AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES, PETITIONER,
v.
J.M., RESPONDENT

Fla. 3d DCA | 2005-09-14
No. 3D05-1573
Before GREEN and SUAREZ, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
924 So. 2d 1 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2005) Positive Treatment
Cited by 8 cases

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 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District, granted APD's petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial court from ordering APD to provide Medicaid Waiver Program services to J.M., holding that trial courts lack authority to interfere with decisions delegated to the APD regarding eligibility for disability services.


Holding

A trial court has neither jurisdiction nor authority to interfere with the APD's delegated decision-making regarding eligibility for the Medicaid Waiver Program or to determine whether an individual meets the 'crisis' criteria. The trial court also lacks authority to act in an appellate capacity to overturn an administrative hearing officer's decision. Only appellate courts have authority to review administrative actions.


Headnotes

[1] A state agency, not a trial court, has the statutory authority to determine eligibility for and criteria of the Developmental Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Program.

[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction and authority to interfere with or overturn a state agency's decision-making process regarding program eligibility.

Previewing 2 of 4 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 determination of which persons with disabilities are eligible for the Medicaid Waiver Program and the criteria for such determination has been statutorily delegated to the APD.”

Establishes that eligibility decisions are exclusively within APD's authority and not subject to trial court review or override.

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

J.M. is an autistic retarded juvenile whose mother applied for him to receive services through the Developmental Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Program.…

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 Agency For Persons With Disabilities (“APD”) filed an Emergency Petition for a Writ of Prohibition or Certiorari to restrain the Circuit Court from directing APD to provide services to J.M. under the Developmental Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Program. We grant prohibition.

The Developmental Disabilities Medicaid Waiver Program is a program authorized by the federal government. The Florida Medicaid Waiver Program is, in turn, authorized by Chapter 409, Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-8.200. The determination of which individuals with disabilities are eligible for the program and the criteria for such determination belonged, in 2001, to the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) and now belongs to. the APD.

Pursuant to the promulgated rules, a qualified individual applying for the Medicaid Waiver Program after 1999 is placed, on a waiting list and will receive services under the program only after qualified persons previously placed on the waiting list have been provided services. .A qualified individual who meets the agency .criteria of being in “crisis” will receive immediate services and will not have to be put on the waiting list.

J.M. is an autistic retarded juvenile. His mother applied to the DCF for J.M. to receive services through the Medicaid Waiver Program. In 2001, DCF determined that J.M. did not meet the crisis criteria and placed him on the services waiting list. J.M.’s mother then requested an administrative hearing as provided for in Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (2004).

The administrative hearing was held on July 24, 2003. The hearing officer found that J.M. did not meet the crisis criteria and that DCF had properly placed J.M. on the waiting list for services. J.M.’s mother was informed that she had a right to appeal the administrative decision directly to either the First District Court of Appeal or to the District Court of Appeal in which J.M. resided pursuant to Section 120.68(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).

An appeal was not taken.

J.M. is presently a party to a dependency proceeding in the Eleventh Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida. On June 10, 2005, the trial judge issued an order wherein she found J.M. to be in need of emergency expedited services. and ordered that he be moved to the crisis emergency state and ordered that he receive immediate services. APD then filed the present Emergency Motion for Prohibition.

The determination of which persons with disabilities are eligible for the Medicaid Waiver Program and the criteria for such determination has been statutorily delegated to the APD. See §§ 408.301, 408.302, 409.919, Fla. Stat. (2004); Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-8.200.

The trial courts have not been delegated any such decision-making authority. A trial court may not interfere with and does not have the authority to enter into the decision-making process which is delegated to a state agency, in this case the APD. Fla. Senate v. Fla. Pub. Employees Council 79, AFSCME, 784 So. 2d 404 (Fla.2001); Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. I.C., 742 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The trial judge in this matter has neither the jurisdiction nor the authority to make the determination of whether or not J.M. meets the “crisis” criteria or to order APD to provide services to J.M. through the Medicaid Waiver Program. Such decision-making power lies only with the APD.

Additionally, the trial judge’s order under review is, in all reality, an order overturning the 2003 decision of the administrative hearing officer in J.M.’s case. In these circumstances, the trial judge does not have the authority to act as an appellate court and overturn the findings and order of the administrative hearing officer. Only courts acting in their appellate capacity-have the authority to review an administrative action. See Art. V, §§ 4, 5, Fla. Const.; § 120.68, Fla. Stat. (2004); Miami-Dade County v. Moreland, 879 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); City of Miami Springs v. Barad, 448 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Therefore, prohibition is granted.

Prohibition granted.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …ion 409.2564(10) is unconstitutional. Moreover, “[a] trial court may not interfere with and does not have the authority to enter into the decision-making process which is delegated to a state agency....” Agency for Persons with Disabilities v. J.M., 924 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (citing Fla. Senate v. Fla. Pub. Employees Council 79, AFSCME, 784 So. 2d 404 (Fla.2001); Dep’t [*552] of Children & Family Servs. v. I.C., 742 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). Nesbitt responds to DOR’s argument by citing a we…
  • Fla. Dep't OF Child. & Families v. Y.C., 82 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
    …judicial adherence to the doctrine of separation of powers. Ervin v. City of N. Miami Beach, 66 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla.1953) (quoting Anderson on Declaratory Judgments, vol. 1, 2d ed., 66)”); see generally Agency for Persons with Disabilities v. J.M., 924 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ("A trial court may not interfere with and does not have the authority to enter into the decision-making process which is delegated to a state agency!.]”); Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. M.H., 830 So. 2d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d…
  • Dep't OF Revenue o/b/o Maria Gomez v. Jarlin Varela, 67 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
    …. 4th DCA 2008). Further, “‘[a] trial court may not interfere with and does not have the authority to enter into the decision-making process which is delegated to a state agency....’” Id. at 551 (quoting Agency for Persons with Disabilities v. J.M., 924 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)). A similar restriction was examined in Florida Department of Revenue, Child [*1207] Support Enforcement ex rel. Baker v. Baker, 24 So. 3d 1254, 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) [hereinafter Baker], In Baker, the Department sought rev…

Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw