MYRTLE KIRK C/O CLAUDE KIRK, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 1999-06-02
No. 97-4451
GROSS, TAYLOR, JJ„ and SCHACK, LARRY, Associate Judge, concur.
737 So. 2d 561 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1999) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.

Synopsis

The Department of Children and Family Services properly denied the appellant Institutional Care Program and Medicaid benefits based on asset limits, as the appellant's bank account balance exceeded the eligibility ceiling, and outstanding bills do not reduce countable assets under applicable rules.


Holding

The Department did not err. Under applicable Florida Administrative Code rules, resources are synonymous with assets, and assets are considered available when an individual has unrestricted access to the funds. Outstanding bills are not deducted from countable assets; the applicable rules do not employ a 'net worth' approach to eligibility limits.


Headnotes

[1] Eligibility for Institutional Care Program and Medicaid benefits is determined by the amount of an individual's assets, not their net worth after accounting for outstandi…

[2] Assets are considered available to an individual when they have the legal ability to dispose of the asset and unrestricted access to the funds.

Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“the applicable rules do not take such a 'net worth' approach to eligibility limits”

Establishes that outstanding bills cannot be deducted from assets when determining Medicaid eligibility

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

During February and March 1997, the appellant owned a bank account with a balance of $21,664.20, which exceeded the asset ceiling required for eligibi…

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The narrow legal issue in this case is whether the Department of Children and Families was in error in adopting the hearing officer’s determination that appellant’s assets disqualified her from receiving Institutional Care Program and Medicaid benefits for February and March, 1997. During these two months, petitioner owned a bank account with a balance of $21,664.20, which exceeded the ceiling on assets which is a precondition to eligibility for benefits. Appellant’s contention is that there were outstanding bills during those months which should have been taken into account in determining her assets. However, the applicable rules do not take such a “net worth” approach to eligibility limits. Sections 65A-1.712(1) and 65A-1.716(1) of the Florida Administrative Code speak of eligibility criteria in terms of “resources;” section 65A-1.701(26) defines “resources” as being “synonymous with assets.” See 20 CFR §§ 416.120(c)(3), 416.1201(a). Florida Administrative Code Rule 65A-1.303(2) provides that any “individual who has the legal ability to dispose of an asset owns the asset.” Rule 65A-1.303(3) states that “[ajssets are considered available to an individual when the individual has unrestricted access to the funds.” Applying these definitions to this case leads to the conclusion that appellant had assets in excess of the program limits for the months in question.

We do not reach appellant’s remaining argument concerning “substantial hardship” or “principles of fairness,” since the record does not reflect that these arguments were raised in the proceedings below.

AFFIRMED.

GROSS, TAYLOR, JJ„ and SCHACK, LARRY, Associate Judge, concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Mildred v. Waskiewicz (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
    …individual or another acting at their request or on their behalf. Fla. Admin. Code. R. 65A-1.303 (emphasis added). As such, DCF correctly denied her application for ICP benefits for the months at issue. See Kirk v. Dep’t of Child. & Fam. Servs., 737 So. 2d 561, 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (rejecting argument that DCF should have considered certain debts appellant owed when deciding eligibility for ICP benefits). AFFIRMED. It is so ordered. 3 Cf. Mason v. Dep’t of HRS, 614 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw