JACKSON HEIGHTS NH, LLC, ETC.,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION,
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.
Jackson Heights NH, LLC appeals an Agency for Health Care Administration final order regarding Medicaid overpayment recoupment. The court affirmed the agency decision, holding that the provider failed to timely file a written request for hearing and that statutory time limits do not operate as jurisdictional bars.
The court affirmed the final agency decision, holding that: (1) the Medicaid provider failed to file a timely written request for hearing within twenty-one days; (2) the statute of limitations does not operate as a jurisdictional bar but is an affirmative defense; and (3) claims of error cannot be raised for the first time on appeal in the administrative context.
[1] A Medicaid provider must file a written request for hearing within twenty-one days of receiving notice of overpayments designated for recoupment.
[2] Ordinary statutes of limitations do not operate as a jurisdictional bar to a claim.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“[O]rdinary statutes of limitations are mere affirmative defenses for the opponent of the claim to plead and prove, and do not act as a jurisdictional bar.”
Establishes that the statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional requirement and must be affirmatively pleaded as a defense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Agency for Health Care Administration initiated a dispute with Jackson Heights NH, LLC regarding designated Medicaid overpayments for recoupment. …
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.
PER CURIAM.
As the letter initiating this dispute does not reflect the relevant dates of the overpayments designated for recoupment, the Medicaid provider failed to file a written request for hearing within twenty-one days, and the statute of limitations does not operate as a jurisdictional bar, we affirm the final agency decision under review.
See Comerica Bank & Tr., F.S.B. v. SDI Operating Partners, L.P., 673 So. 2d 163, 166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“[O]rdinary statutes of limitations are mere affirmative defenses for the opponent of the claim to plead and prove,” and do not act as a jurisdictional bar.); see also Lewis Foster Homes LLC v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 281 So. 3d 619, 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“[B]ecause Appellant did not request a hearing to respond to the Agency's complaint, its challenge to the facts alleged in the complaint, which the Agency accepted in its final order, was waived.”) (citation omitted); Goodson v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof’l Regulation, 978 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“[I]t is well established that a claim of error, even in the administrative context, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”) (citations omitted); Stueber v. Gallagher, 812 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“In administrative appeals a claim of error cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”) (citations omitted); Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (“It is axiomatic that appellate review is confined to the record on appeal. An appellate court will not consider evidence that was not presented to the lower tribunal because the function of an appellate court is to determine whether the lower tribunal committed error based on the issues and evidence before it.”) (citations omitted).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson Heights NH, LLC v. State, 281 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…a. 4th DCA 1996) (“[O]rdinary statutes of limitations are mere affirmative defenses for the opponent of the claim to plead and prove,” and do not act as a jurisdictional bar.); see also Lewis Foster Homes LLC v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 281 So. 3d 619, 620 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (“[B]ecause Appellant did not request a hearing to respond to the Agency's complaint, its challenge to the facts alleged in the complaint, which the Agency accepted in its final order, was waived.”) (citation omitted); Goods…
-
Heniy Dixon v. Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…s, that rule expressly excepts requests for hearing under rule 28-106.111.”) (quoting Cann v. Dep't of Children & Family Servs., 813 So. 2d 237, 238-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). See also Lewis Foster Homes LLC v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 281 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (applying rule 28-106.111 to final order revoking a license where the appellant never requested a hearing); Aleong v. State, Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 963 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (applying rule 28- 5 106.11…
Authorities Cited
- Stueber v. Tom Gallagher as Commissioner of Education, 812 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Jackson Heights NH, LLC v. State, 281 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)