James Maddox v. Florida Department of Children and Families. Circuit: 01 (Escambia) Unit: 88113
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledMarch 4, 2020
Docket1D19-1120
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D19-1120
_____________________________
JAMES MADDOX,
Appellant,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.
Circuit: 01 (Escambia) Unit:
88113,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Department of Children and Families.
Melissa Roedel, Hearing Officer.
[Date]
B.L. THOMAS, J.
Appellant appeals a final order denying him Institutional
Care Program Medicaid benefits for the months of July through
November 2018. Appellant also contests the determination of the
Department of Children and Families (the “Department”) that his
Durable Power of Attorney and Qualified Income Trust were
invalid.
Appellant’s daughter established a power of attorney for
Appellant. Appellant’s daughter also established an irrevocable
qualified income trust for Appellant. The wording of the trust
stated that Appellant’s daughter established the trust “at the
direction and upon [Appellant’s] request,” rather than relying on
the power of attorney. Appellant’s daughter corrected an error
within the signature block of the trust with an Affidavit of
Scrivener’s Error.
Appellant filed an application for Medicaid benefits with the
Department on July 31, 2018. The Department denied Appellant’s
application for July, August, September, and October, stating the
Department did not receive proof of the value of Appellant’s assets.
On September 10, 2018, Appellant submitted a request for hearing
and also sent in a new application for benefits. The Department
denied Appellant’s benefits for September, October, and
November. The denial reason provided was failure to submit proof
of the value of assets and failure to receive all information needed
to determine eligibility.
An administrative hearing on this matter was held. The
Hearing Officer issued a final order upholding the Department’s
decision to deny Appellant benefits. The Hearing Officer found
that the power of attorney did not contain the necessary language
to allow Appellant’s daughter to establish an irrevocable trust and
concluded that the Department thus appropriately denied the
petitioner’s application. Although the issue of Appellant’s capacity
was raised during the hearing, it was not addressed by the Hearing
Officer.
This Court reviews a Hearing Officer’s findings of fact for
competent substantial evidence and reviews conclusions of law de
novo. Longhi v. Dep’t of HRS, 691 So. 2d 583, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA
1997). Under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(2)(A), a trust is established if
the assets of the individual creating the trust were used to form all
or part of the trust and if any of the following individuals
established the trust:
(i) The individual.
(ii) The individual’s spouse.
(iii) A person, including a court or administrative body,
with legal authority, to act in place of or on behalf of the
individual or the individual’s spouse.
2
(iv) A person, including any court or administrative body,
acting at the direction or upon the request of the
individual or the individual’s spouse.
Additionally, the Department’s guidelines for reviewing
income trusts allow an attorney, as well as the four people
established in 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(2)(A), to create a valid trust.
The trust established by Appellant’s daughter was prepared by an
attorney, and it was established “for the benefit of JAMES L.
MADDOX at his direction and upon his request, by LINDA M.
SOLICE, as permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(2)(A)(iv).”
The Hearing Officer determined that the wording of the trust
showed that Appellant’s daughter established the trust at
Appellant’s direction and upon his request instead of relying on the
power of attorney. Despite this finding, the Hearing Officer
concluded that the Department appropriately denied Appellant’s
application. The Hearing Officer did not present any findings to
support her conclusion that the trust was invalid and thus erred
by concluding that the trust was invalid under 42 U.S.C. §
1396p(d)(2)(A)(iv).
This case is remanded to determine whether Appellant had
the requisite capacity to give his daughter the authority to sign the
qualified income trust.
REVERSE and REMAND.
WOLF and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Michael T. Heider of Michael T. Heider, P.A., Clearwater, for
Appellant.
3
Katie George, Assistant Region Counsel State of Florida
Department of Children & Families, Pensacola, for Appellee.
4