The 2003 Amendments to the Florida APA

A new law in Florida, CS/CS/SB 1584, was passed to make administrative hearings faster and address recent court decisions. It doesn’t change who can request a hearing, but it does clarify the reasons for challenging rules. This is similar to past bills but with some changes. In simple terms, a new bill is changing the rules for how government agencies can make laws. The bill says that a rule is invalid if it is not based on the necessary facts, or if it is adopted without thought or reason. The bill also confirms that when someone challenges a rule in court, the court will look at all the evidence again, instead of just what the government agency looked at when they made the rule. These changes might make it easier for people to challenge rules they don’t like, and harder for the government to defend those rules. The bill makes it easier for people to challenge rules and statements from government agencies. It clarifies the process for filing a petition and who has to prove their case in court. It also requires a schedule to be set up for the case to move forward quickly. The bill makes changes to some administrative procedures to expedite the process and discourage unsupported claims and unnecessary delays. It allows for the ALJ to give up jurisdiction when there are no factual disputes, allows the agency to decline ruling on unclear exceptions, and restores the language for license approval if the agency doesn’t act within a certain time frame. It also allows for direct appeals of emergency rules and authorizes attorneys’ fees and damages in administrative proceedings to discourage unsupported claims and delays. In 2003, changes were made to the APA to speed up administrative processes and address recent court decisions. These changes included increasing the limit on attorneys’ fees for small businesses, providing a faster way to update environmental rules, and addressing the agency’s authority to reject or modify conclusions of law. It will be interesting to see how these changes affect future court decisions. In 1999, significant changes were made to the Florida Administrative Procedure Act. In 2003, more amendments were made to the Act, sponsored by Senator David Aronberg and Representative Joe Spratt. These changes were controversial, with some people calling the bill “the evil twin” of a similar bill from 2002. The amendments included redefining what counts as an “arbitrary” decision. In the case Austin v. DHRS, the court upheld a rule that said if a mother identified a man as the father of her child, but a scientific test showed he couldn’t be, then that man was not required to pay child support. This decision was based on expert testimony and evidence that showed the scientific test was reliable. The court also said that when an agency makes rules based on facts, they have to prove their facts are more likely to be correct than the challenger’s facts. This rule was changed in 2003, removing the requirement for “competent substantial evidence”. In 2003, Florida laws were changed to limit how state agencies can rely on nonrule policies. The court also made it clear that rule challenge proceedings are de novo, meaning new evidence can be brought in to determine if a rule is invalid. The standard of proof in proposed rule challenges is a preponderance of the evidence. The law also describes what needs to be included in the rulemaking record. Changes to the required information in a petition were controversial and were not included in the bill. These are references to specific legal cases and changes to Florida laws regarding administrative procedures. The laws include time limits for agencies to approve or deny applications, and rules for challenging agency decisions. The references also mention specific court cases and articles about these legal issues. The attorney general said an agency can put standard rules in a license if someone doesn’t follow the rules. If you apply for a license, the agency has to say yes or no within 45 days. In 1992, a law was made to stop direct appeals in court. In 2003, some changes were made to the law, and some environmental groups didn’t like them. Some agency lawyers didn’t like a bill that would make them pay for attorneys’ fees in administrative cases, so the bill was changed to make the agency pay if it loses. The lawyers could still be on the hook for fees in other types of cases. There are rules in place to discourage lawyers from filing frivolous claims. If a party in a case acts in bad faith, they may have to pay the other party’s costs. The term “improper purpose” refers to participating in a legal proceeding to harass, cause unnecessary delays, or increase the cost of litigation. In one case, a group was created just to challenge a permit, but the court found that they had legal justification for doing so. In another case, attorneys were ordered to pay fees because their actions were similar to a previous case where fees were assessed. Since then, it seems like judges are hesitant to assess fees unless the behavior is very bad. In 2003, the Florida Legislature made several changes to laws related to administrative proceedings and appeals. These changes included adding new subsections to existing laws, amending certain provisions, and allowing for the award of fees and costs in administrative and appellate proceedings. Some people argue that one provision is unconstitutional, but if that’s the case, the legislature can make more changes in the future. The court made a decision in a case called SWFWMD v. Save the Manatee Club, Inc., and the legislature changed the law to address that decision. Another case, Barfield v. DOH, led to another change in the law. Lawrence E. Sellers, Jr., wrote an article about these changes to the law. He is a lawyer at a firm in Tallahassee. The article was submitted by the Administrative Law Section.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-2003-amendments-to-the-florida-apa/