S.D. C/O CHERRI MARTINEZ, 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.
Appellant S.D. appealed a final order reducing her Medicaid-funded personal care and homemaker services. The court found that her due process rights were violated when the hearing officer accepted additional evidence without party agreement and without opportunity for rebuttal, and also erred by relying on a non-existent 2015 assessment.
Yes. The hearing officer violated S.D.'s due process rights by holding the record open for additional evidence without seeking and obtaining the parties' agreement and without providing each party an opportunity to address and rebut the other side's evidence. Additionally, the hearing officer erred in relying on a February 2015 701B assessment when only a February 2014 assessment existed in the record.
[1] A due process violation occurs when a hearing officer holds the record open for additional evidence without the agreement of all parties and without providing an opportun…
[2] A final administrative order must be based exclusively on evidence introduced at the hearing or submitted after the hearing upon agreement of all parties.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 Final Order [of the Office of Appeal Hearings of the Department of Children and Family Services] shall be based exclusively on evidence and other materials introduced at the hearing or material submitted after the hearing upon [*43] agreement of all parties.”
Establishes the requirement that additional evidence can only be submitted after the hearing with agreement of all parties, which was violated here.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceS.D. received personal care and homemaker services through Medicaid. The Agency for Health Care Administration approved a reduction in these services.…
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 Confrontation Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, S.D. c/o Cherri Martinez, appeals a Final Order of the Department of Children and Families that .approved the reduction of personal care and homemaker services that Appellant receives through Medicaid. As Appellant argues, and as Appellee, the Agency for Health Care Administration, acknowledges, Appellant’s right to due process was violated when the hearing officer, following the hearing addressing Appellant’s reduction in services, held the record open for the submission of additional evidence without seeking and obtaining the parties’ agreement and without providing each, party the opportunity to address and rebut the other side’s additional evidence. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65-2.066(2) (“The Final Order [of the Office of Appeal Hearings of the Department of Children and Family Services] shall be based exclusively on evidence and other materials introduced at the hearing or material submitted after the hearing upon *43agreement of all parties.”); 42 .C.F.R. § 481.242(e) (providing that an applicant or beneficiary under Medicaid must., be given an opportunity to “[q]uestion or refute any testimony or evidence”); 45 C.F.R § 205.10(a)(13)(vi) (providing that a “claimant [for public assistance], or his representative, shall have adequate opportunity” “[t]o question or refute any testimony or evidencé, including opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses”); 42 C.F.R. § 431.205(d) (providing that the hearing system employed by the “Medicaid agency” “must meet the due process standards set forth in Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 [90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287] (1970) [including the right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses relied upon by the agency], and any additional standards specified in this subpart”). We also. agree with Appellant that the hearing officer erred in relying on a February 2015 701B assessment when the only February 701B assessment included in the record was from 2014, a fact also acknowledged by the Agency. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65-2.066(2).
Accordingly, we REVERSE the • Final Order and REMAND for a new hearing.
LEWIS, BILBREY, and WINOKUR, JJ,, concur.