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 By means of two consolidated rule challenge petitions, Petitioner seeks determinations that a specified agency policy and practice is an agency statement which is an invalid unpromulgated rule and that certain specified existing agency rules are invalid for other reasons. In view of the number of and the nature of the issues in these two cases, it is perhaps easiest to describe the issues in each of these cases in the words chosen by Petitioner. The petition in Case No. 04-4398RU describes the issues as follows: Whether Florida Board of Medicine's uniform "nod an wink" nonrule policy and practice of uniform licensure denial to anyone on probation is: (i) an "Agency Statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes law or policy;" (ii) and "Agency Statement," defined as a "Rule;" (iii) "Rule," unpromulgated by mandatory and compulsory rulemaking procedures; and (iv) an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of § 120.54(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003), as defined in § 120.52 Fla. Stat. (2003) and within the meaning of § 120.57(1)(e)? Whether the Board's failure to provide notice to prospective applicants of its unpromulgated rule policy and practice of uniform licensure denial to anyone on probation is [a] violation of due process requirements of United States and Florida Constitutions and of § 120,57(1)(e)(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2003)? Whether Florida Board of Medicine's final Administrative Order, Order No. DOH- 04-0662-FOF-MQA, dated June 17, 2004, denying Petitioner's Application for Temporary Certificate to practice in Areas of Critical Need -- an Agency action based on an unpromulgated rule -- is null and void, pursuant to §120.56(4)(d), 120.56(4)(e)(5) and 120.57(1)(e), Fla. Stat. (2003)? Whether attorney fees and costs [are] to be awarded to the Petitioner pursuant to §120.595(4), Fla. Stat. (2003)? (Emphasis in original.) The petition in Case No. 04-4571RX describes the issues as follows: Whether all the relevant provisions of Rule 64B8-8.001 F.A.C. that punish or sanction Applicants in whole or in part -- as promulgated in Rules 64B8-8.001(1); 64B8- 8.001(2); and 64B8-8.001(2)(b) F.A.C. -- are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in violation of § 120.536(1), Fla Stat. (2000), as defined in § 120.52(8), Fla. Stat. (2003)? Whether the Board's Final Administrative Order, Order No. DOH-04-0662- FOF-MQA, dated June 17, 2004, denying Petitioner's Application for Licensure -- an Agency action based on an invalidated rule - - is null and void? Whether attorney fees and costs [are] to be awarded to the Petitioner pursuant to §120.595(3), Fla. Stat. (2003)?
Findings Of Fact Findings incorporated from findings of fact in Case No. 03-4433 Petitioner is a medical doctor, presently licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York. Petitioner signed a Florida Department of Health Board of Medicine Application for Temporary Certificate to Practice in an Area of Critical Need on June 19, 2003. Question number 13 on that application form asked, “Have you ever had any Medical/professional license revoked, suspended, placed on probation, received a citation, or other disciplinary action taken in any state territory or country?” Petitioner answered “yes” to question number 13. The Notice of Intent to Deny issued by the Florida Board of Medicine cited as the only reason for denial “[t]he applicant had action taken against the license by the New York and the Utah Medical Licensing Boards.” It has since been confirmed that the Utah Division of Occupational & Professional Licensing did not take any action against Petitioner’s medical license in Utah. The New York Department of Health, Monitoring Unit, Office of Professional Medical Conduct, did take action against Petitioner’s medical license in New York. The New York Department of Health described its action as follows: Dr. Jacoby currently holds a valid NYS medical license, and is permitted to practice in this State, however the sanctions imposed by the enclosed Order are still in effect, and have not yet been fully satisfied. The suspension was lifted in January 2003, however the three years probation remains ‘tolled’ at this time, to be imposed when Dr. Jacoby returns to the practice of medicine in this State. (Emphasis added.) The underlying reason for Petitioner’s discipline in New York is for failing to repay a student loan guaranteed by the federal government. Petitioner had secured a health education assistance loan guaranteed by the federal government for approximately $51,000.00 between 1982 and 1983. The loan came due nine months after Petitioner graduated from medical school in June or July of 1984. Petitioner did not make any payments toward the loan for approximately 18 years. In September of 2002, Petitioner finally settled his long past-due student loan debt. Petitioner requested to withdraw his Application for Temporary Certificate to Practice in an Area of Critical Need after the Credentials Committee voted to recommend denial of his application to the full Board of Medicine. Petitioner promptly made a similar written request addressed to the full Board of Medicine. The full Board of Medicine denied Petitioner’s request to withdraw his application. The Board of Medicine then considered the merits of Petitioner’s application and voted to deny the application. The Board’s action was memorialized in a Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure by Area of Critical Need, which reads as follows in pertinent part: This matter came before the Credentials Committee of the Florida Board of Medicine at a duly-noticed public meeting on September 13, 2003, in Tampa, Florida and the full Board on October 3-4, 2003, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The applicant appeared before the Credentials Committee on September 13, 2003, and presented testimony regarding the application file. The application file shows: The applicant had action taken against the license by the New York and the Utah Medical Licensing Boards. Additionally, the Board considered applicant’s Motion to Withdraw his application during the full Board meeting and voted to deny applicant’s motion. The applicant is guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for having a license acted upon by another jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the Board may refuse to certify an applicant for licensure, or restrict the practice of the licensee, or impose a penalty, pursuant to Sections 458.331(2) and 456.072(2), Florida Statutes. It is therefore ORDERED that the application for licensure by area of critical need be DENIED. If a final order is issued denying Petitioner’s license, the denial will be reported to the Federation of State Medical Boards, which is a depository of all disciplinary actions and license application denials by state boards in the United States. In recent years, it has been the consistent practice of the Florida Board of Medicine to deny applications for licenses to practice medicine if the applicant’s medical license is on probation in another state. Such practice is not required by either rule or statute. The Board of Medicine does not make any effort to advise applicants or prospective applicants of its consistent practice of denying applications from physicians who are on probation elsewhere. At the time he filed the subject application, as well as at the time of his appearance before the Credentials Committee, Petitioner was not aware of the Board of Medicine’s history of not granting applications submitted by physicians on probation elsewhere. Had Petitioner been aware of the Board’s history in that regard, he would not have filed an application.3 Findings based on testimony in Case No. 03-4433 All applications for licensure submitted by physicians licensed in other states are reviewed on their merits by the Florida Board of Medicine. Notwithstanding the Board's long history of denying such applications when the applicant's license in another state is on probation, it is nevertheless possible that the Board might in the future grant an application by a physician whose license is on probation. Because such a possibility exists, the Board does not advise prospective applicants that their applications will be denied if their license in another state is on probation. Facts about the existing rules The existing rule provisions challenged in Case No. 04-4571RX are all portions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-8.001. That rule contains the disciplinary guidelines regarding physicians regulated under Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. (Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Florida Statutes are to the current version of those statutes.) Subsection (1) and the introductory portion of subsection (2) of that rule read as follows: 64B8-8.001 Disciplinary Guidelines. Purpose. Pursuant to Section 456.079, F.S., the Board provides within this rule disciplinary guidelines which shall be imposed upon applicants or licensees whom it regulates under Chapter 458, F.S. The purpose of this rule is to notify applicants and licensees of the ranges of penalties which will routinely be imposed unless the Board finds it necessary to deviate from the guidelines for the stated reasons given within this rule. The ranges of penalties provided below are based upon a single count violation of each provision listed; multiple counts of the violated provisions or a combination of the violations may result in a higher penalty than that for a single, isolated violation. Each range includes the lowest and highest penalty and all penalties falling between. The purposes of the imposition of discipline are to punish the applicants or licensees for violations and to deter them from future violations; to offer opportunities for rehabilitation, when appropriate; and to deter other applicants or licensees from violations. Violations and Range of Penalties. In imposing discipline upon applicants and licensees, in proceedings pursuant to Sections 120.57(1) and (2), F.S., the Board shall act in accordance with the following disciplinary guidelines and shall impose a penalty within the range corresponding to the violations set forth below. The verbal identification of offenses are descriptive only; the full language of each statutory provision cited must be consulted in order to determine the conduct included. Following the language quoted immediately above, the subject rule describes all of the statutory violations for which discipline may be imposed and for each such violation describes minimum and maximum recommended penalties. With regard to the violation described as "(b) Action taken against license by another jurisdiction," the subject rule provides the following recommendation for a first offense: (b) From imposition of discipline comparable to the discipline which would have been imposed if the substantive violation had occurred in Florida to suspension or denial of the license until the license is unencumbered in the jurisdiction in which disciplinary action was originally taken, and an administrative fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $5,000.00. And for a second offense of the same type, the recommended penalty is stated as follows: (b) From imposition of discipline comparable to the discipline which would have been imposed if the substantive violation had occurred in Florida to revocation or denial of the license, and an administrative fine ranging from $5,000.00 to $10,000.00. Facts about disposition of Petitioner's application In the conclusions of law in the Recommended Order in Case No. 03-4433, the undersigned concluded that . . . on the facts in this case, the Board of Medicine clearly has the authority and the discretion to deny the application for the specific reasons stated in the Board's notice of intent to deny, to-wit: "The applicant is guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for having a license acted upon by another jurisdiction." But it is equally clear that there is nothing in the applicable rules or statutes that mandates denial of the application. The Board of Medicine can lawfully resolve this matter either way. The ultimate recommendation in that Recommended Order was that "a Final Order be issued . . . granting Petitioner's application for a temporary certificate to practice medicine in communities in Florida where there is a critical need for physicians." On June 18, 2004, the Board of Medicine filed a Final Order in Case No. 03-4433 in which it disagreed with the recommendation described above and, based on Petitioner's violation of Section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and on "several aggravating factors and policy considerations" described in the Final Order, denied the application for a temporary certificate to practice in an area of critical need. Petitioner sought appellate court review of the Final Order of June 18, 2004. On April 14, 2005, the appellate court issued a decision in which the Board's Final Order of June 18, 2004, was affirmed without opinion. See A. Alexander Jacoby, M.D. v. Florida Board of Medicine, 900 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
The Issue Whether Petitioner, M.B. Doral, is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (2019); and, if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 2018, Petitioner MB Doral filed a Petition Challenging Validity of Existing Rule 61A-4.020 and Determination Regarding Unadopted Rule, in DOAH Case Number 18-6768RX. On January 25, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Proceedings, which stayed MB Doral’s unadopted rule challenge pending the proposed rulemaking that would promulgate ABT Form 6017. On October 16, 2019, amendments to rule 61A-4.020 became effective, which promulgated ABT Form 6017. On November 6, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Dismissing Unadopted Rule Challenge and Retaining Jurisdiction, which dismissed MB Doral’s remaining unadopted rule challenge and retained jurisdiction to consider a request for attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). On December 3, 2019, MB Doral filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Motion), seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the unadopted rule challenge pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). The Motion alleges that MB Doral advised the Department, in writing on at least seven occasions prior to filing the rule challenge petition, and beginning on May 19, 2015, that the Department’s failure to adopt ABT Form 6017 constituted an unadopted rule. The Motion also alleges that the Department did not file a notice of rulemaking until January 28, 2019. The Motion further alleges that the Department has never alleged that the federal government required ABT Form 6017 to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. On December 10, 2019, the Department filed its Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for an Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. On February 11, 2020, the Department filed a Notice of Filing Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, which included the Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The Joint Stipulation states that the Department agrees to the entry of a final order assessing the sum of $7,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs in the unadopted rule challenge, which the undersigned bifurcated from the existing rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 18-6768RX, which is currently pending before the First District Court of Appeal in Case Number 1D19-0820. The Joint Stipulation further states that the parties agree that this Final Order should direct the Department to seek immediate approval for payment within 30 days of this Final Order, and that the undersigned retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Final Order.
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 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 At all times material hereto Petitioner was an inmate incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution within the custody and control of the State of Florida, Department of Corrections. Respondent stipulated at final hearing that Petitioner has "standing" to maintain the rule challenge proceeding. The parties also stipulated that the rule under challenge in this proceeding is a rule adopted by Respondent in accordance with the settlement reached in a previous administrative rule challenge proceeding in which Petitioner was a party. The parties further stipulated that ". . . inmates within the Respondent's care enjoy meaningful access to the courts." There are presently approximately 2,500 inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution. There is one Xerox machine located in the law library at Union Correctional Institution, and the librarian has two inmate clerks assigned to assist in the operation of the library. There is insufficient money in the library budget to fund either additional copying machines or additional personnel to assist in copying materials other than those authorized under Respondent's rule.
