RHPC, INC., D/B/A RIVERSIDE HOSPITAL, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, ET AL., 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.
Riverside Hospital appealed a final order from the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) dismissing its attempt to reinstate a voluntarily dismissed certificate of need (CON) application. The court affirmed, holding that HRS lacked jurisdiction to reinstate the application once Riverside voluntarily dismissed its appeal, and that estoppel cannot confer jurisdiction upon an administrative agency.
HRS lacks jurisdiction to reinstate the CON application once Riverside voluntarily dismissed its appeal, and estoppel cannot operate to confer jurisdiction upon the administrative agency. The voluntary dismissal terminated HRS's jurisdiction, the earlier denial became final agency action, and any attempt to revive the application is untimely.
[1] A voluntary dismissal of an administrative appeal terminates the agency's jurisdiction to consider further issues related to the dismissed application.
[2] Estoppel cannot be used to confer jurisdiction upon an administrative agency that it otherwise lacks.
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“The voluntary dismissal of the CON appeal by Riverside terminated the jurisdiction of HRS to consider further any issue relating to the CON application.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that voluntary dismissal divests the agency of jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRiverside Hospital filed a certificate of need application with HRS. Riverside subsequently filed a voluntary notice of dismissal of its CON appeal. T…
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 Certificate Of Need (Con) Application cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
RHPC, Inc., d/b/a Riverside Hospital, appeals a final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), dismissing Riverside’s attempt to reinstate its certificate of need (CON) application, which it had previously voluntarily dismissed. We affirm.
Riverside sought a section 120.57 administrative hearing for the purpose of proving that HRS be estopped from refusing to reinstate Riverside’s CON application. We agree that HRS was without jurisdiction to reinstate the application, once Riverside had filed its voluntary notice of dismissal, and that the theory of estoppel cannot be used to confer jurisdiction upon HRS.
The voluntary dismissal of the CON appeal by Riverside terminated the jurisdiction of HRS to consider further any issue relating to the CON application. Once the appeal was dismissed by Riverside, the earlier free-form denial of the CON by HRS took force and became final agency action. HRS has no jurisdiction to allow an untimely appeal of final agency action. See Upjohn Healthcare, Inc. v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 471 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for review dismissed, 475 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1985). Accord City of Jacksonville v. St. Johns Bluff Utility Co., Inc., 480 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 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 key to appellant’s attempt to reinstate its CON application is its theory that HRS, by its allegedly egregious actions, should be estopped from not reviving the application. However, even if appellant could prove that HRS acted egregiously, such action cannot mandate revival of the CON application, as “[a]n estoppel does not operate to confer authority or power.” 22 Fla.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver § 7 (1980). See also Gulf American Corp. v. Florida Land Sales Board, 206 So. 2d 457, 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968) (an administrative agency cannot enlarge its own jurisdiction, nor can it create jurisdiction by consent, estoppel or waiver, citing 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 331).
HRS has filed a motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs, pursuant to Section 120.57(l)(b)9, Florida Statutes (1985). The above section provides that attorney’s fees may be awarded in an appeal of an agency’s final order, if the court finds that the appeal was “frivolous, meritless, or an abuse of the appellate process.” Attorney’s fees have on previous occasions been awarded pursuant to the above statute against HRS. See Doctor’s Osteopathic Medical Center, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 498 So. 2d 478 (Fla 1st DCA 1986); University Community Hospital v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 493 So. 2d 2 (Fla 2d DCA 1986).
Finding that the attempt to reinstate appellant’s application and its subsequent appeal in the instant case is meritless and frivolous, we grant the motion for attorney’s fees and costs against the appellant, limiting the award of fees and costs to the defense of this appeal. See § 120.-57(l)(b)9., Fla.Stat. The cause is remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a hearing on the issue of the amount of fees and costs as above directed, with directions also that a report be filed with this court within 45 days after the issuance of the mandate in this cause.
AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON, J., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Earnest Mathis, Jr. v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 726 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…imits for initiating administrative adjudicatory proceedings are strictly observed in order to give what would otherwise be tentative or "free form” administrative decisions finality. See RHPC, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 509 So. 2d 1267, 1268 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) ("HRS has no jurisdiction to allow an untimely appeal of final agency action. See Upjohn Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Seivices, 471 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for review dismisse…
-
Procacci Commercial Realty, Inc. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 690 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…he appeal was frivolous, merit-less, or an abuse of the appellate process.” § 120.57(l)(b)10., Fla.Stat. (1995). This language10 authorizes an award in favor of an administrative agency. See RHPC, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 509 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Because Procacci’s bid protest raised “a disputed issue of material fact, [HRS] ... referred] the protest to the division for proceedings under s. 120.57(1).” § 120.53(5)(d)2., Fla.Stat. (1995). With entry of the recommended ord…
-
Dep't of Prof'l Reg. v. Roger Marrero, M.D., 536 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…her on the application. There is a body of case law supporting appellant’s contention. See, e.g., Middlebrooks 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 b…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Humana OF Fla., Inc. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 500 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Upjohn Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 471 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Gulf Am. Corp. v. Fla. Land Sales Bd., 206 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Univ. Cmty. Hosp. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 493 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Doctors' Osteopathic Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. & Lee Mem'l Hosp., 498 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Inverrary Ret. Ctr. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 480 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)