FLORIDA RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES AND PALMS RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER, INC., D/B/A MANATEE PALMS RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTERS, 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.
The court held that a holder of a preliminarily approved certificate of need (CON) before the effective date of Section 381.709(5)(b) had standing to intervene in administrative proceedings, and the agency erred by failing to rule on exceptions.
Appellant, a CON holder, was denied standing to intervene in an administrative hearing by HRS. HRS applied a new statute that restricted standing, eve…
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 Standing To Intervene cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant, Florida Residential Treatment Centers, Inc., appeals from a final order rendered by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), which determined that appellant lacked standing to intervene in a formal administrative hearing initiated by appellee Residential Treatment Center, Inc., d/b/a Manatee Palms Residential Treatment Center. We reverse and remand with directions for HRS to rule on appellant’s exceptions.
In this case HRS erroneously concluded that Section 381.709(5)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), barred appellant, which held a preliminarily approved certificate of need (CON) but had not yet constructed its own facilities, from intervening, because it lacked standing. Before October 1, 1987, the effective date of section 381.709(5)(b), holders of CONs authorizing construction were accorded standing to intervene in proceedings concerning facilities offering similar services, even though they had not completed construction and opened their doors for business. See Psychiatric Insts. of Am., Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 491 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); St. Francis Parkside Lodge of Tampa Bay v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 486 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because appellant held an approved CON before the passage of section 381.-709(5)(b), which restricted standing, appellant’s standing to intervene was not affected by the new statute.
Due to HRS’s erroneous conclusion that appellant lacked standing, it failed to rule upon appellant’s exceptions to the recommended order. This was error. Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-5.405(3) requires the agency to make explicit rulings on each exception made by a party. Re mand is therefore necessary to allow HRS to rule upon appellant’s exceptions.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JOANOS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amisub (North Ridge Gen. Hosp. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…d an enactment. Byrd v. Richardson-Greenshields Securities, Inc., 552 So. 2d 1099, 1102 (Fla.1989). The legislature intended by creating section 381.709(5)(b) to restrict standing in CON eases. See Florida Residential Treatment Centers, Inc. v. HRS, 553 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Therefore, the statute should not be read so as to expand standing from its prior status, when it was consistently held to exist only for persons “located in the same [service district] in which the service is proposed to be off…
-
ST. Joseph Hosp. OF Charlotte v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 559 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ERVIN, Judge, specially concurring. In that I cannot agree with certain dicta contained in the majority’s opinion regarding Florida Residential Treatment Centers, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehab. Servs., 553 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (hereinafter “FRTC”), I concur in the result only. FRTC certainly did not hold that one having a preliminarily approved certificate of need (CON), seeking to intervene in a CON contest in the capacity of an existing health care p…1 / 2
-
LEE Mem'l Hosp. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. & Sw. Fla. Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc., 560 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…The term "preliminarily approved certificate” refers to the "Notice of Intent to grant a certificate.” Section 381.709(4)(b). . Upon a cursory review, Florida Residential Treatment Centers, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 553 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), might be interpreted to dictate a contrary result. We note, however, that the author of the Florida Residential opinion more fully explained the holding in a recent opinion. See St. Joseph Hospital v. Department of Health and Re…
Authorities Cited
- Peter M. MacNAMARA Ad Litem of the Estate of Anna M. Williams v. Touby, 486 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- ST. Francis Parkside Lodge OF Tampa BAY v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 486 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Psychiatric Insts. OF Am., Inc. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 491 So. 2d 1199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)