The Issue Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact On October 21, 1983, Derek and Lucy Lea entered into a sales contract to purchase the Wal-Mar Hotel that was listed for sale with the Petitioners. The Leas retained an attorney and the transaction closed on December 15, 1983. Three months later, due to low revenues, the Leas defaulted on the mortgage and the seller foreclosed. The Leas filed a civil action in circuit court against Petitioners for misrepresenting the property, which action was dismissed. Petitioners denied the allegations filed by the Leas. On July 29, 1986, Respondent, Florida Real Estate Commission, received a complaint filed by the Leas which was investigated. Following Respondent's investigation, the Lea's complaint was forwarded to a probable cause panel and the panel determined that probable cause did not exist to believe that a violation of the real estate licensing law had occurred and a closing order was entered on February 18, 1987, dismissing the complaint. The Leas refiled their civil complaint and alleged that Petitioners misrepresented and overstated the per night room rate, the past occupancy rates, the gross income rates and future reservations; that Petitioners knew or should have known that the acts and statements were false and incomplete at the time made and that the Leas acted in reliance of Petitioners representations in purchasing the Wal-Mar Motel. On or about August 5, 1987, the Leas obtained a final judgment for $5,250.00 against Petitioners, Dynamic Realty, Inc. and Jay H. Miller, which judgment was satisfied. A copy of the judgment, and satisfaction thereof was refiled with the Respondent which evidenced that the Petitioners paid the judgment. The Leas refiled their complaint with Respondent and on September 20, 1988, the Leas complaint was again reviewed by the probable cause panel. The probable cause panel determined that probable cause existed to believe that based on the documentation presented, including the civil judgment entered against Petitioners which was satisfied, and a review of the investigative report, adequate facts existed to support a charge of fraud through breach of trust in a business transaction and Respondent filed Administrative Complaints on October 4, 1988, alleging that Petitioners engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence or breach of trust in a business transaction, in violation of Subsections 475.25(1)(b), (d) and (k), Florida Statutes, by virtue of Petitioners' misrepresentation in overstating the various financial data relative to the Leas purchase of the Wal-Mar Hotel. Petitioners incurred legal fees and costs in the amount of $4,058.00 to litigate the Administrative Complaint filed by Respondent. The amount expended by Petitioners for legal fees and costs was reasonable.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, The Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, and Rule 22I- 6.035, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner herein, Jules G. Minkes was the Respondent in a license disciplinary proceeding styled Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, DOAH Case No. 88-3749. That underlying case was resolved by a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal served by the Department of Professional Regulation attorney on December 9, 1988. It was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on the same date. On December 16, 1988, the undersigned entered an Order providing in pertinent part, "This cause came on for consideration upon Petitioner's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which, by operation of law, dismisses this cause and the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is accordingly CLOSED." On February 13, 1989 the Petition and Affidavit for attorney's fees, together with supporting documents and a Memorandum in support of the petition were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition was served by mail on February 10, 1989. It does not specifically request an evidentiary hearing. This fees and cost cause was subsequently styled as Minkes v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, DOAH Case No. 89-0792F. On February 28, 1989, Respondent filed an Answer which was "sworn and subscribed" by the DPR attorney. The Answer constitutes a general denial of all allegations and demands "strict proof" of the attorney's fees and costs set forth by Petitioner's pleadings, but contains no itemized counter-affidavit challenging the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs claimed by Petitioner as contemplated by Rule 22I-6.035(4) and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The answer also alleges substantial justification for the underlying action and "special circumstances" which would render unjust any award of fees and costs. These latter two allegations are made without any particularity as to what constitutes the "justification" or the "special circumstances." The Answer makes no specific request for evidentiary hearing beyond the demand for "strict proof" of "whether and/or to what extent" fees and costs were incurred by Petitioner. No counter-affidavit or request for evidentiary hearing has been filed to date. See, Rule 22I-6.035(4), (5) Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issue is whether petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This case involves a claim by petitioner, John E. Phillips, Jr., that he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs because of an administrative action improvidently brought against him by respondent, Department of Banking and Finance (DBF). When the complaint was filed, Phillips was registered with DBF as an associated person with Aragon Financial Services, Inc. DBF contends the claim is without merit because Phillips is not a small business party within the meaning of the law, there is substantial justification to support the agency's decision to file a complaint, and special circumstances are present which would make an award of fees and costs unjust. The action which underlies this claim involved an administrative complaint filed against Phillips on February 4, 1994, charging him with violating various provisions within Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. That complaint was assigned Case No. 94-1266. The complaint also denied an application by Phillips to register as an associated person with a new firm. In addition, the complaint named Bruce M. Walker as a co-respondent, and as to that registrant, the complaint was assigned Case No. 94-1358. Both cases were consolidated for hearing and, after an evidentiary hearing was conducted on June 27, 1994, a Recommended Order was issued on September 13, 1994, recommending that all charges against Phillips be dismissed and that his application for registration be approved. The Recommended Order was adopted by DBF without change, and Phillips is accordingly deemed to be a prevailing party in that action. Phillips has requested fees and costs in the amount of $15,000.00, the maximum allowed by law. Respondent does not contest the reasonableness of that amount. Prima Facie Requirements for an Award of Fees and Costs In order to show entitlement to an award of fees and costs, petitioner must demonstrate that he is a "prevailing small business party" within the meaning of the law. Since he has filed the petition on his own behalf, he must show he is a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, including a professional practice, whose principal office is in this state, who is domiciled in this state, and whose business or professional practice has, at the time the action is initiated by the state agency, not more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2 million. At the time the administrative complaint was filed, Phillips was domiciled in Pensacola, Florida, and had a net worth of less than $2 million. According to an uncontroverted allegation in his petition, Phillips had no "employees relating to business that formed the basis for the Agency's charges." Petitioner was also a 50 percent shareholder in a subchapter S corporation known as Phillips, Walker & Associates, Inc. (PWA), a Pensacola firm engaged in the sale of insurance products. Although Phillips was registered with DBF as an associated person with Aragon Financial Services, Inc., that firm was not the subject of the complaint nor is it otherwise relevant to this dispute. Petitioner's principal source of income was through the sale of insurance products sold through PWA although he occasionally sold a few securities during that same period of time. The administrative complaint was not filed against PWA, which held no licenses from the state, but rather was filed against the registration of Phillips as an individual. Although he was an officer, employee and shareholder of PWA, Phillips was not a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, including a professional practice. Therefore, he does not qualify as a small business party. Was There Substantial Justification? The consumer complaint which eventually led to the filing of the charges in Case No. 94-1266 was made by Jane Hubbard, a Gulf Breeze realtor who had loaned a substantial amount of money ($50,000.00) to PWA in May 1988 and was never repaid. The loan was secured by a promissory note personally signed by Phillips and Walker, as the owners of the corporation. After PWA ceased doing business in May 1990, and both Phillips and Walker had filed for bankruptcy, Hubbard, or her attorney, contacted DBF in an effort to seek DBF's aid in collecting her money from Phillips and Walker. Since petitioner was registered with DBF as an associated person, and thus was subject to DBF's regulatory jurisdiction, Hubbard apparently assumed that Phillips may have violated the law in some respect, and the agency might be able to assist her in recovering all or a part of her money. A similar complaint filed with the Department of Insurance was not pursued by that agency. Hubbard's complaint was eventually referred to a DBF financial examiner, Robert R. Kynoch, who, among other things, interviewed Phillips, Walker, Hubbard, and three other persons who had made loans to Walker (but not Phillips). Although Kynoch did not place the persons interviewed under oath during the investigative stage, there was no requirement that he do so. Based on a representation by Hubbard that Phillips and Walker had failed to disclose to her all relevant information regarding PWA's financial status at the time the loan was made, Kynoch concluded that a reasonable basis existed to bring charges against the two if the loan was actually an investment, and thus subject to DBF's jurisdiction under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, Kynoch prepared a written investigative report, received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 3, which recommended that the report "be further reviewed for appropriate disposition." The report was first reviewed by Michael D. Blaker, a DBF area financial manager, who approved the recommendation and forwarded it to his supervisor, Richard White. It was then reviewed and approved by a bureau chief, William Reilly, and finally by the division director, Don Saxon. After Saxon signed off on the report, it was sent to the general counsel's office for a legal determination as to whether the loan was an investment. Margaret S. Karniewicz, an assistant general counsel, concluded that it was, and recommended the issuance of an administrative complaint. After an evidentiary hearing was conducted, a determination was made that the loan constituted an investment. This determination in the Recommended and Final Orders was not contested by any party, including Phillips. There was, however, insufficient evidence to establish that misrepresentations were made by Phillips during the sale of the investment. For this reason, the charges against Phillips were dismissed and his application for registration with a new firm was approved. Because DBF had statements, which it assessed to be credible, from a complaining witness (Hubbard) that misrepresentations or material omissions were made by Phillips and Walker during the transaction, and DBF properly construed the transaction as an investment, it had a reasonable basis in fact and law to file the complaint. Since there was no showing that the agency's credibility assessment was unreasonable, DBF was substantially justified in bringing the charges in Case No. 94-1266. Special Circumstances There was no evidence presented by respondent to show that special circumstances exist that would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Dr. Herbert R. Slavin, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs in an amount not exceeding $50,000 pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).
Findings Of Fact Dr. Slavin, a licensed physician who specializes in internal medicine, has practiced in the state of Florida since 1981. In or around 2008, Dr. Slavin formed, and is the sole shareholder of, "Ageless Medicine Associates," a subchapter S corporation1/ under which he practices medicine. On October 31, 2011, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint that charged Dr. Slavin with two statutory violations, both of which were ultimately dismissed by the Board of Medicine. In connection with that proceeding, Dr. Slavin now seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111. As explained later in this Final Order, a party seeking fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111 must demonstrate that he or she was a "small business party" at the time the underlying action was initiated by the state——in this instance, October 31, 2011. Section 57.111(3)(d) contemplates that a small business party can take four alternative forms, only two of which require discussion here: a partnership or corporation, including a professional practice, that, during the relevant timeframe, had 25 or fewer full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2,000,000 (section 57.111(3)(d)1.b.); or an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 during the relevant period (section 57.111(3)(d)1.c.). The evidence establishes that, as of October 2011, Ageless Medicine Associates had fewer than 25 employees and a net worth that did not exceed $2,000,000. The problem, though, and as discussed elsewhere in this Order, is that section 57.111(3)(d)1.b. has no application where, as in this case, the underlying complaint was filed against a licensee individually, rather than the partnership or corporation under which the licensee conducts business. As for Dr. Slavin's personal finances, his 2011 tax return reflects income of $171,810, virtually all of which comprises wages and business income derived from Ageless Medicine Associates, and an adjusted gross income of $161,400. The remainder of Dr. Slavin's financial picture (including, for example, any assets on hand that did not generate taxable income) during October 2011 is nebulous, however, for nearly all of his testimony focused incorrectly on his finances at the time of the final hearing: Q. Are you, doctor, currently worth $2,000,000? A. No. * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, do you own a home? A. Yes. Q. How much, if you know, is that home worth? A. Probably around $300,000 to $350,000. Q. And do you have a mortgage on that home? A. Yes. Q. How much is the mortgage; do you know? A. $145,000. Q. And do you have any cash in the bank? A. Yes. Q. How much? A. Around $10,000 . . . . * * * Q. Do you own any boats? A. No. Q. Do you own any vacation homes? A. No. Q. Do you own any interest in any other businesses? A. No. Q. Do you have a lot of stock accounts? A. No. * * * Q. Okay. Is there any other asset that you have that has not been mentioned; your home, your business? Do you own your vehicles? A. No, they're leased. Q. Do you own any other stocks or bonds that provide you with an income or that are worth money, that you know of? A. No. * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, you testified that -- You were asked by counsel whether or not you had a lot of stocks or bonds as assets and you stated no. Do you -- what does a lot mean? A. Well, I have -- I don't have any direct ownership of stocks or bonds. There are some annuities I have that have, I guess, investments and mutual funds or something. You know, I'm not -– * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, have you presented any information or any documentation as to what items are within your home? A. Not that I'm aware of. I have a television, -- Q. Do you have -- A. -- a refrigerator and -- Q. Do you have furniture in your home? A. Yeah. I have furniture, a refrigerator, stove, microwave. I have -- Q. Do you have computer equipment in your home? A. I have laptop computers in the home. Q. Do you have any personal items; jewelry, watches in your home? A. I have -– Yes, I have watches. Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 23; 25-28; 30-31 (emphasis added). Even assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Slavin's testimony had been properly oriented to the relevant time period (which it was not, in nearly all instances), his overall evidentiary presentation was simply too fragmentary to permit the undersigned to independently determine the value of his net worth——a figure derived2/ by subtracting total liabilities from total assets. For example, Dr. Slavin provided: no information concerning his annuities and mutual funds, the value of which could be non- trivial due to the remunerative nature his profession and his length of time in practice; no details regarding the value of his household assets; and no credible evidence regarding the value of his home.3/ In light of these gaping holes in the evidence, which preclude anything more than rank speculation concerning the value of Dr. Slavin's personal net worth, it is determined that status as a small business party has not been proven.4/ Because Dr. Slavin's failure to establish his status as a small business party is fatal to his application for attorney's fees, it is unnecessary to determine whether the underlying proceeding was substantially justified.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1989, Respondent filed an Order to Show Cause seeking to take disciplinary action against the certification of authority issued to Petitioner, The Administrators Corporation, and the insurance licenses issued to Petitioner, Charles N. Zalis. Petitioners timely requested a formal hearing, and the case was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained in that Order to Show Cause. Upon receipt, the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 89-5981. The final hearing in that disciplinary matter was conducted on May 14, 1990. Thereafter, a Recommended Order was entered on July 9, 1990, recommending to Respondent that a final order be entered finding Petitioners not guilty of the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause and dismissing the Order to Show Cause filed against them. None of the parties filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. On August 15, 1990, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner entered a Final Order adopting in full the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation contained within that Recommended Order; finding the Petitioners not guilty of the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause filed against them, and dismissing the Order to Show Cause. On September 21, 1990, Petitioners filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings their Petitions for Costs and Fees, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 221-6.035, Florida Administrative Code. On September 27, 1990, an Initial Order was entered in each of the above-captioned causes. The Initial Order is a form order automatically prepared by the Clerk's Office and signed by the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings in every case filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, except for those proceedings conducted on an expedited basis pursuant to statutory directives. The Initial Order advises the parties as to the name of the Hearing Officer assigned to hear the matter, provides certain procedural information, and solicits specific information from the parties so that the matter can be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing appropriately. On October 8, 1990, Respondent filed a joint Response to Initial Order on behalf of all parties, and on October 10, 1990, Respondent filed a joint Amended Response to Initial Order on behalf of all parties in this proceeding. The Amended Response to Initial Order advised that the parties had agreed that the final hearing should be scheduled for one day during the month of February, 1991, in Tallahassee. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties regarding the scheduling of the evidentiary hearing in this cause, on October 19, 1990, these causes were consolidated sua sponte, and a formal hearing was scheduled in these consolidated causes for February 14, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. No response by Respondent to either the Petition for Costs and Fees filed by The Administrators Corporation or the Petition for Costs and Fees filed by Charles N. Zalis has ever been filed in this cause even in the face of the Motion for Summary Final Order based upon Respondent's failure to respond. Accordingly, this matter is decided on the basis of the petitions filed in these consolidated causes, together with the documentation attached to those petitions, Petitioners' Motion for Summary Final Order, together with the documentation attached to that motion, and Respondent's Response to Motion for Summary Final Order. Since the Respondent has failed to controvert or dispute any of the factual allegations contained within those pleadings, there is no factual allegation in dispute in these consolidated causes. Petitioners are small business parties as defined by Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. By virtue of the Final Order entered in DOAH Case No. 89- 5981, Petitioners are prevailing small business parties in an administrative proceeding pursuant to Chapter 120 initiated by a state agency. The actions of Respondent both in initiating and in pursuing the Order to Show Cause filed in DOAH Case No. 89-5981 were substantially unjustified, and no special circumstance exists which would make unjust the award of attorney's fees and costs to Petitioners in these consolidated causes. The itemized affidavits filed in these consolidated causes reveal the nature, extent, and monetary value of the services rendered by Petitioners' attorneys, as well as the costs incurred in the underlying proceeding. Petitioners incurred attorney's fees in the amount of $49,581.25 and costs in the amount of $7,351.72 in the underlying administrative proceeding. The amounts of attorney's fees and costs claimed by Petitioners are reasonable and necessary. The Department of Insurance and Treasurer was not a nominal party only in the underlying administrative proceeding. Petitioners filed their Petitions for Costs and Fees within 60 days after the date that they became prevailing small business parties.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a "small business party" sole proprietorship domiciled in Tampa, Florida, with less than 25 employees, and a net worth of less than $2 million. The Respondent previously initiated action against Petitioner as a result of a Medicaid audit of Petitioner's pharmacy and identified an overpayment which it then sought to recover from Petitioner. A timely request for hearing was filed by Petitioner, and the matter was transmitted by the Respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned Case Number 88-1668. The final hearing was held in Tampa, Florida, on June 22, 1988, before Donald D. Conn, Hearing Officer, and thereafter a Recommended Order was filed on August 17, 1988, which recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing its action against Petitioner, refunding any funds which it had withheld, plus interest, and removing all other sanctions. The Respondent approved and adopted this recommendation in its Final Order entered on September 15, 1988, by the terms of which Petitioner prevailed in the prior action initiated by the Respondent. The Respondent was not a nominal party to the prior proceedings, and there is nothing in the record to show that the Respondent was substantially justified in bringing the prior action, or that any special circumstances exist which would make an award of fees and costs unjust. On November 2, 1988, a Petition for Costs and Attorney's Fees was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Petitioner. The Petition is accompanied by an affidavit and supporting documents which are uncontroverted, and which establish that Petitioner incurred legal fees in the amount of $14,587.50 and costs of $1,437.77, as a result of the prior proceedings in Case Number 88-1668. In the Petition for Costs and Fees, the Petitioner specifically indicated that an evidentiary hearing was not requested. No responsive pleading of any kind has been filed on behalf of the Respondent to this Petition for Costs and Fees.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner's response to Respondent's RFP 90 PY is responsive so as to be eligible for an award of "Wagner-Peyser 10% funds."
Findings Of Fact Section 7(b)(2) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. s. 49f. is a federal grant source which permits ten percent of the sums allotted by Congress to each state to be used to provide certain services and functions within the discretion of the governors of the respective states. Included among such services are job placement services for groups determined by the Governor of Florida to have special needs as set forth in Subsection 7(b)(2) of the Wagner- Peyser Act. Petitioner Goal Employment is a private-for-profit Florida corporation engaged in the business of finding gainful employment for offenders, i.e., those persons who have been convicted of a crime but who are now out of prison seeking employment. On January 26, 1990, the Respondent, Division of Labor, Employment and Training (LET) of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security (LES), published a request for proposals (RFP) soliciting competitive sealed proposals for job placement programs in accordance with Section 287.057(3) F.S. and the federal grant source, commonly referred to as "Wagner-Peyser 10% funds." The response date and time for this 1990 RFP, a/k/a RFP 90 PY, was 3:00 p.m., March 23, 1990. Petitioner, Goal Employment, filed a timely proposal with Respondent, but the agency found Goal Employment's proposal to be nonresponsive and notified Petitioner of this determination in a letter dated April 4, 1990. That letter set out the grounds of the Respondent agency's determination as follows: This nonresponsiveness is due to failure to have proposed program activities that are legal and allowable, i.e., private for profit entities are not eligible to apply for Wagner-Peyser 7(b) funds. Petitioner had 72 hours from that notification in which to protest. It has been stipulated that Goal Employment's proposal would have been found responsive but for the exclusion of private-for-profit organizations from eligibility. By letter dated April 9, 1990, Petitioner gave written notice of receipt of notification of nonresponsiveness on Saturday, April 7, 1990 "around 10:00 a.m." and of its intent to file formal written protest. Date and time of Respondent's receipt of this letter of intent are not clear, but Respondent has not asserted lack of timeliness. Interim negotiations failed, and on April 17, 1990 Petitioner timely filed a formal written protest, which was "fast-tracked" at the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.53(5) F.S. In the immediate past, the Respondent agency had, indeed, permitted contracting with private-for-profit organizations, and Petitioner corporation had been a successful bidder in Respondent's 1988 and 1989 letting of similar contracts. Therefore, Petitioner's principal and president, Ernest S. Urassa, was thoroughly familiar with how these types of contracts had been bid in the past. Mr. Urassa's familiarity with the earlier agency bid policy and procedure was also the result of his prior employment by the agency. The RFP for 1989 did not prohibit private-for- profit organizations from participating. Goal Employment's contract pursuant to that prior RFP had not been completed as of the date of formal hearing, and at all times material to the 1990 RFP which is at issue in this proceeding, Mr. Urassa and Goal Employment coordinated the 1989 contract's compliance through an agency contract manager, Dan Faughn. On November 8, 1989, before the final draft of the 1990 RFP was finalized, Mr. Faughn informed Mr. Urassa by telephone that for the next program year, that is for the 1990 RFP, the agency would no longer permit private-for-profit company participation in Wagner-Peyser contracting. In response to January 11, 1990 oral inquiries from Mr. Urassa, the Chief of Respondent's Bureau of Job Training, Shelton Kemp, sent Mr. Urassa a January 16, 1990 letter as follows: The program year 1990 Request for Proposals prohibits private-for-profit companies from participating in Wagner-Peyser 7(b) contracting. The Wagner-Peyser Act, Section 7(b)(2), allows the governor of each state to provide, "...services for groups with special needs, carried out pursuant to joint agreements between the employment service and the appropriate private industry council, and chief elected official or officials or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations,..." [Emphasis supplied] Those involved in the agency RFP process had reached the foregoing position after receiving advice from their General Counsel who, in turn, had relied on legal advice from the Governor's legal staff. Roy Chilcote, Labor Employment and Training Specialist Supervisor in Respondent's Contract Section, participated in the draft of the 1990 Project Year Request for Proposal (RFP 90 PY) which is at issue in these proceedings. Prior to drafting the 1990 RFP, Mr. Chilcote was unable to locate any written issue papers or legal opinions interpreting the following language contained in the Wagner-Peyser legislation: ...the Governor of each such State to provide-- (2) services for groups with specific needs, carried out pursuant to joint agreements between the employment service and the appropriate private industry council and chief elected officials or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations; [Emphasis supplied] Up until that time, the issue of whether private-for-profit organizations could compete had not resulted in any specific opinion from legal personnel, however it is fair to say that lay personnel of the agency, including Mr. Urassa, who had previously been employed there, had based agency policy and earlier RFP requirements on lay interpretations either of the foregoing statutory language or of the Job Training Partnership Act's (JTPA) pre-amendment language, and that the lay interpretations had always permitted private-for- profit organizations to bid for Wagner-Peyser 10% funds just as they had competed for JTPA funds. Upon his own review of the statutory language, Mr. Chilcote, also a layman, did not share his predecessor's opinion, and he requested legal advice from the agency's General Counsel, and, in turn, received the legal interpretation that private-for-profit organizations were ineligible. Mr. Chilcote received this legal advice in the fall of 1989, and he accordingly drafted the 1990 RFP to preclude private-for-profit entities as bidders for Wagner-Peyser funds. The actual language contained in the 1990 RFP published January 26, 1990, as found on page 2 thereof, is as follows: All governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations (both for profit and not for profit entities) may apply for funds under the JTPA Title I Program. All governmental agencies and not for profit nongovernmental organizations (private for profit entities are not eligible) may apply for funds under the Wagner-Peyser 7(b) program. Documen- tation supporting the legal structure of the proposer must be on file with the Bureau of Job Training before any contract resulting from a response to the RFP can be executed. [Original emphasis] Under the next major heading of the 1990 RFP (page 5 thereof), all potential bidders, including Petitioner, were advised: The Bureau of Job Training conducts a two step proposal review process. The first step is a technical review to determine if a proposal is responsive to the requirements of the RFP and the second step is a programmatic review of the relative merit of that proposal. The following is a description of the specific criteria that the Bureau will use to determine the responsiveness of a proposal. Each of the criteria listed must be satisfactorily addressed for a proposal to be determined responsive. A proposal determined nonresponsive will be given no further consideration. The proposer will be notified in writing of the nonresponsive determination and the reason(s) for the determination. No exception will be made to these requirements. Although the "specific criteria" listed thereafter do not make reference to the ineligibility of for-profit organizations, that contract specification was clearly noted and emphasized under the preceding heading. See, Finding of Fact 14, supra. Before publication of the 1990 RFP, Mr. Chilcote circulated the draft within the agency for comments. It was at this point, November 8, 1989, approximately 10 weeks before the 1990 RFP was published, that Mr. Faughn orally notified Mr. Urassa of its contents, that Mr. Faughn and Mr. Urassa began inquiries concerning the reinterpretation, and that Mr. Faughn and Mr. Urassa commented unfavorably on the new draft RFP because it precluded private-for- profit bidders. See, Finding of Fact 9, supra. The agency's position allowing Wagner-Peyser 7(b) funding for private- for-profit organizations prior to Program Year 1990 was based in part upon its earlier layman's understanding of the Congressional intent underlying the language of Section 7(b)(2). See, Findings of Fact 12-13, supra. In 1990, the agency altered its position so as to begin excluding for-profit organizations from eligibility for Wagner-Peyser money solely due to its reinterpretation of the statute by legal counsel. This reinterpretation was applied to prohibit the agency from contracting for the delivery of services with all private-for-profit organizations and has not been formally adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54 F.S. Petitioner has been aware of this reinterpretation since November 8, 1989 (actual oral notice), was notified of it in writing on January 16, 1990 (Shelton Kemp's letter), and was again notified of it in writing on January 26, 1990 (1990 RFP publication). Petitioner did not file a formal rule challenge directly with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the March 3, 1990 bid/proposal deadline, the agency held three RFP workshops: February 20, 22, and 23, 1990. At no time during this process was Petitioner led to believe that private-for-profit entities were to compete for the 1990 RFP. Nonetheless, Petitioner, a private-for-profit entity, submitted its proposal timely before the March 23, 1990 bid closing and was rejected as nonresponsive. It thereafter proceeded solely with a bid protest. See, Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 5, supra.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order ratifying its previous decision that the Respondent's 1990 bid/proposal is nonresponsive. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2667BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2, 15 Accepted. Accepted except for what is unnecessary. Accepted except for what is subordinate or cumulative. 5-6 Subordinate and cumulative. 7-10, 19 Accepted. 11-14, 16, 18 Rejected as mere legal argument. 17 Rejected as subordinate. Respondent's PFOF: 1-5 Rejected as mere legal argument. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, The Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security The Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The petition herein is brought in the name of "Silvia S. Ibanez." It prays that attorneys fees and costs be awarded pursuant to Section 57.111 F.S. to "Petitioner Ibanez . . . as the small business prevailing party in this disciplinary action and any other relief deemed appropriate," in the amounts of $11,252.73 for the services of the Holland & Knight law firm, $13,822.50 for the services of the Moore, Hill and Westmoreland law firm, and $8,563.50 for the services of Robert Shapiro, Esquire. Herein, Ms. Ibanez seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs incurred in DOAH Case No. 91-4100, styled, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy v. Silvia Ibanez. That case involved a recommended order in Ms. Ibanez' favor, a final order against her, a direct appeal to the Florida First District Court of Appeal, a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, and subsequent remand activity. That disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the agency against Ms. Ibanez, a licensed certified public accountant (CPA), alleging violation of certain Board rules, most prominently the rules which have come to be known as the "holding out" and "fraudulent advertising" rules. Ms. Ibanez was the only respondent named in the July 30, 1991 amended administrative (disciplinary) complaint, the only initiating document provided. The January 15, 1992 recommended order therein shows that Silvia Ibanez was individually charged with disciplinary violations of the certified public accountancy statute and rules for (Count I) practicing public accounting in an unlicensed firm by various personal acts; (Count II) by appending certain designations to her name; and (Count III) by practicing public accounting by holding herself out as a CPA and appending the CPA designation after her name in advertising so as to imply she abided by Chapter 473 F.S. The closest that case came to dealing with any business entity other than Silvia Ibanez individually was an inarticulate phrase drafted into paragraph eleven of Count I of the amended administrative complaint, the thrust of which complaint was to define a violation of the advertising rule. That inarticulate paragraph eleven seemed to charge Ms. Ibanez individually for failing to license her law firm, "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.", as a CPA firm. From the Order of Reconsideration dated August 22, 1991, it appears that inarticulate and convoluted paragraph eleven allegation against Ms. Ibanez individually was only intended to address Count I as already framed and was withdrawn to avoid confusing, instead of clarifying, the issues in dispute. The recommended order contains the following findings of fact and conclusions of law which are significant to this fees and costs case: Finding of Fact 9: Neither the CFP nor CPA credential is part of the firm name, "Silvia S.Ibanez, P.A.-Law Offices," which also appears on Ibanez' business card. Ibanez' telephone directory listings and card at issue show the CPA and CFP credentials strictly appended to Respondent's individual name. Findings of Fact 16: Ibanez testified credibly that her intent in appending CPA and CFP credentials solely to her own name is to indicate that she is, in her own right, individually licensed as a CPA and CFP. Conclusion of Law 9: 3/ DPR asserted that Ibanez is engaged in "practicing public accounting" as set forth in one or both of the definitions of that term contained in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Section 473.302(4) F.S. Ibanez countered to the effect that she was exempt from those statutory definitions on the basis of one or more of the three exclusions to the term "public accounting," which are set forth in Sections (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 21A- 20.011 F.A.C., and therefore, she could not be held to have violated any portion of Chapter 473 F.S. More specifically, Ibanez urged that because she is working as an attorney within a P.A. (which she asserted is an employer not required to be licensed under Chapter 473 F.S.), she falls under exception 21A-20.011(1) F.A.C. The April 23, 1992 final order of the Board and the appellate court orders in the disciplinary case did not alter the foregoing findings of fact or specifically address the foregoing conclusion of law, which does little more than recite a legal position posited by Ms. Ibanez before DOAH in the disciplinary case. At the time of the recommended order in the disciplinary case, Rule 21A-20.011(1) F.A.C. provided: "Practice of, or practicing public accountancy" as defined by Section 473.302(4) F.S., shall exclude any of the following: Services rendered by a licensee as an employee of a governmental unit or an employee rendering accounting services only to his employer as long as that employer is not required to be licensed under F.S. 473,... Ms. Ibanez' law firm was never licensed as a CPA firm, and she did not purport to be the qualifying licensee for a CPA firm. Concurrent with most of the duration of the disciplinary action, Ms. Ibanez was also pursuing a Section 120.56 F.S. rule challenge to another rule, the "holding out" rule, Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. She had initiated that challenge in her capacity as a licensed CPA. As Petitioner in that rule challenge, Ibanez et al v. Board of Accountancy et al, DOAH Case No. 3336R, Ms. Ibanez posited herself as a sole practitioner and an employee of the law firm, "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.", but the law firm was not a party to, and did not participate in, the rule challenge. "Silvia S. Ibanez, Esquire" appears on the copies list of the final order in the rule challenge. That final order declared the "holding out" rule invalid on January 15, 1992. The agency et al appealed that final order to the First District Court of Appeal, but dismissed the appeal on May 6, 1992. Any fees and costs associated with the rule challenge were disposed of in a November 23, 1992 Final Order of Dismissal entered in Silvia S. Ibanez v. Board of Accountancy DOAH Case No. 92-0427F and may not be recouped in the instant proceeding. Based on all the available evidence, 4/ the law firm of "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A." also did not participate in the disciplinary case even as a legal representative of Ms. Ibanez, the individual, until after the recommended order was entered. The rule challenge case, DOAH Case No. 91-3336R, was heard on August 1-2, 1991. The disciplinary case, DOAH Case No. 91-4100, was heard on August 27, 1991. Pursuant to a stipulation during the formal hearing of the disciplinary case on August 27, 1991, on September 20, 1991, the parties designated items to be adopted into the record of the disciplinary case from the rule challenge case. For convenience, these items were copied and filed in the disciplinary case. 5/ Because the "holding out" rule had been held invalid, the disciplinary case was considered by the hearing officer to be a case of first impression. Because the "holding out" rule had been held invalid, only the statute utilizing the term, "holding out", was applied to one count of the disciplinary case. However, the other existing rules could still be applied as plead. The January 15, 1992 recommended order in DOAH (disciplinary) Case No. 91-4100 recommended finding Ms. Ibanez was not "holding herself out as a certified public accountant", finding her not guilty of all charges alleged under Counts I through III, and dismissing all counts. Contrary to the conclusions reached in the recommended order in the disciplinary case, the Board of Accountancy's final order found and concluded that Ms. Ibanez was guilty on all three counts and should be disciplined with a reprimand. Ms. Ibanez, in her individual name, appealed that final order to the Florida First District Court of Appeal, which per curiam affirmed the Board's final order by its judgment entered June 9, 1993. The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari and, after oral argument, issued its opinion in Ms. Ibanez' favor. That appellate case was also styled in her name, individually. By a June 13, 1994 order, the Supreme Court mandated the Florida First District Court of Appeal to act in conformity with the Supreme Court opinion. The First District Court of Appeal issued its own mandate to the Board on October 5, 1994. The Board issued its final order on remand on January 31, 1995. 6/ It is undisputed that Ms. Ibanez is the prevailing party in the underlying disciplinary case, DOAH Case No. 91-4100. Her petition which initiated the present fees and cost case was filed with DOAH on February 13, 1995 and is timely under Section 57.111 F.S. and Rule 60Q-2.035 F.A.C. It did not request an evidentiary hearing. The agency's February 28, 1995 response herein was timely. It disputes whether the Petitioner is a small business party; disputes the amount, rate, and reasonableness of the attorneys' fees claimed; and asserts that the agency's actions were substantially justified at the time the underlying disciplinary case was initiated. It does not specifically request an evidentiary hearing. 7/ By the failure of both parties to request an evidentiary hearing and to respond to the notice and order to show cause entered herein on June 28, 1995, they are deemed to have waived an evidentiary hearing in this cause. Without any supporting documentation, the petition asserts standing upon the following bare allegation: 12. Ibanez meets the prevailing party provisions of F.S. Section 57.111 and is a "small business" party, with her principal place of business in Orlando Florida. Ibanez has no employees other than herself. As of the date the state agency initiated this proceeding, Ibanez was the sole shareholder of her law firm professional association ("P.A.") and the P.A.'s net worth did not exceed $2,000,000.00. The petition alleges in conclusionary terms that the agency's actions were substantially unjustified and that no circumstances exist that would make an award of attorney's fees unjust, but no reason or argument is advanced in support of the allegation. The petition claims the following amounts as fees and costs: Petitioner incurred substantial legal fees and costs at the administrative and appellate levels, as explained below: Fees & Costs Holland & Knight $11,252.73 [Exhibit "H"] Moore, Hill & Westmoreland $13,822.50 [Exhibit "I"] Robert Shapiro, Esq. $ 8,563.50 [Exhibit "J"] Even after considering financial assistance to keep the case alive, Petitioner incurred in excess of $15,000 in attorney fees and costs. (Emphasis supplied) The language just emphasized does not provide any information as to which portions of the fees and costs, if any, constituted "financial assistance to keep the case alive." 8/ Ms. Ibanez' affidavit to the effect that the participation of co- counsel was required is attached to her petition, but her affidavit does not address the reasonableness of the fees claimed by each of the named law firms. Therefore, her affidavit does not meet the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.035(3) F.A.C. "Exhibit H" of the petition addresses the $11,252.73 claimed by Ms. Ibanez on behalf of Holland and Knight. That exhibit does not include the affidavit required by Rule 60Q-2.035 (3) F.A.C. Petitioner also filed an unauthorized "Supplement to Exhibit H" on February 28, 1995. See the Preliminary Statement, above. Although such "supplements" are not authorized by statute or rule and no order permitted it, the Supplement has been considered because it was filed within the 60 days provided by statute and rule for the filing of the original petition and Respondent has not objected to it or moved to strike. Unfortunately, the Supplement also does not include an affidavit executed by any attorney with Holland and Knight. 9/ "Exhibit I" of the petition addresses the $13,822.50 claimed by Petitioner on behalf of Moore, Hill and Westmoreland. It contains an affidavit of J. Lofton Westmoreland on behalf of "Westmoreland, Hook and Bolton, P.A," which substantially complies with Rule 60Q-2.035(3) F.A.C. While it is no small matter that there is a discrepancy in the firm names cited by Petitioner and Mr. Westmoreland, Respondent agency also has not raised this as an issue. Accordingly, the undersigned, being cognizant of the frequent shift and drift of law firm names, infers that regardless of which firm Mr. Westmoreland is now associated with, his affidavit applies to this case. 10/ Therefore, Mr. Westmoreland's affidavit has been considered and found sufficient on its face. This finding does not, however, validate all of the claimed fees and costs. 11/ "Exhibit J" of the petition addresses the $8,563.50 claimed by Petitioner on behalf of Robert Shapiro, Esquire. There is nothing signed by Mr. Shapiro, let alone an affidavit that meets the requirements of the applicable statute and rule. The breakdown provided shows Mr. Shapiro's fees are based on appellate work on the disciplinary case at the United States Supreme Court level, and that he has been paid portions thereof so that the balance owed is $2,300.00. The only cost listed is $28.50 in Federal Express charges. 12/ All the fees and costs claimed herein apply to the period after the recommended order in the disciplinary case and almost all apply after the commencement of the appeal process from the final order altering that recommended order. The courts have already ordered the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy to pay Ms. Ibanez $5,028.55 for the printing of the record and $300.00 as clerk's costs. These amounts do not seem to be broken out of the petition's supporting exhibits and none of the documentation provided with the petition discusses whether or not the appellate fees and costs claimed herein could have been requested before the courts and were not requested, were requested and denied, or were not available from the courts. There is an indication that some fees and costs were requested on appeal and denied by the courts, but there is no detail as to which fees and costs were claimed at the appellate level and there is nothing to show the legal reason for denial. Consequently, it is impossible to assess from the documentation provided which fees and costs are still to be decided on remand. 13/ Because the foregoing facts are dispositive of the petition, it is unnecessary to make further findings of fact on the issue of substantial justification vel non of the agency at the time the disciplinary action was initiated.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED: The Petition for attorney's fees and costs is denied and dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1995.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On January 26, 2005, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Johnson, alleging that she violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2001), relating to the care of a patient seen in the emergency room of Highlands Regional Medical Center (Highlands) on April 16, 2000. The Administrative Complaint was based on a probable cause finding by the Board of Medicine on January 21, 2005. In determining that probable cause existed to file an administrative complaint against Johnson, the Probable Cause Panel considered the affidavit of Philip T. Nix, PA-C, MPAS, who opined that Johnson "failed to meet the standard of care by not ordering and obtaining an emergency CT scan of the brain based on the documented signs and symptoms of dizziness, neck pain, syncope, inability of patient to raise head, headache, intractable vomiting and weakness." The Probable Cause Panel also considered the affidavit of Don Harvey, M.D., which was submitted by counsel for Johnson for consideration by the Probable Cause Panel. Dr. Harvey opined that Johnson's care of the patient at issue did not fall below the standard of care required of a physician's assistant and that a CT scan of the brain was not necessarily indicated. The Probable Cause Panel did take into consideration the opinion of Dr. Harvey when they made the determination that probable cause existed to file an administrative complaint. The investigation file was submitted to the Probable Cause Panel and reviewed by the Probable Cause Panel prior to their determination of probable cause. The investigation file revealed that the patient at issue had considered the filing of a civil lawsuit against Johnson and others. Included in the investigation file were affidavits by physicians, which were taken to support the civil lawsuit. An affidavit by John L. Gentri, M.D., was in the investigation file. Dr. Gentri opined that Johnson practiced below the standard of care by her failure "to recognize the classical symptoms for intracerebral hemorrhage, failure to order any diagnostic tests, including CT Scan of the head with contrast and lumbar puncture, and failure to obtain a formal neurological consultation." The affidavit of Charles Brock, M.D., was in the investigation file. Dr. Brock also opined that Johnson practiced below the standard of care during the initial evaluation of the patient in the emergency room. Included in the investigation file was a written statement submitted by Johnson. In the statement, Johnson stated: From my review of the records, the triage nurse took a history and evaluated the patient. Initially, the patient's [sic] presented at triage at 9:58 A.M. with complaints of nausea, vomiting, dizziness and cannot raise the head. The vital signs were 150/90 blood pressure, pulse of 80, respirations of 20. I saw the patient at 10:02 A.M. and she told me she had been vomiting 2 or 3 times an hour since the night before and she had sharp intermittent abdominal pain and that she had had a fever and she had some headache on the top of her head and had questionably passed out. She had a cough, flank and back pain. I took a past medical history, the medicines she was on, and any allergies. I did a complete physical exam, I found she was alert, anxious, and moderate distress. Johnson requested an administrative hearing, and the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). The case was assigned DOAH Case No. 05-0849PL. On April 29, 2005, the Department filed Petitioner's Motion to Amend Administrative Complaint, which was granted by an Order dated May 5, 2005. The actions which were the subject of the Administrative Complaint occurred at Highlands, where Johnson was a full-time employee. The evidence neither established that at the time of the incident alleged in the Administrative Complaint that Johnson was practicing as a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business nor that she was contracting with Highlands as an independent contractor. Thus, the Administrative Complaint was brought against Johnson in her individual capacity while an employee of Highlands and not for violations that occurred while she was practicing as the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business. The final hearing in DOAH Case No. 05-0849PL was held on May 13, 2005. Johnson testified that the records that she made in the emergency room indicating that the patient had "passed out" were in error and that the patient complained of dizziness, but denied passing out. The opinion of Philip Nix, the Department's expert witness, that Johnson's care of the patient fell below the standard of care was based in part on his assumption that the patient had lost consciousness. The evidence does not establish that at the time that the Administrative Complaint was issued that the Department, the Probable Cause Panel, or Mr. Nix was aware that Johnson's notation in the medical records that the patient had passed out was in error. Based on the written statement provided by Johnson included in the investigation file, it does not appear that prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint Johnson had informed the Department or the Probable Cause Panel that the notation was in error. A Recommended Order was issued on August 17, 2005, finding that the Department failed to establish the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint. On October 18, 2005, the Department filed a Final Order in DOH Case No. 2003-02105, adopting the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained in the Recommended Order and dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Johnson. Johnson filed Respondent's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Pursuant to §57.111, Florida Statutes, on October 14, 2005. Included with the motion, was an affidavit of Johnson. Based on the affidavit filed by Johnson, the undisputed evidence establishes that at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, Johnson was "a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business which consisted of [her] own professional practice as a physician's assistant" and that her "professional practice consisted of [herself] and no other employees" and that her "professional practice did not have more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2 million, including both personal and business investments." Johnson retained Sonneborn, Rutter, Cooney & Klingensmith, P.A., to represent her in the administrative action filed by the Department. Michael S. Smith, Esquire was counsel of record for Johnson. She also retained expert witnesses to testify on her behalf at the final hearing in the administrative action. The affidavit of Michael S. Smith, Esquire was submitted with the motion for fees. Attached to his affidavit was an invoice from his law firm, which listed the hours of attorney time and paralegal time expended in defense of Johnson and a list of the costs incurred in defense of the administrative proceeding. Based on Smith's affidavit, it is undisputed that Smith is a member of the Florida Bar in good standing and has been practicing law for 19 years, during which time he prosecuted or defended civil and administrative matters concerning medical malpractice. Smith customarily charges his clients $150 per hour for the defense of administrative matters such as DOAH Case No. 05-0840PL. Based on the undisputed invoice attached to the motion for fees and costs, Johnson incurred $19,485.00 for attorney's fees and paralegal fees and $9,770.40 for costs in the defense of the Administrative Complaint filed against her in DOAH Case No. 05-0840PL. The fees and costs are reasonable and were necessary for the defense of the administrative proceeding.
