Centre for Counseling & Education, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Centre for Counseling & Education, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

469 So. 2d 934, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1332, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14297

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 28, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2455

StatusPublished

This text of 469 So. 2d 934 (Centre for Counseling & Education, Inc. 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

Centre for Counseling & Education, Inc. v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 469 So. 2d 934, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1332, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14297 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The order is affirmed insofar as it determined that the appellant was not entitled to renew the contract between it and H.R.S. for the 1983-84 fiscal year, since even if, arguen-do, the appellant had the right to unilaterally renew such contract, it is apparent that such right had to be exercised before the expiration of the preceding fiscal year, that is, before H.R.S. committed its available funds. Insofar as the order determines that $17,962.75 is due to District XI of H.R.S., it is reversed, with directions that the recommendation of the hearing officer that H.R.S. is liable to the appellant in the amount of $50,411.50 pursuant to the contract for the 1982-83 fiscal year be approved. Our review of the record compels us to conclude that the findings of the hearing officer concerning the amounts due under the contract were based upon competent substantial evidence, and that the agency’s rejection of those findings constitutes an improper attempt to reweigh the same evidence. See Wash & Dry Vending Company v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, 429 So.2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The order is affirmed insofar as it determined that the appellant was not entitled to renew the contract between it and H.R.S. for the 1983-84 fiscal year, since even if, arguen-do, the appellant had the right to unilaterally renew such contract, it is apparent that such right had to be exercised before the expiration of the preceding fiscal year, that is, before H.R.S. committed its available funds. Insofar as the order determines that $17,962.75 is due to District XI of H.R.S., it is reversed, with directions that the recommendation of the hearing officer that H.R.S. is liable to the appellant in the amount of $50,411.50 pursuant to the contract for the 1982-83 fiscal year be approved. Our review of the record compels us to conclude that the findings of the hearing officer concerning the amounts due under the contract were based upon competent substantial evidence, and that the agency’s rejection of those findings constitutes an improper attempt to reweigh the same evidence. See Wash & Dry Vending Company v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, 429 So.2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 So. 2d 934, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1332, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/centre-for-counseling-education-inc-v-department-of-health-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack