DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HONORABLE WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, HEARING OFFICER WITH THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION HEARINGS, AND DELL V. SPIVA, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Department of Professional Regulation appealed a hearing officer's denial of its motion to dismiss a petition by Dell V. Spiva seeking appointment as a state pilot. The court held that because the hearing officer's order on the motion to dismiss had not been addressed by the agency head, it was not reviewable by the appellate court.
The court held that the hearing officer's order denying DPR's motion to dismiss is not reviewable by the appellate court because it has not been addressed by the agency head, as required by Rule 28-5.205.
[1] A hearing officer's ruling on a motion to dismiss, which has not been addressed by an agency head, is not reviewable by an appellate court.
[2] A party seeking to challenge the appointment of state pilots must join the appointed pilots as indispensable parties in the proceeding.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Any ruling by a presiding officer on a motion in opposition to a petition shall be incorporated in a recommended order, and can be finally disposed of only by the Agency head.”
Establishes the requirement that the agency head must address the hearing officer's ruling before appellate review is available
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDell V. Spiva petitioned the Department of Professional Regulation to have three state pilots at the Port of Miami declared unqualified, alleging they…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Agency Review cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
The motion for rehearing filed by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) is granted and the previously issued opinion is withdrawn.
Dell V. Spiva petitioned DPR to have three state pilots at the Port of Miami declared unqualified for their positions. Spiva alleged that the three state pilots failed to meet the three-years experience requirement of Section 310.071(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), and that he had the required experience, therefore, he was entitled to be appointed a state pilot. Spiva and the three had taken the qualifying examination together, with the three scoring higher than Spiva. Their higher scores entitled the three to be appointed as state pilots if all of the other required qualifications were equal. After a hearing was set to determine Spiva’s entitlement to be appointed as a state pilot, DPR moved to dismiss or abate the proceeding for failure to join the three appointed pilots as indispensable parties. The hearing officer denied DPR’s motion. By way of special appearance, the three appointed pilots objected to further proceedings, citing their non-party status and the fact that they had not been joined or noticed. After DPR petitioned for review, the hearing officer ordered that the three state pilots be noticed and given leave to intervene.
Rule 28-5.205, made applicable to this proceeding by Rule 21SS-2.01, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: “Motions in opposition to a petition, which may be filed by any party, include motions to dismiss, to strike, and for more definite statement, and shall be filed within twenty (20) days of service of the petition. Any ruling by a presiding officer on a motion in opposition to a petition shall be incorporated in a recommended order, and can be finally disposed of only by the Agency head.”
In accordance with this rule, we hold that the hearing officer’s order, denying DPR’s motion to dismiss, which has not been addressed by an agency, is not reviewablé by this court. See Department of Professional Regulation v. LeBaron, 443 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Accordingly, our previously issued opinion is withdrawn. DPR’s petition for review is dismissed.
WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Humana OF Fla., Inc., 444 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…s of hearing officers, subject to limited exceptions, do not constitute “agency action.” Department of Professional Regulation ¶. Honorable Sharyn L. Smith, No. AU-248 (Fla. 1st DCA, Jan. 26, 1984); Department of Professional Regulation v. Williams, 444 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Department of Professional Regulation v. LeBaron, D.D.S., 443 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Beckum, O.D. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 443 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Boedy v. Department of Professio…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. John H. LeBARON, D.D.S., 443 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)