ROE v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2021)

In this mandamus proceeding, Petitioner seeks to compel the Department of Health (Department) to provide her with documents that caused it to investigate her in accordance with section 456.073, Florida Statutes (2020). We dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus because it is moot.

I.

From 2015 until February 2020, Petitioner was a dental hygienist in St. Petersburg. In February 2020, Petitioner had an incident with a front office staff member that led to her termination two days later. Petitioner then found a job with another dental practice in May 2020.

In September 2020, Petitioner received a Notice of Investigation from the Department, notifying her that her former employer had filed a complaint against her to the Department in July 2020. The complaint claimed that, following her termination, Petitioner took names and other possible confidential information from patient files. The former employer supplied the Department with written statements from three persons who claimed to be patients contacted by Petitioner between March and July 2020, asking them to switch dentists to Petitioner's new place of employment.

Petitioner claims that the witness statements and any other documents furnished to the Department by the former employer were not provided to her in September 2020 with the Notice of Investigation as required by § 456.073(1). She informally requested the documents from the Department several times. However, the Department advised Petitioner that it would supply only the initiating complaint to her. Petitioner then filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus seeking the documents that caused the Department to initiate its investigation.

After the petition was filed, the Department completed its investigation and produced the documents sought by Petitioner pursuant to § 456.073(10).

II.

For this Court to issue a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must demonstrate “a clear legal right to the performance of a clear legal duty by a public officer and that [the petitioner] has no other legal remedies available to him [or her].” Rhea v. Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Santa Fe Coll., 109 So. 3d 851, 855 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (quoting Hatten v. State, 561 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 1990)). Before addressing the merits, however, we must be satisfied that a redressable issue remains live in this case. And here, we conclude that the mandamus petition is moot because the Department has now delivered the investigative documents sought by the Petitioner. The Department apparently supplied the investigative file, after the petition was filed, pursuant to its obligation under § 456.073(10) to allow inspection, or to forward the investigative file if requested after competition of its investigation. At this point, a judicial determination by this Court would not grant any effectual relief. See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Bellamy, 302 So. 3d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020); Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992). Accordingly, the Court finds that the underlying petition should be dismissed. See Godwin, 593 So. 2d at 212 (“A moot case generally will be dismissed.”).

Finally, we disagree with Petitioner that this case falls in the category of cases that should not be dismissed as moot because the principal issue is capable of repetition, yet evading review. That is because, here, “there is [not] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [would] be subjected to the same action again.” Morris Publ'g Grp., LLC v. State, 136 So. 3d 770, 776 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)). For instance, there is no claim that the Department might (confiscate and) withhold these documents again from Petitioner. It is not this Court's function to press forward under these circumstances and to “give opinions on moot questions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue.” Montgomery v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 468 So. 2d 1014, 1016–1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

III.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED.

Osterhaus, J.

Kelsey and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.