Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners were inmates incarcerated at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, Florida. Respondent has stipulated that Petitioners have "standing" to challenge the rules and the policy and procedure directives which are the subject matter of this proceeding. The Secretary of the Department of Corrections has issued Policy and procedure Directive initially dated June 23, 1982, and revised July 12, 1982. The purpose of the directive was . . ." [t]o thoroughly explain the gain time program and to set forth guidance for uniform implementation department-wide on its face, the directive purports to be issued pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 944.275, 944.28, 945.21, and 775.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 33-11, Florida Administrative Code. The directive contains ten separate sections. The first two sections, entitled Authority and Purpose of Directive merely recite the aforementioned statutory and rule basis for issuance of the directive, and indicate that the purposes of the directive is to explain and facilitate implementation of the gain time program. The third section, entitled Definitions, simply reiterates in substantially similar language, the definitions of the different types of gain time contained in Section 944.275, Florida Statutes. Section 4 of the directive contains special conditions to the award of gain time, including disciplinary or court action, unsatisfactory institutional performances, corrective consultations, administrative confinement, close management, inmates' assignment on Death Row, inmates serving three years' mandatory sentences, and the like. Each of the requirements of this section of the directive is either identical to or drawn directly from Rule 33-11.11, Florida Administrative Code, or Section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes. The remaining six sections of the directive deal with eligibility for, methods for crediting and processing procedures for the award of basic gain time, additional gain time, work gain time, constructive gain time, extra gain time, and special gain time. Again, each of these sections reiterate requirements already contained in Rules 33- 11.045, 33-11.055, 33-11.065, 33-11.075, 33-11.085, and 33-11.09. These sections of the directive do not purport to create or otherwise adversely affect rights of inmates in any manner which differs from the aforementioned rules. Under the policy and procedure directive, classification officers employed by the Department of Corrections serve a limited function in the award of gain time. With respect to basic gain time, corrections officers merely check to make sure that no disciplinary report has been filed against an inmate for the period in which gain time is being awarded. They exercise no discretion in the award of basic gain time. With respect to extra gain time or constructive gain time, the classification officer merely sits as a member of a classification team which determines the amount of any such award. Meritorious gain time is customarily instituted by the classification team as a whole, with the final decision-making authority resting with the agency head of the Department of Corrections. In each instance, classification officers have limited participation in the award of gain time, and may not act alone to deny inmates appropriate gain time awards.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Steven A. Ramunni (Petitioner), employed by a city as a part-time city attorney, is entitled to membership and service credit in the Florida Retirement System (FRS) from October 1, 2003, through the present.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence, the following Findings of Fact are determined. The City is a Florida municipal corporation classified as a local agency, which participates in the FRS. The city attorney is a regularly-established position, pursuant to Article IV of the Charter of the City. The City has no legal department. The cost for legal services rendered by its city attorney is included as a line item in the City's annual budget. The position is part-time, and Petitioner is permitted to engage in the private practice of law. The city attorney's immediate supervisors are the mayor and City Council of Moore Haven (City Council). Petitioner's primary legal duties consist of mandatory appearances at two regularly-scheduled monthly meetings and attendance at special meetings or workshops, scheduled by the mayor. The meetings always take place in City Council chambers in Moore Haven, Florida. Petitioner's legal duties and the dates and times of all meetings are subject to the discretion and control of the City Council. Petitioner regularly reports to City Council at each meeting. Petitioner provides legal advice/opinions to the mayor, City Council, and to all city department heads. City Council prioritizes all matters assigned to Petitioner. Petitioner represents the City in all litigation and official business. The Petitioner is paid a monthly salary for attendance at the above-described meetings and is obligated to be available, as needed, by city staff or individual council members on a daily basis, if necessary. The salary paid to Petitioner is in the form of W-2 wages, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Service classification. Other legal work is billed to the City by invoice in a pay-as-you-go basis for legal services requested beyond the scope of Petitioner's regular part-time services. The City provides administrative assistance to Petitioner when he is engaged in legal projects for the City and some supplies. Petitioner has no equipment and has limited office space on City premises. More recently, the City hired a city manager whose responsibility, in part, is to draft proposed legislation for review by Petitioner. All costs or expenses incurred by Petitioner are reimbursed by the City. The City hires and supervises the administrative staff. The City pays for legal seminars attended by Petitioner that are related to administrative and local government law. Petitioner is reimbursed for any per diem expenses incurred while performing the City's official business, including travel to and from those seminars. Petitioner has continuously performed legal services as the part-time city attorney since November 25, 1986. Petitioner is hired annually on October 1st (the beginning of the fiscal year), by the majority vote of City Council. Petitioner's services can be ended at will. Likewise, Petitioner can resign at will; there is no written employment contract with Petitioner. The City may not instruct Petitioner how to do his job as an attorney, although the City does have some control over what course of action or inaction he may take in a particular case. As a part-time city attorney, Petitioner may not substitute another attorney to provide legal services assigned to him by the City without expressed authority and approval of the proposed new attorney from City Council and the mayor. Pursuant to an oral employment agreement between Petitioner and City Council on October 1, 2003, Petitioner was included in the FRS. In addition, Social Security and Medicare taxes were paid by the City, and Petitioner was classified as a W-2 employee. The oral employment agreement has been renewed annually since October 1, 2003. However, on October 1, 2007, Petitioner was elevated to Senior Management Classification, under the State of Florida Classification System. Petitioner is paid as an employee. The City reports to state and Federal agencies that annual earned income to Petitioner as "wages for income tax purposes by form W-2." As such, Federal income taxes are withheld and Federal Social Security and Medicare deductions are withheld from Petitioner's annual pay. The City matches contributions for Petitioner's Social Security and Medicare payments. When not engaged in city business, Petitioner is a partner in a law firm, with its principal place of business in Ft. Myers, Florida, from which he offers his legal services to the general public. The City employs other part-time employees, who are all included in the FRS. All part-time employees, including Petitioner, do not receive any additional benefits from the City. Some of these part-time employees have "side jobs" while not in the employ of the City. At least one similarly-situated person, E. Dan Stevens (Stevens), who was employed as the part-time Hendry County attorney prior to 1997 and again in 1999, was not included in the FRS. Stevens, while serving as part-time Hendry County attorney, also maintained a private law practice in the State of Florida and also in the State of Michigan. The evidence demonstrates that the position of city attorney is a regularly-established position as defined by law and the rules of Respondent. The evidence demonstrates that Petitioner's relationship as the part-time city attorney is that of an "independent contractor" with the City, as that term is defined by law and rule. Therefore, he is not eligible for participation in the FRS from October 1, 2003, through present.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for membership and service credit in the FRS from October 1, 2003, through the present. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. 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 3rd day of November, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award for attorney's fees for litigating the attorney's fees issue where the appellate court has determined the Petitioner is entitled to attorney's fees and costs under the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a multiplier enhancement to the lodestar in an award of attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In March, 1989, the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sought bids for 17,500 square feet of office space in central Orlando, for a period of seven years beginning in December, 1989, with two three-year option extensions. Petitioner and two others submitted bids. After committee review, the bid was awarded to another bidder on or about June 26, 1989. Petitioner timely filed his informal and formal bid protests, and the matter was heard at length before the Division of Administrative Hearings in August, 1989. The Hearing Officer found that Petitioner had sustained the burden of proof and demonstrated that the Department had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in the bid process, and recommended that the lease be re-bid. The Secretary for the Department adopted the Recommended Order but also added an additional condition that the lease be re-bid only if necessary. Petitioner appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal which sustained the position of the Petitioner and, although disputed by the Department, granted attorney's fees and costs for all stages of the proceedings. This matter was remanded to the Department for re-bidding and to the Division for the determination of the amount of fees and costs to be awarded. Courtenay v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 581 So.2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). The Law Office of Terrence William Ackert represented Petitioner through all stages of the administrative bid protest and appeal pertaining to the Invitation to Bid for 17,500 square feet of professional office space in the central Orlando, Florida area. Petitioner, a long time client of counsel of record, agreed to pay counsel at the rate of one hundred twenty-five Dollars, and later at one hundred thirty-five Dollars, per hour and for legal assistant charges ranging from twenty-five Dollars an hour to sixty Dollars an hour, and for costs. The Petition for Costs and Attorneys' Fees was timely filed on July 19, 1991. The parties were unable to reach a stipulation regarding the amount of reasonable attorney's fees to be awarded. A fair and reasonable fee for attorney and legal assistant time is as follows: For the period: 6/27/89-2/27/90 Trial attorney time...141.9hrs at $125.00hr =$17,737.50 Legal assistant time...66.0hrs at $45/50hr = $2,990.00 Total. $20,736.50 For the period: 2/27/90-6/30/91 Post-hearing appellate attorney time...92.4hrs at $125.00 =$11,550.00 Post-hearing appellate attorney time...50.6hrs at $135.00 = $6,871.50 Total. $18,421.50 Post-hearing appellate time for various legal assistants at $25/35/50/60hr. =$4,980 Total. $23,401.50 For the period: 7/1/91-to present Post-remand attorney time...48.2hrs at $135.00 = $6,489 Post-remand legal assistant time...50.1hrs at $25/35/60hr =$2,013.00 Total. $8,502 Costs expended for hearing, appeal and remand hearing Total. $8,548.10 Total due for reasonable attorneys' fee and costs. $61,188.10 During the administrative appeal, the Respondent vacated space previously leased from Petitioner and the consequent loss of income rendered Petitioner unable to make payments to counsel. Total payments to counsel of record have been limited to $5,785. Petitioner remains liable for all fees and costs, and has been billed regularly for the total due and owing. Challenge of a proposed award of bid by an agency is complicated, difficult and time consuming process because the litigation is focused primarily in the administrative arena, where few attorneys are willing to accept cases of this type. In order to attain a successful result, it required considerable skill by counsel to properly perform the service. Acceptance by counsel of this matter precluded the acceptance of other litigation because of the three stage administrative process in order to secure relief for his client.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Jerry O. Bryan began working for the State Road Department in 1968. In 1983, he started his most recent assignment with the agency, now called the Florida Department of Transportation, as an engineering technician III, in a career service position. An employee handbook respondent was furnished in 1983 had this to say about "JOB ABANDONMENT": After an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from the Career Service. It is very important that you coordinate any personal absences with your immediate supervisor, in accordance with our current leave policy. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, at page 43. Perhaps with this in mind, respondent requested leave without pay when he learned he faced six months' incarceration, as a result of his criminal conviction for cultivating marijuana on federal property. Respondent's supervisor, Robert Edward Minchin, Jr. denied his request for leave without pay, in accordance with a DOT policy against granting leave to DOT employees who are incarcerated. Mr. Bryan did not request annual leave, although some 220 hours' entitlement had accumulated. Asked whether he would have granted Mr. Bryan's leave request absent "a policy of not authorizing leave while someone was incarcerated," Mr. Minchin answered in the negative, saying Mr. Bryan "was going to be needed during ... [the time] he would be out. T.22. At no time did petitioner ever take disciplinary action against respondent, who received satisfactory or higher job performance ratings, the whole time he worked for petitioner. Aware that Mr. Bryan did not desire or intend to resign, relinquish or abandon his career service position, Mr. Minchin took steps to remove him from the payroll solely on grounds that he was absent without authorized leave for three consecutive workdays.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner reinstate respondent and award back pay, but without prejudice to instituting any appropriate proceedings before the Public Employees Relations Commission. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry O. Bryan Federal Prison Camp Post Office Box 600 Eglin AFB, Florida 32542-7606 William A. Frieder, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Robert Scanlon, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue Is the practice of the Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), to decline Medicaid-funded compensation for emergency medical services provided to undocumented aliens once the patients have reached a point of stabilization an unpromulgated rule? The Petitioners' Proposed Final Order identifies the Agency's use of limited InterQual criteria to determine medical necessity as an issue in this proceeding. But the Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy does not raise this issue. Neither party's pre-hearing statement identifies it as an issue. Consequently, this Order does not consider or determine whether the Agency's limitation on the use of InterQual criteria is an "unpromulgated rule."
Findings Of Fact Proceedings Before the Division of Administrative Hearings and the First District Court of Appeal In the beginning this was an action by the Hospitals aimed at stopping Agency efforts to recoup reimbursement of Medicaid payments to the Hospitals for emergency services provided to undocumented aliens once the patients have reached a point of “stabilization.” The issue of whether the Agency could apply the “stabilization” standard to the Hospital claims for Medicaid payment for services provided indigent aliens recurred in Agency claims against hospitals throughout the state to recoup Medicaid payments. Hospitals challenged Agency claims in individual proceedings under section 120.569, which the Agency referred to the Division for disputed fact hearings. Duane Morris, LLP (Duane Morris), led by Joanne Erde, represented the hospitals in the individual proceedings. The Hospitals collectively engaged Duane Morris to represent them in this proceeding challenging the Agency’s stabilization standard as an unpromulgated rule. Joanne B. Erde, Donna Stinson, and Harry Silver were the Hospital’s lawyers in this proceeding. Ms. Erde is an experienced lawyer who has focused her practice in health care. Ms. Stinson is an experienced lawyer who concentrated her practice in health care and administrative law litigation before the Division. The Agency does not question their expertise. Mr. Silver is an experienced lawyer with no Florida administrative law experience. His role in the case was minimal. Depositions taken in one of the individual reimbursement cases were significant evidence in this proceeding. Those depositions make it clear that the Hospitals’ counsel was tuned into the unpromulgated rule issue and using discovery in that case to gather and identify the evidence that they would need in this case. Representation of the Hospitals in individual reimbursement actions provided Hospitals’ counsel the advantage of preparing with level of detail before filing the petition. The engagement letters recognize this stating: “We have an understanding of the facts underlying this matter and have substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the issues in this case.” This well-developed understanding of the facts should have minimized the need for discovery and preparation in this proceeding. Counsel were well positioned to prosecute this matter efficiently. Likewise, counsel’s “substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the issues in this case” should have minimized the need for time spent in research. This is not what happened. The pre-existing representation in the reimbursement cases provided another obvious and significant benefit to the Hospitals and their counsel. Since counsel represented the individual hospital in the separate reimbursement matters, the Hospitals could band together to jointly finance one case that would resolve the troublesome point of “stabilization” issue more consistently and more cheaply than if they litigated it in each and every case. As the basically identical engagement agreements between each hospital and counsel state: “Because many hospitals’ interests in [sic] are similar or identical as it relates to the Alien Issue and in order to keep legal costs to a minimum, each of the participants in the [hospital] Group will [sic] have agreed that it wishes this firm to represent them in a Group.” Because of counsel’s pre-existing relationships with the Hospitals, litigating this matter should have continued or enhanced the client relationships. The time required for this matter could not result in lost business opportunities. In fact, by consolidating the issues common to all the clients and their cases, counsel freed up time to work on other matters. Presentation of the issue for resolution in a single case also saved the Hospitals the greater cost of disputing the issue in each case where the Agency sought reimbursement. The Hospitals and counsel dealt with the only possible downside of the representation by including disclosures about joint representation and a waiver of conflict claims in the engagement letters. This was not a contingent fee case. The agreement provided for monthly billing and payment from counsel’s trust account. Each group member made an initial payment of $10,000 to the trust account. Any time the trust account balance dipped below $15,000, each group member agreed to contribute another $10,000 to the trust account. For counsel, this representation was about as risk free as a legal engagement can be. The Hospitals and their counsel knew from the outset that they would have to prove their reasonableness of their fees and costs if they prevailed and wanted to recover fees. The Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-Rule Policy seeks an award of fees and costs. They could have adjusted their billing practices to provide more detail in preparation for a fees dispute. An "unpromulgated rule challenge" presents a narrow and limited issue. That issue is whether an agency has by declaration or action established a statement of general applicability that is a "rule," as defined in section 120.52(16), without going through the required public rulemaking process required by section 120.54. The validity of the agency's statement is not an issue decided in an "unpromulgated rule challenge." Courts have articulated the legal standards for unpromulgated rule challenges frequently. See, e.g., Coventry First, LLC v. Off. of Ins. Reg., 38 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Dep’t of Rev. v. Vanjaria Enters., 675 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); and the cases those opinions cite. The facts proving the “stabilization” standard were easy to establish. Many Agency documents stated the shift to the “stabilization” standard. Documents of Agency contractors did also. Two examples of how clear it was that the Agency was applying a new standard were the Agency’s statements in its 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 reports to the Governor on efforts to control Medicaid fraud and abuse. The reports describe the “stabilization” standard as “more stringent” and certain to recover millions of dollars for the Agency. As the Agency’s reports to the Governor indicate, the stakes were high in this matter. For the Hospitals and other hospitals collectively affected by the Agency’s effort to recoup past payments by applying the “stabilization” standard, $400,000,000 was at stake. This matter did not present complex or difficult issues, legally or factually. The Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions requiring parties to disclose documents and witnesses and update the disclosures alleviated the discovery demands present in other litigation. The Agency’s failure to fully comply with the pre- hearing instructions and unfounded Motion in Limine added some additional time demands for the Hospital’s counsel. Nonetheless the issues were narrow, and the facts were essentially undisputed, if not undisputable. This matter did not require extraordinary amounts of time for discovery or preparation. Ordinarily challenges to rules or unpromulgated rules impose time pressures on the attorneys because of the requirement in section 120.56 that the hearing commence within 30 days of assignment to the Administrative Law Judge. The time constraint was not a factor in this case. The Hospitals requested waiver of the time requirement to permit more time for discovery. The Agency agreed, and the undersigned granted the request. Thus the Hospitals had the time their counsel said they needed to prepare for the hearing. The appeal imposed no time constraints. Both parties received extensions of time for their filings. Seventeen months passed between filing the notice of appeal and oral argument. Time for the Administrative Proceeding The total number of hours claimed for the services of the three lawyers, their claimed hourly rate, and the total fees claimed appear below. Joanne B. Erde 458.20 hours $550.00 rate $252,010.00 Donna Stinson 136.20 hours $455.00 rate $61,971.00 Harry Silver 93.40 hours $550.00 rate $51,370.00 Total 687.80 hours $365,351.00 The Hospitals’ counsel’s billing records are voluminous. For the proceeding before the Division, the Hospitals’ counsel’s invoices list 180 billing entries for the work of three lawyers. A substantial number of the entries are block billing. In block billing, all of a lawyer’s activities for a period of time, usually a day, are clumped together with one time total for the entire day’s service. It is an acceptable form of billing. But block billing presents difficulties determining the reasonableness of fees because a single block of time accounts for several different activities and the invoice does not establish which activity took how much time. Here are representative examples of the block billing entries from the Division level invoices: August 20, 2012 (Erde) – Conference call with ALJ; telephone conference with AHCA attorney; telephone conference with newspaper reporters – 2.0 hours September 16, 2012 (Erde) – Review depositions; prepare opening remarks; develop impeachment testimony – 5.50 September 27, 2012 (Erde) – Intra-office conference; finalize interrogatories; work on direct – 8.50 October 2, 2012 (Stinson) – Review and revise Motion in Limine; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde and Harry Silver; review emails regarding discovery issues - `2.60 October 19, 2012 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss proposed order; Research Re: other OIG audits; research on validity of agency rules – 2.10 hours November 9, 2012 (Erde) – Conference with ALJ; Intra-Office conference to discuss status; further drafting of proposed order – 7.70 hours. November 19, 2012 (Stinson) – Final Review and Revisions to Proposed Final order; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde to Review final Changes and comments; Review AHCA’s proposed order and revised proposed order – 3.20 hours. Many of the entries, block or individual, do not provide sufficient detail to judge the reasonableness of the time reported. “Prepare for deposition and hearing,” “review depositions,” “review new documents,” “review draft documents,” “intra-office conference” and “attention to discovery” are recurrent examples. Senior lawyers with more expertise and higher billing rates are expected to be more efficient. This, the fact that the matter was not complicated, the relative simplicity of the issue, and the fact that the Hospitals’ counsel already had a great deal of familiarity with the facts and law involved, all require reducing the number of hours compensated in order for them to be reasonable. For this matter, in these circumstances, the claimed number of hours is quite high. The claimed 687.80 hours amounts to working eight hours a day for 86 days, two of which were the hearing. This is not reasonable. A reasonable number of hours for the proceedings before the Division is 180. That is the equivalent of 22.5 eight-hour days. That is sufficient to handle the matter before the Division from start to finish. The number includes consideration of the worked caused by the needless difficulties presented by the Agency in discovery and with its Motion in Limine. Time for the Appellate Proceeding The fees that the Hospitals seek for the appeal are broken down by hours and rates as follows: Joanne B. Erde 255.10 hours $560.00 $142,856.00 Joanne B. Erde 202.80 hours $580.00 $117,624.00 Donna Stinson 88.50 hours $460.00 $40,710.00 Donna Stinson 67.10 hours $500.00 $33,550.00 W.D. Zaffuto 48.30 hours $435.00 $21,010.50 Rob Peccola 10.90 hours $275.00 $2,997.50 Rob Peccola 17.50 hours $300.00 $5,250.00 L. Rodriguez- Taseff 6.20 hours $520.00 $3,224.00 L. Rodriguez- Taseff 19.50 hours $545.00 $10,627.50 Rachel Pontikes 38.20 hours $515.00 $19,673.00 Total 754.10 hours $397,522.50 For the appellate proceeding, the invoices present 341 entries, a substantial number of which are block billing for work by six lawyers. Here are representative examples from the appellate level invoices: May 16, 2013 (Erde) – Reviewed AHCA’s initial brief; intra- office conference to discuss; preliminary review of record – 2.90 May 24, 2013 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss response to brief; preparation to respond to brief – 2.50 May 30, 2013 (Erde) – Attention to Appeal issues; finalize request for extension; brief research re jurisdictional issues – 1.60 June 18, 2013 (Peccola) – Strategy with J. Erde regarding research needs; review/analyze case law cited in answer brief; conduct legal research regarding documentary evidence and exhibits on appellate review; write email memo to J. Erde regarding same – 2.00 July 19, 2013 (Zaffuto) – Revise/draft Answer Brief; discuss extension of time with H. Gurland; research appellate rules regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending ruling on motion; review appendix to answer brief; instructions to assistant regarding edits and filing of answer brief and appendix prepare answer brief for filing; call to clerk regarding extension of time review initial brief by AHCA and final order by ALJ – 5.50 August 14, 2013 (Erde) – Intra-office conference to discuss brief; further revised brief – 5.80 August 15, 2013 (Stinson) Reviewed appellees' answer brief; discussed language in answer brief with Joanne Erde – 2.50 October 9, 2013 (Stinson) – Review draft motion to relinquish regarding admission of exhibit; exchange e-mails with Joanne Erde; telephone conference with Joanne Erde – 1.60 October 10, 2013 (Erde) – Attention to new motion re relinquishing jurisdiction; review of revisions; further revisions – 6.00 October 30, 2013 (Erde) – Research re: AHCA’s current behavior; intra-office conference to discuss status of action at DOAH - .70 November 7, 2013 (Peccola) – Strategy with J. Erde regarding Appellees’ response in opposition to Appellant’s motion for supplemental briefing; conduct research regarding same; draft same; look up 1st DCA local rule on appellate motions and email same to J. Erde – 3.60 December 5, 2013 (Erde) – Research Re: supplemental briefing issues; research to find old emails from AHCA re: inability to produce witnesses -.90 January 21, 2014 (Rodriguez-Taseff) – Working on Supplemental Answer Brief – legal argument re authentication and cases distinguishing marchines [sic]; editing facts – 6.70 February 3, 2014 (Erde) – Review and revise response to motion for further briefing; intra-office conference to discuss same – 2.20 May 2, 2014 (Pontikes) – Continue to review relevant case law regarding the definition of an unpromulgated rule; continue to analyze the briefs and the arguments; continue to draft an outline of the argument discussed – 5.00 June 5, 2014 (Erde) – draft email to group regarding AHCA’s settlement offer; reviewed supplemental settlement offer from AHCA; draft email to group re same – 1.70 June 11, 2014 (Erde) – Attention to finalizing response to AHCA’s notice of dismissal and filing of fee petition; memo to members of group – 8.00 July 21, 2014 (Erde) – completed motion for rehearing re: fees as sanctions; drafted status report for DOAH regarding status of DCA opinion; drafted status report in companion case; emails with AHCA re: withdrawing pending audits – 6.90 July 21, 2014 (Peccola) – Strategy with D. Stinson and J. Erde regarding motion for rehearing; revise/edit same; review/revise edit notices in trial court 1.20. The descriptive entries in the invoices for the appellate representation also lack sufficient detail. Examples are: “begin preparation to respond to AHCA”s brief,” “attention to appeal issues,” “preparation to draft answer brief,” and “research and draft answer brief.” For the appellate proceedings, Duane Morris added four lawyers, none with experience in Florida administrative or appellate matters. W.D. Zaffuto, L. Rodriguez-Taseff, and Rachel Pontikes are senior level lawyers in Duane Morris offices outside of Florida. Rob Peccola is a junior level lawyer from a Duane Morris office outside of Florida. The apparent result is those lawyers spending more time on issues than the more experienced Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson would. One example of this is a July 19, 2013, billing entry where a lawyer spent time researching “appellate rules regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending ruling on motion.” The two lawyers primarily responsible for this matter, both laying claim to Florida appellate expertise, would only need to quickly check the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to confirm their recollection of the rules, something that would probably take less time than it took to make the time entry and review the draft bill. Hospitals’ also filed a puzzling motion that presents a discreet example of needless attorney time billed in this matter. The Hospitals expended 21.8 hours on a Motion for Rehearing of the court’s order awarding them fees and costs. The court’s opinion and the Final Order stated that fees and costs were awarded under section 120.595(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Yet the Hospitals’ motion fretted that fees might be assessed under section 120.595(4)(b), which caps fees at $50,000. The court denied the motion. Two things stand out when reviewing the invoices for the appellate proceeding. The first is that the appeal took more hours than the trial proceeding. A trial proceeding is generally more time-consuming because of discovery, a hearing much longer than an oral argument, witness preparation, document review, and preparing a proposed order. The second is the sheer number of hours. Hospitals’ counsel seeks payment for 754.10 hours in the appellate proceeding. This is 66.3 more than for the Division proceeding. It included a two day hearing, trial preparation, research, and preparing a 37 page proposed final order. In eight-hour days the claimed hours amount to a staggering 94.26 days. That amounts to one lawyer working on the appeal for eight hours a day for three months. Of this time, 613.5 hours were spent by Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson, lawyers with expertise in the subject area, who had prepared the case for hearing, who participated in the hearing, who closely reviewed the entire record for preparation of their proposed final order, who researched the issues before the hearing and for the proposed final order, and who wrote the proposed final order. With all this knowledge and experience with the record and the law, handling the appeal should have taken less time than the proceeding before the Division.2/ One factor supports the appellate proceeding taking as many hours, or a few more hours, than the administrative proceeding. It is the Agency’s disputatious conduct over a scrivener’s error in the Final Order which erroneously stated that the Agency’s Exhibit 1 had been admitted. The Agency’s conduct increased the time needed to represent the Hospitals in the appeal. The Agency relied upon the exhibit in its initial brief, although it twice cited page 359 of the transcript where the objection to the exhibit was sustained. Also the Agency’s and the Hospitals’ proposed final orders correctly stated that Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The Hospitals’ Answer Brief noted that Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The transcript of the final hearing and both parties’ proposed final orders were clear that the exhibit had not been admitted. Yet the Agency argued in its Reply Brief that it had been. This required the Hospitals to move to remand the case for correction of the error. The Agency opposed the motion. The court granted the motion. The Final Order was corrected and jurisdiction relinquished back to the court. The Agency used this as an opportunity to trigger a new round of briefing about whether Exhibit 1 should have been admitted. This has been considered in determining the reasonable number of hours for handling the appeal. A reasonable number of hours for handling the appeal is 225. Converted to eight-hour days, this would be 28.13 days. For the appeal, Duane Morris attributes 28.4 hours of the work to a junior lawyer. This is 3.8 percent of the total time claimed. Applying that percentage to 225 hours, results in 8.6 hours attributed to the junior lawyer with the remaining 216.45 hours attributed to senior lawyers. Attorneys and Fees Each party presented expert testimony on the issues of reasonable hours and reasonable fees. The Agency presented the testimony of M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire. The Hospitals presented the testimony of David Ashburn, Esquire. As is so often the case with warring experts, the testimony of the witnesses conflicts dramatically. Mr. Bryant opined that a reasonable rate for senior lawyers, such as Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson, ranged between $350 and $450 per hour. The reasonable rate for junior lawyers was $200 per hour. Mr. Ashburn opined that the reasonable hourly rate for senior lawyers ranged between $595 and $700 and the reasonable rate for junior lawyers was between $275 and $300. The contrast was the same for the opinions on the reasonable number of hours needed to handle the two stages of this litigation. Mr. Bryant testified that the administrative proceeding should have taken 150 to 170 hours and that the appeal should have taken 175 to 195 hours. Mr. Ashburn testified that the Hospitals’ claimed 687 hours for the proceeding before the Division and 754.10 hour for the appellate proceeding were reasonable. The Hospitals argue that somehow practicing in a large national law firm, like Duane Morris justifies a higher rate. The theory is unpersuasive. A national law firm is nothing special. There is no convincing, credible evidence to support a conclusion that lawyers from a national firm in comparison to smaller state or local firms provide better representation or more skilled and efficient lawyering that justifies a higher rate. Based upon the evidence presented in this record, a reasonable rate for the senior lawyers participating in this matter is $425 per hour. A reasonable rate for the junior lawyer participating in this matter is $200.00. Fee Amounts A reasonable fee amount for representation in the proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings is $76,500. A reasonable fee amount for the proceeding before the First District Court of Appeal is $93,701.25. Costs Hospitals seek $6,333.63 in costs. The evidence proves these costs are reasonable. The Agency does not dispute them.
The Issue Whether Respondent filed frivolous motions to introduce additional evidence after the final hearing and after proposed recommended orders had been filed that needlessly increased the cost of litigation, justifying the imposition of sanctions under Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact 1. The Petitioner, Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division") filed Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, on April 21, 2008. The Motion is as follows: The Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, by and through its undersigned counsel, requests the Administrative Law Judge to enter an order awarding the agency reasonable attorney’s fees in this case and states: The case was originally referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 20, 2007. Pursuant to the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions and after extensive discovery, the Parties filed their respective exhibit list.(1) The Final Hearing was held on January 16, 2008. At the Final Hearing, the Administrative Law Judge ruled certain evidence would not be considered because it was not timely filed. Counsel for Mr. Tamalavich, Ms. Jane Letwin, subsequent to the Final Hearing, filed three additional motions entitling the Division of Retirement to receive attorney’s fees and costs. These motions were frivolous. Jurisdiction was specifically reserved within the Proposed Recommended Order to “consider Respondent’s claim of entitlement to fees and costs.” Each motion sought to supplement the record by introducing exhibits not timely filed. (See: Exhibit-1, dated March 4, 2008; Exhibit-2, dated March 14, 2008; Exhibit 3, dated March 21, 2008.) The filing of the motions as described in paragraph two (2) above, constitute grounds for the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs as set forth in Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2007), which reads: 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 expenses incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. An objection to each motion was filed by counsel for the agency, asserting the exhibits were outside the record in the case and would prejudice the agency. (See: Exhibit-4, dated March 5, 2008; Exhibit-5, dated March 14, 2008; Exhibit-6, dated March 24, 2008.) Counsel also requested attorney’s fees and costs. In support of this motion, counsel has attached affidavits as to attorney’s fees with an activity record for the time spent responding to the motions. The amount totals $915.00. Footnote: Respondent agreed to all of Petitioner's exhibits. In response to the Motion for Attorney's Fees, the Respondent filed Petitioner’s (sic) Response to Motion for Attorney’s Fees (in which references to the parties are based on their status in the original retirement case, not the current fees case), stating that: PETITIONER [sic] THROUGH UNDERSIGNED COUNSEL, files this Response to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. 120.569 (2 © [sic], Fla. Stats. 2007, and would state: The initial Motion to Supplement the Record was filed in good faith as a response to the urging by the Administrative Law Judge who encouraged the efforts to locate the missing payroll record. The entire episode which occurred during the trial hearing is described in detail in the Motion and was filed in good faith. The goal was to ascertain the facts in the interests of justice, not for delay or bad faith. The Motion to Take Notice was also filed in good faith based on the existence in the record of the documents which were the subject of the motion. The Second Motion to Supplement the Record was also filed in good faith and in the interests of justice, as the very document found in another case with similar issues which involved the Respondent Division of Retirement was thought to be of great interest to the court. This document was probative of the very concepts proposed by Petitioner that the notice mandated by the governing rule had to be presented in writing to the employee upon his initial hiring in order to satisfy the requirements of the FRS’ own rules and regulations. This document was not prejudicial to the Respondent since it must have been aware of the document well before the hearing. Proposed Recommended Orders were filed in the retirement case, DOAH Case No. 07-2759, on February 25, 2008. Respondent filed the initial Motion to Supplement the Record on March 4, 2008. The Motion requested consideration of documents discovered by Mr. Tamalavich's wife after the hearing. Respondent's Counsel stated that questions raised at the hearing prompted the search for more documents and made her believe that she had been instructed to have her client do so. The specific questions related to whether or not Mr. Tamalavich worked during a certain month. The Division's witness testified that she had no way of knowing the answer from her records and that it would be best to ask Mr. Tamalavich. Respondent's Counsel did not explain her failure to ask her client to search for records to support his allegations prior to filing the case or during discovery. She also maintained that, as used in her motion, "[t]he terminology 'supplementing the record' was meant to be the equivalent to a motion to reopen the record." See Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order on Respondent’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, page 2. In the second post-hearing pleading, Respondent's Counsel filed a Motion to Take Notice. Respondent's Counsel argued that the exhibit that was the subject of the Motion had not been withdrawn during the hearing and that it was re- submitted after she checked the DOAH website and found that it had been logged in by the DOAH Clerk at 3:56 p.m. on the day before the hearing began. As explained in the Recommended Order: That [tender] was untimely under the requirements of the pre-hearing order [that required submission of a list of exhibits no later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing]. In addition, when an objection to the introduction of the exhibit was raised at the hearing, the record reflects, on page 47, line 20 of the transcript, that the tender was withdrawn. At the final hearing, Respondent's Counsel said she did not intend to have her words construed as withdrawing the tender of an exhibit because "I couldn't withdraw something that had been filed in the record." DOAH Case No. 08-1770F, transcript p. 12, lines 2 - 4. 5. The third pleading, the Second Motion to Supplement the Record, was filed to introduce an exhibit used in a DOAH case that was decided in January 2004. Respondent's Counsel conceded that she could have possibly requested and received the document while she was preparing her case, explaining,"[H]owever, notwithstanding, I certainly didn't file this motion to harass or delay." DOAH Case No. 08-1770F, transcript p. 23, lines 23 - Petitioner asserted that the only effect of the motion was "to harass my client and take up additional, take up my time." DOAH Case No. 08-1770F, transcript p. 23, lines 8 - 9. The Petitioner submitted an Affidavit As To Attorney's Fees from a 26-year member of The Florida Bar, attesting to the reasonableness of a fee of $150.00 an hour for a total of 6.1 hours, or a total fee of $915.00. According to the activity sheet, the attorney’s reviewed each motion, consulted with the client on each, and prepared the three responses. During the telephone final hearing, Respondent's Counsel suggested that the work performed should have taken no more than .5 hour because the responses to the three motions were essentially the same. She also asserted that the imposition of any sanction is improper due to her good faith, subjective belief that she was pursuing a just result for her client, and that the reasonable inquiry required, under Subsection 120.569(2)(e), was "not [whether] the motion is legally permissible," [b]ut whether or not the facts you are advancing in the motion are, indeed accurate." DOAH Case No. 08-1770F, transcript p. 44, lines 14 - 18. The Division established that there was no legal justification for the three post-hearing/post-proposed recommended order motions filed in DOAH Case Number 07-2759. There is no dispute that the three pleadings at issue were signed by Respondent's Counsel, not by the Respondent, nor by Respondent's co-counsel who entered a Notice of Appearance, but did not otherwise participate in the proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation for profit located at 1933 Commonwealth Lane, Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this case Petitioner has operated a business in Florida. Respondent is a Florida state agency. Its duties include the administration of Community Development Block Grants in Florida, (hereinafter referred to as CDBG). Petitioner requested Respondent to reimburse money related to administrative services which Petitioner provided to Okaloosa County, Florida related to a CDBG. The petition for those monies was filed in February, 1993. The request for reimbursement was in the amount of $43,274.92. Respondent denied that request. In turn, by opportunity provided by Respondent, Petitioner sought an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge Respondent's preliminary agency decision denying the request for reimbursement. The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings to assign a hearing officer to conduct a formal hearing to resolve the dispute between Petitioner and Respondent. The administrative proceeding concerning the reimbursement claim was considered in the case Clark, Roumelis & Associates, Inc., v. State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs, Respondent, DOAH Case No. 93-1306. At the time Petitioner initiated the action to seek reimbursement and was afforded the point of entry to contest the preliminary action denying the reimbursement request, Petitioner employed no more than twenty-five (25) full- time employees and had a net worth of not more than $2 million dollars. Following a formal hearing a recommended order was entered by the undersigned which recommended that Petitioner be paid $43,274.92. The recommended order was entered on September 29, 1993. In turn, Respondent's final order dated December 28, 1993 denied the petition for reimbursement. Petitioner took an appeal to the First District Court of Appeal, State of Florida, Case No. 94-0151. In an Opinion filed February 16, 1995, the First District Court of Appeal decided in favor of Petitioner by reversing Respondent's final order and remanding the case. Respondent sought rehearing and rehearing on en banc which was denied on March 24, 1995 by the First District Court of Appeal. Respondent sought further review before the Florida Supreme Court, Case No. 85,581, which denied that review by not accepting jurisdiction. That decision by the Florida Supreme Court was made on September 6, 1995. On September 13, 1995, Petitioner filed a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Through that action Petitioner sought the reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs associated with DOAH Case No. 93-1306 and the appeals that followed the December 28, 1993 final order denying the reimbursement. Contrary to the requirements set forth in Section 60Q-2.035(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code, Respondent did not file a response to the petition within twenty (20) days of the filing of the petition seeking reimbursement attorney's fees and costs. Neither party has sought an evidentiary hearing for the Division of Administrative Hearings to consider Petitioner's request for reimbursement of attorney's fees and costs. Therefore this case has proceeded without an evidentiary hearing. Rule 60Q-2.035(7), Florida Administrative Code. In that setting Respondent is deemed to have waived its opportunity to contest whether the attorney's fees and costs claimed are unreasonable; whether Petitioner is not a prevailing small business party in DOAH Case No. 93-1306; whether Respondent's actions in denying Petitioner's claim for monetary reimbursement related to administrative services provided to Okaloosa County, Florida in the CDBG was a decision which was substantially justified in law and fact; whether circumstances exist which would make the award of attorney's fees and costs unjust and to present the defense that the Respondent was only a nominal party in DOAH Case No. 93-1306. See Rule 60Q-2.035(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. Consistent with Rule 60Q-2.035(7), Florida Administrative Code the following additional facts are found for or against the award of attorney's fees and costs, based upon the pleadings and supporting documents in the files and records in the Division of Administrative Hearings: Petitioner is a small business party and a prevailing small business party in the matters considered in DOAH Case No. 93-1306 and the court appeals that followed. Petitioner's attorney has submitted an affidavit claiming, "In the administrative proceedings of this action, 140.8 hours were expended to the date of Respondent's Final Order of December 28, 1993. Total Fees: $21,120.00." Petitioner's attorney has submitted an affidavit claiming, "In the administrative proceedings of this action, $2,141.78 in costs were incurred to the date of Respondent's Final Order of December 28, 1993." Petitioner's attorney has submitted an affidavit claiming, "In the appellate proceedings in this action (First District Court of Appeal Case No. 94-0151 in Florida Supreme Court, Case No. 85,581), 79.0 hours were expended and $310.66 in costs were incurred to the date of the Supreme Court's denial of September 6, 1995. Total Fees: $13,258.00. Total Costs: $310.66." The affidavits submitted by Petitioner concerning the claim for attorney's fees and costs incurred to the date of Respondent's final order of December 28, 1993, failed to adequately " . . . reveal the nature and extent of the services rendered by the attorney as well as the costs incurred in preparations, motions, [and] hearings . . . in the proceeding" by "itemizing" the claim. Section 57.111(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes. By contrast, the attorney's affidavit filed for attorney's fees and costs in the appellate proceedings was adequate to identify services rendered by the attorney and costs incurred related to appeals in the proceeding. Section 57.111(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes. The amount of attorney's fees and costs for appellate proceedings is within the $15,000.00 cap for recovery of attorney's fees and costs as set forth in Section 57.111(4)(d)2., Florida Statutes.
The Issue What amount of legal fees and costs should be awarded to Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(e) or 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, for Respondent’s erroneous classification of Petitioner’s position and subsequent failure to correct that error and reclassify Petitioner’s position back to career service as requested by her in Georgalis v. F.D.O.T., DOAH Case No. 03-4665SED.
Findings Of Fact On April 1, 2002, Petitioner was discharged from her position with the Department without stated cause or hearing. See Petitioner’s Ex. 1-2, Dep’t of Transportation v. FCHR, 842 So. 2d 253, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). On June 11, 2003, Petitioner was temporarily reinstated by order of the Circuit Court to her position with the Department pursuant to section 112.3187(9)(f). Petitioner’s Ex. 1-3. The administrative case underlying this request for fees and costs was initiated by Petitioner through the filing of a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing on August 15, 2002. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-4. In that Petition, Petitioner demonstrated, through reference to the position description provided to her by the Department, that she did not fit within any of the categories of employees exempted from career service by Section 110.205(2)(x), Florida Statutes. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-4, paragraph 7. Petitioner also put the Department on notice that she believed the Department’s action in reclassifying her was “frivolous and was done for an improper purpose,” since it was contradicted by the Department’s own documents. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-4, paragraph 12. She also requested that she be awarded appropriate attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. After nearly four months, the Department forwarded the Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal administrative hearing regarding whether its decision to reclassify Petitioner was proper. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-5. By this letter, which was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on December 10, 2003, the Department requested a formal administrative hearing and manifested its opposition to the relief requested by Petitioner in her Petition. A hearing was held in DOAH Case No. 03-4665SED on April 15, 2004. Following the preparation of a transcript, the parties submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. Petitioner filed a Motion to Strike portions of the Department’s Proposed Recommended Order because it improperly raised an argument that Petitioner could properly be exempted from career service because she was an “administrator.” Petitioner’s Ex. 1-6. That Motion was granted. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-7.1/ On July 2, 2004, the undersigned entered a Recommended Order concluding that Petitioner was improperly reclassified into Select Exempt Service. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-8, p. 12. On September 1, 2005, the Department entered a Final Order adopting the Recommended Order entered in DOAH Case No. 03-4665SED.2/ Petitioner’s Ex. 1-11. Paragraph 13 of the fully-adopted Recommended Order states that: based on the duties and responsibilities contained in Petitioner’s position description and the actual duties she performed, there is no basis for concluding that Petitioner was subject to exemption from career service as concluded by Respondent in July 2001. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-8, paragraph 13. In paragraph 19 of the fully-adopted Recommended Order, the undersigned concluded that: [t]he suggestion of the Respondent’s witness that the exemption should apply if a state employee is assigned to work with anyone retained or commissioned by Respondent to perform services for Respondent, however menial the task, simply misconstrues the statutory exemption: the relevant issue for the purposes of the exemption is whether such persons are department “employees,” not whether a department has contracted or engaged their services as independent technical consultants. Such contract administration is not relevant to the issue of whether Petitioner could properly be classified as a selected exempt employee. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-8, paragraph 19. Following entry of the Recommended Order, Petitioner filed her two (2) Motions for Attorneys’ Fees. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-12 and 1-13. These motions seek an award of attorney’s fees and costs based on the lack of factual or legal support for the Department’s opposition to Petitioner’s request that the Department correct its error in reclassifying her position to Select Exempt Service. Id. Petitioner submitted an affidavit and itemized statement of the requested hours, a summary of hours by the attorney, and a summary of costs incurred in this matter. Petitioner’s Ex. 1-14. Petitioner also submitted the testimony of J. Steven Menton, Esquire, who corroborated the reasonableness of the services and time expended by Petitioner’s counsel and also confirmed the reasonableness of the fees charged and costs incurred by Petitioner’s counsel for those services. The Department did not contest the number of hours sought by Petitioner’s counsel. Respondent did offer the testimony of Michael Mattimore, Esquire, who was also counsel of record for the Department in this case, suggesting that the rates charged by Petitioner’s counsel exceeded those which are normally charged by similar attorneys in the community. Mattimore’s testimony related to fees charged in “employment” law cases in which he has been involved during his career and did not focus on administrative litigation challenging the actions of a governmental agency, such as the present case which involved more than merely examining the factual circumstances surrounding a discharge or other adverse employment action. Confirming the complexity of the underlying case was Mattimore’s testimony regarding the outcome in other reclassification cases. The great majority of reclassification challenges (more than 95 percent of them) have been resolved in favor of the governmental agency or have not been pursued by the impacted employee. Id. The outcome obtained by attorneys for Petitioner in the underlying case is suggestive of fees toward the high end of the range. Petitioner reported the following hours and rates (Petitioner’s Ex. 1-14): LAWYERS: Hours Rate Amount M. Stephen Turner, P.A. 44.40 $400 $17,760.00 David K. Miller, P. A. 1.00 $300 $ 300.00 Martin A. Fitzpatrick 228.50 $250 $57,125.00 Brooke Lewis .90 $200 $ 80.00 TOTAL ATTORNEY HOURS 274.80 $75,365.00 Paralegals: Theresa J. Everhart Hours 1.90 Rate $80 Amount $152.00 Trishia Finkey 1.00 $80 80.00 TOTAL PARALEGAL HOURS 2.90 $ 232.00 TOTAL LEGAL FEES: $75.597.00 The hours and rates requested are found to be reasonable in view of the novelty and complexity of the issues, level of legal skills required, and the result obtained for the Petitioner. The rates sought are in line with fees charged by similarly-situated attorneys for similar work in the community. The amount requested is reasonable and justified under the circumstances. Moreover, the costs and expenses for which reimbursement is sought ($1,523.25) and the expert witness fees of $1400 ($280 /hour for 5 hours) are also reasonable and are of a kind typically billed to clients in addition to the hourly rate charged.
The Issue At issue is the amount and manner of payment of the parental award, the amount owing for attorney's fees and costs incurred in pursing the claim, and the amount owing for past expenses.
Findings Of Fact Here, the parties have stipulated that Petitioner, Dajuanda Alexander, as the parent of Elliott L. Davis, III (Elliott), a minor, be awarded $100,000.00, to be paid in lump sum, as well as $10,000.00 for attorney's fees and $500.00 for costs incurred in connection with the filing of the claim. The parties have further agreed that, apart from a claim for travel- related expenses, discussed infra, no monies are owing and no claim is made by Petitioner for past expenses. With regard to the claim for travel-related expenses, Petitioner seeks to recover "approximately $27,000.00," based upon her estimate that she incurred, on average, costs of $6,000.00 per year in travel-related expenses associated with Elliott's medical needs, including "going to and from doctors' offices, various visits for neurology, eye doctor, ER visits, hospital to and from, prosthesis, vision therapy, Nemours Clinic, pulmonary, occupational therapy, [and] physical therapy." (Transcript, page 8) Notably, however, not one iota of proof was offered to demonstrate the dates of travel, the distance traveled, the method of travel, the purposes of travel, or any other factor on which a conclusion could be drawn that the expenses claimed were reasonable in amount and were incurred for travel related to medically necessary care, treatment or other needs, as required for reimbursement under the Plan. § 766.31(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Consequently, the proof fails to support an award for travel-related expenses.
