Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of administrative appeal with the agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of the notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides or as otherwise provided by law.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).1/
Findings Of Fact The parties have stipulated that the Petitioner is a "small business party" as the term is defined at section 57.111(3)(d). On June 21, 2010, the Petitioner applied to acquire an existing alcoholic beverage "quota" license from another licensee. The Petitioner had to pay a fee to transfer the license pursuant to section 561.32(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), which provides as follows: Before the issuance of any transfer of license herein provided, the transferee shall pay a transfer fee of 10 percent of the annual license tax to the division, except for those licenses issued pursuant to s. 565.02(1) and subject to the limitation imposed in s. 561.20(1), for which the transfer fee shall be assessed on the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the 3 years immediately preceding transfer and levied at the rate of 4 mills, except that such transfer fee shall not exceed $5,000; in lieu of the 4-mill assessment, the transferor may elect to pay $5,000. Further, the maximum fee shall be applied with respect to any such license which has been inactive for the 3-year period. Records establishing the value of such gross sales shall accompany the application for transfer of the license, and falsification of such records shall be punishable as provided in s. 562.45. All transfer fees collected by the division on the transfer of licenses issued pursuant to s. 565.02(1) and subject to the limitation imposed in s. 561.20(1) shall be returned by the division to the municipality in which such transferred license is operated or, if operated in the unincorporated area of the county, to the county in which such transferred license is operated. (emphasis added). License transfer applicants are required to provide gross sales records pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61A-5.010(2)(b), which provides as follows: An applicant for a transfer of a quota liquor license shall provide records of gross sales for the past 3 years or for the period of time current licensee has held license in order that the division may compute the transfer fee. An applicant may, in lieu of providing these records, elect to pay the applicable transfer fee as provided by general law. The gross sales records provided to the Respondent by the Petitioner were for the five-month period between January 21 and June 21, 2010, and totaled $573,948.94 for the period. To compute the transfer fee, the Respondent divided the reported gross sales ($573,948.94) by five to estimate an average monthly gross sales figure of $114,789.79.2/ The Respondent multiplied the estimated average monthly gross sales by 12, to estimate annual gross sales of $1,377,477.48. The Respondent then applied the 4-mill rate to the estimated annual gross sales and determined the transfer fee to be $5,509.91. The Respondent also calculated the transfer fee through a formula set forth on a form that had been challenged as an unadopted rule by an applicant in a 2008 proceeding. While the 2008 rule challenge was pending, the Respondent commenced to adopt the form as a rule, but the dispute was ultimately resolved without a hearing, after which the Respondent discontinued the process to adopt the rule. According to the formula on the form, the transfer fee was $5,599.50. Because both of the Respondent's calculations resulted in transfer fees in excess of $5,000, the Respondent required the Petitioner to pay the statutory maximum of $5,000. The Petitioner paid the $5,000 transfer fee under protest. The Petitioner asserted that the appropriate transfer fee should have been $765.27. The Petitioner's calculation used the reported five months of gross sales ($573,948.94) as the total annual gross sales for the licensee. The Petitioner divided the $573,948.94 by three to determine a three-year average of $191,316.31 and then applied the 4-mill rate to the three-year average to compute a transfer fee of $765.27. On March 17, 2011, the Petitioner filed an Application for Refund of $4,234.73, the difference between the $5,000 paid and the $765.27 that the Petitioner calculated as the appropriate fee. The Application for Refund was filed pursuant to section 215.26, Florida Statutes, which governs requests for repayment of funds paid through error into the State Treasury, including overpayment of license fees. Section 215.26(2) requires that in denying an application for a tax refund, an agency's notice of denial must state the reasons for the denial. As authorized by section 72.11(2)(b)3, Florida Statutes, the Respondent has adopted rules that govern the process used to notify an applicant that a request for refund has been denied. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61-16.002(3) states as follows: Any tax refund denial issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation becomes final for purposes of Section 72.011, Florida Statutes, when final agency action is taken by the Department concerning the refund request and taxpayer is notified of this decision and advised of alternatives available to the taxpayer for contesting the action taken by the agency. By letter dated May 9, 2011, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that the request for refund had been denied and stated only that "[w]e reviewed the documentation presented and determined that a refund is not due." The Respondent's notice did not advise that the Petitioner could contest the decision. On May 16, 2011, the Petitioner submitted a Request for Hearing to the Respondent, asserting that the Respondent improperly calculated the transfer fee by projecting sales figures for months when there were no reported sales. On August 4, 2011, the Respondent issued a letter identified as an "Amended Notice of Denial" again advising that the Petitioner's refund request had been denied. The letter also stated as follows: The Division cannot process your refund application due to the fact that the transferee has not provided the Division records which show the average annual value of gross sales of alcoholic beverages for the three years immediately preceding the transfer. On September 14, 2011, the Respondent forwarded the Petitioner's Request for Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH Case No. 11-4637). By letter dated October 10, 2011, the Respondent issued a "Second Amended Notice of Denial" which stated as follows: We regret to inform you that pursuant to Section 561.23(3)(a), Florida Statutes, your request for refund . . . in the amount of $4,234.73 is denied. However, the Division has computed the transfer fee and based upon the records submitted by you pursuant to Rule 61A-5.010(2)(b), F.A.C., the Division will issue the Applicant a refund in the amount of $2,704.20. The records referenced in the letter were submitted with the original application for transfer that was filed by the Petitioner on March 17, 2011. The Respondent's recalculated transfer fee was the result of applying the 4-mill levy directly to the reported five months of gross sales reported in the transfer application, resulting in a revised transfer fee of $2,295.80 and a refund of $2,704.20. On October 11, 2011, the Respondent filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Amended Notice of Denial, which was granted, over the Petitioner's opposition, on October 21, 2011. DOAH Case No. 11-4637 was resolved by execution of a Consent Order wherein the parties agreed to the refund of $2,704.20 "solely to preclude additional legal fees and costs," but the Consent Order also stated that the "Petitioner expressly does not waive any claim for attorneys' fees in this matter pursuant to F.S. 57.111." The Petitioner is seeking an award of attorney's fees of $8,278.75 and costs of $75, for a total award of $8,353.75. The parties have stipulated that the amount of the attorney's fees and costs sought by the Petitioner are reasonable. The Respondent failed to establish that the original calculation of the applicable transfer fee was substantially justified. The evidence fails to establish that there are special circumstances that would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a small business party within the meaning of Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1987). Petitioner was required to relocate its business in 1986 as the result of a public taking of the property where the business was situated. Petitioner sought relocation benefits from Respondent's relocation assistance program. The program is operated by Respondent in accordance with authority contained in Sections 339.09(4) and 421.55(3), Florida Statutes. Various requests by Petitioner for payment of relocation benefits in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act were denied by Respondent. In DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, Petitioner sought a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes concerning Respondent's denial of the requested reimbursements. At the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, evidence was presented regarding Respondent's denial of benefit payments of $1,324 for advertisement expense in a telephone directory; $1,370 for installation of an exhaust fan at the new facility; $2,405 for fees for consultative services from an attorney; $1,200 for the alleged loss of employee time spent in conferences with Respondent personnel regarding relocation; $1,500 for expense of a second search for a suitable relocation site; and $1,035 for consultation fees associated with design of a product display area in the new facility. With the exception of Respondent's denial of the claim for $1,035 for consultant fees, Respondent's denials were found to be appropriate in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. Such a finding of appropriateness also equates to a finding of substantial justification for denial for purposes of this proceeding. A recommended order was issued in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, finding denials of all requested reimbursements to be appropriate with the exception of Respondent's denial of the request for $1,035 for consultation fees associated with design of a product display area. Payment of this latter amount was recommended as constituting an authorized reimbursement under legal provisions governing the relocation program. On December 26, 1988, Respondent entered a final order awarding Petitioner $1,035 for this consultation fee expense. Other claims for reimbursement by Petitioner in the amount of $10,414.17 were paid by Respondent, prior to the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T, in the course of proceedings in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. That court adopted a settlement stipulation of the parties regarding those claims which expressly reserved attorney fees in regard to those issues for later determination by that court. Petitioner presented no evidence with regard to those claims at the final hearing in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. At the final hearing in the present proceeding, Respondent offered testimony that confusion concerning payment of those claims resulted from the death of the attorney handling the case for Respondent. Respondent initially denied the claims in the absence of the deceased attorney's records in the mistaken belief that the matter had been resolved earlier in the circuit court condemnation proceeding. Upon learning such was not the case, payment of the claim and effectuation of settlement of the issue was made in the circuit court case and occurred shortly after Petitioner's request for hearing in DOAH Case No. 88- 0778T. The circumstances surrounding the initial denial of payment of this benefit by Respondent substantially justify Respondent's denial and constitute a sufficient basis to deny Petitioner's recovery of fees or costs related to this payment recovery in this administrative proceeding. The proof submitted at the final hearing in this cause establishes that Petitioner's counsel expended between 55 and 70 hours of time in his representation of Petitioner's attempts to recover all denied benefits in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T. Counsel's average hourly rate was $125. However, the fee arrangement between client and counsel was a "modified or combined contingency fee" permitting any recoverable attorney fees to serve as the primary source of payment of counsel's fees. Petitioner was not bound by the agreement to pay counsel's fees beyond amounts determined to be appropriate by the hearing officer in the administrative case or the judge in the circuit court matter. To that extent, attorney fees in this cause that have been incurred by Petitioner may be considered "contingent." Documentation submitted by Petitioner includes an affidavit from its president which simply recites the status of Petitioner as a small business party, but sets forth no specifics of a fee arrangement with counsel. The affidavit of Petitioner's counsel establishes a minimum number of hours (55) and dates of work performed by counsel, and states that his hourly rate is $125. Calculating the number of hours by the hourly rate, one reaches a total fee amount of $6,875. Counsel's affidavit does not address which of the various benefits sought to be recovered was the subject of any particular expenditure of time. Although the relocation benefits sought to be recovered were separable subjects, allocation of time expended with regard to a particular benefit recovery effort is not established by the evidence. Testimony of William Robert Leonard was also offered by Petitioner to support the reasonableness of a legal fee amount of $10,000 for Petitioner's counsel. While Mr. Leonard opined that he normally would not support a $10,000 attorney fee as reasonable for a $1,000 recovery, the circumstances of this case were different because "[y]ou are arguing with the state." Petitioner attempted to establish through further testimony of Leonard that the enormity of the resources of the government of the State of Florida justify such a fee because cost considerations prevent private litigants from engaging in costly and protracted proceedings in matters of limited recovery. Leonard did not address allocation of the requested attorney fee among the various benefits for which recovery was sought, choosing instead to premise his opinion regarding reasonableness of a $10,000 attorney fee upon "the amount of time counsel was required to respond to a state agency." Leonard's testimony is not credited with regard to reasonableness of a $10,000 fee for recovery of the $1,035 relocation benefit due to his professed lack of knowledge of certain administrative law procedures; the failure of his testimony to address the nature or difficulty of tasks performed by counsel for Petitioner; and his concurrence with the assertion that his opinion of such a fee was based in part upon a "gut reaction." No evidence was submitted to support the reasonableness of the cost amount of $250 requested as a witness fee for Mr. Leonard's participation in the proceeding. Petitioner seeks recovery of $448.50 in costs associated with the transcript of final hearing had in DOAH Case No. 88-0778T and a $480 expert witness fee in conjunction with testimony of E. Scott Golden, an attorney, at that final hearing. The testimony of Mr. Golden in that proceeding related to his provision of relocation site advice to Petitioner and drafting of legal documents for Petitioner. Petitioner did not prevail with regard to recovery of relocation benefits related to the expense of Mr. Golden's services.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is the amount of attorney’s fees to be paid by Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities (“APD” or the “Agency”), to the Petitioners, G.B., Z.L., through his guardian K.L., J.H., and M.R.
Conclusions This matter is related to the promulgation of proposed rules 65G-4.0210 through 65G-4.027 (the “Proposed Rules”) by the Agency in May 2013 in its effort to follow the mandate issued by the Florida Legislature concerning the iBudget statute, section 393.0662, Florida Statute (2010). Petitioners challenged the Proposed Rules in DOAH Case No. 13-1849RP. The Proposed Rules were upheld by the Administrative Law Judge, but Petitioners appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal (the “Court”). The Court’s decision was rendered July 21, 2014. G.B. v. Ag. for Pers. with Disab., 143 So. 3d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The Fee Order was entered by the Court on the same date. The Fee Order had been entered upon the filing of a motion for appellate attorney’s fees filed with the Court by Appellants/Petitioners. The motion set forth three bases for an award of fees, to wit: Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: Challenges to Proposed Agency Rules Pursuant to Section 120.56(2).– If the appellate court or the administrative law judge declares a proposed rule or portion of a proposed rule invalid pursuant to s. 120.56(2), a judgment or order shall be rendered against the agency for reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, unless the agency demonstrates that its actions were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust. An agency’s actions are “substantially justified” if there was a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time the actions were taken by the agency. If the agency prevails in the proceedings, the appellate court or administrative law judge shall award reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against a party if the appellate court or administrative law judge determines that a party participated in the proceedings for an improper purpose as defined by paragraph (1)(e). No award of attorney’s fees as provided by this subsection shall exceed $50,000. Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, which provides: Appeals.– When there is an appeal, the court in its discretion may award reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable costs to the prevailing party if the court finds that the appeal was frivolous, meritless, or an abuse of the appellate process, or that the agency action which precipitated the appeal was a gross abuse of the agency’s discretion. Upon review of the agency action that precipitates an appeal, if the court finds that the agency improperly rejected or modified findings of fact in a recommended order, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable costs to a prevailing appellant for the administrative proceeding and the appellate proceeding. Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, which provides: All pleadings, motions, or other papers filed in the proceeding must be signed by the party, the party’s attorney, or the party’s qualified representative. The signature constitutes a certificate that the person has read the pleading, motion, or other paper and that, based upon reasonable inquiry, it is not interposed for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of these requirements, the presiding officer shall impose upon the person who signed it, the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expense incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The Court did not specifically address which of Petitioners’ stated bases for award of attorney’s fees was being relied upon when granting Petitioners’ motion. Petitioners assert that it must therefore be presumed that the Court granted the request for fees on the basis of all three of Petitioners’ bases. There is no other support for that presumption, as the Fee Order is silent on the issue. It could equally be presumed that only one of the bases was relied upon by the Court. Thus, a determination of the appropriate basis for fees is critical in the determination of the amount of fees to be awarded, as will be set forth more particularly below. The Fee Order establishes only that attorney’s fees are awarded, with leave for the parties to determine the appropriate amount or, failing to do so, obtain direction from an Administrative Law Judge on the matter. There is no issue as to whether Petitioners are entitled to fees or costs, only the amount to be awarded. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding under the August 6, 2014, Mandate of the First DCA, and under section 120.595(2). Although it is herein determined that section 120.595(2) is the appropriate provision to be considered for fees in this case, each of the other statutory sections argued in Petitioners’ motion for fees will be addressed nonetheless. Section 120.595(5) If section 120.595(5) is to be the basis for fees, it must be shown that Respondent is guilty of a “gross abuse” of its discretion. “Gross abuse” is not defined in statute. As stated by the Court in Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So. 2d 300, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), “The troublesome nature of our review here is the admittedly high ‘gross abuse of discretion’ standard. . . . However, we have no definition of what a ‘gross’ abuse of discretion includes or how it differs from an abuse of discretion. We can only assume that it is more egregious than a typical abuse of discretion.” The Court cited Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980), in which the Supreme Court iterated that if reasonable men could differ on an issue, there was no abuse of discretion to act one way or the other. Other courts, looking at the issue of “abuse of discretion” in administrative matters, have struggled with a definitive description or definition. In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc., et al. v. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, 401 U.S. 402; 91 S. Ct. 814; 23 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1971), the Court was trying to determine whether the Transportation Secretary had acted within his discretion. The Court decided it “must consider whether the decision was based on clear error or judgment. [citations omitted] Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The Court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Id., at 416. And, as found by another Court, whether an act is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion is “far from being entirely discrete as a matter of the ordinary meaning of language. . . . Rather than denoting a fixed template to be imposed mechanically on every case within their ambit, these words summon forth what may best be described as an attitude of mind in the reviewing court one that is ‘searching and careful’ . . . yet, in the last analysis, diffident and deferential.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., et al. v. Sec. and Exch. Comm'n, et al., 606 F.2d 1031, 1034, U.S. App. DC (1979). In Ft. Myers Real Estate Holdings, LLC, v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 53 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), the Court awarded fees under section 120.595(5). In that case, the agency denied party status to the applicant for services. The Court said, “The position taken by the Division in the dismissal order, and maintained in this appeal, is so contrary to the fundamental principles of administrative law that, by separate order, we have granted Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees under section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes.” The Court did not, however, define gross abuse of discretion any more specifically than that. Likewise, in Salam v. Board of Professional Engineers, 946 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the Court found that an agency’s intentional delay on acting upon a petition for formal administrative hearing warranted fees under the statute. The Salam Court did not further define gross abuse of discretion; it merely found that such abuse existed under the circumstances of the case. Gross abuse of discretion must, by definition, be more difficult to ascertain than simple abuse of discretion. Gross abuse implies that the Agency first believed its intended action was improper, yet engaged in the action despite that knowledge. That is, that the Agency acted intentionally to do something it knew to be wrong. Proof of such intent would be extremely difficult.1/ One need only look at the plain language of the Court’s opinion in the rule challenge appeal at issue here to see that there was no gross abuse of discretion. The Court ultimately held that although the Agency’s rules “directly conflict with and contravene the Legislature’s clear language” concerning development of an algorithm to assist with the distribution of funds to needy Floridians, “[W]e recognize the difficulty in adhering to the Legislature’s command to create an algorithm solely capable of determining each client’s level of need. Further, we accept that [Respondent] is attempting to find a reasonable way to administer funds to the tens-of-thousands of people in need that it assists.” G.B. et al., supra, 143 So. 3d 454, 458. Nothing in that language suggests that the Agency knew its proposed rule was improper or that it was doing anything intentionally wrong. Rather, the language of the Court’s decision indicates that Respondent was certainly attempting to exercise its discretion properly in the adoption of the Proposed Rules. Despite the Agency’s attempts to justify the rules both at final hearing and on appeal, the Court found that the Proposed Rules did not comport with the specific authorizing statute. That failure did not, ipso facto, establish that there was a gross abuse of the Agency’s discretion. Besides, upon hearing all the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the undersigned initially upheld the Proposed Rule; that, in and of itself, is some indication that the Agency’s efforts were legitimate. Thus, in the present matter, there is no rational basis for finding that gross abuse of discretion was involved in the Court’s award of attorney’s fees. Section 120.569(2)(e) As for section 120.569(2)(e), there is no evidence to support Petitioners’ contention that the proposed rule addressed in the rule challenge proceeding (DOAH Case No. 13-1849RP) was interposed for any improper purpose. The appellate court said, “[W]e accept that APD is attempting to find a reasonable way to administer funds to the tens-of-thousands of people in need that it assists.” Id. Clearly, the Agency did not act for an improper purpose; its best efforts to follow the Legislative mandate for an iBudget simply fell short. The Proposed Rules contravened certain specific requirements of the governing statute. In order to find a way to meet its mandate, the Agency made a Herculean effort, yet failed. Although Petitioners argue that an “improper purpose” was implied by the Court in the Fee Order, there is no substantive support for that position. Not only was APD’s attempt to find a “reasonable way” to discharge its responsibility found wanting by the Court, experts in the field who testified at the underlying hearing disagreed as well. There was no dispute about the intended purpose of the Proposed Rules, only as to how that intent was to be effectuated. There was never any dispute as to the Proposed Rules’ intended purpose; they were meant to find a way to serve the tens-of-thousands of people in need. There is nothing in any of the Agency’s actions in this case that would be even arguably described as “interposed for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” This attorney’s fee section does not apply to the facts of this case. Section 120.595(2) Finally, in section 120.595(2), the Legislature has declared that if an appellate court or administrative law judge declares all or part of a proposed rule invalid, an order will be entered awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (unless the agency demonstrated that its actions were substantially justified). The Court ultimately concluded that the proposed rules “directly conflict with and contravene the Legislature’s clear language.” That being the case, the Court seems to be finding that the Agency’s actions--promulgating the Proposed Rules--was not substantially justified, even if the Court did recognize the difficulty faced by APD in its efforts to comply with the statutes at issue. By process of elimination, section 120.595(2) is the basis for the Court’s award of attorney’s fees in the present case. That being so, the award is capped at $50,000. The Agency has conceded that Petitioners are entitled to at least $50,000 in fees, as well as costs in the amount of $41,609.65. There remains the issue of whether each of the four Petitioners is entitled to an award of the maximum fee. In their (singular) Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of Proposed Rules, the parties sought the following relief: That a Final Order be entered finding the Proposed Rules to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; and That Petitioners be awarded their reasonable attorney’s fees; and Such other relief as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate. That is, the relief sought by each of the Petitioners was the same: invalidation of the proposed rules. It cannot be argued that each Petitioner in his or her own right was seeking individual redress or damages. Collectively, they wanted the proposed rules invalidated so that they could return to the status quo concerning their benefits from the State. In fact, only one of the four Petitioners presented testimony at the underlying administrative hearing as to the impact of the Proposed Rules. There was no issue as to each Petitioner’s standing in the underlying administrative hearing. As stated by the Agency in its Proposed Final Order in that case: “Petitioners are each recipients of Medicaid Services under the DD waiver program and have been or will be transitioned to the iBudget system. Stip., pp. 23-24. Thus, Petitioners have standing to challenge the substance of the Proposed Rules.” Petitioners contend that each of the 25,000-plus recipients of benefits from the Agency could have filed petitions challenging the Proposed Rule. That is true. But in the rule challenge proceeding there were four petitioners (ostensibly representing those other 25,000), each seeking the same relief, i.e., invalidation of the proposed rules. And only one of those, K.L., testified at final hearing in the underlying rule challenge proceeding. Thus, there is no justification for an award of fees to each of the Petitioners under section 120.595(2). In light of the findings and conclusions above, and based upon the Order as stated below, the issue of contingency multipliers is not relevant to the discussion of fees herein. As a general rule in Florida, fees and costs incurred in litigating entitlement to attorney’s fees are collectible although time spent litigating the amount of the award is not compensable. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Parma, 629 So. 2d 830, 833 (1993). § 92.931, Fla. Stat.; Stokus v. Phillips, 651 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Inasmuch as the Agency does not dispute entitlement to attorney’s fees, no fees for the fee case are warranted. The amount of fees sought in this administrative rule challenge by the Petitioners is, as set forth in their Proposed Final Order: $255,614.39 for the DOAH rule challenge proceeding; $154,662.35 for the appeal but also applied a contingent multiplier for a total of $309,324.70; $62,850.00 for the fee case but also applied a contingent multiplier for a total of $94,275.00; and $41,609.65 in taxable costs, for a total of approximately $660,000.00. While the amount of fees and costs allowed under the appropriate statute is well less than what Petitioners sought, it has been deemed legally sufficient by statute.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is the amount of appellate attorney's fees to be awarded and paid to Respondent by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law are made: The dispute taken on appeal to the Third DCA in Case No. 3D17-0149 concerned the undersigned's Final Order on Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees dated December 20, 2016.1/ In that Final Order, the crux of the ruling denying the request for fees was that in the administrative case, there had been no prevailing party; that the wording of section 255.0516, Florida Statutes, contemplates that costs and attorney's fees may be recovered only after a final administrative hearing is held (no final hearing had been held); and that the separate agreement between the parties did not provide a basis for an award of fees. The Final Order denying the award of attorney's fees to Nader was appealed and upheld by the Third DCA in a per curiam affirmed Opinion dated March 21, 2018. Respondent was also awarded its appellate fees in a separate Opinion issued the same day. That matter was referred to the undersigned for a determination. Respondent is requesting that this tribunal award it payment of $120,539.70 as appellate attorney's fees resulting from approximately 303.75 hours of time. In doing so, it relies upon several invoices submitted by its counsel regarding the legal work performed on the appeal. See Resp. Exs. 3-17 and Ex. A of Resp. Ex. 20. Those invoices reflect that the following attorneys and paralegals worked on the appeal for Respondent at the listed rate(s): Albert E. Dotson, Jr. ($740 to 750.00/hour) Eileen Ball Mehta ($685 to 695.00/hour) Jose M. Ferrer ($595.00/hour) Melissa Pallett-Vasquez ($565.00/hour) Eric Singer ($480 to 510.00/hour) Leah Aaronson ($315.00/hour) Elise Holtzman ($290 to 295.00/hour) Maria Ossorio ($295.00/hour) Jessica Kramer ($290.00/hour) Maria Tucci ($275.00/hour) In deciding the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded, a court must consider not only the reasonableness of the fees charged, but also the appropriateness of the number of hours counsel engaged in performing their services. Fla. Patient's Comp. Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985); and Mercy Hosp. Inc., v. Johnson, 431 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Respondent has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount of attorney's fees it has requested is reasonable. Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1145; see also § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2015). In Rowe, it was determined that the criteria listed in Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar should be used to calculate the amount of reasonable attorney's fees. Rowe, 472 So. 2d at 1151. The undersigned has considered all the relevant factors outlined in Rule 4-1.5 and Rowe. Several of the factors and related findings are highlighted below. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(A) In determining whether a requested fee award is reasonable, one factor to be considered is "the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly." The issue on appeal to the Third DCA was limited primarily to an analysis and determination of a "prevailing party" fee award. Notably, this issue was addressed, briefed, and argued by these parties before the undersigned in the underlying administrative proceeding. Many of the arguments set forth by Respondent in the appellate proceedings, which is the subject of this remand Order, were duplicative and, as mentioned, had been briefed, argued, and utilized in prior filings in the underlying administrative proceedings. Respondent contends that "new theories of liability" were introduced in Petitioner's Initial Brief. However, this argument is not persuasive. The evidence presented at the hearing also does not support Respondent's claim that all the labor and services of the aforementioned attorneys was required. A good deal of their work was duplicative in nature, redundant, and not necessary in order to perform the legal services properly. In short, some of the time billed was excessive. Petitioner's expert, Attorney Robert Klein, testified that he reviewed the Bilzin Sumberg firm's invoices for legal services, reviewed a considerable number of pleadings from the administrative proceedings, and reviewed nearly the entire collection of pleadings in the appellate case.2/ Klein testified convincingly, and the undersigned credits, that based on his global review of the Bilzin Sumberg invoices: (1) the fees charged "were far beyond what they should have been"; (2) he discovered a "tremendous duplication of effort"; and (3) "the overwhelming majority of the arguments" raised on appeal had already been raised in the administrative proceedings. In describing the firm's preparation time for oral arguments, he opined that the time billed was "really high." In short, Klein's expert testimony, while stated in general or more abstract terms, properly supplemented by the undersigned's own review of the invoices and the Exhibit A summary of Respondent's Exhibit 20, supports a considerable reduction in the fees charged. As a legal back drop to the distinctive issues in this case, an analysis regarding the reasonableness of an attorney's posted time is helpful. In Donald S. Zuckerman, P.A. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 676 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the court held that a party has the right to hire as many attorneys as it desires, but the opposing party is not required to compensate for overlapping efforts, should they result. In Brevard County v. Canaveral Properties, Inc., 696 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the Fifth District Court of Appeal panel held that: The polestar of an appellate attorney fee award pursuant to section 73.131 and the case law generally, is that it must be reasonable. One that is bloated because of excessive time spent, or unnecessary services rendered, or duplicate tasks performed by multiple attorneys, does not meet that criterion of reasonableness. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reminded the parties, "[i]n making an attorney fee award, the court must consider the possibility of duplicate effort arising from multiple attorneys, in determining a proper fee award. Fees should be adjusted and hours reduced or eliminated to reflect duplications of services." Id. In determining the hours, the undersigned must also look at the amount of time that would ordinarily be spent to resolve the particular type of issues, which is not necessarily the time actually spent by counsel in the case. It is settled that a court is not required to simply accept the hours stated by counsel. In re Estate of Platt, 586 So. 2d 328, 333-34 (Fla. 1991). Finally, in Baratta v. Valley Oak Homeowners' Association at the Vineyards, Inc., 928 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), the court outlined that as a general rule, duplicative time charged by multiple attorneys working on the case is usually not compensable. In this case, a considerable portion of Respondent's appellate arguments, case law, drafting time, and associated research was similar, if not identical to, the arguments, case law, and documents filed with this tribunal prior to the initiation of the appeal.3/ Moreover, Respondent's expert witness, Dagmar Llaudy, acknowledged that a fair amount of duplication occurred. She testified, for instance, that "the answer brief and everything else they [Miami–Dade College] did, it used the same case law and it used the same arguments. So it was very difficult to separate work done for a 57.105 and then work done for the remainder of the case because they all touched on the same issues." Tr. p. 134, Line 22-25, and p. 135, Line 1-2. This statement by Respondent's expert witness is telling, and explains a good deal of the legal work for which fees are being sought. The undersigned concludes that when legal work done for one aspect of a case closely resembles, or is similar to, legal work performed for another phase of the case and is used again, the party is normally not entitled to recover all of its fees for this repetitious work. Perhaps the most compelling support for reducing the requested award in this case can be found in the reasoning outlined by the magistrate judge in Alvarez Perez v. Sanford- Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71823 (M.D. Fla. 2009). In that case, the applicant was awarded and sought a determination of fees incurred on appeal. The defendants objected to almost half of the requested award complaining that much of the time requested was for the same issues that had been fully briefed at the trial court level. The magistrate judge agreed with the defendants and reduced the requested fee by more than one-half, from $68,510.00 to $33,080.00. In doing so, she pointed out and aptly concluded: Because most of the work had already been done prior to the appeal, the total number of hours expended by Pantas during the appeal was excessive and unreasonable. See, e.g., Hoover v. Bank of Amer., Corp., No. 8:02-CV- 478-T-23TBM, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59825, 2006 WL 2465398 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2006) [*12](concluding that the total number of hours sought by counsel for the appeal was excessive "in light of the prior work done on these same issues," and reducing the total hours billed by one-third); Wilson v. Dep't of Children and Families, No. 3:02-cv-357-J- 32TEM, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26739, 2007 WL 1100469 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 11, 2007) (concluding that the total number of hours sought by counsel for the appeal was excessive "in light of the prior work done on these same issues," and reducing the hours billed by one-third); Action Sec. Serv., Inc., v. Amer. Online, Inc., No. 6:03-cv-1170-Orl-22DAB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4668, 2007 WL 191308 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 23, 2007) (concluding that the hours claimed by counsel for the appeal were excessive, and reducing the amount of fees by more than half, from $37,889.50 to $18,000.00). The undersigned likewise finds and concludes that there was a significant amount of billing for identical and similar research, drafting, and appeal preparation, which had already been performed at the administrative proceeding level. Consequently, the undersigned will make the appropriate reduction to the amount(s) allowed. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(B) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, one factor to be considered is "the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other employment by the lawyer." There was no compelling evidence provided by Respondent regarding this factor. Respondent's counsel did not provide any tangible examples of particular employment which was rejected or passed upon due to the ongoing representation of Respondent. As a result, the undersigned finds that there was no persuasive evidence presented regarding this criterion which supports the fees requested. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(C) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, another factor to be considered is "the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of similar nature." In support of their fee claim, Respondent presented Llaudy as their expert witness with regard to this criterion. Llaudy provided a brief, but sufficient, opinion that the rates charged by Respondent's law firm were reasonable and reflected the hourly rate customarily charged in the Miami area at the relevant time. Tr. p. 168, Line 6-12. Petitioner's expert, Klein, did not persuasively or seriously dispute the reasonableness of the rates charged. The undersigned finds that the hourly rates were reasonable and within the range for prevailing rates in the Miami-Dade County legal community. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(D) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, a fourth factor to be considered is "the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, the responsibility involved in the representation, and the results obtained." The case on appeal was fairly straightforward. It concerned whether "prevailing party" attorney's fees should have been awarded. The question for the Third DCA was: Did the administrative law judge err when he refused to award the Petitioner prevailing party fees after dismissing the underlying administrative bid protest case? The record demonstrates that the issue on appeal was not overwhelmingly complicated or intricate. When evaluating this factor, the undersigned also considered that Respondent achieved a good result and considered whether Respondent's reasonable attorney's fees should include work and services its counsel conducted in connection with an appellate motion filed pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes. Petitioner argues that the time spent on the motion for sanctions should be entirely discounted because Respondent was "unsuccessful" on this claim, citing Baratta, 928 So. 2d at 495 ("Attorneys' fees should not usually be awarded for claims on which the moving party was unsuccessful."). Although the undersigned does not agree with this argument by Petitioner, the undersigned finds that the time spent on the motion for sanctions by Respondent's counsel was excessive. As a result, time was adjusted accordingly. More specifically, the motion sought sanctions and was voluntarily withdrawn after it was filed, but before the merits of the motion was addressed by the Third DCA. For several reasons, the undersigned finds that it is proper to award fees for work performed on a motion despite the fact that it was voluntarily withdrawn before it was adjudicated on its merit. First, under these circumstances, it was not proven that Respondent was "unsuccessful" on this claim.4/ Although the motion for sanctions was never heard on the merits, it did result, indisputably, in Petitioner's prior counsel withdrawing from the appellate proceedings. As such, the undersigned cannot conclude that Respondent was "unsuccessful" on this claim. Rather, it simply withdrew a motion after gaining some success and some of the relief it sought. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(E) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, another factor to be considered is "the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional time demands or requests of the attorney by the client." There was no persuasive evidence presented by Respondent regarding this factor, and it does not materially bear upon the award of reasonable attorney's fees in this case. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(F) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, one factor to be considered is "the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client." There was some evidence presented by Respondent regarding the nature of the professional relationship between the attorneys and Respondent. This included a 10-percent professional discount provided to Respondent, which was taken into account and already credited in the total $120,539.70 requested. There was no compelling evidence regarding the length of the relationship. Therefore, while this criterion was considered when determining a reasonable fee, it did not have a significant bearing on the fee being awarded. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(G) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, one factor to be considered is the "experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of the effort reflected in the actual providing of such service." Llaudy and Klein both expressed some general knowledge of the attorneys involved, and their reputation and levels of expertise. There was also some limited testimony from Albert E. Dotson, Jr., on this topic. All of this was taken into account both with respect to the rates charged and the hours spent on the case. Rule 4-1.5(b)(1)(H) In determining whether a requested fee is reasonable, a final factor to be considered is "whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and, if fixed as to amount or rate, whether the client's ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation." In this matter, the hourly rates were fixed and the amount of the fee did not rest on the outcome of the appeal. Ultimate Findings and Conclusions The undersigned finds that the rates charged by the Bilzin Sumberg firm for the attorneys involved in the case were reasonable. However, the undersigned finds that the number of hours expended by the Bilzin Sumberg firm on this matter exceeded the number reasonably necessary to provide the services. Based on the evidence presented and exercising the discretion the undersigned is afforded in a hearing of this nature, the undersigned finds that the reasonable hourly rates and reasonable number of hours expended are as follows: Attorney Reasonable Hourly Rate Reasonable Hours Expended Lodestar amount Albert E. Dotson, Jr. $745.00 18.05 $13,447.25 Eileen Ball Mehta $690.00 28.50 $19,665.00 Jose M. Ferrer $595.00 2.3 $1,368.50 Melissa Pallett-Vasquez $565.00 0.80 $452.00 Eric Singer $495.00 38.9 $19,255.50 Leah Aaronsen $315.00 6.1 $1,921.50 Elise Hotlzman $292.50 72.5 $21,206.25 Maria Ossorio $295.00 7.9 $2,330.50 Jessica Kramer $290.00 6.8 $1,972.00 Maria Tucci $275.00 0.4 $110.00 TOTAL AWARDED $81,728.50 The undersigned has also considered the appropriateness of any reduction or enhancement factors, including the withdrawal of the section 57.105 motion for sanctions. DISPOSITION AND AWARD Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent's reasonable attorney's fees are determined to be $81,728.50, with recoverable costs in the amount of $461.35 for the total sum of $82,189.85 DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 20th day of November, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Respondent agree that Respondent is entitled to attorney's fees and costs incurred for the period extending from the filing of the Respondent's notice of appeal to the filing of his appellate brief. The appropriate amount involved is: $3,232.50 - for attorney's fees 431.60 - for costs $3,664.10 - TOTAL Petitioner and Respondent agree that Respondent is entitled to attorney's fees and costs incurred for the period extending from the filing of the appellate brief to the end of appeal. The appropriate amount involved is: $1,950.00 - for attorney's fees 333.94 - for costs $2,283.94 - TOTAL The total amount to which Respondent is entitled for attorney's fees and costs relating to his appeal of the agency's Final Order is $5,948.04. Respondent's counsel at the administrative hearing, Steven D. Kastner, on April 15, 1984; submitted a statement in which he itemized 57.75 hours of service to Respondent on his case from initial consultation on September 2, 1983 through a post-hearing memorandum of law submitted on April 3, 1984. The statement reflects an hourly rate of $75.00 which, when multi-plied by the number of hours expended- results in a basic amount due of $4,331.25. However, Respondent had already paid $2,400.00 which would result in a net due of $1,931.25 were it not for a letter of equal date from Mr. Kastner which acknowledges the negotiated fee rate of $60.00. Consequently, the real net amount due is $1,065.00 and this figured added to the $2,400.00 already paid in, result in a total fee to hearing and memo of $3,465.00. Petitioner does not challenge the $60.00 hourly rate charged by Mr. Kastner. However, the limited information contained in Mr. Kastner's statement, makes it impossible to determine the legitimacy of the hourly breakdown. Even Mr. Lambert recognized this difficulty and admits the likelihood that it may be insufficient evidence to support the claim filed. Furthers Mr. Lambert's motion for attorney's fees, filed on January 7, 1985; referred only to the fees and costs incurred for the work accomplished prior to the filing of the appellate brief. The supplement filed on January 28, 1986, after the entry of the Court's October 11, 1985 Order, also referred to appellate fees and costs and for the first time, referred to Kastner's fees and costs. It is to the inclusion of Kastner's fees and costs that Petitioner objects. A review of the materials submitted to the undersigned fails to reveal any indication that the action of Petitioner; Department of Insurance and Treasurer was a gross abuse of the agency's discretion. No such abuse was found either by the hearing officer at the original hearing or by the Court on appellate review.
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 issue to be determined is the amount of reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc. ("CMT") in Robert A. Schweickert, Jr. v. Department of Community Affairs and Citrus Mining and Timber, Inc., Case. No. 1D10-3882 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011).
Findings Of Fact Appellate Attorney's Fees Sarah Lahlou-Amine of the law firm of Fowler White Boggs, P.A. ("Fowler") was the attorney with primary responsibility for research and drafting documents for the appeal on behalf of CMT. She prepared and filed a notice of appearance, a motion to dismiss, a motion for attorney's fees, an amended motion for attorney's fees, the answer brief, a notice of supplemental authority, a second motion for attorney's fees, and a motion for clarification. Ms. Lahlou-Amine was assisted and supervised by more senior lawyers at Fowler. The total number of hours charged by Fowler was 134.8. The total attorney's fees charged by Fowler was $39,010. Lawyers from two other law firms were employed by CMT and charged attorney's fees and costs for the appeal. The Law Office of Clark Stillwell, P.A., charged 18 hours for a total attorney's fees of $6,030. Edward de la Parte and other lawyers of the law firm of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., charged 24.9 hours for total attorney's fees of $5,382.50. The grand total of all the attorney hours expended for the appeal is 177.7 hours and the grand total of all fees charged to CMT for the appeal is $50,422.50. It was the opinion of CMT's expert witness, Daniel Stengle, that all of these hours and fees are reasonable. Schweickert's expert witness, Howard Heims, believes that 25 or 30 hours was all the effort that was reasonable for this appeal. The hourly rates of $225.00 to $435.00 an hour that were used by CMT's attorneys are not contested by Schweickert. The evidence established that the rates are reasonable. The dispute focused on the number of hours expended for the appeal. Heims contends that it was unreasonable for CMT to file a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, because appellate courts rarely grant such a motion and the standing issue could have been saved for CMT's answer brief. The court did not summarily deny CMT's motion to dismiss but, instead, ordered Schweickert to show cause why the motion should not be granted. The issuance of the order to show cause indicates that it is not the court's practice to deny all motions to dismiss that are filed before the briefs. Following Schweickert's response, the court still did not deny the motion to dismiss, but deferred ruling to the panel of judges that would determine the merits of the appeal. It was not unreasonable to file a motion to dismiss in this case because Schweickert's lack of standing was unusually clear. The controlling factual issue was simple--whether Schweickert made timely comments to Citrus County about the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Furthermore, the argument made in the motion eventually prevailed. Heims also believes that it was unreasonable for CMT to file three motions for attorney's fees and costs. The motions were not identical, but filing three such motions is unusual and was not shown to be necessary or important. It was not persuasively shown that 177.7 attorney hours was reasonable for this appeal. The evidence does not establish that the attorney's fees charged by the law firms of Clark Stillwell and de la Parte & Gilbert should be included as part of the reasonable fees for the appeal. These fees were not shown to be necessary or to contribute materially to the appeal. Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, Code of Professional Conduct, sets forth factors to be considered in determining a reasonable attorney's fee. The factors listed in rule 4-1.5(b)(1) are addressed below, in sequence: the time and labor required, the novelty, complexity, and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; The time and labor expended on the appeal was not shown to be reasonable. The questions involved were not difficult. The case was not complex. No unusual skills and expertise were required to perform the legal services. the likelihood that the acceptance of the particular employment would preclude other employment by the lawyer; CMT did not contend that this factor was applicable. the fee, or rate of fee, customarily charged in the locality for legal services of a comparable or similar nature; Reasonable hourly rates were charged, but persuasive evidence was not presented to show that the total amount of the fees charged to CMT are customary for the services that were performed. the significance of, or amount involved in, the subject matter of the representation, the responsibility involved in the representation, and the results obtained; Although a reversal of the Department's Final Order would have had adverse consequences for CMT, it was not shown that the situation was of an unusual nature. Furthermore, a reversal on the merits (to find the comprehensive plan amendment not in compliance) was almost impossible because no factual findings were made that supported Schweickert's claims. CMT points to the unusual result--attorney's fees awarded against a pro se litigant--as justifying the attorney's fee, but this unusual result is due to Schweickert's unusually weak case. The issues and the law applied were not unusual. the time limitations imposed by the client or by the circumstances and, as between attorney and client, any additional or special time demands or requests of the attorney by the client; CMT's argument that time limitations of an usual nature existed in this matter was not persuasive. the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; The applicability of this factor was not argued by CMT and was not demonstrated by the evidence. the experience, reputation, diligence, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the service and the skill, expertise, or efficiency of effort reflected in the actual providing of such services; and The lawyers involved have good reputations and experience, but those attributes were not likely to have materially affected the outcome. Performing the legal services did not require unusual skills. The services were not efficiently provided. whether the fee is fixed or contingent, and if fixed as to amount and rate, then whether the client's ability to pay rested to any significant degree on the outcome of the representation. This factor was not shown to be a basis to support a larger fee. It was Heims' opinion that 25 to 30 hours was a reasonable number of attorney hours to prepare the answer brief and one motion for attorney's fees. Thirty hours was a sufficient number of hours for the research and drafting work done by Ms. Lahlou-Anime. However, because it has been determined that the filing of the motion to dismiss was reasonable, some additional time should be added. CMT Exhibit 1 indicates that Ms. Lahlou-Anime charged about 23 hours for her work on the motion to dismiss. However, in determining a reasonable number of hours for the work on the motion to dismiss, consideration must be given to the fact that the standing arguments made in the motion were repeated in CMT's answer brief, which has already been accounted for in the 30 hours. The parties did not address this specific issue. However, the evidence supports the addition of 10 hours for Ms. Lahlou-Anime, for a total of 40 hours. Forty hours for Ms. Lahlou-Anime at her rate of $260 per hour equals $10,400. Heims also failed to fairly account for the reasonableness of the attorney hours expended by Karen Brodeen, a senior attorney at Fowler who represented CMT in the lower administrative proceedings and who assisted Ms. Lahlou-Anime in the preparation of the motion to dismiss and answer brief. CMT Exhibit 1 shows that Ms. Brodeen charged 0.9 hours at $375 per hour and 16.9 hours at $385 per hour, for a total fee of $6,844. The grand total of reasonable attorney time is 57.8 hours and the total reasonable attorney's fee is $17,244. Appellate Costs CMT is seeking $3,250.95 in costs for the appellate proceeding, comprised of $3,156.41 in costs charged by Fowler and $94.54 charged by de la Parte & Gilbert. However, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the costs which CMT seeks to recover --routine office expenses--are not recoverable legal costs under the applicable statutes. Prejudgment Interest CMT seeks daily prejudgment interest at the rate of 0.01644 percent. Requested Sanctions in the DOAH Remand Proceeding CMT also seeks to recover its attorney's fees and costs incurred following the remand from the Court of Appeal to DOAH to determine the amount of appellate attorney's fees and costs, as a sanction for alleged misconduct by Schweickert. CMT seeks a sanction against Schweickert for his failure to appear at a scheduled deposition for which Schweickert had been subpoenaed. Schweickert was not represented by an attorney at the time. Schweickert told CMT's attorneys that he was not going to appear at the deposition, but CMT's attorneys went forward as planned. Schweickert did not appear for his deposition. CMT seeks to recover its attorney's fees charged by de la Parte & Gilbert that are related to Schweickert's failure to appear for his deposition, which are $17,975.00, and costs of $818.63. CMT also sought a sanction against Schweickert for having to respond to Schweickert's Motion for Cause of Contempt for Citrus Mining and Timber’s Violation of Court Order, which demanded sanctions against CMT for CMT's scheduling of Schweickert's deposition without attempting to contact him to arrange a mutually agreeable date and time. The motion was denied. Schweickert was not represented by an attorney at the time. CMT seeks to recover its attorney's fees charged by de la Parte & Gilbert to respond to the motion, which are $2,357.50, and costs of $21.52. The day before the final hearing, CMT filed a motion for sanctions for Schweickert's failure to provide complete answers to some of CMT's discovery requests. At the time of the final hearing on September 7, 2011, CMT showed a total of $35,570 in attorney's fees associated with the DOAH remand proceeding, and costs of $1,693.73. CMT seeks recovery of those fees and costs as well as subsequent fees and costs through issuance of the Final Order in this remand proceeding, which are estimated to be $22,000 and $10,870, respectively. In summary, CMT seeks to recover $70,133.73 in fees and costs that it was charged by its attorneys for their effort to show that CMT's appellate fees and costs of $53,673.45 were reasonable.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard Shambo, is the legal guardian for Linda Shambo. Linda Shambo is a "client" as defined in Section 402.33(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and has been assessed a fee in the amount of $286.00 per month by the Department. Such fee is paid by the Petitioner as the client's guardian. Petitioner manages the client's financial resources. The client resides in a group home, an intensive care level 3 facility, for which the monthly charge is $633.00. No dispute was made as to the appropriateness of that charge. The fee which has been assessed in this case is equal to the monthly charge less the client's reimbursements from other sources (e.g. Social Security benefits). The Department's Fee Collection Review Committee met on January 8, 1993 to review the fee assessed for this client. Such committee denied Petitioner's request for a reduction in fee and advised him of his right to an administrative review of that decision. The client's income over the last few years has declined due to lower interest rates. According to Petitioner, if the assessed fee is not reduced from $286 to $250 per month, the client will have insufficient income to cover the assessment. As a result, the client's principal will be reduced to cover the difference. Such testimony has been deemed credible and has not been challenged by the Department. No argument as to the appropriateness of other expenditures made on behalf of this client has been raised. Accordingly, it is found that the client's income less such appropriate expenses is insufficient to yield a disposable income sufficient to cover the fee assessed by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for a reduced fee. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 29th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4617 Neither party submitted a proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard E. Shambo 125 Cooper Drive Santee, South Carolina 29142 Karen M. Miller District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Intervenors are entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2003).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an insurer and carrier within the meaning of Subsections 440.02(4) and 440.02(38), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(w).2 Petitioner is licensed in the state as a workers' compensation insurance carrier (carrier).3 Respondent is a state agency within the meaning of Subsection 440.02(3), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(b). In relevant part, Respondent is responsible for resolving reimbursement disputes between a carrier and a health care provider. Intervenors are health care providers within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2005), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(1)(u). Each Intervenor is a health care facility within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2005). Intervenors seek an award of attorney fees and costs against Petitioner pursuant to Sections 57.105 and 120.595, Florida Statutes (2003). The proceeding involving Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2003), is the subject of a separate Final Order entered on the same date as this Recommended Order. The scope of this Recommended Order is limited to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2003). Intervenors allege that Petitioner is the "non- prevailing adverse party" in an underlying proceeding and participated in the underlying proceeding for an "improper purpose" as the quoted terms are defined, respectively, in Subsections 120.595(1)(e)3. and 120.595(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2003). The underlying proceeding involves eight consolidated Petitions for Administrative Hearing. Petitioner filed each Petition for Administrative Hearing after Respondent determined Petitioner had improperly discounted the amount of reimbursement Petitioner paid for hospital services that Intervenors provided to eight patients from March 13, 2004, through February 11, 2005. From April 13 through May 23, 2005, Respondent issued separate orders directing Petitioner to pay the disputed amounts pursuant to Subsection 440.13(7), Florida Statutes (2005). From June 1 through June 21, 2005, Petitioner filed eight separate Petitions for Administrative Hearing. The eight petitions were subsequently consolidated into one underlying proceeding. Petitioner is the non-prevailing adverse party in the underlying proceeding. On December 8, 2005, Petitioner filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal in the underlying proceeding. On December 9, 2005, Intervenors filed their motion for attorney fees based on Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2003). The formal hearing in the underlying proceeding was set for January 18, 2006. The ALJ amended the issue for the formal hearing to exclude the original reimbursement dispute and to limit the scope of the formal hearing to the fee dispute. The ALJ did so to avoid delay in the resolution of the proceeding. The fee dispute at issue in this proceeding includes only six of the original eight reimbursement disputes because Intervenors were not the medical providers in two of the original eight disputes.4 In the six reimbursement disputes involving Intervenors, Respondent ordered Petitioner to pay additional reimbursements in the aggregate amount of $54,178.52. Approximately $51,489.27 of the $54,178.52 in additional reimbursement involved inpatient hospital services provided to one patient.5 The remaining $2,689.25 in additional reimbursement involved outpatient hospital services in the emergency room.6 Subsection 440.13(12), Florida Statutes (2005), mandates that a three-member panel must determine statewide schedules for reimbursement allowances for inpatient hospital care. The statute requires hospital outpatient care to be reimbursed at 75 percent of "usual and customary" charges with certain exceptions not relevant to this proceeding. Notwithstanding the statutory mandate to schedule reimbursement rates for hospital inpatient services, the inpatient services at issue in the underlying proceeding were apparently unscheduled inpatient services. By letter dated April 13, 2005, Respondent ordered Petitioner to pay Intervenor, Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc. (Holmes), an additional reimbursement in the amount of $51,489.27. The total reimbursement to Holmes was 75 percent of the charges that Holmes submitted to Petitioner for reimbursement.7 Respondent interprets Subsection 440.13(12), Florida Statutes (2005), to authorize reimbursement of both unscheduled inpatient hospital services and outpatient hospital services at the same rate. There is no dispute that Respondent reimburses unscheduled inpatient hospital services and outpatient hospital services at 75 percent of the "usual and customary" charges. The dispute in the underlying proceeding was over the meaning of the phrase "usual and customary" charges. Petitioner challenged the interpretation asserted by Respondent and Intervenors. Respondent and Intervenors contended that the quoted statutory phrase means Intervenors' usual and customary charges evidenced in a proprietary document identified in the record as the "charge master." Each Intervenor maintains its own charge master, and the information in each charge master is proprietary and confidential to each Intervenor. Petitioner asserted that the statutory phrase "usual and customary" charges means the usual and customary charges imposed by other hospitals in the community in which Intervenors are located. Petitioner maintains a data base that contains information sufficient to determine the usual and customary charges in each community. Petitioner did not participate in the underlying proceeding for an improper purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.595(1)(e)1., Florida Statutes (2003). Rather, Petitioner presented a good faith claim or defense to modify or reverse the then-existing interpretation of Subsection 440.13(12), Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner had a reasonable expectation of success. The statutory phrase "usual and customary" charges is not defined by statute. Nor has the phrase been judicially defined. Respondent bases its interpretation of the disputed phrase on two agency final orders and relevant language in the Florida Workers' Compensation Reimbursement Manual for Hospitals (2004 Second Edition) (the Manual). The Manual is developed by the Florida Department of Financial Services (DFS).8 The Manual interprets the quoted statutory phrase to mean the "hospital's charges." However, after the effective date of the Manual in 2004, DFS developed a proposed change to the Manual that, in relevant part, interprets "usual and customary" charges to mean the lesser of the charges billed by the hospital or the median charge of hospitals located within the same Medicare geographic locality.9 The trier of fact does not consider the new interpretation of the disputed statutory phrase as evidence relevant to a disputed issue of fact. As Respondent determined in an Order to Show Cause issued on February 16, 2006, and attached to Intervenors' PRO, "what constitutes 'usual and customary' charges is a question of law, not fact." The ALJ considers the new interpretation proposed by DFS for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of the interpretation asserted by Petitioner in the underlying proceeding. The ALJ also considers the new DFS interpretation to determine whether the interpretation asserted by Petitioner presented a justiciable issue of law. Intervenors assert that Petitioner's improper purpose in the underlying proceeding is evidenced, in relevant part, by Petitioner's failure to initially explain its reduced reimbursement to Intervenors with one of the codes authorized in Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.602(5)(n) as an explanation of bill review (EOBR). None of the EOBR codes, however, contemplates a new interpretation of the statutory phrase "usual and customary" charges. Intervenors further assert that Petitioner's improper purpose in the underlying proceeding is evidenced, in relevant part, by Petitioner's failure to respond to discovery. However, responses to discovery would not have further elucidated Petitioner's rule-challenge. Petitioner stated eight times in each Petition for Administrative Hearing that Florida Administrative Code Rule 69L-7.501, the DFS rule incorporating the Manual by reference: [S]hould be read to allow recovery of 75% of the usual and customary fee prevailing in the community, and not 75% of whatever fee an individual provider elects to charge. Respondent and Intervenors were fully aware of the absence of statutory and judicial authority to resolve the issue. Petitioner did raise at least one factual issue in each Petition for Administrative Hearing. Petitioner alleged that Respondent's decision letters ordering Petitioner to pay additional reimbursement amounts had no legal effect because Respondent acted before each provider requested and received the carrier's reconsidered reimbursement decision. The absence of a formal hearing in the underlying proceeding foreclosed an evidential basis for a determination of whether each provider in fact requested and received a reconsidered reimbursement decision before the date Respondent ordered Petitioner to pay additional reimbursements. In this fee dispute, Petitioner presented some evidence to support the factual allegation and thereby established the presence of a justiciable issue of fact. It is not necessary for Petitioner to present enough evidence to show that Petitioner would have prevailed on that factual issue in the underlying proceeding. If the letters of determination issued by Respondent were without legal effect, Petitioner would not have waived its objections to further reimbursement within the meaning of Subsection 440.13(7)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). A determination that Petitioner did, or did not, submit the required information is unnecessary in this proceeding. During the formal hearing in this proceeding, Petitioner called an expert employed by a company identified in the record as Qmedtrix. The testimony showed a factual basis for the initial reimbursement paid by Petitioner. It is not necessary for Petitioner to show that this evidence was sufficient to prevail on the merits in the underlying case. The evidence is sufficient to establish justiciable issues of fact in the underlying case. In this proceeding, Petitioner submitted some evidence of justiciable issues of fact in the underlying proceeding. Petitioner need not submit enough evidence in this fee dispute to show Petitioner would have prevailed on these factual issues in the underlying proceeding. Intervenors are not entitled to a presumption that Petitioner participated in this proceeding for an improper purpose in accordance with Subsection 120.595(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003). Although Petitioner was the non-prevailing party in two previous administrative hearings involving the same legal issue, the two proceedings were not against the same prevailing hospital provider and did not involve the same "project" as required in the relevant statute. Intervenors seek attorney fees in the amount of $36,960 and costs in the amount of $2,335.37 through the date that Petitioner voluntarily dismissed the underlying proceeding. Absent a finding that Petitioner participated in the underlying proceeding for an improper purpose, it is unnecessary to address the amount and reasonableness of the attorney fees and costs sought by Intervenors. If it were determined that Petitioner participated in the underlying proceeding for an improper purpose, the trier of fact cannot make a finding that the proposed attorney fees and costs are reasonable. Such a finding is not supported by competent and substantial evidence. The total attorney fees and costs billed in the underlying proceeding were charged by six or seven attorneys or paralegals employed by the billing law firm. However, the fees and costs at issue in this proceeding exclude any time and costs charged by paralegals and include only a portion of the total fees and costs charged by the attorneys. The total amount of time billed and costs incurred in the underlying proceeding is evidenced in business records identified in the record as Intervenors' Exhibits 20-23. However, those exhibits do not evidence the reasonableness of the fees and costs billed by the attorneys.10 Either the testimony of the billing attorneys or the actual time slips may have been sufficient to support a finding that the attorney fees and costs are reasonable. However, Intervenors pretermitted both means of proof. Intervenors asserted that the time slips contain information protected by the attorney-client privilege. However, Intervenors neither submitted redacted time slips nor offered the actual time slips for in-camera review. Nor did Intervenors allow the attorneys to testify concerning unprivileged matters. The absence of both the testimony of the attorneys and the time slips is fatal. The fact-finder has insufficient evidence to assess the reasonableness of the fees and costs, based on the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved. Intervenors' expert opined that the attorney fees and costs are reasonable. The expert based her opinion, in relevant part, on her review of the actual time slips maintained by each attorney. However, Petitioner was unable to review the time slips before cross-examining the expert. In lieu of the actual time slips, Intervenors submitted a summary of the nature of the time spent by each attorney. The summary is identified in the record as Intervenors' Exhibit 2. Petitioner objected to Intervenors' Exhibit 2, in relevant part, on the ground that it is hearsay. The ALJ reserved ruling on the objection and invited each side to brief the issue in its respective PRO. The paucity of relevant citations in the PROs demonstrates that neither side vigorously embraced the ALJ's invitation. Intervenors' Exhibit 2 is hearsay within the meaning of Subsection 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2005).11 The author of Intervenors' Exhibit 2 summarized the unsworn statements of attorneys from their time slips and submitted those statements to prove the truth of the assertion that the time billed was reasonable. Intervenors made neither the attorneys nor their time slips available for cross examination.12 Even if the summary were admissible, the summary and the testimony of its author are insufficient to show the attorney fees and costs were reasonable. The insufficiency of the summary emerged during cross-examination of its author. The author is the lone attorney from the billing law firm who testified at the hearing. Q. What other information did you look at to decide what time to actually bill . . .? A. The information I used was the information from the actual bill. Q. If we look at the first entry . . . were you the person that conducted that telephone conference? A. No, I wasn't. Transcript (TR) at 510-511. Q. In other words, [the entries] go with the date as opposed to the event [such as a motion to relinquish]? A. That's correct. Q. So if I wanted to know how much time it took you to actually work on the motion to relinquish, I would have to look at each entry and add up all the hours to find out how long it took you to do one motion. Is that how I would do that? A. It would be difficult to isolate that information from this record, we bill and explain in the narrative what work is performed each day, and unless that was the single thing worked on for several days, there would be no way to isolate the time, because we don't bill sort of by motion or topic. . . . Q. Well, if I'm trying to decide whether the time billed is reasonable, wouldn't I need to know how much time was spent on each task? A. I'm not sure how you would want to approach that. . . . Looking at this document, it does not give you that detail. It doesn't provide that breakout of information. Q. Is there a way for us to know who you spoke with on those entries? A. The entry . . . doesn't specify who participated in the conference. I don't recall what the conference entailed . . . . And many of these entries are from months ago, and I can't specifically recall on that date if I was involved in a conference and who else might have been there. . . . And so my guess is where the conference is listed on a day when lots of activity was performed on behalf of the client, most of it in this case was research. TR at 516-521.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying the motion for attorney fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 27th day of April, 2006.
