STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
REDI-CARE HOME SERVICES, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-7574F
)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER ON THE ISSUE OF PETITIONER'S ENTITLEMENT
TO ATTORNEY'S FEES
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on July 10, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Veronica E. Donnelly, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Barry Alan Roth, Esquire
Cohen and Roth, P.A. Post Office Drawer 2650
Fort Myers, Florida 33902
For Respondent: Karel Baarslag, Esquire
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services
Medicaid Office
1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Six, Room 234
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On September 19, 1989, the Medicaid Program Office of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (the Department) denied the request for payment submitted by Redi-Care Home Services, Inc. (Redi-Care) for medical home health agency services provided to Medicaid eligible recipients between February 8, 1989 and April 30, 1989. The reason given for denial was that Redi-Care did not meet the requirements for participation in the payment program because the facility had not received a certification survey from the Department's Office of Licensure and Certification at the time the services were provided. Redi-Care
requested a formal hearing to resolve the payment issue. The hearing was completed on March 4, 1991, and a Recommended Order was issued on June 11, 1991.
Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, the Hearing Officer recommended that Redi-Care should be reimbursed for the services provided in the ninety day period prior to the certification survey. This recommendation acknowledged that the Department had erred in its processing of the application for certification which resulted in delays that affected Redi-Care's reimbursement status. The Recommended Order was generally adopted by the agency, except for the estoppel type findings of mistake and reliance which the agency found were unnecessary to the disposition of the case. The Final Order filed October 4, 1991, determined that Redi-Care was eligible for Medicaid reimbursement from February 4, 1989, which allowed for payment of the claims submitted by Redi-Care.
On November 25, 1991, Redi-Care applied for attorney's fees and costs as a prevailing party in an action that involved review of an unreasonable governmental action. The Department timely filed its responses to the original application for attorney's fees and the subsequent filings.
Prior to the hearing held July 10, 1992, the parties agreed to have the legal issue on entitlement to attorney's fees determined prior to a hearing on the amount of the fee award, if any.
During the hearing, Redi-Care presented three exhibits, two depositions, and portions of the prior transcript. The Department called one witness, and relied on the prior transcript. All of the exhibits were admitted. Both parties waived the filing of the transcripts with the Hearing Officer.
Memorandums of Law regarding the entitlement issue were filed by the parties on August 6, 1992.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Department, a state agency, initiated the underlying proceeding when Redi-Care's request for payment as a Medicaid provider was denied on September 19, 1989. Redi-Care was required to seek review of this governmental action through an administrative proceeding on September 28, 1989.
Petitioner, Redi-Care Home Services, Inc. is a corporation which has its principal office in this state. At the time the administrative proceeding was initiated, the corporation had less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of less than two million dollars.
The assets of Redi-Care were sold to Lorinda Crowley on July 31, 1990. The shares of corporate stock and the liability were not transferred. Redi-Care authorized its President, Ms. Ingeborg G. Mausch, Ph.D., to proceed with the corporation's attempts to collect the Medicare claims at issue in the underlying proceeding.
A Final Order was entered by the Department in the underlying proceeding on October 4, 1991. This order resolved the dispute in Redi-Care's favor. The claim for reimbursement for services rendered as a Medicaid Provider were to be paid upon the resubmission of the claims.
The time for seeking judicial review of that order has expired and the order has become final agency action as a matter of law.
Redi-Care timely filed its Petition for Attorney's Fees in this proceeding.
The Department disputes portions of the application for fees relating to entitlement and to requested amounts of reimbursement for fees and costs.
The underlying proceedings were initiated when the Department denied Redi-Care's claims for reimbursement for home health care services rendered to Richard Mow and Claire Jester beginning February 8, 1989. The reason given by the Department for its denial of the claims on September 9, 1989, was that Redi- Care's "Medicaid Provider" number could be used only for services rendered on or after May 4, 1989 because its certification survey was not completed until then.
Although the agency's determination of ineligibility for payment due to the lack of certification would be proper in most cases under Rule 10C- 7.044(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, it is not appropriate in this case. The Department was supposed to complete the requested survey in November 1988. The survey was not actually completed until May 4, 1989 because the Department's representative confused this entity with a similarly named entity located next door in November 1988. When Redi-Care received the documentation from Consultec assigning it a "Medicaid Provider" number in December 1988, the applicant reasonably believed the certification process had been completed and eligibility granted.
The Department has been aware of its error in failing to provide the survey since at least April 18, 1989. Yet, no attempt was made to address this error as it related to the pending reimbursement claims beginning on February 8, 1989. Instead, the agency's involvement in the series of events that operated to prevent the proper application processing was ignored and Redi-Care was expected to suffer the consequences of the confusion created by all of the parties.
One very reasonable way the Department could have cured its error would have been to submit Redi-Care's application for certification to Consultec on the day it discovered the error. This would have allowed Consultec to process claims from 90 days prior to the application under the Medical Home Health Agency Services Manual in effect at that time. This action was not taken by agency personnel who knew or should have known of this potential solution to the certification and reimbursement issues.
The Department's letter advising Redi-Care of the Medicaid Program's decision to deny payment for services provided before May 4, 1989 was unreasonable governmental action. The possible affect of the agency's errors and the unrelated errors of its successive Medicaid agents for the Florida Medicaid Program on Redi-Care's pending claims were never addressed in spite of the Department's awareness of their existence.
Redi-Care was required to pursue its claims through administrative proceeding's in order to prevent the denial of the reimbursement request.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter pursuant to Sections 57.111 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
This case arises under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. At Subsection 57.111(4)(a), Florida Statutes, the act states:
Unless otherwise provided by law, an award of attorney's fees and costs shall be made to a prevailing small business party in any adjudicatory proceeding pursuant to Chapter
120 initiated by a state agency, unless the actions of the agency were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.
During the presentation made in this proceeding, Redi-Care demonstrated its eligibility for attorney's fees under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Once the party claiming attorney's fees has established by a preponderance of the evidence its entitlement to attorney's fees, the burden shifts to the agency to establish that it was "substantially justified" in initiating the action. Department of Professional Regulation v. Toledo Realty, 549 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989).
Based upon the totality of the circumstances in the underlying proceeding which were painstakingly placed into the Findings of Fact of the Recommended Order, it is clear that the Department's preliminary decision to deny Redi-Care's claims for payment lacked substantial justification. Once the agency investigated the circumstances surrounding the claims and became aware of the various mishaps that created the confusion regarding Redi-Care's certification, efforts should have been made to correct past agency errors as well as the errors of its successive Medicaid agents.
Instead of applying the knowledge it had acquired regarding the botched application process within the Department and the subsequent denial of Redi-Care's claims by Consultec, the Department ignored its investigation results and entered its own claims denial. This decision was unreasonable as it masked a serious problem instead of solving it. Redi-Care was required to pursue its claims in administrative proceedings to obtain the reimbursement to which its was always entitled.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED:
The Petitioner is legally entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Jurisdiction is retained by the Division of Administrative Hearings over the reasonableness and the amount of the fees and costs requested in these proceedings.
DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida.
VERONICA E. DONNELLY
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 10th day of November, 1992.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Jack Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Barry Alan Roth, Esquire Cohen and Roth, P.A.
P.O. Drawer 2650
Fort Myers, FL 33902
Karel Baarslag, Esquire HRS Medicaid Office 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Six, Room 234
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
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 RULE 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.
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
REDI-CARE HOME SERVICES, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-7574F
)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE )
ADMINISTRATION, as successor ) to DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ) REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to notice, final hearing in the above-styled case was held in Tallahassee, Florida, on November 24, 1993, before Robert E. Meale, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
The parties were represented at the hearing as follows: For Petitioner: Attorney Barry Alan Roth
The Tidewater Building
1375 Jackson Street, Suite 201 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902-2650
For Respondent: Senior Attorney Karel Baarslag
Agency for Health Care Administration Medicaid, Legal
1317 Winewood Boulevard
Building 6, Room 271
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to which Petitioner is entitled.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By final order entered November 10, 1992, a hearing officer determined that Petitioner was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs under Section 57.111 as a result of the prosecution of a prior proceeding against the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The order did not address the amount of fees and costs to be awarded.
Following the dismissal of an appeal, the matter was remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a hearing on the amount of fees and costs.
By agreement of the parties, the hearing officer and Mr. Baarslag participated in the final hearing in a hearing room in Tallahassee, and Mr. Roth and his witness participated by telephone. Petitioner had only one witness and offered seven exhibits into evidence, all of which were admitted. Respondent had no witnesses and offered no exhibits into evidence. At the hearing, the hearing officer declined to take official notice of the underlying administrative proceeding.
Neither party ordered a transcript. Each party filed a proposed final order, and rulings on the proposed findings are in the appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
By final order entered November 10, 1992, a hearing officer determined that Petitioner was entitled to an award against Respondent of attorneys' fees and costs under Section 57.111. The final order describes prior administrative litigation between the parties concerning a request for payment made by Petitioner that was denied by Respondent's predecessor agency. The final order determines that Petitioner prevailed in the prior litigation, which was DOAH Case No. 89-6923.
After determining that Petitioner met all statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees and costs under Section 57.111, the final order, pursuant to the agreement of the parties, retains jurisdiction "over the reasonableness and amount of fees and costs requested in these proceedings."
An appeal ensued. By order entered August 4, 1993, the appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioner incurred $19,489.50 in attorneys' fees, correlating to 114.7 hours, and $1976.73 in recoverable costs in prosecuting the underlying administrative proceeding in which Petitioner recovered sums due it from Respondent's predecessor agency. These services and costs were expended from September 26, 1989, through November 4, 1991, by which time Respondent's predecessor agency had issued a final order determining Petitioner's entitlement to payment.
From December 20, 1991, through March, 1992, Petitioner incurred $1960 in attorneys' fees and $271.55 in recoverable costs in prosecuting its claim for attorneys' fees and costs. (It is unclear why this portion of the claim for fees does not extend to early July, 1992, when the final hearing took place that resulted in the November 10, 1992, final order determining entitlement to fees and costs.)
After securing a favorable final order in November, 1992, Petitioner incurred $3692.50 in attorneys' fees, correlating to 21.1 hours, and $262.88 in recoverable costs in defending the appeal taken by Respondent's predecessor agency of the final order. These services and costs were expended from November 12, 1992, through July 19, 1993.
After the appeal was dismissed in August, 1993, Petitioner incurred, up to but not including the date of the final hearing on November 24, 1993,
$1277.50 in attorneys' fees, correlating to 7.3 hours, and $19.50 in recoverable costs in prosecuting the claim for an award of a specific amount of fees and costs.
In summary, the total fees are $19,489.50 for prosecuting the underlying case, $1960 for prosecuting the portion of the present case through the final order determining entitlement, $3692.50 for defending the appeal of the final order, and $1277.50 for prosecuting the portion of the present case concerning setting the amount of fees and costs. The total fees are $26,419.50. The costs corresponding to the four stages are $1976.73, $271.55, $262.88, and
$19.50, for a total of $2530.66. The total fees and costs are $28,950.16.
All fees and costs are reasonable and necessary.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Sections 57.111(4) and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections are to Florida Statutes.)
The final order identifies Section 57.111 as the sole basis for awarding attorneys' fees and costs. Section 57.111(4)(d)2 provides: "No award of attorney's fees and costs for an action initiated by a state agency shall exceed $15,000."
Petitioner has proved its entitlement to an award of $15,000 based on the attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of DOAH Case No. 89- 6923. The fees alone exceeded the statutory maximum of $15,000. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the eligibility of the remaining fees and costs for inclusion in this award.
Petitioner's argument that it is entitled to additional amounts based on Section 57.041 is rejected. Section 57.041 authorizes the award of costs in court actions, not administrative proceedings.
Petitioner's argument that it is entitled to interest is also rejected. Section 55.03 provides that a "judgment or decree" bears interest at the rate of 12 percent, unless an underlying written obligation calls for a lesser rate. The present order is not a "judgment or decree." A judgment is issued by a court, not an administrative agency or hearing officer. A decree, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is merely a "judgment of a court of equity or admiralty."
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Agency for Health Care Administration pay Redi-Care Home Services, Inc. the sum of $15,000.
ENTERED on December 10, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.
ROBERT E. MEALE
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 on December 10, 1993.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-7574F
Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner
1-16: Rejected as recitations of evidence and not findings of fact.
17-25: Rejected as not findings of fact. Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Respondent
1-5: Adopted except that, in the second sentence of paragraph 4, the correct attorneys' fees are $1277.50 and correct costs are $19.50.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Attorney Barry Alan Roth The Tidewater Building Post Office Drawer 2650
Ft. Myers, Florida 33902-2650
Senior Attorney Karel Baarslag
Agency for Health Care Administration Medicaid--Legal
1317 Winewood Boulevard
Building 6, Room 271
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Douglas M. Cook, Director
Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Harold D. Lewis, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301
325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Sam Power, Agency Clerk
Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301
325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
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.
=================================================================
DISTRICT COURT OPINION
=================================================================
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO ADMINISTRATION, as FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND sucessor to DEPARTMENT OF DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE
SERVICES, CASE NO. 94-88
DOAH CASE NO. 91-7574F
Appellant,
vs.
REDI-CARE HOME SERVICES, INC.,
Appellee.
/ Opinion filed February 16, 1995.
An appeal and cross-appeal from and order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Karel Baarslag, Senior Attorney, Tallahassee, for Appellant/Cross-Apellee. Barry Alan Roth, Fort Myers, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
BARFIELD, J.
The final orders awarding appellee $15,000 in attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes, are supported by competent substantial evidence and are AFFIRMED. The provision of section 57.111(4)(d) limiting the amount of the award extends to fees and costs incurred on appeal. Having considered the motion for appellate attorney fees, we find that while appellee is entitled to fees on appeal, the statutory maximum amount has already been awarded below. The motion is therefore DENIED.
ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., CONCUR.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 21, 1995 | Opinion filed. |
| Feb. 17, 1995 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT (Motion to Strike if granted) filed. |
| Jan. 17, 1995 | Payment in the amount of $112.00 for indexing filed. |
| Jul. 20, 1994 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT filed. |
| May 20, 1994 | Index, Record, Certificate of Record sent out. |
| May 13, 1994 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT filed. |
| May 05, 1994 | Second Amended Index sent out. |
| Apr. 14, 1994 | Amended Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Apr. 14, 1994 | Amended Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Apr. 13, 1994 | Letter from Barry A. Roth (letter to Karel Baarslag at AHCA with directions to the clerk to amend the index) filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1994 | (DCA) Motion To Correct The Index, Motion To Supplement The Index and Motion for Extension of Time filed. |
| Apr. 07, 1994 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT filed. |
| Feb. 25, 1994 | Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Feb. 25, 1994 | Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Feb. 16, 1994 | (AHCA) Direction to Clerk filed. |
| Jan. 19, 1994 | Certificate of Notice of Cross-Appeal sent out. |
| Jan. 19, 1994 | Notice of Cross-Appeal (Berry Alan Roth) filed. |
| Jan. 14, 1994 | Letter to DOAH from DCA filed. DCA Case No. 1-94-00088. |
| Jan. 10, 1994 | Certificate of Amended Notice of Appeal sent out. |
| Jan. 07, 1994 | Amended Notice of Appeal filed. |
| Jan. 06, 1994 | Certificate of Notice of Appeal sent out. |
| Jan. 06, 1994 | Notice of Appeal filed. |
| Jan. 06, 1994 | Notice of Appeal filed. |
| Dec. 20, 1993 | Notice of New Address and Phone Numbers filed. (From Barry Alan Roth) |
| Dec. 10, 1993 | CASE CLOSED. Final Order sent out. Hearing held November 24, 1993. |
| Dec. 09, 1993 | Transcript filed. |
| Dec. 09, 1993 | Transcript filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1993 | Final Order filed. |
| Dec. 03, 1993 | Respondent`s Proposed Order on Amount of Attorney`s Fees w/cover ltr filed. |
| Nov. 19, 1993 | Letter to REM from Barry Alan Roth (re: Notice of Telephone Hearing and Order of Instructions) w/Redi-Care Exhibits 1-3 filed. |
| Nov. 09, 1993 | Notice of Telephone Hearing & Order of Instructions sent out. (telephonic final hearing set for 11/24/93; 10:00am; Suncom #291-5601) |
| Nov. 05, 1993 | (Respondent) Status Report filed. |
| Oct. 22, 1993 | Status of Case w/cover ltr filed. (From Barry Alan Roth) |
| Oct. 12, 1993 | (Petitioner) Status of Case filed. |
| Aug. 05, 1993 | By Order of the Court (appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction) filed. |
| Apr. 30, 1993 | Order Placing Case In Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 10-31-93) |
| Apr. 22, 1993 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT filed. |
| Apr. 02, 1993 | Motion to Correct and Supplement the Record, Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellee`s Answer Brief, Motion to Strike Portions of the Record filed. (filed in 1st DCA) |
| Mar. 22, 1993 | Index, Record, Certificate of Record sent out. |
| Mar. 16, 1993 | Notice of preparation of record sent out. |
| Mar. 05, 1993 | Directions to Clerk filed. |
| Mar. 01, 1993 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT (appellant`s Motion for Extension of time filed 02/01/93 is granted) filed. |
| Jan. 29, 1993 | Request to Produce to Petitioner (from Karel Baarslag) w/cover letter from Barry Alan Roth filed. (additional documents to be included in record on appeal) |
| Jan. 22, 1993 | Letter from Barry A. Roth (RE: want additional entries on the index) filed. |
| Dec. 11, 1992 | Designation to Reporter and Reporter's Acknowledgment filed. |
| Dec. 02, 1992 | Letter to DOAH from DCA filed. DCA Case No. 92-4021 |
| Nov. 24, 1992 | Certificate of Notice of Appeal sent out. |
| Nov. 23, 1992 | Notice of Appeal filed. |
| Nov. 16, 1992 | Letter to VED from Barry Alan Roth (re: attorney's fees and cost) filed. |
| Nov. 10, 1992 | CASE CLOSED. Final Order On The Issue Of Petitioner`s Entitlement To Attorney`s Fees sent out. Hearing held 7-10-92. |
| Aug. 06, 1992 | (DHRS) Memorandum of Law filed. |
| Aug. 05, 1992 | Memorandum of Law w/cover ltr & attachments filed. (From Barry Alan Roth) |
| Jul. 23, 1992 | Transcript (Volumes III & IV) filed. |
| Jun. 11, 1992 | CC Letter to DOAH from Barry Alan Roth (re: Notice of Filing Deposition & Deposition) filed. |
| Jun. 11, 1992 | Deposition of Ingeborg G. Mauksch, Fahn, Ph.D.; Deposition of Michael C. Tice; Notice of Filing Depositions filed. |
| Jun. 02, 1992 | Order On Pending Motions sent out. |
| Jun. 01, 1992 | Letter to VED from B. Roth (re: telephonic hearing) filed. |
| May 11, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 7-10-92; 10:00am; Tallahassee) |
| Apr. 27, 1992 | Letter to WFQ from Barry Alan Roth (re: rescheduling hearing) filed. |
| Apr. 02, 1992 | Order Granting Motion for Continuance sent out. (case shall be rescheduled by forthcoming Notice of Hearing) |
| Mar. 20, 1992 | Reply to Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services` Motion to Have Issue of Entitlement to Attorney`s Fees Determined First filed. |
| Mar. 20, 1992 | (DHRS) Motion for Continuance; Motion to Have Issue of Entitlement to Attorney`s Fees Determined First filed. |
| Mar. 12, 1992 | (Petitioner) Motion for Telephonic Hearing; Notice of Taking Deposition; Motion for Protective Order and/Or in the Alternative Objections to Request to Produce of Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services filed. |
| Mar. 03, 1992 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 4-8-92; 9:30am; Tallahassee) |
| Mar. 03, 1992 | Order Denying Motion to Reassign Case; Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Consultec, Inc. as a Party to these Proceedings sent out. |
| Feb. 24, 1992 | Letter to WFQ from B. Roth (Re: Supplemental Memorandum) filed. |
| Feb. 11, 1992 | Supplemental Memorandum of Consultec, Inc. filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1992 | (DHRS) Notice of Request to Produce filed. |
| Feb. 05, 1992 | Petitioner`s, Redi-Care Home Services, Inc., Reply to Motion to Strike or Dismiss Consultec, Inc., From These Proceedings & cover ltr filed. |
| Feb. 04, 1992 | Petitioner`s, Redi-Care Home Services, Inc. Motion to Reassign Case filed. |
| Feb. 03, 1992 | Petitioner`s, Redi-Care Home Services, Inc., Motion to Reassign Case; Compliance by Petitioner, Redi-Care Home Services, Inc., to Order Dated January 22, 1992; Motion to Introduce the Record Below as Evidence Into The Record filed. |
| Jan. 29, 1992 | Response of Consultec to Initial Order filed. |
| Jan. 28, 1992 | HRS Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Jan. 24, 1992 | Motion to Strike or Dismiss Consultec, Inc., From These Proceedings w/cover ltr filed. |
| Jan. 22, 1992 | Order sent out. |
| Jan. 16, 1992 | Letter to WFQ from Barry Alan Roth (re: Attorney's Fees for Redi-Care) filed. |
| Jan. 15, 1992 | (DHRS) Reply to Petitioner`s Request to Hold Hearing in Ft. Myers or by Telephone filed. |
| Jan. 13, 1992 | (C-Respondent) Reply to Petitioner`s Request to Hold Hearing in Ft. Myers or by Telephone filed. |
| Jan. 10, 1992 | Letter to WFQ from William L. Hyde (re: location of hearing) filed. |
| Jan. 07, 1992 | Order Denying Motion for Default sent out. |
| Jan. 06, 1992 | Petitioner`s Reply to the Response to Motion for Award of Attorney`s Fees and Costs by DHRS filed. |
| Jan. 03, 1992 | (Co-Respondent) Response of Consultec, Inc. to Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Motion for Default of Petitioner Redi- Care Home Services, Inc. & cover ltr filed. |
| Dec. 31, 1991 | (Consultec) Notice of Appearance & Cover Letter from W. Hyde filed. |
| Dec. 30, 1991 | Petitioner`s Reply to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Response to Petitioner`s Motion for Default filed. |
| Dec. 26, 1991 | CC Motion for Default w/(unsigned) Order & cover ltr filed. (From Tom Stockdale) |
| Dec. 24, 1991 | (Respondent) Response to Motion for Default filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion for Default w/(unsigned) Order of Default & cover ltr filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1991 | Response to Motion for Award of Attorneys` Fees and Costs Pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes w/Affidavit filed. (From Karel Baarslag) |
| Dec. 02, 1991 | Notification card sent out. |
| Nov. 25, 1991 | Petition for Attorney`s Fees; Letter of referral to VED from B. Roth filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 16, 1995 | Opinion | |
| Nov. 10, 1992 | DOAH Final Order | Petitioner entitled to maxium of 15, 000 fees and costs. No interest and additional cost. |
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs AMER-CU HOME CARE, INC., 91-007574F (1991)
REDI-CARE HOME SERVICES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 91-007574F (1991)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs NURSING QUALITY SERVICES, INC., 91-007574F (1991)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, M.D., 91-007574F (1991)
