The Issue The issue presented for consideration concerns the question whether action taken by the Respondent in its efforts to comply with the mandate of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), constitutes a rule or rules which has or have not been duly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This case is here presented on the Petition of Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., by an action against the Board of Dentistry, an agency of the State of Florida and the Department of Professional Regulation, an agency of the State of Florida, as Respondents. The purpose of this Petition is to have declared invalid certain activities of the Respondents pertaining to their efforts at complying with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), in promoting license revocation or suspension cases against various dentists licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The Petitioner contends that these activities by the Respondents constitute a rule or rules which fail to comply with requirements of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of Florida and thereby regulated by the Respondents. The Petitioner is also the subject of disciplinary action in Case No. 78-1481 before the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, and it is the action which was taken against Dr. Sheppard in the course of that prosecution, dealing with the subject of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which the current Petitioner asserts to be an invalid rule or rules. The language of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), states: (5) No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency has given reasonable notice by certified mail or actual service to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and the licensee has been given an opportunity to show that he has complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license. If the agency is unable to obtain service by certified mail or by actual service, constructive service may be made in the same manner as is provided in chapter 49. Having considered the statement found in the above-referenced Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), counsel for Dr. Sheppard in D.O.A.H Case No. 78-1481 filed a Motion to Dismiss the Administrative Complaint on August 31, 1979, alleging that the agency had failed to comply with the provisions. Oral argument on that motion was scheduled for 2:30 o'clock p.m. on September 17, 1979, and was heard at that time; however, prior to the oral argument, the Board of Dentistry on September 14, 1979, filed a docent in the case, which document attempted compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The document was entitled "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and by its terms granted Dr. Sheppard an opportunity to appear before H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Florida State Board of Dentistry, on September 17, 1979, at 10:00 a.m. in Tallahassee, Florida. (A copy of this "Notice of Intended Action Conference" was attached to the Petition in the case sub judice as an exhibit.) The Board of Dentistry had alerted the Hearing Officer to the action it had contemplated by its "Notice of Intended Action Conference." It did so through the Board prosecutor by correspondence of September 14, 1979, a copy of which may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Dr. Sheppard filed an objection to the adequacy of the "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and refused to appear at that conference. After considering the oral arguments of the parties directed to the Motion to Dismiss of August 31, 1978, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, the Honorable Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered her Order dated September 26, 1979. (A copy of that Order has been attached as an exhibit to the current Petition.) In her Order, the Hearing Officer found the "Notice of Intended Action Conference was insufficient, in that the notice did not grant Sheppard sufficient time to prepare for the conference to be held on September 17, 1979, to the extent of demonstrating his compliance with the provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, as contemplated by Sub section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The Hearing officer did feel that Dr. Sheppard had been notified of those allegations for which he was called upon to defend against and she granted the Board of Dentistry thirty (30) days from the date of her Order, September 26, 1978, to allow the accused an opportunity to show that he had complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of his license. There followed the current Petition which was filed on September 28, 1979. That Petition has been the subject of a Motion to Dismiss which challenged the adequacy of the Petition. The Motion to Dismiss was responded to and in the course of that response the Petitioner's counsel attached a copy of a "Notice of Informal Conference" to be held on October 23, 1979, at 9:00 a.m., in Tallahassee, Florida. (The location of that conference was subsequently changed to a place more convenient for Dr. Sheppard, specifically, St. Petersburg, Florida, but the amendment was otherwise the same as the original October 23, 1979, notice.) When the Motion to Dismiss and response to the motion were considered, the motion was denied by written Order of the undersigned dated October 22, 1979. That Order found in accordance with the Order of Hearing Officer Strickland, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, referring to the Order dated September 26, 1979; that the efforts of complying with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), made by the Board of Dentistry in its attempted action conference to be held September 17, 1979, were not adequate and the prospective events of an action conference that would have been held on September 17, 1979, were deemed to be moot. Nonetheless, in view of the further action by the Board of Dentistry to conduct an informal conference on October 23, 1979, the present case was allowed to go forward on the basis that the Petitioner would be afforded an opportunity to show how the events leading to the written "Notice of Informal Conference" held on October 23, 1979, the notice itself, and the events at the conference constitute a rule or rules that has or have not been duly promulgated in the manner contemplated by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In furtherance of this permission, the Petitioner was and is allowed to make the "Notice of Informal Conference" as attached to the response to the Motion to Dismiss a part of the Petition and that "Notice of Informal Conference" is hereby made a part of the Petition. In the course of the hearing a number of witnesses were presented and those witnesses included Tom Guilday, a prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry; Liz Cloud, an employee of the State of Florida, Office of the Secretary of State; H. Fred Varn, Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry; Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation; and the Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard. In addition, the Petitioner offered three items of evidence which were admitted. The testimony of attorney Guilday established that as prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry in the action against Dr. Sheppard, he spoke with Charles F. Tunnicliff, Acting General Counsel, Department of Professional Regulation, who instructed Guilday to attempt to comply with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this was in anticipation of the pending Motion to Dismiss to be heard on September 17, 1979. One of the results of that conversation was the letter of September 14, 1979, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, addressed to Hearing Officer Strickland and the primary result was that of the September 14, 1979, "Notice of Intended Action Conference." The conference alluded to was to be held at the office of Mr. Varn. Attorney Guilday did not recall whether the contemplated disposition of September 17, 1979, was one which Tunnicliff indicated would be used in all similar cases pending before the Department of Professional Regulation. After Hearing Officer Strickland's Order was entered on September 26, 1979, attorney Deberah Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation instructed Guilday to comply with Hearing Officer Strickland's Order of September 26, 1979, on the subject of the dictates of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this instruction was supported by Memorandum of October 5, 1979, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. There ensued the conference of October 23, 1979, which was held in St. Petersburg, Florida. After the conference, pursuant to the instructions of attorneys Miller and Tunnicliff, Guilday prepared a memorandum on the results of that conference. This memorandum did not carry a recommendation as to the disposition of the case. Throughout this period of time, attorney Guilday was unaware of any general policy within the Department of Professional Regulation or Board of Dentistry which dealt with attempts at compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). None of the discussions which Guilday had with attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation or with other officials of that Department or Board of Dentistry led him to believe that there was any set policy for handling those issues. Guilday did acknowledge that a member of his law firm, one Michael Huey, had been instructed by Staff Attorney Miller on the technique to be utilized in refiling a prosecution against John Parry, D.D.S., wherein the action against Dr. Parry had been dismissed for lack of compliance of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). A copy of that Memorandum dated October 3, 1979, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 and it carries with it an attached form for "Notice of Informal Conference" under the terms of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1970), and that format is similar to the October 23, 1979, "Notice of Informal Conference" in the Sheppard case. Guilday indicated in connection with this Memorandum, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, that to his knowledge no discussion on how to comply with the terms of the memorandum was made and no actual compliance with the memorandum has been taken to his knowledge. It was established through the testimony of Liz Cloud of the Office of the Secretary of State and through other witnesses that no formal rules have been filed with the Secretary of State by either of the Respondents dealing with the subject of compliance with the pie visions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). Testimony offered by Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation, and by H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Board of Dentistry, established that neither the Department nor the Dental Board has formulated final policies on how to deal with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), whether the cases pertain to those such as that of Dr. Sheppard in which the agency, although it has not complied with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint, has been granted an opportunity to try to comply or on the occasion where cases are in the investigative stage or the occasion where the cases have been dismissed for noncompliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and are subject to refiling. It is shown through Secretary Wittenberg's testimony that such compliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is still in the formative stages and the Memorandum of October 3, 1979, by Staff Attorney Miller with the format for noticing informal conferences to be held under the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is but one method under consideration at this time. Moreover, Secretary Wittenberg has not spoken with attorney Guilday about the matters of the Sheppard case that are now in dispute or received reports of conversations between Guilday and Staff Attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller on the subject of the pending Sheppard dispute. Finally, Wittenberg has not instructed any of the support officials within the Department of Professional Regulation, to include departmental attorneys, to formulate policy directed to the implementation of the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which action would constitute the final statement by the Department on those matters.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent, Sergio A. Balsinde ("Respondent") is entitled to elect to be exempt from the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of chapter 440, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the requirement of the workers' compensation law that employers secure the payment of workers' compensation insurance coverage for their employees and corporate officers. § 440.107(3). A corporate officer may elect to become exempt from the workers' compensation insurance coverage requirements of chapter 440 by complying with the election of exemption methodology set forth in section 440.05. If the election of exemption meets the criteria of section 440.05, then the Department is required to issue a certification of the election to be exempt to the officer. § 440.05(3). A corporate officer is ineligible for an exemption if he is affiliated with "a person who is delinquent in paying a stop-work order and penalty assessment order issued pursuant to section 440.107, or owed pursuant to a court order." § 440.05(15). Balco was originally incorporated in 1985. Mr. Balsinde has been a corporate officer of Balco since at least April 28, 2003, the date of the earliest Balco annual report entered into evidence. Mr. Balsinde is also a corporate officer and 10 percent owner of LC Cable Corp. The Department issued and served a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment on Balco on February 8, 2007. At the final hearing in the instant case, Mr. Balsinde testified that the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment had been erroneously entered against his company. He testified that the uninsured workers in question did not even work for Balco. Mr. Balsinde testified that he had attempted to rectify the error with the Department, but was unable to make the Department acknowledge its mistake. Whatever the merits of Mr. Balsinde's factual claim, neither he nor any other representative of Balco formally challenged the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment. Having long ago become final, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment cannot be contested in this proceeding. On September 23, 2008, Balco entered into an Amended Payment Agreement Schedule with the Department that called for Balco to make 60 monthly payments, each due on the first day of the month, and a suspension of the Stop-Work Order. After Balco ceased making payments according to the schedule, the Department issued an Order Reinstating Stop-Work Order on October 26, 2009. The reinstatement order was served on Mr. Balsinde on October 30, 2009. As of October 26, 2009, the unpaid balance of the penalty assessment against Balco was $22,236.38, which was ordered due immediately by the reinstatement order. As of the date of the hearing in this case, the balance remained unpaid. Neither Mr. Balsinde nor any other representative of Balco filed a timely request for a review proceeding to challenge the reinstatement order. Balco did not appeal the reinstatement order. On July 22, 2010, a final decree in Chapter 7 bankruptcy was entered on behalf of Mr. Balsinde by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Case Number 10-18850-LMI. The discharge in bankruptcy was received by Mr. Balsinde as an individual. Though the final decree listed the Department as an unsecured creditor and Balco as a business of the debtor, Balco did not receive a discharge in bankruptcy, nor did the company file a bankruptcy petition subsequent to the issuance of the reinstatement order by the Department. Mr. Balsinde submitted a Notice of Election to be Exempt to the Department on November 29, 2010, as an officer of LC Cable Corp., a corporation operating in the construction industry. The Department reviewed Mr. Balsinde's application to determine his eligibility to elect the exemption. The Department's Coverage and Compliance Automated System indicated that Mr. Balsinde is the officer of a corporation that is delinquent in paying a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, which makes him ineligible for an exemption. The Department issued a Notice of Denial of Mr. Balsinde's election of exemption on December 6, 2010.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers' Compensation, finding that Sergio A. Balsinde is ineligible for an election of exemption under section 440.05. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of May, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and/or interest related to the hearing officer’s award of corrective payments on remand after the decision in French v. Department of Children and Families, 920 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Findings Of Fact Parties Sarah is almost 23 years old, and she is severely disabled. Her disabilities include quadriplegic cerebral palsy, developmental delay, severe osteoporosis, severe muscle spasms, scoliosis, incontinence, kidney stones, and frequent urinary tract infections. Sarah requires 24-hour assistance with all daily living functions, including bathing, feeding, dressing, brushing her teeth, and changing her diapers. Ms. French is Sarah’s mother. She is approved by the Agency to provide personal care assistance (PCA) services to Sarah under the CDC+ program. The Agency has administered the CDC+ program since October 1, 2004. Prior to that, the program was administered by DCF. Background Sarah applied for the CDC+ program in July 2002, and was enrolled in the program in October 2002. Prior to that, Sarah was enrolled in the Home and Community Based Developmental Services (HCBS) program pursuant to which she received PCA services from outside providers, rather than her mother. Sarah’s initial support plan under the CDC+ program funded only six hours per day of PCA services. The plan was increased to 12 hours per day of PCA services in August 2003 after Sarah successfully appealed her initial support plan to a DCF hearing officer. On October 31, 2003, DCF unilaterally disenrolled Sarah from the CDC+ program based upon its determination that Ms. French had a back condition that prevented her from providing PCA services to Sarah. Thereafter, Sarah was reenrolled in the HCBS program, which required her to hire someone other than her mother to provide her PCA services. Ms. French was paid for the period of November 1-15, 2003, even though Sarah was no longer enrolled in the CDC+ program at the time. For that period, however, Ms. French was paid for only six hours per day of PCA services (at $17.50 per hour) rather than the 12 hours per day required by Sarah’s support plan. Ms. French stopped receiving payment under the CDC+ program on November 16, 2003. She began receiving payment again on April 1, 2005, when, as discussed below, Sarah was reenrolled in the CDC+ program. Ms. French has been paid for 12 hours per day of PCA services (at $17.50 per hour) since April 1, 2005. Sarah timely filed an appeal of DCF’s decision to disenroll her from the CDC+ program, but the appeal was not docketed and referred to a DCF hearing officer until January 2004. The hearing officer held a hearing on the appeal over a period of eight days between March 22 and August 5, 2004. The length of the hearing was attributable, at least in part, to the fact that the hearing officer was not a lawyer, and she allowed both parties to present extensive testimony and evidence on matters seemingly unrelated to the central issue in the appeal, i.e., whether Ms. French had a back condition that prevented her from providing PCA services to Sarah. The hearing officer’s Final Order, dated November 22, 2004, concluded that Sarah should not have been disenrolled from the CDC+ program because DCF failed to prove that Ms. French had a back condition that prevented her from providing PCA services to Sarah. The Final Order did not award retroactive corrective payments to Sarah for the period that she was wrongfully disenrolled from the CDC+ program, and it denied Sarah’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Sarah appealed the Final Order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. DCF did not cross-appeal. Sarah was reenrolled in the CDC+ program on April 1, 2005, while the appeal was pending. The record does not reflect why Sarah was reenrolled on that date, which is more than four months after the hearing officer’s Final Order. The appellate court issued its opinion on January 6, 2006, and held that Sarah was entitled to corrective payments from DCF1 retroactive to the date that she was disenrolled from the CDC+ program. The court remanded the case to the DCF hearing officer to determine the amount of corrective payments due to Sarah. The court was clear as to the scope of the remand; it held: In summary, both [federal and state law] require remand for the hearing officer to order corrective payments retroactive to October 31, 2003. We believe the amount of corrective payments can be determined based upon the evidence provided at the original hearing, but the hearing officer may take additional evidence on the issue, if necessary. (Emphasis supplied) The court also awarded attorney’s fees against DCF for the appeal. The court remanded the issue of the amount of appellate fees, and the issue of Sarah’s entitlement to attorney’s fees for the underlying DCF hearing, to DOAH for determination because, according to the court, the hearing officer did not have jurisdiction over those issues since the applicable attorney's fee statute refers only to Administrative Law Judges. DCF filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied by the court on February 10, 2006. The mandate was issued by the court on March 1, 2006. Sarah was the prevailing party in the proceedings that culminated in the appeal. The Agency paid Sarah $129,595 in attorney’s fees and costs related to the proceedings that culminated in the appeal.2 Remand Proceeding On April 7, 2006, over a month after the mandate was issued by the appellate court, the DCF hearing officer entered an Order accepting the remand and directing the parties to advise her if the retroactive payments mandated by the court had been made. The Order required Sarah to provide invoices to the Agency reflecting the monthly timesheets for the “retroactive periods,” and required the Agency to respond to the invoices and identify any disputes. The Order stated that a hearing would be set if necessary to resolve any dispute regarding the amount of the retroactive payment. On April 19, 2006, in compliance with the hearing officer’s Order, Sarah filed monthly invoices and a demand for payment totaling $211,312.50, “exclusive of interest and attorney’s fees.” The invoices sought payment for an additional six hours per day of PCA services from July 2002 (when Sarah applied for the CDC+ program) to November 15, 2003 (when Ms. French stopped receiving payment for six hours per day of services); payment for 12 hours per day of PCA services from November 16, 2003, to March 31, 2005 (the period during which Ms. French received no payment); and payment of half of those hours at the overtime rate of $26.25 per hour instead of the standard rate of $17.50 per hour. The Agency responded to the demand for payment in a status report filed with the DCF hearing officer on May 26, 2006. In the status report, the Agency took the position that, consistent with the appellate court’s decision, the amount of corrective payments owed to Sarah is limited to the period of disenrollment -- October 31, 2003 through March 31, 2005 -- and that the amount should be calculated based upon the approved hourly rate of $17.50 with no overtime pay. The Agency, therefore, requested the DCF hearing officer to “enter an order finding $97,230 as the appropriate amount of compensation due as the corrective action ordered by the Fifth District Court of Appeal.” Sarah filed a reply to the Agency’s filing on June 26, 2006, in which she continued to assert that the corrective payments were not limited to the disenrollment period and that overtime pay was due. The reply also claimed that the Agency “is proving itself to be the scofflaw that the general public believes it to be,” and it requested imposition of attorney’s fees against the Agency because of its “continued delays and its attempts to starve out Ms. French.” The hearing officer set the matter for hearing because the parties were not in agreement regarding the amount of corrective payments owed. The hearing was scheduled for and held on July 17, 2006. The transcript of the July 17, 2006, hearing is not part of the record of this DOAH proceeding. Therefore, the record does not reflect the substance of the testimony presented or the nature of the evidence received at that hearing. The hearing officer entered the Remand Order on September 29, 2006. The Remand Order rejected the argument that Sarah is entitled to corrective payments for periods prior to October 31, 2003; rejected the argument that Ms. French is entitled to overtime pay; implicitly rejected the argument that “prejudgment interest” is to be included as part of the corrective payments to Sarah; concluded that DOAH (and not the DCF hearing officer) has jurisdiction to consider Ms. French’s request for interest based upon “the failure of [DCF] to process payment in a timely manner”; and awarded $105,420 in corrective payments to Sarah. The Remand Order was not appealed by either party. It was not until entry of the Remand Order that the amount of corrective payments due to Sarah was established with certainty. The Agency worked diligently after entry of the Remand Order to process the payment due to Sarah. The payment was made through a check dated November 8, 2006, which is 40 days after the date of the Remand Order. Petitioners did not prevail in the Remand Proceeding because the hearing officer rejected each of the substantive arguments they presented in the Remand Proceeding. The fact that the hearing officer awarded Sarah approximately $8,000 more than the Agency calculated that she was due in its pre-hearing status report does not make Sarah the prevailing party in the Remand Proceeding. The award was approximately half of what Sarah claimed she was due, and the difference in the amount calculated by the Agency ($97,230) and the amount awarded in the Remand Order ($105,420) was not the result of the hearing officer using the calculation methodology advocated by Sarah. Instead, the difference resulted from the hearing officer using the actual number of calendar days that Sarah was disenrolled, rather than calculating the number of days by multiplying the number of months Sarah that was disenrolled by the 28 days of service per month that were approved in Sarah’s support plan. There is no persuasive evidence that the Agency participated in the Remand Proceeding for an improper purpose, as alleged by Petitioners. Indeed, the evidence establishes that the primary reason that it was necessary for an evidentiary hearing to be held in the Remand Proceeding was the excessive and unreasonable demand made by Sarah in her initial response to the hearing officer’s Order accepting the remand from the appellate court. The Agency’s refusal to pay that amount was clearly reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. To the extent that Petitioners are complaining about having to go through additional proceedings on remand at all when the appellate court observed that the amount of corrective payments could likely be determined based upon the evidence provided at the original hearing, that complaint focuses on the conduct of the DCF hearing officer, not the Agency. It is noted, however, that the appellate court stated that “the hearing officer may take additional evidence on the issue, if necessary.” This DOAH Proceeding Petitioners initiated this proceeding by filing the Petition with the Agency. The Agency referred the Petition to DOAH because according to the referral letter, “the Agency is without authority to determine or award attorney’s fees available under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.” The Petition requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs, both for the Remand Proceeding and for this DOAH proceeding. The Petition also requests an award of prejudgment interest as part of the corrective payments as well as post- judgment interest on the corrective payments ordered in the Remand Order. The Agency disputes Petitioners’ entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs for this proceeding or the Remand Proceeding. The Agency also disputes Petitioners’ entitlement to interest, either as part of or on the corrective payments. There is no evidence that the Agency participated in this DOAH proceeding for an improper purpose. The Agency had a legitimate basis for its opposition to the Petition giving rise to this proceeding, as shown by the fact that the Agency prevailed in this proceeding. The unreasonable demands made by Petitioners at the outset of the Remand Proceeding (and at the outset of the prior attorney’s fee case, see Endnote 2) did little to bring the litigation between the parties to an just and speedy end and, indeed, likely had the opposite effect. That said, the evidence is not persuasive that Petitioners participated in this DOAH proceeding for an improper purpose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order dismissing, with prejudice, the Second Amended Petition to Intervene in Licensing and Administrative Proceeding and for Formal Administrative Hearing filed in each of these cases by LEAF and Suzi Ruhl. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of November, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: David A. Ludder, Esquire Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc. 1115 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cynthia K. Christen, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Anthony Cleveland, Esquire Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez and Cole Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Virginia B. Wetherall, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On August 17, 1992, Petitioner Donald filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging that Respondent Winn Dixie was guilty of an unlawful employment practice, to wit, racial discrimination in failure to "promote" Petitioner from a part-time position to a full-time position because he is black, the most recent non-promotion date being July 22, 1992. After investigation, the Florida Commission on Human Relations entered and mailed a Notice of Determination: No Cause and Determination: No Cause on March 23, 1993. That Notice contained the following pertinent language: If redetermination is not requested, the Request for Hearing/Petition for Relief must be filed within 30 days of the date of mailing of this Notice and should be in compliance with the provisions of Rule 22T-9.008 and Chapter 22T-8, Florida Administrative Code . . . Failure of Complainant to timely file either a request or petition will result in the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 22T-9.006, Florida Administrative Code. (See "Exhibit A" attached to, and incorporated in, this Recommended Order). Petitioner mailed his Petition for Relief and it was stamped in as filed at the Florida Commission on Human Relations on April 28, 1993. The Commission did not enter an order of dismissal or otherwise reject the petition as untimely. On May 5, 1993, the Commission transmitted the Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S. On May 5, 1993, and simultaneously with its transmittal of the Petition to DOAH, the Commission served/mailed the Petition to Respondent with a Notice to Respondent of Filing of Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. The Commission's transmittal of Petition had included a Notice to Respondent containing the following specific language: You are required to file an answer with the Commission within 20 days of the date of service of the Petition. Your attention is directed generally to Chapter 22T-8, Florida Administrative Code, which pertains to general procedures before the Commission. You are also referred to Rule 22T-9.008(5) which sets forth those matters which must be included in the Respondent's answer. Please note that the filing of a motion to dismiss does not toll the time for filing an answer. (See "Exhibit A" to this Recommended Order). On May 11, 1994, DOAH's Clerk mailed an Initial Order to both parties. The parties were charged by Rule 60Q-2.003(6), F.A.C. and by DOAH's Initial Order in this case with serving upon each other a copy of every pleading either party filed with DOAH. The Initial Order also permitted the parties to advise the undersigned hearing officer of dates and locations they preferred for scheduling the de novo evidentiary hearing on the merits. Petitioner responded to the Initial Order. Respondent did not. Respondent also filed no Answer to the Petition for Relief within 20 days as required by Rule 22T-9.008, F.A.C., [renumbered 60Y-5.008(5)(a), F.A.C.]. If a Respondent fails to file a timely answer, such failure shall be deemed to constitute an admission of the material facts alleged in the petition. See, renumbered Rule 60Y-5.008(5)(d) F.A.C. By DOAH Notice of Hearing mailed May 27, 1993, the cause was scheduled for formal hearing on the merits for October 18, 1993. Simultaneous with that Notice of Hearing, an Order of Prehearing Instructions was entered and mailed. The Order of Prehearing Instructions was directed to both parties and was very specific as to what was required of them, including but not limited to listing witnesses and exhibits, clarifying which issues of material fact were disputed, and listing any pending motions. A copy of the entire order is attached and incorporated in this Recommended Order by reference as "Exhibit B". A joint prehearing stipulation was not timely filed as required by the order of prehearing instructions, and neither party filed a unilateral statement on or before September 29, 1993 as permitted by the order of prehearing instructions. In short, neither party timely complied with the first Order of Prehearing Instructions. On October 1, 1993, certain unsigned, confusing, contradictory, and incomplete papers were filed. This filing, which turned out to be filed by Petitioner (see Finding of Fact 22) among other things requested that the hearing officer subpoena the listed witnesses, listed "stipulations" not signed by anyone, and listed motions never filed at DOAH. This ambiguous item not only was unsigned, but did not reflect who, if anyone, it had been served upon. Common practice and procedure require subpoenas to be sent by DOAH to a party for service by that party on witnesses, and subpoenas may not be served upon witnesses by the hearing officer. The October 1, 1993 filing prompted the entry and service upon both parties of an order on October 12, 1993 which had attached to it the unsigned filings of October 1, 1993. The October 12, 1993 order, with the unsigned and ambiguous attachments is attached and incorporated in this recommended order by reference as "Exhibit C". That order cancelled the October 18, 1993 formal hearing on the merits, subject to rescheduling of the formal hearing on the merits upon clarification of the unsigned papers filed. This order was entered instead of automatically precluding either party from presenting evidence, an option permitted by the prior Order of Prehearing Instructions. The order gave both parties an equal opportunity to do what was procedurally necessary to advance the case to formal hearing on the merits. The October 12, 1993 order granted both parties 45 days in which to confer with one another and file the joint prehearing stipulation contemplated by the prior order of prehearing instructions and to submit several agreeable dates for rescheduling formal hearing on the merits. In further pertinent part, the October 12, 1993 order provided that if a joint stipulation could not be agreed upon between the parties, they could still proceed to formal hearing on the merits by timely submitting unilateral statements listing their respective exhibits and witnesses. The order also went on to specifically provide as follows: Failure of either party to submit at least the names of witnesses to be called by that party and a list of exhibits to be introduced by that party will result in exclusion of that evidence at formal hearing in this cause. Under the terms of the October 12, 1993 order, the date for filing of unilateral witness and exhibit lists was November 26, 1993. Neither party timely filed witness or exhibit lists. On December 14, 1993, which was eighteen days after the last date for compliance with the October 12, 1993 order had passed with Petitioner and Respondent each failing to timely comply therewith, another order was entered. That order advised the parties that since, by the terms of the October 12, 1993 order, both parties were now precluded from presenting any evidence in support of, or contrary to, Petitioner's claim, it appeared that there was no need to conduct an evidentiary hearing. However, the order also granted the parties 30 days in which to show cause why Petitioner's Petition for Relief should not be dismissed for failure to comply with the October 12, 1993 order. A copy of the December 14, 1993 order is attached and incorporated in this recommended order as "Exhibit D". That same day, Petitioner filed a request for 22 blank subpoenas and to reschedule formal hearing, but no witness or exhibit list. A copy of this item is attached and incorporated in this recommended order by reference as "Exhibit E." The date for filing of responses to the December 14, 1993 order to show cause was January 13, 1994. Respondent did not file any response to the December 14, 1993 order or the December 14, 1993 pleading. 1/ However, on January 13, 1994, Petitioner timely filed a paper captioned "Pleadings Motions". This paper, a copy of which is attached and incorporated in this recommended order as "Exhibit F," was similar, but not identical to, the unsigned papers filed October 1, 1993. It again requested subpoenas be served by the hearing officer, listed names and addresses of potential witnesses, and requested that the case not be dismissed because Petitioner was without legal counsel and because it is "a very hard case". It specifically stated, "Please consider hearing my testimony and others on this matter." Petitioner's January 13, 1994 pleading could be read as a motion to allow Petitioner to testify and present witnesses and exhibits. In an abundance of caution, the undersigned mailed a copy of it to Respondent on January 18, 1994. Respondent did not file any response to Petitioner's January 13, 1994 pleading. As required by law, the undersigned had served Respondent with all DOAH orders and notices. Also, in an abundance of caution, the undersigned had served Respondent with Petitioner's January 13, 1994 pleading and the unsigned October 1, 1993 papers at the address of record for Respondent's "in-house" counsel, which name and address was provided in the Florida Commission on Human Relations referral papers. No documents were returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings, creating the legal presumption that all materials had been received by Respondent. Still, Respondent had failed to comply with any DOAH order whatsoever and for nine months had not taken any affirmative action to defend against the Petition for Relief. No Answer to the Petition for Relief, timely or otherwise, had ever been filed by Respondent. The record, as reviewed by the undersigned as of February 3, 1994, also indicated that Petitioner's original Charge of Discrimination before the Florida Commission on Human Relations had been directed to Respondent, not at a Jacksonville address, but at a Quincy address. Therefore, because the law and the undersigned are loathe to cut off any legitimate litigation, and in a further abundance of caution, the undersigned determined that Petitioner and Respondent should have one last opportunity to explain why they had not timely complied with prior orders and why, if at all, a formal hearing with witnesses and exhibits on the merits of the Petition for Relief should be rescheduled. To that end, and still in an abundance of caution, an order was entered on February 3, 1994, a copy of which order is attached and incorporated in this recommended order by reference as "Exhibit G". The decretal portion of that order read: A hearing on the limited issue of whether or not either party should be permitted to present evidence at a rescheduled formal hearing will be held at 10:00 a.m., March 1, 1994, at the Division of Administ- rative Hearings, the DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida.* Witnesses need not appear at that time. Only parties or their legal counsel shall appear. Failure of Petitioner to appear in person or through legal counsel at that date, time and place WILL result in dismissal of this cause. Failure of Respondent to appear in person or through legal counsel at that date, time and place WILL result in the exclusion of all of Respondent's witnesses and evidence. 4. [sic] Whether or not a formal hearing on the merits will be rescheduled at all will be determined by an order entered after the undersigned has heard what the parties may have to say at the hearing now scheduled for March 1, 1994. (Emphasis in the original). Still in an abundance of caution, the foregoing order was served by the undersigned upon Respondent at both its Quincy and Jacksonville addresses. No court reporter was present at the March 1, 1994 interlocutory hearing. Petitioner appeared and represented himself at the March 1, 1994 hearing. Respondent's "in-house" counsel from Jacksonville did not appear at the Tallahassee hearing but authorized Winn-Dixie's District Manager W. E. Carroll and its Quincy Store Manager Terry Miller to appear. Mr. Carroll works in Tallahassee. Mr. Miller drove 23 miles from Quincy for the hearing. After examination by the undersigned in open court pursuant to Rule 60Q-2.008, F.A.C., Mr. Carroll was accepted as a qualified representative for Respondent. Inquiry was also made by the undersigned at the March 1, 1994 hearing as to any reason a formal hearing on the merits should be rescheduled. Each prior order and pleading 2/ was explored orally in open court. Oral argument was also invited as to why either party should be permitted to present evidence. Oral admissions and stipulations of the parties were received. At that hearing, Petitioner contended that he had not understood the prior orders and that the unsigned papers filed October 1, 1993 (see Findings of Fact 8-9 supra.) were his attempt to provide a witness list. Petitioner also contended that he thought he was represented by legal counsel at one point and to support that assertion, he presented a December 6, 1993 letter he had received from Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. The original of this letter (exhibit) is attached and incorporated in this recommended order as "Exhibit H". At that hearing, no clear explanation was given of why Respondent had failed to Answer the Petition for Relief and also had filed no response to any prior DOAH order or pleading by Petitioner. Still in an abundance of caution, and because the undersigned is loathe to enter defaults or impose sanctions at any time, each party was permitted 10 days after the March 1, 1994 formal hearing in which to file any further written clarification of the record or pleadings. Petitioner filed a response dated March 10, 1994 on March 10, 1994, but Respondent still filed no Answer to the Petition for Relief, despite numerous questions by the undersigned at the March 1, 1994 hearing concerning what facts asserted in the Petition for Relief were admitted and which were denied by Respondent and inquiring why no Answer had been filed by Respondent. On March 4, 1994, Respondent filed a written response dated March 3, 1994. A copy of Petitioner's March 10, 1994 response, without attachments, is attached and incorporated herein as "Exhibit I." A copy of Respondent's March 4, 1994 response, without attachments, is attached and incorporated herein as "Exhibit J." Respondent's March 4, 1994 letter ("Exhibit J") was directed primarily to providing the hearing officer with a history of settlement negotiations and copies of proposed settlement documents. This is a practice contrary to Section 90.408, F.S., The Florida Evidence Code. Respondent had filed no Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Relief and no Answer, and although by rule, even a motion to dismiss may not toll the 20 days provided by rule for Respondent to answer the Petition for Relief, Respondent's March 4, 1994 letter response also raised, for the first time, the untimeliness of the Petition for Relief as grounds to dismiss this cause. However, Respondent's March 4, 1994 allegations based on untimeliness of the Petition were not persuasive, in that the rule that Respondent cited in support thereof applied only to what the Florida Commission on Human Relations or its Executive Director may do either sua sponte or upon motion regarding Requests for Redetermination. The rule cited therein was inapplicable to the legal principle for which Respondent cited it. Therefore, Respondent's argument against the Petition was incorrect or incomplete. Also, due to the complexity of the several statutes and rules involved, ruling on the issue of untimeliness vel non of the Petition for Relief required the taking of factual evidence. For instance, there is a Commission rule which tolls the 30 days for filing the Petition if the Petitioner applies for, or the Commission grants, an extension of time for filing the Petition. Consequently, Petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to present all the facts concerning his filing of the Petition in response to the allegations of the Respondent's March 4, 1994 letter. The representations of Respondent's qualified representative at the March 1, 1994 hearing and the materials filed after that hearing by Respondent's "in house" counsel ("Exhibit J") did not show good cause why Respondent should be permitted to put on a defense by way of undisclosed oral testimony or exhibits. Likewise, Petitioner did not demonstrate by his oral argument, exhibit, and post-hearing response ("Exhibit I"), any legal good cause why his noncompliance with prior orders should be excused so as to permit him to call any witnesses or put in evidence any exhibits not disclosed to Respondent. More specifically, the date and contents of the December 6, 1993 letter to Petitioner from Legal Services (original is "Exhibit H" hereto) did not support Petitioner's oral assertions at the March 1, 1994 hearing that he had been represented in this case by legal counsel, had relied on a lawyer to meet his November 26, 1993 filing date, or that Legal Services' retention of his documents at a critical time had prevented his timely compliance with any of the prior orders herein. Accordingly, an order was entered on April 21, 1994. A complete copy of that order is attached and incorporated in this recommended order by reference as "Exhibit K". That order provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The representations of Respondent's qualified representative at the March 1, 1994 hearing and the materials filed after that hearing by Respondent's legal counsel have not shown good cause why Respondent should be permitted to put on a defense by way of undisclosed oral testimony or exhibits. Likewise, Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause why his noncompliance with prior orders should be excused so as to permit him to call any witnesses or put on any exhibits not disclosed to Respondent. However, since Petitioner clearly has always been an appropriate witness and his oral testimony could be reasonably anticipated by Respondent, a formal evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. will be convened solely for the taking of Petitioner Donald's oral testimony, subject to cross examination by Respondent. Also, the materials filed by Respondent's counsel after the March 1, 1994 hearing state for the first time that Respondent believes the Petition for Relief is subject to discretionary dismissal for untimeliness, pursuant to Rule 22T-9.07 F.A.C. [new number, if one exists, was not given]. However, Respondent still did not see fit to put this observation or belief in the form of a motion. Jurisdictional issues may be raised at any time. The jurisdictional issue requires evidence to sustain a motion, if a motion is made. Should Respondent see fit to defend on that issue by motion and evidence, Respondent remains free to do. (Emphasis supplied) Simultaneous with the entry of the April 21, 1994 Order, a Notice of Hearing was mailed to the parties. It provided for a formal hearing on June 13, 1994 and stated the issues as: "As set forth in the order entered simultaneously herewith. [The only witness will be K.E. Donald.]" Despite the language employed in the April 21, 1994 order, which still permitted Respondent to assert the untimeliness of the petition for Relief as a bar or jurisdictional issue, Respondent did not file a written motion or submit supporting documentation (evidence) on that issue prior to the June 13, 1994 formal hearing. At formal hearing on June 13, 1994, Respondent moved orally to dismiss the Petition for Relief due to its late filing. Hearing Officer Composite "Exhibit A" was admitted in evidence. Hearing Officer Composite "Exhibit A" consisted of The Florida Human Relations Commission Transmittal of Petition (one page), Charge of Discrimination (one page), Petition for Relief (three pages), Notice of Determination: No Cause (two pages) and Determination of No Cause (two pages). The original of this composite exhibit as received in evidence at formal hearing is attached and incorporated in this recommended order as "Exhibit A" to this Recommended Order. At formal hearing, Petitioner testified that he had not moved the Florida Commission on Human Relations for an order extending his time to file his petition, no order extending time had been entered, and he had neither a postmark nor any clear recollection of the date he mailed his Petition to the Commission. If Florida Commission on Human Relations Rules 60Y-4.004, 60Y- 4.007(1), 60Y-4.008(2), F.A.C., are not applicable, the Petition for Relief should have been filed with the Commission on April 22, 1993, a Thursday, and was filed late by six days, since it was filed with the Commission on April 28, 1993, the following Wednesday. These foregoing rules provide that when a document is received by mail, the date of filing shall relate back to the date of the postmark, provide three days for mailing where notice is mailed, and provide an extra day for filing when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. If those rules apply, then the Petitioner's delay is shorter than six days or indeterminable. The Petition for Relief was admittedly received by Respondent's "in- house" counsel on or before May 6, 1993. Respondent was specifically asked by the undersigned hearing officer how the late filing of the Petition for Relief had prejudiced Respondent's position. Respondent asserted that Respondent could not have foreseen that Petitioner would ultimately have been permitted to testify on his own behalf, and that, but for the Petition for Relief being filed six days late, Respondent might have filed an answer, would not have assumed that the Petition was barred and would not have, due to a conflict in the rules, failed to respond to all pleadings and orders, might have secured "out of house" counsel, would not have expended the cost of trying to negotiate a settlement with Petitioner after the cancellation of the October 18, 1993 formal hearing, and would not have incurred "enormous expense" during the Florida Commission on Human Relations' investigatory phase, in sending Messrs. Carroll and Miller to the March 1, 1994 DOAH hearing, and in filing its only written materials on March 4, 1994. Since the investigatory phase before the Florida Commission on Human Relations predated that agency's March 23, 1993 Determination of No Cause and also predated the filing of the April 28, 1993 Petition for Relief, that portion of Respondent's argument related to incurring enormous expense is patently absurd, as is Respondent's assertion that Respondent could not have foreseen that Petitioner would be permitted to testify on his own behalf. The expense incurred by Respondent in having one layman travel twenty three miles to Tallahassee and the other travel across town to formal hearing, even considering the value of those gentlemen's time to the corporation, and in having "in-house" counsel file Respondent's March 4, 1994 letter is de minimus, and these expenses have no nexus to the lateness by six days of the April 28, 1993 Petition for Relief. Respondent failed to demonstrate how the filing of the Petition for Relief on April 28, 1993 instead of on April 22, 1993 could have reasonably prevented Respondent from filing an Answer within 20 days as required by Rule 22T-9.008(5), F.A.C., [now renumbered as 60Y-5.008(5), F.A.C.], and as specifically instructed by the Florida Commission on Human Relations in its Transmittal of the Petition to Respondent. (See Finding of Fact No. 4, supra and "Exhibit A"). Respondent also failed to demonstrate how, under the circumstances of the language contained in the Florida Commission on Human Relations Transmittal of Petition and the DOAH orders, Respondent could have been misled by conflicting language in Rules 22T-9.07 [now renumbered 60Y- 5.007(9) and (12)], 22T-9.08 [now renumbered 60Y-5.008(1) and (5)] and 60Q- 2.004(5), F.A.C., 3/ into not answering the Petition for Relief for more than thirteen months, indeed, never answering it, or how such circumstances prevented Respondent responding to other motions and orders or prevented Respondent from obtaining "out of house" counsel. Settlement negotiations are not cognizable by the trier of fact, are always undertaken at the parties' mutual risk, and have never been deemed sufficient to toll filing dates. See, Section 90.408, F.S. After Respondent had been given the opportunity to present any further evidence on its oral motion to dismiss the Petition for Relief, the oral motion to dismiss was taken under advisement for resolution in this Recommended Order. (See Conclusions of Law, infra.) Respondent then orally moved for clarification of the April 21, 1994 Notice of Hearing and Order Limiting Scope of Formal Hearing, which was resolved by rereading that order and notice into the record. Respondent next orally moved for leave to present witnesses, contrary to the decretal portion of the April 21, 1994 order. No good cause was shown to vacate the April 21, 1994 order limiting evidence. To permit Respondent to put on undisclosed witnesses while Petitioner was precluded from doing so after Petitioner had appeared at formal hearing believing that Respondent's failure to answer constituted an admission of the material facts alleged in the petition and Petitioner had come prepared only for direct and cross-examination of himself would be unduly prejudicial. The motion was denied. The facts that Rule 60Y-5.008(5)(d) F.A.C. presumes admitted under the unanswered Petition for Relief are those set out in the Petition itself. They are fully set out in "Exhibit A" hereto and provide, in part, as follows: "The company had followed discriminatory hiring assignment and promotion policies against minority group members on an equal basis with white people. My fourteenth amendment were [sic] violated. That white get hired off the street and get full time without any training, the first day. * * * Discriminatory hiring, firing, assignment and promotion policies against Negroes using their position and power to destroy black worker jobs in order to bestow them on white workers." ("Exhibit A") Petitioner's unrefuted testimony elaborated on the foregoing admitted facts to show that Respondent employed fifteen or more employees and that Petitioner, a black male, had been employed part-time for nearly four years by Respondent in its Quincy store managed by Mr. Terry Miller; Mr. Miller's assistant had hired Petitioner as a member of a truck unloading crew. Petitioner also showed that other white workers were hired off the street without job training for full-time positions. However, Petitioner was hired by Mr. Miller as a full-time employee effective June 9, 1994, four days before formal hearing. Petitioner admitted that at some time before June 9, 1994, he had been "written up" for not meeting the employer's dress code and appearance standards and had also been "written up" for not meeting the employer's performance standards of moving at least 45 cases per hour. Petitioner maintained, without refutation, that these "write-ups" were unwarranted, pretextual citations because he was black. Petitioner testified, without refutation, that on at least one occasion he was "written up" in a category that did not include his regular job duties. This admission is no different that the expanded allegations included in an attachment to the Petition ("Exhibit A"), all of which allegations have been admitted by Respondent by its failure to answer the Petition. Petitioner also conceded, upon cross-examination, that in July 1992 there were some black full-time associates in the Quincy store and that promotions have been based on job performance, not seniority. However, no similarity of these other black full-time employees' employment situations or job duties was drawn to compare with Petitioner's personal employment situation or job duties. Consequently, the "write-ups" of Petitioner are found to be pretextual reasons for the employer's refusal to promote him. No stipulation or order bifurcating damage evidence from evidence of discrimination was entered in this case. Petitioner asserted that he was entitled to "compensation" from July 22, 1992 to June 9, 1994, but he presented no evidence of his pay rate per hour in either the full time or part time positions, nor any other nexus upon which lost compensation damages could be calculated. There also is no record evidence of what increases and/or decreases occurred in pay, pay rate, or emoluments for either position over that period of time. Likewise, there is no record evidence of how many hours Petitioner worked or could have worked in either the part-time or full-time position so that damages based on a pay differential can be calculated. Respondent orally moved to dismiss for failure of Petitioner to state a prima facie case. That motion was also taken under advisement for resolution in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order FINDING: That Petitioner has shown a prima facie violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, Section 760.10 F.S. [1989], to wit: failure of a covered employer to "promote" Petitioner-employee to a full-time position because he is black; That Respondent has articulated, but has not substantiated, legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions complained of; and That Petitioner has shown the articulated reasons to be pretextual; AND ORDERING: That Respondent employ Petitioner in a full-time position. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1994.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), is entitled to attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes, from Respondents, Bernard Spinrad and Marien Spinrad (Spinrads), and their counsel, related to litigation between the parties in DOAH Case No. 13-2254.
Findings Of Fact The Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 13-2254, including the Preliminary Statement, the Findings of Fact, and the Conclusions of Law contained therein, and the Department of Environmental Protection’s Consolidated Final Order in OGC Case No. 13-0858 are incorporated herein by reference as the facts underlying this Final Order.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), should pay Petitioners' attorney's fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, for initiating DOAH Case No. 12-2074.
Findings Of Fact On August 15, 2011, John and Kimberly Whitt (Whitts) filed a complaint of housing discrimination with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development alleging disability discrimination. FCHR conducted an investigation of the complaint. During the investigation, the investigator obtained statements and documents from both parties. The investigator's final investigative report (Determination, found within Respondent's Exhibit 1) detailed the investigation. The Determination dated December 21, 2011, concluded that "there [was] reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice occurred in violation of 804(f)(3)(A) of the Fair Housing Act, as amended." On March 2, 2012, FCHR issued a Legal Concurrence: Cause. The Legal Concurrence, drafted by FCHR's senior attorney, concluded that "there [was] reasonable cause to believe that Respondents [Association] discriminated against Complainants [the Whitts] in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(b) and (f)(2)(A) and section 760.23(2) and (8)(a), Florida Statutes." On March 5, 2012, FCHR's executive director executed the Notice of Determination (Cause), charging that there was reasonable cause to believe that the Association had engaged in a discriminatory housing practice. The Whitts elected to have FCHR represent them to seek relief in an administrative proceeding against the Association. On June 14, 2012, FCHR filed a Petition for Relief (Relief Petition) with DOAH seeking an order prohibiting the Association from engaging in any unlawful housing practices, and granting damages. The final hearing in the underlying case was held before the undersigned on December 12, 2012. The undersigned entered a Recommended Order on February 15, 2013, recommending the dismissal of the Relief Petition filed on behalf of the Whitts. On May 2, 2013, FCHR entered a Final Order dismissing the petition for relief filed on behalf of the Whitts. The Association was the prevailing party in the underlying case. The Association is a not-for-profit corporation that does not have any employees. The Association relies solely on volunteers to run its operations. It has never had a net worth of two million dollars or more. The Association was represented by counsel and co- counsel in both proceedings. In the Fees Petition, the Association alleged it had incurred $75,657.00 in legal fees. At hearing, the Association provided a document which reflected that $5,945.00 in fees should not have been attributed to the instant case, thus setting the amount the Association was seeking at $69,712.00. However, the Association acknowledged that section 57.111(4)(d) 2., Florida Statutes, limited the recovery of attorney's fees and costs to $50,000. FCHR is a "state agency" for the purposes of this proceeding. See §§ 120.57(1) and 57.111(3)(f), Fla. Stat.
The Issue The issue to be decided in this proceeding is whether the Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal issued by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (the “Department”), should be reversed due to equitable tolling or some other recognized excuse for untimely submission of the reimbursement dispute.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a business operating in Daytona Beach, Florida. The nature of Petitioner’s business was not made part of the record. In approximately June 2017, Petitioner submitted a claim to the Department, claiming payment for certain (undisclosed) services or expenditures. The Department issued an Explanation of Bill Review (“EOBR”) in response to Petitioner’s claim. The EOBR set forth the amount of reimbursement the Department would allow for Petitioner’s claim. The EOBR was received by Petitioner on July 10, 2017. Upon receipt of the EOBR, Petitioner had 45 days, i.e., until August 24, 2017, to challenge the Department’s determination of the reimbursement amount. Not satisfied that the amount allowed by the Department was correct, Petitioner challenged the determination by submitting a Petition for Resolution of Reimbursement Dispute (the “Petition”) on DFS Form 3160-0023. The Petition was signed on August 8, 2017. However, Petitioner did not immediately submit the Petition on that date, despite being aware of the 45-day time limit for submitting such forms for relief. Petitioner did not mail the Petition until August 25, 2017, one day after the deadline for doing so. The Certified Mail Receipt for Petitioner’s mailing is clear and unambiguous, clearly showing the date. Petitioner did not present any evidence as to factors which might excuse the late filing of its Petition. The only reasons cited were that Petitioner was awaiting information from two claims management services, Sedgwick and Foresight, before submitting its Petition. Petitioner, through its witness at final hearing, admitted its error in failing to timely file the Petition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a Final Order upholding its Reimbursement Dispute Dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 11th day of January, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Taylor Anderson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Barbara T. Hernandez East Coast Surgery Center 1871 LPGA Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32117 (eServed) Thomas Nemecek, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Workers' Compensation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
