Manning v. State, Department of Children & Families

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Manning v. State, Department of Children & Families

704 So. 2d 127, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11572, 1997 WL 634115

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1997

DocketNo. 97-742

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 704 So. 2d 127 (Manning v. State, 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

Manning v. State, Department of Children & Families, 704 So. 2d 127, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11572, 1997 WL 634115 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Julie A. Manning, challenges a final order of the Office of Appeal Hearings, Department of Children and Families (Department), which affirmed the Department’s denial of Medicaid disability benefits to appellant. In the order on appeal, the hearing officer failed to include any factual findings, any reference to competent substantial evidence in the record, any reasons for rejecting appellant’s evidence, or any other rationale to support his conclusion that Manning’s impairments, either individually or in combination, do not meet or equal a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See Scordas v. State, Dep’t of HRS, 649 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Edlin v. Department of HRS, 633 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Further, nothing in the hearing officer’s order indicates that he considered appellant’s complaints of pain in determining whether she qualified for disability benefits. See Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221 (11th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we REVERSE the [128]*128order on appeal and REMAND this cause for further proceedings.

BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Julie A. Manning, challenges a final order of the Office of Appeal Hearings, Department of Children and Families (Department), which affirmed the Department’s denial of Medicaid disability benefits to appellant. In the order on appeal, the hearing officer failed to include any factual findings, any reference to competent substantial evidence in the record, any reasons for rejecting appellant’s evidence, or any other rationale to support his conclusion that Manning’s impairments, either individually or in combination, do not meet or equal a listed impairment in 20 C.F.R. Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1. See Scordas v. State, Dep’t of HRS, 649 So.2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Edlin v. Department of HRS, 633 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Further, nothing in the hearing officer’s order indicates that he considered appellant’s complaints of pain in determining whether she qualified for disability benefits. See Holt v. Sullivan, 921 F.2d 1221 (11th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we REVERSE the [128]*128order on appeal and REMAND this cause for further proceedings.

BARFIELD, C.J., and KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

704 So. 2d 127, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11572, 1997 WL 634115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-v-state-department-of-children-families-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack