Administrative Judge Backs $1.33 Million Pot License-Renewal Fee
Administrative Law Judge William Horgan found the fee reflects the "plain language" of lawmakers' intent.
November 30, 2023 at 12:19 PM
4 minute read
Cases and CourtsA $1.33 million license-renewal fee "carries out to the letter" a legislative mandate for how much it should cost medical-marijuana companies to do business in Florida, an administrative law judge decided.
Florida Department of Health officials late last year adopted a rule creating a formula for establishing the fee. The rule boosted license-renewal costs for medical-marijuana operators to $1.33 million, more than 22 times the $60,000 biennial fee paid since the cannabis program began six years ago.
Sanctuary Cannabis, one of two-dozen licensed medical-marijuana operators, filed an administrative challenge arguing the new fee is "wholly without logic or reason" because it does not take into account tens of millions of dollars from patients who pay $75 a year for identification cards to participate in the program.
But, siding with state health officials on Wednesday, Administrative Law Judge William Horgan found the fee reflects the "plain language" of lawmakers' intent. A state law says the health department must adopt rules "establishing a procedure for the issuance and biennial renewal of licenses, including initial application and biennial renewal fees sufficient to cover the costs of implementing and administering" the medical-marijuana program.
The law requires the health department to adopt rules setting license fees for operators "which alone are sufficient to cover the costs of implementing and administering this section" of the law, Horgan wrote in a 13-page order.
"No other fee is mentioned in that legislative directive," he added.
The formula adopted by health officials last December based the license-renewal fee on the number of operators and the cost to regulate the medical-marijuana program, an amount that will fluctuate depending on the number of operators.
Attorneys for Sanctuary argued the rule establishing the renewal fee was "arbitrary and capricious" because it failed to take into consideration other types of revenue, such as patient identification-card costs and fines paid by operators, which are known as medical marijuana treatment centers, or MMTCs.
Repeatedly pointing to the law, Horgan disagreed.
"When given the legislative directive to adopt rules establishing 'initial [MMTC] application and biennial renewal fees sufficient to cover the costs of implementing and administering this section,' it is not arbitrary or capricious to publish" a rule "which does exactly that, and nothing more or less," he wrote.
Lawmakers "of course knew the department would receive such other revenue, and yet directed the department to establish rules by which the cost to implement" the program "was covered solely by MMTC license fees," Horgan's order said.
Horgan concluded the rule "is not without thought, illogical, or irrational. It carries out to the letter the Legislature's directive that the department adopt rules establishing MMTC license fees sufficient to cover the cost to implement" the medical-marijuana program.
Sanctuary's petition for an administrative hearing relied heavily on a budget request the health department submitted to the Legislature for the 2024-2025 fiscal year, which will begin in July.
The request showed that the Department of Health collected $14.9 million in application and renewal fees for licenses and nearly $65 million from patients and caregivers during the 2022-23 fiscal year, which ended in June. More than 854,000 patients are qualified for the program.
The agency, which also gets money from testing labs and fines, collected roughly $84 million that year, anticipates collecting the same amount this year and projects receiving $114 million in 2024-25, according to the budget request.
The agency also reported having a $16.3 million surplus during the 2022-23 fiscal year and projected surpluses of nearly $4 million this year and $61 million in 2024-25.
Along with being able to set the renewal fee and charge patients for identification cards, state law allows the health department to levy fines against medical-marijuana operators. Sanctuary attorneys argued that all of the collections are "intermingled" in a trust fund.
The law doesn't require operators to "bear the brunt" of the cost of regulating the industry, lawyers Will Hall and Daniel Russell of the Dean Mead firm wrote in a proposed final order filed last week.
Interpreting the law "as requiring the department to ignore identification card fees and MMTC [medical marijuana treatment center] fines in determining a sufficient license renewal fee amount does not reasonably comport with the totality of the statute," they wrote.
Horgan, however, rejected the argument.
"The fact that MMTC license renewal fees are deposited into the same account as other medical marijuana-related fees does not amount to a legislative instruction on which of those fees must cover the cost to implement the statute. That instruction is found in" the part of the law that says the fees must cover the cost of implementing the program, the administrative law judge wrote.
Dara Kam reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250