the testimony of Sarah Fitzgerald. Ms. Fitzgerald was accepted as an expert in health care finance. The Retreat also presented the deposition testimony of James Bracher. Four exhibits were offered by The Retreat. All four exhibits were accepted into evidence.

The Respondent, the Health Care Cost Containment Board, presented the testimony of Duane A. Ashe. Mr. Ashe was accepted as an expert in financial analysis of health care facilities and hospital cost containment. Respondent's exhibit 1 was offered and accepted into evidence.

The Intervenor, the Citizens of the State of Florida, did not call any witnesses or offer any exhibits.

The parties have filed proposed final orders containing proposed findings of fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made either directly or indirectly in this Final Order or the proposed finding of fact has been accepted or rejected in the Appendix which is attached hereto.

The Retreat has filed a proposed final order addressing the validity of the Respondent's policy and the validity of the rule adopting the policy. To the extent that proposed findings of fact contained in The Retreat's proposed final order are relevant to this case, they have been addressed in the Appendix.

Proposed findings of fact pertaining to case number 89-3436RU have been addressed in the Appendix of the Final Order in case number 89-3436RU, issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order.

The Intervenor has filed a separate proposed final order in case number 89- 3436RU and in this case. The proposed findings of fact contained in the proposed final orders and the proposed recommended order are identical. Only

those proposed findings of fact contained in the Intervenor's proposed final order filed in this case which are relevant to this case have been addressed in the Appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The parties stipulated to the following facts:

   1. The Retreat is a 100 bed short-term psychiatric specialty and substance abuse hospital located at 555 S.W. 148th Avenue, Sunrise, Broward County, Florida.

   2. The Retreat admitted its first patient on September 12, 1988.

   3. The Retreat operates on a fiscal year from September 1, through August 31. Therefore, The Retreat's 1989 fiscal year was for the period beginning when The Retreat opened on September 12, 1988, through August 31, 1989.

   4. The Retreat filed its 1989 budget with the Respondent on June 3, 1988.

   5. The Retreat's 1989 budget was approved by the Respondent on August 25, 1988 with an approved gross revenue per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "GRAA"), of $20,323.00, and a net revenue per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "NRAA"), of $17,973.00.

   6. The Retreat's 1990 fiscal year is from September 1, 1989, through August 31, 1990.

   7. Pursuant to Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), The Retreat submitted a budget letter described in Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes, to the Respondent on May 24, 1989, for its 1990 fiscal year.

   8. The budget letter submitted by The Retreat certified that its FY 1990 maximum allowable rate of increase in GRAA over its budgeted GRAA in FY 1989 would be 7.8% and that its GRAA would not exceed $21,908.00 in FY 1990. Said rate of increase stated in The Retreat's budget letter represented the National Hospital Input Price Index (hereinafter referred to as the "NHIPI"), for the 1990 fiscal year plus two percentage points.

   9. At the time the Respondent received said budget letter, no administrative rule had yet been adopted that required a hospital entering into its second fiscal year of operation to file a full budget subject to detailed budget review.

   10. By letter dated June 5, 1989, the Respondent's staff advised The Retreat that, based on staff's interpretation of the controlling statute, staff could not accept said budget letter filed by The Retreat and a detailed budget would be required for The Retreat's 1990 fiscal year.

   11. The June 5, 1989, letter enunciated a non-rule agency policy based upon staff's interpretation of Section 407.50, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), that a hospital filing a budget for its second fiscal year is not eligible to file a budget letter and must file a budget subject to detailed review.

   12. On June 29, 1989, The Retreat filed a Petition to determine the invalidity of the non-rule policy explicated in said June 5, 1989, letter. Also on June 29, 1989, The Retreat filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing regarding the decision by HCCCB to reject its budget letter. Said Petition was assigned DOAH Case No. 89-3579H.

   13. On May 25, 1989, proposed Rule 10N-5.015 was approved by the HCCCB. Said proposed rule was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, in Volume 15, No. 27, Florida Administrative Weekly (July 7, 1989).

   14. The last sentence of proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows:

       A new hospital or replacement hospital relocated to a different medical services area shall submit a budget report for review in the first two years of operation, but may submit a budget letter for its third year of operation if it does not require an increase in GRAA in excess of its hospital specific MARI calculated pursuant to Rule 10N-5.013.

   15. The last sentence of proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, codifies, in rule form, the non-rule policy set forth in the HCCCB letter of June 5, 1989.

   16. The Retreat filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of Proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, on July 28, 1989. Said Petition was assigned DOAH Case No. 89-4219RP.

   17. DOAH Case No. 89-3436RU, 89-3579H and 89-4219RP were subsequently consolidated for a single final hearing.

   18. The Retreat has standing in each of the three above-styled causes.

   
   

2. Florida hospitals subject to Section 395.509(1), Florida Statutes (1985), were required to file detailed budgets before the start of each fiscal year prior to 1990. The Respondent reviewed each budget, including the hospital's GRAA. Depending upon the rank of a hospital's GRAA among the hospitals it was assigned to for budget review, the hospital's budget would either be automatically approved or subjected to detailed review.

   
   

3. During the 1988 legislative session, Chapter 88-394, Laws of Florida, was enacted. Chapter 88-394, which was codified in Chapter 407, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), applies to a hospital's 1990 fiscal year and to later fiscal years.

   
   

4. Section 407.50, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), provides that a hospital is required to file either a detailed budget or a "budget letter". In particular, Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), provides that each hospital, "[e]xcept for hospitals filing a budget pursuant to subsection

   (3) . . . shall file with the board a certified statement, hereafter known as the 'budget letter' . . . ." If a budget letter is filed the hospital must acknowledge its maximum rate of increase in its GRAA from the previous year "as calculated pursuant to s. 407.002(17) . . ." and its maximum rate of increase for the next fiscal year, and it must affirm that it will not exceed the applicable maximum allowable rate of increase.

   
   

5. If a budget letter is filed by a hospital the hospital's base for budget review is governed by Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.):

   
   

   1. The base for hospital budget review for fiscal year 1990-1991 shall be the hospital's prior year actual gross revenues per adjusted admission inflated forward by the hospital's applicable current year's maximum allowable rate of increase or the board- approved budgeted gross revenues per adjusted admission, whichever is higher; provided that, in cases where the board has approved a rate of increase below the MARI, the board-approved maximum allowable rate of increase shall apply.

      
      

      For a 1990-1991 budget, a hospital's base is the greater of the hospital's GRAA for its 1988 fiscal year increased by its 1989 MARI or its 1989 budgeted GRAA.

      
      

6. Section 407.50(3), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), requires the submission of a detailed budget for "each hospital requesting a rate of increase in gross revenue per adjusted admission in excess of the maximum allowable rate of increase for the hospital's next fiscal year . . . ." [Emphasis added].

7. If a detailed budget is filed, Section 407.50(3), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), provides that the hospital's "base" shall be determined as follows:

   
   

   In determining the base, the hospital's prior year audited actual experience shall be used unless the hospital's prior year audited actual experience exceeded the applicable rate of increase in which case the base shall be the gross revenue per adjusted admission from the year before the prior year, increased by the applicable rate of increase for the prior year, and then inflated by the applicable rate of increase for the current year. . . .

   
   

8. The "maximum allowable rate of increase" for budget letters or detailed budget requests is defined by Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), as follows:

   
   

   (17) "Maximum allowable rate of increase" or "MARI" means the maximum rate at which a hospital is normally expected to increase its average gross revenues per adjusted admission for a given period. The board, using the most recent audited actual experience for each hospital, shall calculate the MARI for each hospital as follows: the projected rate of increase in the market basket index shall be divided by a number which is determined by subtracting the sum of one-half of the proportion of Medicare days plus the proportion of Medicaid days and the proportion of charity days from the number one. Two percentage points shall be added to this quotient. The formula to be employed by the board to calculate the MARI shall take the following form:

   MARI = NHIPI +2 1-[(Me x .5) + Md +Cc]

   where:

   MARI = maximum allowable rate of increase

   applied to gross revenue.

   NHIPI = national hospital input price index which shall be the projected rate of change in the market basket index.

   Me = proportion of Medicare days, including when available and reported to the board Medicare HMO days, to total days.

   Md = proportion of Medicaid days, including when available and reported to the board Medicaid HMO days, to total days.

   Cc = proportion of charity care days to total days with a 50-percent offset for restricted grants for charity care and unrestricted grants form local governments.

   
   

   Pursuant to this definition of "maximum allowable rate of increase" hospitals are entitled to a base of the NHIPI plus two percentage points inflated by the hospital's prior year Medicare, Medicaid and charity care days, if any.

9. The Respondent has suggested that calculation of the MARI in accordance with Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes, is a prerequisite to filing a budget letter and that Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes, requires that audited actual experience be available in order for the Respondent to calculate the MARI for a hospital.

   
   

10. In support of the Proposed Rule, the Respondent has suggested that it cannot "certify that a budget letter is correct pursuant to s. 407.50(2)(a) . .

    . ." This argument is rejected because there is no requirement in Section 407.50, Florida Statutes, that the Respondent provide such a certification. Additionally, the Respondent has not adequately explained why it is only concerned about its calculation of the MARI for hospitals in their first or second years of operation and not all hospitals.

    
    

11. The problem with the Respondent's position is that, while Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes, does require that the Respondent use audited actual experience to calculate the MARI, Sections 407.50(1) and (2), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), do not require that the Respondent calculate the MARI. If a budget letter is filed by a hospital, the Respondent is only required to "determine if the gross revenues per adjusted admission submitted by the hospital are within the maximum allowable rate of increase for that hospital." The Respondent can accomplish this task without calculating the MARI; it can rely upon the MARI acknowledged by the hospital.

    
    

12. If a hospital files a budget letter, only the hospital is required to calculate its MARI. The hospital, unlike the Respondent, is not required by Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes to use audited actual experience in its calculation of the MARI. All of the elements of the MARI may be obtained by the hospital from unaudited experience. The NHIPI is a national standard that is not hospital specific. The two percentage points are also not hospital specific. The only hospital specific information taken into account is the number of Medicare, Medicaid and charity care days. Even the Respondent agrees that audited actuarial experience is not necessary to calculate Medicare, Medicaid and charity care days. Therefore, hospitals may calculate the MARI for purposes of Section 407.50(2), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), without audited actual experience.

    
    

13. In further support of the Proposed Rule, the Respondent has characterized the action of The Retreat as using a "zero" in lieu of audited actual 1988 GRAA for purposes of calculating its budget letter base for 1990. The Respondent suggests that Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), requires a "comparison" of the two values which may be used as a hospital's base and that The Retreat's action circumvents such a comparison.

    
    

14. The plain language of Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), does not require any comparison of the two values which may be used as a hospital's base. Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), simply provides that a hospital's base for 1990-1991 shall be the greater of the two values. If a hospital only has one of the values, that is obviously the greater value and should be used as the hospital's base.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

15. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1989).

16. Based upon the stipulation of the parties, The Retreat has standing in this case. See City of Destin v. Department of Transportation, 541 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

    
    

17. The Retreat has challenged Proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, as an "invalid exercise of delegated authority." What constitutes an "invalid exercise of delegated authority" is governed by Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, which defines those terms, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    . . . action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply:

    1. The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by

       s. 120.54(7);

    2. The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7);

    . . . .

    (e) The rule is arbitrary or capricious.

    
    

18. An agency's interpretation and construction of the statutes it is charged to enforce are entitled to great weight and will not be overturned by the courts if the interpretation and construction are not clearly erroneous or unauthorized. See Satellite Television Engineering, Inc. v. Department of General Services, 522 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The deference to be accorded an agency's interpretation or construction is not, however, without limitation. Id.

    
    

19. An agency has no inherent power to promulgate rules; it derives that power from a statutory base. Grove Isle, Ltd. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 454 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Where an agency has been granted authority to adopt rules, the agency cannot enlarge, modify or contravene its statutory authority. Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Salvation Limited, Inc., 452 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). If, however, a rule is reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation and is not arbitrary and capricious, the rule must be sustained. Florida Waterworks Association v. Florida Public Service Commission, 473 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

    
    

20. The burden of proving that the Respondent has exceeded its authority in promulgating the Proposed Rule at issue in this case is on The Retreat. See, General Telephone Co. of Florida v. Florida Public Service Commission, 446 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1984); Humana, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); and Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).

    
    

21. Section 407.03(1)(3), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), authorizes the Respondent to adopt rules and to exercise all powers reasonably necessary to carry out the express objectives and purposes of its enabling statutes.

    
    

22. Section 407.50, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), allows any Florida hospital, without regard to the number of years it has been in existence, to increase its GRAA (the greater of its prior year actual GRAA or its current year

    budgeted GRAA) by the MARI without filing a detailed budget. Only if a hospital seeks an increase of its GRAA (the greater of its prior year actual GRAA or its current year budgeted GRAA) by a rate in excess of the MARI is a hospital required to file a detailed budget pursuant to Section 407.50(3), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.).

    
    

23. Pursuant to Proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent would require that all hospitals in their first or second year of operation file a detailed budget pursuant to Section 407.50(3), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), even if the hospital is not seeking approval of an increase in its GRAA in excess of the MARI. Such a requirement is contrary to the express language of Section 407.50, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority.

    
    

24. In support of the Proposed Rule, the Respondent has argued that each hospital is required by Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), to acknowledge that its applicable MARI was calculated pursuant to Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and that the definition of the MARI set out in Section 407.002(17), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), requires that hospitals use "the most recent audited actual experience for each hospital . .

    ." in calculating its MARI. The Respondent has argued that each hospital must, therefore, have audited actual experience. The Respondent's argument is inconsistent with the plain language of Sections 407.50(2)(a) and 407.002(17), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.). Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), does require that a hospital acknowledge that its MARI has been calculated pursuant to Section 407.002(17). The requirement of Section 407.002(17), that audited actual experience be used in calculating the MARI only applies to the Respondent. The requirement that actual audited experience be used is not a general requirement. Nor does it specifically apply to hospitals. Therefore, a hospital is not required to use audited actual experience to calculate its MARI. Nor does a hospital as a practical matter need audited actual experience to calculate its MARI.

    
    

25. The Respondent has also suggested that it is required to determine the accuracy of all "budgets" and the definition of that term authorizes it to prohibit the use of budget letters by hospitals in their first or second years of operation. Section 407.50, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), does impose auditing duties on the Respondent. It is also true that the definition of a "budget" pursuant to Section 407(002(4), Florida Statutes, includes budget letters. The Respondent has failed to cite any provision of Section 407.50, Florida Statutes, governing the Respondent's duties to determine the accuracy of budgets that requires that it have audited actual experience of any hospital entitled to file a budget letter. Nor has the Respondent explained why such a requirement, if it existed, should only be applied to hospitals in their first or second years of operation that file budget letters.

    
    

26. Finally, the Respondent has argued that Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), requires a comparison of the two variables. This argument is inconsistent with the plain language of Section 407.50(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.).

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that Proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, is

an invalid exercise of delegated authority.

DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

LARRY J. SARTIN

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of May, 1990.

APPENDIX

Case Number 89-3579H

The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Final Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted.

The Retreat has filed a proposed final order addressing the validity of the Respondent's policy and the validity of the rule adopting the policy. To the extent that proposed findings of fact contained in The Retreat's proposed final order are relevant to this case, they have been addressed in the Appendix.

Proposed findings of fact pertaining to case number 89-3436RU have been addressed in the Appendix of the Final Order in case number 89-3436RU, issued simultaneously with this Recommended Order.

The Intervenor has filed a separate proposed final order in case number 89- 3436RU and in this case. The proposed findings of fact contained in the proposed final orders and the proposed recommended order are identical. Only those proposed findings of fact contained in the Intervenor's proposed final order filed in this case which are relevant to this case have been addressed in the Appendix.

The Retreat's Proposed Findings of Fact

Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection

16 Not a finding of fact.

17-31 Hereby accepted.

32-33 14.

34-36 Hereby accepted.

37 7 and hereby accepted.

38-40 Hereby accepted.

41 9.

42-43 12.

44-56 Hereby accepted.

57-58 Not relevant.

1. Hereby accepted.

2. Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

61 1.

62-63 Not relevant.

The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection

1-15 1

The Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact

Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection

1-2 1.

1. See 13.

2. Hereby accepted.

5 9

1. Not relevant.

2. 1. The first sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence.

8 1.

9-13 These proposed findings of fact are correct. In light of the stipulation of the parties that The Retreat has standing in all three cases, however, the proposed findings are not

relevant. See City of Destin v. Department of Transportation,

541 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

14 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

15 1.

16-17 The weight of the evidence failed to prove that these facts apply in this case or that all inaccuracies are inconsistent with the intent of Section 407.50, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.).

18 Not relevant.

19-20 Not relevant. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that these proposed facts are true of this matter.

21-24 Hereby accepted.

25-26 See 13 and 14.

27 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

28 1.

1. Not relevant.

2. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that this proposed finding is true in this case.

31-32 Hereby accepted.

33-36 Not relevant.

37-8 Not supported by the weight of the evidence.

39 1.

40 Hereby accepted.

41 1.

42 This proposed finding of fact is correct. In light of the stipulation of the parties that The Retreat has standing in all three cases, however, the proposed finding is not relevant. See City of Destin v. Department of Transportation, 541 So. 2d 123 (Fla.

1st DCA 1989).

43-44 Hereby accepted.

Copies Furnished To:

Michael J. Glazer, Esquire Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313

Jack Shreve Public Counsel David R. Terry

Associate Public Counsel Peter Schwarz

Associate Public Counsel c/o The Florida Legislature

111 West Madison Street Room 801

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400

Stephen Presnell, General Counsel Health Care Cost Containment Board Woodcrest Office Park

325 John Knox Road Building L, Suite 101

Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Liz Cloud, Chief

Bureau of Administrative Code The Capitol, Room 1802 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Holland Building, Room 120 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300

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 ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND 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.

Docket for Case No: 89-004219RP

Orders for Case No: 89-004219RP