FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-1309

LT Case No. 1191447308

_____________________________

S.W.,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN 

AND FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________ 

Administrative Appeal from the Florida Department of Children 

and Families. 

Samantha B. Myers, of Hall Booth Smith, P.C., West Palm 

Beach, for Appellant. 

David G. Tucker, Regional Counsel, Northeast Region, Florida, of

Department of Children and Families, Jacksonville, for Appellee. 

June 21, 2024 

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. 
2

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. 
3

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.

_____________________________