ALBERT CAROSHARO, 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 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' denial of Medicaid Medically Needy Program benefits because the hearing officer's order failed to provide the detailed five-step analysis required by federal regulations.
A hearing officer's decision denying Medicaid benefits must set forth in sufficient detail the five-step analysis required by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 and related regulations to permit adequate appellate review.
[1] A hearing officer's decision denying Medicaid benefits must include detailed findings addressing the five-step sequential evaluation process under 20 C.F.R. …
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 intelligenceAlbert Carosharo applied for benefits under Medicaid's Medically Needy Program, and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services denied his ap…
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Albert Carosharo appeals a final order of the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services that denied his application for benefits under Medicaid’s Medically Needy Program. He contends that the finding that he is capable of performing his previous work and light duty work is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the order is deficient because it does not provide a sufficient basis to determine that the appropriate legal standards have been followed by the hearing officer in reaching her decision. We reverse and remand for further proceedings because the appealed order fails to set forth in sufficient detail the five-step analysis required by 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 and the analysis required by 20 C.F.R. § 404, Appendix 2, Subpart P, Rule 202.03 (1991), as a predicate to the hearing officer’s decision approving the denial of the claimed benefits. Walker v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 533 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (Walker I); cf. McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F. 2d 1026 (11th Cir.1986). In the absence of the hearing officer’s detailed evaluation of the criteria and questions under the cited regulations, we are unable to provide adequate appellate review of that decision. Cf. Walker v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 554 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (Walker II).
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
ZEHMER, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scordas v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 649 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…iled to contain sufficiently detailed findings and evaluations of criteria under various regulations. See, for example, Walker v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, supra, Carosharo v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 598 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), Fricker v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, supra, Edlin v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 683 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). “[It] is the duty of the ... [hearings officer] to make specific…
-
Edlin v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 633 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ucation and past work experience. [*1189] “In the absence of the healing officer’s detailed evaluation of the criteria and questions under the cited regulations, we are unable to provide adequate appellate review of that decision.” Carosharo v. HRS, 598 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ZEHMER, C.J., and JOANOS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . There is apparently no question that appellant meets the durational requirement.…
-
Bonner v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 698 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…. 2d at 897 (this court frequently has been required to reverse because the order failed to contain sufficiently detailed findings and evaluations of criteria under various regulations); Carosharo v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 598 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Because we cannot ascertain whether the hearing officer properly followed the regulations relevant to the inquiry of transferability of skills, the order is REVERSED, and the cause is REMANDED to the hearing officer for further…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDANIEL v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir. 1986)
- Walker v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 533 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Walker v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 554 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)