Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Golfcrest Nursing Home (Golfcrest), is a properly licensed 67-bed nursing home located in Broward County, Florida. Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), was the state agency responsible for administration and implementation of the Florida Medicaid Program. Those responsibilities have been transferred to the Agency For Health Care Administration. Golfcrest participates in the Florida Medicaid Program and provides inpatient nursing home services to Medicaid eligible persons. Golfcrest is entitled to reimbursement in accordance with the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (Plan) which has been adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 10C-7.0482, Florida Administrative Code. The Plan contains provisions which authorize a nursing home participating in the Medicaid Program to request an interim change in its Medicaid reimbursement rate when it incurs property related costs which would change its reimbursement rate by one percent (1 percent) or when it incurs costs resulting from patient care or operating changes made to comply with existing state regulations, and said costs are at least $5,000 or one percent (1 percent) of its reimbursement rate. In 1980 Americare Corporation (Americare) purchased Golfcrest. In 1983 or 1984, Americare did some cosmetic renovations at Golfcrest. Portions of the facility are 45 years old. Americare contracted with Diversicare Management Services to manage the operations of Golfcrest. In 1988-1989, Joann Verbanic, a regional vice- president for Diversicare Management Services, recommended to the Board of Directors of Americare that major renovations to the Golfcrest facility be done. On March 19, 1990, Americare sent a team to Golfcrest to survey the facility for needed renovations. Later a plan was presented to Americare's Board of Directors and permission was given to proceed with a major renovation. In May of 1990 and July of 1991, HRS conducted its annual licensure surveys at Golfcrest. As a result, HRS identified several licensure deficiencies. Correction of these deficiencies was mandated by HRS. Failure to correct these deficiencies would have resulted in sanctions against Golfcrest's nursing home license, including administrative fines, a reduction in licensure rating, other civil penalties, and a reduction in Medicaid reimbursement. In order to correct the licensure deficiencies, Golfcrest incurred substantial property costs and costs due to patient care and operating changes. By letter dated January 6, 1992, Golfcrest submitted to HRS a request for an interim rate increase for patient care costs, operating costs, and property costs incurred or to be incurred to comply with existing state regulations and to correct identified licensure deficiencies. By letter dated April 14, 1992, Golfcrest provided additional information which had been requested by HRS. Golfcrest requested that the following costs be included in the calculation of its interim rate: Operating Costs Office Furniture $ 896.45 3 Laundry Carts 696.31 Office Door 125.00 Light Fixtures 1,067.30 Laundry Table 482.00 Structural Repairs 100.00 Repairs for Boiler 390.00 42 Overhead Lights 11,861.07 Patient Care Costs 57 Hi-Lo Beds 19,301.40 Blinds 5,145.02 Dining Room Furniture 3,167.70 Lobby Furniture 2,500.00 Bedspreads 3,404.78 Valances 3,472.05 Cubicle Curtains, Tracks 9,579.51 Activity Furniture 1,000.00 Property Costs Bldg. Imp. Depreciation 16,356.00 HRS denied in part and granted in part, Golfcrest's interim rate request by letter dated June 15, 1992, as revised by letter dated July 1, 1992. HRS granted the patient care costs for the 57 Hi-Lo beds and for the cubicle curtain and tracks and the property costs for the building improvement depreciation. In its proposed recommended order, Golfcrest withdrew its request for costs of the boiler leak, the lobby furniture, folding table for the laundry, and structural repairs. Golfcrest incurred the costs for which the interim rate is requested. Golfcrest requested that the purchase of office furniture be accepted as an allowable cost. Golfcrest did not specify what office furniture was purchased nor did it adequately relate such a purchase to a cited deficiency in either the 1990 or the 1991 survey. Additionally, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the office furniture was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for office furniture. In the 1990 survey report, Golfcrest was cited for having linen stored on dressers in residents' rooms. There was insufficient space to store the linen in the laundry area so Golfcrest purchased three laundry carts to store the linens in the hallways. The purchase of the laundry carts was necessary to correct the deficiency cited in the 1990 survey. However, no evidence was presented to establish that the amount paid for the laundry carts was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the item. In the 1991 survey, Golfcrest was cited for having exit doors with screens missing and broken jalousie slats; therefore, it did not meet the requirement that the facility must provide housekeeping and maintenance services necessary to maintain an orderly and comfortable interior. Golfcrest relies on this cited deficiency to support its claim for the cost of replacing a new office door. Golfcrest's reliance is misplaced. The deficiency is the failure to perform ordinary maintenance services. The replacement of the office door is not necessary to comply with the cited licensure requirements. Golfcrest stated in its plan of correction that it would repair the cited doors by replacing the screens. Additionally, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the door was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the door. Rule 10D-29.121(7)(d), Florida Administrative Code, required that renovations to restore a nonconforming building to its condition previous to deterioration must minimally meet standards for a new facility. The unrebutted testimony was that termites had damaged the wall studs and the walls had to be torn out and replaced. In order to meet the required NFPA standards and building code requirements for lumens and wiring, it was necessary to replace 42 overbed lights and 14 light fixtures for 3-bed wards. The purchase of this lighting was necessary to correct deficiencies that would result if the old lighting were retained after the renovations. However, no evidence was presented that would establish that the cost of the lighting fixtures was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the lighting. In the 1990 survey report, Golfcrest was cited for having broken venetian blinds in rooms 6 and 33. Golfcrest stated in its plan of correction that "broken blinds are repaired/replaced as needed." Golfcrest requested that in its interim rate request that $5,145.02 be considered an allowable cost for the replacement of blinds. Although there was a deficiency noted concerning broken venetian blinds, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost for the blinds was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the blinds. In the 1991 survey, Golfcrest was cited for not being adequately furnished in the dining areas and not having sufficient space to accommodate all activities. In order to provide more space in the dining areas, Golfcrest purchased ten collapsible dining tables which could be easily removed to provide more space for large group activities in the dining room. The purchase of the dining tables was necessary to correct the deficiency of inadequate space, however, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the dining tables did not exceed the level of what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for dining tables. Golfcrest purchased 67 dining room chairs. However, Golfcrest did not establish how the purchase of the dining room chairs corrected the cited deficiency and did not establish that the cost of the dining room chairs was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for dining room chairs. In the 1991 survey report, Golfcrest was cited for not providing clean beds. As an example of this deficiency, the survey listed torn blankets, threadbare sheets, pillow cases and towels and sunrotted sheets. Golfcrest purchased 104 bedspreads to replace all the bedspreads in the facility and to maintain an inventory of bedspreads to be used while bedspreads was being laundered. The purchase of the bedspreads were related to a cited deficiency, but Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the bedspreads was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the bedspreads. Golfcrest requested that the purchase of valances be considered an allowable cost in its interim rate request. In its proposed recommended order, Golfcrest relied on the deficiencies cited in the 1991 survey report relating to the life safety survey dealing with privacy curtains which did not have netting at the top for support of its request for the valances. Golfcrest did not establish that the valances purchased were part of the cited privacy curtains. Given the fact that Golfcrest's request for replacement of cubicle curtains and tracks, was a separate request from the valances, it is reasonable to infer that the valances did not relate to the licensure requirement relied upon by Golfcrest. Additionally, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the valances was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for valances. Golfcrest requested that the purchase of furniture for the activities area be considered an allowable cost in the calculation of its interim rate. Golfcrest did not establish what furniture was purchased for the activity area; thus, it did not establish how the purchase of the furniture was necessary to correct the deficiency that Golfcrest did not provide sufficient space and equipment and did not adequately furnish recreation and program areas to enable staff to provide residents with needed services as required. Additionally, Golfcrest did not establish that the cost of the furnishings for the activity room was what a prudent and cost-conscious buyer would pay for the furnishings. In its January 6, 1992 letter requesting an interim rate request, Golfcrest used 22,676 patient days to calculate the per diem rate for property costs. This number was taken from the July 31, 1990 cost report. HRS used 23,010 patient days to calculate the per diem rate. This number was taken from the last cost report dated July 31, 1991 and is the appropriate number to use in calculating the interim rate. The total per diem reimbursement rate for Golfcrest which was in effect at the time of the interim rate request was $71.2565. The per diem reimbursement for the property component is not one percent or more of Golfcrest's total per diem reimbursement rate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Health Care Administration as successor in interest for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services determining the interim rate for Golfcrest to be $1.2551. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 3rd day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-847 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraphs 1-6: Accepted. Paragraph 7-9: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 11-16: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 17-19: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 20: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 21: Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Paragraph 22: Accepted in substance. HRS had allowed the cost of the Hi-Lo beds, thus, those costs were not in dispute. Paragraph 23: Accepted in substance as to the blinds but not as to the shades and shower curtains. The shades and shower curtains were not part of the interim rate request, thus whether they were necessary to correct a deficiency is not addressed in this Recommended Order. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance as it relates to the dining tables but not as to the dining chairs. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Accepted in substance as it relates to the cubicle curtains and tracks but not as it relates to the valances. The cubicle curtains and tracks were allowed by HRS as a cost and thus was not in dispute. Paragraphs 27-28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 31: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 32 and 33: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 34: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The third, fifth, sixth and seventh sentences are rejected as constituting conclusions of law. The fourth sentence is accepted. Paragraphs 35-36: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 37: The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 38: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 39: With exception of the last sentence the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary detail. The last sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 2-9: Accepted. Paragraph 10-11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12-22: Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 23-28: Accepted in substance except in paragraph 24 the reference to floor coverings should be to light fixtures. Paragraph 29: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 30: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 31-33: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 34: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 35: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 36-39: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire 117 South Gadsden, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Karel Baarslag, Esquire HRS Medicaid Office 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Six, Room 233 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Atrium Building, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issues in this case are the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Petitioners pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2007);1 whether Petitioners are entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes; and, if so, what amount should be awarded.
Findings Of Fact Each of the 14 Petitioners filed separate rule challenges, challenging the validity of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 and challenging eight statements of policy of the Board of Pharmacy, which statements had not been adopted as rules. Prior to the filing of his or her rule challenge, each Petitioner had graduated from a pharmacy school located outside the United States and had taken and passed the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Equivalency Examination, the Test of Spoken English, and the Test of English as a Foreign Language. Petitioners had been issued Intern Registrations by the Board of Pharmacy. All but two of the Petitioners had submitted an application to be admitted to the professional licensure examination. Those applications had been denied. All Petitioners, including the two Petitioners who had not submitted an application, had applied to the Board of Pharmacy for a variance or waiver to allow them to sit for the professional licensure examination. The Board of Pharmacy denied each Petitioner’s application for a variance or waiver. Each Petitioner had been represented by The Health Law Firm in their applications for a variance or waiver and wanted The Health Law Firm to continue to represent them in the rule challenge. When asked why the Petitioners had contacted The Health Law Firm to represent them, an attorney for The Health Law Firm stated: I think they have a network where word just gets around. And they-–I believe they even had some sort of list serve or Web site where they had all noted that they were being treated unfairly, and so they knew each other. And maybe our name got out on that or something. But they-–they all seemed to know each other-–seemed to know each other. Additionally, The Health Law Firm had sent out letters soliciting the foreign pharmacy graduates to join the rule challenge. An attorney for The Health Law Firm was not sure whether the letter had been posted on the web site for the foreign pharmacy graduates. In several of the invoices submitted by The Health Law Firm, there was a charge of $20.00 for a “[t]elephone conference with client’s colleagues who are in the same situation and interested in filing petitions for waivers and joining the rule challenge.”2 Thus, the circumstances surrounding the representation of Petitioners by The Health Law Firm do not demonstrate that it was a coincidence that Petitioners just happened to pick The Health Law Firm to represent them in the rule challenges. The Health Law Firm decided to file 14 separate petitions instead of one petition with 14 petitioners. The reason for the filing of the separate petitions was to increase the amount of attorney’s fees which could be awarded. Given the inexperience of attorneys at The Health Law Firm with rule challenges and the difficulty in understanding the speech of Petitioners, who received their pharmacy training in countries other than the United States, The Health Law Firm felt that it was not economically feasible to pursue the rule challenge for $15,000.00. Petitioners had a common goal, i.e. to be allowed to sit for the professional licensure examination. The wording of each of the petitions was essentially the same except for the names of the individual Petitioners. Because the issues were the same for all the rule challenges, the rule challenges were consolidated for final hearing. No final hearing was held in the consolidated cases. The parties agreed that, based on the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, there were no disputed issues of material fact and agreed to file proposed final orders addressing each party’s position regarding the application of the law to the stipulated facts. The Board of Pharmacy conceded that Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031 was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and Petitioners were determined to prevail on the issue of the invalidity of the existing rule. On the challenge to the Board of Pharmacy’s policy statements, four statements were determined to meet the definition of a rule. The Board of Pharmacy conceded in the parties’ pre-hearing stipulation that the instructions in the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination, directing applicants not to apply prior to obtaining all the required internship hours, constituted a non-rule policy. On August 1, 2008, in response to its concession that some of the statements or policies at issue were invalid non-rule policies, the Board of Pharmacy had published, in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly, a Notice of Rule Development for Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. On August 21, 2008, the Board of Pharmacy approved changes to Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16- 26.2031, eliminating the Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Examination Committee (FPGEC) requirement, incorporating by reference the Foreign Graduate Examination Application, and stating the time frames for the application of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B16-26.2031. Pursuant to Subsection 120.56(4)(e), Florida Statutes, the portion of the petitions dealing with the statements on which the Board of Pharmacy did not prevail was abated pending the rulemaking process. Petitioners did not prevail on four of the policy statements they challenged. These were the policy statements which the Board of Pharmacy contested. Based on the invoices submitted, the parties attempted to settle the case. Essentially, the Board of Pharmacy had started rule development which eliminated the requirement in the existing rule which caused it to be invalid and which dealt with the unpromulgated rule issues that the Board of Pharmacy had conceded in the Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation. Petitioners wanted to be able to sit for the National Association of Pharmacy Licensure Examination (NAPLEX) and the Multistate Pharmacy Jurisprudence Examination (MPJE). All Petitioners who had a Foreign Pharmacy Graduate Application for Licensure by Examination pending on August 21, 2008, were approved by the Board of Pharmacy to sit for the NAPLEX and the Florida version of the MPJE. Thus, by August 21, 2008, those Petitioners had reached their goal. The impediment to settling the cases was the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded to Petitioners. There was no undue delay by the Board of Pharmacy or anything which could be attributed to the Board of Pharmacy as needlessly increasing the cost of litigation. The Board of Pharmacy correctly contended that the amount of fees requested by Petitioners was unreasonable. The Partial Final Order entered in the underlying rule challenges held that Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The Board of Pharmacy was not substantially justified in promulgating the challenged rule in the underlying case and did not demonstrate that special circumstances existed to warrant the promulgation of the challenged rule. The Board of Pharmacy did not demonstrate that the statements which constituted unpromulgated rules are required by the Federal Government to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. Each Petitioner entered into a contingency fee contract3 with The Health Law Firm to represent him or her in a rule challenge. The parties have agreed that the hourly rate of $350.00 per hour for the services of George F. Indest, III, Esquire, is reasonable and fair under the circumstances. The parties have agreed that some of the hourly rates being claimed for the other attorneys and employees of The Health Law Firm are reasonable and fair under the circumstances. Those fees are $200.00 and $150.00 per hour for the associate attorneys, $80.00 per hour for the paralegals, and $70.00 per hour for the legal assistants. There were a few entries in the invoices made by senior attorneys for whom the rate charged is $300.00 per hour. Based on the rates charged for the senior partner and the associate attorneys, an hourly rate of $300.00 for a senior attorney is reasonable. The names of the attorneys and staff and the respective hourly rate amount for each are listed below. In discussing the reasonableness of the fees claimed in the various invoices, the attorneys and staff will be referred to by their initials as listed in the invoices. Initials Name Hourly Rate GFI George F. Indest, III, Senior Partner $350.00 MLS Michael L. Smith, Senior Attorney $300.00 JK Joanne Kenna, Senior Attorney $300.00 TJJ Teresa J. James, Attorney $200.00 MRG Matthew R. Gross, Attorney $150.00 JP Justin Patrou, Law Clerk $100.00 GJ Gail Joshua, Senior Paralegal $80.00 PD Pamela Dumas, Litigation Clerk $80.00 SF Sandra Faiella, Paralegal $80.00 RS Rebecca Simmons, Paralegal $80.00 AE Alexa Eastwood, Legal Assistant $70.00 SE Shelly Estes, Legal Assistant $70.00 The amount of fees claimed by each Petitioner for representation by The Health Law Firm for the rule challenge is listed below. These amounts are based on the individual invoices and the first consolidated invoice:4 Name Amount Vipul Patel $15,212.36 Miriam Hernandez $15,683.36 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $11,469.36 Valliammai Natarajan $5,074.36 John H. Neamatalla $11,215.36 Samad Mridha $13,650.36 Se Young Yoon $12,292.36 Saurin Modi $10,093.36 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $11,764.36 Mijeong Chang $12,528.36 Nabil Khalil $10,272.36 Hadya Alameddine $5,313.36 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $4,585.36 Anand Narayanan $4,218.36 Total $143,372.04 Sandra Ambrose testified as an expert witness on behalf of Petitioners. Her opinion is that the amounts claimed are based on a reasonable number of hours expended in the litigation of the rule challenge. However, Ms. Ambrose has never represented a client in a rule challenge. It was Ms. Ambrose’s opinion that the difficulty in the cases was a result of the number of Petitioners not the issues to be litigated. Having reviewed all the invoices submitted in these cases, the undersigned cannot credit Ms. Ambrose’s testimony that the fees are reasonable. The Board of Pharmacy argues that the amount of fees and costs should be limited to the amount expended in the petition brought by the first Petitioner, Vipul Patel. The expert who testified for the Board of Pharmacy did not give a definite amount that he considered to be a reasonable fee in these cases. Prior to the final consolidation of all 14 rule challenges, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its services and costs by individual Petitioner. After all 14 rule challenges were consolidated, The Health Law Firm invoiced for its time and costs via a consolidated invoice. The undersigned has painstakingly reviewed all the invoices that were submitted to support Petitioners’ claims for fees and costs in the rule challenges and finds the fees requested are not reasonable. On May 15, 2008, the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2733RX contained the following entry for MRG. “Review/analyze final order. Strategize regarding final order.” The final order appears to be related to a petition5 for a waiver or variance before the Board of Pharmacy, and the entry is deleted. This conclusion is supported by the entry in the invoice dated May 29, 2008, relating to a telephone conference with the client relating to a re-petition for waiver. In Case No. 08-2730RX, there is an entry on May 27, 2008, for .10 hours for MRG, but no service is listed. That entry is deleted. On June 6, 2008, MRG entered .50 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX. The entry stated: “Continue preparing rule challenge and waiver.” The Health Law Firm represented the Petitioners in four of these cases before the Board of Pharmacy on June 10, 2008, on their petitions for a wavier or variance. The invoice does not delineate the amount of time that was spent on the rule challenge and the amount of time that was spent on the waiver cases. Therefore, the time is divided equally and .25 hours in each case is charged toward the rule challenge. 23. On June 9, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .30 hours for each case, which stated: “Prepare letter to Division of Administrative Hearings forwarding Petition for Rule Challenge to be filed.” The letter which accompanied the petitions in these cases stated: Dear Clerk: Attached for filing, please find a separate Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Agency Rule and the Invalidity of Agency Policy and Statements defined as Rules, for each of the individuals listed below: Miriam L. Hernandez Mirley Aleman-Alejo Se Young Yoon John H. Neamatalla Valliammai Natarajan Md. A. Samad Mridha Thank you for your assistance in this matter. For this letter, Petitioners are claiming 1.8 hours or $630.00. This is not reasonable. On the same date, GFI prepared a similar transmittal letter in Case No. 08-2728RX and listed .3 hours, which is a reasonable amount for the preparation of such a letter. Thus, the preparation of the transmittal letter on June 9th for Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2729RX, and 08-2732RX is reduced to .3 hours, which is prorated to .05 hours for those cases. The senior partner in The Health Law Firm claims 23.6 hours during June 3 through 5, 2008, for the following service which was entered on the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2730RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2731RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2733RX, and 08-2824RX. Conduct legal research, review statutes, cases (approximately 28 cases reviewed and analyzed) and two (2) different Florida Administrative Law legal treatises regarding rule challenges and challenging agency statements not adopted as rules, in order to properly prepare Petition for Formal Rule Challenge in case. Research legal issues including administrative agency rules exceeding authority granted in statutes, retroactive applications of agency rules, adding requirements to licensure requirements through administrative rules when those requirements are not contained in the statute. Review Rules of Procedure and Chapter 120 to determine contents of Rule Challenge Petition. Begin reviewing and revising draft for Rule Challenge in case. (Note: Only pro-rata portion of this time charged to each case.) The total amount of fees claimed for this research is $8,260.00. GFI testified that he had never done a rule challenge prior to filing the petitions in the instant cases. His fees for research due to his lack of knowledge of the basics of a rule challenge should not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy. A reasonable amount of time for his research is four hours. Thus, the amount for this legal research prorated among the ten cases for which it was listed is .4 hours. On July 19, 2008, the senior partner of The Health Law Firm entered .60 hours in ten of the rule challenges for reviewing the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings for February 8 and April 5, 2008, and preparing a notice of filing the Transcripts with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Six hours to review the Transcripts and prepare a notice of filing is not reasonable. Three hours is determined to be a reasonable amount of time for this task, and that amount is prorated among the ten cases in which the charge was made. On June 10, 2008, members of The Health Law Firm attended a Board of Pharmacy meeting at which they represented foreign pharmacy graduates who had petitioned the Board of Pharmacy for a waiver or variance. In Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-3298RX, and 08-2733RX, the senior partner listed .90 hours for each case for preparation for the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting. The preparation related to the petitions for variances or waivers and should not be assessed for the instant cases. For June 10, 2008, JP listed .70 hours each in Case Nos. 08-2823RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2821RX, and 08-2733RX for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. For June 10, 2008, GFI entered 1.4 hours for attendance at the Board of Pharmacy meeting. The entries for attending the Board of Pharmacy meeting related to the petitions for waivers and should not be assessed in the instant cases. For June 19, 2008, the senior partner made the following entry in the invoices for Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX: Travel to Boca Raton to meet with other health care lawyers and discuss issues in common on these cases and others. Discuss legal strategies that worked in the past and legal strategies to be avoided. Return from Boca Raton. Each entry was for one hour, for a total of eight hours claimed for a trip to Boca Raton, which equates to $2,880.00. Based on the entry, it seems that the trip included discussions of other cases that The Health Law Firm was handling or that other attorneys were handling. Additionally, there was no rationale for having to travel to Boca Raton to discuss the issues, and fees for such travel should not be awarded. A reasonable amount of time for discussion of the case with other attorneys by telephone would be .80 hours. The prorated amount of time for each case listed is .10 hours. On May 27, 2008, SF made a .30-hour entry in Case No. 08-2824RX for reviewing the agenda of the June 10th Board of Pharmacy meeting as it related to the client in Case No. 08-2824RX. The entry related to the client’s petition for a waiver, which was heard at the June 10th meeting and should be deleted. On May 30, 2008, in Case No. 08-2824RX, SF made a .40-hour entry for drafting a letter to client with retainer agreement. The entry is clerical and should be deleted. On June 18, 2008, an entry was made in the invoice in Case No. 08-2731RX, which stated: “Telephone call from husband of our client indicating that they want us to close this matter and that they do not wish to pursue it any further; follow-up memorandum to Mr. Indest regarding this.” Charges continued to be made to the client through July 16, 2008. Based on the entry to the invoice on June 18, 2008, no further charges should have been made to the client except for the filing of a voluntary dismissal of the rule challenge for the client. However, no voluntary dismissal was filed. Based on the absence of any further charges to the client after July 18, 2008, it is concluded that the client did wish not to proceed with her rule challenge. Any charges by The Health Law Firm after June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2731RX will not be assessed against the Board of Pharmacy as it relates to the rule challenge. On June 19, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in ten of the cases: “Review June 10, 2008, Board of Pharmacy Agenda. Telephone conference with Court Reporter, Ms. Green, ordering transcript of the June 10, 2008, meeting.” An hour for reviewing an agenda and ordering a transcript is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and such time is prorated to the ten cases in which it is charged. 33. On June 20, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2823RX and 08-2824RX, TJJ made a .80-hour entry which stated: “Prepare draft motion for consolidation.” No motion was ever filed and would not have been necessary since the parties had agreed at the pre-hearing conference that the rule challenges would be consolidated. The time for this service should be deleted. 34. On July 10, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in several of the cases: “Review prehearing instruction orders and amended orders to determine respondent’s deadline to serve discovery responses.” The entry is duplicative of services provided by MRG on July 8, 2008, and should be deleted. 35. On July 15, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2729RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, TJJ had .40 hours for a total of 4.00 hours for the following entry: Prepare Petitioners’ Motion to Compel Discovery and assemble and copy documents to be attached to Motion. Prepare facsimile coversheets and transmit the Motion to the attorney for the Board of Pharmacy, Ms. Loucks, and to the clerk for the Division of Administrative Hearings. The copying, preparing facsimile coversheets, and transmitting the motion are clerical tasks. The entries are reduced to .20 hours due to the clerical nature of the tasks, which leaves a total of two hours for preparing a simple motion to compel. The time for the preparation of the motion to compel is not reasonable and is reduced to .10-hour for each entry. On July 22, 2008, the last Order consolidating all the cases was filed. The Order consisted of four paragraphs. On July 29, 2008, TJJ entered .10 hours in Case Nos. 08-2733RX, 08- 2730RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2824RX, 08-3510RX, 08-3488RX, 08-3347RX, 08-2823RX, 08-3298RX, and 08- 2821RX, and each entry stated: “Review order of consolidation filed on July 22, 2008, for common information needed for all cases.” Thus, Petitioners are claiming a total of 1.3 hours or $260.00 to review a four-paragraph Order of Consolidation. This claim is not reasonable. A reasonable amount of time to review the Order was .10 hours, and the time shall be prorated among the cases for which it was claimed at .08 hours each. On July 24, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in ten of the cases which stated: Telephone conference with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal, First District to find out the start time of oral arguments on Custom Mobility (rule challenge case). Request information from clerk regarding how to listen to oral arguments online. Observing this oral argument will allow us to better prepare our case for possible appeal. First, a one-hour telephone conversation with the Clerk of District Court of Appeal to ascertain the time for an oral argument and to learn how to listen to oral arguments online is not reasonable. Second, it is not reasonable to charge the Board of Pharmacy with a call to the District Court of Appeal in the instant cases, even if the amount of time for the call had been reasonable. The one-hour charge for $200.00 for a telephone call is deleted. On July 30, 2008, TJJ made an entry of .10 hours in 13 of the rule challenges. The entry stated: “Listen to oral arguments presented before District Court of Appeals, First District, in Custom Mobility case (rule challenge case).” The oral argument was not related to the instant rule challenges and should not be charged to the Board of Pharmacy. The 1.3 hours or $260.00 claim for listening to an oral argument is deleted. On August 4, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Joint Motion for Abeyance and Order Canceling Hearing and Placing Cases in Abeyance. Calendar deadlines regarding same.” The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the simple motion and Order is not reasonable. Calendaring is a clerical task. The time for this service is reduced to .01 hours for each entry. On August 5, 2008, TJJ made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: “Review Respondent’s Objections and Responses to Petitioners’ Second Set of Interrogatories and Respondent’s Objections to Petitioners’ Second Set of Requests for Admissions.” The objections were that the interrogatories and requests for admissions exceeded 30. The time of 1.3 hours for reviewing the pleadings is not reasonable. The time for this service is reduced to .04 for each entry. Petitioners had scheduled the depositions of Rebecca Poston and Daisy King for July 18, 2008. On July 17, 2008, Petitioners filed notices canceling the depositions. On July 17, 2008, PD entered .10 hours in ten of the rule challenges for the following entry: Telephone conference with Accurate Stenotype Reporters regarding cancellation of depositions of Daisy King and Rebecca Poston on July 18, 2008 and delay transcription of depositions of Erika Lilja and Elizabeth Ranne due to potential settlement. It is not reasonable to charge an hour to cancel depositions with the court reporter. A reasonable amount of time would be .10 hours, which is prorated to the ten cases to which it is charged. PD prepared the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. Poston and the notice of the canceling of the deposition of Ms. King. Entries were made in ten of the cases for time for preparing the notices. The total time for preparing the two notices by PD was 1.45 hours. The time is not reasonable. A reasonable time to prepare two notices of canceling depositions would be .40 hours, which is prorated among the ten cases in which it was charged. One of the issues on which Petitioners did not prevail in the rule challenges was the issue of retroactive application of the rule. There are entries totaling 3.4 hours for JP for preparation of a memorandum dealing with the retroactive application of a rule issue. GFI entered .30 hours for the same issue. The time relating to the retroactive application issue is deleted. On April 19, 2008, MRG entered .20 hours each in several cases, which related to the rule challenge and retroactive application issue. That time is reduced by half. On May 6, 2008, MRG made .60-hour entries in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2729RX, 08-2730RX, 08-2732RX, 08-2733RX, 08-2734RX, 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, 08-2824RX, and 08-3298RX, which showed the preparation of three sections of the petition. One of the sections dealt with the retroactive application issue, and the entries are reduced by .20 hours for that issue. The invoices demonstrated that a considerable amount of time was charged for legal assistants and paralegals. Much of this time was for clerical tasks. SE is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a legal assistant. The majority of the entries by SE dealt with the photocopying, labeling, organizing, indexing, and filing documents. These services performed by SE are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. RS is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant. The majority of the entries in the invoices for RS deal with receiving, reviewing, labeling, indexing, scanning, summarizing, and calendaring pleadings and orders that were received in the cases. These services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. Petitioners in Case Nos. 08-2728RX, 08-2732RX, and 08-2733RX each claimed .30 hours for RS for the following service on April 30, 2008: Received and reviewed letter from Department of Health regarding our Public Records Request dated April 28, 2008 relating to client’s case. Index document for filing and scanning for use of attorneys at hearing. However, .90 hours for reviewing and indexing a letter is not reasonable and is clerical in nature. On June 17, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX, RS entered .60 hours for preparing, copying, and sending a letter to the client forwarding a copy of the Order of Assignment. That entry is reduced to .30 hours, since at least half of the time appeared to be for clerical tasks. AE, who is identified as a legal assistant in Petitioners’ exhibits, has numerous entries in the invoices for receiving, indexing, filing, calendaring, and providing pleadings and orders to clients. Those services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-2728RX, PD, identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal, made entries on June 16 and June 25, 2008, for .30 hours each. These entries were to update the litigation schedule with the hearing date. The entry is clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. SF, who is identified in Petitioners’ exhibits as a paralegal/legal assistant, made an entry for .30 hours in Case No. 08-2728RX on June 26, 2008, and in Case No. 08-2732RX on June 11, 2008, for forwarding orders to the client. An entry was made on July 10, 2008, in Case No. 08-2728RX and on June 18, 2008, in Case No. 08-2730RX for .30 hours for processing the retainer package. Additionally, SF had entries for organizing and filing transcripts and orders. Such services are clerical and, as such, cannot be included in an award of attorney’s fees. In Case No. 08-3488RX, SF made a .30-hour entry on June 30, 2008, for updating the parties list and document file and a .50-hour entry on June 26, 2008, for completing opening procedures. In the same case, SF made two entries on July 7, 2008, for a total of 1.5 hours for preparing a retainer package and sending it to the client. These tasks are clerical. On June 24, 2008, SF made the following .30-hour entry in 11 of the cases: “Finalize and forward Joint Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing to client in this matter.” These entries are deleted; as they represent clerical tasks and an unreasonable amount of time to finalize a motion for continuance for which GFI had charged 1.1 hours for preparing the motion. In several cases JP, identified as a law clerk, made entries on July 15, 2008, for .30-hour for creating, numbering, and copying exhibits. Such service is clerical. On July 30, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy regarding filing and Service of Petitioners’ Fourth Set of Request to Produce and Second Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.6 hours is not a reasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time to prepare such documents is .50 hours, and the time is prorated among the 13 cases. On July 28, 2008, PD made the following .10-hour entry in 13 of the cases: Prepare Notice of Filing Videotaped Depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. Prepare draft of Notice of Filing Deposition Transcript of Elizabeth Ranne. However, 1.3 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare two notices of filing depositions. A reasonable amount of time is .40 hours, and that amount is prorated among the 13 cases. On June 17, 2008, PD made the following .20-hour entry in each of the 11 cases: Prepare Petitioners’ Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent and Certificate of Filing and Service. Prepare correspondence to Debra Loucks, attorney for Board of Pharmacy, regarding filing and service of Petitioners’ First Set of Request to Produce, Petitioners’ First Set of Request for Admissions and Petitioners’ First Set of Interrogatories. However, 2.2 hours is an unreasonable amount of time to prepare a notice of service of discovery and a transmittal letter to opposing counsel. A reasonable amount of time is .50, which is prorated among the 11 cases. 58. On June 21, 2008, in Case Nos. 08-2821RX, 08-2823RX, and 08-2824RX, there is a .30-hour entry for SF for finalizing and forwarding a petition for formal hearing to the Department of Health for filing. This entry does not appear to be related to the rule challenges and is deleted. In Case No. 08-3298RX, MRG made an entry of .50 hours for a telephone conference regarding the date of rule challenge and petition for rehearing. The petition for rehearing dealt with the client’s petition for waiver and should not be included. Thus, the entry is reduced to .25 hours. After all the cases were consolidated The Health Law Firm began to make entries for all cases in the first consolidated invoice. On July 28, 2008, GFI made an entry of 2.8 hours, which related exclusively to the issue of retroactive application of the rule. This entry is deleted. RS made entries in the first consolidated invoice for August 12, 14, 28, and 29, 2008, and September 2, 5, 10, and 18, 2008, relating to filing, indexing, copying, and forwarding documents. There are similar entries for SF on August 26, 2008, and September 4 and 9, 2008, and for AE on September 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. PD had entries for reviewing, organizing, and indexing documents on September 4, 8, 11, and 17, 2008, and October 8, 2008. Those entries are for clerical tasks. There were numerous entries in August 2008 relating to a Board of Pharmacy meeting on August 21, 2008, in which the Board of Pharmacy heard motions for reconsideration of orders denying Petitioners’ petitions for waivers. Those entries are related to the petitions for waiver and not to the rule challenges. Although, The Health Law Firm makes reference to a settlement agreement in which the Board of Pharmacy agreed to grant the waivers, there was no settlement agreement of the rule challenges because the parties proceeded to litigate the issues by summary disposition. Thus, the references to attending and preparing for the August 21, 2008, Board of Pharmacy meeting as well as advising the clients of the outcome of the meeting on August 20 and 21, 2008, are deleted. Additionally, an entry by MRG on August 20, 2008, which included reviewing the August 21st agenda is reduced to .75 hours. On August 25, 2008, MRG made an entry which included a telephone conference with Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Ms. Ranne regarding Mr. Bui. Mr. Bui is not a Petitioner, and the entry is reduced to .55 hours. Based on the invoices, it appears that Mr. Bui and Ms. Ranne were also foreign pharmacy graduates seeking waivers from the Board of Pharmacy. On August 29, 2008, MRG made another entry which included the preparation of an e-mail to Mr. Bui. The entry is reduced to two hours. On August 6, 2008, MRG made a 1.80-hour entry which included preparing e-mail to Mr. Bui and a telephone conference with Mr. Sokkan regarding the rule challenge and settlement negotiations. Neither of these persons is a Petitioner; thus, the entry is reduced to .60 hours. On August 28, 2008, TJJ made a 3.60-hour entry for researching and preparing Petitioners’ second motion to compel discovery. No such motion was filed. Thus, the entry is deleted. Another entry was made on September 2, 2008, which included, among other things, the revision of the motion to compel. That entry is reduced to .80 hours. On August 8, 2008, MRG made a 1.00-hour entry which included a telephone conference with Ms. Alameddine regarding her passing the MPJE and being licensed in Michigan. Those issues relate to the petition for reconsideration of the waiver. The entry is reduced to .50 hours. On September 4, 2008, TJJ made a .80-hour entry for preparing a letter to Mr. Modi regarding his approval to take the examination, a 1.00-hour entry dealing with Mr. Lakshminarary’s application, a .90-hour entry dealing with Petitioner Narayanan’s application, a .70-hour entry dealing with Mr. Shah’s application, and a .60-hour entry dealing with Ms. Hernandez’s application. The entries deal with the petitions for a waiver and are deleted. On September 4, 2008, MRG made an entry which included, among other tasks, time for determining if the Board of Pharmacy had sufficient funds to pay Petitioners’ attorney’s fees. This entry is reduced to two hours. On October 10, 2008, MRG made a 1.20-hour entry which included, among other things, analyzing pleadings to determine if persons who were not Petitioners should file petitions for attorney’s fees. The entry is reduced to .60 hours. On July 16, 2008, MRG and JP made entries in ten of the cases for traveling to Tallahassee and attending the depositions of Elizabeth Ranne and Erika Lilja. The total hours for MRG was 16.9 hours and for JP the total was 17 hours. These total hours are reduced by ten hours each for travel time. On August 12 and 13, 2008, MRG made entries which included travel time to attend Board of Pharmacy meetings.6 Those entries are reduced each by one hour to account for travel time. The following is a listing of the amount of hours and dollar amount for fees, which are considered to be reasonable for the rule challenges. Individual and First Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 146.10 $350.00 $51,135.00 MLS 3.70 $300.00 $1,110.00 JK 1.40 $300.00 $420.00 TJJ 80.13 $200.00 $16,026.00 MRG 210.16 $150.00 $31,824.00 JP 37.80 $100.00 $3,780.00 PD 39.053 $80.00 $3,124.24 SF 16.80 $80.00 $1,344.00 GJ .40 $80.00 $32.00 RS 1.3 $80.00 $104.00 $108,899.24 The Partial Final Order found that Petitioners were entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Thus, the issue of entitlement to fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was not an issue that was litigated in the instant fee cases. The issue of whether Petitioners were entitled to fees and costs pursuant to Subsections 57.105(5), 120.569(2)(e), and 120.595(4), Florida Statutes, were entitlement issues which were litigated in the instant fee cases.7 Most of the charges dealing with the petitions for fees and costs are related to the amount of fees that are to be awarded and not to the entitlement to fees. In Petitioners’ second consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 4), there is a two-hour entry by MLS on November 3, 2008, for research of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. This entry is deleted since the issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, had already been determined. The following entries in the second consolidated invoice relate to the litigation of the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 11-5-08 GFI 6.90 hours 11-6-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-6-08 GFI 7.40 hours 11-7-08 SF 7.00 hours 11-7-08 MLS 1.00 hour 11-7-08 JCP 7.00 hours 11-8-08 JCP 1.00 hours 11-8-08 GFI 7.10 hours 1-26-09 GFI 1.00 hour 2-9-09 GFI .60 hours 2-10-09 GFI .30 hours 2-12-09 GFI .60 hours 2-17-09 GFI .30 hours 2-17-09 GFI .60 hours 2-19-09 GFI .60 hours The following entries were made in the second consolidated invoice for clerical tasks performed by paralegals and legal assistants: 11-3-08 RAS .30 hours 2-9-09 RAS .30 hours 2-10-09 RAS .30 hours 2-12-09 ACE .40 hours The issue of entitlement to fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes, was a small portion of the litigation relating to attorney’s fees and costs. The major areas of litigation dealt with the amount of fees and costs that should be awarded. The invoices do not specifically set forth the amount of time that was spent on the issue of entitlement to fees on statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Based on a review of the pleadings in these fee cases and a review of the invoices submitted for litigation of attorney’s fees and costs, it is concluded that ten percent of the time should be allocated to the issue of entitlement to fees. The percentage is applied to the fees after the fees listed in paragraphs 76, 77, and 78, above, have been deleted. Thus, the following entries in the second consolidated invoice are reduced to the following amount of hours: 11-1-08 JCP .26 hours 11-3-08 MLS .10 hours 11-4-08 MLS .40 hours 11-8-08 JCP .32 hours 12-22-08 GFI .04 hours 12-30-08 MLS .03 hours 1-7-09 GFI .02 hours 1-14-09 GFI .04 hours 1-15-09 GFI .07 hours In the third consolidated invoice (Petitioners’ Exhibit 5), the following entries relate to the amount of fees to be awarded and are deleted: 3-4-09 SME 4.80 hours 3-4-09 GFI 1.20 hours 4-3-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-7-09 GFI .50 hours 4-7-09 GFI .60 hours 4-7-09 GFI .30 hours 4-8-09 GFI 4.20 hours 4-8-09 GFI 1.00 hour 4-9-09 MRG 1.50 hours 4-9-09 GFI 3.20 hours 4-11-09 GFI .60 hours 4-15-09 GFI 4.40 hours On April 14, 2009, GFI made an entry which included time for travel to the expert witness’ office. The entry is reduced by .75 hours for travel time. Ten percent of the time not excluded or reduced above related to the issue of entitlement of fees pursuant to statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. The following entries are reduced to that percentage: 3-31-09 GFI .05 hours 4-1-09 GFI .20 hours 4-6-09 GFI .19 hours 4-6-09 GFI .03 hours 4-7-09 MRG .05 hours 4-7-09 GFI .07 hours 4-7-09 GFI .19 hours 4-7-09 GFI .27 hours 4-9-09 GFI .10 hours 4-13-09 GFI .50 hours 4-14-09 GFI .48 hours 4-14-09 GFI .275 hours The following is a list of the fees in the second and third consolidated invoices which are related to entitlement of fees pursuant to Florida Statutes other than Subsection 120.595(3), Florida Statutes. Second and Third Consolidated Invoice Hours Rate Amount GFI 2.525 $350.00 $883.75 MLS .43 $300.00 $129.00 MRG .05 $150.00 $7.50 JCP .32 $100.00 $32.00 $1,052.25 With the exception of the costs related to the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings of April 8 and 9, 2008, and June 10, 2008, Respondent, as stipulated in the parties’ Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation, does not dispute that the amounts of costs set forth in the invoices submitted by Petitioners are fair and reasonable.8 The cost of the Transcripts of the Board of Pharmacy meetings on April 8 and 9, 2008, was $1,476.00. The cost of the Transcript of the Board of Pharmacy meeting on June 10, 2008, was $524.00. At the final hearing, the Board of Pharmacy’s objection appeared to be based on the timing of the payment of the court reporter’s fees related to the transcribing of those meetings. The Transcripts were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings prior to the issuance of the Partial Final Order. Thus, the costs of the transcribing of the Board of Pharmacy meetings are properly included in the amount of costs to be awarded to Petitioners. The amounts of the costs claimed for the rule challenges in the individual and first consolidated invoice are reasonable. The costs incurred by Petitioners for the rule challenges as set forth in the individual and first consolidated invoices are listed below: Name Amount Vipul Patel $1,773.62 Miriam Hernandez $1,801.41 Mirley Aleman-Alejo $1,213.80 Valliammai Natarajan $321.17[9] John H. Neamatalla $1,118.72 Samad Mridha $975.12 Se Young Yoon $1,097.07 Saurin Modi $1,168.75 Deepakkumar Shah, M.Ph. $1,119.24 Mijeong Chang $1,213.16 Nabil Khalil $961.32 Hadya Alameddine $464.60 Balaji Lakshminarayanan $509.71 Anand Narayanan $461.87 The total amount of costs to be awarded for the challenge to the existing rule and to the policy statements is $14,199.56. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the second consolidated invoice. The second consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $2,096.12. Therefore, the costs for the second consolidated invoice are reduced to $209.61,10 which represents the amount attributable to litigation of entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. The parties stipulated to the reasonableness of the costs contained in the third consolidated invoice. The third consolidated invoice lists the total costs as $580.62. Therefore, the costs for the third consolidated invoice are reduced to $58.06,11 which represents the amount attributable to litigating the entitlement of fees, ten percent of the total costs. Petitioners incurred costs in the litigation of the amount of attorney’s fees to be awarded. Petitioners retained an expert witness, Sandra Ambrose, Esquire. Ms. Ambrose’s fee relating to the issue of attorney’s fees is $5,200.00. Her fee is reasonable; however, Ms. Ambrose’s testimony was related to the amount of the fees not to the entitlement to fees and are, therefore, not awarded as part of the costs. The total costs to be awarded for the litigation of the fees is $267.67.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent applied the following policy to Petitioner and, if so, whether the policy constitutes an unpromulgated "rule" as defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. If during its review of a rate change filing, DOI determines an insurer is not in compliance with the annual rate filing requirements of section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, and if the filing involves a Medicare Supplement form, section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, then DOI will only approve an "annual portion" as a percentage of the rate change requested based on the elapsed time period since the last approved rate filing.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, Central States Health and Life Company of Omaha (hereinafter referred to as "Central States"), is a corporation domiciled in Nebraska. Central States holds a certificate of authority issued by the Department which allows it to sell life and health insurance, including individual and group standardized Medicare supplement policies, in Florida. Respondent, the Department of Insurance and Treasurer (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. The Department is charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the review and approval of health insurance policy forms used in Florida. General Requirements for Medicare Supplement Policy Forms in Florida. No "basic insurance policy" may be delivered in Florida unless the "form" has first been approved by the Department. Section 627.410(1), Florida Statutes. Section 627.410(6), Florida Statutes, additionally requires that a copy of the applicable rating manual or rating schedule included as part of a insurance policy form must be filed with the Department for approval before any "health insurance policy form" is delivered in Florida. Pursuant to Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, insurers required to file rating manuals or rating schedules pursuant to Section 627.410(6), Florida Statutes, must make an "annual filing" with the department. The rating manual and rating schedule requirements of Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, may be satisfied by: A "rate filing prepared by an actuary which contains documentation demonstrating the reasonableness of benefits in relation to premiums charged in accordance with the applicable rating laws and rules promulgated by the department." Section 627.410(7)(b)1, Florida Statutes; or "If no rate change is proposed, a filing which consists of a certification by an actuary that benefits are reasonable in relation to premiums currently charged in accordance with applicable laws and rules promulgated by the department." Section 627.410(7)(b)2, Florida Statutes. The filing requirements of Section 627.410(6) and (7), Florida Statutes, apply to Medicare supplement forms. Section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, limits the manner in which entities providing Medicare supplement policies may meet the annual filing requirement of Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes. Section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, eliminates the use of the certification procedure described in Finding of Fact 7.b., supra, by Medicare supplement policy providers. Section 627.6745(2), Florida Statutes, requires that all providers of Medicare supplement policy forms: . . . file annually its rates, rating schedules, and supporting documentation demonstrating that it is in compliance with the applicable loss ratio standards of this code. The filing of rates and rating schedules shall demonstrate that the actual and expected losses in relations to premiums comply with the requirements of this section. Rule 4-156.012(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires that issuers of Medicare supplement policies and certificates must file their rates annually "for approval by the Department in accordance with Section 627.410, Florida Statutes." Section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, also provides limitations on the rates which may be charged for Medicare supplement policies: Medicare supplement policies shall return the following to policyholders in the form of aggregate benefits under the policy, with respect to the lifetime of the policy, on the basis of earned premiums and on the basis of incurred claims experience . . . and in accordance with accepted actuarial principles and practices: At least 75 percent of the aggregate amount of premiums earned in the case of group policies. . . . for individual policies issued on or after July 1, 1989, at least 65 percent of the aggregate amount of premiums earned. . . . Stated very simply, this provision requires that for every dollar of premiums earned, a minimum of 75 cents must be paid in claims for group policies and a minimum of 65 cents must be paid in claims for individual policies. The grounds for disapproval of "any form filed under s. 627.410" are provided in Section 627.411, Florida Statutes. In pertinent part, Section 627.411(1), Florida Statutes, provides that a "form" may be disapproved if the form: (e) Is for health insurance, and provides benefits which are unreasonable in relation to the premium charged, contains provisions which are unfair or inequitable or contrary to the public policy of this state or which encourage misrepresentation or which apply rating practices which result in premium escalations that are not viable for the policyholder market or result in unfair discrimination in sales practices. The Department has adopted rules establishing rate filing procedures. Rule 4-149.003, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 4-149.006, Florida Administrative Code, sets out the information an actuary must provide and the manner in which an actuary is to provide that information. The Department has also adopted rules providing the manner in which the reasonableness of benefits in relation to premiums will be determined. Rule 4-149.005, Florida Administrative Code. Central States' 1998 Rate Increase Filings and the Department's Denial Thereof. On or about January 20, 1998, Central States filed two requests for rate increase with the Department. One request sought a 39% increase for Individual Medicare supplement policy forms (hereinafter referred to as "Individual Medicare Forms") sold in Florida and the other sought a 39% increase for Group Medicare supplement policy forms (hereinafter referred to as "Group Medicare Forms") sold in Florida. For purposes of this Final Order all Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law apply equally to each type of rate increase request unless otherwise noted. Both rate increase requests were accompanied by an actuarial memorandum certified by Dawn Helwig, an actuary retained by Central States. The rate increase requests were reviewed by Linda Ziegler, an actuary employed by the Department. Following her review, Ms. Ziegler asked for additional information or explanation concerning several issues by letters dated February 10, 1998. By letter dated February 18, 1998, Central States responded to Ms. Ziegler's letters. Each of the issues raised by Ms. Ziegler was addressed in the February 18, 1998, letter. After review of Central States' rate increase requests, the Department informed Central States that the 39% rate increases it had requested were disapproved. Central States was informed of the denial by letter dated March 6, 1998. The Department also informed Central States in the March 6, 1998, denial letter that rate increases of 9.6% were "APPROVED." Central States was requested to "provide revised rate pages reflecting the approved rate increase by March 20, 1998." The Department denied the 39% rate increase requests for three reasons: The Department determined that the rate increases sought by Central States did not provide benefits which were reasonable in relation to the premium to be charged. Therefore, the Department denied the rate increase requests pursuant to Section 627.411(1)(e), Florida Statutes. This determination was based upon a finding that Central States' projected Anticipated Loss Ratio did not meet or exceed the weighted average of the Anticipated Loss Ratio *N (hereinafter referred to as the "*N Test"). "Anticipated Loss Ratio" is defined in Rule 4- 149.006(3)(b)20, Florida Administrative Code, as essentially the present value of future benefits (claims) divided by the present value of future premiums. The conclusion that Central States' projected Anticipated Loss Ratio did not meet or exceed the *N Test was based essentially upon four areas of disagreement with Ms. Helwig's calculations in her actuarial memoranda; The Department determined that Central States' "forms" were in violation of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes. Therefore, the Department denied the rate increase requests pursuant to Section 627.411(1)(a), Florida Statutes. This determination was based upon the Department's conclusion that Central States had failed to make annual rate filings as required by Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, and Rule 4-156.011, Florida Administrative Code; and The Department determined that Central States' requested rates were not "viable." Therefore, the Department denied the rate increase requests pursuant to Section 627.411(1)(e), Florida Statutes. This determination was based upon the Department's conclusion that because Central States had failed to obtain annual approval of its Individual and Group Medicare Forms for several years the amount of the increases sought by Central States was not "viable." The four areas of disagreement with Ms. Helwig's calculations are: What Individual Medicare Forms should be considered to have been issued to individual customers after "6/1/94" for purposes of Rule 4-149.005(2), Florida Administrative Code. (This issue only impacted Central States' Individual Medicare Forms request); Whether Central States should pool its experience with its Individual and Group Medicare Forms; Whether Central States should use its actual nationwide experience instead of its actual nationwide experience "adjusted to the Florida Rate basis"; and Whether it was appropriate for Central States to assume that its premiums would be received and its claims incurred at the beginning of the year. The Department concluded that 32.7% increases would meet the *N Test if the four areas of disagreement with Ms. Helwig were corrected by Central States. The four areas of disagreement are the subject of Case Numbers 98-1562 and 98-1563. The Department also concluded, however, that even if Central States met the *N Test it would only be entitled to a one-year adjustment which it calculated to be 9.6%. It is this determination that Central States has alleged constitutes the application of an unpromulgated rule. The Challenged Unpromulgated "Rule." The specific statement or statement description challenged by Central States as an unpromulgated rule is as follows: If during its review of a rate change filing, DOI determines an insurer is not in compliance with the annual rate filing requirements of section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, and if the filing involves a Medicare Supplement form, section 627.6745, Florida Statutes, then DOI will only approve an "annual portion" as a percentage of the rate change requested based on the elapsed time period since the last approved rate filing. (The foregoing statement of policy will be referred to as the Challenged Policy"). Central States has alleged that the Department applied the Challenged Policy to it in denying its rate increase requests. Central States has also alleged that the Challenged Policy had not been adopted or proposed as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, at the time of its application by the Department. The Department's Application of the Challenged Policy. The Challenged Policy is actually more than one policy. First, the Challenged Policy includes a policy of the Department that it will not allow a rate increase for Individual or Group Medicare supplement forms attributable to more than a one-year period if an insurer fails to comply with the annual filing requirement of Section 627.410(7)(b), Florida Statutes. This policy is based upon the Department's conclusion that the failure to obtain annual approval means that any future "form" filed by an insurer is in violation of Chapter 627, Florida Statutes, and its conclusion that any future rate increase will not be viable. Secondly, the Challenged Policy includes a policy of the Department that, if the annual filing requirement has not been met, it will only approve an "annual portion" as a percentage of the rate change requested based on the elapsed time period since the last approved rate filing. The evidence in this case proved that the first part of the Challenged Policy formed a large part of the basis for the Department's denial of Central States' applications for rate increases. The evidence also proved that the second part of the Challenged Policy was relied upon by the Department in determining that increases of 9.6% would be acceptable. The Challenged Policy was a statement of general applicability implementing and interpreting Section 627.411(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and prescribing policy of the Department concerning the procedures the Department intended to follow in determining a viable rate of increase for Medicare supplement forms where an insurer has not made the annual filings required by Section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes. The Department has not disputed this finding. The Challenged Policy, as alleged by Central States, constitutes a "rule" as that term is defined in Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes. The Challenged Policy had not been adopted by the rulemaking procedure provided in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, at the time of its application to Central States. Throughout this proceeding, the Department has conceded that the Challenged Policy is a "rule" and that the Challenged Policy has not been adopted by rulemaking. Feasibility of Rulemaking. The Challenged Policy was proposed for adoption as a rule by the Department prior to the filing of the petition in this case. On November 7, 1997, the Department caused notice of its intent to adopt proposed rules to be published. Volume 23, Number 45, Pages 6045-6068 of the Florida Administrative Weekly (November 7, 1997). Pursuant to this notice the Department indicated its intent to repeal Chapter 4-149, Florida Administrative Code, and replace it with a new Chapter 4-149. Included in the newly proposed rule chapter, the Department included newly proposed rule 4-149.108(14): (14) If an insurer has not made an annual rate filing or certification stating the reasonableness of benefits in relation to the premiums charged as required by section 627.410(7), Florida Statutes, other than when the department approved a lower increase than what was requested, the current rate increase request shall be limited to the current year's increase. The current year's increase is defined as the maximum level average annual increase permitted by this part, determined assuming that the insurer had implemented level annual rate increase for the period where no filing or certification had been made. (Hereinafter referred to as the "First Proposed Policy"). Volume 23, Number 45, Pages 6045-6068 of the Florida Administrative Weekly (November 7, 1997)(hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Rules"). Neither party disputes the fact that the Challenged Policy is included in the First Proposed Policy. Nor do the parties dispute that the Department applied the policies of the First Proposed Policy to Central States in March 1998 in denying its requested rate increases and approving a 9.6% rate increase. Therefore, the evidence failed to prove that rulemaking was not feasible and practicable under Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was represented by in this case by Michael Linsky, Esquire, beginning in April 1988. Two complaints of discrimination had been brought against the Department of Corrections by Petitioner. Linsky is an experienced trial lawyer having been admitted to the Florida Bar in 1970. However, he had no experience with discrimination cases prior to these proceedings. The Florida Commission on Human Relations found the Department had committed an unlawful employment practice when it assigned Petitioner to perimeter post duty and transferred him to Polk Correctional Institution in retaliation for having filed a discrimination complaint. Linsky originally took Petitioner's case on a contingency fee basis, but later it was decided between Linsky and Petitioner that the fee would be whatever was awarded by the Commission. Petitioner was only to be responsible for costs. Linsky submitted into evidence as Exhibit 1 a list of dates and hours expended on this case. However, this exhibit was prepared by Linsky's secretary some months after the events depicted and appear grossly exaggerated in some instances. Linsky claims a total of 159.35 hours expended. Linsky testified that his billing rate from April 1988 to December 1988 was $175 per hour, and thereafter it was raised to $190 per hour. Petitioner's expert witnesses contend the average billing rate in the Tampa area for this type of case ranges from $125 to $175 per hour. Respondent's expert witnesses contend the fees awarded run from $100 to $150 per hour. I find the appropriate fee in this case to be $135 per hour. Although Linsky claims to have spent 159.35 hour on this case, including the attorney's fees portion, 1 find that only 100 hours are reasonable. Costs of $423.60 is not disputed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Corrections be directed to pay Sefsick's attorney $13,500 attorney's fees and $423.60 costs in these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings are accepted, except: 3. This proposed finding is accepted as a recital of the testimony presented, but rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #8. 5. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #7. 6 and 7. Accepted as legal argument, but rejected as a finding of fact. Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Linsky, Esquire 600 North Florida Avenue Suite 1610 Tampa, FL 33602 Lynne T. Winston, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas General Counsel Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Richard L. Dugger Secretary Department of Corrections 1313 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed the acts alleged in the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and Stop Work Order and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Workers' Compensation is the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutory requirement that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation for the benefit of their employees. Lucio Cabrera is a workers' compensation compliance investigator for the Department. On April 1, 2008, he visited a work site in Jacksonville where 16 men were working on a multi- family apartment complex. Mr. Cabrera spoke to the workers and asked several questions designed to determine for whom the men worked and whether they were covered by workers' compensation insurance. At the time of the site visit, Mr. Cabrera prepared a Field Interview Worksheet, upon which he recorded the names and other information regarding the men seen at the work site. He also created a separate document, which he requested the men to sign. The people present at the worksite on the day in question were Jose Sosa Santibanez, Alvaro Gaona, Edegun Gonzalez, Pablo Rodriguez, Jose Antonio Chavez, Jose Manuel Camacho, Crisoforo Chavez, Vicente Urbina Arreola, Francisco Zapata, Maximino Sanchez Simon, Francisco Javier Ortiz, Juan Rodriguez, Homero Moreno Martinez, Pascual Castillo Moreno, Luis Manuel Rodrigues and Cipriano Patino Zabaleta.1/ The men worked for Jesus Sosa Corp. Present at the job site was the company representative, Jesus Sosa Santibanez (Sosa). The company provided workers' compensation coverage through an employee leasing company, Convergence Employee Leasing, Inc. (Convergence). However, Sosa also paid the employees additional funds directly, for which no workers' compensation coverage was obtained. Cabrera was able to confirm that while coverage was provided through Convergence, there was no separate coverage for the portion of salary provided directly by Sosa, and Sosa had not filed for an exemption from coverage as an owner or director of Jesus Sosa Corp. On April 2, 2008, Mr. Cabrera served Mr. Sosa with a Request for Production of Business Records, which requested that Sosa provide certain enumerated business records for the period "12/22/08 through 3/21/08." Clearly, this request means to convey that records from December 22, 2007, through March 21, 2008, were to be supplied. The request specified that the records should be supplied within five business days, which would have made the responses due on or before April 9, 2008. On April 1 and April 7, 2008, the Department received records related to the relationship between Convergence and Jesus Sosa Corp., including a copy of the employee leasing contract, timecard verification reports for the period requested, a list of employees and their listed hire dates for purposes of payroll by Convergence. On April 17 and 29, 2008, additional records were produced, including a copy of Jesus Sosa's business license from the City of Jacksonville and copies of check stubs dating from December 27, 2007, through March 21, 2008. On April 30, 2008, a Stop-Work Order was issued against Jesus Sosa, d/b/a Jesus Sosa Corp., a dissolved Florida corporation, requiring that Sosa and the company cease all business operations for all worksites in the state for failure to secure the payment of workers' compensation. The Stop-Work Order was served on counsel for Mr. Sosa by hand delivery May 1, 2008. On May 1, 2008, Mr. Cabrera also provided to counsel for Mr. Sosa, a second Request for Production of Business Records for the period of February 17, 2006, through April 30, 2008, for the purpose of enabling the Department to determine the appropriate penalty for violation of the provisions of Section 440.07, Florida Statutes. Like the prior request, records were to be produced within five business days. Although not entirely clear when they were received, sometime in May 2008, additional records in the form of a handwritten disbursement ledger were provided to the Department. However, no records such as traditional payroll records, tax records, quarterly earnings reports or certificates of exemption were received. The check stubs for the additional period of time requested could not be located. Mr. Sosa admitted freely that he paid additional amounts to his employees over and above what they were paid through his arrangement with Convergence. He insisted that employees were paid this additional compensation by check and not by cash. There is no admissible, credible evidence to refute this assertion, and Mr. Sosa's testimony is credited. The Department decided that the records provided were insufficient to determine the payroll for the company. Accordingly, the Department decided that salary would be imputed, based upon the statewide average weekly wage as defined in Section 440.12(2), Florida Statutes, multiplied by 1.5. The Department entered an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on May 27, 2008. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a penalty of $909,941.76. There are two aspects of imputing payroll relevant to these proceedings. First, whether there was sufficient information to determine the amount that would be considered salary for the employees involved, and second, the duration of their employment by Sosa. Sosa appeared in this hearing with the assistance of an interpreter. Clearly, he is more comfortable communicating in Spanish than he is in English. Although the investigator spoke Spanish to the individuals at the worksite, neither the Stop Work Order nor the Requests for Production of Business Records are in Spanish.2/ Mr. Sosa admitted that his records were disorganized and in some respects incomplete. However, he indicated that he provided what records he had in his possession. The Convergence records provided indicate that a contract was entered into between Sosa and Convergence on October 15, 2007, and payments for workers compensation were made on behalf of relevant employees from that date forward for the period records were originally requested. The Convergence records also include an employee roster with hire dates for each employee. For the requested time period prior to December 22, 2007, Sosa provided a handwritten disbursement record. The record includes four columns: 1) the date; 2) the payee; 3) what appear to be reimbursement amounts for items such as gas, rent, tools, etc.; and 4) what appears to be a total amount provided to the payee. It would be difficult from the information provided to determine how much salary each employee was paid. Based on the admissible evidence provided, imputation of salary was appropriate based on the statewide average weekly wage for framing. The Department imputed salary for each employee from February 17, 2006. It determined that the period of employment for each employee could not be determined from the records provided, and therefore, imputed salary for all sixteen men from the date of incorporation. Sosa testified that many of his employees were hired not long before the site visit because he had received more work framing out the buildings of an apartment complex. In the normal course of business, he would not have sufficient work for so many employees. His testimony is consistent with the increase in the number of employees covered by Convergence over the period of time Convergence records were provided, and is credited. A careful comparison of the Convergence records, the check stubs and the handwritten ledger give a fairly consistent indication of how long each employee worked for Mr. Sosa. The Department had sufficient information to determine the length of employment for each person listed as being present April 1, 2008. While there are some variations in spelling for some names provided, it is sufficiently clear to be able to determine who is being referenced. Jose Sosa Santibanez ran the company. Although he testified that he did not actually perform any work for a few months after incorporating the company, there are no records to support his assertion, and he provided no actual "start date." Therefore, it is appropriate to impute salary for Mr. Sosa for the full period beginning February 17, 2006. The list provided to the Department by counsel for Respondent indicated that Alvaro Gaona (also spelled Garna) was hired June 16, 2006. The earliest record of payment to Mr. Gaona was October 14, 2006. Payments were made on his behalf by Convergence since October 15, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, Goana's start date should be listed as June 16, 2006. Edegun Gonzalez (also listed as Edeon Gonzales) was listed as being hired November 2, 2007. The earliest record on the disbursement ledger for him is November 2, 2007, and Convergence lists his hire date as November 8, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, Edegun Gonzalez' start date should be listed as November 2, 2007. Pablo Rodriguez was listed as being hired November 2, 2007. The earliest record related to Pablo Rodriguez on the disbursement ledger is also November 2, 2007. The hire date listed by Convergence is March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Pablo Rodriguez’s start date is November 2, 2007. José Chavez is listed as being hired November 30, 2007. The earliest record of payment to José Chavez in the disbursement ledger is November 30, 2007. Convergence lists his hire date as November 8, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, José Chavez' start date is November 8, 2007. José Manuel Camacho (also spelled Clamacho) is listed as beginning employment November 30, 2007. The earliest record of payment to Camacho is November 30, 2007. Convergence lists his hire date as December 10, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, Camacho's start date is November 30, 2007. Crisoforo Chavez is listed as being hired September 28, 2007, and the earliest record of payment to him is also September 28, 2007. Convergence lists his hire date as November 8, 2007. For the purpose of imputing salary, Crisoforo Chavez' start date is September 28, 2007. Vicente Urbina Arreola is listed as being hired February 29, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also February 29, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Urbina's start date is February 29, 2008. Francisco Zapata is listed as being hired February 29, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also February 29, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Zapata's start date is February 29, 2008. Maximino Sanchez Simon listed as being hired February 29, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also February 29, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Maximino Sanchez' start date is February 29, 2008. Francisco Javier Ortiz is listed as being hired March 7, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also March 7, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Ortiz' start date is March 7, 2008. Luis Manuel Rodrigues is listed as being hired March 7, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is March 14, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Luis Rodrigues' start date is March 7, 2008. Juan Rodriguez is listed as being hired March 7, 2008. The earliest record of any payment to him is also March 7, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Juan Rodriguez’s start date is March 7, 2008. Homero Moreno Martinez is listed as being hired March 7, 2008, and the earliest record of payment to him is also March 7, 2008. Convergence lists his hire date as March 10, 2008. For the purpose of imputing salary, Homero Martinez’s start date is March 7, 2008. Pascual Castillo Moreno is listed in Petitioner’s Exhibit 12 as being hired April 11, 2008. There is no record of any payments to him in the check stubs or disbursement ledger. Convergence lists his start date as March 10, 2008, and payments were made on his behalf. The listed start date in Exhibit 12 is in error, as Mr. Moreno was present at the work site on April 1, 2008. However, because there is no admissible evidence of additional payments to him, there is no basis for imputing salary for Pascual Castillo Moreno. Cipriano Patino Zabaleta is also listed in Exhibit 12 as being hired April 11. 2008. There is no record of any payments to him in the check stubs or disbursement ledger. Convergence lists his start date as March 10, 2008, and payments were made on his behalf. Like Moreno, Cipriano Zabeleta was present on April 1, 2008, and was covered by Convergence at that time. Inasmuch as there is no admissible evidence of additional payments to him, there is no basis for imputing salary for Mr. Zabaleta. The Department imputed salary for all 16 employees through April 30, 2008. Records were requested through April 30, 2008, and no additional records beyond March 22, 2008, were provided. However, Sosa admitted that the men were employed through April 25, 2008. Imputation of salary for the employees for which imputation of salary is appropriate should be calculated through April 30, 2008.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered that finds Jesus Sosa, d/b/a Jesus Sosa Corp., is guilty of failing to secure workers' compensation insurance as required by Chapter 440, Florida Statutes; recalculates the penalty in light of the dates of employment reflected in the Findings of Fact; and gives credit against the final penalty calculation for the amount paid in workers' compensation premium through Convergence. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 10th day of December, 2008.
The Issue The dispute in this case arises out of Respondent's attempt to collect alleged salary overpayments from Petitioner, a former state employee who allegedly continued to be paid wages after resigning her position with Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Having determined, for the reasons set forth below, that the Department lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant claim for "money had and received" against its former employee, the undersigned declines to make findings of fact, as such would be a nullity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing this administrative proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 4th day of November, 2005.
