Q.H. c/o A.H. v. Sunshine State Health Plan, Inc.

No. 4D20-741 · District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District · October 7, 2020 · No. No. 4D20-741

Summary

The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal denied a prevailing child’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees after reversing an agency decision involving Medicaid-related medical necessity and EPSDT benefits. The court held that the agency’s conduct did not constitute a gross abuse of discretion, that the cited statutory fee provisions did not apply, and that equitable considerations did not warrant creating an exception to the American rule.

Holdings

  1. The appellant was not entitled to discretionary appellate attorney's fees because AHCA's position was not unjustified and its reliance on published prior-authorization criteria did not constitute a gross abuse of agency discretion.
  2. Section 57.105(5) did not apply because this appellate proceeding was not an administrative proceeding under chapter 120 and the judges of the district court were not administrative law judges; the appellant also failed to establish compliance with the statutory and rule-based safe-harbor requirement.
  3. The appellant was not entitled to fees under section 57.111 because the child did not meet any statutory definition of a small business party.
  4. Equitable considerations, including the parties' financial disparity, did not authorize an appellate fee award because no recognized exception to the American rule applied and the court would not create a broad new exception.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the prevailing appellant was entitled to appellate attorney's fees under section 120.595(5), Florida Statutes, based on a frivolous, meritless, abusive, or grossly abusive appeal or agency action.
  2. Whether section 57.105(5), Florida Statutes, authorized an appellate fee award in this appeal from an administrative proceeding.
  3. Whether the appellant qualified as a small business party entitled to fees under section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
  4. Whether equitable considerations or an exception to the American rule required an award of appellate attorney's fees.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (6)

  • Residential Plaza At Blue Lagoon, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 891 So. 2d 604, 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(followed)
  • Pro Tech Monitoring, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Corr., 72 So. 3d 277, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)(followed)
  • Bane v. Bane, 775 So. 2d 938, 940 (Fla. 2000)(followed)
  • Reiterer v. Monteil, 98 So. 3d 586, 587 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)(followed)
  • Topalli v. Feliciano, 267 So. 3d 513, 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)(followed)
  • Barbara Moakley v. Sheri Smallwood, Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So. 2d 221, 226-227 (Fla. 2002)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…