The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner is liable for tax, penalties and interest under the authority of Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, on certain purchases, rentals/leases and repairs to capital equipment made by the Petitioner on paging equipment, for the audit period October 1, 1974 through September 30, 1977. The audit also considers the purchase of office supplies in the aforementioned period, but for the purposes of this hearing the Petitioner is not contesting the imposition of tax, penalty and interest on those items. Furthermore, the Petitioner does not contest the mathematical calculations in arriving at the tax as set forth in the Notice of Proposed Assessment; instead, it is an attack on the right of the Respondent to affect such a tax against the Petitioner on the items in dispute.
Findings Of Fact This cause came on for consideration based upon the Petition filed by Gabriel Communications Corporation protesting a proposed deficiency of sales tax liability asserted by the Respondent, the Florida Department of Revenue, by its 1st Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest Under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The contents of that 1st Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment, to include the worksheets of the Respondent's Tax Examiner, may be found as the Respondent's Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. The proposed assessment contains claims for tax, penalties and interest on the Petitioner's purchase, rentals/lease and repair to capital equipment; to wit, pagers made by the Petitioner. The purchases and rentals/leases were involved in transactions between the Petitioner and certain suppliers to the Petitioner and the repairs pertain to materials necessary to keep the pagers in working order. There are additional items in the audit which concern certain office supplies purchased by the Petitioner for which sales tax was not paid; however, for the purposes of this proceeding those items are not contested by the Petitioner. Moreover, Gabriel Communications Corporation does not contest the amount of the assessment, assuming that the Respondent is entitled in law to make the assessment on the matters in dispute. Gabriel Communications Corporation is a Florida corporation and a holder of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the Florida Public Service Commission, which certificate authorizes Gabriel to provide radio, telephone and paging services to the public in certain areas in Florida. The Petitioner's corporate office is in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Gabriel Communications Corporation is one of forty-three organizations licensed by the Public Service Commission of the State of Florida as a radio common carrier. (The conclusion is borne out in the late-filed exhibit of the Petitioner, which is Exhibit No. 5, admitted into evidence, being a statement from the Commission Clerk for the Florida Public Service Commission.) The tax that the Respondent is attempting to impose in this matter is a tax on the pagers which the Petitioner has purchased or rented/leased from suppliers to be provided to the Petitioner's customers to assist in establishing the paging services which the Petitioner offers to those customers. The proposed tax also involves a tax asserted against the Petitioner on those items of inventory which the Petitioner purchases from its suppliers for purposes of making repairs to the equipment its customers are utilizing. The focus of the Petitioner's argument in support of this Petition is centered on the provision of Rule 12A-1.46(8) (i), Florida Administrative Code, which in discussing taxation involving telephone, telegraph and other communication services by radio common carrier states as follows: "(8) Radio Common Carriers. * * * The charge by the radio common carrier for one-way pocket pager service is exempt." In the view of the Petitioner this means that the entire transaction between the Petitioner and its customers involving paging services, to include the initial purchase or rental/lease of pagers from its suppliers and repairs thereto, would be exempt from any tax under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner supports its argument in this vein by citing Attorney General's Opinion 68-62, dated 1968, dealing with an interpretation of Section 212.05(5), Florida Statutes, and the subsequent Florida Revenue Commission ruling No. 068-56 of June 27, 1978. That section, 212.05(5), Florida Statutes, states: (5) At the rate of 4 percent on charges for all telegraph messages and long distance telephone calls beginning and terminating in this state; on recurring charges to regular subscribers for local telephone service and for wired television service; on all charges for the installation of telephonic, wired television, and telegraphic equipment; and, at the same rate, on all charges for electrical power or energy. Telephone and telegraph services originating within this state and completed outside this state or originating outside this state and completed within this state are not taxable. The provisions of s. 212.17(3), regarding credit for tax paid on charges subsequently found to be worthless, shall be equally applicable to any tax paid under the provisions of this section on charges for telephone and telegraph services and electric power subsequently found to be uncollectible. The word 'charges' in this subsection shall not include any excise or similar tax levied by the federal government, any political subdivision of the state, or any municipality upon the purchase or sale of telephone, wired television or telegraph service, or electric power, which tax is collected by the seller from the purchaser." The Petitioner makes a further argument that the provision which the Respondent relies on in proposing its assessment does not have application. That provision is Rule 12A-1.46(8)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and it reads: "(8) Radio Common Carriers. * * * (e) Sales, rentals or repairs of machines, equipment, parts or accessories to a radio common carrier for its use in providing communication services are taxable. This includes parts and materials used by radio common carriers in the repair and installation of their own communication equipment. When purchasing equipment for resale or for exclusive rental, a radio common carrier should furnish its supplier a resale certificate in lieu of paying the tax." The Petitioner doesn't feel that this provision has application to it because of the perception that the sale-rental or repair of equipment is not for purposes of the radio common carrier's use in providing communication service, but is for the benefit of the ultimate consumer/customer of the Petitioner. Finally, the Petitioner argues that if a tax should be allowed, it should be on the arrangement between the Petitioner and the customer, on the theory that the arrangement involves the rental of a pager by the customer and the Respondent should not make that tax have retroactive application to the transactions in question. From the point of view of the Respondent, Section 212.21(2), Florida Statutes, establishes the general proposition that tax shall be levied for sales and rentals considered under Chapter 212, Florida Statutes, except to the extent that those transactions were specifically exempted. To the Respondent, the only exemption in application is that exemption found in Rule 12A-1.46(8)(i), Florida Administrative Code, and that only pertains to the one-way pocket pager service, not as Rule 12A-1.46(8)(e), Florida Administrative Code, sets out, the, "sales, rentals or repairs of machines, equipment, parts or accessories to a radio common carrier for its use in providing communication services." In the position of the Respondent, the purchase or rental of equipment and the repair to that equipment made by the Petitioner are for its own use in providing the separate exempt service to the Petitioner's customers. After analyzing the arguments in behalf of the parties, the Respondent's position is found to be persuasive. Although the service charges made by the Petitioner to its consumer are exempt from taxation, under authority of Rule 12A-1.46(8)(i), Florida Administrative Code, the purchase or rental/lease and repair to the capital equipment of the Petitioner which it uses in providing that service to its consumers are taxable pursuant to Rule 12A- 1.46(8)(e), Florida Administrative Code. There flows from that tax liability certain interest charges not to exceed a total penalty of 25 percent in the aggregate (see Section 212.12(2), Florida statutes). However, the Respondent may for good cause shown compromise those penalties after investigation reveals that the penalty would be too severe or unjust (see Section 212.12(5), Florida statutes). In view of the testimony offered by a number of radio common carriers in the State of Florida licensed by the Florida Public Service Commission to the effect that they misunderstood the tax liability under Rule 12A-1.46(8)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and the acknowledgement of the undersigned of that difficulty, it would be recommended that no penalty be imposed in this instance. (A review has been made of the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted, and they have been utilized in this Recommended Order in those instances in which the proposals were deemed to be appropriate.)
Recommendation Upon a full consideration of the facts in this cause, it is recommended that the Petitioner be required to pay the tax and applicable interest due and owed under the 1st Revised Notice of Proposed Assessment of Tax, Penalties and Interest, which is the subject of this case. It is further recommended that the penalties be waived. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1978 COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Moriarty, Esquire Department of Revenue Room 104, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 John W. Costigan, Esquire Post Office Box 669 Tallahassee, Florida Maxie Broome, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether respondent's rules of conduct contained in Department of Law Enforcement Directive #200.08 constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the ground that they were not promulgated in accordance with Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (1979)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Maggie L. Allen was a Career Service employee (with permanent status) of the Department of Law Enforcement until she was terminated from her position or about June 15, 1981. She has appealed her termination to the Florida Career Service Commission. (Prehearing Stipulation, p. 2; Respondent's Admissions.) The reason given for her termination was, in part, her alleged violation of Department Directive #200.08(5), Rules of Conduct ("Directive") . More specifically, the Department charged her with violating specific rules of conduct contained in the Directive: Rule 10, entitled, "Insubordination"; Rule 22, entitled, "Departmental Reports"; Rule 23, entitled, "Performance of Lawful Duty"; and Rule 34, entitled, "Truthfulness." (Prehearing Stipulation, p. 2; Respondent's Admissions; Exhibit No. 3.) The Directive, effective November 27, 1978, is an official statement of Department policy and is generally applicable to all employees of the Department. Its stated purpose is "to provide each Departmental employee with clear examples of acts which would violate the above personnel rules or statutes." (Emphasis supplied.) (Exhibit No. 1.) Essentially, the Directive defines acceptable conduct for Department employees by specifically enumerating 35 standards of conduct. By its terms, breach of one or more of those standards constitutes employee misconduct and may result in disciplinary action against an employee ranging from oral reprimand to discharge. However, these standards are not intended to be an exclusive, or exhaustive listing of impermissible conduct. (Respondent's Admissions; Exhibit No. 1.) The Directive is part of the Department's Duty Manual, a volume containing directives on personnel, administrative, training, and fiscal matters as well as the operations of the Department's divisions. The stated purpose of the Duty Manual is to "inform and guide . . . [Department] officers and employees in the performance of their official duties." (Exhibit No. 2.) The Duty Manual recites that it is "promulgated" pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, that copies are disseminated to all employees and that employees must obey, comply with, and follow the Manual's directives. The Manual has been incorporated, by reference, in Department Rule 11-1.12, Florida Administrative Code. All formalities concerning publication of Rule 11-1.12 were complied with prior to its publication in the Florida Administrative Code. (Prehearing Stipulation; Exhibit No. 2.) Department Rule 11-1.12, incorporating--by reference--the Duty Manual, was adopted on March 20, 1979, for the purpose of validating those portions (unspecified) of the Manual which constituted "rules" under the APA. At the time, the Department anticipated that adopting the Manual, by rule, would "lead to greater efficiency." (Exhibit No. 2.)
Findings Of Fact The Utility's water plants are operating satisfactorily and are under no citations or corrective orders promulgated by the Department of Environmental Regulation. One customer service problem exists with regard to frequency of service outages and low pressure. The Utility had not previously been informed of the particular customer's problem and gave assurances that it would be corrected immediately. As demonstrated by a report of the Department of Environmental Regulation incorporated in Exhibit 1, the Utility provides good quality water that meets all pertinent standards of the Florida Safe Drinking Water Act of 1977, and in every way the quality of water service provided by the Utility was shown to be satisfactory. Rate Base In order to present a truer picture of the Utility's average rate base, and taking into account the factor of recent growth of the system, Commission expert engineering and accounting witnesses recalculated the Utility's figures for plant in service based upon a thirteen-month average as opposed to the twelve-month test year employed by the Utility. Thus equipment accounts and equipment retirement accounts were recalculated on a thirteen-month average in arriving at a total plant in service figure, based upon which the actual rate base was calculated. These calculations as well as adjustments to reclassify certain expenses which should have been capitalized in the plant accounts and then based on a thirteen-month average, demonstrated a total plant in service adjustment figure of $7,770. These, together with an adjustment for additional total accumulated depreciation of $2,807 and other relatively minor adjustments to the Utility's capital accounts, none of which were contested by the Utility, result in a rate base, or net investment figure, of $90,173. The adjustments and calculations supportive of this figure, all of which were uncontroverted by the Petitioner, appear attached hereto and are incorporated by reference herein as Schedule 1, Attachments 1 and 2. Operating Statement The Utility seeks to increase its revenues to the above- stated amount. Determination of an appropriate revenue figure necessitate re-allocations and adjustments to operation and maintenance expenses to add in necessary employee salaries and to reclassify and delete certain operation and maintenance expenses properly attributable to water systems not involved in this rate case. Additional, depreciation expense on contributed property must be disallowed and an adjustment for increased revenues necessary to result in an agreed upon 12.45 percent rate of return on rate base with concomitant adjustments to allow for increased gross receipts tax and income tax, established an appropriate revenue requirement of $35,922 per year. The Respondent's accounting witness established that the 12.45 percent rate of return on the Utility's rate base is the minimum necessary to insure a reasonable, compensatory rate of return to the Utility and to assure the company's financial viability in order that the quality of service to customers does not deteriorate. These adjustments to the initial operating statement accounts depicted in Exhibit 2, were not refuted by the Utility. The adjustments and calculations supportive of this revenue figure are set forth in greater detail in Schedule 2 of Exhibits 2 and 2A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. There was no dispute regarding the appropriate cost of capital for the company. The weighted cost of capital was shown to be 12.45 percent, based upon the Utility's undisputed cost of equity at 14 percent, as well as its imbedded debt cost of 9.47 percent. The rate structure should be predicated upon a base facility charge rate design. The base facility charge type of rate structure will insure that each customer, even seasonal residents who do not use a minimum amount of water per month sufficient to defray their portions of the cost of service, actually pay the minimum necessary for the Utility to meet its fixed costs which are attributable to their connections. In the case of the systems involved in this proceeding, a base facility charge of $3.35 for a 5/8" x 3/4" meter and a gallonage charge of 88 cents per 1,000 gallons will produce the revenue requirement of $35,922. Both the Petitioner and the Respondent agree to the feasibility and appropriateness of this base facility charge rate design and these amounts.
Recommendation Having considered the competent, substantial evidence of record, the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that John V. Smith Water Company should be authorized to receive gross annual revenues for its water service to customers in Walton County, Florida of $35,922 and that the Utility be authorized to file revised tariff pages containing rates designed to produce annual water revenues in that amount. It is further RECOMMENDED that the $4,000 letter of credit previously required to be filed by the Public Service Commission be returned to the Utility for cancellation. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: John V. Smith 234 Deer Avenue Niceville, Florida William H. Harrold, Esquire 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert T. Mann Chairman Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven C. Tribble Commission Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Petitioners pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2007);1 whether Petitioners are entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes; and, if so, what amount should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact Each of the 14 Petitioners filed separate rule challenges, challenging the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 and challenging eight statements of policy of the Board of Pharmacy, which statements had not been adopted as rules. Prior to the filing of his or her rule challenge, each Petitioner had graduated from a pharmacy school located outside the United States and had taken and passed the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination, the Test of Spoken English, and the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Petitioners had been issued Intern Registrations by the Board of Pharmacy. All but two of the Petitioners had submitted an application to be admitted to the professional licensure examination. Those applications had been denied. All Petitioners, including the two Petitioners who had not submitted an application, had applied to the Board of Pharmacy for a variance or waiver to allow them to sit for the professional licensure examination. The Board of Pharmacy denied each Petitioner’s application for a variance or waiver. Each Petitioner had been represented by The Health Law Firm in their applications for a variance or waiver and wanted The Health Law Firm to continue to represent them in the rule challenge. When asked why the Petitioners had contacted The Health Law Firm to represent them, an attorney for The Health Law Firm stated: I think they have a network where word just gets around. And they-–I believe they even had some sort of list serve or Web site where they had all noted that they were being treated unfairly, and so they knew each other. And maybe our name got out on that or something. But they-–they all seemed to know each other-–seemed to know each other. Additionally, The Health Law Firm had sent out letters soliciting the foreign pharmacy graduates to join the rule challenge. An attorney for The Health Law Firm was not sure whether the letter had been posted on the web site for the foreign pharmacy graduates. In several of the invoices submitted by The Health Law Firm, there was a charge of $20.00 for a “[t]elephone conference with client’s colleagues who are in the same situation and interested in filing petitions for waivers and joining the rule challenge.”2 Thus, the circumstances surrounding the representation of Petitioners by The Health Law Firm do not demonstrate that it was a coincidence that Petitioners just happened to pick The Health Law Firm to represent them in the rule challenges. The Health Law Firm decided to file 14 separate petitions instead of one petition with 14 petitioners. The reason for the filing of the separate petitions was to increase the amount of attorney’s fees which could be awarded. Given the inexperience of attorneys at The Health Law Firm with rule challenges and the difficulty in understanding the speech of Petitioners, who received their pharmacy training in countries other than the United States, The Health Law Firm felt that it was not economically feasible to pursue the rule challenge for $15,000.00. Petitioners had a common goal, i.e. to be allowed to sit for the professional licensure examination. The wording of each of the petitions was essentially the same except for the names of the individual Petitioners. Because the issues were the same for all the rule challenges, the rule challenges were consolidated for final hearing. No final hearing was held in the consolidated cases. The parties agreed that, based on the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, there were no disputed issues of material fact and agreed to file proposed final orders addressing each party’s position regarding the application of the law to the stipulated facts. The Board of Pharmacy conceded that Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and Petitioners were determined to prevail on the issue of the invalidity of the existing rule. On the challenge to the Board of Pharmacy’s policy statements, four statements were determined to meet the definition of a rule. The Board of Pharmacy conceded in the parties’ pre-hearing stipulation that the instructions in the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination, directing applicants not to apply prior to obtaining all the required internship hours, constituted a non-rule policy. On August 1, 2008, in response to its concession that some of the statements or policies at issue were invalid non-rule policies, the Board of Pharmacy had published, in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly, a Notice of Rule Development for Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. On August 21, 2008, the Board of Pharmacy approved changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16- 26.2031, eliminating the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Examination Committee (FPGEC) requirement, incorporating by reference the Foreign Graduate Examination Application, and stating the time frames for the application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. Pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(e), Florida Statutes, the portion of the petitions dealing with the statements on which the Board of Pharmacy did not prevail was abated pending the rulemaking process. Petitioners did not prevail on four of the policy statements they challenged. These were the policy statements which the Board of Pharmacy contested. Based on the invoices submitted, the parties attempted to settle the case. Essentially, the Board of Pharmacy had started rule development which eliminated the requirement in the existing rule which caused it to be invalid and which dealt with the unpromulgated rule issues that the Board of Pharmacy had conceded in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Petitioners wanted to be able to sit for the National Association of Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) and the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination (MPJE). All Petitioners who had a Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination pending on August 21, 2008, were approved by the Board of Pharmacy to sit for the NAPLEX and the Florida version of the MPJE. Thus, by August 21, 2008, those Petitioners had reached their goal. The impediment to settling the cases was the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded to Petitioners. There was no undue delay by the Board of Pharmacy or anything which could be attributed to the Board of Pharmacy as needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. The Board of Pharmacy correctly contended that the amount of fees requested by Petitioners was unreasonable. The Partial Final Order entered in the underlying rule challenges held that Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The Board of Pharmacy was not substantially justified in promulgating the challenged rule in the underlying case and did not demonstrate that special circumstances existed to warrant the promulgation of the challenged rule. The Board of Pharmacy did not demonstrate that the statements which constituted unpromulgated rules are required by the Federal Government to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. Each Petitioner entered into a contingency fee contract3 with The Health Law Firm to represent him or her in a rule challenge. The parties have agreed that the hourly rate of $350.00 per hour for the services of George F. Indest, III, Esquire, is reasonable and fair under the circumstances. The parties have agreed that some of the hourly rates being claimed for the other attorneys and employees of The Health Law Firm are reasonable and fair under the circumstances. Those fees are $200.00 and $150.00 per hour for the associate attorneys, $80.00 per hour for the paralegals, and $70.00 per hour for the legal assistants. There were a few entries in the invoices made by senior attorneys for whom the rate charged is $300.00 per hour. Based on the rates charged for the senior partner and the associate attorneys, an hourly rate of $300.00 for a senior attorney is reasonable. The names of the attorneys and staff and the respective hourly rate amount for each are listed below. In discussing the reasonableness of the fees claimed in the various invoices, the attorneys and staff will be referred to by their initials as listed in the invoices. Initials Name Hourly Rate GFI George F. Indest, III, Senior Partner $350.00 MLS Michael L. Smith, Senior Attorney $300.00 JK Joanne Kenna, Senior Attorney $300.00 TJJ Teresa J. James, Attorney $200.00 MRG Matthew R. Gross, Attorney $150.00 JP Justin Patrou, Law Clerk $100.00 GJ Gail Joshua, Senior Paralegal $80.00 PD Pamela Dumas, Litigation Clerk $80.00 SF Sandra Faiella, Paralegal $80.00 RS Rebecca Simmons, Paralegal $80.00 AE Alexa Eastwood, Legal Assistant $70.00 SE Shelly Estes, Legal Assistant $70.00 The amount of fees claimed by each Petitioner for representation by The Health Law Firm for the rule challenge is listed below. These amounts are based on the individual invoices and the first consolidated invoice:4 Name Amount Vipul Patel $15,212.36 Miriam Hernandez $15,683.36 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $11,469.36 Valliammai Natarajan $5,074.36 John H. Neamatalla $11,215.36 Samad Mridha $13,650.36 Se Young Yoon $12,292.36 Saurin Modi $10,093.36 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $11,764.36 Mijeong Chang $12,528.36 Nabil Khalil $10,272.36 Hadya Alameddine $5,313.36 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $4,585.36 Anand Narayanan $4,218.36 Total $143,372.04 Sandra Ambrose testified as an expert witness on behalf of Petitioners. Her opinion is that the amounts claimed are based on a reasonable number of hours expended in the litigation of the rule challenge. However, Ms. Ambrose has never represented a client in a rule challenge. It was Ms. Ambrose’s opinion that the difficulty in the cases was a result of the number of Petitioners not the issues to be litigated. Having reviewed all the invoices submitted in these cases, the undersigned cannot credit Ms. Ambrose’s testimony that the fees are reasonable. The Board of Pharmacy argues that the amount of fees and costs should be limited to the amount expended in the petition brought by the first Petitioner, Vipul Patel. The expert who testified for the Board of Pharmacy did not give a definite amount that he considered to be a reasonable fee in these cases. Prior to the final consolidation of all 14 rule challenges, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its services and costs by individual Petitioner. After all 14 rule challenges were consolidated, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its time and costs via a consolidated invoice. The undersigned has painstakingly reviewed all the invoices that were submitted to support Petitioners’ claims for fees and costs in the rule challenges and finds the fees requested are not reasonable. On May 15, 2008, the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2733RX contained the following entry for MRG. “Review/analyze final order. Strategize regarding final order.” The final order appears to be related to a petition5 for a waiver or variance before the Board of Pharmacy, and the entry is deleted. This conclusion is supported by the entry in the invoice dated May 29, 2008, relating to a telephone conference with the client relating to a re-petition for waiver. In Case No. 08-2730RX, there is an entry on May 27, 2008, for .10 hours for MRG, but no service is listed. That entry is deleted. On June 6, 2008, MRG entered .50 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX. The entry stated: “Continue preparing rule challenge and waiver.” The Health Law Firm represented the Petitioners in four of these cases before the Board of Pharmacy on June 10, 2008, on their petitions for a wavier or variance. The invoice does not delineate the amount of time that was spent on the rule challenge and the amount of time that was spent on the waiver cases. Therefore, the time is divided equally and .25 hours in each case is charged toward the rule challenge. 23. On June 9, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .30 hours for each case, which stated: “Prepare letter to Division of Administrative Hearings forwarding Petition for Rule Challenge to be filed.” The letter which accompanied the petitions in these cases stated: Dear Clerk: Attached for filing, please find a separate Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Agency Rule and the Invalidity of Agency Policy and Statements defined as Rules, for each of the individuals listed below: Miriam L. Hernandez Mirley Aleman-Alejo Se Young Yoon John H. Neamatalla Valliammai Natarajan Md. A. Samad Mridha Thank you for your assistance in this matter. For this letter, Petitioners are claiming 1.8 hours or $630.00. This is not reasonable. On the same date, GFI prepared a similar transmittal letter in Case No. 08-2728RX and listed .3 hours, which is a reasonable amount for the preparation of such a letter. Thus, the preparation of the transmittal letter on June 9th for Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX is reduced to .3 hours, which is prorated to .05 hours for those cases. The senior partner in The Health Law Firm claims 23.6 hours during June 3 through 5, 2008, for the following service which was entered on the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2730RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2733RX, and 08-2824RX. Conduct legal research, review statutes, cases (approximately 28 cases reviewed and analyzed) and two (2) different Florida Administrative Law legal treatises regarding rule challenges and challenging agency statements not adopted as rules, in order to properly prepare Petition for Formal Rule Challenge in case. Research legal issues including administrative agency rules exceeding authority granted in statutes, retroactive applications of agency rules, adding requirements to licensure requirements through administrative rules when those requirements are not contained in the statute. Review Rules of Procedure and Chapter 120 to determine contents of Rule Challenge Petition. Begin reviewing and revising draft for Rule Challenge in case. (Note: Only pro-rata portion of this time charged to each case.) The total amount of fees claimed for this research is $8,260.00. GFI testified that he had never done a rule challenge prior to filing the petitions in the instant cases. His fees for research due to his lack of knowledge of the basics of a rule challenge should not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy. A reasonable amount of time for his research is four hours. Thus, the amount for this legal research prorated among the ten cases for which it was listed is .4 hours. On July 19, 2008, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .60 hours in ten of the rule challenges for reviewing the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings for February 8 and April 5, 2008, and preparing a notice of filing the Transcripts with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Six hours to review the Transcripts and prepare a notice of filing is not reasonable. Three hours is determined to be a reasonable amount of time for this task, and that amount is prorated among the ten cases in which the charge was made. On June 10, 2008, members of The Health Law Firm attended a Board of Pharmacy meeting at which they represented foreign pharmacy graduates who had petitioned the Board of Pharmacy for a waiver or variance. In Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-3298RX, and 08-2733RX, the senior partner listed .90 hours for each case for preparation for the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting. The preparation related to the petitions for variances or waivers and should not be assessed for the instant cases. For June 10, 2008, JP listed .70 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2823RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2821RX, and 08-2733RX for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. For June 10, 2008, GFI entered 1.4 hours for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. The entries for attending the Board of Pharmacy meeting related to the petitions for waivers and should not be assessed in the instant cases. For June 19, 2008, the senior partner made the following entry in the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX: Travel to Boca Raton to meet with other health care lawyers and discuss issues in common on these cases and others. Discuss legal strategies that worked in the past and legal strategies to be avoided. Return from Boca Raton. Each entry was for one hour, for a total of eight hours claimed for a trip to Boca Raton, which equates to $2,880.00. Based on the entry, it seems that the trip included discussions of other cases that The Health Law Firm was handling or that other attorneys were handling. Additionally, there was no rationale for having to travel to Boca Raton to discuss the issues, and fees for such travel should not be awarded. A reasonable amount of time for discussion of the case with other attorneys by telephone would be .80 hours. The prorated amount of time for each case listed is .10 hours. On May 27, 2008, SF made a .30-hour entry in Case No. 08-2824RX for reviewing the agenda of the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting as it related to the client in Case No. 08-2824RX. The entry related to the client’s petition for a waiver, which was heard at the June 10th meeting and should be deleted. On May 30, 2008, in Case No. 08-2824RX, SF made a .40-hour entry for drafting a letter to client with retainer agreement. The entry is clerical and should be deleted. On June 18, 2008, an entry was made in the invoice in Case No. 08-2731RX, which stated: “Telephone call from husband of our client indicating that they want us to close this matter and that they do not wish to pursue it any further; follow-up memorandum to Mr. Indest regarding this.” Charges continued to be made to the client through July 16, 2008. Based on the entry to the invoice on June 18, 2008, no further charges should have been made to the client except for the filing of a voluntary dismissal of the rule challenge for the client. However, no voluntary dismissal was filed. Based on the absence of any further charges to the client after July 18, 2008, it is concluded that the client did wish not to proceed with her rule challenge. Any charges by The Health Law Firm after June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2731RX will not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy as it relates to the rule challenge. On June 19, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in ten of the cases: “Review June 10, 2008, Board of Pharmacy Agenda. Telephone conference with Court Reporter, Ms. Green, ordering transcript of the June 10, 2008, meeting.” An hour for reviewing an agenda and ordering a transcript is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and such time is prorated to the ten cases in which it is charged. 33. On June 20, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2823RX and 08-2824RX, TJJ made a .80-hour entry which stated: “Prepare draft motion for consolidation.” No motion was ever filed and would not have been necessary since the parties had agreed at the pre-hearing conference that the rule challenges would be consolidated. The time for this service should be deleted. 34. On July 10, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in several of the cases: “Review prehearing instruction orders and amended orders to determine respondent’s deadline to serve discovery responses.” The entry is duplicative of services provided by MRG on July 8, 2008, and should be deleted. 35. On July 15, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2729RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, TJJ had .40 hours for a total of 4.00 hours for the following entry: Prepare Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Discovery and assemble and copy documents to be attached to Motion. Prepare facsimile coversheets and transmit the Motion to the attorney for the Board of Pharmacy, Ms. Loucks, and to the clerk for the Division of Administrative Hearings. The copying, preparing facsimile coversheets, and transmitting the motion are clerical tasks. The entries are reduced to .20 hours due to the clerical nature of the tasks, which leaves a total of two hours for preparing a simple motion to compel. The time for the preparation of the motion to compel is not reasonable and is reduced to .10-hour for each entry. On July 22, 2008, the last Order consolidating all the cases was filed. The Order consisted of four paragraphs. On July 29, 2008, TJJ entered .10 hours in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08- 2730RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2824RX, 08-3510RX, 08-3488RX, 08-3347RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, and 08- 2821RX, and each entry stated: “Review order of consolidation filed on July 22, 2008, for common information needed for all cases.” Thus, Petitioners are claiming a total of 1.3 hours or $260.00 to review a four-paragraph Order of Consolidation. This claim is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time to review the Order was .10 hours, and the time shall be prorated among the cases for which it was claimed at .08 hours each. On July 24, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in ten of the cases which stated: Telephone conference with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal, First District to find out the start time of oral arguments on Custom Mobility (rule challenge case). Request information from clerk regarding how to listen to oral arguments online. Observing this oral argument will allow us to better prepare our case for possible appeal. First, a one-hour telephone conversation with the Clerk of District Court of Appeal to ascertain the time for an oral argument and to learn how to listen to oral arguments online is not reasonable. Second, it is not reasonable to charge the Board of Pharmacy with a call to the District Court of Appeal in the instant cases, even if the amount of time for the call had been reasonable. The one-hour charge for $200.00 for a telephone call is deleted. On July 30, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in 13 of the rule challenges. The entry stated: “Listen to oral arguments presented before District Court of Appeals, First District, in Custom Mobility case (rule challenge case).” The oral argument was not related to the instant rule challenges and should not be charged to the Board of Pharmacy. The 1.3 hours or $260.00 claim for listening to an oral argument is deleted. On August 4, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Joint Motion for Abeyance and Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Cases in Abeyance. Calendar deadlines regarding same.” The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the simple motion and Order is not reasonable. Calendaring is a clerical task. The time for this service is reduced to .01 hours for each entry. On August 5, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Respondent’s Objections and Responses to Petitioners’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Respondent’s Objections to Petitioners’ Second Set of Requests for Admissions.” The objections were that the interrogatories and requests for admissions exceeded 30. The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the pleadings is not reasonable. The time for this service is reduced to .04 for each entry. Petitioners had scheduled the depositions of Rebecca Poston and Daisy King for July 18, 2008. On July 17, 2008, Petitioners filed notices canceling the depositions. On July 17, 2008, PD entered .10 hours in ten of the rule challenges for the following entry: Telephone conference with Accurate Stenotype Reporters regarding cancellation of depositions of Daisy King and Rebecca Poston on July 18, 2008 and delay transcription of depositions of Erika Lilja and Elizabeth Ranne due to potential settlement. It is not reasonable to charge an hour to cancel depositions with the court reporter. A reasonable amount of time would be .10 hours, which is prorated to the ten cases to which it is charged. PD prepared the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. Poston and the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. King. Entries were made in ten of the cases for time for preparing the notices. The total time for preparing the two notices by PD was 1.45 hours. The time is not reasonable. A reasonable time to prepare two notices of canceling depositions would be .40 hours, which is prorated among the ten cases in which it was charged. One of the issues on which Petitioners did not prevail in the rule challenges was the issue of retroactive application of the rule. There are entries totaling 3.4 hours for JP for preparation of a memorandum dealing with the retroactive application of a rule issue. GFI entered .30 hours for the same issue. The time relating to the retroactive application issue is deleted. On April 19, 2008, MRG entered .20 hours each in several cases, which related to the rule challenge and retroactive application issue. That time is reduced by half. On May 6, 2008, MRG made .60-hour entries in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, which showed the preparation of three sections of the petition. One of the sections dealt with the retroactive application issue, and the entries are reduced by .20 hours for that issue. The invoices demonstrated that a considerable amount of time was charged for legal assistants and paralegals. Much of this time was for clerical tasks. SE is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a legal assistant. The majority of the entries by SE dealt with the photocopying, labeling, organizing, indexing, and filing documents. These services performed by SE are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. RS is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant. The majority of the entries in the invoices for RS deal with receiving, reviewing, labeling, indexing, scanning, summarizing, and calendaring pleadings and orders that were received in the cases. These services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. Petitioners in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2732RX, and 08-2733RX each claimed .30 hours for RS for the following service on April 30, 2008: Received and reviewed letter from Department of Health regarding our Public Records Request dated April 28, 2008 relating to client’s case. Index document for filing and scanning for use of attorneys at hearing. However, .90 hours for reviewing and indexing a letter is not reasonable and is clerical in nature. On June 17, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX, RS entered .60 hours for preparing, copying, and sending a letter to the client forwarding a copy of the Order of Assignment. That entry is reduced to .30 hours, since at least half of the time appeared to be for clerical tasks. AE, who is identified as a legal assistant in Petitioners’ exhibits, has numerous entries in the invoices for receiving, indexing, filing, calendaring, and providing pleadings and orders to clients. Those services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-2728RX, PD, identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal, made entries on June 16 and June 25, 2008, for .30 hours each. These entries were to update the litigation schedule with the hearing date. The entry is clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. SF, who is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant, made an entry for .30 hours in Case No. 08-2728RX on June 26, 2008, and in Case No. 08-2732RX on June 11, 2008, for forwarding orders to the client. An entry was made on July 10, 2008, in Case No. 08-2728RX and on June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX for .30 hours for processing the retainer package. Additionally, SF had entries for organizing and filing transcripts and orders. Such services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-3488RX, SF made a .30-hour entry on June 30, 2008, for updating the parties list and document file and a .50-hour entry on June 26, 2008, for completing opening procedures. In the same case, SF made two entries on July 7, 2008, for a total of 1.5 hours for preparing a retainer package and sending it to the client. These tasks are clerical. On June 24, 2008, SF made the following .30-hour entry in 11 of the cases: “Finalize and forward Joint Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing to client in this matter.” These entries are deleted; as they represent clerical tasks and an unreasonable amount of time to finalize a motion for continuance for which GFI had charged 1.1 hours for preparing the motion. In several cases JP, identified as a law clerk, made entries on July 15, 2008, for .30-hour for creating, numbering, and copying exhibits. Such service is clerical. On July 30, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy regarding filing and Service of Petitioners’ Fourth Set of Request to Produce and Second Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.6 hours is not a reasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time to prepare such documents is .50 hours, and the time is prorated among the 13 cases. On July 28, 2008, PD made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Notice of Filing Videotaped Depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. Prepare draft of Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript of Elizabeth Ranne. However, 1.3 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare two notices of filing depositions. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and that amount is prorated among the 13 cases. On June 17, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in each of the 11 cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy, regarding filing and service of Petitioners’ First Set of Request to Produce, Petitioners’ First Set of Request for Admissions and Petitioners’ First Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.2 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time is .50, which is prorated among the 11 cases. 58. On June 21, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX, there is a .30-hour entry for SF for finalizing and forwarding a petition for formal hearing to the Department of Health for filing. This entry does not appear to be related to the rule challenges and is deleted. In Case No. 08-3298RX, MRG made an entry of .50 hours for a telephone conference regarding the date of rule challenge and petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing dealt with the client’s petition for waiver and should not be included. Thus, the entry is reduced to .25 hours. After all the cases were consolidated The Health Law Firm began to make entries for all cases in the first consolidated invoice. On July 28, 2008, GFI made an entry of 2.8 hours, which related exclusively to the issue of retroactive application of the rule. This entry is deleted. RS made entries in the first consolidated invoice for August 12, 14, 28, and 29, 2008, and September 2, 5, 10, and 18, 2008, relating to filing, indexing, copying, and forwarding documents. There are similar entries for SF on August 26, 2008, and September 4 and 9, 2008, and for AE on September 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. PD had entries for reviewing, organizing, and indexing documents on September 4, 8, 11, and 17, 2008, and October 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. There were numerous entries in August 2008 relating to a Board of Pharmacy meeting on August 21, 2008, in which the Board of Pharmacy heard motions for reconsideration of orders denying Petitioners’ petitions for waivers. Those entries are related to the petitions for waiver and not to the rule challenges. Although, The Health Law Firm makes reference to a settlement agreement in which the Board of Pharmacy agreed to grant the waivers, there was no settlement agreement of the rule challenges because the parties proceeded to litigate the issues by summary disposition. Thus, the references to attending and preparing for the August 21, 2008, Board of Pharmacy meeting as well as advising the clients of the outcome of the meeting on August 20 and 21, 2008, are deleted. Additionally, an entry by MRG on August 20, 2008, which included reviewing the August 21st agenda is reduced to .75 hours. On August 25, 2008, MRG made an entry which included a telephone conference with Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Ms. Ranne regarding Mr. Bui. Mr. Bui is not a Petitioner, and the entry is reduced to .55 hours. Based on the invoices, it appears that Mr. Bui and Ms. Ranne were also foreign pharmacy graduates seeking waivers from the Board of Pharmacy. On August 29, 2008, MRG made another entry which included the preparation of an e-mail to Mr. Bui. The entry is reduced to two hours. On August 6, 2008, MRG made a 1.80-hour entry which included preparing e-mail to Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Mr. Sokkan regarding the rule challenge and settlement negotiations. Neither of these persons is a Petitioner; thus, the entry is reduced to .60 hours. On August 28, 2008, TJJ made a 3.60-hour entry for researching and preparing Petitioners’ second motion to compel discovery. No such motion was filed. Thus, the entry is deleted. Another entry was made on September 2, 2008, which included, among other things, the revision of the motion to compel. That entry is reduced to .80 hours. On August 8, 2008, MRG made a 1.00-hour entry which included a telephone conference with Ms. Alameddine regarding her passing the MPJE and being licensed in Michigan. Those issues relate to the petition for reconsideration of the waiver. The entry is reduced to .50 hours. On September 4, 2008, TJJ made a .80-hour entry for preparing a letter to Mr. Modi regarding his approval to take the examination, a 1.00-hour entry dealing with Mr. Lakshminarary’s application, a .90-hour entry dealing with Petitioner Narayanan’s application, a .70-hour entry dealing with Mr. Shah’s application, and a .60-hour entry dealing with Ms. Hernandez’s application. The entries deal with the petitions for a waiver and are deleted. On September 4, 2008, MRG made an entry which included, among other tasks, time for determining if the Board of Pharmacy had sufficient funds to pay Petitioners’ attorney’s fees. This entry is reduced to two hours. On October 10, 2008, MRG made a 1.20-hour entry which included, among other things, analyzing pleadings to determine if persons who were not Petitioners should file petitions for attorney’s fees. The entry is reduced to .60 hours. On July 16, 2008, MRG and JP made entries in ten of the cases for traveling to Tallahassee and attending the depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. The total hours for MRG was 16.9 hours and for JP the total was 17 hours. These total hours are reduced by ten hours each for travel time. On August 12 and 13, 2008, MRG made entries which included travel time to attend Board of Pharmacy meetings.6 Those entries are reduced each by one hour to account for travel time. The following is a listing of the amount of hours and dollar amount for fees, which are considered to be reasonable for the rule challenges. Individual and First Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 146.10 $350.00 $51,135.00 MLS 3.70 $300.00 $1,110.00 JK 1.40 $300.00 $420.00 TJJ 80.13 $200.00 $16,026.00 MRG 210.16 $150.00 $31,824.00 JP 37.80 $100.00 $3,780.00 PD 39.053 $80.00 $3,124.24 SF 16.80 $80.00 $1,344.00 GJ .40 $80.00 $32.00 RS 1.3 $80.00 $104.00 $108,899.24 The Partial Final Order found that Petitioners were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Thus, the issue of entitlement to fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was not an issue that was litigated in the instant fee cases. The issue of whether Petitioners were entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes, were entitlement issues which were litigated in the instant fee cases.7 Most of the charges dealing with the petitions for fees and costs are related to the amount of fees that are to be awarded and not to the entitlement to fees. In Petitioners’ second consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 4), there is a two-hour entry by MLS on November 3, 2008, for research of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. This entry is deleted since the issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, had already been determined. The following entries in the second consolidated invoice relate to the litigation of the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 11-5-08 GFI 6.90 hours 11-6-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-6-08 GFI 7.40 hours 11-7-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-7-08 MLS 1.00 hour 11-7-08 JCP 7.00 hours 11-8-08 JCP 1.00 hours 11-8-08 GFI 7.10 hours 1-26-09 GFI 1.00 hour 2-9-09 GFI .60 hours 2-10-09 GFI .30 hours 2-12-09 GFI .60 hours 2-17-09 GFI .30 hours 2-17-09 GFI .60 hours 2-19-09 GFI .60 hours The following entries were made in the second consolidated invoice for clerical tasks performed by paralegals and legal assistants: 11-3-08 RAS .30 hours 2-9-09 RAS .30 hours 2-10-09 RAS .30 hours 2-12-09 ACE .40 hours The issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was a small portion of the litigation relating to attorney’s fees and costs. The major areas of litigation dealt with the amount of fees and costs that should be awarded. The invoices do not specifically set forth the amount of time that was spent on the issue of entitlement to fees on statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Based on a review of the pleadings in these fee cases and a review of the invoices submitted for litigation of attorney’s fees and costs, it is concluded that ten percent of the time should be allocated to the issue of entitlement to fees. The percentage is applied to the fees after the fees listed in paragraphs 76, 77, and 78, above, have been deleted. Thus, the following entries in the second consolidated invoice are reduced to the following amount of hours: 11-1-08 JCP .26 hours 11-3-08 MLS .10 hours 11-4-08 MLS .40 hours 11-8-08 JCP .32 hours 12-22-08 GFI .04 hours 12-30-08 MLS .03 hours 1-7-09 GFI .02 hours 1-14-09 GFI .04 hours 1-15-09 GFI .07 hours In the third consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 5), the following entries relate to the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 3-4-09 SME 4.80 hours 3-4-09 GFI 1.20 hours 4-3-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-7-09 GFI .50 hours 4-7-09 GFI .60 hours 4-7-09 GFI .30 hours 4-8-09 GFI 4.20 hours 4-8-09 GFI 1.00 hour 4-9-09 MRG 1.50 hours 4-9-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-11-09 GFI .60 hours 4-15-09 GFI 4.40 hours On April 14, 2009, GFI made an entry which included time for travel to the expert witness’ office. The entry is reduced by .75 hours for travel time. Ten percent of the time not excluded or reduced above related to the issue of entitlement of fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The following entries are reduced to that percentage: 3-31-09 GFI .05 hours 4-1-09 GFI .20 hours 4-6-09 GFI .19 hours 4-6-09 GFI .03 hours 4-7-09 MRG .05 hours 4-7-09 GFI .07 hours 4-7-09 GFI .19 hours 4-7-09 GFI .27 hours 4-9-09 GFI .10 hours 4-13-09 GFI .50 hours 4-14-09 GFI .48 hours 4-14-09 GFI .275 hours The following is a list of the fees in the second and third consolidated invoices which are related to entitlement of fees pursuant to Florida Statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Second and Third Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 2.525 $350.00 $883.75 MLS .43 $300.00 $129.00 MRG .05 $150.00 $7.50 JCP .32 $100.00 $32.00 $1,052.25 With the exception of the costs related to the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings of April 8 and 9, 2008, and June 10, 2008, Respondent, as stipulated in the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, does not dispute that the amounts of costs set forth in the invoices submitted by Petitioners are fair and reasonable.8 The cost of the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings on April 8 and 9, 2008, was $1,476.00. The cost of the Transcript of the Board of Pharmacy meeting on June 10, 2008, was $524.00. At the final hearing, the Board of Pharmacy’s objection appeared to be based on the timing of the payment of the court reporter’s fees related to the transcribing of those meetings. The Transcripts were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings prior to the issuance of the Partial Final Order. Thus, the costs of the transcribing of the Board of Pharmacy meetings are properly included in the amount of costs to be awarded to Petitioners. The amounts of the costs claimed for the rule challenges in the individual and first consolidated invoice are reasonable. The costs incurred by Petitioners for the rule challenges as set forth in the individual and first consolidated invoices are listed below: Name Amount Vipul Patel $1,773.62 Miriam Hernandez $1,801.41 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $1,213.80 Valliammai Natarajan $321.17[9] John H. Neamatalla $1,118.72 Samad Mridha $975.12 Se Young Yoon $1,097.07 Saurin Modi $1,168.75 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $1,119.24 Mijeong Chang $1,213.16 Nabil Khalil $961.32 Hadya Alameddine $464.60 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $509.71 Anand Narayanan $461.87 The total amount of costs to be awarded for the challenge to the existing rule and to the policy statements is $14,199.56. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the second consolidated invoice. The second consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $2,096.12. Therefore, the costs for the second consolidated invoice are reduced to $209.61,10 which represents the amount attributable to litigation of entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the third consolidated invoice. The third consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $580.62. Therefore, the costs for the third consolidated invoice are reduced to $58.06,11 which represents the amount attributable to litigating the entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. Petitioners incurred costs in the litigation of the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Petitioners retained an expert witness, Sandra Ambrose, Esquire. Ms. Ambrose’s fee relating to the issue of attorney’s fees is $5,200.00. Her fee is reasonable; however, Ms. Ambrose’s testimony was related to the amount of the fees not to the entitlement to fees and are, therefore, not awarded as part of the costs. The total costs to be awarded for the litigation of the fees is $267.67.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Ana Caos, M.D., is a applicant for a restricted license to practice Medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to the provisions of Section 458.311(8), Florida Statutes. Successful completion of the Florida Board Examination is a prerequisite to licensure under Section 458.311(8), Florida Statutes. In an effort to meet that prerequisite, the Petitioner has already taken the Florida Board Examination six times since October 1, 1966. The Petitioner has passed portions of the licensure examination, but thus far she has not received a passing grade on the Basic Sciences portion of that examination. The Petitioner seeks to continue taking the licensure examination until she achieves a passing grade on all portions of the examination. On January 19, 1993, the Board of Medicine filed and served an order regarding the Petitioner's licensure application. The order reads as follows, in pertinent part: You are hereby notified pursuant to Section 120.60(3), Florida Statutes, that the Board of Medicine voted to DENY your application for licensure as a physician by examination. The Board of Medicine reviewed and considered your application for licensure by examination on November 19, 1992, in a telephone conference call originating in Tallahassee, Florida and has determined that said licensure by examination be denied, stating as grounds therefore: That you have failed to pass the FLEX examination six times since October 1986. Subsection 458.311(2), Florida Statutes, prohibits licensure of any individual who has failed the FLEX examination five times after October 1, 1986. Although the Board previously permitted you to sit for the FLEX examination for a sixth time in 1992, it has since that time determined that this provision applies to all applicants for licensure. The Board of Medicine has never adopted a rule to the effect that Section 458.311(2), Florida Statutes, applies to applicants for a restricted license under Section 458.311(8), Florida Statutes. The Board of Medicine has an existing rule that interprets several provisions of Section 458.311(8), Florida Statutes (1991). (See Rule 21M-22.020 (1)(a)-(c), Florida Administrative Code.) At the Board meeting on July 11 and 12, 1992, the Board of Medicine discussed proposed amendments to the existing rule and voted to initiate rulemaking to amend Rule 21M- 22.020(1), Florida Administrative Code, by adding to it a new subsection (d) reading as follows: (d) The phrase "successfully completes the Florida Board Examination" is interpreted as requiring obtaining a passing score as defined by Rule 21M-29.001(2) within the time frame set forth in Section 458.311(2), Florida Statutes. Specifically, if the applicant has failed the examination five times after October 1, 1986, the applicant is no longer eligible for licensure. At its meeting on July 11 and 12, 1992, the Board of Medicine instructed its legal counsel to initiate rulemaking to adopt the rule amendment quoted above. For reasons unknown to the Board's Executive Director, the Board's legal counsel had not yet filed the proposed rule amendment for adoption as of the date of the formal hearing in this case. On March 12, 1993, eleven days after the formal hearing in this case, notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The proposed rulemaking noticed on March 12, 1993, is the same as, or substantially the same as, the proposed language described in Paragraph 5, above. The proposed rulemaking noticed on March 12, 1993, is presently the subject of a rule challenge petition filed by the Petitioner in this case. See Case No. 93-2166RP. The Petitioner in this case is also the Petitioner in Case No. 93-1801, which involves a petition filed pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the proposed denial of the Petitioner's application for a license.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a refund of contributions made to the Florida State Officers and Employees Retirement System from October 1952 through January 1956.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Florida A & M Hospital, Tallahassee, Florida, from October 1952 through January 1956. During the course of this employment, contributions to SOERS were withheld from her monthly pay warrant. On February 23, 1956, Division records reflect that she had contributed a total of $455.04 into SOERS. During January 1956 she terminated her employment. On or about February 23, 1956, the sum of $455.04 was debited from Petitioner's account. This action was taken because the Florida law in effect in 1956, mandated the return of contributions made to SOERS to an employee upon termination of employment. However, evidence which might have demonstrated that a warrant was issued naming Petitioner as payee, is unavailable because cancelled warrants are only maintained on file by the Florida Comptroller for 20 years. Under applicable statutes and, pursuant to Division practice at times pertinent, if a warrant had been issued, but never negotiated, the amount would have been credited back to the trust fund under Petitioner's account. Petitioner's account at the Division does not reflect such a credit. If a warrant had been issued and negotiated pursuant to a forged endorsement, and such forgery was not detected, no entries subsequent to issuance would have been made to Petitioner's account. Petitioner, in January 1956, departed Tallahassee for Nuremburg, Germany, after marrying. She did not leave a forwarding address with her employer or with Respondent. Petitioner ultimately became a resident of Coram, New York, where she currently resides. Petitioner testified that she never received a warrant for $455.04 from the State of Florida. Her testimony was unrebutted and credible and is taken as a fact. Petitioner first became aware she was entitled to a payment of $455.04 from the Division when, in the year 2000, she made inquiries regarding her eligibility for social security. Petitioner has determined that the amount in question is not being held in the Unclaimed Property Bureau of the Florida Comptroller.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division cause to be issued to Petitioner a warrant in the amount of $455.04. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 23rd day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lettie L. Echols No. 2 Gulf Lane Coram, New York 11727 Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Erin Sjostrom, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Emily Moore, Chief Legal Counsel Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560
Findings Of Fact Based upon the parties' factual stipulations, the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On August 28, 1992, Petitioner submitted to the Department its application for licensure as a mortgage lender. 1/ On October 28, 1992, the Department sent Petitioner a letter announcing its intent to deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage lender. The text of the letter read as follows: This is to inform you that your Application for Licensure as a Mortgage Lender for Citifirst Mortgage Corp. is hereby denied. The denial is based on Section 494.0072(2)(k), Florida Statutes. Section 494.0072(2), Florida Statutes, "Each of the following acts constitutes a ground for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection may be taken: . . . (k) Acting as a mortgage lender or correspondent mortgage lender without a current active license issued under ss. 494.006-494.0077." The Department's investigation revealed Citifirst Mortgage Corp. has acted as a mortgage lender without a current, active license. Please be advised that you may request a hearing concerning this denial to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Requests for such a hearing must comply with the provisions of Rule 3-7.002, Florida Administrative Code (attached hereto) and must be filed in duplicate with: Clerk Division of Finance Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 (904) 487-2583 within twenty-one (21) days after receipt of this notice. Failure to respond within twenty-one days of receipt of this notice shall be deemed to be a waiver of all rights to a hearing. Should you request such a hearing, you are further advised that at such a hearing, you will have the right to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative; to offer testimony, either oral or written; to call and cross examine witnesses; and to have subpoenas and subpoenas duces tecum issued on your behalf. Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing on the proposed denial of its application. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it is still pending.
The Issue Whether Aaron Conover, a retarded child, is eligible to continue to attend the BARA Learning Center, Tallahassee, Florida. Whether the State of Florida Final Comprehensive Annual Service Program Plan for Social Security Act Title XX, October 1, 1975 - June 30, 1976 (CASPP) is a rule subject to be promulgated under Section 20.05, Florida Statutes and Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Aaron Conover, a five-year old male, was referred to the BARA Learning Center, Tallahassee, Florida in May, 1975 by personnel of the Jefferson County School System, after a determination that Aaron Conover is mildly mentally retarded. Aaron Conover was certified by Respondent as eligible for and in need of services on the basis of retardation and is a community client of the Retardation Office. The Retardation Program Office of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services contracts with the BARA Learning Center, a private institution, to provide services to Title XX, United States Code eligible persons, who are referred to BARA by the Retardation Program Office as Title XX eligible. Aaron Conover is in need of additional eduCATional services for the mildly retarded and is presently progressing well in the BARA Learning Center. Petitioner Gary L. Conover, the father of Aaron Conover, has secured employment with a gross salary of $15,000 per year, which gross income for a family of five makes the family and each member thereof individually ineligible for Title XX services as defined in the Florida Comprehensive Annual Services Program Plan (CASPP) which was a plan promulgated pursuant to 45 C.F.R. 228. A determination that Aaron Conover was no longer eligible for Title XX educational services under the CASPP (State Plan) based on Petitioner, Gary L. Conover's gross salary, was made and Petitioners were so notified. The Retardation Program Office offered "an alternative education placement for Aaron Conover in the Day Training Program at Philips Road. Such alternative was rejected by the Petitioners. The determination by the Retardation Program Office that Petitioners are ineligible for Title XX services under the guidelines and policy of the CASPP (Skate Plan) and by the BARA Learning Center is the subject of this hearing. Petitioners contend: That Petitioner Aaron Conover, a minor, is entitled to educational training services under Section 393.021, 393.13(4)(e) and Section 402.22, Florida Statutes, and also under Title XX, United States Code. That the continuation of the training of Petitioner Aaron Conover under the BARA Learning Center Program is in the best interest of Aaron Conover. That a transfer of Aaron Conover to the Day Training Program, an affiliate of the Sunland Center, Tallahassee, Florida now that he has studied for a period of time in the BARA Learning Center would entail such a change and break in the ongoing learning process under progress in the BARA Learning Center that Petitioner Aaron Conover would suffer a setback to such an extent that it may prevent him from entering a normal school situation in the public schools of the State of Florida. That the "persons eligible" as delineated in 45 C.F.R. 228.60 and the "monthly gross income" under 45 C.F.R. 228.66 are subject to determination by the State only after the notice and hearing required by the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, is followed; that the CASPP (State Plan) was not submitted as a rule although it in fact is a rule as defined by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and therefore is of no force and effect. That Chapter 393 and 402, Florida Statutes, provide eduCATional services for mentally retarded children, and that such services are funded under Title XX, United States Code, which Federal Act provides federal matching monies to the various States of the Union and provides that a State Plan shall be made consistent with the aims of Title XX. That the State Plan must be consistent with the federal law and with the state case and statutory laws which require eduCATional services, including the type of services presently being furnished to Aaron Conover. That a State Plan must be consistent with the notice and hearing as provided in the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, inasmuch as it is the legislative intent that there be a uniform method of publiCATion and an opportunity to be heard by those citizens of the State who have a substantial interest in the services where State money and federal monies alloCATed to the State are being spent. That other similar programs administered by the Respondent involving matching federal monies to persons in Florida have been submitted as a rule under the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, to wit: Rule No. 10C-1.31: "This rule imposes additional AFDC eligibility requirements of: furnishing Social Security account numbers, assignment of right to child support; and cooperation in establishing pater- nity, loCATing absent parents, and securing support." F.A.W., Vol I, No. 37, Pg. 11 Rule No.: 10C-7.06(S), Rule Title: Nursing Home Care, which purpose and effect was: "To implement regulations of the United States Department of Health, EduCATion and Welfare, 45 C.F.R. 250.30:" "To provide conditions and procedures for paid bed reservations for Medicaid nursing home patients." That the contentions of the Respondent that the CASPP, under which there is a provision for the services being rendered to Petitioner Aaron Conover is similar to the type of services to which the above cited rules published in the Florida Administrative Weeks are applicable. That the CASPP is also a rule which should have been published in the Florida Administrative Weekly with Notice of Hearing; that Petitioners examined the Florida Administrative Weekly and no notice was published and there was, therefore, no opportunity for a hearing by an impartial hearing officer as provided in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, before the CASPP was promulgated as a rule and policy of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioners cite AGO 75-12, wherein it states that "No department can, without adhering to the statutory requirements, attempt to adopt rules that will have any validity, and any rule that is so adopted is void." Petitioners contend that they qualify for services under Title XX, United States Code, that the CASPP (State Plan) is void inasmuch as there are no properly promulgated state regulations. It was admitted by the Respondent, in answer to Petitioner's Interrogatory Number Two, that the CASPP is not a state regulation and therefore, the attempt to establish criteria for funding under Title XX is void and any decision rendered by Respondent using the CASPP is void and of no force and effect. Petitioners further contend that the Petitioner Aaron Conover is eligible for and has a right to receive eduCATion and training under the Mandate of Chapter 393.13, Florida Statutes, (the Bill of Rights of Retarded Citizens), that Petitioner has a right to receive and the Respondent has a legal obligation to provide Petitioner with appropriate eduCATional services under Section 402.22(2), Florida Statutes, which requires the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to establish eduCATional programs for all persons under the age of twenty-one under its care. Petitioner contends that the alternative program offered Petitioner Aaron Conover by the Respondent at the Day Training Program is not appropriate training for Petitioner Aaron Conover and such determination was made by the Day Training Admissions Committee which concluded that: The program is not equipped to deal with agressive behavior; D and E results may be due to emotional problems rather than retardation; Inability to offer an appropriate peer group: "At the present time the clients enrolled in Day Training are operating in the severe to moderate retardation range, are not motovated and have limited expressive language skills." (Respondents objected to the admission of the committee's conclusion inasmuch as said conclusion was not a final policy decision made by appropriate personnel.) Respondent contends: That the BARA Learning Center has contracted to render service to people eligible under Title XX, but Petitioner Aaron Conover is no longer eligible for services under Title XX, as defined by the State Plan promulgated thereunder inasmuch as the gross income of Petitioner Gary L. Conover is in excess of that required for eligibility. The Petitioner's debts and other obligations cannot be considered in determining eligibility under Title XX. That Federal Regulations 45 C.F.R., 228.33, 228.34 and 228.35 define the public notice to be given for the proposed State Plan and that the notice given under 45 C.F.R. 228.33 by Respondent was more meaningful and effective than notice required under the Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. That each rule requires only one subject and the CASPP (State Plan) covers many subjects and therefore such plan could not be promulgated as a rule under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. That Petitioner Aaron Conover is not prohibited from attending the BARA Learning Center, but is ineligible to receive the services paid for under Title XX, United States Code.
