Crews v. Florida Public Employers Council 79
113 So. 3d 1063
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- This Florida case challenges privatization of inmate health services in Regions I–III via a Corizon contract for 2012–2013.
- The circuit court enjoined implementation of the Corizon contract, citing authority and funding issues.
- The Department relied on broad contracting authority under §20.315(12) Fla. Stat. (2012) to provide health services via private vendors.
- Line item 784 of the 2012 General Appropriations Act funded Inmate Health Services, with provisos restricting some funds for Region IV.
- The Joint Legislative Budget Commission approved a budget amendment transferring funds to line item 784 to fund the Corizon (and Wexford) contracts through mid-2013.
- Petitioners argued the amendment violated §216.313’s “specific appropriation” requirement and that privatization was not authorized by the 2012 GAA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department had authority to contract for comprehensive inmate health services | Corizon contract lacks statutory authority | Department has broad contracting power under §20.315(12) | Department authority affirmed |
| Whether §216.313’s specific appropriation requirement applies to the Corizon contract | Contract must identify an explicit appropriation source in the GAA | Line item 784 qualifies as a specific appropriation; provisos do not preclude use for privatization | Satisfied; disclosure via line item 784 valid |
| Whether the LBC amendment to fund the Corizon contract was a valid, limited budget adjustment | Amendment exceeds limited adjustment and violates legislative intent | Amendment is consistent with policy and proper within LBC authority | Amendment valid and within LBC authority |
| Whether the circuit court erred in enjoining the Corizon contract | Injunction appropriate to halt funding and execution | No error; funding and authority supported by statute and intent | Reversed; contract may proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pan-Am Tobacco Corp. v. Dep’t of Corr., 471 So.2d 4 (Fla.1984) (agency implied contracting authority for essential duties)
- Brown v. Firestone, 882 So.2d 654 (Fla.1980) (specific appropriation concept in budget context)
- City of Tampa v. Thatcher Glass Corp., 445 So.2d 578 (Fla.1984) (statutory interpretation guiding budgetary language)
- Gulf Coast Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson, 727 So.2d 259 (Fla.1999) (deference to specialized legislative bodies in budget issues)
- Big Bend Hospice, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Admin., 904 So.2d 610 (Fla.1st DCA 2005) (agency deference in statutory interpretation of funding)
- Dadeland Depot, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 945 So.2d 1216 (Fla.2006) (look to subsequent acts to discern legislative intent)
- United States v. Castro, 837 F.2d 441 (11th Cir.1988) (expressio unius is a contextual tool, not absolute rule)