Florida Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the Courts of Florida - unoffical reports - Opinions

ROMINGER LEGAL

Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law

Need Legal Help?

LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER

LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS

NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the Florida Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

BRETT STEWARD,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
Appellant,

v.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
DEPARTMENT of CHILDREN
and FAMILIES,
CASE NO. 1D 03-0651
Appellee.
___________________________/
Opinion filed December 11, 2003
An appeal from an order of the Department of Children and Families.
Gordon B. Scott, Advocacy Center for Persons With Disabilities, Inc., Tallahassee,
for Appellant.
Ralph J. McMurphy, Wildwood, for Appellee.
HAWKES, J.
Appellant, Brett Steward, had previously been found eligible to receive benefits
through the Developmental Disabilities Home and Community-Based Waiver Program
(DDHP). He is ten years old, mildly retarded, has Spina Bifida, Hydrocephalis, a
hearing deficit, significant kidney disease, a urostomy for bladder elimination and a
colostomy for bowel elimination. He is incontinent, and uses diapers due to
occasional urine leaking, and uses a wheelchair because he has no use of his lower

extremities.
Steward appeals a final order entered by the Department of Children & Families
(DCF), denying his request to remove heavy pile carpeting in his home, and replace
it with ceramic tile or linoleum. Since Steward lacks upper body strength, the
carpeting forced him to obtain assistance in pushing his wheelchair to access the
various rooms in his home. Without assistance, he was forced to crawl on his
stomach, using his elbows to propel himself. DCF denied Steward's request due to
their belief that replacement of floor coverings was excluded under the Developmental
Services Waiver Services Medicaid Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Handbook),
and no exceptions were permitted. We reverse and remand.
An environmental modification assessment of Steward's home was performed
at the request of his support coordinator, and Janice Bloom, Steward's grandmother
and guardian. DCF was advised by Steward's support coordinator that the carpeting
should be replaced with a new solid surface to enable Steward to use his wheelchair
independently, alleviate the unsanitary and odiferous conditions caused by his
incontinence, and minimize his exposure to harmful bacteria. A doctor and an
Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner from Shands Hospital opined that the removal
of the carpeting in Steward's home, and its replacement with tile or linoleum, was
medically necessary. After DCF denied Appellant's request on grounds that
-2-

replacement of floor coverings was not covered under the DDHP, an administrative
hearing was held.
At the hearing, Steward's counsel conceded the Handbook, addressing
Environmental Accessability Adaptations (EAAs), excludes carpeting and flooring, but
argued exceptions were permissible. DCF's expert witness, Martin Reid, admitted
waivers are permitted, but testified he did not request a waiver. Following Reid's
testimony, the hearing officer asked Reid if the Handbook contained a provision which
would permit a waiver in this case. Reid testified he was "not familiar with it." The
hearing officer clarified Reid's answer, then stated "if there is a provision which would
allow an exception, then I think [DCF] probably should have -- should have taken that
avenue."
Subsequently, a Final Order was entered which concluded the Handbook
identifies EAAs which are not covered through the DDHP, and replacement of floor
coverings is not covered. For this reason, the hearing officer affirmed DCF's denial
of Appellant's request to replace the carpeting in his home with tile or linoleum.
An agency's final order based on a conclusion of law is subject to de novo
review. See Parlato v. Secret Oaks Owners Ass'n, 793 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA
2001). A review of the excerpts of the Handbook contained in the record indicates
EAAs which are of "general utility and are not of direct medical or remedial benefit to
-3-

the beneficiary, such as carpeting, . . ." are excluded from coverage. Dept' of
Children & Families, Developmental Servs. Waiver Servs. Fla. Medicaid Coverage
& Limitation Handbook at 2-36 (emphasis added). Here, replacement of Steward's
carpeting with tile would have a direct medical or remedial benefit. Thus, based on the
plain language of the Handbook, flooring replacement in this case would not be
excluded from coverage, and an exception would not be required.
However, to the extent an exception is necessary, it is available through the
terms of the Handbook, which provides in pertinent part that:
[EAAs] are approved when they are medically necessary. The
Department must approve exceptions. To submit an exception request,
the appropriate professional must complete an assessment documenting
how the specific EAA is medically necessary, how it's directly related to
the beneficiary's developmental disability, how it's directly related to
accessibility issues within the home, and how, without the selected EAA,
the beneficiary cannot continue to reside in their current residence. The
request will be reviewed by an appropriate, qualified professional to
determine whether the standards for medical necessity set forth in
Chapter 59G-1.010(166), F.A.C., are met and to determine whether the
requested item fairly meets the service definition.
-4-

Id. at 2-37. The only reasons DCF gave for denying Steward's request were that floor
covering replacement was excluded under the Handbook, and no exceptions were
permissible. DCF erred in both conclusions.
When the hearing officer was told floor covering changes were not permitted,
even in a case where the requested change was supported by competent, substantial
evidence that it was medically necessary, he specifically asked about exceptions.
Clearly, exceptions to the policy are available. Because DCF was neither aware of, nor
did it consider any exception, and the hearing officer indicated exceptions should have
been considered had they been available, the hearing officer erred by denying
Steward's request based solely on the ground that floor covering replacement is
excluded.
Accordingly, we reverse the Final Order and remand for DCF to review
Steward's request to determine whether, under these circumstances, an exception is
even required, and if so, to conduct proceedings to determine whether Steward's
request falls within the exception permitted.
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.
-5-

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Florida Case Law & Florida Court Opinions - Florida Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE