FLORIDA HOSPITAL, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES AND SURGICARE, III, SPONSOR OF SURGICARE OUTPATIENT CENTER OF ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1987-05-14
No. BN-413
WIGGINTON, J. and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.
507 So. 2d 696 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1987)

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.

Synopsis

Florida Hospital appealed the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' denial of its motion to tax costs against Surgicare after Surgicare voluntarily dismissed its certificate of need application in an administrative proceeding. The court affirmed, holding that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure permitting cost assessment do not apply to administrative hearings, and no statutory authority under Florida's Administrative Procedure Act authorizes such cost assessments.


Holding

The court held that Rule 1.420(d) does not apply to administrative proceedings, and there is no statutory authority under Florida's Administrative Procedure Act or other statutes that allows for the assessment of costs against a party whose administrative action has been dismissed. Any relief from the disparity in procedures between administrative and judicial forums must come from the legislature, not the courts.


Headnotes

[1] A party may not recover costs in an administrative proceeding unless there is explicit statutory authority or power reasonably implied from expressly granted powers.

[2] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(d), which allows for the assessment of costs upon dismissal of an action, does not apply to administrative proceedings.

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

Key Quotes

“Finding no explicit statutory authority to grant such a motion in an administrative hearing, or any power reasonably implied from the powers explicitly granted to the agency, we are bound by the Department's ruling and affirm.”

States the court's core holding that no authority exists for applying Rule 1.420(d) to administrative proceedings.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

In February 1984, Surgicare submitted an application for a certificate of need to build an ambulatory surgery center, which was denied. Surgicare peti…

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.


Opinion of the Court
ERVIN, Judge.

ERVIN, Judge.

Florida Hospital appeals the final order issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department), denying its motion to tax costs pursuant to Rule 1.420(d),1 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, against Surgicare III (Surgicare). Finding no explicit statutory authority to grant such a motion in an administrative hearing, or any power reasonably implied from the powers explicitly granted to the agency, we are bound by the Department’s ruling and affirm.

In February 1984, Surgicare submitted an application for a certificate of need (CON) to build an ambulatory surgery center. The application was denied, and Surgi-care petitioned for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Florida Hospital was then allowed to intervene in the case as a substantially affected party providing similar services .to those proposed by Surgicare in the same area.

Extensive discovery was conducted by both parties, including that which led to appeals in both circuit and appellate courts. A final hearing lasting ten days was held in 1985. Following the hearing, but prior to the filing deadline for the parties’ proposed orders, Surgicare filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The hearing officer granted the motion and dismissed with prejudice Surgicare’s petition. Florida Hospital then filed its motion to tax costs pursuant to Rule 1.420(d).

The hearing officer found, and we agree, that there is no authority for the application of Rule 1.420(d) to administrative proceedings. Nor is there any statutory authority under Florida’s Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, which allows for the assessment of costs against a party whose action has been dismissed. The rule is clear “that an express grant of power to an agency will be deemed to include such powers as are necessarily or reasonably incident to the powers expressly granted.” Hall v. Career Service Commission, 478 So. 2d 1111, 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We cannot glean that any provision of Chapter 120 or other statutory authority reasonably implies the allowance of the costs sought by appellants.

We realize that, had this litigation taken place in a judicial setting, rather than in an administrative setting, Florida Hospital would have been entitled to recover costs from Surgicare. Any relief from the disparity between the procedure afforded litigants in an administrative forum and those in a judicial forum must, however, come from the legislature, not the courts.

AFFIRMED.

WIGGINTON, J. and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur. . Rule 1.420 pertains to the dismissal of actions. Subsection (d) provides in pertinent part: "Costs in any action dismissed under this rule shall be assessed and judgment for costs entered in that action."


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw