Findings Of Fact 1. For a period of time prior to June, 1985, Petitioner, Lydia Mendez, had been providing care in her home for her father, Leoncio Hernandez, age 90, and her husband, Carmelo Mendez, age Because of this, she was enrolled in and receiving case subsidies monthly under DHRS' Home Care for the Elderly Subsidy Segment program outlined in Section 410.03-410.06, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-9, F.A.C. Under this program, recipients of benefits are to be visited periodically on an unannounced basis in order to insure that the requirements of the program were being met. Records of District VII reflect that on November 20, 1984, a visit of Petitioner was conducted for the normal six months review and at the time the counselor arrived at the premises, Mrs. Mendez was not at home. Mr. Mendez, Petitioner's husband, called his wife at a neighbor's residence and she arrived at home shortly thereafter. Mrs. Mendez, who had been absent from the home on two previous visits when the counselor arrived was advised again of the requirement to provide supervision and of the DHRS guidelines regarding provider absences from the home. At that point, Mrs. Mendez advised the counselor that when she was gone, it was to run brief errands and never for more than an hour or two. Most of the time when she was gone, she was visiting her daughter in the immediate neighborhood. Nonetheless, the counselor advised Mrs. Mendez, on November 20, that if she were not present on the next visit, steps would be taken to close the file and terminate the payments. When a follow-up visit was made on December 21, 1984, a month later, Mrs. Mendez was present and there was no irregularity. When the nine month review was conducted on February 28, 1985, Mrs. Mendez was not at home and the counselor was told by Mr. Mendez that she had gone to the store. The counselor at this time, Annie Wilson, returned to the premises on March 8, approximately one week later, and at that time, Mrs. Mendez was properly at home. The records also reflect that on May 15, 1985, when the yearly review visit was made, Mrs. Mendez was again not at home but at her daughter's house around the corner. When called by her husband, by phone, she returned within a few minutes. When this was reported to Mr. Brown, he determined that a formal investigation was required and consistent with this determination, he directed Henry McLaulin to investigate. Mr. McLaulin went to the Mendez home at approximately 2:00 p.m. on May 20, 1985. When he arrived, Mr. Mendez and Mr. Hernandez were alone at the house which was found to be in good condition and quite clean. Mr. Mendez also appeared clean and adequately groomed. Through an interpreter, he contended that he was in good health and had no physical complaints. Mr. Mendez appeared to be oriented as to time, place and person. His intellectual functioning and insight were adequate and when questioned by the investigator as to what actions he would take in the case of fire, Mr. Mendez indicated he would get Mr. Hernandez out of the house and request the neighbors to call the fire department because of his language problems. Mr. Hernandez, Mrs. Mendez' father was also clean and adequately groomed and was fully ambulatory. He, however, was totally disoriented as to time, place, and person, and his memory and intellectual functioning were greatly impaired, and it was clear that he needs supervision since he is unable to make decisions regarding his safety and wellbeing. After Mr. McLaulin had talked with Mr. Mendez for about 35 to 40 minutes, Mrs. Mendez returned to the house. In the case summary on his May 20th home visit, Mr. McLaulin indicated that the case plan was to assess both Mr. Mendez and Mr. Hernandez for possible neglect. He concluded that there was no evidence of neglect of Mr. Hernandez or Mr. Mendez, and no follow-up visit was required. A review of the DHRS records kept on this case reflects an entry on May 16, 1985, four days before the home visit, which reads: Mrs. Mendez was contacted by this counselor's supervisor, B. Brown. Mr. Brown explained the program requirements regarding supervision to the client in this program. He further stated that this case would be terminated due to a lack of adequate supervision to the client. Provider expressed the desire to appeal this case and may request a hearing after she receives formal notification of case closure. A letter will be written to provider regarding cancellation of the subsidy grant. In fact, even though Mr. McLaulin's report dated subsequent to this entry clearly revealed there was no evidence of neglect on May 21, 1985, Mr. Brown and Ms. Messing sent Mrs. Mendez a letter which, based on the May 16, 1985 telephone conversation, notified her that the subsidy payments she had been receiving would be cancelled effective June, 1985 on the basis of non-compliance with the Home Care for the Elderly regulations relative to providing supervision. From the above, it is clear that Mr. Brown had made up his mind to cancel the subsidy payments that Mrs. Mendez was receiving before he ever received his investigator's report and that when he did receive it, he ignored it even though it clearly indicated that the purpose and intent of the program were being fulfilled by Mrs. Mendez. Mrs. Mendez, who speaks limited English and who testified through an interpreter, indicated that she takes care of both her 88 year old husband and her 90 year old father on an income which is made up of the social security payments of the three individuals exclusively, alieunde the subsidy payment in issue here. Her father was in a nursing home for two and a half years prior to the death of her mother and during that time, she worked harder to take care of him than when he is with her. As a result, she does not want to put him in a nursing home again and does not feel that it is necessary. Mrs. Mendez was receiving $95.00 per month in subsidy payments for both her husband and her father. The three of them live alone in the house and there are times when it is necessary for her to get out of the house to buy food and run other errands such as going to the bank or post office. Admittedly, on several occasions, when the counselor came to conduct the home visits, she was not at home. Regardless, she never left the house for more than an hour or two and on most occasions when she was not present, she was visiting her daughter who lives around the corner and Mr. Mendez was able to reach her by telephone and have her home within a few moments. In fact, both Ms. Davis and Mr. McLaulin indicated that of the visits they made wherein they found Ms. Mendez absent, she always returned within a few minutes of their arrival. As was stated by Mr. McLaulin, neither Mr. Hernandez nor Mr. Mendez showed any evidence of neglect. The home kept by Mrs. Mendez was clean and in good repair and both individuals were well fed and in good health as far as Mrs. Mendez could provide.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that subsidy payments on behalf of Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Mendez be immediately restored to Mrs. Mendez and that Mrs. Mendez be reimbursed for the payments that were not received due to the improper cancellation in June, 1985. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 6th day of January, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mrs. Lydia Mendez 645 West 14th Street Apopka, Florida 32703 David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Tallahassee, Florida 32301 1323 Winewood Boulevard Douglas Whitney, Esquire General Counsel HRS District Seven 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether the Respondent has sufficient general revenue funds to provide the Petitioner with services under the Respondent's Developmental Disabilities Program.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administering and determining eligibility for services to developmentally disabled individuals pursuant to Florida's Developmental Disabilities Prevention and Community Services Act, Chapter 393, Florida Statutes. Section 393.065, Florida Statutes. The program developed by the Department is known as the Developmental Disabilities Program. Jake is a resident of Miami, Florida, and is four and one-half years of age, having been born October 6, 1997. On October 24, 2000, Jake's parents submitted on his behalf an application requesting that the Department enroll him in its Developmental Disabilities Program and provide him with physical, occupational, and speech therapy services as a developmentally disabled individual.2 The parties stipulated to the following facts: Jake has a rare genetic disorder called "Williams Syndrome," which causes significant developmental delays. Jake also has a significant hearing impairment, which exasperates his developmental delays. Among other developmental delays, Jake cannot walk on his own, is unable to talk, and is unable to respond to verbal requests. Jake requires regular and frequent physical, occupational, and speech therapies, and Jake is eligible to receive these services under the Department's Developmental Disabilities Program. A social worker employed by the Department advised Jake's mother on October 25, 2000, that Jake was eligible for the requested services. The social worker developed a family support plan, which Jake's mother signed on January 12, 2001. Pursuant to the Department's policies, the Department considered Jake a "client" of the Department and eligible for services on the date the family support plan was signed. According to the Department's witness, the funding category at issue in this case is state general revenue funds appropriated by the Florida Legislature and not federal funds. Upon receiving Jake's application for services under the Department's Developmental Disabilities Program, the Department reviewed the request and implemented a prioritization schedule set forth in a Department memorandum dated June 1, 2001. The subject matter of the memorandum is identified as "State Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Spending Plan Implementation Instructions ("Spending Plan")."3 The Spending Plan was developed in accordance with the following directive of the Legislature, which is found in the Conference Report on SB 2000: General Appropriations for 2001-02, May 1, 2001 ("Conference Report"): Funds in Specific Appropriations 374 and 377 are intended to provide Home and Community- Based Services Waiver Services in accordance with a spending plan developed by the Department of Children and Family Services and submitted to the Executive Office of the Governor for approval by November 1, 2001. Such plan shall include a financially feasible timeframe for providing services to persons who are on waiting lists for fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and those eligible persons who apply for services during fiscal year 2001-2002. Such persons shall be enrolled in the waiver in accordance with the department's policy for serving persons on the waiting list. The Spending Plan relates to the distribution of funds to persons served through the Home and Community-Based Waiver Services program ("Waiver Program"), which is co-funded by the federal government as part of the Medicaid program.4 The Spending Plan establishes five "priority" categories for providing services through the Waiver Program: Persons who were clients as of July 1, 1999; members of the class in the case of Cramer v. Bush; persons not on the original waiting list who are in crisis (an estimated ten new clients monthly, statewide); persons discharged from the Mentally Retarded Defendant Program; and "[p]ersons who have become clients since July 1, 1999, in date order (new waiting list) -- projected to be approximately 6,284 persons remaining to be phased in between March 2002 and June 2002, subject to vacancies on the Waiver and available funding." The Spending Plan further provides that "[i]n order to serve the estimated additional 6,774 individuals who are projected to want and need Waiver services during FY 01-02, enrollment on the Waiver will be phased in as described above." According to the procedure specified in the Spending Plan, a waiting list for Waiver Program services is maintained by the Department's Central Office of the Developmental Disabilities Program, and that office advises the various districts when they may begin providing services to a person on the list. According to the Spending Plan, services are to be provided to individuals on the waiting list "subject to vacancies on the Waiver and available funding." Upon review of his application for services, the Department classified Jake in the fifth category of the Spending Plan as a person who become a client after July 1, 1999, and his name was placed on the waiting list to receive services provided through Waiver Program funding. Although no evidence was presented on this point, it is apparent from the text of the Spending Plan that, in addition to the Waiver Program funding for services to the developmentally disabled, there is a second source of funding for services to these individuals, Individual and Family Supports ("IFS") funding.5 The Department did not provide any indication in its denial letter and it did not present any evidence at the final hearing to establish that the "general revenue funds" at issue were IFS funds. It has been necessary to infer from the record that such is the case.6 Although the Department presented no evidence with respect to Jake's eligibility for services from IFS funds or with respect to the availability of IFS funds to provide Jake with the services for which he is eligible, the Spending Plan provides: "The use of non-Waiver funds (Individual and Family Supports (IFS) budget category) to fund services for additional persons who are awaiting enrollment on the Waiver is prohibited." The only possible inference from the evidence presented by the Department and from the record as a whole is that, notwithstanding the reasons stated in the Department's denial letter in this case, Jake was denied services from IFS funds because he was placed on the Medicaid Waiver Program waiting list.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order finding that Jake Cheskin shall remain on the waiting list for Home and Community-Based Waiver Services under the Developmental Disabilities Program and ordering that Jake Cheskin shall be provided with the physical, occupational, and speech therapy services for which he is eligible as soon as a vacancy occurs or additional funding is available under the Department's Developmental Disabilities Program.8 DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is listed as the obligor for child support payments which are payable through the central governmental depository for Hillsborough County, Florida. According to the records maintained by Hillsborough County, as of November 7, 1990, the Petitioner owes $4073.61 for back child support. Petitioner did not dispute the accuracy of that amount at the hearing nor did she object to the entry of the records establishing that amount. Harold C. Ludwig, purportedly Petitioner's former husband who is also listed as the obligee to receive the child support payments from Petitioner, contacted the Department and requested assistance in connection with enforcing the court order authorizing child support. The Department has a contract with Mr. Ludwig and has searched the account history maintained by Hillborough County to determine the amount of arrearages owed by the Petitioner. The Department has standing requests from credit agencies for information on child support accounts where the arrearage amount exceeds $500.00. Based upon the conclusion that Petitioner owed an amount in excess of $500.00, the Department preliminarily determined this account to be subject to disclosure and gave the Petitioner notice of its intent to release the information regarding her arrearage to the credit agencies which have requested the information.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the proposed agency action regarding the referral of child support arrearages to a credit reporting agency. DONE AND ENTERED this 17 day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17 day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-4480 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore J. Rechel Law Offices of DONALD W. BELVEAL 100 West Kennedy Boulevard Suite 600 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sandra A. Ludwig 3212 West Coachman Avenue Tampa, Florida 33611 Linda K. Harris, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Conclusions Having reviewed the administrative complaint dated May 21, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Exhibit 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration (“Agency”) has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Exhibit 2) with the other party to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: 1. The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $17,500.00, of which $3,038.29 constitutes the reimbursement of costs for actual litigation expenses. The administrative fine is due and payable within thirty (30) days of the date of rendition of this Order. The payment shall not be considered an administrative sanction under Section 400.471(10), Florida Statutes (2009). 3. A check should be made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration.” The check, along with a reference to this case number, should be sent directly to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4. Unpaid amounts pursuant to this Order will be subject to statutory interest and may be collected by all methods legally available. 5. Each party shall! bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. 6. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this Y day of MOLLY, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Agency for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Christopher Parrella, ].D., CHC, CPC | Lourdes A. Naranjo, Esq. The Health Law Offices of Assistant General Counsel Anthony C. Vitale, P.A. Agency for Health Care 2333 Brickell Avenue Administration Suite A-1 8350 N. W. 52 Terrace — Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33129 : Miami, Florida 33166 (U. S. Mail) (Interoffice Mail) Finance & Accounting . Stuart M. Lerner Agency for Health Care Administrative Law Judge Administration Division of Administrative Hearings 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #14 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (Interoffice Mail) (U.S. Mail) Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 | (interoffice Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this the _{f ” day of Petcas ye , 2010. Richard J. Shoop Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 922-5873
Findings Of Fact In 1968, Petitioner's marriage to Judith Marie Youmans was dissolved by the Circuit Court in Duval County, Jacksonville, Florida. One child, D. R. Y. was born of the marriage. Custody of D. R. Y. was given to Petitioner's ex- wife. However, except for a few months, D. R. Y. was in the actual custody of her father until she reached the age of majority in 1982. Petitioner's ex-wife never paid any child support to Respondent for his custody of D. R. Y. Petitioner never had the final divorce decree modified to reflect D. R. Y.'s custody arrangement or to seek an award of child support for his custody of D. R. Y. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is not seeking child support enforcement in reference to D. R. Y. From 1968 until about 1977, Petitioner maintained an on again-off again relationship with his ex-wife. They never remarried. However, by 1977, Petitioner had fathered two children with his ex-wife, who are the subject of this action. C. D. Y., Jr., was born July 29, 1971, and M. S. Y. was born August 15, 1973. In 1977, Petitioner's ex-wife filed a paternity action against Petitioner alleging that the two boys were his children. Petitioner made an appearance in the paternity action and reached an agreement with his ex-wife regarding the paternity of the two boys and how much child support he would pay until they reached the age of majority. A final judgment incorporating the agreement between the parties was entered by the Circuit Court in Duval County, Jacksonville, Florida, on January 28, 1977. Petitioner states that he was never served with the 1977 paternity suit papers or the final judgment entered in the action. Petitioner testified that he was not aware that a final judgment had been entered awarding his ex-wife $15.00 per week per child until a few months before HRS became involved in the tax intercept under consideration here. However, Petitioner made two of the agreed to child support payments in February, 1977, after his attorney had advised him to do so. After the first two payments, Petitioner ceased making the $15.00 per child per week payments and has not made any child support payments to his ex-wife or to the Clerk's Office since February 4, 1977. Petitioner has, therefore, accumulated an alleged arrearage of child support for C. D. Y. and M. S. Y. in the amount of $16,35.00 through July 1987. Prior to HRS's involvement in the case in 1986, Petitioner's ex-wife neither asked for nor received any child support from Petitioner, except for the few payments made in 1977. She did not try to enforce the paternity settlement agreement until September 12, 1986, when she asked for HRS's help. Apparently, the reason she went to HRS was to attempt to collect the child support. She has not received any "public assistance" such as AFDC money from HRS and apparently is not asking for such aid. HRS has not obtained a court order finding Petitioner to be delinquent and no such order has been previously entered. Petitioner has, therefore, never been afforded an opportunity to raise his defenses to any alleged arrearage or non payment of support before the circuit court. Petitioner felt very strongly that he should not have to pay child support since his ex-wife did not perform her part of the agreement regarding her visitation. He testified that he attempted to visit the two boys on several occasions, but was usually frustrated in his attempts. The last time he attempted to visit the two boys was several years ago when he was met at the door by his ex-father-in-law who was pointing a shot gun at Petitioner and told him to leave. After the shot gun incident, Petitioner did not feel it to be in his best interest to attempt to see the boys anymore. Petitioner also maintained that he should not have to pay child support because she would not raise the boys correctly throughout the time period involved in this case. In essence, he left her because she would not give up certain drugs and he did not want to be living in such an environment nor did he want his boys to be living in such an environment. However, his ex-wife felt otherwise and didn't mind her children being raised around drugs. Petitioner felt that his ex-wife's involvement of HRS to collect child support was simply a tactic on her part to harass him and otherwise be mean. Petitioner also felt that he should have been paid child support for his custody of D. R. Y. who had refused to live with her mother. Petitioner felt that he should at least receive recognition of the fact that he did not receive any such support and be credited with the amount he should have been paid, i.e. $15.00 per week.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order in this case to the effect that the Department is not entitled to intercept Charles D. Youmans' federal tax refund unless and until Youmans is adjudicated delinquent by a circuit court in the periodic court ordered payment, and to the further effect that any federal tax refund which may already have been intercepted shall be returned to Youmans. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2365 Petitioner's factual allegations contained in paragraph 1 of his letter are immaterial. Petitioner factual allegations contained in paragraph 2 are irrelevant. The factual allegation in the 1st sentence of paragraph 3 was not shown by the evidence. The rest of paragraph 3 is adopted. Paragraph 4, 5 and 7 are subordinate. Paragraph 6 is not shown by the evidence. Paragraph 8 discusses evidence not presented at the final hearing and is inadmissible. Paragraph 9 is irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles D. Youmans, pro se Route 5, Box 44 Brunswick, Georgia 31520 Warren J. Schulman SCHULMAN, HOWARD & HEMPHILL, P.A. 331 East Union Street, Suite 1 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Sam Power, HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Tom Batchelor Staff Attorney House HRS Committee The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300 =================================================================
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $12,000.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 1 Filed June 19, 2012 8:35 AM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this wi day of Sterne , 2012. Elizabeth Dudek)Secretary Agency for Healtfi Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this / yoniny of Joe , 2012. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Finance & Accounting Facilities Intake Unit Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Andrea M. Lang, Senior Attorney JoAnne K. Little, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel SunCrest Healthcare Agency for Health Care Administration 510 Hospital Drive, Suite 100 (Electronic Mail) Madison, Tennessee 37115 (U.S. Mail) Elizabeth W. McArthur Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail)
The Issue Did the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) improperly deny funds to Maurice Parkes for the purchase of bottled water?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of administering the Medicaid Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Services Waiver Program (Medicaid Waiver Program), the Family care program, and the provisions of in-home subsidies. Petitioner is a developmentally disabled child who lives in his family's home and receives numerous services from the Department for his developmental disability, medical, and physical problems. The services presently being furnished to Petitioner are funded through the Medicaid Waiver Program. The bottled water at issue is not funded through the Medicaid Waiver Program and would have to be funded through General Revenue funds. General Revenue funds appropriated by the legislature for the fiscal year 2001-2002 to the Department have largely been moved to the Medicaid Waiver Program to obtain the benefit of federal matching funds, which are provided at the rate of 55 cents for each 45 cents of state funds. The use of General Revenue Funds to obtain matching federal funds for the Medicaid Waiver Program allows the Department to service some of those developmentally disabled clients that are presently eligible for the Medicaid Waiver Program but have not been receiving services due to lack of funding. There are no uncommitted funds in the General Revenue category of the Developmental Services' budget that could be used to fund the purchase of bottled water for Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's request to provide him with bottled water. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 100 Largo, Florida 33778-1630 Maurice Parkes c/o Erika Parkes 2229 Bonita Way, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
