Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Henry & Rilla White Found., Inc.

• Citation: 322 So.3d 716
• Decision Date: 10 June 2021
• Docket Number: No. 1D20-2768,1D20-2768
• Parties: DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Appellant, v. The HENRY AND RILLA WHITE FOUNDATION, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

322 So.3d 716

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES, Appellant,

v.The HENRY AND RILLA WHITE FOUNDATION, INC., Appellee.

No. 1D20-2768

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 10, 2021

Steven L. Hall, General Counsel, Magdalena Anna Ozarowski and Darby G. Shaw, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

D. Ty Jackson and George Levesque of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), appeals an administrative final determination rejecting its attempt to recoup alleged improper payments made to Appellee, the Henry and Rilla White Foundation (the Foundation), for participation in the National School Lunch Program. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

DACS is the state agency responsible for administering federal child nutrition programs including the United States Department of Agriculture's National School Lunch Program (the Program). 7 C.F.R. pt. 210; § 595.404, Fla. Stat. (2020). Under the Program, DACS receives federal funds and distributes those funds to eligible "School Food Authorities" (SFAs)^* via reimbursement for meals the SFAs provided to children. See 7 C.F.R. pt. 210. The federal funds are subject to recoupment by DACS if an SFA is not operating in compliance with state and federal regulations. 7 C.F.R. § 210.19(c).

In a Notice of Action, DACS sought to recoup more than $13 million DACS had reimbursed the Foundation for meals the Foundation provided to Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) facilities during the 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years (the applicable period). DACS also sought to deny approximately $500,000 in pending reimbursement claims the Foundation submitted for several months in 2019 and 2020. DACS asserted the Foundation was not an eligible SFA during the applicable period because the DJJ facilities the Foundation served were operated by for-profit businesses and the Foundation was not the governing body for those facilities. DACS also claimed the Foundation had a conflict of interest with the for-profit providers it hired to provide meals as Food Service Management Companies under the Program.

After a hearing, a DACS hearing officer entered a detailed final determination in favor of the Foundation. DACS appealed, arguing: (1) the hearing officer erred in concluding the Foundation was an eligible SFA, and (2) the hearing officer erred in concluding there was no conflict of interest. We reject both arguments.

The final determination comes to this Court clothed with a presumption of correctness. Smith v. Coal. to Reduce Class Size , 827 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla. 2002). The hearing officer's findings of fact are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence....