Case Name: WESTCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL & Sylvia Urlich, as President of Westchester General Hospital, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-03-22
Citations: 417 So. 2d 261
Docket Number: Nos. TT-222, W-189
Parties: WESTCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL & Sylvia Urlich, as President of Westchester General Hospital, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 417
Pages: 261–263

Head Matter:
WESTCHESTER GENERAL HOSPITAL & Sylvia Urlich, as President of Westchester General Hospital, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Appellee.
Nos. TT-222, W-189.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
March 22, 1982.
Stephen Marc Slepin of Slepin & Slepin, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Eric J. Haugdahl, Tallahassee, for appel-lee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this consolidated appeal, one point survives from a cross-appeal involving an order directed to a rule challenge brought by Westchester General Hospital, contending that Rules 10-5.02(21) and 10-5.05(2) were invalid exercises of legislative authority. Those rules were declared invalid exercises of legislative power by the hearing officer on the narrow ground that the HRS in promulgating them did not address in its economic impact statement the rules' impact on the regulated hospitals. We agree with the hearing officer and affirm the administrative order.
The cross-appellees maintain that the inadequacies of the economic impact statement were harmless error because the proposed rules merely reiterated their statutory authority. See Florida-Texas Freight, Inc. v. Hawkins, 379 So.2d 944 (Fla.1979). Hawkins, however, is distinguishable because the rules in the instant case were interpretative of the statute and have economic impact. See State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Framat Realty, Inc., 407 So.2d 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Cf. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Delray Hospital Corp., 373 So.2d 75 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); School Board of Broward County v. Gramith, 375 So.2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
The remaining arguments urged by the cross-appellee that the rules were otherwise invalid are not ripe for our consideration. See General Development Utilities, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, Division of Administrative Hearings, 385 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN and SHAW, JJ., concur.
McCORD, J., dissenting.
. We observe that there is a pending Section 120.57 hearing that is related to the subject matter of this appeal. Our invalidating the rule here would not necessarily destroy the cross-appellant's position at that proceeding. Incipient, non-rule policy may be explicated at a Chapter 120.57 proceeding. Dept, of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Florida Police Benevolent Assoc., 400 So.2d 1302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Florida Cities Water Company v. Florida Public Service Commission, 384 So.2d 1280 (Fla.1980); Rice v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 386 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).