NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT, PETITIONER,
v.
HUMANA OF FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A WOMEN'S HOSPITAL OF BOCA RATON, AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, RESPONDENTS
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.
North Broward Hospital District sought appellate review of a hearing officer's order denying its petition to intervene in an HRS administrative proceeding. The court held that hearing officers' orders do not constitute final agency action subject to appellate review unless the agency itself adopts or rejects the recommendation, and therefore remanded the matter to HRS for the agency to issue a final dispositive order.
A hearing officer's order does not constitute final agency action subject to appellate review; instead, the agency itself must issue a final dispositive order accepting or rejecting the hearing officer's recommendation. Only upon the agency's adoption of a position does the matter become reviewable as agency action.
[1] Orders of hearing officers, absent limited exceptions, do not constitute final agency action subject to immediate appellate review.
[2] A petition for review of a hearing officer's order denying intervention must first be addressed by the agency before appellate review is available.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It has recently been held by this court that orders of hearing officers, subject to limited exceptions, do not constitute 'agency action.'”
Establishes the fundamental holding that hearing officer orders lack final agency status.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorth Broward Hospital District (NBHD) petitioned to intervene in an ongoing Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) administrative pro…
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 Appellate Review Of Agency Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*595] ZEHMER, Judge.
North Broward Hospital District (NBHD) seeks review of a hearing officer’s order denying its petition to intervene in an ongoing Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) administrative proceeding.
NBHD attempts to invoke our jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 4(b), Florida Constitution; section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes (1981); and rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. All of these jurisdictional vehicles relate to appellate review of “agency action.” It has recently been held by this court that orders 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 Professional Regulation, 428 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
The issue raised by NBHD regarding the correctness of the hearing officer’s denial of its petition to intervene should be addressed by HRS before it is addressed here. If the agency disagrees with the hearing officer’s recommendation, then judicial review will be unnecessary; if the agency accepts the hearing officer’s recommendation, then we will have for our review “agency action” pursuant to section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes. This court has previously held that an agency order denying a petition to intervene is final agency action reviewable under section 120.68(1).
Laborers International Union of North America, Local 666 v. Public Employees Relations Commission, 336 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
In accordance with Boedy, supra, we remand to HRS for a period of twenty days and direct that HRS enter an order either accepting or rejecting the hearing officer’s order denying the petition to intervene. Upon the filing with this court of a certified copy of the department’s order, our jurisdiction will again attach and the petition for review will be considered as addressed to the department’s dispositive order if that order denies the petition to intervene, or the petition will be dismissed as moot should the department grant the petition to intervene.
ERVIN, C.J., and NIMMONS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. John H. LeBARON, D.D.S., 443 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- The Laborers Int'l Union OF N. Am. v. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Fla. State Emps. Council # 79, 336 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Beckum v. State, 443 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Boedy v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 428 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Whittle v. State, 428 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. Honorable William E. Williams, 444 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)