Findings Of Fact On April 23, 2013, the undersigned entered an Order on Remand requiring Petitioner to submit any documentation, including supporting affidavits, within 20 days of said Order setting forth the amount of attorney’s fees Petitioner seeks in DCA Case No. 1D12-3557. Petitioner filed two Motions for Extension of Time in which to comply with the Order on Remand. The Motions were granted and on June 12, 2013, Petitioner filed Petitioner’s Request for Appellate Attorney’s Fees and Costs with the Division. The Order on Remand required Respondent to file its response to Petitioner’s Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs within 20 days of Petitioner’s filing. To date, Respondent has not filed any response and has not requested an extension of time in which to file a response. The parties were further ordered to state whether or not either party believed that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. Petitioner requested an evidentiary hearing only in the event that the undersigned was inclined to reduce or deny Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees or costs. Accordingly, no evidentiary hearing is necessary. Attorney's Fees and Costs Petitioner/Appellee requests attorney’s fees in the total amount of $47,170. This total includes attorney’s fees in the amount of $42,760 attributable to Proctor Appellate Law, PA, and attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,410 attributable to Avera & Smith, LLP. The hourly rate for Sharon H. Proctor of Proctor Appellate Law, PA, is $400 per hour; the hourly rate for Jennifer C. Biewend of Avera & Smith, LLP, is $350 per hour. Detailed billing records are attached to the attorneys’ affidavits as exhibits to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Ms. Proctor, who was retained to represent Petitioner/Appellee in the appeal of this case, served as primary counsel in all matters pertaining to the appeal and incurred 106.9 attorney hours. Ms. Biewend served as counsel of record in the underlying merits case and as co-counsel of record before the First District Court of Appeal and incurred 12.6 attorney hours on the appeal. Petitioner submitted the affidavit of attorney Paul Donnelly, Esquire, as an expert in support of Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. The undersigned has read Mr. Donnelly’s affidavit and finds that it supports the number of hours expended and hourly rates charged. The undersigned reviewed the affidavits of the attorneys of record and the billing records, and finds Petitioner/Appellee's requests for attorney's fees to be reasonable. Petitioner requests appellate costs in the amount of $764.36. The undersigned reviewed the cost ledger submitted by Petitioner’s counsel. The appellate costs reflect travel expenses of counsel to attend the oral argument. The amount of costs is reasonable.
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 Appeal with the agency Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Final Determination be approved and that Respondent be required to repay $1,753 in grant funds expended in a manner inconsistent with Department regulations. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Suite 117-Montgomery Building 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert L. Davis Post Office Box 350 Apalachicola, Florida 32320
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.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act.
Findings Of Fact The underlying proceeding, DOAH Case No. 94-3605, involved Petitioners' challenge to notices of final assessments for fuel taxes. The assessments had been issued by the Department against Nana's Petroleum, Inc.; Emilio Perez d/b/a Nana's Stations; Emilio Perez as Vice President of Nana's Petroleum, Inc.; Edilia Perez as Secretary of Nana's Petroleum, Inc.; Sun Petroleum, Inc.; and Emilio Perez as President and Manager of Sun Petroleum, Inc. At the commencement of the final hearing, Sun Petroleum, Inc., and Emilio Perez as President and Manager of Sun Petroleum, Inc., withdrew their challenge to the assessments against them, and those assessments became final. Five assessments thereafter remained for determination in the underlying proceeding: one against Edilia Perez as secretary of Nana's; one against Emilio Perez as vice president of Nana's; one against Emilio Perez d/b/a Nana's Stations; and two against Nana's Petroleum, Inc. In the Recommended Order and in the Final Order entered in the underlying proceeding, only a portion of one of the assessments against Nana's Petroleum, Inc., was upheld. The Department was substantially justified in issuing its assessments against Petitioners and in initiating this proceeding. Further, an award of attorney's fees and costs for the underlying proceeding would be unjust.
The Issue What amount of appellate fees and costs in accordance with Phillips v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 1st DCA Case No. 97-0356, are to be awarded to Petitioner? Is Petitioner entitled to attorney's fees and costs incurred in the instant proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings for the period January 6, 1999, through April 1999, and if so, in what amounts?
Findings Of Fact This is not an appeal of a non-final order wherein the Petitioner must also prevail on the merits in a trial upon remand in order to be entitled to recover appellate attorney's fees and costs. This Petitioner prevailed on the merits at the appellate level, so no remand for retrial on the merits was necessary. The District Court has already determined that Petitioner is entitled to appellate attorney's fees and costs and has delegated to the Division the task of determining the amount thereof. Petitioner's attorney's affidavit and itemization claims $16,221.00 in appellate fees and $1,171.81 in appellate costs. Regardless of Respondent's failure to challenge or refute Petitioner's $16,221.00 itemization and affidavit of appellate fees, the undersigned understands the August 28, 1998, Order of the First District Court of Appeal to only permit the undersigned to determine the amount of the claimed appellate fees as appropriate under the rules and case law. Petitioner's affidavit and itemization of appellate attorney's fees is in order and complies with all necessary rules. All amounts claimed appear reasonable and necessary to the successful appeal, with the exception of those attorney's fees claimed for work performed prior to August 25, 1997. Apparently, work solely directed to the appeal began on that date. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit address legal work done prior to August 25, 1997. This legal work involved Petitioner's Motion for Rehearing, Reconsideration, and Dismissal and Alternative Request for Referral for Administrative Proceeding and Alternative Motion for Stay Pending Appeal and an appearance by counsel before the Florida Real Estate Commission. All such legal work predates any time devoted to the Notice of Appeal to the First District Court of Appeal. This legal work, while valuable to the Petitioner, is not appellate in nature and was not performed before the First District Court. Therefore, the attorney's fee charges totaling $3,045.00 for this period of time must be disallowed. The remaining $13,026.00 in claimed appellate attorney's fees should be allowed and is both reasonable and necessary within the parameters established by Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of The Florida Bar and the test established in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v, Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). Regardless of Respondent's failure to challenge or refute Petitioner's $1,171.81 itemization and affidavit of appellate costs, the undersigned understands the August 28, 1998, Order of the First District Court of Appeal to only permit the undersigned to determine the amount of the recoverable appellate costs as appropriate under the limitations of Rule 9.400 Fla.R.App.P. Rule 9.400 Fla.R.App.P. provides, in pertinent part: . . . Taxable costs shall include fees for filing and service of process; charges for preparation of the record; bond premiums; and other costs permitted by law Petitioner has cited no statutes specifically authorizing the itemized costs. Applying the foregoing rule to Petitioner's itemization and affidavit of appellate costs, I find that the only cost claims that are recoverable appellate costs are: 09/04/97 Stenographer/Court Reporter August Mtg. of FREC $ 77.00 09/30/97 Filing Fee $250.00 11/01/97 Printing (presumably of appellant's initial brief) $ 11.25 03/04/97 Printing (presumably of appellant's reply brief) $ 73.00 $411.25 Petitioner has also asserted a claim of $1,950.00 in attorney's fees and $69.12 in costs accrued between January 6, 1999, and April 1999, before the Division in this instant proceeding to determine the amount of appellate fees and costs. Respondent has been on notice that such a claim for this proceeding before the Division has been pending since the January 6, 1999, Motion. That Motion stated that Petitioner "continues to compensate his attorneys at the rate of $150.00 per hour, plus costs, for efforts in attempting to establish the amount of attorney's fees and costs recoverable by him and seeking recovery thereof from DBPR." I infer therefrom that the benefits of this "collection" proceeding ultimately inures to Petitioner. Petitioner only filed his attorney's affidavit and itemization of amounts claimed on May 11, 1999, when they were included with Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Reply to the April 21, 1999, Order herein, together with notice to the Department of Insurance of the claim for fees and costs for this "collection" proceeding. Respondent has not filed any objection or challenge to the affidavit and itemization for legal work and costs before the Division. The Department of Insurance has never attempted to intervene herein. Upon consideration of the pleadings, affidavit, itemization and record, I find that the amounts claimed for this "collection" proceeding before the Division are reasonable and, apparently, unopposed, even by the Department of Insurance, which has had 30 days in which to intervene but which has not done so. Petitioner is entitled to $1,950.00 in attorney's fees and $69.12 in costs for this proceeding to collect appellate attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Florida Real Estate Commission was the state agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of real estate professionals in this state. Respondent was licensed by the Commission as a real estate broker under licenses Numbers 0117117 and 0257450-1. His licenses were effective at all times under consideration herein. On December 19, 1988, Richard and Charleen Mercier, owners of the Sherwood Lounge in Delray Beach, Florida, entered into a 6 month exclusive right to sell agreement with Richard Scott Realty for the sale of their property. At that time, Respondent was listed as the broker of record for Richard Scott Realty. The licensed sales person obtaining the listing was Walter P. Van Oostrum. The agreement called for the payment of a 10% commission upon sale. Thereafter, on April 4, 1989, the Merciers entered into another listing agreement with WMB Management, a different realty company with whom Respondent had become affiliated after his resignation from Richard Scott Realty on March 17, 1989. On April 18, 1989, Steven Yoo signed a contract to purchase the Sherwood Lounge for $60,000.00 Thereafter, the sale was closed and the closing statement reflects a brokerage commission of $7,500 to be paid from the proceeds of the sale. On May 2, 1989, Mrs. Mercier paid Respondent the additional sum of $2,500.00, by check number 219, drawn on the Carney Bank in Delray Beach, Florida. This check represented the balance due of the commission earned on the sale though there was no explanation as to how a commission of $10,000.00 could be earned on a $60,000.00 sale when the contract called for a commission of 10%. The check was cashed. Sometime thereafter, Respondent paid the sum of $500.00 to Mr. Van Oostrum in partial payment of his share of the commission on the sale of the Sherwood Lounge. According to their agreement, Mr. Van Oostrum was to receive 30% of the commission received by the brokerage on the sale. When Mr. Van Oostrum asked Respondent for the remaining $2,500.00 he was due, it was not paid. Thereafter, Mr. Van Oostrum filed suit in County Court in Broward County for the $2,500.00 due him. Respondent failed to appear or file a response and on December 29, 1989, the Court entered a Default and Final Judgement against Respondent in favor of Mr. Van Oostrum in the amount of $2,500.00 plus $80.00 costs. Though Mr. Van Oostrum thereafter made demand upon the Respondent for payment the judgement has not been satisfied. Respondent offered, in compromise and satisfaction, a payment of $100.00 plus a promise to pay an additional $100.00 "when he got it." This offer was not accepted by Mr. Van Oostrum. The balance due has not been paid.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking all real estate licenses, as broker or salesman, held by the Respondent, Dominic Scacci. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 24 day of August, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24 day of August, 1992. James H. Gillis, Esquire DPR - Division of Real Estate Suite N - 308, Hurston Building 400 W. Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Dominic Scacci 1880 N. Congress Avenue, #405 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darlene F. Keller Division Director Division of Real Estate 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and/or interest related to the hearing officer’s award of corrective payments on remand after the decision in French v. Department of Children and Families, 920 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
Findings Of Fact Parties Sarah is almost 23 years old, and she is severely disabled. Her disabilities include quadriplegic cerebral palsy, developmental delay, severe osteoporosis, severe muscle spasms, scoliosis, incontinence, kidney stones, and frequent urinary tract infections. Sarah requires 24-hour assistance with all daily living functions, including bathing, feeding, dressing, brushing her teeth, and changing her diapers. Ms. French is Sarah’s mother. She is approved by the Agency to provide personal care assistance (PCA) services to Sarah under the CDC+ program. The Agency has administered the CDC+ program since October 1, 2004. Prior to that, the program was administered by DCF. Background Sarah applied for the CDC+ program in July 2002, and was enrolled in the program in October 2002. Prior to that, Sarah was enrolled in the Home and Community Based Developmental Services (HCBS) program pursuant to which she received PCA services from outside providers, rather than her mother. Sarah’s initial support plan under the CDC+ program funded only six hours per day of PCA services. The plan was increased to 12 hours per day of PCA services in August 2003 after Sarah successfully appealed her initial support plan to a DCF hearing officer. On October 31, 2003, DCF unilaterally disenrolled Sarah from the CDC+ program based upon its determination that Ms. French had a back condition that prevented her from providing PCA services to Sarah. Thereafter, Sarah was reenrolled in the HCBS program, which required her to hire someone other than her mother to provide her PCA services. Ms. French was paid for the period of November 1-15, 2003, even though Sarah was no longer enrolled in the CDC+ program at the time. For that period, however, Ms. French was paid for only six hours per day of PCA services (at $17.50 per hour) rather than the 12 hours per day required by Sarah’s support plan. Ms. French stopped receiving payment under the CDC+ program on November 16, 2003. She began receiving payment again on April 1, 2005, when, as discussed below, Sarah was reenrolled in the CDC+ program. Ms. French has been paid for 12 hours per day of PCA services (at $17.50 per hour) since April 1, 2005. Sarah timely filed an appeal of DCF’s decision to disenroll her from the CDC+ program, but the appeal was not docketed and referred to a DCF hearing officer until January 2004. The hearing officer held a hearing on the appeal over a period of eight days between March 22 and August 5, 2004. The length of the hearing was attributable, at least in part, to the fact that the hearing officer was not a lawyer, and she allowed both parties to present extensive testimony and evidence on matters seemingly unrelated to the central issue in the appeal, i.e., whether Ms. French had a back condition that prevented her from providing PCA services to Sarah. The hearing officer’s Final Order, dated November 22, 2004, concluded that Sarah should not have been disenrolled from the CDC+ program because DCF failed to prove that Ms. French had a back condition that prevented her from providing PCA services to Sarah. The Final Order did not award retroactive corrective payments to Sarah for the period that she was wrongfully disenrolled from the CDC+ program, and it denied Sarah’s request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Sarah appealed the Final Order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal. DCF did not cross-appeal. Sarah was reenrolled in the CDC+ program on April 1, 2005, while the appeal was pending. The record does not reflect why Sarah was reenrolled on that date, which is more than four months after the hearing officer’s Final Order. The appellate court issued its opinion on January 6, 2006, and held that Sarah was entitled to corrective payments from DCF1 retroactive to the date that she was disenrolled from the CDC+ program. The court remanded the case to the DCF hearing officer to determine the amount of corrective payments due to Sarah. The court was clear as to the scope of the remand; it held: In summary, both [federal and state law] require remand for the hearing officer to order corrective payments retroactive to October 31, 2003. We believe the amount of corrective payments can be determined based upon the evidence provided at the original hearing, but the hearing officer may take additional evidence on the issue, if necessary. (Emphasis supplied) The court also awarded attorney’s fees against DCF for the appeal. The court remanded the issue of the amount of appellate fees, and the issue of Sarah’s entitlement to attorney’s fees for the underlying DCF hearing, to DOAH for determination because, according to the court, the hearing officer did not have jurisdiction over those issues since the applicable attorney's fee statute refers only to Administrative Law Judges. DCF filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied by the court on February 10, 2006. The mandate was issued by the court on March 1, 2006. Sarah was the prevailing party in the proceedings that culminated in the appeal. The Agency paid Sarah $129,595 in attorney’s fees and costs related to the proceedings that culminated in the appeal.2 Remand Proceeding On April 7, 2006, over a month after the mandate was issued by the appellate court, the DCF hearing officer entered an Order accepting the remand and directing the parties to advise her if the retroactive payments mandated by the court had been made. The Order required Sarah to provide invoices to the Agency reflecting the monthly timesheets for the “retroactive periods,” and required the Agency to respond to the invoices and identify any disputes. The Order stated that a hearing would be set if necessary to resolve any dispute regarding the amount of the retroactive payment. On April 19, 2006, in compliance with the hearing officer’s Order, Sarah filed monthly invoices and a demand for payment totaling $211,312.50, “exclusive of interest and attorney’s fees.” The invoices sought payment for an additional six hours per day of PCA services from July 2002 (when Sarah applied for the CDC+ program) to November 15, 2003 (when Ms. French stopped receiving payment for six hours per day of services); payment for 12 hours per day of PCA services from November 16, 2003, to March 31, 2005 (the period during which Ms. French received no payment); and payment of half of those hours at the overtime rate of $26.25 per hour instead of the standard rate of $17.50 per hour. The Agency responded to the demand for payment in a status report filed with the DCF hearing officer on May 26, 2006. In the status report, the Agency took the position that, consistent with the appellate court’s decision, the amount of corrective payments owed to Sarah is limited to the period of disenrollment -- October 31, 2003 through March 31, 2005 -- and that the amount should be calculated based upon the approved hourly rate of $17.50 with no overtime pay. The Agency, therefore, requested the DCF hearing officer to “enter an order finding $97,230 as the appropriate amount of compensation due as the corrective action ordered by the Fifth District Court of Appeal.” Sarah filed a reply to the Agency’s filing on June 26, 2006, in which she continued to assert that the corrective payments were not limited to the disenrollment period and that overtime pay was due. The reply also claimed that the Agency “is proving itself to be the scofflaw that the general public believes it to be,” and it requested imposition of attorney’s fees against the Agency because of its “continued delays and its attempts to starve out Ms. French.” The hearing officer set the matter for hearing because the parties were not in agreement regarding the amount of corrective payments owed. The hearing was scheduled for and held on July 17, 2006. The transcript of the July 17, 2006, hearing is not part of the record of this DOAH proceeding. Therefore, the record does not reflect the substance of the testimony presented or the nature of the evidence received at that hearing. The hearing officer entered the Remand Order on September 29, 2006. The Remand Order rejected the argument that Sarah is entitled to corrective payments for periods prior to October 31, 2003; rejected the argument that Ms. French is entitled to overtime pay; implicitly rejected the argument that “prejudgment interest” is to be included as part of the corrective payments to Sarah; concluded that DOAH (and not the DCF hearing officer) has jurisdiction to consider Ms. French’s request for interest based upon “the failure of [DCF] to process payment in a timely manner”; and awarded $105,420 in corrective payments to Sarah. The Remand Order was not appealed by either party. It was not until entry of the Remand Order that the amount of corrective payments due to Sarah was established with certainty. The Agency worked diligently after entry of the Remand Order to process the payment due to Sarah. The payment was made through a check dated November 8, 2006, which is 40 days after the date of the Remand Order. Petitioners did not prevail in the Remand Proceeding because the hearing officer rejected each of the substantive arguments they presented in the Remand Proceeding. The fact that the hearing officer awarded Sarah approximately $8,000 more than the Agency calculated that she was due in its pre-hearing status report does not make Sarah the prevailing party in the Remand Proceeding. The award was approximately half of what Sarah claimed she was due, and the difference in the amount calculated by the Agency ($97,230) and the amount awarded in the Remand Order ($105,420) was not the result of the hearing officer using the calculation methodology advocated by Sarah. Instead, the difference resulted from the hearing officer using the actual number of calendar days that Sarah was disenrolled, rather than calculating the number of days by multiplying the number of months Sarah that was disenrolled by the 28 days of service per month that were approved in Sarah’s support plan. There is no persuasive evidence that the Agency participated in the Remand Proceeding for an improper purpose, as alleged by Petitioners. Indeed, the evidence establishes that the primary reason that it was necessary for an evidentiary hearing to be held in the Remand Proceeding was the excessive and unreasonable demand made by Sarah in her initial response to the hearing officer’s Order accepting the remand from the appellate court. The Agency’s refusal to pay that amount was clearly reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. To the extent that Petitioners are complaining about having to go through additional proceedings on remand at all when the appellate court observed that the amount of corrective payments could likely be determined based upon the evidence provided at the original hearing, that complaint focuses on the conduct of the DCF hearing officer, not the Agency. It is noted, however, that the appellate court stated that “the hearing officer may take additional evidence on the issue, if necessary.” This DOAH Proceeding Petitioners initiated this proceeding by filing the Petition with the Agency. The Agency referred the Petition to DOAH because according to the referral letter, “the Agency is without authority to determine or award attorney’s fees available under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.” The Petition requests an award of attorney’s fees and costs, both for the Remand Proceeding and for this DOAH proceeding. The Petition also requests an award of prejudgment interest as part of the corrective payments as well as post- judgment interest on the corrective payments ordered in the Remand Order. The Agency disputes Petitioners’ entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs for this proceeding or the Remand Proceeding. The Agency also disputes Petitioners’ entitlement to interest, either as part of or on the corrective payments. There is no evidence that the Agency participated in this DOAH proceeding for an improper purpose. The Agency had a legitimate basis for its opposition to the Petition giving rise to this proceeding, as shown by the fact that the Agency prevailed in this proceeding. The unreasonable demands made by Petitioners at the outset of the Remand Proceeding (and at the outset of the prior attorney’s fee case, see Endnote 2) did little to bring the litigation between the parties to an just and speedy end and, indeed, likely had the opposite effect. That said, the evidence is not persuasive that Petitioners participated in this DOAH proceeding for an improper purpose.
