DONNA PINORSKY ROTHBLATT, ADMINISTRATOR, ARTHRITIS MEDICAL CENTER, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed an administrative agency's final order denying a formal hearing request due to late filing, holding that the agency lacked authority to determine its own jurisdiction and that the late filing constituted excusable neglect.
The agency was without authority to determine its own jurisdiction, and the facts reflect excusable neglect. The court reversed the final order and remanded the case, finding the late filing and service of the hearing request did not justify denying the hearing without further consideration.
[1] An administrative agency cannot determine its own jurisdiction.
[2] A failure to timely request a formal hearing in an administrative proceeding may constitute excusable neglect, particularly when supported by an attorney's affidavit deta…
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“The agency was without authority to determine its own jurisdiction, and the facts reflect excusable neglect.”
This quote establishes the core holding that administrative agencies cannot unilaterally determine their own jurisdiction based on procedural defaults.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn April 13, 1987, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services sent Arthritis Medical Center an administrative complaint by certified mail re…
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 Untimely Filing cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This is an appeal of a final order of appellee administrative agency, issued in a manner comparable to a default judgment issued by a judicial body, and of a subse quent order denying appellant’s motion to set aside default. The agency stated that failure of appellant to request a formal hearing within the time stated in the pertinent administrative rule was jurisdictional and therefore the Department was without authority to vacate the final order. We disagree1 with that conclusion, reverse and remand.
On April 13, 1987, appellant received from appellee by certified mail an administrative complaint stating the Department’s intent to impose a $10,000 fine against appellant for violation of the Florida Drug and Cosmetic Act, Chapter 499, Florida Statutes (1985), and rule 10D-45, Florida Administrative Code, and notifying appellant of the right to request a formal hearing. Rule 10-2.036, Florida Administrative Code, states that a request for a formal administrative hearing must be received by the Department within thirty days of receipt of the decision.
Appellant’s request for an administrative hearing and answer were sent by express mail on May 18, 1987, and received at the Department on May 19,1987. The deadline under the above rule was May 13, 1987. The Department proceeded to issue its final order on June 5, 1987, and denied appellant’s request for a hearing because it was untimely filed.
Appellant’s attorney’s affidavit in support of appellant’s motion to set aside default states that the attorney gave the request for formal hearing to the firm’s receptionist on May 11, 1987, to send by Federal Express the next day, and did not know it was instead sent about a week later, until she received a copy of the final order on June 10, 1987. The receptionist was fired for ineptitude on June 1, 1987. The motion to set aside default was served by mail on June 15, 1987.
We find it unnecessary to consider the constitutionality of the authorities on which is based the final order which we are setting aside. The agency was without authority to determine its own jurisdiction, and the facts reflect excusable neglect.
Inland Capital Corporation v. Lewis, 362 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), is not factually identical; but we agree with a number of the thoughts expressed in the opinions written, on rehearing, by each of the three panelists. What occurred here was late service and filing of a responsive pleading, nothing more. Subsequently, there was compliance with the requirements of Somero v. Hendry General Hospital, 467 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 476 So. 2d 674 (Fla.1985). We are not concerned with an untimely appeal.
HERSEY C.J., concurs.
LETTS, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cann v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 813 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…lect standard to determine whether an untimely request for an administrative hearing should be granted. See Unimed Lab., Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 715 So. 2d 1086 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Rothblatt v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 520 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Prior opinions have consistently held that the late filing of a request for an administrative hearing is not a jurisdictional defect. Appel v. Fla. Dep’t of State, Div. of Licensing, 734 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). See also…
-
Eric Michael Patz, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 864 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ect standard to determine whether an untimely ’request for an administrative hearing should be granted. See Unimed Lab., Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 715 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Rothblatt v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 520 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Prior opinions have consistently held that the late filing of a request for an administrative hearing is not a jurisdictional defect. Appel v. Fla. Dep’t of State, Div. of Licensing, 734 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). See also…
-
Shaker Lakes Apts. Co. v. Dolinger, 714 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…orious defense). Courts have applied the concept of excusable neglect to administrative cases, although they have not specifically applied the three-part test used in Venero and Kapetanopoulos. See Rothblatt v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 520 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988) (inept receptionist mailed appellant’s request for administrative hearing after the deadline, constituting excusable neglect sufficient to vacate final order that was issued in a manner comparable to default judgment). See also H…
Authorities Cited
- Glenna Somero and Robert Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Inland Cap. Corp. & Jack J. Winston v. Lewis, 362 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)