McCray v. DEPT. OF HLT. & REHAB. SERV

384 So. 2d 980
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 24, 1980
Docket79-2130
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 384 So. 2d 980 (McCray v. DEPT. OF HLT. & REHAB. SERV) 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
McCray v. DEPT. OF HLT. & REHAB. SERV, 384 So. 2d 980 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Opinion

384 So.2d 980 (1980)

Janie McCRAY, Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 79-2130.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 24, 1980.

Rena Wisotsky, Marcia K. Cypen, Miami, Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc., for appellant.

Leonard Helfand, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and BASKIN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final administrative order under review is affirmed upon a holding that: (a) the termination of AFDC benefits in June 1979 as to the subject three minor children was properly upheld by the hearing officer below as there was competent, substantial evidence in the record to support such a termination [to wit, an AFDC program sheet in an audit report which was admissible below under the law of evidence as a business record and a statement of fact concerning family history], which result is not changed by the presence of other conflicting evidence in the record [to wit, a written statement by Calvin McCray II] because the hearing officer as the trier of fact was privileged to weigh and reject such conflicting evidence, G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Div. of Beverage, 362 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); §§ 90.803(6), (13), 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (1979); Fla. Admin. Code Rule 10-2.60(1); see De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla. 1957); and (b) the denial of AFDC benefits upon re-application in July 1979 as to the minor child Calvin McCray III was properly upheld by the hearing officer below as there was competent, substantial evidence in the record to support such a denial of benefits notwithstanding other contrary evidence in the record which the hearing officer was privileged to reject. G & B of Jacksonville, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Business Regulation, Div. of Beverage, 362 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); § 120.68(10), Fla. Stat. (1979); Fla. Admin. Code Rule 10-2.60(2).

Affirmed.

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

Related

Presnell v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
1 So. 3d 1113 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Linn v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission
961 So. 2d 1030 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Ritenour v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
570 So. 2d 1106 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
David Clark & Associates, Inc. v. Kennedy
390 So. 2d 149 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
384 So. 2d 980, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccray-v-dept-of-hlt-rehab-serv-fladistctapp-1980.