Findings Of Fact By agreement with the prosecution Dr. Brown had sought to delay consideration of his procedural motion to dismiss DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076, pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R., T.E. and K.J. The parties to that action anticipated considering the motion at the final hearing as part of the case on the merits. The hearing officer was persuaded that the procedural motion to dismiss had to be examined separate and apart from the consideration of the case on the merits as to those four patients. Consequently the motion to dismiss was entertained concerning its evidential and legal basis prior to a hearing on the merits. This led to the decision on June 9, 1992, to dismiss the action pertaining to treatment of the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E., with leave to refile at some future date. The decision to dismiss was based upon the pertinent facts and law when examined in accordance with Section 455.255(1), Florida Statutes. The motion to dismiss the action concerning treatment of the patient K.J. was denied. The reason for the dismissal was announced in the record on June 9, 1992, and memorialized in the transcript of the proceedings. It was concluded that there was not an adequate basis to institute an investigation concerning the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E.; that the Department of Professional Regulation, now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, did not furnish Dr. Brown or his attorney with a copy of the complaint or the document that resulted in the initiation of the investigation pertaining to the three patients; and, that Dr. Brown did not have the statutorily mandated opportunity to respond to the accusations made against him related to the care that he provided those three patients. Therefore, the procedural requirements under Section 455.225(1), Florida Statutes, had not been met and the case as it pertained to the three patients was dismissed with leave to refile. The procedural requirements related to the patient K.J. had been met and it was appropriate to present the K.J. case to the Probable Cause Panel for its deliberation, unlike the circumstance with the other three patients. It was determined that the quality of consideration by the Probable Cause Panel when voting to prosecute Dr. Brown for his treatment of K.J. was adequate. Based upon the ruling directed to the treatment of patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. the Department of Professional Regulation was not allowed to proceed against Dr. Brown for the care rendered those patients. A subsequent recommended order addressed in substance the prosecutions associated with DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076 pertaining to the patient K.J.; DPR Case Nos. 011343 and 011344/DOAH Case No. 91-5325 and DPR Case Nos. 8901804, 0111385 and 0111353/DOAH Case No. 91-6358, traced the history of those cases in the preliminary statement to the recommended order and identified the prior ruling dismissing the actions pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. That recommended order was not an invitation to the Board of Medicine to respond to a recommendation of dismissal. The recommended order in the cases pertaining to patients other than J.C., D.R., and T.E. was entered on December 30, 1992, based upon the formal hearing conducted pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, on various dates in June and July, 1992, and concluded on July 10, 1992, before the present hearing officer. On February 26, 1993, the Board entered its final order in the above- referenced cases and commented to the effect that it had approved the recommended dismissal by the hearing officer concerning the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. with leave to refile. Neither party appealed the hearing officer's decision dismissing those counts within DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076 directed to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. On March 8, 1993, Dr. Brown took an appeal from the final order of the Board of Medicine entered on February 26, 1993, which included the comment approving the actions by the hearing officer in dismissing the counts pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E., but without prejudice to bring those actions again following compliance with Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. Robert C. Brown, Jr., M.D., is a licensed physician practicing in the state of Florida. He has held a license entitling him to practice in that state at all times relevant to the inquiry. At relevant times Dr. Brown has practiced medicine at 4519 Brentwood Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206. He is the sole medical practitioner of an incorporated professional practice. He has had less than 25 employees and his net worth has been not more than 2 million dollars. Dr. Brown is the only share holder in his incorporated professional association. No one else has ownership interest in the incorporated professional association. At times Dr. Brown has drawn a salary from the professional association as an employee of the professional association. His request for attorney's fees and costs are directed to the actions of the Department of Professional Regulation for its procedural noncompliance with Section 455.225, Florida Statutes, and the subsequent decision of the Board of Medicine to find probable cause and to have the Department of Professional Regulation proceed against Dr. Brown for care rendered the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. The action to recover attorney's fees and costs not to exceed $15,000 was filed on April 27, 1993. The petition for attorney's fees and costs of April 27, 1993, was amended on July 15, 1993. Dr. Brown retained the law firm of Stowell, Anton and Kraemer to represent him in the aforementioned cases pertaining to the administrative prosecutions. His present attorney, Julie Gallagher, was principal counsel in those cases. No issue has been taken with the notion that $165.00 is a reasonable hourly rate for her services in defending Dr. Brown in the administrative prosecutions. Dr. Brown has paid all fees and costs charged by his lawyer in preparation for and participating in the proceedings related to the administrative prosecutions. To challenge the alleged procedural infirmities associated with the right to investigate, notice to the accused, opportunity for the accused to respond to the accusations and deliberations by the Probable Cause Panel contemplated by Section 455.225, Florida Statutes, it was not necessary for Dr. Brown to fully develop his defense on the merits of the accusations pertaining to patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. Dr. Brown's counsel in the exhibit associated with claims for attorney's fees and costs has highlighted the exhibit through color-codes in an attempt to assist the hearing officer in understanding the meaning of that exhibit. This color-code system attempts to identify those instances in which Dr. Brown claims that the work done on his behalf is associated only with patients with J.C., D.R. and T.E. and other occasions where a percentage is set forth in relation to work done in the entire DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076, to include K.J. and in the other cases referenced before. The code is described in the August 16, 1993 cover letter from counsel for Dr. Brown. No attempt is made through the coding system to differentiate between those actions taken in moving to dismiss DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076 pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R. and T.E. from other activities related to defending the accusations about those patients on the merits. The right to recover, if at all, is limited to those attorney's fees and costs associated with the motion to dismiss counts pertaining to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E., together with the attorney's fees and costs associated with the present case. No other efforts by Dr. Brown's attorneys may be the proper subject for recovery. Not only was it not necessary to know information concerning the merits of the administrative complaint pertaining to patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. to pursue the motion to dismiss on procedural grounds, the decision that was made did not resolve the merits set forth in the administrative complaints directed to Dr. Brown's treatment of J.C., D.R., and T.E. The possibility exists that Dr. Brown could be called upon to defend against similar accusations to those set forth in the DPR Case No. 91-06883/DOAH Case No. 92-1076 at which time he could prepare himself to defend the merits and if successful that would be the appropriate moment to seek attorney's fees and costs for that aspect of the case. The arrangement by stipulation between the parties in the prior prosecution to delay consideration of the motion to dismiss until the place at which prosecution of the cases involving J.C., D.R., and T.E. were being examined on their merits was not appropriate. Consequently, Dr. Brown may not assert that he was required to prepare his motion to dismiss on procedural grounds simultaneously with his defense on the merits of the administrative complaint directed to the patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. Within this context, taking into account a lack of opposition to the $165.00 hourly rate charged by Dr. Brown's counsel, the following amounts are found to be associated with the pursuit of the motion to dismiss those counts related to patients J.C., D.R., and T.E. and claims under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, to recover attorney's fees and costs: 3/11/92-$165.00; 3/14/92-$165.00; 3/16/92-$125.00; 3/31/92-$100.00; 4/2/92-$247.50; 4/6/92- $62.50; 4/6/92-$198.00; 4/10/92-$50.00; 4/16/92-$10.00; 4/17/92-$50.00; related to the motion to dismiss and 4/27/93-$165.00; 5/3/93-$33.00; 5/12/93-$15.00; 5/17/93-$82.50; 6/14/93-$165.00; related to the prosecution of the petition for attorney's fees and costs. No proof was offered concerning any special circumstances that point to any injustice in awarding attorney's fees and costs in the amount identified.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's Petition Seeking an Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of an Existing Rule (Petition) should be dismissed on the ground that the "challenged rule in this proceeding has been effectively repealed by the Florida Legislature by Section 626.854(11), Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2008," as requested by Respondent.
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.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), should pay Petitioners' attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, for initiating DOAH Case No. 12-2074.
Findings Of Fact On August 15, 2011, John and Kimberly Whitt (Whitts) filed a complaint of housing discrimination with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging disability discrimination. FCHR conducted an investigation of the complaint. During the investigation, the investigator obtained statements and documents from both parties. The investigator's final investigative report (Determination, found within Respondent's Exhibit 1) detailed the investigation. The Determination dated December 21, 2011, concluded that "there [was] reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice occurred in violation of 804(f)(3)(A) of the Fair Housing Act, as amended." On March 2, 2012, FCHR issued a Legal Concurrence: Cause. The Legal Concurrence, drafted by FCHR's senior attorney, concluded that "there [was] reasonable cause to believe that Respondents [Association] discriminated against Complainants [the Whitts] in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b) and (f)(2)(A) and section 760.23(2) and (8)(a), Florida Statutes." On March 5, 2012, FCHR's executive director executed the Notice of Determination (Cause), charging that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Association had engaged in a discriminatory housing practice. The Whitts elected to have FCHR represent them to seek relief in an administrative proceeding against the Association. On June 14, 2012, FCHR filed a Petition for Relief (Relief Petition) with DOAH seeking an order prohibiting the Association from engaging in any unlawful housing practices, and granting damages. The final hearing in the underlying case was held before the undersigned on December 12, 2012. The undersigned entered a Recommended Order on February 15, 2013, recommending the dismissal of the Relief Petition filed on behalf of the Whitts. On May 2, 2013, FCHR entered a Final Order dismissing the petition for relief filed on behalf of the Whitts. The Association was the prevailing party in the underlying case. The Association is a not-for-profit corporation that does not have any employees. The Association relies solely on volunteers to run its operations. It has never had a net worth of two million dollars or more. The Association was represented by counsel and co- counsel in both proceedings. In the Fees Petition, the Association alleged it had incurred $75,657.00 in legal fees. At hearing, the Association provided a document which reflected that $5,945.00 in fees should not have been attributed to the instant case, thus setting the amount the Association was seeking at $69,712.00. However, the Association acknowledged that section 57.111(4)(d) 2., Florida Statutes, limited the recovery of attorney's fees and costs to $50,000. FCHR is a "state agency" for the purposes of this proceeding. See §§ 120.57(1) and 57.111(3)(f), Fla. Stat.
Findings Of Fact On August 17, 1992, Petitioner Donald filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging that Respondent Winn Dixie was guilty of an unlawful employment practice, to wit, racial discrimination in failure to "promote" Petitioner from a part-time position to a full-time position because he is black, the most recent non-promotion date being July 22, 1992. After investigation, the Florida Commission on Human Relations entered and mailed a Notice of Determination: No Cause and Determination: No Cause on March 23, 1993. That Notice contained the following pertinent language: If redetermination is not requested, the Request for Hearing/Petition for Relief must be filed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Notice and should be in compliance with the provisions of Rule 22T-9.008 and Chapter 22T-8, Florida Administrative Code . . . Failure of Complainant to timely file either a request or petition will result in the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 22T-9.006, Florida Administrative Code. (See "Exhibit A" attached to, and incorporated in, this Recommended Order). Petitioner mailed his Petition for Relief and it was stamped in as filed at the Florida Commission on Human Relations on April 28, 1993. The Commission did not enter an order of dismissal or otherwise reject the petition as untimely. On May 5, 1993, the Commission transmitted the Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S. On May 5, 1993, and simultaneously with its transmittal of the Petition to DOAH, the Commission served/mailed the Petition to Respondent with a Notice to Respondent of Filing of Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. The Commission's transmittal of Petition had included a Notice to Respondent containing the following specific language: You are required to file an answer with the Commission within 20 days of the date of service of the Petition. Your attention is directed generally to Chapter 22T-8, Florida Administrative Code, which pertains to general procedures before the Commission. You are also referred to Rule 22T-9.008(5) which sets forth those matters which must be included in the Respondent's answer. Please note that the filing of a motion to dismiss does not toll the time for filing an answer. (See "Exhibit A" to this Recommended Order). On May 11, 1994, DOAH's Clerk mailed an Initial Order to both parties. The parties were charged by Rule 60Q-2.003(6), F.A.C. and by DOAH's Initial Order in this case with serving upon each other a copy of every pleading either party filed with DOAH. The Initial Order also permitted the parties to advise the undersigned hearing officer of dates and locations they preferred for scheduling the de novo evidentiary hearing on the merits. Petitioner responded to the Initial Order. Respondent did not. Respondent also filed no Answer to the Petition for Relief within 20 days as required by Rule 22T-9.008, F.A.C., [renumbered 60Y-5.008(5)(a), F.A.C.]. If a Respondent fails to file a timely answer, such failure shall be deemed to constitute an admission of the material facts alleged in the petition. See, renumbered Rule 60Y-5.008(5)(d) F.A.C. By DOAH Notice of Hearing mailed May 27, 1993, the cause was scheduled for formal hearing on the merits for October 18, 1993. Simultaneous with that Notice of Hearing, an Order of Prehearing Instructions was entered and mailed. The Order of Prehearing Instructions was directed to both parties and was very specific as to what was required of them, including but not limited to listing witnesses and exhibits, clarifying which issues of material fact were disputed, and listing any pending motions. A copy of the entire order is attached and incorporated in this Recommended Order by reference as "Exhibit B". A joint prehearing stipulation was not timely filed as required by the order of prehearing instructions, and neither party filed a unilateral statement on or before September 29, 1993 as permitted by the order of prehearing instructions. In short, neither party timely complied with the first Order of Prehearing Instructions. On October 1, 1993, certain unsigned, confusing, contradictory, and incomplete papers were filed. This filing, which turned out to be filed by Petitioner (see Finding of Fact 22) among other things requested that the hearing officer subpoena the listed witnesses, listed "stipulations" not signed by anyone, and listed motions never filed at DOAH. This ambiguous item not only was unsigned, but did not reflect who, if anyone, it had been served upon. Common practice and procedure require subpoenas to be sent by DOAH to a party for service by that party on witnesses, and subpoenas may not be served upon witnesses by the hearing officer. The October 1, 1993 filing prompted the entry and service upon both parties of an order on October 12, 1993 which had attached to it the unsigned filings of October 1, 1993. The October 12, 1993 order, with the unsigned and ambiguous attachments is attached and incorporated in this recommended order by reference as "Exhibit C". That order cancelled the October 18, 1993 formal hearing on the merits, subject to rescheduling of the formal hearing on the merits upon clarification of the unsigned papers filed. This order was entered instead of automatically precluding either party from presenting evidence, an option permitted by the prior Order of Prehearing Instructions. The order gave both parties an equal opportunity to do what was procedurally necessary to advance the case to formal hearing on the merits. The October 12, 1993 order granted both parties 45 days in which to confer with one another and file the joint prehearing stipulation contemplated by the prior order of prehearing instructions and to submit several agreeable dates for rescheduling formal hearing on the merits. In further pertinent part, the October 12, 1993 order provided that if a joint stipulation could not be agreed upon between the parties, they could still proceed to formal hearing on the merits by timely submitting unilateral statements listing their respective exhibits and witnesses. The order also went on to specifically provide as follows: Failure of either party to submit at least the names of witnesses to be called by that party and a list of exhibits to be introduced by that party will result in exclusion of that evidence at formal hearing in this cause. Under the terms of the October 12, 1993 order, the date for filing of unilateral witness and exhibit lists was November 26, 1993. Neither party timely filed witness or exhibit lists. On December 14, 1993, which was eighteen days after the last date for compliance with the October 12, 1993 order had passed with Petitioner and Respondent each failing to timely comply therewith, another order was entered. That order advised the parties that since, by the terms of the October 12, 1993 order, both parties were now precluded from presenting any evidence in support of, or contrary to, Petitioner's claim, it appeared that there was no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing. However, the order also granted the parties 30 days in which to show cause why Petitioner's Petition for Relief should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the October 12, 1993 order. A copy of the December 14, 1993 order is attached and incorporated in this recommended order as "Exhibit D". That same day, Petitioner filed a request for 22 blank subpoenas and to reschedule formal hearing, but no witness or exhibit list. A copy of this item is attached and incorporated in this recommended order by reference as "Exhibit E." The date for filing of responses to the December 14, 1993 order to show cause was January 13, 1994. Respondent did not file any response to the December 14, 1993 order or the December 14, 1993 pleading. 1/ However, on January 13, 1994, Petitioner timely filed a paper captioned "Pleadings Motions". This paper, a copy of which is attached and incorporated in this recommended order as "Exhibit F," was similar, but not identical to, the unsigned papers filed October 1, 1993. It again requested subpoenas be served by the hearing officer, listed names and addresses of potential witnesses, and requested that the case not be dismissed because Petitioner was without legal counsel and because it is "a very hard case". It specifically stated, "Please consider hearing my testimony and others on this matter." Petitioner's January 13, 1994 pleading could be read as a motion to allow Petitioner to testify and present witnesses and exhibits. In an abundance of caution, the undersigned mailed a copy of it to Respondent on January 18, 1994. Respondent did not file any response to Petitioner's January 13, 1994 pleading. As required by law, the undersigned had served Respondent with all DOAH orders and notices. Also, in an abundance of caution, the undersigned had served Respondent with Petitioner's January 13, 1994 pleading and the unsigned October 1, 1993 papers at the address of record for Respondent's "in-house" counsel, which name and address was provided in the Florida Commission on Human Relations referral papers. No documents were returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings, creating the legal presumption that all materials had been received by Respondent. Still, Respondent had failed to comply with any DOAH order whatsoever and for nine months had not taken any affirmative action to defend against the Petition for Relief. No Answer to the Petition for Relief, timely or otherwise, had ever been filed by Respondent. The record, as reviewed by the undersigned as of February 3, 1994, also indicated that Petitioner's original Charge of Discrimination before the Florida Commission on Human Relations had been directed to Respondent, not at a Jacksonville address, but at a Quincy address. Therefore, because the law and the undersigned are loathe to cut off any legitimate litigation, and in a further abundance of caution, the undersigned determined that Petitioner and Respondent should have one last opportunity to explain why they had not timely complied with prior orders and why, if at all, a formal hearing with witnesses and exhibits on the merits of the Petition for Relief should be rescheduled. To that end, and still in an abundance of caution, an order was entered on February 3, 1994, a copy of which order is attached and incorporated in this recommended order by reference as "Exhibit G". The decretal portion of that order read: A hearing on the limited issue of whether or not either party should be permitted to present evidence at a rescheduled formal hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m., March 1, 1994, at the Division of Administ- rative Hearings, the DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida.* Witnesses need not appear at that time. Only parties or their legal counsel shall appear. Failure of Petitioner to appear in person or through legal counsel at that date, time and place WILL result in dismissal of this cause. Failure of Respondent to appear in person or through legal counsel at that date, time and place WILL result in the exclusion of all of Respondent's witnesses and evidence. 4. [sic] Whether or not a formal hearing on the merits will be rescheduled at all will be determined by an order entered after the undersigned has heard what the parties may have to say at the hearing now scheduled for March 1, 1994. (Emphasis in the original). Still in an abundance of caution, the foregoing order was served by the undersigned upon Respondent at both its Quincy and Jacksonville addresses. No court reporter was present at the March 1, 1994 interlocutory hearing. Petitioner appeared and represented himself at the March 1, 1994 hearing. Respondent's "in-house" counsel from Jacksonville did not appear at the Tallahassee hearing but authorized Winn-Dixie's District Manager W. E. Carroll and its Quincy Store Manager Terry Miller to appear. Mr. Carroll works in Tallahassee. Mr. Miller drove 23 miles from Quincy for the hearing. After examination by the undersigned in open court pursuant to Rule 60Q-2.008, F.A.C., Mr. Carroll was accepted as a qualified representative for Respondent. Inquiry was also made by the undersigned at the March 1, 1994 hearing as to any reason a formal hearing on the merits should be rescheduled. Each prior order and pleading 2/ was explored orally in open court. Oral argument was also invited as to why either party should be permitted to present evidence. Oral admissions and stipulations of the parties were received. At that hearing, Petitioner contended that he had not understood the prior orders and that the unsigned papers filed October 1, 1993 (see Findings of Fact 8-9 supra.) were his attempt to provide a witness list. Petitioner also contended that he thought he was represented by legal counsel at one point and to support that assertion, he presented a December 6, 1993 letter he had received from Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. The original of this letter (exhibit) is attached and incorporated in this recommended order as "Exhibit H". At that hearing, no clear explanation was given of why Respondent had failed to Answer the Petition for Relief and also had filed no response to any prior DOAH order or pleading by Petitioner. Still in an abundance of caution, and because the undersigned is loathe to enter defaults or impose sanctions at any time, each party was permitted 10 days after the March 1, 1994 formal hearing in which to file any further written clarification of the record or pleadings. Petitioner filed a response dated March 10, 1994 on March 10, 1994, but Respondent still filed no Answer to the Petition for Relief, despite numerous questions by the undersigned at the March 1, 1994 hearing concerning what facts asserted in the Petition for Relief were admitted and which were denied by Respondent and inquiring why no Answer had been filed by Respondent. On March 4, 1994, Respondent filed a written response dated March 3, 1994. A copy of Petitioner's March 10, 1994 response, without attachments, is attached and incorporated herein as "Exhibit I." A copy of Respondent's March 4, 1994 response, without attachments, is attached and incorporated herein as "Exhibit J." Respondent's March 4, 1994 letter ("Exhibit J") was directed primarily to providing the hearing officer with a history of settlement negotiations and copies of proposed settlement documents. This is a practice contrary to Section 90.408, F.S., The Florida Evidence Code. Respondent had filed no Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Relief and no Answer, and although by rule, even a motion to dismiss may not toll the 20 days provided by rule for Respondent to answer the Petition for Relief, Respondent's March 4, 1994 letter response also raised, for the first time, the untimeliness of the Petition for Relief as grounds to dismiss this cause. However, Respondent's March 4, 1994 allegations based on untimeliness of the Petition were not persuasive, in that the rule that Respondent cited in support thereof applied only to what the Florida Commission on Human Relations or its Executive Director may do either sua sponte or upon motion regarding Requests for Redetermination. The rule cited therein was inapplicable to the legal principle for which Respondent cited it. Therefore, Respondent's argument against the Petition was incorrect or incomplete. Also, due to the complexity of the several statutes and rules involved, ruling on the issue of untimeliness vel non of the Petition for Relief required the taking of factual evidence. For instance, there is a Commission rule which tolls the 30 days for filing the Petition if the Petitioner applies for, or the Commission grants, an extension of time for filing the Petition. Consequently, Petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to present all the facts concerning his filing of the Petition in response to the allegations of the Respondent's March 4, 1994 letter. The representations of Respondent's qualified representative at the March 1, 1994 hearing and the materials filed after that hearing by Respondent's "in house" counsel ("Exhibit J") did not show good cause why Respondent should be permitted to put on a defense by way of undisclosed oral testimony or exhibits. Likewise, Petitioner did not demonstrate by his oral argument, exhibit, and post-hearing response ("Exhibit I"), any legal good cause why his noncompliance with prior orders should be excused so as to permit him to call any witnesses or put in evidence any exhibits not disclosed to Respondent. More specifically, the date and contents of the December 6, 1993 letter to Petitioner from Legal Services (original is "Exhibit H" hereto) did not support Petitioner's oral assertions at the March 1, 1994 hearing that he had been represented in this case by legal counsel, had relied on a lawyer to meet his November 26, 1993 filing date, or that Legal Services' retention of his documents at a critical time had prevented his timely compliance with any of the prior orders herein. Accordingly, an order was entered on April 21, 1994. A complete copy of that order is attached and incorporated in this recommended order by reference as "Exhibit K". That order provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The representations of Respondent's qualified representative at the March 1, 1994 hearing and the materials filed after that hearing by Respondent's legal counsel have not shown good cause why Respondent should be permitted to put on a defense by way of undisclosed oral testimony or exhibits. Likewise, Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause why his noncompliance with prior orders should be excused so as to permit him to call any witnesses or put on any exhibits not disclosed to Respondent. However, since Petitioner clearly has always been an appropriate witness and his oral testimony could be reasonably anticipated by Respondent, a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. will be convened solely for the taking of Petitioner Donald's oral testimony, subject to cross examination by Respondent. Also, the materials filed by Respondent's counsel after the March 1, 1994 hearing state for the first time that Respondent believes the Petition for Relief is subject to discretionary dismissal for untimeliness, pursuant to Rule 22T-9.07 F.A.C. [new number, if one exists, was not given]. However, Respondent still did not see fit to put this observation or belief in the form of a motion. Jurisdictional issues may be raised at any time. The jurisdictional issue requires evidence to sustain a motion, if a motion is made. Should Respondent see fit to defend on that issue by motion and evidence, Respondent remains free to do. (Emphasis supplied) Simultaneous with the entry of the April 21, 1994 Order, a Notice of Hearing was mailed to the parties. It provided for a formal hearing on June 13, 1994 and stated the issues as: "As set forth in the order entered simultaneously herewith. [The only witness will be K.E. Donald.]" Despite the language employed in the April 21, 1994 order, which still permitted Respondent to assert the untimeliness of the petition for Relief as a bar or jurisdictional issue, Respondent did not file a written motion or submit supporting documentation (evidence) on that issue prior to the June 13, 1994 formal hearing. At formal hearing on June 13, 1994, Respondent moved orally to dismiss the Petition for Relief due to its late filing. Hearing Officer Composite "Exhibit A" was admitted in evidence. Hearing Officer Composite "Exhibit A" consisted of The Florida Human Relations Commission Transmittal of Petition (one page), Charge of Discrimination (one page), Petition for Relief (three pages), Notice of Determination: No Cause (two pages) and Determination of No Cause (two pages). The original of this composite exhibit as received in evidence at formal hearing is attached and incorporated in this recommended order as "Exhibit A" to this Recommended Order. At formal hearing, Petitioner testified that he had not moved the Florida Commission on Human Relations for an order extending his time to file his petition, no order extending time had been entered, and he had neither a postmark nor any clear recollection of the date he mailed his Petition to the Commission. If Florida Commission on Human Relations Rules 60Y-4.004, 60Y- 4.007(1), 60Y-4.008(2), F.A.C., are not applicable, the Petition for Relief should have been filed with the Commission on April 22, 1993, a Thursday, and was filed late by six days, since it was filed with the Commission on April 28, 1993, the following Wednesday. These foregoing rules provide that when a document is received by mail, the date of filing shall relate back to the date of the postmark, provide three days for mailing where notice is mailed, and provide an extra day for filing when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. If those rules apply, then the Petitioner's delay is shorter than six days or indeterminable. The Petition for Relief was admittedly received by Respondent's "in- house" counsel on or before May 6, 1993. Respondent was specifically asked by the undersigned hearing officer how the late filing of the Petition for Relief had prejudiced Respondent's position. Respondent asserted that Respondent could not have foreseen that Petitioner would ultimately have been permitted to testify on his own behalf, and that, but for the Petition for Relief being filed six days late, Respondent might have filed an answer, would not have assumed that the Petition was barred and would not have, due to a conflict in the rules, failed to respond to all pleadings and orders, might have secured "out of house" counsel, would not have expended the cost of trying to negotiate a settlement with Petitioner after the cancellation of the October 18, 1993 formal hearing, and would not have incurred "enormous expense" during the Florida Commission on Human Relations' investigatory phase, in sending Messrs. Carroll and Miller to the March 1, 1994 DOAH hearing, and in filing its only written materials on March 4, 1994. Since the investigatory phase before the Florida Commission on Human Relations predated that agency's March 23, 1993 Determination of No Cause and also predated the filing of the April 28, 1993 Petition for Relief, that portion of Respondent's argument related to incurring enormous expense is patently absurd, as is Respondent's assertion that Respondent could not have foreseen that Petitioner would be permitted to testify on his own behalf. The expense incurred by Respondent in having one layman travel twenty three miles to Tallahassee and the other travel across town to formal hearing, even considering the value of those gentlemen's time to the corporation, and in having "in-house" counsel file Respondent's March 4, 1994 letter is de minimus, and these expenses have no nexus to the lateness by six days of the April 28, 1993 Petition for Relief. Respondent failed to demonstrate how the filing of the Petition for Relief on April 28, 1993 instead of on April 22, 1993 could have reasonably prevented Respondent from filing an Answer within 20 days as required by Rule 22T-9.008(5), F.A.C., [now renumbered as 60Y-5.008(5), F.A.C.], and as specifically instructed by the Florida Commission on Human Relations in its Transmittal of the Petition to Respondent. (See Finding of Fact No. 4, supra and "Exhibit A"). Respondent also failed to demonstrate how, under the circumstances of the language contained in the Florida Commission on Human Relations Transmittal of Petition and the DOAH orders, Respondent could have been misled by conflicting language in Rules 22T-9.07 [now renumbered 60Y- 5.007(9) and (12)], 22T-9.08 [now renumbered 60Y-5.008(1) and (5)] and 60Q- 2.004(5), F.A.C., 3/ into not answering the Petition for Relief for more than thirteen months, indeed, never answering it, or how such circumstances prevented Respondent responding to other motions and orders or prevented Respondent from obtaining "out of house" counsel. Settlement negotiations are not cognizable by the trier of fact, are always undertaken at the parties' mutual risk, and have never been deemed sufficient to toll filing dates. See, Section 90.408, F.S. After Respondent had been given the opportunity to present any further evidence on its oral motion to dismiss the Petition for Relief, the oral motion to dismiss was taken under advisement for resolution in this Recommended Order. (See Conclusions of Law, infra.) Respondent then orally moved for clarification of the April 21, 1994 Notice of Hearing and Order Limiting Scope of Formal Hearing, which was resolved by rereading that order and notice into the record. Respondent next orally moved for leave to present witnesses, contrary to the decretal portion of the April 21, 1994 order. No good cause was shown to vacate the April 21, 1994 order limiting evidence. To permit Respondent to put on undisclosed witnesses while Petitioner was precluded from doing so after Petitioner had appeared at formal hearing believing that Respondent's failure to answer constituted an admission of the material facts alleged in the petition and Petitioner had come prepared only for direct and cross-examination of himself would be unduly prejudicial. The motion was denied. The facts that Rule 60Y-5.008(5)(d) F.A.C. presumes admitted under the unanswered Petition for Relief are those set out in the Petition itself. They are fully set out in "Exhibit A" hereto and provide, in part, as follows: "The company had followed discriminatory hiring assignment and promotion policies against minority group members on an equal basis with white people. My fourteenth amendment were [sic] violated. That white get hired off the street and get full time without any training, the first day. * * * Discriminatory hiring, firing, assignment and promotion policies against Negroes using their position and power to destroy black worker jobs in order to bestow them on white workers." ("Exhibit A") Petitioner's unrefuted testimony elaborated on the foregoing admitted facts to show that Respondent employed fifteen or more employees and that Petitioner, a black male, had been employed part-time for nearly four years by Respondent in its Quincy store managed by Mr. Terry Miller; Mr. Miller's assistant had hired Petitioner as a member of a truck unloading crew. Petitioner also showed that other white workers were hired off the street without job training for full-time positions. However, Petitioner was hired by Mr. Miller as a full-time employee effective June 9, 1994, four days before formal hearing. Petitioner admitted that at some time before June 9, 1994, he had been "written up" for not meeting the employer's dress code and appearance standards and had also been "written up" for not meeting the employer's performance standards of moving at least 45 cases per hour. Petitioner maintained, without refutation, that these "write-ups" were unwarranted, pretextual citations because he was black. Petitioner testified, without refutation, that on at least one occasion he was "written up" in a category that did not include his regular job duties. This admission is no different that the expanded allegations included in an attachment to the Petition ("Exhibit A"), all of which allegations have been admitted by Respondent by its failure to answer the Petition. Petitioner also conceded, upon cross-examination, that in July 1992 there were some black full-time associates in the Quincy store and that promotions have been based on job performance, not seniority. However, no similarity of these other black full-time employees' employment situations or job duties was drawn to compare with Petitioner's personal employment situation or job duties. Consequently, the "write-ups" of Petitioner are found to be pretextual reasons for the employer's refusal to promote him. No stipulation or order bifurcating damage evidence from evidence of discrimination was entered in this case. Petitioner asserted that he was entitled to "compensation" from July 22, 1992 to June 9, 1994, but he presented no evidence of his pay rate per hour in either the full time or part time positions, nor any other nexus upon which lost compensation damages could be calculated. There also is no record evidence of what increases and/or decreases occurred in pay, pay rate, or emoluments for either position over that period of time. Likewise, there is no record evidence of how many hours Petitioner worked or could have worked in either the part-time or full-time position so that damages based on a pay differential can be calculated. Respondent orally moved to dismiss for failure of Petitioner to state a prima facie case. That motion was also taken under advisement for resolution in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order FINDING: That Petitioner has shown a prima facie violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, Section 760.10 F.S. [1989], to wit: failure of a covered employer to "promote" Petitioner-employee to a full-time position because he is black; That Respondent has articulated, but has not substantiated, legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions complained of; and That Petitioner has shown the articulated reasons to be pretextual; AND ORDERING: That Respondent employ Petitioner in a full-time position. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1994.
The Issue Whether the agency's definition of the term "dry and measurable" as used in HRS bid documents is an unpromulgated rule which cannot be used as a basis for the agency's decision to reject the Petitioner's response to a bid proposal in Lease Number 590:1975. Whether the agency's requirement that a building be "dry and measurable" before a bid is accepted is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact In 1988, the Respondent HRS made the determination that it would not exercise its option on leased space owned by the Petitioner, Mr. Dyess, in Clewiston, Florida. Bid documents were prepared by the agency for its current office space needs. Bid proposals were solicited through newspaper advertisements and personal contact with owners, developers, and realtors within the Clewiston area. HRS included Mr. Dyess in its solicitations. He was sent a bid package which contained all of the bid documents for the bid referred to as Lease Number 590:1975. Page five of the document in the bid package known as HRS Facilities Services Form RO3-87, requires prospective bidders in Lease Number 590:1975 to contact Michael J. Sedgwick if they have any questions about the interpretation of the bid specifications. The document is silent on the questions of whether the written or oral representations made by Mr. Sedgwick are binding upon the agency, or whether the prospective bidder may contest the interpretation. A bidders' conference was held on April 26, 1988. During the conference, Mr. Sedgwick was questioned about the agency's interpretation of the term "dry and capable of being physically measured." Mr. Sedgwick contacted Mr. George Smith, who administers the leasing program for HRS in Tallahassee, and obtained the following definition: "Dry and measurable consists of four things: a slab, four corners, a roof, and a valid building permit if construction is in progress. The definition given by Mr. Smith was verbally communicated to the prospective bidders who attended the conference. This definition was verbally communicated to the Petitioner by Mr. Sedgwick on April 27, 1988. This clarification or interpretation of the bid specification was not reduced to writing and sent to all prospective bidders, as required by HRS Facilities Form RO3-87. The Petitioner timely submitted a bid in Lease Number 590:1975. This bid was rejected by HRS because the building was not "dry and measurable", as defined by the agency, on the date of the bid opening. The definition of the term "dry and measurable," as set forth above, has been developed by HRS for use within the agency. It is an unwritten policy which is universally applied by the agency in all of its reviews of bid proposals submitted by bidders for building leases. This unwritten policy has been in effect for seven and one half years. A definition of the term "dry and measurable" is not set forth in the bid documents. A prospective bidder is encouraged by the bid documents to seek interpretations of definitions within the documents from the project contact person. In this case, the contact person was Mr. Sedgwick. No other basis was given to Mr. Dyess for the agency's rejection of his bid in Lease Number 590:1975.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners initiated an Administrative Complaint in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 81809, DOAH Case No. 89-0599, against Petitioner, Frank A. Brown, Ph.D., on January 13, 1989. Petitioner is the owner and proprietor of a professional service business engaged in the practice of psychology. At the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner's business employed less than twenty- five (25) full-time employees and had a net worth under two million dollars. Additionally, Petitioner's residence, business domicile, and principal office were located in Florida, and have been so located since 1976. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Petitioner was guilty of sexual misconduct in the practice of psychology, that the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, and that Petitioner was unable to practice the profession for which he is licensed under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, with reasonable skill or competence as a result of impairment due to a mental or physical condition or by reason of illness, drunkenness, or excessive use of drugs, narcotics, chemicals or any other substance, pursuant to Florida Statutes, 1981-1987. On August 24, 1989, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed alleging the same violations pursuant to Florida Statutes, 1981-1986. Petitioner disputed these allegations and requested a formal administrative hearing. Prior to hearing in the underlying proceeding, DOAH Case Number 89- 0599, Petitioner moved for dismissal of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner's motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. A formal hearing was held in this matter on September 12-13, 1989. At the hearing and after presentation of a portion of the testimony, the Department voluntarily dismissed its allegation of sexual misconduct in the practice of psychology. The hearing proceeded on the remaining two charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint. After the close of the evidence and submission of Proposed Recommended Orders by both parties, the Hearing Officer, on May 14, 1990, filed a Recommended Order recommending dismissal of the Amended Administrative Complaint against the Petitioner. On July 2, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, filed a Final Order adopting the Recommended Order and dismissed the case consistent with the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. Therefore, Petitioner became the prevailing party in the underlying action. The allegations against Petitioner contained in the Administrative Complaint resulted from a complaint received in 1987 from R.B. and D.B. concerning the care and treatment R.B. received from Petitioner in his capacity as a psychologist which centered on the illicit 7-year love affair between R.B. & Petitioner. It was the turmoil caused by the discovery of this affair by D.B., R.B.'s husband, that caused Petitioner, in April, 1987, to be examined and treated at CPC Parkwood Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia by Psychiatrist Warren A. Hinson, M.D. The Petitioner was advised of the complaint made by R.B. and D.B. around April 14, 1987. Petitioner responded through his attorney on at least two separate occasions with factual and legal arguments regarding the complaint lodged by R.B. and D.B. On November 9, 1987, a Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychological Examiners met to review the investigative report and responses from Petitioner. The investigative report consisted of several statements from R.B. and D.B., the responses from Petitioner, an interview with a Dr. Trotter, who had rendered psychological services to both R.B. and Petitioner, together and separately, and various documentary evidence. The investigative report was submitted to the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychological Examiners by the Chief Attorney for Allied Health Services of the Department of Professional Regulation under cover of a memorandum dated October 27, 1987. The memorandum states that the case was being submitted without a recommendation for an administrative complaint or closing order in Petitioner's case. The memorandum states: The attached case is being submitted without a recommended A/C or C/O. There are legal problems with charging sexual misconduct, although a strong argument could be made to support a finding that the subject failed to meet minimum standards of professional per- formance. Another issue, is the subject's fitness to practice by reason of emotional problems. Dr. Brown's attorney has suggested that the probable cause decision be deferred to allow Petitioner to enroll in the Impaired Practitioner's Program. Although there is no statutory provision for a psychologist to participate in the IPP, I see no reason why if couldn't be accomplished (by mutual agreement). The Chief Attorney realized that there was a problem with the allegations against Dr. Brown, in light of the retroactive application of a recent rule of the Board of Psychological Examiners defining the psychologist/client relationship as continuing in perpetuity for purposes of sexual misconduct allegations and in light of the fact that Dr. Brown's conduct could be construed to have occurred after the termination of the professional relationship between Petitioner and R.B. The legal problem created by the fact that Dr. Brown's conduct could be construed to have occurred during a time when the practice of psychology was not regulated did not occur to the Chief Attorney at the time of the 1987 meeting. However, as indicated by both the memorandum and transcript of the comments made at the probable cause meeting there were legal arguments which could be legitimately made which might overcome the problems with this case. 1/ These arguments also could be applied to the legal problem caused by the absence of a statute regulating the practice of psychology. The Probable Cause Panel, in the course of their review, considered the suggestion from Petitioner that a determination of probable cause be deferred pending the entry of the Petitioner into a program for impaired practitioners similar to the Impaired Practitioners Program utilized by other professions regulated by DPR. At that meeting, the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychological Examiners, after reviewing the investigative report and attachments, believed there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause. However, in light of the problems with this case and Petitioner's request to attempt to enter an impaired practitioners program (IPP), the Probable Cause Panel agreed to defer a finding of probable cause on condition that Petitioner develop and present to the Probable Cause Panel a comprehensive treatment and practice plan and possibly undergo a psychological/psychiatric evaluation. Around November 10, 1987, the Chief Attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, Allied Health Services, notified the Petitioner that the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychology voted to "defer the probable cause decision", and requested that Petitioner initiate action to be accepted into an IPP and further, that Petitioner provide a comprehensive practice and treatment plan for the Probable Cause Panel's consideration at its next meeting. The Chief Attorney also requested that Petitioner's attorney contact the Department when he had the requested documentation prepared. Importantly, neither the transcript nor the letter from the Department's Chief Attorney indicates what the Board or the Probable Cause Panel might do after the deferral period. At best, from a reading of the transcript, it appears that the Panel intended to leave its options open as to whether the Panel might later find probable cause even if Petitioner complied with the Panel's instructions. Clearly, both attorney's involved in the matter hoped the case would be settled. However, such attorney's hopes do not translate into a Board or Panel promise or settlement agreement to forgo action against Petitioner should he comply with the Panel's instructions. Given the transcript of the probable cause panels meeting, deferring a decision cannot be translated into an agreement to not take any action by the Panel. 2/ In any event, the Petitioner initiated action to enroll in an IPP. Around January 1988, Dr. Goetz, Director of the Physician Recovery Network accepted Petitioner into the IPP program. Dr. Brown began participation in the Impaired Practitioners' Program by undergoing a five day inpatient evaluation in Atlanta. There was no judgment reached from this five day review that Petitioner was either incompetent or that he could not return to practice. Since there was no actual impairment of Dr. Brown, he returned to Pensacola to continue quarterly evaluations by psychiatrist Lawrence E. Mobley, M.D., and Pat O'Connell, M.D., and psychotherapy supervision with psychologist Jack Keller, Ph.D. The Department received several generalized reports of Petitioner's status and progress with the IPP program. The reports were dated July 29, August 18, August 16, November 10, and December 1, 1988. The Department also received at least two status reports from Petitioner's attorney. Around October 6, 1988, the Petitioner's attorney requested from the IPP program the information necessary to develop a comprehensive practice and treatment plan as requested by the November, 1987, Probable Cause Panel. The Respondent was never provided a comprehensive treatment and practice plan which was satisfactory to it. However, the Petitioner did make attempts to comply with this requirement. 3/ Believing Petitioner had complied with the Board's instructions, sometime around October 6, 1988, Petitioner's attorney informed the Department the Petitioner was established with an IPP program and that the matter was now ready for the Board's consideration. On December 4, 1988, the Probable Cause Panel reviewed the investigative report which included, in part, the diagnosis and report of Dr. Hinson relating to the Petitioner and his hospitalization at CPC Parkwood, in Atlanta, Georgia; the Petitioner's responses and arguments as presented by his attorney's correspondence with DPR; the Petitioner's letter to R.B., returning professional fees previously collected during treatment; the August 5, November 10, and December 1, 1988, reports from the IPP program regarding Petitioner; the opinions of Patrick Cook, Ph.D., and Deborah Frank, R.N. Ph.D., L.M.F.T.; the interviews of R.B. and D.B.; additional sworn statements of R.B. and D.B., and various documentary evidence associated with the underlying case. Neither Dr. Brown nor his attorney were permitted to attend this Probable Cause Panel's meeting. On the same date, the Probable Cause Panel after reviewing the investigative report, discussing the allegations, and consulting with legal counsel for the Board, Mr. Allen Grossman, Assistant Attorney General, by unanimous vote determined the existence of probable cause and directed the issuance of an Administrative Complaint as outlined in paragraph 3 above. At the time a finding of probable cause was made by the Board, at least two factual issues were considered by the Probable Cause Panel. Those issues were whether the Petitioner built his intimate relationship with R.B. upon an existing professional relationship interrelated with whether there had been a termination of that professional relationship and whether Petitioner's romantic involvement with R.B. occurred during a time when the practice of psychology was a regulated profession. The Probable Cause Panel relied upon the interviews of R.B. and her additional sworn statements regarding her romantic and professional relationship with the Petitioner. These statements as well as other evidence in the investigative file supported a finding of probable cause of sexual misconduct with a patient. Additionally, the Probable Cause Panel reasonably relied upon the statements of R.B. and D.B. and Petitioner's responses to DPR, regarding his relationship with R.B. and her family in finding probable cause of practicing below the prevailing standard for practice. On both these issues, the relevant time periods involved in this case were unclear from the information the Probable Cause Panel had before it. However, there was enough evidence in the investigative file for the Board to reasonably conclude that Petitioner had engaged in actions which would subject him to discipline during a time when the practice of psychology was regulated or cause his later behavior to relate back to a time when the practice of psychology was regulated. Additionally, as noted with the 1987 Probable Cause Panel, there were legitimate legal arguments which could be made in an attempt to overcome the problems due to a lack of rules or statutes incurred in the underlying action. Therefore, given the fact that the Board had a reasonable basis in law and fact to find probable cause against Petitioner for violation of Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees. The Probable Cause Panel also, considered the issue of Petitioner's mental health vis a vis Petitioner's ability to safely practice psychology. This latter issue and the resultant charge in the Administrative Complaint appears to be a "throw in" charge for which the Panel had no reasonable legal or factual basis to find probable cause. However, the issue of Petitioner's mental health was never seriously prosecuted by the Department and did not play a significant role in the litigation or the fees expended in the litigation. Additionally, the evidence did not demonstrate what portion of the Petitioner's attorney's fees and costs could be attributed to this single issue. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to an apportionment of attorney's fees and costs based on this issue.
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.
