STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MAYCIA McGHEE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 84-0615L

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This matter came on for hearing in Orlando, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Diane K. Kiesling, on April 12, 1984. Petitioner appeared on her own behalf. Respondent was represented by counsel: Gerry Clark, Esquire, District Legal Counsel, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 912, Orlando, Florida 32801.

The question in this case is whether Ms. McGhee's household is eligible for benefits under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program administered by Respondent. Ms. McGhee filed an application for those benefits and the application was denied because McGhee failed to supply verification of CETA income. At bearing the Petitioner presented her own testimony and one exhibit. The Respondent presented the testimony of Ernita Bradley and Lynthia Thacker, along with two exhibits.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. McGhee, the Petitioner, resides at 3807 West Columbia Street, Orlando, Florida. She filed an application for home energy assistance benefits on November 7, 1983. On that application she indicated household income for three persons: Maycia McGhee-$324 per month in Disability and 551; Pamela McGhee-$108 per month from CETA; Stephanie McGhee-$231 per month in AFDC. Ernita Bradley, an HRS employee, was the only person who reviewed and handled Ms. McGhee's case. Ms. Bradley reviewed this application and determined that additional information was needed. Specifically, Ms. McGhee needed to furnish the ages of Stephanie and Pamela; the number of handicapped persons in the

   household; and income verification from CETA and 551 Disability for the month of November, 1983.

   
   

2. Ms. McGhee went to the HRS office on November 28, 1983. She does not recall why she went, but she did see Ms. Bradley on that date. What occurred during that meeting is the source of the present conflict.

   
   

3. Ms. McGhee testified that she had the CETA verification from Orange County Vocational with her on November 28, 1983, and that she gave that information to Ms. Bradley. She also stated that she does not recall being asked for the ages of Stephanie and Pamela or the number of handicapped in the

   household. Ms. McGhee was unable to offer an explanation of how she knew she needed a CETA income verification statement on November 28, 1983, but she just somehow knew that she needed it. Ms. McGhee also acknowledges that during this meeting Ms. Bradley informed her that she was getting ready to send her a letter and instead handed her a letter dated November 28, 1983 requesting the additional information set forth above. Ms. McGhee acknowledges that she did nothing further in regard to her application after the November 28, 1983, meeting because she didn't know that she needed to supply any additional information.

   
   

4. Ernita Bradley testified that she recalled Ms. McGhee's visit on November 28, 1983, and she furnished notes that she made the same day as the visit to substantiate her testimony. These notes contained in Respondent's Exhibit 2 and Ms. Bradley's testimony establish that on November 28, 1983, Ms. McGhee came to Ms. Bradley's office and supplied some of the requested information. Ms. McGhee furnished the ages of Stephanie and Pamela and stated that she was the only person disabled in the household. Ms. Bradley testified that she told Ms. McGhee that the SSI verification was not necessary because she had verified that income from the HRS computer. Ms. Bradley emphasized to Ms. McGhee that she needed to bring a check stub or income verification of the CETA income for Pamela. Ms. Bradley further testified that Ms. McGhee stated that she would bring that information.

   
   

5. Ms. Bradley beard nothing further from Ms. McGhee. The letter, Respondent's Exhibit 1, gave until December 12, 1983, for Ms. McGhee to furnish the information. Ms. Bradley testified that she gave Ms. McGhee ten more days to get the CETA verification, but after waiting until December 20, 1983, Ms. Bradley denied the application because the verification of CETA income was never received.

   
   

6. Because the conflict between the testimony of Ms. Bradley and the testimony of Ms. McGhee must be resolved, it is found that the testimony of Ms. Bradley is more persuasive. This finding is based on the existence of notes made by Ms. Bradley contemporaneous with the events and the vague and imprecise testimony of Ms. McGhee, especially as to details. It is additionally found that Ms. McGhee did not submit verification of the CETA income as requested. Additionally, she did not bring that information with her to the hearing in this matter either.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

8. The parties hereto were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provision of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

   
   

9. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is charged with administration of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program pursuant to Section 409.508, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the rules promulgated for this program, an applicant will be ineligible for assistance and his application will be denied if the applicant does not provide requested information within a specified deadline date. The subject Rule 10C-29.15(6), Florida Administrative Code, authorizes a written request for information with a deadline date of ten working days from the date of the request. In the present case, there was no credible evidence presented that the Petitioner supplied the income verification

for CETA income to HRS. It is further concluded that no credible evidence of this income was presented at bearing. Because Petitioner did not file income verification prior to the deadline given by HRS and because Petitioner did not establish by credible evidence at this bearing the level of that income, it is concluded that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate eligibility for the benefits requested.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny Petitioner's application for benefits under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Maycia McGhee

3807 West Columbia Street Orlando, Florida 32805

Gerry Clark, Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services

400 West Robinson, Suite 912 Orlando, Florida 32801

David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and

Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

DIANE K. KIESLING

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904)488-9675

FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1984.

Docket for Case No: 84-000615

Orders for Case No: 84-000615