The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating skilled nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the underlying case, the Petitioner operated or controlled three licensed skilled nursing facilities: Harborside Healthcare-Pinewood, Harborside Healthcare-Sarasota, and Harborside Healthcare-Naples. In October of 2001, the Agency filed Administrative Complaints against the Petitioner's three facilities. As to each complaint the Agency relied upon its interpretation of Section 400.121(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Agency's interpretation of the statute went beyond the plain and unambiguous language of the law. Moreover, such interpretation had not been promulgated by rule. If the interpretation was intended to be the policy of the Agency, the implementation of the policy was not authorized by the statute. The Petitioner pursued three legal strategies: it filed an injunction proceeding in circuit court, a petition to challenge the unpromulgated rule, and vigorously defended the administrative actions filed against its facilities. In so doing, the Petitioner incurred legal expenses and costs necessitated by the Agency's implementation of a policy that had not been established through rule-making procedures. Petitioner's rule challenge alleged that the Agency had failed to follow any rule-making procedures; had enlarged, modified, and contravened the specific provisions of the law; and had implemented a policy that was arbitrary and capricious. Due to the severity of the penalties the Agency sought to impose against the Petitioner, the damage to its reputation in the communities it served, and the resident fear and uncertainty at the facilities, the Petitioner sought and was granted an expedited hearing on the rule challenge. The "Wherefore" clause of the Petitioner's rule challenge clearly stated that Petitioner sought an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes. Petitioner had retained outside counsel to pursue each of its legal strategies. On October 31, 2001, a Final Order was entered in the underlying case that directed the Agency to cease and immediately discontinue all reliance on the policy that had not been promulgated through rule-making procedures. That Final Order has not been appealed. The Final Order did not retain jurisdiction for purposes of addressing the Petitioner's request for attorneys' fees and costs. The instant case was opened when the Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs subsequent to the entry of the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 01-3935RU. The matter was assigned a new case number as is the practice of the Division of Administrative Hearings in ancillary proceedings. Accordingly, the instant case, DOAH Case No. 01-4283F, was designated a "fee" case (hence the F at the end of the case number). The initial order entered through the DOAH clerk's office erroneously designated that the fees were sought pursuant to Section 59.11, Florida Statutes. Nevertheless, after the time for appeal of the Final Order (DOAH Case No. 01-3935RU) had elapsed, the matter was scheduled for final hearing. Carole Banks is an attorney employed by the Petitioner as an in-house counsel and director of risk management for the three facilities identified in this record. Ms. Banks is also a registered nurse and has been a member of the Florida Bar since April of 1998. Ms. Banks receives a salary from the Petitioner and is required to perform duties typically associated with her full-time job. Due to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against the facilities, Ms. Banks was required to expend additional time to assist outside counsel to defend the facilities. A portion of that time was attributable to the rule challenge case (DOAH Case No. 01-3935RU). Based upon the testimony of this witness and the exhibits received into evidence it is determined Ms. Banks expended 19.8 hours assisting in the prosecution of the rule challenge case. An appropriate rate of compensation for Ms. Banks would be $150.00 per hour. There is no evidence, however, that the Petitioner was actually required to pay Ms. Banks overtime or an appropriate rate of compensation for her additional work. K. Scott Griggs is an attorney employed by the Petitioner. Mr. Griggs serves as vice president and General Counsel for the Petitioner and is located in Massachusetts. Mr. Griggs did not testify, was not available to explain his time-keeping records, and none of the exhibits in this cause indicate how Mr. Griggs is compensated for his services or what his specific duties entail. While it is certain Mr. Griggs assisted counsel in the prosecution of the underlying case, without relying on hearsay, no determination as to the amount of time spent and the hourly rate that should be applied to such time can be reached. In order to fully protect the Petitioner's interests and those of its residents, the Petitioner retained outside counsel in the underlying case. The law firm of Broad & Cassel was hired to defend the administrative actions, seek injunctive relief, file the underlying case, and pursue other administrative remedies to assist the client. By agreement, Petitioner was to pay the following hourly rates: partners were to be compensated at the rate of $245.00 per hour, associates were to receive $175.00 per hour, and paralegals were entitled to $90.00 per hour. In this case, four partner-level attorneys from Broad and Cassel expended time in furtherance of the client's causes. After reviewing the time records and testimony of the witnesses, it is determined that the partners expended at least 172.6 hours associated with the underlying rule challenge. Additionally, an associate with the Broad & Cassel firm expended not fewer than 12.1 hours that can be directly attributed to the rule challenge case. Additional hours expended contributed to the success of the rule challenge. The Petitioner also incurred costs and expenses associated with the rule challenge. A paralegal expended 4.6 hours (with a $90.00 per hour rate) making copies of the documents used at the hearing. Other costs included court reporter fees, transcripts, telecopy charges, and expert witness fees. It is determined that the Petitioner has incurred $5819.15 in recoverable costs associated with this case and the underlying rule challenge. The hourly rates sought by the Petitioner are reasonable. The time and labor expended by the Petitioner to vigorously protect its legal interests was reasonable given the severity of the penalty sought by the Agency and the circumstances faced by the client. The Petitioner benefited from the efforts of counsel. Due to the time constraints and immediate ramifications faced by the Petitioner, special time and requests were made of the attorneys performing the work for the underlying case. In some instances, the attorneys were required to devote an extensive amount of time to address the client's interests to the exclusion of other work. This was the first time the Broad & Cassel firm had been retained to represent the client. As a result, the attorneys did not have the benefit of a long-term understanding of the facilities and the client's needs. The Broad & Cassel firm and the attorneys assigned to this matter have considerable experience and demonstrated considerable skill, expertise, and efficiency in providing services to the client. Had the Petitioner not prevailed, its ability to honor its hourly agreement with counsel may have been jeopardized. The Agency's expert recognized the difficulties presented by the case and opined that a proper fee would be $42,908. Such amount did not include attorney time spent in preparing for, conducting the fee hearing, or post-hearing activities. Such amount did not cover the amounts depicted in the billing statement from the Broad & Cassel firm. The Petitioner was required to retain expert witnesses to address the fees sought. The calculation of attorney's fees in this cause is complicated by the fact that none of the fees sought would have been incurred by the Petitioner had the Agency not implemented an unlawful policy. That is, had the non-rule policy not been utilized to support Administrative Complaints against the three facilities, none of the fees sought would have been incurred. The Petitioner presented a "shot-gun" approach pursuing every avenue available (including the underlying rule challenge) to dissuade the Agency from pursuing its action against the facilities. Only the rule challenge proved successful. Had the rule challenge not proved successful, residents would have been relocated from their homes. The Petitioner would have incurred extensive financial loss. William E. Williams and Carlos Alvarez testified as experts on behalf of the Petitioner. Their testimony has been considered and their opinions regarding the reasonableness of the fees sought by Petitioner has been deemed persuasive. Based upon the totality of the evidence presented, it is determined that the Petitioner prevailed in the rule challenge. The Agency has not demonstrated that the non-rule statement was required by the Federal Government to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition governing the receipt of federal funds. The formal hearing for fees in this cause lasted 4.75 hours. Petitioner's counsel expended time in preparation for the hearing and in post hearing activities. A reasonable fee associated with that time would not be less than $15,000.00.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Insurance (Department) is responsible for regulation of insurance transactions in the State of Florida. In 1996, the United States Supreme Court held in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N. A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) that nationally chartered banks located in towns with populations of 5000 or less were authorized to own insurance agencies. In response, the 1996 Florida legislature revised Section 626.988, Florida Statutes (the "anti-affiliation" statute) to conform to the Court's ruling in the Barnett case The 1996 legislature also enacted Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, informally identified as the "parity statute." Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: The department shall adopt rules to assure the parity of regulation in this state of insurance transactions as between an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a federally chartered financial institution, an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a state- chartered financial institution, and an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with an entity that is not a financial institution. Such rules shall be limited to assuring that no insurance agency or agent is subject to more stringent or less stringent regulation than another insurance agency or agent on the basis of the regulatory status of the entity that owns the agency or is associated with the agent. For the purposes of this section, a person is "associated with" another entity if the person is employed by, retained by, under contract to, or owned or controlled by the entity directly or indirectly. This section does not apply with respect to a financial institution that is prohibited from owning an insurance agency or that is prohibited from being associated with an insurance agent under state or federal law. (Emphasis supplied.) The 1996 legislature also amended to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (the Administrative Procedures Act) to restrict agency authority to promulgate rules, so as to prohibit the adoption of rules which, although perhaps rationally related to the purpose of an implementing statute, were not specifically authorized by the legislature. In the summer of 1996, the Department began circulating a draft of rules intended to address issues related to the sale of insurance in financial institutions. Beginning in January 1997, the Department began the formal process of adopting rules intended to address the "parity" of insurance regulation between insurance agencies affiliated with financial institutions and agencies which are unaffiliated. The Petitioners challenged parts or all of the proposed rules as invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. As set forth in the Final Order entered June 29, 1998, in the consolidated rule challenges, Proposed Rules 4-224.002, 4-224.004, 4-224.007, 4-224.012, 4-224.013 and 4-224.014, Florida Administrative Code, were determined to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Although the challenged rules were determined to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority for various reasons, all were determined to be outside the Department's specific statutory authority as set forth by the legislature. There was no appeal of the Final Order. Prior to the hearing on the fee issue, all parties signed and filed a Prehearing Stipulation. According to the Prehearing Stipulation, "[t]he Department disputes entitlement to fees as a matter of law. It does not dispute the reasonableness of the fees, as capped by statute. It disputes the reasonableness of the costs sought by Florida Bankers Association. " The applicable statute provides that "a judgment or order shall be rendered against the agency for reasonable costs and reasonable attorney's fees, unless the agency demonstrates that its actions were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust." The Department asserts that the agency's actions in adopting the challenged rules were substantially justified and that special circumstances exist which make the award unjust. The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the assertion. The evidence establishes that, from the initiation of the rule drafting process, the issue of whether the Department had the authority to adopt the proposed rules was of concern to the parties in this case. In response to an early draft of the rule circulated by the Department, the Florida Bankers Association (FBA) in June 1996 asserted that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. The FBA continued to maintain this position throughout the rule-drafting process and the subsequent rule challenge cases. The Department was apparently also concerned about whether the agency had authority to adopt the rules. In response to a question raised by Department legal staff, a December 31, 1996, letter to the Department from an attorney at the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee on the issue of authority indicates that the Department's general authority to adopt rules was restricted by the 1996 APA amendment to Section 120.536(1), Florida Statutes, and that additional specific authority would be required to support the promulgation of rules. At the fee hearing, the Department conceded that the parity statute alone did not grant the agency with the specific authority to prescribe or proscribe specific acts or actions of an insurance agent. The Department asserted that the authority for the proposed rules was set forth by the combination of Section 626.988, Florida Statutes, under which pre-existing rules had been adopted, with the Department's previous legal actions related to insurance sales by agents affiliated with financial institutions, and the presumed effect of the parity statute on the Department's otherwise-existing authority. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's reliance on historical authority to promulgate rules and the authority provided under the parity statute was reasonable given legislative restrictions on agency rulemaking set forth in the 1996 legislature's amendments to the Administrative Procedures Act. There was no credible evidence presented at the rule challenge hearing or during the fee hearing which suggested that an emergency, either existing or potential, which required the Department to take immediate action to protect insurance consumers. There was no credible evidence presented at the rule challenge hearing or during the fee hearing that insurance consumers were threatened by an availability of insurance products in settings other than in insurance agencies. There are no special circumstances that make an award of fees and costs unjust. The Department apparently asserts that because the FBA participated in the rulemaking process, special circumstances exist which make an award of fees unjust. Although the FBA participated in the workshop process, the FBA consistently asserted, as stated earlier, that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. By letter of June 5, 1996, the FBA specifically filed written objections to the proposed rules, asserting that they were inconsistent with the APA amendments and the authority granted by the parity statute. Further, the FBA noted in the June letter and again in a letter of September 27, 1996, that the purpose and authority of the parity statute was met by a single proposed rule which, in essence, stated that the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code were applicable equally to all agents and agencies, regardless of ownership or affiliation. At the fee hearing, the Department acknowledged that the FBA had raised specific objections regarding the agency's lack of statutory authority during the rule process. The FBA consistently asserted during the rulemaking process that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. The FBA pursued the assertion throughout the rulemaking process and successfully challenged the rules on the same basis. There was no evidence presented during the rule challenge or the fee case suggesting that the FBA retreated from the objection at any point in the rulemaking process. According to the Prehearing Stipulation signed and filed by the parties, the disputed issues of fact are whether the expert witness fee paid to Dr. Michael White was reasonable and whether other costs sought to be recoverable are reasonable. The only specific challenge presented by the Department to costs is directed towards Dr. White's fees. The evidence establishes that under the circumstances of this matter, Dr. White's fee is reasonable. At the fee case hearing, the FBA presented the deposition testimony of William B. Graham, an attorney practicing in Tallahassee, Florida, in support of Dr. White's fees. Mr. Graham's testimony is accepted and credited as to the amount of Dr. White's fee and to the time required to prepare for and participate in this proceeding. Based on Mr. Graham's testimony, Dr. White's fee of $320 per hour is reasonable for an expert of Dr. White's credentials. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. According to the three dated invoices submitted to the FBA by Dr. White, Dr. White expended a total of 106 hours and five minutes in rule challenge-related activities on behalf of the FBA. Based on Mr. Graham's testimony, the time recorded by Dr. White of 106 hours and five minutes for his services is reasonable under the circumstances of the rule challenge. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. The total amount of time billed by Dr. White results in a fee of $33,946.66. The three invoices submitted by Dr. White also bill the FBA for expenses totaling $2,643.72. There is no credible evidence that the Dr. White's expense billings are unreasonable. The total amount of fees and expenses charged by Dr. White to the FBA is $36,590.38. The FBA paid to Dr. White the total amount reflected on his invoices. By comparison with the fees charged by its own expert, the Department asserts that Dr. White's fees are unreasonable. The fact that the Department paid its expert less than the FBA paid to its own does not establish that payments to Dr. White were unreasonable. The amount of the attorney's fees to which the successful parties are entitled is not at issue in this proceeding. According to the Prehearing Stipulation, the Department "while contesting entitlement to any award of fees . . . does not dispute that the fees sought, as capped by the statute, is reasonable for the efforts of all counsel in this proceeding." The FBA, by affidavit, identified attorney's fees totaling $145,683.01, and seeks an award of $15,000, the statutory limit. By stipulation of the parties, the FBA is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $15,000. The FBA identified total costs of $40,537.53, including the fees and expenses paid to Dr. White. There is no evidence that the costs of $3,947.15 set forth in the attorney billing records (and unrelated to costs related to Dr. White) are unreasonable. Based on the foregoing, the FBA is entitled to receive a total of $55,537.53. The Community Bankers Association identified attorney's fees totaling $10,290.00, and costs of $806.23. By stipulation of the parties, the Community Bankers Association is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $10,290.00. There is no evidence that the Community Bankers Association costs of $806.23 are unreasonable. Based on the foregoing, the Community Bankers Association is entitled to receive a total of $11,096.23. The Department asserts that, due to "untimeliness" of the Petitions for Fees filed in these cases, an award of fees in this case is unjust. There is no issue of timeliness to be addressed in this matter. The Petitions for Fees were filed approximately 60-90 days after the time for appeal of the Final Order in the rule challenge cases had passed. The Final Order entered in the rule challenge proceeding specifically retained jurisdiction for an award of fees. There is no evidence that the Department was adversely affected by any delay in filing the Petitions for Fees.
Conclusions Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Department of Insurance shall pay total fees and costs as follows: The Florida Bankers Association shall receive a total of $55,537.53 The Community Bankers of Florida shall receive a total of $11,096.23. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Townes, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 Counsel for Florida Bankers Association Michael H. Davidson, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Counsel for Department Martha J. Edenfield, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson & Dunbar, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Counsel for Community Bankers of Florida Eli S. Jenkins 3330 Overlook Drive, Northeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 Authorized Representative of Specialty Agents, Inc. Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Parole and Probation Commission, adopted revised rules of practice and procedure which became effective on September 10, 1981. Among these is Rule 23-21.09, Florida Administrative Code, which establishes "matrix time ranges" that are used in determining presumptive parole release dates for persons who are serving prison terms. In determining presumptive parole release dates, the Respondent's rules require that a "salient factor score" be determined based upon such factors as the number of prior criminal convictions, the number of prior incarcerations, total time served in prisons, the inmate's age at the time of the offense which led to the first incarceration, the number of probation or parole revocations, the number of prior escape convictions, and whether burglary or breaking and entering is the present offense of conviction. The degree or severity of the present offense of conviction is then determined. The Respondent's Rule 23-21.09 sets guidelines for time ranges for presumptive parole release dates depending upon the severity of the present offense of conviction and the salient factor score. The more severe the present offense of conviction, the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. Similarly, given the severity of the offense, the higher the salient factor score the longer will be the period before the presumptive parole release date. The rule replaced a rule which set different matrix time ranges. The new rule generally sets longer time ranges, but this is not uniformly true. The Petitioner, Seimore Keith, is an inmate presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution, Polk City, Florida. Polk Correctional Institution is a facility maintained by the Florida Department of Corrections. Petitioner Keith was convicted of grand theft in July, 1980, and was sentenced to serve five years in prison. The conviction was the result of a guilty plea which was entered in accordance with a plea bargain. During plea negotiations, Petitioner Keith was advised that his presumptive parole release date under Florida Parole and Probation Commission rules would require that he serve no more than 25 months in prison. At the time that Petitioner Keith's presumptive parole release date was set by the Respondent, the new Rule 23-21.09 had come into effect, and the Petitioner's presumptive parole release date was set to require that he serve 32 months in prison. The Petitioner, Ronnie McKane, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted of the offense of armed robbery in February, 1981. Under rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Petitioner McKane's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by Respondent in setting McKane's presumptive parole release date. The Petitioner, Daniel P. Hull, is presently incarcerated at Polk Correctional Institution. He was convicted in September, 1971, of the offense of robbery and sentenced to serve ten years in prison. He was paroled in 1974, but was reincarcerated as a result of a parole violation in 1976. In 1977 he escaped, and was recaptured in January, 1981. On June 1, 1961, Petitioner Hull was convicted of the offense of escape and sentenced to serve nine months. Under the rules in effect when he was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23-21.09, Hull's presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rules were applied by Respondent in setting Hull's presumptive parole release date, and it has been set subsequent to the expiration of his sentence. Hull will therefore be released when his sentence expires in March, 1982. The Petitioner, Douglas L. Adams, was convicted of the offenses of possession of marijuana and uttering a forged instrument, and sentenced in February, 1981, to two consecutive five-year sentences. Under the rules in effect when Adams was sentenced, which was prior to the adoption of Rule 23- 21.09, Adams' presumptive parole release date would, if the guidelines were followed, have been set sooner than under Rule 23-21.09. The new rule was applied by the Respondent in setting Adams' presumptive parole release date. During 1980, the Respondent directed its staff to begin considering proposed changes to its rules of practice and procedure. Various proposals were considered, and by September, 1980, a proposed rule package had been developed. The Respondent directed its staff to submit the proposed rule package to the Governor and members of the Cabinet, various pertinent legislators, county and circuit judges, prosecutors and public defenders, superintendents of each prison in the State, and to members of the Supreme Court and the district courts. The Commission opted to conduct various workshops throughout the State, and to invite all interested persons to share their input. Notices of the workshops were published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The workshops were conducted, and the Commission commenced formal rule-making proceedings. Notice of rulemaking was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, and hearings were scheduled. Notice of the formal rulemaking proceedings was also published in the St. Petersburg Times, the Pensacola Journal, the Tallahassee Democrat, the Orlando Sentinel-Star, and the Florida Times-Union. Persons who had requested specific notification were provided it. In response to this notice, the Respondent received considerable written input, and oral presentations were made at hearings that were conducted. The final hearing in the rule-making proceeding was conducted on June 19, 1981, and the rules, including Rule 23- 21.09, were thereafter adopted effective September 10, 1981. Notice of the proposed rule changes and of the formal rulemaking proceeding was not specifically disseminated to inmates at Florida's prisons. The proposed rules were for- warded to the superintendent of each facility. At some of the institutions the proposed rules were apparently posted. All persons who requested copies of the proposed rules from the Florida Parole and Probation Commission were provided them. Numerous prisoners and organizations that represent prisoners made input during the various states of the rulemaking proceeding. None of the Petitioners in this matter were specifically noticed of the rulemaking proceeding. One of the Petitioners had heard that rules were being proposed, and requested copies of them from members of the Legislature or from Department of Corrections personnel. None of the Petitioners requested copies of the proposed rules from the Respondent or anyone connected with the Respondent.
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed the acts alleged in the Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees. § 440.107, Fla. Stat. On August 11, 2006, Robert Lambert, the Jacksonville District Supervisor for the Division of Workers' Compensation, Bureau of Compliance, was contacted by Katina Johnson, an investigator for the Division.1/ Based on the information provided to him by Ms. Johnson, Mr. Lambert approved the issuance of a Stop Work Order against Capella Ventures, Inc. The investigator served a Stop Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, both by posting at the worksite and by hand delivery, on Capella Ventures. The Department investigator also issued a Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment, requesting records for a period of three years, from July 31, 2003. These records were requested in order to calculate the penalty required pursuant to Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, for not having workers' compensation insurance. The records were to be used in conjunction with the classification codes contained in the Basic Manual (Scopes Manual) published by the National Council on Compensation Insurance. Records were provided by Capella Ventures' counsel. Based on the records provided, an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was prepared, assessing a penalty of $8,769.16. Mr. Peter King was, at all times material to this case, an officer of Capella Ventures, along with his father. His father is now deceased. Mr. King admitted that workers from Capella Ventures were assisting his father with a construction project on a home next to the home where they lived. He did not dispute that the workers were performing construction work and that the company had no workers' compensation coverage for them at the time. Nor did he dispute the amount of the penalty reflected in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. He contended that while his father performed the framing on the property, one of the two other employees did not have the skill to actually perform framing. The class code used by the Department to determine the appropriate penalty was 5645, which is used for carpentry operations on residential structures. Use of this code was appropriate. Capella Ventures filed for an address change in August of 2006, and voluntarily dissolved in January of 2008. No evidence was presented regarding what actions were taken by Capella Ventures with respect to the dissolution of the corporation. No evidence was presented regarding what, if any, distribution of assets was undertaken at the time of dissolution. No evidence was presented to indicate that any successor corporation or entity was formed upon the dissolution of Capella Ventures.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent, Capella Ventures, Inc., violated Section 440.107, Florida Statutes, by failing to secure workers' compensation for its employees, and assessing a penalty of $8,769.16. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 10th day of September, 2008.
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Petitioner has standing to challenge an unwritten rule and a proposed rule and, if so, whether either rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority within the meaning of Subsections 120.56(4) and 120.56(1), Florida Statutes (2005), respectively.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for administering the Florida Retirement System (FRS). From June 1, 1994, through the present (the uncontested period), Petitioner has been employed by Martin County, Florida (Martin County), as a firefighter and has been a member of the Special Risk Class of the FRS pursuant to the firefighter criteria in Subsection 121.0515(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). In 1999, the legislature added Subsection 121.0515(2)(d), Florida Statutes (1999), to include in the Special Risk Class those employed as an emergency medical technician (EMT) by a licensed Advance Life Support (ALS) or Basic Life Support (BLS) employer. In 2000, the legislature authorized those employed as an EMT by an ALS or BLS to upgrade prior creditable service earned as an EMT.1 Sometime in December 2004, Petitioner requested credit for prior service with Martin County that Petitioner rendered as an "EMT/Ocean Lifeguard" from February 26, 1989, through May 31, 1994 (the contested period). In a Final Summary Order issued on April 19, 2006, Bennett Richardson v. Division of Retirement, Case No. R-04-03631-MIA (hereinafter, "Richardson I), Respondent denied the request on the ground that the identical issue had been fully litigated on October 15, 2001, and a final order denying the request was issued on January 3, 2002, in Beckett et al. v. Division of Retirement, Case No. ROO-67-MIA (hereinafter, "Beckett"). The Final Summary Order issued in Richardson I is currently on appeal to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.2 On February 3, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition challenging an agency statement by Respondent as a rule that had not been adopted in accordance with rulemaking procedures in violation of Subsections 120.54(1)(a) and 120.56(4), Florida Statutes (2005) (unwritten rule). The agency statement emerged during the deposition of an employee of Respondent on January 20, 2006. On March 28, 2006, the undersigned stayed the challenge to the unwritten rule because Respondent proceeded to rulemaking pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(e), Florida Statutes (2005) (the proposed rule). On May 26, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition challenging the proposed rule pursuant to Subsection 120.56(2), Florida Statutes (2005). On June 7, 2006, the undersigned rescinded the previous stay on the ground that the proposed rule addresses a statement that is different from the statement in the unwritten rule. The undersigned consolidated the two rule challenges on June 19, 2006. Petitioner has standing in each of the rule challenges in this proceeding. The interests of Petitioner during the contested period are within the zone of interests the legislature seeks to protect. Petitioner's interests during the contested period are evidenced by organizational charts maintained by Petitioner's employer. Respondent relies, in relevant part, on organizational charts of employers to determine whether applicants for membership in the Special Risk Class satisfy relevant statutory criteria. From the beginning of the contested period through the present, Petitioner has been employed by the Emergency Services Department of Martin County. The Emergency Services Department includes the Fire Rescue Division, in which Petitioner was employed during the uncontested period, as well as the Marine Safety Division, in which Petitioner was employed during the contested period.3 Petitioner's interests during the contested period are evidenced by his job title. Respondent relies, in relevant part, on job titles in position descriptions to determine whether applicants for membership in the Special Risk Class satisfy relevant statutory requirements. Petitioner's job title during the contested period was "EMT/Ocean Lifeguard." Prior to the contested period, Petitioner's job title was limited to "Lifeguard." From the beginning of the contested period through the present, Petitioner has been employed by the Emergency Services Department of Martin County as a certified EMT in compliance with relevant criteria in Subsection 121.0515(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005).4 Petitioner's interests during the contested period are evidenced by the job description for the job title Petitioner held during the contested period. Respondent relies, in relevant part, on job descriptions developed by employers to determine whether applicants for membership in the Special Risk Class satisfy relevant statutory criteria. A major function of the job Petitioner performed during the contested period was to provide: [S]killed protection of the lives, health, safety and welfare of the public by providing pre-hospital emergency medical care including injury and drowning prevention on Martin County beaches. Petitioner's Exhibit 7. The refusal to provide on-site emergency medical care during the contested period was a ground for disciplinary action against Petitioner. The job description required physical strength and agility sufficient to perform rescue and medical duties. Those job requirements fall within the scope of legislative intent in Subsection 121.0515(1), Florida Statutes (2005). The agency's denial of membership in the Special Risk Class affects the substantial interests of Petitioner by limiting the annual retirement benefit calculator (multiplier) to 1.6 percent annually. Membership in the Special Risk Class during the contested period would increase the annual multiplier to 3.0 percent. The agency statement challenged as an unwritten rule is evidenced in the deposition testimony obtained during discovery in Richardson I and in a written memorandum issued by Respondent. The agency states that the statutory provision in Subsection 121.0515(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), which requires the primary duties and responsibilities of an EMT to include on-the-scene emergency medical care, is not satisfied unless 50 percent or more of the duties performed by an EMT are on-the-scene emergency medical care (the 50 percent rule). The challenged agency statement is a rule within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(15), Florida Statutes (2005). The statement satisfies the requirement of "general applicability." The agency applies the statement to determine whether any applicant satisfies the criteria in Subsection 121.0515(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005). Respondent has applied the statement in all such applications through the date of the hearing. The agency statement "implements, interprets, or prescribes" the statutory criteria in Subsection 121.0515(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), within the meaning of Subsection 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. The agency statement does not fall within any exception prescribed in Subsection 120.52(8)(a)-(c), Florida Statutes (2005). The agency statement was not adopted by rulemaking procedures in violation of Subsection 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005). Respondent stipulated during the formal hearing that the 50 percent rule was not addressed in the proposed rule. The proposed rule and the 50 percent rule are substantially similar statements within the meaning of Subsection 120.56(4)(e), Florida Statutes (2005). Both rules establish a quantitative or numerical standard for determining whether the primary duties and responsibilities of an EMT include on-the-scene emergency medical care. The proposed rule would add the following language to Florida Administrative Code Rule 60S-1.0059(2): Whenever the term "primary duties and responsibilities" is used in Rule 60S-1.0051, 60S-1.0052, 60S-1.0053, or 60S-1.00535, F.A.C., it means those duties of a position that: Are essential and prevalent for the position and are the basic reasons for the existence of the position; Occupy a substantial portion of the member's working time; and Are assigned on a regular and recurring basis. Duties and responsibilities that are of an emergency, incidental, or temporary nature are not "primary duties and responsibilities." The law implemented by the proposed rule includes Section 120.0515, Florida Statutes (2005). The requirements that on-the-scene emergency medical care must be "prevalent" and "occupy a substantial portion of the member's working time" are substantially similar statements to the unwritten 50 percent rule. Both impose quantitative standards to determine whether on-the-scene emergency medical care is a primary duty or responsibility of an EMT. Quantitative standards in the proposed rule and the unwritten rule enlarge or modify the specific provisions of the law implemented within the meaning of Subsections 120.52(8)(c) and 120.57(1)(e)2.b., Florida Statutes (2005). The law implemented adopts a qualitative standard for determining whether on-the-scene emergency medical care is a primary duty or responsibility of an EMT. The plain and ordinary meaning of the term "primary" requires on-the-scene emergency medical care to be the "principal" duty or responsibility; or the "first or highest in rank, quality, or importance." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, at 1393 (4th ed. 2000; Houghton Mifflin Company). On-the-scene emergency medical care was a principal duty of first importance that Petitioner was required to perform during the contested period, irrespective of whether he performed those duties 50 percent of his workday; irrespective of whether those duties were "prevalent" each day; and irrespective of whether on-the-scene emergency medical care occupied a "substantial portion of the member's working time" each day. The record discloses no evidentiary basis for deference to agency expertise that would justify a departure from the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "primary." Rather, the record shows that Respondent effectively grafted onto the proposed rule quantitative standards in federal regulations applicable to certain federal employees as a means of defining and implementing the term "primary duties" in the state law criteria prescribed in Subsection 121.0515(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005).5 The legislature adopted a quantitative standard for determining membership in the Special Risk Class in Subsection 121.0515(2)(f), Florida Statutes (2005). In relevant part, the legislature required anyone seeking membership under that provision to "spend at least 75 percent of his or her time" performing qualifying duties. The legislature could have adopted a similar quantitative standard in Subsection 121.0515(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), but did not do so. The quantitative provisions in the proposed rule and unwritten 50 percent rule would effectively amend or modify the relevant statutory criteria in Subsection 121.0515(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2005), by imposing a quantitative standard similar to that in Subsection 121.0515(2)(f), Florida Statutes. The proposed rule excludes emergency services from the definition of "primary duties and responsibilities." That exclusion modifies or contravenes the statutory requirement that primary duties and responsibilities of an EMT must include "emergency" medical care.
The Issue The issue for disposition in this case is whether Respondents have implemented agency statements that meet the definition of a rule, but which have not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Robert Wood, P.E., is a Florida-licensed professional engineer, holding license No. PE 31542. A large part of Petitioner?s work involves the design of aluminum-framed structures. Respondents, DBPR and FBPE, are charged with regulating the practice of professional engineering in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61G15. The FEMC is a public-private partnership established by the legislature to provide administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the FBPE. By statute, the FEMC operates under a written contract (Contract) with the DBPR, which Contract is approved by the FBPE. Term of the Contract From the creation of FEMC in 1997 until 2000, the legislature provided that the required written contract was to be “renewed annually.” In 2000, the legislature amended section 471.38 to require that the written contract be an “annual contract.” In 2003, the legislature again amended section 471.38 to repeal the requirement that the contract be an annual contract. There is currently no specified term or time for renewal for the required written contract. The DBPR and the FEMC have elected to continue to enter written contracts with a term of one year. Determination of Legal Sufficiency Since its creation in 1997, section 471.038 has provided that “[t]he corporation may not exercise any authority specifically assigned to the board under chapter 455 or this chapter, including determining probable cause to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee, taking final action on license applications or in disciplinary cases, or adopting administrative rules under chapter 120.” The only change to that restriction was made in 2000, when the term “corporation” was changed to “management corporation.” In 2000, the legislature also enacted the Management Privatization Act, section 455.32, Florida Statutes. That Act was intended to establish a model for the creation of non-profit corporations with which the DBPR could contract for “administrative, examination, licensing, investigative and prosecutorial services to any board created within the department.” The similarities between section 471.38 and section 455.32 make it obvious that the latter was largely patterned after the former. Among the duties to be performed by a “corporation” under section 455.32(10) is to: . . . make a determination of legal sufficiency to begin the investigative process as provided in s. 455.225. However, the department or the board may not delegate to the corporation, by contract or otherwise, the authority for determining probable cause to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee, taking final action on license actions or on disciplinary cases, or adopting administrative rules under chapter 120. In previous years, at least through 2001, the written contract between the DBPR and the FEMC provided that “FEMC shall not exercise the police powers inherent in the Department and the FBPE including a determination of legal sufficiency or insufficiency of a disciplinary complaint.” At some time after the passage of the Management Privatization Act, the contractual “police powers” restriction was changed, and now reads, as reflected in the current Contract, as follows: Except when providing those prosecutorial and investigative services set forth in this Agreement, FEMC shall not exercise the police powers inherent in the Department and the FBPE under Chapters 455 or 471, Florida Statutes, including determining probable cause to pursue disciplinary action against a licensee, other than failure to comply with final orders of the Board as set forth in Rule 61015-18.005(2), Florida Administrative Code, taking final action on license applications or in disciplinary cases, or adopting administrative rules under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Prosecutorial servicing shall only be executed in the name of FBPE. That contractual restriction is consistent with the statutory limitation on the powers of the FEMC set forth in section 471.38. In its current form, the Contract establishes the services that are to be provided by FEMC to the DBPR and the FBPE. The list of prosecutorial services to be provided by FEMC include coordinating with investigators, reviewing and taking “appropriate action” on complaints, and preparing cases for presentation to the FBPE probable cause panel. The list of investigative services to be provided by FEMC include receiving complaints, interviewing complainants, witnesses, and subjects of complaints, issuing subpoenas, preparing investigative reports, and taking other actions leading to the prosecution of a case. The Contract does not specifically address the issue of determining legal sufficiency. The typical procedures of the FEMC in performing its investigatory functions are initiated when the FEMC receives a complaint by various means, including telephone, e-mail, or submission of a written complaint. Written complaints are normally directed to the FEMC chief prosecutor, who assigns them to an investigator for initial review. If the complaint is verbal, the investigator fielding the call will ask the complainant to file a written complaint. If a complaint is unaccompanied by information to substantiate the claims, the investigator typically requests supporting documentation, which may be a set of engineering plans, a report, or similar evidence of the facts underlying the complaint. In a procedure implemented by the FEMC in 2012, after receipt of the complaint and supporting documentation, the investigator forwards the complaint to an engineering expert retained by FEMC for a pre-review. The expert prepares a preliminary report which is then considered in the determination of legal sufficiency. Prior to implementation of the 2012 pre- review procedure, the determination of legal sufficiency was made without the benefit of a pre-review report in the manner otherwise described below. After receipt of the complaint, the supporting documentation, and, since 2012, the pre-review report, the investigator presents the complaint to the FEMC chief prosecutor. If the chief prosecutor determines that the complaint is not legally sufficient, the investigator is instructed to draft a memorandum for the chief prosecutor to review, which is in turn submitted to the FBPE Executive Director for signature. If the chief prosecutor determines that the complaint is legally sufficient, he or she verbally authorizes the investigator to place the engineer on notice of the investigation. At that point, the complaint is investigated using the investigative tools available to FEMC as set forth in the Contract. If sufficient evidence that a violation has occurred is found, the investigation culminates in a recommendation to the FBPE probable cause panel for a decision as to whether the panel believes there to be probable cause to proceed with disciplinary action. The decision to proceed with a disciplinary proceeding requiring a point of entry to challenge the action is entirely that of the FBPE probable cause panel. Probationary Project Review On November 4, 2009, FBPE entered a disciplinary final order regarding Petitioner that incorporated a stipulated settlement agreement, and imposed sanctions on Petitioner, including probation. By his entry of the settlement stipulation, Petitioner agreed to a “project review” at six and eighteen-month intervals. The project review consisted of the submission by Petitioner of a list of all completed projects. That list was provided to an engineering expert, who then selected two of the projects for a more comprehensive review. The steps to be performed by Petitioner and the FBPE are generally described in Project Review Process Guidelines that were provided to Petitioner by FBPE as an attachment to the notice of the two projects selected for comprehensive review. As a result of the project review, the two projects were determined to violate engineering standards, which resulted in the FEMC making a recommendation of probable cause to the FBPE probable cause panel. The probable cause panel found probable cause, leading to the issuance of an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. Petitioner introduced evidence of one other case in which a project review was required as a condition of probation. In that case, an administrative law judge, after having determined that the professional engineer committed violations of section 471.033 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 19.001, recommended imposition of “probation for two years with appropriate conditions for this case.” The Final Order, entered on March 12, 2008, imposed the recommended probation “with a plans review at 6 months and 18 months from the date of this Order.” The basis for the imposition of that sanction was not explained. There was no evidence introduced at the final hearing as to any other specific case in which a project review was required, other than the case involving Petitioner. The 2012 FEMC Annual Report, which is a business record of the FEMC, indicated that between July 1, 2011 and June 30, 2012, the FEMC was involved in the investigation and/or prosecution of 32 cases in which Administrative Complaints were filed against engineers. Disciplinary sanctions imposed against engineers during that one-year period included, among others, twenty-five reprimands, six license suspensions, eight probations, seven license restrictions, two voluntary license relinquishments, and four license revocations. Also included among the sanctions imposed during that period were three project reviews. The sanction of project review is one that is, statistically, used sparingly by the FBPE. There was no evidence introduced to establish the criteria, if any, for the imposition of a project review as a condition of probation, or to demonstrate that it was generally applied in any specific circumstances.
