BIG BEND HOSPICE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND COVENANT HOSPICE, INC., 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.
Big Bend Hospice challenged two final orders from the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) concerning the fixed need pool for hospices in service area 2B and the issuance of a Certificate of Need to Covenant Hospice. The court affirmed both orders and clarified the standard of review for certificate of need appeals.
The court affirmed both final orders. The court held that the standard of review in certificate of need appeals is not a more deferential standard under section 408.039(6)(b) but rather the same general standard of review applicable to all administrative agency orders under section 120.68(7), requiring deference to the agency's interpretation of statutes it administers unless the interpretation is clearly erroneous or constitutes an abuse of discretion.
[1] An agency's interpretation of a statute it is charged to administer is entitled to deference on judicial review.
[2] A reviewing court may overturn an agency's interpretation of a statute if the interpretation is clearly erroneous.
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“a review of an order of an administrative agency begins "with the usual recognition of deference to an agency's interpretation of a statute it is charged to administer."”
Establishes the foundational principle that reviewing courts defer to agency interpretation of statutes within their jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAHCA issued two final orders: one finding that the fixed need pool for hospices in service area designated SA 2B for January 2003 was one, and another…
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 Material Error In Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Big Bend Hospice, Inc., challenges two final orders of the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) which adopted in full recommended orders from the Division of Administrative Hearings. The first of these final orders finds, and thereby reaffirms a finding by AHCA, that the fixed need pool for a hospice in the service area designated as SA 2B for the January 2003 planning horizon is one. The second final order grants a Certificate of Need to Covenant Hospice, Inc., to operate a hospice in SA 2B. We affirm as to all issues raised regarding both final orders and write only to articulate the standard of review in appeals from administrative proceedings involving certificates of need.
As we explained in Cone v. State, Dep’t of Health, 886 So. 2d 1007, 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004), a review of an order of an administrative agency begins “with the usual recognition of deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged to administer.” See also Ocampo v. Dep’t of Health, 806 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Florida Dep’t of Ins. & Treasurer v. Bankers Ins. Co., 694 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). However, a reviewing court can overturn the agency’s interpretation of a statute if the interpretation is clearly erroneous. Id.; see also Ocampo, 806 So. 2d at 634; Dep’t of Natural Res. v. Wingfield Dev. Co., 581 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
In addition to this rule of deference, our review is governed by section 120.68, Florida Statutes (2001), which provides that a reviewing court may set aside agency action when it finds that the action is dependent on any finding of fact that is not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, on a material error in procedure, on an incorrect interpretation of law, or otherwise constitutes an abuse of discretion. See Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc. v. Clark, 668 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1996).
AHCA argues that the standard of review in appeals of orders regarding certificates of need is governed exclusively by section 408.039(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2001), which provides that the reviewing court “shall affirm the final order of the agency, unless the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or not in compliance with ss. 408.031-408.045 [the Health Facility and Development Act].” AHCA argues that, by this statute, the Legislature has determined that final orders relating to certificates of need are to be accorded more deference than agency orders are generally accorded under section 120.68. We cannot agree.
We read section 408.039(6)(b) in pari materia with section 120.68(7) and conclude that section 408.039(6)(b) is simply a restatement of the standard of review set forth in section 120.68(7) generally. Therefore, in reviewing final orders of AHCA which concern certificates of need, AHCA will be accorded the same degree of deference an agency is accorded when we review its interpretation of a statute which it is charged with administrating. See Cone v. State, Dep’t of Health, 886 So. 2d at 1009.
The final orders are AFFIRMED.
ALLEN and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ranell Tillery, Jr. v. Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just., 104 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…at. (2011). Therefore, “a review of an order of an administrative agency begins with the usual recognition of deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged to administer.” Big Bend Hospice, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 904 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (quoting Cone v. State Dep’t of Health, 886 So. 2d 1007, 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). Nevertheless: a reviewing court can overturn the agency’s interpretation of a statute if the interpretation is clearly erroneous. Additiona…
-
Clare Caldwell v. Fla. Dep't of Elder Affairs, 121 So. 3d 1062 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ed a notice of appeal. Analysis Our review of the Commission’s action begins “with the usual recognition of deference to an agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged to administer.” Big Bend Hospice, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 904 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (quoting Cone v. State, Dep’t of Health, 886 So. 2d 1007, 1009 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)). The Commission’s authority to investigate whistle-blower complaints is set forth in section 112.31895, Florida Statutes. This section prov…
-
Gopman v. Dep't of Educ., 908 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…ns and special requirements stated in the Administrative Procedure Act itself. See §§ 120.80-81, Fla. Stat. (2003). But other statutes are construed, whenever possible, “in pari materia with,” Big Bend Hospice, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 904 So. 2d 610 (2005), not as re-pealers by implication of, the Administrative Procedure Act. Shortly after he graduated from high school in June of 2003, Daniel B. Gopman received an “unofficial final evaluation” from DOE’s Office of Student Financial Assistance…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Legal Env't Assistance Found., Inc. v. Clark, 668 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 1996)
- Dep't OF Natural Res. v. Wingfield Dev. Co., 581 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fla. Dep't of Ins. & Treas. v. Bankers Ins. Co., 694 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Jacomiah Walker v. State, 886 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- State v. Robinson, 806 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Benjamin Paz Ocampo, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 806 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)