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.
Findings Of Fact On August 17, 1989, the Executive Board acting for the Local Elected Officials of the Heartland Employment and Training Consortium, voted to terminate Clifton Thomas, Jr., from his position as Executive Director of the Heartland Private Industry Council. At the time of his termination from employment, Mr. Thomas was being paid the sum of $47,528 per annum. Mr. Thomas' salary was established on an annual basis by the Executive Board. On or about December 1, 1989, Mr. Thomas, acting through his attorney, Mr. Robert McKee, notified E. John Dinkel, III, acting as counsel for the Executive Board, that he intended to file a law suit against the Heartland Employment and Training Consortium and its Executive Board. The complaint to be filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa, Division, demanded equitable relief and damages and alleged that Mr. Thomas was fired without justification and "was not accorded due process." Mr. Dinkel, acting as counsel for the Executive Board, was able to obtain agreement from Mr. McKee, acting as counsel for Mr. Thomas, that the complaint would be dropped upon payment of $24,096 to Mr. Thomas. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Heartland Private Industry Council held on December 14, 1989, the Council voted to concur in a payment of $24,096 to Mr. Thomas to avoid the cost of litigation. It was understood and agreed that a statement would be signed by Mr. Thomas denying any liability or wrongdoing by any of the parties to the action. At a specially convened meeting of the Executive Board of the Heartland Consortium held on December 15, 1989, the Board unanimously agreed to the settlement. On December 21, 1989, a check in the amount of $21,598.40 was issued to Mr. Thomas. This amount represented the agreed upon amount minus a levy from the Internal Revenue Service. The check (#010471) was charged to the pooled administrative funds from allocations through State of JTPA formula monies. In consideration of the above payment, Mr. Thomas gave up his threatened law suit and signed a statement, dated December 22, 1989, denying any wrongdoing on the part of the Executive Board, the Heartland Private Industry Council and any officers or employees of the Board or Council. In the annual audit of the Heartland Private Industry Council conducted by Grant Thornton, Accountants and Management Consultants, the use of JTPA monies to pay the former Executive Director was questioned. The auditor stated: "The use of JTPA funds in settlement of legal claims was determined by Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security to be an unallowable cost under State and Federal law as indicated in a letter to the Council's attorney dated November 6, 1989, therefore this is a questioned cost." On September 30, 1991, the Heartland Private Industry Council received notification from Patricia S. Gilbert, Director, DLET that the costs questioned by the auditor were disallowed. No reason other than that cited by the auditor was given. On October 24, 1991, Heartland Private Industry Council, Inc., notified the Department of Labor of their intent to appeal the disallowed cost. On November 1, 1991, Jack E. Lyons, Executive Director of the Heartland Private Industry Council, wrote a letter to Secretary Scruggs, questioning the applicability of the statutes, both State and Federal, that were cited by the auditor in the statement of questioned costs. At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Heartland Private Industry Council held on April 17, 1992, the Council denied any misapplication of Federal JTPA dollars and voted to not permit the Executive Director to settle the disallowed costs by payment from non-JTPA dollars. The attached documentation styled Index of Exhibits, containing fourteen (14) exhibits is incorporated by reference into the proposed Statement of Facts.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding the payment to Clifton Thomas, Jr., of $24,096 in settlement of his law suit against the Heartland Private Industry Council Inc. to be a nonallowable cost and improperly charged to federally provided funds. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry R. Jackson, Esquire 300 Parkview Place Lakeland, FL 33805 Carolyn Cummings, Esquire Hartman Building, Suite 307-2102 Capitol Circle SE Tallahassee, FL 32399 Frank Scruggs, Secretary 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle SE Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn Chief Legal Counsel 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle SE Tallahassee, FL 32399-2152
The Issue The amount of attorneys fees and costs, if any, that should be awarded Petitioners pursuant to the Final Order issued on March 4, 1997, in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 96-1418RU, et al., finding Petitioners entitled to attorneys fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.595, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996) and retaining jurisdiction to determine the "reasonable amounts" of such fees and costs
Findings Of Fact By Joint Prehearing Stipulation and without waiving objections to applicability of Section 120.595, Florida Statutes, the Agency For Health Care Administration (AHCA), has stipulated with all parties as to the "reasonable amounts" of requested fees and costs to be awarded Petitioners in the event that such an award is determined to be applicable. All parties have also stipulated to the lack of liability of Intervenor Citizens of the State of Florida for payment of any award of fees and costs in this proceeding. That stipulation in its entirety is incorporated by this reference within these findings of fact and attached to this Final Order as Exhibit "A." The amendments to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, were adopted as part of a major rewrite of the APA. See, Chapter 96-159, Laws of Florida. The amendments were effective October 1, 1996, and were effective prior to the hearing related to the rule challenge cases. All parties requesting attorneys’ fees and costs rely upon Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996) as authority for an award of fees. Provisions of Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), are applicable to the facts of this case. See, Final Order issued on March 4, 1997, in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 96-1418RU, et al.
Recommendation Based on the evidence presented at the hearing on September 22, 1989, the hearing officer recommends that the attorney fees awarded to Ganson be in the following amounts: Attorney fees for the Administrative Phase: $16,550.00 Attorney fees for the Appeal Phase: 23,550.00 Attorney fees for the Attorney Fee Phase: 8,150.00 TOTAL ATTORNEY FEE RECOMMENDATION $48,250.00 Based on the evidence presented at the hearing on September 22, 1989, the Hearing Officer recommends that the costs awarded to Ganson be in the following amounts: Administrative Phase $401.94 Appeal Phase 100.00 Attorney Fee Phase 0.00 TOTAL COSTS RECOMMENDATION $501.94 Respectfully submitted and entered this 12th day of October 1989, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IN GANSON v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, DOAH CASE NO. 89-4818F, 1st DCA CASE NO. 88-01568 The following is a summary of the rulings at hearing on all of the exhibits offered by all parties at the evidentiary hearing on September 22, 1989. Exhibits offered by Petitioner Ganson: Petitioner Ex. 1: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 2: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 3: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 3A: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 4A: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 4B: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 5. Objection on grounds of relevancy. Objection overruled and exhibit received. [Objection on the grounds of hearsay might have resulted in a different ruling, but there was no hearsay objection.] Petitioner Ex. 6: Objection on grounds of relevancy. Objection overruled and exhibit received. [Objection on the grounds of hearsay might have resulted in a different ruling, but there was no hearsay objection.] Petitioner Ex. 7: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 8: Received without objection. Petitioner Ex. 9: Officially recognized without objection. Petitioner Ex. 10: Officially recognized without objection. Petitioner Ex. 11: Objection sustained. [Included in record as rejected exhibit.] Petitioner Ex. 12. Officially recognized without objection. Petitioner Ex. 13: Officially recognized without objection. Exhibits offered by Respondent Department: Department Ex. 1: Received without objection. Department Ex. 2: Received without objection. Department Ex. 3: Objection on grounds exhibit constitutes statement made in negotiations concerning a compromise. Objection sustained. [Included in record as rejected exhibit.] Department Ex. 4: Objection on grounds exhibit constitutes statement made in negotiations concerning a compromise. Objection sustained. [Included in record as rejected exhibit.] COPIES FURNISHED: Augustus D. Aikens, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kenneth D. Franz, Esquire 204-B South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Raymond D. Rhodes, Clerk District Court of Appeal First District State of Florida 300 Martin Luther King Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1850 ================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION ================================================================= IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA TERRI J. GANSON, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. vs. CASE NO. 88-1568 DOAH CASE NO. 89-4818F STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYEES' INSURANCE, Appellee. / Opinion filed December 22, 1989. Appeal from an order of the Department of Administration. Kenneth D. Kranz, of Eric B. Tilton, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellant. Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., General Counsel, Department of Administration, Tallahassee, for appellee. OPINION AND ORDER ON ATTORNEY FEE BARFIELD, J. By direction of this court the matter of attorney fees payable to appellant was submitted to Michael M. Parrish, Hearing Officer, for a recommendation on the amount of fee to be awarded. His Report and Recommendation follows. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION By opinion filed July 7, 1989, reported at 14 FLW 1594, the District Court of Appeal, First District, reversed and remanded a final order of the Department of Administration. The opinion included the following disposition of Ganson's motion for costs and attorney fees: Appellant's motion for attorney fees under section 120.57(1)(b)10, Florida Statutes (1987), based upon her assertion that the agency action which precipitated the appeal was a gross abuse of the agency's discretion, is granted. The parties may, within twenty days of the date this decision becomes final, file with this court a stipulation regarding the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be awarded. In the event the amount of the attorney fees cannot be agreed upon by the parties within the time allotted, the Department shall promptly refer the matter to Michael Parrish, the Division of Administrative Hearings hearing officer, for an immediate evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees. The hearing officer's recommendations thereon shall be filed with this court within sixty days after this opinion shall have become final, at which time this court will enter an appropriate order awarding attorney's fees. Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 461 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Johnston v. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The parties were unable to reach a stipulation regarding the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be awarded. On August 28, 1989, the Department of Administration referred the matter to Michael Parrish, a hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees. In order to accommodate scheduling difficulties of counsel, at the request of the parties the court extended the sixty-day period for the filing of the hearing officer's recommendations until October 13, 1989. (See Motion For Extension of Time filed September 7, 1989, and order granting same issued September -14, 1989.) An evidentiary hearing was originally scheduled for September 15, 1989. At the request of counsel for the Department of Administration, the evidentiary hearing was continued until September 22, 1989. At the hearing on September 22, 1989, Ganson presented the testimony of Kenneth D. Kranz, Esquire, the attorney who performed all of the services for which fees are claimed. Ganson also offered numerous exhibits including the affidavits of two local attorneys (Vernon T. Grizzard, Esquire, and Fishel Philip Blank, Esquire), both of which included expert opinions regarding the reasonableness of the attorney fees sought by Ganson. The Department also called Mr. Kranz as a witness and offered four exhibits. [Rulings on all exhibits offered by all parties are contained in the appendix to this report and recommendation.] The Department did not call any expert witnesses to oppose the opinions expressed by Messrs. Kranz, Grizzard, and Blank. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were allowed until September 29, 1989, within which to file memorandums of law, which have been carefully considered during the preparation of this report and recommendation. The statutory provision pursuant to which the court has granted an award of attorney fees, Section 120.57(1)(b)(10), Florida Statutes (1987), reads as follows, in pertinent part: When there is an appeal, the court in its discretion may award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if the court finds that the appeal was frivolous, meritless, or an abuse of the appellate process or that the agency action which precipitated, the appeal was a gross abuse of the agency's discretion. Attorney Fees Ganson's Proposal For Amount Of Attorney's Fees And Costs Of Litigation suggests that there may be some disagreement between the parties as to whether the court's award of attorney fees encompasses all phases of this litigation, or is only an award of attorney fees for legal services on appeal. It would appear from the court's specific mention of Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 461 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Johnston v. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), that the court envisioned an award of attorney fees "at the hearing level," as well as on appeal. And it also appears to be well settled that attorney fees may also be recoverable for the time spent litigating entitlement to attorney fees. See Bill Rivers Trailers, Inc. v. Miller, 489 So.2d 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); B & L Motors, Inc. v. Big Inotti, 427 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Albert Heisler v. Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, 11 FALR 3309 (DOAH Final Order issued May 19, 1989). For purposes of this report and recommendation, I have assumed that the court's award of attorney fees encompassed all three phases of activity in this litigation; the "administrative phase" (from the commencement of the administrative claim until the Department's final order), the "appeal phase" (from the Department's final order until the appellate court opinion), and the "attorney fee phase" (from the appellate court opinion to the present). Accordingly, I have included in this report and recommendation discussion and recommendations as to the appropriate attorney fee award for all three phases of the litigation. Where it appears helpful to do so, issues regarding the three phases are discussed separately. The methodology to be followed in determining the amount of reasonable attorney fees to be awarded to a prevailing party is set forth in Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So.2d 1145 (Fla. 1985). There, the Florida Supreme Court decided to "adopt the federal lodestar approach for computing reasonable attorney fees" and, at pages 1150-51, set forth the following methodology: The first step in the lodestar process requires the court to determine the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. Florida courts have emphasized the importance of keeping accurate and current records of work done and time spent on a case, particularly when someone other than the client may pay the fee. To accurately assess the labor involved, the attorney fee applicant should present records detailing the amount of work performed. Counsel is expected, of course, to claim only those hours that he could properly bill to his client. Inadequate documentation may result in a reduction in the number of hours claimed, as will a claim for hours that the court finds to be excessive or unnecessary. The "novelty and difficulty of the question involved" should normally be reflected by the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. The second half of the equation, which encompasses many aspects of the representation, requires the court to determine a reasonable hourly rate, for the services of the prevailing party's attorney. In establishing this hourly rate, the court should assume the fee will be paid irrespective of the result, and take into account all of the Disciplinary Rule 2-106 factors except the "time and labor required," the "novelty and difficulty of the question involved," the "results obtained," and "[w]hether the fee is fixed or contingent." The party who seeks the fees carries the burden of establishing the prevailing "market rate," i.e., the rate charged in that community by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation, for similar services. The number of hours reasonably expended, determined in the first step, multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate, determined in the second step, produces the lodestar, which is an objective basis for the award of attorney fees. Once the court arrives at the lodestar figure, it may add or subtract from the fee based upon a "contingency risk" factor and the "results obtained." The number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation. Ganson's attorney has submitted contemporaneously prepared, detailed time records evincing his labors at all three phases of this litigation. These records reflect that Ganson's counsel recorded 66.2 hours at the administrative phase, 94.2 hours at the appeal phase, and 32.6 hours at the attorney fee phase, for a grand total of 193 hours. To support the application for fees, Ganson introduced the affidavits of two members of the Florida Bar, both of whom practice administrative law in the Tallahassee area, and both of whom opined that the total number of hours claimed was reasonable and that the number of hours claimed for each of the three phases of the litigation was also reasonable. Although the Department argues that many of the hours claimed by Ganson's attorney are excessive, the Department did not offer any expert witness testimony to support its arguments. Part of the Department's argument in this regard is that the hours claimed by Ganson's attorney should be reduced because the attorney prepares his own legal documents, including pleadings, notices, motions, and briefs, by typing on a computer. Mr. Kranz explained in his testimony that such preparation is no different and no more time-consuming than preparation of documents by such means as oral dictation or handwriting, and the Department has not offered any evidence that Mr. Kranz, document preparation methods are more time-consuming than the methods of other attorneys. Also, without benefit of expert opinion or other evidence, the Department argues that the amount of time spent by Ganson's attorney on writing the brief in the appellate court should be reduced from the claimed 51 hours to an arbitrary figure of 26 hours. There is simply no basis in the record for such a reduction. Nor is there any record basis for the Department's contention that the hours spent by Ganson's attorney in preparation for oral argument should be arbitrarily reduced from the claimed 13 to a mere 4. The Department has raised challenges to several other details of the hours claimed by Ganson's attorney, but all of the challenges fail for want of expert opinion or other evidence to support them. Based on the evidence presented, all of the hours claimed by Ganson's attorney are reasonable. Accordingly, the first step in the lodestar calculation consists of a total of 193 hours broken down as follows: 66.2 hours at the administrative phases, 94.2 hours at the appeal phase, and 32.6 hours at the attorney fee phase. The reasonable hourly rate for the services of Ganson's attorney. The parties disagree on what constitutes a reasonable hourly rate for Ganson's attorney. Ganson contends that the rate should be $125 per hour, basing the contention largely on the opinions in the Blank and Grizzard affidavits to the effect that $125 is the "market rate" in the Tallahassee legal community for services of the nature provided in this case. The Department contends, based primarily on its notions about the experience level of Mr. Kranz and on what Mr. Kranz has charged other clients for legal work, that a reasonable hourly rate would be $75 for legal work at the administrative phase and $100 per hour for legal work at the appeal phase and thereafter. Ganson's contentions are supported by evidence; the Department's are not. Further, Ganson's contentions are consistent with the second step methodology of Rowe, supra, while the Department's are not. Rowe places on the party seeking attorney fees the burden of establishing "the rate charged in that community by lawyers of reasonably comparable skill, experience and reputation, for similar services." The evidence shows that rate to be $125 per hour. The calculation of the lodestar amount. The calculation of the lodestar amount under the Rowe methodology is normally a simple arithmetic task; the multiplication of the reasonable number of hours times the reasonable hourly rate. Here, the calculation is as follows: For the administrative phase, 66.2 hours x $125.00 $8,275.00; for the appeal phase, 94.2 hours x $125.00 $11,775.00; and for the attorney fee phase, 32.6 hours x $125.00 $4,075.00. Adding the three components together produces a lodestar of $24,125.00. But the Department argues, on the basis of cases such as Miami Children's Hospital v. Tamayo, 529 So.2d 667 (Fla. 1988), that the fee to be awarded in this case must be limited to the maximum fee that Ganson was obligated to pay to her attorney; an amount which the Department contends is only $500.00. Disposition of this issue requires a closer look at the nature of Ganson's fee arrangement and at a couple of other more analogous cases. The fee arrangement between Ganson and her attorney is described as follows in one of the Kranz affidavits (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, at pp. 8 and 9): Our agreement was that: 1) no fee would be owed if we were not successful in her claim; and 2) we would attempt to secure an award of fees against the Department, and in the event that we, were successful in that claim, attorney's fees would be whatever were awarded. Upon being advised at the outset that an eventual award of fees appeared very unlikely, the client initially insisted that she wanted to pay me something if we ultimately won on the merits, but did not prevail on the issue of fees. I perceived that it was very important to her not to consider herself to be taking advantage of me. I agreed and said that we would decide on a fee later if that situation arose. We never discussed an amount certain, but it was my intention that, if we ended up in this situation, I would charge her, if anything, a token amount only large enough to make her comfortable. Realistically, no significant fee (if any) would have been paid by the client; any fees bearing any rational relationship to the work required in this case could only have come from an award against the Department. In his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Kranz testified that if Ganson had won on the merits, but had not been awarded attorney fees against the Department, and if Ganson had insisted on paying a fee for legal services, he would probably have charged her about $500.00. But Mr. Kranz clarified that under those circumstances, the fee would have been more in the nature of what Ganson wanted to pay, rather than anything she would have been required to pay. In brief summary; although under certain speculative circumstances which might have, but never did, come about, Ganson might have wanted to pay a nominal fee to her attorney, her attorney had no intention of collecting a fee from any source other than an award of attorney fees against the Department. Specifically, Ganson's attorney did not have an agreement to share in any percentage of any recovery he might obtain for Ganson. Ganson's fee agreement with her attorney is unlike the agreement in Miami Children's Hospital, supra, and is quite similar to the fee agreements addressed in Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company. 519 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), and State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Palma, 524 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The fee agreement in Quanstrom, supra, "was to the effect that if the attorney ultimately prevailed..., the attorney would be entitled to a fee which would be the amount the court allowed as an attorney's fee under Section 627.428, Florida Statutes, rather than a percentage of the recovery." And in Palma, supra, the contingency fee agreement provided that "the amount of the fee agreed to under the contract was a fee to be awarded by the court." In both Quanstrom and Palma, the courts held that the usual Rowe factors should be used to calculate reasonable attorney fees, and in neither case was the fact that no fee was due from the client found to be a basis for limiting the fee. In view of the nature of the fee agreement in this case, and on the basis of Quanstrom and Palma, the usual Rowe factors should be applied here. Effect of "results obtained" on the lodestar amount. In the Rowe decision the court observed, at page 1151: The "results obtained" may provide an independent basis for reducing the fee when the party prevails on a claim or claims for relief, but is unsuccessful on other unrelated claims. When a party prevails on only a portion of the claims made in the litigation, the trial judge must evaluate the relationship between the successful and unsuccessful claims and determine whether the investigation and prosecution of the successful claims can be separated from the unsuccessful claims. In this case, Ganson was successful on her entire claim against the Department. Therefore, the "results obtained" component of the Rowe methodology does not provide a basis for reducing the fee. Application of the "contingency risk" factor to the lodestar amount. Ganson argues that a "contingency risk" factor of 2.5 should be applied to the lodestar amount. The Department argues, for a number of different reasons set out below, that no contingency risk factor should be applied in this case. At page 1151 of the Rowe decision, the court tells us the following about contingency risk factors: Based on our review of the decisions of other jurisdictions and commentaries on the subject, we conclude that in contingent fee cases, the lodestar figure calculated by the court is entitled to enhancement by an appropriate contingency risk multiplier in the range from 1.5 to 3. When the trial court determines that success was more likely than not at the outset, the multiplier should be 1.5; when the likelihood of success was approximately even at the outset, the multiplier should be 2; and, when success was unlikely at the time the case was initiated, the multiplier should be in the range of 2.5 and 3. (emphasis added) The use of the phrase "entitled to enhancement" supports a conclusion that the application of a multiplier is mandatory in contingent fee cases, and Florida appellate courts in two districts have so held. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 524 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, 519 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). But several decisions in the Third District Court of Appeal have concluded that the contingency risk multiplier is not mandatory. See Bankers Insurance Company v. Valmore Gonzalez, 14 FLW 906 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); National Foundation Life Insurance Company v. Wellington, 526 So.2d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Sotolongo, 513 So.2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA (1987). Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, unless and until the matter is further clarified by the Florida Supreme Court, it would appear that the better reasoned view, and the most widely accepted view, is that the contingency risk multiplier should be treated as mandatory in cases where the party seeking fees has entered into a contingent fee agreement. The Department argues that, even if mandatory, a contingency risk multiplier is inappropriate here because the fee agreement between Ganson and her attorney was never reduced to writing. In this regard, the Department relies on FIGA v. R.V.M.P. Corp., 681 F.Supp 806 (S.D. Fla. 1988), in which a federal court applying Florida law held: Because this contingency fee arrangement was never reduced to a writing, it is an unconscionable contract. The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, in particular Rule 4-1.5(D)(1), (2)(1987), provide that every lawyer who accepts a contingency fee arrangement must reduce the arrangement to a writing signed by the client and a lawyer for the law firm representing the client. This obviously is not the case here. Because the proposed arrangement violates this rule of professional responsibility, the contingency fee agreement here is unconscionable and, therefore, void. See Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. Mabry, 102 Fla. 1084, 136 So. 714 (1931). Because the contingency fee arrangement here is unconscionable, the court will not apply a contingency risk factor. See Aperm of Fla., Inc. v. Trans-Coastal Management Co., 505 So.2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Because of the views quoted above, the court in FIGA declined to apply a contingency risk factor, but did, on a quantum merit theory, award a substantial attorney fee. For several reasons, FIGA does not appear to be controlling here. First, the conclusion in FIGA is not based on Florida case law, nor does there appear to be any Florida appellate court decision which has followed FIGA. Second, the facts in FIGA are different from the facts in this case. FIGA involved a contingency fee agreement in which the attorney was to receive one- third of the amount recovered and, if no amount was recovered, the client would pay the costs, but not the fees, of the litigation. As discussed above, the contingency fee agreement in this case does not contemplate the attorney taking a share of the client's recovery or otherwise receiving a fee from the client. Rather, as in Quanstrom and Palma, supra, the only source from which the attorney seeks a fee is the opposing party. Because of these differences, FIGA is inapplicable to the instant matter. The Department also argues that on the basis of Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens, Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987), the use of the contingent fee multiplier should be limited or omitted. In response to an identical argument, the court in Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Casalotti, 544 So.2d 242 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), held: We are unable to entertain that suggestion, for the Florida Supreme Court in Rowe expressly authorized multipliers and prescribed the permissible range. The same result should obtain here. See also, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palma, 524 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), and Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, 519 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). (Contingent fee multipliers are mandatory.) The Department argues that no multiplier should be used because it would result in an attorney fee many times larger than Ganson's recovery and would be a fee with no reasonable relationship to the size of the recovery. In answer to a similar argument, the court in Quanstrom v. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, 519 So.2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) , held: As to the argument that the contingency risk multiplier may, in the trial court's opinion, result in an unreasonably large fee in a given case (such as when, as here, it is compared only to the amount in controversy), the answer is that the factors other than the contingency risk factor, such as the hours expended and the routinely charged fee rate, are equally implicated. If any formula considers only relevant factors, and all of them, and correctly weighs those factors, the result necessarily will be correct. If the result is unsatisfactory to those having the responsibility and authority in the matter, then they should change the formula by reassessing the factors to be considered and the weight to be given each. We who are bound to follow the authority of others should not omit factors or juggle the weight given a factor, beyond the perimeters given the exercise of discretion, in order to reach a preferred result. And it should also be noted that in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Palmer, 524 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), an attorney fee in the amount of $253,500.00, calculated pursuant to the Rowe factors, was approved on appeal even though the amount recovered by the plaintiff was only $600.00. (The Palma court noted that the litigation in that case had become protracted due to "stalwart defense" and "militant resistance;" characteristics which are to some extent shared by the litigation in this case.) On the basis of the foregoing, the mere size of the fee, if properly calculated pursuant to the Rowe methodology, is not a basis for reduction of the fee. For all of the reasons set forth above, it is concluded that a contingency risk multiplier should be applied in this case. What remains to be done is to select the appropriate multiplier. Although Ganson argues otherwise, upon consideration of the evidence, it appears that at the outset the likelihood of success in this case was approximately even. To borrow from Appalachian, Inc. Ackmann, 507 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), in which a multiplier of 2 was approved, at the outset the outcome of this case "was tentative and incapable of a comforting prediction of success. Under such circumstances, Rowe requires a multiplier of 2. Application of that multiplier yields the following results: For the administrative phase, $8,275.00 x 2 $16,550.00; for the appeal phase, $11,775.00 x 2 $23,550.00; and for the attorney fee phase, $4,075.00 x 2 $8,105.00. The total for all three phases of the litigation is calculated as $16,550.00 + $23,550.00 + $8,150.00 - $48,250.00. On the basis of all of the foregoing, a reasonable attorney fee pursuant to the Rowe methodology totals $48,250.00 Costs Ganson's motion before the appellate court was titled "Motion For Attorney's Fees," but the opening sentence of the motion requests an award of "attorney's fees and costs." (emphasis added) The motion also concludes with a request for an award of "reasonable attorney's fees and costs." (emphasis supplied) The court's opinion in this case grants Ganson's "motion for attorney fees," but never specifically awards costs. Similarly, the court's opinion does not specifically direct the hearing officer to make any recommendation regarding costs. Nevertheless, the court's specific mention of Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 461 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Johnston v. Department of Professional Regulation, 456 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), leaves open the possibility that it was the court's intention to award costs as well as fees to Ganson. Because of that possibility, I include the following discussion of Ganson's costs. The costs which Ganson seeks to recover are itemized in the three Kranz affidavits designated as Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 3A. Broken out into the three phases of this litigation, the costs claimed are summarized as follows: Administrative Phase Expert witness fee (Dr. Whitley) 100.00 Expert Witness fee (Dr. Munasifi) 125.00 Deposition transcript (Dr. Munasifi) 151.94 Copying charge for medical records 25.00 Miscellaneous copying charges 89.00 Miscellaneous postage charges 3.41 Sales tax on certain expenses 13.16 Total claimed for this phase 507.51 Appeal Phase District Court of Appeal filing fee 100.00 Copying charges--Initial Brief 57.46 Copy/Binding Charge -Reply Brief 19.44 Miscellaneous copying charges 39.15 Miscellaneous postage charges 5.85 Total claimed for this phase 221.90 Attorney Fee Phase Photocopying charge--Proposal For Fees Exhibits--Tallahassee Copy & Printing & 84.80 Total claimed for this phase 84.80 The necessity or reasonableness of the costs are not addressed in the affidavits of Blank and Grizzard. The Kranz affidavits itemize the costs, but contain no opinion concerning the reasonableness of the expert witness fees claimed nor any opinion that the other costs claimed were reasonably and necessarily incurred in the prosecution of Ganson's case. The evidence does show that the client has voluntarily paid all but the last few dollars of the costs claimed, which is some evidence of the reasonableness of the costs. Further, facial examination of the costs claimed reveals nothing out of the ordinary. With regard to the expert witness fees paid to Dr. Whitley and Dr. Munasifi, the necessity of such testimony can hardly be doubted in a case in which the central issue concerned the nature of Ganson's medical condition before and after her employment with the state. Finally, the Department of Administration has not argued that any of the costs claimed are unnecessary or unreasonable. The Department's failure to object notwithstanding, the copying charges (with the exception of the charges for copies of medical records) and the postage charges are not the types of costs that are normally assessed against an opposing party. See Statewide Uniform Guideline For Taxation Of Costs In Civil Actions. Accordingly, the miscellaneous copying charges ($89.00) and miscellaneous postage charges ($3.14) should be deducted from the costs for the Administrative Phase; the initial brief ($57.46), the reply brief ($19.44), and miscellaneous ($39.15) copying charges and the miscellaneous postage charges ($5.85) should be deducted from the costs for the Appeal Phase; and the photocopying charge ($84.80) should be deducted from the costs for the Attorney Fee Phase. With these reductions, the costs Ganson should recover, if it is the intention of the court to award costs, are as follows: Administrative Phase $401.94 Appeal Phase 100.00 Attorney Fee Phase 0.00 Total allowable costs $501.94
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.
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.
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.
