Crews v. Fla. Pub. Employers Council 79, Afscme

Decision Date05 June 2013
Docket NumberNo. 1D12–5808.,1D12–5808.
Citation113 So.3d 1063
PartiesMichael D. CREWS, the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections in his official capacity, and Corizon, Inc., Appellants, v. FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYERS COUNCIL 79, AFSCME and Federation of Physicians and Dentists/Alliance of Healthcare and Professional Employees, Florida Nurses Association, Inc., Appellees.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jennifer Parker, General Counsel, and Jonathan P. Sanford, Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Corrections, Tallahassee; Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General; Diane DeWolf and Rachel E. Nordby, Deputy Solicitors General, of Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellant Michael D. Crews. William E. Williams, Amy W. Schrader, and Andy Bardos, of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant Corizon, Inc.

Thomas W. Brooks and Patricia A. Draper of Meyer, Brooks, Demma, and Blohm, P.A., Tallahassee; Alma R. Gonzalez of AFSCME Florida Council 79, Tallahassee for Appellee Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME, and Federation of Physicians and Dentists/Alliance of Healthcare and Professional Employees. James C. Casey and Donald D. Slesnick, II, of Law Offices of Slesnick & Casey, Coral Gables, for Florida Nurses Association, Inc.

George T. Levesque, General Counsel, and Thomas R. McSwain, The Florida Senate, Tallahassee for Amicus Curiae The Florida Senate. Daniel E. Nordby, General Counsel, for Amicus Curiae The House of Representatives.

RAY, J.

This appeal is the latest in a series of legal challenges beginning in 2011 to efforts by the Florida Department of Corrections to privatize some or all of its functions in the four regions of Florida's correctional system. At issue is the validity of a contract between the Department and Corizon, Inc., for the provision of comprehensive health services to inmates in Regions I, II, and III for fiscal year 20122013. Contrary to the circuit court's ruling, we conclude that the Department validly entered into the challenged contract with Corizon and that the Joint Legislative Budget Commission's approval of a budget amendment to provide sufficient funding for the contract was consistent with its constitutional and statutory authority. The circuit court's order enjoining the implementation of the challenged contract is, therefore, reversed.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Privatizing the provision of inmate healthcare services has been a focus of both the Legislature and the Department in recent years, resulting in legal challenges that failed to produce judicial precedentsproviding meaningful guidance. In a proviso pertaining to the Department's health services, the 2011 General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) directed the Department to award contracts to private companies for comprehensive health services in Regions I, II, and III, contingent on a specified cost savings to the state. Ch. 2011–69, § 4, at 119, Laws of Fla. Although the proviso referenced “statewide comprehensive health services,” it expressly excluded Region IV from its reach. Id. A separate proviso, pertaining to the Department's administration, directed the Department to procure a contract or contracts for the management and operation of the correctional facilities in Region IV, again contingent on a cost savings to the state. Id. at 102–03.

Both provisos were challenged in court early in fiscal year 20112012. The first lawsuit, filed in July 2011, asserted that the proviso requiring complete privatization of Region IV unconstitutionally changed substantive law within an appropriations act in violation of article III, sections 6 and 12, of the Florida Constitution. While that lawsuit was pending, the Department issued requests for proposals (“RFPs”) under the proviso pertaining to Regions I, II, and III. A second lawsuit was filed seeking to declare that proviso invalid under the same constitutional provisions at issue in the first lawsuit, and to enjoin further action under the RFPs.

Meanwhile, looking ahead to fiscal year 20122013, the Department submitted its budget request to the Legislature, asking for $93,156,947 to fund contracted inmate health services during that year. Thereafter, the circuit court resolved the first lawsuit by declaring the proviso pertaining to Region IV unconstitutional and enjoining the privatization efforts the Department was making under that proviso. The Department did not appeal, and the order became final without a merits review by this Court.1 As a result of the circuit court's determination that the proviso pertaining to Region IV was invalid, the Department amended its budget request for fiscal year 20122013, asking that the Legislature transfer funds previously allocated for that specific privatization effort to various other categories. This amendment included a request for appropriations totaling $41,405,554 for health services in Region IV.

As litigation continued in the suit challenging the proviso pertaining to healthcare privatization in Regions I, II, and III, so did the budget process for 20122013. The Governor's recommended budget for 20122013 included “a cost savings to General Revenue of $22.9 million, based upon a minimum 7 percent savings associated with privatization of inmate health services for Regions I, II and III.” Likewise, reports from the House Subcommittee on Justice Appropriations and the Senate Subcommittee on Criminal/Civil Justice Appropriations projected savings under a line labeled “Savings Through Privatization of Health Services.”

Fiscal year 20112012 ended on June 30, 2012, and the 2012 GAA went into effect on July 1, 2012. Because the lawsuit challenging the proviso pertaining to Regions I, II, and III had not been resolved, it was dismissed as moot due to the circuit court's determination that the end of the fiscal year effectively repealed the proviso. The Department proceeded with efforts to obtain contracts for the privatization of inmate healthcare statewide under its general contracting authority.

At this point, the Department was operating under the 2012 GAA, which appropriated $133,996,822 to the Department for “Inmate Health Services” under line item 784. Ch. 2012–118, § 4, at 123, Laws of Fla. The Legislature restricted a portion of this funding with two provisos. Line item 784, together with its headings and provisos, appears in the GAA as follows:

IMAGE

Id.

On July 17, 2012, the Department announced its intent to award a contract to Corizon for comprehensive health services in Regions I, II, and III, and to a separate entity, Wexford Health Sources, Inc., for Region IV. The cost of the Corizon contract to the State would be approximately $230 million, and the Wexford contract, approximately $48 million. The Corizon contract cites line item 784 of the 2012 GAA as its funding source.

Given the disparity in the contract prices and the total appropriation under line item 784, the Department submitted a request to the Joint Legislative Budget Commission (“LBC”) to transfer $57,668,391 to line item 784 from other categories within the “Inmate Health Services” program. The request explained that the Department intended to enter into the contracts pursuant to the authority granted in section 20.315, Florida Statutes (2012), and that the budget amendment would fund the contracts for six months, beginning on January 1, 2013. The Governor recommended approval of the request, and the LBC granted it on September 12, 2012.

Two days later, the Florida Public Employees Council 79, AFSCME (AFSCME) and the Federation of Physicians and Dentists/Alliance of Healthcare and Professional Employees (FPD) filed a petition for writ of quo warranto in this Court challenging the Department's authority to enter both contracts. In pertinent part, AFSCME and FPD argued that the Department lacked the authority to spend state funds on the Corizon contract because the 2012 GAA contains “no specific appropriation for contracting out health services” in Regions I, II, or III, as they contended section 216.313, Florida Statutes (2012), requires. They further argued that [n]othing in the LBC's amendment purports to, or lawfully could, create a specific appropriation contrary to the intent of the Legislature itself as expressed in the 2012 GAA. The petitioners challenged the Wexford contract for other reasons. We transferred the petition to the circuit court, which agreed with the petitioners as to the Corizon contract and with the Department as to the Wexfordcontract. As a result, the circuit court granted relief in part and enjoined the Department from proceeding under the Corizon contract. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

Our analysis of the Department's authority to enter the Corizon contract turns on an interpretation of statutes and the Florida Constitution and an application of those laws to undisputed facts. Our review, therefore, is de novo. Garcia v. Andonie, 101 So.3d 339, 343 (Fla.2012) (constitutional interpretation); Fla. Dep't of Envtl. Protection v. ContractPoint Fla. Parks, LLC, 986 So.2d 1260, 1266 (Fla.2008). To provide a background for our discussion of section 216.313 and the Legislature's intent to allow privatization of inmate health services, we first consider the extent of the Department's general authority to enter into contracts on behalf of the state. After concluding that the Department's general authority is broad, we consider whether section 216.313 presents an impediment to the Department's reliance on that authority for the purpose of the Corizon contract. Finally, because the circuit court invalidated the contract in part because it concluded the LBC lacked the authority to amend the budget, we address whether the amendment was consistent with legislative intent and policy and properly limited, concluding that it met both standards.

A. The Department's Authority to Contract for Health Services

The Department has a constitutional and statutory imperative to provide...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • De La Osa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 14, 2016
    ...victim of a void judgment or decree, we are constrained by the rules of statutory construction to give the rule's language its plain meaning. Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. Clipper Bay Invs., LLC , 160 So.3d 858, 862 (Fla. 2015) ; Barco v. Sch. Bd. of Pinellas Cty. , 975 So.2d 1116, 1121–22 (Fla.......
  • State v. Kwitowski
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 20, 2018
    ...fitting the context, that meaning governs" instead of the ordinary meaning of that term. Crews v. Fla. Pub. Emp'rs Council 79, AFSCME, 113 So.3d 1063, 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; see also Thatcher Glass, 445 So.2d at 579 n.2 ("Terms of special legal significance are presumed to have been use......
  • Taylor v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 6, 2017
    ...of Palm Beaches, P.A. v. Mejia, 134 So.3d 1084, 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; see also Crews v. Fla. Pub. Emp'rs Council 79, AFSCME, 113 So.3d 1063, 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("[C]ourts should give words in a statute their ordinary and everyday meaning unless the context reveals that a technica......
  • Smith v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 10, 2013
    ......State, 115 So.3d 375, 2012 WL 4448860 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Gonzalez v. State, 101 So.3d 886 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT