Choice of forum in Florida's administrative and circuit courts; a review of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

• Author: Frazier, Seann M.

Your client has been substantially affected by an agency's action. She comes to you and asks for her day in court. You recognize the same facts give rise to a cause of action in circuit court and are subject to administrative adjudication. Your choice of forum may impact whether and what type of relief is eventually afforded your client. How do you decide where to file? This article will briefly review the standards that govern this decision and new developments in this area of law.

The dilemma of choosing a forum may be more of an issue than is commonly realized. State agencies wield broad regulatory powers that touch upon nearly every aspect of modern life. Decisions from whether a hairdresser will obtain required licensure[1] to whether a new hospital may open in a community[2] are all controlled by state agencies. Florida's Administrative Procedure Act[3] (APA) contains a host of administrative remedies that check the actions and regulations of these state agencies. Under the APA, a party may seek a formal administrative hearing replete with due process protections, may challenge an agency's proposed or existing rules, or even petition an agency for a declaratory statement.[4]

The remedies provided under the APA are not found in a court of general jurisdiction. Circuit courts are the forum with jurisdiction over most causes of action in Florida.[4] For that reason, this article will focus on a comparison of only circuit courts and the administrative forum.

Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

When choosing between circuit court and administrative forums, one must first consider the threshold question of whether there is a duty to exhaust administrative remedies. The general principle governing choice of forum is that one must first exhaust administrative remedies before turning to a court of general jurisdiction.[6]

In Department of General Services v. Willis, 344 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the court recognized the "impressive arsenal" of administrative remedies available under the then recent incarnation of Florida's Administrative Procedure Act. I As a result of this "impressive arsenal," the Willis court called for "freshening of the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of remedies, and greater deference to the legislative scheme."" The court recognized the availability of remedies under Florida's APA and ruled that those remedies should be exhausted before, or instead of, turning to circuit courts.

This principle of requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies was a judicial invention that served to mark the boundaries of administrative and judicial action.[9] The Florida Supreme Court would later hold that the exhaustion principle "support[ed] the integrity of the administrative process and allow[ed] the executive branch to carry out its responsibilities as a coequal branch of government."[10] The principle prevented the "promiscuous intervention" of courts into agency affairs."

Whatever its source, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies has now become a strong policy of judicial deference." The result is that a party affected by an agency's action usually must first seek redress under available administrative procedures. There are, however, exceptions to the exhaustion principle.

Exceptions to Exhaustion Principle

A circuit court will hear claims that otherwise would have proceeded to an administrative forum if any of the following exceptions are found by the circuit court to apply:

1) The administrative action would render inadequate relief;

2) The claim challenges the facial constitutionality of a statute; or

3) The challenge is brought against an agency which has acted outside its colorable delegated powers.

Additionally, as discussed later, there are limited instances in which claims might be filed simultaneously in both forums. Special guidelines also apply to the decision of appropriate forum when a claim involves a party's contract with a state agency. For now, each of the general exceptions to the exhaustion principle are addressed in turn.

When Administrative Action Would Render Inadequate Relief

In order for a court to require exhaustion of administrative remedies, the remedies must be available and adequate.[13] In Willis,[14] the court carved out an exception to the exhaustion principle when agency action is so egregious or devastating that the proposed administrative remedies would offer too little or would be too late.[15] In such cases, circuit court remains the appropriate forum.

As examples of such egregious agency behavior, the Willis court offered illegal actions by the agency; agency ignorance of the law, facts, or public good; or agency failure to recognize a claim and grant an administrative remedy.[16] In every case, the complainant also must demonstrate that there are no adequate administrative remedies for the alleged egregious behavior. As will be seen with many of the exceptions to the exhaustion principle, the determination of whether this exception applies is subject to judicial discretion, leading to apparently disparate holdings.[17]

Challenges to Facial Constitutionality of a Statute

Another exception to the exhaustion doctrine exists when the constitutionality of a statute is in question. This exception was expressly recognized in Willis, and has since been refined.[18] In Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 427 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1982), the court held that a challenge to a statute's constitutionality may be brought in either an administrative forum or in circuit court. Though only a judicial court could rule on a statute's constitutionality, the Key Haven court noted that a litigant could administratively adjudicate all other facets of his or her argument and then raise the statute's constitutionality on appeal to a district court of appeal. Noting how cumbersome such a process might be, the court allowed such constitutionality claims to be brought more quickly through a direct declaratory action in...