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 ultimate issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent is entitled to fees and cost pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act promulgated in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner seeks reimbursement of fees and costs paid to defend an administrative proceeding conducted by former Hearing Officer Jane Hayman in Case Number 89-3883, Division of Administrative Hearings (the "Division"). Respondent sought fines against Kehoe on the Bay, a licensed Adult Congregate Living Facility, for four alleged deficiencies determined to have existed during a follow up visit to an annual survey of the facility. The four allegations of deficiencies were: (a) one smoke detector did not work; (b) the facility had failed to document that the fire alarm system had been tested; (c) the facility failed to document that the smoke detectors had been tested; and (d) seven doors did not close properly in violation of fire safety requirements. At the outset of the formal hearing, Respondent voluntarily dismissed the allegation concerning the faulty smoke detector and proceeded on the remaining three allegations. Respondent prevailed in the Final Order with respect to two of the three allegations at issue. The Final Order reversed findings of fact in the Recommended Order with respect to two of the allegations. The Final Order found that the facility had failed to document that the smoke detectors had been tested, and that seven of the doors did not close properly. The Final Order sustained the findings in the Recommended Order that the facility had documented the testing of the fire alarm system. No penalty was imposed in the Final Order due to mitigating circumstances proved at the formal hearing. Petitioner did not appeal the Final Order, and the time for seeking judicial review of the Final Order has expired. Petitioner's fees and costs are not allocated or apportioned among the four original allegations in Case Number 89-3883. The affidavit of counsel for Petitioner contains 39 entries for fees and costs totalling $4,729.49. Additional fees in the amount of $705 and costs in the amount of $225 were incurred by Petitioner through the date of the formal hearing in this proceeding. The total amount of fees and costs stipulated to by the parties is $5,002.50. There is no evidence, however, of what proportion of those fees and costs are attributable to either the single allegation in Case Number 89-3883 with respect to which Petitioner prevailed or the allegation voluntarily dismissed by Respondent. Petitioner has 30 employees at all the five facilities owned and operated by Petitioner in Florida. Petitioner owns and operates five facilities. Two are Dade County facilities, two are Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services facilities, and one is a veteran's administration facility. Petitioner has reported no profit on his facilities for seven years. The administrative proceeding brought by Respondent in Case Number 89- 3883 had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by Respondent. That proceeding was based upon an annual survey and follow up visit conducted by one of Respondent's inspectors in the ordinary course of business, and the credibility assessment of the testimony of Respondent's inspector. Respondent's inspector had been inspecting similar facilities since 1986. Prior to that, the inspector inspected homes for the elderly in New York for approximately 23 years. The assessment of the inspector's testimony regarding the results of the annual survey and follow up visit was not so unclear that no general counsel would have prosecuted the case, and it was not unreasonable for Respondent to do so.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, as a prevailing small business party in an adjudicatory proceeding initiated by a state agency, should be awarded attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Subsection 57.111(4)(a), Florida Statutes, in these two cases.
Findings Of Fact As to Both Cases Petitioner, Larry D. Thomas, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 036360. Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. This matter was filed pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The actions in AHCA Case Nos. 1994-12341 and 1999-57795 were initiated by the Agency, an agent for the Department of Health, a state agency, and neither the Agency nor the Department of Health was a nominal party to the underlying actions. The attorney's fees sought by Petitioner are reasonable in the amount up to $15,000 for each case, and the statutory cap of $15,000 applies to each case separately. Petitioner prevailed in the underlying action, and there are no special circumstances that exist that would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust in these cases. Petitioner is a small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, because he is a sole proprietor of an unincorporated professional practice, whose principal office is in this state, who is domiciled in this state, whose professional practice is in this state, and whose professional practice had, at the time the action was initiated by the state agency, not more than 25 full-time employees or did not have a net worth of more than $2 million, including both personal and business investments. As to Case No. 02-4843F In 1994, pursuant to Section 455.225, Florida Statutes (currently renumbered as Section 456.073, Florida Statutes), Petitioner was notified of the investigation by the Agency and invited to submit a response to the allegations. Petitioner, through his attorney, submitted a detailed response to the allegations, which included an expert opinion by William Yahr, M.D., and medical literature that discussed the risks of the procedure at issue in the case. The expert opinion of Dr. Yahr stated that Petitioner did not fall below the standard of care in this case and that the patient died of a predictable complication of the procedure at issue in the case. The Administrative Complaint in the underlying case, DOAH Case No. 01-4406PL (AHCA Case No. 1994-12341), was filed on May 10, 1999, against Petitioner. The complaint alleged that Petitioner had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; by failing to treat Patient D.J.P.'s preoperative coagulopathy; and by failing to use an alternate vein that would have allowed visualization of the shunt placement, thereby reducing the risk of causing hemorrhage given the patient's preoperative history. As required by statute, the probable cause panel that considered this matter was composed of two physicians, who were or are Board of Medicine members, and a consumer member of the Board of Medicine. Present at the May 5, 1999, meeting of the South Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine (Panel) were Panel members Margaret Skinner, M.D., Chairperson of the Panel; John Glasgoe, M.D.; and Becky Tierney. Also present at the meeting were Allen R. Grossman, Acting Board Counsel; Randy Collette, Senior Attorney for the Agency; Jim Cooksey of Agency Investigations; Larry McPherson, Senior Attorney for the Agency; and Susan Drake, M.D., Medical Consultant for the Agency. Prior to the May 5, 1999, meeting, the members of the Panel received and reviewed the Agency's entire investigative file, including Petitioner's response and Dr. Yahr's opinion, and the expert opinions of Henry Black, M.D., and John Kilkenny, III, M.D. The expert opinions available to the Panel were those completed in 1997 and 1999, respectively. Dr. Black opined that Petitioner met the standard of care in the case, but admitted that he did not perform the procedure at issue in the case; Dr. Kilkenny, who did perform the procedure at issue in the case, opined that Petitioner failed to meet the standard of care in the case; and Dr. Yahr opined in 1994 that there was no evidence that Petitioner failed to meet the standard of care in the case, but did not state whether he performed the procedure at issue in the case. In addition, the Panel had access to the written response to the investigation prepared by counsel on behalf of Petitioner, which was submitted on October 13, 1994. Prior to consideration of the case, Mr. Grossman advised the Panel that any questions concerning interpretation of the law or rules, or what the Panel's duties were, should be directed to him. Mr. Grossman also advised the Panel that any questions they had regarding the materials that they received, the recommendations that had been made, or the investigation that had been conducted should be directed to Mr. Collette, as the attorney for the Agency. Mr. Collette then gave a summary of the complaint to the Panel members and recommended that an Administrative Complaint be filed in the case. The Panel discussed the complaint very briefly, asked no questions, and voted for a finding of probable cause for alleged violations of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. The record in the underlying case does not demonstrate why there was an inordinate delay between the completion of the Agency's investigation in October 1994 and the Agency's retention of Dr. Black in 1997; why Dr. Kilkenny was retained in 1999 after Dr. Black had given his opinion on August 4, 1997, that there was no deviation from the standard of care by Petitioner; nor why Dr. Yahr's opinion was not given any consideration. While Dr. Black may not have had the appropriate qualifications to render an expert opinion in the case, both Dr. Kilkenny and Dr. Yahr did have sufficient qualifications to render an expert opinion in this matter. Further, there was no assertion by the prosecuting authority that any of the fact witnesses needed to prove this case were even available after five years of delay. Nor did the counsel for the Panel bring any special attention to the Panel members in regard to the possible proof problems with this case caused by the inordinate delay in bringing the case before the Panel. Finally, no explanation has been given for the delay in forwarding the Administrative Complaint, issued on May 10, 1999, to the Division of Administrative Hearings until October 15, 2001. As to Case No. 02-4844F The Administrative Complaint in the underlying case, DOAH Case No. 01-4407PL (AHCA Case No. 1999-57795) was filed on June 13, 2001, against Petitioner. The complaint alleged that Petitioner had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; by failing to adequately monitor Patient H.H. post-operatively given Patient H.H.'s high risk for distal emboli and/or due to evidence of tissue ischemia; by failing to clamp the arteries distally prior to manipulation of the aneurysm; and/or by failing to take adequate steps to prevent emboli, such as ensuring periodic monitoring of the patient's condition post-operatively for evidence of ischemia or other problems. Pursuant to Section 455.225, Florida Statutes (now at 456.073, Florida Statutes), Petitioner was notified of the investigation by Respondent by letter dated November 12, 1999, and invited to submit a response to the allegations. Petitioner, through his attorney, submitted a detailed response to the allegations, denying that he violated the standard of care. The Investigative Report was issued on February 11, 2000. The probable cause panel that considered this matter met on June 8, 2001, and was composed of two physicians, who were or are Board of Medicine members, and a consumer member of the Board of Medicine, as required by statute. However, the consumer member of the Panel was unavailable to attend the Panel meeting that day. Present at the June 8, 2001, meeting of the Panel were Panel members Fued Ashkar, M.D., Chairperson of the Panel, and Gustavo Leon, M.D. Also present at the meeting were Lee Ann Gustafson, Acting Board Counsel, and Randy Collette, Senior Attorney for the Agency. Prior to the probable cause meeting, the members of the Panel received and reviewed what was purported to be the Agency's complete investigative file, including Petitioner's response, and the expert opinion of James Dennis, M.D. The expert opinion available to the Panel was that of James Dennis, M.D., a board-certified vascular surgeon, who performed the procedure at issue in the case. Dr. Dennis opined that Petitioner failed to meet the standard of care in the case. Prior to consideration of the case, Ms. Gustafson advised the Panel that any questions concerning interpretation of the law or rules, or what the Panel's duties were, should be directed to her. Ms. Gustafson also advised the Panel that any questions they had regarding the materials that they received, the recommendations that have been made, or the investigation that has been conducted should be direct to Mr. Collette, as the attorney for the Agency. Mr. Collette then gave a summary of the complaint to the Panel members and recommended that an Administrative Complaint be filed in the case. The Panel voted for a finding of probable cause for alleged violations of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. Following the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner timely filed a request for a formal hearing. After probable cause was found in the underlying case, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and shortly before the date of the scheduled formal hearing, the attorneys for Petitioner and Respondent discovered that Respondent's expert, Dr. Dennis had been retained by Petitioner's former attorneys, after probable cause had been found, to give an opinion on behalf of Petitioner in the underlying case. This resulted in the disqualification of Dr. Dennis' opinion. The formal hearing was continued, and Respondent retained another expert, Kenneth Begelman, M.D. He opined that Petitioner fell below the standard of care in the case, and his testimony was used at the formal hearing. No reference to the opinion of Dr. Dennis was made or used at the formal hearing. Dr. Begelman's opinion was also not available to the Panel at the time that probable cause was found against Petitioner, nor did Respondent seek to return jurisdiction to the Panel for their reconsideration. Any objection to this procedure was waived by the parties. At the formal hearing, a CT Scan of the patient in question and missing nurses' notes relating to Petitioner's postoperative monitoring were introduced into evidence. Upon review of this new evidence and under cross- examination, Respondent's expert, Dr. Begelman, could not conclusively determine whether Petitioner's surgical and post- surgical treatment of Patient H.H. fell below the standard of care. However, it is clear from the record in the underlying case that the evidence regarding Petitioner's performance of the procedure at issue in the case, as well as his postoperative care of the patient, was in dispute. The expert opinion of Dr. Dennis and Petitioner's response highlight this fact. The events involving Dr. Dennis, which occurred after the finding of probable cause by the Panel, and Respondent's subsequent use of Dr. Begelman at the formal hearing are not relevant to the determination of whether Respondent was substantially justified in finding probable cause against Petitioner in the underlying case. And, while the underlying case was ultimately resolved in Petitioner's favor, there were disputes of fact in this case and the Agency and Respondent clearly were substantially justified to go forward with the underlying action. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs, as to DOAH Case No. 02-4844F.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of reasonable costs and attorney fees pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Peggy Watkins and operates Watkins Health Care Center. The center employs under 25 employees and earns less than two million dollars in revenue. Peggy Watkins was the prevailing party in the exemption hearing, P.W. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 94-1729C, Rendition No. HRS-95-192-FOF- RCD (Fla. DHRS F.O. issued August 3, 1995), which is the action underlying the request for fees and costs in this case. The underlying exemption action in this case resulted from the Department's denial of Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification from employment in a caregiver capacity to disabled adults on February 14, 1994. The disqualifying factor used by the Department in its decision was a confirmed report of adult abuse, FPSS Number 92-021519 involving the exploitation of W.W. a disabled adult. The report stated in part: Capacity to consent: . . . W.W. does not have the capacity to consent. Findings/classification": W.W. has been living in a mobile home owned by Peggy Watkins for the past four and one half years. It is filthy, run down, and according to local realtor, Yvonne Mediate, would only be worth $150/month, if it were to be cleaned. W.W. actually pays Peggy Watkins $600/month, not including utilities, which he has to pay for separately. She also takes $200 out of his check every month prior to depositing it, and provides no receipts nor gives any explanation as to how this money is spent. Separate checks are drawn on W.W.'s account for food, gas and incidentals, etc. Out of $1,074/month he receives, he has not saved a penny in the four and a half years that Peggy has been payee on his check She provided no receipts for any of the appliances she claims to have bought him and he has no appliances either. She claims that he has sold his appliances for drugs. W.W. denies that this is so . . . , a drug screen was done and W.W.'s system was found to be free of drugs. . . . . Although W.W. complained loud and long about the misappropriation of his funds, at the begin- ning of this investigation, it wasn't long before he did a 180 degree turn about Improper management of finances: verified. . . . The evidence at the exemption hearing demonstrated that there were multiple payments for utilities throughout the course of any given month. Also the evidence at the hearing showed that the Department considered a document which purported to outline a rental/services agreement between Petitioner and W.W. The agreement indicated that Petitioner's rent included utilities and housekeeping services which appeared not to be being performed or paid out of the rent. Given these facts, there is no question that the Department acted reasonably in relying on the confirmed adult abuse report as a basis for denying the Petitioner's request for exemption. As it turned out the evidence at the exemption hearing cast serious doubt on the strength of the abuse report and it was recommended that she be granted an exemption which recommendation was adopted in the Final Order. However, those facts do not demonstrate the Department was not justified in relying on the abuse report as it was established and maintained in the Department's abuse registry in making its initial decision in that case. At the time of making its decision the Department had to decide issues of credibility and reliability in weighing whether to grant Petitioner an exemption. The Hearing Officer's determination was at odds with the determination of the Department, however, the Department's reliance on the veracity of the reports in its abuse registry was not unreasonable. Finally, the total attorney's time spent on this case based on the amendments and deletions to the attorney's affidavit made at the hearing is 97.4 hours. Given the numerous changes made to the affidavit at the hearing and the inclusion of time and work spent on behalf of Petitioner in her other cases, the evidence did not demonstrate a reliable factual basis for the amount of time spent by Petitioner's attorney relative to this proceeding. Given these facts, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of Attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact This cause originated in a disciplinary action resulting from an administrative complaint filed by the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate against the Petitioners herein, Malcolm Lewis Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. The Petitioners herein were the Respondents in the licensure disciplinary proceeding. That proceeding was resolved in their favor by the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer and by the Final Order filed April 15, 1988 by the Department of Professional Regulation. They have accordingly filed a request for attorney's fees and costs on the ground that the prosecution involved in the underlying case was not "substantially justified." The cause came on for a brief hearing. The parties elected to dispense with calling witnesses at the hearing because they entered into a factual stipulation whereby all germane facts were placed of record. It was thus established that Petitioners Malcolm Lewis Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. (hereafter Hardy) were the Respondents in a licensure disciplinary action brought against them by the above-named Respondent. That disciplinary action was resolved by Final Order filed April 15, 1988 by the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondents in that case, the Petitioners herein, were totally absolved of any wrongdoing with regard to the charges in the administrative complaint in that proceeding. A copy of that Final Order was mailed by the agency to "Diane Cleavinger, Esquire, 300 East 15th Street, Panama City, Florida 32405." Ms. Jan Nelson, a secretary at that address, and employed by Ms. Cleavinger's former law firm, received a copy of that order and executed the return receipt appearing on the envelope on April 18, 1988. Ms. Nelson was not Ms. Cleavinger's secretary, but rather the secretary of Ms. Fitzpatrick, one of Ms. Cleavinger's former law partners. In any event, Ms. Nelson executed the return receipt on April 18, 1988, but Ms. Cleavinger never received the Final Order nor notification of its filing or receipt by Ms. Nelson. Mr. Hardy never became aware of or received a copy of the Final Order either, until the agency sent another copy to him on September 12, 1988. The affidavit and request for attorney's fees was filed within sixty days of that date. Ms. Cleavinger had left her law firm on January 1, 1988 to become a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Hardy only learned of the Order when he made a direct contact with the Department of Professional Regulation and they learned that he had not received the Final Order. It was thus mailed to him on September 12, 1988 and received on September 14, 1988. That Order dismissed all claims against Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. and thus those parties are in fact "prevailing, small business parties," within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. It was stipulated at hearing, as well, that these Petitioners are small business, prevailing parties and that they incurred attorney's fees in the amount of $1,642.04 for services rendered by Ms. Cleavinger when she represented them in the underlying case-in-chief and that costs amount to $333.71. Additionally, Mr. Hardy further incurred attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $500 in connection with the pursuit of this fee claim by attorney Whitton. It was stipulated that that amount is reasonable. Additionally, the Department accepted its burden of establishing that its action was "substantially justified," within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and have stipulated that they have not done so. Thus the only issue for resolution concerns whether the claim of Hardy was time-barred.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Respondent, Department of Labor and Employment Security, is the agency responsible for carrying out the duties and responsibilities assigned by the Governor of Florida under the Job Training Partnership Act, Public Law, 97- 300, as amended. In administering the JTPA, Respondent provided Petitioner, along with others, a RFP, which among other things, solicited proposals for programs to provide training and employment for older individuals as provided for by Section 124, JTPA, Title I. Paragraphs 111(1-7) of the RFP lists the requirements that must be addressed in the proposal and be judged affirmatively by Respondent in order for the proposal to be designated responsive and subject to further review and scoring. One of the requirements is the review by, and concurrence of, the CEO prior to submitting the proposal. The purpose of requiring CEO and Private Industry Council (PIC) Concurrence Statements at time of submission is to insure that no applicant uses State approval to "arm twist" the local PIC and CEO into approval. Petitioner submitted its proposal to the appropriate PIC for review and concurrence, thinking that the CEO Concurrence Statement would be obtained by the PIC. Upon return of the proposal by the PIC, there was no executed CEO Concurrence Statement included and, upon inquiry, Petitioner was informed by Joseph M. Brannon, Executive Director, PIC, that a CEO Concurrence Statement was not required for a JTPA Title I Program. At this point, Petitioner did not inquire of Respondent as to the need for the executed CEO Concurrence Statement even though the RFP indicated that the CEO Concurrence Statement was required at the time of submission. Joseph M. Brannon is not an agent of the Respondent and had no authority to change any of Respondent's RFP requirements. Although the proposal had been reviewed by, and had the concurrence of, the local PIC, the proposal, as timely submitted by the Petitioner on February 6, 1987, did not contain the CEO Concurrence Statement. The CEO, Harry H. Waldon, did execute, after the fact, a CEO Concurrence Statement dated January 14, 1987, which is the same date of the PIC Concurrence Statement and this CEO Concurrence Statement was transmitted to the Respondent by Mr. Brannon on March 6, 1987, some sixteen (16) days after the deadline of 3:00 p.m. on February 18, 1987. The evidence is insufficient to show that the CEO reviewed and concurred in the proposal prior to submission even though he was present at the meeting when the local PIC reviewed and concurred in the proposal. Even though Thomas E. Skinner, Jr. is the Executive Director of the Private Industry Council of Service Area 6, his testimony, which I find credible, was that his staff handled these matters and he was not aware of the necessity of CEO Concurrence Statement for a JTPA, Title I program. However, on this occasion, Mr. Skinner was acting on behalf of the Petitioner and it was his responsibility to submit a proposal that was responsive to Respondent's RFP, notwithstanding the conflicting advice from Joseph Brannon concerning the executed CEO Concurrence Statement. Although Respondent, independently of the RFP, advised proposal applicants of the necessity of achieving the 75 percent of performance goals in the previous year if requesting continued funding, a requirement for responsive proposals, there was credible evidence that Respondent did not relax the necessity of timely meeting this requirement by the date of proposal submission or relax any other requirement set out in the RFP. Petitioner's proposal was rated as non-responsive by the Respondent for failure to timely submit an executed CEO Concurrence Statement. The criteria adopted by the Respondent in the RFP is in accordance with the JTPA and the Governor's goals.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order finding Petitioner's proposal as non-responsive and denying Petitioner's request for further review and scoring. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of June 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-I684BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 5-7. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as legal argument. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugo Menendez, Secretary 206 Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Thomas E. Skinner, Jr. Qualified Representative Amex Enterprises, Inc. Post Office Box 47035 Jacksonville, Florida 32247-7035 Carolyn Cummings, Esquire Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657
Findings Of Fact Bernard M. Tully, M.D. served by mail his Motion to Tax Attorney's Fees and Costs pursuant to Chapter 57, Florida Statutes, on May 19, 1987; same was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 21, 1987 and was assigned DOAH Case No. 87-2265F. This instant cause is a fee and costs case pursuant to Chapter 57, Florida Statutes, arising out of Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners v. Bernard M. Tully, M.D.; DOAH Case No. 85-3175. The Department of Professional Regulation has moved to dismiss Tully's Motion to Tax Attorney's and Costs, (hereafter, "Fees and Costs Petition") upon allegations that the claim was not filed in a timely manner pursuant to Section 57.111(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes, and upon allegations that the Fees and Costs Petition did not comply with the requirements of Section 57.111(4)(b), Florida Statutes, in that the claimant had not submitted an itemized affidavit of the nature and extent of the services rendered as well as the costs incurred. A Voluntary Dismissal was served by mail by Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation in DOAH Case No. 85-3175 on March 6, 1987, and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 10, 1987. The Order closing the Division file in that case was entered March 18, 1987, but is largely superfluous since a Voluntary Dismissal by the party bearing the burden of proof dismisses a cause by operation of law as of the date of filing of the Voluntary Dismissal. Tully's Fees and Costs Petition was served (May 19, 1987) and filed (May 21, 1987) well beyond the 60 day timeframe (May 11, 1987) provided in Section 57.111(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes, for the filing of such claims. Tully's Fees and Costs Petition attached schedules itemizing costs incurred and pleadings filed in DOAH Case No. 85-3175. The Petition was not verified and no affidavits are attached. In these respects, the Fees and Costs Petition failed to comply with Section 57.111(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.35, Florida Administrative Code. Neither does the Fees and Costs Petition or any accompanying affidavit allege whether or not Tully requests an evidentiary hearing; that he is a small business party; where his domicile and principal office are located; how many employees he has; whether or not he is a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, and, if so, whether or not his net worth exceeds $2,000,000; whether or not he operates as a partnership or corporation i.e. professional practice, and, if so, whether or not the net worth exceeds $2,000,000; whether the agency's actions were substantially unjustified; and whether or not circumstances exist that would make the award unjust; or whether or not the agency was a nominal party only. There were also no documents upon which the claim was predicated attached to the Fees and Costs Petition. in these respects, the Petition failed to comply with virtually all of Section 57.111(4)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035(1)(2), and (3), Florida Administrative Code. Tully timely filed a Response to Order to Show Cause wherein he acknowledged as true and accurate the dates as found in Finding of Fact 4, supra. Moreover, his Response concedes that pursuant to Section 57.111(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes, the application for an award of attorney's fees must be made within 60 days after the date that a small business party becomes a prevailing small business party, but his Response asserts that nothing in the applicable statute provides that an application for costs must be made within 60 days, and therefore at least his application for costs must be deemed timely. The Response further sets out an itemization of costs incurred and is sworn to by Tully's attorney of record. No leave to amend the Petition was granted by the Order to Show Cause.
The Issue The issues remaining to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the above-named Petitioner is a "small business party" as described in Section 57.111(3)(d)1.a. b. and c., Florida Statutes (2007); whether the action of the above-named Agency in the underlying case was substantially justified in law and fact and whether an award of attorney's fees and costs would be unjust.
Findings Of Fact In the instant case the Respondent Agency (Department) does not dispute the amount of attorney's fees and costs sought in this proceeding and does not contest that the Petitioner is a prevailing party. Moreover, the Department admits that it was a real party in interest in the underlying proceeding involving the Administrative Complaint and was not merely a nominal party. The parties also waived an evidentiary hearing in this attorney fee proceeding. The parties, rather, submitted memoranda and affidavits in support of their respective positions. The present Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs is based upon the above-referenced Administrative Complaint action brought against Wittmer and JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., by the Department, which came before the Division of Administrative Hearings by a request for formal hearing filed by Wittmer. Prior to filing that Administrative Complaint the Department performed an investigation related to the Complaint which had been filed by Kenneth Hatin of Palm Coast, Florida, against Wittmer. The Complaint by Hatin alleged that on August 10, 2005, he and Wittmer had entered into a contract for the building of an addition to the complainant's home in Palm Coast, Florida. Hatin had alleged and testified at hearing that Wittmer was unlicensed to perform the work under the contract and had been paid in excess of $30,000.00 for the project. Hatin maintained that Wittmer had abandoned the job before completion and that he had to hire another person or entity to complete the work, at further expense. The Department considered the results of its investigation, in the form of an investigative report, and considered the investigative file it had developed concerning Hatin's complaint. This included the original contract on JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc.'s, stationary, signed by Wittmer, as well as copies of original checks amounting to approximately $30,000.00 written to Wittmer and/or his company or business. It also considered a copy of the local licensing records concerning Wittmer, revealing an expired occupational license, as well as records of the Department showing that Wittmer was unlicensed as any sort of contractor in the State of Florida. The Department also considered various invoices and receipts regarding the work contracted by complainant Hatin with another person or entity, to finish the job purportedly abandoned by Wittmer. During the investigation, the complainant and the complainant's fiancée were interviewed and made no mention of any familial relationship or friendship relationship between Wittmer and the complainant and his family members at the time of the investigation. Wittmer himself was interviewed by the investigator and did not mention any familial or personal relationship he had with the complainant or the complainant's family. The familial or friendship relationship between Wittmer and the complainant and the complainant's family only arose through the evidence adduced at the hearing. That evidence became a significant portion of the reason for the Findings of Fact and Conclusions which resulted in the Complaint against Wittmer being ultimately dismissed. JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., was dissolved by the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Corporations on September 16, 2005, for failure to file required annual reports or Uniform Business Report. This fact was confirmed by Wittmer's affidavit submitted on January 18, 2008, in this proceeding, attesting that his corporation was dissolved and that it ceased business due to "financial hardship of the business." As a result of the hearing it was determined in the Recommended Order (with Findings of Fact adopted in the Final Order) that Wittmer performed work on the subject construction project without making any profit. It was performed, in essence, as a cooperative project between family and friends of Wittmer, in the sense that Wittmer's fiancée was related to the complaining witness's family and/or they were close friends. The circumstances established by preponderant evidence did not show that Wittmer was actually performing contracting, as defined in the above-referenced statutory authority underlying the charges in the Administrative Complaint. It was also determined, based upon the preponderant evidence at that hearing, that Wittmer made no profit on the project after paying all the subcontractors. The Department, in essence, adopted the Recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (with non-dispositive modifications of several Conclusions of Law) and entered a Final Order dismissing the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The subject Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs was thereafter filed and this case ensued. The Department proceeded against Wittmer by naming as Respondents, in the underlying, case JR Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., which corporation had actually already been dissolved at the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint. It also named in that Complaint, and proceeded against, Willis Wittmer, Jr., personally. The Petitioners herein have established that Wittmer never had more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth in excess of two million dollars, whether functioning as JR Wittmer, Jr., an individual or as JR Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc. The Petitioner has also established that the construction contract at issue in the underlying case was entered into by the Petitioner herein under the name "JR Wittmer's Remodeling" and not "JR Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc." Moreover, that contact was not signed by Mr. Wittmer as president of JR Wittmer Remodeling, Inc. Aside from the fact that the Department filed the original Administrative Complaint against JR Wittmer Remodeling, Inc., it also named JR Wittmer individually as a Respondent in that Administrative Complaint, so he had defend against the action personally, regardless of the question of whether the corporation was in legal existence at the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint. The evidence, as referenced above, shows that he met the requirements of having less than 25 full- time employees and a net worth of less than two million dollars. Thus, the totality of the evidence shows that Mr. Wittmer has standing, as the sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, to pursue the subject attorney's fee claim as a sole proprietor, even if not as a corporation or the president of the originally named, but now dissolved corporation. The Petitioner contends that the Department should have recognized the lack of a factual basis for the Administrative Complaint and, before finding probable cause, should have been able to determine that the construction arrangement between Wittmer and Hatin did not meet the legal definition of contracting or contracting services based upon the familial/friendship relationship of the protagonists. The Department, however, conducted a reasonable investigation and has been shown to have had a reasonable basis to determine, before hearing, that contracting and contracting services had been, in a legal sense, performed by Wittmer, based upon the results of its investigation (interviews, etc.). This is especially the case since Wittmer himself, when interviewed, had not revealed such exculpatory facts to the Department.
