JANELLE MCMILLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Competent Substantial Evidence Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Janelle McMillan challenges two final orders of the Department of Children and Families, each rendered on May 21, 2002, which upheld the Department’s denial of Medicaid benefits based upon the determination of the Social Security Administration (SSA) that McMillan did not meet SSA eligibility requirements. See 42 C.F.R. § 435.541 (a state agency “may not make an independent determination of disability if SSA has made a disability determination within the time limits set forth in section 435.911 on the same issues presented in the Medicaid application” and a “SSA disability determination is binding on an agency [of the State] until the determination is changed by SSA.”). Because McMillan has not demonstrated that the orders are contrary to law or are unsupported by competent substantial evidence, we affirm the final orders. See Axilrod v. State, Dept. of Children and Family Services, 799 So. 2d 1103, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
AFFIRMED.
VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Benicia Demedrano v. Labor Finders OF the Treasure Coast & Amisure Ins. Co., 8 So. 3d 498 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…proceeds and that paralegal time is not a reimbursable cost but is, instead, included within attorney time. We affirm. A JCC lacks inherent judicial power, such as that given a court of general jurisdiction. See Pace v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd., 868 So. 2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). The JCC only has the power expressly set out in chapter 440, Florida Statutes. Id. Section 440.33(1), Florida Statutes, directs that a JCC may “do all things conformable to law which may be necessary to enable the judge ef…
-
McARTHUR v. Mental Health Care, 35 So. 3d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…etermine whether an attorney or carrier has violated section 440.105, nor does it give the JCC any authority to impose sanctions for such violations. A JCC has only those powers expressly provided by statute. See Pace v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd., 868 So. 2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (explaining that a JCC has “no authority or jurisdiction beyond what is specifically conferred by statute” and holding that a JCC has no jurisdiction to sanction an attorney for violating the Florida Rules of Professional C…
-
Marchenko v. Sunshine Cos. & Unisource Administrators, 894 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…)(c), Florida Statutes (2001). The JCC determined that he did not have jurisdiction to vacate such an agreement. We agree and, therefore, affirm. The JCC is empowered only to the extent the statutes provide. See Pace v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd., 868 So. 2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). “ ‘Unlike a court of general jurisdiction, a judge of compensation claims does not have inherent judicial power but only the power expressly conferred by chapter 440.’ ” Id. (quoting McFadden v. Hardrives Constr., Inc., 57…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Minor v. State, 799 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- Axilrod v. State, 799 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)