RICHARD EDWARD, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed the denial of AFDC benefits and remanded for redetermination because the Department lacked necessary facts about a lump sum settlement's availability at the time of application.
The Department's final order denying AFDC benefits must be vacated and the case remanded for redetermination based on substantiated evidence regarding the whereabouts and availability of settlement funds.
[1] An agency must obtain all necessary documented or verified facts regarding asset availability before making a final determination of AFDC eligibility.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant applied for AFDC benefits, but the Department lacked complete information about a lump sum settlement award received by the children's m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Burden Of Proof In Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the final order of the Office of Public Assistance Appeal Hearings and remand for further proceedings.
It is undisputed that The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services did not possess all of the facts necessary for a determination of the appellant’s eligibility for AFDC benefits at the time of his application. Because the appellee agrees that documented or verified proof, as to the actual amount of the lump sum settlement award received by the children’s mother and as to the availability of the funds at the time of appellant’s application for benefits could result in a determination of appellant’s eligibility, or at least shorten the time of ineligibility for benefits, the final order of the client appeal hearings officer must be vacated, and a redetermination of eligibility made on the basis of evidence which substantiates the whereabouts and availability of the settlement funds. Fla. Admin.Code Ann. Rules 1001.080(8) and 1001.102(14)(d) (1987).
We therefore vacate the final order entered in this matter, and remand the case to The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services for a redetermination of appellant’s eligibility for AFDC benefits, upon the presentation of substantiated evidence as to the whereabouts and availability of the funds from the settlement award made to the children’s mother. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, J., concurs specially with opinion.
ANSTEAD, Judge,
concurring specially.
Based upon the undisputed evidence in the record, I would reverse and remand with directions that an order be entered holding that appellant has demonstrated his entitlement to AFDC benefits for his minor children.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Carr v. Byers, 578 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…fashioned by his successor. See Silvern v. Silvern, 252 So. 2d 865 [*348] (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), wherein a judgment, written by one judge after he left office and signed by his successor, was held invalid. 376 So. 2d at 440. . In Beattie v. Beattie, 536 So. 2d 1078, 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), the trial judge heard a motion to enforce a marriage dissolution settlement agreement and directed counsel to prepare an order in favor of the movant. The trial judge was removed from the bench by the Supreme Court, and hi…
-
L.S. v. State, 593 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…the victim. Aside from the problem that incorrect information1 was supplied by the state to the judge at the restitution hearing, a successor judge may not enter an order or judgment based upon evidence heard by the predecessor. Beattie v. Beattie, 536 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, 1989, is the general statute that requires restitution to victims. Its provisions are mandatory and places the onus upon the court to order the defendant to repay the victim for crimes. § 775.…
-
Umscheid v. Umscheid, 724 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ment. See Hatcher v. St. Joe Paper Co., 603 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); L.S. v. State, 593 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Carr v. Byers, 578 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Alvord v. Alvord, 572 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Beattie v. Beattie, 536 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Silvern v. Silvern, 252 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). See also Anders v. Anders, 376 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Bradford v. Foundation & Marine Const. Co., Inc., 182 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. den., 188 So. 2d 821 (Fl…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence