Findings Of Fact Petitioner Bobbie G. Scheffer was one of two respondents in Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. Scheffer and Ecoff, No. 89-4699, administrative proceedings respondent Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) initiated by filing an administrative complaint alleging, as summarized in the recommended order: that respondent Scheffer "[a]t all times material . . . licensed and operating as qualifying broker for Rivard Realty, Inc." and respondent Ecoff "a licensed real estate salesman . . . provided a copy of MLS computer print out sheet pertaining to certain residential property . . . to Daniel H. and Dorothy M. Stacy . . . [to verify] that the house was eight years old and on a commercial sewer system", that respondent "Ecoff was the owner of the property and the listing salesman"; that the Stacys "entered into a contract to purchase the property . . . relying upon the representations made by the [r]espondents"; that "Scheffer was the broker who handled the sale while Ralph S. Ecoff was licensed as a salesman in her employ"; that respondents "failed to disclose or point out to the buyers the true age of the house being 14 years or that the house was actually on a septic system"; that "the buyers closed on the house believing the age of the house to be eight years old and having a commercial sewer system"; that respondent "Ecoff admitted knowing that the house was on a septic tank"; and that respondents are therefore both guilty of "misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence and breach of trust in a business transaction in violation of Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes" and of "having placed or caused to be placed an advertisement which is false, deceptive or misleading in violation of Rule 21V-10.025," Florida Administrative Code. But the recommended order concluded that "the evidence did not clearly and convincingly show that respondent Scheffer actually knew or had reason to know the listing was inaccurate." At page 7. The final order adopted this conclusion. By stipulation, petitioner qualifies as a prevailing small business party who meets all rule and statutory requirements under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code. In successfully defending against the administrative complaint, Ms. Scheffer incurred reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $1,980 and costs in the amount of $219.75, for a total of $2,199.75. She incurred additional reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $330 in the present proceeding. 1/ The facts proven at hearing are set out in detail in the attached recommended order entered in Case No. 89-4699 and are adopted by reference in their entirety here. No evidence adduced in the present proceeding proved respondent had materially different or additional information when it decided to file the administrative complaint. 2/
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed for his attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying proceeding.
Findings Of Fact On July 2, 1992, the Department of Professional Regulation filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner, alleging that Petitioner had used the letters "D.D.S." following his name on letterhead and had testified as an expert in the field of dentistry in a case involving a Florida licensed dentist. The Administrative Complaint alleged that such conduct by Petitioner constituted the unlicensed practice of dentistry. Petitioner requested a formal hearing regarding those allegations. That cause was thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the formal proceeding and was assigned DOAH Case No. 92-4570. On January 27, 1993, a Recommended Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 92-4570, holding that Petitioner's use of the letters "D.D.S." did not represent that he was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida, but merely reflected Petitioner's educational background, and that Petitioner was not required by the Florida Evidence Code or any other law to be licensed in the State of Florida in order to testify as an expert in an administrative or judicial proceeding. The Recommended Order concluded that Petitioner should be found not guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. The Department of Professional Regulation entered a Final Order rejecting findings of fact and conclusions of law in that Recommended Order and found Petitioner guilty of the unauthorized practice of dentistry. Petitioner appealed that Final Order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. The appellate court reversed the Department's Final Order and remanded the cause for entry of an order consistent with the Recommended Order. The attorney for the Department who prosecuted the underlying proceeding reviewed the investigative file and then discussed his recommendation with his supervisor. He recommended that Petitioner be prosecuted criminally, not administratively, because he believed that Petitioner was committing a criminal offense and not an administrative violation by holding himself out to be a dentist licensed in the State of Florida. No evidence was offered to show who made the decision to initiate the underlying proceeding on behalf of the Department, and, therefore, no evidence was offered to show what was considered by that person or persons when the decision was made to initiate the underlying proceeding against Petitioner. There is, accordingly, no evidence to show the factual basis for the Department's determination to issue an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. No evidence was offered to show that anyone on behalf of the Department determined that there was a legal basis for initiating a proceeding against Petitioner for disclosing his educational credentials on letterhead or testifying as an expert witness without being licensed in the state where that testimony was given. In 1990 (the year during which Petitioner testified as an expert witness) and in 1991 (the year during which Petitioner wrote an opinion on the letterhead which concerned the Department), Petitioner performed his services as a legal-dental consultant as a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, under his own name, although some other services were performed through Dental-Legal Advisors, Inc. Petitioner's principal office was located in Florida, he was domiciled in Florida, he had no employees, and Petitioner's net worth was less than $2,000,000, including both personal and business investments. The Department was not substantially justified in initiating the underlying proceeding against Petitioner. Petitioner qualified as a small business party when the underlying proceeding was brought against him. Petitioner is entitled to recover $15,000 from the Department for his costs and attorney's fees in defending the underlying proceeding.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, as a prevailing small business party in an adjudicatory proceeding initiated by a state agency, should be awarded attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Subsection 57.111(4)(a), Florida Statutes, in these two cases.
Findings Of Fact As to Both Cases Petitioner, Larry D. Thomas, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 036360. Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. This matter was filed pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The actions in AHCA Case Nos. 1994-12341 and 1999-57795 were initiated by the Agency, an agent for the Department of Health, a state agency, and neither the Agency nor the Department of Health was a nominal party to the underlying actions. The attorney's fees sought by Petitioner are reasonable in the amount up to $15,000 for each case, and the statutory cap of $15,000 applies to each case separately. Petitioner prevailed in the underlying action, and there are no special circumstances that exist that would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust in these cases. Petitioner is a small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, because he is a sole proprietor of an unincorporated professional practice, whose principal office is in this state, who is domiciled in this state, whose professional practice is in this state, and whose professional practice had, at the time the action was initiated by the state agency, not more than 25 full-time employees or did not have a net worth of more than $2 million, including both personal and business investments. As to Case No. 02-4843F In 1994, pursuant to Section 455.225, Florida Statutes (currently renumbered as Section 456.073, Florida Statutes), Petitioner was notified of the investigation by the Agency and invited to submit a response to the allegations. Petitioner, through his attorney, submitted a detailed response to the allegations, which included an expert opinion by William Yahr, M.D., and medical literature that discussed the risks of the procedure at issue in the case. The expert opinion of Dr. Yahr stated that Petitioner did not fall below the standard of care in this case and that the patient died of a predictable complication of the procedure at issue in the case. The Administrative Complaint in the underlying case, DOAH Case No. 01-4406PL (AHCA Case No. 1994-12341), was filed on May 10, 1999, against Petitioner. The complaint alleged that Petitioner had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; by failing to treat Patient D.J.P.'s preoperative coagulopathy; and by failing to use an alternate vein that would have allowed visualization of the shunt placement, thereby reducing the risk of causing hemorrhage given the patient's preoperative history. As required by statute, the probable cause panel that considered this matter was composed of two physicians, who were or are Board of Medicine members, and a consumer member of the Board of Medicine. Present at the May 5, 1999, meeting of the South Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine (Panel) were Panel members Margaret Skinner, M.D., Chairperson of the Panel; John Glasgoe, M.D.; and Becky Tierney. Also present at the meeting were Allen R. Grossman, Acting Board Counsel; Randy Collette, Senior Attorney for the Agency; Jim Cooksey of Agency Investigations; Larry McPherson, Senior Attorney for the Agency; and Susan Drake, M.D., Medical Consultant for the Agency. Prior to the May 5, 1999, meeting, the members of the Panel received and reviewed the Agency's entire investigative file, including Petitioner's response and Dr. Yahr's opinion, and the expert opinions of Henry Black, M.D., and John Kilkenny, III, M.D. The expert opinions available to the Panel were those completed in 1997 and 1999, respectively. Dr. Black opined that Petitioner met the standard of care in the case, but admitted that he did not perform the procedure at issue in the case; Dr. Kilkenny, who did perform the procedure at issue in the case, opined that Petitioner failed to meet the standard of care in the case; and Dr. Yahr opined in 1994 that there was no evidence that Petitioner failed to meet the standard of care in the case, but did not state whether he performed the procedure at issue in the case. In addition, the Panel had access to the written response to the investigation prepared by counsel on behalf of Petitioner, which was submitted on October 13, 1994. Prior to consideration of the case, Mr. Grossman advised the Panel that any questions concerning interpretation of the law or rules, or what the Panel's duties were, should be directed to him. Mr. Grossman also advised the Panel that any questions they had regarding the materials that they received, the recommendations that had been made, or the investigation that had been conducted should be directed to Mr. Collette, as the attorney for the Agency. Mr. Collette then gave a summary of the complaint to the Panel members and recommended that an Administrative Complaint be filed in the case. The Panel discussed the complaint very briefly, asked no questions, and voted for a finding of probable cause for alleged violations of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. The record in the underlying case does not demonstrate why there was an inordinate delay between the completion of the Agency's investigation in October 1994 and the Agency's retention of Dr. Black in 1997; why Dr. Kilkenny was retained in 1999 after Dr. Black had given his opinion on August 4, 1997, that there was no deviation from the standard of care by Petitioner; nor why Dr. Yahr's opinion was not given any consideration. While Dr. Black may not have had the appropriate qualifications to render an expert opinion in the case, both Dr. Kilkenny and Dr. Yahr did have sufficient qualifications to render an expert opinion in this matter. Further, there was no assertion by the prosecuting authority that any of the fact witnesses needed to prove this case were even available after five years of delay. Nor did the counsel for the Panel bring any special attention to the Panel members in regard to the possible proof problems with this case caused by the inordinate delay in bringing the case before the Panel. Finally, no explanation has been given for the delay in forwarding the Administrative Complaint, issued on May 10, 1999, to the Division of Administrative Hearings until October 15, 2001. As to Case No. 02-4844F The Administrative Complaint in the underlying case, DOAH Case No. 01-4407PL (AHCA Case No. 1999-57795) was filed on June 13, 2001, against Petitioner. The complaint alleged that Petitioner had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; by failing to adequately monitor Patient H.H. post-operatively given Patient H.H.'s high risk for distal emboli and/or due to evidence of tissue ischemia; by failing to clamp the arteries distally prior to manipulation of the aneurysm; and/or by failing to take adequate steps to prevent emboli, such as ensuring periodic monitoring of the patient's condition post-operatively for evidence of ischemia or other problems. Pursuant to Section 455.225, Florida Statutes (now at 456.073, Florida Statutes), Petitioner was notified of the investigation by Respondent by letter dated November 12, 1999, and invited to submit a response to the allegations. Petitioner, through his attorney, submitted a detailed response to the allegations, denying that he violated the standard of care. The Investigative Report was issued on February 11, 2000. The probable cause panel that considered this matter met on June 8, 2001, and was composed of two physicians, who were or are Board of Medicine members, and a consumer member of the Board of Medicine, as required by statute. However, the consumer member of the Panel was unavailable to attend the Panel meeting that day. Present at the June 8, 2001, meeting of the Panel were Panel members Fued Ashkar, M.D., Chairperson of the Panel, and Gustavo Leon, M.D. Also present at the meeting were Lee Ann Gustafson, Acting Board Counsel, and Randy Collette, Senior Attorney for the Agency. Prior to the probable cause meeting, the members of the Panel received and reviewed what was purported to be the Agency's complete investigative file, including Petitioner's response, and the expert opinion of James Dennis, M.D. The expert opinion available to the Panel was that of James Dennis, M.D., a board-certified vascular surgeon, who performed the procedure at issue in the case. Dr. Dennis opined that Petitioner failed to meet the standard of care in the case. Prior to consideration of the case, Ms. Gustafson advised the Panel that any questions concerning interpretation of the law or rules, or what the Panel's duties were, should be directed to her. Ms. Gustafson also advised the Panel that any questions they had regarding the materials that they received, the recommendations that have been made, or the investigation that has been conducted should be direct to Mr. Collette, as the attorney for the Agency. Mr. Collette then gave a summary of the complaint to the Panel members and recommended that an Administrative Complaint be filed in the case. The Panel voted for a finding of probable cause for alleged violations of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. Following the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner timely filed a request for a formal hearing. After probable cause was found in the underlying case, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and shortly before the date of the scheduled formal hearing, the attorneys for Petitioner and Respondent discovered that Respondent's expert, Dr. Dennis had been retained by Petitioner's former attorneys, after probable cause had been found, to give an opinion on behalf of Petitioner in the underlying case. This resulted in the disqualification of Dr. Dennis' opinion. The formal hearing was continued, and Respondent retained another expert, Kenneth Begelman, M.D. He opined that Petitioner fell below the standard of care in the case, and his testimony was used at the formal hearing. No reference to the opinion of Dr. Dennis was made or used at the formal hearing. Dr. Begelman's opinion was also not available to the Panel at the time that probable cause was found against Petitioner, nor did Respondent seek to return jurisdiction to the Panel for their reconsideration. Any objection to this procedure was waived by the parties. At the formal hearing, a CT Scan of the patient in question and missing nurses' notes relating to Petitioner's postoperative monitoring were introduced into evidence. Upon review of this new evidence and under cross- examination, Respondent's expert, Dr. Begelman, could not conclusively determine whether Petitioner's surgical and post- surgical treatment of Patient H.H. fell below the standard of care. However, it is clear from the record in the underlying case that the evidence regarding Petitioner's performance of the procedure at issue in the case, as well as his postoperative care of the patient, was in dispute. The expert opinion of Dr. Dennis and Petitioner's response highlight this fact. The events involving Dr. Dennis, which occurred after the finding of probable cause by the Panel, and Respondent's subsequent use of Dr. Begelman at the formal hearing are not relevant to the determination of whether Respondent was substantially justified in finding probable cause against Petitioner in the underlying case. And, while the underlying case was ultimately resolved in Petitioner's favor, there were disputes of fact in this case and the Agency and Respondent clearly were substantially justified to go forward with the underlying action. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs, as to DOAH Case No. 02-4844F.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Dr. Herbert R. Slavin, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs in an amount not exceeding $50,000 pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).
Findings Of Fact Dr. Slavin, a licensed physician who specializes in internal medicine, has practiced in the state of Florida since 1981. In or around 2008, Dr. Slavin formed, and is the sole shareholder of, "Ageless Medicine Associates," a subchapter S corporation1/ under which he practices medicine. On October 31, 2011, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint that charged Dr. Slavin with two statutory violations, both of which were ultimately dismissed by the Board of Medicine. In connection with that proceeding, Dr. Slavin now seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111. As explained later in this Final Order, a party seeking fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111 must demonstrate that he or she was a "small business party" at the time the underlying action was initiated by the state——in this instance, October 31, 2011. Section 57.111(3)(d) contemplates that a small business party can take four alternative forms, only two of which require discussion here: a partnership or corporation, including a professional practice, that, during the relevant timeframe, had 25 or fewer full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2,000,000 (section 57.111(3)(d)1.b.); or an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 during the relevant period (section 57.111(3)(d)1.c.). The evidence establishes that, as of October 2011, Ageless Medicine Associates had fewer than 25 employees and a net worth that did not exceed $2,000,000. The problem, though, and as discussed elsewhere in this Order, is that section 57.111(3)(d)1.b. has no application where, as in this case, the underlying complaint was filed against a licensee individually, rather than the partnership or corporation under which the licensee conducts business. As for Dr. Slavin's personal finances, his 2011 tax return reflects income of $171,810, virtually all of which comprises wages and business income derived from Ageless Medicine Associates, and an adjusted gross income of $161,400. The remainder of Dr. Slavin's financial picture (including, for example, any assets on hand that did not generate taxable income) during October 2011 is nebulous, however, for nearly all of his testimony focused incorrectly on his finances at the time of the final hearing: Q. Are you, doctor, currently worth $2,000,000? A. No. * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, do you own a home? A. Yes. Q. How much, if you know, is that home worth? A. Probably around $300,000 to $350,000. Q. And do you have a mortgage on that home? A. Yes. Q. How much is the mortgage; do you know? A. $145,000. Q. And do you have any cash in the bank? A. Yes. Q. How much? A. Around $10,000 . . . . * * * Q. Do you own any boats? A. No. Q. Do you own any vacation homes? A. No. Q. Do you own any interest in any other businesses? A. No. Q. Do you have a lot of stock accounts? A. No. * * * Q. Okay. Is there any other asset that you have that has not been mentioned; your home, your business? Do you own your vehicles? A. No, they're leased. Q. Do you own any other stocks or bonds that provide you with an income or that are worth money, that you know of? A. No. * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, you testified that -- You were asked by counsel whether or not you had a lot of stocks or bonds as assets and you stated no. Do you -- what does a lot mean? A. Well, I have -- I don't have any direct ownership of stocks or bonds. There are some annuities I have that have, I guess, investments and mutual funds or something. You know, I'm not -– * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, have you presented any information or any documentation as to what items are within your home? A. Not that I'm aware of. I have a television, -- Q. Do you have -- A. -- a refrigerator and -- Q. Do you have furniture in your home? A. Yeah. I have furniture, a refrigerator, stove, microwave. I have -- Q. Do you have computer equipment in your home? A. I have laptop computers in the home. Q. Do you have any personal items; jewelry, watches in your home? A. I have -– Yes, I have watches. Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 23; 25-28; 30-31 (emphasis added). Even assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Slavin's testimony had been properly oriented to the relevant time period (which it was not, in nearly all instances), his overall evidentiary presentation was simply too fragmentary to permit the undersigned to independently determine the value of his net worth——a figure derived2/ by subtracting total liabilities from total assets. For example, Dr. Slavin provided: no information concerning his annuities and mutual funds, the value of which could be non- trivial due to the remunerative nature his profession and his length of time in practice; no details regarding the value of his household assets; and no credible evidence regarding the value of his home.3/ In light of these gaping holes in the evidence, which preclude anything more than rank speculation concerning the value of Dr. Slavin's personal net worth, it is determined that status as a small business party has not been proven.4/ Because Dr. Slavin's failure to establish his status as a small business party is fatal to his application for attorney's fees, it is unnecessary to determine whether the underlying proceeding was substantially justified.
Findings Of Fact Union Trucking is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of trucking. Its net worth is less than $2,000,000.00 In DOAH Case NO. 87-4007, the Department sent Petitioner a letter dated August 6, 1987, denying Petitioner's request for certification as a minority business enterprise pursuant to the Department's Rule 14-78.005, Florida Administrative Code. The reason stated in the letter was that Petitioner was not actually under the control of a minority person. On August 25, 1987, Petitioner timely requested a hearing and the case was sent to the Division Of Administrative Hearings on September 11, 1987. By Notice of Hearing dated September 23, 1987, hearing was scheduled for November 16, 1987 and later continued until February 10, 1988. Rule 14-78.002, Florida Administrative Code, was amended on September 21, 1987. The amendment effectively removed DOT's reason-for denial of Petitioner's certification. However, on February 11, 1988, well after the rule change came into effect, DOT formally decided to certify Petitioner. Petitioner was therefore forced to proceed for several months in preparation for an action which Respondent admits it had no basis for after the rule change took effect. Respondent's initial decision occurred on August 6, 1987, when Respondent notified Petitioner of its denial of minority business status. At some point in time, Respondent had filed its proposed rule change. Petitioner failed to demonstrate the time of the proposed change. Depending on the facts surrounding the rule change as to its likelihood of adoption at the time Respondent initiated this action, no findings regarding substantial justification can be made at the time of the agency's initial action on August Most certainly after September 21, 1987, the date the MBE rule was amended, Respondent lacked any substantial justification to continue to litigate this matter. The Final Order of the Department recognized the earlier certification of Petitioner and dismissed the action. However, the Final Order of Respondent did not dispose of the attorney's fees issue which had also been raised during the principal action. The order, therefore, did not dispose of substantially all the issues raised in the principal action. Additionally, there was no settlement of this case since a written settlement agreement was drafted and signed by Petitioner, but refused by Respondent. Respondent's unilateral certification is not enough to force a settlement on Petitioner, especially since Respondent elected to enter a Final Order in this case. Petitioner, therefore, became a prevailing party when Respondent entered its Final Order on April 18, 1988. Section 57.111(4)(b)(2) , Florida Statutes. The application and affidavit which initiated this action were filed on May 23, 1988. The application substantially meets the requirements of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code, in that it fairly put Respondent on notice of Petitioner's claim. The application and affidavit were timely, having been filed within 60 days after the date on which Petitioner became a prevailing small business party. According to the affidavit of Frank M. Gafford, Petitioner incurred legal fees of $3,572.86. These fees and costs are found to be reasonable. The Department does not dispute the reasonableness of the fees in this case.
Findings Of Fact Bernard M. Tully, M.D. served by mail his Motion to Tax Attorney's Fees and Costs pursuant to Chapter 57, Florida Statutes, on May 19, 1987; same was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 21, 1987 and was assigned DOAH Case No. 87-2265F. This instant cause is a fee and costs case pursuant to Chapter 57, Florida Statutes, arising out of Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners v. Bernard M. Tully, M.D.; DOAH Case No. 85-3175. The Department of Professional Regulation has moved to dismiss Tully's Motion to Tax Attorney's and Costs, (hereafter, "Fees and Costs Petition") upon allegations that the claim was not filed in a timely manner pursuant to Section 57.111(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes, and upon allegations that the Fees and Costs Petition did not comply with the requirements of Section 57.111(4)(b), Florida Statutes, in that the claimant had not submitted an itemized affidavit of the nature and extent of the services rendered as well as the costs incurred. A Voluntary Dismissal was served by mail by Petitioner Department of Professional Regulation in DOAH Case No. 85-3175 on March 6, 1987, and filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 10, 1987. The Order closing the Division file in that case was entered March 18, 1987, but is largely superfluous since a Voluntary Dismissal by the party bearing the burden of proof dismisses a cause by operation of law as of the date of filing of the Voluntary Dismissal. Tully's Fees and Costs Petition was served (May 19, 1987) and filed (May 21, 1987) well beyond the 60 day timeframe (May 11, 1987) provided in Section 57.111(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes, for the filing of such claims. Tully's Fees and Costs Petition attached schedules itemizing costs incurred and pleadings filed in DOAH Case No. 85-3175. The Petition was not verified and no affidavits are attached. In these respects, the Fees and Costs Petition failed to comply with Section 57.111(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.35, Florida Administrative Code. Neither does the Fees and Costs Petition or any accompanying affidavit allege whether or not Tully requests an evidentiary hearing; that he is a small business party; where his domicile and principal office are located; how many employees he has; whether or not he is a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, and, if so, whether or not his net worth exceeds $2,000,000; whether or not he operates as a partnership or corporation i.e. professional practice, and, if so, whether or not the net worth exceeds $2,000,000; whether the agency's actions were substantially unjustified; and whether or not circumstances exist that would make the award unjust; or whether or not the agency was a nominal party only. There were also no documents upon which the claim was predicated attached to the Fees and Costs Petition. in these respects, the Petition failed to comply with virtually all of Section 57.111(4)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035(1)(2), and (3), Florida Administrative Code. Tully timely filed a Response to Order to Show Cause wherein he acknowledged as true and accurate the dates as found in Finding of Fact 4, supra. Moreover, his Response concedes that pursuant to Section 57.111(4)(b)2, Florida Statutes, the application for an award of attorney's fees must be made within 60 days after the date that a small business party becomes a prevailing small business party, but his Response asserts that nothing in the applicable statute provides that an application for costs must be made within 60 days, and therefore at least his application for costs must be deemed timely. The Response further sets out an itemization of costs incurred and is sworn to by Tully's attorney of record. No leave to amend the Petition was granted by the Order to Show Cause.
Findings Of Fact On October 5, 1989, Respondent filed an Order to Show Cause seeking to take disciplinary action against the certification of authority issued to Petitioner, The Administrators Corporation, and the insurance licenses issued to Petitioner, Charles N. Zalis. Petitioners timely requested a formal hearing, and the case was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained in that Order to Show Cause. Upon receipt, the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 89-5981. The final hearing in that disciplinary matter was conducted on May 14, 1990. Thereafter, a Recommended Order was entered on July 9, 1990, recommending to Respondent that a final order be entered finding Petitioners not guilty of the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause and dismissing the Order to Show Cause filed against them. None of the parties filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. On August 15, 1990, the Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner entered a Final Order adopting in full the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation contained within that Recommended Order; finding the Petitioners not guilty of the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause filed against them, and dismissing the Order to Show Cause. On September 21, 1990, Petitioners filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings their Petitions for Costs and Fees, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 221-6.035, Florida Administrative Code. On September 27, 1990, an Initial Order was entered in each of the above-captioned causes. The Initial Order is a form order automatically prepared by the Clerk's Office and signed by the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings in every case filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, except for those proceedings conducted on an expedited basis pursuant to statutory directives. The Initial Order advises the parties as to the name of the Hearing Officer assigned to hear the matter, provides certain procedural information, and solicits specific information from the parties so that the matter can be scheduled for an evidentiary hearing appropriately. On October 8, 1990, Respondent filed a joint Response to Initial Order on behalf of all parties, and on October 10, 1990, Respondent filed a joint Amended Response to Initial Order on behalf of all parties in this proceeding. The Amended Response to Initial Order advised that the parties had agreed that the final hearing should be scheduled for one day during the month of February, 1991, in Tallahassee. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties regarding the scheduling of the evidentiary hearing in this cause, on October 19, 1990, these causes were consolidated sua sponte, and a formal hearing was scheduled in these consolidated causes for February 14, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. No response by Respondent to either the Petition for Costs and Fees filed by The Administrators Corporation or the Petition for Costs and Fees filed by Charles N. Zalis has ever been filed in this cause even in the face of the Motion for Summary Final Order based upon Respondent's failure to respond. Accordingly, this matter is decided on the basis of the petitions filed in these consolidated causes, together with the documentation attached to those petitions, Petitioners' Motion for Summary Final Order, together with the documentation attached to that motion, and Respondent's Response to Motion for Summary Final Order. Since the Respondent has failed to controvert or dispute any of the factual allegations contained within those pleadings, there is no factual allegation in dispute in these consolidated causes. Petitioners are small business parties as defined by Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. By virtue of the Final Order entered in DOAH Case No. 89- 5981, Petitioners are prevailing small business parties in an administrative proceeding pursuant to Chapter 120 initiated by a state agency. The actions of Respondent both in initiating and in pursuing the Order to Show Cause filed in DOAH Case No. 89-5981 were substantially unjustified, and no special circumstance exists which would make unjust the award of attorney's fees and costs to Petitioners in these consolidated causes. The itemized affidavits filed in these consolidated causes reveal the nature, extent, and monetary value of the services rendered by Petitioners' attorneys, as well as the costs incurred in the underlying proceeding. Petitioners incurred attorney's fees in the amount of $49,581.25 and costs in the amount of $7,351.72 in the underlying administrative proceeding. The amounts of attorney's fees and costs claimed by Petitioners are reasonable and necessary. The Department of Insurance and Treasurer was not a nominal party only in the underlying administrative proceeding. Petitioners filed their Petitions for Costs and Fees within 60 days after the date that they became prevailing small business parties.
