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.
DOAH Final Order on Monday, August 1, 2016.
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 stab ilization Ñ issue
1105more consistently and more cheaply than if they litigated it in
1116each and every case. As the basically identical engagement
1125agreements between each hospital and counsel state: ÐBecause
1133many hospitalsÓ interests in [sic] are similar or ide ntical as
1144it relates to the Alien Issue and in order to keep legal costs
1157to a minimum, each of the participants in the [hospital] Group
1168will [sic] have agreed that it wishes this firm to represent
1179them in a Group.Ñ
11836. Because of counselÓs pre - existing relationships with
1192the Hospitals, litigating this matter should have continued or
1201enhanced the client relationships. The time required for this
1210matter could not result in lost business opportunities. In
1219fact, by consolidating the issues common to all the clients and
1230their cases, counsel freed up time to work on other matters.
1241Presentation of the issue for resolution in a single case also
1252saved the Hospitals the greater cost of disputing the issue in
1263each case where the Agency sought reimbursement.
12707. Th e Hospitals and counsel dealt with the only possible
1281downside of the representation by including disclosures about
1289joint representation and a waiver of conflict claims in the
1299engagement letters.
13018. This was not a contingent fee case. The agreement
1311provid ed for monthly billing and payment from counselÓs trust
1321account. Each group member made an initial payment of $10,000
1332to the trust account. Any time the trust account balance dipped
1343below $15,000, each g roup member agreed to contribute another
1354$10,000 to the trust account . For counsel , this representation
1365was about as risk free as a legal engagement can be.
13769. The Hospitals and their counsel knew from the outset
1386that they would have to prove their reasonableness of their fees
1397and costs if they prevailed and wanted to recover fees. The
1408Petition for Determination of Invalidity of Non - Rule Policy
1418seeks an award of fees and costs. They could have adjusted
1429their billing practices to provide more detail in prepar ation
1439for a fees dispute.
144310. An "unpromulgat ed rule challenge" presents a narrow
1452and limited issue. That issue is whether an agency has by
1463declaration or action established a statement of general
1471applicability that is a "rule," as defined in section
1480120.52(16), without going through the required pu blic rulemaking
1489process required by section 120.54. The validity of the
1498agency's statement is not an issue decided in an "unpromulgated
1508rule challenge."
151011. Courts have articulated the legal standards for
1518unpromulgated rule challenges frequently. See , e.g. , Coventry
1525First, LLC v. Off. of Ins. Reg. , 38 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 1st
1539DCA 2010); Dep Ót of Rev . v. Vanjaria Enter s. , 675 So. 2d 252
1554(Fla. 5th DCA 1996) ; and the cases those opinions cite.
15641 2. The facts proving the ÐstabilizationÑ standard were
1573easy to establish. Many Agency documents stated the shift to
1583the ÐstabilizationÑ standard . Documents of Agency contractors
1591did also. Two examples of how clear it was that the Agency was
1604applying a new standard were the AgencyÓs statements in its
16142009 - 2010 a nd 2010 - 2011 reports to the Governor on efforts to
1629control Medicaid fraud and abuse. The reports describe the
1638ÐstabilizationÑ standard as Ðmore stringentÑ and certain to
1646recover millions of dollars for the Agency.
165313 . As the AgencyÓs reports to the Gov ernor indicate, the
1665stakes were high in this matter. For the Hospitals and other
1676hospitals collectively affected by the AgencyÓs effort to recoup
1685past payments by applying the ÐstabilizationÑ standard,
1692$400,000 ,0 00 was at stake.
169914 . This matter did not p resent complex or difficult
1710issues, legally or factually.
171415 . The Order of Pre - Hearing Instructions requiring
1724parties to disclose documents and witnesses and update the
1733disclosures alleviated the discovery demands present in other
1741litigation. The Agenc yÓs failure to fully comply with the pre -
1753hearing instructions and unfounded Motion in Limine added some
1762additional time demands for the HospitalÓs counsel. Nonetheless
1770the issues were narrow, and the facts were essentially
1779undisputed , if not undisputable. This matter did not require
1788extraordinary amounts of time for discovery or preparation.
179616 . Ordinarily challenges to rules or unpromulgated rules
1805impose time pressures on the attorneys because of the
1814requirement in section 120.56 that the hearing comm ence within
182430 days of assignment to the Administrative Law Judge. The time
1835constraint was not a factor in this case. The Hospitals
1845requested waiver of the time requirement to permit more time for
1856discovery. The Agency agreed, and the undersigned grante d the
1866request. Thus the Hospitals had the time their counsel said
1876they needed to prepare for the hearing.
188317. The appeal imposed no time constraints. Both parties
1892received extensions of t im e for their filings. Seventeen months
1903passed between filing t he notice of appeal and oral argument.
1914Time for the Administrative Proceeding
191918 . The total number of hours claimed for the services of
1931the three lawyers, their claimed hourly rate, and the total fees
1942claimed appear below.
1945Joanne B. Erde 458.20 hours $550 .00 rate $252,010.00
1955Donna Stinson 136.20 hours $455.00 rate $61,971.00
1963Harry Silver 93.40 hours $550.00 rate $51,370.00
1971Total 687.80 hours $365,351.00
197619 . The HospitalsÓ counselÓs billing records are
1984voluminous. For the proceeding before the Divis ion, the
1993Ho spital s Ó counselÓs invoices list 180 billing entries for the
2005work of three lawyers. A substantial number of the entries are
2016block billing. In block billing , all of a lawyerÓs activities
2026for a period of time, usually a day, are clumped together with
2038one time total for the entire dayÓs service. It is an
2049acceptable form of billing. But block billing presents
2057difficulties determining the reasonableness of fees because a
2065single block of time accounts for several different activities
2074and the invoic e does not establish which activity took how much
2086time.
208720 . Here are representative examples of the block billing
2097entries from the Division level invoices:
2103August 20, 2012 (Erde) Î Conference call with ALJ; telephone
2113conference with AHCA attorney; telepho ne conference with
2121newspaper reporters Î 2.0 hours
2126September 16, 2012 (Erde) Î Review depositions; prepare opening
2135remarks; develop impeachment testimony Î 5.50
2141September 27, 2012 (Erde) Î Intra - office conference; finalize
2151interrogatories; work on direct Î 8.50
2157October 2, 2012 (Stinson) Î Review and revise Motion in Limine;
2168Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde and Harry Silver; review
2177emails regarding discovery issues - `2.60
2183October 19, 2012 (Erde) Î Intra - office conference to discuss
2194proposed order; Res earch Re: other OIG audits; research on
2204validity of agency rules Î 2.10 hours
2211November 9, 2012 (Erde) Î Conference with ALJ; Intra - Office
2222conference to discuss status; further drafting of proposed order
2231Î 7.70 hours.
2234November 19, 2012 (Stinson) Î Final Rev iew and Revisions to
2245Proposed Final order; Telephone conferences with Joanne Erde to
2254Review final Changes and comments; Review AHCAÓs proposed orde r
2264and revised proposed order Î 3 . 2 0 hours.
227421. Many of the entries, block or individual, do not
2284provide suf ficient detail to judge the reasonableness of the
2294time reported. ÐPrepare for deposition and hearing,Ñ Ðreview
2303depositions ,Ñ Ðreview new documents,Ñ Ðreview draft documents,Ñ
2313Ðintra - office conferenceÑ and Ðattention to discoveryÑ are
2322recurrent examples.
23242 2 . Senior lawyers with more expertise and higher billing
2335rates are expected to be more efficient. This, the fact that
2346the matter was not complicated, the relative simplicity of the
2356issue, and the fact that the HospitalsÓ counsel already had a
2367great deal of familiarity with the facts and law involved , all
2378require reducing the number of hours compensated in order for
2388them to be reasonable. For this matter, in these circumstances,
2398the claimed number of hours is quite high. The claimed 687.80
2409hours amounts to working eight hours a day for 86 days , two of
2422which were the hearing. T his is not reasonable.
243123 . A reasonable number of hours for the proce edings
2442before the Division is 180. That is the equivalent of 22 .5
2454eight - hour days. That is sufficient to han dle th e matter before
2468the Division from start to finish. The number i ncludes
2478consideration of the worked caused by the needless difficulties
2487presented by the Agency in discovery and with its Motion in
2498Limine.
2499Time for the Appellate Proceeding
250424 . The fee s that the Hospitals seek for the appeal are
2517broken down by hours and rates as follows:
2525Joanne B. Erde 255.10 hours $560.00 $142,856.00
2533(Ó13) Joanne B. Erde 202.80 hours $580.00 $117,624.00
2542(Ó14) Donna Stinson 88.50 hours $460.00 $40,710.00
2550(Ó13) Donna Stinson 67.10 hours $500.00 $33,550.00
2558(Ó14) W.D. Zaffuto 48.30 hours $435.00 $21,010.50
2566Rob Peccola 10.90 hours $275.00 $2,997.50
2573(Ó13) Rob Peccola 17.50 hours $300.00 $5,250.00
2581(Ó14) L. Rodriguez - 6.20 hours $520.00 $3,224.00
2590Taseff
2591(Ó13) L. Rodrigue z - 19.50 hours $545.00 $10,627.50
2601Taseff
2602(Ó14) Rachel Pontikes 38.20 hours $515.00 $19,673.00
2610Total 754.10 hours $397,522.50
261525 . For the appellate proceeding, the invoices present 341
2625entries, a substantial number of which are block billing for
2635work b y six lawyers. Here are representative examples from the
2646appellate level invoices:
2649May 16, 2013 (Erde) Î Reviewed AHCAÓs initial brief; intra -
2660office conference to discuss; preliminary review of record Î
26692.90
2670May 24, 2013 (Erde) Î Intra - office conference t o discuss
2682response to brief; preparation to respond to brief Î 2.50
2692May 30, 2013 (Erde) Î Attention to Appeal issue s ; finalize
2703request for extension; brief research re jurisdictional issues Î
27121.60
2713June 18, 2013 (Peccola) Î Strategy with J. Erde regarding
2723r esearch needs; review/analyze case law cited in answer brief;
2733conduct legal research regarding documentary evidence and
2740exhibits on appellate review; write email memo to J . Erde
2751regarding same Î 2.00
2755July 19, 2013 (Zaffuto) Î Revise/draft Answer Brief; dis cuss
2765extension of time with H. Gurland; research appellate rules
2774regarding extension of time and staying proceedings pending
2782ruling on motion; review appendix to answer brief; instruction s
2792to assistant regarding edits and filing of answer brief and
2802appendi x prepare answer brief for filing ; call to clerk
2812regarding extension of time review initial brief by AHCA and
2822final order by ALJ Î 5.50
2828August 14, 2013 (Erde) Î Intra - office conference to discuss
2839brief; further revised brief Î 5.80
2845August 15, 2013 (Stinson ) Reviewed appellees' answer brief;
2854discussed language in answer brief with Joanne Erde Î 2.50
2864October 9, 2013 (Stinson) Î Review draft motion to relinquish
2874regarding admission of exhibit; exchange e - mails with Joanne
2884Erde; telephone conference with Joanne Erde Î 1.60
2892October 10, 2013 (Erde) Î Attention to new motion re
2902relinquishing jurisdiction; review of revisions; further
2908revisions Î 6.00
2911October 30, 2013 (Erde) Î Research re: AHCAÓs current behavior;
2921intra - office conference to discuss status of action at DOAH -
2933.70
2934November 7, 2013 (Peccola) Î Strategy with J. Erde regarding
2944Appell eesÓ response in opposition to A ppellantÓs motion for
2954supplemental briefing; conduct research regarding same; draft
2961same; look up 1 st DCA local rule on appellate motions and e mail
2975same to J. Erde Î 3.60
2981December 5, 2013 (Erde) Î Research Re: supplemental briefing
2990issues; research to find old emails from AHCA re: inability to
3001produce witnesses - .90
3005January 21, 2014 (Rodriguez - T aseff) Î Working on Supplemental
3016Answer Brief Î lega l argument re authentication and cases
3026distinguishing marchines [sic] ; editing facts Î 6.70
3033February 3, 2014 (Erde) Î Review and revise response to motion
3044for further briefing; intra - office conference to discuss same Î
30552.20
3056May 2, 2014 (Pontikes) Î Continu e to review relevant case law
3068regarding the definition of an unpromulgated rule; continue to
3077analyze the briefs and the arguments; continue to draft an
3087outline of the argument discussed Î 5.00
3094June 5, 2014 (Erde) Î draft email to group regarding AHCAÓs
3105set tlement offer; reviewed supplemental settlement offer from
3113AHCA; draft email to group re same Î 1.70
3122June 11, 2014 (Erde) Î Attention to finalizing response to
3132AHCAÓs notice of dismissal and fi li ng of fee petition; memo to
3145members of group Î 8.00
3150July 21, 2014 (Erde) Î completed motion for rehearing re: fees
3161as sanctions; drafted status report for DOAH regarding status of
3171DCA opinion; drafted status report in companion case; emails
3180with AHCA re: withdrawing pending audits Î 6.90
3188July 21, 2014 (Peccola) Î St rategy with D. Stinson and J. Erde
3201regarding motion for rehearing; revise/edit same; review/revise
3208edit notices in trial court 1.20.
321426. The descriptive entries in the invoices for the
3223appellate representation also lack sufficient detail. Examples
3230are: Ð begin preparation to respond to AHCAÑs brief,Ñ Ðattention
3241to appeal issues,Ñ Ðpreparation to draft answer brief,Ñ and
3252Ðresearch and draft answer brief.Ñ
325727 . For the appellate proceedings, Duane Morris added four
3267lawyers, none with experience in Florida administrative or
3275appellate matters. W.D. Zaffuto, L. Rodriguez - Taseff, and
3284Rachel Pontikes are senior level lawyers in Duane Morris offices
3294outside of Florida. Rob Peccola is a junior level lawyer from a
3306Duane Morris office outside of Florida. The appa rent result is
3317those lawyers spending more time on issues than the more
3327experienced Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson would.
33342 8 . One example of this is a July 19, 2013, billing entry
3348where a lawyer spent time researching Ðappellate rules regarding
3357extension of t ime and staying proceedings pending ruling on
3367motion.Ñ The two lawyers primarily responsible for this matter,
3376both laying claim to Florida appellate expertise, would only
3385need to quickly check the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
3395to confirm their reco llection of the rules, something that would
3406probably take less time than it took to make the time entry and
3419review the draft bill.
342329. HospitalsÓ a lso filed a puzzling motion that presents
3433a discreet example of needless attorney time billed in this
3443matter . The Hospitals expended 21.8 hours on a Motion for
3454Rehearing of the courtÓs order awarding them fees and costs.
3464The courtÓs opinion and the Final Order stated that fees and
3475costs were awarded under section 120.595(4)(a), Florida
3482Statutes. Yet the Hospi talsÓ motion fretted that fees might be
3493assessed under section 120.595(4)(b), which caps fees at
3501$50,000. The court denied the motion.
350830 . Two things stand out when reviewing the invoices for
3519the appellate proceeding. The first is that the appeal took
3529more hours than the trial proceeding. A trial pr oceeding is
3540generally more time - consuming because of discovery, a hearing
3550much longer than an oral arg ument, witness preparation, document
3560review , and preparing a proposed order .
35673 1 . The second is the shee r number of hours. HospitalsÓ
3580counsel seeks payment for 754.10 hours in the appellate
3589proceeding. This is 66.3 more t han for the Division proceeding.
3600It included a two day hearing, trial preparation, research, and
3610preparing a 37 page proposed final ord er . In eight - hour days
3624the claimed hours amount to a staggering 94.26 days. That
3634amounts to one lawyer working on the appeal for eight hours a
3646day for three months.
36503 2 . Of this time, 613.5 hours were spent by Ms. Erde and
3664Ms. Stinson, lawyers with exper tise in the subject area, who had
3676prepared the case for hearing, who participated in the hearing,
3686who closely reviewed the entire record for preparation of their
3696proposed final order, who researched the issues before the
3705hearing and for the proposed final order, and who wrote the
3716proposed final order. With all this knowledge and experience
3725with the record and the law, handling the appeal should have
3736taken less time than the proceeding before the Division. 2 /
374733 . One factor supports the appellate proceeding taking as
3757man y hours , or a few more hours , than the administrative
3768proceeding. It is t he AgencyÓs disputatious conduct over a
3778scrivenerÓs error in the Final Order which erroneously stated
3787that the AgencyÓs Exhibit 1 had been admitted . The AgencyÓs
3798condu ct increased the time needed to represent the Hospitals in
3809the appeal.
38113 4 . The Agency relied upon the exhibit in its initial
3823brief, although it twice cited page 359 of the transcript where
3834the objection to the exhibit was sustained. Also the AgencyÓs
3844a nd the HospitalsÓ proposed final order s correctly stated that
3855Agency Exhibit 1 had not been admitted.
38623 5 . The HospitalsÓ Answer Brief noted that Agency
3872Exhibit 1 had not been admitted. The transcript of the final
3883hearing and both partiesÓ proposed fi nal orders were clear that
3894the exhibit had not been admitted. Yet the Agency argued in its
3906Reply Brief that it had been.
39123 6 . This required the Hospitals to move to remand the case
3925for correction of the error. The Agency opposed the motion.
3935The court granted the motion. The Final Order was corrected and
3946jurisdiction relinquished back to the court. The Agency used
3955this as an opportunity to trigger a new round of briefing about
3967whether Exhibit 1 should have been admitted. This has been
3977considered in d etermining the reasonable number of hours for
3987handling the appeal.
39903 7 . A reasonable number of hou rs for handling the appeal
4003is 225 . Converted to eight - hour days, this would be 2 8. 13 days.
401938 . For the appeal, Duane Morris attributes 28.4 hours of
4030the work to a junior lawyer. This is 3.8 per cent of the total
4044time claimed. Applying that percentage to 225 hours, results in
40548 . 6 hours attributed to the junior lawyer with the remaining
4066216.45 hours attributed to senior lawyers.
4072Attorneys and Fees
40753 9 . Ea ch party presented expert testimony on the issues of
4088reasonable hours and reasonable fees. The Agency presented the
4097testimony of M. Christopher Bryant , Esq uire . The Hospitals
4107presented the testimony of David Ashburn, Esq uire .
411640 . As is so often the cas e with warring experts , the
4129testimony of the witnesse s conflict s dramatically. Mr. Bryant
4139opined that a reasonable rate for senior lawyers , such as
4149Ms. Erde and Ms. Stinson , ranged between $350 and $450 per hour .
4162The reasonable rate for junior lawyers w as $ 200 per hour.
4174Mr. Ashburn opined that the reasonable hourly rate for senior
4184lawyers ranged between $595 and $700 and the reasona ble rate for
4196junior lawyers was between $275 and $300 .
42044 1 . The contrast was the same for the opinions on the
4217reasonable n umber of hours needed to handle the two stages of
4229this litigation. Mr. Bryant testified that the administrative
4237proceeding should have taken 150 to 170 hours and that the
4248appeal should have taken 175 to 195 hours. Mr. Ashburn
4258testified that the Hospitals Ó claimed 687 hours for the
4268proceeding before the Division and 754.10 hour for the appellate
4278proceeding were reasonable.
42814 2 . The Hospitals argue that somehow practicing in a large
4293national law firm, like Duane Morris justifies a higher rate.
4303The theory i s unpersuasive. A national law firm is nothing
4314special. There is no convincing, credible evidence to support a
4324conclusion that lawyers from a national firm in comparison to
4334smaller state or local firms provide better representation or
4343more skilled and ef ficient lawyering that justifies a higher
4353rate.
43544 3 . Based upon the evid ence presented in this record, a
4367reasonable rate for the senior lawyers participating in this
4376matter is $4 25 per hour. A reasonable rate for the junior
4388lawyer participating in this m atter is $200.00.
4396Fee Amounts
43984 4 . A reasonable fee amount for representation in the
4409proceeding before the Division o f Administrative Hearings is
4418$7 6 , 5 00. A reasonable fee amount for the proceeding before the
4431First District Court of Appeal is $ 9 3 , 70 1.25 .
4443Costs
44444 5 . Hospitals seek $6,333.63 in costs. The evidence
4455prov es these costs are reasonable. The Agency does not dispute
4466them.
4467CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4470Jurisdiction
44714 6 . The Division has jurisdiction over the parties to and
4483the subject matter of this matter. §§ 120.569, 120.57(1), and
4493120.595, Fla. Stat. ( 2015); First DCA Opinion in Case No. 1D13 -
45060224 (July 16, 2014).
4510Basic Principles
45124 7 . Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe , 472 So.
45232d 1145 (Fla. 1985), as modified by Standard Guaranty Insurance
4533Com pany v. Quanstrom , 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990) , requires using
4545a lodestar approach and considering the eight factors
4553articulated in Rule 4 - 1.5(a), Florida Rules of Professional
4563Conduct. Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide , 117 So. 3d 1142,
45741144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
45794 8 . The party seeking fees must prove that the fees
4591claimed and the time for which they seek payment are reasonable.
4602See Ci ty of Miami v . Harris , 490 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
4618The evidence must be sufficient to show what services were
4628per formed. See Warner v. Warner , 692 So. 2d 266, 268 (Fla. 5 th
4642DCA 1997); Tucker v. Tucker , 513 So. 2d 733, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA
46551987). Useful evidence includes invoices, records, testimony
4662and other information detailing services provided. Braswell v
4670Braswell , 4 So. 3d 4, 5 (Fla. 2 d DCA 2009).
46814 9 . Records should permit a judge to feasibly and
4692expeditiously engage in review. They must provide sufficient
4700detail to permit appraisal of their reasonableness. ECOS, Inc.
4709v. Brinegar , 671 F. Supp. 381, 394 (M.D.N .C. 1987) ; Accord Smith
4721v. Smith , 764 So. 2d 650, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) ; Cf. N.D. Fla.
4735Loc. R. 54.1(c)(Ð A detailed record must provide enough
4744information to allow the Court to evaluate reasonableness; an
4753entry like ÒresearchÓ or ÒconferenceÓ without a de scription of
4763the subject will not do.Ñ ) M any of the invoice descriptions of
4776work performed do not provide sufficient detail.
478350 . Where fee documentation is voluminous, like h ere, a
4794court may make an across - the - board reduction in hours. Kenny A.
4808v. Per due , 532 F.3d 1209, 1220 (11th Cir. 2008) . 3 / See also ,
4823Loranger v. Stierheim , 10 F.3d 776, 78 3 (11th Cir. 1994)
4834(Ð[A]cross - the - board percentage cuts in the number of hours
4846claimed or in the final lodestar figureÑ may be an appropriate
4857utilitarian approach ) . An a cross - the - board reduction in hours
4871is the practical approach in this case.
48785 1 . The tribunal awarding fees should review the evidence
4889and identify the hours disallowed and the reasons for
4898disallowance. Norman v. Housing Auth. , 836 F.2d 1292, 1 304
4908(11th Cir.1988). The judge is also an expert on the issue of
4920reasonable and proper fees and may consider his own knowledge
4930and experience when forming a judgment on the value of services
4941provided. Loranger v. Stierheim , 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11th Cir.
495119 94), citing Norman , 836 F.2d at 1303.
49595 2 . Lawyers and clients may agree to any fee, staffing,
4971and billing arrangements that they wish. But , when the fee is
4982shifted to another party, only reasonable fees are awarded.
4991Hollub v. Clancy , 706 So. 2d 16, 18 - 1 9 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
50065 3 . The standard for the legal service provided is
5017effective and competitive representation, not perfect
5023representation. Grendel's Den, Inc. v. Larkin , 749 F.2d 945,
5032953 - 54 (1st Cir. 1984).
5038Application of the Eight Factors
50435 4 . Rowe requires first determining a lodestar fees figure
5054by multiplying the reasonable hourly rates by the number of
5064hours reasonably spent on the litigation, applying the eight
5073factors of Rule 4 - 1.5(b) of the Florida Bar Rules of
5085Professional Conduct. Standard Guar. Ins. Co. v. Quanstrom , 555
5094So. 2d 828, 830 (Fla. 1990). "Reasonably expended" means the
5104time that ordinarily would be spent by lawyers in the community
5115to resolve this particular type of dispute. It is not
5125necessarily the number of hours actually expended by counsel in
5135the case. See In re Estate of Platt , 586 So. 2d 328, 333 (Fla.
51491991) ( d iscussing Rowe factors in estate case).
51585 5. The eight factors of Rule 4 - 1.5(b) of the Florida Bar
5172Rules of Professional C onduct and an evaluation of each in lig ht
5185of the Findings of Fact follows .
5192(A) The time and labor required, the novelty and
5201difficulty of the question involved, and the skill requisite to
5211perfor m the legal service properly - Î This matter did not present
5224a novel or difficult question. The govern ing law is well
5235established, and the evidence needed was readily available. It
5244did not require e xtensive time and labor. Ms. Erde and
5255Ms. Stinson provided an above - average level of experience and
5266skill . The $4 25 hourly rate reflects that .
5276(B) The like lihood, if apparent to the client, that the
5287acceptance of the particular employment will preclude other
5295employment by the lawyer Î - R epresenting the Hospitals in this
5307matter did not have the potential to preclude other employment.
5317If anything the reverse is true.
5323(C) The fee customarily charged in the loca lity for
5333similar legal services - Î Expert testimony was presented and
5343considered. The persuasive credible evidence established that
5350the customary fee for similar legal services in the community
5360where challe nges to unpromulgated rules must be litigated is
5370$4 25 per hour for senior lawyers and $200 per hour for junior
5383lawyers.
5384(D) The amount in volved and the results obtained - Î The
5396amount potentially involved was $400,000,000. The result was
5406success.
54075 6 . After consideration of all the Rowe factors, the
5418reasonable fee for representation in the proce eding before the
5428Division is $7 6 , 5 00. After consideration of all the Rowe
5440factors, the reasonable fee for representation in the appellate
5449proceedings is $ 9 3 , 711 .25 .
5457Costs
54585 7 . The Hospitals spent $6,333.63 for deposition costs,
5469external printing and duplicating for the hearing and
5477depositions, and for the final hearing transcripts. These costs
5486are reasonable and not challenged by the Agency.
5494ORDER
5495Based upon the for egoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
5505of Law, it is ORDERED that the amount of a ttorneyÓs fees
5517assessed against the Agency for Health Care Administration is
5526$1 70,2 1 1.25 . The amount of costs assessed against the Agency
5540for Health Care Administration is $ 6,333.63. The Agency shall
5551pay these fees and costs , totaling $ 1 76,5 4 4.88 , within 30 days
5566from the date of this Order.
5572DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of August , 2016 , in
5582Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
5586S
5587JOHN D. C. NE WTON, II
5593Administrative Law Judge
5596Division of Administrative Hearings
5600The DeSoto Building
56031230 Apalachee Parkway
5606Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
5611(850) 488 - 9675
5615Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
5621www.doah.state.fl.us
5622Filed with the Clerk of the
5628Division of Adminis trative Hearings
5633this 1st day of August , 2016 .
5640ENDNOTE S
56421 / All citations to Florida Statutes are to the 2012 compilation
5654unless noted otherwise.
56572 / ÐIt is simply not conceivable to us that the ablest of
5670lawyers, having covered the same ground in arg uments in the
5681district court, would have required the equivalent of a full
5691week and a half of a billable hours to prepare for oral
5703argument.Ñ See GrendelÓs Den, Inc. v. Larkin , 749 F.2d 945,
5713953 - 54 (1st Cir. 1984).
57193 / The Florida Supreme Court opinions in Florida Compensation
5729Fund v . Rowe and Standard Guaranty Insurance Co. v. Quanstrom
5740rely upon federal court opinions. This makes consideration of
5749federal court opinions appropriate in this Order. See InPhyNet
5758Contr. Servs. v. Matthews , Case No. 4D14 - 33 82 (Fla. 4th DCA June
577222, 2016), 2016 Fla. App. Lexis 9594, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D1464
5784(Fla. 4th DCA June 22, 2016) and Vantage View v. Bali E. Dev.
5797Corp. , 421 So. 2d 728, 731 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (federal
5809cases interpreting Federal Rules of Civil Procedur e similar to
5819Florida Rules are persuasive authority).
5824COPIES FURNISHED:
5826Joanne Barbara Erde, Esquire
5830Duane Morris LLP
5833Suite 3400
5835200 South Biscayne Boulevard
5839Miami, Florida 33131
5842(eServed)
5843Donna Holshouser Stinson, Esquire
5847Duane Morris
5849Suite 3400
5851200 South Biscayne Boulevard
5855Miami, Florida 33131 - 2318
5860(eServed)
5861Harvey W. Gurland, Esquire
5865Duane Morris, LLP
5868Suite 3400
5870200 South Biscayne Boulevard
5874Miami, Florida 33131
5877(eServed)
5878Alex B.C. Ershock, Esquire
5882Roberts Reynolds Bedard & Tuzzio PLLC
5888470 Colum bia Dr ive , Suite C101
5895West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
5900(eServed)
5901Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire
5905Office of the Attorney General
5910The Capitol, Plaza Level 01
5915Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050
5920(eServed)
5921Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk
5926Agency for Health Care Administ ration
59322727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3
5938Tallahassee, Florida 32308
5941(eServed)
5942Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary
5945Agency for Health Care Administration
59502727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1
5956Tallahassee, Florida 32308
5959(eServed)
5960Stuart Williams, General Counsel
5964Agency for He alth Care Administration
59702727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3
5976Tallahassee, Florida 32308
5979(eServed)
5980NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
5986A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is
5997entitled to judicial review pursuant to section 120.68, Florida
6006Stat utes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules
6016of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by
6024filing the original notice of administrative appeal with the
6033agency clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings within
604230 days of re ndition of the order to be reviewed, and a copy of
6057the notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law,
6067with the clerk of the District Court of Appeal in the appellate
6079district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a
6089party resides o r as otherwise provided by law.
- 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: 09/08/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Cross Appeal filed and Certified copy sent to the First District Court of Appeal this date.
- 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: Order Awarding Fees and Costs (hearing held April 5, 2016). CASE CLOSED.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/04/2016
- Proceedings: Petitioners' Amended 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: 03/30/2016
- 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: 03/25/2016
- 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: 03/18/2016
- 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: 03/09/2016
- Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Status Conferenceon Motion for Continuance (status conference set for March 10, 2016; 2:00 p.m.).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/03/2016
- 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' 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: 01/13/2016
- 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: 12/15/2015
- 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's Notice of Service of Request for Admissions to Petitioners filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/27/2015
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by November 2, 2015).
- 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: 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: 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: 07/16/2014
- Proceedings: Notice of Violation of Agency Action Pursuant to Section 120.69(1)(b) Florida Statutes (corrected) filed.
- 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: 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: 01/16/2013
- Proceedings: Notice of Appeal filed and Certified copy sent to the First District Court of Appeal this date.
- 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.
- 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: Respondent's Motion In Limine to Strike Petitioners' Witnesses filed.
- Date: 10/04/2012
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
- 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: 09/27/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioners' First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/28/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Deposition (of M. Bolin, T. Ryder, and J. Shepherd) 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: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for October 9 and 10, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 08/17/2012
- Proceedings: Notice of Appearance and Substitution of Counsel for Respondent AHCA 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
-
Jeffries H. Duvall, Esquire
Address of Record -
Joanne Barbara Erde, Esquire
Address of Record -
Debora E. Fridie, Esquire
Address of Record -
Harry R. Silver, Esquire
Address of Record -
Donna Holshouser Stinson, Esquire
Address of Record -
Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire
Address of Record -
Alex B.C. Ershock, Esquire
Address of Record -
Tracy Cooper George, Chief Appellate Attorney
Address of Record -
Harvey W. Gurland, Esquire
Address of Record -
Tracy Cooper George, Esquire
Address of Record