M.M.
v.
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
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.
A hearing officer's final order approving termination of Medicaid-funded adult companion services is affirmed when supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[1] On appeal from an administrative hearing officer's decision, the court's review is limited to whether the hearing officer's findings are supported by competent, substanti…
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 intelligenceM.M. received forty hours per week of adult companion services as a Medicaid benefit. In October 2020, the Agency for Health Care Administration termi…
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 Scope Of Judicial Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 12, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-0600 Lower Tribunal Nos. AHCA 20-FH2635 & OP2047580263 ________________ M.M., Appellant, vs. Agency for Health Care Administration, et al., Appellees. An Appeal from the State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, Office of Fair Hearings. Lopez Legal, P.A., and Alejandra Arroyave Lopez, for appellant. Eugenia Keough Rains, Assistant General Counsel (Tallahassee); Hogan Lovells US LLP, and Craig H. Smith, for appellees. Before SCALES, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
M.M. appeals a final order entered by a hearing officer from the State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration that approved the termination of forty hours per week of adult companion services provided to M.M. as a Medicaid benefit for the month of October 2020. We are not free to substitute our judgment for that of a hearing officer, nor may we reweigh the evidence presented at the administrative hearing. § 120.68(7)(b), (10), Fla. Stat. (2020); Bagarotti v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm’n, 208 So. 3d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Our review is limited to whether the hearing officer’s findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Id. In this case, they are. We are therefore compelled to affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
N.H. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
-
S.F. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Bagarotti v. Reemployment Assistance Appeals Comm'n, 208 So. 3d 1197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)