14-002049N Ashlee Hammac And Timothy Jolley, On Behalf Of And As Parents And Natural Guardians Of Ryan Michael Jolley, A Deceased Minor vs. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association Status: Closed DOAH Final Order on Tuesday, July 7, 2015.

Summary: Final Order awarding attorney's fees and other expenses incurred.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ASHLEE HAMMAC AND TIMOTHY

JOLLEY, on behalf of and as

parents and natural guardians of

RYAN MICHAEL JOLLEY, a deceased

minor,

Petitioner s ,

vs. Case No. 14 - 2049N

FLORIDA BIRTH - RELATED

NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENS ATION

ASSOCIATION,

Respondent,

and

SHANDS LAKE SHORE REGIONAL

MEDICAL CENTER,

Intervenor.

_______________________________/

FINAL ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case on

May 19, 2015, by video teleconference with sites in Tallahassee

and Orlando, Florida, before Barbara J. Staros, an Administrative

Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner s : Peter W. Van den Boom, Esquire

Saray Noda, Esquire

Frost Van den Boom, P.A.

395 South Central Avenue

Bartow, Florida 33830

For Respondent: Brooke M. Gaffney, Esquire

Smith Stout Bigman and Brock PA

444 Seabreeze Boulevard , Suite 900

Daytona Beach, Florida 32118

For Intervenor: No appearance.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is the amount of attorney Ó s fees and

rea sonable expenses to be awarded to Petitioner's c ounsel

pursuant to section 766.31(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 16, 2014, the undersigned entered a Summary Final

Order finding that Ryan Michael Jolley sustained a birth - related

neurological injury which was compensable under the Plan.

The Order read in pertinent part:

1. RespondentÓs Unopposed Motion for Summary

Final Order is granted, and Ryan Michael

Jolley sustained a birth - related injury which

is compensable under the pl an.

2. Jurisdiction is reserved to determine the

issue of award pursuant to section 766.31.

3. It is further ORDERED that the parties

are accorded 30 days from the date of this

Order to resolve, subject to approval of the

administrative law judge, the amount and

manner of payment of an award to Petitioners;

the reasonable expenses incurred in

connection with the filing of the claim,

including reasonable attorneyÓs fees and

costs; and the amount owing for expenses

previously incurred. If not resolved wi thin

such period, the parties shall so advise the

administrative law judge, and a hearing will

be scheduled to resolve such issues. Once

resolved, an award will be made consistent

with section 766.31.

The parties were able to agree on the amount of

co mpensation; however, the parties did not reach an agreement on

the amount of attorneyÓs fees and costs to be awarded to

PetitionersÓ counsel.

A hearing on attorneyÓs fees and costs was noticed for

May 19, 2015, and was heard as scheduled. The parties file d a

Joint Stipulation on May 15, 2015. At hearing, the parties

informed the undersigned that they had entered into an amended

joint stipulation. The Amended Joint Stipulation was filed on

May 20, 2015.

At hearing, Petitioners presented the live testim ony of

Ellen B. Burno, Esquire , and Donald Hinkle, Esquire. Ms. Burno

is one of PetitionersÓ attorneys. Mr. Hinkle testified as

PetitionersÓ expert witness as to the reasonableness of the fees

sought by PetitionersÓ counsel. PetitionersÓ Exhibits A thro ugh

F were admitted in evidence. Respondent presented the live

testimony of John Kelner, Esquire. RespondentÓs Exhibit A was

admitted into evidence.

The one - volume Transcript was filed on June 4 , 2015.

Petitioners and Respondent filed their Proposed Fina l Orders on

attorneyÓs fees and costs on June 15, 2015. No appearance was

made on behalf of Intervenor, Shands Lakeshore Regional Medical

Center, and Intervenor did not file a proposed order. The

parties' proposed final orders have been given due conside ration

in writing this Final Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. As noted in the Preliminary Statement, the parties filed

an Amended Joint Stipulation on May 20, 2015. The parties

stipulated to the amount and manner of payment of an award to

Petitioners. Spec ifically, the parties agreed to an award of:

Actual expenses for ambulance in the amount of $320; lump sum

award to the parents or legal guardians of the infant found to

have sustained a birth - related neurological injury in the amount

of $100,000; and a d eath benefit in the amount of $10,000.

2. The parties further stipulated to PetitionersÓ

entitlement to $631.05 in costs which includes the $15 .00 DOAH

filing fee and $616.05 for medical records.

3. The parties also stipulated that the only remaining

co sts which are at issue are costs for a nursing consultant in

the amount of $1,200 for Karla Olson & Associates, LLC, and

expert witness costs for Donald Hinkle, Esquire.

4. Petitioners also seek reasonable attorneyÓs fees. In

the Amended Joint Stipulatio n, PetitionersÓ counsel agreed to

withdraw their request for time expended in seeking attorneyÓs

fees from NICA and preparing for the fee hearing. Despite this,

the parties were still unable to agree on the amount of

reasonable attorneyÓs fees.

5. Peti tionersÓ attorneys assert an entitlement to

attorneyÓs fees in the amount of $34,728.27; $1,870 for the

services of a paralegal; costs for a nurseÓs review of the

medical records in the amount of $1,200; and an expert witness

fee for Donald Hinkle, Esquire , in the amount of $2,400.

6. The total amount of attorneyÓs fees sought by

Petitioners is broken down as follows: 82.2 hours for Ellen

B urno at a rate of $275.19 per hour; 20.2 hours for Peter Van den

Boom at a rate of $350 per hour; 12.9 hours for Davi d Anderson at

a rate of $225 per hour; and 11.2 hours for Saray Noda at a rate

of $190.64 per hour. In addition to seeking $2,400 for their

expert witness, Donald Hinkle, and $1,200 for a nurse

consultantÓs review of medical records, Petitioners seek cost s

for paralegal Ruthie Romero, at $110 per hour for 17 hours.

7. Ellen Burno is the sole attorney in the Gainesville

office of Frost Van den Boom, P.A. She has been licensed as an

attorney in Florida since 2013 and has been licensed to practice

law in t he state of Kentucky since 2004. She has represented

clients in medical malpractice cases and has extensive experience

in litigation and health care law. She first met with

Petitioners in October 2014 after the case was transferred from

the firmÓs Bartow office by senior attorney, David Anderson.

Ms . BurnoÓs initial meeting with Petitioners took place not long

after the death of their infant son, Ryan Michael Jolley.

According to the Petition filed in this case, the Petitioners

resided in Lake City. I t is noted that Gainesville is

considerably closer to Lake City than Bartow.

8. Despite having represented multiple personal injury and

malpractice clients, NICA was a first impression issue for her

and for the other attorneys with the firm.

9. Ms. Bu rno collaborated with Mr. Anderson on the case

until he left the firm on March 7, 2014, when Peter Van den Boom

became the senior attorney and partner on the case. Mr. Van den

Boom has been licensed as an attorney in Florida since 1998. He

has considerab le experience handling medical malpractice and

personal injury cases, including catastrophic injury due to

medical malpractice.

10. Ms. Burno took a 12 - week maternity leave in

October 2014 at which time Saray Noda began working on the case.

Ms. Noda has been a licensed attorney in Florida since 2013.

11. NICA objects to portions of PetitionersÓ request for

fees on numerous grounds including: that much of the time billed

by PetitionersÓ attorneys was unreasonable and unnecessary; that

reasonableness o f the task and time billed by counsel cannot be

ascertained because of vagueness or block - billing; that much of

the time billed involves intercommunication among PetitionersÓ

four lawyers; that much of the time billed represented

duplication of efforts; th at PetitionersÓ need for a particular

structure of the settlement agreement in order to amicably split

the award of NICA benefits should not be awarded; and that time

billed by a paralegal was clerical in nature and should not be

awarded.

12. As stated pr eviously, David Anderson initially received

the case. Mr. Anderson has been licensed as an attorney in

Florida since 2007. Mr. Anderson, who is no longer with the

firm, seeks compensation for 12.9 hours of work from October 28,

2013 , through February 13, 2014. Included in the 12.9 total is

an entry for 2.0 hours for Ðreview and analyze case law re: NICA

statuteÑ and 2.7 hours for Ðresearch regarding filing claim under

NICA statute.Ñ Mr. AndersonÓs time entries begin October 28,

2013 , and conclude on Fe bruary 13, 2014. Mr. AndersonÓs

affidavit noted that the case was taken on a contingent fee

basis.

13. Ellen Burno initially met with Petitioners in the

Gainesville office . She handled the bulk of the case after it

was assigned to her by Mr. Anderson. Ms. Burno seeks

compensation for 82.2 hours for time spent on the case from

October 23, 2013 , through October 7, 2014. Ms. BurnoÓs time

entries include entries on October 23, 24 , and 25 which all

reference research of NICA statute and/or NICA case law. T ime

entries on December 20, 2013 , and January 15, 2014, reference

numerous tasks including review of NICA case law. These and many

other time entries of Ms. BurnoÓs include multiple tasks. These

entries do not set forth with particularity the nature of t he

service provided, making it impossible for the undersigned to

determine reasonableness of the entries. A time entry on

February 6, 2014 , for 6.4 hours references Ðresearch NICA issues

re nurse liability,Ñ which is not related to a NICA claim for

compen sation.

14. Mr. Van den Boom began working on the case about two

months after Mr. Anderson left the firm. The first two time

entries on Mr. Van den BoomÓs time report reflect dates that are

in error in that they reference time in 2012. Those first two

e ntries totaling 0.5 hours must be excluded. The third time

entry dated October 25, 2013, indicates that he expended two

hours of time reviewing the NICA statute and case law. There are

no time entries from the October 25, 2013 , entry until an entry

on Ma rch 25, 2014 , described as Ðreview file, NICAÑ reflecting

4.9 hours, until March 25, 2014, which contains an entry

described as Ðreview summary; legal research NICA; review file in

its entirety. Telephone conference with EBÑ reflecting 8.6 hours

expended. Following those entries, there are many entries from

July 2014 through October 7, 2014, reflecting receipt and review

of e - mails or telephone conferences with Ms. Burno, many of which

match entries on Ms. BurnoÓs time sheet for times they were

exchanging e - mails or having a telephone status conference. Thus

these entries are duplicative. Moreover, while each attorney

working on the case understandably wanted to be familiar with

NICA law, the number of total hours for research was excessive.

15. Ms. N oda seeks attorneyÓs fees for 11.2 hours. Her

time entries begin November 4, 2014 , through December 23, 2014.

It is noted that all of the entries on Ms. NodaÓs time report

were made subsequent to the entry of the Summary Final Order on

compensability ent ered on October 16, 2014. Some of her time

entries concerned the settlement agreement which involved the

uneven distribution of funds between the parents, who are not

married. 1/ In any event, since compensability had already been

determined, Ms. NodaÓs h ours have been excluded in calculating

the fee award.

16. Petitioners seek paralegal fees for 17 hours of

paralegal work by Ruthie Romero. Her time entries begin on

October 28, 2013. Other than a final time entry for one hour on

July 16, 2014, Ms. Romer oÓs time entries end on April 29, 2014,

just prior to the filing of the Petition for Benefits. Virtually

all of the time entries for Ms. Romero deal with requesting

medical records, bates numbering of the medical records, and

scaning, copying and redactin g the medical records. These tasks

are clerical in nature.

17. Donald Hinkle, Esquire, testified as PetitionersÓ

expert witness on attorneyÓs rates and hours. Mr. Hinkle is a

board - certified civil trial lawyer who practices law in

Tallahassee. He has been practicing law since 1980. He is

familiar with the NICA statutes and NICA cases and has testified

in a previous NICA case as an expert witness. He specializes in

civil trial practice, primarily in medical malpractice.

Mr. Hinkle reviewed the file m aterials from the claimantsÓ file,

but did not review the medical records. He also reviewed the

time records of the four attorne y s who represented Petitioners in

this case, as well as the NICA statutes and case law. Mr. Hinkle

opined that the time billed by all four of PetitionersÓ attorneys

was reasonable and that the respective rate for each attorney was

reasonable, and actually low in comparison to fee awards given in

the community to attorneys of comparable experience.

18. Mr. Hinkle is claiming a r ate of $600 per hour for four

hours as his expert witness fee, despite the fact that he had

already expended 4.2 hours on this case prior to the hearing, and

was present throughout most of the hearing which lasted three

hours. Petitioners seek $2,400 for his time which, taking into

consideration the time he actually spent, comes to less than $350

per hour. Based on Mr. Hinkle's experience and expertise, a

total fee of $2,400 is quite reasonable.

19. Additionally, Mr. Hinkle is of the opinion that the

h iring of a nurse consultant to review the medical records was

reasonable to determine whether a birth - related neurological

injury occurred.

20. Regarding the paralegal fees, it was Mr. HinkleÓs

opinion that the tasks performed were those typically don e by a

paralegal, but acknowledged that the tasks were not tasks that an

attorney typically performs.

21. John Kelner, Esquire, testified on behalf of the

Respondent as an expert in attorney's fees. Mr. Kelner has been

practicing law since 1980. H e pra ctices in the area of civil

litigation, primarily medical negligence, and he has experience

with NICA claims and also testified in a previous NICA hearing.

Mr. Kelner approached the case from the aspect of what would be

reasonable time to expend in light o f the facts of the case.

Mr. Kelner opined that it would be reasonable to allocate between

5 to 8 hours over the course of the case to communicate with

Petitioners; it would be reasonable to allocate between 1 to 3

hours to researching the law pertaining to NICA; and it would be

reasonable to allocate between 3 to 5 hours to reviewing

pleadings filed. In total, Mr. Kelner opined that a reasonable

amount of time to attribute to this case is 16 hours, and that a

reasonable fee for an experienced attorney to handle this matter

is $300 per hour.

22. In reaching this opinion, Mr. Kelner took into

consideration that there was no discovery conducted in this case,

no depositions taken, and no hearings held. The Motion for

Summary Final order was unopposed.

23. Given the closeness of the hourly rates claimed by

PetitionersÓ attorneys, NICA urges that the average of $260 per

hour should be assigned to PetitionersÓ counselÓs work in this

case. In consideration of Mr. Hinkle and Mr. KelnerÓs testimony

in this regar d, that suggestion is accepted. However, since the

fees attributable to Ms. Noda have been excluded, her rate has

also been excluded in calculating the average fee rate.

24. Petitioners Ó counsel request $34,728.27 in attorneyÓs

fees. NICA suggests an award of $3,536 in attorneyÓs fees. In

consideration of the evidence presented by the parties, including

the testimony of the respective fee experts and in light of the

prevailing case law which will be more fully explained in the

Conclusions of Law, and having removed excessive, vague, block -

billed, intercommunication, and duplicative time, the undersigned

finds that PetitionersÓ counsel is entitled to 58.5 hours of time

at $283 per hour for a total of $16,555.50 as attorneyÓs fees

from NICA.

25. Respond ent does not object to the following expenses

incurred by Petitioners: $15 for the DOAH filing fee and $616.05

for medical records, for a total of $631.05.

26. Petitioners seek payment of $2,400 to Donald Hinkle,

Esquire. The undersigned agrees that Pe titioners are entitled to

these expert witness fees.

27. Petitioners seek payment of $1,200 for a nurse

consultant. Mr. Kelner noted that the nurseÓs review of the

medical records was conducted after the claim was filed,

indicating that she may have bee n hired for reasons other than

compensability. Mr. Hinkle acknowledged that he would have had

the nursing expert review done before filing the Petition. The

undersigned notes that within Ms. BurnoÓs time records are found

entries regarding research on is sues regarding Ðnurse liability.Ñ

This indicates that the nurse consultant was, at least in part,

advising on matters not related to a NICA claim for compensation.

The undersigned concludes that Petitioners are not entitled to

the $1,200 sought for the nur se consultant.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

28. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. § 766.301 - 766.316 , Fla. Stat. (2013)

29. Section 766.31(1)(c) provides for an award of

reason able expenses including attorneyÓs fees, as follows:

(c) Reasonable expenses incurred in

connection with the filing of a claim under

ss. 766.301 - 766.316, including reasonable

attorneyÓs fees, which shall be subject to

the approval and award of the adminis trative

law judge. In determining an award for

attorneyÓs fees, the administrative law judge

shall consider the following factors:

1. The time and labor required, the novelty

and difficulty of the questions involved, and

the skill requisite to perform the legal

services properly.

2. The fee customarily charged in the

locality for similar legal services.

3. The time limitations imposed by the

claimant or the circumstances.

4. The nature and length of professional

relationship with the claimant.

5 . The experience, reputation, and ability

of the lawyer o r lawyers performing services.

6. The contingency or certainty of the fee.

30. To calculate a reasonable attorney's fee, the first

step is to determine the number of hours reasonably expended

p ursuing the claim. See Standard Guarantee Ins . Co. v.

Quanstrom , 555 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1990); F la. Patient's Comp . Fund

v. Rowe , 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985); Fl a. Birth - Related

Neurological Injury Comp . Ass Ó n v. Carreras , 633 So. 2d 1103

(Fla. 3d DCA 1994) . Notably, "[u]nder the 'hour - setting' portion

of the lodestar computation, it is important to distinguish

between 'hours actually worked' versus 'hours reasonably

expended . '" Carreras , 633 So. 2d at 1110.

"Hours actually worked" is not the issue.

Th e objective instead is for the trier of

fact

to determine the number of

hours reasonably expended in

providing the service. 'Reasonably

expended' means the time that

ordinarily would be spent by

lawyers in the community to resolve

this particular t ype of dispute.

It is not necessarily the number of

hours actually expended by counsel

in the case. Rather, the court

must consider the number of hours

that should reasonably have been

expended in that particular case.

The court is not required to accep t

the hours stated by counsel.

In re Estate of Platt , 586 So. 2d 333 - 34 .

The trier of fact must determine a reasonable

time allowance for the work performed -- which

allowance may be less than the number of

hours actually worked. Such a reduction does

not reflect a judgment that the hours were

not worked, but instead reflects a

determination that a fair hourly allowance is

lower than the time put in.

Id. Moreover, only time incurred pursuing the claim is

compensable, not time incurred exploring civil rem edies or

opportunities to opt out of the Plan through lack of notice or

otherwise. Carreras , 633 So. 2d at 1109. Finally, a fee award

must be supported with expert testimony, and cannot be based

entirely on the testimony of the claimant's attorney. Palm etto

Fed . Savings and Loan Ass Ó n v. Day , 512 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA

1987); Fitzgerald v. State of Fl a. , 756 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 2d DCA

1999). See Nants v. Griffin , 783 So. 2d 363, 366 (Fla. 5th DCA

2001)("To support a fee award, there must be evidence detai ling

the services performed and expert testimony as to the

reasonableness of the fee . . . . Expert testimony is required

to determine both the reasonableness of the hours and reasonable

hour rate.").

31. The attorney must present evidence of his service s in

Ðsufficient . . . detail to allow a determination of whether the

time allocation for each was reasonable.Ñ Brake v. Murphy , 736

So. 2d 745, 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). (emphasis omitted). See

Fla. PatientÓs Comp. Fund v. Rowe , 472 So. 2d at 1150

(ÐInad equate documentation may result in a reduction of hours

claimed, as will a claim for hours that the court finds to be

excessive or unnecessary.Ñ) ; Lubkey v. Compuvac Systems, Inc. ,

857 So. 2d 966, 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(Ð[T]he party seeking fees

has the bu rden to allocate them to the issues for which fees are

awardable or to show that the issues were so intertwined that

allocation is not feasible.Ñ).

32. Duplicative time Ðreflected on counselsÓ respective

time sheets as time communicating with each other . . . should be

eliminated.Ñ Carreras , 633 So. 2d at 1110 (finding that Ðwe do

not think that the intercommunication time can be fairly charged

against NICAÑ) . ÐDuplicative time charged by multiple attorneys

working on the case are generally not compensa ble.Ñ North Dade

Church of God, Inc. v. JM Statewide, Inc. , 851 So. 2d 194, 196

(Fla. 3d DCA 2003)(remanding for the reduction of attorneyÓs fees

awarded where time sheets reflect ed a significant amount of time

spent in conferences between the partner and the associate who

were working on the case as well as multiple attorneys performing

or reviewing the same items) .

33. ÐA court may award fees for work done by law clerks or

paralegals only when they perform work typically done by

lawyers.Ñ Kearney v. A uto - Owners Ins. Co. , 713 F. Supp. 2d at

1378 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (reducing the requested attorneyÓs fees

substantially for time billed for clerical work better performed

by non - lawyers). See also § 57.104, Fla. Stat. ÐIn any action

in which attorneyÓs fees a re to be determined or awarded by the

court, the court shall consider, among other things, time and

labor of any legal assistants who contributed non - clerical,

meaningful legal support to the matter involved and who are

working under the supervision of an attorney.Ñ

34. Based upon the above Findings of Fact and applicable

law, a reasonable hourly rate for the work done by PetitionersÓ

attorneys is $2 83 an hour. This hourly rate was calculated by

averaging the hourly rates of the three attorneys representi ng

Petitioners.

35. Based on the above Findings of Fact and law, Mr. Hinkle

is entitled to an expert witness fee of $2,400, representing 4.0

hours at $600 per hour.

36. Based on the stipulation of the parties, Petitioners

are entitled to $631.05 for rea sonable expenses incurred in

pursuing the NICA claim.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

ORDERED that Petitioners and their attorneys are awarded:

1. Petitioners are awarded actual expenses for an ambulance

in the amount of $320 .

2. Petitioners, as parents of the child who sustained a

birth - related neurological injury, are awarded a lump sum in the

amount of $100,000 .

3. Petitioners are awarded a death benefit of $10,000, for

the death of their infant son, Ryan Michael Jolley.

4. The firm of Frost Van den Boom, P.A., is awarded

$16,555.50, representing an hourly rate of $283 per hour for 58.5

hours.

5. Donald Hinkle, Esquire , is awarded $2,400, representing

an hourly rate of $600 for 4.0 hours.

6. The fi rm of Frost Van den Boom, P.A., is awarded

$631.05, representing costs reasonably incurred in pursuing the

NICA claim.

It is further ORDERED that, consistent with s ection 766.312,

the Division of Administrative Hearings retains jurisdiction over

this matte r to enforce all awards.

DONE AND ORDERED this 7th day of July , 2015 , in Tallahassee,

Leon County, Florida.

S

BARBARA J. STAROS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalach ee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 7th day of July , 2015 .

ENDNOTE

1/ Ms. NodaÓs time sheet initially included t ime entries from

January 6, 2015 , through May 5, 2015. However, these entries

dealt with times expended in settling/accepting NICA benefits and

the distribution of award to parents. Petitioners are no longer

seeking payment for those entries. Any stipul ation regarding

distribution of funds, other than in paragraph 3 of the Amended

Joint Stipulation filed on May 20, 2015, has not been submitted

to the undersigned.

COPIES FURNISHED:

(via certified mail)

Peter W. Van den Boom, Esquire

Frost Van d en Boom, P.A.

395 South Central Avenue

Bartow, Florida 33830

(eServed)

(Certified Mail No. 7014 2120 0003 1048 1857)

Kenney Shipley, Executive Director

Florida Birth Related Neurological

Injury Compensation Association

2360 Christopher Place, Suite 1

T allahassee, Florida 32308

(eServed)

(Certified Mail No. 7014 2120 0003 1048 1864)

Brooke M. Gaffney, Esquire

Jeffrey P. Brock, Esquire

Smith Stout Bigman and Brock PA

444 Seabreeze Boulevard , Suite 900

Daytona Beach, Florida 32118

(eServed)

(Certified M ail No. 7014 2120 0003 1048 1871)

Michael R. D Ó Lugo, Esquire

Wicker, Smith, O Ó Hara, McCoy, Ford, P.A.

Post Office Box 2753

Orlando, Florida 32802

(eServed)

(Certified Mail No. 7014 2120 0003 1048 1888)

Amie Rice, Investigation Manager

Consumer Services Unit

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C - 75

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3275

(Certified Mail No. 7014 2120 0003 1048 1895)

Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary

Health Quality Assurance

Agency for Health Care Administration

2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3

Tallahassee, Florida 32308

(Certified Mail No. 7014 2120 0003 1048 1901)

Emad Atta, M.D.

Women Ó s Center of Florida

351 Northeast Franklin Street, Suite 1124

Lake City, Florida 32055

(Certified Mail No. 7014 2120 0003 1048 1918)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO J UDICIAL REVIEW

Review of a final order of an administrative law judge shall be

by appeal to the District Court of Appeal pursuant to section

766.311(1), Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by

the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are

commenced by filing the original notice of administrative appeal

with the a gency c lerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings

within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed, and a

copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the

clerk of the appropriate District Court of Appeal. See

§ 766.311(1), Fla. Stat., and Fla. Birth - Related Neurological

Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Carreras , 598 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 1st DCA

1992).