S.W.
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
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.W. appealed DCF's denial of three separate Medicaid benefit applications filed in September, October, and December 2021. DCF issued a denial letter referencing only the September application but later took the position it applied to all three, leading to dismissal of the appeal as untimely. The court reversed, holding that the denial letter only applied to the September application and did not provide proper notice of denial for the October and December applications.
The court reversed the dismissal, holding that the denial letter applied only to the September application and did not constitute proper notice of denial for the October and December applications. Because DCF failed to send required notification of denial for those applications, the 90-day appeal deadline did not apply, and Appellant's request for hearing was timely.
[1] When an administrative agency sends written notification of denial for one application among multiple separately-filed applications, the notification constitutes notice o…
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 intelligenceAppellant filed three separate Medicaid applications in September, October, and December 2021. On January 20, 2022, DCF sent a denial letter referenci…
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 Notice Of Agency Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, S.W., appeals a final order dismissing his appeal from the Department of Children and Families’ (“DCF”) denial of Medicaid benefits. We reverse.
Appellant filed three separate applications for Medicaid benefits, one in September, October, and December of 2021, respectively. On January 20, 2022, DCF informed Appellant in a “Notice of Case Action” that the September application was denied. More than 90 days later, DCF took the position that this denial letter applied to all three applications.
As such, Appellant filed a request for hearing on the denial of the October and December applications, and DCF moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The hearing officer determined that the appeal was untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
When an application is rejected, the applicant has a right to request a hearing. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65-2.044. To that end, rule 65-2.046(1)(a) requires an applicant or authorized representative to “exercise the right to appeal within 90 calendar days” of the “date on the written notification of the decision on an application.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65-2.046(1)(a). However, “[t]he time limitation does not apply when the Department fails to send a required notification, fails to take action of a specific request or denies a request without informing the appellant.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65-2.046(2).
On appeal to this court, Appellant contends that his request for a hearing on the October and December applications was timely because the denial letter only provided notice as to the September application. We agree.
Importantly, not only did the denial letter reference only the September application, DCF never informed Appellant that it was treating the October and December applications as duplicative or as addendums to the September application. To the contrary, it appears from our record that DCF acted on them all individually. For instance, DCF requested specific information in response to each separate application, and notably, some of the requests for information varied substantively from one application to another. Based on the facts of this case, we conclude that the denial letter only applied to the September application and did not inform Appellant of a denial of the October and December applications.
DCF argues, inter alia, that the denial letter necessarily applied to all three applications because all three applications were assigned to a common case number. This argument deserves short shrift, however, because our record demonstrates that DCF also assigned the exact same case number to an application filed years ago. Clearly, the denial letter in this case did not apply to that application.
REVERSED and REMANDED. MAKAR, EISNAUGLE, and KILBANE, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.