Diaz v. State
Decision Date | 15 June 2011 |
Docket Number | 3D09–2364.,Nos. 3D09–2363,s. 3D09–2363 |
Citation | 65 So.3d 78 |
Parties | Carmen I. DIAZ, Diaz Group Home # 1, and Diaz Group Home # 2, Appellants,v.STATE of Florida, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, and Agency for Persons with Disabilities, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Shutts & Bowen and Stephen T. Maher, Miami, for appellants.Dwight O. Slater, for appellee Agency for Health Care Administration; Michael A. Palecki, General Counsel, and Jonathan Grabb, Senior Attorney and Karl David Acuff, Tallahassee, for appellee Agency for Persons with Disabilities.Before RAMIREZ, C.J., and SUAREZ and ROTHENBERG, JJ.ROTHENBERG, J.
The appellants, Carmen I. Diaz (“Diaz”), Diaz Group Home # 1 (“Home # 1”), and Diaz Group Home # 2 (“Home # 2”) (collectively, “the Diaz appellants”), appeal from: (1) a final order issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration (“the AHCA”) dismissing with prejudice their Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing; and (2) a final order issued by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (“the APD”) denying their Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. Because the agencies properly determined that the instant dispute over the termination of a Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement (“Provider Agreement”) involves a voluntary contract, does not implicate any substantial interests, and should be resolved before the circuit court, we affirm.
The AHCA is the Medicaid agent for Florida provided by federal law. However, the AHCA has delegated the duty to perform daily operations to the APD. In essence, the APD ensures that waiver program providers comply with applicable rules and regulations, while the AHCA pays qualified providers for services rendered to program recipients. A qualified provider must possess a facilities license and enter into a Provider Agreement with the APD. Qualified providers receive a Medicaid number enabling the receipt of payment from the AHCA.
Before the commencement of this case, Diaz was a qualified provider in possession of separate facilities licenses for Home # 1 and Home # 2. Diaz also had in effect a Provider Agreement which was not scheduled to expire until July 2011, and a Florida Medicaid number. Home # 1 and Home # 2 provided services to Medicaid program recipients with severe developmental disorders. Beginning in late 2008, and continuing into 2009, a number of disputes arose between Diaz and certain APD inspectors conducting checks of Home # 1 and Home # 2.
On June 10, 2009, the APD wrote a letter to Diaz stating that “we are exercising our option to terminate this [Provider Agreement] without cause,” effective July 10, 2009. Six days later, the AHCA informed Diaz by letter that because the APD terminated the Provider Agreement, Diaz's Medicaid provider number was also being terminated. On July 20, 2009, Diaz, Home # 1, and Home # 2 filed a petition for formal administrative hearing based upon the termination of the Provider Agreement and subsequent revocation of Diaz's Medicaid provider number.1
Neither agency referred the matter to Florida's Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”). The AHCA dismissed the petition with prejudice by final order, stating that “the courts, and not administrative tribunals, must generally hear disputes involving voluntary contracts.” The APD denied the petition by final order, stating that there was no “legal entitlement to the continuation of the [Provider Agreement] since [Diaz] had agreed that the agency could terminate it any time without cause.” These consolidated appeals followed.
As the material facts are not in dispute, our review of the agencies' final orders is de novo. See S. Baptist Hosp. of Fla., Inc. v. Welker, 908 So.2d 317, 319 (Fla.2005) (); C.F. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 934 So.2d 1, 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ().
The statutory framework applicable to Florida's Medicaid program conditions the receipt of funds from the AHCA on the existence of a Provider Agreement. § 409.907, Fla. Stat. (2009) (). A Provider Agreement is described as follows:
Each provider agreement shall be a voluntary contract between the agency and the provider, in which the provider agrees to comply with all laws and rules pertaining to the Medicaid program when furnishing a service or goods to a Medicaid recipient and the agency agrees to pay a sum ... for the service provided to the Medicaid recipient. Each provider agreement shall be effective for a stipulated period of time, shall be terminable by either party after reasonable notice, and shall be renewable by mutual agreement.
§ 409.907(2), Fla. Stat. (2009) (emphasis added). The specifically relevant termination clause 2 in the Provider Agreement signed by Diaz provides:
This Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause, upon no less than 30 calendar days notice in writing to the other party unless a lesser time is mutually agreed upon in writing by both parties. Said notice shall be delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested, or in person with proof of delivery.(Emphasis added). There is no question that the APD terminated the instant Provider Agreement in accordance with its express terms. It is clear, therefore, that the Provider Agreement involved in this case was authorized by statute, freely entered into by both parties, and contained a termination without cause provision that was equally available to both parties.
When an independent party enters into a voluntary contract with an agency of this state, contractual disputes among the parties are typically resolved in the civil courts. Vincent J. Fasano, Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cnty., 436 So.2d 201, 202–03 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (); State Rd. Dep't v. Cone Bros. Contracting Co., 207 So.2d 489, 491 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968) (). The traditional rule, however, does not always require the in-court litigation of disputes between agencies and contracting parties. For example, contracting parties remain free to negotiate and enforce contractual provisions requiring an alternative form of dispute resolution. See Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. E.D.S. Fed. Corp., 631 So.2d 353, 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ( ); Paid Prescriptions, Inc. v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 350 So.2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) ( ). In addition, the operation of law will sometimes effect a circumvention of the traditional rule. See Medicaid, Program Integrity, Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. v. Conval–Care, Inc., 636 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ( ).
The instant Provider Agreement contains no dispute resolution clause, and the parties did not otherwise agree to settle their dispute in a specific forum. Nor is there a legal requirement that a dispute over the termination without cause of a Provider Agreement be heard in an alternative forum. The Diaz appellants argue that because the Legislature has authorized a series of administrative sanctions applicable to providers who commit specific fraudulent or abusive acts, see generally § 409.913, Fla. Stat. (2009) ( ), a dispute over the termination of a Provider Agreement without cause must, in the name of fundamental fairness, be settled administratively. We disagree.
By its own wording, section 409.913 exists “to ensure that fraudulent and abusive behavior and neglect of recipients occur to the minimum extent possible, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial