Feuer v. Florida Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Feuer v. Florida Department of Children & Families

155 So. 3d 443, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 118, 2015 WL 73813

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 2015

DocketNo. 3D14-1070

StatusPublished

This text of 155 So. 3d 443 (Feuer v. Florida Department of Children & Families) 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

Feuer v. Florida Department of Children & Families, 155 So. 3d 443, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 118, 2015 WL 73813 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only issue in this appeal is whether appellant, Alan L. Feuer, received an order entered by a hearing officer in connection with appellant’s request for a hearing regarding his claim' for benefits filed with the Florida Department of Children and Families (“DCF”). Appellant claims that he did not receive the subject notice and DCF correctly argues that appellant is presumed to have received the notice because it was mailed to him in conformity with the systematic business practice of the Office of Appeal Hearings. Although the presumption does apply, it is a rebutta-ble presumption, and appellant is entitled [444]*444to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether he received notice of the issuance of the order. See Reich v. Dep’t of Health, 868 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only issue in this appeal is whether appellant, Alan L. Feuer, received an order entered by a hearing officer in connection with appellant’s request for a hearing regarding his claim' for benefits filed with the Florida Department of Children and Families (“DCF”). Appellant claims that he did not receive the subject notice and DCF correctly argues that appellant is presumed to have received the notice because it was mailed to him in conformity with the systematic business practice of the Office of Appeal Hearings. Although the presumption does apply, it is a rebutta-ble presumption, and appellant is entitled [444]*444to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of whether he received notice of the issuance of the order. See Reich v. Dep’t of Health, 868 So.2d 1275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 3d 443, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 118, 2015 WL 73813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feuer-v-florida-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack