Case Name: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-09-03
Citations: 624 So. 2d 330
Docket Number: No. 92-1171
Parties: ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN, J., concurs, with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 624
Pages: 330–333

Head Matter:
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOCIATES OF FLORIDA, INC., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, Appellee.
No. 92-1171.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Sept. 3, 1993.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1993.
Richard M. Haber and Robert L. McDonald, Jr. of Cramer, Haber, McDonald & LeVine, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Stephen S. Mathues, Staff Atty., Dept, of General Services, Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
BARFIELD, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an agency denial of an administrative hearing for the reason that appellant did not timely file a request for a hearing. Appellant contends that its late filed request should be accepted on "equitable principles," since late filing is not jurisdictional and the facts do not evidence an intent by appellant to waive its right to a hearing.
The appellee sent notice to appellant of intent to terminate its contract and advised appellant of its right to a hearing if request was filed with the appellee within 21 days. The notice was sent by certified mail and received by appellant on March 5, 1992. Appellant sent a petition for hearing dated March 25,1992, by certified mail postmarked March 26, 1992, to appellee which received the petition for filing March 30,1992. There are no other facts relevant to this decision.
Appellant contends that its preparation and mailing of a petition for hearing within the 21-day period evidences its intent not to waive its right to hearing, and that equitable tolling should delay the filing period so that its petition would be considered timely filed. We disagree that principles of equity should enlarge the time for filing in this case and affirm.
The Supreme Court has laid the predicate for applying the tolling doctrine in administrative cases:
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.
Machules v. Department of Administration, 523 So.2d 1132, 1134 (Fla.1988) (citations omitted). The court concluded:
We find the doctrine of equitable tolling applicable under the facts of this case for two reasons: petitioner was misled or lulled into inaction by his Employer, and his appeal to DOA raised the identical issue raised in the original, timely claim filed in the wrong forum.
Id. at 1134.
There is nothing extraordinary in the failure to timely file in this case. Quite to the contrary, the problem in this case is the too ordinary occurrence of a party's attorney failing to meet a filing deadline.
The final order of the Department of General Services is AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J., concurs, with opinion.
ZEHMER, C.J., dissents, with opinion.