The Issue Whether the Respondent, Christina M. Restauri, committed the violations alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating licensed community association managers pursuant to Florida law. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was licensed as a community association manager, license number CAM 0019553. In May 1998, the Respondent became the community association manager for the Association. As such, the Respondent had duties and responsibilities in connection with the day-to-day management of the Association's business. In exchange for the performance of her manager duties, the Association paid the Respondent a salary, provided her with a condominium unit for her residence, paid her utilities, and covered her local telephone service. The Respondent's managerial duties included all office management for the Association, including the collection of fees owed to the Association, the payment of monies owed to vendors by the Association, and the accounting associated with payroll for salaries owed to employees of the Association. The Respondent and the Association entered into a written management agreement that outlined the terms of her employment. The agreement (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) did not require the Association to pay for the Respondent's family health insurance. Additionally, the agreement did not provide for paid sick leave in excess of four days per year. In connection with her responsibilities for payroll, the Respondent controlled the amount of checks made payable to herself for salary owed during the course of her employment. This authority also allowed her to control the amount of monies withheld from her salary to cover her family medical insurance and for the monies payable for federal withholding taxes and social security. On at least two occasions, the Respondent altered her withholding such that no monies were withheld for federal taxes. The Respondent failed or refused to produce a W-4 form that would have supported the change in withholding. Moreover, the Respondent did not produce a W-2 form that would have supported, after-the-fact, that the withholding forms had been modified to support the altered withholding amount. The Respondent failed or refused to produce documentation to establish that she repaid the Association for family medical benefits she received. Initially, the amount to cover the family health benefit was reportedly withheld from the Respondent's paycheck. The adequacy of the withheld amount came into question. Under the terms of her employment, the Respondent was to remit the monthly family health premium to the Association. She did not do so. In fact, copies of checks that were purportedly offered in support of her claim that she had made the payments were never deposited into the Association's account. When the Respondent was challenged as to the amounts owed for health premiums and the matter was to be further investigated, she tendered her resignation. She never produced any of the financial records requested to document any of the matters contested in this proceeding. In addition to the foregoing payroll discrepancies, the Respondent caused herself to be overpaid $125.00 for sick leave. On or about October 12, 2000, the Respondent took $700.00 from the Association's petty cash and loaned it to Sandy Schwenn. Ms. Schwenn was employed by the Association as a secretary and had agreed to repay the funds. The loan was never repaid. The Respondent was not authorized to loan monies from the Association's petty cash fund and admitted the error during a board of directors' meeting on November 15, 2000. Whether the Respondent made good on her promise to repay the loan herself is unknown. Clearly, at hearing the Respondent did not make such representation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order against the Respondent that imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $2500.00, and revokes her license as a community association manager. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Julie Malone, Executive Director Regulatory Council of Community Association of Managers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Christina Marie Restauri 4640 Northwest 30th Street Coconut Creek, Florida 33063 Jennifer Westermann Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
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.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to its authority to regulate water and sewer rates, charges and rate structures embodied in Chapters 367, Florida Statutes, and 25-30, Florida Administrative Code, the Public Service Commission entered Orders numbered 16971 and 17058, which adopted specific guidelines and conditions for utilities to implement certain income tax impact charges for contributions-in-aid- of-construction ("CIAC gross-up charges"). (See Orders numbered 20409, p.3; 16971, p.2-4; and 17058). One of these conditions requires that utilities submit appropriate tariff sheets (rates and charges sheets) for the Commission's approval prior to implementation of the CIAC gross-up charge. CIAC is the payment or contribution of cash or property to a utility from a customer or entity seeking service from that utility in order to secure the provision of such services or to reserve it for a future time. The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 changed the treatment of CIAC from being non-taxable to being taxable as income. A CIAC gross-up charge is a method by which a utility can recover that tax expense, represented by the income tax assessed against collected CIAC, through approved rates and charges to customers. The amount of CIAC tax impact funds collected by a utility is not itself treated as CIAC for rate-making purposes. The Respondent, St. Johns North Utility Corp., collected gross-up charges which were not authorized by its filed and approved tariff schedules (rate schedules), and without securing the requisite approval from the Commission. (See Orders numbered 20409 and 20762). The Commission was made aware of the charging of unauthorized CIAC gross-up charges by the Utility Respondent when a developer, Fruit Cove Limited, communicated with the Commission concerning its doubts about utility service being available for one of its subdivisions, when required, from the Respondent. Fruit Cove Limited had paid CIAC gross-up charges to St. Johns. On June 3, 1988, the Commission, through its staff, contacted Mr. Joseph E. Warren, the General Manager for the Respondent, and explained the Commission's requirements regarding the requisite pre-approval of the charging of CIAC gross-up charges. Mr. Warren agreed to file a written request for authorization to implement such charges. No request was filed, despite repeated admonitions and solicitations by the Commission and its staff and a lengthy opportunity to comply. Finally, Order No. 20409 was issued by the Commission on December 5, 1988, requiring the Utility to file a written request for authorization to implement CIAC gross-up charges within thirty (30) days of that Order. A written request was not timely filed, however. The Utility finally filed its written request for approval of these charges on September 5, 1989. The accompanying tariff sheets representing such charges were ultimately filed in response to Orders numbered 16971 and 20409, and Show Cause Order No. 20762. They became effective on September 15, 1989. The Commission, through its staff, also made repeated inquiries to the Utility regarding certain service availability charges and practices, initially by letter of July 29, 1988. The Utility was allowed until August 19, 1988 to make the requested responses. The letter was addressed to Mr. Joseph Warren at the Utility's mailing address of record. The Utility, however, did not provide written responses to the comments and questions by the Commission, despite repeated assurances that it would do so. Order No. 20409, issued on December 5, 1988, required the Utility to provide the full written responses to the July 29, 1988 letter within thirty (30) days of the date of that Order. The responses were not timely made. Order No. 20762 was issued on February 17, 1989, requiring the Utility to show cause in writing on or before March 13, 1989 why it should not be fined up to $5,000.00 per day, in accordance with the Commission's penalty authority, for failure to comply with the provisions of Order No. 20409, regarding the necessity for written responses to the Commission's specified questions and the submission of a written request to implement the CIAC gross-up charges referenced above. The first item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to seek approval, including submission of proposed rate tariff sheets for authorization to implement the CIAC tax impact charge referenced above. That item was responded to on September 5, 1989, more than eight months after the deadline set by Order No. 20409. The second item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to provide the names and addresses of financial institutions in which gross-up charge funds were being retained. That item was responded to as requested. The third item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to provide a listing of all gross-up monies received from each contributor. No response was ever provided by the Respondent. The significance of the information requested by the Commission is that it would provide identity of the individuals who were entitled to a refund of the unauthorized CIAC gross-up charges collected by the Utility, as provided in Order No. 20762. The fourth item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to provide a copy of all current developer agreements. That item was responded to within the deadline set by Order No. 20409. The fifth item in the Commission's July 29, 1988 letter to the Utility had requested the Utility to file revised tariff sheets indicating the actual legal description of the Utility's certificated service territory. No response was ever provided. Order No. 20762 was ultimately issued on February 17, 1989 imposing a $5,000.00 fine on the Utility for serving outside of its authorized service area. Order No. 20409 requested the Utility to indicate to the Commission whether, with regard to the developer agreement between the Respondent and Fruit Cove Limited, the charges listed in the various paragraphs of that agreement would, upon completion of the real estate development involved, be adjusted to reflect actual utility service costs incurred. No response to that request was ever provided by the Utility. Additionally, in that Order, the Commission requested information concerning a so- called "step tank", which was referenced in paragraphs 12C and 13D of the developer agreement with Fruit Cove Limited. That request, in Order No. 20409, was never responded to. A certain fee was charged for installation of the step tank by the Utility to Fruit Cove Limited, and no response was given to the Commission's inquiry as to why that fee was omitted from the Utility's approved tariff on file with the Commission. The significance of the requested information was that the omission of the step tank installation fee from the Utility's tariff of rates and charges could cause the developer agreement to constitute a "special service availability agreement", which can only be approved in advance by the Commission. It is not a matter, approval of which has been delegated by the Commission to its staff members. The Order referenced last above also requested an explanation for why a meter installation fee, referred to in that same developer agreement, does not include a "curb stop" or a meter box. This information is significant because it is necessary in order for the Commission to determine whether the charge involved is reasonable. A cost breakdown for the meter installation, including the various hardware components and other charges, was necessary and was not provided by the Utility. Additional information concerning the area of service availability, required to be provided to the commission by Order No. 20409, included the requirement that approval be obtained from the Commission for the CIAC gross-up charge in the developer agreement with Fruit Cove Limited. As stated above, that approval was not requested in writing, as required by the Order, for more than eight months after the deadline set by that Order. By Order No. 20762, St. Johns was fined $5,000.00 for three separate violations of the statutes and rules, and the Orders enumerating them, for a total of $15,000.00. The Utility was fined for serving outside of its authorized service territory, for collecting unauthorized CIAC gross- up charges, and for failing to file its developer agreements with the Commission as required by law. The developer agreements were only submitted after repeated efforts by the Commission's staff which culminated in Order No. 20409 and which were either unresponded to or not properly responded to by the Utility. Additionally, by Order No. 21559, issued on July 17, 1989, St. Johns was fined $5,000.00 for failure to file an application for an extension of its territory as required by Order No. 20409. In the meantime, by Order No. 22342, issued on December 26, 1989, the Commission approved a transfer of the Utility's assets from St. Johns to Jacksonville Suburban Utilities Corporation ("Jacksonville Suburban"). That Order did not authorize transfer of the liabilities of the Respondent to Jacksonville Suburban. The Order specifies that St. Johns, and not Jacksonville Suburban, will remain liable for the previously imposed refund obligations and fines. Only in the event that there remained sales proceeds in excess of the certain debt of St. Johns owed to its institutional lender would funds from the Jacksonville Suburban sale be applied toward payment of the refund and fines found to be due and owing by the above-cited Orders, by way of escrow or otherwise. Any excess proceeds, absent Order No. 22342, were to be paid to St. Johns. Order No. 22342 does not make Jacksonville Suburban liable for the refund and fines at issue. It is speculative whether there will be any sales proceeds available from the sale, after payment of the debt, to be applied toward the refund and fines. The sales price was made dependent upon establishment of the Utility's "rate base" amount, to be established in that transfer proceeding at a point in time after entry of Order No. 22342. That Order, however, specifically preserves the liability of St. Johns for the refund and fines and does not provide for the extinguishment of such liability in the event that the sales proceeds prove to be insufficient to pay them.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that St. Johns be assessed a penalty of $5,000.00 for knowingly and willfully failing to comply with Order No. 20409. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings 1990. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 14th day of June, APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-24. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. (Respondent filed no proposed Findings of Fact) Copies furnished to: David Schwartz, Esq. Florida Public Service Commission Legal Division 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Joseph E. Warren, Esq. 1930 San Marco Boulevard Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32207 Mr. Steve Tribble Director of Records and Recording Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Mr. David Swafford Executive Director Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street, Room 116 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Susan Clark, Esq. General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 101 E. Gaines Street, Room 212 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850
Findings Of Fact Between March 16, 1982 and August 21, 1985, Respondent Florida Power and Light Company has assessed against Petitioner Glen T. McLain, Jr. nine separate service charges which Petitioner disputes and has refused to pay. Those nine charges are as follows: Transaction Date Amount Reason March 16, 1982 $10 Service Charge April 20, 1984 18 Reconnect Charge June 12, 1984 18 Reconnect Charge August 13, 1984 18 Reconnect Charge August 14, 1984 18 Reconnect Charge October 2, 1984 19 Reconnect Charge February 19, 1985 10 Return Check Charge March 4, 1985 19 Reconnect Charge August 21, 1985 19 Reconnect Charge The service charge in the amount of $10 assessed against Petitioner on March 16, 1982, represents the charge for the initial connection of service. During the final hearing in this cause, Petitioner stipulated that this charge was properly assessed and should be paid to Florida Power and Light Company by him. The service charge in the amount of $10 assessed against Petitioner on February 19, 1985, represents a charge against Petitioner for sending to Respondent a check which was subsequently dishonored by Petitioner's bank. Petitioner presented no evidence to support his contention that his check, "bounced" due to a bank error. Accordingly, this service charge is proper. The remaining seven service charges are all reconnection charges which were assessed against Petitioner's account after disconnection of Petitioner's electrical service for nonpayment of bills rendered to him. Each of these charges has been properly assessed. Petitioner was afforded prior notice on each occasion that his electrical service was disconnected for nonpayment of his bills.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the unpaid service charges in the amount of $149 have been properly assessed against Petitioner and requiring Petitioner to pay those service charges by a date certain. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Glenn T. McLain, Jr. Post Office Box 59-3161 AMF Miami, Florida 33159-3161 Susan Roeder Martin, Esquire Michael A. Gribler, Esquire Post Office Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102 M. Robert Christ, Esquire Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Swafford, Executive Director Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Bilenky, General Counsel Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Tribble, Clerk Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the non-rule policy of the Respondent, the Health Care Cost Containment Board, requiring the Petitioner, The Retreat, to file a detailed budget for 1990, constituted an invalid "rule" under Section 120.52(14), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: The Retreat is a 100 bed short-term psychiatric specialty and substance abuse hospital located at 555 S.W. 148th Avenue, Sunrise, Broward County, Florida. The Retreat admitted its first patient on September 12, 1988. The Retreat operates on a fiscal year from September 1, through August 31. Therefore, The Retreat's 1989 fiscal year was for the period beginning when The Retreat opened on September 12, 1988, through August 31, 1989. The Retreat filed its 1989 budget with the Respondent on June 3, 1988. The Retreat's 1989 budget was approved by the Respondent on August 25, 1988, with an approved gross revenue per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "GRAA"), of $20,323.00, and a net revenue per adjusted admission (hereinafter referred to as "NRAA"), of $17,973.00. The Retreat's 1990 fiscal year is from September 1, 1989, through August 31, 1990. Pursuant to Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), The Retreat submitted a budget letter described in Section 407.50(2)(a), Florida Statutes, to the Respondent on May 24, 1989, for its 1990 fiscal year. The budget letter submitted by The Retreat certified that its FY 1990 maximum allowable rate of increase in GRAA over its budgeted GRAA in FY 1989 would be 7.8% and that its GRAA would not exceed $21,908.00 in FY 1990. Said rate of increase stated in The Retreat's budget letter represented the National Hospital Input Price Index (hereinafter referred to as the "NHIPI"), for the 1990 fiscal year plus two percentage points. At the time the Respondent received said budget letter, no administrative rule had yet been adopted that required a hospital entering into its second fiscal year of operation to file a full budget subject to detailed budget review. By letter dated June 5, 1989, the Respondent's staff advised The Retreat that, based on staff's interpretation of the controlling statute, staff could not accept said budget letter filed by The Retreat and a detailed budget would be required for The Retreat's 1990 fiscal year. The June 5, 1989, letter enunciated a non-rule agency policy based upon staff's interpretation of Section 407.50, Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.), that a hospital filing a budget for its second fiscal year is not eligible to file a budget letter and must file a budget subject to detailed review. On June 29, 1989, The Retreat filed a Petition to determine the invalidity of the non-rule policy explicated in said June 5, 1989, letter. Also on June 29, 1989, The Retreat filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing regarding the decision by HCCCB to reject its budget letter. Said Petition was assigned DOAH Case No. 89-3579H. On May 25, 1989, proposed Rule 10N-5.015 was approved by the HCCCB. Said proposed rule was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, in Volume 15, No. 27, Florida Administrative Weekly (July 7, 1989). The last sentence of proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: A new hospital or replacement hospital relocated to a different medical services area shall submit a budget report for review in the first two years of operation, but may submit a budget letter for its third year of operation if it does not require an increase in GRAA in excess of its hospital specific MARI calculated pursuant to Rule 10N-5.013. The last sentence of proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, codifies, in rule form, the non-rule policy set forth in the HCCCB letter of June 5, 1989. The Retreat filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of Proposed Rule 10N-5.015(15), Florida Administrative Code, on July 28, 1989. Said Petition was assigned DOAH Case No. 89-4219RP. DOAH Case No. 89-3436RU, 89-3579H and 89-4219RP were subsequently consolidated for a single final hearing. The Retreat has standing in each of the three above-styled causes. In pertinent part, the Respondent's June 5, 1989, letter to The Retreat provided the following: In some cases, it may not be possible for us to calculate a revenue limit for a hospital due to the absence of key data. In these cases it is appropriate to require the hospitals concerned to file complete budget packages with us until such time as appropriate base year data is available. According to our records, your hospital is one that lacks the appropriate base year data for us to calculate a statutory revenue limit for 1990. Therefore, we require that your facility file a complete budget report for the 1990 fiscal year which will require justification of the revenue and expense levels it contains. The Respondent has consistently applied the policy expressed in its letter of June 5, 1989, of not permitting a hospital in its second year of operation to file a budget letter. The policy was fully formed and uniformly applied on a statewide basis by the Respondent at the time of its application to The Retreat. The Respondent had not adopted its policy as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, at the time of its application to The Retreat.
The Issue Whether Rule 34-5.029, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, as defined in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bill Colon (Colon), resides in Sunrise, Florida. Colon is substantially affected by Rule 34-5.029, Florida Administrative Code. The parties have stipulated to this finding. Respondent, State of Florida Commission on Ethics (Commission), is a legislative agency governed in part by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Rule 34-5.029 provides: Insofar as it may be applicable to the complaint, if the Commission determines that a person has filed a complaint alleging a violation of Chapter 112, F. S. against a public officer or employee with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of such officer or employee and that such complaint is frivolous and without basis in law or fact, the complainant shall be liable for costs plus reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the person complained against in the representation of him before the Commission. The commission shall make a determination only upon a petition for costs and attorney's fees filed with the Commission by the public officer or employee complained against within 30 days following a dismissal of the complaint. Such petition shall state with particularity the facts and grounds which would prove entitlement to costs and attorney's fees. Staff shall forward a copy of said petition to the complainant by certified mail, return receipt requested. If the facts and grounds alleged in the complaint are not sufficient to state a claim for costs and reasonable attorney's fees, the Commission may dismiss the petition after an informal proceeding. If it appears that the facts and grounds may be sufficient, the Commission shall send a notice of hearing of the petition to both parties. In the discretion of the Chairman, the hearing may be held before the Division of Administrative Hearings, the full Commission, a single Commission member serving as hearing officer, or a panel of three Commission members serving as hearing officers; Commission hearing officers shall be appointed by the Chairman. The hearing shall be a formal proceeding under Section 120.57, F. S. and the model rules of the Administration Commission, Chapter 28, F. A. C. All discovery and hearing procedures shall be governed by the applicable provisions of Chapter 120, F. S. and Chapter 28, F. A. C. The parties to the hearing shall be the respondent and the complainant(s) who may be represented by counsel. The respondent has the burden of proving the grounds for an award of costs and attorney's fees by a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing. "Malicious intent to injure the reputation" may by proven by evidence showing ill will or hostility as well as by evidence showing that the complainant intended to bring discredit upon the name or character of the respondent by filing such complaint with knowledge that the complaint contained one or more false allegations or with reckless disregard for whether the complaint contained false allegations of fact material to a violation of the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees. Such reckless disregard exists where the complainant entertained serious doubts as to the truth or falsity of the allegations, where the complainant imagined or fabricated the allegations, or where the complainant filed an unverified anonymous tip or where there are obvious reasons to doubt the veracity of the information or that of the source of the information. If the petition is heard by the full Commission, the parties first shall present evidence going to, and the Commission may determine, the issue of whether the complaint was frivolous and without basis in law or fact. If the Commission finds that the complaint was not frivolous or was not without basis in law or fact, it shall direct staff to prepare an order complying with Section 120.59, F. S., denying the petition. The draft of that order shall be modified or adopted at the next Commission meeting. If the Commission finds that the complaint was frivolous and without basis in law or fact, it shall hear the evidence presented by the parties on the issue of whether the complaint was filed with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of the respondent. If the Commission finds that the complaint was not filed with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of the respondent, it shall direct staff to prepare an order complying with Section 120.59, F. S., incorporating its findings and denying the petition. A draft of that order shall be modified or adopted at the next Commission meeting. If the Commission finds that the complaint was filed with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of the respondent, it shall hear evidence presented by the parties on the amount of costs and attorney's fees to be awarded to the respondent and shall determine such amounts. The staff shall be directed to prepare an order complying with Section 120.59, F. S., incorporating its findings and granting the petition. The draft of the order shall be modified or adopted at the next Commission meeting. If the petition is heard by a hearing officer or a panel of hearing officers, evidence on all issues discussed above in (4) shall be presented by the parties at the hearing. The hearing officer(s) shall prepare a recommended order complying with Section 120.57, F. S., which shall be rejected, modified, or adopted by the full Commission. If the complainant fails to pay voluntarily such costs as may be assessed against him within 30 days following such finding by the Commission, the Commission shall so inform the Department of Legal Affairs, which shall bring a civil action to recover such costs. The Commission cites as specific authority for promulgating the rule as Article II, Section 8(f), (h), Florida Constitution and Section 120.53, Florida Statutes. The Commission cites as the law implemented by Rule 34-5.029 as Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue is whether the Stop Work Order issued on July 27, 2007, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment were lawful.
Findings Of Fact The Division is a component of the Department of Financial Services. The Department is charged with the administration of portions of the "Workers' Compensation Law." Versa-Tile is a corporation headquartered in Mary Esther, Florida. Versa-Tile is engaged in flooring, which is a construction activity. Michelle Newcomer is an Insurance Analyst II with the working title of Workers' Compensation Compliance Investigator. She maintains an office in Pensacola, Florida. It is her job to travel to work sites and to verify compliance with the Workers' Compensation Law. She is authorized by the Division to issue an SWO and to calculate and assess penalties. On July 24, 2007, Ms. Newcomer was conducting compliance investigations at random sites in the Alys Beach area of Walton County, Florida. While doing so she noticed three individuals in the garage at the rear of a house at 23 Whitby. They were removing tools from a toolbox and "working." Ms. Newcomer identified the men as Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie. The third man on the site was named "Barker." Barker asserted that he was not doing any work, but was there just to give the men a ride. He was deemed not involved in the work being accomplished at the site. Ms. Newcomer interviewed Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie. They both told her that they were exempt officers of Versa-Tile. It is found as a fact that the 2006 For Profit Corporate Annual Report of Versa-Tile signed on April 26, 2006, and filed with the Department of State on May 1, 2006, listed Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie as corporate officers of Versa-Tile. They were not corporate officers of Versa-Tile prior to April 26, 2006. Adrian Womack worked for Versa-Tile from July 29, 2005, until April 25, 2006, as an employee. He was not an officer and was not, and could not be, exempt. Kent Degallerie worked for Versa-Tile from May 6, 2005, until April 25, 2006, as an employee. He was not an officer and was not, and could not be, exempt. Nicholas Womack, who was not present at the Alys Beach site, is listed therein as president of Versa-Tile and has been exempt during all times pertinent. As corporate officers, Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie could be exempt from the usual requirement that workers be covered by workers' compensation insurance even though they were also employees of Versa-Tile who were paid wages. Ms. Newcomer obtained their full names and social security numbers so that she could verify their claimed exemption. She determined from the Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System that there were no records of exemption being obtained for them. Ms. Newcomer confirmed with an examiner in the Pensacola office that Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie were not on the list of exempt persons. She issued a Request for Production of Business Records dated July 24, 2007. She personally served these documents on Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie. She issued an SWO, dated July 27, 2007, and personally served it on Nicholas Womack. If a person is a ten percent owner of a corporation or limited liability company they are entitled to obtain an exemption from the Department. An exemption is obtained by completing the "Notice of Election to be Exempt" form. This form when properly completed and accompanied by certain required documents, a $50 application fee, and submitted to the Division, will cause the Division to grant an exemption. If the Department determines that a person is exempt upon receiving a properly submitted form and payment, the Department will issue a card reflecting exemption. Neither Adrian Womack nor Kent Degallerie had such a card on July 24, 2007. During all times pertinent, the Department had no record indicating it had received any payment from Nicholas Womack, Adrian Womack, or Kent Degallerie that would have been tendered on behalf of Adrian Womack or Kent Degallerie. On July 27, 2007, Ms. Newcomer met with Nicholas Womack, president of Versa-Tile in her office in Pensacola and personally served him a Request for Production of Business Records. Later, Nicholas Womack provided employment records to Ms. Newcomer. On July 30, 2007, the Department and Versa-Tile entered into an agreement that permitted Versa-Tile to go back to work. Using workers' compensation class code 5348 for employees Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie, Ms. Newcomer correctly calculated the premium that should have been paid, if they were mere employees, as $8,455.56, and multiplied that figure by the statutory penalty of 1.5. She correctly determined the total to be $12,683.35. The parties stipulated that to the extent the figure applies, it is correct. Nicholas Womack at all times pertinent had an exemption. Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie were granted exemptions by the Department on July 30, 2007. These were the first exemptions from workers' compensation coverage that they had ever received while in a business relationship with Versa- Tile. The Division receives from 90,000 to 96,000 construction exemption applications yearly. They also receive between 30,000 to 35,000 non-construction exemption applications annually. The applications may be provided by applicants to the Department by hand-delivery at a field office or to the Department headquarters in Tallahassee, or by mail to a field office or to the Department headquarters in Tallahassee. Errors may occur in this process because of mistakes or omissions in the applications filed by the applicant or because of data entry errors by personnel in the Department. However, the process is sufficiently simple and automated that usually, when a complete application is filed, the exemption issues, and the applicant is, thereafter, provided a card reflecting the exemption via mail. There are ten field offices in the state to which applicants may file applications for exemptions. The field office in Panama City, Florida, at least the portion that accepted exemption applications, closed in 2005. However, the forms still listed Panama City as an address to which one might mail an application for exemption. The president of Versa-Tile, Nicholas Womack, has filed for and obtained three exemptions since he created Versa- Tile. Prior to incorporating Versa-Tile, he owned another business by the name of Nicholas Womack Flooring, Inc. He previously had two officers, Michael Smith and Mitchell Smedley, working with him at Versa-Tile, but he removed them as corporate officers so that Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie could be corporate officers. Mr. Smith's exemption was revoked April 27, 2006, by the filing of a Notice of Revocation of Election to be Exempt with the Department. This roughly coincided with the naming of Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie as corporate officers. Department of State corporate records, as of May 1, 2006, reflected that Versa-Tile had three officers: Nicholas Womack, Adrian Womack, and Kent Degallerie. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, Nicholas Womack filed the appropriate form with the Department, along with proof that he held a contractor's license, stock certificates, and $50.00. He followed this process on three occasions while president of Versa-Tile. The evidence of record reveals exemptions granted to Nicholas Womack on January 25, 2005, and May 18, 2006, while president of Versa-Tile. He claims not to ever have received a certificate evidencing exemption from the Department while president of Versa-Tile. Nicholas Womack testified that on only one of the occasions, when he was operating Nicholas Womack Flooring, Inc., did the Department mail him a card reflecting his exemption and stated that occurred in 2001 or 2002. Nicholas Womack understands that by not obtaining coverage under workers' compensation insurance he and the other two corporate officers of Versa-Tile would not be compensated should they be injured on the job. Nicholas Womack explained to Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie that they were eligible for an exemption, and if they got an exemption and were injured, they would not be covered by workers' compensation insurance. Nicholas Womack testified that thereafter he helped the two men fill out the appropriate forms and ensured that all necessary attachments, including two money orders in the correct amount, were present and then mailed the applications, one in each envelope, to the Department's Panama City office. As soon as the applications were mailed, Nicholas continued allowing the men to work for Versa-Tile without waiting for the exemptions to be granted. Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie first received exemption on July 30, 2007. Subsequent to July 30, 2007, Nicholas asked Adrian Womack if he had received an exemption card. Adrian Womack said that he had not. Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie both stated that they had not received an exemption card after filing for exemption in July 2007. Nicholas Womack's testimony that he only received one certificate of exemption in seven years of enjoying an exempt status lacks credibility. Even considering that the Department is large and it annually processes huge amounts of paperwork, it is quite improbable that on six occasions they would fail to send Nicholas Womack a certificate. That being the case, Nicholas Womack's testimony that he mailed completed applications for Adrian Womack and Kent Degallerie to the Department's Panama City office and never received any type of response, when considered in concert with his other testimony, is not credible. It is a fact that Nicholas Womack, Adrian Womack, and Kent Degallerie were eligible for an exemption subsequent to April 26, 2006. If exempt, they were responsible for their own expenses should they suffer an injury while on the job. If they failed to get an exemption, they were likewise responsible for their own expenses should they suffer an injury while on the job. This situation is very different from that where an employer fails to obtain coverage for workers not having an ownership interest in the employer, as was the case with Versa- Tile prior to April 26, 2006.
Recommendation Based upon the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order requiring Versa-Tile and Marble, Inc., to pay a penalty of $12,683.35. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Kristian E. Dunn, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4229 Michael James Rudicell, Esquire Michael J. Rudicell, P.A. 4303 B Spanish Trail Road Pensacola, Florida 32504 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an exemption from sales and use tax as a religious or charitable organization.
Findings Of Fact By Application for Consumer Certificate of Exemption dated March 17, 1992, Petitioner requested a sales tax exemption as a religious organization. The application indicates that Petitioner was incorporated on February 18, 1992. At all times, the president of Petitioner has been Reverend Robert M. Rinaldi. By letter dated April 16, 1992, Respondent requested that Petitioner supply information concerning its primary purpose, including a list of all activities or services and to whom they are generally offered. The letter also requested, among other things, statements of receipts and expenditures and a copy of the letter determining that Petitioner is exempt from federal income tax. Petitioner submitted to Respondent evidence of 12 expenditures during the quarter ending March 31, 1992. The expenditures and their descriptions are as follows: Morrisons-- dinner business; Holiday Inn in Tampa--lodging for quarterly convention; Maas Brother in Naples--attire; Marshalls-- personal; Martha's Health Food Shop--personal; Things Remembered--card case/business cards; RJ Cafe Tropical--lunch interview; Beach Works Marco Island--attire; annual membership fee for vice president's American Express card; Las Vegas Discount golf and tennis in Naples--personal; Eckerd's Vision Works--medical eyeglasses; Quality Inn Golf Country Club in Naples--lodging during business travel; Avon Fashions/Hampton-- personal; Del Wright in Sarasota--automobile expenses and travel; JC Penney--personal; Amador's Restaurant in Naples-- dinner/lunch; Avon Fashions/Hampton--personal; annual membership fee for treasurer's American Express card; and Mobil Oil--business travel. Petitioner produced other evidence of similar types of expenditures, such as for fitness center fees, car insurance, car service, car payments, utilities, and rent. Nothing in the record links these expenditures to religious or charitable activities. There were expenditures for printing religious tracts and self- improvement educational materials, but they do not appear to be a substantial part of the total expenditures of Petitioner during the time in question. After receiving these materials, a representative of Respondent telephoned Reverend Rinaldi and stated that Petitioner would have to submit additional documentation of its income and expenses and formal affiliation with prison chapels where Petitioner reportedly conducted outreach programs. Respondent's representative also asked for evidence of Reverend Rinaldi's counselling credentials. Petitioner next submitted a copy of a letter from the Department of Treasury determining that Petitioner was exempt from federal income tax. Petitioner also submitted a budget for the year ending 1992 and a proposed budget for the year ending 1993. However, the budgets did not document a charitable purpose. The budget reveals that the largest disbursement was $4200, which was rent for an office and living quarters. The largest single receipt was $1764.27, which was a contribution from the incorporator, who was Rev. Rinaldi. There were no charitable receipts, such as from contributions from members, the public, or anonymous sources. On November 10, 1992, Respondent sent a letter to Petitioner requesting additional information, including statements of the primary purpose of the organization and of receipts and expenditures. The request asked for a description or explanation for each charity-related program expenditure. On November 18, 1992, Petitioner submitted a second Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption. The information was essentially unchanged from the first application. Rev. Rinaldi also sent Respondent a religious flyer. On February 10, 1993, Petitioner submitted a third Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption. The material was essentially unchanged from the preceding two applications. On March 30, 1993, one of Respondent's representatives sent a letter to Petitioner stating that Petitioner does not meet the criteria for exemption from sales tax. In response, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent received April 8, 1993, requesting reconsideration of the denial. On May 4, 1993, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter stating that, as indicated during an earlier telephone conversation, Respondent had not yet received sufficient documentation to justify a sales tax exemption. Following up on Rev. Rinaldi's opinion that Petitioner qualified as a charitable organization, the letter suggests that he submit materials describing each charitable service or activity, the types of persons receiving such services, the frequency that the services are offered, the demonstrated benefit provided by Petitioner to disadvantaged persons, the fees charged by Petitioner, and the availability of Petitioner's services at the same or less cost elsewhere. The letter also asks for a statement of income and expenses. In response, Petitioner filed a fourth Application for Consumer's Certificate of Exemption on November 10, 1993. Rev. Rinaldi explained Petitioner's activities as informing people of the truth and the second coming of Jesus Christ and stopping addictions to drugs and alcohol. The enclosed materials included a church telephone number. The materials state that services are available 24 hours a day for no fees and are provided solely for the spiritual preparation of humanity. The materials also indicate several addresses at which religious activities are conducted. Upon investigation, Respondent learned that Petitioner's telephone number had been disconnected, the street address is Rev. Rinaldi's apartment, and the addresses at which religious activities are conducted are locations of Alcoholic Anonymous, from which Rev. Rinaldi and his church had been barred as public disturbances. Checking with the post office, the investigator learned that all mail for Rev. Rinaldi and Petitioner is being forwarded to an address in New York. Respondent asked for more information, and Petitioner supplied information no different than that previously supplied. By letter dated April 26, 1994, Respondent informed Petitioner that its application was denied. Following another exchange of correspondence, Respondent sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to Deny dated June 17, 1994. The Notice of Intent to Deny states that Respondent determined that: [Petitioner] travels from church to church and does not assemble regularly at a particular established location. [Petitioner] conducts services for short periods of time at numerous temporary locations. [Respondent] has reviewed your application and supporting documents and has determined that the primary purpose of your organization fails to meet the qualifications for sales tax exemption authorized by Section 212.08(7), Florida Statutes. By letter dated June 24, 1994, Petitioner requested a formal hearing on its application for sales tax exemption. Petitioner does not regularly conduct services. Petitioner does not engage in other religious activities nor does Petitioner provide services typically associated with a church. Petitioner has no established physical place for worship. Petitioner has generalized plans to construct one or more places for worship. However, these plans are post-apocalyptic in nature and thus do not assure the commencement of construction in the immediate future.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Revenue enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption certificate from sales and use tax. ENTERED on December 20, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on December 20, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Fuchs, Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Linda Lettera, General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0100 Rev. Robert Rinaldi P.O. Box 1081 167 N. Collier Blvd. J-3 Marco Island, FL 33937-1081 Attorney Lisa M. Raleigh Office of the Attorney General The Capitol--Tax Section Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
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.
