Case Name: William LOONEY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-02-29
Citations: 185 So. 3d 1303
Docket Number: No. 1D15-1960
Parties: William LOONEY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
Judges: " ROWE, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., ' concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 185
Pages: 1303–1303

Head Matter:
William LOONEY, Appellant, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.
No. 1D15-1960.
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.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, William Looney, challenges a hearing officer's final order affirming a decision by the Department of Children and Families (the Department) regarding the calculation of Looney's patient responsibility amount (PRA) under Medicaid's Institutional Care Program (ICP). Looney argued that his substantial interests were determined when the Department, in reliance on an agency policy which had not been promulgated by rule, denied his request to reduce his PRA by deducting expenses he had previously incurred for nursing home care. The hearing officer declined to consider whether the Department's denial of Looney'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 authorized to consider Looney's.argument that the Department erred,in determining his 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 Looney's request as the hearing officer has not yet ruled on this issue.
" ROWE, RAY, and SWANSON, JJ., ' concur.