DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
DIANE CLEAVINGER AND BLOUNTSTOWN CARE CENTER, INC., APPELLEES
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 quashed a hearing officer's order requiring HRS to provide live testimony supporting interrogatory responses, holding that HRS properly complied with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure rule 1.340(c) by submitting written answers with an affidavit.
A hearing officer departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring HRS to present live testimony to support interrogatory responses when HRS had already complied with rule 1.340(c) by submitting written answers with an affidavit.
[1] A party responding to interrogatories under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(c) may submit written answers with an affidavit without providing live testimony unless…
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 intelligenceHRS filed answers to interrogatories along with an accompanying affidavit in compliance with rule 1.340(c). The hearing officer ordered HRS to provide…
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 Affidavit Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
This action is before the court, pursuant to rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, for review of a nonfinal order of the hearing officer affecting discovery. The issue presented is whether the hearing officer departed from the essential requirement of law by requiring the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) to answer extensive interrogatories.
The ^nswer to interrogatories filed by the department along with the accompanying affidavit complied with rule 1.340(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The hearing officer wrongly determined that HRS was required to present live testimony to support its responses to interrogatories. The burden was on the respondent to present competent substantial evidence to demonstrate it would be more burdensome for respondent than petitioner to ascertain the answers to interrogatories prior to ordering a more complete answer from HRS. Department of Professional Regulation v. Florida Psychological Practitioners Ass’n, 483 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
The hearing officer has departed from the essential requirements of law by requiring HRS to answer the interrogatories instead of allowing it to exercise its option provided by rule 1.340(c).
The order of the hearing officer is quashed, and the case is remanded to the hearing officer for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't of Prof'l Reg. v. The Fla. Psychological Practitioners Ass'n, 483 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)