CINDY GILBERT, 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 a $15.00 monthly AFDC recoupment but held that the administrative rule cannot mandate recoupment without a hearing officer's finding that extreme hardship will not result, as required by Florida Statute 409.335(1).
An administrative rule requiring AFDC recoupment at a fixed rate cannot override the statutory requirement that recoupment be denied if extreme hardship would result.
[1] An administrative rule prescribing a fixed recoupment rate for AFDC overpayments does not eliminate the statutory requirement that a hearing officer must find no extreme…
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 rule may not create a mandatory recoupment in derogation of section 409.335(1), Florida Statutes (1993), which requires recoupment 'unless it is determined that extreme hardship would result if repayment were forced at that time.'”
Court explaining that the administrative rule cannot override the statutory hardship exception
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services established a $15.00 monthly recoupment from Gilbert's AFDC benefits. The hearings officer denied…
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 Administrative Law cases and more on FLexlaw
BARFIELD, Judge.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ establishment of a recoupment of $15.00 per month from the appellant’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits is AFFIRMED. However, this affirmance is predicated on the record and the factual findings made below, which indicate that extreme hardship will not be caused by the recoupment. See Chandler v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 593 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
We reject the appellee’s argument that the rationale of Chandler is inapplicable to proceedings under rule 10C-1.900, Florida Administrative Code, which provides: “The department shall recoup overpayments from the grants of current AFDC recipients at a rate of 5% of the AFDC payment standard for the size of the assistance group.” In the final order, the hearings officer concluded that the appellant’s hardship argument afforded no relief because “... the Hearings Officer is bound by the rule as cited above.” As in Chandler, the rule may not create a mandatory recoupment in derogation of section 409.335(1), Florida Statutes (1993), which requires recoupment “unless it is determined that extreme hardship would result if repayment were forced at that time.” The hearings officer must make a finding on the issue of extreme hardship.
ALLEN and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Chandler v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 593 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)