The Issue Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 15A-9.006(2) (the Rule) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, pursuant to section 120.52(8)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact An IID is: A breath alcohol analyzer connected to a motor vehicle's ignition. In order to start the motor vehicle engine, a convicted person must blow a deep lung breath sample into the analyzer, which measures the breath alcohol concentration. If the breath alcohol concentration exceeds the fail point on the [IID], the motor vehicle engine will not start. Fla. Admin. Code R. 15A-9.003(13). Rule 15A-9.005, which is entitled, "Specifications," provides in part: All [IIDs] will be required to meet or exceed the standards set forth in the model specifications published in the Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 67, pages 11772- 11787 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Technical specifications for the operation and installation of the [IID] shall be described in the contract between [Respondent] and the manufacturer(s). The [IIDs] alcohol fail point shall be the level specified by Section 316.1937, Florida Statutes. Rule 15A-9.005(4), (5), and (6) establishes performance specifications for failed-point tests on initial startup and rolling retests and for an emergency bypass. Rule 15A-9.007, which is entitled, "Certification," provides: Each manufacturer under contract with [Respondent] will submit certification from an independent laboratory certifying that their [IID] has been tested in accordance with the model specifications published in the Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 67, pages 11772-11787 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the [IID] meets or exceeds those specifications, as well as criteria set forth in the contract with [Respondent]. The manufacturer shall be responsible for the continuing certification of [IID] service providers for use of an approved [IID]. Rule 15A-9.003(6) defines "certification" as the "testing and approval process required by [Respondent]." Rule 15A-9.003(16) defines "manufacturer" as the "actual producer of the [IID] who assembles the product and who may provide distribution and services." Rule 15A-9.003(21) defines "service provider" as the "retail supplier of the approved [IID]." Rule 15A-9.008 addresses the installation and removal of IIDs. Rule 15A-9.008(1) requires the "manufacturer or his [sic] representative" to install the IID in accordance with the guidelines of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Rule 15A-19.008(2) requires the "service provider" to develop and deliver an IID orientation to the convicted person. Rule 15A-9.009 addresses the servicing of IIDs. Rule 15A-9.009(2) requires the "service provider" to service the IID at the intervals stated in the contract with Respondent, calibrate the IID, retrieve data from the IID and timely submit the data to Respondent, and check for signs of tampering with the IID. Rule 15A-9.009(5) requires an IID to record the time and date of each breath test, the breath alcohol level of each test, and the time and date of any attempt to tamper with the IID. Rule 15A-9.009(6) requires the "manufacturer or service provider" to maintain a toll-free 24-hour emergency telephone support service and fix or replace any nonoperational IID within 48 hours of any call. Rule 15A-9.006, which is entitled, "Procedure for [IID] Approval," provides: All ignition interlock devices used pursuant to Sections 316.193 and 316.1937, Florida Statutes, must be approved by the department. The department shall contract with a manufacturer or manufacturers of ignition interlock devices for the services and commodities required for implementation of Sections 316.193, 316.1937, and 316.1938, Florida Statutes. The department shall maintain a list of approved ignition interlock devices. For the specific authority and laws implemented, Rule 15A-9.006 cites the same authority: sections 316.193, 316.1937, and 316.1938, Florida Statutes, and Federal Register Volume 57, Number 67, pages 11772-11787. Section 316.193 imposes penalties for DUI offenses. For second and third DUIs, convicted persons must have installed "an [IID] approved by [Respondent] in accordance with s. 316.1938." Section 316.1937 authorizes a court to order the installation of an IID under circumstances other than those described in section 316.193. Section 316.1937 provides that the court may prohibit the convicted person from operating a motor vehicle unless it is equipped with a "functioning [IID] certified by [Respondent] as provided in s. 316.1938 " The most relevant statute to this case is section 316.1938, which provides: [Respondent] shall certify or cause to be certified the accuracy and precision of the breath-testing component of the [IIDs] as required by s. 316.1937, and shall publish a list of approved devices, together with rules governing the accuracy and precision of the breath-testing component of such devices as adopted by rule in compliance with s. 316.1937. The cost of certification shall be borne by the manufacturers of [IIDs]. No model of [IID] shall be certified unless it meets the accuracy requirements specified by rule of [Respondent]. [Respondent] shall design and adopt by rule a warning label which shall be affixed to each [IID] upon installation. The label shall contain a warning that any person tampering, circumventing, or otherwise misusing the device is guilty of a violation of law and may be subject to civil liability. The document at Federal Register, Volume 57, Number 67, pages 11772, et seq., is a notice of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of technical specifications for IIDs (Model Specifications). Model Specifications applies to the manufacture, testing, calibration, data-reporting, and tamper-monitoring of IIDs. IIDs are manufactured by 16 corporations in the United States. Most, if not all, states operate IID programs for DUI offenders. Petitioner is a manufacturer and service provider of IIDs. Its sole manufacturing facility is in Cocoa, Florida, where Petitioner employs 30-35 persons. About 35,000 of Petitioner's IIDs are in use in 25 states, but not Florida. Intervenors, which are affiliated corporations, are manufacturers and service providers of IIDs. (References to Intervenors will include either Intervenor, as appropriate.) Pursuant to the contract described below, Intervenors have provided IID services to over 6000 convicted persons in Florida. Intervenor is a manufacturer and service provider of IIDs and presently operates in 46 states. Respondent has tentatively selected Intervenor as the sole vendor for the state of Florida in the 2013-14 procurement described below. In 2003, Respondent issued an invitation to negotiate for IIDs and IID services. Following a tentative award to Intervenors, a vendor challenged the award, arguing, at least in part, that Respondent lacked the authority to limit the number of IID service providers. In a settlement, Respondent awarded the south region of Florida to Intervenors and the north region of Florida to the bid protestor, which was #1 A Lifesafer, Inc. (Lifesafer). In 2004, Respondent entered into contracts for IIDs and IID services with these vendors. As extended, the 2004 contracts are set to expire on March 31, 2014. Respondent issued a Request for Proposals on July 3, 2013 (RFP). Providing for the replacement of the 2004 contracts described in the preceding paragraph, the RFP is to enable Respondent to select up to two vendors to "implement and operate an [IID] Program" in Florida. RFP Attachment C-19 provides that the term of the new contract(s) shall be five years with an "anticipated" renewal term of another five years.2/ The RFP calls for responses detailing, among other things, the IID hardware by name and model, which must comply with Model Specifications requirements; software to provide Respondent with online access to data downloads from IIDs; installation; service, inspection and monitoring; contractor staffing; training of staff; security and fraud prevention; and transition services for IID convicted persons being serviced by a party to the current IID contract. No one filed a specifications challenge to the RFP. Respondent received four responses; they were from Petitioner, Intervenors, Intervenor, and Lifesafer. Petitioner, Intervenors, and Lifesafer have challenged the tentative award to Intervenor, and these bid protests are pending at DOAH as DOAH Case Nos. 13-3924BID, 13-3925BID, and 13-4037BID. Respondent acknowledges that the procurement of IIDs and IID services by contract provides it more flexibility than if it specified requirements and performance standards by rule. Respondent concedes that other states allow IID service providers to operate IID programs with open competition. Respondent contends that procuring these IID services by statewide or regional contract ensures the delivery of services to rural areas that otherwise might be underserved, the delivery of uniform services throughout the state, the transmission from the IID service provider of compliance data that would be jeopardized if numerous IID service providers operated in the state, the existence of a process for the removal of an IID service provider that did not discharge its responsibilities in a timely and competent fashion, and the familiarity among Respondent's limited staff with the limited makes of IIDs in use in Florida.
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
Findings Of Fact On December 30, 1993, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice, together with all other "pleadings and jurisdictional papers heretofore filed in this proceeding." The pleadings and papers transmitted by FCHR show that Petitioner filed a complaint with FCHR on March 10, 1993, charging an unlawful employment practice by Respondent in connection with a denial of a raise in salary. On August 24, 1993, the FCHR concluded its investigation into the matter and issued its determination of No Cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred. Notice of that determination was served on Petitioner and Respondent on August 24, 1993 by regular mail. The Notice of Determination of No Cause served on Petitioner included the following statement: The parties are advised that the Complainant may request that a formal, post-investigative proceeding be conducted. 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 60Y-5.008 and Chapter 60Y-4, Florida Administrative Code. A Petition for Relief form is enclosed. If you elect to file a Petition for Relief, it may be beneficial to seek legal counsel prior to filing the petition. Petitioner received the Notice of Determination. Petitioner understood that, under the FCHR rules cited in the Notice, the requirement for the petition to be "filed" meant that the petition had to actually be received by the FCHR. On September 30, 1993, 37 days after the Notice was served, the FCHR Executive Director issued a Notice of Dismissal, for the reason that no Petition for Relief had been filed. On October 13, 1993, Petitioner transmitted to the FCHR her Petition for Relief, requesting an administrative hearing. The petition was submitted on the form provided by the FCHR, and was accompanied by a transmittal letter from the Petitioner on her letterhead stationery that identified the enclosures. It was filed with the FCHR on October 18, 1993. After receiving the October transmittal, on November 18, 1993, the FCHR issued an Order to Show Cause, directing the Petitioner to provide reasons why the late-filed petition should not be dismissed. Petitioner responded to the show cause order by transmitting a package to the FCHR on November 30, 1993. It contained her response to the show cause order, a copy of the petition transmitted in October, and another original petition on a second form that Petitioner said was provided to her by the FCHR. This transmittal was also accompanied by a transmittal letter on Petitioner's letterhead stationery, describing the contents. The FCHR did not rule on the sufficiency of Petitioner's response, but rather transmitted the pleadings (including the show cause order and response) to DOAH for further proceedings. At the same time of the transmittal to DOAH, FCHR also issued a notice of the petition to Respondent advising it of the requirement to file an answer to the Petition for Relief. CFRH timely filed its answer with affirmative defenses, including the first affirmative defense that "the Petition for Relief is untimely." The Petitioner made two mailings of petitions: one mailing was made to transmit one form petition that she had completed in October, 1993, and a second mailing was made in November with a copy of the first form plus another original form filled out by Petitioner. Petitioner also testified that she mailed another petition, without a transmittal letter, on September 20, 1993. There was no evidence presented that a Petition was received by FCHR in September 1993 or that the document was returned to Petitioner as undelivered mail.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief in DOAH Case No. 94-0070 and FCHR Case No. 93-3143, for failure to timely file the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of July, 1994.
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.
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.
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); Whether Respondent, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), has inherent authority to reconsider a Final Order it has issued; and Whether FCHR should adopt a rule which would permit the granting of a motion to reconsider a Final Order.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Phillip Moultrie, seeks an administrative determination of the validity of Rule 33-22.008 (2)(b)13a, b and c, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner is a prisoner of the State of Florida in the lawful custody of the Florida Department of Corrections (Department). On June 8, 1981, the Petitioner was charged with a disciplinary infraction involving destruction of State property at the Zephyrhills Correctional Institute in Zephyrhills, Florida. A disciplinary team was convened to hear the charges against the Petitioner involving property destruction. A disciplinary team is a group of Department employees designated by the institution's administrator to handle major disciplinary actions. In most cases, the team is made up of a classification officer, a correctional officer and either a work supervisor or educational staff member. See Rules 33- 22.002(1) and 33-22.003(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The disciplinary team, proceeding in accordance with existing Department rules, found the Petitioner guilty of destruction of State property. The team recommended a penalty of a loss of 60 days gain time, 60 days disciplinary confinement, and, in accordance with then-existing Rule 33- 3.08(6)(b)4a, b and (substantially re-enacted and renumbered as Rule 33 22.008(2)(b)13a, b and c, the rule under challenge), the team assessed $300 against the Petitioner, representing one half of the cost of replacement or repair of the State property involved. Petitioner's cell mate was also charged with a like disciplinary infraction and assessed the other $300 of the total $600 property damage loss the Department was found to have sustained. The Petitioner's inmate bank account did not contain enough money to pay the entire cost of his assessment. Therefore, a "notation" or "debit" was placed on his bank account whereby funds received by him would be deducted from that account as payment on the $300 assessment until it was paid in full. The estimate of damages relied upon by the disciplinary team in assessing the amount Petitioner was to pay was provided by a commercial vendor, Mr. Nick Meyers, representing Chadco Products Company of Atlanta, Georgia. The estimate indicated that damages to the Petitioner's cell at Zephyrhills Correctional Institution amounted to $600. The Petitioner was later transferred to Florida State Prison at Starke, Florida. While at the State Prison, the Department continued to make withdrawals against his inmate bank account from July 24, 1981 until October 9, 1985, when the $300 assessment was fully paid. The deductions from Petitioner's inmate bank account were made regardless of the source of the funds. Some of the funds in the bank account came from a Department of Corrections work program, Prison Rehabilitative Industries and Diversified Enterprises (PRIDE). Other funds contained in that bank account came from private sources. The monies deducted from the inmate bank account were sent directly to the Zephyrhills Correctional Institution. The funds were deposited in a general operating account to be used by that institution. Inmates appearing before disciplinary teams are entitled to be advised of the charges against them and to be assisted by Department staff members and to have the possible range of punishments explained to them. They are entitled to be advised of the decision of the disciplinary team and to be advised of their rights to appeal that decision through the inmate grievance procedure. Inmates are not permitted to be represented by counsel at these hearings and further, are not permitted to cross-examine witnesses at the hearing. The disciplinary hearing of June 8, 1981 was conducted in accordance with procedural guidelines established by Rule 33-22.006 and 33-22.007, Florida Administrative Code. Subsequent to the hearing, the Petitioner utilized the Department's grievance procedure regarding the imposition of the assessment against his inmate bank account. He filed grievances both at the institutional level and to the Department's central office. The institutional level grievance was denied and the appeal to the Department's central office, was also denied. The Department relied upon renumbered Rule 33-22.008 (2)(b)3 as authority to require the Petitioner to make the subject restitution to the State of Florida.
The Issue Whether this cause is barred by a release of all claims.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Petitioner, Jessica Miles', Petition for Relief from employment discrimination for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Invarrary Retirement Center, Inc. (IRC), is licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). The facility operates under the name of Inverrary Retirement Center at 5811 Northwest 28th Street, Lauderhill, Florida. On or about April 4, 1984, two HRS inspectors performed a routine relicensure survey of IRC. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether IRC was complying with all HRS requirements relating to record keeping, sanitation, fire and safety. During the course of the survey, the inspectors noted the following violations of HRS rules: There was no staff member within the facility at all times who was certified in an approved first aid course (Rule 10A- 5.19(5)(f), F.A.C.); The facility failed to keep "current" records of self administered medication (Rule 10A-5.18(6)(f), F.A.C.); Menus were not planned and posted where they could be easily viewed by the residents (Rule 10A-5.20(1)(j), F.A.C.); The kitchen was not equipped with an approved exhaust hood over the stove (Rule 10A-5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); An electrical extension cord was used to service the coffee maker (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); One of the buildings had an insufficient means of egress for the residents (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); There were no manually operated fire alarms capable of being heard throughout the facility (Rule 10A-5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); Respondent failed to provide documenta- tion reflecting the smoke detectors were tested on a weekly basis (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); and (j) There was a sliding bolt on an exit door on one of the buildings (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.). All of the foregoing constituted a separated violation of HRS rules. 1/ When the survey was completed, the inspectors reviewed all violations with IRC's manager and advised her that a resurvey would be taken in about thirty days, and that all violations must either be corrected by that time, or some action instituted which reflected an intent on the part of the facility to correct the same. This was in accordance with HRS policy governing ACLFs, and approximated the time given other facilities to make similar corrections. On April 10, 1984, a Corrective Action Plan was issued by HRS and sent to IRC. This document set out in detail the various violations found in the April 4 inspection and set a compliance date of May 4, 1984 for all corrections to be made. A resurvey of IRC's facility was made by the same two HRS inspectors on May 18, 1984. With the exception of item (3)(h), which required documentation verifying that smoke detectors be tested weekly, the inspectors noted that no corrections had been made. However, respondent presented evidence that items (3)(b) and (3)(c) had indeed been corrected by that date and such evidence is deemed to be more persuasive than contrary evidence offered by HRS representatives. Further, the violation in item (3)(f), and turns on whether an HRS publication or the City of Lauderdale fire code was controlling when the inspection was made. Because no evidence was presented to establish which standard was in effect, the allegation that an HRS publication was violated must fail. Accordingly, it is found that IRC failed to timely correct items (3)(a), (3)(d), (3)(e), (3)(h), (3)(i), and (3)(j) as required by the Corrective Action Plan. Respondent eventually made all corrections, although not within the HRS imposed deadline. One of the deficiencies [item (3)(d) required extensive renovations, including bids and a city permit, which took considerable time to accomplish. However, IRC's manager neglected to provide HRS inspectors with any evidence on the May 18 visit showing that bids were being solicited, or that there was any "movement" on the project. The same is true for item (3)(g) which required competitive bids from suppliers. IRC also failed to advise HRS that it could not immediately enroll an employee in the Broward County First Aid Course [item (3)(a)] because of the large number of participants in the class. IRC failed to do so even though its manager had been told that an extension on the May 4 deadline could be obtained where IRC gave some evidence to the inspectors that action was being instituted to correct the deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating agency rules as set forth in items (3)(a), (3)(d), (3)(e), (3)(h), (3)(i) and (3)(j) of the administrative complaint, and that a $900 administrative fine be imposed, to be paid within thirty days after the data of the final order rendered in this proceeding. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1985.
