Case Name: O'DONNELL'S CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Himrod AMBROISE, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2003-11-07
Citations: 858 So. 2d 1138
Docket Number: No. 5D03-324
Parties: O’DONNELL’S CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Himrod AMBROISE, Appellee.
Judges: SAWAYA, C.J., concurs, and concurs specially with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 858
Pages: 1138–1147

Head Matter:
O’DONNELL’S CORPORATION, Appellant, v. Himrod AMBROISE, Appellee.
No. 5D03-324.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Nov. 7, 2003.
Christopher C. Cathcart of Ossinsky & Cathcart, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellant.
No Appearance for Appellee.

Opinion:
PLEUS, J.
This is an appeal of an "Order Remanding Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice." We conclude it is not an appealable order.
Section 120.68(1), Florida Statutes, states:
A party who is adversely affected by final agency action is entitled to judicial review. A preliminary, procedural, or intermediate order of the agency or of an administrative law judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings is immediately reviewable if review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.
Final agency action is that which brings the administrative adjudicatory process to a close. Hill v. Div. of Ret., 687 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). " 'The test to determine whether an order is final or interlocutory in nature is whether the case is disposed of by the order....' " Id., quoting Prime Orlando Props., Inc. v. Dept. of Bus. Regulation, etc., 502 So.2d 456, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Because the order on appeal simply remands the petition back to the administrative law judge for further proceedings (i.e., a formal hearing), it is not a final order. Furthermore, O'Donnell's has not established the alternative ground for review under section 120.68. Review of the final agency action would provide an adequate remedy. Consequently, we do not have jurisdiction to review it under section 120.68 and Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
SAWAYA, C.J., concurs, and concurs specially with opinion.
ORFINGER, J., dissents with opinion.
. We considered the possibility of treating this appeal as a petition for writ of prohibition. See, e.g., Dept. of Health and Rehab. Servs. v. Career Serv. Com'n, 448 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (holding that district courts have power to issue writs of prohibition to administrative agencies to prevent them from exceeding their jurisdiction). However, prior opinions uniformly hold that the untimely filing of a request for an administrative hearing is not a jurisdictional defect. Machules v. Dep't of Admin., 523 So.2d 1132 (Fla. 1988); Appel v. Fla. Dep't of State, Div. of Licensing, 734 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).