ASSOCIATED HOME HEALTH INDUSTRIES OF FLORIDA, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed that a home health services rule properly implements the statutory definition limiting regulated home health services to those provided by licensed agency personnel or under agency arrangement, rejecting the challenger's argument that plain statutory language should be disregarded to effectuate broader legislative intent.
A rule defining home health services as those supplied by home health agency personnel or under arrangement with the agency is consistent with and a valid exercise of delegated authority under the plain language of the statute.
[1] When statutory language is plain and unambiguous, an administrative rule implementing that language is a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority and cannot be i…
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 intelligenceAssociated Home Health Industries challenged Proposed Rule 59G-8.200, arguing that the rule's interpretation of home health services was inconsistent …
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 Delegated Legislative Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Associated Home Health Industries of Florida, Inc. (AHHI) appeals a final order from the Division of Administrative Hearings denying a challenge to Proposed Rule 59G-8.200, Fla.Admin.Code. As the Hearing Officer found, the rule is consistent with the plain and unambiguous language of section 400.462(6), Florida Statutes (1995), which defines “home health services” as service supplied “by home health agency personnel or by others under arrangement with the agency.” The Hearing Officer found that the statute did not make all health services provided in a private residence “home health services” governed by chapter 400. Rather, the hearing officer concluded, the Legislature imposed the obligations of chapter 400 only on those providing home health services who hold themselves out to the public as licensed home health agency personnel. AHHI argues that this court should ignore the clear meaning of the statute because applying the plain and unambiguous language of the law would not effectuate the legislative intent to protect those in need of home health services. We disagree. The Hearing Officer was correct in concluding that the rule comports with the statute, and was therefore not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority or arbitrary and capricious. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
ERVIN, J., and SMITH, Senior Judge, concur.