JFK Medical Center Limited etc. v. Shands Jacksonville Medical Center etc.
259 So. 3d 247
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Florida statutes (Part II, Ch. 395 (2016)) created 19 Trauma Service Areas (TSAs), required at least one Level I/II center per TSA, and limited total statewide trauma centers to 44; the Department of Health was delegated authority to assess and "allocate, by rule, the number of trauma centers needed for each TSA."
- In 2014 the Department promulgated rules (Old Rules) scoring TSAs and assigning a maximum number of trauma centers per TSA. The Old Rules effectively capped many TSAs below the statutory statewide maximum.
- The Department proposed amended rules (Proposed Rules, 2016) that used the same scoring but treated the assessed number as a minimum (yielding a statewide minimum of 25 centers) and added tie-breaking procedures when applicant volume might exceed the statutory cap.
- Hospital groups challenged the Proposed Rules, arguing the Department exceeded its rulemaking authority, contravened the statutes, and vested unbridled discretion. An ALJ found the Proposed Rules contravened the statutes and vested unbridled discretion.
- After oral argument the Legislature amended sections 395.402 and 395.4025 (2018), removing the Department’s allocation role and specifying statutory maxima per TSA, rendering the rule challenge moot on its face; the court nevertheless addressed the merits because collateral consequences (attorney’s fees under section 120.595(2)) remained at issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department exceeded its delegated rulemaking authority by treating assessed "need" as a minimum rather than a maximum | Proposed Rules improperly contravene statutes and exceed delegated authority | Statute is ambiguous as to "need"; Department reasonably interpreted "need" as a minimum to ensure access | Reversed ALJ; Department’s interpretation as minimum is within reasonable range and not an invalid delegation |
| Whether Proposed Rules render prior statute §395.4025(5) superfluous (requiring provisional centers be located where there is a need) | Minimums would make every TSA always have a need, making the statutory requirement meaningless | Prior statute does not bar multiple TSAs from having needs; statewide cap limits needs; Proposed Rules do not make statute superfluous | Court rejects superfluity argument; statute still meaningful and Proposed Rules consistent with statutory purpose |
| Whether Proposed Rules implicitly supersede statutory allocation scheme (statutory floor/ceiling in §395.402(4)) | Rule minimums conflict with statutory floor/ceiling and allocation function | Department was to allocate remaining slots between statutory floor and ceiling; minimums help ensure access and do not supplant statutory limits | Court finds Proposed Rules do not implicitly supersede statute and are a permissible allocation method |
| Whether Proposed Rules vest unbridled discretion in the Department (reserving slots for TSAs) | Reserving slots grants unguided discretion contrary to statute | Reservation is a rational implementation to ensure reasonable access; statute gave broad implementation discretion | Court holds Proposed Rules do not vest unbridled discretion; delegation was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Montgomery v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 468 So. 2d 1014 (discussing mootness and dismissal)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (moot cases are generally dismissed)
- Schweickert v. Citrus County Florida Bd., 193 So. 3d 1075 (exceptions to mootness where collateral consequences exist)
- Soud v. Kendale, Inc., 788 So. 2d 1051 (deciding merits of moot case because attorney’s fees issue remained)
- Lund v. Dep’t of Health, 708 So. 2d 645 (mootness and attorney’s fees under §120.595(5))
- J.S. v. C.M., 135 So. 3d 312 (standard of review: de novo for statutory interpretation)
- Abbott Labs. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., 15 So. 3d 642 (deference and standard for reviewing ALJ findings)