DONNA F. STORY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DISTRICT 10, 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 held that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is entitled to recoup overpaid benefits, and equitable estoppel does not bar recovery.
Appellant received overpaid AFDC and food stamp benefits from HRS after reporting a change in employment status. HRS sought to recoup the overpayment …
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 Detrimental Reliance cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Donna F. Story appeals an administrative hearing officer’s decision that HRS is entitled to recoup $565 in Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamp benefits which they overpaid appellant. Appellant seeks to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel to bar HRS from recovering the overpayment by reducmg her current benefits. We affirm.
Appellant relies on Fraga v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 464 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), to support her claim of equitable estoppel. However, we find Fraga inapposite. Ms. Story properly reported her new employment status to HRS. However, HRS continued to pay her benefits at the same rate until one year later. Then HRS advised her of the overpayment, and that the $565 would be recouped by reducing her benefits accordingly.
This case is directly on point with our decision in Lends v. State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 659 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). In Lewis, involving a similar ease of HRS overpayment for over nine months following the recipient’s proper reporting of a status change, we held this did not constitute the same type of agency indifference in the face of detrimental reliance as was experienced by the physician/HRS payee in Fraga. On the authority of Lewis, we affirm.
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tamesa M. Willis v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 735 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ns, the agency , is required to recoup the overpayments, and that under the circumstances, the doctrine of equitable estoppel was not applicable. Lewis, 659 So. 2d at 1256; see also, Story v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., Dist. 10, 666 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). As in Lewis, we find that the Department, regardless of its error, correctly found that Ms. Willis must reimburse the Department for the overissuance and overpayment of the benefits. Although we must affirm the Department’s fi…
-
Versaci v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 743 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…toppel bars the Department from collecting the overpayment in this case. See Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla.1994); Ammons v. Okeechobee County, 710 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Story v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 666 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Lewis v. State, Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 659 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Warren v. Department of Admin., 554 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Kuge v. State, Dep’t of Admin., Div. of Retirement, 449 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 3…
Authorities Cited
- Roberto C. Fraga, M.D. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 464 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Lewis v. State, 659 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)