Buckine, held a formal hearing in this case on June 3, 2002, in Largo, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: No Appearance
For Respondent: Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire
Department of Children and Family Services
11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 100
Largo, Florida 33778-1630 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether, at the time Petitioner made application for financial subsidy for wheelchair transportation, the denial by the Department, as a conclusion of law, for a lack of general revenue funds, was appropriate.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Karen Pienta, on behalf of Petitioner, Matthew Dying, a developmentally disabled wheelchair bound individual, made application to the Department of Children and Family Services (The Department) for Wheelchair Transport Service from his home to his classes and from his classes back to his home.
The Department, by letter dated November 6, 2001, denied Petitioner's request for the Wheelchair Transport Services. The Department, in its denial letter, stated: "We regret to inform you, as a conclusion of law, that your request cannot be granted within the limits of the Department's appropriated general revenue funds, and the Florida law prohibits the Department from spending or committing funds in excess of its appropriation.
Please see Section 393.13(2)(c) and (d), Florida Statutes, and refer to the State Spending Plan as approved by the Florida Legislature."
Karen Pienta filed the instant Administrative Complaint challenging the factual basis for the Department's denial of the requested Wheelchair Transport Services.
At the hearing, Respondent called one witness, Wanda Blanton, Department employee and Regional Program Supervisor for Developmental Disabilities. Ms. Blanton testified that the Department has no general revenue funds available to pay a
financial subsidy for Wheelchair Transport Services for Matthew Dying.
Ms. Blanton testified further the Department's Support Coordinator contacted Karen Pienta regarding her request. The discussion between Ms. Blanton and Ms. Pienta resulted in Matthew Dyvig's receiving transportation subsidy through Medicaid Waiver Funds. The Department administers the Medicaid Waiver services funding source.
Based upon the agreement that the Department would provide the requested services, Ms. Pienta informed the Department through Ms. Blanton that she had no further complaint and would not be attending this final hearing. The Transcript was filed on June 5, 2002, and Respondent filed the Department's Proposed Recommended Order on June 12, 2002.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the testimony of the witness and consideration of the pleadings filed in this cause, the following relevant and material facts are found.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Matthew Dying, a developmentally disabled person who lives in his family home, applied for and received services funded by the Department of Children and Family Services which
were paid, in part or in full, from the Department's General Revenue Funds.
Petitioner, by and through Kearn Pienta, made application to the Department for Wheelchair Transport Services. At no time was Petitioner advised to specify a particular Department funding source to pay for the requested services.
The Department denied Petitioner's request for Wheelchair Transport Services subsidy. The Department's denial was based on the position that the requested services were not authorized to be paid from the Department's General Revenue Funds.
The Department, after discussion with Karen Pienta, agreed to provide the requested Wheelchair Transport Services paid from Medicaid Waiver funding source of which Matthew Dying is a client and a recipient. The Department is required to transfer a percentage of its General Revenue funds into the Medicaid Waiver funding for payment services.
Petitioner, at the time of this final hearing, was receiving Wheelchair Transport Services. Having secured the services requested and thereafter refusing to attend this hearing is evidence of Petitioner's intent to withdraw the Administrative Complaint herein filed. Therefore, Petitioner's challenge to Respondent's initial denial of the original request need not be addressed to dispose of this matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner's challenge of the facts relied upon by Respondent in its denial of the requested Wheelchair Transport Services became moot, as a matter of law, when Respondent agreed to provide Petitioner with the requested wheelchair transport services.
Under the circumstances of this cause, the issue of whether or not the Department's denial of requested services because of its inability to pay from a particular funding source at the time Petitioner made the request for services, is without
