DAMON MAURICE BATES, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN L. WINN, AS THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, 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.
Damon Bates challenged the revocation of his educator's certificate by the Education Practices Commission, arguing he did not receive proper notice of his informal hearing. The court found that although certified mail notice is ordinarily adequate, the EPC abused its discretion by failing to take additional steps to ensure receipt when prior communications showed Bates was consistently responsive and had previously signed for certified mail.
The EPC abused its discretion by failing to afford Bates proper notice. Although certified mail notice is normally reasonably calculated to inform a recipient, the combination of factors—lack of signed receipt, prior signed receipts from Bates, and his consistent responsiveness—should have put the EPC on notice that Bates may not have received the hearing notice, requiring the EPC to take additional steps such as email notice to ensure receipt.
[1] Due process requires that notice of an administrative hearing be reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to inform the party of the time and place of the hearin…
[2] Whether a method of notice is reasonably calculated to provide adequate notice is determined on a case-by-case basis.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In order for the EPC's notice of the informal hearing to have satisfied due process, it should have been 'reasonably calculated under all the circumstances' to inform [Mr. Bates] of the time and place of the informal administrative hearing.”
Establishes the due process standard for adequate notice in administrative proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe EPC sent Bates notice of an informal hearing via certified mail. The EPC did not receive a signed receipt confirming Bates received the notice. Ho…
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 Certified Mail Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Damon Bates, challenges the revocation of his educator’s certifícate by the Education Practices . Commission (EPC). He alleges that the EPC abused its discretion by failing to afford him proper notice of his informal hearing. We find that the EPC did abuse its discretion, and we therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
In order for the EPC’s notice of the informal hearing to have satisfied due process, it should have been “ ‘reasonably calculated under all the circumstances’ to inform [Mr. Bates] of the time and place of the informal administrative hearing.” Highsmith v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Opticianry, 499 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (quoting Quay Dev., Inc. v. Elegante Bldg. Corp., 392 So.2d 901, 903 (Fla.1981)). Whether a particular method of notice is reasonably calculated to provide adequate notice is determined on a case-by-case basis after considering the particularities of the facts presented in each individual case. See Delta Prop. Mgmt. v. Profile Invs., Inc., 87 So.3d 765, 771 (Fla.2012).
In the current case, the EPC sent appellant notice of his informal hearing via certified mail, which would normally satisfy the requirement that notice be reasonably calculated to inform appellant of his informal hearing.
However, here, three specific factors indicate that while the EPC’s notice of hearing was initially reasonably calculated to reach appellant, the EPC was required to take further action to ensure its receipt. These additional factors were: (1) the EPC did not receive a signed receipt confirming receipt of the notice by appellant; (2) the EPC had previously received signed receipts from appellant; and (3) appellant had consistently been communicative with the EPC regarding his case, always responding to all forms of communication from the EPC, including e-mail, until his failure to respond to the notice of hearing.
Because appellant had been so responsive with the EPC regarding his case, and because the EPC had received signed receipts from appellant before in response to previous certified letters, the lack of a signed receipt in response to the notice of hearing sent via certified mail should have put EPC on notice that appellant may not have received it.
Despite being on notice that appellant may not have received notice of his informal hearing, the EPC failed to take further action to inform appellant of the time and place of his administrative hearing. For example, the EPC did not attempt to forward the notice of hearing to appellant via e-mail, though the EPC had communicated with appellant via e-mail before. This failure of the EPC to take further action to put appellant on notice of his informal hearing constituted error.
For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the EPC’s final order revoking appellant’s *1113educator’s certificate and remand for further proceedings.
LEWIS, C.J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Singer, 392 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1981)
- DELTA Prop. Mgmt. v. Profile Invs., Inc., 87 So. 3d 765 (Fla. 2012)
- Highsmith v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 499 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)