Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a "small business party" sole proprietorship domiciled in Tampa, Florida, with less than 25 employees, and a net worth of less than $2 million. The Respondent previously initiated action against Petitioner as a result of a Medicaid audit of Petitioner's pharmacy and identified an overpayment which it then sought to recover from Petitioner. A timely request for hearing was filed by Petitioner, and the matter was transmitted by the Respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned Case Number 88-1668. The final hearing was held in Tampa, Florida, on June 22, 1988, before Donald D. Conn, Hearing Officer, and thereafter a Recommended Order was filed on August 17, 1988, which recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing its action against Petitioner, refunding any funds which it had withheld, plus interest, and removing all other sanctions. The Respondent approved and adopted this recommendation in its Final Order entered on September 15, 1988, by the terms of which Petitioner prevailed in the prior action initiated by the Respondent. The Respondent was not a nominal party to the prior proceedings, and there is nothing in the record to show that the Respondent was substantially justified in bringing the prior action, or that any special circumstances exist which would make an award of fees and costs unjust. On November 2, 1988, a Petition for Costs and Attorney's Fees was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Petitioner. The Petition is accompanied by an affidavit and supporting documents which are uncontroverted, and which establish that Petitioner incurred legal fees in the amount of $14,587.50 and costs of $1,437.77, as a result of the prior proceedings in Case Number 88-1668. In the Petition for Costs and Fees, the Petitioner specifically indicated that an evidentiary hearing was not requested. No responsive pleading of any kind has been filed on behalf of the Respondent to this Petition for Costs and Fees.
Findings Of Fact This cause originated in a disciplinary action resulting from an administrative complaint filed by the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate against the Petitioners herein, Malcolm Lewis Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. The Petitioners herein were the Respondents in the licensure disciplinary proceeding. That proceeding was resolved in their favor by the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer and by the Final Order filed April 15, 1988 by the Department of Professional Regulation. They have accordingly filed a request for attorney's fees and costs on the ground that the prosecution involved in the underlying case was not "substantially justified." The cause came on for a brief hearing. The parties elected to dispense with calling witnesses at the hearing because they entered into a factual stipulation whereby all germane facts were placed of record. It was thus established that Petitioners Malcolm Lewis Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. (hereafter Hardy) were the Respondents in a licensure disciplinary action brought against them by the above-named Respondent. That disciplinary action was resolved by Final Order filed April 15, 1988 by the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondents in that case, the Petitioners herein, were totally absolved of any wrongdoing with regard to the charges in the administrative complaint in that proceeding. A copy of that Final Order was mailed by the agency to "Diane Cleavinger, Esquire, 300 East 15th Street, Panama City, Florida 32405." Ms. Jan Nelson, a secretary at that address, and employed by Ms. Cleavinger's former law firm, received a copy of that order and executed the return receipt appearing on the envelope on April 18, 1988. Ms. Nelson was not Ms. Cleavinger's secretary, but rather the secretary of Ms. Fitzpatrick, one of Ms. Cleavinger's former law partners. In any event, Ms. Nelson executed the return receipt on April 18, 1988, but Ms. Cleavinger never received the Final Order nor notification of its filing or receipt by Ms. Nelson. Mr. Hardy never became aware of or received a copy of the Final Order either, until the agency sent another copy to him on September 12, 1988. The affidavit and request for attorney's fees was filed within sixty days of that date. Ms. Cleavinger had left her law firm on January 1, 1988 to become a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Hardy only learned of the Order when he made a direct contact with the Department of Professional Regulation and they learned that he had not received the Final Order. It was thus mailed to him on September 12, 1988 and received on September 14, 1988. That Order dismissed all claims against Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. and thus those parties are in fact "prevailing, small business parties," within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. It was stipulated at hearing, as well, that these Petitioners are small business, prevailing parties and that they incurred attorney's fees in the amount of $1,642.04 for services rendered by Ms. Cleavinger when she represented them in the underlying case-in-chief and that costs amount to $333.71. Additionally, Mr. Hardy further incurred attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $500 in connection with the pursuit of this fee claim by attorney Whitton. It was stipulated that that amount is reasonable. Additionally, the Department accepted its burden of establishing that its action was "substantially justified," within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and have stipulated that they have not done so. Thus the only issue for resolution concerns whether the claim of Hardy was time-barred.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Conval-Care, Inc., is entitled to the payment of attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, from the Agency for Health Care Administration, the successor in interest to the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated November 4, 1991, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), notified Conval-Care, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Conval-Care"), that it intended to impose an administrative fine on Conval-Care pursuant to Section 409.913(9)(c), Florida Statutes. Conval-Care contested the proposed fine and requested a formal administrative hearing, including a request that it be awarded attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The matter was designated case number 92-0126 and was assigned to the Honorable Judge Robert T. Benton, then Hearing Officer Benton. On June 30, 1993, following a formal hearing held on March 24, 1993, Hearing Officer Benton entered a Recommended Order recommending dismissal of the sanctions letter of November 4, 1991. The findings of fact made by Hearing Officer Benton, in Conval-Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 92-0126, are hereby adopted to the extent relevant to this proceeding. On September 19, 1993, the Department entered a Final Order. The Department accepted and incorporated into its Final Order the findings of fact made by Hearing Officer Benton. The Department, however, rejected Hearing Officer Benton's conclusions of law to the extent that he not had concluded that Conval-Care lacked authority to reject the demand for its records which was the subject of the proceedings. The Department concluded that, in light of the fact that Conval-Care had acted on the advice of counsel, it would reduce the fine from $25,000.00 to $5,000.00. The Department's decision was appealed by Conval-Care. On December 16, 1994, the District Court of Appeal, First District, filed an opinion reversing the Department's Final Order. Mandate from the First District was entered January 3, 1995. On February 14, 1995, Conval-Care filed a Petition for Attorneys Fees and Costs in this case. Conval-Care requested an award of $15,000.00 as a small business party pursuant to the provisions of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Attached to the Petition were the Final Order entered by the Department, the Recommended Order, the First District's Opinion and Mandate, an Attorney's Affidavit stating the nature, extent and monetary value of the services rendered and costs incurred in the proceedings, the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Conval-Care in 1991 and the Department's November 4, 1991 sanctions letter. On March 2, 1995, the Agency for Health Care Administration, the successor in interest of the Department (hereinafter referred to as "AHCA"), filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs. 10 In its Response, AHCA admitted all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 6 and 8 through 9 of the Petition. AHCA denied the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Petition. Paragraph 7 of the Petition alleged the following: 7. The action of DHRS, in filing the admini- strative complaint against CCI, was not sub- stantially justified because there was no reasonable basis in law or fact to support the issuance of its letter seeking to impose an administrative fine upon CCI. Attached to the Response was an Affidavit from John M. Whiddon in support of its position that its actions were substantially justified. The Affidavit does not add any alleged credible justification not presented to Hearing Officer Benton or the First District Court of Appeal. AHCA did not assert in it Response the following: that the costs and attorney's fees claimed in Conval-Care's affidavit were unreasonable; that Conval-Care is not a prevailing small business party; that circumstances exist that would make an award unjust; or that AHCA was a nominal party only. AHCA also did not "either admit to the reasonableness of the fees and costs claimed or file a counter affidavit [specifying each item of costs and fee in dispute] along with its response." Finally, AHCA did not request an evidentiary hearing in its Response. The only issue which AHCA asserted in its Response was at issue in this proceeding is whether AHCA's actions were substantially justified. On April 6, 1995, an Order to Provide Information was entered. Although the parties had not requested an evidentiary hearing, the undersigned entered the Order soliciting input from the parties before the undersigned decided whether a hearing was necessary on the one issue raised by the Department. In the Order, the parties were given an opportunity to provide input concerning the procedures they believed should be followed to resolve this matter. The parties were specifically requested to answer certain specified questions, including the following: 1. Do the parties believe that an [sic] hearing is necessary to resolve any factual disputes and/or for purposes of oral argument before a decision is rendered? * * * 5. Do the parties agree that the documents attached to the Petition and the Response should be considered in rendering a decision in this case? . . ." Conval-Care filed a response to the April 6, 1995 Order indicating that there was no need for a hearing. Conval-Care asserted that a hearing would be improper unless Conval-Care consents to one. Conval-Care also asserted that all of the documents attached to petition should be considered. AHCA filed a response to the April 6, 1995 Order indicating that "[t]he Respondent feels a hearing in this matter is essential." AHCA did not provide any explanation of why it believed a hearing was necessary or any discussion of whether a hearing was authorized under the applicable statutes and rules. AHCA also indicated in its response that it "agrees that the documents attached to the Petition and Response should be considered in this case " On May 19, 1995, an Order Concerning Final Order was entered. Based upon a review of the pleadings and the lack of explanation from either party to justify an evidentiary hearing, it was concluded that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. Therefore, the parties were informed in the May 19, 1995 Order that a hearing would not be held in this case. The parties were also informed that they could file proposed final orders on or before May 30, 1995. Conval-Care filed a proposed order. AHCA did not. Neither Conval-Care nor AHCA timely requested an evidentiary hearing in this case. Both parties agreed that the documentation filed with Conval- Care's Petition and AHCA's Response could be relied upon in reaching a decision in this case. Based upon AHCA's failure to contest most of the relevant issues in this proceeding, the only issue which requires a decision if whether the Department's actions against Conval-Care were substantially justified. The documents, including the Mr. Whiddon's Affidavit filed by AHCA with its Response, sufficiently explain why the Department took the actions it took against Conval-Care which led to this proceeding. No evidentiary hearing was, therefore, necessary. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department's actions in this matter were substantially justified. The Department could have sought the information it wanted by pursuing available discovery. Counsel for Conval-Care even remained the Department of the availability of discovery. The Department, however, rather than pursuing the information which it indicated it needed, elected to pursue a punitive action against Conval-Care rather than obtaining the information through discovery. The Department's reason for pursuing punitive actions against Conval-Care was not convincing to Hearing Officer Benton. Despite this fact, the Department entered a Final Order upholding its actions and imposing a fine of $5,000.00 for refusing to provide it with information which it could have obtained through other means. The First District Court reversed the Department's Final Order opining that the Department "lacked a legitimate investigatory purpose for demanding the records" which gave rise to its action against Conval-Care. Finally, the entire record in this case failed to indicate that there was any basis in law or fact to substantially justify the actions of the Department.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the pleadings and supporting documents, the following findings of fact are determined: On August 16, 1991, respondent, Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), issued Request For Proposal No. 92-002 (RFP) in which it invited various firms to submit proposals for assisting DPR and the Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission) in the production and scoring of the Florida Real Estate and Appraisal Examination for the period beginning January 1, 1992, through June 30, 1993, with a renewal option of one to two years. Such proposals were to be filed no later than September 20, 1991. After all proposals were filed, the RFP called for an evaluation of such proposals by a six-person evaluation committee who would make a recommendation to the Secretary of DPR. In addition, the Commission made a non-binding recommendation to the Secretary who retained final authority to award the contract. Proposals were timely filed by three firms, including petitioner, Professional Testing Service, Inc. (PTS), Applied Measurement Professionals, Inc. (AMP), and National Assessment Institute. After an evaluation of the proposals was made, the committee recommended that the contract be awarded to AMP. By a 4-3 vote, the Commission concurred in this recommendation. Thereafter, on October 24, 1991, the Secretary selected AMP as the recipient of the contract. A protest was then filed by PTS, and after informal efforts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful, the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and was assigned Case No. 91-7429BID. An evidentiary hearing on the bid dispute was conducted on December 2, 1991. Thereafter, on January 3, 1992, a recommended order was issued recommending that AMP's proposal be found materially nonresponsive and that the contract be awarded to one of the other two vendors. It is noted that, with one minor exception, the recommended order found each of the grounds raised by PTS to be meritorious. On January 23, 1992, DPR issued a final order adopting in toto the findings of fact and conclusions of law and awarding the contract to PTS. That order was not appealed and is now final. Because it is undisputed that PTS is a corporation having its principal place of business in this state, has less than 25 full-time employees and a net worth of not more than $2 million, PTS is a prevailing small business party in Case No. 91-7429BID. Through affidavits attached to its petition, PTS has established that the requested amount of $12,049.93 in attorney's fees and costs is reasonable and accurate. Respondent does not contest the fact that petitioner incurred that amount of fees and costs in prosecuting the bid protest. Petitioner contends that there was no rational justification for DPR making an award of the contract to AMP since AMP's bid was clearly nonresponsive on its face and DPR had ample opportunity to ascertain those defects prior to the award of the contract. Findings of fact 27 through 30 in the recommended order issued in Case No. 91-7429BID and adopted by DPR in its Final Order establish that AMP's proposal filed on September 20, 1991, deviated in several material respects from the RFP. These included a failure by AMP to differentiate between costs incurred for candidates examined and candidates who were scheduled to take the examination but did not appear, the use of nine cost components to develop the cost per candidate scheduled instead of the eight components specified in the RFP, the proposed use of DPR personnel rather than its own personnel to provide unofficial grade reports to candidates at the examination site, and a failure to agree to establish an office in the greater Orlando area. All of these deficiencies were present in AMP's original proposal filed on September 20, 1991, and were known by both the evaluation committee and the DPR Secretary prior to the award of the contract. Indeed, this was confirmed by testimony adduced at the evidentiary hearing. In addition, there was an evidentiary showing that DPR allowed AMP to amend and clarify its proposal after all proposals had been filed and declined to enforce material requirements in the RFP. The lack of a reasonable basis in law or fact to justify the preliminary award of the contract to AMP was further corroborated by the statements contained in the affidavit of Charles E. Barner, Jr. Therefore, it is found that the agency was not substantially justified in initially awarding the contract for RFP-91-002 to AMP and that there were no special circumstances present which justified the agency's actions. There is no evidence to support a finding that the parties intended for Subsection 287.042(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1991) to apply to this proceeding. Indeed, it was not shown that petitioner was required to post a bond with DPR at the time it filed its formal written protest to the award of the contract, and the agency's final order did not contain a provision reimbursing PTS for "fees and charges excluding attorney's fees" incurred in prosecuting Case No. 91- 7429BID.
The Issue At issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, the "Florida Equal Access to Justice Act."
Findings Of Fact Findings relating to the underlying disciplinary action The Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Board of Dentistry (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Petitioner, Mounir Albert, D.D.S. (Dr. Albert), was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0010217. On September 2, 1997, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Dr. Albert (Agency Case Number 95-12645). The complaint charged that Dr. Albert was subject to disciplinary action under the provision of Subsection 466.028(1)(aa), Florida Statutes (1995), for having violated Subsection 455.241(1), Florida Statutes, by having failed, upon request, to furnish a patient in a timely manner, without delays for legal review, copies of all reports and records relating to the patient's examination or treatment, including x-rays and insurance information. For such violation, the Department proposed that one or more of the following penalties be imposed: . . . revocation or suspension of . . . [Dr. Albert's] license, restriction of . . . [Dr. Albert's] practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of . . . [Dr. Albert] on probation, and/or any other relief that the Board deems appropriate. Dr. Albert disputed the allegations of fact contained in the Administrative Complaint, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for the assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct a formal hearing. The matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 97-5001, and a hearing was duly held on February 5, 1998. On March 9, 1998, a Recommended Order was rendered, which concluded that, while Dr. Albert failed to furnish the patient records on request, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. Central to such conclusion was the finding that: . . . while subsection 455.241(1) obligates the health care provider to provide, upon request, copies of a patient's medical records, subsection 455.241(4) also authorizes the health care provider to charge, for such service, the cost of duplication. Reading the provisions in pari materi, it is reasonable to conclude that, absent payment of the cost of duplication, a health care provider is under no obligation to provide a patient with copies of his records. Since the patient failed to pay Dr. Albert for the cost of duplication, as requested, it was resolved that Dr. Albert had not violated Subsection 455.241(1) as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. On June 9, 1998, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the underlying case. The Final Order approved and adopted the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Order, and dismissed the Administrative Complaint. Judicial review of the Final Order was not sought, and Petitioner timely filed the subject petition for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Findings relating to the claim for attorney's fees and costs Pertinent to Dr. Albert's claim for attorney's fees and costs, the Department has conceded that the underlying action was initiated by the Department, that Dr. Albert prevailed in the underlying case, and that the claim for attorney's fees and costs was timely filed.1 The Department has, however, denied that Dr. Albert was a "small business party" and, therefore, a "prevailing small business party," as those terms are defined by Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and has affirmatively averred that its actions were "substantially justified." Given the circumstances, an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs would be appropriate provided Dr. Albert can establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he was a "prevailing small business party" in the underlying proceeding and, if so, the Department fails to establish that its actions were "substantially justified." Addressing first Dr. Albert's status, it must be concluded that the proof fails to support the conclusion that at the time the underlying proceeding was initiated, or at any other time material hereto, Dr. Albert (the party to the underlying proceeding) was a "small business party," as that term is defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and, consequently, the proof fails to support the conclusion that he was a "prevailing small business party," as required for compensation under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. See Section 57.111(4)(a), Florida Statutes. In so concluding, it is observed that the proof demonstrates that, at all times material, Dr. Albert practiced dentistry as an employee of a professional service corporation, Mounir Albert, D.D.S., P.A. (the corporation or business), as authorized by Chapter 621, Florida Statutes, and was not shown to be the sole proprietor of, or operate his dental practice or any other enterprise, as an unincorporated business. Having resolved that Dr. Albert was not shown to be a "prevailing small business party," and was, therefore, not eligible for an award of attorney's fees and costs under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, it is not necessary to address whether the Department's actions were "substantially justified," when the underlying proceeding was initiated.
The Issue The issue is whether petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background This case involves a claim by petitioner, John E. Phillips, Jr., that he is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs because of an administrative action improvidently brought against him by respondent, Department of Banking and Finance (DBF). When the complaint was filed, Phillips was registered with DBF as an associated person with Aragon Financial Services, Inc. DBF contends the claim is without merit because Phillips is not a small business party within the meaning of the law, there is substantial justification to support the agency's decision to file a complaint, and special circumstances are present which would make an award of fees and costs unjust. The action which underlies this claim involved an administrative complaint filed against Phillips on February 4, 1994, charging him with violating various provisions within Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. That complaint was assigned Case No. 94-1266. The complaint also denied an application by Phillips to register as an associated person with a new firm. In addition, the complaint named Bruce M. Walker as a co-respondent, and as to that registrant, the complaint was assigned Case No. 94-1358. Both cases were consolidated for hearing and, after an evidentiary hearing was conducted on June 27, 1994, a Recommended Order was issued on September 13, 1994, recommending that all charges against Phillips be dismissed and that his application for registration be approved. The Recommended Order was adopted by DBF without change, and Phillips is accordingly deemed to be a prevailing party in that action. Phillips has requested fees and costs in the amount of $15,000.00, the maximum allowed by law. Respondent does not contest the reasonableness of that amount. Prima Facie Requirements for an Award of Fees and Costs In order to show entitlement to an award of fees and costs, petitioner must demonstrate that he is a "prevailing small business party" within the meaning of the law. Since he has filed the petition on his own behalf, he must show he is a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, including a professional practice, whose principal office is in this state, who is domiciled in this state, and whose business or professional practice has, at the time the action is initiated by the state agency, not more than 25 full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2 million. At the time the administrative complaint was filed, Phillips was domiciled in Pensacola, Florida, and had a net worth of less than $2 million. According to an uncontroverted allegation in his petition, Phillips had no "employees relating to business that formed the basis for the Agency's charges." Petitioner was also a 50 percent shareholder in a subchapter S corporation known as Phillips, Walker & Associates, Inc. (PWA), a Pensacola firm engaged in the sale of insurance products. Although Phillips was registered with DBF as an associated person with Aragon Financial Services, Inc., that firm was not the subject of the complaint nor is it otherwise relevant to this dispute. Petitioner's principal source of income was through the sale of insurance products sold through PWA although he occasionally sold a few securities during that same period of time. The administrative complaint was not filed against PWA, which held no licenses from the state, but rather was filed against the registration of Phillips as an individual. Although he was an officer, employee and shareholder of PWA, Phillips was not a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, including a professional practice. Therefore, he does not qualify as a small business party. Was There Substantial Justification? The consumer complaint which eventually led to the filing of the charges in Case No. 94-1266 was made by Jane Hubbard, a Gulf Breeze realtor who had loaned a substantial amount of money ($50,000.00) to PWA in May 1988 and was never repaid. The loan was secured by a promissory note personally signed by Phillips and Walker, as the owners of the corporation. After PWA ceased doing business in May 1990, and both Phillips and Walker had filed for bankruptcy, Hubbard, or her attorney, contacted DBF in an effort to seek DBF's aid in collecting her money from Phillips and Walker. Since petitioner was registered with DBF as an associated person, and thus was subject to DBF's regulatory jurisdiction, Hubbard apparently assumed that Phillips may have violated the law in some respect, and the agency might be able to assist her in recovering all or a part of her money. A similar complaint filed with the Department of Insurance was not pursued by that agency. Hubbard's complaint was eventually referred to a DBF financial examiner, Robert R. Kynoch, who, among other things, interviewed Phillips, Walker, Hubbard, and three other persons who had made loans to Walker (but not Phillips). Although Kynoch did not place the persons interviewed under oath during the investigative stage, there was no requirement that he do so. Based on a representation by Hubbard that Phillips and Walker had failed to disclose to her all relevant information regarding PWA's financial status at the time the loan was made, Kynoch concluded that a reasonable basis existed to bring charges against the two if the loan was actually an investment, and thus subject to DBF's jurisdiction under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Accordingly, Kynoch prepared a written investigative report, received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 3, which recommended that the report "be further reviewed for appropriate disposition." The report was first reviewed by Michael D. Blaker, a DBF area financial manager, who approved the recommendation and forwarded it to his supervisor, Richard White. It was then reviewed and approved by a bureau chief, William Reilly, and finally by the division director, Don Saxon. After Saxon signed off on the report, it was sent to the general counsel's office for a legal determination as to whether the loan was an investment. Margaret S. Karniewicz, an assistant general counsel, concluded that it was, and recommended the issuance of an administrative complaint. After an evidentiary hearing was conducted, a determination was made that the loan constituted an investment. This determination in the Recommended and Final Orders was not contested by any party, including Phillips. There was, however, insufficient evidence to establish that misrepresentations were made by Phillips during the sale of the investment. For this reason, the charges against Phillips were dismissed and his application for registration with a new firm was approved. Because DBF had statements, which it assessed to be credible, from a complaining witness (Hubbard) that misrepresentations or material omissions were made by Phillips and Walker during the transaction, and DBF properly construed the transaction as an investment, it had a reasonable basis in fact and law to file the complaint. Since there was no showing that the agency's credibility assessment was unreasonable, DBF was substantially justified in bringing the charges in Case No. 94-1266. Special Circumstances There was no evidence presented by respondent to show that special circumstances exist that would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner Michael A. Crane, d/b/a Accent Builders of Florida, Inc., is entitled to an award of attorney's fees against Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On October 14, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reimbursement of Attorney's Fees and Costs. Petitioner seeks reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs incurred in DOAH Case No. 04-4040PL, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is the prevailing party in the underlying proceeding, DOAH Case No. 04-4040PL. On September 23, 2005, the Construction Industry Licensing Board entered its Final Order in the underlying case, in which it adopted the Recommended Order entered in the DOAH proceeding, thereby dismissing the charges that Petitioner had violated certain provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. In the underlying proceeding, Respondent charged Michael A. Crane with violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, in his capacity as a certified general contractor holding Florida license No. CGC8644. Petitioner had entered into the contract which gave rise to the underlying proceeding as Accent Builders of Florida, Inc. (Accent). Respondent's disciplinary action was not directed at Accent Builders of Florida, Inc., but at Petitioner as the qualifying agent for the company. Petitioner is not a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business. Petitioner is neither a partnership nor a corporation. Petitioner does business in Florida as Accent, but at the time the underlying proceeding was initiated, Petitioner had not applied for and been granted a certificate of authority for Accent through himself as the qualifying agent. In September 2004, while the underlying proceeding was pending, Petitioner applied for and was granted a certificate of authority for Accent with Michael A. Crane as the qualifying agent. Despite the fact that Petitioner was granted a certificate of authority for Accent, the underlying proceeding was brought against the certified general contractor, Michael A. Crane, not against Accent as a corporate entity. In order to determine whether the underlying action brought by Respondent against Petitioner was substantially justified at the time it was initiated by the Agency, the information that was before the probable cause panel that directed the filing of the Administrative Complaint must be examined. In the underlying matter giving rise to Petitioner's request for attorney's fees, the Probable Cause Panel had before it a 188-page Investigative Report, as well as three supplemental Investigative Reports related to the alleged defects in the construction performed by Petitioner. The Probable Cause Panel convened on April 27, 2004, at which time it made a finding of probable cause that Petitioner had violated Subsections 489.129(1)(g)1., (i), (k), and (m), Florida Statutes. The panel members reported that they had reviewed the investigative reports and draft complaints, and were advised by a member of the Attorney General's staff regarding their responsibilities in determining whether probable cause existed to file an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. The consumer complaint accompanying the Investigative Report alleged that the contractor did not properly supervise the project; that the construction has resulted in numerous leaks; that the steam shower was not installed as required by the manufacturer; that the decking was not installed according to the manufacturer's instructions; and that most of the punch list items had been left unaddressed. The Investigative Report also contained Petitioner's response, which stated that Petitioner was precluded from correcting the deficiencies by the consumer, and that, although responsive to the consumer regarding the leaks, Petitioner saw no damage as a result of the leaks. The Investigative Report contained numerous documents describing the efforts of contractors hired by the consumer to remedy the leaks and alleged defects in construction. The report also included documentation of payments made by the consumer to the various contractors called in to eliminate the problems the consumer was experiencing. The Probable Cause Panel's review of the materials before it resulted in a determination that a reasonable investigation had been conducted, and that a reasonable person could conclude that sufficient evidence existed to charge Petitioner with violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. At the time the Probable Cause Panel reviewed the Investigative Report, it appeared that Petitioner's work had resulted in water damage, and that a valid subcontractor's lien had been placed against the consumer's property resulting in financial harm. The Probable Cause Panel's determination to direct Respondent to file an Administrative Complaint had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was made. Respondent was not a "nominal party" to the underlying proceeding according to the meaning of that term in Subsection 57.111(4)(d)1., Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorneys' fees.
Findings Of Fact On June 4, 1992, Respondent transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings file materials containing allegations that Petitioner was guilty of child abuse and Petitioner's demand for a hearing. The file was assigned DOAH Case No. 92-3396C. After several continunaces, DOAH Case No. 92-3396C was set for final hearing March 30, 1993, in Tampa. By letter dated March 23, 1993, Respondent, through the District Administrator of District 7, stated to Petitioner: [Respondent], during the trial preparation phase of this case, has voluntarily decided to reclassify your role in the incident in question. As a result of this reclassification, you are no longer identified as having committed abuse or neglect with respect to the alleged incident and the [abuse] report will be changed accordingly. On March 26, 1992, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case. On April 15, 1993, an Order Closing File was entered. On May 3, 1993, Petitioner commenced the above-styled proceeding by filing a Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Court Costs together with an affidavit of fees and costs. On May 7, 1993, Respondent filed a response demanding that the motion be dismissed. DOAH Case No. 92-3396C was initiated based on the complaints of a minor who charged that Petitioner, her uncle, had sexually abused her for six years on a weekly basis. Respondent's protective investigator spoke with the alleged victim, who repeated these charges, as well as to her parents, who believed her, and to a mental health counsellor, who either said she believed the alleged victim or at least did not say that she did not believe alleged victim. Petitioner steadfastly denied the charges. However, the protective investigator did not contact him prior to closing the case as proposed confirmed. Nor did the protective investigator contact the alleged victim's physician, who would have informed the protective investigator that physical examination of the vagina of the alleged victim disclosed no abnormal findings. The physician would have stated that the alleged victim evidently had not previously engaged in sexual intercourse, which would have contradicted the alleged victim's charges against Petitioner. The record does not disclose that the alleged victim ever recanted. The record contains no direct evidence of an improper purpose on the part of Respondent. In effect, Petitioner urges that such a purpose be inferred from the circumstances. As long as the alleged victim stood by her earlier statements, there remained a genuine issue of fact. Under all of the circumstances, her statement may not have been entitled to much weight. Perhaps evaluating the evidence in like manner, Respondent wisely concluded that its resources could be better directed than litigating DOAH Case No. 92-3396C. But the persistence of the alleged victim in charging Petitioner with sexual abuse undermines the inference that Respondent pursued the prosecution of Petitioner for an improper purpose. In the absence of stronger evidence contradicting the alleged victim's charges, Petitioner fails to show that Respondent maintained the prosecution for an improper purpose.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Raul Romaguera, is a small business party within the meaning of Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1985). When the underlying action herein occurred, he was licensed as a medical doctor by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners (Board). On October 27, 1986, respondent filed an administrative complaint against Dr. Romaguera alleging that he had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1985), by committing gross malpractice or failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The alleged violation related to Dr. Romaguera's inspection and diagnosis of a patient's tissue in December, 1980 while supervising a pathology department at a Lake Worth hospital. After an evidentiary hearing was conducted on March 24 and 25, 1987, a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned on May 12, 1987, finding that the charge was unsubstantiated and recommending that the complaint be dismissed. The Recommended Order was adopted by the Board in its entirety by Final Order dated June 19, 1987. A timely petition for attorney's fees and costs was thereafter filed by petitioner on August 18, 1987. The parties have stipulated that, as a result of the Board's Final Order, Dr. Romaguera is a prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (1985). They have also stipulated that, in order to defend against the agency's action, Dr. Romaguera incurred at least $15,000 in attorney's fees and costs. There is no evidence as to what information, oral or written, the probable cause panel had before it when voting to initiate this action. The agency does stipulate that, at some point in the probable cause phase of the proceeding, the panel requested more information on the matter before taking a vote. This is corroborated by an agency memorandum dated April 8, 1986 and introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 1. At the final hearing on the merits of the administrative complaint, the agency presented a number of expert witnesses who concurred in the Board's assessment that Dr. Romaguera had failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment required of a reasonably prudent similar practicing physician in the Lake Worth area. Doctor Romaguera also presented the testimony of an expert who disagreed with this assessment. Hence, the validity of the charges turned on the credibility and weight to be given the various experts by the undersigned.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner's response to Respondent's RFP 90 PY is responsive so as to be eligible for an award of "Wagner-Peyser 10% funds."
Findings Of Fact Section 7(b)(2) of the Wagner-Peyser Act, 29 U.S.C. s. 49f. is a federal grant source which permits ten percent of the sums allotted by Congress to each state to be used to provide certain services and functions within the discretion of the governors of the respective states. Included among such services are job placement services for groups determined by the Governor of Florida to have special needs as set forth in Subsection 7(b)(2) of the Wagner- Peyser Act. Petitioner Goal Employment is a private-for-profit Florida corporation engaged in the business of finding gainful employment for offenders, i.e., those persons who have been convicted of a crime but who are now out of prison seeking employment. On January 26, 1990, the Respondent, Division of Labor, Employment and Training (LET) of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security (LES), published a request for proposals (RFP) soliciting competitive sealed proposals for job placement programs in accordance with Section 287.057(3) F.S. and the federal grant source, commonly referred to as "Wagner-Peyser 10% funds." The response date and time for this 1990 RFP, a/k/a RFP 90 PY, was 3:00 p.m., March 23, 1990. Petitioner, Goal Employment, filed a timely proposal with Respondent, but the agency found Goal Employment's proposal to be nonresponsive and notified Petitioner of this determination in a letter dated April 4, 1990. That letter set out the grounds of the Respondent agency's determination as follows: This nonresponsiveness is due to failure to have proposed program activities that are legal and allowable, i.e., private for profit entities are not eligible to apply for Wagner-Peyser 7(b) funds. Petitioner had 72 hours from that notification in which to protest. It has been stipulated that Goal Employment's proposal would have been found responsive but for the exclusion of private-for-profit organizations from eligibility. By letter dated April 9, 1990, Petitioner gave written notice of receipt of notification of nonresponsiveness on Saturday, April 7, 1990 "around 10:00 a.m." and of its intent to file formal written protest. Date and time of Respondent's receipt of this letter of intent are not clear, but Respondent has not asserted lack of timeliness. Interim negotiations failed, and on April 17, 1990 Petitioner timely filed a formal written protest, which was "fast-tracked" at the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.53(5) F.S. In the immediate past, the Respondent agency had, indeed, permitted contracting with private-for-profit organizations, and Petitioner corporation had been a successful bidder in Respondent's 1988 and 1989 letting of similar contracts. Therefore, Petitioner's principal and president, Ernest S. Urassa, was thoroughly familiar with how these types of contracts had been bid in the past. Mr. Urassa's familiarity with the earlier agency bid policy and procedure was also the result of his prior employment by the agency. The RFP for 1989 did not prohibit private-for- profit organizations from participating. Goal Employment's contract pursuant to that prior RFP had not been completed as of the date of formal hearing, and at all times material to the 1990 RFP which is at issue in this proceeding, Mr. Urassa and Goal Employment coordinated the 1989 contract's compliance through an agency contract manager, Dan Faughn. On November 8, 1989, before the final draft of the 1990 RFP was finalized, Mr. Faughn informed Mr. Urassa by telephone that for the next program year, that is for the 1990 RFP, the agency would no longer permit private-for-profit company participation in Wagner-Peyser contracting. In response to January 11, 1990 oral inquiries from Mr. Urassa, the Chief of Respondent's Bureau of Job Training, Shelton Kemp, sent Mr. Urassa a January 16, 1990 letter as follows: The program year 1990 Request for Proposals prohibits private-for-profit companies from participating in Wagner-Peyser 7(b) contracting. The Wagner-Peyser Act, Section 7(b)(2), allows the governor of each state to provide, "...services for groups with special needs, carried out pursuant to joint agreements between the employment service and the appropriate private industry council, and chief elected official or officials or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations,..." [Emphasis supplied] Those involved in the agency RFP process had reached the foregoing position after receiving advice from their General Counsel who, in turn, had relied on legal advice from the Governor's legal staff. Roy Chilcote, Labor Employment and Training Specialist Supervisor in Respondent's Contract Section, participated in the draft of the 1990 Project Year Request for Proposal (RFP 90 PY) which is at issue in these proceedings. Prior to drafting the 1990 RFP, Mr. Chilcote was unable to locate any written issue papers or legal opinions interpreting the following language contained in the Wagner-Peyser legislation: ...the Governor of each such State to provide-- (2) services for groups with specific needs, carried out pursuant to joint agreements between the employment service and the appropriate private industry council and chief elected officials or other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations; [Emphasis supplied] Up until that time, the issue of whether private-for-profit organizations could compete had not resulted in any specific opinion from legal personnel, however it is fair to say that lay personnel of the agency, including Mr. Urassa, who had previously been employed there, had based agency policy and earlier RFP requirements on lay interpretations either of the foregoing statutory language or of the Job Training Partnership Act's (JTPA) pre-amendment language, and that the lay interpretations had always permitted private-for- profit organizations to bid for Wagner-Peyser 10% funds just as they had competed for JTPA funds. Upon his own review of the statutory language, Mr. Chilcote, also a layman, did not share his predecessor's opinion, and he requested legal advice from the agency's General Counsel, and, in turn, received the legal interpretation that private-for-profit organizations were ineligible. Mr. Chilcote received this legal advice in the fall of 1989, and he accordingly drafted the 1990 RFP to preclude private-for-profit entities as bidders for Wagner-Peyser funds. The actual language contained in the 1990 RFP published January 26, 1990, as found on page 2 thereof, is as follows: All governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations (both for profit and not for profit entities) may apply for funds under the JTPA Title I Program. All governmental agencies and not for profit nongovernmental organizations (private for profit entities are not eligible) may apply for funds under the Wagner-Peyser 7(b) program. Documen- tation supporting the legal structure of the proposer must be on file with the Bureau of Job Training before any contract resulting from a response to the RFP can be executed. [Original emphasis] Under the next major heading of the 1990 RFP (page 5 thereof), all potential bidders, including Petitioner, were advised: The Bureau of Job Training conducts a two step proposal review process. The first step is a technical review to determine if a proposal is responsive to the requirements of the RFP and the second step is a programmatic review of the relative merit of that proposal. The following is a description of the specific criteria that the Bureau will use to determine the responsiveness of a proposal. Each of the criteria listed must be satisfactorily addressed for a proposal to be determined responsive. A proposal determined nonresponsive will be given no further consideration. The proposer will be notified in writing of the nonresponsive determination and the reason(s) for the determination. No exception will be made to these requirements. Although the "specific criteria" listed thereafter do not make reference to the ineligibility of for-profit organizations, that contract specification was clearly noted and emphasized under the preceding heading. See, Finding of Fact 14, supra. Before publication of the 1990 RFP, Mr. Chilcote circulated the draft within the agency for comments. It was at this point, November 8, 1989, approximately 10 weeks before the 1990 RFP was published, that Mr. Faughn orally notified Mr. Urassa of its contents, that Mr. Faughn and Mr. Urassa began inquiries concerning the reinterpretation, and that Mr. Faughn and Mr. Urassa commented unfavorably on the new draft RFP because it precluded private-for- profit bidders. See, Finding of Fact 9, supra. The agency's position allowing Wagner-Peyser 7(b) funding for private- for-profit organizations prior to Program Year 1990 was based in part upon its earlier layman's understanding of the Congressional intent underlying the language of Section 7(b)(2). See, Findings of Fact 12-13, supra. In 1990, the agency altered its position so as to begin excluding for-profit organizations from eligibility for Wagner-Peyser money solely due to its reinterpretation of the statute by legal counsel. This reinterpretation was applied to prohibit the agency from contracting for the delivery of services with all private-for-profit organizations and has not been formally adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54 F.S. Petitioner has been aware of this reinterpretation since November 8, 1989 (actual oral notice), was notified of it in writing on January 16, 1990 (Shelton Kemp's letter), and was again notified of it in writing on January 26, 1990 (1990 RFP publication). Petitioner did not file a formal rule challenge directly with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Prior to the March 3, 1990 bid/proposal deadline, the agency held three RFP workshops: February 20, 22, and 23, 1990. At no time during this process was Petitioner led to believe that private-for-profit entities were to compete for the 1990 RFP. Nonetheless, Petitioner, a private-for-profit entity, submitted its proposal timely before the March 23, 1990 bid closing and was rejected as nonresponsive. It thereafter proceeded solely with a bid protest. See, Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 5, supra.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Labor and Employment Security enter a final order ratifying its previous decision that the Respondent's 1990 bid/proposal is nonresponsive. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 29th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2667BID The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S. upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2, 15 Accepted. Accepted except for what is unnecessary. Accepted except for what is subordinate or cumulative. 5-6 Subordinate and cumulative. 7-10, 19 Accepted. 11-14, 16, 18 Rejected as mere legal argument. 17 Rejected as subordinate. Respondent's PFOF: 1-5 Rejected as mere legal argument. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Meyer and Brooks, P.A. 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 131, The Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 Hugo Menendez, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security Berkeley Building 2590 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Stephen Barron, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security The Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0657 =================================================================
