HUMANA OF FLORIDA, INC., D/B/A HUMANA HOSPITAL DAYTONA BEACH, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, & SURGICARE III, SPONSOR OF SURGICARE OUTPATIENT CARE OF DAYTONA BEACH, 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.
Humana sought review of an HRS order dismissing a certificate-of-need hearing after the original petitioner (Halifax Hospital) voluntarily dismissed its petition. The court held that an intervenor in an administrative proceeding has no independent right to maintain the proceeding after the original petitioner withdraws, even if the intervenor properly intervened and had community of interest with the original petitioner.
No. An intervenor cannot maintain an administrative proceeding after the original petitioner withdraws. Section 381.494(8)(e) is jurisdictional in nature, and an intervenor who joins a proceeding does so subject to the continued participation of the original petitioner. Withdrawal of the original petition divests the agency of jurisdiction to proceed.
[1] A party must comply with statutory requirements to be eligible for a formal administrative hearing.
[2] An agency's jurisdiction over a proceeding ceases to exist when the original petitioner withdraws their petition.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“This court has held that before an agency has "review" jurisdiction, a timely petition for review must be filed. Conversely, where a petition is withdrawn, agency jurisdiction ceases to exist.”
Establishes the jurisdictional nature of the statutory petition requirement and that withdrawal terminates agency jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSurgicare III applied for a certificate of need to construct an ambulatory-surgical center in Volusia County, which HRS preliminarily approved on Apri…
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 Jurisdictional Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant, intervenor in a formal hearing to contest issuance of a certificate of need, seeks review of a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) final order by which the formal hearing was can-celled and the application for the certificate of need was approved.
Appellant contends that, having properly intervened in the administrative proceeding, it could not be divested of its rights as a party by the initial petitioner’s voluntary dismissal of the hearing. Appellant bases its argument upon an assertion that section 381.494(8)(e), Florida Statutes, which provides that affected parties have 30 days from notice of a certificate of need decision to contest the.action in a formal hearing, is a statute of limitation inuring to the benefit of an intervenor after the limitation period runs when there is community of interest between the original petitioner and the in-tervenor. We disagree and affirm.
Surgicare III submitted an application for a certificate of need to construct an ambulatory-surgical center in Volusia County, and HRS on April 2, 1984 preliminarily approved the application. Halifax Hospital on May 10, 1984 filed a petition for a section 120.57(1) formal hearing to challenge the action.
Appellant on March 19, 1985 filed a petition to intervene in the same proceeding, alleging it would be substantially affected by approval of the certificate of need. The hearing officer granted appellant inter-venor status.
Halifax Hospital on July 30, 1985 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of its petition for formal hearing. The hearing officer entered an order cancelling the hearing and closing the Department of Administrative Hearings file. HRS then entered an order, concluding that Halifax Hospital had an absolute right to dismiss its action, and that exercise of that right terminated the proceeding. HRS asserted that section 381.494(8)(e), Florida Statutes, is jurisdictional, and an intervenor has no right to a hearing unless the original petitioner continues its action.
A party must comply with the requirements of section 381.494(8)(e) in order to be eligible for a section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing.
This court has held that before an ageney has “review” jurisdiction, a timely petition for review must be filed. Conversely, where a petition is withdrawn, agency jurisdiction ceases to exist. In Orange County v. Debra, Inc., 451 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), Debra Inc. petitioned for rulemaking under section 120.54(5), Florida Statutes, but then withdrew its petition before the agency could act. The court held that withdrawal of the petition divested the agency of jurisdiction to proceed. In State, Department of Health & Human Services v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), the court construed section 120.54(4)(b), Florida Statutes, as jurisdictional in nature. That statute required that one who sought to challenge a proposed rule must file a petition within 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of the rule. In that case, intervenors who became parties to the rule-making process after the 14 day notice had lapsed lost standing when the original petitioners lost their standing.
In this case, appellant filed its petition to intervene 11 months after HRS gave notice of its intent to issue Surgicare III a certificate of need. As an intervenor, appellant joined the proceeding subject to the action of the original petitioner. When Halifax Hospital dismissed its petition, no valid proceeding existed in which appellant could participate. To hold otherwise would be to vest in the intervenor greater status than the original petitioner. Accordingly, the order is affirmed.
NIMMONS, J., and WILLIS, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Env't Confederation OF Sw. Fla., Inc. v. IMC Phosphates, Inc., 857 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…h states that “intervention shall be in subordination to, and in recognition of, the propriety of the main proceeding.” The same principle has been applied in administrative proceedings. See Humana of Fla., Inc. v. Dep’t of Health and Rehab. Servs., 500 So. 2d 186, 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). As these authorities illustrate, the [*211] rights of an intervenor are much more limited than the rights of a party. Intervention is a dependent remedy in the sense that an intervenor may not inject a new issue into the c…
-
RHPC, Inc. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 509 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…CA 1985), review dismissed, 488 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1986). Since appellant’s attempt to revive its CON application is untimely, HRS is without jurisdiction to take such action. See Humana of Florida, Inc. v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 500 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review denied, 506 So. 2d 1041 (Fla.1987). (“[Bjefore an agency has ‘review’ jurisdiction, a timely petition for review must be filed. Conversely, where a petition is withdrawn, agency jurisdiction ceases to exist.”) The k…
-
Dep't of Prof'l Reg. v. Roger Marrero, M.D., 536 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…s v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 529 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); RHPC, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 509 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Humana of Florida, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 500 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So. 2d 1041 (1987). These cases, however, are not controlling as applied to the instant case and must be considered in the context of their own particular facts. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420, relating t…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Orange Cnty. v. Debra, Inc., 451 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)