W.T. HOLDING, INC., D/B/A/ ARIES RETIREMENT LIVING, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 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.
W.T. Holding, Inc., operating as Aries Retirement Living, appealed the Agency for Health Care Administration's dismissal of its motion for relief from a regulatory fine order. The court reversed, holding that an agency may reissue a final order when the appellant lacks notice of the order's entry before the appeal deadline expires, and that a rebuttable presumption of receipt from mailing does not preclude an evidentiary hearing on actual receipt.
An administrative agency does have authority to reissue a final order when the appellant lacks actual notice of entry before the appeal deadline expires, particularly where due process concerns arise. A presumption of receipt arising from proof of mailing is rebuttable, and a litigant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove non-receipt or lack of notice of entry.
[1] An administrative agency has the authority to reissue a final order when the time to appeal expires before the appellant has notice of the order's issuance, even without…
[2] A certificate of service creates a rebuttable presumption of receipt, which, if denied, creates a question of fact to be resolved by an evidentiary hearing.
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“While we agree that agency reissuance of a final order may not be used to breathe life into an appeal where the notice of appeal is untimely due to the appellant's negligence, reissuance is appropriate where the time to appeal expires before the appellant has notice that the agency has entered the final order.”
Establishes the distinction between negligent delay and lack of actual notice, permitting reissuance in the latter circumstance.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 1995, the Agency for Health Care Administration issued a final order imposing fines on Aries Retirement Living for regulatory violations. Appel…
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 Rebuttable Presumption Of Receipt cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
We have for review a final order of the Agency for Health Care Administration dismissing a motion for relief from a final order imposing regulatory fines. We reverse the final order of dismissal and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
In May of 1995, the Agency for Health Care Administration entered a final order imposing fines upon appellant, Aries Retirement Living, for violation of various retirement home regulations. On August 21,1995, appellant filed a motion seeking relief from the order on the grounds that appellant had not received a copy of the final order and had been unaware of its issuance until after the time for appeal had expired. Appellant requested that the Agency for Health Care Administration reissue the final order, thus, permitting appellant an opportunity to appeal the imposition of the fines.
Consideration of appellant’s motion was assigned to the Division of Administrative Hearing (the “DOAH”). Relying upon chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes, the hearing officer found that the Agency did not have the authority to reissue the final order. While we agree that agency reissuance of a final order may not be used to breathe life into an appeal where the notice of appeal is untimely due to the appellant’s negligence, reissuance is appropriate where the time to appeal expires before the appellant has notice that the agency has entered the final order. We envision that there could be a set of egregious circumstances which occur that prevent a litigant from timely filing an appeal that could be remedied by the JCC [Judge of Compensation Claims] or an appellate court. For instance, a due process violation would probably occur if the JCC’s order was entered but never actually provided to the litigants, and the thirty-day period to file a timely appeal then passed.
Millinger v. Broward County Mental Health Div. & Risk Management, 672 So. 2d 24, 27 (Fla.1996). We find that the present circumstances are precisely those contemplated by the supreme court in Millinger and hold that here the administrative agency does have the authority to reissue a final order despite the lack of a specific grant of such authority in chapter 120.
The hearing officer also found that there was no need for an evidentiary hearing as the certificate of service on the final order created a presumption that appellant had received it, which could not be overcome. This, however, is an incorrect statement of the law. Certainly, it is true that proof of mailing of a document to the correct address creates a presumption that the item mailed was, in fact, received. See Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc., 281 So. 2d 897, 900 (Fla.1973); Camerota v. Kaufman, 666 So. 2d 1042, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This presumption, however, is a rebuttable one. Scutieri v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). “[T]he denial of receipt does not automatically overcome the presumption but instead creates a question of fact which must be resolved by the trial court.” Id. It was error for the hearing officer to deny appellant the opportunity to prove that it had not received the final order and/or that it had no notice that the final order had been issued.
Accordingly, we reverse the Agency for Health Care Administration’s final order denying appellant’s motion for relief and remand with instructions that the Agency conduct an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether appellant received a copy of the final order and/or had other notice of entry of the agency’s final order. REVERSED and REMANDED.
WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (22 total)
-
Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Michel Camillo and Jean-Paul Camillo, 80 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…ning correspondence or claimed that he did not recall receiving it.4 Proof of mailing of a document to the correct address creates a presumption that the item mailed was, in fact, reeeived. W.T. Holding, Inc. v. State Agency for Health Care Admin., 682 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The presumption, however, is rebuttable. Id. “[T]he denial of receipt does not automatically overcome the presumption but instead creates a question of fact which must be resolved by the trial court.” Scutieri v. Miller, 5…
-
Lenore Migliore v. Migliore, 717 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…d in certificate of service eases, in which the courts have held that the certificate of service creates a rebuttable presumption which may be overcome by competent evidence to the contrary. W.T. Holding, Inc. v. State Agency for Health Care Admin., 682 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Scutieri v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); World on Wheels of Miami, Inc. v. International Auto Motors, Inc., 569 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). As we noted in Slomountz, a process server is “without a motive to misr…
-
Marvin Reich, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 868 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…ase. The final order’s certificate of service shows that a copy of the order was mailed to Appellant’s correct address, which creates a presumption that Appellant received the order. W.T. Holding, Inc. v. State Agency for Health Care Administration, 682 So. 2d 1224, 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). However, this presumption is rebuttable. Id. Appellant’s denial of receipt of the order does not automatically overcome this presumption, but it does create a question of fact that must be resolved through an eviden-tiary…
Previewing 3 of 22 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc., 281 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1973)
- Millinger v. Broward Cnty. Mental Health Div. & Risk Mgmt., 672 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1996)
- Scutieri v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Morrison's & Gab Bus. Servs. v. Morgan, 666 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Shipman v. State, 666 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)