The Issue Pursuant to the order of the First District Court of Appeal dated October 18, 2005, the issue before the Division of Administrative Hearings is a determination of the amount of attorneys' fees and costs to be awarded for the administrative proceeding in Department of Health v. Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D., DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL, and for the appellate proceeding styled Anthony Glenn Rogers, M.D. v. Department of Health, Case No. 1D04-1153 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 18, 2005).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, and the Board of Medicine ("Board") within the Department is the entity responsible for entering final orders imposing disciplinary action for violations of the laws regulating the practice of medicine. See §§ 455.225 and 458.331(2), Fla. Stat. On January 4, 2002, the Department of Health filed an Administrative Complaint charging Dr. Rogers with violations of Section 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (1998).3 The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which assigned the matter DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL. The case was heard on May 7, 2002, by Administrative Law Judge Michael J. Parrish. Judge Parrish entered his Recommended Order on February 21, 2003, in which he found that the Department had failed to prove violations of Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998), and recommended dismissal of those charges. Judge Parrish found that the Department had proven a violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), failing to keep medical records as required by rule, and he recommended that Dr. Rogers be required to pay a $1,000.00 administrative fine and attend a Florida Medical Association record-keeping course as the penalty for the violation. The Board entered its Final Order on February 17, 2004, in which it adopted its own findings of fact and conclusions of law; found Dr. Rogers guilty of all three charges in the Administrative Complaint; and imposed a penalty on Dr. Rogers consisting of a $10,000 administrative fine, completing of a drug course sponsored by the University of South Florida, completion of a Florida Medical Association record-keeping course, and two years' probation, during which he was not permitted to practice medicine unless his practice was monitored quarterly by a physician approved by the Board. Dr. Rogers appealed the Board's Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal, challenging the Board's determination that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998). Dr. Rogers filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs based on Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes. In addition, Dr. Rogers filed a Motion for Stay of Final Order, which the Board opposed. The district court denied the motion for stay in an order entered April 2, 2004, and Dr. Rogers proceeded to comply with the terms of the two-year probationary period imposed by the Board, as well as fulfilling the other requirements set forth in the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004. In an opinion issued on October 18, 2005, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the Board's Final Order with respect to its determination that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes (1998), and remanded the matter to the Board for entry of a Final Order consistent with its opinion. The district court held in its opinion that the Board had erroneously re-weighed the evidence and had rejected findings of fact in the administrative law judge's Recommended Order that were supported by competent substantial evidence. The district court also entered on October 18, 2005, the order granting Dr. Rogers's motion for attorneys' fees and costs that is the subject of this proceeding. The district court's mandate issued on February 23, 2006, and, on April 21, 2006, the Board entered a Final Order on Remand adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law in Judge Parrish's Recommended Order, finding that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), and imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine on Dr. Rogers and requiring him to attend a medical record-keeping course. Based on the Amended Affidavit of C. William Berger filed August 24, 2006, the total number of hours Mr. Berger spent in representing Dr. Rogers in the administrative proceeding in DOAH Case No. 02-0080PL is 79.75, a total that the Department does not challenge. Mr. Berger's billing rate was $300.00 per hour, a rate that the Department accepts as reasonable. The total amount of attorney's fees paid to Mr. Berger for his representation of Dr. Rogers through the administrative proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings was, therefore, $23,925.00. Dr. Rogers was ultimately found to have violated one count of the three-count Administrative Complaint filed against him by the Department, the count in which the Department alleged that Dr. Rogers had violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1998), by failing to keep adequate medical records related to the patient that was the subject of the charges against him. Mr. Berger did not record in his billing statements the amount of time he spent researching this charge, preparing for hearing on this charge, or addressing this charge in the Proposed Recommended Order he filed in 02-0080PL. It is reasonable that Mr. Berger spent 10 percent of the hours included in his billing statements preparing Dr. Rogers's defense to the charge that he failed to keep adequate medical records.4 Accordingly, Mr. Berger's attorney's fees will be reduced by 10 percent, or by $2,392.50, for a total of $21,532.50. In reaching the percentage by which Mr. Berger's fees should be reduced, consideration has been given to the amount of the fees in relationship to the failure to prevail on the medical-records violation, to the seriousness of the alleged violations on which Dr. Rogers prevailed before both the administrative law judge and on appeal,5 and the penalty ranges that the Board could impose for the violations with which Dr. Rogers was charged.6 Based on the Supplemental Affidavit of Lisa Shearer Nelson Regarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed September 5, 2006, Ms. Nelson claimed that she spent a total of 187.1 hours "from the issuance of the final order of the Board of Medicine through the appeal and remand and initial preparation of the petition for attorney's fees and costs." Ms. Nelson's billing statements reflect that she represented Dr. Rogers during the appellate proceedings before the First District Court of Appeal in Case No. 1D04-1153 and before the Board on remand from the district court. Ms. Nelson's billing rate was $250.00 per hour, a rate that the Department accepts as reasonable. The total amount of attorney's fees paid by Dr. Rogers to Ms. Nelson for her representation was, therefore, $46,775.00. A review of the billing statements attached to Ms. Nelson's supplemental affidavit reveals that the final billing statement, dated June 9, 2006, was for "preparation of petition for fees and costs; preparation of affidavit re same." Dr. Rogers was billed for 1.9 hours in this billing statement, for a total of $475.00. Because the work done by Ms. Nelson reflected in this billing statement did not involve the appellate proceeding arising out of the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004, the hours claimed by Ms. Nelson are reduced by 1.9 hours, for a total of 185.2 hours. Accordingly, Ms. Nelson's attorney's fees for her representation of Dr. Rogers on appeal total $46,300.00. The total costs identified in Mr. Berger's Amended Affidavit and in the billing statements attached to the Amended Affidavit is $4,462.55. This amount is reduced by $1,000.00 attributable to a retainer paid to a Dr. Spanos, who was initially retained as an expert witness but who ultimately did not testify on Dr. Rogers's behalf. The total allowable costs for the administrative proceeding, therefore, are $3,462.55. The total costs identified by Ms. Nelson in her Supplemental Affidavit and in the billing statements attached to the Supplemental Affidavit is $1,005.01. The total costs for both the administrative and the appellate proceedings are, therefore, $4,467.56. Dr. Rogers submitted an affidavit in which he claimed that he expended total costs of $154,807.23 in fulfilling the terms of the penalty assessed against him in the Board's Final Order of February 17, 2004, which was reversed by the district court.
Conclusions For Petitioner: C. William Berger, Esquire One Boca Place, Suite 337W 2255 Glades Road Boca Raton, Florida 33486 For Respondent: John E. Terrel, Esquire Michael D. Milnes, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this 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 agency 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.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner's claim is barred by Section 760.11(7), Florida Statutes (1999), because Petitioner filed a request for hearing more than 35 days after the time prescribed in Section 760.11(3) for a determination of reasonable cause by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (the "Commission"). (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated).
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner from May 25, 1995, until September 1, 1995. Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission on October 3, 1995. The Charge of Discrimination alleges that Petitioner was forced to leave his position of employment because of Petitioner's sex, color, national origin, and age. The Charge of Discrimination contains no more specific factual allegation of an adverse employment action or other act of discrimination. Time Limits The Charge of Discrimination was timely filed pursuant to Section 760.11(1). The filing date of October 3, 1995, fell within 365 days of May 25, 1995, which is the first day on which the alleged discrimination could have occurred. Section 760.11(3) authorizes the Commission to issue a determination of reasonable cause within 180 days of October 3, 1995, the date Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination. Counting October 4, 1995, as the first day of the 180-day time limit, Section 760.11(3) authorized the Commission to determine reasonable cause no later than March 31, 1996. The Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on July 14, 1999. Section 760.11(7) required Petitioner to file a request for hearing within 35 days of March 31, 1996. Counting April 1, 1996, as the first day of the 35-day period, Section 760.11(7) required Petitioner to file a request for hearing no later than May 5, 1996. Petitioner did not timely file a request for hearing. Petitioner first requested a hearing in the Petition for Relief filed on August 13, 1999. Petitioner filed his request for hearing approximately 1,185 days late and 1,220 days after the expiration of the 180-day time limit prescribed in Section 760.11(3). Petitioner delayed the request for hearing because he did not have the form entitled Petition for Relief. Section 760.11(7) statutorily bars Petitioner's claim. Section 760.11(7) expressly provides, in relevant part: If the aggrieved person does not request an administrative hearing within the 35 days, the claim will be barred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing this proceeding as barred by Section 760.11(7). DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Luis F. Hernandez 1116 Golden Gate Avenue Orlando, Florida 32808 Charles Williams, Jr., Esquire Scott A. Livingston, Esquire Williams and Davis, P.A. Suite 1220, Suntrust Center Post Office Box 1831 200 South Orange Avenue Olando, Florida 32802-1831
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Triple M Enterprises, Inc., employed persons in the State of Florida without obtaining workers' compensation insurance meeting the requirements of Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. If Petitioner did not obtain the required insurance, the subsequent issue is the amount of any penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Division is charged with the regulation of workers' compensation insurance in the State of Florida and is responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure workers' compensation insurance for the benefit of their employees. Triple M, is a corporation located at 24393 North 71, Robertsdale, Alabama, and is a framing and drywall contractor. Dwain Sanders and Celina Sanders are principals of Triple M. On June 4, 2004, Triple M was engaged as a subcontractor in the construction of a building on the premises located at 334 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, Florida. On June 4, 2004, Patricia Jean Krossman was an investigator employed by the Division. Her duties include ensuring that the employers in the state are in compliance with the requirements of the Workers' Compensation Law. More specifically, she visits work sites, and determines if the workers are covered by workers' compensation insurance. The morning of the aforementioned date, Ms. Krossman visited 334 Gulf Breeze Parkway, in Gulf Breeze, Florida, and observed four men engaged in construction activities, including framing a building. Dwain Sanders, who was at the site, identified himself as the owner and president of Triple M, which was the employer of the four men who were working at the site. Ms. Krossman requested that Mr. Sanders provide her with proof that he had workers' compensation coverage effective in Florida. Mr. Sanders made an immediate effort to supply the requested proof. Pursuant to Mr. Sanders' request, his insurance agent in Montgomery, Alabama faxed a portion of Triple M's policy to the Division's Pensacola office. The documents received by Ms. Krossman caused her to conclude that Triple M had not complied with Florida law because she believed the document did not demonstrate that Florida premium rates were paid, or that Florida class codes were used, or that there was a Florida endorsement in place. Ms. Krossman conducted a database search of the Coverage and Compliance Automated System database and the National Council on Compensation Insurance database. The search did not demonstrate that Triple M had a policy then effective in Florida. Having concluded that the documents produced by Triple M failed to demonstrate coverage in accordance with Chapter 440, Florida Statutes, and after noting the absence of policy information in the databases, Ms. Krossman issued a Stop- Work Order to Triple M on June 4, 2004. The portion of Triple M's policy, provided by Triple M's insurance agent by facsimile, number 748-36-79, which was issued by the American Home Assurance Company to Triple M, had a classifications of operations page which related solely to work to be performed in Alabama. This page provided class codes, the rates, and the premium basis which provided the total estimated annual premium that Triple M was required to pay, based on Alabama law. The faxed document included a policy information page that provided in Item 2, that the policy period ran from January 1, 2004 until January 1, 2005. It provided in Item 3A, as follows: "Workers Compensation Insurance: Part One of the policy applies to the Workers' Compensation Law of the states listed here: AL." The policy information page provided in Item 3C that, "Part Three of the policy applies to the states, if any, listed here:" and lists 44 states, including Florida. The policy provides in Item 4, "Classifications of Operation," a statement of the rating group, and the "total classification premium increase limits," under the heading, "State of Alabama Totals." On June 25, 2004, Ms. Krossman received via facsimile machine, an endorsement to policy no. WC 748-36-79. This was the first time Ms. Krossman had seen this endorsement. It purported to add Florida coverage using Florida premium rates and class codes. It also purported to add the Gulf Breeze Parkway work-site where Ms. Krossman found Triple M engaged in construction activities. The base policy, on its face, indicated a date of January 1, 2004. The issue date of the endorsement was June 16, 2004. This endorsement was not in effect on June 4, 2004, the date of the Stop Work Order. Ms. Krossman served Triple M a "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation." The Division has the statutory authority to request payroll records from an employer working in Florida and the "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation" is the vehicle through which those records are sought. The payroll records provide the data required to calculate any penalties for failure to maintain required coverage. Penalties are calculated by determining the premium amount the employer would have paid based on his or her Florida payroll, and multiplying by a factor of 1.5. In response to the "Request for Production of Business Records for Penalty Assessment Calculation," Triple M provided payroll records. The records indicated that Triple M had employed workers in Florida in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. Using the records provided by Triple M, the penalty was calculated by Ms. Krossman. After some interaction with Ms. Celina Sanders, of Triple M, she eventually determined that the proper penalty to be assessed was $36,521.61. The penalty was calculated using Florida premium rates and class codes in accordance with the dictates of Section 440.38, Florida Statutes. The penalty is correct. Triple M depends on its agent, the Goff Group, of Montgomery, Alabama, to provide proper insurance coverage. As noted above, Item 3.A of the policy listed the primary state of coverage as being Alabama. The policy plainly states at "Part Three - Other States Insurance, How This Insurance Applies," in paragraph 1, that "This other states insurance applies only if one or more states are shown in Item 3.C of the Information Page." One of the other states shown is Florida. At paragraph 2, of the section noted immediately above, the policy states, "If you begin work in any one of those states after the effective date of this policy and are not insured or are not self-insured for such work, all provisions of the policy will apply as though that state were listed in Item 3.A of the Information Page." At paragraph 3 of the policy, the following sentence is found: "We will reimburse you for the benefits required by the workers' compensation law of that state if we are not permitted to pay the benefits directly to persons entitled to them." At paragraph 3, the following sentence is found: "If you have work on the effective date of this policy in any state not listed in Item 3.A. of the Information Page, coverage will not be afforded for that state unless we are notified within thirty days." After that language is the following: "B. Notice. Tell us at once if you begin work in any state listed in Item 3.C. of the Information Page." The plain language of the policy reveals that Triple M's employees were covered by the policy, and that the employees would receive the same benefits, in case of injury, as if it were a Florida Policy with Florida rates and classifications, so long as the work at Gulf Breeze Parkway had not been going on for more than thirty days. Ms. Sanders testified under oath that she notified Triple M's carrier within 30 days of the inception of the work at the Gulf Breeze Parkway site. A letter to the Department of Financial Services signed by Dwain and Celina Sanders on behalf of Triple M, dated June 24, 2004, asserted that Triple M had just begun working in Florida, for the first time in 2004, the week that Ms. Krossman entered the work site. Triple M has been in business for 22 years and has never been bankrupt. Triple M has 401K plans for its employees as well as health insurance. Triple M would have difficulty paying the fine proposed by the Division. Triple M believed its workers were covered by workers' compensation insurance and they were covered. The parties agree that American Home Assurance Company is authorized to write insurance in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Division of Workers' Compensation affirm the Stop-Work Order issued to Petitioner on June 4, 2004, and assess a fine of $36,521.61. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2005, 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 13th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Thompson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dwain Sanders Triple M Enterprises, Inc. 24393 North 71 Robertsdale, Alabama 36567 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The sole threshold issue in this bifurcated proceeding is whether Petitioner has met her burden of proving grounds for equitable tolling as a defense to the admitted untimely filing of Petitioner's request for an administrative hearing. Consideration of the merits of Petitioner's challenge to the initial agency action was deferred, pending the threshold determination of whether the challenge can be heard.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's husband was a State of Florida employee. He passed away in 1999. As the surviving spouse of a former State of Florida employee, Petitioner is entitled to, and has obtained coverage under, the state's group health insurance since 1999. Since sometime in 2002, Petitioner has also had Medicare health care coverage. However, Petitioner continued to pay the individual monthly premium rate for state group health insurance through May 2010, instead of the lower monthly rate applicable to someone who also has Medicare coverage. In May 2010, Petitioner submitted a written request to change her state group health insurance coverage level to accurately reflect the lower monthly Medicare rate and to refund the difference in premiums between the regular premium rate she had been paying and the lower Medicare rate from May 2002 to May 2010. Petitioner's May 2010 written request for changed coverage and reimbursement of overpaid premiums was not offered into evidence. By certified letter dated June 2, 2010, the Department responded to Petitioner's May 2010 written request. The Department advised that it was granting Petitioner's request to change her coverage level to reflect that she has Medicare coverage and that Petitioner's request for a refund was granted, in part, and denied, in part. The letter advised Petitioner of her right to an administrative hearing to contest the partial denial and enclosed an informational page specifying how and when to request such a hearing. In addition, enclosed with the letter were copies of Florida Administrative Code Rules 28-106.201 and 28-106.301, which codify the manner for initiating proceedings when there are disputed issues of material fact and when there are no disputed issues of material fact, respectively. The Department's certified letter was delivered to Petitioner's home on June 5, 2010. Petitioner was at home and personally signed the certified receipt for the Department's letter on June 5, 2010. Petitioner testified that she does not remember answering the door when the Department's certified letter was delivered to her home, nor does she remember signing the certified receipt, even though she acknowledged that she did so on June 5, 2010. Petitioner and her daughter, Ms. Viegas, testified that Petitioner has had mental health issues since 2001, when Petitioner became depressed not too long after her husband died in 1999. Petitioner testified that she has been seeing a psychiatrist since 2008 and has been taking medication prescribed by the psychiatrist for depression. No evidence was presented to establish how frequently or infrequently Petitioner was seeing a psychiatrist, nor was any evidence presented with respect to the type or dosage of medication Petitioner has taken. Neither the psychiatrist whom Petitioner said she had been seeing, nor any other expert testified with respect to Petitioner's medical or psychological condition, and no medical records were offered into evidence. Throughout the years of Petitioner's chronic depression, Petitioner has lived in her own home, at times alone or with a gentleman who lives there now and is now 81 years old. In addition, in June 2009, Ms. Viegas moved in with Petitioner and has lived there continuously since that time. Ms. Viegas is 39 years old and is unemployed. Since Ms. Viegas does not work, she is present at the home 90 percent of the time. Ms. Viegas testified that the reason she moved in with Petitioner was because Petitioner needed her help with business and other needs and, also, because Ms. Viegas broke up with her boyfriend with whom she had been living. Petitioner's other daughter, Cindy, also helps out. Cindy is a regular visitor and helps with household tasks, such as doing laundry, paying bills, and calling banks on Petitioner's behalf. According to Ms. Viegas, Petitioner's chronic depression got worse in late January or early February 2010 and remained bad until sometime in July 2010, when Petitioner's medication was changed. As described by Petitioner and Ms. Viegas, in Petitioner's worsened state for this six- or seven-month period in 2010, Petitioner slept most of the day in addition to at night. Petitioner did not clean the house or cook her own meals, and she did not bathe until Ms. Viegas pushed her to bathe. Because Petitioner was not cooking her own meals, she either ate peanut butter sandwiches or went out to eat at a restaurant. Petitioner testified that during this period when her depression worsened, she frequently went out to eat. Petitioner also acknowledged that she has had a valid driver's license and a car and that she would drive herself around, sometimes alone with no passengers. Despite the fact that Ms. Viegas moved in with Petitioner to help with her business and other needs, Ms. Viegas testified that her mother was able to keep up with her own business affairs pretty well until she got worse in January or February 2010, at which point bills frequently would go missing, and Ms. Viegas would realize that when second notices were received. Even before Petitioner got worse in early 2010, important mail, such as utility bills, would occasionally go missing. Ms. Viegas explained that she was reluctant to impose tighter controls to address this chronic issue, because she did not want to give her mother the impression that she (Ms. Viegas) did not have faith in her mother's ability to handle her own business. In addition, Ms. Viegas was unwilling to restrict her mother's freedom to walk outside to the mailbox to collect the mail or to get the mail while she was out walking their poodle. Instead, Ms. Viegas just dealt with the repercussions of the occasional lost mail. Ms. Viegas acknowledged that the problem of missing important mail, such as bills, became a more frequent occurrence when Petitioner's condition got worse in January or February 2010. Still, Ms. Viegas and Petitioner did nothing different with regard to the mail routine. No evidence was presented that Petitioner's depression ever became so severe that Ms. Viegas and/or Petitioner contemplated hospitalization or some form of more intensive treatments beyond periodic office visits with a psychiatrist. Petitioner has not been adjudicated incompetent of handling her own affairs, and no guardian has been appointed to manage Petitioner's affairs, nor was there evidence that such a step was ever contemplated. The evidence suggested to the contrary-- that Petitioner led an independent lifestyle and that Ms. Viegas was unwilling to, and apparently believed it was unnecessary to, restrict Petitioner's freedoms. Petitioner testified that in July 2010, her psychiatrist changed her medication, and after that, Petitioner felt better and began cleaning house, cooking, and doing other things she had not been doing. Petitioner found the letter from Respondent, showed the letter to Ms. Viegas, and asked Ms. Viegas to help. Ms. Viegas prepared a letter requesting an administrative hearing to dispute the partial denial of Petitioner's overpayment refund request. Ms. Viegas testified that she knew enough to prepare the letter without Petitioner's help, because Ms. Viegas knew all about Petitioner's dispute with the Department. Ms. Viegas had no problems understanding from the Department's notice how to request an administrative hearing for Petitioner. Ms. Viegas reviewed her draft with Petitioner to make sure there was nothing Petitioner wanted to change or add. The request for administrative hearing prepared by Ms. Viegas was signed by Petitioner on August 13, 2010, and sent to the Department where it was filed on August 16, 2010, nearly seven weeks after the 21-day deadline specified in the letter for filing a request for administrative hearing. Petitioner does not assert that she was misled or lulled into inaction by anything said or done by the Department's representatives. Petitioner does not assert that the Department's notice was unclear or confusing with regard to when, whether, or how Petitioner needed to request an administrative hearing to contest the Department's proposed action. Instead, her sole contention is that her "diminished mental capacity"1/ constitutes an extraordinary circumstance that prevented her from timely filing her request for hearing. The greater weight of the credible evidence does not support a finding that during the six- or seven-month period in 2010, when Petitioner's depression worsened, her condition rendered her incapable of functioning. The facts are inconsistent with the suggestion of a debilitated state. Petitioner drove a car, sometimes by herself; collected the mail from the mailbox herself; walked her pet poodle; and went out for meals when she tired of peanut butter sandwiches. Though she did not, herself, clean the house or cook meals, she had the help of two daughters, one of whom lived in the house and had no other job besides helping Petitioner. Moreover, in May 2010, Petitioner was capable of submitting an appropriate written request for change of insurance coverage level and for refund of overpaid premiums; and on June 5, 2010, Petitioner was able to respond to receive the delivery of the certified letter on June 5, 2010, and to sign the certified receipt with a clear, steady signature. Based on the credible evidence, the undersigned is unable to find that Petitioner's condition rose to an extraordinary circumstance, such that she was "prevented" from timely filing a petition. "Prevented" suggests an external factor beyond one's control, something far beyond one's own lack of reasonable prudence. As Petitioner and her live-in daughter observed Petitioner's worsening condition, reasonable prudence would have mandated an adjustment in protocol. It defies credibility to suggest that Petitioner's condition worsened to the point that it was impossible for Petitioner to care for herself and tend to her business and that Ms. Viegas would have stood by unwilling to assume full responsibility for Petitioner, including dealing with day-to-day business affairs. It must be emphasized that no medical testimony and no medical records were offered to support the testimony of Petitioner and her daughter regarding Petitioner's condition during the critical time of June and July 2010. Not only are Petitioner and her daughter lay witnesses who lack the expertise to offer medical opinions, but these two witnesses share an interest in characterizing Petitioner's condition, in this proceeding, as extreme and extraordinary. Instead, the impression given by the inconsistencies noted above is that Petitioner's condition was neither extreme nor extraordinary, but, rather, was chronic and manageable or at least accepted as the norm for the household. If Petitioner's condition were as extreme and debilitating as suggested for purposes of arguing equitable tolling, it would have been reckless for Petitioner to be allowed to continue driving her car. If, in fact, Petitioner was unable to function or comprehend day-to-day occurrences, there would be no excuse, in the exercise of reasonable prudence, for Ms. Viegas, who was not otherwise employed and was living in the home for the expressed purpose of helping Petitioner, to not have assumed full responsibility for her mother's functioning and dealing with day-to-day business affairs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Management Services, enter a final order dismissing the petition for administrative hearing filed by Petitioner, Mary Ann Steadman. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, the following facts are found: The Petitioner, Anna Torres, (hereinafter "Torres") worked for the Department of Transportation as a toll collector at the Golden Glades toll plaza and was a career service employee at all times pertinent to this case. At the time of the events giving rise to this case, Torres had been employed by the Department for about eight years. Torres was authorized to be on approved leave from October 24, 1989, through November 8, 1989. Torres used that period of leave to drive from South Florida to California to visit her parents. Torres was accompanied on the trip by her roommate. Torres was expected to return to work on November 9, 1990. Torres' father had been sick for several years and during her visit his condition took a sudden turn for the worse, as a result of which it was necessary for her father to be hospitalized. Torres was very concerned about her father's medical condition and felt a need to remain in California until it could be determined whether her father was going to recover from his worsened condition. To facilitate a longer stay in California, Torres' mother offered to pay Torres' airfare from California to Florida in the event Torres could not obtain additional leave, and the roommate offered to drive the car back. On November 7, 1989, Torres placed a telephone call from her parents' home in California to the Golden Glades toll plaza. She spoke with Mildred Burham, who was, and is, the assistant manager at the Golden Glades toll plaza and the supervisor of one of the shifts. Mildred Burham was not the supervisor of Torres' shift. The essence of what Torres told Mildred Burham is that, because of a family emergency, Torres needed to stay in California for another two weeks and wanted a two week extension of her vacation. Torres also asked Mildred Burham to convey the message to Vera Hulse. 1/ Vera Hulse was, and is, the manager of the Golden Glades toll plaza. At that time, Torres did not have sufficient annual or sick leave to cover an additional absence of two weeks. During the November 7, 1989, telephone conversation, Mildred Burham told Torres that she (Burham) would "check into" the request for additional leave and would convey Torres' message to Vera Hulse. Ms. Burham did not tell Torres that the two week extension of her vacation was approved. 2/ During the November 7, 1989, telephone call, Torres did not give Ms. Burham the telephone number at her parents' house in California. Instead, she told Ms. Burham that if they needed to get in touch with her, they could call Torres' son at her home in Florida and he could give them the California telephone number. When Ms. Burham told Vera Hulse about the telephone call from Torres, something apparently got lost in the translation. The message communicated to Ms. Hulse was to the general effect that Torres had called and said that because of a family problem Torres would not be back to Florida for another two weeks. Ms. Hulse was not advised that Torres was requesting leave; only that Torres would be two weeks late getting back due to a family problem. Torres was scheduled to work on the following days: November 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 1989. Torres did not report for work on any of those days, nor did she have any other communication with her employer after the telephone communication of November 7, 1990, until November 20, 1989, when Torres called again. Between November 9 and November 20, 1989, Ms. Burham and Ms. Hulse called Torres' home telephone number in an effort to contact her son and obtain the telephone number where Torres was staying in California. Those efforts were unsuccessful. On November 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15, 1989, Torres was placed on unauthorized leave without pay. On November IS, 1989, the Department sent Torres a letter advising her that because she had failed to report for work and had been on unauthorized leave without pay since November 10, 1989, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Department of Administration enter a final order in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Anna Torres, did not abandon her position of employment with the Department and ordering that she be reinstated to her position as a toll collector with back pay. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of June, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 1990.
Findings Of Fact 11. The factual allegations contained in the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on May 19, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on June 7, 2011, and the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 17, 2012, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On May 19, 2011, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-164-1A to WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On May 19, 2011, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On June 2, 2011, the Department received an Election of Proceeding requesting administrative review (“Petition”) from WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. A copy of the Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 4. On June 7, 2011, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment amended the legal name of the employer to WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $43,256.29 against WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment includéd a Notice of Rights wherein WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28- 106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 5. On June 23, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by certified mail on WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On July 13, 2011, the Department received an amended Election of Proceeding form (“Amended Petition”) from WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 11-6178. A copy of the Amended Petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. Following issuance of subsequent Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment, on February 17, 2012, the Department issued a 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $4,708.85 against WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC. The 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein WILLIAM KEELE, DBA, WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC, A DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AND WILLIAM MILTON KEELE LLC was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 8. On April 5, 2012, the Department filed a Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment with the Division of Administrative Hearings in DOAH Case No. 11-6178. A copy of the Department’s Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment together with the 3rd Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 9. On April 18, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Granting Motion to Amend Penalty Assessment in DOAH Case No. 11-6178. The Order Granting Motion to Amend Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On April 30, 2012, the Administrative Law Judge entered an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction due to Respondent’s failure to participate in discovery and appear at the scheduled formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 11-6178. A copy of the Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner until June 15, 1995. Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission on July 10, 1995. The Charge of Discrimination alleges that Petitioner was forced to leave her position of employment because of Petitioner's religion. The Charge of Discrimination alleges, in relevant part, that Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment because she is Christian and "always trying to convert people." Time Limits The Charge of Discrimination was timely filed pursuant to Section 760.11(1). The filing date of July 10, 1995, fell within 365 days of June 15, 1995, which is the date of the alleged discrimination. Section 760.11(3) authorizes the Commission to issue a determination of reasonable cause within 180 days of July 10, 1995; the date Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination. Counting July 11, 1995, as the first day of the 180-day time limit, Section 760.11(3) authorized the Commission to determine reasonable cause no later than January 6, 1996. The Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on January 31, 2000. Section 760.11(7) required Petitioner to file a request for hearing within 35 days of January 6, 1996. Counting January 7, 1996, as the first day of the 35-day period, Section 760.11(7) required Petitioner to file a request for hearing no later than February 10, 1996. Petitioner did not timely file a request for hearing. Petitioner first requested a hearing in the Petition for Relief filed on February 18, 2000. Petitioner filed her request for hearing approximately 1,468 days late and 1,503 days after the expiration of the 180-day time limit prescribed in Section 760.11(3). Petitioner did not respond to the Order to Show Cause to explain why she filed the request for hearing late. Section 760.11(7) statutorily bars Petitioner's claim. Section 760.11(7) expressly provides, in relevant part: If the aggrieved person does not request an administrative hearing within the 35 days, the claim will be barred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing this proceeding as barred by Section 760.11(7). DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Maria J. Green 1800 Biscayne Drive, Apartment 4 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Stephen H. Price, Esquire Cramer and Price, P.A. 1420 Edgewater Drive Olando, Florida 32804 Don Reynolds, Director American Home Companions, Inc. Post Office Box 547062 Orlando, Florida 32854
