CASE NO. 1D Andrea Flynn Mogensen of the Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A., Sarasota, for Petitioner.

Similar documents
Dwayne Roberts appeals an order denying petitions for writ of mandamus in

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA

An appeal from an order of the State of Florida Commission on Ethics. Stanley M. Weston, Chair.

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charles F. Rivenbark II, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D D

CASE NO. 1D M. Kemmerly Thomas of McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. L.T. No. 1D

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D Segundo J. Fernandez and Timothy P. Atkinson of Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

CASE NO. 1D Linda A. Bailey, of Law Office of Linda A. Bailey, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Ellen H. Lorenzen, Judge.

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Samuel A. Perrone, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D18-98

CASE NO. 1D George N. Meros, Jr., Andy V. Bardos, and James T. Moore, Jr., of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D Stephen D. Hurm, General Counsel, and Jason Helfant, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

CASE NO. 1D Cory J. Pollack of Cory Jonathan Pollack, P.A., Fort Myers, for Petitioner.

Edward T. Bauer of Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT

CASE NO. 1D Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. Petitioner, v. Case No. 5D

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. W. James Condry, II, Judge.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D Kimberly A. Hill of Kimberly A. Hill, P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for Petitioner.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

CASE NO. 1D Sarah J. Rumph, General Counsel, Florida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Charles R. McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

No. 1D October 2, 2018

CASE NO. 1D Matt Shirk, Public Defender, and Michelle Barki, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED OF FLORIDA

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, July Term, A.D. 2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D18-683

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM Appellant, CORRECTED v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Sherri L. Johnson and R. Laine Wilson of Dent & Johnson, Chartered, Sarasota, for Appellant.

fin THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT v. Case No. 5D

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Laura Roesch, Judge.

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida

CASE NO. 1D Christopher Parker-Cyrus of Law Office of Christopher Parker-Cyrus, Gainesville, for Petitioner.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

Supreme Court of Florida

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from the Public Employees Relations Commission.

CASE NO. 1D Charles Burns Upton II of the Upton Law Firm, P.L., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

CASE NO. 1D Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Donna A. Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A Daniels, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Anthony Cammarata, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Brian and Cynthia Poag appeal a final judgment reestablishing a lost note in

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Kathy A. Sturgis, Judge.

Supreme Court of Florida

CASE NO. 1D Daniel W. Hartman of Hartman Law Firm, P.A.; Eric S. Haug of Eric S. Haug Law & Consulting, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellants.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2012

CASE NO. 1D Michael J. Winer and John F. Sharpless of Law Office of Michael J. Winer, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D17-177

CASE NO. 1D Peter D. Webster and Christine Davis Graves of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D06-125

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

Anthony C. Bisordi or Bisordi & Bisordi, P.A., Shalimar, for Appellant. Yelena Langdon, Former Wife, appeals from the trial court s order

An appeal from an order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission.

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Henry H. Harnage, Judge.

Supreme Court of Florida

By petition for writ of certiorari, the Department of Revenue (DOR) seeks

CASE NO. 1D Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and M. Gene Stephens, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Brian P. North of Kenny Leigh & Associates, Mary Esther, for Appellant.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

CASE NO. 1D S.P. seeks review of a non-final, postdependency order denying his motion

Judy Bone, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Corrections, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

CASE NO. 1D Petition alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel Original Jurisdiction.

No. 1D Petition for Writ of Certiorari Original Jurisdiction. May 10, 2018

CASE NO. 1D C. Philip Hall, McKenzie & Hall, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case Nos. 5D and 5D

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA. v. CASE NO.: 2013-CA-5265-O

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida

CASE NO. 1D Bill McCabe, Longwood, and Joey D. Oquist, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

Robert W. Thielhelm, Jr., Jerry R. Linscott, and Jacob R. Stump of Baker & Hostetler LLP, Orlando, for Respondents.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT. v. Case No. 5D

CASE NO. 1D An appeal from an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims. Margaret E. Sojourner, Judge.

Transcription:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA PAULA DREW, v. Petitioner, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D16-2363 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondent. / Opinion filed November 2, 2016. Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction. Andrea Flynn Mogensen of the Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A., Sarasota, for Petitioner. Matthew H. Mears, General Counsel, and David L. Jordan, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Education, Tallahassee, for Respondent. PER CURIAM. Paula Drew sought a permanent exemption from statewide standardized testing for her daughter who has a number of serious medical conditions, but the Department of Education denied her request and then refused to hold a hearing to allow Drew to challenge its denial. Drew s mandamus petition, which we grant, seeks to compel such

a hearing. 1 In January 2016, Drew filed a request for an exemption from standardized testing, attaching a letter from her daughter s physician listing at least six critical medical conditions, any one of which could be considered so serious as to warrant consideration for a temporary or permanent exemption. A month later, the Department in a form letter denied the request for exemption without comment or explanation, citing to section 1008.22(10), Florida Statutes, which states: (10) Child with medical complexity.--in addition to the exemption option provided for under s. 1008.212, effective July 1, 2014, a child with a medical complexity may be exempt from participating in statewide, standardized assessments, including the Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA), pursuant to the provisions of this subsection. 1008.22(10), Fla. Stat. (2016) (emphasis added). As the highlighted language shows, section 1008.22(10) is a companion to the main exemption statute, section 1008.212, that allows exemptions for students with disabilities, 2 the latter including the 1 During the pendency of this matter, the Department agreed to grant a permanent exemption to Drew s daughter based on her medical complexity, and Drew has asked that this case be closed. Because the issue presented is one of importance and for which a published decision would be helpful, we decline to do so. See State v. Schopp, 653 So. 2d 1016, 1018 (Fla. 1995) ( Even where a notice of voluntary dismissal is timely filed, a reviewing court has discretion to retain jurisdiction and proceed with the appeal. ). 2 Subsection 1008.212(2) provides: (2) A student with a disability for whom the individual education plan (IEP) team determines is prevented by a circumstance or condition from physically demonstrating the mastery of skills that have been acquired and are measured by the statewide standardized assessment, a statewide 2

requirement that an expedited hearing be given, stating that the parent of a student with a disability who disagrees with the commissioner's denial of an extraordinary exemption may request an expedited hearing. Id. 1008.212(5), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). The Department must arrange for the hearing to be conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings to be commenced within 20 school days after the parent's request for the expedited hearing. Review is de novo (meaning the administrative law judge is not required to defer to the Department s view of the matter) and the Department has the burden of proof in the proceeding. After the expedited hearing, the administrative law judge must issue a ruling within ten school days. Id. Four days after the Department s denial, Drew specifically requested via e-mail an expedited hearing under subsection 1008.212(5), but received no response so she submitted a written request a few days later. Two weeks passed before the Department sent Drew a letter stating that it was not required to conduct a hearing to review its exemption denial, saying the medical exemption statute, section 1008.22, doesn t provide for such a process and essentially concluding that its denial was final and unreviewable. Undeterred, Drew hired an attorney, who wrote the Department a letter stating standardized end-of-course assessment, or an alternate assessment pursuant to s. 1008.22(3)(c) shall be granted an extraordinary exemption from the administration of the assessment. 1008.212, Fla. Stat. (2016). Drew s request for an exemption was supported by the school district s IEP team. 3

that Drew s request for exemption and hearing was based on sections 1008.22(10) and 1008.212, Florida Statutes, the latter explicitly providing for an expedited hearing; further, the Department failed to provide Drew with notice and an opportunity to be heard under rule 6A-6.03311 of the Florida Administrative Code, which provides that when the Department denies a request for an exemption from statewide standardized testing, an expedited hearing is available. The Department again rejected Drew s request, prompting Drew s mandamus petition in this Court. In what amounts to a confession of error, the Department s position is that Drew is barking up the wrong tree: rather than an expedited hearing under the exemption statutes, Drew is entitled to an administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.569(1) of the Florida Administrative Procedure Act, which the Department did not mention in its determination letters. 120.569(1), Fla. Stat. (2015) (a hearing under section 120.57 is required when an agency s decision affects or determines the substantial interests of a party. ); Simmons v. State, Ag. for Health Care Admin., 950 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ( An agency is not entitled to ignore a properly filed request for hearing, and if it determines that the petitioner is not entitled to a hearing, it is obligated to issue an order to that effect. ) (citations omitted). Though other disability exemption denials are entitled to expedited consideration, the Department reads its statutory authority as not extending to expedited hearings for denials where medical complexity is the claimed disability (what would happen if both medical and non-medical disabilities 4

were at issue is not clear); instead, the affected party s resort is directly to an administrative hearing via section 120.569, Florida Statutes. Because administrative review via sections 120.569(1) and 120.57, Florida Statutes, is available (and Drew accedes to such review), we need not determine whether denials based on medical complexity are entitled statutorily to an expedited hearing, but note that little differentiates the need of a student with a medical disability for such review from other disabilities for which expedited review is required. As such, we grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct that the Department afford Drew s request for a hearing forthwith. PETITION GRANTED. MAKAR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR. 5