The Issue The issue presented for consideration concerns the question whether action taken by the Respondent in its efforts to comply with the mandate of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), constitutes a rule or rules which has or have not been duly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This case is here presented on the Petition of Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., by an action against the Board of Dentistry, an agency of the State of Florida and the Department of Professional Regulation, an agency of the State of Florida, as Respondents. The purpose of this Petition is to have declared invalid certain activities of the Respondents pertaining to their efforts at complying with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), in promoting license revocation or suspension cases against various dentists licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The Petitioner contends that these activities by the Respondents constitute a rule or rules which fail to comply with requirements of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of Florida and thereby regulated by the Respondents. The Petitioner is also the subject of disciplinary action in Case No. 78-1481 before the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, and it is the action which was taken against Dr. Sheppard in the course of that prosecution, dealing with the subject of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which the current Petitioner asserts to be an invalid rule or rules. The language of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), states: (5) No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency has given reasonable notice by certified mail or actual service to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and the licensee has been given an opportunity to show that he has complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license. If the agency is unable to obtain service by certified mail or by actual service, constructive service may be made in the same manner as is provided in chapter 49. Having considered the statement found in the above-referenced Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), counsel for Dr. Sheppard in D.O.A.H Case No. 78-1481 filed a Motion to Dismiss the Administrative Complaint on August 31, 1979, alleging that the agency had failed to comply with the provisions. Oral argument on that motion was scheduled for 2:30 o'clock p.m. on September 17, 1979, and was heard at that time; however, prior to the oral argument, the Board of Dentistry on September 14, 1979, filed a docent in the case, which document attempted compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The document was entitled "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and by its terms granted Dr. Sheppard an opportunity to appear before H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Florida State Board of Dentistry, on September 17, 1979, at 10:00 a.m. in Tallahassee, Florida. (A copy of this "Notice of Intended Action Conference" was attached to the Petition in the case sub judice as an exhibit.) The Board of Dentistry had alerted the Hearing Officer to the action it had contemplated by its "Notice of Intended Action Conference." It did so through the Board prosecutor by correspondence of September 14, 1979, a copy of which may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Dr. Sheppard filed an objection to the adequacy of the "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and refused to appear at that conference. After considering the oral arguments of the parties directed to the Motion to Dismiss of August 31, 1978, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, the Honorable Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered her Order dated September 26, 1979. (A copy of that Order has been attached as an exhibit to the current Petition.) In her Order, the Hearing Officer found the "Notice of Intended Action Conference was insufficient, in that the notice did not grant Sheppard sufficient time to prepare for the conference to be held on September 17, 1979, to the extent of demonstrating his compliance with the provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, as contemplated by Sub section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The Hearing officer did feel that Dr. Sheppard had been notified of those allegations for which he was called upon to defend against and she granted the Board of Dentistry thirty (30) days from the date of her Order, September 26, 1978, to allow the accused an opportunity to show that he had complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of his license. There followed the current Petition which was filed on September 28, 1979. That Petition has been the subject of a Motion to Dismiss which challenged the adequacy of the Petition. The Motion to Dismiss was responded to and in the course of that response the Petitioner's counsel attached a copy of a "Notice of Informal Conference" to be held on October 23, 1979, at 9:00 a.m., in Tallahassee, Florida. (The location of that conference was subsequently changed to a place more convenient for Dr. Sheppard, specifically, St. Petersburg, Florida, but the amendment was otherwise the same as the original October 23, 1979, notice.) When the Motion to Dismiss and response to the motion were considered, the motion was denied by written Order of the undersigned dated October 22, 1979. That Order found in accordance with the Order of Hearing Officer Strickland, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, referring to the Order dated September 26, 1979; that the efforts of complying with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), made by the Board of Dentistry in its attempted action conference to be held September 17, 1979, were not adequate and the prospective events of an action conference that would have been held on September 17, 1979, were deemed to be moot. Nonetheless, in view of the further action by the Board of Dentistry to conduct an informal conference on October 23, 1979, the present case was allowed to go forward on the basis that the Petitioner would be afforded an opportunity to show how the events leading to the written "Notice of Informal Conference" held on October 23, 1979, the notice itself, and the events at the conference constitute a rule or rules that has or have not been duly promulgated in the manner contemplated by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In furtherance of this permission, the Petitioner was and is allowed to make the "Notice of Informal Conference" as attached to the response to the Motion to Dismiss a part of the Petition and that "Notice of Informal Conference" is hereby made a part of the Petition. In the course of the hearing a number of witnesses were presented and those witnesses included Tom Guilday, a prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry; Liz Cloud, an employee of the State of Florida, Office of the Secretary of State; H. Fred Varn, Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry; Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation; and the Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard. In addition, the Petitioner offered three items of evidence which were admitted. The testimony of attorney Guilday established that as prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry in the action against Dr. Sheppard, he spoke with Charles F. Tunnicliff, Acting General Counsel, Department of Professional Regulation, who instructed Guilday to attempt to comply with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this was in anticipation of the pending Motion to Dismiss to be heard on September 17, 1979. One of the results of that conversation was the letter of September 14, 1979, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, addressed to Hearing Officer Strickland and the primary result was that of the September 14, 1979, "Notice of Intended Action Conference." The conference alluded to was to be held at the office of Mr. Varn. Attorney Guilday did not recall whether the contemplated disposition of September 17, 1979, was one which Tunnicliff indicated would be used in all similar cases pending before the Department of Professional Regulation. After Hearing Officer Strickland's Order was entered on September 26, 1979, attorney Deberah Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation instructed Guilday to comply with Hearing Officer Strickland's Order of September 26, 1979, on the subject of the dictates of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this instruction was supported by Memorandum of October 5, 1979, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. There ensued the conference of October 23, 1979, which was held in St. Petersburg, Florida. After the conference, pursuant to the instructions of attorneys Miller and Tunnicliff, Guilday prepared a memorandum on the results of that conference. This memorandum did not carry a recommendation as to the disposition of the case. Throughout this period of time, attorney Guilday was unaware of any general policy within the Department of Professional Regulation or Board of Dentistry which dealt with attempts at compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). None of the discussions which Guilday had with attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation or with other officials of that Department or Board of Dentistry led him to believe that there was any set policy for handling those issues. Guilday did acknowledge that a member of his law firm, one Michael Huey, had been instructed by Staff Attorney Miller on the technique to be utilized in refiling a prosecution against John Parry, D.D.S., wherein the action against Dr. Parry had been dismissed for lack of compliance of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). A copy of that Memorandum dated October 3, 1979, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 and it carries with it an attached form for "Notice of Informal Conference" under the terms of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1970), and that format is similar to the October 23, 1979, "Notice of Informal Conference" in the Sheppard case. Guilday indicated in connection with this Memorandum, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, that to his knowledge no discussion on how to comply with the terms of the memorandum was made and no actual compliance with the memorandum has been taken to his knowledge. It was established through the testimony of Liz Cloud of the Office of the Secretary of State and through other witnesses that no formal rules have been filed with the Secretary of State by either of the Respondents dealing with the subject of compliance with the pie visions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). Testimony offered by Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation, and by H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Board of Dentistry, established that neither the Department nor the Dental Board has formulated final policies on how to deal with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), whether the cases pertain to those such as that of Dr. Sheppard in which the agency, although it has not complied with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint, has been granted an opportunity to try to comply or on the occasion where cases are in the investigative stage or the occasion where the cases have been dismissed for noncompliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and are subject to refiling. It is shown through Secretary Wittenberg's testimony that such compliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is still in the formative stages and the Memorandum of October 3, 1979, by Staff Attorney Miller with the format for noticing informal conferences to be held under the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is but one method under consideration at this time. Moreover, Secretary Wittenberg has not spoken with attorney Guilday about the matters of the Sheppard case that are now in dispute or received reports of conversations between Guilday and Staff Attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller on the subject of the pending Sheppard dispute. Finally, Wittenberg has not instructed any of the support officials within the Department of Professional Regulation, to include departmental attorneys, to formulate policy directed to the implementation of the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which action would constitute the final statement by the Department on those matters.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 1988, shortly before 9:00 a.m., Sheriff Deputy William Emral of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office was notified by radio that the Sheriff's Office dispatcher had received an anonymous telephone call advising that two white males were loading what appeared to be narcotics into a white four-door Cadillac, with Florida license plate number 367-ZGX. The caller indicated that the Cadillac was headed northbound on the highway from Lower Matecumbe Key. Deputy Emral then took up a stationary position at mile marker 84 and began watching the northbound traffic. At about 9:05 a.m., he observed the Cadillac described by the anonymous caller. Deputy Emral began to follow the subject Cadillac northbound. He followed the Cadillac for approximately one mile and then activated his emergency lights and pulled the Cadillac over. From the time Deputy Emral first saw the subject Cadillac until the time he pulled the Cadillac over, he did not observe anything about the car or the driver that would have caused him to stop the Cadillac. Had it not been for the information provided by the anonymous caller, Deputy Emral would not have stopped the subject Cadillac. The Respondent, Mark Alfred Herre, was driving the Cadillac at the time Deputy Emral pulled it over. Mr. Herre did not flee and obeyed the directions given to him by Deputy Emral. He produced his driver's license which showed his name as Mark Alfred Herre. The car was rented and, when requested, he produced the rental contract showing that it had been rented by another individual. Deputy Emral reported this information to his base and to his superior, Captain Wilkinson, who later arrived at the scene. Deputy Emral observed two bags, one green and one gray. These were soft sided bags and appeared to be stuffed between the rear and front seats of the rented car, on both the driver and passenger sides. They were relative large, approximately three feet by four feet in size. The rental contract produced by Mr. Herre indicated that the vehicle was rented by a Maryland resident named Robert E. Lee. Mr. Herre could produce no authorization from Mr. Lee that he was entitled to use the vehicle nor could he produce the name of someone who could confirm he was authorized to be driving the subject vehicle. At about this time, Captain Wilkinson arrived at the scene as backup. At this point, Mr. Herre was not suspected of a crime and continued to answer questions from the Deputy. He stated that the bags in the car contained diving gear. Deputy Emral is a certified diver and the story seemed suspicious and inconsistent with the Deputy's previous diving experiences. Mr. Herre did not ask any questions or make other inquiries as to why he was stopped. Deputy Emral did explain that an anonymous tip was received and discussed this information with the Petitioner. At this point, Deputy Emral and Captain Wilkinson conferred and because of the information received by the anonymous tip to the Sheriff's Office and the inability of the Petitioner to prove he had authorization to be driving the rented vehicle, they decided that the vehicle should be taken into custody. In preparation for taking a vehicle into custody, an inventory of the vehicle is made as a standard procedure. Mr. Herre was not placed under arrest at this time. Mr. Herre was asked for, but declined to give, permission for the Deputy to search the vehicle. The vehicle was then searched and it was determined that the two bags in the passenger compartment contained bales of marijuana. Captain Wilkinson then took charge of the vehicle and drove it to the Sheriff's Office. Captain Wilkinson stated that even if no contraband were in the vehicle, he would probably have driven it to the substation to await confirmation that Mr. Herre was actually authorized to be in possession of the rented car and the same was not actually stolen. At the Sheriff's Office, the Cadillac was thoroughly searched and the car and its contents were photographed. Three bales of marijuana were recovered from the back seat and ten bales of marijuana were recovered from the trunk. Samples tested positive for marijuana. For purposes of this case, the parties have stipulated that the marijuana found in the subject Cadillac weighed a total of 300 pounds. On November 17, 1988, the Department issued a Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings to the Petitioner, Mr. Herre. The assessment was based on an estimated retail price for marijuana of $700.00 per pound times the stipulated 300 pounds, which comes to a total estimated retail value of $210,000.00. The tax, surcharge, and penalty assessed against Mr. Herre were as follows: 50% Tax $105,000.00 25% Surcharge 52,500.00 Additional penalty of 50% 78,750.00 Total Amount of assessment $236,250.00 Daily interest on the amount due is $51.78. The Notice of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings described above was properly and correctly prepared and notice of it was properly given to the Petitioner, Mr. Herre. On December 28, 1988, Mr. Herre was sentenced in Case No. 33-88-00446- CF-A to a period of five (5) years probation and to pay $5,000.00 in costs. The sentence in the aforementioned case was as a result of criminal charges arising from Petitioner's arrest for the conduct alleged in the Notice Of Assessment And Jeopardy Findings dated November 17, 1988.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue issue a Final Order in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Mark Alfred Herre, is liable for taxes, surcharges, penalties, and interest pursuant to Section 212.0505, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), and assessing the amount of such liability at $236,250.00, plus interest at the rate of $51.78 per day since November 7, 1988. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of March 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen J. Bronis, Esquire 1395 Coral Way Third Floor Miami, Florida 33145 MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 March 1991. Mark T. Aliff, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Tax Section Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Thomas Herndon Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Vicki Weber General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Fact Issues Did Petitioner, Flo-Ronke, Inc. (Flo-Ronke), fail to timely pay a fine imposed by Final Order of the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency)? Did the Agency reject attempts by Flo-Ronke to timely pay the fine in full by a single payment without conditions? Did Flo-Ronke attempt to pay the fine untimely in full by a single payment without conditions? If so, did the Agency reject the proffered payment? Did Flo-Ronke employ an individual in a position that required background screening who had a disqualifying criminal conviction? Law Issues Which party bears the burden of proof? What is the standard of proof? Do the facts support denying re-licensure of Flo-Ronke? Are untimely efforts to pay the fine in full with a single payment mitigating factors? If so, how should the factors be weighed?
Findings Of Fact Flo-Ronke is an Assisted Living Facility (ALF). An ALF is a building, part of a building, or a residential facility that provides “housing, meals, and one or more personal services for a period exceeding 24 hours to one or more adults who are not relatives of the owner or administrator.” § 429.02(5), Fla. Stat. (2015).1/ The Agency licenses and regulates ALFs. §§ 429.04 and 429.07, Fla. Stat. Flo-Ronke is subject to the Agency’s licensure requirements and is licensed by it. By Notice of Intent to Deny Renewal Application dated December 2, 2014, the Agency denied Flo-Ronke’s application to renew its license on the grounds that Flo-Ronke “failed to comply with the criminal background screening requirements by employing a caretaker who was not eligible to work in the facility.” On January 8, 2015, the Agency amended the Notice of Intent to Deny. On January 21, 2015, the Agency issued a Second Amended Notice of Intent to Intent to Deny for Renewal. This notice is the subject of this proceeding. The second amended notice asserts two bases for denial. One is the originally asserted background screening violation. The other is Flo-Ronke’s failure to pay an outstanding fine in AHCA Cases 2014002513 and 2014002514. Payment of the Fine In AHCA Cases 2014002513 and 2014002514, the Agency’s Administrative Complaint charged Flo-Ronke with four deficiencies involving insects, cleanliness, medication administration, and inadequate staffing. Originally, Flo-Ronke requested an evidentiary hearing before DOAH (DOAH Case No. 14-1939). Later, Flo-Ronke, through its owner Ms. Akintola, agreed there were no disputed issues of facts and stipulated to returning the matter to the Agency for an informal hearing. The Agency provided Flo-Ronke an opportunity for a hearing. No representative of Flo-Ronke appeared at the hearing. The Agency issued a Final Order on November 5, 2014, upholding the Administrative Complaint and imposing a $13,500 fine. The Agency’s Final Order included instructions on how to make the payment, advised that the payment was due within 30 days of the Final Order, and cautioned that interest would be imposed on overdue amounts. The Final Order included a Notice of Right to Judicial Review. On behalf of Flo-Ronke, Ms. Akintola appealed the Final Order pro se. The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure do not provide for an automatic stay of a decision if it is appealed. Flo-Ronke did not seek a stay of the Final Order. Consequently, the obligation to pay the fine was effective as of the date of the Final Order. The First District Court of Appeal rendered an Order requiring Flo-Ronke to obtain counsel for the appeal because a corporation cannot be represented by an employee or officer. Flo-Ronke did not obtain counsel or respond to the court’s Order. On January 16, 2015, the court dismissed Flo-Ronke’s appeal. On April 9, 2015, Flo-Ronke, represented by the same counsel as in this proceeding, moved to re-open the appellate case. On April 17, 2015, the court denied the motion. It also denied Flo-Ronke’s subsequent motion seeking reconsideration, clarification, a written opinion, and a stay. From the date that the Agency entered the Final Order imposing the fine in DOAH Case No. 14-1939 (AHCA Cases 2014002513 and 2014002514) to the date of the final hearing, Flo-Ronke did not pay the fine. Starting around February 2015, attorney Scott Flint tried, on Flo-Ronke’s behalf, to arrange a payment plan for the fine. He discussed the proposal with Agency Attorney Edwin Selby. Mr. Flint linked the discussions to resolving a separate investigation of Flo-Ronke that the Agency was conducting. Mr. Flint never offered unconditional payment of the fine on behalf of Flo-Ronke. Mr. Flint testified that at some point during conversations about the two cases, Mr. Selby said the Agency would not accept full payment if it was offered. Mr. Selby testified that he did not make this statement. Mr. Selby’s testimony is more credible in this instance, as it is in other instances when Mr. Selby’s testimony differed from Mr. Flint’s. One reason Mr. Selby’s testimony is more credible is that on February 11, 2015, after the time Mr. Flint says Mr. Selby made the statement, Mr. Flint wrote Mr. Selby a letter proposing an installment plan for paying the fine. The letter did not mention the alleged statement that the Agency would not accept payment. The proposal and the failure to mention the alleged refusal are inconsistent with the assertion that Mr. Selby said payment would not be accepted. Also, Mr. Flint hedged his testimony about the alleged refusals, noting that lawyers say many things during negotiations. Mr. Selby’s testimony about conversations after the February 11 letter is also more credible. Mr. Selby never said that the Agency would not accept full payment if it were tendered. The clear and convincing evidence proves that from the date the Agency entered the Final Order to the date of the final hearing, Flo-Ronke never tendered full and complete payment of the fine to the Agency. Flo-Ronke, despite its assertions during pre-hearing motion practice, did not offer any evidence that could be reasonably be interpreted as proving that Flo-Ronke tendered full payment of the fine or that the Agency refused the payment. Even Mr. Flint’s testimony, if fully credited, is not evidence that Flo-Ronke tendered full payment or that the Agency refused full payment. Background Screening At all relevant times, Florida law required level two background screening of any person seeking employment with a provider whose responsibilities may require him to provide personal care or other services directly to clients or who will have access to the client living area. § 408.809(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014). Individuals who have disqualifying offenses may not hold positions where they provide services to clients or will have access to client living areas. Florida law also requires re-screening every five years after employment. § 408.809(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). Agency surveyor, Laura Manville, surveyed Flo-Ronke and its records on September 2, 2014. At that time, F.M. was employed there. Flo-Ronke employed F.M. since at least 2009. F.M.’s duties included caring for residents. In addition, even when performing non-caretaking duties, such as grounds-keeping and maintenance, F.M. had unsupervised access to the residents and their living area. F.M. was adjudicated guilty of a disqualifying sex offense on October 28, 1999. Flo-Ronke’s records did not document the required level 2 background screening of F.M. when reviewed on September 2, 2014. At that time, Ms. Manville told Ms. Akintola of the deficiency and that F.M. was not eligible to work at the ALF. This was not the first time the Agency advised Ms. Akintola of the deficiency. By letter dated October 2, 2009, the Agency advised that background screening of F.M. had revealed he had a disqualifying criminal offense. It advised Flo-Ronke that it must either terminate the employment of F.M. or obtain an exemption from disqualification. Flo-Ronke did neither. Ms. Manville conducted a follow-up survey on September 10, 2014. Despite the notice given on September 2, 2014, F.M. was still present at the facility performing grounds work and had access to client living areas. Ms. Akintola presented testimony and a single document attempting to prove that F.M. passed background screening in 2010. The document appears to show a determination of no background screening violation in 2010. Why it differs from other documents from 2009 and after 2010 is not explained. The circumstances surrounding the document are somewhat mysterious. It does not appear in the Agency files. On September 2, 2014, Ms. Akintola did not mention it. On that day, she said she thought F.M. did not need to satisfy screening requirements because he had worked for so long at Flo-Ronke. More importantly, the issue is whether F.M. was employed in 2014 in violation of the background screening requirements. The clear and convincing evidence, including evidence of the conviction in the background screening database, the continued employment of F.M. after September 2, 2014, and the letter of October 2, 2009, proves that in 2014 F.M. had a disqualifying offense and did not have an exemption from the disqualification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the application of Flo-Ronke, Inc., for renewal of its ALF license. Jurisdiction over the Motion for Fees and Costs is retained for further appropriate proceedings once the prevailing party has been determined. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2015.
Findings Of Fact On or about January 1, 1981, Ms. Leone Jullien entered into a written lease with Respondent for an apartment in the San Salvatore Apartments located at 1917 Lincoln Street, Hollywood, Florida. The term of said lease was one year beginning January 1, 1981. The lease recites that a security deposit fee of $100 was paid by Jullien to Respondent and that Respondent received Jullien's first and last month's rent at $400 per month for the apartment. Prior to July 1, 1981, Jullien verbally informed the Respondent, Basil A. Roberts (a/k/a Bob Beach, the manager of the San Salvatore Apartments) that she would be leaving her apartment before the term of the lease had run. Respondent then told Jullien that if he could rerent the apartment soon enough to prevent loss to himself, he would return to her the $100 security deposit and the last month's rent of $400. On June 30, 1981, Jullien paid the July rent of $400 by check. On July 1, 1981, she sent notice of her intent to terminate rental in July by certified mail to Respondent. Jullien received post office notice of letter delivery prior to her leaving the apartment on July 9, 1981. Thus, Respondent received at least seven days' notice of abandonment of the apartment lease. In August, 1981, Jullien telephoned Respondent and was only then informed that he would return the $100 "security deposit" referred to in the written lease, but not the $400 final month's rent. At no time did the Respondent gave Jullien written or certified mail notice of his intent to retain this $400. It was established from testimony of both Jullien and Roberts that Respondent gave access (i.e., a key) to Jullien's apartment to another renter beginning in July and continuing through August, 1981. It was also established that the incoming tenant used the apartment for storage of furniture during this period as an accommodation. Respondent retained Jullien's $400 to cover rent on this apartment for August since the new tenant would not agree to rental before September 1, 1981. On July 14, 1982, Jullien and Roberts were parties to a small claims court action initiated by Respondent to settle the dispute over his retention of the $400 last month's rent. The small claims court received evidence in that case and rendered judgment that the "cause has been amicably settled by Plaintiff (Respondent here) paying Defendant (Jullien) $100." Jullien now denies that she intended to settle the dispute at that hearing and that her position was misunderstood. She did, however, admit accepting return of the $100 security deposit referred to in the lease agreement as a result of the small claims court judgment.
Recommendation From the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order fining Respondent $400. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Both parties filed proposed findings of fact. Except as noted below, I have incorporated the substance of these proposed findings into my findings of fact. Rejected DOT Proposed Findings of Fact The following proposed findings are rejected because they are not facts but only recitations of testimony: Rule 22I-6.006 - proposed finding 1 - second and third sentence. Rule 22I-6.037 - proposed finding 1 - second sentence. proposed finding 2 - first and second sentence. The following proposed findings are irrelevant to the resolution of this case: Rule 22I-6.006 - proposed finding 4 and 5 because the proposed rule applies to other agencies than DOT. proposed finding 6 because whether another method of notifying all bidders is more efficient is not the standard to determine validity of the rule. Rule 22I-6.037 - proposed finding 3, 5, and 7. Rejected DOAH Proposed Finding of Fact The following proposed finding of fact are rejected because these are more in the nature of legal argument or conclusions of law rather than findings of fact: Proposed finding 5 - sentences 5 and 6. Proposed finding 6 - second paragraph, sentences 1 and 2; third paragraph, sentence 4 and 5; and fourth paragraph Proposed finding 7 - second paragraph; third paragraph; and fourth paragraph, fifth sentence Proposed finding 8 - fourth paragraph; fifth paragraph; and sixth paragraph The follow proposed findings are rejected as being irrelevant to the resolution of the issues presented in this case. Proposed finding 1 - fourth sentence Proposed finding 6 - second paragraph, sentence 5 and 6 Proposed finding 7 - fourth paragraph, sentence 1 through 4 The following proposed finding is rejected as not supported by the record evidence: Proposed finding 6 - fourth paragraph, sentence 4 fifth paragraph, sentence 4 ANALYSIS Standing The first issue that must be addressed is DOT's standing. DOAH asserts that Dot lacks standing to challenge Proposed Rules 22I-6.035 and 22I-6.037. DOT has the burden to establish that it would be substantially affected by the proposed rules should they be adopted by DOAH. Section 120.54(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In order to resolve whether DOT has met its burden, a review of the pertinent decisions on standing is appropriate. 5/ The case cited most often on standing is the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Florida Department of Corrections v. Jerry, 353 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1978). The court held that an inmate who had been confined for committing an assault while in prison lacked standing to challenge an existing rule concerning disciplinary confinement and forfeiture of gain-time. Because the inmate was no longer confined under the rule and had not lost any gain-time when he filed the rule challenge, the court reasoned that the inmate had not suffered an injury in fact at the time of the challenge, end therefore, was not substantially affected by the existing rule. Whether the inmate would be subject to the rule again depended on the likelihood he would commit another infraction. The court deemed this too speculative and subject to conjecture to grant standing. 353 So.2d at 1236. In a later case, the Florida Supreme Court overruled Jerry to the extent it required associations to demonstrate a specific injury to the organization itself rather then to some of its members. Florida Home Builders' Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1982). In reaching its decision, the court warned against an overly restrictive application of the concept of standing in the rule challenge cases by noting: "Expansion of public access to activities of governmentally agencies was one of the major legislative purposes of the new Administrative Procedure Act." 412 So.2d at 352-53. Standing to challenge proposed agency rules was addressed in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). There, the court held that all women of child bearing age who received medicaid benefits were not substantially affected by a proposed rule denying medicaid payments for abortions except under limited circumstances. In denying standing to a woman who was not pregnant at the time of the rule challenge, the court specifically rejected the argument that standing to challenge a proposed rule under Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1985), is less restrictive than standing to challenge an existing rule under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1985), by stating: There is no difference between the immediacy and reality necessary to confer standing whether the proceeding is to challenge an existing rule or a proposed rule. 367 So.2d at 1052. In Professional Fire Fighters of Florida v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 396 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the court held that a group of paramedics had standing to challenge rules establishing additional requirements for renewal of a paramedical certification. There was no showing on any of the individual paramedics had attempted to comply with the new rules or that anything in the new rules would disqualify them from retaining their certification. In rejecting the hearing officer's ruling that these individuals could not claim an injury because they had not yet applied for certification under the new rules, the court stated: The order below would preclude a challenge by anyone who had not first complied with a rule and suffered injury, no matter how clear the rule's applicability to, or substantial its effect on, the challengers... The APA permits prospective challenges to agency rulemaking and does not require that an affected party comply with the rule at his peril in order to obtain standing to chal- lenge the rule. A party may demonstrate standing by showing that a rule has a real and immediate effect upon his case as well as by proving injury in fact. 396 So.2d at 1195-96 (citations omitted) see also 4245 Corp., Mother's Lounge Inc. v. Department of Beverage, 345 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The court distinguished Jerry and Alice P. on the grounds that the petitioners in the case before it were immediately subject to the rule which rendered their continued employment as paramedics unlawful without compliance with the rule. The individuals were presently affected by the rule because they worked in the area to be regulated. 396 So.2d at 1196. In Village Park Mobile Home Association v. Department of Business Regulation, 506 So.2d 426, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the court on rehearing emphasized under the test for standing set forth in Fire Fighters that a party may show "that a rule has a real and immediate effect upon his case, as well as injury in fact." Standing was not found in Village Park for certain mobile home owners to challenge agency approval of the prospectus for a mobile home park because the prospectus only disclosed the method for raising rents and reducing services in the future. It was up to the landlord to implement the prospectus at some unspecified date in the future. 6/ Thus, no standing was found because the alleged injury was contingent upon the future actions of a third party. 506 So.2d at 433-34; see also Boca Raton Mausoleum v. Department of Banking, 511 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In this case, DOT has not alleged that it has suffered an injury in fact by Proposed Rules 22I-6.035 and 22I-6.037. That is not surprising with respect to Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 since it is a new rule that has not been implemented. However, with respect to the proposed amendments to Rule 22I-6.035, dealing with attorney's fees and costs, most of DOT's challenges concern portions of the rule that were not substantially changed in the proposed rule. For example, DOT objects to the provisions requiring an agency to file a response or affidavit and the provisions which allow for a waiver of the right to an evidentiary hearing when one is not affirmatively requested by either party. Rule 22I-6.035 presently contains such provisions. Therefore, the injury in fact test would be applicable. However, DOT has not presented any facts indicating that a prevailing small business party has ever filed a petition seeking costs and attorney's fees from DOT under Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. Consequently, no injury exists. The alternative test for standing is whether the proposed rules would have a "real and immediate effect" upon DOT. With respect to Proposed Rule 22I- 6.035, DOT has not met this test merely by demonstrating that it is a party to pending cases involving small business parties. In order for DOT to be affected by Proposed Rule 22I-6.035, a small business party would first have to prevail against DOT and then file a petition for costs and attorney's fees based upon its belief that DOT was not "substantially justified" in bringing the administrative action. Whether these contingencies, which are controlled by a third party, will occur in the future is open to conjecture and speculation. The type of immediacy envisioned by the court in the Fire Fighters case does not appear to be present with respect to Proposed Rule 22I-6.035. Therefore, DOT does not have standing to challenge this proposed rule. On the other hand, I conclude that DOT has standing to challenge Proposed Rule 22I-6.037. DOT presently has at least nine pending cases involving administrative complaints. The proposed rule on voluntary dismissals would be immediately applicable to DOT's ability to take a voluntary dismissal on those cases without being contingent upon the acts of a third party. Such a real and immediate effect on pending cases involving DOT is sufficient to provide DOT with the requisite standing. DOT does not have to invoke the rule by seeking a voluntary dismissal in order to have standing to challenge the rule as suggested by DOAH. See Professional Fire Fighters of Florida, 396 So.2d at 1195. Invalidity of Proposed Rules 22I-6.006 and 22I-6.037 The Florida Legislature has recently defined what constitutes an invalid exercise of Legislative authority. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 87-385, Section 2, Laws of Florida, provides: (8) "Invalid exercise of delegated legisla- tive authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply: (a ) The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedure set forth in s. 120.54; The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule enlarges, modifies, or con- travenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or The rule is arbitrary or capricious. These standards are similar to those used by the courts in Florida to test the validity of agency rules. See e.g., Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1979); Humana Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In Agrico Chemical Co., the First District Court of Appeal stated: [I]n a 120.54 hearing, the hearing officer must look to the legislative authority for the rule and determine whether or not the proposed rule is encompassed within that grant. The burden is upon one who attacks the proposed rule to show that the agency, if it adopts the rule, would exceed its author- ity; that the requirements of the rule are not appropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act; that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation or that the proposed rule or the requirements thereof are arbitrary or capricious. A capricious action is one which is taken without though or reason or irration- ally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic, or is despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based upon competent substantial evi- dence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reason- able person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement that a challenger has the burden of demonstrating agency action to be arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of administrative discretion is a stringent one. 365 So.2d at 763. In this case DOT has the burden to demonstrate that adoption of Proposed Rules 22I-6.006 and 22I-6.037 would constitute an invalid exercise of legislative authority. Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 DOAH is statutorily authorized "to adopt reasonable rules to carry out the provisions of this act [Chapter 120]." Section 120.65(7), Fla. Stat. (1985). Regarding bid protests, an agency is required to forward a protest to DOAH for an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985), whenever there is a disputed issue a material fact. Section 120.53(5)(d)2, Fla. Stat. (1985). Section 120.57(1) sets forth certain procedures for conducting evidentiary hearings and proceedings where the substantial interests of a party are determined. In light of these statutory provisions, DOAH proposes to amend Rule 6.006 by requiring that an agency send a copy of the notice of hearing to all bidders, other than the protesting bidder, and attempt to telephonically notify these bidders of the date, time, and place the hearing. The purpose of this requirement is to give notice of the deadline to file a motion to intervene in the protest proceeding to the successful bidder, as well as all other bidders who had not filed a timely protest. Motions to intervene must be filed within five days prior to start of an evidentiary hearing. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 6.010. DOT persuasively argues that this portion of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 requires an agency to do a useless act because any bidder that has not flied a timely protest is precluded from gaining party status in a bid protest proceeding by filing a motion to intervene. I agree. Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985), requires an agency to provide notice of its decision, or intended decision, concerning a bid solicitation. The notice must contain the following statement: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Paragraph (b) of Section 120.53(5), provides: Any person who is affected adversely by the agency decision or intended decision shall file with the agency a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours after the posting of the bid tabulation or after receipt of the notice of the agency decision or intended decision and shall file a formal written protest within 10 days after the date he filed the notice of protest. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. These statutory provisions are clear and unequivocal. An unsuccessful bidder must file a protest within the 72 hour limitations period in order to participate in further Chapter 120 proceedings. Xerox Corp. v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, 489 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Capelletti Brothers v. Department of Transportation, 499 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(72 hour deadline applies to protest challenging bid specifications). An adversely affected bidder cannot, and should not be allowed to, gain a back door point of entry to obtain party status in a bid protest proceeding by filing a motion to intervene when the bidder has already waived its right to participate in the proceeding. The only substantially effected entity that would be entitled to intervene in a bid protest proceeding is the successful bidder. Therefore, there would be a valid purpose in adopting a rule that required the successful bidder to receive the notice of hearing so that it would be aware of the deadline for filing a motion to intervene. However, as to all other non-protesting bidders, there is no statutory basis for providing the notice of hearing to them in light of what appears to be a clear prohibition against allowing those bidders to obtain party status after failing to file a timely protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). DOAH argues that the need for subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 is dramatized by the case of Spillis Candella and Partners, Inc. v. School Board of Dade County, No. 86-3002 Bid. There, the hearing officer determined that the agency never complied with the notice requirements triggering the 72 hour limitations period. Therefore, the protest filed in that case was determined to be timely since the 72 hour time limit had not expired. This single case does not provide justification for requiring agencies to give notice of the evidentiary hearing to all unsuccessful bidders in all bid protest cases. No evidence was adduced indicating that the failure to provide the requisite statutory notice issue raised in the Spillis Candella case had ever occurred in any other bid protest proceeding that had come before a DOAH hearing officer. Even if this had been a recurring problem, subsection (b) of the Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 could have been more closely tailored to remedy issues similar to that raised in Spillis Candella. The rule should have limited an agency's responsibility to provide a notice of hearing to all unsuccessful bidders if the agency had not previously complied with the notice requirements of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985). 7/ In light of the foregoing, I conclude that subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 is arbitrary because it requires agencies to provide notice of a bid protest hearing to bidders who have waived their right to become parties in the proceeding. The rule also contravenes Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), which contemplates that only timely protestors may participate as parties in a bid proceeding. 8/ Subsection (3) is also invalid because it requires that an agency provide to the hearing officer proof that it has complied with subsection (2). DOT's remaining objections to Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 are without merit. The fact that all agencies involved in bid protests must adopt rules end procedures for the resolution of such protests, and that the Administration Commission shall also adopt model rules on the same subject, does not indicate a legislative intent to preempt DOAH from adopting rules pertaining to the procedures for conducting bid protest hearings. Section 120.53(5)(a) and (f), Fla. Stat. (1955). In addition, Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), does not prohibit non-parties from receiving notice of an evidentiary hearing. Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 DOT advances numerous arguments in support of its contention that subsections (2) and (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 constitute an invalid exercise of legislative authority. I am persuaded by two of these arguments that DOT's position has merit. First, with respect to subsection (2), the proposed rule provides a hearing officer with the discretion to grant a motion for voluntary dismissal "upon such terms and conditions as the hearing officer deems just and proper." This language fails to provide any guidance to a hearing officer or to the parties in an administrative complaint proceeding as to what conditions a hearing officer could impose for allowing the agency to withdraw its complaint without prejudice. Instead, the rule gives the hearing officer unlimited discretion to impose any condition the hearing officer subjectively believes is "just and proper." These words cannot be construed as words of limitation because it must always be presumed that a hearing officer will rule in a manner that he or she believes is just and proper. Thus the elimination of the "just and proper" language from the rule would not give any more discretion to a hearing officer than is presently granted by the proposed rule. The fact that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(2) provides that a trial court may grant a voluntary dismissal filed after submission of a case to the court "upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper," does not provide a basis for concluding that subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 is valid. The Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted pursuant to the inherent power of the courts, a power that administrative agencies do not possess. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Tampa Heart Institute, 472 So.2d 748, 753-54 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985). Agency rules may not violate the standards set forth in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 57-325, Section 2, Laws of Florida. In this case, subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I- runs afoul of paragraph (d) of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended, which provides that a rule is invalid if [t]he rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency." Therefore, subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 is invalid. Subsection (3) of the proposed rule is also invalid but for a different reason. Unlike subsection (2), nothing is left to the parties' imagination as to the consequences an agency will encounter if it files a notice of voluntary dismissal of an administrative complaint containing nonjurisdictional allegations that were previously the subject of a voluntary dismissal. Those nonjurisdictional factual allegations contained in both complaints will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The issue with regard to this rule provision is whether DOAH has the statutory authority to adopt a rule that requires dismissal of an administrative complaint with prejudice under these circumstances. Although no cases are directed on point, two district court of appeal decisions are instructive. In Great American Bank v. Division of Administrative Hearings, 412 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the First District Court of Appeal revised a hearing officer's order imposing sanctions for a party's failure to make discovery and for a witness' failure to give responsive testimony. The court ruled that certain portions of the model rules, which purported to give such authority to a hearing officer, were invalid because they conflicted with the discovery enforcement provisions found in the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 120.58(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). The Legislature subsequently amended Section 120.58 to specifically grant hearing officers the authority to pose sanctions to effect discovery. Ch. 84-173, Laws of Florida. In Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Tampa Heart Institute, 472 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the Second District Court of Appeal declared Model Rule 28-5.211 invalid to the extent the rule authorized a hearing officer to impose sanctions, including dismissal, to enforce procedural orders. The court rejected the argument that the same general rulemaking authority relied upon by DOAH as authority for Proposed Rule 22I-6.037, Sections 120.53 and 120.65(7), Florida Statutes (1985), authorized the model rule. Rather, any rule that provides a sanction in the form of a penalty must be based upon explicit statutory authority such as that found in Section 120.58(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), or Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). 9/ 472 So.2d at 747-48. Subsection (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 imposes the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. However, in contrast to the specific saction authority granted to hearing officers in Sections 120.58(1)(b) and 120.57(1)(b)5, no provision in Chapter 120 specifically authorizes DOAH to impose a sanction under the circumstances set forth in subsection (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037. Therefore, while I find the purpose of adopting subsection (3) of the proposed rule, to ensure failness, is laudable, this portion of the rule is invalid because DOAH does not possess the requisite legislative authority to adopt such a rule. Section 120.52(5)(b), Fla. Stat., as amended by Ch. 87-358, Section 2, Laws of Florida.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should pay Petitioner's attorney's fees and costs, and, if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact Mayor Osborne was the Mayor of Beverly Beach, Florida, during 1999 through 2001. Dr. Milanick was a dentist who owned property immediately north of Beverly Beach, Florida. Dr. Milanick desired that the property be annexed into the town and initiated annexation proceedings before the City of Beverly Beach. Mayor Osborne did not facilitate the requested annexation during the time he served as Mayor of Beverly Beach. Dr. Milanick alleged to the Commission that Mayor Osborne opposed the annexation for personal, financial gain. In order to defend himself against these false allegations, Mayor Osborne retained Robert J. Riggio, Esquire, of the Riggio and Mitchell firm of Daytona Beach. The Original Award of Attorney's Fees An award of attorney's fees and costs in favor of Mayor Osborne was recommended in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 04-4110E. The Recommended Order stated that the amount of attorney's fees and costs for Mayor Osborne to defend against Dr. Milanick's allegations was $4,976.00. The Commission did not address the amount of attorney's fees and costs in its Final Order, but instead held that Mayor Osborne was not entitled to any award. Subsequently, the Fifth District Court of Appeal found the Commission's Final Order to be erroneous and remanded the matter ". . . for entry of an order making the awards recommended by the ALJ." A Mandate with regard to the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued April 11, 2007. The award recommended by the ALJ was, as stated above, $4,976.00, and that amount should be awarded by the Commission in a Final Order. Appellate Attorney's Fees Mayor Osborne filed a Motion for Petitioner's Appellate Attorneys' Fees and Costs before the Commission on May 10, 2007, noting the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in its Order dated February 16, 2007, stated that, "Appellant's Motion For Attorney's Fees, filed May 16, 2006, is granted and the above- styled cause is hereby remanded to the Commission . . . to determine and assess reasonable attorney's fees for this appeal." The Fifth District Court of Appeal addressed only attorney's fees. However, because Mayor Osborne's Motion sought both attorney's fees and costs, and because the Commission sent that Motion without special directions to the Division of Administrative Hearings for resolution, it is found that the Administrative Law Judge has jurisdiction to recommend awards of both attorney's fees and costs expended in prosecuting the appeal. David C. Robinson, an attorney in Daytona Beach, Florida, testified as an expert on attorney's fees in Volusia County, Florida. He has practiced law in Daytona Beach for 26 years and has testified in other attorney's fees cases. He is familiar with the fees charged by attorneys in the Daytona Beach and Volusia County area. He knows Attorney Robert Riggio, of Daytona Beach, Volusia County, and Attorney Martin Pedata, of Deland, a town that is also located in Volusia County. Mr. Robinson is found to be an expert on the subject of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in Volusia County. Mr. Robinson reviewed the bills and records relating to the fees charged to Mayor Osborne as to the appellate filings made by Mr. Riggio. In doing so he considered the Lodestar approach as described in Florida Patients Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Mr. Robinson opined that the services performed by Mr. Riggio in the appellate proceeding were provided in a manner that an attorney would be reasonably expected to provide. He reviewed the hourly rate charged by Mr. Riggio and stated that the reasonable rate should be $250.00 per hour, but that Mr. Riggio only charged $150.00 per hour. Mr. Riggio's law firm, Riggio and Mitchell, billed Mayor Osborne for 95 hours. A small portion of the work was accomplished by his partner Jerome D. Mitchell. Other work in the amount of 9.4 hours was billed for paralegal work at $40.00 per hour. The 95 hours of attorney work was billed at $150.00 per hour for a total of $14,250.00, and the paralegal work totaled $376.00. Costs amounted to $859.70. This resulted in a total of $14,626.00 for fees and $859.70 in costs. Mayor Osborne paid these charges in full. Mr. Robinson opined that the rate charged and hours expended by Mr. Riggio in the appellate proceeding were appropriate, as were the costs incurred. His testimony is found to be credible. As a result of Mr. Riggio's efforts, Mayor Osborne prevailed in the appeal. It is found that Dr. Milanick caused Mayor Osborne to pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $15,485.70. Proving Entitlement to Fees and Costs Subsequent to Dr. Milanick's allegations of misconduct before the Commission, and after an investigation, the Commission, in a Public Report dated September 8, 2004, dismissed the complaint on a finding of no probable cause in the case of Mayor Osborne. Pursuant to Subsection 112.317(8), Florida Statutes, Mayor Osborne was entitled to be reimbursed for the attorney's fees and costs associated with defending himself against Dr. Milanick's allegations. Because Dr. Milanick did not voluntarily remit the fees and costs expended, a hearing was required. A hearing was held in this matter in Daytona Beach, Florida, on May 11, 2005. The hearing in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 04-4110FE, lasted an entire day. Prior to the hearing, Mayor Osborne engaged the services of Attorney Martin Pedata in addition to those provided by Mr. Riggio. The agreement for representation by Mr. Pedata was reduced to writing on April 6, 2005. The agreement provided that Mayor Osborne would pay Mr. Pedata $250.00 per hour for his services and $75.00 per hour for paralegal services. Mr. Robinson reviewed the bills and records relating to the fees charged to Mayor Osborne for the preparation for and the conduct of the hearing of May 11, 2005. Mr. Robinson stated that the hourly rate of $250.00 was a reasonable one for the type of services provided by Mr. Pedata. He stated that the number of hours expended by Mr. Riggio and Mr. Pedata in connection with this hearing was reasonable. In analyzing this claim he used the Lodestar approach set forth in Rowe. Mr. Riggio and his partner Mr. Mitchell, expended 160.6 hours proving entitlement to fees and costs. Mr. Pedata, as lead attorney in the entitlement case, expended 107 hours. In addition, 54.2 paralegal hours were expended in proving the entitlement case. These hours include the time up to the filing of the appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeal. These hours also include the time spent before the Commission. As a result of the efforts of Mr. Riggio and Mr. Pedata, Mayor Osborne prevailed in the entitlement hearing, which resulted in a Recommended Order in his favor. Mayor Osborne paid Mr. Riggio and Mr. Pedata a total of $50,840.00 for their services in proving entitlement to attorney's fees. He also paid $2,168.00 for paralegal services. Total costs amounted to $3,764.73, which Mayor Osborne paid. The total fees and costs to Mayor Osborne was $56,772.73. Mr. Robinson opined that the rate charged and hours expended by Mr. Riggio in the appellate proceeding were appropriate, as were the costs incurred. His testimony is found to be credible. It is found that Dr. Milanick was responsible for Mayor Osborne having to pay attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $56,772.73. Additional fees and costs Mr. Riggio presented Mayor Osborne with an invoice in the amount of $2,370.00 for the cost of the current proceeding. However, the Administrative Law Judge is without jurisdiction to address this claim in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics award attorney's fees and costs as follows: The original award of attorney's fees in the amount of $4,976.00. Attorney's fees and costs for appellate attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $15,485.70. Attorney's fees and costs for proving entitlement to fees and costs in the amount of $56,772.73. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Kaye Starling Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Dr. Alexander J. Milanick 7250 A1A South St. Augustine Shores, Florida 32080 Phillip C. Claypool, Executive Director and General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 James Peterson, Esquire Linzie Bogan, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issues for consideration here are raised through the process of an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent. In particular, by Amended Administrative complaint, Respondent is alleged to have been arrested for his involvement in illegal sale and/or delivery of a controlled substance, namely cocaine, to an undercover agent of the Jacksonville Sheriffs Office and that Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the crime of possession of cocaine, and was placed on five (5) years probation and sentenced to serve three hundred sixty-four (364) days in the Duval County, Florida, jail. For these matters, Respondent is accused of violating Subsection 468.106(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by distributing a controlled substance other than in the course of professional practice of pharmacy and/or Section 893.13, Florida Statutes, by selling, manufacturing, delivering or possessing with intent to sell, manufacture, or deliver, a controlled substance. It is further asserted that Respondent has violated Subsection 465.016(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by having been convicted or found guilty, regardless of adjudication, in a court of this state of a crime directly related to his ability to practice pharmacy or to the practice of pharmacy, in that the plea of nolo contendere constitutes a conviction for purposes of this provision. EXHIBITS AND WITNESSES This case was presented upon the factual stipulation entered into between the parties and upon the agreement that the matter be considered as a formal Subsection 120.57 (1), Florida Statutes, hearing, notwithstanding a lack of disputed facts. Petitioner offered four (4) exhibits which were received into evidence.
Findings Of Fact Michael Anthony Norman, Respondent, is licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pharmacy, to practice pharmacy in Florida. On June 15, 1981, Respondent was arrested for sell or possession of a controlled substance, namely cocaine. Following this arrest by information in the Circuit Court, Criminal Division, in and for Duval County, Florida,, Case No. 81-5654-CF, Division Q, Respondent was charged with selling, manufacturing, delivering, bringing into the state or knowingly being in actual or constructive possession of twenty-eight (28) grams or more of cocaine or a mixture containing cocaine, to wit: twenty-eight (28) grams or more but less than two hundred (200) grams, contrary to the provisions of Subsection 893.135(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. On January 18, 1982, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to knowingly or being in actual or constructive possession of cocaine or a mixture containing cocaine, contrary to the provisions of Subsection 593.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and Subsection 893.03(2)(a)2, Florida Statutes. The Court withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the Defendant on probation for a period of five (5) years upon condition that Defendant, among other requirements, serve three hundred sixty-four (364) days in the Duval County jail, with credit for two (2) days time served. See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, admitted into evidence. At present, Petitioner is serving the condition of probation related to jail time by his participation in a work release program known as Fairfield House, in which Petitioner works each day at a job other than as a pharmacist and is required to remain at that facility at night. The anticipated date of release from this obligation at Fairfield House is October 29, 1982, at the latest. During the period of Respondent's stay at Fairfield House, he has sought continuing education credits related to his profession through courses found in Pharmacy Times magazine. This action on the part of Respondent was through the mailing of certain course work. This hearing was occasioned by an Administrative Complaint and subsequent amendment to the Administrative Complaint, for which Respondent requested a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. The amended Administrative Complaint, which is the complete statement of present claims against Respondent was signed April 28, 1982.
The Issue Whether Keith Jackson, Ph.D. (‘Petitioner’) should be required to pay FAMU’s claimed overpayment of salary as calculated in the amount of $29,141.57, for the pay periods between July 11, 2008 and December 12, 2008.
Findings Of Fact 1, On or about July 1, 2005, Petitioner executed an employment contract with FAMU to serve as Vice President for Research. The contract executed by Petitioner provides that Petitioner “is subject to the Constitution and Laws of the State of Florida and the United States and the rules, policies, guidelines and procedures of the Board of Governors and the University as now existing or hereafter promulgated.” 2. On July 11, 2008, Petitioner submitted to the University a letter advising that he was resigning from his administrative position with the University as the Vice President for Research. 3. Petitioner's letter of resignation was accepted by the University effective July 11, 2008. 4. Tenure as a faculty member was granted to Petitioner by the University on May 25, 2007. 12
Conclusions This matter is now before Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University Board of Trustees (“FAMU,” “Respondent,” or the “University”) for final agency action.
Findings Of Fact The facts as alleged in the Informations and supported by Exhibits 1 - 7, are that on April 12, 1972 Respondent Goodwin's office accepted a listing contract with the owners of this property and submitted same to the Multiple Listing Service of the Cape Coral Board of Realtors. A subsequent multiple listing dated June 12, 1972 was also submitted to the Multiple Listing Service of the Cape Coral Board of Realtors. Thereafter, on June 16, 1972 the property was leased to one Sommers for a period of one year. This lease made no provision for termination of the lease or vacation of the premises in the event the property was sold. Thereafter on August 18, 1972 Respondent Ketridge obtained an offer to purchase the property and submitted same to Respondent Goodwin. The contract provided inter alia that possession of the property go to buyer as of date of closing. This offer was subsequently accepted by the owners of the property. The Informations further contained allegations that the purchasers of the property were assured that their offer would be accepted; and that they returned to Minnesota, sold their home and moved their possessions to Cape Coral in anticipation of moving into the residence upon date of closing. In an amended answer to the information and interrogatories filed by Respondent Goodwin on December 8, 1975 Respondent Goodwin requested a continuance of this hearing in order to allow time to obtain an attorney. By order dated December 12, 1975 the hearing officer, without objection from Petitioner, granted the continuance. This order contained the following provision: "Inasmuch as the Goodwin case involves the same issues and circumstances as the Ketridge case, these cases have been set to be heard at a joint hearing and should continue to be heard jointly. Accordingly the request for continuance will be con- sidered applicable to both cases." Following the receipt into evidence of the exhibits, petitioner renewed its motion for a severance. As grounds therefor Petitioner stated that since two complaints had been filed by the Real Estate Commission under separate headings and with different case numbers, they were entitled to two separate hearings despite the fact that both cases involve the same factual situation. When his motion was again denied Petitioner announced that it would not proceed with the presentation of the evidence in a consolidated hearing. When Petitioner persisted in refusing to proceed after being advised that the ruling to consolidate would be reconsidered if difficulties in the presentation of either case arose, the hearing was adjourned.
