The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to hear this cause alleging that Respondent Employer has committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact 1. Following a May 23, 2003, "Notice of Determination: No Jurisdiction," by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief as more fully described below. On or about July 3, 2003, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and scheduled for a disputed-fact hearing on the merits for August 25, 2003. 2. On July 17, 2003, Respondent served by mail its Motion for a Summary Final Order. 3. On August 12, 2003, Respondent served by mail its Supplemental (Second) Motion for a Summary Final Order. 4. On August 14, 2003, Respondent filed and served its Notice of Filing Supplemental Materials In Support of its (Second) Motion for Summary Final Order. 5. The foregoing pleadings and the exhibits attached thereto, together with the "Determination: No Jurisdiction," which is part of the referral package from the Florida Commission on Human Relations, suggest on their face(s) that the Commission, and derivatively, the Division of Administrative Hearings, is without jurisdiction to determine this case. 6. Petitioner did not timely respond in opposition to the Motion for Summary Final Order as permitted by Rule 28-106.204, Florida Administrative Code, and in a telephonic conference call convened by the undersigned on August 19, 2003, Petitioner represented that she had never received that Motion. Petitioner offered to pick it up at Respondent's attorney's office later on August 19, 2003. 7. Petitioner had received the Supplemental (Second) Motion for Summary Final Order, but from her oral representations in the telephonic conference, it appeared that she did not open the envelope containing it. As of August 19, 2003, Petitioner still had, pursuant to rule, until August 26, 2003, to respond in writing. Also, if Respondent's supplemental materials were to be considered, Petitioner had until August 28, 2003, per rule, to respond. 8. The undersigned is without final order authority in this type of proceeding, and accordingly, the pending Motions have been treated as Motions for a Recommended Order of Dismissal. 9. On August 21, 2003, an Order Canceling Merits Hearing and Permitting Future Filings was entered. That Order provided, in pertinent part: The disputed-fact hearing is now scheduled for August 25, 2003, and all jurisdictional issues could be addressed at the commencement of that hearing, but that hearing is subject to cancellation due to Petitioner's failure to file a unilateral pre-hearing statement. Moreover, it is not cost-effective to require both parties to appear with all their witnesses, prepared for a disputed-fact hearing, when a short delay may obviate the need for such a hearing. If that hearing is cancelled, it will be possible to re-schedule this case for trial within the aspirational time frame established by the legislature, if such re- scheduling is necessary. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 1. The disputed-fact hearing now scheduled for August 25, 2003, is hereby cancelled. 2. The pending motions will be treated as Motions for Recommended Order of Dismissal. 3. Petitioner is permitted to, and until, September 2, 2003, to file, in writing, any response in opposition to Respondent's Motion for a Summary Final Order, and Respondent's Supplemental (Second) Motion for a Summary Final Order, including the Supplemental Materials Filed August 14, 2003. 4. In her response, Petitioner should address all factual and legal arguments posed by Respondent. She may attach exhibits supporting her position. 5. In the event the undersigned requires any further oral argument or advice from the parties, another telephonic conference call will be scheduled for that purpose, and a formal notice of hearing will be issued. 6. In the event no further oral argument or advice is required, the issues presented in the motions and response will be disposed of, pursuant to Rule 28-106.204, Florida Administrative Code, without hearing; and a disputed-fact hearing on the merits will be re-scheduled only if necessary and appropriate. 10. Petitioner did not file any response to dispute any legal or factual issue raised by Respondent. Petitioner did not file any response attacking the validity of any of Respondent's exhibits. Petitioner did not file any response attacking any portion of the Commission's referral package. Therefore, the filed items may be presumed to be authentic, and the pending Motions may be addressed without an evidentiary hearing. 11. Petitioner filed with the Commission a charge of discrimination against Respondent Employer. That charge was assigned FCHR Case No. 2003342, and was dismissed by the Commission on or about December 6, 2002. 12. On October 18, 2002, Petitioner filed with the Commission a second charge of discrimination, the charge of discrimination underlying the instant case. The Commission assigned the instant charge FCHR Case No. 23-00222. 13. This instant charge of discrimination herein states that Petitioner was notified on October 14, 2001, that she would be terminated by the Employer on October 18, 2001. This charge of discrimination was signed by Petitioner on October 18, 2002. Therefore, it could not have been filed with the Commission before October 18, 2002. The date of October 18, 2002, is more than 365 days after October 14, 2001. See Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes. 14. By a "Determination: No Jurisdiction" entered May 23, 2003, the Commission's Executive Director found and concluded that all jurisdictional requirements for coverage had not been met, to wit: : The Complainant was notified on October 12, 2001, that she would be terminated effective October 18, 2001, and she received a termination letter on October 14, 2001. Thus the 365-day period for filing a claim with the Commission commenced on October 12, 2001. Complainant, however, filed her complaint on October 18, 2002, which is 370 days from the date she first received notice. 6. The Commission does not have jurisdiction over the complaint because it was filed more than 365 days from the date the Complainant received notice that she would be terminated. 15. While the Director's foregoing findings/conclusions do not bind this forum's de novo proceeding, the Commission's acknowledgement that the instant charge of discrimination was not filed with it until October 18, 2002, constitutes competent evidence of that filing date and is relevant in this proceeding. 16. Attached to Respondent's first Motion for Summary Final Order is a copy of the instant charge of discrimination which shows the Commission's "October 18, 2002," date stamp. Also attached thereto is a Disciplinary Action Report dated October 12, 2001, which shows that Petitioner saw the report but refused to sign it on the same date of October 12, 2001. This report is, in effect, a notice of termination to take effect on October 18, 2001. Another exhibit to this pleading is Petitioner's October 12, 2001, written request to the Employer for a pre-termination hearing. All of these items indicate that Petitioner had notice on October 12, 2001, that she would be terminated, effective October 18, 2001. 17. No one has explained what effect a pre-termination hearing would have had on the planned termination date. No evidence that a pre-termination hearing was ever held has been presented. 18. Petitioner was effectively terminated by Respondent on October 18, 2001. 19. A "Notice of Determination: No Jurisdiction," entered by the Clerk of the Commission on May 23, 2003, provided: The parties are advised that the Complainant may request that a formal, post- investigative proceeding be conducted. The Request for Hearing/Petition for Relief must be filed within 35 days of the date of mailing of this Notice and should be in compliance with the provision of Rule 60Y- 5.008 and Chapter 60Y-4, Florida Administrative Code. A Petition for Relief form in enclosed. If you elect to file a Petition for Relief, it may be beneficial to seek legal counsel prior to filing the Petition. This action will not become final until time has expired for Complainant to file a Request for Petition for Relief. Failure of Complainant to timely file a petition for relief will result in dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 60Y-5.006, Florida Administrative Code. 20. Accordingly, the last date for filing a Petiton for Relief on the instant charge was June 27, 2003, per Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes, and 60Y-5.008, Florida Administrative Code. 21. Petitioner FAXED her Petition for Relief to the Commission. Petitioner's FAX cover sheet indicated that, Ms. Razavi, I am faxing this again, since I'm not aware that you have rec'd it yet. I first sent it on Thurs. 26th to a different fax #. The young lady sitting in for Barbar gave me this one. Thanks. 22. On July 1, 2003, the Commission date-stamped receipt of the foregoing cover letter and the Petition for Relief, which it transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings on the same date. 23. An Affidavit of Violet D. Crawford, Clerk of the Florida Commission on Human Relations, states that Petitioner's Petition for Relief was received by way of facsimile to the Commission on June 30, 2003, but that it was clocked-in on July 1, 2003.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Michelle Burt, pro se 2121 West Pensacola Street, PMB 538 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 For Respondent: William Haselden, Esquire City of Tallahassee 300 South Adams Street, Box A-5 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing this cause for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Lahn alan ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 2003. 12 COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michelle Burt 2121 West Pensacola Street, PMB 538 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William Haselden, Esquire City of Tallahassee 300 South Adams Street, Box A-5 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1731
Findings Of Fact Herein, Ibanez seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs she claims to have incurred in DOAH Case No. 91-3336R styled Silvia S. Ibanez et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy et al. In that case, Ibanez challenged the validity of Board of Accountancy Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. (the "holding out rule"). Ibanez unsuccessfully tried to initiate that case by filing a petition on May 10, 1991 with the Department of Professional Regulation. Ibanez successfully initiated the rule challenge on May 30, 1991, by filing with DOAH a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing under Section 120.56 F.S. This type of action is commonly referred to as a "challenge to an existing agency rule." In such a case, the Petitioner is fully the initiator, challenger, or sword-wielder in the proceeding and bears both the duty to go forward and the burden of proof. Ibanez initiated the rule challenge in her capacity as a licensed certified public accountant (CPA). She is a sole practitioner and an employee of a law firm called "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.," but the law firm "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.," was not a party and did not participate in the rule challenge, except as one of several legal representatives for Silvia S. Ibanez, the individual. The Board participated in the rule challenge case to defend the holding out rule. The Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants (FICPA) intervened in the rule challenge in support of the position of the Board that the holding out rule was valid. While Ibanez' petition in the rule challenge contained a prayer for "other appropriate relief, including award of costs as appropriate," her petition therein did not request an award of attorney's fees. Ibanez' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and her accompanying Memorandum of Law submitted after formal hearing for that case, both of which pleadings were dated October 11, 1991, did not contain proposed findings of fact or proposed conclusions of law addressing the issue of attorney's fees and costs. Neither of Ibanez' post- hearing filings contained a request for attorney's fees or costs or a request to reserve jurisdiction in that case for such an award. The undersigned hearing officer rendered a final order declaring invalid the holding out rule on January 15, 1992. That final order did not award attorney's fees and costs, nor did it reserve jurisdiction to decide attorney's fees and costs at another time. Neither Ibanez nor any of her corporate entities nor any of her supporting intervenors filed any motion requesting a reservation of jurisdiction or requesting reconsideration. The Board and FICPA each appealed the final order in the rule challenge to the First District Court of Appeal in February 1992, but dismissed those appeals on May 6, 1992, by filing a Joint Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The First District Court of Appeal issued an order acknowledging the Joint Dismissal on May 14, 1992. The Joint Dismissal and First District Court of Appeal Order were both attached to the material filed by the parties in this instant case. For purposes of deciding the pending motions to dismiss herein, the undersigned has considered the Joint Dismissal, the First District Court of Appeal Order, and the record in the rule challenge case, DOAH Case No. 91-3336R. Due to the unique arguments advanced in Ibanez' fees and costs motion (sic) herein, it also has been necessary and appropriate to consider the record in DOAH Case No. 91-4100. On May 22, 1991, a probable cause panel of the Board held a probable cause hearing involving Ibanez. As a result of that hearing, the Board initiated a disciplinary proceeding styled State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy v. Silvia S. Ibanez, DOAH Case No. 91-4100, by filing an administrative complaint on June 13, 1992. That case was a disciplinary action arising under Section 120.57(1) F.S. which was prosecuted by the Department of Professional Regulation on behalf of the Board against Ibanez. At one time, the disciplinary case was consolidated with the rule challenge case. The two cases were bifurcated prior to formal hearing of the merits of either case. FICPA never intervened in the disciplinary case, nor had they any standing to do so. The undersigned hearing officer conducted a 120.57(1) F.S. hearing in the disciplinary case on August 27, 1991, and issued a recommended order to the Board on January 15, 1992. The Board issued its final order in the disciplinary case on April 23, 1992. Therein, contrary to the recommended order, the Board held that Ibanez had violated Sections 473.323(1)(a), (f), (g), and (h) F.S. and Rule 21A-24.001 F.A.C. The Board accordingly issued a reprimand to Ibanez, which reprimand was stayed by the Board pending appeal. Ibanez has appealed the Board's final order in the disciplinary case to the First District Court of Appeal, which appeal is still pending. Ibanez served on July 9, 1992 her Motion for Attorney's Fees which is here under consideration. In doing so, Ibanez elected to use the style of the underlying rule challenge case, DOAH 91-3336R, the style of which still included intervenors James R. Brewster and American Association of Attorney Certified Public Accountants. Those intervenors have never attempted to appear in the instant fees and costs case and apparently seek no relief via Ibanez' pending fees and costs motion. The rule challenge case was final for all purposes before DOAH as of January 15, 1992 and before the District Court of Appeal on May 14, 1992. The DOAH case file for DOAH Case No. 91-3336R has been closed for several months. Ibanez' Motion for Attorney's Fees was received and deemed filed by DOAH on July 13, 1992. It was filed with DOAH sixty-eight (68) days after the rule challenge appeals were voluntarily dismissed by FICPA and the Board and sixty (60) days after the First District Court of Appeals entered its order ratifying the voluntary dismissal. Because petitions brought solely under Section 57.111 F.S. result in final orders, it is DOAH's standard operating procedure to open new files for all fees and costs cases arising under Section 57.111 F.S. Upon receipt of Ibanez' motion, DOAH's Clerk assigned Ibanez' motion the instant new case number (DOAH 92-4271F), primarily on the basis that the motion prayed for relief upon grounds of Section 57.111 F.S., among other statutes. The other statutory grounds cited in the motion were Sections 120.57(1)(b)5 and 120.59(6) F.S.
Findings Of Fact Respondent received his registration in 1955 as a civil engineer and as an architect in 1956. Since his registration, the Respondent has been instrumental in the drawings and designs of numerous outstanding structures in and around the Tampa Bay area. (See Respondent's Composite Exhibits 1 and 2.) Prior to the incident involved herein, the Respondent has not been the subject of any disciplinary proceedings involving the Petitioner. Respondent, by and through counsel, takes the position that inasmuch as his conviction of the charges set forth herein- above, to-wit: racketeering, mail fraud and conspiracy, is not a proper basis upon which a suspension or revocation of his registration can properly stand inasmuch as he is in the process of appealing the conviction. Respondent contends that unless and until the judgment of the lower court is affirmed by the appellate court, there is no basis upon which a suspension and/or revocation of his registration can rest. Section 471.26, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that: "(1) The Board shall have the power to revoke or suspend the certificate of registration. . . of a person registered under this chapter. . .should such registrant. . .be found guilty of: . . . (c) any felony or crime involving moral turpitude." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 received into evidence reveals that the Respondent was convicted of four separate counts of criminal activity and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of ten years on two counts, to run concurrently, and five years on two counts, to run concurrently with each other and with the ten-year count. Based thereon, it is concluded that sufficient basis exists upon which a finding should be entered recommending that the Respondent's registration be suspended. I shall so recommend. 1/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the registration of Respondent (No. 5354) as a professional engineer be suspended for a period of two (2) years. In making such a recommendation, the undersigned considered all the mitigating factors introduced by and on behalf of the Respondent. ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether the Petitioner demonstrated that she was terminated from employment by Respondent as the result of an unlawful employment practice based on her race, or as retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to a practice which is an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a provider of health-care services that receives funding from the West Volusia Hospital Authority (WVHA). Respondent operates health clinics in Pierson, DeLand, and Deltona, Florida. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a Certified Medical Assistant on September 25, 2009. After a period of time in Respondent’s Pierson office, Petitioner was transferred to Respondent’s DeLand office. Petitioner’s duties included those as a referral clerk. In that capacity, Petitioner arranged, scheduled, and coordinated referrals from Respondent’s medical providers to outside physicians and laboratories. Petitioner also performed blood-draws, Pap smears, and related services. Petitioner was frequently behind in her referrals. Petitioner sought assistance with her referrals. Taken in the light most favorable to Petitioner, an employee of Respondent with some apparent supervisory authority denied her requests, and advised other employees that they were not to assist Petitioner in catching up. In October 2010, Petitioner was assigned to Respondent’s newly created Emergency Room Diversion (ERD) program. That assignment caused a change in Petitioner’s shift from the 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. shift, to the 12:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. shift. She was returned to her normal day shift in mid-November. The disruption in her standard shift caused Petitioner to fall further behind in her referrals. To minimize the problem, nurses began to make referrals for their doctors when they had the time. On November 19, 2010, Petitioner called Juanita McNeil, an elected commissioner of the WVHA, to discuss what Petitioner perceived to be sub-standard patient care that, in some cases, related to referrals that were not being timely completed, and for which Petitioner was receiving no assistance. Petitioner asked Ms. McNeil to keep their conversation confidential because she feared that she would be terminated for going outside of the chain of command. Later in the day on November 19, 2010, Petitioner was presented with a separation notice by which she was terminated from employment. The separation notice listed four reasons for her termination. The reasons were “employee not doing job in a timely manner, being rude with patients, being rude with other employees, [and] insubordination (calling the WVHA) instead of talking with appropriate supervisors.” During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that “100% of the reason that I was fired is because of me calling the WVHA.” Upon follow up inquiry, Petitioner reiterated that she was terminated for insubordination in bypassing her supervisors to contact a WVHA commissioner, and that reason formed the basis for her complaint that she had been the subject of discrimination or retaliation. Petitioner knew of no other employee that ever communicated directly with a WVHA commissioner, or that ever escaped disciplinary sanctions for having done so. Thus, there was no comparator upon which to measure whether Petitioner was treated differently under like circumstances as a result of her race. Petitioner’s admission of the basis for her termination is dispositive of this case. Being terminated for insubordination, in the absence of evidence that persons outside of her protected class were treated differently, is not related to Petitioner’s race. Petitioner’s admission demonstrates that her claim is not founded on an unlawful employment practice based on her race, or retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to a practice which is an unlawful employment practice. Based on Petitioner’s admission, the undersigned concluded that there was no legal basis upon which relief could be ordered under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Thus, the final hearing was adjourned.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The policy being challenged provides that: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. This provision is routinely and customarily embodied in the notices issued by Respondent to parties before it in matters arising under Florida Statutes 447.307 and 447.503. The Respondent acknowledges that it did not adopt and promulgate the policy pursuant to Florida Statutes 120.54 or any other relevant provision of Chapter 120. On 12 July 1979 Petitioner filed a petition with Respondent in which Petitioner sought to represent certain employees employed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. This petition was accepted by Respondent and on 30 July 1979 Respondent issued a Notice of Representation Hearing and a Prehearing Order. This Prehearing Order directed the parties to that proceeding to file with Respondent at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the hearing, and serve upon each other, a prehearing statement, identifying: Those fact disputes to be presented for resolution. Any and all legal questions to be presented for resolution. The legal authority to be relied upon by each party in presenting its arguments. Those witnesses to be called at the hearing, except rebuttal witnesses. The approximate time necessary to present the party's case. Any outstanding motions or procedural questions to be resolved. This Pre-Hearing Order then provided: The hearing may be cancelled if a petitioner or intervenor fails to timely file its prehearing statement. Petitioner did not file its prehearing statement within the prescribed 7-day period and on 21 August 1979 Petitioner was notified that the hearing scheduled to commence 23 August had been cancelled. On 22 August Petitioner was advised that a written order cancelling the 23 August hearing had been entered by the Commission. Thereafter Petitioner filed the petition here under consideration contending that the policy of Respondent to enter the cancellation-of-hearing notice in prehearing orders is a rule and invalid by reason of not being promulgated pursuant to Chapter 120. Respondent takes the position that the provision in the prehearing order is not a rule, but even if it could otherwise be considered to be a statement of general applicability, it is exempt from being so found by 447.207(6), Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed, against his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0003174. Respondent, who was first licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida in 1946, retired in 1984 and his license was soon thereafter placed on an inactive status. Respondent is registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA # AP 0114087, authorizing Respondent to issue controlled substances in Coral Gables, Florida. In June 1987, Respondent resided in or near Franklin, North Carolina. Respondent is not licensed to practice medicine in the State of North Carolina, and he is not authorized to issue controlled substances in the State of North Carolina. On or about June 8, 1987, Respondent authorized Kenneth Leon Murphy, a pharmacist who at that time worked at the Revco Pharmacy in Franklin, North Carolina, to fill a prescription for acetaminophen with codeine and to dispense the same to Respondent. Codeine is a controlled substance as defined by the provisions of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. This prescription was filled on June 8, 1987, by the Revco Pharmacy in Franklin, North Carolina and picked up by Respondent that same day. On June 11, 1987, Respondent wrote a prescription for chloral0 hydrate to be dispensed to himself. Respondent listed his Drug Enforcement Agency number on the prescription. Respondent had the prescription filled by Mr. Murphy at the Revco Pharmacy in Franklin, North Carolina where he personally picked up the prescription. Chloral hydrate is a controlled substance as defined by the provisions of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(q),(r), and (v), Florida Statutes, which reprimands Respondent for these violations, and which places Respondent's licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is recommended that no administrative fine be imposed in consideration of the mitigating factors presented by this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 3670 The proposed finding contained in paragraph ten of the Petitioner's proposed recommended order that Respondent's license is delinquent is rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The remaining proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea Bateman, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William S. Piper, Sr., M.D. 1019 Malaga Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth B. Basley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint with leave to file an amended administrative complaint alleging post-licensure misconduct only, within twenty days of the order of dismissal. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II 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 13th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Dean Bunch, Esquire P. O. Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dennis S. Valente, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement P. O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert Dempsey, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue DOAH CASE NO. 85-1417 The issues in this case are those promoted by a Notice To Show Cause/Administrative Complaint brought by the Petitioner against Robert W. Browning as general partner in the limited partnership known as A.S.R.B. which does business as Suwannee Trails. In particular, it is asserted that Browning, in the aforementioned capacity, offered and disposed of, or participated in the offer and disposition of subdivided lands without having a valid order of registration, and without being exempt from the requirements of registration, and by such activity violated Section 498.023(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact DOAH CASE NO. 85-1417 A.S.R.B. Limited Partnership, a Florida limited partnership which will be described in further reference as A.S.R.B., is the subdivider, as that term is defined by Section 498.005(18), Florida Statutes, of Suwannee Trails, Unit I, a subdivision. as the term is defined by Section 49S.005(19), Florida Statutes. This subdivision is found in Hamilton County, Florida. On April 11, 1983, A.S.R.B., in the person of Robert W. Browning, made application with the Petitioner to be granted an exemption from the requirements of Chapter 498, Florida Statutes, pertaining to the need to register with the Petitioner prior to the offer, sale or disposition of the afore mentioned subdivided lands. This request for exemption was under the terms of Section 498.025(3), Florida Statutes. The application for exemption was accompanied by an exemption affidavit executed by Browning as general partner for A.S.R.B. Through this affidavit Browning promised that the A.S.R.B. and Robert W. Browning ". will not offer or dispose of these subdivided lands until registered or exempt from registration under applicable statutes." Notwithstanding the representations which Browning made as the general partner of A.S.R.B., a position which he held on April 11, 1983, and has continued to hold, sales were made prior to registration and prior to obtaining any exemption from registration. The property which Browning had requested the Petitioner to exempt from registration, Suwannee Trails, Unit I, is constituted of Lots 1 through 55. Within that tract, A.S.R.B. sold Lot No. 45 to Jesse H. Tyre, on March 21, 1983, and Browning executed the conveyance document. Likewise, Browning executed the conveyance document for Lot No. 40, a sale to J. T. Bridges, Jr., which occurred on April 11. 1983, the date upon which the application for exemption was made. Other lots which were conveyed in Suwannee Trails, Unit I prior to July 11, 1983, were Lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 41, 42, 44, 47, 49 and 50. On July 11, 1983, in response to the request by Browning that A.S.R.B. be exempt from the requirements of Chapter 498, Florida Statutes, related to registration, an order was entered granting the exemption. This order was pursuant to the exemption contemplated by Section 498.025(3), Florida Statutes. It pertained to the 55 lots within Suwannee Trails, Unit I. No order of registration has ever been given for those lots within Suwannee Trails, Unit I, nor has any showing been made that either A.S.R.B. or Browning ever sought or was entitled to exemptions as set forth in Sections 498.025(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. In testimony presented in the course of the hearing, Robert W. Browning asserted that he was entitled to offer and dispose of the lots within Suwannee Trails, Unit I as early as April 1983. He was persuaded that effective that month and year those Lots 1 through 55, excluding Lots 10 through 20, were exempt from the requirements of registration announced in Chapter 49S, Florida Statutes. He offers these remarks based upon an alleged conversation which he had with an inspector employed by the Petitioner, one Jim Fulghum. According to Browning, Fulghum told him that lots other than 10 through 20 could be sold e£fective April 1983. Those lots, 10 through 20, could not be sold because of some problems of access to those lots, as Browning explained in describing remarks which Fulghum allegedly made to him. Having considered the remarks of Browning on the topic of Fulghum's reputed indication that lots other than 10 through 20 were exempt from the requirements of registration effective April 1983, and having in mind the testimony in this case, the tangible evidence presented and the provisions of Chapter 498, Florida Statutes, especially Section 498.025(3), Florida Statutes, which indicates-that an order of exemption is given upon a demonstration of a satisfactory showing that a subdivider is qualified for such order of exemption, as opposed to the idea that a subdivider is automatically entitled to such exemption upon application, Browning's testimony as to conversation with Fulghum about the exemption dating from April 1983 is not credited. In addition to rejecting those facts, Browning's remarks as to prior practices of the Petitioner in dealing with projects that Browning was affiliated with do not lead to the conclusion that in those other two subdivisions the State had condoned allowing transactions to be pursued before the grant of an order of exemption. In any event, the March 21, 1983, sale of Lot No. 45 occurred prior to Browning's contention that sales were exempt effective April 1983. Again this refers to Lot No. 45 within Suwannee Trails, Unit I.
The Issue Whether the agency's definition of the term "dry and measurable" as used in HRS bid documents is an unpromulgated rule which cannot be used as a basis for the agency's decision to reject the Petitioner's response to a bid proposal in Lease Number 590:1975. Whether the agency's requirement that a building be "dry and measurable" before a bid is accepted is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact In 1988, the Respondent HRS made the determination that it would not exercise its option on leased space owned by the Petitioner, Mr. Dyess, in Clewiston, Florida. Bid documents were prepared by the agency for its current office space needs. Bid proposals were solicited through newspaper advertisements and personal contact with owners, developers, and realtors within the Clewiston area. HRS included Mr. Dyess in its solicitations. He was sent a bid package which contained all of the bid documents for the bid referred to as Lease Number 590:1975. Page five of the document in the bid package known as HRS Facilities Services Form RO3-87, requires prospective bidders in Lease Number 590:1975 to contact Michael J. Sedgwick if they have any questions about the interpretation of the bid specifications. The document is silent on the questions of whether the written or oral representations made by Mr. Sedgwick are binding upon the agency, or whether the prospective bidder may contest the interpretation. A bidders' conference was held on April 26, 1988. During the conference, Mr. Sedgwick was questioned about the agency's interpretation of the term "dry and capable of being physically measured." Mr. Sedgwick contacted Mr. George Smith, who administers the leasing program for HRS in Tallahassee, and obtained the following definition: "Dry and measurable consists of four things: a slab, four corners, a roof, and a valid building permit if construction is in progress. The definition given by Mr. Smith was verbally communicated to the prospective bidders who attended the conference. This definition was verbally communicated to the Petitioner by Mr. Sedgwick on April 27, 1988. This clarification or interpretation of the bid specification was not reduced to writing and sent to all prospective bidders, as required by HRS Facilities Form RO3-87. The Petitioner timely submitted a bid in Lease Number 590:1975. This bid was rejected by HRS because the building was not "dry and measurable", as defined by the agency, on the date of the bid opening. The definition of the term "dry and measurable," as set forth above, has been developed by HRS for use within the agency. It is an unwritten policy which is universally applied by the agency in all of its reviews of bid proposals submitted by bidders for building leases. This unwritten policy has been in effect for seven and one half years. A definition of the term "dry and measurable" is not set forth in the bid documents. A prospective bidder is encouraged by the bid documents to seek interpretations of definitions within the documents from the project contact person. In this case, the contact person was Mr. Sedgwick. No other basis was given to Mr. Dyess for the agency's rejection of his bid in Lease Number 590:1975.
