Alexander v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alexander v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

590 So. 2d 1081, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12713, 1991 WL 272762

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 20, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2865

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 590 So. 2d 1081 (Alexander v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alexander v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 590 So. 2d 1081, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12713, 1991 WL 272762 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellant challenges an administrative order approving the action of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in prorating food stamp benefits for the appellant’s household. HRS determined the household’s eligibility and prorated benefits as of the date that HRS completed its verification of certain household information. Because this determination was not made within thirty days following the date the application for benefits was filed, 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(1) requires a further determination as to whether the delay should be attributed to the fault of the household, or the fault of HRS. For cases of incomplete verification, 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(l)(i)(C) indicates that before a delay may be attributed to the [1082]*1082fault of the household HRS must have “offered to assist the household in obtaining required verification....” If HRS did not fulfill this obligation, the delay should be attributed to its own fault and under 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(3)(ii) the household may be entitled to retroactive benefits.

The hearing officer in this case suggested that HRS is not obligated to offer assistance unless it would be “difficult or impossible” for the household to provide the desired verification. But 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(l)(i)(C) does not qualify HRS’ obligation in this manner. Nor does 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(f)(5), which the hearing officer cited and quoted, contain any such limitation with regard to HRS’ obligation. And 7 C.F.R. section 273.15(q)(l) mandates that the hearing officer’s decision comply with the federal regulations. In concluding that the delay in this case should be attributed to the fault of the household because the necessary verification was neither difficult nor impossible to provide, the hearing officer’s decision does not comply with 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(l)(i)(C) and 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(f)(5), which obligate HRS to offer and provide assistance without such qualification.

The order appealed is reversed, and the cause remanded.

SMITH, J., concurs. ERVIN, J., concurs and dissents with written opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ALLEN, Judge.

The appellant challenges an administrative order approving the action of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in prorating food stamp benefits for the appellant’s household. HRS determined the household’s eligibility and prorated benefits as of the date that HRS completed its verification of certain household information. Because this determination was not made within thirty days following the date the application for benefits was filed, 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(1) requires a further determination as to whether the delay should be attributed to the fault of the household, or the fault of HRS. For cases of incomplete verification, 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(l)(i)(C) indicates that before a delay may be attributed to the [1082]*1082fault of the household HRS must have “offered to assist the household in obtaining required verification....” If HRS did not fulfill this obligation, the delay should be attributed to its own fault and under 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(3)(ii) the household may be entitled to retroactive benefits.

The hearing officer in this case suggested that HRS is not obligated to offer assistance unless it would be “difficult or impossible” for the household to provide the desired verification. But 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(l)(i)(C) does not qualify HRS’ obligation in this manner. Nor does 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(f)(5), which the hearing officer cited and quoted, contain any such limitation with regard to HRS’ obligation. And 7 C.F.R. section 273.15(q)(l) mandates that the hearing officer’s decision comply with the federal regulations. In concluding that the delay in this case should be attributed to the fault of the household because the necessary verification was neither difficult nor impossible to provide, the hearing officer’s decision does not comply with 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(h)(l)(i)(C) and 7 C.F.R. section 273.2(f)(5), which obligate HRS to offer and provide assistance without such qualification.

The order appealed is reversed, and the cause remanded.

SMITH, J., concurs. ERVIN, J., concurs and dissents with written opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

590 So. 2d 1081, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 12713, 1991 WL 272762, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alexander-v-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack