WILLIAM LOONEY, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, 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 reversed a hearing officer's final order and remanded, holding that the hearing officer had authority to consider whether the Department of Children and Families relied on an unpromulgated rule when calculating Looney's Medicaid patient responsibility amount.
A hearing officer is authorized to consider an argument that an agency erred in determining substantial interests by relying on an unpromulgated rule, rather than requiring such argument to be raised before an administrative law judge under section 120.56.
[1] A hearing officer has authority to consider whether an agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act by relying on an unpromulgated rule when determining an applicant'…
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 intelligenceWilliam Looney challenged the Department of Children and Families' calculation of his patient responsibility amount under Medicaid's Institutional Car…
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 Unpromulgated Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, William Looney, challenges a hearing officer’s final order affirming a decision by the Department of Children and Families (the Department) regarding the calculation of Looney’s patient responsibility amount (PRA) under Medicaid’s Institutional Care Program (ICP). Looney argued that his substantial interests were determined when the Department, in reliance on an agency policy which had not been promulgated by rule, denied his request to reduce his PRA by deducting expenses he had previously incurred for nursing home care. The hearing officer declined to consider whether the Department’s denial of Looney’s request was based on a policy which should have been promulgated as a rule, concluding that such an argument must be raised before an administrative law judge in a proceeding conducted pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes. Consistent with our opinion in Saunders v. Florida Department of Children and Families, 1D15-1959, 2016 WL 764718 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), we hold that the hearing officer was authorized to consider Looney’s.argument that the Department erred,in determining his substantial interests by relying on an unpromulgated rule. We, therefore, REVERSE the final order and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We decline to address the merits of whether.the Department relied on an unpromulgated rule when it denied Looney’s request as the hearing officer has not yet ruled on this issue.
" ROWE, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., ' concur.