PALM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY OF WEST FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 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.
Palm Construction Company challenged a workers' compensation penalty order issued by the Department of Financial Services after failing to timely respond to discovery requests in an administrative proceeding. The court affirmed the penalty, holding that the Administrative Law Judge properly relinquished jurisdiction when no disputed factual issues remained after deemed admissions.
The court held that the ALJ did not abuse discretion because Palm's failure to timely respond to discovery requests resulted in deemed admissions, eliminating disputed factual issues and allowing proper relinquishment of jurisdiction. The court also held that Palm failed to preserve its other issues for appeal by failing to request that the Department return the matter to DOAH or request an informal hearing under section 120.57(2).
[1] A tribunal loses jurisdiction over a case when it properly relinquishes jurisdiction to another agency.
[2] Failure to timely respond to discovery requests can result in matters being deemed admitted.
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“Thus the factual matters included in the Department's request for admissions were deemed admitted.”
Establishes that Palm's failure to timely respond to discovery resulted in deemed admissions, eliminating disputed facts.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn April 2013, the Department issued a Stop-Work Order and Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Palm Construction for failing to maintain worke…
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 Discovery Requests cases and more on FLexlaw
In April 2013, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Com*949pensation (“Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment against Appellant, Palm Construction Company of West Florida, for failing to have workers’ compensation coverage, as required by chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Appellant sought an evi-dentiary administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and the Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”). But in July 2013, after Appellant failed to timely respond to discovery requests, the Department filed a Motion to Deem Matters Admitted and to Relinquish Jurisdiction. The presiding Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) granted the motion, relinquished jurisdiction over the matter to the Department and closed the DOAH file. The same day, but after the ALJ’s order issued, Appellant filed with DOAH an emergency motion to reopen the case, asserting that the Department’s discovery requests now had been fully answered. The ALJ denied the motion, concluding DOAH no longer had jurisdiction over the case and stating the Department “is the authority to whom Respondents’ motion should be directed.” Thereafter, the Department entered the final order now on appeal, which assesses a $32,988.04 penalty against Appellant.
Seeking reversal of the order, Appellant argues that the ALJ abused her discretion by failing to consider the merits of, and hold a hearing on, the emergency motion to reopen the case. We see no basis for finding an abuse of discretion, however. Appellant concedes it did not timely respond to the Department’s discovery requests. Thus the factual matters included in the Department’s request for admissions were deemed admitted. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.370(a); Fla, Dept of Financial Servs. v. Tampa Serv. Co., Inc., 884 So.2d 252, 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Appellant filed no response to the Department’s motion to deem matters admitted. Therefore, in the apparent absence of remaining disputed factual issues, the ALJ properly relinquished jurisdiction of the case to the Department. See § 120.57(l)(i), Fla. Stat. Appellant’s subsequent emergency motion was filed in a tribunal without jurisdiction to consider it; there simply was no authority for an exercise of discretion by the ALJ.
Appellant also raises issues concerning the sufficiency of the allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Amended Order Imposing Penalty which serve as the basis for the penalty assessed, the accuracy of the Department’s penalty calculation, and the propriety of the Department’s entering the final order without giving Appellant an opportunity to be heard. Here, too, we find no basis for reversal. Nothing in the record shows that, after DOAH relinquished jurisdiction to the Department, Appellant either entreated the Department to return the matter to DOAH for an evidentiary hearing or requested a non-evidentiary, or informal, hearing under section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, to address the issues now raised on appeal. Consequently, Appellant failed to preserve them for our review. See Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. v. Harden, 10 So.3d 647, 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (“It is well-established that for an issue to be preserved for appeal, it must be raised in the administrative proceeding of the alleged error.”).
AFFIRMED.
BENTON and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Heart OF Live OAK, Inc. v. State, 196 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…] party cannot argue on appeal matters which were [*1291] not properly excepted to or challenged in the administrative tribunal.” Pullen v. State, 818 So. 2d 601, 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); see also Palm Constr. Co. of W. Fla. v. Dep’t of Fin. Servs., 153 So. 3d 948, 949 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). Here, as to Points I and II, we find that Appellant met Appellee’s arguments below “with silence” and therefore, failed to preserve these appellate issues for review. Goodwin v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 194 So. 3d…
-
Carney v. City of Cape Coral (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. v. Harden, 10 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- In re Commitment OF Charles Warren. Charles Warren v. State, 884 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)