Findings Of Fact The Findings of Fact set forth in the Final Order entered in DOAH Case Nos. 15-7010 through 15-7016 and 15-7022 are hereby adopted in this Final Order. The PFO is hereby adopted and incorporated in this Final Order as though set forth in full. During the course of the rulemaking proceedings regarding “designated player” card games, Petitioners submitted a good-faith proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative (LCRA) indicating that the proposed rules would have a significant monetary impact on Petitioners, which required Respondent to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs (SERC) pursuant to sections 120.54(3)(b) and 120.541, Florida Statutes. Respondent did not prepare a SERC. That failure was determined to be a material failure to follow applicable rulemaking procedures and became a basis for the invalidation of the proposed rules.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner, by means of a three count Administrative Complaint, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of subsections (2), (14), and of Section 475.624, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent Beverly J. Merchant is currently a Florida state certified general appraiser, having been issued license number 000141 in accordance with Chapter 475, Part II, Florida Statutes. The last license issued to Respondent was as a state certified general appraiser with a home address of 548 San Esteban Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. On January 14, 1994, Graimark/MIG Joint Venture and/or Crown Revenue, Inc., ordered Respondent to perform an appraisal of Sunrise Gardens, an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), in Miami, Florida. On March 31, 1994, the Respondent completed the appraisal of the property. The Respondent's appraisal report made several references to zoning "variances." The use of the term "variances" was reasonable under the circumstances of the subject appraisal. The Respondent's appraisal report stated that the highest and best use of the property was not as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF), but as some other institutional use. Under the circumstances of the subject appraisal, the Respondent provided adequate support to indicate that under the applicable zoning provisions "another institutional use" was probably permissible by variance. The Respondent's appraisal report included a cost approach that utilized a cost factor for "convalescent hospital space," even though the highest and best use was a use other than an ACLF. The use of that cost factor was reasonable under the circumstances of the subject appraisal.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 1996, 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 5th day of September, 1996.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Insurance (the Department), has an unpromulgated agency rule not to reimburse routine defense fees at more than $85 per hour when providing for the defense of civil actions against state employees.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Richard L. Windsor (Windsor), was an attorney employed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER, now called the Department of Environmental Protection, or DEP) when he and another DER employee were named along with the DER as defendants in a counterclaim filed in 1995 in a lawsuit (the Coxwell case) that had been brought by DER, through Windsor as its attorney of record, in state circuit court in Okaloosa County to remedy alleged intentional violations of state environmental laws and regulations. The "counterclaim" initially was not served on Windsor, and DER declined Windsor's request to defend him at that time. Instead, it was decided to ignore the "counterclaim" against Windsor until it was served on him. In 1996, after Windsor terminated his employment with DEP, the "counterclaim" was served on him. Windsor requested that DEP defend him, and DEP agreed to refer the matter to Risk Management. Risk Management agreed to defend Windsor and in September 1996 assigned the defense to an Okaloosa County attorney named Jim Barth, who agreed to an hourly rate of $75. Barth telephoned Windsor to discuss the case, and Windsor suggested that Barth investigate an out-of-state property rights organization Windsor said was sponsoring and financing the claim against him and the other DEP employee. Barth rejected Windsor's suggestion. Windsor was discomforted from Barth's decision but decided not to press the issue. In a subsequent meeting with Barth, Windsor suggested that Barth should assert the government employee defense of qualified immunity from suit. It seemed to Windsor that Barth accepted the idea. In May 1997, with trial set for July, Barth telephoned Windsor to tell him that trial was set for July 1997, and a court-ordered mediation conference was scheduled for June 1997. Windsor asked about the immunity defense and felt that Barth tried to avoid answering the question. At the mediation conference in June 1997, Barth and Risk Management made a nominal settlement offer, while DEP's lawyer refused to make any offer of settlement on the ground that the counterclaim was frivolous. Although Barth's settlement offer was rejected, Windsor became very concerned about the quality of Barth's representation. He also established through conversation during the course of the day that Barth had not asserted the immunity defense on his behalf. With trial set for July 1997, Windsor decided that he no longer could rely on Barth but would have to raise the defense on his own. Windsor consulted Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr., a Tallahassee attorney with the Carlton Fields law firm. Windsor knew Dunlap from Dunlap's representation of another DER employee who had been named along with DER as a defendant in a counterclaim filed in a previous lawsuit that had been brought by DER, through Windsor as its attorney of record (the Dockery case). Windsor was impressed with Dunlap's work on the Dockery case, including his filing of a motion for summary judgment on behalf of his client on the defense of qualified governmental immunity. Dunlap explained that his hourly rate at Carlton Fields was $175, and Windsor agreed to hire Dunlap at that rate to help get Windsor's defense where Windsor and Dunlap thought it should be. Based on this understanding, Dunlap immediately began preparing a motion for summary judgment. At Windsor's request, Dunlap presented his work product to Barth, who agreed to use it to file a motion for summary judgment. When Windsor learned that Barth missed the court's deadline for filing motions, Windsor became completely dissatisfied with Barth and eventually requested that Risk Management reassign his case from Barth to Dunlap. Risk Management agreed, contacted Dunlap, and entered into a Legal Services Contract with Dunlap's new law firm at the same $85 hourly rate in the Pennington law firm's contract. At some point (probably before Dunlap and the Carlton firm actually entered into the Legal Services Contract with Risk Management), Dunlap reported to Windsor that the contract would be for $85 an hour and that the Carlton firm would not allow Dunlap to undertake representation at that rate of pay. Windsor, who was happy just to have gotten Dunlap substituted for Barth, assured Dunlap that Dunlap would receive his full $175 an hour, as initially agreed between them, and that Windsor would pay Dunlap the difference of $90 an hour after payment of $85 an hour from Risk Management under the Legal Services Contract. Neither Dunlap nor Windsor advised Risk Management of the agreement for the payment of Dunlap's full $175-an-hour fee after Risk Management's Legal Services Contract with the Carlton firm at $85 an hour. However, Windsor had in mind that, at some point in the future, he would raise the issue and be able to persuade Risk Management to contribute more towards the payment of Dunlap's $175-an-hour fee. In October 1997, Windsor began an exchange of correspondence with Risk Management that went on for several months. While touching on a number of different topics, Windsor's primary initial concern in this correspondence was the payment of Dunlap's fees for work done on Windsor's case before Dunlap's Legal Services Contract with Risk Management. Risk Management agreed without much question (notwithstanding Windsor having retained Dunlap without notice to Risk Management), since Risk Management determined that Dunlap's work did not duplicate much of Barth's. When Risk Management indicated its intent to pay Dunlap for the work at the contract rate of $85 an hour, Windsor advised Risk Management for the first time that Windsor was obligated to pay Dunlap for the work at the rate of $175 an hour; Windsor requested that Risk Management "make him whole" by paying Dunlap's full fee of $175 an hour. However, Windsor did not make it clear to Risk Management in this correspondence that he also wanted Risk Management to pay Dunlap $175 an hour for work done after Dunlap's Legal Services Contract with Risk Management. Neither Windsor nor Dunlap made it clear to Risk Management either that Dunlap also had a contract with Windsor, in addition to the Legal Services Contract, for work done by Dunlap after Dunlap's Legal Services Contract with Risk Management, or that the additional contract was for $175 an hour, which obligated Windsor to pay Dunlap the difference of $90 an hour after payment of $85 an hour from Risk Management under the Legal Services Contract. By letter dated July 1, 1998, Risk Management's Director, R.J. Castellanos, advised Windsor that Risk Management would not pay Dunlap more than $85 an hour for the work done before the Legal Services Contract. The letter explained that review did not disclose support for Windsor's contention in correspondence that Risk Management was negligent, requiring Windsor to retain Dunlap at $175 an hour prior to the Legal Services Contract. It pointed out that Windsor retained Dunlap at the time without any notice to Risk Management and that Risk Management was "deprived of any opportunity to contract with a firm at a negotiated rate" for those services (as it was able to do for subsequent services when it entered into the Legal Services Contract with Dunlap's firm). For those reasons, the letter explained, Risk Management "reimbursed you at an $85.00 rate, which is the maximum amount we pay as routine defense fees." Windsor contends that the latter quotation is, or is evidence of, an unpromulgated Division rule. The intent of the statement in Castellanos' letter was to explain why, under the circumstances, Risk Management would not reimburse Windsor more than $85 an hour for the fees he incurred for work Dunlap did before the Legal Services Contract; it was not intended to even address Dunlap's fees after the Legal Services Contract. At the time the statement was made, Castellanos did not realize there was any issue as to payment of Dunlap's fees for work done after the Legal Services Contract. The statement in Castellanos' letter was not a statement of general applicability. Risk Management generally does not reimburse defense fees; rather, it negotiates contracts directly with lawyers to provide those services and pays the fees directly to the lawyer under contract. Rather, the statement in Castellanos' letter was intended to explain that, under the circumstances, Risk Management was not going to reimburse more than maximum amount it pays attorneys with whom Risk Management contracts directly. As a matter of fact, Risk Management has approximately 250 open-ended contracts for legal services with law firms all over Florida. (It is not clear from the evidence when these contracts were negotiated, or which are still in use.) The hourly rates for those contracts range from a low of $65 an hour to a high (in approximately five or six of the 250 contracts) of $85 an hour for routine defense cases. (Hourly rates for trademark and copyright specialties are $150 an hour.) These included the $85-an-hour legal services contracts with Dunlap, once as a member of the Pennington firm and again as a member of the Carlton Fields firm. The evidence also did not prove that Risk Management has an unpromulgated rule not to exceed a fee of $85 an hour in negotiating directly with attorneys for legal services contracts for routine defense cases. The evidence was that Risk Management considers itself to be bound by Section 287.059(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 2- 37 when contracting with attorneys for legal services. The maximum fees allowed by the statute and those rules exceed $85 an hour for routine defense cases. In addition, the statute and rules allow agencies such as Risk Management to exceed the maximum standard fees under certain circumstances. See Conclusion of Law 21, infra. Risk Management interprets Section 287.059(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 2- 37 to require it to negotiate fees below the maximum standard fees. Id. When negotiating with a lawyer or law firm, Risk Management attempts to utilize the leverage it enjoys from the ability to offer lawyers an open-ended contract with the possibility of volume business contract to negotiate for the lowest possible fee for quality services. To date, these legal services contracts have been for $85-an-hour or less for routine defense cases. But it was not proven that Risk Management has established an $85-an-hour maximum for routine defense in conflict with the maximum standard fees established in Rule Chapter 2-37. Windsor seems to make a vague argument that Section 111.07, Florida Statutes (1997), which requires an agency such as Risk Management to reimburse a prevailing employee a "reasonable" attorney fee when the agency declines to provide legal representation to defend the employee, and common law (which Windsor does not elaborate), requires Risk Management to reimburse him for Dunlap's services and that such reimbursement is not limited by Section 287.059(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 2-37. Windsor seems to further argue that the statement in Castellanos' letter was generally applicable to establish the amount of reasonable attorney fees reimbursable under Windsor's legal arguments. But it was not apparent that Windsor was making these arguments until post-hearing submissions in this case. Clearly, Risk Management does not agree with Windsor's arguments (the merits of which are not subject to determination in this proceeding); more germane to this proceeding, Risk Management never understood or considered such arguments at the time of the statement in Castellanos' letter, and Castellanos clearly did not intend the statement in his letter to be generally applicable to establish the amount of reasonable attorney fees reimbursable under Windsor's legal arguments.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Patricia Smithwick Valz, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as a "prevailing small business party" in the underlying administrative proceeding.
Findings Of Fact This cause originated in a disciplinary action resulting from an administrative complaint filed by the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate against the Petitioners herein, Malcolm Lewis Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. The Petitioners herein were the Respondents in the licensure disciplinary proceeding. That proceeding was resolved in their favor by the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer and by the Final Order filed April 15, 1988 by the Department of Professional Regulation. They have accordingly filed a request for attorney's fees and costs on the ground that the prosecution involved in the underlying case was not "substantially justified." The cause came on for a brief hearing. The parties elected to dispense with calling witnesses at the hearing because they entered into a factual stipulation whereby all germane facts were placed of record. It was thus established that Petitioners Malcolm Lewis Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. (hereafter Hardy) were the Respondents in a licensure disciplinary action brought against them by the above-named Respondent. That disciplinary action was resolved by Final Order filed April 15, 1988 by the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondents in that case, the Petitioners herein, were totally absolved of any wrongdoing with regard to the charges in the administrative complaint in that proceeding. A copy of that Final Order was mailed by the agency to "Diane Cleavinger, Esquire, 300 East 15th Street, Panama City, Florida 32405." Ms. Jan Nelson, a secretary at that address, and employed by Ms. Cleavinger's former law firm, received a copy of that order and executed the return receipt appearing on the envelope on April 18, 1988. Ms. Nelson was not Ms. Cleavinger's secretary, but rather the secretary of Ms. Fitzpatrick, one of Ms. Cleavinger's former law partners. In any event, Ms. Nelson executed the return receipt on April 18, 1988, but Ms. Cleavinger never received the Final Order nor notification of its filing or receipt by Ms. Nelson. Mr. Hardy never became aware of or received a copy of the Final Order either, until the agency sent another copy to him on September 12, 1988. The affidavit and request for attorney's fees was filed within sixty days of that date. Ms. Cleavinger had left her law firm on January 1, 1988 to become a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Hardy only learned of the Order when he made a direct contact with the Department of Professional Regulation and they learned that he had not received the Final Order. It was thus mailed to him on September 12, 1988 and received on September 14, 1988. That Order dismissed all claims against Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. and thus those parties are in fact "prevailing, small business parties," within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. It was stipulated at hearing, as well, that these Petitioners are small business, prevailing parties and that they incurred attorney's fees in the amount of $1,642.04 for services rendered by Ms. Cleavinger when she represented them in the underlying case-in-chief and that costs amount to $333.71. Additionally, Mr. Hardy further incurred attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $500 in connection with the pursuit of this fee claim by attorney Whitton. It was stipulated that that amount is reasonable. Additionally, the Department accepted its burden of establishing that its action was "substantially justified," within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and have stipulated that they have not done so. Thus the only issue for resolution concerns whether the claim of Hardy was time-barred.
The Issue Whether or not all or part of the 40 statements challenged in the petition of Great American Reserve Insurance Company violate Section 120.535 F.S. requiring the agency to immediately discontinue all reliance upon the statements or any substantially similar statement as a basis for agency action.
Findings Of Fact On June 13, 1994, Petitioner filed a petition for administrative determination of agency statement. The petition listed the following agency statements and alleged that each constituted a rule pursuant to Chapter 120.52(16), F.S. which had not been adopted by the rulemaking procedures provided by Section 120.54 F.S. [1993]. The challenged statements are as follows: Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please provide the following information for each approved and pending annuity contract: Form number. Name of form, if any. Date approved or if pending. What are the surrender charges and for how long? What is the initial interest rate and for how long? What is the guaranteed interest rate? Are there any bonuses? If so, for how long and under what circumstances are they paid? Is this annuity two-tier? If so, how is interest applied? What field compensation is paid for each variation? Are any of these forms field issue that allow the agent to write in the current rate of interest? If so, what controls are in place to guarantee accuracy? Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please list any other annuities offered by the company and their corresponding contract maintenance fees, administration charges, surrender charges, etc. Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please provide the agent compensation levels associated with each form and/or set of surrender charges. Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please describe the specific calculation basis of the various annuity purchase rates/settlement options. Please include sample calculations of all options at a selected age(s). Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: What percentage sales are expected to be replacements of an existing contract? Please identify the replacement percentages by source (internal, external, 1035 exchanges, etc.). Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: [Provide] a brief description of the market and marketing method. Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please provide the following: Agency training procedures as they relate to this form, Any brochures provided to agents which refer to this form, Any guidelines to assure that policy comparisons are accurate and fair, Standards to ensure that no marketing methods are used which would have the effect of inducing replacement sales through misleading representations, and All forms, other than those required by Rule 4-151.006 and 4-151.007(3)(b), used to a execute replacement sales. Respondent issues a form which solicits information as follows: Please describe the company's practice concerning credited interest rates for annuity products in renewal years. Does the credited interest rate on a given date vary by the duration of the policy within a policy form block of business? If so, please describe the relationship between the various rates. How is this practice disclosed in sales literature for its products? On an annuity policy, varying the death benefit by issue age and duration is unfair discrimination under Ch. 626.9541(1)(g). It is not appropriate to vary the death benefit by age at death for an annuity policy. Variation of surrender charges in an annuity policy by age results in unfair discrimination under Ch. 626.9541(1)(g). Basing the surrender charge in an annuity policy on the age of the annuitant is unfair discrimination under Ch. 626.9541(1)(a). Where surrender charges, which are guaranteed in an annuity contract, vary between forms and the policy parameters, which vary in support of these different surrender charges (interest, bonuses, etc.), are not guaranteed in the contract, if a company were to have products with different surrender charges this would constitute unfair discrimination under Ch. 626.9541. Unfair discrimination is prohibited under annuity contracts by Florida Statute 626.9541(1)(g). The Department continues to receive filings with many variations of interest rates and surrender charges for which the surrender charges are guaranteed and the interest rates are not. These many combinations, applied to the same type contracts, violate this statute. If a single insurance company offers more than one annuity policy in the same market in Florida, the values to the purchaser pursuant to guaranteed parameters under each policy must be actuarially equivalent to those of each other policy. A withdrawal provision in an annuity contract which waives surrender charges on all or part of a partial surrender but imposes surrender charges on all of a total surrender will produce unfair discrimination. Proposed interest rate differentials must result in compensatory guarantees across whatever number of free withdrawal options are made available in an annuity contract for a block of business. It is the position of the Florida Department of Insurance that where multiple annuity products are presented for approval in the State of Florida that the examination of the guaranteed parameters of the policies must all result in the same actuarially equivalent benefit to the beneficiary of the policy for a block of business. If you looked at a block of business sold under each policy, taking into account the distribution of that business and the persistency patterns of that business over the life of that block of business, there must be a comparable return to the policyholder. Less than half a point would be considered approaching reasonable. In an annuity policy, where the present value at death of the amount of death benefit paid is based on the manner in which it will be paid, this is discriminatory pursuant to Ch. 626.9541. It should be revised so that the death benefit options are actuarially equivalent. Each settlement option which may be exercised under an annuity policy must be the actuarial equivalent of each other settlement option offered under that policy. Settlement options offered in an annuity policy may not vary based on the age of the policyholder. An annuity policy may not contain a one direction market value adjustment. One direction MVA does not provide equitable treatment. such an adjustment should be allowed to move equally in both directions to prevent inequitable and discriminatory treatment under Ch. 626.9541. The Department of Insurance mandates compliance with the provision in the current draft of the standard non-forfeiture law for annuities that guaranteed minimum annuitization rates must be at least that guaranteed during the accumulation phase, for a policy not to violate Ch. 626.9541(1)(a) and Ch. 627.411(2). In an annuity contract, the guaranteed minimum annuitization rate may not be less than the guaranteed minimum accumulation rate, per the current draft of the standard non- forfeiture law for deferred annuities. The Department considers a minimal measure of benefits being reasonable in relation to premiums under Ch. 627.411(2), to be compliance with the standard non-forfeiture law. The guaranteed minimum annuitization rate in an annuity policy may not be less than the guaranteed minimum accumulation rate, per the current draft of the standard non-forfeiture law for deferred annuities. The Department continues to feel that attribution of mortality expense charge to variations in the annuitization phase is inappropriate. The current draft of the standard non-forfeiture law for deferred annuitities allows use of projection scale G to be applied to the 1993 table a to account for possible future mortality improvement. It would also appear inappropriate to deduct a mortality charge in the annuitization phase for a mortality risk from the accumulation phase, as the risk no longer exists. Annuity policy forms may not be approved unless all sales brochures and literature are submitted with the forms. All annuity contracts must contain a table of guaranteed values. A table of guaranteed values in an annuity policy must demonstrate any available partial withdrawals not subject to surrender charges, even if the free partial withdrawal provisions are set out in the policy. An annuity contract must include a table of guaranteed minimum annuitization rates. Current company practice may not be presented in the illustration or brochure as a product characteristic of an annuity policy. Only contractually guaranteed items may be presented as policy parameters. If a contract contains proposed provisions which would allow the company to reserve the right to make future changes in charges, guarantees or contractual provisions in the policy, this would violate Ch. 627.474. A sales illustration in an annuity policy must display surrender values, even if the surrender charges are disclosed in the illustration. An illustration in advertising of an annuity policy must demonstrate any available partial withdrawals not subject to surrender charges, even if the terms of a free partial withdrawal provisions are set out in the advertising. Computer generated sales illustrations for annuity policies must include the following: Name of the person that the illustration is prepared for. Name of the agent preparing the illustration. A current date. A proposed date of maturity. Disclosure of all expense charges including a clear statement of the surrender charges. An illustration in advertising of a one tier annuity policy must specify the maturity date. The agent is not permitted to write in the current interest rate in the sales brochure. Death benefits or settlement options in an annuity policy to be sold to males and females must be based on male mortality tables for men, female mortality tables for women or gender blended mortality tables. Statements 1-8 challenge forms used by the Department of Insurance soliciting the enumerated information. Statements 9-40 challenge statements of policy used by the Department in review of annuity insurance policy and advertising forms. Between the filing of the Petition herein and the date of formal hearing, the Respondent agency filed a notice of rule development workshop. (See Finding of Fact 36) The parties stipulated: That Petitioner has standing herein as a person substantially affected by the agency statements challenged in the petition herein. That each challenged agency statement is an agency statement defined as a rule under Section 120.52(16) F.S.; and That none of the challenged agency statements have been adopted by the rulemaking procedure provided by Section 120.54 F.S. [1993]. By reason of the parties' stipulations, the only matter to be determined is whether or not the agency is currently using the rulemaking procedure expeditiously and in good faith to adopt rules which address the statements challenged by the petition herein. In an effort to establish minimal standards on a wide variety of issues, the Department of Insurance and State Treasurer has recently tried to approach rulemaking in a holistic or coordinated manner among its various bureaus and areas of technical expertise instead of piecemeal, as historically. In 1989-1990, the agency adopted 225 forms as rules, reducing the number of forms in use from 800. Its last wholesale rules review and revision occurred in the fall of 1991, partly in response to the legislative creation of Section 120.535 F.S., was internally code-named "the rules reorganization project," and met the statutory March 1, 1992 deadline to formalize existing non-rule policies. Both projects were conducted under the oversite of agency attorney Ruth L. Gokel, of the agency's legislative and rules section. Since then, the agency has largely deferred to its technical experts to initiate rulemaking, and not to its lawyers. However, anytime a regulatory employee approaches the legislative and rules section, that section immediately initiates rulemaking procedures. While Ms. Gokel does not provide routine oversite to the agency's bureaus or divisions to determine whether they are routinely using non-rule policy, she has the authority to recommend to agency bureaus and divisions that they are in need of rules. Because she is familiar with the complex processes for promulgating rules, she coordinates much of the agency's rule drafting. Ms. Gokel created a departmental manual on rulemaking in June 1991. The manual was published after enactment of Section 120.535 F.S. Portions of that manual, upon which Petitioner strongly relies, provides: any interpretation of a statute or any requirement generally imposed on agents, companies or other regulated entities as a group which has not been adopted as a rule, is a non-rule policy. * * * The first time we interpret a statute and apply it to a particular fact situation, the interpretation is not as yet a statement of general applicability and thus is not a rule. The second time an issue arises . . . we need to begin to formulate a rule. The third or fourth time a statute is interpreted and applied in a given manner, a rule should be published. Petitioner views this manual as binding upon the agency to begin rulemaking in some form immediately upon any agency employee imposing any statutory interpretation for the first time and even if the statutory interpretation is still only part of an individual's mental process. Petitioner also views the manual as requiring the agency to publish a rule upon the third or forth similar interpretation. However, the competent substantial evidence as a whole shows that the manual's pronouncements were, at best, aspirational. The manual was designed as the agency's first best attempt to educate its non-lawyer experts concerning their responsibilities under a new law, to ensure agency compliance with the new law by "picking up any non-rule policy floating around", to head off potential violations of the new law, and to minimize the number of potential petitions challenging agency statements under the new law. The manual also was in line with the agency's new evolving coordinated approach to rulemaking. The manual is designed to alert laymen to rulemaking problems, and was revised in December 1993. It will continue to be revised periodically. Prior to the filing of the Petition herein, the Department adopted checklists to aid insurers in their submission of policy forms and to aid the Department staff in their reviews of such form filings. The checklists are adopted as forms in Part II of Rule Chapter 4-149. Prior to the filing of the Petition herein, the Department adopted rules governing the review of advertising material for annuities. Those rules may be found in Part II of Rule Chapter 4-150. The Department has conducted actuarial reviews of annuity filings only since May of 1992. Although there were no statutory changes on or about that date, the Department was motivated to institute much closer scrutiny of annuities and the sale of annuities in this state as a result of the rule challenges to the Department's "bank rules", Chapter 4-223 F.A.C. Actuarial review by the agency has evolved in order to ensure that the products are clearly presented, that they are not unfairly discriminatory, that the sales presentations and contracts are not misleading, and that the product has not been designed for use with inappropriate marketing practices. These are statutorily permissible goals. See, Chapter 627 F.S. Of necessity, the Department review must combine its regulatory concerns into one cohesive set of policy statements. The actuarial review of annuities was first conducted by actuary Mike Morgan from May 1992 to about February 1993, when that responsibility was assumed by another Department actuary, Tom Foley. In December, 1993, the responsibility shifted to yet another Department actuary, Linda Ziegler. During the course of the reviews performed by each of these agency employees, judgments were made as to particular aspects of the actuarial review. Those judgments regarding the particular forms being reviewed were expressed in letters to the companies involved. Some of these letters were requests for additional information. If the additional information were supplied and, in the opinion of the reviewing actuary, it did not result in a violation of Florida statutes or rules, then the filing was approved. If the reviewing actuary found a violation based on the additional information, the filing was disapproved. Other letters were disapproval letters after a complete review of all the requested information. Actuarial review is an arcane business involving informed consideration of many different aspects of a filing. The decision to approve or disapprove is made on the basis of the totality of the filing. It may be that one aspect of a particular filing might not be entirely within the required parameters in the judgment of the actuary, but that aspect, in that particular filing, might be offset by another aspect, which in turn would render the filing approvable. All pieces of the whole are interrelated and the whole is complex. When Ms. Ziegler became responsible for the filings, she consulted with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Foley. Over the course of the two years of review, the actuaries involved wrote several hundred letters addressing actuarial issues on a situation by situation basis as each situation arose. Between December 1993 and the filing of the Petition herein, Ms. Ziegler was the responsible reviewing actuary. During those approximately six months, Ms. Ziegler consistently and uniformly applied the statements challenged to every application for annuity policy form and advertising form approval filed. Thus, even those statements used relatively few times have been used every time the policy embodied in the statement could have been applied. Additionally, departmental letters to insurance company applicants for approval of annuity policy and advertising forms, some 630 separate applications of challenged statement numbers 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 40, related to unfair discrimination pursuant to Section 627.9541(1)(g) F.S. Challenged statement number 29 has been the articulated agency policy for at least 21 months, since the issuance of Department of Insurance Informational Bulletin 92-032 issued October 21, 1992. In January of 1994, Mike Morgan drafted language intended for the agency's legislative package for the 1994 session to address parts of the problem of actuarial review statutorily. Although agency personnel believed the agency had, and has, authority to perform these reviews, Ms. Ziegler testified that it is always better if matters are addressed by specific statutes because they are then much less subject to challenge. The Legislature did not address the issue of annuities in 1994. However, Mr. Morgan's work remained available to Ms. Ziegler when she began drafting what eventually became the Department's proposed rules on the subject. In March 1994, Ms. Ziegler began work on a draft bulletin to send to the companies to inform them in a more comprehensive way of the Department's current interpretations of several parts of the actuarial review problem. At about that time, she met with Department attorney Dennis Silverman who advised that eventually she would need to pursue rulemaking. Ms. Zeigler was unavoidably absent from the workplace at some time during this period due to an accident. When she returned to her office, she prioritized what she considered "more immediate" work. In May 1994, Ms. Ziegler returned to the draft bulletin, made a few minor changes, and then abandoned the project in favor of proposed rules. The Petition in this cause was filed June 13, 1994. Ms. Ziegler was aware that the forty statements had been challenged by the Petition shortly after the Petition herein was filed. In the third week of June 1994, Ms. Ziegler sought out Ms. Gokel. At that time, Ms. Ziegler had draft rules she felt cohesively addressed the actuarial review necessities, including addressing certain misleading sales practices. She also had several of the checklists adopted in Part II of Chapter 4-149 F.A.C. on which she had drafted proposed changes. Her comprehensive package addressed the totality of the necessary review and, as a result, also addressed each of the forty statements challenged in the pending Petition. Ms. Ziegler represented to Ms. Gokel that she was comfortable with the whole package and was ready to go public with it. Ms. Gokel informed Ms. Ziegler that since February, 1994 Ms. Gokel had had an assignment to make changes to the same checklists and had already had two meetings, in February and in March, with two other members of the Department regarding the same matter. Yet another member of the Department, Kim Forrester, had been working on proposed changes to the advertising rules in Part II of Chapter 4-150 F.A.C. Ms. Forrester was working with another departmental attorney, so in line with the agency's comprehensive approach to rules, Ms. Gokel had the foregoing assignment transferred to her. Based upon Ms. Gokel's considerable education, training, and experience in rulemaking, her understanding of agency policy concerning the need for and use of rule development workshops, the great amount of insurance industry interest which can reasonably be anticipated for the draft rules, and her personal knowledge regarding the complexity and breadth of the actuarial matters addressed in the draft rules, Ms. Gokel determined that a rule development workshop was essential. Rule workshops have been more the norm than the exception with this agency since at least 1992. The agency published its Notice of Rule Development Workshop in the Florida Administrative Weekly on July 1, 1994. The notice stated that a preliminary draft of the rules would be available for distribution on July 22, 1994, and that the workshop would be held on August 23, 1994, from 2 to 4 p.m. Respondent's witnesses affirmatively demonstrated significant planning and tangible steps that have been taken in furtherance of the rulemaking process since the filing of the foregoing notice. Ms. Gokel has devised a feasible preparatory checklist or schedule for meeting the deadlines announced in the published notice. Between publication of the Notice of Rule Development Workshop and formal hearing, something has been accomplished almost every day. In accord with this schedule, Ms. Gokel has once again met with Ms. Ziegler to discuss the proposed changes; has worked on the needed changes to the checklists with the secretary in the Bureau of Life and Health Forms and Rates because those checklists are documents in the "Lotus Notes" software program not available to Ms. Gokel in the agency's legislative and rules section; has reviewed the statutory authority supplied by Ms. Ziegler and has added the history notes where they were missing in the draft prepared by Ms. Ziegler; has incorporated Ms. Ziegler's and Ms. Forrester's proposed changes into the draft of the advertising rules; has reworked Ms. Ziegler's and Ms. Forrester's drafts for compliance with the Secretary of State's filing requirements; and has produced preliminary rule drafts. These steps have been expeditious and are themselves tangible evidence of the agency's current good faith efforts in the rulemaking procedure. Other steps listed by Ms. Gokel as necessary remained to be accomplished after formal hearing. Those included a meeting between Ms. Gokel and Ms. Forrester about the advertising rules; preparation of the existing rules which adopt the checklists showing the new revision dates; a meeting with Ms. Ziegler to discuss another proposed new rule in the actuarial review rules; a comprehensive review of the history notes; consolidation of the existing drafts into a single document for distribution as noticed for July 22, 1994; and preparation of the sign-in sheets and agenda for the workshop noticed for August 23, 1994. Provisions for timely accomplishing these tasks has been made on Ms. Gokel's schedule. As of the date of formal hearing, Ms. Gokel had already discovered several other statutory sections which should have been included in the Notice of Rule Development Workshop. She expressed the intent to file an amended notice reciting the additional statutory authority, but not otherwise changing the date or time of the workshop. This discovery represents at least one advantage of a comprehensive approach to agency rule drafting as practiced by this agency. Once the workshop draft has been distributed on July 22, 1994, the agency anticipates holding the workshop on August 23, 1994 and leaving the record open for written comments if appropriate. The agency's current intent is to leave the record open for only two weeks, which the agency's past workshopping experience has proven sufficient. Although this period could be extended further, there is no evidence in this record to suppose it will be. After the record closes, the plan is for agency personnel to conduct an internal review of the comments that were received, if any; Ms. Gokel will prepare a revised draft of the rules, as warranted, and will circulate an internal route slip for approval of the agency "senior management" involved. Only the lattermost effort of the route slip is an internal procedure peculiar to this agency and is not a requirement of Chapter 120 F.S. Historically, this route slip procedure has been ministerial and has only taken a few days. There is no clear evidence to show it will be different or take longer this time. Finally, the agency will have to file for notice, pursuant to Section 120.54 F.S. Petitioner presented only speculation to the effect that the foregoing schedule would not be met. The agency's assessment that in the area of actuarial review, moving from "first-time-ever" review of annuities to a comprehensive rule package in two years is the rulemaking equivalent of the "speed of light," may be more colorful than informative and is not binding upon the finder of fact, but the foregoing agency schedule and the agency's actions thereon are found to be currently expeditious in the circumstances of the number and type of rules necessary for such complex subject matter. If any challenged statement were not being addressed by the rulemaking process, the agency would have been unable to demonstrate that the agency rulemaking process is currently proceeding expeditiously and in good faith. However, here, the agency affirmatively demonstrated through unrefuted testimony that its draft rules have addressed, with at least some degree of particularity, each of the forty statements challenged by the Petition. Statements (1) and (2) of the Petition for Administrative Determination of Agency Statement involve requests for information of a company as to the other annuity products which the company is offering, have approved or are pending approval. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (3) of the Petition involves a request for information concerning the agent compensation levels paid on the proposed product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-548, DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (4) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding a specific description of the basis of the guaranteed minimum annuitization rates in the contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (5) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding sales of the product which are expected to be replacements of existing coverage. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, and DI4-556. Statement (6) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding the market to be targeted and the marketing method to be used with respect to the proposed form. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-548, DI4-549, DI4-551, DI4-555, DI4- 556, and DI4-557. Statement (7) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding the agency training methods to be used with respect to the proposed form. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1 Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (8) of the Petition involves a request for information regarding the credited interest rates in renewal years and their disclosure to consumers as practiced by the company. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4- 557. Statements (9) and (10) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., in the death benefit offered in an annuity product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.064(2)(a)3. Statements (11) and (12) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., in the variation of surrender charges by age in an annuity product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.065(4). Statements (13), (14), (15), and (18) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., between essentially identical products which have variations in guaranteed surrender charges, and other guaranteed parameters, and do not provide comparable benefits for premiums paid for the annuity products. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft Rule 4-149.071, Petitioner's Exhibit I. Statement (16) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., between policyholders of the same annuity form in treatment under the withdrawal provisions. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.065(4)(c). Statement (17) of the Petition addresses a special case scenario of the Department's concern as expressed in statements (13), (14), (15), (18). This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.071. Statement (19) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S. regarding the payment of a death benefit. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.066, and 4- 149.064(2)(a)3. Statement (20) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S., in the value of the annuitization value available in an annuity product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.066. Statement (21) of the Petition address the Department's concern about unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S. in the choice of annuitization options available in an annuity product. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.066. Statements (22) and (23) of the Petition address the Department's concern about misrepresentation and unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(a) and (g), F.S., in the inclusion of a Market Value Adjustment which affects the policy in only one direction. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.067(2). Statements (24), (25), and (27) of the Petition address the Department's concerns about misrepresentation under Section 626.9541(1)(a), F.S., and ambiguity and reasonableness of benefits to premiums under Section 627.411(1)(b), and (2), F.S. in the interest rate component of the guaranteed minimum annuitization rates in the annuity contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.064(2)(a)4. Statement (26) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about reasonableness of benefits to premiums under Section 627.411(2), F.S. for an annuity contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.064(2)(a). Statement (28) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about reasonableness of benefits to premiums under Section 627.411(2), F.S., in the treatment of charges under an annuity contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4- 149.064(2)(c). Statement (29) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about timely review and approval of sales literature as noticed by Bulletin 93- 032's expression of existing Rule 4-150.120 F.A.C.. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-548, DI4-549, DI4-550, DI4-551, and DI4-555. Statements (30) and (31) of the Petition involve a requirement for the contract to contain an accurate table of guaranteed values, to prevent ambiguity under Section 627.411 (1)(b), F.S. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, DI4-557. Statement (32) of the Petition involves a requirement for the contract to contain an accurate table of guaranteed minimum annuitization values, to prevent ambiguity under Section 627.411(1)(b), F.S. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-555, DI4-556, DI4-557. Statement (33) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit J, proposed draft Rule 4-150.105(1)(a). Statement (34) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern that a contract explicitly describe policy provisions over the life of the contract, under Section 627.474, F.S. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Respondent's Exhibit 1, Forms DI4-548, DI4-555, DI4-556, and DI4-557. Statement (35) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit J, proposed draft Rule 40150.105(1)(b). Statement (36) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105(1)(f) F.A.C.. Statement (37) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit J, proposed draft Rule 4-150.105. The requirement expressed by statement (37)(e), is presently found in currently promulgated Rule 4-150.106(1). Statement (38) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft Rule 4-150.105(1)(e). Statement (39) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about accurate, complete and non-misleading presentation of policy characteristics in sales literature, under existing Rule 4-150.105. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit J, proposed draft Rule 4-150.105(1)(d). Statement (40) of the Petition addresses the Department's concern about reasonableness of benefits to premiums under Section 627.411(2), F.S., and unfair discrimination under Section 626.9541(1)(g), F.S. in the value of the death benefits and guaranteed annuitization rates for an annuity contract. This subject is addressed in the proposed draft rules in Petitioner's Exhibit I, proposed draft Rule 4-149.064(2)(a)4. The testimony that the forty challenged statements are addressed in the Department's draft rules [Pet.I, J; Resp. 1], as set forth above, is uncontroverted. The Petitioner did not present any evidence nor elicit any testimony refuting or otherwise discrediting this testimony on that issue.
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has subject matter jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes for costs and attorney's fees, if a decision of a case on appeal to the District Court of Appeal has not been rendered. Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has subject matter jurisdiction for petition for attorney's fees and costs under the provisions of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, if a decision of a case on appeal to the District Court of Appeal has not been rendered.
Findings Of Fact On December 29, 1994, the undersigned Hearing Officer issued a Recommended Order in the underlying case of Preferred Services, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and Wekiva Center Partnership, DOAH Case No. 94-4890BID, a bid dispute matter in which the Petitioner was not the prevailing party. The decision in the Recommended Order, which upheld the Department's action, was adopted by the Secretary in a Final Order, dated January 23, 1995. Petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal of the Final Order to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal, under the provisions of Section 120.68, Florida Statutes (1993). The court, in the matter of Preferred Services, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DCA Case No. 95-0461, has not rendered a decision as of the date of this Order. On May 17, 1995, Petitioner filed its Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings seeking reimbursement under the alternate provisions of Sections 57.111 and 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED that the Petitioner's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs in Case No. 95-2537F is DISMISSED without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction, and this case is closed. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Terrence William Ackert, Esquire Post Office Box 2548 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Eric D. Dunlap, Esquire Assistant District 6 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert L. Powell Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is the amount of attorney’s fees to be paid by Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities (“APD” or the “Agency”), to the Petitioners, G.B., Z.L., through his guardian K.L., J.H., and M.R.
Conclusions This matter is related to the promulgation of proposed rules 65G-4.0210 through 65G-4.027 (the “Proposed Rules”) by the Agency in May 2013 in its effort to follow the mandate issued by the Florida Legislature concerning the iBudget statute, section 393.0662, Florida Statute (2010). Petitioners challenged the Proposed Rules in DOAH Case No. 13-1849RP. The Proposed Rules were upheld by the Administrative Law Judge, but Petitioners appealed the Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal (the “Court”). The Court’s decision was rendered July 21, 2014. G.B. v. Ag. for Pers. with Disab., 143 So. 3d 454 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). The Fee Order was entered by the Court on the same date. The Fee Order had been entered upon the filing of a motion for appellate attorney’s fees filed with the Court by Appellants/Petitioners. The motion set forth three bases for an award of fees, to wit: Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes, which provides: Challenges to Proposed Agency Rules Pursuant to Section 120.56(2).– If the appellate court or the administrative law judge declares a proposed rule or portion of a proposed rule invalid pursuant to s. 120.56(2), a judgment or order shall be rendered against the agency for reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, unless the agency demonstrates that its actions were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust. An agency’s actions are “substantially justified” if there was a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time the actions were taken by the agency. If the agency prevails in the proceedings, the appellate court or administrative law judge shall award reasonable costs and reasonable attorney’s fees against a party if the appellate court or administrative law judge determines that a party participated in the proceedings for an improper purpose as defined by paragraph (1)(e). No award of attorney’s fees as provided by this subsection shall exceed $50,000. Section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, which provides: Appeals.– When there is an appeal, the court in its discretion may award reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable costs to the prevailing party if the court finds that the appeal was frivolous, meritless, or an abuse of the appellate process, or that the agency action which precipitated the appeal was a gross abuse of the agency’s discretion. Upon review of the agency action that precipitates an appeal, if the court finds that the agency improperly rejected or modified findings of fact in a recommended order, the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and reasonable costs to a prevailing appellant for the administrative proceeding and the appellate proceeding. Section 120.569(2)(e), Florida Statutes, which provides: All pleadings, motions, or other papers filed in the proceeding must be signed by the party, the party’s attorney, or the party’s qualified representative. The signature constitutes a certificate that the person has read the pleading, motion, or other paper and that, based upon reasonable inquiry, it is not interposed for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose or needless increase in the cost of litigation. If a pleading, motion or other paper is signed in violation of these requirements, the presiding officer shall impose upon the person who signed it, the represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction, which may include an order to pay the other party or parties the amount of reasonable expense incurred because of the filing of the pleading, motion, or other paper, including a reasonable attorney’s fee. The Court did not specifically address which of Petitioners’ stated bases for award of attorney’s fees was being relied upon when granting Petitioners’ motion. Petitioners assert that it must therefore be presumed that the Court granted the request for fees on the basis of all three of Petitioners’ bases. There is no other support for that presumption, as the Fee Order is silent on the issue. It could equally be presumed that only one of the bases was relied upon by the Court. Thus, a determination of the appropriate basis for fees is critical in the determination of the amount of fees to be awarded, as will be set forth more particularly below. The Fee Order establishes only that attorney’s fees are awarded, with leave for the parties to determine the appropriate amount or, failing to do so, obtain direction from an Administrative Law Judge on the matter. There is no issue as to whether Petitioners are entitled to fees or costs, only the amount to be awarded. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding under the August 6, 2014, Mandate of the First DCA, and under section 120.595(2). Although it is herein determined that section 120.595(2) is the appropriate provision to be considered for fees in this case, each of the other statutory sections argued in Petitioners’ motion for fees will be addressed nonetheless. Section 120.595(5) If section 120.595(5) is to be the basis for fees, it must be shown that Respondent is guilty of a “gross abuse” of its discretion. “Gross abuse” is not defined in statute. As stated by the Court in Allstate Floridian Insurance Co. v. Ronco Inventions, LLC, 890 So. 2d 300, 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), “The troublesome nature of our review here is the admittedly high ‘gross abuse of discretion’ standard. . . . However, we have no definition of what a ‘gross’ abuse of discretion includes or how it differs from an abuse of discretion. We can only assume that it is more egregious than a typical abuse of discretion.” The Court cited Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980), in which the Supreme Court iterated that if reasonable men could differ on an issue, there was no abuse of discretion to act one way or the other. Other courts, looking at the issue of “abuse of discretion” in administrative matters, have struggled with a definitive description or definition. In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc., et al. v. Volpe, Secretary of Transportation, 401 U.S. 402; 91 S. Ct. 814; 23 L. Ed. 2d 136 (1971), the Court was trying to determine whether the Transportation Secretary had acted within his discretion. The Court decided it “must consider whether the decision was based on clear error or judgment. [citations omitted] Although this inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The Court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Id., at 416. And, as found by another Court, whether an act is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion is “far from being entirely discrete as a matter of the ordinary meaning of language. . . . Rather than denoting a fixed template to be imposed mechanically on every case within their ambit, these words summon forth what may best be described as an attitude of mind in the reviewing court one that is ‘searching and careful’ . . . yet, in the last analysis, diffident and deferential.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., et al. v. Sec. and Exch. Comm'n, et al., 606 F.2d 1031, 1034, U.S. App. DC (1979). In Ft. Myers Real Estate Holdings, LLC, v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 53 So. 3d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), the Court awarded fees under section 120.595(5). In that case, the agency denied party status to the applicant for services. The Court said, “The position taken by the Division in the dismissal order, and maintained in this appeal, is so contrary to the fundamental principles of administrative law that, by separate order, we have granted Appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees under section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes.” The Court did not, however, define gross abuse of discretion any more specifically than that. Likewise, in Salam v. Board of Professional Engineers, 946 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), the Court found that an agency’s intentional delay on acting upon a petition for formal administrative hearing warranted fees under the statute. The Salam Court did not further define gross abuse of discretion; it merely found that such abuse existed under the circumstances of the case. Gross abuse of discretion must, by definition, be more difficult to ascertain than simple abuse of discretion. Gross abuse implies that the Agency first believed its intended action was improper, yet engaged in the action despite that knowledge. That is, that the Agency acted intentionally to do something it knew to be wrong. Proof of such intent would be extremely difficult.1/ One need only look at the plain language of the Court’s opinion in the rule challenge appeal at issue here to see that there was no gross abuse of discretion. The Court ultimately held that although the Agency’s rules “directly conflict with and contravene the Legislature’s clear language” concerning development of an algorithm to assist with the distribution of funds to needy Floridians, “[W]e recognize the difficulty in adhering to the Legislature’s command to create an algorithm solely capable of determining each client’s level of need. Further, we accept that [Respondent] is attempting to find a reasonable way to administer funds to the tens-of-thousands of people in need that it assists.” G.B. et al., supra, 143 So. 3d 454, 458. Nothing in that language suggests that the Agency knew its proposed rule was improper or that it was doing anything intentionally wrong. Rather, the language of the Court’s decision indicates that Respondent was certainly attempting to exercise its discretion properly in the adoption of the Proposed Rules. Despite the Agency’s attempts to justify the rules both at final hearing and on appeal, the Court found that the Proposed Rules did not comport with the specific authorizing statute. That failure did not, ipso facto, establish that there was a gross abuse of the Agency’s discretion. Besides, upon hearing all the testimony and reviewing the evidence, the undersigned initially upheld the Proposed Rule; that, in and of itself, is some indication that the Agency’s efforts were legitimate. Thus, in the present matter, there is no rational basis for finding that gross abuse of discretion was involved in the Court’s award of attorney’s fees. Section 120.569(2)(e) As for section 120.569(2)(e), there is no evidence to support Petitioners’ contention that the proposed rule addressed in the rule challenge proceeding (DOAH Case No. 13-1849RP) was interposed for any improper purpose. The appellate court said, “[W]e accept that APD is attempting to find a reasonable way to administer funds to the tens-of-thousands of people in need that it assists.” Id. Clearly, the Agency did not act for an improper purpose; its best efforts to follow the Legislative mandate for an iBudget simply fell short. The Proposed Rules contravened certain specific requirements of the governing statute. In order to find a way to meet its mandate, the Agency made a Herculean effort, yet failed. Although Petitioners argue that an “improper purpose” was implied by the Court in the Fee Order, there is no substantive support for that position. Not only was APD’s attempt to find a “reasonable way” to discharge its responsibility found wanting by the Court, experts in the field who testified at the underlying hearing disagreed as well. There was no dispute about the intended purpose of the Proposed Rules, only as to how that intent was to be effectuated. There was never any dispute as to the Proposed Rules’ intended purpose; they were meant to find a way to serve the tens-of-thousands of people in need. There is nothing in any of the Agency’s actions in this case that would be even arguably described as “interposed for any improper purposes, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay, or for frivolous purpose or needless increase in the cost of litigation.” This attorney’s fee section does not apply to the facts of this case. Section 120.595(2) Finally, in section 120.595(2), the Legislature has declared that if an appellate court or administrative law judge declares all or part of a proposed rule invalid, an order will be entered awarding reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (unless the agency demonstrated that its actions were substantially justified). The Court ultimately concluded that the proposed rules “directly conflict with and contravene the Legislature’s clear language.” That being the case, the Court seems to be finding that the Agency’s actions--promulgating the Proposed Rules--was not substantially justified, even if the Court did recognize the difficulty faced by APD in its efforts to comply with the statutes at issue. By process of elimination, section 120.595(2) is the basis for the Court’s award of attorney’s fees in the present case. That being so, the award is capped at $50,000. The Agency has conceded that Petitioners are entitled to at least $50,000 in fees, as well as costs in the amount of $41,609.65. There remains the issue of whether each of the four Petitioners is entitled to an award of the maximum fee. In their (singular) Petition for Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of Proposed Rules, the parties sought the following relief: That a Final Order be entered finding the Proposed Rules to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; and That Petitioners be awarded their reasonable attorney’s fees; and Such other relief as the Administrative Law Judge deems appropriate. That is, the relief sought by each of the Petitioners was the same: invalidation of the proposed rules. It cannot be argued that each Petitioner in his or her own right was seeking individual redress or damages. Collectively, they wanted the proposed rules invalidated so that they could return to the status quo concerning their benefits from the State. In fact, only one of the four Petitioners presented testimony at the underlying administrative hearing as to the impact of the Proposed Rules. There was no issue as to each Petitioner’s standing in the underlying administrative hearing. As stated by the Agency in its Proposed Final Order in that case: “Petitioners are each recipients of Medicaid Services under the DD waiver program and have been or will be transitioned to the iBudget system. Stip., pp. 23-24. Thus, Petitioners have standing to challenge the substance of the Proposed Rules.” Petitioners contend that each of the 25,000-plus recipients of benefits from the Agency could have filed petitions challenging the Proposed Rule. That is true. But in the rule challenge proceeding there were four petitioners (ostensibly representing those other 25,000), each seeking the same relief, i.e., invalidation of the proposed rules. And only one of those, K.L., testified at final hearing in the underlying rule challenge proceeding. Thus, there is no justification for an award of fees to each of the Petitioners under section 120.595(2). In light of the findings and conclusions above, and based upon the Order as stated below, the issue of contingency multipliers is not relevant to the discussion of fees herein. As a general rule in Florida, fees and costs incurred in litigating entitlement to attorney’s fees are collectible although time spent litigating the amount of the award is not compensable. See, e.g., State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Parma, 629 So. 2d 830, 833 (1993). § 92.931, Fla. Stat.; Stokus v. Phillips, 651 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Inasmuch as the Agency does not dispute entitlement to attorney’s fees, no fees for the fee case are warranted. The amount of fees sought in this administrative rule challenge by the Petitioners is, as set forth in their Proposed Final Order: $255,614.39 for the DOAH rule challenge proceeding; $154,662.35 for the appeal but also applied a contingent multiplier for a total of $309,324.70; $62,850.00 for the fee case but also applied a contingent multiplier for a total of $94,275.00; and $41,609.65 in taxable costs, for a total of approximately $660,000.00. While the amount of fees and costs allowed under the appropriate statute is well less than what Petitioners sought, it has been deemed legally sufficient by statute.
