12-002757RU Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., Cape Memorial Hospital, Inc., D/B/A Cape Coral Hospital; Cgh Hospital, Ltd., D/B/A Coral Gables Hospital; Delray Medical Center, Inc., D/B/A Delray Medical Center; Lee Memorial Health System; Et Al. vs. Agency For Health Care Administration
 Status: Closed
DOAH Final Order on Monday, August 1, 2016.


View Dockets  
Summary: A $365,351 fee for unpromulgated rule challenge & $397,533.50 were reasonable. For junior lawyer hourly rate of $200 is reasonable; $425 reasonable for Sr. lawyer. If records do not have sufficient detail across-the-board reduction of hours is proper.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8BAYFRONT MEDICAL CENTER, INC.;

12CAPE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,

16d/b/a CAPE CORAL HOSPITAL; CGH

21HOSPITAL, LTD., d/b/a CORAL

25GABLES HOSPITAL; DELRAY MEDICAL

29CENTER, INC., d/b/a DELRAY

33MEDICAL CENTER; LEE M EMORIAL

38Petitioners,

39vs. Case No. 12 - 2757RU

45AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE

49ADMINISTRATION,

50Respondent.

51_______________________________/

52ORDER AWARDING FEES AND COSTS

57Administrative Law Judge, John D.C. Newton, I I, of the

67Division of Administrative Hearings, conducted the final hearing

75in this matter on April 5, 2016, in Tallahassee, Florida.

85APPEARANCES

86For Petitioner: Harvey W. Gurland, Esquire

92Joanne Barbara Erde, Esquire

96Donn a Holshouser Stinson, Esquire

101Duane Morris, LLP

104Suite 3400

106200 South Biscayne Boulevard

110Miami, Florida 33131

113For Respondent: Alex B.C. Ershock, Esquire

119Roberts Reynolds Bedard & Tuzzio PLLC

125470 Columbia Dr ive , Suite C101

131West Palm Beach, Florida 33409

136Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire

140Office of the Attorney General

145The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

150Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

155STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

160( A) What is the amount of reasonable attorneyÓs fees and

171taxable costs Respondent, Agency for Health C are Administration

180(Agency), must pay Petitioners, Bayfront Medical Center, Inc.,

188et al (Hospitals) , for this unpromulgated rule challenge before

197the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division).

203( B) What is the amount of reasonable attorneyÓs fees the

214Agency must pay Hospitals for appellate proceedings before the

223First District Cou rt of Appeal in this matter?

232PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

234In this case, Bayfront Medical Center, Inc., and 17 other

244hospitals collectively filed a Petition for Determination of

252Invalidity of Non - Rule Policy a gainst the Agency with the

264Division . The petition asse rted that the Agency practice of

275declining to pay hospitals Medicaid - funded compensation for

284emergency medical services provided to undocumented aliens once

292the patients reached a point of Ð stabilization Ñ was a rule as

305defined in section 120.52(16), Florid a Statutes (2012) 1/ . Since

316the practice amounted to a rule and had not been promulgated,

327the Hospitals argued, the Agency could not follow its practice

337of using the ÐstabilizationÑ standard. The Hospitals prevail ed.

346The Final Order in this proceeding c oncluded:

354[T]he Agency's statements about and

359application of the "stabilization" standard

364meet the definition of a rule that has not

373been adopted pursuant to section 120.54(1).

379The Agency must immediately discontinue all

385reliance upon the "stabilization " standard

390or any substantially similar statement as a

397basis for agency action.

401The Final Order also concluded that the Hospital s were Ð entitled

413to recover fees and costs in this action pursuant to section

424120.595(4)(a).Ñ

425The Agency appealed to the First District Court of Appeal.

435After oral argument the Agency dismissed its appeal. The

444courtÓs opinion allowing the Agency to dismiss its appeal

453stated:

454Here, the administrative law judge (ALJ)

460found that AHCA was operating under an

467unpromulgated rule whic h was not required by

475the Federal Government. AHCA has sought to

482voluntarily dismiss this courtÓs review of

488that finding. Thus, the ALJÓs finding

494entitles appellees to reasonable attorneyÓs

499fees during the entire duration of these

506proceedings. As such, we accept the

512voluntary dismissal, but we grant appelleesÓ

518motion for appellate attorneyÓs fees and

524remand for a determination of the amount if

532the parties are unable to reach an

539agreement.

540The parties did not reach agreement. After several

548continuances granted at the request of the parties, the final

558hearing was conducted April 5, 2016. The Hospitals presented

567the testimony of Joanne B. Erde, Esquire , and expert witness

577David Ashburn, Esq uire. HospitalsÓ Exhibits 1 through 7, 10 and

58811 were admitted in to evidence. The Agency presented the

598testimony of its expert witness, M. Christopher Bryant, Esq uire .

609AgencyÓs Exhibits 4 through 6 were admitted into evidence. The

619parties requested and received additional time to file proposed

628final orders. The part ies timely filed proposed final orders.

638They have been considered in the preparation of this Order.

648FINDING S OF FACT

652Proceedings Before the Division of Administrative

658Hearings and the First District Court of Appeal

6661. In the beginning this was an acti on by the Hospitals

678aimed at stopping Agency efforts to recoup reimbursement of

687Medicaid payments to the Hospitals for emergency services

695provided to undocumented aliens once the patients have reached a

705point of Ð stabilization. Ñ The issue of whether the A gency could

718apply the ÐstabilizationÑ standard to the Hospital claims for

727Medicaid payment for services provided indigent aliens recurred

735in Agency claims against hospitals throughout the state to

744recoup Medicaid payments. Hospitals challenged Agency clai ms in

753individual proceedings under section 120.569, which the Agency

761referred to the Division for disputed fact hearings. Duane

770Morris, LLP (Duane Morris) , led by Joanne Erde, represented the

780hospitals in the individual proceedings.

7852. The Hospitals coll ectively engaged Duane Morris to

794represent them in this proceeding challenging the AgencyÓs

802stabilization standard as an unpromulgated rule. Joanne B.

810Erde, Donna Stinson, and Harry Silver were the HospitalÓs

819lawyers in this proceeding. Ms. Erde is an ex perienced lawyer

830who has focused her practice in health care. Ms. Stinson is an

842experienced lawyer who concentrated her practice in health care

851and administrative law litigation before the Division. The

859Agency does not question their expertise. Mr. Silv er is an

870experienced lawyer with no Florida administrative law

877experience. His role in the case was minimal.

8853. Depositions taken in one of the individual

893reimbursement cases were significant evidence in this

900proceeding. Those depositions make it clear that the HospitalsÓ

909counsel was tuned into the unpromulgated rule issue and using

919discovery in that case to gather and identify the evidence that

930they would need in this case. Representation of the Hospitals

940in individual reimbursement actions provided Ho spitalsÓ counsel

948the advantage of preparing with level of detail before filing

958the petition.

9604. The engagement letters recognize this stating: ÐWe

968have an understanding of the facts underlying this matter and

978have substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the

986issues in this case.Ñ This well - developed understanding of the

997facts should have minimized the need for discovery and

1006preparation in this proceeding. Counsel were well positioned to

1015prosecute this matter efficiently. Likewise , c ounselÓs

1022Ð substantial knowledge concerning the law governing the issues

1031in this caseÑ should have minimized the need for time spent in

1043research. This is not what happened.

10495. The pre - existing representation in the reimbursement

1058cases provided another obvious and s ignificant benefit to the

1068Hospitals and their counsel. Since counsel represented the

1076individual hospital in the separate reimbursement matters, the

1084Hospitals could band together to jointly finance one case that

1094would resolve the troublesome point of Ð stabilization Ñ issue

1104more consistently and more cheaply than if they litigated it in

1115each and every case. As the basically identical engagement

1124agreements between each hospital and counsel state: ÐBecause

1132many hospitalsÓ interests in [sic] are similar or ide ntical as

1143it relates to the Alien Issue and in order to keep legal costs

1156to a minimum, each of the participants in the [hospital] Group

1167will [sic] have agreed that it wishes this firm to represent

1178them in a Group.Ñ

11826. Because of counselÓs pre - existing relationships with

1191the Hospitals, litigating this matter should have continued or

1200enhanced the client relationships. The time required for this

1209matter could not result in lost business opportunities. In

1218fact, by consolidating the issues common to all the clients and

1229their cases, counsel freed up time to work on other matters.

1240Presentation of the issue for resolution in a single case also

1251saved the Hospitals the greater cost of disputing the issue in

1262each case where the Agency sought reimbursement.

12697. Th e Hospitals and counsel dealt with the only possible

1280downside of the representation by including disclosures about

1288joint representation and a waiver of conflict claims in the

1298engagement letters.

13008. This was not a contingent fee case. The agreement

1310provid ed for monthly billing and payment from counselÓs trust

1320account. Each group member made an initial payment of $10,000

1331to the trust account. Any time the trust account balance dipped

1342below $15,000, each group member agreed to contribute another

1352$10,000 to the trust account . For counsel , this representation

1363was about as risk free as a legal engagement can be.

13749. The Hospitals and their counsel knew from the outset

1384that they would have to prove their reasonableness of their fees

1395and costs if they prevailed and wanted to recover fees. The

1406Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non - Rule Policy

1416seeks an award of fees and costs. They could have adjusted

1427their billing practices to provide more detail in preparation

1436for a fees dispute.

144010. An "unpromulgat ed rule challenge" presents a narrow

1449and limited issue. That issue is whether an agency has by

1460declaration or action established a statement of general

1468applicability that is a "rule," as defined in section

1477120.52(16), without going through the required pu blic rulemaking

1486process required by section 120.54. The validity of the

1495agency's statement is not an issue decided in an "unpromulgated

1505rule challenge."

150711. Courts have articulated the legal standards for

1515unpromulgated rule challenges frequently. See , e.g. , Coventry

1522First, LLC v. Off. of Ins. Reg. , 38 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 1st

1536DCA 2010); Dep Ót of Rev . v. Vanjaria Enter s. , 675 So. 2d 252

1551(Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ; and the cases those opinions cite.

15611 2. The facts proving the ÐstabilizationÑ standard were

1570easy to establish. Many Agency documents stated the shift to

1580the ÐstabilizationÑ standard . Documents of Agency contractors

1588did also. Two examples of how clear it was that the Agency was

1601applying a new standard were the AgencyÓs statements in its

16112009 - 2010 a nd 2010 - 2011 reports to the Governor on efforts to

1626control Medicaid fraud and abuse. The reports describe the

1635ÐstabilizationÑ standard as Ðmore stringentÑ and certain to

1643recover millions of dollars for the Agency.

165013 . As the AgencyÓs reports to the Gov ernor indicate, the

1662stakes were high in this matter. For the Hospitals and other

1673hospitals collectively affected by the AgencyÓs effort to recoup

1682past payments by applying the ÐstabilizationÑ standard,

1689$400,000 ,0 00 was at stake.

169614 . This matter did not p resent complex or difficult

1707issues, legally or factually.

171115 . The Order of Pre - Hearing Instructions requiring

1721parties to disclose documents and witnesses and update the

1730disclosures alleviated the discovery demands present in other

1738litigation. The Agenc yÓs failure to fully comply with the pre -

1750hearing instructions and unfounded Motion in Limine added some

1759additional time demands for the HospitalÓs counsel. Nonetheless

1767the issues were narrow, and the facts were essentially

1776undisputed , if not undisputable. This matter did not require

1785extraordinary amounts of time for discovery or preparation.

179316 . Ordinarily challenges to rules or unpromulgated rules

1802impose time pressures on the attorneys because of the

1811requirement in section 120.56 that the hearing comm ence within

182130 days of assignment to the Administrative Law Judge. The time

1832constraint was not a factor in this case. The Hospitals

1842requested waiver of the time requirement to permit more time for

1853discovery. The Agency agreed, and the undersigned grante d the

1863request. Thus the Hospitals had the time their counsel said

1873they needed to prepare for the hearing.

188017. The appeal imposed no time constraints. Both parties

1889received extensions of t im e for their filings. Seventeen months

1900passed between filing t he notice of appeal and oral argument.

1911Time for the Administrative Proceeding

191618 . The total number of hours claimed for the services of

1928the three lawyers, their claimed hourly rate, and the total fees

1939claimed appear below.

1942Joanne B. Erde 458.20 hours $550 .00 rate $252,010.00

1952Donna Stinson 136.20 hours $455.00 rate $61,971.00

1960Harry Silver 93.40 hours $550.00 rate $51,370.00

1968Total 687.80 hours $365,351.00

197319 . The HospitalsÓ counselÓs billing records are

1981voluminous. For the proceeding before the Divis ion, the

1990Hospital s Ó counselÓs invoices list 180 billing entries for the

2001work of three lawyers. A substantial number of the entries are

2012block billing. In block billing , all of a lawyerÓs activities

2022for a period of time, usually a day, are clumped together with

2034one time total for the entire dayÓs service. It is an

2045acceptable form of billing. But block billing presents

2053difficulties determining the reasonableness of fees because a

2061single block of time accounts for several different activities

2070and the invoic e does not establish which activity took how much

2082time.

208320 . Here are representative examples of the block billing

2093entries from the Division level invoices:

2099August 20, 2012 (Erde) Î Conference call with ALJ; telephone

2109conference with AHCA attorney; telepho ne conference with

2117newspaper reporters Î 2.0 hours

2122September 16, 2012 (Erde) Î Review depositions; prepare opening

2131remarks; develop impeachment testimony Î 5.50

2137September 27, 2012 (Erde) Î Intra - office conference; finalize

2147interrogatories; work on direct Î 8.50

2153October 2, 2012 (Stinson) Î Review and revise Motion in Limine;

2164Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde and Harry Silver; review

2173emails regarding discovery issues - `2.60

2179October 19, 2012 (Erde) Î Intra - office conference to discuss

2190proposed order; Res earch Re: other OIG audits; research on

2200validity of agency rules Î 2.10 hours

2207November 9, 2012 (Erde) Î Conference with ALJ; Intra - Office

2218conference to discuss status; further drafting of proposed order

2227Î 7.70 hours.

2230November 19, 2012 (Stinson) Î Final Review and Revisions to

2240Proposed Final order; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde to

2249Review final Changes and comments; Review AHCAÓs proposed orde r

2259and revised proposed order Î 3 . 2 0 hours.

226921. Many of the entries, block or individual, do not

2279provide sufficient detail to judge the reasonableness of the

2288time reported. ÐPrepare for deposition and hearing,Ñ Ðreview

2297depositions ,Ñ Ðreview new documents,Ñ Ðreview draft documents,Ñ

2307Ðintra - office conferenceÑ and Ðattention to discoveryÑ are

2316recurrent examples.

23182 2 . Senior lawyers with more expertise and higher billing

2329rates are expected to be more efficient. This, the fact that

2340the matter was not complicated, the relative simplicity of the

2350issue, and the fact that the HospitalsÓ counsel already had a

2361great deal of familiarity with the facts and law involved , all

2372require reducing the number of hours compensated in order for

2382them to be reasonable. For this matter, in these circumstances,

2392the claimed number of hours is quite high. The claimed 687.80

2403hours amounts to working eight hours a day for 86 days , two of

2416which were the hearing. T his is not reasonable.

242523 . A reasonable number of hours for the proce edings

2436before the Division is 180. That is the equivalent of 22 .5

2448eight - hour days. That is sufficient to han dle th e matter before

2462the Division from start to finish. The number includes

2471consideration of the worked caused by the needless difficulties

2480presented by the Agency in discovery and with its Motion in

2491Limine.

2492Time for the Appellate Proceeding

249724 . The fee s that the Hospitals seek for the appeal are

2510broken down by hours and rates as follows:

2518Joanne B. Erde 255.10 hours $560.00 $142,856.00

2526(Ó13) Joanne B. Erde 202.80 hours $580.00 $117,624.00

2535(Ó14) Donna Stinson 88.50 hours $460.00 $40,710.00

2543(Ó13) Donna Stinson 67.10 hours $500.00 $33,550.00

2551(Ó14) W.D. Zaffuto 48.30 hours $435.00 $21,010.50

2559Rob Peccola 10.90 hours $275.00 $2,997.50

2566(Ó13) Rob Peccola 17.50 hours $300.00 $5,250.00

2574(Ó14) L. Rodriguez - 6.20 hours $520.00 $3,224.00

2583Taseff

2584(Ó13) L. Rodrigue z - 19.50 hours $545.00 $10,627.50

2594Taseff

2595(Ó14) Rachel Pontikes 38.20 hours $515.00 $19,673.00

2603Total 754.10 hours $397,522.50

260825 . For the appellate proceeding, the invoices present 341

2618entries, a substantial number of which are block billing for

2628work b y six lawyers. Here are representative examples from the

2639appellate level invoices:

2642May 16, 2013 (Erde) Î Reviewed AHCAÓs initial brief; intra -

2653office conference to discuss; preliminary review of record Î

26622.90

2663May 24, 2013 (Erde) Î Intra - office conference t o discuss

2675response to brief; preparation to respond to brief Î 2.50

2685May 30, 2013 (Erde) Î Attention to Appeal issue s ; finalize

2696request for extension; brief research re jurisdictional issues Î

27051.60

2706June 18, 2013 (Peccola) Î Strategy with J. Erde regarding

2716research needs; review/analyze case law cited in answer brief;

2725conduct legal research regarding documentary evidence and

2732exhibits on appellate review; write email memo to J . Erde

2743regarding same Î 2.00

2747July 19, 2013 (Zaffuto) Î Revise/draft Answer Brief; dis cuss

2757extension of time with H. Gurland; research appellate rules

2766regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending

2774ruling on motion; review appendix to answer brief; instruction s

2784to assistant regarding edits and filing of answer brief and

2794appendi x prepare answer brief for filing ; call to clerk

2804regarding extension of time review initial brief by AHCA and

2814final order by ALJ Î 5.50

2820August 14, 2013 (Erde) Î Intra - office conference to discuss

2831brief; further revised brief Î 5.80

2837August 15, 2013 (Stinson ) Reviewed appellees' answer brief;

2846discussed language in answer brief with Joanne Erde Î 2.50

2856October 9, 2013 (Stinson) Î Review draft motion to relinquish

2866regarding admission of exhibit; exchange e - mails with Joanne

2876Erde; telephone conference with Joanne Erde Î 1.60

2884October 10, 2013 (Erde) Î Attention to new motion re

2894relinquishing jurisdiction; review of revisions; further

2900revisions Î 6.00

2903October 30, 2013 (Erde) Î Research re: AHCAÓs current behavior;

2913intra - office conference to discuss status of action at DOAH -

2925.70

2926November 7, 2013 (Peccola) Î Strategy with J. Erde regarding

2936Appell eesÓ response in opposition to A ppellantÓs motion for

2946supplemental briefing; conduct research regarding same; draft

2953same; look up 1 st DCA local rule on appellate motions and e mail

2967same to J. Erde Î 3.60

2973December 5, 2013 (Erde) Î Research Re: supplemental briefing

2982issues; research to find old emails from AHCA re: inability to

2993produce witnesses - .90

2997January 21, 2014 (Rodriguez - T aseff) Î Working on Supplemental

3008Answer Brief Î lega l argument re authentication and cases

3018distinguishing marchines [sic] ; editing facts Î 6.70

3025February 3, 2014 (Erde) Î Review and revise response to motion

3036for further briefing; intra - office conference to discuss same Î

30472.20

3048May 2, 2014 (Pontikes) Î Continu e to review relevant case law

3060regarding the definition of an unpromulgated rule; continue to

3069analyze the briefs and the arguments; continue to draft an

3079outline of the argument discussed Î 5.00

3086June 5, 2014 (Erde) Î draft email to group regarding AHCAÓs

3097settlement offer; reviewed supplemental settlement offer from

3104AHCA; draft email to group re same Î 1.70

3113June 11, 2014 (Erde) Î Attention to finalizing response to

3123AHCAÓs notice of dismissal and fi li ng of fee petition; memo to

3136members of group Î 8.00

3141July 21, 2014 (Erde) Î completed motion for rehearing re: fees

3152as sanctions; drafted status report for DOAH regarding status of

3162DCA opinion; drafted status report in companion case; emails

3171with AHCA re: withdrawing pending audits Î 6.90

3179July 21, 2014 (Peccola) Î Strategy with D. Stinson and J. Erde

3191regarding motion for rehearing; revise/edit same; review/revise

3198edit notices in trial court 1.20.

320426. The descriptive entries in the invoices for the

3213appellate representation also lack sufficient detail. Examples

3220are: Ð begin preparation to respond to AHCAÑs brief,Ñ Ðattention

3231to appeal issues,Ñ Ðpreparation to draft answer brief,Ñ and

3242Ðresearch and draft answer brief.Ñ

324727 . For the appellate proceedings, Duane Morris added four

3257lawyers, none with experience in Florida administrative or

3265appellate matters. W.D. Zaffuto, L. Rodriguez - Taseff, and

3274Rachel Pontikes are senior level lawyers in Duane Morris offices

3284outside of Florida. Rob Peccola is a junior level lawyer from a

3296Duane Morris office outside of Florida. The appa rent result is

3307those lawyers spending more time on issues than the more

3317experienced Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson would.

33242 8 . One example of this is a July 19, 2013, billing entry

3338where a lawyer spent time researching Ðappellate rules regarding

3347extension of t ime and staying proceedings pending ruling on

3357motion.Ñ The two lawyers primarily responsible for this matter,

3366both laying claim to Florida appellate expertise, would only

3375need to quickly check the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

3385to confirm their reco llection of the rules, something that would

3396probably take less time than it took to make the time entry and

3409review the draft bill.

341329. HospitalsÓ also filed a puzzling motion that presents

3422a discreet example of needless attorney time billed in this

3432matter . The Hospitals expended 21.8 hours on a Motion for

3443Rehearing of the courtÓs order awarding them fees and costs.

3453The courtÓs opinion and the Final Order stated that fees and

3464costs were awarded under section 120.595(4)(a), Florida

3471Statutes. Yet the Hospi talsÓ motion fretted that fees might be

3482assessed under section 120.595(4)(b), which caps fees at

3490$50,000. The court denied the motion.

349730 . Two things stand out when reviewing the invoices for

3508the appellate proceeding. The first is that the appeal took

3518more hours than the trial proceeding. A trial proceeding is

3528generally more time - consuming because of discovery, a hearing

3538much longer than an oral arg ument, witness preparation, document

3548review , and preparing a proposed order .

35553 1 . The second is the shee r number of hours. HospitalsÓ

3568counsel seeks payment for 754.10 hours in the appellate

3577proceeding. This is 66.3 more t han for the Division proceeding.

3588It included a two day hearing, trial preparation, research, and

3598preparing a 37 page proposed final ord er . In eight - hour days

3612the claimed hours amount to a staggering 94.26 days. That

3622amounts to one lawyer working on the appeal for eight hours a

3634day for three months.

36383 2 . Of this time, 613.5 hours were spent by Ms. Erde and

3652Ms. Stinson, lawyers with exper tise in the subject area, who had

3664prepared the case for hearing, who participated in the hearing,

3674who closely reviewed the entire record for preparation of their

3684proposed final order, who researched the issues before the

3693hearing and for the proposed final order, and who wrote the

3704proposed final order. With all this knowledge and experience

3713with the record and the law, handling the appeal should have

3724taken less time than the proceeding before the Division. 2 /

373533 . One factor supports the appellate proceeding taking as

3745man y hours , or a few more hours , than the administrative

3756proceeding. It is t he AgencyÓs disputatious conduct over a

3766scrivenerÓs error in the Final Order which erroneously stated

3775that the AgencyÓs Exhibit 1 had been admitted . The AgencyÓs

3786condu ct increased the time needed to represent the Hospitals in

3797the appeal.

37993 4 . The Agency relied upon the exhibit in its initial

3811brief, although it twice cited page 359 of the transcript where

3822the objection to the exhibit was sustained. Also the AgencyÓs

3832a nd the HospitalsÓ proposed final order s correctly stated that

3843Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted.

38503 5 . The HospitalsÓ Answer Brief noted that Agency

3860Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The transcript of the final

3871hearing and both partiesÓ proposed fi nal orders were clear that

3882the exhibit had not been admitted. Yet the Agency argued in its

3894Reply Brief that it had been.

39003 6 . This required the Hospitals to move to remand the case

3913for correction of the error. The Agency opposed the motion.

3923The court granted the motion. The Final Order was corrected and

3934jurisdiction relinquished back to the court. The Agency used

3943this as an opportunity to trigger a new round of briefing about

3955whether Exhibit 1 should have been admitted. This has been

3965considered in d etermining the reasonable number of hours for

3975handling the appeal.

39783 7 . A reasonable number of hou rs for handling the appeal

3991is 225 . Converted to eight - hour days, this would be 2 8. 13 days.

400738 . For the appeal, Duane Morris attributes 28.4 hours of

4018the work to a junior lawyer. This is 3.8 per cent of the total

4032time claimed. Applying that percentage to 225 hours, results in

40428 . 6 hours attributed to the junior lawyer with the remaining

4054216.45 hours attributed to senior lawyers.

4060Attorneys and Fees

40633 9 . Ea ch party presented expert testimony on the issues of

4076reasonable hours and reasonable fees. The Agency presented the

4085testimony of M. Christopher Bryant , Esq uire . The Hospitals

4095presented the testimony of David Ashburn, Esq uire .

410440 . As is so often the cas e with warring experts , the

4117testimony of the witnesse s conflict s dramatically. Mr. Bryant

4127opined that a reasonable rate for senior lawyers , such as

4137Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson , ranged between $350 and $450 per hour .

4150The reasonable rate for junior lawyers w as $ 200 per hour.

4162Mr. Ashburn opined that the reasonable hourly rate for senior

4172lawyers ranged between $595 and $700 and the reasona ble rate for

4184junior lawyers was between $275 and $300 .

41924 1 . The contrast was the same for the opinions on the

4205reasonable n umber of hours needed to handle the two stages of

4217this litigation. Mr. Bryant testified that the administrative

4225proceeding should have taken 150 to 170 hours and that the

4236appeal should have taken 175 to 195 hours. Mr. Ashburn

4246testified that the Hospitals Ó claimed 687 hours for the

4256proceeding before the Division and 754.10 hour for the appellate

4266proceeding were reasonable.

42694 2 . The Hospitals argue that somehow practicing in a large

4281national law firm, like Duane Morris justifies a higher rate.

4291The theory i s unpersuasive. A national law firm is nothing

4302special. There is no convincing, credible evidence to support a

4312conclusion that lawyers from a national firm in comparison to

4322smaller state or local firms provide better representation or

4331more skilled and ef ficient lawyering that justifies a higher

4341rate.

43424 3 . Based upon the evid ence presented in this record, a

4355reasonable rate for the senior lawyers participating in this

4364matter is $4 25 per hour. A reasonable rate for the junior

4376lawyer participating in this m atter is $200.00.

4384Fee Amounts

43864 4 . A reasonable fee amount for representation in the

4397proceeding before the Division o f Administrative Hearings is

4406$7 6 , 5 00. A reasonable fee amount for the proceeding before the

4419First District Court of Appeal is $ 9 3 , 70 1.25 .

4431Costs

44324 5 . Hospitals seek $6,333.63 in costs. The evidence

4443prov es these costs are reasonable. The Agency does not dispute

4454them.

4455CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4458Jurisdiction

44594 6 . The Division has jurisdiction over the parties to and

4471the subject matter of this matter. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and

4481120.595, Fla. Stat. ( 2015); First DCA Opinion in Case No. 1D13 -

44940224 (July 16, 2014).

4498Basic Principles

45004 7 . Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe , 472 So.

45112d 1145 (Fla. 1985), as modified by Standard Guaranty Insurance

4521Company v. Quanstrom , 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990) , requires using

4532a lodestar approach and considering the eight factors

4540articulated in Rule 4 - 1.5(a), Florida Rules of Professional

4550Conduct. Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide , 117 So. 3d 1142,

45611144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

45664 8 . The party seeking fees must prove that the fees

4578claimed and the time for which they seek payment are reasonable.

4589See City of Miami v . Harris , 490 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

4604The evidence must be sufficient to show what services were

4614per formed. See Warner v. Warner , 692 So. 2d 266, 268 (Fla. 5 th

4628DCA 1997); Tucker v. Tucker , 513 So. 2d 733, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA

46411987). Useful evidence includes invoices, records, testimony

4648and other information detailing services provided. Braswell v

4656Braswell , 4 So. 3d 4, 5 (Fla. 2 d DCA 2009).

46674 9 . Records should permit a judge to feasibly and

4678expeditiously engage in review. They must provide sufficient

4686detail to permit appraisal of their reasonableness. ECOS, Inc.

4695v. Brinegar , 671 F. Supp. 381, 394 (M.D.N .C. 1987) ; Accord Smith

4707v. Smith , 764 So. 2d 650, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ; Cf. N.D. Fla.

4721Loc. R. 54.1(c)(Ð A detailed record must provide enough

4730information to allow the Court to evaluate reasonableness; an

4739entry like ÒresearchÓ or ÒconferenceÓ without a de scription of

4749the subject will not do.Ñ ) M any of the invoice descriptions of

4762work performed do not provide sufficient detail.

476950 . Where fee documentation is voluminous, like h ere, a

4780court may make an across - the - board reduction in hours. Kenny A.

4794v. Per due , 532 F.3d 1209, 1220 (11th Cir. 2008) . 3 / See also ,

4809Loranger v. Stierheim , 10 F.3d 776, 78 3 (11th Cir. 1994)

4820(Ð[A]cross - the - board percentage cuts in the number of hours

4832claimed or in the final lodestar figureÑ may be an appropriate

4843utilitarian approach ) . An a cross - the - board reduction in hours

4857is the practical approach in this case.

48645 1 . The tribunal awarding fees should review the evidence

4875and identify the hours disallowed and the reasons for

4884disallowance. Norman v. Housing Auth. , 836 F.2d 1292, 1 304

4894(11th Cir.1988). The judge is also an expert on the issue of

4906reasonable and proper fees and may consider his own knowledge

4916and experience when forming a judgment on the value of services

4927provided. Loranger v. Stierheim , 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11th Cir.

493719 94), citing Norman , 836 F.2d at 1303.

49455 2 . Lawyers and clients may agree to any fee, staffing,

4957and billing arrangements that they wish. But , when the fee is

4968shifted to another party, only reasonable fees are awarded.

4977Hollub v. Clancy , 706 So. 2d 16, 18 - 1 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

49925 3 . The standard for the legal service provided is

5003effective and competitive representation, not perfect

5009representation. Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin , 749 F.2d 945,

5018953 - 54 (1st Cir. 1984).

5024Application of the Eight Factors

50295 4 . Rowe requires first determining a lodestar fees figure

5040by multiplying the reasonable hourly rates by the number of

5050hours reasonably spent on the litigation, applying the eight

5059factors of Rule 4 - 1.5(b) of the Florida Bar Rules of

5071Professional Conduct. Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom , 555

5080So. 2d 828, 830 (Fla. 1990). "Reasonably expended" means the

5090time that ordinarily would be spent by lawyers in the community

5101to resolve this particular type of dispute. It is not

5111necessarily the number of hours actually expended by counsel in

5121the case. See In re Estate of Platt , 586 So. 2d 328, 333 (Fla.

51351991) ( d iscussing Rowe factors in estate case).

51445 5. The eight factors of Rule 4 - 1.5(b) of the Florida Bar

5158Rules of Professional C onduct and an evaluation of each in lig ht

5171of the Findings of Fact follows .

5178(A) The time and labor required, the novelty and

5187difficulty of the question involved, and the skill requisite to

5197perfor m the legal service properly - Î This matter did not present

5210a novel or difficult question. The govern ing law is well

5221established, and the evidence needed was readily available. It

5230did not require e xtensive time and labor. Ms. Erde and

5241Ms. Stinson provided an above - average level of experience and

5252skill . The $4 25 hourly rate reflects that .

5262(B) The like lihood, if apparent to the client, that the

5273acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other

5281employment by the lawyer Î - Representing the Hospitals in this

5292matter did not have the potential to preclude other employment.

5302If anything the reverse is true.

5308(C) The fee customarily charged in the loca lity for

5318similar legal services - Î Expert testimony was presented and

5328considered. The persuasive credible evidence established that

5335the customary fee for similar legal services in the community

5345where challenges to unpromulgated rules must be litigated is

5354$4 25 per hour for senior lawyers and $200 per hour for junior

5367lawyers.

5368(D) The amount in volved and the results obtained - Î The

5380amount potentially involved was $400,000,000. The result was

5390success.

53915 6 . After consideration of all the Rowe factors, the

5402reasonable fee for representation in the proce eding before the

5412Division is $7 6 , 5 00. After consideration of all the Rowe

5424factors, the reasonable fee for representation in the appellate

5433proceedings is $ 9 3 , 711 .25 .

5441Costs

54425 7 . The Hospitals spent $6,333.63 for deposition costs,

5453external printing and duplicating for the hearing and

5461depositions, and for the final hearing transcripts. These costs

5470are reasonable and not challenged by the Agency.

5478ORDER

5479Based upon the for egoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

5489of Law, it is ORDERED that the amount of a ttorneyÓs fees

5501assessed against the Agency for Health Care Administration is

5510$1 70,2 1 1.25 . The amount of costs assessed against the Agency

5524for Health Care Administration is $ 6,333.63. The Agency shall

5535pay these fees and costs , totaling $ 1 76,5 4 4.88 , within 30 days

5550from the date of this Order.

5556DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of August , 2016 , in

5566Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

5570S

5571JOHN D. C. NE WTON, II

5577Administrative Law Judge

5580Division of Administrative Hearings

5584The DeSoto Building

55871230 Apalachee Parkway

5590Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

5595(850) 488 - 9675

5599Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

5605www.doah.state.fl.us

5606Filed with the Clerk of the

5612Division of Adminis trative Hearings

5617this 1st day of August , 2016 .

5624ENDNOTE S

56261 / All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2012 compilation

5638unless noted otherwise.

56412 / ÐIt is simply not conceivable to us that the ablest of

5654lawyers, having covered the same ground in arg uments in the

5665district court, would have required the equivalent of a full

5675week and a half of a billable hours to prepare for oral

5687argument.Ñ See GrendelÓs Den, Inc. v. Larkin , 749 F.2d 945,

5697953 - 54 (1st Cir. 1984).

57033 / The Florida Supreme Court opinions in Florida Compensation

5713Fund v . Rowe and Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom

5724rely upon federal court opinions. This makes consideration of

5733federal court opinions appropriate in this Order. See InPhyNet

5742Contr. Servs. v. Matthews , Case No. 4D14 - 33 82 (Fla. 4th DCA June

575622, 2016), 2016 Fla. App. Lexis 9594, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1464

5768(Fla. 4th DCA June 22, 2016) and Vantage View v. Bali E. Dev.

5781Corp. , 421 So. 2d 728, 731 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (federal

5793cases interpreting Federal Rules of Civil Procedur e similar to

5803Florida Rules are persuasive authority).

5808COPIES FURNISHED:

5810Joanne Barbara Erde, Esquire

5814Duane Morris LLP

5817Suite 3400

5819200 South Biscayne Boulevard

5823Miami, Florida 33131

5826(eServed)

5827Donna Holshouser Stinson, Esquire

5831Duane Morris

5833Suite 3400

5835200 South Biscayne Boulevard

5839Miami, Florida 33131 - 2318

5844(eServed)

5845Harvey W. Gurland, Esquire

5849Duane Morris, LLP

5852Suite 3400

5854200 South Biscayne Boulevard

5858Miami, Florida 33131

5861(eServed)

5862Alex B.C. Ershock, Esquire

5866Roberts Reynolds Bedard & Tuzzio PLLC

5872470 Columbia Dr ive , Suite C101

5878West Palm Beach, Florida 33409

5883(eServed)

5884Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire

5888Office of the Attorney General

5893The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

5898Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

5903(eServed)

5904Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk

5909Agency for Health Care Administ ration

59152727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3

5921Tallahassee, Florida 32308

5924(eServed)

5925Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary

5928Agency for Health Care Administration

59332727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1

5939Tallahassee, Florida 32308

5942(eServed)

5943Stuart Williams, General Counsel

5947Agency for He alth Care Administration

59532727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3

5959Tallahassee, Florida 32308

5962(eServed)

5963NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

5969A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is

5980entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida

5989Stat utes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules

5999of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by

6007filing the original notice of administrative appeal with the

6016agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within

602530 days of re ndition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of

6040the notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law,

6050with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate

6062district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a

6072party resides o r as otherwise provided by law.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2016
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding a CD containing Medicaid Providers Handbooks, to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 11/23/2016
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding records to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2016
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Cross Appeal filed and Certified copy sent to the First District Court of Appeal this date.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Tracy George) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/01/2016
Proceedings: Acknowledgment of New Case, First DCA Case No. 1D16-3952 filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed and Certified copy sent to the First District Court of Appeal this date.
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2016
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2016
Proceedings: Order Awarding Fees and Costs (hearing held April 5, 2016). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 05/31/2016
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/31/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/06/2016
Proceedings: Post Hearing Order.
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Amended Objections to Respondent's Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Objections to Respondent's Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/04/2016
Proceedings: Respondent's Amendments to Its Unilateral Prehearing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Objections to Respondent's Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 ("Summaries") filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/31/2016
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Summary Final Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Serving Amended Answers to AHCA's Expert Witness Interrogatories Numbers 2 and 6 filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Serving Amended Answers to AHCA's Expert Witness Interrogatories Numbers 2 and 6 filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Intent to Use Summaries filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2016
Proceedings: Order on Bayfront Objections and Motion for Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2016
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Intent to Use Summaries filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Third Amendment to Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2016
Proceedings: Agency for Health Care Administration's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of David C. Ashburn filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum via Videoconference (of M. Christopher Bryant) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/24/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum via Videoconference (of Record Custodian of Oertel, Fernandez, et al) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2016
Proceedings: AHCA's Response to Bayfront's March 18, 2016 Objections and Motion for Protective Order by Joanne B. Erde and Records Custodian of Duane Morris, LLP as to AHCA's Notices of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Joanne B. Erde and Records Custodian of Duane Morris, LLP and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Joanne B. Erde and Records Custodian of Duane Morris, LLP filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2016
Proceedings: Order to Respond to Objections and Motion for Protective Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2016
Proceedings: Objections and Motion for Protective Order by Joanne B. Erde and Records Custodian of Duane Morris, LLP as to AHCA's Notices of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Joanne B. Erde and Records Custodian of Duane Morris, LLP and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Joanne B. Erde and Records Custodian of Duane Morris, LLP filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/15/2016
Proceedings: Agency for Health Care Administration's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Records Custodian filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/15/2016
Proceedings: Agency for Health Care Administration's Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Joanne B. Erde filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/15/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Karen Brodeen) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2016
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/11/2016
Proceedings: Order Denying Third Motion for Continuance of Fees Hearing.
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2016
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Status Conferenceon Motion for Continuance (status conference set for March 10, 2016; 2:00 p.m.).
PDF:
Date: 03/09/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/03/2016
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Service of Response to Petitioners' Request for Production of Documents and Things filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/03/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Second Amendment to Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/03/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Serving Amended Answers to AHCA's Expert Witness Interrogatories Numbers 2 and 6 filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/04/2016
Proceedings: Petitioners' Request for Production to Agency for Health Care Administration filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2016
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for April 5, 2016; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 01/19/2016
Proceedings: Joint Status Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/13/2016
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by January 19, 2016).
PDF:
Date: 01/12/2016
Proceedings: Unopposed Motion for Short Continuance of Hearing on Attorneys Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/29/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Amendment to Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/23/2015
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Compel.
PDF:
Date: 12/15/2015
Proceedings: Petitioners' Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Compel Better Responses to AHCA's First Request to Produce and First Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/09/2015
Proceedings: AHCA's Motion to Compel Better Responses to Petitioners' Responses to AHCA's First Set of Requests to Produce and First Set of Requests for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Withdrawal of AHCA's Motion for Expedited Discovery Response filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/01/2015
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Respondent AHCA's Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/25/2015
Proceedings: Second Notice of Hearing (hearing set for January 28, 2016; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2015
Proceedings: Respondent AHCA's Motion for Expedited Discovery Response filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Service of Request for Admissions to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2015
Proceedings: Respondent AHCA's Request for Admissions to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/02/2015
Proceedings: Joint Status Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/02/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Alex Ershock) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/02/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Harvey Gurland) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/28/2015
Proceedings: Undeliverable envelope returned from the Post Office.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2015
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by November 2, 2015).
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2015
Proceedings: Petitioners' Unilateral Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2015
Proceedings: AHCA's Unilateral Prehearing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2015
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Respondent's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2015
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Serving Answers to AHCA's First Interrogatories and Expert Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2015
Proceedings: (Petitioners') Motion for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent's Answers to Petitioner's Interrogatories to Agency for Health Care Administration filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2015
Proceedings: AHCA?S Answers to Petitioners' Request for Production to Agency for Health Care Administration filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2015
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Refiling AHCA's Response and Memorandum of Law with Attachment B filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2015
Proceedings: AHCA's Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the Petitioner's Motion for Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2015
Proceedings: Order Granting and Rescheduling Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference (set for October 26, 2015; 10:00 a.m.).
PDF:
Date: 10/12/2015
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Continuance of Pre-hearing Conference filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Pre-hearing Conference (set for October 27, 2015; 10:00 a.m.).
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2015
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2015
Proceedings: Respondents Notice of Service of First Interrogatories and Expert Interrogatories to Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2015
Proceedings: Respondents First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioners' Request for Production to Agency for Health Care Administration filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/22/2015
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Serving Interrogatories to Agency for Health Care Administration filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/10/2015
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing on Fees and Costs (hearing set for November 3, 2015; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2015
Proceedings: Response to Order Requiring Status Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/31/2015
Proceedings: AHCAs Unilateral Status Report filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2015
Proceedings: Order to File Status Report.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2014
Proceedings: Mandate
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2014
Proceedings: Mandate filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/19/2014
Proceedings: Opinion filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/05/2014
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Final Disposition of Appeal filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/21/2014
Proceedings: Notice of First DCA Decision Regarding Case No. 12-2757RU filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2014
Proceedings: Opinion
PDF:
Date: 07/16/2014
Proceedings: Notice of Violation of Agency Action Pursuant to Section 120.69(1)(b) Florida Statutes (corrected) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/22/2013
Proceedings: Undeliverable envelope returned from the Post Office.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2013
Proceedings: Order Correcting Clerical Error.
PDF:
Date: 10/21/2013
Proceedings: BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellee's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction is granted, Jurisdiction is relinquished to the lower tribunal for 30 days to consider the motion to correct clerical error in the final order.
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Correct Clerical Error in Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/27/2013
Proceedings: Index, Record, and Certificate of Record sent to the First District Court of Appeal.
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2013
Proceedings: Order Staying Disposition of Petitioners' Motion to Set Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
PDF:
Date: 02/19/2013
Proceedings: Response to Motion for Stay, Motion to Set Attorneys Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2013
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Stay of Petitioners' Motion to Set Attorneys Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2013
Proceedings: Motion to Set Attorneys' Fees and Costs filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2013
Proceedings: Index (of the Record) sent to the parties of record.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2013
Proceedings: Invoice for the record on appeal mailed.
PDF:
Date: 01/16/2013
Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed and Certified copy sent to the First District Court of Appeal this date.
PDF:
Date: 12/21/2012
Proceedings: DOAH Final Order
PDF:
Date: 12/21/2012
Proceedings: Final Order (hearing held October 9 and 10, 2012). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Proposed Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2012
Proceedings: Agency's Amended Proposed Final Order and Incorporated Closing Argument filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2012
Proceedings: Agency's Proposed Final Order and Incorporated Closing Argument filed.
Date: 11/09/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
Date: 10/30/2012
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings Volume I-III (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/23/2012
Proceedings: Letter to DOAH from D. Fridie regarding enclosed cd with rules of Florida Administrative Code filed.
Date: 10/09/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Request for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/08/2012
Proceedings: Order Denying Respondent`s Motion in Limine.
Date: 10/08/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/08/2012
Proceedings: Response to Respondent's Motion in Limine and Request for Sanctions filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion In Limine to Strike Petitioners' Witnesses filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2012
Proceedings: Respondent's Unilateral Prehearing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/05/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition (of M. Gonzalez) filed.
Date: 10/04/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 10/04/2012
Proceedings: Order on Petitioners` Motion in Limine.
PDF:
Date: 10/03/2012
Proceedings: AHCA's Response to Petitioner's Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Respondent's Answers and Objections to Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance of Additional Co-Counsel (Donna Stinson) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2012
Proceedings: Order Shortening Time to Respond to Petitioners` Motion in Limine.
PDF:
Date: 10/02/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Third Amended Notice of Initial Disclosures filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/12/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Second Amended Notice of Initial Disclosures filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2012
Proceedings: Order Accepting Harry R. Silver as a Qualified Representative.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2012
Proceedings: Motion to Appear as a Qualified Representative filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Amended Initial Disclosures filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2012
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Appear as a Qualified Representative.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum of Agency Representative filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2012
Proceedings: Motion to Appear as a Qualified Representative filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Initial Disclosures filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2012
Proceedings: Respondent AHCA's Initial Disclosures filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition (of M. Bolin, T. Ryder, and J. Shepherd) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Deposition (of B. Kidder and S. Harris) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/22/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance of Co-counsel for Respondent AHCA (filed by Jeffries Duvall).
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2012
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 9 and 10, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2012
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel for Respondent AHCA filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/17/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Debora Fridie) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/16/2012
Proceedings: Rule Challenge transmittal letter to Liz Cloud from Claudia Llado copying Ken Plante and the Agency General Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 08/15/2012
Proceedings: Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non-rule Policy filed.

Case Information

Judge:
JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II
Date Filed:
08/15/2012
Date Assignment:
08/17/2012
Last Docket Entry:
12/09/2016
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Agency for Health Care Administration
Suffix:
RU
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (2):

Related Florida Statute(s) (10):

Related Florida Rule(s) (3):