exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine in Florida

2000See, e.g., Department of Health v. Curry, 722 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional, but is based upon considerations of policy), review dismissed, 729 So.2d 390 (Fla.), review denied, 735 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 1999); Chatlos v. Overstreet, 124 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1960) ("A concomitant part of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, or primary jurisdiction, is that a party will not be required to take vain and useless steps in the expenditure of this administrative remedy in order to perfect the right to seek judicial r

1999However, “[a] concomitant part of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, or primary jurisdiction, is that a party will not be required to take vain and useless steps in the expenditure of the administrative remedy in order to perfect the right to seek judicial redress.” Chatlos v. Overstreet, 124 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1960).

1985See Criterion Insurance Co. v. State, Department of Insurance, 458 So.2d 22, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

1985Although the statute broadly states that an applicant "may take appropriate legal action" to force HRS to render a determination, we do not interpret the statute as authority "for permitting entry into the circuit court without [first] complying with the exhaustion doctrine." Criterion Insurance Co. v. State, Department of Insurance, 458 So.2d 22, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); State ex rel.

1977Cf. De Carlo v. Town of West Miami, 49 So.2d 596 (Fla. 1951).

1958The Supreme Court has also held that no appeal to a court would lie, under a statute providing therefor, where the appellant had a right to take an administrative appeal, which he did not do within the time provided and this decision has been said to rest on the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies." In the case of DeCarlo v. Town of West Miami, Fla. 1950, 49 So.2d 596 , the Supreme Court said: "The administrative boards usually provided for the consideration in review of zoning problems are made up of local people, having the advantage of full local information as to the reasons

2022“The exhaustion requirement includes ‘pursuing an appeal from an administrative ruling where a method of appeal is available.’” Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Best Care Assurance, LLC, 302 So. 3d 1012 , 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (quoting Robinson v. Dep’t of Health, 89 So. 3d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)).

2022Id. 6 The exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine requires that “with rare exception relating usually to matters not cognizable in the circuit court, a party cannot resort to the courts for a decision until administrative remedies are exhausted.” City of Sunny Isles Beach v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 996 So. 2d 238, 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

2000See, e.g., Department of Health v. Curry, 722 So.2d 874 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional, but is based upon considerations of policy), review dismissed, 729 So.2d 390 (Fla.), review denied, 735 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 1999); Chatlos v. Overstreet, 124 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1960) ("A concomitant part of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, or primary jurisdiction, is that a party will not be required to take vain and useless steps in the expenditure of this administrative remedy in order to perfect the right to seek judicial r

1999See Bruce v. City of Deerfield Beach, 423 So.2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); City of Miami Beach v. Jonathon Corp., 238 So.2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); Cook v. Di Domenico, 135 So.2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).

1996Id. at 1228 (citations omitted).

1985McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 579 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

1976Compare, DeCarlo v. West Miami, supra. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated — “The very purpose of providing either an exclusive or an initial and preliminary administrative determination is to sécure the administrative judgment either, in the one case, in substitution for judicial decision or, in the other, as foundation for or perchance to make unnecessary later judicial proceedings.” Aircraft and Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U.S. 752, 767 (1947).

1959See Parker v. Lester, 9 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 708 ; Fitzgerald v. Pan American World Airways, 2 Cir., 1956, 229 F.2d 499 ; New York, Susquehanna & Western R.