The Issue The issue presented for consideration concerns the question whether action taken by the Respondent in its efforts to comply with the mandate of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), constitutes a rule or rules which has or have not been duly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This case is here presented on the Petition of Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., by an action against the Board of Dentistry, an agency of the State of Florida and the Department of Professional Regulation, an agency of the State of Florida, as Respondents. The purpose of this Petition is to have declared invalid certain activities of the Respondents pertaining to their efforts at complying with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), in promoting license revocation or suspension cases against various dentists licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The Petitioner contends that these activities by the Respondents constitute a rule or rules which fail to comply with requirements of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of Florida and thereby regulated by the Respondents. The Petitioner is also the subject of disciplinary action in Case No. 78-1481 before the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, and it is the action which was taken against Dr. Sheppard in the course of that prosecution, dealing with the subject of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which the current Petitioner asserts to be an invalid rule or rules. The language of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), states: (5) No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency has given reasonable notice by certified mail or actual service to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and the licensee has been given an opportunity to show that he has complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license. If the agency is unable to obtain service by certified mail or by actual service, constructive service may be made in the same manner as is provided in chapter 49. Having considered the statement found in the above-referenced Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), counsel for Dr. Sheppard in D.O.A.H Case No. 78-1481 filed a Motion to Dismiss the Administrative Complaint on August 31, 1979, alleging that the agency had failed to comply with the provisions. Oral argument on that motion was scheduled for 2:30 o'clock p.m. on September 17, 1979, and was heard at that time; however, prior to the oral argument, the Board of Dentistry on September 14, 1979, filed a docent in the case, which document attempted compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The document was entitled "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and by its terms granted Dr. Sheppard an opportunity to appear before H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Florida State Board of Dentistry, on September 17, 1979, at 10:00 a.m. in Tallahassee, Florida. (A copy of this "Notice of Intended Action Conference" was attached to the Petition in the case sub judice as an exhibit.) The Board of Dentistry had alerted the Hearing Officer to the action it had contemplated by its "Notice of Intended Action Conference." It did so through the Board prosecutor by correspondence of September 14, 1979, a copy of which may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Dr. Sheppard filed an objection to the adequacy of the "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and refused to appear at that conference. After considering the oral arguments of the parties directed to the Motion to Dismiss of August 31, 1978, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, the Honorable Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered her Order dated September 26, 1979. (A copy of that Order has been attached as an exhibit to the current Petition.) In her Order, the Hearing Officer found the "Notice of Intended Action Conference was insufficient, in that the notice did not grant Sheppard sufficient time to prepare for the conference to be held on September 17, 1979, to the extent of demonstrating his compliance with the provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, as contemplated by Sub section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The Hearing officer did feel that Dr. Sheppard had been notified of those allegations for which he was called upon to defend against and she granted the Board of Dentistry thirty (30) days from the date of her Order, September 26, 1978, to allow the accused an opportunity to show that he had complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of his license. There followed the current Petition which was filed on September 28, 1979. That Petition has been the subject of a Motion to Dismiss which challenged the adequacy of the Petition. The Motion to Dismiss was responded to and in the course of that response the Petitioner's counsel attached a copy of a "Notice of Informal Conference" to be held on October 23, 1979, at 9:00 a.m., in Tallahassee, Florida. (The location of that conference was subsequently changed to a place more convenient for Dr. Sheppard, specifically, St. Petersburg, Florida, but the amendment was otherwise the same as the original October 23, 1979, notice.) When the Motion to Dismiss and response to the motion were considered, the motion was denied by written Order of the undersigned dated October 22, 1979. That Order found in accordance with the Order of Hearing Officer Strickland, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, referring to the Order dated September 26, 1979; that the efforts of complying with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), made by the Board of Dentistry in its attempted action conference to be held September 17, 1979, were not adequate and the prospective events of an action conference that would have been held on September 17, 1979, were deemed to be moot. Nonetheless, in view of the further action by the Board of Dentistry to conduct an informal conference on October 23, 1979, the present case was allowed to go forward on the basis that the Petitioner would be afforded an opportunity to show how the events leading to the written "Notice of Informal Conference" held on October 23, 1979, the notice itself, and the events at the conference constitute a rule or rules that has or have not been duly promulgated in the manner contemplated by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In furtherance of this permission, the Petitioner was and is allowed to make the "Notice of Informal Conference" as attached to the response to the Motion to Dismiss a part of the Petition and that "Notice of Informal Conference" is hereby made a part of the Petition. In the course of the hearing a number of witnesses were presented and those witnesses included Tom Guilday, a prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry; Liz Cloud, an employee of the State of Florida, Office of the Secretary of State; H. Fred Varn, Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry; Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation; and the Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard. In addition, the Petitioner offered three items of evidence which were admitted. The testimony of attorney Guilday established that as prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry in the action against Dr. Sheppard, he spoke with Charles F. Tunnicliff, Acting General Counsel, Department of Professional Regulation, who instructed Guilday to attempt to comply with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this was in anticipation of the pending Motion to Dismiss to be heard on September 17, 1979. One of the results of that conversation was the letter of September 14, 1979, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, addressed to Hearing Officer Strickland and the primary result was that of the September 14, 1979, "Notice of Intended Action Conference." The conference alluded to was to be held at the office of Mr. Varn. Attorney Guilday did not recall whether the contemplated disposition of September 17, 1979, was one which Tunnicliff indicated would be used in all similar cases pending before the Department of Professional Regulation. After Hearing Officer Strickland's Order was entered on September 26, 1979, attorney Deberah Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation instructed Guilday to comply with Hearing Officer Strickland's Order of September 26, 1979, on the subject of the dictates of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this instruction was supported by Memorandum of October 5, 1979, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. There ensued the conference of October 23, 1979, which was held in St. Petersburg, Florida. After the conference, pursuant to the instructions of attorneys Miller and Tunnicliff, Guilday prepared a memorandum on the results of that conference. This memorandum did not carry a recommendation as to the disposition of the case. Throughout this period of time, attorney Guilday was unaware of any general policy within the Department of Professional Regulation or Board of Dentistry which dealt with attempts at compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). None of the discussions which Guilday had with attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation or with other officials of that Department or Board of Dentistry led him to believe that there was any set policy for handling those issues. Guilday did acknowledge that a member of his law firm, one Michael Huey, had been instructed by Staff Attorney Miller on the technique to be utilized in refiling a prosecution against John Parry, D.D.S., wherein the action against Dr. Parry had been dismissed for lack of compliance of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). A copy of that Memorandum dated October 3, 1979, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 and it carries with it an attached form for "Notice of Informal Conference" under the terms of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1970), and that format is similar to the October 23, 1979, "Notice of Informal Conference" in the Sheppard case. Guilday indicated in connection with this Memorandum, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, that to his knowledge no discussion on how to comply with the terms of the memorandum was made and no actual compliance with the memorandum has been taken to his knowledge. It was established through the testimony of Liz Cloud of the Office of the Secretary of State and through other witnesses that no formal rules have been filed with the Secretary of State by either of the Respondents dealing with the subject of compliance with the pie visions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). Testimony offered by Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation, and by H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Board of Dentistry, established that neither the Department nor the Dental Board has formulated final policies on how to deal with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), whether the cases pertain to those such as that of Dr. Sheppard in which the agency, although it has not complied with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint, has been granted an opportunity to try to comply or on the occasion where cases are in the investigative stage or the occasion where the cases have been dismissed for noncompliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and are subject to refiling. It is shown through Secretary Wittenberg's testimony that such compliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is still in the formative stages and the Memorandum of October 3, 1979, by Staff Attorney Miller with the format for noticing informal conferences to be held under the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is but one method under consideration at this time. Moreover, Secretary Wittenberg has not spoken with attorney Guilday about the matters of the Sheppard case that are now in dispute or received reports of conversations between Guilday and Staff Attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller on the subject of the pending Sheppard dispute. Finally, Wittenberg has not instructed any of the support officials within the Department of Professional Regulation, to include departmental attorneys, to formulate policy directed to the implementation of the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which action would constitute the final statement by the Department on those matters.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Insurance (Department) is responsible for regulation of insurance transactions in the State of Florida. In 1996, the United States Supreme Court held in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N. A. v. Nelson, 517 U.S. 25 (1996) that nationally chartered banks located in towns with populations of 5000 or less were authorized to own insurance agencies. In response, the 1996 Florida legislature revised Section 626.988, Florida Statutes (the "anti-affiliation" statute) to conform to the Court's ruling in the Barnett case The 1996 legislature also enacted Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, informally identified as the "parity statute." Section 626.5715, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: The department shall adopt rules to assure the parity of regulation in this state of insurance transactions as between an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a federally chartered financial institution, an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with a state- chartered financial institution, and an insurance agency owned by or an agent associated with an entity that is not a financial institution. Such rules shall be limited to assuring that no insurance agency or agent is subject to more stringent or less stringent regulation than another insurance agency or agent on the basis of the regulatory status of the entity that owns the agency or is associated with the agent. For the purposes of this section, a person is "associated with" another entity if the person is employed by, retained by, under contract to, or owned or controlled by the entity directly or indirectly. This section does not apply with respect to a financial institution that is prohibited from owning an insurance agency or that is prohibited from being associated with an insurance agent under state or federal law. (Emphasis supplied.) The 1996 legislature also amended to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (the Administrative Procedures Act) to restrict agency authority to promulgate rules, so as to prohibit the adoption of rules which, although perhaps rationally related to the purpose of an implementing statute, were not specifically authorized by the legislature. In the summer of 1996, the Department began circulating a draft of rules intended to address issues related to the sale of insurance in financial institutions. Beginning in January 1997, the Department began the formal process of adopting rules intended to address the "parity" of insurance regulation between insurance agencies affiliated with financial institutions and agencies which are unaffiliated. The Petitioners challenged parts or all of the proposed rules as invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. As set forth in the Final Order entered June 29, 1998, in the consolidated rule challenges, Proposed Rules 4-224.002, 4-224.004, 4-224.007, 4-224.012, 4-224.013 and 4-224.014, Florida Administrative Code, were determined to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Although the challenged rules were determined to be invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority for various reasons, all were determined to be outside the Department's specific statutory authority as set forth by the legislature. There was no appeal of the Final Order. Prior to the hearing on the fee issue, all parties signed and filed a Prehearing Stipulation. According to the Prehearing Stipulation, "[t]he Department disputes entitlement to fees as a matter of law. It does not dispute the reasonableness of the fees, as capped by statute. It disputes the reasonableness of the costs sought by Florida Bankers Association. " The applicable statute provides that "a judgment or order shall be rendered against the agency for reasonable costs and reasonable attorney's fees, unless the agency demonstrates that its actions were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust." The Department asserts that the agency's actions in adopting the challenged rules were substantially justified and that special circumstances exist which make the award unjust. The greater weight of the evidence fails to support the assertion. The evidence establishes that, from the initiation of the rule drafting process, the issue of whether the Department had the authority to adopt the proposed rules was of concern to the parties in this case. In response to an early draft of the rule circulated by the Department, the Florida Bankers Association (FBA) in June 1996 asserted that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. The FBA continued to maintain this position throughout the rule-drafting process and the subsequent rule challenge cases. The Department was apparently also concerned about whether the agency had authority to adopt the rules. In response to a question raised by Department legal staff, a December 31, 1996, letter to the Department from an attorney at the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee on the issue of authority indicates that the Department's general authority to adopt rules was restricted by the 1996 APA amendment to Section 120.536(1), Florida Statutes, and that additional specific authority would be required to support the promulgation of rules. At the fee hearing, the Department conceded that the parity statute alone did not grant the agency with the specific authority to prescribe or proscribe specific acts or actions of an insurance agent. The Department asserted that the authority for the proposed rules was set forth by the combination of Section 626.988, Florida Statutes, under which pre-existing rules had been adopted, with the Department's previous legal actions related to insurance sales by agents affiliated with financial institutions, and the presumed effect of the parity statute on the Department's otherwise-existing authority. The evidence fails to establish that the Department's reliance on historical authority to promulgate rules and the authority provided under the parity statute was reasonable given legislative restrictions on agency rulemaking set forth in the 1996 legislature's amendments to the Administrative Procedures Act. There was no credible evidence presented at the rule challenge hearing or during the fee hearing which suggested that an emergency, either existing or potential, which required the Department to take immediate action to protect insurance consumers. There was no credible evidence presented at the rule challenge hearing or during the fee hearing that insurance consumers were threatened by an availability of insurance products in settings other than in insurance agencies. There are no special circumstances that make an award of fees and costs unjust. The Department apparently asserts that because the FBA participated in the rulemaking process, special circumstances exist which make an award of fees unjust. Although the FBA participated in the workshop process, the FBA consistently asserted, as stated earlier, that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. By letter of June 5, 1996, the FBA specifically filed written objections to the proposed rules, asserting that they were inconsistent with the APA amendments and the authority granted by the parity statute. Further, the FBA noted in the June letter and again in a letter of September 27, 1996, that the purpose and authority of the parity statute was met by a single proposed rule which, in essence, stated that the provisions of the Florida Insurance Code were applicable equally to all agents and agencies, regardless of ownership or affiliation. At the fee hearing, the Department acknowledged that the FBA had raised specific objections regarding the agency's lack of statutory authority during the rule process. The FBA consistently asserted during the rulemaking process that the proposed rules were outside the Department's authority under the parity statute. The FBA pursued the assertion throughout the rulemaking process and successfully challenged the rules on the same basis. There was no evidence presented during the rule challenge or the fee case suggesting that the FBA retreated from the objection at any point in the rulemaking process. According to the Prehearing Stipulation signed and filed by the parties, the disputed issues of fact are whether the expert witness fee paid to Dr. Michael White was reasonable and whether other costs sought to be recoverable are reasonable. The only specific challenge presented by the Department to costs is directed towards Dr. White's fees. The evidence establishes that under the circumstances of this matter, Dr. White's fee is reasonable. At the fee case hearing, the FBA presented the deposition testimony of William B. Graham, an attorney practicing in Tallahassee, Florida, in support of Dr. White's fees. Mr. Graham's testimony is accepted and credited as to the amount of Dr. White's fee and to the time required to prepare for and participate in this proceeding. Based on Mr. Graham's testimony, Dr. White's fee of $320 per hour is reasonable for an expert of Dr. White's credentials. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. According to the three dated invoices submitted to the FBA by Dr. White, Dr. White expended a total of 106 hours and five minutes in rule challenge-related activities on behalf of the FBA. Based on Mr. Graham's testimony, the time recorded by Dr. White of 106 hours and five minutes for his services is reasonable under the circumstances of the rule challenge. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. The total amount of time billed by Dr. White results in a fee of $33,946.66. The three invoices submitted by Dr. White also bill the FBA for expenses totaling $2,643.72. There is no credible evidence that the Dr. White's expense billings are unreasonable. The total amount of fees and expenses charged by Dr. White to the FBA is $36,590.38. The FBA paid to Dr. White the total amount reflected on his invoices. By comparison with the fees charged by its own expert, the Department asserts that Dr. White's fees are unreasonable. The fact that the Department paid its expert less than the FBA paid to its own does not establish that payments to Dr. White were unreasonable. The amount of the attorney's fees to which the successful parties are entitled is not at issue in this proceeding. According to the Prehearing Stipulation, the Department "while contesting entitlement to any award of fees . . . does not dispute that the fees sought, as capped by the statute, is reasonable for the efforts of all counsel in this proceeding." The FBA, by affidavit, identified attorney's fees totaling $145,683.01, and seeks an award of $15,000, the statutory limit. By stipulation of the parties, the FBA is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $15,000. The FBA identified total costs of $40,537.53, including the fees and expenses paid to Dr. White. There is no evidence that the costs of $3,947.15 set forth in the attorney billing records (and unrelated to costs related to Dr. White) are unreasonable. Based on the foregoing, the FBA is entitled to receive a total of $55,537.53. The Community Bankers Association identified attorney's fees totaling $10,290.00, and costs of $806.23. By stipulation of the parties, the Community Bankers Association is entitled to an award of attorney's fees in the amount of $10,290.00. There is no evidence that the Community Bankers Association costs of $806.23 are unreasonable. Based on the foregoing, the Community Bankers Association is entitled to receive a total of $11,096.23. The Department asserts that, due to "untimeliness" of the Petitions for Fees filed in these cases, an award of fees in this case is unjust. There is no issue of timeliness to be addressed in this matter. The Petitions for Fees were filed approximately 60-90 days after the time for appeal of the Final Order in the rule challenge cases had passed. The Final Order entered in the rule challenge proceeding specifically retained jurisdiction for an award of fees. There is no evidence that the Department was adversely affected by any delay in filing the Petitions for Fees.
Conclusions Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Department of Insurance shall pay total fees and costs as follows: The Florida Bankers Association shall receive a total of $55,537.53 The Community Bankers of Florida shall receive a total of $11,096.23. DONE AND ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Townes, Esquire Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 Counsel for Florida Bankers Association Michael H. Davidson, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Counsel for Department Martha J. Edenfield, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson & Dunbar, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Counsel for Community Bankers of Florida Eli S. Jenkins 3330 Overlook Drive, Northeast St. Petersburg, Florida 33703 Authorized Representative of Specialty Agents, Inc. Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Findings Of Fact Both parties filed proposed findings of fact. Except as noted below, I have incorporated the substance of these proposed findings into my findings of fact. Rejected DOT Proposed Findings of Fact The following proposed findings are rejected because they are not facts but only recitations of testimony: Rule 22I-6.006 - proposed finding 1 - second and third sentence. Rule 22I-6.037 - proposed finding 1 - second sentence. proposed finding 2 - first and second sentence. The following proposed findings are irrelevant to the resolution of this case: Rule 22I-6.006 - proposed finding 4 and 5 because the proposed rule applies to other agencies than DOT. proposed finding 6 because whether another method of notifying all bidders is more efficient is not the standard to determine validity of the rule. Rule 22I-6.037 - proposed finding 3, 5, and 7. Rejected DOAH Proposed Finding of Fact The following proposed finding of fact are rejected because these are more in the nature of legal argument or conclusions of law rather than findings of fact: Proposed finding 5 - sentences 5 and 6. Proposed finding 6 - second paragraph, sentences 1 and 2; third paragraph, sentence 4 and 5; and fourth paragraph Proposed finding 7 - second paragraph; third paragraph; and fourth paragraph, fifth sentence Proposed finding 8 - fourth paragraph; fifth paragraph; and sixth paragraph The follow proposed findings are rejected as being irrelevant to the resolution of the issues presented in this case. Proposed finding 1 - fourth sentence Proposed finding 6 - second paragraph, sentence 5 and 6 Proposed finding 7 - fourth paragraph, sentence 1 through 4 The following proposed finding is rejected as not supported by the record evidence: Proposed finding 6 - fourth paragraph, sentence 4 fifth paragraph, sentence 4 ANALYSIS Standing The first issue that must be addressed is DOT's standing. DOAH asserts that Dot lacks standing to challenge Proposed Rules 22I-6.035 and 22I-6.037. DOT has the burden to establish that it would be substantially affected by the proposed rules should they be adopted by DOAH. Section 120.54(5)(b), Fla. Stat. (1985); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). In order to resolve whether DOT has met its burden, a review of the pertinent decisions on standing is appropriate. 5/ The case cited most often on standing is the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Florida Department of Corrections v. Jerry, 353 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1978). The court held that an inmate who had been confined for committing an assault while in prison lacked standing to challenge an existing rule concerning disciplinary confinement and forfeiture of gain-time. Because the inmate was no longer confined under the rule and had not lost any gain-time when he filed the rule challenge, the court reasoned that the inmate had not suffered an injury in fact at the time of the challenge, end therefore, was not substantially affected by the existing rule. Whether the inmate would be subject to the rule again depended on the likelihood he would commit another infraction. The court deemed this too speculative and subject to conjecture to grant standing. 353 So.2d at 1236. In a later case, the Florida Supreme Court overruled Jerry to the extent it required associations to demonstrate a specific injury to the organization itself rather then to some of its members. Florida Home Builders' Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1982). In reaching its decision, the court warned against an overly restrictive application of the concept of standing in the rule challenge cases by noting: "Expansion of public access to activities of governmentally agencies was one of the major legislative purposes of the new Administrative Procedure Act." 412 So.2d at 352-53. Standing to challenge proposed agency rules was addressed in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). There, the court held that all women of child bearing age who received medicaid benefits were not substantially affected by a proposed rule denying medicaid payments for abortions except under limited circumstances. In denying standing to a woman who was not pregnant at the time of the rule challenge, the court specifically rejected the argument that standing to challenge a proposed rule under Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1985), is less restrictive than standing to challenge an existing rule under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1985), by stating: There is no difference between the immediacy and reality necessary to confer standing whether the proceeding is to challenge an existing rule or a proposed rule. 367 So.2d at 1052. In Professional Fire Fighters of Florida v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 396 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the court held that a group of paramedics had standing to challenge rules establishing additional requirements for renewal of a paramedical certification. There was no showing on any of the individual paramedics had attempted to comply with the new rules or that anything in the new rules would disqualify them from retaining their certification. In rejecting the hearing officer's ruling that these individuals could not claim an injury because they had not yet applied for certification under the new rules, the court stated: The order below would preclude a challenge by anyone who had not first complied with a rule and suffered injury, no matter how clear the rule's applicability to, or substantial its effect on, the challengers... The APA permits prospective challenges to agency rulemaking and does not require that an affected party comply with the rule at his peril in order to obtain standing to chal- lenge the rule. A party may demonstrate standing by showing that a rule has a real and immediate effect upon his case as well as by proving injury in fact. 396 So.2d at 1195-96 (citations omitted) see also 4245 Corp., Mother's Lounge Inc. v. Department of Beverage, 345 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). The court distinguished Jerry and Alice P. on the grounds that the petitioners in the case before it were immediately subject to the rule which rendered their continued employment as paramedics unlawful without compliance with the rule. The individuals were presently affected by the rule because they worked in the area to be regulated. 396 So.2d at 1196. In Village Park Mobile Home Association v. Department of Business Regulation, 506 So.2d 426, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the court on rehearing emphasized under the test for standing set forth in Fire Fighters that a party may show "that a rule has a real and immediate effect upon his case, as well as injury in fact." Standing was not found in Village Park for certain mobile home owners to challenge agency approval of the prospectus for a mobile home park because the prospectus only disclosed the method for raising rents and reducing services in the future. It was up to the landlord to implement the prospectus at some unspecified date in the future. 6/ Thus, no standing was found because the alleged injury was contingent upon the future actions of a third party. 506 So.2d at 433-34; see also Boca Raton Mausoleum v. Department of Banking, 511 So.2d 1060 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In this case, DOT has not alleged that it has suffered an injury in fact by Proposed Rules 22I-6.035 and 22I-6.037. That is not surprising with respect to Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 since it is a new rule that has not been implemented. However, with respect to the proposed amendments to Rule 22I-6.035, dealing with attorney's fees and costs, most of DOT's challenges concern portions of the rule that were not substantially changed in the proposed rule. For example, DOT objects to the provisions requiring an agency to file a response or affidavit and the provisions which allow for a waiver of the right to an evidentiary hearing when one is not affirmatively requested by either party. Rule 22I-6.035 presently contains such provisions. Therefore, the injury in fact test would be applicable. However, DOT has not presented any facts indicating that a prevailing small business party has ever filed a petition seeking costs and attorney's fees from DOT under Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. Consequently, no injury exists. The alternative test for standing is whether the proposed rules would have a "real and immediate effect" upon DOT. With respect to Proposed Rule 22I- 6.035, DOT has not met this test merely by demonstrating that it is a party to pending cases involving small business parties. In order for DOT to be affected by Proposed Rule 22I-6.035, a small business party would first have to prevail against DOT and then file a petition for costs and attorney's fees based upon its belief that DOT was not "substantially justified" in bringing the administrative action. Whether these contingencies, which are controlled by a third party, will occur in the future is open to conjecture and speculation. The type of immediacy envisioned by the court in the Fire Fighters case does not appear to be present with respect to Proposed Rule 22I-6.035. Therefore, DOT does not have standing to challenge this proposed rule. On the other hand, I conclude that DOT has standing to challenge Proposed Rule 22I-6.037. DOT presently has at least nine pending cases involving administrative complaints. The proposed rule on voluntary dismissals would be immediately applicable to DOT's ability to take a voluntary dismissal on those cases without being contingent upon the acts of a third party. Such a real and immediate effect on pending cases involving DOT is sufficient to provide DOT with the requisite standing. DOT does not have to invoke the rule by seeking a voluntary dismissal in order to have standing to challenge the rule as suggested by DOAH. See Professional Fire Fighters of Florida, 396 So.2d at 1195. Invalidity of Proposed Rules 22I-6.006 and 22I-6.037 The Florida Legislature has recently defined what constitutes an invalid exercise of Legislative authority. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 87-385, Section 2, Laws of Florida, provides: (8) "Invalid exercise of delegated legisla- tive authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply: (a ) The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedure set forth in s. 120.54; The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule enlarges, modifies, or con- travenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or The rule is arbitrary or capricious. These standards are similar to those used by the courts in Florida to test the validity of agency rules. See e.g., Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), cert. denied, 376 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1979); Humana Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 469 So.2d 889 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In Agrico Chemical Co., the First District Court of Appeal stated: [I]n a 120.54 hearing, the hearing officer must look to the legislative authority for the rule and determine whether or not the proposed rule is encompassed within that grant. The burden is upon one who attacks the proposed rule to show that the agency, if it adopts the rule, would exceed its author- ity; that the requirements of the rule are not appropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act; that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation or that the proposed rule or the requirements thereof are arbitrary or capricious. A capricious action is one which is taken without though or reason or irration- ally. An arbitrary decision is one not supported by facts or logic, or is despotic. Administrative discretion must be reasoned and based upon competent substantial evi- dence. Competent substantial evidence has been described as such evidence as a reason- able person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement that a challenger has the burden of demonstrating agency action to be arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of administrative discretion is a stringent one. 365 So.2d at 763. In this case DOT has the burden to demonstrate that adoption of Proposed Rules 22I-6.006 and 22I-6.037 would constitute an invalid exercise of legislative authority. Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 DOAH is statutorily authorized "to adopt reasonable rules to carry out the provisions of this act [Chapter 120]." Section 120.65(7), Fla. Stat. (1985). Regarding bid protests, an agency is required to forward a protest to DOAH for an evidentiary hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1985), whenever there is a disputed issue a material fact. Section 120.53(5)(d)2, Fla. Stat. (1985). Section 120.57(1) sets forth certain procedures for conducting evidentiary hearings and proceedings where the substantial interests of a party are determined. In light of these statutory provisions, DOAH proposes to amend Rule 6.006 by requiring that an agency send a copy of the notice of hearing to all bidders, other than the protesting bidder, and attempt to telephonically notify these bidders of the date, time, and place the hearing. The purpose of this requirement is to give notice of the deadline to file a motion to intervene in the protest proceeding to the successful bidder, as well as all other bidders who had not filed a timely protest. Motions to intervene must be filed within five days prior to start of an evidentiary hearing. Fla. Admin. Code Rule 6.010. DOT persuasively argues that this portion of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 requires an agency to do a useless act because any bidder that has not flied a timely protest is precluded from gaining party status in a bid protest proceeding by filing a motion to intervene. I agree. Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985), requires an agency to provide notice of its decision, or intended decision, concerning a bid solicitation. The notice must contain the following statement: "Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in s. 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120, Florida Statutes." Paragraph (b) of Section 120.53(5), provides: Any person who is affected adversely by the agency decision or intended decision shall file with the agency a notice of protest in writing within 72 hours after the posting of the bid tabulation or after receipt of the notice of the agency decision or intended decision and shall file a formal written protest within 10 days after the date he filed the notice of protest. Failure to file a notice of protest or failure to file a formal written protest shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under chapter 120. The formal written protest shall state with particularity the facts and law upon which the protest is based. These statutory provisions are clear and unequivocal. An unsuccessful bidder must file a protest within the 72 hour limitations period in order to participate in further Chapter 120 proceedings. Xerox Corp. v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, 489 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); see also Capelletti Brothers v. Department of Transportation, 499 So.2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(72 hour deadline applies to protest challenging bid specifications). An adversely affected bidder cannot, and should not be allowed to, gain a back door point of entry to obtain party status in a bid protest proceeding by filing a motion to intervene when the bidder has already waived its right to participate in the proceeding. The only substantially effected entity that would be entitled to intervene in a bid protest proceeding is the successful bidder. Therefore, there would be a valid purpose in adopting a rule that required the successful bidder to receive the notice of hearing so that it would be aware of the deadline for filing a motion to intervene. However, as to all other non-protesting bidders, there is no statutory basis for providing the notice of hearing to them in light of what appears to be a clear prohibition against allowing those bidders to obtain party status after failing to file a timely protest pursuant to Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). DOAH argues that the need for subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 is dramatized by the case of Spillis Candella and Partners, Inc. v. School Board of Dade County, No. 86-3002 Bid. There, the hearing officer determined that the agency never complied with the notice requirements triggering the 72 hour limitations period. Therefore, the protest filed in that case was determined to be timely since the 72 hour time limit had not expired. This single case does not provide justification for requiring agencies to give notice of the evidentiary hearing to all unsuccessful bidders in all bid protest cases. No evidence was adduced indicating that the failure to provide the requisite statutory notice issue raised in the Spillis Candella case had ever occurred in any other bid protest proceeding that had come before a DOAH hearing officer. Even if this had been a recurring problem, subsection (b) of the Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 could have been more closely tailored to remedy issues similar to that raised in Spillis Candella. The rule should have limited an agency's responsibility to provide a notice of hearing to all unsuccessful bidders if the agency had not previously complied with the notice requirements of Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes (1985). 7/ In light of the foregoing, I conclude that subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 is arbitrary because it requires agencies to provide notice of a bid protest hearing to bidders who have waived their right to become parties in the proceeding. The rule also contravenes Section 120.53(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), which contemplates that only timely protestors may participate as parties in a bid proceeding. 8/ Subsection (3) is also invalid because it requires that an agency provide to the hearing officer proof that it has complied with subsection (2). DOT's remaining objections to Proposed Rule 22I-6.006 are without merit. The fact that all agencies involved in bid protests must adopt rules end procedures for the resolution of such protests, and that the Administration Commission shall also adopt model rules on the same subject, does not indicate a legislative intent to preempt DOAH from adopting rules pertaining to the procedures for conducting bid protest hearings. Section 120.53(5)(a) and (f), Fla. Stat. (1955). In addition, Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), does not prohibit non-parties from receiving notice of an evidentiary hearing. Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 DOT advances numerous arguments in support of its contention that subsections (2) and (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 constitute an invalid exercise of legislative authority. I am persuaded by two of these arguments that DOT's position has merit. First, with respect to subsection (2), the proposed rule provides a hearing officer with the discretion to grant a motion for voluntary dismissal "upon such terms and conditions as the hearing officer deems just and proper." This language fails to provide any guidance to a hearing officer or to the parties in an administrative complaint proceeding as to what conditions a hearing officer could impose for allowing the agency to withdraw its complaint without prejudice. Instead, the rule gives the hearing officer unlimited discretion to impose any condition the hearing officer subjectively believes is "just and proper." These words cannot be construed as words of limitation because it must always be presumed that a hearing officer will rule in a manner that he or she believes is just and proper. Thus the elimination of the "just and proper" language from the rule would not give any more discretion to a hearing officer than is presently granted by the proposed rule. The fact that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(2) provides that a trial court may grant a voluntary dismissal filed after submission of a case to the court "upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper," does not provide a basis for concluding that subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 is valid. The Rules of Civil Procedure were adopted pursuant to the inherent power of the courts, a power that administrative agencies do not possess. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Tampa Heart Institute, 472 So.2d 748, 753-54 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1985). Agency rules may not violate the standards set forth in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 57-325, Section 2, Laws of Florida. In this case, subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I- runs afoul of paragraph (d) of Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, as amended, which provides that a rule is invalid if [t]he rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency." Therefore, subsection (2) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 is invalid. Subsection (3) of the proposed rule is also invalid but for a different reason. Unlike subsection (2), nothing is left to the parties' imagination as to the consequences an agency will encounter if it files a notice of voluntary dismissal of an administrative complaint containing nonjurisdictional allegations that were previously the subject of a voluntary dismissal. Those nonjurisdictional factual allegations contained in both complaints will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The issue with regard to this rule provision is whether DOAH has the statutory authority to adopt a rule that requires dismissal of an administrative complaint with prejudice under these circumstances. Although no cases are directed on point, two district court of appeal decisions are instructive. In Great American Bank v. Division of Administrative Hearings, 412 So.2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), the First District Court of Appeal revised a hearing officer's order imposing sanctions for a party's failure to make discovery and for a witness' failure to give responsive testimony. The court ruled that certain portions of the model rules, which purported to give such authority to a hearing officer, were invalid because they conflicted with the discovery enforcement provisions found in the Administrative Procedure Act. Section 120.58(3), Fla. Stat. (1981). The Legislature subsequently amended Section 120.58 to specifically grant hearing officers the authority to pose sanctions to effect discovery. Ch. 84-173, Laws of Florida. In Hillsborough County Hospital Authority v. Tampa Heart Institute, 472 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the Second District Court of Appeal declared Model Rule 28-5.211 invalid to the extent the rule authorized a hearing officer to impose sanctions, including dismissal, to enforce procedural orders. The court rejected the argument that the same general rulemaking authority relied upon by DOAH as authority for Proposed Rule 22I-6.037, Sections 120.53 and 120.65(7), Florida Statutes (1985), authorized the model rule. Rather, any rule that provides a sanction in the form of a penalty must be based upon explicit statutory authority such as that found in Section 120.58(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1985), or Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). 9/ 472 So.2d at 747-48. Subsection (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037 imposes the sanction of dismissal with prejudice. However, in contrast to the specific saction authority granted to hearing officers in Sections 120.58(1)(b) and 120.57(1)(b)5, no provision in Chapter 120 specifically authorizes DOAH to impose a sanction under the circumstances set forth in subsection (3) of Proposed Rule 22I-6.037. Therefore, while I find the purpose of adopting subsection (3) of the proposed rule, to ensure failness, is laudable, this portion of the rule is invalid because DOAH does not possess the requisite legislative authority to adopt such a rule. Section 120.52(5)(b), Fla. Stat., as amended by Ch. 87-358, Section 2, Laws of Florida.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, based on conduct set forth hereinafter, has engaged in conduct violative of Section 466.028(1)(o) and Section 455.241(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint. 2/ Upon consideration of the Administrative Complaint filed herein, the Request for Admissions propounded to the Petitioner by the Respondent on August 24, 1982, the arguments of counsel, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaint filed herein dated July 7, 1982, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry (Petitioner herein), seeks to suspend, revoke, or take other disciplinary action against Ronald Friedensohn, D.M.D., a licensed dentist in the State of Florida who has been issued license No. DN0007254. The Administrative Complaint contained two counts. Count I of the Administrative Complaint charged Respondent with violating Section 466.028(1)(o), Florida Statutes, for failing to make available to a patient, copies of the patient's records. Count II of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, charged Respondent with a violation of Section 455.241(1), Florida Statutes, due to an alleged refusal to release a patient's records to that patient until a disputed fee was paid, and thereby violated Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes. On August 24, 1982, Respondent propounded a Request for Admissions to the Petitioner requesting that the Petitioner admit or deny the following within 30 days of service: Mrs. Barbara Ruderman has never made a formal request, herself, to Dr. Ronald Friedensohn for her x-rays and dental records pursuant to Florida Statute 455.241. An authorized legal representative has never requested, from Dr. Friedensohn, Mrs. Ruderman's records or x-rays. The only individual ever to request Mrs. Ruderman's x-rays and records was her husband, Morton Ruderman. Mr. Morton Ruderman, her husband, is not a duly appointed legal representative of Mrs. Ruderman. Petitioner failed to respond to the Request for Admissions within the 30-day period. However, the Petitioner did respond to the Request for Admissions on October 12, 1982, denying all admissions. In this regard, the Petitioner did not request an extension, nor was one provided to Petitioner, to respond to the Request for Admissions. Likewise, the Petitioner did not file any objections to the Request for Admissions within the appropriate time period. At the outset of the hearing, Respondent's counsel filed an ore tenus motion for a ruling, from the undersigned, to have deemed as admitted the admissions propounded to the Petitioner on August 24, 1982.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein, as amended at the hearing, against Ronald Friedensohn, D.M.D., shall be DISMISSED in its entirety, with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of December, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1982.
The Issue Whether the Motions for Rule Challenge Proceedings (referred to as Petition(s)) filed in each of the above-cited cases meet the requirements both in form and substance, pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating skilled nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the underlying case, the Petitioner operated or controlled three licensed skilled nursing facilities: Harborside Healthcare-Pinewood, Harborside Healthcare-Sarasota, and Harborside Healthcare-Naples. In October of 2001, the Agency filed Administrative Complaints against the Petitioner's three facilities. As to each complaint the Agency relied upon its interpretation of Section 400.121(3)(d), Florida Statutes. The Agency's interpretation of the statute went beyond the plain and unambiguous language of the law. Moreover, such interpretation had not been promulgated by rule. If the interpretation was intended to be the policy of the Agency, the implementation of the policy was not authorized by the statute. The Petitioner pursued three legal strategies: it filed an injunction proceeding in circuit court, a petition to challenge the unpromulgated rule, and vigorously defended the administrative actions filed against its facilities. In so doing, the Petitioner incurred legal expenses and costs necessitated by the Agency's implementation of a policy that had not been established through rule-making procedures. Petitioner's rule challenge alleged that the Agency had failed to follow any rule-making procedures; had enlarged, modified, and contravened the specific provisions of the law; and had implemented a policy that was arbitrary and capricious. Due to the severity of the penalties the Agency sought to impose against the Petitioner, the damage to its reputation in the communities it served, and the resident fear and uncertainty at the facilities, the Petitioner sought and was granted an expedited hearing on the rule challenge. The "Wherefore" clause of the Petitioner's rule challenge clearly stated that Petitioner sought an award of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes. Petitioner had retained outside counsel to pursue each of its legal strategies. On October 31, 2001, a Final Order was entered in the underlying case that directed the Agency to cease and immediately discontinue all reliance on the policy that had not been promulgated through rule-making procedures. That Final Order has not been appealed. The Final Order did not retain jurisdiction for purposes of addressing the Petitioner's request for attorneys' fees and costs. The instant case was opened when the Petitioner filed a motion for attorneys' fees and costs subsequent to the entry of the Final Order in DOAH Case No. 01-3935RU. The matter was assigned a new case number as is the practice of the Division of Administrative Hearings in ancillary proceedings. Accordingly, the instant case, DOAH Case No. 01-4283F, was designated a "fee" case (hence the F at the end of the case number). The initial order entered through the DOAH clerk's office erroneously designated that the fees were sought pursuant to Section 59.11, Florida Statutes. Nevertheless, after the time for appeal of the Final Order (DOAH Case No. 01-3935RU) had elapsed, the matter was scheduled for final hearing. Carole Banks is an attorney employed by the Petitioner as an in-house counsel and director of risk management for the three facilities identified in this record. Ms. Banks is also a registered nurse and has been a member of the Florida Bar since April of 1998. Ms. Banks receives a salary from the Petitioner and is required to perform duties typically associated with her full-time job. Due to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against the facilities, Ms. Banks was required to expend additional time to assist outside counsel to defend the facilities. A portion of that time was attributable to the rule challenge case (DOAH Case No. 01-3935RU). Based upon the testimony of this witness and the exhibits received into evidence it is determined Ms. Banks expended 19.8 hours assisting in the prosecution of the rule challenge case. An appropriate rate of compensation for Ms. Banks would be $150.00 per hour. There is no evidence, however, that the Petitioner was actually required to pay Ms. Banks overtime or an appropriate rate of compensation for her additional work. K. Scott Griggs is an attorney employed by the Petitioner. Mr. Griggs serves as vice president and General Counsel for the Petitioner and is located in Massachusetts. Mr. Griggs did not testify, was not available to explain his time-keeping records, and none of the exhibits in this cause indicate how Mr. Griggs is compensated for his services or what his specific duties entail. While it is certain Mr. Griggs assisted counsel in the prosecution of the underlying case, without relying on hearsay, no determination as to the amount of time spent and the hourly rate that should be applied to such time can be reached. In order to fully protect the Petitioner's interests and those of its residents, the Petitioner retained outside counsel in the underlying case. The law firm of Broad & Cassel was hired to defend the administrative actions, seek injunctive relief, file the underlying case, and pursue other administrative remedies to assist the client. By agreement, Petitioner was to pay the following hourly rates: partners were to be compensated at the rate of $245.00 per hour, associates were to receive $175.00 per hour, and paralegals were entitled to $90.00 per hour. In this case, four partner-level attorneys from Broad and Cassel expended time in furtherance of the client's causes. After reviewing the time records and testimony of the witnesses, it is determined that the partners expended at least 172.6 hours associated with the underlying rule challenge. Additionally, an associate with the Broad & Cassel firm expended not fewer than 12.1 hours that can be directly attributed to the rule challenge case. Additional hours expended contributed to the success of the rule challenge. The Petitioner also incurred costs and expenses associated with the rule challenge. A paralegal expended 4.6 hours (with a $90.00 per hour rate) making copies of the documents used at the hearing. Other costs included court reporter fees, transcripts, telecopy charges, and expert witness fees. It is determined that the Petitioner has incurred $5819.15 in recoverable costs associated with this case and the underlying rule challenge. The hourly rates sought by the Petitioner are reasonable. The time and labor expended by the Petitioner to vigorously protect its legal interests was reasonable given the severity of the penalty sought by the Agency and the circumstances faced by the client. The Petitioner benefited from the efforts of counsel. Due to the time constraints and immediate ramifications faced by the Petitioner, special time and requests were made of the attorneys performing the work for the underlying case. In some instances, the attorneys were required to devote an extensive amount of time to address the client's interests to the exclusion of other work. This was the first time the Broad & Cassel firm had been retained to represent the client. As a result, the attorneys did not have the benefit of a long-term understanding of the facilities and the client's needs. The Broad & Cassel firm and the attorneys assigned to this matter have considerable experience and demonstrated considerable skill, expertise, and efficiency in providing services to the client. Had the Petitioner not prevailed, its ability to honor its hourly agreement with counsel may have been jeopardized. The Agency's expert recognized the difficulties presented by the case and opined that a proper fee would be $42,908. Such amount did not include attorney time spent in preparing for, conducting the fee hearing, or post-hearing activities. Such amount did not cover the amounts depicted in the billing statement from the Broad & Cassel firm. The Petitioner was required to retain expert witnesses to address the fees sought. The calculation of attorney's fees in this cause is complicated by the fact that none of the fees sought would have been incurred by the Petitioner had the Agency not implemented an unlawful policy. That is, had the non-rule policy not been utilized to support Administrative Complaints against the three facilities, none of the fees sought would have been incurred. The Petitioner presented a "shot-gun" approach pursuing every avenue available (including the underlying rule challenge) to dissuade the Agency from pursuing its action against the facilities. Only the rule challenge proved successful. Had the rule challenge not proved successful, residents would have been relocated from their homes. The Petitioner would have incurred extensive financial loss. William E. Williams and Carlos Alvarez testified as experts on behalf of the Petitioner. Their testimony has been considered and their opinions regarding the reasonableness of the fees sought by Petitioner has been deemed persuasive. Based upon the totality of the evidence presented, it is determined that the Petitioner prevailed in the rule challenge. The Agency has not demonstrated that the non-rule statement was required by the Federal Government to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition governing the receipt of federal funds. The formal hearing for fees in this cause lasted 4.75 hours. Petitioner's counsel expended time in preparation for the hearing and in post hearing activities. A reasonable fee associated with that time would not be less than $15,000.00.
Findings Of Fact Herein, Ibanez seeks recovery of attorney's fees and costs she claims to have incurred in DOAH Case No. 91-3336R styled Silvia S. Ibanez et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy et al. In that case, Ibanez challenged the validity of Board of Accountancy Rule 21A-20.012 F.A.C. (the "holding out rule"). Ibanez unsuccessfully tried to initiate that case by filing a petition on May 10, 1991 with the Department of Professional Regulation. Ibanez successfully initiated the rule challenge on May 30, 1991, by filing with DOAH a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing under Section 120.56 F.S. This type of action is commonly referred to as a "challenge to an existing agency rule." In such a case, the Petitioner is fully the initiator, challenger, or sword-wielder in the proceeding and bears both the duty to go forward and the burden of proof. Ibanez initiated the rule challenge in her capacity as a licensed certified public accountant (CPA). She is a sole practitioner and an employee of a law firm called "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.," but the law firm "Silvia S. Ibanez, P.A.," was not a party and did not participate in the rule challenge, except as one of several legal representatives for Silvia S. Ibanez, the individual. The Board participated in the rule challenge case to defend the holding out rule. The Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants (FICPA) intervened in the rule challenge in support of the position of the Board that the holding out rule was valid. While Ibanez' petition in the rule challenge contained a prayer for "other appropriate relief, including award of costs as appropriate," her petition therein did not request an award of attorney's fees. Ibanez' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and her accompanying Memorandum of Law submitted after formal hearing for that case, both of which pleadings were dated October 11, 1991, did not contain proposed findings of fact or proposed conclusions of law addressing the issue of attorney's fees and costs. Neither of Ibanez' post- hearing filings contained a request for attorney's fees or costs or a request to reserve jurisdiction in that case for such an award. The undersigned hearing officer rendered a final order declaring invalid the holding out rule on January 15, 1992. That final order did not award attorney's fees and costs, nor did it reserve jurisdiction to decide attorney's fees and costs at another time. Neither Ibanez nor any of her corporate entities nor any of her supporting intervenors filed any motion requesting a reservation of jurisdiction or requesting reconsideration. The Board and FICPA each appealed the final order in the rule challenge to the First District Court of Appeal in February 1992, but dismissed those appeals on May 6, 1992, by filing a Joint Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The First District Court of Appeal issued an order acknowledging the Joint Dismissal on May 14, 1992. The Joint Dismissal and First District Court of Appeal Order were both attached to the material filed by the parties in this instant case. For purposes of deciding the pending motions to dismiss herein, the undersigned has considered the Joint Dismissal, the First District Court of Appeal Order, and the record in the rule challenge case, DOAH Case No. 91-3336R. Due to the unique arguments advanced in Ibanez' fees and costs motion (sic) herein, it also has been necessary and appropriate to consider the record in DOAH Case No. 91-4100. On May 22, 1991, a probable cause panel of the Board held a probable cause hearing involving Ibanez. As a result of that hearing, the Board initiated a disciplinary proceeding styled State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Accountancy v. Silvia S. Ibanez, DOAH Case No. 91-4100, by filing an administrative complaint on June 13, 1992. That case was a disciplinary action arising under Section 120.57(1) F.S. which was prosecuted by the Department of Professional Regulation on behalf of the Board against Ibanez. At one time, the disciplinary case was consolidated with the rule challenge case. The two cases were bifurcated prior to formal hearing of the merits of either case. FICPA never intervened in the disciplinary case, nor had they any standing to do so. The undersigned hearing officer conducted a 120.57(1) F.S. hearing in the disciplinary case on August 27, 1991, and issued a recommended order to the Board on January 15, 1992. The Board issued its final order in the disciplinary case on April 23, 1992. Therein, contrary to the recommended order, the Board held that Ibanez had violated Sections 473.323(1)(a), (f), (g), and (h) F.S. and Rule 21A-24.001 F.A.C. The Board accordingly issued a reprimand to Ibanez, which reprimand was stayed by the Board pending appeal. Ibanez has appealed the Board's final order in the disciplinary case to the First District Court of Appeal, which appeal is still pending. Ibanez served on July 9, 1992 her Motion for Attorney's Fees which is here under consideration. In doing so, Ibanez elected to use the style of the underlying rule challenge case, DOAH 91-3336R, the style of which still included intervenors James R. Brewster and American Association of Attorney Certified Public Accountants. Those intervenors have never attempted to appear in the instant fees and costs case and apparently seek no relief via Ibanez' pending fees and costs motion. The rule challenge case was final for all purposes before DOAH as of January 15, 1992 and before the District Court of Appeal on May 14, 1992. The DOAH case file for DOAH Case No. 91-3336R has been closed for several months. Ibanez' Motion for Attorney's Fees was received and deemed filed by DOAH on July 13, 1992. It was filed with DOAH sixty-eight (68) days after the rule challenge appeals were voluntarily dismissed by FICPA and the Board and sixty (60) days after the First District Court of Appeals entered its order ratifying the voluntary dismissal. Because petitions brought solely under Section 57.111 F.S. result in final orders, it is DOAH's standard operating procedure to open new files for all fees and costs cases arising under Section 57.111 F.S. Upon receipt of Ibanez' motion, DOAH's Clerk assigned Ibanez' motion the instant new case number (DOAH 92-4271F), primarily on the basis that the motion prayed for relief upon grounds of Section 57.111 F.S., among other statutes. The other statutory grounds cited in the motion were Sections 120.57(1)(b)5 and 120.59(6) F.S.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Findings of Fact set forth in the Recommended Order are approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference as modified by Rulings on Respondent’s Exceptions noted above. 2. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Findings of Fact.
Conclusions Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is Ordered that Petitioner’s challenge to the licensure examination taken December 6, 2000, is Denied and his petition is Dismissed. This order takes effect upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Health. Done and Ordered this ( , day of , 2002. BOARD OF PODIATRIC MEDICINE
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the agency clerk of the Department of Health and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal. That Notice of Appeal must be filed within thirty days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Certified Mail to Charles Pellegrini, Katz, Kutter, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A., 106 E. College Ave., Suite 1200, Tallahassee, FL 32301, and Perry Verleni, 7624 S.W. 56th Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32608, and by interoffice mail to Cherry Shaw, Department of Health, 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1783, Ella Jane P. Davis, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, FL 32399-3060, and to Ann Cocheu, Office of the Attorney General, PL 01 The Capitol, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050, this IS. day of "\ , 2002. LE qlee F.\Usens\ ADMIN\WILMA\ Ann \pod\000208d.wpd
The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.008, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it enlarges, modifies, or contravenes Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and because it exceeds Respondent’s rulemaking authority; and Whether an interpretation of Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, constitutes an unpromulgated “rule.”
Findings Of Fact The first 12 findings of fact are facts contained in the Stipulation: Prior to June 2005, Petitioner, Juan Cuellar, Luis Garcia, and Gerardo Quintero, received what appeared to be a valid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency. Upon receipt, Petitioners applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), to obtain a registered contractor’s license using the Certificates of Competency. Based on the Certificates of Competency, the Department issued each Petitioner a registered contractor’s license bearing license numbers RG291103667 (Mr. Cuellar), RF11067267 (Mr. Garcia), and RF11067268 (Mr. Quintero). Petitioners each applied for a certificate of authority for their respective businesses, Cuellar Construction and Drywall (Mr. Cuellar), A.P.A. Plumbing Corp. (Mr. Garcia), and Q Plumbing Services Corp. (Mr. Quintero). Based on the fact the Certificates of Competency and the registered contractor’s licenses had been granted, the Department issued a certificate of authority to Cuellar Construction and Drywall, QB 41342; APA Plumbing Corp., QB 42763; and Q Plumbing Services Corp., QB 42825. At the time the Department issued Petitioners their registered contractor’s licenses and subsequent certificates of authority, it did so based solely on the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificates of Competency presented by Petitioners and the only information submitted to it. The parties stipulate that Petitioners were not entitled to their registered contractor’s licenses and certificates of authority because the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificates of Competency were not valid certificates. At the time of their applications to the Department, Petitioners were not qualified by any local jurisdiction or any other method necessary to receive a registered contractor’s license from the Department. The Department filed Administrative Complaints against Petitioners for the suspension or revocation of their licenses based on violations of Sections 489.129(1)(a), 489.129(1)(d), 489.129(1)(m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Administrative Complaints”). (All references to Sections of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as they relate to the Administrative Complaint are to the 2005 version. All other references to Florida Statutes are to the 2007 version). Each Petitioner challenged the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 07-2823PL (Mr. Cuellar), DOAH Case No. 07-2824PL (Mr. Garcia), and DOAH Case No. 07-2825PL (Mr. Quintero). On December 13, 2007, the undersigned, as the Administrative Law Judge to whom the cases had been assigned, issued a Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 07-2823PL (Mr. Cuellar), DOAH Case No. 07-2824PL (Mr. Garcia), and DOAH Case No. 07-2825PL (Mr. Quintero), determining that Petitioners violated Sections 489.129(1)(a), 489.129(1)(m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred collectively as the “Recommended Orders”). The “Recommendation” in each of the Recommended Orders was, except for the name of the Respondent, the same as the following: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Luis Garcia violated the provisions of Sections 489.129(1)(a) and (m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint; requiring that Respondent pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; giving Respondent 30 days to voluntarily relinquish his license; and revoking Respondent’s license if he fails to voluntarily relinquish it within 30 days of the final order. Based upon the foregoing, and the fact that no final decision has been entered by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), Petitioners are facing the possible revocation or voluntary relinquishment of their licenses (an adverse impact whether they are “entitled” to the licenses or not), continued defense against the Administrative Complaints, and the payment of the cost incurred by the Department in prosecuting the Administrative Complaints. Should the Board revoke Petitioners’ licenses, they will also be precluded from re-applying for licensure for a period of five years pursuant to Section 489.129(9), Florida Statutes. Petitioners face the same consequence even if they voluntarily relinquish their license pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.017(3)(a). The adverse consequences of the possible final action on the Administrative Complaints which they face stem in part from a finding that they have violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides the following: The board may take any of the following actions against any certificateholder or registrant: place on probation or reprimand the licensee, revoke, suspend, or deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate, registration, or certificate of authority, require financial restitution to a consumer for financial harm directly related to a violation of a provision of this part, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 per violation, require continuing education, or assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, if the contractor, financially responsible officer, or business organization for which the contractor is a primary qualifying agent, a financially responsible officer, or a secondary qualifying agent responsible under 489.1195 is found guilty of any of the following acts: Obtaining a certificate, registration, or certificate of authority by fraud or misrepresentation. . . . . Petitioners were found in the Recommended Orders to have violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, based upon an interpretation of that statutory provision adopted by the Board in Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.008, an existing rule which Petitioners have challenged in this proceeding (hereinafter referred to as the “Challenged Existing Rule”), which provides: Material false statements or information submitted by an applicant for certification or registration, or submitted for renewal of certification or registration, or submitted for any reissuance of certification or registration, shall constitute a violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), F.S., and shall result in suspension or revocation of the certificate or registration. Essentially the same conclusions of law were reached in the Recommended Orders concerning the application of the Challenged Existing Rule (in paragraphs numbered “23” through “25” or “25” through 27” of the Recommended Orders): While Respondent has not been specifically charged with a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.008, the Department cited the Rule, which contains the following interpretation of what constitutes "[o]btaining a certificate, registration, or certificate of authority by . . . misrepresentation" in violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, in support of Count I of the Administrative Complaint: . . . . It is the Department’s position, that despite the fact that Respondent did not commit “fraud” in obtaining his license and a certificate of authority for [the business] and, in fact, did not knowingly submit false information to the Department in obtaining his license and the certificate of competency, “[m]aterial false statements or information” were nonetheless submitted by Respondent in support thereof. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.008, in defining what constitutes the act of "[o]btaining a certificate, registration, or certificate of authority by . . . misrepresentation” eliminates the need for the Department to prove any knowledge on the part of Respondent that he has made a material misrepresentation or any intent on the part of Respondent to rely upon a material misrepresentation. All that is required is proof that a material representation was made and that the representation was false. Petitioners have challenged the validity of the Challenged Existing Rule as being an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners were also found in the Recommended Orders to have violated Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, based upon an interpretation of that statutory provision advanced by the Department during the prosecution of the Administrative Complaints. Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, provides that the following act constitutes grounds for which disciplinary action may be taken: (h) Attempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license to practice a profession by bribery, by fraudulent misrepresentation, or through an error of the department or the board. (Emphasis added). The Department’s argument concerning the appropriate interpretation and application of Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, advanced in the prosecution of the Administrative Complaints, was advanced in paragraphs 24 through 26 of the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order: Obtaining a certificate or registration in error as a result of a misrepresentation made during the application process is conduct proscribed by Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes. Respondent was issued a registration by error of the Department. To be issued a registration by the Department, an applicant must submit along with an application for registration, a copy of the applicant’s validly issued competency card from a local government licensing board . . . . Respondent submitted a fake competency card that appeared to be validly issued by the Miami Compliance Office. . . . If the Department had known Respondent’s Competency Card was fake and Respondents’ answer to the attest statement was false, the Department would not have issued Respondent a registration. Thus, since the Department did not have truthful and accurate information, the registration issued to Respondent was in error. The Department’s interpretation was described and accepted in the Recommended Orders (in paragraphs numbered “29” through “31” or “31” through 33”, in the Recommended Orders), as follows: In support of this alleged violation, the Department has argued that Respondent obtained his license “through an error of the department . . . .” That “error” was the Department’s reliance upon an improperly issued Miami-Dade building business Certificate of Competency. The evidence proved clearly and convincingly that the Department issued the Respondent’s license in “error.” While it is true that Respondent did not intentionally cause or even know of the error, the Department reasonably takes the position that Respondent obtained his license nonetheless as a result of this error and that is all that Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The Department has proved clearly and convincingly that Respondent violated Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes [requires]. Although not specifically quoted in their Petition in this case, Petitioners have quoted what they believe is the unpromulgated rule of the Board which they are challenging in this case in paragraph 60 of Petitioner’s Proposed Final Order (hereinafter referred to as the “Challenged Language”): . . . . Essentially, the Board applies the following unadopted rule when applying Section 455.227(1)(h): Disciplinary action may be taken pursuant to Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, where an individual attempts to obtain a license through an error of the department even if the individual did not have knowledge of the error. As of the date of the final hearing of this matter, the Board had taken no action on the Recommended Orders.
Findings Of Fact The special condition in invitation to bid No. 69-360-240-F that petitioner challenges here provides: PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES Any person responding with an offer to this invitation must execute the enclosed Form PUR 7068, SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(3) (a), FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES and enclose it with your bid. If you are submitting a bid on behalf of dealers or suppliers who will ship and receive payment from the resulting contract, it is your responsibility to see that copy(s) of the form are executed by them and are included with your bid. Failure to comply with this condition shall result in rejection of your bid. Joint Exhibit No. 1. Under the heading "Bid Conditions," Rule 13A-1.008(2), Florida Administrative Code, incorporates form PUR 7068 by reference, and requires that invitations to bid on term contracts include the form. Challenge Untimely The parties stipulated in their prehearing stipulation as follows: "1. Respondent's Division of Purchasing advertised for competitive bidding for [a term contract for] carpet installed, bid number 69-360-240-F. "2. On or about April 19, 1990, the Division of Purchasing sent to prospective bidders a revised invitation to bid. [Like the original invitation to bid, the revised invitation to bid contained the following language: INTERPRETATIONS/DISPUTES: Any questions concerning conditions and specifications shall be directed in writing to this office for receipt no later than ten (10) days prior to the bid opening inquiries must reference the date of bid opening and bid number. No interpretation shall be considered binding unless provided in writing by the State of Florida in response to requests in full compliance with this provision. Any actual or prospective bidder who disputes the reasonableness, necessity or competitiveness of the terms and conditions of the invitation to Bid, bid selection or contract award recommendation, shall file such protest in form of a petition in compliance with Rule 13A-1.006, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section 120.53(5), Florida Statutes, shall constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5.] "3. The petitioner did not protest any of the terms and conditions of the invitation to bid within 72 hours of its receipt of the invitation to bid. "4. The petitioner timely submitted its bid pursuant to the above- referenced bid solicitation. "5. The bids were opened on May 16, 1990 and on July 23, 1990 the Division of Purchasing posted the official bid tabulation document. "6. The Division of Purchasing determined that the petitioner's bid was non-responsive. "8. On July 25, 1990, the petitioner timely filed its Notice of Intent of Protest with the respondent. "9. On August 3, 1990, the petitioner timely filed its Notice of Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Hearing. "10. On August 21, 1990, the petitioner filed a Petition for Administrative Determination of the Validity of Unpromulgated Rule challenging the special condition entitled `Public Entity Crimes' on page four of the invitation to bid." No Future Effect Already superseded in subsequent invitations by a revised version (T.142, 171), any special condition like the one petitioner challenges will soon undergo further change. Effective October 1, 1990, Section 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes will be amended to read: * Prior to entering into a contract a person shall file a sworn statement with the contracting officer . . . <<for the calendar year. The department shall adopt by rule a standard sworn statement . . .. The form shall include>> [[on a form to be promulgated by the department by rule, including the following information:]] The name of the person. The business address . . . * Note: In the above quotation, language added to the statute is within the <<>>; deleted language is within the [[]]. Chapter 90-33, Sections 1 and 3, Laws of Florida (1990) (language added or deleted by Chapter 90-33). "Only if the responding bidder does not have the [sworn statement on public entity crimes] . . . on file with [respondent's] . Division of Purchasing on or after October 1 this year" (T. 135) must a sworn statement accompany a bid. The amended statute "effective on October 1 allows . . . submission of the public entity crime form document on a calendar year basis. So, it does not have to be submitted with each and every bid." (T. 135.) Petitioner does not anticipate bidding in response to any other of respondent's invitations to bid any time before October 1, 1990. When asked, "Is it Jones' Floor Covering's intention after October 1st, to submit only one sworn statement a year to the Division of Purchasing," (T. 95) Rocky Wayne Jones, a vice- president in petitioner's employ, answered, "Whatever we need to do, that's what we will do to be able to bid on State work. If that's what the law is, then we will do what the law says to do." T. 95.
