Case ID: so3d_185/html/1303-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christel NEWMAN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
    No. 1D15-2099.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    Feb. 29, 2016.
    Robert W. Pass, Martha Harrell Chum-bler, and Christine Davis Graves of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Camille Larson, Assistant Region Counsel, NW Region, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Christel Newman, challenges a‘hearing officer’s final order affirming a decision by the Department of Children and Families (the Department) regarding the calculation of Newman’s patient responsibility amount (PRA) under Medicaid’s Institutional Care' Program (ICP). Newman argued that her substantial interests were determined when the Department,' in reliance' on an agency policy which had riot been promulgated' by rule, denied her request to reduce her PRA by deducting expenses she had previously incurred for nursing home care. The hearing officer declined to consider whether the Department’s denial of Newman’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 authorised to consider Newman’s argument that the Department erréd in determining her 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 Newman’s.request as the hearing officer has not yet ruled on this issue.

■ ROWE, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.