Harriman v. Department of Children & Families

867 So. 2d 1264, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3501, 2004 WL 524781
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 18, 2004·No. No. 1D02-4066·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Joan Harriman appeals the Department of Children and Families’s dismissal of her hearing after the termination of her Medicaid benefits. At her hearing, appellant argued in part that despite an amended statute, which changed the income requirements for option medical assistance payments, she was still entitled to benefits under another statute. She also argued that under state and federal case law, once she qualified for Medicaid, she was protected from termination of her benefits. The hearing officer dismissed the hearing in accordance with 42 C.F.R. section 431.220(b) (2002), which states: “The agency need not grant a hearing if the sole issue is a Federal or State law requiring an automatic change adversely affecting some or all recipients.”

It is clear that appellant was, at least in part, challenging the termination of her benefits for reasons other than the change in law automatically affecting her benefits. Appellant, therefore, was entitled to a hearing on these issues. See 42 C.F.R. § 431.220(a)(2) (stating that an agency must hold a hearing when a recipient requests a hearing “because he or she believes the agency has taken an action erroneously”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to hold a hearing at which appellant may contest DCF’s allegedly erroneous termination of her Medicaid benefits.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

WOLF, C.J., PADOVANO and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

Harriman v. Department of Children & Families, 867 So. 2d 1264, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 3501, 2004 WL 524781 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

867 So. 2d 1264 (Harriman v. Department of Children & Families) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wood v. Betlach
922 F. Supp. 2d 836 (D. Arizona, 2013)
Deklyen v. Truckers World, Inc.
867 So. 2d 1264 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)