Equitable tolling in Florida administrative proceedings.

• Author: Burnaman, Ross Stafford

The role of equity in the administrative process is mysterious. While equitable principles have been relied upon to modify or reverse agency actions, the genesis and scope of these principles is less than clear. For example, application of the doctrine of laches has been considered in various disciplinary proceedings, but no clear rule has emerged. See Ong v. Department of Professional Regulation, 565 So. 2d 1385, 1386-1387 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Another equitable doctrine--equitable tolling--has been applied to excuse the otherwise untimely initiation of administrative proceedings. This article reviews the application of equitable tolling in appellate decisions, and discusses that application in light of recent revisions to administrative statutes and rules.(1)

Doctrine of Equitable Tolling

One definition of "equitable tolling" is: "The doctrine that the statute of limitations will not bar a claim if the plaintiff, despite diligent efforts, did not discover the injury until the limitations period had expired. Equitable tolling does not require misconduct by the defendant." Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Ed., p. 560.(2)

In Florida jurisprudence the doctrine "focuses on the plaintiffs excusable ignorance of the limitations period and on [the] lack of prejudice to the defendant." Machules v. Department of Administration, 523 So. 2d 1132, 1133-1134 (Fla. 1988) (citing Cocke v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 817 F. 2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir. 1987)). In Machules, the court observed: "Generally, the tolling doctrine has been applied when the plaintiff has been misled or lulled into inaction, has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his rights, or has timely asserted his rights mistakenly in the wrong forum." Id. at 1134.

Equitable Tolling in Florida Administrative Proceedings

The genesis of equitable tolling in Florida administrative law can be traced to Machules v. Department of Administration, 502 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), quashed, 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1988).

In 1985, the Department of Insurance noticed employee Machules' termination and provided him 21 days to file a petition for hearing with the Administration Commission under Fla. Admin. Code R. 22A-7.10(2). Instead of requesting a hearing, Machules initially sought relief through his union's grievance procedure before the Department of Insurance.

After the Department of Insurance rejected the grievance as inappropriate, Machules' union requested the Administration Commission to toll the time that had been expended on the grievance. The Administration Commission entered an order rejecting the union's request and stating an intent to enter an order dismissing Machules' petition as untimely. The Administration Commission denied reconsideration of this order and entered a final order dismissing the appeal.

With Judge Zehmer dissenting, the district court affirmed the final order and certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as one of great public importance:

May the tolling doctrine espoused in federal administrative law decisions be applied to toll the time for seeking review with the Department of Administration without being in conflict with the decision in Hadley v. Department of Administration, 411 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 1982), and other decisions upholding the validity of the presumption of abandonment and 20 day time requirement in rule 22A-7.10(2)?

Machules v. Department of Administration, 502 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the affirmative, referring favorably to Judge Zehmer's dissent, and quashed the decision of the district court. Machules v. Department of Administration, 523 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 1988) (hereinafter Machules).

The court crafted Florida's doctrine of equitable tolling out of the whole cloth of federal jurisprudence. Id...