Bridlewood Group Home v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities
136 So. 3d 652
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Bridlewood Group Home licensed by APD since 2006; owned by nurse Tomlinson; APD revoked Bridlewood’s license after a Bridlewood employee sexually battered a resident, L.W., in July 2010.
- Tomlinson contacted law enforcement and other agencies and instructed the employee to leave the facility, later discouraging L.W. from pressing charges.
- ALJ recommended no action against Bridlewood, finding no proof of negligent screening, training, or supervision.
- APD filed exceptions to the RO and adopted one, revoking the license, based on credibility concerns and APD’s expertise to assess the situation involving a developmentally disabled resident.
- Bridlewood argued APD improperly rejected the ALJ’s findings and substituted its own credibility determinations; court reverses APD’s final order.
- The court remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint against Bridlewood.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APD properly reviewed the ALJ’s factual findings | Bridlewood says APD rejected and replaced ALJ findings. | Bridlewood argues credibility determinations are for APD due to expertise. | Reversed; APD cannot substitute its own findings for the ALJ’s supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether APD could make credibility determinations about a developmentally disabled witness | APD lacked credibility assessment authority over L.W. as a developmentally disabled witness. | APD has special expertise to assess credibility in such contexts. | Reversed; APD improper to base revocation on credibility determinations that contradicted ALJ findings. |
| Whether APD could base revocation on post-incident conduct not charged in the complaint | ALJ’s findings focused on Bridlewood’s conduct pre-incident; post-incident conduct cannot support revocation. | APD can consider post-incident conduct as part of licensing decision. | Reversed; cannot rely on uncharged post-incident conduct to support disciplinary action. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heifetz v. Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (agency may not weigh evidence or substitute findings when competent, substantial evidence supports ALJ)
- Rogers v. Dep’t of Health, 920 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (agency may not reject ALJ’s factual determinations when supported)
- State Beverage Dep’t v. Ernal, Inc., 115 So.2d 566 (Fla. Bd DCA 1959) (agencies must rely on evidence and proper standard in factual findings)
- Pillsbury v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 744 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (mere labeling as conclusion of law does not avoid merit of factual review)
- Dunham v. Highlands Cnty. Sch. Bd., 652 So.2d 894 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (ultimate fact determinations allowed by ordinary proof; not policy-infused)
- Cottrill v. Dep’t of Ins., 685 So.2d 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (notice defects in complaint preclude relying on uncharged statutes)