Gilbert v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gilbert v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

650 So. 2d 229, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1647, 1995 WL 67051

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 21, 1995

DocketNo. 93-3909

StatusPublished

This text of 650 So. 2d 229 (Gilbert 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

Gilbert v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 650 So. 2d 229, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1647, 1995 WL 67051 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ establishment of a recoupment of $15.00 per month from the appellant’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits is AFFIRMED. However, this affirmance is predicated on the record and the factual findings made below, which indicate that extreme hardship will not be caused by the recoupment. See Chandler v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 593 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

We reject the appellee’s argument that the rationale of Chandler is inapplicable to proceedings under rule 10C-1.900, Florida Administrative Code, which provides: “The department shall recoup overpayments from the grants of current AFDC recipients at a rate of 5% of the AFDC payment standard for the size of the assistance group.” In the final order, the hearings officer concluded that the appellant’s hardship argument afforded no relief because “... the Hearings Officer is bound by the rule as cited above.” As in Chandler, the rule may not create a mandatory recoupment in derogation of section 409.335(1), Florida Statutes (1993), [230]*230which requires recoupment “unless it is determined that extreme hardship would result if repayment were forced at that time.” The hearings officer must make a finding on the issue of extreme hardship.

ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ establishment of a recoupment of $15.00 per month from the appellant’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits is AFFIRMED. However, this affirmance is predicated on the record and the factual findings made below, which indicate that extreme hardship will not be caused by the recoupment. See Chandler v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 593 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

We reject the appellee’s argument that the rationale of Chandler is inapplicable to proceedings under rule 10C-1.900, Florida Administrative Code, which provides: “The department shall recoup overpayments from the grants of current AFDC recipients at a rate of 5% of the AFDC payment standard for the size of the assistance group.” In the final order, the hearings officer concluded that the appellant’s hardship argument afforded no relief because “... the Hearings Officer is bound by the rule as cited above.” As in Chandler, the rule may not create a mandatory recoupment in derogation of section 409.335(1), Florida Statutes (1993), [230]*230which requires recoupment “unless it is determined that extreme hardship would result if repayment were forced at that time.” The hearings officer must make a finding on the issue of extreme hardship.

ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

650 So. 2d 229, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 1647, 1995 WL 67051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gilbert-v-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack