D.M., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1995-06-12
No. 94-3153
BARFIELD, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.
657 So. 2d 29 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1995)

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.


Holding

The court held that the department's denial of the motion to vacate and reissue its final order was improper because there was no competent substantial evidence that the appellant received timely notice of the original order.


Facts & Procedural History

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issued a final order placing the appellant on a registry of abusers, with a certificate of servic…

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.


Opinion of the Court
ALLEN, Judge.

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellant challenges an order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (the department) whereby the department denied the appellant’s motion to vacate and re-issue an earlier final order of the department. We reverse.

On May 13, 1994, the department issued a final order in which it concluded that the appellant’s name should be placed on the department’s registry of confirmed abusers. A certificate of service by mail upon the appellant’s counsel accompanied the order. The order also stated that the appellant had 30 calendar days within which to appeal. On August 18, 1994, the appellant filed a motion in which he requested that the department vacate and reissue the final order because he had not received a copy or other notice of the order until after the time to appeal had expired. On September 20,1994, the department issued an order summarily denying the motion.

We reverse the September 20, 1994 order because competent substantial evidence does not support the department’s apparent conclusion that the appellant timely received a copy of the final order. See Koppelman v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 626 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

Although not asserted in the order on appeal, the department also contends that it lacked jurisdiction to act on the appellant’s motion to vacate and re-issue. We conclude that the appellant correctly followed the procedure outlined in New Washington Heights Community Development Conference v. Department of Community Affairs, 515 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), that the motion was timely, see id.; cf. Fla.R.Civ.Pro. 1.540, and that the department was therefore vested with jurisdiction to act.

We accordingly set aside the September 20, 1994 order, and we remand this case to the department with directions that the department vacate and re-issue the order of May 13, 1994.

BARFIELD, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw