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 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, Greyhound Lines, Inc., operated as a motor carrier throughout the State of Florida prior to June 30, 1980. Greyhound provided regular route passenger service, sightseeing services, charter operations, tours and express package service. Prior to June 30, 1980, Greyhound, regulated by the Florida Public Service Commission, held Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity #26. On or before June 30, 1980, the Florida Public Service Commission adopted various rules and regulations regulating motor carriage, including Rule 25-5.14, Florida Administrative Code, related to and pursuant to Chapter 323.22, requiring payment of cab card fees and road taxes by regulated motor carriers including Greyhound. Chapter 323 became invalid by operation of law on July 1, 1980, the subject rule was declared invalid by an Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings in Aero Mayflower Transit Company, Inc., et al., vs. State of Florida Public Service Commission and The Comptroller of the State of Florida, DOAH Case Number 82-131R. Under the Commission's procedures pursuant to Chapter 323, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 25-5, Florida Administrative Code, Greyhound was sent instructions each year (Exhibit 1) together with an application form (Exhibit 2) from the Transportation Section of the Public Service Commission. These instructions and applications were used to file for new cab card identifying devices for vehicles and for payment of road taxes each year. Such was the procedure for the tax year beginning February 1, 1980, and ending January 31, 1981. Pursuant to the Commission's rules and Chapter 323, Greyhound was required to pay $8 per bus for each bus used in intrastate carriage in the State of Florida. In return for that $8.00, Greyhound received a "cab card" to be retained aboard the bus as an identifying device for Public Service Commission enforcement purposes. See Exhibit 5. Road taxes were required to be paid for each Greyhound bus in operation in intrastate carriage which had a capacity of over 21 passengers. The road tax for each bus was in the amount of $100. A road tax identification stamp or device was provided for each bus upon payment of this tax, which evidenced payment of the tax for purposes of law enforcement personnel viewing buses in the field. In the late fall of 1979, Greyhound received the subject Public Service Commission application and instruction forms and accordingly purchased cab cards for its buses and paid road taxes for those buses for the ensuing tax year at various times beginning October, 1979 through January, 1980. The buses which were licensed in Florida for the 1980 tax year (and its other buses) also operated in Greyhound pools of buses throughout the United States, therefore Greyhound, by necessity, had to purchase cab cards and pay road taxes in advance of the February 1, 1980, deadline to allow sufficient time to locate each bus and thus legally qualify it for operation in Florida prior to its operating in Florida on or after February 1, 1980. Pursuant to the Commission's rules, Greyhound was required to assign each cab card and road tax identification decal to a specific bus, retain these on that bus and provide information of this to the Commission on a particular form for its records. On or before February 1, 1980, the beginning of the subject tax year, Greyhound paid the following amounts on the following dates: DATE AMOUNT October 5, 1979 $ 12,636.00 [For 1980 road tax decals on 117 buses.] November 7, 1979 134,244.00 [For registration of 1,243 buses for the 1980 tax year.] December 4, 1979 7,020.00 [For 1980 registration of 65 buses.] January 10, 1980 2,376.00 [For registration of 22 buses for tax year 1980.] Thus, the total amount paid by Greyhound for the tax year 1980 amounted to $156,276.00. Of this total amount, there was the sum of $11,576.00 paid for cab card fees at $8.00 per vehicle. Greyhound also paid for the tax year 1980 the amount of $144,700.00 which represented the road tax fees at $100 per bus. Greyhound was required to have road tax decals and cab cards aboard the buses after February 1, 1980, evidencing payment of the fees and taxes involved. If it did not do so the Commission, through its duly authorized investigators, would issue citations to Greyhound for failure to pay tax or to properly identify vehicles and could initiate penalty proceedings. The Respondent, through use of Exhibit A, established that an Auto Transportation Road Tax Clearing Fund was used by the Public Service Commission to account for the collection of road taxes assessed motor carriers, pursuant to Section 323.15, Florida Statutes, for the use of the public highways. Road tax moneys were transmitted to the State Treasury for the credit of the State's General Revenue Fund as required by Sections 215.20 and 215.22(24), Florida Statutes. Other portions of those receipts were transferred to the Public Service Commission's Regulatory Trust Fund and the Revenue Sharing Trust Funds for municipalities and counties as provided by Section 232.16, Florida Statutes. These distributions were made by the State Comptroller based on information provided by the Commission during the 1979-1980 fiscal year. The fourth-quarter receipts for that fiscal year, however, were not distributed because of the repeal of Chapter 323, Florida Statutes, by Chapter 76-168, Section 3(2)(h), Laws of Florida, 1976, as amended by Chapter 77-457, Section 1(3)(h), Laws of Florida (1977). Distribution of those fourth-quarter receipts is pending a legal determination regarding all motor carrier requests for refunds of fees and taxes for the calendar year 1980. Payments for cab cards and payments of road tax were deposited by the Public Service Commission into the Regulatory Trust Fund, general revenue, or revenue sharing trust funds pursuant to Chapter 323, Florida Statutes (1979). Upon receipt of the payments, with the proper application, the Public Service Commission issued and sent the number of cab cards paid for to the Petitioner. Each cab card specified an expiration date of February 1, 1981. The payment of road taxes was evidenced by the sending of road tax decals by the Public Service Commission to the Petitioner for each vehicle for which such road tax was paid. These decals also specified an expiration date of February 1, 1981. A motor carrier regulatory program of Public Service Commission was administered by the Transportation Section. The operation of this section was paid for out of the regulatory trust fund established under Section 350.78, Florida Statutes (1979). The major functions of this section involved enforcement efforts in the field to ensure that only certificated motor carriers were providing intrastate carriage and that those motor carriers operated in the territory, on the routes, and hauled the commodities or types of passengers which they were authorized to transport. Regulatory functions and enforcement functions also included field inspections of motor vehicles for safety purposes; field analysis of the adequacy of motor carrier service to shippers; verifying registration of ICC certificated carriers and verifying and updating records relative to evidence of insurance by motor carriers, including the Petitioner. Finally, investigations were routinely conducted attendant to new requests for operating authority and certificates of public convenience and necessity by new motor carriers or those seeking to extend their area of operations. The moneys paid into the Regulatory Trust Fund were commingled and were lawfully expended without specific identification of the source of the funds. The road taxes collected pursuant to Section 323.15, Florida Statutes (1979), were deposited pursuant to Section 323.16, Florida Statutes (1979), in the State Treasury credited in the amount of 35 percent deposited in the Regulatory Trust Fund for use by the Commission in the administration of its statutory responsibilities; 2 percent credited to the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund for municipalities; and the remainder of the funds placed in the State Treasury to the credit of the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund for counties. All moneys for cab card fees were deposited in the Florida Public Service Commission Regulatory Trust Fund pursuant to Section 323.011(11), Florida Statutes (1979). The Petitioner timely applied for a refund of the payments made to the Public Service Commission pursuant to Chapter 323, Florida Statutes (1979), for the 1980 cycle or "tax year," as follows: seven-twelfths of amounts paid for cab cards and seven-twelfths of amounts paid for road taxes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which refunds the Petitioner, on a pro rata basis, seven-twelfths of 35 percent of the road taxes paid by the Petitioner for the year February 1, 1980, through January 31, 1981; and refunds all recurring, second time or renewal fees paid for those identifying devices known as cab cards and identification stamps related to the year February 1, 1980, through January 31, 1981; and refunds all charges related to cab cards or road tax decals issued subsequent to June 30, 1980, or issued prior to July 1, 1980, to be used July 1, 1980, or on a later date. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 1st day of February, 1983.
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.
Findings Of Fact Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company filed petition with the Public Service Commission pursuant to Section 120.54(5), Florida Statutes, seeking to have the Commission adopt a new rule numbered 25-9.11(2). By Order entered April 10, 1979, the Commission initiated rule-making proceedings in accordance with the petition of Southern Bell, and by Order entered May 4, 1979, amended the rule-making proceeding by expanding the applicability of the proposed rule to include not only telephone utilities as proposed by Southern Bell, but also electric, gas, water and sewer utilities. On May 24, 1979, the Citizens of the State of Florida, represented by the Office of Public Counsel, initiated the instant proceeding by filing a petition to determine that a portion of the proposed rule is invalid. Various regulated utilities moved to intervene in the proceeding, and were granted intervenor status. The Public Service Commission and various other Intervenors moved to dismiss the proceeding on jurisdictional grounds. The motions were denied by Orders entered June 12 and 19, 1979. The Public Service Commission filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Florida with respect to the jurisdictional issues. Proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings were stayed. The Petition for Writ of Prohibition was denied on September 5, 1979. Florida Public Service Commission v. Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 57,116 (Supreme Court of Florida). A Petition for Rehearing was denied by Order entered November 9, 1979. Subsequently, the final hearing was scheduled to be conducted on December 27, 1979, and upon stipulation of the parties was rescheduled for January 22, 1980. At the final hearing, the Public Service Commission and the Intervenors stipulated that the Petitioners have the requisite substantial interest in the proposed rule to maintain the instant rule challenge. The Petitioners and the Commission stipulated that the Intervenors have the requisite standing to participate in the proceeding as Intervenors. A copy of the rule was received in evidence. Issues respecting the validity of the rule are legal rather than factual, and the parties have submitted post-hearing briefs and legal memoranda. The proposed rule [25-9.11(2)] relates to whether a regulated utility is entitled to a rate increase during the period in which a rate proceeding is pending before the Public Service Commission. The rule provides: In any general rate case filed by a utility, the utility shall be permitted upon thirty (30) days' notice to increase its rate pending final disposition of the case by an amount sufficient to produce a rate of return on its investment rate base at the bottom of its most recent previously allowed zone of reasonableness; provided, however, that any such interim increase shall be subject to refund. The rule purports to implement the provisions of the so-called file and suspend laws. As to telephone companies, the file and suspend law is set out at Section 364.05(4), Florida Statutes. The section provides: Pending a final order by the Public Service Commission in any rate proceeding under this section, the commission may withhold consent to the operation of all or any portion of the new rate schedules, delivering to the utility requesting such increase, within 30 days, a reason or written statement of good cause for withholding its consent. Such consent shall not be withheld for a period longer than 8 months from the date of filing the new schedules. The new rates or any portion not consented to shall go into effect under bond at the end of such period, but the commission shall, by order, require such utility to keep accurate account in detail of all amounts received by reason of such increase, specifying by whom and in whose behalf such amounts were paid, and upon completion of hearing and final decision in such proceeding, shall by further order require such utility to refund with interest at a fair rate, to be determined by the commission in such manner as it may direct, such portion of the increased rate or charge as by its decision shall be found not justified. Any portion of such refund not thus refunded to patrons or customers of the utility shall be refunded or disposed of by the utility as the commission may direct; however, no such funds shall accrue to benefit of the utility. Virtually identical provisions have been adopted with respect to gas and electric utilities [Section 366.06(4), Florida Statutes], and with respect to water and sewer utilities [Section 367.081(5), Florida Statutes]. The leading judicial decision interpreting the provisions of the file and suspend laws is Citizens of the State of Florida v. Mayo, 333 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1976). The Court described the alternatives available to the Public Service Commission in conjunction with a request for interim rate increase as follows: (at p. 4) If the Commission does not affirmatively act within 30 days to suspend the proposed new rate schedule file as a part of the request for higher rates, the new rates go into effect automatically on the 31st day following the utility company's filing. Since the Commission's inaction is equivalent to its consent to the new rate schedule, no bond is required of the utility and there is no mechanism by which customers of the utility system can ever recover interim charges which, after the full rate proceeding, the Commission may find to have been wholly or partly unwarranted. If the Commission acts within thirty days to suspend all or part of the tariffs, the utility may not charge its customers the proposed new rates. The Commission's action is effective on a day to day basis until either (a) it grants full or partial consent to the new rates, or (b) eight months elapse from the date the new schedules were filed. If consent is given before the time expiration, as it was here, the utility may then begin to charge the new rates. Where consent is continuously withheld, the utility may still begin to charge its customers on the new basis after eight months have passed, under bond and record-keeping requirements required by statute. The relationship of the interim rate relief provisions to the general scheme of rate regulation was described by the Court as follows: (at p. 5) The Legislature did not intend all public utility filings to go into effect without some review by the Public Service Commission. Had that been the intent the Legislature would not have created a "suspend" power in the Commission. By placing the file and suspend law in Section 366.06, however, the Commission was given direct responsibility in this type of proceeding to insure that all charges collected by a public utility are lawful. See Section 366.06(1), Florida Statutes (1975). The Legislature did not intend a full rate hearing before all new rate schedules become effective. Had it intended that result, there would have been no need to enact subsection 366.06(4) at all. The Legislature obviously intended to allow public utilities the benefit of proposed rate increases from the date they could satisfy the Commission on the basis of an uncontested preliminary showing that the needs of the company were such as to necessitate immediate financial aid. Where the Commission is so satisfied after a preliminary analysis extending over a period not longer than thirty days, the rates become effective without further action by the Commission. (It follows from this, of course, that the Commission's affirmative act of suspending proposed rates means that the Commission is dissatisfied with the utility's preliminary showing.) The Legislature has relieved the Commission of the responsibility for balancing the rights of the company and its customers when the utility is unable to develop new facts to show that there exists good cause to put into operation the new rates which have been found to be unjustified on the basis of the preliminary showing. This was done by providing that Commission inaction following an initial suspension is overcome by time, and that the rates become effective at the end of eight months, automatically, under bond. In light of the conclusion in paragraph 5 and the fact that the Commission must provide its "reason or written statement of good cause" whenever it withholds consent to the new rates, the Legislature must have intended that there be some presentation of evidence or development of new facts between that initial withholding of consent by the Commission and its later grant of consent. (citations omitted) Petitioners contend that the proposed rule is invalid because it would render an interim rate increase automatic upon the filing of a request for interim rate relief by a regulated utility without regard to the merits of the request and without any review of the propriety of the request by the Commission. Petitioners argue that the proposed rule removes the discretion and range of alternatives available to the Commission set out in Citizens of Florida v. Mayo, supra. These contentions are without merit. Rather than making an interim rate increase automatic, the proposed rule sets the standard against which a proposed increase would be measured, that being a rate sufficient to produce a return on the utility's investment at the bottom of the most recently determined zone of reasonableness. The utility's expenses, revenues and investment rate would be calculated in the same manner as was used in the most recent general rate case involving the utility. See: proposed Rule 25-9.11(4). Under the proposed rule, the public Service Commission would retain its discretion to suspend an interim rate increase if the substantive requirements of the proposed rule were not met. The Commission would also retain its responsibility to consider the propriety of interim rate increases. Petitioners' contention that the proposed rule improperly denies appropriate parties who may contest the need for interim rate increases an opportunity for hearing is also without merit. The rule does not address procedures to be followed by the Commission in applying the substantive standards of the rule. The fact that procedures are not addressed does not mean that no such procedures exist. The rule neither expressly nor implicitly undermines rights to a hearing that parties may have under the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, or under constitutional due process requirements, Florida Power Corporation v. Hawkins, 367 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 1979). Petitioners further contend that the proposed rule is an effort to reinstate the so-called "make-whole" doctrine set out in Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Bevis, 279 So.2d 285 (Fla. 1973). Petitioners' argument is that the make-whole doctrine has been superseded by the file and suspend laws. In Southern Bell, the utility requested that the Public Service Commission grant it an interim rate increase pending completion of a general rate proceeding. The Commission denied the request for interim relief. The Court stated: (at p. 286) Thus when Southern Bell alleged that its rate of return was below that approved by the Commission as a minimum it had alleged a prima facie case to require approval of the Commission for an interim rate increase, so long as the increase would not raise the company's rate of return above the minimum level of 8.25 percent approved by the Commission. Since it must be assumed that the Commission obeyed its statutory mandate. . . any rate of return above the authorized minimum must, of necessity, be unfair, unjust, unreasonable and insufficient. If Southern Bell has proved the allegations which were made in its petition for an interim rate increase, the Commission must approve that request so as to bring the Southern Bell rates within statutory guidelines. It is for the Commission to determine whether or not Southern Bell has met this requirement, as the Commission sits as trier of fact, rather than this Court. The proposed rule adopts this same standard. The file and suspend laws have not changed that standard, but rather have streamlined the mechanism for considering whether interim rate increases should be granted. Maule Industries, Inc. v. Mayo, 342 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1977); Citizens of the State of Florida v. Mayo, supra, at Footnote 12, p. 6. The Petitioners have failed to establish that Public Service Commission Proposed Rule 25-9.11(2) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The proposed rule is presently pending for consideration before the Commission. Whether the proposed rule constitutes the best of various policy alternatives that may be available to the Commission has not been an issue in this proceeding. Based upon the foregoing, it is, hereby ORDERED: Petitioner has failed to establish that Proposed Rule 25-9.11(2) of the Public Service Commission constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and the petition to determine invalidity of the proposed rule filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed. ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Norman H. Horton, Jr., Esquire Marta Crowley, Esquire Staff Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Benjamin H. Dickens, Jr., Esquire Office of Public Counsel Room 4, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lorin H. Albeck, Esquire Post Office Box 110 Tampa, Florida 33601 Lee L. Willis, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William E. Sundstrom, Esquire Myers, Kaplan, Levinson Kenin & Richards 1020 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James F. Sanfield, Esquire Post Office Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Ms. Nancy H. Roen 1111 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33131 Matthew M. Childs, Esquire 1400 Southeast First National Bank Bldg. Miami, Florida 33131 Ms. Mary Jo Francis Post Office Box 47000N Miami, Florida 33147 William B. Barfield, Esquire General Attorney 666 North West 79th Avenue, Room 680 Miami, Florida 33126 Ms. Liz Cloud, Chief Bureau of Administrative Code Department of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carroll Webb, Esquire Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Room 120, Holland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is seeking licensure as a certified public accountant in Florida. Petitioner is licensed as a certified public accountant in the State of Pennsylvania. He is seeking licensure in Florida by endorsement based upon his Pennsylvania licensure without the necessity for taking an examination. Petitioner was initially licensed in Pennsylvania in 1961. The Board of Accountancy reviewed Petitioner's application and determined that he met all Florida requirements for education and experience, and that he was administered the same examination in Pennsylvania in 1961 that was administered in Florida in 1961. In a non-final order, however, the Board determined that Petitioner did not receive grades on the examination administered in Pennsylvania that would have constituted passing grades in Florida, and denied his application. The non-final order is the subject of a formal administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings in Case No. 80-2332. The Board's rules require that an applicant for licensure as a certified public accountant receive a grade of 75 or above on all parts of an examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Rule 21A-28.05(2), (3), Florida Administrative Code. Rules in effect in 1961 also required that a grade of 75 or above would be required in all four subjects of the examination. Rules of the State Board of Accountancy Relative to Examinations and the Issuance and Revocation of Certificates, Rule 1(f).
Findings Of Fact Between October 1, 1988 and September 30, 1991, Petitioner's salary as the Director of the Department of Emergency Support Services for Hillsborough County was controlled by the compensation structure set forth in the Hillsborough County Exempt Service Classification and Compensation Plan (the Plan). His retirement system benefits were governed by Chapter 121, Florida Statutes as he was a member of the Florida Retirement System administered by the Division of Retirement. The Plan utilized by the County during this period of time created a pay structure for its exempt service employees that caused annual salary increases to be divided into two categories. The Plan referred to the categories as "merit increase" and "performance pay." Any salary adjustment under the "merit increase" category became part of the employee's adjusted base salary. "Performance pay" was an increase granted for a one year term. It was based upon work performance that exceeded performance standards during the preceding year. According to the Plan, the increase in salary from each of the categories was directly tied to the employees' annual performance rating. The possible percentages of the increases were regulated at the high end of the adjustment scale by a Maximum Performance Compensation Table. The one year "performance pay" increase could only be granted if the maximum "merit increase" was granted during the same evaluation. The method used to establish the pay increases for Petitioner under the Plan were applied because his salary was already above the midpoint of the pay grade the Plan dictated the County was willing to pay for the performance of his job when completed to the required standard. Salary increases above the midpoint were divided into the two separate categories in order to balance two distinct County interests. The first was to keep the maximum salary range in a pay grade aligned with the competitive salary indicators in the geographical area for the same type of work. The second was to annually reward each employee whose performance exceeded standards over the past year and to motivate continued high performance on an individualized basis. Petitioner's salary adjustments were divided between "merit increases" and "performance pay" for the three years which are the subject of this proceeding. During the time period between October 1, 1988 and June 30, 1989, the County was required to make a contribution into the Florida Retirement System for Petitioner's benefit. This contribution was a statutorily designated percentage of his monthly salary, including the annual "performance pay" increase. The inclusion of the "performance pay" increase was required by Subsection 121.021(22), Florida Statutes, which defines "compensation". In spite of this contribution into the system by the County, Subsection 121.021(24), Florida Statutes mandated that the Division had to exclude bonuses, whether paid as salary or otherwise, from the calculation of the "average final compensation" for a member seeking to establish the amount of his or her pension benefits. Effective July 1, 1989, the Legislature removed the provision in Subsection 121.021(22), Florida Statutes, which required employers to make a contribution into the system based upon a definition of "compensation" that included "bonuses" in the calculation. The Florida Retirement Systems Act has never included a definition of the word "bonus" as used in Subsections 121.021(22) and (24), Florida Statutes. The term, as used in Subsection 121.021(24) and as previously used in Subsection 121.021(22), is not plain nor the meaning clear. The term "bonus" is defined by the Division's rules, which excludes Petitioner's "performance pay" from any calculation of his "average final compensation." In its computation of Petitioner's "average final compensation", the Division determined that the "performance pay" category of the Hillsborough County Exempt Service Classification and Compensation Plan is a "bonus", as defined by Rule 22B-6.001(11), Florida Administrative Code. A definition of the term "bonus" is necessary to allow the Division to compute the "average final compensation" for each member of the system and for the determination of an employer's contribution into the Florida Retirement System on behalf of the member based on "compensation." Subsection 121.021(22), Florida Statutes, has consistently contained a clear definition of "compensation." The definition included the term "bonuses" until July 1, 1989 and excluded "bonuses" from the definition after that date. The definitions of "bonus" and "compensation" as set forth in Rules 22B-6.001(11) and (16)(a)3, Florida Administrative Code, establish adequate standards for agency decisions regarding retirement benefits. The definitions are based on relevant factors duly considered by the agency and they have been uniformly applied to all members.
