Case ID: so3d_159/html/0290-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SCALES, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abel DI NOBILE, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 3D14-3018.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    March 4, 2015.
    Abel Di Nobile, in proper person.
    Leslie Hinds St-Surin, Office of General Counsel, Florida Department of Children and Families, for appellee.
    Before SUAREZ, EMAS and SCALES, JJ.
   SCALES, J.

On October 16, 2014, a hearing officer for the Florida Department of Children and Families (“DCF”) conducted a hearing on DCF’s denial of Abel Di Nobile’s (“Di Nobile”) application for Medicaid benefits. On November 14, 2014, the hearing officer entered a Final Order affirming DCF’s denial of Medicaid benefits.

On December 16, 2014, Di Nobile filed a notice of appeal with this Court. As required by rule 9.110(d) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the notice of appeal provided the date of rendition as November 14, 2014. Yet contrary to rule 9.110(d), Di Nobile did not attach to the notice of appeal a conformed copy of the Final Order, for the order he attached did not contain DCF’s date stamp.

Subsequently, DCF filed with this Court a date-stamped copy of the Final Order showing the date of rendition as November 14, 2014. DCF then filed a motion to dismiss Di Nobile’s appeal on the basis that Di Nobile’s appeal was untimely. DCF argued that because Di Nobile filed his notice of appeal more than thirty days after the date of rendition of the Final Order, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b).

We are compelled to grant DCF’s motion. We lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal of final agency action when the notice of appeal is not filed within thirty days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed. Hawks v. Walker, 409 So.2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).

We are powerless to modify this jurisdictional rule even when, as Di Nobile alerts this Court, the copy of the order he received from DCF did not contain a date-stamped first page.

Appeal dismissed.