Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Harry M. Noland, Jr., learned of the low income energy assistance program through a notice received with his telephone bill. That program is administered by respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). On December 6, 1983 Noland filled out an application for low income energy assistance at the Cocoa office of HRS. He did so after being advised by HRS personnel that he was qualified to do so. The application indicated that Noland resided with his wife at 3915 Indian River Drive, Cocoa, Florida. It also reflected that he and his wife had no income whatsoever at the time the application was filed, but that he had applied for food stamps. The application was reviewed by a Ms. J. Bunch, an HRS temporary worker, who sent Noland a "request for information" on December 6, 1983. It read as follows: Needed is your income for the month of December, 1983. If you receives (sic) Social Security or SSI a letter from the Social Security office is needed, if you are working a verification of income form is enclosed to be filled out by employer and return it to this office. If you are unemployed a statement is needed explaining how you (are) paying expenses. The statement has to (be) signed and dated and (send) it to this office. The notice stated that the above information had to be brought or mailed to the office no later than December 20, 1983 or the application would be denied. Noland received the above notice and on December 15 prepared the following written reply: This is to verify that I have been unemployed since September 30, 1983, and presently have no prospects for employment. He hand-delivered his reply to Ms. Bunch the same day. She asked how he was paying his current expenses, and Noland told her he had no funds and was therefore unable to pay any current bills and expenses. Bunch accepted this oral reply, told Noland it was "okay", and gave him the impression that no further information was needed to comply with the notice mailed on December 6. In December, 1983 HRS policy was for the program workers to make a written notation in an applicant's file when any clarifying information was obtained by telephone or when the applicant (Noland) was personally interviewed. For some unexplained reason, no written notation was made by Bunch in Noland's file. Noland was not told by Bunch that his application was still incomplete, and she did not request him to put his oral reply in writing. Had she done so, Noland would have provided further written information on a timely basis. Except for the "incomplete" written reply, Noland otherwise qualified for assistance. At a later undisclosed date, Noland's application was reviewed and found to be deficient because he had not fully responded to the "request for information". Thereafter, it sent a notice of denial to Noland on February 15, 1984. That prompted the instant proceeding. HRS processed some 3,287 applications at its Cocoa office between November 1 and December 16, 1983, the last day for filing the same. Only three temporary workers were employed to perform this task. The HRS representative testified that workers were extremely busy during the time Noland visited the Cocoa office due to the manpower shortage and time constraints imposed on that office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Harry M. Noland, Jr. for low income energy assistance be approved and that he be given the appropriate benefits under Rule 10C-29.19, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Harry M. Noland, Jr. 3915 Indiana River Drive Cocoa, Florida 32922 Gary L. Clark, Esquire 400 West Robinson Street Suite 912 Orlando, Florida 32801 David H. Pingree, Secretary 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On March 11, 1982, Petitioner, Eva Cox, filed a household application for energy assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Based upon a review of the information submitted by Petitioner, the application was denied by letter dated March 23, 1982, on the ground Cox had an excessive monthly income. A subsequent oral explanation as to the reason for the denial was given Petitioner on May 11, 1982. Thereafter, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to appeal the decision of the Department. Petitioner resides in her household with one other person. The total countable monthly income for the household is $548. This amount exceeds the monthly income limitation of $474 for households having two persons. Therefore, Cox was ineligible for assistance. Applicant did not dispute the Department's determination that her total monthly countable income exceeded acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. However, she contended that because of a recent heart attack which has limited her ability to work, she is in need of financial assistance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Eva Cox for energy assistance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Eva Cox 1601 East Alabama Street, Apt. 114 Plant City, Florida 33566 Amelia Park, Esquire Department of HRS 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614
Findings Of Fact On March 12, 1982, Petitioner, Floyd Brewington, filed a household application for energy assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. After review of the application, it was ultimately denied by Respondent on April 2, 1982, on the ground Brewington had an excessive monthly income. Petitioner resides alone in his household. His total countable monthly income is $413, which is paid by the Veterans Administration. This amount exceeds the monthly income limitation of $359 for households having one person. Therefore, Brewington was ineligible for assistance. Applicant did not dispute the Department determination that his total monthly countable income exceeded acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. However, he contended that because of high utility bills, and other recurring costs, he is in need of assistance to meet his financial burdens.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Floyd B. Brewington for energy assistance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Floyd B. Brewington Post Office Box 1226 Tampa, Florida 33601 Janice Sortor, Esquire Department of HRS 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner's discharge by the Respondent constituted discrimination on the basis of handicap within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Having considered all of the evidence in the record, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Petitioner was hired as a Mechanic II (Electrician) by Respondent on January 25, 1982 in the Plant Engineering Department. The term "Mechanic II" denoted Petitioner's pay grade. The term "Electrician" designated Petitioner's speciality. Petitioner's pay grade was changed to Electrician and the Mechanic II pay grade was eliminated by Respondent for all such employees on or about November 16, 1983. Petitioner's duties as an Electrician included ladder work, running conduit and wire, repairing laundry and laboratory equipment and appliances, changing ballasts, and repairing electrical beds and nurse-call equipment. Petitioner performed all of the duties of an electrician, including ladder work until approximately November 27, 1985. Three months after he was employed in 1982, Petitioner injured his back while repairing electrical beds. Repairing electrical beds required much bending and stooping. Petitioner filed for Worker's Compensation benefits for the injury he sustained in repairing electrical beds. Petitioner suffered an off-the-job injury in 1983. Respondent permitted Petitioner to go on medical leave for two months. Petitioner again injured his back while working at the Hospital on or about November 27, 1985. Due to his injury, Petitioner was on leave of absence from November 30, 1985, through December 11, 1985. Petitioner returned to work but again went on leave of absence from January 9, 1986, through February 17, 1986. Petitioner returned to work subject to a "light duty" restriction imposed by his physician. On or about June 10, 1986, Petitioner's physician released him for full duty subject to a 15 pound restriction on any lifting. In September, 1986, Petitioner's physician indicated that it was "probably best" for Petitioner to work only 4 hours per day. The Respondent again allowed Petitioner to work 4 hours per day even though he occupied a full-time, 8 hour per day position. In early October, 1986, Petitioner was released by his physician to perform full duty work, even though Petitioner was restricted to half days. Frank Kleese, Petitioner's foreman, asked Petitioner to investigate a problem with an overhead light. Petitioner refused Kleese's directive and stated that, even though he had been released for full duty work, he would not climb a ladder unless his doctor approved it. Petitioner argued with Kleese and used "strong language". Petitioner became belligerent. Petitioner received reprimands for insubordination. When Petitioner refused Kleese's second request to do ladder work, Petitioner received a reprimand for refusing to do the job assigned to him. Both reprimands were discussed with Petitioner. Petitioner later presented a doctor's note stating he could "return to full active duty," but could work only half days with no ladder work. As a result of Petitioner's half day schedule, other electricians were required to do more work. The department as a whole fell behind in its work. Furthermore, light duty work was not always available for Petitioner. While working half days in late 1986, Petitioner was late to work on three occasions. Petitioner's reason for being late, as explained to Frank Kleese, his foreman, was that Petitioner's injury made it difficult for him to get out of bed in the morning. In November, 1986, Clark, Kleese, and Kunz met with Petitioner and advised him that he could not remain on half days indefinitely. Petitioner was advised that unless his condition was found to have improved by his upcoming doctor's appointment on December 1, 1986, he would be placed on medical leave. On December 1, 1986, Petitioner visited his physician, Dr. Richard D. Strain, Jr. Dr. Strain stated that there was no reason to think that Petitioner's condition would change quickly. Dr. Strain was going to send Petitioner home and put him on physician therapy (i.e., not allow him to work at all). Petitioner asked Dr. Strain if he could work half days, and Dr. Strain agreed. Kleese, Kunz, and Clark met with Petitioner and informed him that he would be placed on medical leave as a result of the Petitioner's medical condition. Continuation of his half-day status without any foreseeable cutoff date was not acceptable to the Respondent. On December 4, 1986, Respondent Benefits Supervisor Ralph Rettig advised Dr. Strain that Petitioner had been placed on medical leave of absence because there were no part-time positions available in Petitioner's department. Rettig requested Dr. Strain to advise him as to whether Petitioner's condition was the result of his injury at work and whether Petitioner would ever improve to the level where he could work more than half day duty. Dr. Strain responded to Mr. Rettig in a letter dated December 22, 1986, which indicated that Petitioner's condition was partially caused by degenerative changes. Dr. Strain further stated: Mr. Cabany tells me he is unable to work more than a half day, and I think that is a reasonable thing for him to do. Certainly, a man of his elderly years with the degenerative changes that he has, with super imposed trauma, that would be a good way to go. Petitioner went on medical leave beginning December 17, 1986. Prior to the beginning of his leave, Petitioner failed to fill out the leave of absence request form. When this came to Rettig's attention, Rettig requested that Vernon Clark send Petitioner the form. Clark wrote to Petitioner and informed him that he must fill out the leave of absence request form Clark had enclosed. Clark further informed Petitioner that he would have to request renewal of his leave when it expired in mid-January, 1987, in accordance with Respondent policies. During a telephone conversation several days prior to the expiration of Petitioner's leave, Clark reminded Petitioner that he still had not sent in the original request form for the leave he was then under. Clark also reminded Petitioner that, if he wished to extend his leave, Petitioner would have to submit a written request for extension. Petitioner eventually sent in the signed request form for the leave of absence which he was then under. The signed form stated: "If I do not request an extension of my Leave prior to expiration . . . my employment at Memorial Respondent will be terminated. . . ." Petitioner never submitted a request for an extension of his leave, and Petitioner was terminated. In February, 1987, Ralph Rettig became aware of a part-time porter position in the Respondent's Dietary Department. Mr. Rettig contacted Petitioner and asked him to meet with Joseph Marino, Administrative Director of Food and Nutrition Services, with regard to a job in the Dietary Department. Marino offered Petitioner a porter position which required only half days and involved no bending or lifting of heavy objects. Marino explained the duties and responsibilities of the position to Petitioner and showed him the work area. Petitioner refused the position because he felt it was "beneath his dignity". Petitioner said virtually the same thing to Rettig. Hospital Benefits Supervisor Rettig, a quadriplegic, was involved throughout in dealing with Petitioner's medical situation. Rettig testified that he has never witnessed discrimination by the Respondent based upon handicap and felt that the Respondent reasonably accommodated Petitioner's back problem. Eighty percent of an Electrician's work at the Respondent involved the use of a ladder. Petitioner could not do ladder work. Petitioner also could not work on ceilings or do much bending or lifting. Petitioner cannot work at all now, still has pain, and has not worked since leaving the Respondent's employ. Petitioner did not know of any available half-day jobs he could have performed at the Hospital other than the porter position that was offered to Petitioner by Mr. Marino. Prior to his 1985 injury, Petitioner had repeatedly requested to work part time as an Electrician because his wife had arthritis and he needed to care for her. Petitioner was consistently turned down because no such part-time position existed in his department. During his employment with Respondent, a few half-day positions existed throughout the Hospital as PBX Operators, Cashiers, and Porters. No part-time Electrician positions in the Plant Engineering Department where Petitioner was employed were ever available. Petitioner occupied a full-time position even though he worked only part-time. Sandy McNeil, a former Electrician, is now a Systems Technician/Welder who works full days on a part-time basis. Mr. McNeil operates a lathe and works full weeks when needed. Petitioner is not a welder and could not perform the duties required of Mr. McNeil. Richmond Blatch is a painter who works a full week every other week. Petitioner is not a painter and could not perform Mr. Blatch's duties. Tom Nottage, another individual who had been working in the Engineering Department, obtained a courier position with the Hospital. For a brief period, Mr. Nottage worked 2 full days a week in the Engineering Department and 3 days week as a courier. Since mid-January, 1987, Mr. Nottage has worked full-time as a courier. His job requires driving over 25,000 miles per year, lifting mail tubs weighing between 20 and 50 pounds, often lifting heavier packages, and getting in and out of his car between 20 and 40 times per day. Petitioner could not perform the duties required of Mr. Nottage. A part-time position could not be created for an Electrician. Electricians are given jobs which frequently carry through from day to day. Permanently employing someone on a half-day, health-restricted basis presented scheduling and work load problems. Jobs that do not carry through from day to day are frequently comprised of so-called bench work. Some bench work requires an entire day to complete. There was not always a half-day's worth of bench work available. During his employment with the Respondent, Petitioner had been receiving Social Security pension benefits. In 1987, Petitioner would have been required to reimburse Social Security for a portion of his pension benefits if he earned more than $8,000,00. Half day employment would have afforded Petitioner the ability to earn the maximum allowed by Social Security. Because Petitioner refused to accept a job for which he was physically qualified, the worker's compensation benefits begun as a result of his injury on the job in 1982, were stopped. If Petitioner had accepted the porter position offered to him by Mr. Marino, his worker's compensation benefits would have compensated him for the wage loss resulting from the lower paying job. Petitioner's termination had no effect on the worker's compensation benefits Respondent was paying Petitioner. Respondent would have gained a financial benefit from retaining Petitioner as a part time Electrician because there would have been less of a wage loss to make up through worker's compensation benefits. Glen Mora and Luis Villanueva, two other Electricians, were injured while Petitioner was working half days. Both individuals were allowed to take medical leave, and return to work on light duty until they returned to full duty status. Both individuals in fact returned to full duty status. Petitioner received a merit pay check from Respondent in 1986 even though Petitioner had not achieved the requisite "fully proficient" rating in his evaluation. Vernon Clark, Director of Plant Engineering, intervened on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Clark recommended that Petitioner receive the merit pay because Petitioner would have received a higher rating had it not been for Petitioner's injury.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Human Rights Commission issue a Final Order that Respondent is not guilty of discharging Petitioner in violation of the Human Rights Act. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of October, 1989. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner submitted no proposed findings of fact. Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection NONE The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Included in Findings 1, 2 2-3 Rejected as irrelevant 4-9 Included in Findings 3-10 Included in Finding 35 Included in Finding 11 Included in Finding 25 Included in Finding 26 Included in Finding 31 15-17 Included in Findings 27-30 Included in Finding 17 Included in Finding 36 Included in Finding 32 21-28 Included in Findings 12-21 29 Included in Finding 22 30-31 Included in Findings 33-34 Included in Finding 22 Included in Findings 15, 17 34-35 Included in Findings 23, 24 COPIES FURNISHED: George Cabany 3905 Garfield Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 James S. Bramnick Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crosland & Bramnick, P. A. Hollywood Memorial Respondent Suite 3600 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2338 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact The employee herein, the Petitioner, is employed by DEP as a park ranger. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida. The Petitioner failed to report for work after June 10, 1995. He apparently had some health problem or complaint and was on sick leave for a time. October of 1995 was the first month that he was on leave without pay. He was on leave without pay when he was terminated, which occurred on November 27, 1995. The Petitioner was not receiving workers compensation benefits between his last day of work on June 10, 1995 and the termination date of November 27, 1995. His monthly rate of pay was $1,627.23. He was paid $1,627.62 in gross wages for 176 hours on November 30, 1995. He received $1,319.18 in net wages for November of 1995. The Petitioner was entitled to $71.74 in wages for 10.75 hours for November of 1995. DEP calculated the amount of overpayment by offsetting the wages issued to him in November of 1995 by the amount he was actually entitled to receive for that month for the 10.75 hours. Thereafter, on December 12, 1995, DEP notified the Petitioner, by certified mail, return receipt requested, that he had been overpaid $1,247.44 in net wages for November of 1995. That return receipt reflected that the Petitioner received that letter on December 15, 1995. The Petitioner failed to refund the money to DEP during the 1995 tax year and as yet, has still not refunded the money. Because the money was not refunded during the 1995 tax year, the Petitioner also owes DEP an additional $163.87, which was withheld for taxes on the payment or overpayment in question. Thus, DEP overpaid the Petitioner a total of $1,411.31 in wages for November of 1995.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, enter a Final Order finding that the employee, the Petitioner, Eugene Breeze, owes $1,411.31 for a salary overpayment received by him in November of 1995. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Eugene Breeze 1110 Florida Avenue Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Melease Jackson, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On June 1, 1981, Petitioner, Daisy S. McArthur, filed a household application for cooling assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner resides in Escambia County, Florida, which is part of the North Cooling Climatic Region for purposes of determining the level of assistance to be given claimants. The application requires that applicant furnish a Medical Certification for Cooling Form. Although she complied with this requirement, the form submitted stated that McArthur had no medical conditions that could be considered "life-threatening" without a controlled temperature. Accordingly, Respondent denied the application on July 10, 1981. The denial precipitated the instant proceeding. Applicant is the only member of her household. Her total monthly countable income is $259.00 which falls within acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. Except for the omitted form, McArthur was otherwise qualified to receive $143 in cooling assistance benefits. Petitioner agreed that her medical certificate did not verify the existence of a "life-threatening" medical condition that required a controlled temperature. She blamed this deficiency on her doctor and testified that she did indeed require air conditioning to alleviate her various ailments.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Daisy S. McArthur for cooling assistance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Daisy S. McArthur 1351 West Lloyd Pensacola, Florida 32501 Jon W. Searcy, Esquire Department of HRS 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32522
Findings Of Fact On July 15, 1981, Petitioner, Ollie Bradley, filed a household application for cooling assistance under the Low Income Energy Assistance Program with Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner resides in Santa Rosa County, Florida, which is part of the North Cooling Climatic Region for purposes of determining the level of assistance to be given claimants. The application was ultimately denied by Respondent on August 28, 1981, on the ground Bradley had an excessive monthly income. Petitioner and her daughter reside in her household. Their total countable monthly income for July, 1981, was $430, which exceeds the monthly income limitation of $418 for households having two persons. Except for her level of income Bradley was otherwise eligible to receive cooling assistance. Applicant did not dispute the Department determination that her total monthly countable income exceeded acceptable income limitations prescribed by the Department. However, she desires the assistance because she is blind, and in need of additional income to offset her high medical bills and other financial burdens.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Ollie Bradley for cooling assistance be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ollie Bradley 60 Susan Street Milton, Florida 32570 Jon W. Searcy, Esquire Department of HRS 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, Florida 32522
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for low income energy assistance as provided in Chapter 80-167, Laws of Florida; Rule 10 CER 80-11 amended by Rule 10 CER 81- 4.08 through 4.11, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Joseph L. Davis requested a hearing by a letter received in the office of Respondent on March 4, 1981. After having an informal conference with a supervisor in Respondent Department Petitioner requested a formal hearing. On January 20, 1981 Davis, a black male, filed a household application for low income energy assistance. No one in his household is handicapped or a migrant or migrant farm worker, and no one else has applied for the low income energy assistance. He lived in a house with two (2) other people and received a bill for use of natural gas for heating. He received $50.00 per month rent from Emma Milligan who lived in his home until her death on February 19, 1981. The Social Security payments to him and his wife who lives in his home are $549.70. By Notice of Application Denial mailed February 5, 1981 Petitioner was informed that he was denied assistance for the reason that his adjusted monthly income exceeded the monthly income limits for a household of his size. Petitioner did not dispute the evidence presented by Respondent but stated that in fact he received only $50.00 per month rent from his mother-in- law, Emma Milligan. The witness for Respondent substantiated the evidence received and explained the procedure followed for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. Under Rule 10 CER 80-11.07, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner Davis' household income exceeds the income limit of $519.00 for a household of three (3) persons even though he may have received only $50.00 of the $258.00 non-earned income of the third member of his household. Action was taken by Respondent within 45 days of Petitioner's application, and he was promptly notified of the reason for denial of benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that low income energy benefits be denied Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Joseph Lee Davis 1230 Spearing Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Paul C. Doyle, Esquire Department or HRS 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Charlotte Herald requested a hearing by a letter received in the office of Respondent on February 16, 1981. After the required informal conference with a supervisor in Respondent Department Petitioner requested a formal hearing. On January 22, 1981 Herald, a white female, filed a household application for low income energy assistance. No one in her household is handicapped or a migrant or migrant farm worker, and no one else has applied for the low income energy assistance. She lives alone and receives a bill for use of electricity for heating. By Notice of Application Denial mailed February 12, 1981 Petitioner was informed that she was denied assistance for the reason that her monthly income exceeded the maximum income limit for a household of her size. Petitioner did not dispute the evidence presented by Respondent Department but thought it was unfair to consider the amount deducted for Medicare as income. Under Rule 10 CER 80-11.07 and the applicable chart Petitioner Herald's household exceeds the income limit of $316.00 for a household of one person. Action was taken by Respondent within 45 days of Petitioner's application, and she was promptly notified of the reason for denial of benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that low income energy benefits be denied Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Charlotte Herald 406 Malverne Street Inverness, Florida 32650 Joseph E. Hodges, Esquire Department of HRS 2002 NW 13th Street Oak Park Executive Square Gainesville, Florida 32601 James A. Sawyer, Esquire Department of HRS 3001 SW Broadway Ocala, Florida 32671 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of HRS 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Jessie Gallon requested a hearing by telephone and by a letter received in the office of Respondent on February 27, 1981. After having an informal conference with a supervisor in Respondent Department Petitioner requested a formal hearing. On January 28, 1981 Gallon, a black female, filed a Household Application for low income energy assistance. No one in her household is a migrant or migrant farm worker, and no one else has applied for the low income energy assistance. She lives in a house with one other person and receives a bill for use of kerosene for heating. She does not get food stamps, and her gross monthly income consists of payments in excess of $420.00 per month. By Notice of Application Denial mailed February 17, 1981 Petitioner was informed that she was denied assistance for the reason that her adjusted monthly income exceeded the maximum income limit for a household of her size. Petitioner did not dispute the evidence presented by Respondent but was dissatisfied with the income limits by household size and stated other people much better off than she get a variety of assistance and she cannot even get five (5) gallons of kerosene for heat, and she feels that the system is unfair. The witness for Respondent substantiated the evidence received and explained the procedure followed for the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. Respondent's Exhibits 1 and 2 were entered into evidence. Under Rule 10 CER 80-11.07, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner Gallon's household income exceeds the income limit of $418.00 for a household of two (2) persons. Action was taken by Respondent within 45 days of Petitioner's application, and she was promptly notified of the reason for denial of benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that low income energy benefits be denied Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of April, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Jessie Gallon 1304 Pearce Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Paul C. Doyle, Esquire Department of HRS 5920 Arlington Expressway Post Office Box 2417-F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
