Findings Of Fact Donald B. Parker was elected to the Gulf County Board of County Commission in November 1988, and served until April 1991. In 1990, Gulf County undertook improvements to county road C-30. It advertised for bids and awarded the contract to C.W. Roberts Contracting, Inc., the lowest bidder. The contract was entered in October 1990, and included resurfacing the road, replacement of culverts, installation of some guardrails and reworking the shoulders on the highway. Respondent Parker and the other commissioners reviewed the contract. C.W. Roberts Contracting, Inc., subcontracted with Capital Asphalt, Inc., to produce the asphalt and place it on the roadway. The subcontract is dated October 1990. On February 22, 1991, Respondent, Donald Parker, was hired by Capital Asphalt, Inc. to help get the company's operation set up in Gulf County. His tasks included answering the telephone, running errands, issuing chits for gas for the trucks, sending in company timesheets, and similar activities. He was a friend of Al Cross, the company owner's husband. Parker knew that the company was working on county road C-30 and was selling asphalt to C.W. Roberts. The company also had other customers for its asphalt. Payments to C.W. Roberts by Gulf County on the C-30 project and other projects were made after tasks were completed and draws were approved by the road inspector. The commissioners approved payments to the contractor after reviewing the invoices. Invoice or application for payment #8 for $14,158.88 was reviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners, upon motion of Respondent Parker, in the commission's regular session on March 12, 1991. This was one of several payments to C.W. Roberts approved on the county road and various other projects at the March 12th meeting. Attached to application for payment #8 is a detailed breakout of the items for payment, including a request for $2,180.88 for 83.88 tons of FDOT SAHM CSE. This was material provided by Capital Asphalt to C.W. Roberts for the resurfacing of C-30. This fact can only be determined, however, from a review of the invoice, the contract with C.W. Roberts, and the subcontract with Capital Asphalt. Those three documents reveal that all of the material, FDOT SAHM CSE, 13,475 tons, required for the C.W. Roberts job on C-30, came from Capital Asphalt. Respondent Parker testified credibly that he never saw the Capital Asphalt subcontract. He knew, of course, of the Gulf County contract with C.W. Roberts, and he knew that his temporary employer was providing material and work on that contract. He did not know that under the subcontract, payment by C.W. Roberts to Capital Asphalt was contingent upon C.W. Roberts being paid by the county. And, he did not know that the vote he took at the March 12th meeting was a vote for payment that would be passed on to Capital Asphalt. Although Donald Parker had experience in finance, having been a loan officer in a finance company for twenty-eight years, his duties for Capital Asphalt described in this proceeding did not necessarily expose him to the financial dealings between this subcontractor and the county's contractor, C.W. Roberts. He was employed by Capital Asphalt for only two or three months, just long enough to include his vote at the March 12 commission session, but not long enough to become involved in the affairs of the company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics issue its final order and public report dismissing the complaint in this case. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-0314EC The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the Advocate: 1. Adopted in paragraph 1. 2.-5. Adopted in paragraph 2. 6. Adopted in paragraph 3. 7. Adopted in paragraph 5. 8.-9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 8. 10.-13. Adopted in paragraph 4. 14. Adopted in paragraph 9. 15. Adopted in paragraph 6. 16.-20. Adopted in paragraph 7. 21. Rejected as based on an assumption unsupported by the weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Advocate for the Commission on Ethics The Capitol, Suite 1601 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Donald Parker HCO 1, Box 97 Port St. Joe, Florida 32456 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue An administrative complaint dated October 23, 1997, alleges that Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, when he falsely indicated on his licensure application that he had never been convicted of a crime nor pled guilty or nolo contendere. The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether the violation occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ibrahim Z. Gonzalez, is, and has been at all relevant times, a licensed Florida real estate broker-salesperson, having been issued license no. 3003291 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. On February 17, 1984, in San Diego, California, Respondent pled guilty to one count of sexual battery- a felony, and was jailed, fined, and placed on probation. Respondent's court-appointed attorney told him the conviction would only affect him if he sought employment with the federal government or law enforcement. On August 3, 1989, after a plea of guilty, Respondent was convicted in the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of making false statements on a government application. Specifically, in 1985, Respondent withheld disclosure of the 1984 California conviction described above when he applied for employment with the U. S. Postal Service. For the federal conviction, he was placed on probation and fined $1,000. By 1989, Respondent had obtained a real estate license in New York. His court-appointed lawyer advised him to "stick to real estate" because, as the California lawyer told him, he would never be able to work for the federal government or in law enforcement. In May 1995, Respondent applied for licensure as a real estate broker in Florida. On the application form he answered "no" to this question: Have you ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest), even if adjudication was withheld? This question applies to any violation of the laws of any municipality, county, state or nation, including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection, or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether you were placed on probation, had adjudication withheld, paroled, or pardoned. If you intend to answer "NO" because you believe those records have been expunged or sealed by court order pursuant to Section 943.058, Florida Statutes, you are responsible for verifying the expungement or sealing prior to answering "NO." If you answered "YES", attach the details including any sentence and conditions imposed, in full on a separate sheet of paper. Your answer to this question will be checked against local, state and federal records. Failure to answer this question accurately could cause denial of licensure. If you do not fully understand this question, consult with an attorney or the Division of Real Estate. The affidavit that Respondent executed at the end of the application form states: The above named, and undersigned, applicant for licensure as real estate broker under the provisions of Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, as amended, upon being duly sworn, deposes and says that s(he) is the person so applying, that s(he) has carefully read the application, answers, and the attached statements, if any, and that all such answers and statements are true and correct, and are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever; that s(he) knows of no reason why this application should be denied; and s(he) further extends this affidavit to cover all amendments to this application or further statements to the Division or its representatives, by him/her in response to inquiries concerning his/her qualifications. Respondent contends that he did not disclose his prior convictions when he applied to practice real estate in New York and Pennsylvania and he remains licensed in those states. He claims that because real estate has nothing to do with law enforcement or federal employment, he did not have to reveal the convictions on his application. Respondent has practiced his real estate profession in Florida for 3 years without any disciplinary incidents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order finding Ibrahim Z. Gonzalez guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and revoking his Florida real estate brokers' license. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ghunise Coaxum, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Legal Section, Suite N 308 Zora Neale Hurston Building North Tower 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1771 Francisco Colon, Jr. 341 North Maitland Avenue Suite 360 Maitland, Florida 32751 Henry M. Solares, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Center 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been licensed as a real estate broker, Florida license number 0388729. Respondent was licensed with United Farm Agency of Florida, Inc. United Farm Agency of Florida operated two offices relevant to this proceeding, one office in Live Oak, the other in Lake City. Both offices were headed by William Goff, another licensed broker. During the summer of 1985, Goff, desiring to retire, made arrangements with United Farm Agency, through his supervisor, Steve Goddard, to withdraw from the operations of the offices. Goff left the Lake City office in July, 1985, and left the Live Oak office in October, 1985. Respondent was employed by United Farm Agency, through supervisor Steve Goddard, in July, 1985, when he took over operation of the Lake City office, which Goff had already vacated. Prior to Goff's retirement, Goff and Goddard verbally agreed that Goff would receive a portion of the commission paid to the seller of existing property listings Goff had obtained. This agreement was relayed by Goddard to Respondent, who verbally agreed to pay the fee on listings which were given to Hofmann. The agreed sum, referred to as a "listing fee," was to be 30% of the Respondent's 60% share of the total commission. The fee was to be paid to Goff, if and when Respondent sold property which remained under a valid Goff-executed listing contract. Goff and the Respondent did not directly discuss the arrangement, but relied on Goddard to act as the mediator. On or about June 26, 1985, Goff listed for sale, property owned by the Lewandowski family. The listing contract stated that the listing contract was to remain effective for a period of one year; however the expiration date was mistakenly entered on the contract as June 26, 1985. The contract expiration date should have been stated as June 26, 1986. The evidence did not indicate that the contract was intended to have been effective for only one day. While the Goff listing remained effective, the Lewandowskis allegedly entered into a second listing contract, this time with the Respondent. Respondent stated that he did not believe the Goff listing contract to be valid due to the mistaken expiration date. The Lewandowskis did not sign a cancellation of the Goff listing contract. Goff, not yet fully retired, continued to show the property to prospective purchasers, but did not inform Respondent that he continued to show the property. During the time the original Goff listing was effective, the Respondent found a buyer for the Lewandowski property. The agreed sales price was $240,000. The Respondent's share of the commission was about $8,640. The Respondent retained the full commission, and refused to pay the "listing fee" to Goff. Goff contacted Goddard, who reminded the Respondent of the agreement to pay the fee. Respondent refused to pay the listing fee, claiming that he had not been given the listing when he became employed by United Farm Agency. Goff proceeded to file suit to collect the fee. In May 1987, a Final Judgement was entered in Columbia County Court, Case No 86-845-CC, finding Respondent liable for payment of the listing fee and directing Respondent to pay to Goat the sum of $4,320.00, plus $604.92 interest, and $50.00 costs. Respondent has failed and refuses to pay the judgement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order suspending the licensure of Peter K. Hofmann for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 22nd day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5541 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1-5. Accepted. 6-7. Accepted, as modified in the Findings of Fact. Rejected, irrelevant. Accepted. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified in the Recommended Order except as follows: 1-3. Accepted. 4. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 5-6. Rejected insofar as mere restatement of testimony, otherwise accepted, as modified in the Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Peter K. Hofmann 73 Quinlan Drive, #1 Greenville, South Carolina 29611 Darlene F. Keller, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a small business party within the meaning of Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). Petitioner was required to relocate its business in 1986 as the result of a public taking of the property where the business was situated. Petitioner sought relocation benefits from Respondent's relocation assistance program. The program is operated by Respondent in accordance with authority contained in Sections 339.09(4) and 421.55(3), Florida Statutes. Various requests by Petitioner for payment of relocation benefits in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act were denied by Respondent. In DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, Petitioner sought a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes concerning Respondent's denial of the requested reimbursements. At the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, evidence was presented regarding Respondent's denial of benefit payments of $1,324 for advertisement expense in a telephone directory; $1,370 for installation of an exhaust fan at the new facility; $2,405 for fees for consultative services from an attorney; $1,200 for the alleged loss of employee time spent in conferences with Respondent personnel regarding relocation; $1,500 for expense of a second search for a suitable relocation site; and $1,035 for consultation fees associated with design of a product display area in the new facility. With the exception of Respondent's denial of the claim for $1,035 for consultant fees, Respondent's denials were found to be appropriate in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. Such a finding of appropriateness also equates to a finding of substantial justification for denial for purposes of this proceeding. A recommended order was issued in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, finding denials of all requested reimbursements to be appropriate with the exception of Respondent's denial of the request for $1,035 for consultation fees associated with design of a product display area. Payment of this latter amount was recommended as constituting an authorized reimbursement under legal provisions governing the relocation program. On December 26, 1988, Respondent entered a final order awarding Petitioner $1,035 for this consultation fee expense. Other claims for reimbursement by Petitioner in the amount of $10,414.17 were paid by Respondent, prior to the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, in the course of proceedings in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. That court adopted a settlement stipulation of the parties regarding those claims which expressly reserved attorney fees in regard to those issues for later determination by that court. Petitioner presented no evidence with regard to those claims at the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. At the final hearing in the present proceeding, Respondent offered testimony that confusion concerning payment of those claims resulted from the death of the attorney handling the case for Respondent. Respondent initially denied the claims in the absence of the deceased attorney's records in the mistaken belief that the matter had been resolved earlier in the circuit court condemnation proceeding. Upon learning such was not the case, payment of the claim and effectuation of settlement of the issue was made in the circuit court case and occurred shortly after Petitioner's request for hearing in DOAH Case No. 88- 0778T. The circumstances surrounding the initial denial of payment of this benefit by Respondent substantially justify Respondent's denial and constitute a sufficient basis to deny Petitioner's recovery of fees or costs related to this payment recovery in this administrative proceeding. The proof submitted at the final hearing in this cause establishes that Petitioner's counsel expended between 55 and 70 hours of time in his representation of Petitioner's attempts to recover all denied benefits in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. Counsel's average hourly rate was $125. However, the fee arrangement between client and counsel was a "modified or combined contingency fee" permitting any recoverable attorney fees to serve as the primary source of payment of counsel's fees. Petitioner was not bound by the agreement to pay counsel's fees beyond amounts determined to be appropriate by the hearing officer in the administrative case or the judge in the circuit court matter. To that extent, attorney fees in this cause that have been incurred by Petitioner may be considered "contingent." Documentation submitted by Petitioner includes an affidavit from its president which simply recites the status of Petitioner as a small business party, but sets forth no specifics of a fee arrangement with counsel. The affidavit of Petitioner's counsel establishes a minimum number of hours (55) and dates of work performed by counsel, and states that his hourly rate is $125. Calculating the number of hours by the hourly rate, one reaches a total fee amount of $6,875. Counsel's affidavit does not address which of the various benefits sought to be recovered was the subject of any particular expenditure of time. Although the relocation benefits sought to be recovered were separable subjects, allocation of time expended with regard to a particular benefit recovery effort is not established by the evidence. Testimony of William Robert Leonard was also offered by Petitioner to support the reasonableness of a legal fee amount of $10,000 for Petitioner's counsel. While Mr. Leonard opined that he normally would not support a $10,000 attorney fee as reasonable for a $1,000 recovery, the circumstances of this case were different because "[y]ou are arguing with the state." Petitioner attempted to establish through further testimony of Leonard that the enormity of the resources of the government of the State of Florida justify such a fee because cost considerations prevent private litigants from engaging in costly and protracted proceedings in matters of limited recovery. Leonard did not address allocation of the requested attorney fee among the various benefits for which recovery was sought, choosing instead to premise his opinion regarding reasonableness of a $10,000 attorney fee upon "the amount of time counsel was required to respond to a state agency." Leonard's testimony is not credited with regard to reasonableness of a $10,000 fee for recovery of the $1,035 relocation benefit due to his professed lack of knowledge of certain administrative law procedures; the failure of his testimony to address the nature or difficulty of tasks performed by counsel for Petitioner; and his concurrence with the assertion that his opinion of such a fee was based in part upon a "gut reaction." No evidence was submitted to support the reasonableness of the cost amount of $250 requested as a witness fee for Mr. Leonard's participation in the proceeding. Petitioner seeks recovery of $448.50 in costs associated with the transcript of final hearing had in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T and a $480 expert witness fee in conjunction with testimony of E. Scott Golden, an attorney, at that final hearing. The testimony of Mr. Golden in that proceeding related to his provision of relocation site advice to Petitioner and drafting of legal documents for Petitioner. Petitioner did not prevail with regard to recovery of relocation benefits related to the expense of Mr. Golden's services.
The Issue An administrative complaint filed January 19, 1994, alleges that Respondent, Rafael Feliu, violated various provisions of Chapter 475, F.S. by diverting commission funds to himself, by operating as a broker without a valid broker's license and by collecting money in a real estate brokerage transaction without the consent of his employer. The issue in this case is whether those violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rafael Feliu (Feliu) is now and was at all times material a licensed real estate broker-salesperson in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0538613 pursuant to Chapter 475, F.S. His most recent license was issued, effective 5/3/93, c/o Century 21 Progressive Realty, Inc., 11301 So. Orange Blossom Trail, Orlando, Florida. Between May 1990 and March 1993, Feliu was engaged as a broker- salesperson with Angel Gonzalez of Century 21 Nuestro Realty Co., in Orlando, Florida. The parties' independent contractor agreement, dated May 29, 1990, provides for a sixty percent sales commission to Feliu. On November 28, 1992, Feliu solicited and obtained a contract for the purchase of vacant land and the construction of a house. The real estate commission was to be paid in installments. The buyer under the contract was a friend of Feliu, Luis Rodriguez. Feliu and Rodriguez made an arrangement that Rodriguez would receive a rebate of the commission. While the broker, Angel Gonzalez, denies that he agreed to the arrangement, he does admit that he saw a break-down of disbursement of the commission provided by Feliu and that he signed a letter, prepared by Feliu, describing that break-down, including the rebate to Rodriguez. The first commission check, in the amount of $8,750.00 is made to Century 21 Nuestro and is dated June 4, 1993. Feliu delivered the check to Angel Gonzalez with a handwritten break-out of disbursement, including a $1000 rebate and a $2500 rebate (one-half the agreed $5000) to Luis Rodriguez. Gonzalez refused to disburse the commission as indicated on the break- out, but rather sent Feliu a check on June 8, 1993, for $4554.30, representing his usual share of the commission. The second installment of the commission was paid approximately ten days later. Feliu went to the contractor responsible for paying the commission and asked him to make the check to him, Rafael Feliu. Thus, the second check in the amount of $8750.00 is dated June 18, 1993 and is made out to Rafael Feliu. By this time Feliu had left Century 21 Nuestro and was working with another company. Feliu cashed the check and made the disbursements to Luis Rodriguez. He also retained his share of the balance along with sums of $449.93 and $128.00 that he claimed Nuestro Realty owed him on other sales. He sent the balance, $274.77, to Angel Gonzalez with a letter describing in detail the disbursement of the $8750.00 and explaining that he, Feliu, handled the disbursement because Gonzalez had not complied with regard to the first half of the commission.
Recommendation Based on the evidence presented and discussed above, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Real Estate Commission enter its final order dismissing the allegations of violation of section 475.25(1)(b), F.S. (Count I), finding Respondent Rafael Feliu guilty of the remaining counts of the complaint, and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 18th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 18th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0856 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. & 3. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. & 6. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraphs 5 and 6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in part in paragraph 4; otherwise rejected as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as immaterial. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Rejected as contrary to the law (see paragraph 13). - 14. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven W. Johnson, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32802 Rafael S. Feliu 2260 Whispering Maple Drive Orlando, Florida 32837 Darlene F. Keller, Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 2013, the undersigned entered an Order on Remand requiring Petitioner to submit any documentation, including supporting affidavits, within 20 days of said Order setting forth the amount of attorney’s fees Petitioner seeks in DCA Case No. 1D12-3557. Petitioner filed two Motions for Extension of Time in which to comply with the Order on Remand. The Motions were granted and on June 12, 2013, Petitioner filed Petitioner’s Request for Appellate Attorney’s Fees and Costs with the Division. The Order on Remand required Respondent to file its response to Petitioner’s Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs within 20 days of Petitioner’s filing. To date, Respondent has not filed any response and has not requested an extension of time in which to file a response. The parties were further ordered to state whether or not either party believed that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing only in the event that the undersigned was inclined to reduce or deny Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees or costs. Accordingly, no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Attorney's Fees and Costs Petitioner/Appellee requests attorney’s fees in the total amount of $47,170. This total includes attorney’s fees in the amount of $42,760 attributable to Proctor Appellate Law, PA, and attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,410 attributable to Avera & Smith, LLP. The hourly rate for Sharon H. Proctor of Proctor Appellate Law, PA, is $400 per hour; the hourly rate for Jennifer C. Biewend of Avera & Smith, LLP, is $350 per hour. Detailed billing records are attached to the attorneys’ affidavits as exhibits to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Ms. Proctor, who was retained to represent Petitioner/Appellee in the appeal of this case, served as primary counsel in all matters pertaining to the appeal and incurred 106.9 attorney hours. Ms. Biewend served as counsel of record in the underlying merits case and as co-counsel of record before the First District Court of Appeal and incurred 12.6 attorney hours on the appeal. Petitioner submitted the affidavit of attorney Paul Donnelly, Esquire, as an expert in support of Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. The undersigned has read Mr. Donnelly’s affidavit and finds that it supports the number of hours expended and hourly rates charged. The undersigned reviewed the affidavits of the attorneys of record and the billing records, and finds Petitioner/Appellee's requests for attorney's fees to be reasonable. Petitioner requests appellate costs in the amount of $764.36. The undersigned reviewed the cost ledger submitted by Petitioner’s counsel. The appellate costs reflect travel expenses of counsel to attend the oral argument. The amount of costs is reasonable.
Other Judicial Opinions 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.
The Issue Is the practice of the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to decline Medicaid-funded compensation for emergency medical services provided to undocumented aliens once the patients have reached a point of stabilization an unpromulgated rule? The Petitioners' Proposed Final Order identifies the Agency's use of limited InterQual criteria to determine medical necessity as an issue in this proceeding. But the Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy does not raise this issue. Neither party's pre-hearing statement identifies it as an issue. Consequently, this Order does not consider or determine whether the Agency's limitation on the use of InterQual criteria is an "unpromulgated rule."
Findings Of Fact Proceedings Before the Division of Administrative Hearings and the First District Court of Appeal In the beginning this was an action by the Hospitals aimed at stopping Agency efforts to recoup reimbursement of Medicaid payments to the Hospitals for emergency services provided to undocumented aliens once the patients have reached a point of “stabilization.” The issue of whether the Agency could apply the “stabilization” standard to the Hospital claims for Medicaid payment for services provided indigent aliens recurred in Agency claims against hospitals throughout the state to recoup Medicaid payments. Hospitals challenged Agency claims in individual proceedings under section 120.569, which the Agency referred to the Division for disputed fact hearings. Duane Morris, LLP (Duane Morris), led by Joanne Erde, represented the hospitals in the individual proceedings. The Hospitals collectively engaged Duane Morris to represent them in this proceeding challenging the Agency’s stabilization standard as an unpromulgated rule. Joanne B. Erde, Donna Stinson, and Harry Silver were the Hospital’s lawyers in this proceeding. Ms. Erde is an experienced lawyer who has focused her practice in health care. Ms. Stinson is an experienced lawyer who concentrated her practice in health care and administrative law litigation before the Division. The Agency does not question their expertise. Mr. Silver is an experienced lawyer with no Florida administrative law experience. His role in the case was minimal. Depositions taken in one of the individual reimbursement cases were significant evidence in this proceeding. Those depositions make it clear that the Hospitals’ counsel was tuned into the unpromulgated rule issue and using discovery in that case to gather and identify the evidence that they would need in this case. Representation of the Hospitals in individual reimbursement actions provided Hospitals’ counsel the advantage of preparing with level of detail before filing the petition. The engagement letters recognize this stating: “We have an understanding of the facts underlying this matter and have substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the issues in this case.” This well-developed understanding of the facts should have minimized the need for discovery and preparation in this proceeding. Counsel were well positioned to prosecute this matter efficiently. Likewise, counsel’s “substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the issues in this case” should have minimized the need for time spent in research. This is not what happened. The pre-existing representation in the reimbursement cases provided another obvious and significant benefit to the Hospitals and their counsel. Since counsel represented the individual hospital in the separate reimbursement matters, the Hospitals could band together to jointly finance one case that would resolve the troublesome point of “stabilization” issue more consistently and more cheaply than if they litigated it in each and every case. As the basically identical engagement agreements between each hospital and counsel state: “Because many hospitals’ interests in [sic] are similar or identical as it relates to the Alien Issue and in order to keep legal costs to a minimum, each of the participants in the [hospital] Group will [sic] have agreed that it wishes this firm to represent them in a Group.” Because of counsel’s pre-existing relationships with the Hospitals, litigating this matter should have continued or enhanced the client relationships. The time required for this matter could not result in lost business opportunities. In fact, by consolidating the issues common to all the clients and their cases, counsel freed up time to work on other matters. Presentation of the issue for resolution in a single case also saved the Hospitals the greater cost of disputing the issue in each case where the Agency sought reimbursement. The Hospitals and counsel dealt with the only possible downside of the representation by including disclosures about joint representation and a waiver of conflict claims in the engagement letters. This was not a contingent fee case. The agreement provided for monthly billing and payment from counsel’s trust account. Each group member made an initial payment of $10,000 to the trust account. Any time the trust account balance dipped below $15,000, each group member agreed to contribute another $10,000 to the trust account. For counsel, this representation was about as risk free as a legal engagement can be. The Hospitals and their counsel knew from the outset that they would have to prove their reasonableness of their fees and costs if they prevailed and wanted to recover fees. The Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy seeks an award of fees and costs. They could have adjusted their billing practices to provide more detail in preparation for a fees dispute. An "unpromulgated rule challenge" presents a narrow and limited issue. That issue is whether an agency has by declaration or action established a statement of general applicability that is a "rule," as defined in section 120.52(16), without going through the required public rulemaking process required by section 120.54. The validity of the agency's statement is not an issue decided in an "unpromulgated rule challenge." Courts have articulated the legal standards for unpromulgated rule challenges frequently. See, e.g., Coventry First, LLC v. Off. of Ins. Reg., 38 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Dep’t of Rev. v. Vanjaria Enters., 675 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); and the cases those opinions cite. The facts proving the “stabilization” standard were easy to establish. Many Agency documents stated the shift to the “stabilization” standard. Documents of Agency contractors did also. Two examples of how clear it was that the Agency was applying a new standard were the Agency’s statements in its 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 reports to the Governor on efforts to control Medicaid fraud and abuse. The reports describe the “stabilization” standard as “more stringent” and certain to recover millions of dollars for the Agency. As the Agency’s reports to the Governor indicate, the stakes were high in this matter. For the Hospitals and other hospitals collectively affected by the Agency’s effort to recoup past payments by applying the “stabilization” standard, $400,000,000 was at stake. This matter did not present complex or difficult issues, legally or factually. The Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions requiring parties to disclose documents and witnesses and update the disclosures alleviated the discovery demands present in other litigation. The Agency’s failure to fully comply with the pre- hearing instructions and unfounded Motion in Limine added some additional time demands for the Hospital’s counsel. Nonetheless the issues were narrow, and the facts were essentially undisputed, if not undisputable. This matter did not require extraordinary amounts of time for discovery or preparation. Ordinarily challenges to rules or unpromulgated rules impose time pressures on the attorneys because of the requirement in section 120.56 that the hearing commence within 30 days of assignment to the Administrative Law Judge. The time constraint was not a factor in this case. The Hospitals requested waiver of the time requirement to permit more time for discovery. The Agency agreed, and the undersigned granted the request. Thus the Hospitals had the time their counsel said they needed to prepare for the hearing. The appeal imposed no time constraints. Both parties received extensions of time for their filings. Seventeen months passed between filing the notice of appeal and oral argument. Time for the Administrative Proceeding The total number of hours claimed for the services of the three lawyers, their claimed hourly rate, and the total fees claimed appear below. Joanne B. Erde 458.20 hours $550.00 rate $252,010.00 Donna Stinson 136.20 hours $455.00 rate $61,971.00 Harry Silver 93.40 hours $550.00 rate $51,370.00 Total 687.80 hours $365,351.00 The Hospitals’ counsel’s billing records are voluminous. For the proceeding before the Division, the Hospitals’ counsel’s invoices list 180 billing entries for the work of three lawyers. A substantial number of the entries are block billing. In block billing, all of a lawyer’s activities for a period of time, usually a day, are clumped together with one time total for the entire day’s service. It is an acceptable form of billing. But block billing presents difficulties determining the reasonableness of fees because a single block of time accounts for several different activities and the invoice does not establish which activity took how much time. Here are representative examples of the block billing entries from the Division level invoices: August 20, 2012 (Erde) – Conference call with ALJ; telephone conference with AHCA attorney; telephone conference with newspaper reporters – 2.0 hours September 16, 2012 (Erde) – Review depositions; prepare opening remarks; develop impeachment testimony – 5.50 September 27, 2012 (Erde) – Intra-office conference; finalize interrogatories; work on direct – 8.50 October 2, 2012 (Stinson) – Review and revise Motion in Limine; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde and Harry Silver; review emails regarding discovery issues - `2.60 October 19, 2012 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss proposed order; Research Re: other OIG audits; research on validity of agency rules – 2.10 hours November 9, 2012 (Erde) – Conference with ALJ; Intra-Office conference to discuss status; further drafting of proposed order – 7.70 hours. November 19, 2012 (Stinson) – Final Review and Revisions to Proposed Final order; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde to Review final Changes and comments; Review AHCA’s proposed order and revised proposed order – 3.20 hours. Many of the entries, block or individual, do not provide sufficient detail to judge the reasonableness of the time reported. “Prepare for deposition and hearing,” “review depositions,” “review new documents,” “review draft documents,” “intra-office conference” and “attention to discovery” are recurrent examples. Senior lawyers with more expertise and higher billing rates are expected to be more efficient. This, the fact that the matter was not complicated, the relative simplicity of the issue, and the fact that the Hospitals’ counsel already had a great deal of familiarity with the facts and law involved, all require reducing the number of hours compensated in order for them to be reasonable. For this matter, in these circumstances, the claimed number of hours is quite high. The claimed 687.80 hours amounts to working eight hours a day for 86 days, two of which were the hearing. This is not reasonable. A reasonable number of hours for the proceedings before the Division is 180. That is the equivalent of 22.5 eight-hour days. That is sufficient to handle the matter before the Division from start to finish. The number includes consideration of the worked caused by the needless difficulties presented by the Agency in discovery and with its Motion in Limine. Time for the Appellate Proceeding The fees that the Hospitals seek for the appeal are broken down by hours and rates as follows: Joanne B. Erde 255.10 hours $560.00 $142,856.00 Joanne B. Erde 202.80 hours $580.00 $117,624.00 Donna Stinson 88.50 hours $460.00 $40,710.00 Donna Stinson 67.10 hours $500.00 $33,550.00 W.D. Zaffuto 48.30 hours $435.00 $21,010.50 Rob Peccola 10.90 hours $275.00 $2,997.50 Rob Peccola 17.50 hours $300.00 $5,250.00 L. Rodriguez- Taseff 6.20 hours $520.00 $3,224.00 L. Rodriguez- Taseff 19.50 hours $545.00 $10,627.50 Rachel Pontikes 38.20 hours $515.00 $19,673.00 Total 754.10 hours $397,522.50 For the appellate proceeding, the invoices present 341 entries, a substantial number of which are block billing for work by six lawyers. Here are representative examples from the appellate level invoices: May 16, 2013 (Erde) – Reviewed AHCA’s initial brief; intra- office conference to discuss; preliminary review of record – 2.90 May 24, 2013 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss response to brief; preparation to respond to brief – 2.50 May 30, 2013 (Erde) – Attention to Appeal issues; finalize request for extension; brief research re jurisdictional issues – 1.60 June 18, 2013 (Peccola) – Strategy with J. Erde regarding research needs; review/analyze case law cited in answer brief; conduct legal research regarding documentary evidence and exhibits on appellate review; write email memo to J. Erde regarding same – 2.00 July 19, 2013 (Zaffuto) – Revise/draft Answer Brief; discuss extension of time with H. Gurland; research appellate rules regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending ruling on motion; review appendix to answer brief; instructions to assistant regarding edits and filing of answer brief and appendix prepare answer brief for filing; call to clerk regarding extension of time review initial brief by AHCA and final order by ALJ – 5.50 August 14, 2013 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss brief; further revised brief – 5.80 August 15, 2013 (Stinson) Reviewed appellees' answer brief; discussed language in answer brief with Joanne Erde – 2.50 October 9, 2013 (Stinson) – Review draft motion to relinquish regarding admission of exhibit; exchange e-mails with Joanne Erde; telephone conference with Joanne Erde – 1.60 October 10, 2013 (Erde) – Attention to new motion re relinquishing jurisdiction; review of revisions; further revisions – 6.00 October 30, 2013 (Erde) – Research re: AHCA’s current behavior; intra-office conference to discuss status of action at DOAH - .70 November 7, 2013 (Peccola) – Strategy with J. Erde regarding Appellees’ response in opposition to Appellant’s motion for supplemental briefing; conduct research regarding same; draft same; look up 1st DCA local rule on appellate motions and email same to J. Erde – 3.60 December 5, 2013 (Erde) – Research Re: supplemental briefing issues; research to find old emails from AHCA re: inability to produce witnesses -.90 January 21, 2014 (Rodriguez-Taseff) – Working on Supplemental Answer Brief – legal argument re authentication and cases distinguishing marchines [sic]; editing facts – 6.70 February 3, 2014 (Erde) – Review and revise response to motion for further briefing; intra-office conference to discuss same – 2.20 May 2, 2014 (Pontikes) – Continue to review relevant case law regarding the definition of an unpromulgated rule; continue to analyze the briefs and the arguments; continue to draft an outline of the argument discussed – 5.00 June 5, 2014 (Erde) – draft email to group regarding AHCA’s settlement offer; reviewed supplemental settlement offer from AHCA; draft email to group re same – 1.70 June 11, 2014 (Erde) – Attention to finalizing response to AHCA’s notice of dismissal and filing of fee petition; memo to members of group – 8.00 July 21, 2014 (Erde) – completed motion for rehearing re: fees as sanctions; drafted status report for DOAH regarding status of DCA opinion; drafted status report in companion case; emails with AHCA re: withdrawing pending audits – 6.90 July 21, 2014 (Peccola) – Strategy with D. Stinson and J. Erde regarding motion for rehearing; revise/edit same; review/revise edit notices in trial court 1.20. The descriptive entries in the invoices for the appellate representation also lack sufficient detail. Examples are: “begin preparation to respond to AHCA”s brief,” “attention to appeal issues,” “preparation to draft answer brief,” and “research and draft answer brief.” For the appellate proceedings, Duane Morris added four lawyers, none with experience in Florida administrative or appellate matters. W.D. Zaffuto, L. Rodriguez-Taseff, and Rachel Pontikes are senior level lawyers in Duane Morris offices outside of Florida. Rob Peccola is a junior level lawyer from a Duane Morris office outside of Florida. The apparent result is those lawyers spending more time on issues than the more experienced Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson would. One example of this is a July 19, 2013, billing entry where a lawyer spent time researching “appellate rules regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending ruling on motion.” The two lawyers primarily responsible for this matter, both laying claim to Florida appellate expertise, would only need to quickly check the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to confirm their recollection of the rules, something that would probably take less time than it took to make the time entry and review the draft bill. Hospitals’ also filed a puzzling motion that presents a discreet example of needless attorney time billed in this matter. The Hospitals expended 21.8 hours on a Motion for Rehearing of the court’s order awarding them fees and costs. The court’s opinion and the Final Order stated that fees and costs were awarded under section 120.595(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Yet the Hospitals’ motion fretted that fees might be assessed under section 120.595(4)(b), which caps fees at $50,000. The court denied the motion. Two things stand out when reviewing the invoices for the appellate proceeding. The first is that the appeal took more hours than the trial proceeding. A trial proceeding is generally more time-consuming because of discovery, a hearing much longer than an oral argument, witness preparation, document review, and preparing a proposed order. The second is the sheer number of hours. Hospitals’ counsel seeks payment for 754.10 hours in the appellate proceeding. This is 66.3 more than for the Division proceeding. It included a two day hearing, trial preparation, research, and preparing a 37 page proposed final order. In eight-hour days the claimed hours amount to a staggering 94.26 days. That amounts to one lawyer working on the appeal for eight hours a day for three months. Of this time, 613.5 hours were spent by Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson, lawyers with expertise in the subject area, who had prepared the case for hearing, who participated in the hearing, who closely reviewed the entire record for preparation of their proposed final order, who researched the issues before the hearing and for the proposed final order, and who wrote the proposed final order. With all this knowledge and experience with the record and the law, handling the appeal should have taken less time than the proceeding before the Division.2/ One factor supports the appellate proceeding taking as many hours, or a few more hours, than the administrative proceeding. It is the Agency’s disputatious conduct over a scrivener’s error in the Final Order which erroneously stated that the Agency’s Exhibit 1 had been admitted. The Agency’s conduct increased the time needed to represent the Hospitals in the appeal. The Agency relied upon the exhibit in its initial brief, although it twice cited page 359 of the transcript where the objection to the exhibit was sustained. Also the Agency’s and the Hospitals’ proposed final orders correctly stated that Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The Hospitals’ Answer Brief noted that Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The transcript of the final hearing and both parties’ proposed final orders were clear that the exhibit had not been admitted. Yet the Agency argued in its Reply Brief that it had been. This required the Hospitals to move to remand the case for correction of the error. The Agency opposed the motion. The court granted the motion. The Final Order was corrected and jurisdiction relinquished back to the court. The Agency used this as an opportunity to trigger a new round of briefing about whether Exhibit 1 should have been admitted. This has been considered in determining the reasonable number of hours for handling the appeal. A reasonable number of hours for handling the appeal is 225. Converted to eight-hour days, this would be 28.13 days. For the appeal, Duane Morris attributes 28.4 hours of the work to a junior lawyer. This is 3.8 percent of the total time claimed. Applying that percentage to 225 hours, results in 8.6 hours attributed to the junior lawyer with the remaining 216.45 hours attributed to senior lawyers. Attorneys and Fees Each party presented expert testimony on the issues of reasonable hours and reasonable fees. The Agency presented the testimony of M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire. The Hospitals presented the testimony of David Ashburn, Esquire. As is so often the case with warring experts, the testimony of the witnesses conflicts dramatically. Mr. Bryant opined that a reasonable rate for senior lawyers, such as Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson, ranged between $350 and $450 per hour. The reasonable rate for junior lawyers was $200 per hour. Mr. Ashburn opined that the reasonable hourly rate for senior lawyers ranged between $595 and $700 and the reasonable rate for junior lawyers was between $275 and $300. The contrast was the same for the opinions on the reasonable number of hours needed to handle the two stages of this litigation. Mr. Bryant testified that the administrative proceeding should have taken 150 to 170 hours and that the appeal should have taken 175 to 195 hours. Mr. Ashburn testified that the Hospitals’ claimed 687 hours for the proceeding before the Division and 754.10 hour for the appellate proceeding were reasonable. The Hospitals argue that somehow practicing in a large national law firm, like Duane Morris justifies a higher rate. The theory is unpersuasive. A national law firm is nothing special. There is no convincing, credible evidence to support a conclusion that lawyers from a national firm in comparison to smaller state or local firms provide better representation or more skilled and efficient lawyering that justifies a higher rate. Based upon the evidence presented in this record, a reasonable rate for the senior lawyers participating in this matter is $425 per hour. A reasonable rate for the junior lawyer participating in this matter is $200.00. Fee Amounts A reasonable fee amount for representation in the proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings is $76,500. A reasonable fee amount for the proceeding before the First District Court of Appeal is $93,701.25. Costs Hospitals seek $6,333.63 in costs. The evidence proves these costs are reasonable. The Agency does not dispute them.
