GEORGE A. AND ANN F. BELLEAU, CROWN LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANERS, INC., AND CROWN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, APPELLEE; JURA SERVICES, INC., APPELLANT, V. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, 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 Florida Department of Environmental Protection ordered appellants to pay corrective action costs and investigatory costs related to PCE groundwater contamination. The appellate court reversed, holding that the Secretary improperly rejected the hearing officer's factual findings and failed to provide adequate notice of one cost claim.
The court reversed because: (1) an agency is bound to honor a hearing officer's findings of fact when supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the Secretary improperly substituted her judgment for the hearing officer's despite expert testimony supporting his findings; and (2) the agency erred in imposing liability for investigatory costs under section 403.727(4) because the charging instruments did not provide sufficient notice of this claim.
[1] An administrative agency may not reject or modify an administrative law judge’s findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the entire record, an…
[2] An administrative agency cannot reject an administrative hearing officer’s findings of fact if those findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the reco…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 law is well established that an agency is bound to honor a hearing officer's findings of fact unless they are not supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
Establishes the controlling standard of review and the agency's obligation to defer to hearing officer factual findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants owned and operated a laundry and dry cleaning facility where perchlorethylene (PCE) contamination was discovered in a monitoring well. A he…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
These two appeals are from a final order entered by the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection, which found appellants liable for a corrective action order and investigatory costs in connection with perchlorethylene (PCE) contamination of a monitoring well. More specifically, the Secretary found appellants George A. and Ann F. Belleau, Crown Laundry & Dry Cleaners, Inc., and Crown Management Services, Inc., jointly and severally liable for violations of section 403.161(l)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1985), and for investigative costs under section 403.141(1), Florida Statutes (1985). She further found the above appellants along with appellant Jura Services, Inc., jointly and severally liable for investigative costs under section 403.727(4), Florida Statutes (1985).
We reverse, because the Secretary improperly substituted her judgment for that of the hearing officer on the violation findings, and because the agency failed to provide notice of its intent to seek costs under section 403.727(4).
The hearing officer in this case found that the Department of Environmental Protection failed to adduce evidence sufficient to carry its burden of proving a violation of the groundwater standard for PCE caused by release of PCE from the facility appellants owned and operated. The hearing officer’s findings in this regard are supported by competent, substantial evidence in the form of Dr. Mercer’s expert testimony. The Secretary’s findings and conclusion to the contrary are based on facts contrary to those found by the hearing officer. See Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc. v. Department of Envtl. Reg., 556 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (en banc).
The law is well established that an agency is bound to honor a hearing officer’s findings of fact unless they are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. McDonald v. Department of Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569, 578 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
It is the hearing officer’s function to consider all the evidence, resolve conflicts, judge credibility of witnesses, draw permissible inferences from the evidence, and reach ultimate findings of fact based on competent, substantial evidence; the agency is not authorized to perform these functions or otherwise interpret the evidence to fit its desired ultimate conclusion. Heifetz v. Department of Business Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Accord Wash & Dry Vending Co. v. Department of Business Reg., 429 So. 2d 790, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (agency may not substitute its judgment for that of the hearing officer by taking a different view of or placing greater weight on the same evidence).
Because the hearing officer’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence, it was error for the Secretary to reject and/or modify them.
The Secretary also erred by imposing liability for investigatory costs under section 403.727(4), because the charging instruments did not provide the parties with sufficient notice of this claim.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions to enter a final order in accordance with the recommended order of the hearing officer. ERVIN and KAHN, JJ., concur. BENTON, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Winter Springs v. Winter Springs Professional, 885 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…tice within the meaning of section 447.501(l)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes.2 Agencies are bound to honor a hearing officer’s findings of fact unless they are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Belleau v. Dep’t of Environ. Protection, 695 So. 2d 1305, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (citations omitted).3 In the present case, the hearing officer found the prior CBA expressly limited anniversary pay raises to the term of the agreement. As a result, the hearing officer found persuasive the City’s argumen…
-
Commc'ns Workers OF Am. v. City OF Gainesville, 65 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ound to honor a hearing officer’s findings of fact unless they are not supported by competent, substantial evidence.” City of Winter Springs v. Winter Springs Prof'l, 885 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing Belleau, v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 695 So. 2d 1305, 1307 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)). In reviewing PERC’s decisions, moreover, we must not lose sight of the fact that public employees have a constitutional right to bargain collectively. Art. I, § 6, Fla. Const. (“The right of employees, by and through a la…
-
S. Fla. Cargo Carriers Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 738 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…nes from a review of the entire record, and states with particularity in order, that the findings of fact were not based on competent substantial evidence.” Section 120.57(l)(j), Florida Statutes. Accord Belleau v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 695 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Martuccio v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 622 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Fla. Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Florida ease law holds that an agency reviewing a recommended order i…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDONALD v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Mel Heifetz v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 475 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Azalee Parker v. Claretha Murray & Metro. Dade Cnty., 429 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Sunshine JR. Stores, Inc. v. State, 556 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)