The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner Michael A. Crane, d/b/a Accent Builders of Florida, Inc., is entitled to an award of attorney's fees against Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reimbursement of Attorney's Fees and Costs. Petitioner seeks reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs incurred in DOAH Case No. 04-4040PL, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is the prevailing party in the underlying proceeding, DOAH Case No. 04-4040PL. On September 23, 2005, the Construction Industry Licensing Board entered its Final Order in the underlying case, in which it adopted the Recommended Order entered in the DOAH proceeding, thereby dismissing the charges that Petitioner had violated certain provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In the underlying proceeding, Respondent charged Michael A. Crane with violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, in his capacity as a certified general contractor holding Florida license No. CGC8644. Petitioner had entered into the contract which gave rise to the underlying proceeding as Accent Builders of Florida, Inc. (Accent). Respondent's disciplinary action was not directed at Accent Builders of Florida, Inc., but at Petitioner as the qualifying agent for the company. Petitioner is not a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business. Petitioner is neither a partnership nor a corporation. Petitioner does business in Florida as Accent, but at the time the underlying proceeding was initiated, Petitioner had not applied for and been granted a certificate of authority for Accent through himself as the qualifying agent. In September 2004, while the underlying proceeding was pending, Petitioner applied for and was granted a certificate of authority for Accent with Michael A. Crane as the qualifying agent. Despite the fact that Petitioner was granted a certificate of authority for Accent, the underlying proceeding was brought against the certified general contractor, Michael A. Crane, not against Accent as a corporate entity. In order to determine whether the underlying action brought by Respondent against Petitioner was substantially justified at the time it was initiated by the Agency, the information that was before the probable cause panel that directed the filing of the Administrative Complaint must be examined. In the underlying matter giving rise to Petitioner's request for attorney's fees, the Probable Cause Panel had before it a 188-page Investigative Report, as well as three supplemental Investigative Reports related to the alleged defects in the construction performed by Petitioner. The Probable Cause Panel convened on April 27, 2004, at which time it made a finding of probable cause that Petitioner had violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)1., (i), (k), and (m), Florida Statutes. The panel members reported that they had reviewed the investigative reports and draft complaints, and were advised by a member of the Attorney General's staff regarding their responsibilities in determining whether probable cause existed to file an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. The consumer complaint accompanying the Investigative Report alleged that the contractor did not properly supervise the project; that the construction has resulted in numerous leaks; that the steam shower was not installed as required by the manufacturer; that the decking was not installed according to the manufacturer's instructions; and that most of the punch list items had been left unaddressed. The Investigative Report also contained Petitioner's response, which stated that Petitioner was precluded from correcting the deficiencies by the consumer, and that, although responsive to the consumer regarding the leaks, Petitioner saw no damage as a result of the leaks. The Investigative Report contained numerous documents describing the efforts of contractors hired by the consumer to remedy the leaks and alleged defects in construction. The report also included documentation of payments made by the consumer to the various contractors called in to eliminate the problems the consumer was experiencing. The Probable Cause Panel's review of the materials before it resulted in a determination that a reasonable investigation had been conducted, and that a reasonable person could conclude that sufficient evidence existed to charge Petitioner with violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. At the time the Probable Cause Panel reviewed the Investigative Report, it appeared that Petitioner's work had resulted in water damage, and that a valid subcontractor's lien had been placed against the consumer's property resulting in financial harm. The Probable Cause Panel's determination to direct Respondent to file an Administrative Complaint had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was made. Respondent was not a "nominal party" to the underlying proceeding according to the meaning of that term in Subsection 57.111(4)(d)1., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Raul Romaguera, is a small business party within the meaning of Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1985). When the underlying action herein occurred, he was licensed as a medical doctor by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners (Board). On October 27, 1986, respondent filed an administrative complaint against Dr. Romaguera alleging that he had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1985), by committing gross malpractice or 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. The alleged violation related to Dr. Romaguera's inspection and diagnosis of a patient's tissue in December, 1980 while supervising a pathology department at a Lake Worth hospital. After an evidentiary hearing was conducted on March 24 and 25, 1987, a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned on May 12, 1987, finding that the charge was unsubstantiated and recommending that the complaint be dismissed. The Recommended Order was adopted by the Board in its entirety by Final Order dated June 19, 1987. A timely petition for attorney's fees and costs was thereafter filed by petitioner on August 18, 1987. The parties have stipulated that, as a result of the Board's Final Order, Dr. Romaguera is a prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (1985). They have also stipulated that, in order to defend against the agency's action, Dr. Romaguera incurred at least $15,000 in attorney's fees and costs. There is no evidence as to what information, oral or written, the probable cause panel had before it when voting to initiate this action. The agency does stipulate that, at some point in the probable cause phase of the proceeding, the panel requested more information on the matter before taking a vote. This is corroborated by an agency memorandum dated April 8, 1986 and introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 1. At the final hearing on the merits of the administrative complaint, the agency presented a number of expert witnesses who concurred in the Board's assessment that Dr. Romaguera had failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment required of a reasonably prudent similar practicing physician in the Lake Worth area. Doctor Romaguera also presented the testimony of an expert who disagreed with this assessment. Hence, the validity of the charges turned on the credibility and weight to be given the various experts by the undersigned.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner Robert R. Hambley is entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This case arises in the wake of Robert R. Hambley v. Department of Professional Regulation, DOAH Case No. 88-4788, for formal administrative proceeding stemming from a complaint filed against Petitioner on September 28, 1987. On July 5, 1989, the undersigned Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order imposing an administrative fine against the Petitioner in the amount of $1,000.00 and placing the Petitioner's license on probation for a period of one (1) year. Petitioner did not file exceptions to the subject recommended order. On August 22, 1989, the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, rejected the proposed order and revoked the Respondent's license. Thereafter, Petitioner retained the services of the law firm of LARSON, CONKLIN, STANLEY, PROBST & BOBENHAUSEN, P.A. to represent him, which attorney's filed an appeal in the Second District Court of Appeal contesting the Division of Real Estate's Final Order, specifically the aggravation of the penalty, to wit, revocation of Petitioner's license. In connection with Petitioner's legal representation, he incurred reasonable costs and fees in the amount of $504.49 and $3,393.00, respectively. On October 5, 1990, the Second District Court of Appeal entered its order affirming the findings as found by Recommended Order, but reversed and remanded for implementation of the recommended penalty of $1000.00 and rejecting the recommended penalty of probation, since that was not an authorized penalty at the time of the hearing. The basis of the Court's decision is that Respondent failed to adequately comply with Section 120.57(1)(b)(10), Florida Statutes, in order to properly increase the severity of the recommended penalty. See Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So.2d 113, (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), affirmed 531 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1988). Thereafter, on October 10, 1990, the Respondent filed a motion for rehearing which motion was denied on November 1, 1990. On November 11, 1990, a Mandate issued from the Second District Court of Appeal and Petitioner's license was reinstated on November 21, 1990, with Respondent issuing a Final Order rescinding its prior order of August 15, 1989, and by issuing a supplemental Final Order on December 4, 1990. That December 4, 1990, order implemented the recommended penalty with the exception of probation which was not statutorily authorized. The Administrative Complaint which was filed jointly against Petitioner was a six count administrative complaint and the entity through which he dealt, Real Pro Associates, Inc. Petitioner was found guilty of participating in five transactions which conduct amounted to proscribed conduct within the purview of Subsection 475.25(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by paying real estate commissions totaling over $28,500.00 to Paul George, an unlicensed person. Petitioner was also found guilty of culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for having failed to inform or otherwise disclose to Stewart Fidelity Title Company, the company which handled the closing for the transactions, that the stated escrow deposits were never placed in an escrow account as represented in the contracts for sale and purchase which would alert the lender that the purported purchaser had a "no equity" position in the purchases. Petitioner was, via Recommended Order, required to pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 within thirty (30) days of the entry of the Final Order. Petitioner was found guilty of all violations for which he was cited in the Administrative Complaint filed by Respondent and a monetary penalty was imposed. Respondent was substantially justified in asserting that the Petitioner was in violation of the real estate licensing law when it issued the subject complaint. That proceeding was premised on a reasonable basis in law and fact when it was initiated. See Miller v. Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, DOAH Case No. 89-5042F, 12 FALR 2312, 2314 filed 5/16/90. The Florida Real Estate Commission enhanced the penalty to recommendations which were within the parameters set forth in the disciplinary guidelines of the Florida Real Estate Commission as provided for by Rule Sections 21V-24.001(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. The rule sections provided that the Petitioner Hambley could have been fined, for such violations, up to $1,000.00 per count and may have had all his licenses, registrations, certifications and permits penalized as follows: (h) 475.25(1)(b) - Up to 5 years suspension or revocation. [Emphasis supplied] (n) 475.25(1)(h) - Up to 2 years suspension. Petitioner has not demonstrated that it was a prevailing small business party under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Moreover, the actions of the Florida Division of Real Estate were substantially justified as defined by Subsection 57.111(3)(e), Florida Statutes. This is borne out by the findings as found by the undersigned Hearing Officer, which provides both a reasonable basis in law and fact as well as substantial justification of the administrative action when it was initiated. Particularly, the complaint against Petitioner was reviewed by a probable cause panel on September 15, 1987. That material which was reviewed by the panel included an investigative report and documentary evidence, all of which was presented to the panel and ultimately to the undersigned Hearing Officer. Appended to the investigative report was some 30 pages of exhibits which provided an adequate basis to support the charges of culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Effective July 1, 1997, the Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine through the Board of Medicine ("Board"). Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.43(3), Florida Statutes, the Department has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Board of Medicine. Dr. Carida is, and was at all times material to this action, licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 0019622. Since January 1, 1996, Dr. Carida has practiced medicine as an employee of D.R.C. & Associates, Inc. ("D.R.C."), and he is paid an hourly wage by the company. D.R.C. is a medical management company owned by Diane Carida, Dr. Carida's daughter, who is the company's president. D.R.C. is not a professional association, and Dr. Carida has no ownership interest in the corporation. In November 1998, Dr. Carida was the only doctor employed by D.R.C.; the company's only other employees were an echo technician, a billing clerk, and a phlebotomist who also acted as Dr. Carida's medical assistant. In November 1998, the company's net worth was approximately $10,000.00. On October 30, 1998, the Board's Probable Cause Panel considered the results of an investigation into a complaint filed against Dr. Carida by the family of patient J.M. In accordance with its contract with the Department, the investigation was conducted by AHCA, and an attorney employed by AHCA presented the case against Dr. Carida to the Probable Cause Panel. The investigative file included the medical records of patient J.M. and the report of Leonard S. Williams, M.D., a physician employed by AHCA to render an expert opinion regarding Dr. Carida's care and treatment of the patient. AHCA's attorney also presented to the Probable Cause Panel a draft administrative complaint outlining the proposed charges against Dr. Carida, and AHCA's attorney recommended to the panel that the penalty of license revocation or suspension be sought as the maximum penalty against Dr. Carida. In his report, Dr. Williams presented a summary of the medical records he had reviewed and his conclusions regarding Dr. Carida's care and treatment of patient J.M. Dr. Williams stated in the report that it was his opinion that Dr. Carida had failed to meet the applicable standard of care in his care and treatment of patient J.M. and that the medical records maintained by Dr. Carida failed to document accurately and completely his care and treatment of the patient. Two members of the Probable Cause Panel, a physician and a lay member of the Board, were present and voting at the October 30, 1998, meeting. The Probable Cause Panel was represented by an attorney employed by the Florida Attorney General. Both members of the Probable Cause Panel present at the October 98, 2000, meeting acknowledged receiving the investigative file on Dr. Carida prior to the meeting, and both determined that probable cause existed to support AHCA's charges against Dr. Carida. On November 2, 1998, as a result of the decision of the Probable Cause Panel, AHCA served on Dr. Carida a two-count Administrative Complaint charging that, with respect to patient J.M., he had practiced medicine below an acceptable standard of care and that he had failed to maintain adequate written medical records relating to his care and treatment of the patient. Dr. Carida disputed the facts asserted in the Administrative Complaint, and AHCA sent the file to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law judge. A formal hearing was held, and a Recommended Order was entered, in which it was concluded, first, that AHCA had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Carida practiced medicine below an acceptable standard of care with respect to the care and treatment of patient J.M. and, second, that AHCA had met its burden of proving that Dr. Carida failed to maintain adequate medical records regarding the care and treatment he provided to patient J.M. The Recommended Order was forwarded to the Board for final agency action, and, in its Final Order, the Board dismissed the charge that Dr. Carida practiced medicine below an acceptable standard of care and concluded that Dr. Carida was guilty of the charge that he had failed to maintain adequate written medical records related to patient J.M. On the basis of this violation, the Board imposed an administrative fine on Dr. Carida in the amount of $250.00 and required that he attend an approved course on proper maintenance of medical records. The evidence presented by Dr. Carida is sufficient to establish that he was the prevailing party in the proceeding styled Department of Health, Board of Medicine v. Robert V. Carida, M.D., DOAH Case No. 99-2997, DOH Case No. 95-03135. The more serious charge brought against Dr. Carida in the Administrative Complaint was that he had practiced medicine below an acceptable standard of care, and AHCA contended before the Probable Cause Panel that the appropriate penalty to be imposed against Dr. Carida for this violation was the revocation or suspension of his license. This charge against Dr. Carida was, however, dismissed by the Board in its Final Order, and Dr. Carida was found guilty only of having failed to keep adequate medical records. The penalty imposed on Dr. Carida in the Board's Final Order for this violation clearly indicates that the Board considered the medical records charge to be a minor one. The evidence presented by Dr. Carida is not, however, sufficient to establish that he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs as a small business party. Rather, at the time the action against Dr. Carida was initiated, he was an employee of a medical management corporation, which was not a party to the disciplinary proceeding.
Findings Of Fact On January 16, 1987, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services notified J. S. By letter that it had received a report of neglect regarding him and advised him of his right to request the report be amended or expunged. J. S. did so but on February 26, 1987, the Department advised him his request for expungement had been denied. Thereafter, J. S. requested a formal hearing which was held by the undersigned on October 27, 1987. After a full, formal hearing on the merits, at which both testimony and documentary exhibits were presented by both parties, the undersigned, on December 1, 1987, entered a Recommended Order in which it was found, as a matter of fact, that while the alleged victim of the neglect was incapable of totally caring for himself, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the relationship between the victim and J. S. was a care-giving one or that J. S. had the responsibility to look out for the victim so as to bring him within the purview of the statute. The Department thereafter entered a Final Order consistent with the Recommended Order, amending the classification of the report to "unfounded" and expunging it from the Department records. Evidence introduced at the original formal hearing held herein established that J. S. was an employee, (resident manager) at the Royal Palm Retirement Home in Ft. Myers, Florida. He was not the owner of the facility nor was any evidence introduced to indicate he had any financial interest, other than as an employee, in the facility. Further, he was not engaging in the professional practice of a licensed profession. His relationship with the alleged victim was found to be no more than that of landlord-tenant. The Department's investigation of the alleged neglect, while not completely comprehensive, nonetheless was sufficiently thorough to meet the test of reasonableness.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein the Division of Real Estate was the state agency responsible for the licensing of real estate sales persons and brokers and the regulation of the real estate profession in Florida. Respondent, Diana C. Verdi, was licensed as a real estate salesperson under license number 0545114, and Respondent, Realtec Group, Inc., was licensed as a real estate broker under license number 0273784. Respondent, Verdi, was employed by Respondent, Realtec, at its office at 3474 Tampa Road, Palm Harbor, Florida. On October 23, 1993, Respondent Verdi, while working for Respondent, Realtec, solicited and obtained an offer from James and Maureen Herhold, to purchase residential property owned by J. and K. Griffin. The contract called for the placement of a $50,000 non-refundable deposit with Realtec, and allowed the Herholds to move in on October 30, 1993, with closing to be held on November 30, 1993. The contract also provided that once the Herholds moved into the house, the Griffins would no longer be responsible for any repairs or maintenance needed by the property. Prior to moving in, the Herholds requested that Respondent, Verdi, obtain for them a seller's disclosure statement which would list any material defects in the property known to the sellers. In that regard, the Griffins' listing agent, Marta Shank, had previously requested they prepare such a statement. The statement was prepared on August 20, 1993, and reflected that the only known defect was a shower leak which had purportedly been fixed and a shower wall which had purportedly been replaced. Notwithstanding the Herholds repeatedly requested the disclosure statement from Respondent, Verdi, and notwithstanding such a statement had been prepared by the Griffins, the statement was not furnished to Respondent, Verdi, by Ms. Shank and, thereafter, to the Herholds until after they moved into the property. Consistent with the terms of the contract, the Herholds were required to pay for the repairs to the shower and shower wall which, it appears, were not properly repaired prior to their move into the property. At closing the Herholds requested the Griffins reimburse them for the cost of the repairs, which was not done. In the interim, however, and before the Herholds moved into the property, Respondent, Verdi, as was her custom in all residential sales, insisted that the Herholds obtain an independent inspection of the home. Mr. Herhold admits she did this. She claims she would not sell a home without this being done. This inspection, conducted by an inspector of the Herholds' choosing, failed to disclose any defect in the shower or shower wall. Respondent, Verdi, also suggested that since her repeated efforts to obtain the disclosure statement were unsuccessful, Mr. Herhold contact the Griffins or their agent directly. She also suggested to him that if he were not satisfied with the condition of the house, or if he had any qualms about moving in without the disclosure statement, he should not move in until he received it. This was verified by Ms. Kissner. Herhold elected not to do this, however, because he feared he might lose his deposit. Respondent, Verdi, represents herself as being an experienced and successful real estate salesperson, and there appears little reason to doubt that representation. She contends that though she never went to Shank's office to pick one up, she repeatedly asked Ms. Shank, the selling agent, for a disclosure statement as she always does, and her testimony in this regard is supported by that of both Ms. Kissner and Mr. Scarati. Both repeatedly tried to contact the selling office to obtain a disclosure statement but their calls were either nonproductive or not returned. There is some indication that when Ms. Verdi asked Ms. Shank for a disclosure statement, she was told that none existed. After the closing, when Mr. Herhold was unable to obtain a reimbursement from the Griffins for the cost of repairs, he filed suit against Realtec, Verdi, Shank and her agency, Coldwell Banker and his own inspection service. He admits that, at court, when he was asked by the judge who he believed was responsible, he did not know. He sued Verdi because he had asked her for a disclosure statement which she did not give him. He claims the sale was not an "as is" sale. At hearing, he was awarded $835.20 plus costs against Verdi and Realtec. She did not pay right away and sought the advice of counsel. When Herhold found she was listing her own home for sale, he filed a lien against it. As a result of that action, because she determined that fighting the lien would cost more than the amount involved, she paid the judgement even though she believed the judgement to be in error. Realtec paid nothing. No evidence was presented as to exactly when the judgement was satisfied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter against Respondents Diana C. Verdi and Realtec Group, Inc., t/a Re/Max Realtec Group, be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 6th day of September, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Villazon, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street, N-308 Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Diana C. Verdi 2474 Tampa Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Realtec Group, Inc. percentRe/Max Realtec Group 3474 Tampa Road Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Aaron Cox d/b/a Cox Construction, Inc., is a Florida corporation organized for profit. It is owned by Petitioner, Aaron Cox. Petitioner constitutes a “small business party” within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. On April 22, 2008, Jason Brown, a Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department or DBPR) investigator, observed Cox and workers for Cox performing work on a roof that appeared to require a roofing contractor's license. Petitioner was doing framing work which did not require a license and removed some of the roof related to the framing work. Petitioner did not have a roofing contractor’s license. On June 20, 2008, Robert Marnick, another DBPR investigator taking over the case, issued Cox a “Uniform Disciplinary Citation – Unlicensed” pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-32.003. The citation stated that Marnick had probable cause to believe that Cox had violated Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and sought a penalty of $2,500.00. Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes, provides that no person shall “engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor or advertise himself or herself or a business organization . . . without being duly registered or certified or having a certificate of authority.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-32.003, provides that citations imposing designated fines may be issued to unlicensed persons for violations under the following conditions: “1) there has been no prior citation, final order or Notice and Order to Cease and Desist to the subject; 2) there is no evidence of consumer harm in the current case; and 3) the subject has not previously held a license to practice the activity at issue.” Rule 61-32.003(4) also provides that citations for unlicensed practice of a profession shall include a statement that, in lieu of the citation, the subject may choose the administrative procedures in Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The citation issued to Petitioner, however, contained the following statement: SUBJECT MUST CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: I choose to PAY the penalty/investigative costs (if any) on the citation. I choose to DISPUTE the citation and wish to have this case PROSECUTED under s. 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Citation had attached to it a form entitled "Legal Rights and Mailing Instructions." The form included the following information with respect to disputing the basis for the citation: The legal options available to you after you have been issued a citation are as follows: You may DISPUTE the facts alleged in the citation and elect to have the case formally prosecuted. In that case, you must check the appropriate box and return the original or a copy of the citation within 30 days of the date you were served. An Administrative Complaint will be filed thereafter and served upon you. If the Department prevails at the hearing, you may be required to pay a fine and any additional investigative or administrative costs associated with prosecution. Prosecution will be in accordance with Chapters 455 and 120, Florida Statutes, and the practice act governing the profession. . . . Petitioner disputed the citation on July 17, 2008, and Respondent began an investigation into the matter as required by Section 455.225(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was notified of the investigation by letter dated August 28, 2008. Pursuant to Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, a determination of probable cause shall be made by a majority of the probable cause panel, or by the Department, as appropriate. For unlicensed activity the probable cause determination is made by the Department. If probable cause exists, the statute directs that the Department will file a formal complaint against the licensee. Section 455.225(5), Florida Statutes, provides that a formal hearing will then be held before an administrative law judge from the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Chapter 120 if disputed issues of material fact arise after the Department files an administrative complaint. The Department attorney assigned to review the case determined that there was no probable cause to find a violation based on insufficient evidence. The case was closed and the Petitioner was notified. However, the notification letter sent to Petitioner does not specifically make any reference to the term "probable cause." Once notified, the Petitioner served his Request for Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. No administrative complaint was ever filed by the Department. No complaint was ever filed in circuit court. No notice of voluntary dismissal was filed. No settlement took place between the parties.
The Issue Whether Petitioners are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The following facts are taken verbatim from the parties' Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation (JPS): On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Vipul Patel's Petition for Variance from or Waiver of Rule 64B16-26.2031, F.A.C. (hereinafter Petition for Variance). On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Se Young Yoon's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Miriam L. Hernandez's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Mirley Aleman- Alejo's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied John H. Neamatalla's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Md. A. Samad Mridha's Petition for Variance. On or about April 8, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Valliammai Natarajan's Petition for Variance. For convenience sake, the foregoing-named Petitioners are referred to as "Group 1." Petitioners' "Group 2" are identified in paragraphs 38 through 41 of the JPS: On or about June 10, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Saurin Modi's Petition for Variance. On or about June 10, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Deepakkumar Shah's Petition for Variance. On or about June 10, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Ravichandran Sokkan's Petition for Variance. On or about June 10, 2008, at a regularly scheduled Board of Pharmacy meeting, Respondent denied Mijeong Chang's Petition for Variance. Respondent issued orders denying the Petitions for Variance for Group 1 Petitioners on or about May 9, 2008. Respondent issued orders denying the Petitions for Variance for Group 2 Petitioners on or about July 3, 2008. Subsequent to the entry of the orders denying their variances, each of Group 1 Petitioners retained counsel and filed petitions to challenge the denial of their variances. Subsequent to the entry of the orders denying their variances, each of Group 2 Petitioners retained counsel and filed petitions to challenge the denial of their variances. All petitions were filed within 21 days of the entry of the orders that denied the variance. Respondent did not dispute the timeliness of the petitions, but took no action on the petitions. Instead, on or about August 21, 2008, Respondent reconsidered the petitions for variance, and granted all of the Petitioners' requests. Respondent did not take action on the requests to challenge the original variance denials, did not refer the cases for formal proceedings, and did not re-visit Petitioners' claims until August 21, 2008. On or about September 5, 2008, Respondent entered orders granting Petitioners' variances. Group 1 Petitioners waited approximately five months to obtain approval of their variances. In the meanwhile, they had retained counsel and filed petitions to challenge the denials. Group 2 Petitioners waited approximately three months for their variances to be approved. They, too, retained counsel to protect their rights. In October 2008, Petitioners filed Petitions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs with Respondent. Respondent did not grant, deny, or refer those petitions to DOAH. On or about November 24, 2008, Petitioners filed a Verified Writ of Mandamus, in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Court, Seminole County, Florida, requesting that the court require Respondent to either grant or deny the petitions for attorneys' fees and costs. On or about December 2, 2008, Petitioners served on Rebecca Poston, executive director of the Board of Pharmacy, a summons with petition for writ of mandamus. On or about February 16, 2009, Petitioners filed a Motion for Entry of Clerk's Default for Failure of Respondent to file a Response to the writ. The case was transferred to the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida. On or about June 4, 2010, the Second Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida, issued an Order to Show Cause on Respondent. Ultimately, the court denied the writ and dismissed the Order to Show Cause. Petitioners then filed Petitions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs with DOAH and the cases were consolidated for hearing. The parties agreed to bifurcate the issues and resolve the issue of whether Petitioners are entitled to attorneys' fees and costs, before addressing the remaining question of the amount of fees and costs, if appropriate to award them. Petitioners were the prevailing parties in the underlying matter, since the variances were granted. On August 1, 2008, Respondent issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Development for Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. On August 1, 2008, A Notice of Proposed Rule for rule 64B16-26.2031 was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly. On August 13, 2008, approximately eight days before the variances were approved, Respondent decided to amend rule 64B16-26.2031. Implicit in this amendment, is the concession that the former version of the rule exceeded Respondent's statutory authority. Respondent approved the amended rule 64B16-26.2031, on or about June 10, 2009. Petitioners maintain that Respondent acted with an improper purpose when it denied Petitioners' initial applications and subsequent petitions for variance. Petitioners assert that Respondent caused undue delay, by failing to timely grant or deny Petitioners' petitions to challenge the variance denials, and that Respondent's failure to grant, deny, or forward the petitions to DOAH, was an abuse of the agency's discretion. Further, Petitioners claim that Respondent should have acted on the petitions for attorneys' fees and costs, or referred them to DOAH. Respondent maintains it acted appropriately and in good faith, because its actions were substantially justified and in accordance with law.
Conclusions For Petitioners: George F. Indest, III Justin C. Patrou The Health Law Firm 1101 Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 For Respondent: Allison Dudley Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Partial Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
