BOCA RATON ARTIFICIAL KIDNEY CENTER, INC., AND DELRAY ARTIFICIAL KIDNEY CENTER, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES AND WEST BOCA RATON ARTIFICIAL KIDNEY CENTER, 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.
This case involves an appeal challenging a Certificate of Need for an artificial kidney center. However, a new law rendered the Certificate of Need requirement obsolete, making the appeal moot. The court dismissed the appeal because the underlying issue was no longer a live controversy.
The appeal is moot because a change in law has eliminated the need for a Certificate of Need. The mere possibility of attorney's fees does not create a sufficient interest to overcome the mootness doctrine when no actual controversy remains.
[1] A case is moot and will be dismissed when a change in circumstances eliminates the actual controversy between the parties.
[2] The possibility of an award of attorney's fees does not necessarily overcome the principle that cases will be dismissed as moot when no actual controversy exists.
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“Due to the enactment of section 381.-706(l)(c) Fla.Stat. (1987), which became effective October 1,1987, a CON is no longer required for the operation of an artificial kidney center. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as moot.”
Establishes the reason for dismissal based on a change in law rendering the case moot.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants challenged a final order by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) that granted a Certificate of Need (CON) to West Boc…
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 Mootness Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal challenges a final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) granting appellee, West Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Center, a Certificate of Need (CON) for the operation of a free standing hemodialysis facility. Due to the enactment of section 381.-706(l)(c) Fla.Stat. (1987), which became effective October 1,1987, a CON is no longer required for the operation of an artificial kidney center. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal as moot.
Appellant objects to dismissal, arguing that this court should now decide what is a purely academic question because, if the decision is in appellant’s favor, it will be entitled to attorney’s fees under section 120.57(l)(b)10 Fla.Stat. (1986 Supp.) Section 120.57(l)(b)10 authorizes granting an attorney fee if “the agency action which precipitated the appeal was a gross abuse of the agency’s discretion.”
It is doubtful that the mere possibility of an award of attorney’s fees is a sufficient interest to overcome the fundamental appellate principle that cases will be dismissed as moot when, due to a change in circumstances, an actual controversy no longer exists. Compare Burch v. Polynesian Villas Condominium, 491 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Del Valle v. Biltmore II Condominium Association, 411 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). However, we need not decide the question here. We have examined the record, the initial brief, and appellant’s arguments in opposition to dismissal, and find that even assuming appellant would have been successful had the case been disposed of on the merits, appellant would not be entitled to an award under section 120.57(l)(b)10. In spite of the vehemence with which appellant expresses its opinion to the contrary, the agency action which precipitated this appeal did not constitute a gross abuse of discretion. It follows that a decision in this case would have no practical effect on the parties, and therefore the appeal is moot. Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So. 2d 258 (1943).
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
JOANOS, WIGGINTON and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lund v. Dep't OF Health, 708 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ecision would be a broad expansion of the concept of “collateral legal consequences.” In fact, this court has expressed skepticism regarding such practice in dicta in Boca Raton Artificial Kidney Center, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 514 So. 2d 1114 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In that case, the appellant objected to dismissal of its- appeal for mootness, arguing that the court should decide the validity of the final order for the purpose of determining whether it was entitled to attorney’s fees for a…
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- THE Phifer State Bank v. Clark Gourley, 153 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1943)
- DEL Valle v. Biltmore II Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 411 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Burch v. Polynesian Villas Condo., Inc., 491 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)