Agency Substantive Jurisdiction: The More Things Change . . .

Two recent court decisions in Florida have raised questions about the power of government agencies to change or reject legal decisions. The first case, Barfield v. Department of Health, dealt with the Board of Dentistry’s ability to change a ruling on the admissibility of evidence in a dental case. The court said the agency did not have the authority to do that because it only has power over matters related to dentistry. The second case, Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. v. Sheridan, involved the Department of Environmental Protection and its ability to change a legal ruling on collateral estoppel. The court said the department didn’t have the expertise to make that decision, since its job is to protect the environment, not to deal with legal concepts. The main focus of the discussion is on how agencies can challenge recommended legal conclusions that are outside their jurisdiction. Some suggestions include not allowing review, appealing the agency’s final decision, or getting an intermediate review of the recommended decision.

Surprisingly, there’s no argument about the jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and where it comes from. The review of the APA and other sources shows that DOAH’s jurisdiction is the same as the referring agency’s. This means there’s no recommended legal conclusion that an agency doesn’t have jurisdiction over.

DOAH’s jurisdiction is determined by statute, just like any other agency. It has its own authority to make rules for administrative law judges and procedures for their employment. However, there are limits to this rulemaking authority, and no current rule cites DOAH’s statutory authority.

In simpler terms, the discussion is about how agencies can challenge legal conclusions that are not within their jurisdiction. There’s no debate about DOAH’s jurisdiction, which comes from statutes. DOAH can make rules, but there are limits to this authority. If you’re unhappy with a decision an agency has made, you can challenge it through a formal hearing process. You have to file a petition with the agency that made the decision, and if they accept it, it will be reviewed by a judge. The judge is meant to be neutral and oversees the process, makes decisions during the hearing, and ultimately makes a recommendation to the agency. The judge has to rely on certain rules and laws when making their recommendation. These rules were put in place to make the process fair for everyone involved. The rules for administrative procedures in Florida are called the uniform rules and they cover things like hearings, requests, and use of technology. In a case involving the Board of Dentistry, the court said that the board can’t interpret a certain evidence rule, but the judge in the case still had the authority to use that rule. The Florida Evidence Code doesn’t apply in these cases, but there are specific rules about using hearsay evidence in administrative proceedings. In Florida, all state agencies follow the same rules for how they handle legal procedures and evidence. This means that each agency has the power to interpret and make decisions about these rules. For example, if a judge excludes a witness from testifying as a punishment, the agency reviewing the decision can change this and allow the witness to testify. This is important because there isn’t a clear way for agencies to appeal their own decisions. Overall, each agency has the authority to make decisions about the rules they follow. The court ruled that the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) does not have the authority to consider legal concepts like collateral estoppel, but administrative law judges (ALJs) do. However, agencies often have to deal with legal theories in their proceedings, and there is no law giving ALJs exclusive jurisdiction over legal principles. The important principle here is that ALJs only have jurisdiction over cases that the referring agency has jurisdiction over. Giving ALJs more power than the agency is not allowed. Agencies need to understand and apply legal rules in their work every day. While they may have expertise in certain areas, they still have to follow the same rules and laws as everyone else. When a court reviews the agency’s legal decisions, it should only give deference to the agency’s expertise in certain areas. This makes sense and follows the rules for agency authority. In the case of Barfield v. Department of Health, the court discussed certain amendments. The Department of Management Services has a division that is independent and not under its control. Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) have no power over the constitutionality of laws. The Administration Commission is made up of the governor and the cabinet. ALJs can conduct evidentiary hearings, and agencies can reject their conclusions of law if they provide a reason. This can sometimes lead to confusion and potential unfairness in the decision-making process.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/agency-substantive-jurisdiction-the-more-things-change/