THE CENTRE FOR COUNSELING AND EDUCATION, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the Department's denial of contract renewal but reversed its rejection of the hearing officer's finding that the Department owed the appellant $50,411.50 under the prior fiscal year contract, holding that the agency improperly reweighed evidence rather than deferring to competent substantial evidence findings.
An agency improperly reweighs evidence when it rejects a hearing officer's findings supported by competent substantial evidence, and contract renewal rights, if they exist, must be exercised before the prior fiscal year expires and funds are committed.
[1] An administrative agency improperly reweighs evidence when it rejects findings of a hearing officer that are supported by competent substantial evidence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the agency's rejection of those findings constitutes an improper attempt to reweigh the same evidence”
The court explained why the Department's rejection of the hearing officer's factual findings was improper under administrative law standards.
The Centre for Counseling and Education, Inc. contracted with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (H.R.S.) for services. A dispute ar…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contract Renewal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The order is affirmed insofar as it determined that the appellant was not entitled to renew the contract between it and H.R.S. for the 1983-84 fiscal year, since even if, arguen-do, the appellant had the right to unilaterally renew such contract, it is apparent that such right had to be exercised before the expiration of the preceding fiscal year, that is, before H.R.S. committed its available funds. Insofar as the order determines that $17,962.75 is due to District XI of H.R.S., it is reversed, with directions that the recommendation of the hearing officer that H.R.S. is liable to the appellant in the amount of $50,411.50 pursuant to the contract for the 1982-83 fiscal year be approved. Our review of the record compels us to conclude that the findings of the hearing officer concerning the amounts due under the contract were based upon competent substantial evidence, and that the agency’s rejection of those findings constitutes an improper attempt to reweigh the same evidence. See Wash & Dry Vending Company v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, 429 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Azalee Parker v. Claretha Murray & Metro. Dade Cnty., 429 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)