Leon FL Lawyers | Cindy Leann Huddleston -- eLawyers

SC14-211 The Florida Bar Re: Advisory Opinion – Medicaid Planning Activities by Nonlawyers (2015)

Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Jan. 15, 2015

Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC14-211 _ THE FLORIDA BAR RE: ADVISORY OPINION— MEDICAID PLANNING ACTIVITIES BY NONLAWYERS. [January 15, 2015] PER CURIAM. Pursuant to Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 10-9.1, the Florida Bar Elder Law Section’s Unlicensed Practice of Law Subcommittee petitioned the Florida Bar’s Standing Committee on the Unlicensed Practice of Law (Standing Committee) for an advisory opinion on whether it constitutes the unlicensed practice of law for a nonlawyer to engage in the f..

08-001577RP CARRIE JOHNSON, AS LAWFUL CUSTODIAN AND NEXT FRIEND OF MINOR CHILD, JEVON EVENS vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 28, 2008

Whether proposed rule 65A-1.900(2)(a) of Respondent is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious and/or it enlarges, modifies, or contravenes Section 414.41, Florida Statutes, the specific provision of law implemented.The proposed rule is not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; operative cut-off date of 10/01/07 for repayment of public assistance benefit overpayment is not arbitrary and does not contravene statute.

08-003106RP CARRIE JOHNSON, AS LAWFUL CUSTODIAN AND NEXT FRIEND OF MINOR CHILD JEVON EVANS vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 25, 2008

Whether the Notice of Change to proposed rule 65A-1.900(2)(a) of Respondent is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, under Subsection 120.56(1)(c), Florida Statutes, because the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious and because Respondent has failed to follow rulemaking procedure or requirements in attempting to change its proposed rule.It is not improper to remove a sentence from a proposed rule through use of a Notice of Change. The proposed change is not arbitrary.

93-002297RU LEE ANN FLAGG vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 23, 1993

The issues are (1) whether Respondent's Rule 10C-32.002(4), caseload prioritization rule, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority and (2) whether Respondent has violated Section 120.535, Florida Statutes, by adoption of a child care freeze policy, which meets the definition of a rule under Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes, without complying with the rulemaking procedures established by Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.Caseload prioritization rule invalid excercise of delegated legislative aut- hority/unpromulgated child care freeze policy a rule/standing.

93-002623RU ALEXIA MOLINA, YOLANDA GONZALEZ, YANARI GONZALEZ vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 13, 1993

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Department/HRS), has a policy, not yet promulgated as a rule, of failing to follow allegedly binding judicial precedent (called henceforth the "non-acquiescence rule").Petitioners failed to show similar situated to appellants in court decision HRS accused of failing to follow as an unpromulgated policy-Even if so, HRS shown to be complying

93-005311RE MILDRED HENRY vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 13, 1993

Whether Emergency Rule 10CER92-4 should be invalidated because it constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Rule held in valid after enactment of statue dealing specifically with sub- ject matter.

90-005157RP JOSEPH GRAINGER, SHELLY GRAINGER, AND CHRISTOPHER GRAINGER vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1990)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 17, 1990

The issue at the hearing was whether Petitioners' had standing to challenge Respondent's proposed Rule 10C-1.115, Florida Administrative Code.Aid For Families with Dependent Children rule challenge-no standing where recipients not currently qualified for benefits even if may be qualified in near future

89-004425RP MARINA BRASETCH AND NOLA LITTLE vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 10, 1989

The issue for consideration is the validity of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' Proposed Rules 10C-1.080, 10C-1.082, and 10C-1.107, Florida Administrative Code, as appropriate exercises of delegated legislative authority.New rules which in effect delay and reduce payments to Aid For Dependent Children clients are neither arbitrary nor capricious and are within scope of delegated legislative authority

88-004583RP TESHA LASHAWN ATKINSON, LATESHA BARKI ATKINSON, AND TIFFANY LASHAWN ATKINSON vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1988)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Nov. 17, 1989

The central issue in this case is whether the proposed rule 10C-1.113, Florida Administrative Code, is invalid.Rule exceeds guideline established by statute and is, therefore, invalid despite noble intention as to portions exceeding the statute.

89-001581RP LORI LYNN FLOWERS; JAMES WAYNE FLOWERS AND SHAWN ALLEN FLOWERS, BY AND THROUGH LORI LYNN FLOWERS, THEIR MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND; DORIS BRIGHT; ROBERT JENKINS, JANICE BRIGHT, ROBIN BRIGHT, THERESA BRIGHT AND MELISSA BRIGHT, BY AND THROUGH DORIS BRIGHT, vs. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jun. 09, 1989

The issue is whether the proposed amendments to Rule 10C-1.085, Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Economic Impact Statement standard of review. Proposed rule permitting HRS to force recovery of overpaid Aid For Dependent Children regardless of hardship is invalid. Irrebuttable presumption.

Cindy Leann Huddleston