Findings Of Fact The petition herein is brought in the name of "Silvia S. Ibanez." It prays that attorneys fees and costs be awarded pursuant to Section 57.111 F.S. to "Petitioner Ibanez . . . as the small business prevailing party in this disciplinary action and any other relief deemed appropriate," in the amounts of $11,252.73 for the services of the Holland & Knight law firm, $13,822.50 for the services of the Moore, Hill and Westmoreland law firm, and $8,563.50 for the services of Robert Shapiro, Esquire. Herein, Ms. Ibanez seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs incurred in DOAH Case No. 91-4100, styled, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy v. Silvia Ibanez. That case involved a recommended order in Ms. Ibanez' favor, a final order against her, a direct appeal to the Florida First District Court of Appeal, a writ of certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, and subsequent remand activity. That disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the agency against Ms. Ibanez, a licensed certified public accountant (CPA), alleging violation of certain Board rules, most prominently the rules which have come to be known as the "holding out" and "fraudulent advertising" rules. Ms. Ibanez was the only respondent named in the July 30, 1991 amended administrative (disciplinary) complaint, the only initiating document provided. The January 15, 1992 recommended order therein shows that Silvia Ibanez was individually charged with disciplinary violations of the certified public accountancy statute and rules for (Count I) practicing public accounting in an unlicensed firm by various personal acts; (Count II) by appending certain designations to her name; and (Count III) by practicing public accounting by holding herself out as a CPA and appending the CPA designation after her name in advertising so as to imply she abided by Chapter 473 F.S. The closest that case came to dealing with any business entity other than Silvia Ibanez individually was an inarticulate phrase drafted into paragraph eleven of Count I of the amended administrative complaint, the thrust of which complaint was to define a violation of the advertising rule. That inarticulate paragraph eleven seemed to charge Ms. Ibanez individually for failing to license her law firm, "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.", as a CPA firm. From the Order of Reconsideration dated August 22, 1991, it appears that inarticulate and convoluted paragraph eleven allegation against Ms. Ibanez individually was only intended to address Count I as already framed and was withdrawn to avoid confusing, instead of clarifying, the issues in dispute. The recommended order contains the following findings of fact and conclusions of law which are significant to this fees and costs case: Finding of Fact 9: Neither the CFP nor CPA credential is part of the firm name, "Silvia S.Ibanez, P.A.-Law Offices," which also appears on Ibanez' business card. Ibanez' telephone directory listings and card at issue show the CPA and CFP credentials strictly appended to Respondent's individual name. Findings of Fact 16: Ibanez testified credibly that her intent in appending CPA and CFP credentials solely to her own name is to indicate that she is, in her own right, individually licensed as a CPA and CFP. Conclusion of Law 9: 3/ DPR asserted that Ibanez is engaged in "practicing public accounting" as set forth in one or both of the definitions of that term contained in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Section 473.302(4) F.S. Ibanez countered to the effect that she was exempt from those statutory definitions on the basis of one or more of the three exclusions to the term "public accounting," which are set forth in Sections (1), (2) and (3) of Rule 21A- 20.011 F.A.C., and therefore, she could not be held to have violated any portion of Chapter 473 F.S. More specifically, Ibanez urged that because she is working as an attorney within a P.A. (which she asserted is an employer not required to be licensed under Chapter 473 F.S.), she falls under exception 21A-20.011(1) F.A.C. The April 23, 1992 final order of the Board and the appellate court orders in the disciplinary case did not alter the foregoing findings of fact or specifically address the foregoing conclusion of law, which does little more than recite a legal position posited by Ms. Ibanez before DOAH in the disciplinary case. At the time of the recommended order in the disciplinary case, Rule 21A-20.011(1) F.A.C. provided: "Practice of, or practicing public accountancy" as defined by Section 473.302(4) F.S., shall exclude any of the following: Services rendered by a licensee as an employee of a governmental unit or an employee rendering accounting services only to his employer as long as that employer is not required to be licensed under F.S. 473,... Ms. Ibanez' law firm was never licensed as a CPA firm, and she did not purport to be the qualifying licensee for a CPA firm. Concurrent with most of the duration of the disciplinary action, Ms. Ibanez was also pursuing a Section 120.56 F.S. rule challenge to another rule, the "holding out" rule, Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. She had initiated that challenge in her capacity as a licensed CPA. As Petitioner in that rule challenge, Ibanez et al v. Board of Accountancy et al, DOAH Case No. 3336R, Ms. Ibanez posited herself as a sole practitioner and an employee of the law firm, "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.", but the law firm was not a party to, and did not participate in, the rule challenge. "Silvia S. Ibanez, Esquire" appears on the copies list of the final order in the rule challenge. That final order declared the "holding out" rule invalid on January 15, 1992. The agency et al appealed that final order to the First District Court of Appeal, but dismissed the appeal on May 6, 1992. Any fees and costs associated with the rule challenge were disposed of in a November 23, 1992 Final Order of Dismissal entered in Silvia S. Ibanez v. Board of Accountancy DOAH Case No. 92-0427F and may not be recouped in the instant proceeding. Based on all the available evidence, 4/ the law firm of "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A." also did not participate in the disciplinary case even as a legal representative of Ms. Ibanez, the individual, until after the recommended order was entered. The rule challenge case, DOAH Case No. 91-3336R, was heard on August 1-2, 1991. The disciplinary case, DOAH Case No. 91-4100, was heard on August 27, 1991. Pursuant to a stipulation during the formal hearing of the disciplinary case on August 27, 1991, on September 20, 1991, the parties designated items to be adopted into the record of the disciplinary case from the rule challenge case. For convenience, these items were copied and filed in the disciplinary case. 5/ Because the "holding out" rule had been held invalid, the disciplinary case was considered by the hearing officer to be a case of first impression. Because the "holding out" rule had been held invalid, only the statute utilizing the term, "holding out", was applied to one count of the disciplinary case. However, the other existing rules could still be applied as plead. The January 15, 1992 recommended order in DOAH (disciplinary) Case No. 91-4100 recommended finding Ms. Ibanez was not "holding herself out as a certified public accountant", finding her not guilty of all charges alleged under Counts I through III, and dismissing all counts. Contrary to the conclusions reached in the recommended order in the disciplinary case, the Board of Accountancy's final order found and concluded that Ms. Ibanez was guilty on all three counts and should be disciplined with a reprimand. Ms. Ibanez, in her individual name, appealed that final order to the Florida First District Court of Appeal, which per curiam affirmed the Board's final order by its judgment entered June 9, 1993. The United States Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari and, after oral argument, issued its opinion in Ms. Ibanez' favor. That appellate case was also styled in her name, individually. By a June 13, 1994 order, the Supreme Court mandated the Florida First District Court of Appeal to act in conformity with the Supreme Court opinion. The First District Court of Appeal issued its own mandate to the Board on October 5, 1994. The Board issued its final order on remand on January 31, 1995. 6/ It is undisputed that Ms. Ibanez is the prevailing party in the underlying disciplinary case, DOAH Case No. 91-4100. Her petition which initiated the present fees and cost case was filed with DOAH on February 13, 1995 and is timely under Section 57.111 F.S. and Rule 60Q-2.035 F.A.C. It did not request an evidentiary hearing. The agency's February 28, 1995 response herein was timely. It disputes whether the Petitioner is a small business party; disputes the amount, rate, and reasonableness of the attorneys' fees claimed; and asserts that the agency's actions were substantially justified at the time the underlying disciplinary case was initiated. It does not specifically request an evidentiary hearing. 7/ By the failure of both parties to request an evidentiary hearing and to respond to the notice and order to show cause entered herein on June 28, 1995, they are deemed to have waived an evidentiary hearing in this cause. Without any supporting documentation, the petition asserts standing upon the following bare allegation: 12. Ibanez meets the prevailing party provisions of F.S. Section 57.111 and is a "small business" party, with her principal place of business in Orlando Florida. Ibanez has no employees other than herself. As of the date the state agency initiated this proceeding, Ibanez was the sole shareholder of her law firm professional association ("P.A.") and the P.A.'s net worth did not exceed $2,000,000.00. The petition alleges in conclusionary terms that the agency's actions were substantially unjustified and that no circumstances exist that would make an award of attorney's fees unjust, but no reason or argument is advanced in support of the allegation. The petition claims the following amounts as fees and costs: Petitioner incurred substantial legal fees and costs at the administrative and appellate levels, as explained below: Fees & Costs Holland & Knight $11,252.73 [Exhibit "H"] Moore, Hill & Westmoreland $13,822.50 [Exhibit "I"] Robert Shapiro, Esq. $ 8,563.50 [Exhibit "J"] Even after considering financial assistance to keep the case alive, Petitioner incurred in excess of $15,000 in attorney fees and costs. (Emphasis supplied) The language just emphasized does not provide any information as to which portions of the fees and costs, if any, constituted "financial assistance to keep the case alive." 8/ Ms. Ibanez' affidavit to the effect that the participation of co- counsel was required is attached to her petition, but her affidavit does not address the reasonableness of the fees claimed by each of the named law firms. Therefore, her affidavit does not meet the requirements of Rule 60Q-2.035(3) F.A.C. "Exhibit H" of the petition addresses the $11,252.73 claimed by Ms. Ibanez on behalf of Holland and Knight. That exhibit does not include the affidavit required by Rule 60Q-2.035 (3) F.A.C. Petitioner also filed an unauthorized "Supplement to Exhibit H" on February 28, 1995. See the Preliminary Statement, above. Although such "supplements" are not authorized by statute or rule and no order permitted it, the Supplement has been considered because it was filed within the 60 days provided by statute and rule for the filing of the original petition and Respondent has not objected to it or moved to strike. Unfortunately, the Supplement also does not include an affidavit executed by any attorney with Holland and Knight. 9/ "Exhibit I" of the petition addresses the $13,822.50 claimed by Petitioner on behalf of Moore, Hill and Westmoreland. It contains an affidavit of J. Lofton Westmoreland on behalf of "Westmoreland, Hook and Bolton, P.A," which substantially complies with Rule 60Q-2.035(3) F.A.C. While it is no small matter that there is a discrepancy in the firm names cited by Petitioner and Mr. Westmoreland, Respondent agency also has not raised this as an issue. Accordingly, the undersigned, being cognizant of the frequent shift and drift of law firm names, infers that regardless of which firm Mr. Westmoreland is now associated with, his affidavit applies to this case. 10/ Therefore, Mr. Westmoreland's affidavit has been considered and found sufficient on its face. This finding does not, however, validate all of the claimed fees and costs. 11/ "Exhibit J" of the petition addresses the $8,563.50 claimed by Petitioner on behalf of Robert Shapiro, Esquire. There is nothing signed by Mr. Shapiro, let alone an affidavit that meets the requirements of the applicable statute and rule. The breakdown provided shows Mr. Shapiro's fees are based on appellate work on the disciplinary case at the United States Supreme Court level, and that he has been paid portions thereof so that the balance owed is $2,300.00. The only cost listed is $28.50 in Federal Express charges. 12/ All the fees and costs claimed herein apply to the period after the recommended order in the disciplinary case and almost all apply after the commencement of the appeal process from the final order altering that recommended order. The courts have already ordered the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy to pay Ms. Ibanez $5,028.55 for the printing of the record and $300.00 as clerk's costs. These amounts do not seem to be broken out of the petition's supporting exhibits and none of the documentation provided with the petition discusses whether or not the appellate fees and costs claimed herein could have been requested before the courts and were not requested, were requested and denied, or were not available from the courts. There is an indication that some fees and costs were requested on appeal and denied by the courts, but there is no detail as to which fees and costs were claimed at the appellate level and there is nothing to show the legal reason for denial. Consequently, it is impossible to assess from the documentation provided which fees and costs are still to be decided on remand. 13/ Because the foregoing facts are dispositive of the petition, it is unnecessary to make further findings of fact on the issue of substantial justification vel non of the agency at the time the disciplinary action was initiated.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED: The Petition for attorney's fees and costs is denied and dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of August, 1995, in 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 August, 1995.
Findings Of Fact William L. McCallister was the Respondent in Dept. of State, Division of Licensing vs. William L. McCallister, DOAH Case No. 86-1480. The Department of State, Division of Licensing, initiated Case No. 86- 1480. In that action, the Department of State sought to revoke the detection of deception examiner's license of William L. McCallister. It also entered an emergency order of suspension. William L. McCallister was the prevailing party in DOAH Case No. 86- 1480. The total value of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in this proceeding is $15,000. The Department of State was not a nominal party in these proceedings. During 1985, William L. McCallister was the sole owner of McCallister Polygraph Service, Inc. During 1985, he was employed by the Polk County Sheriff's office as a sworn officer serving as Staff Polygraphist. When he conducted the polygraph examinations of the three complaining witnesses in DOAH Case No. 86-1480, he did so in fulfillment of his duties as Staff Polygraphist. McCallister Polygraph Service, Inc. was not a party in DOAH Case No. 86-1480. Prior to initiating proceedings in DOAH Case No. 86-1480, the Department of State conducted an adequate factual investigation of the allegations by Phyllis Langdale, Rose Giannotti, and Joanne Meyer. The evidence presented at final hearing regarding standards applied by the Department to detection of deception examiners in disciplinary proceedings describes the standards in effect at the time the complaint was filed.
Findings Of Fact Vause is in partnership with his brother and has a principal office at 100 Hamilton Avenue, Panama City, Florida. Vause's business has two full-time employees and has a net worth of less than $100,000.00. In DOAH Case No. 88-5988, Vause applied for a special activity license to use mechanical harvesting devices on his oyster leases. DNR denied the application by "Final Order" dated October 17, 1988, and this "Final Order" provided the clear point of entry. Vause availed himself of this point of entry and requested a formal hearing. After a formal hearing, a Recommended Order was entered on March 13, 1989, wherein it was concluded that the application was valid and adequate and that Vause had met all conditions precedent to be entitled to the permit sought. DNR had denied the permit based on legally insufficient and incorrect grounds and authority. Vause has incurred attorney's fees at the rate of $125.00 per hour. A total of 19.20 hours were expended by Vause's attorney in the underlying proceeding and in this proceeding. The number of hours is reasonable and they were necessary. The hourly rate is reasonable. Hence, Vause has incurred $2400.00 in fees.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 29, 1993, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issued an agency action letter which rejected certain of Petitioner's cost reports in calculating the Medicaid reimbursement to which Petitioner was entitled. As a result, the Medicaid reimbursement to Petitioner was reduced. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed a challenge to the agency action, and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings, DOAH Case No. 93-3687. Such case was assigned to Judge Arrington and scheduled for hearing in Miami for October 14-15, 1993. On October 12, 1993, the Department filed a suggestion of mootness which led to the withdrawal of the agency action letter, the acceptance of Petitioner's cost reports, and, presumably, to the recalculation of the Medicaid reimbursement favorable to Petitioner. On May 2, 1996, the agency, now the Agency for Health Care Administration, entered a final order adopting the recommended order. On July 1, 1996, the Petitioner filed the instant motion for attorney's fees and costs and supporting memorandum of law together with the exhibits thereto. On or about September 6, 1996, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively motion to strike Petitioner's motion for attorney's fees and costs, and argued that the Petitioner is not entitled to fees pursuant to Section 57.105, Florida Statutes; that the affidavit submitted by Petitioner does not comply with the statute; that Petitioner is not a prevailing party under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes; and that the relief requested exceeds the maximum award of $15,000.00. Such responses relate only to the initial pleading filed, however, and not to the amended request filed on February 12, 1997. Petitioner has a net worth of not more than $2,000,000.00 and its principal place of business is Dade County, Florida. Petitioner's attorney's normal billing rate for general matters is $250.00 and he expended in excess of 100 hours of time in the litigation of the underlying matter. Petitioner has requested $87,500.00 in attorney's fees as the prevailing party in the principal case and $21,875 for litigation on the issue of fees and costs. Petitioner alleged it is entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Sections 57.105 and 57.111, Florida Statutes.
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 Whether the Petitioner, Patricia Smithwick Valz, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as a "prevailing small business party" in the underlying administrative proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulated record submitted by the parties, the following Findings of Facts arc made: Following the issuance of its October 13, 1989, jeopardy assessment against Petitioner, Respondent began its efforts to recover the monies allegedly owed by Petitioner. Collectable assets were identified. These identified assets included a bank account at Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. (Account No. 1595012259) in the name of John M. Brumley Racing Engines, Inc. (Corporation) with a balance of $176.29 and real property that appeared to be owned by the Corporation. Respondent gave written notice of its October 13, 1989, jeopardy assessment against Petitioner to Barnett Bank. In the notice, Respondent requested that the bank not transfer nor otherwise dispose of the funds in Account No 1595012259 without Respondent's consent. Subsequently, the bank notified Respondent that it had taken measures to comply with Respondent's request.
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.
