Coalition of Mental Health Professions v. Department of Professional Regulation, 89-630
| Decision Date | 20 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-630,89-630 |
| Citation | 546 So.2d 27,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1483 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1483 COALITION OF MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONS, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling, and Florida Psychiatric Society, Inc., South Florida Psychiatric Society, Inc., Florida Medical Association, Inc., and Richard E. Gordon, M.D., and Florida Psychological Association, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Paul Watson Lambert of Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and David M. Maloney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee Dept. of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling.
Michael W. Dugger, Tallahassee, for appellees Florida Psychiatric Soc., Inc., South Florida Psychiatric Soc., Inc., and Richard E. Gordon, M.D. Linda McMullen of McFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellee Florida Psychological Ass'n.
The Coalition of Mental Health Professions 1 appeals a final order denying it the right to participate as an intervenor in administrative proceedings to challenge the validity of certain rules proposed by the Board to implement its statutory power to regulate members of the Coalition. These proceedings were initiated pursuant to section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1987), by certain appellees, including the Florida Psychiatric Society, Inc., and the Florida Psychological Association, to challenge the validity of three rules which propose to define the practices of clinical social workers, marriage and family therapists and mental health counselors, respectively. The hearing officer denied the Coalition intervention for lack of standing, noting that "the Coalition does not take the position that the proposed rules enlarge, modify, or restrict the scope of practice authorized and regulated by Chapter 491" and thus
... the Coalition of Mental Health Professions has failed to allege how its substantial interests would be affected by the promulgation or non-promulgation of the proposed rules under consideration in this cause and has failed to meet the test for standing enunciated in Florida Home Builders Association vs. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So.2d 351 (Fla.1982); Professional Firefighters of Florida vs. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 396 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Florida Medical Association vs. Department of Professional Regulation, 426 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); State of Florida, Board of Optometry, et al. vs. Florida Society of Opthomology [sic], et al., (Fla. 1st DCA December 19, 1988) ...
(R. 92).
We reverse upon the holding that appellant's members, being subject to and regulated by the proposed rules, have party status in these rule-making proceedings, not just as intervenors allowed to participate in the discretion of the hearing officer under § 120.52(12)(c), but as persons "whose substantial interests will be affected by proposed agency action" under § 120.52(12)(b) and thus are "substantially affected persons" within the meaning of § 120.54(4). The fact that appellant's members will be regulated by the proposed rules is alone sufficient to establish that their substantial interests will be affected and there is no need for further factual elaboration of how each member will be personally affected. Since the motion to intervene shows without contradiction or dispute that members of the Coalition will be so affected, the Coalition's right to party status is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Florida League of Cities, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation
...for a trade association to receive on behalf of its members. Id. at 353-54. See also Coalition of Mental Health Professions v. Department of Professional Reg., 546 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA1989); Florida Medical Ass'n v. Department of Professional Reg., 426 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA1983); Farmw......
-
NAACP, INC. v. Florida Bd. of Regents
...those students would be "substantially affected." Instead, relying on our decision in Coalition of Mental Health Professions v. Department of Professional Regulation, 546 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), he said that "[t]he fact that NAACP student members will be regulated by the proposed amen......
-
Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Dentistry v. Florida Dental Hygienist Ass'n, Inc., 90-3401
...Board of Optometry v. Florida Society of Ophthalmology, 538 So.2d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Coalition of Mental Health Professions v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 546 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In his final order the hearing officer, after discussion of these cases, noted that each s......
-
ABC Fine Wine & Spirits v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation
...a rule "is alone sufficient to establish that their substantial interests will be affected." Coalition of Mental Health Prof. v. Dep't of Prof. Regulation, 546 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) ; see also Televisual Communications, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Emp't Sec./Div. of Workers’ Comp. ......
-
Rule-challenge standing after NAACP, Inc. v. Florida Board of Regents.
...the rule amendments, relying heavily on Coalition of Mental Health Professionals v. Florida Department of Professional Regulation, 546 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). On the merits, the final order found that all but one of the challenged amendments was a valid exercise of delegated legislat......