Wistedt v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wistedt v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services

551 So. 2d 1236, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2404, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5733, 1989 WL 120478

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2880

StatusPublished

This text of 551 So. 2d 1236 (Wistedt v. State, 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

Wistedt v. State, Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 551 So. 2d 1236, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2404, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5733, 1989 WL 120478 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

MINER, Judge.

The claimant, Tore Wistedt, appeals the hearings officer’s denial of Medicaid benefits based on the claimant’s failure to timely provide the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) with requested application documentation. He contends that his failure to provide this documentation with his application has been remedied by its introduction and receipt into evidence, without the Department’s objection, at the administrative hearing. The Department has failed to respond. We agree and we reverse.

The hearings officer recognized the claimant’s right to introduce the requested documents in his notice of hearing and during the commencement of the proceedings below. The hearings officer admitted the relevant documents without the Department’s objection. However, in his final order, he confirmed the Department’s denial of Medicaid benefits based on the claimant’s failure to timely provide the requested documents with his application.

[1237]*1237Florida Administrative Code Rules 10-2.-057(3), .060(1), and .066, require the hearings officer to conduct a de novo hearing in which the claimant shall have the right to introduce any relevant evidence with substantial probative effect and to base his final order exclusively upon evidence and other materials introduced at the hearing. The hearings officer’s express failure to consider the relevant documents directly conflicts with his obligations under the Code. Therefore we reverse and remand with directions to the hearings officer to consider all evidence introduced and admitted at hearing.

SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

MINER, Judge.

The claimant, Tore Wistedt, appeals the hearings officer’s denial of Medicaid benefits based on the claimant’s failure to timely provide the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department) with requested application documentation. He contends that his failure to provide this documentation with his application has been remedied by its introduction and receipt into evidence, without the Department’s objection, at the administrative hearing. The Department has failed to respond. We agree and we reverse.

The hearings officer recognized the claimant’s right to introduce the requested documents in his notice of hearing and during the commencement of the proceedings below. The hearings officer admitted the relevant documents without the Department’s objection. However, in his final order, he confirmed the Department’s denial of Medicaid benefits based on the claimant’s failure to timely provide the requested documents with his application.

[1237]*1237Florida Administrative Code Rules 10-2.-057(3), .060(1), and .066, require the hearings officer to conduct a de novo hearing in which the claimant shall have the right to introduce any relevant evidence with substantial probative effect and to base his final order exclusively upon evidence and other materials introduced at the hearing. The hearings officer’s express failure to consider the relevant documents directly conflicts with his obligations under the Code. Therefore we reverse and remand with directions to the hearings officer to consider all evidence introduced and admitted at hearing.

SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

551 So. 2d 1236, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2404, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5733, 1989 WL 120478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wistedt-v-state-department-of-health-rehabilitative-services-fladistctapp-1989.