unpromulgated rule in Florida

2018Francis Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 553 So. 2d 1351, 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), we held that an agency’s statement reiterating the literal meaning of a statute without creating new rights, burdens, or law, is not an unpromulgated rule: [A]n agency interpretation of a statute which simply reiterates the legislature's statutory mandate and does not place upon the statute an interpretation that is not readily apparent from its literal reading, nor in and of itself purport to create certain rights, or require compliance, or to otherwise have the direct and cons

2010Francis Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 553 So.2d 1351, 1354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989): [A]n agency interpretation of a statute which simply reiterates the legislature’s statutory mandate and does not place upon the statute an interpretation that is not readily apparent from its literal reading, nor in and of itself purport to create certain rights, or require compliance, or to otherwise have the direct and consistent effect of the law, is not an unpromulgated rule, and actions based upon such an interpretation are permissible without requiring an agency to go throu

1999See, e.g., General Mortgage Assocs. v. Campolo Realty & Mortgage Corp., 678 So.2d 431, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); J.A.B.

1999See, e.g., General Mortgage Assocs. v. Campolo Realty & Mortgage Corp., 678 So.2d 431, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); J.A.B.

2025Servs., 156 So. 3d 520, 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“ ‘[A]n agency interpretation of a statute which simply reiterates the legislature’s statutory mandate and does not place upon the statute an interpretation that is not readily apparent from its literal reading . . . is not an unpromulgated rule, and actions based upon such an interpretation are permissible without requiring an agency to go through rulemaking.’ ” (quoting State Bd. of Admin. v. Huberty, 46 So. 3d 1144, 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010))), superseded on other grounds by constitutional amendment as stated in Lee Mem’l Health Sys.

2015Similarly, the Division’s forms, which indicated increasing “credits” throughout the year 2009, also did not “adversely affect any ... substantive rights; [did] not constitute a denial or withdrawal of a right an [insurance carrier] might have; [did] not impose any new or additional requirements on an [insurance carrier]; and [did] not have ‘the direct and consistent effect of law.’ ” Huberty, 46 So.3d at 1147 . “‘[A]n agency interpretation of a statute which simply reiterates the legislature’s statutory mandate and does not place upon the statute an interpretation that is not readily apparent

2010Dep’t of Revenue v. Vanjaria Enters., Inc., 675 So.2d 252 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

2007“An unpromulgated rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and, therefore, is unenforceable.” Dep’t of Revenue of State of Fla. v. Vanjaria Enter., Inc., 675 So.2d 252, 255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).

2025Servs., 156 So. 3d 520, 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“ ‘[A]n agency interpretation of a statute which simply reiterates the legislature’s statutory mandate and does not place upon the statute an interpretation that is not readily apparent from its literal reading . . . is not an unpromulgated rule, and actions based upon such an interpretation are permissible without requiring an agency to go through rulemaking.’ ” (quoting State Bd. of Admin. v. Huberty, 46 So. 3d 1144, 1147 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010))), superseded on other grounds by constitutional amendment as stated in Lee Mem’l Health Sys.

2019In response, the medical providers initiated litigation, arguing the Agency was improperly operating under an unpromulgated rule by applying a “stabilization standard.” See Bayfront v. AHCA, Case No. 12-2757RU (Fla. DOAH Dec. 21, 2012), appeal dismissed, AHCA v. Bayfront Medical Ctr., 145 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Bayfront I”).

2016See § 120.80(7), Fla. Stat. (2014) (providing that, notwithstanding the language in section 120.57(l)(a), Florida Statutes, hearings before the Department pertaining to the execution of social and economic programs “need not be conducted by an administrative law judge *1302 assigned by the division.”); French v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 920 So.2d 671, 677 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that section 120.80(7) allows the Department to use hearing officers instead of administrative law judges for certain types of proceedings).

2016See Winick v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 161 So.3d 464, 468-69 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (concluding that an individual challenging the Department’s decision regarding his entitlement to benefits was not required to bring an unpromulgated rule challenge pursuant to' section 120.56).

2003Co., 581 So.2d 193, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

1999Regulation v. Puckett Oil Co., Inc., 577 So.2d 988, 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ("power must be expressly delegated by statute"). [5] We decline to reach appellant's contention that PERC relied on an unpromulgated rule because this argument was made for the first time in the reply brief.