JOAN HARRIMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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 Children and Families' dismissal of a hearing and remanded for a hearing on the merits because the appellant raised issues beyond automatic statutory changes affecting her Medicaid benefits termination.
A recipient is entitled to a hearing when challenging termination of Medicaid benefits on grounds other than automatic statutory changes, even if some issues involve changed income requirements.
[1] A Medicaid recipient is entitled to a hearing under 42 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 intelligence“The agency need not grant a hearing if the sole issue is a Federal or State law requiring an automatic change adversely affecting some or all recipients.”
42 C.F.R. section 431.220(b) (2002), which the hearing officer applied to dismiss the hearing
Joan Harriman's Medicaid benefits were terminated following an amended statute that changed income requirements for optional medical assistance paymen…
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 Administrative Hearing Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Joan Harriman appeals the Department of Children and Families’s dismissal of her hearing after the termination of her Medicaid benefits. At her hearing, appellant argued in part that despite an amended statute, which changed the income requirements for option medical assistance payments, she was still entitled to benefits under another statute. She also argued that under state and federal case law, once she qualified for Medicaid, she was protected from termination of her benefits. The hearing officer dismissed the hearing in accordance with 42 C.F.R. section 431.220(b) (2002), which states: “The agency need not grant a hearing if the sole issue is a Federal or State law requiring an automatic change adversely affecting some or all recipients.”
It is clear that appellant was, at least in part, challenging the termination of her benefits for reasons other than the change in law automatically affecting her benefits. Appellant, therefore, was entitled to a hearing on these issues. See 42 C.F.R. § 431.220(a)(2) (stating that an agency must hold a hearing when a recipient requests a hearing “because he or she believes the agency has taken an action erroneously”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to hold a hearing at which appellant may contest DCF’s allegedly erroneous termination of her Medicaid benefits.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
WOLF, C.J., PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Marcelino L. Alvarez, M.D. v. Susan M. Rendon, M.D., 953 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…ford, v. DiMicco, 216 So. 2d 769, 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). “To preserve the issue of an inconsistent verdict for review on appeal, the party claiming inconsistency must raise the issue before the jury is discharged.” Deklyen v. Truckers World, Inc., 867 So. 2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). This court has said that a new trial is the proper remedy for an inconsistent ver- [*711] diet on appeal. In Southland Corp. v. Crane, 699 So. 2d 332, 334 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), the jury found that plaintiffs injuries were…
-
Coba v. Tricam Indus., Inc., 164 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 2015)…cessarily inconsistent simply because it fails to award enough money or even no money at all. In those circumstances, “the issue is the adequacy of the award, not its consistency with any other award by the verdict.” Deklyen v. Truckers World, Inc., 867 So. 2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (quoting Avakian v. Burger King Corp., 719 So. 2d 342, 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). An objection to the inadequacy or excessiveness of a verdict can be raised in a motion for a new trial without requiring a party to object pri…
-
Ellender v. Bricker, 967 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…did not award future lost earnings or any noneconomic damages. Id. at 343. “Under such circumstances, the issue is the adequacy of the award, not its consistency with any other award by the verdict.” Id. at 344. In Deklyen v. Truckers World, Inc., 867 So. 2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), the court considered whether a zero jury award for noneconomic damages was an inconsistent verdict or an inadequate verdict when the jury awarded substantial past and future economic damages. Applying Avakian, the court st…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence