Balino v. Dept. of Hlt. Rehab. Serv

18 Citing cases

  1. Young v. Department of Community Affairs

    625 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 1993)   Cited 7 times
    In Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1993), the Florida Supreme Court held that an "appeal" of a development order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission pursuant to section 380.07 was by de novo hearing.

    The general rule is that, apart from statute, the burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal. Balino v. Department of Health Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In Estuary Properties, which involved a hearing before the Commission pursuant to section 380.07, this Court explained that the state had the initial burden of going forward with the evidence by showing "that an adverse impact will result if a permit is granted."

  2. Bernstein v. Bernstein

    374 So. 3d 8 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)

    J., concurring and dissenting))); Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., Inc., 678 So. 2d 1262, 1264 n.1 (Fla, 1996) (quoting approvingly "the general rule that the burden of proof on any point is upon the party asserting it" (internal quotations and citation omitted); Balino v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 348 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) ("The general rule is, that as in court proceedings, the burden of proof, apart from statute, is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal."); Martyn v. Amold, 36 Fla. 446, 18 So. 791, 794 (1895) ("The burden of proof, however, is upon the party impeaching the account stated to exhibit such fraud, mistake, or error.").

  3. Silvia v. Castle Key Ins. Co.

    362 So. 3d 324 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    SeeIn re Ziy's Estate , 223 So. 2d 42, 43 (Fla. 1969) ; cf.Bourne v. State Bank of Orlando & Tr. Co. , 106 Fla. 46, 142 So. 810, 816 (1932) ("When an affirmative or pure plea is interposed to a bill of complaint, the burden of proof is on him who files it."); Dep't of Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. & Inv. Prot. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1996) (agreeing that "[t]he general rule is that a party asserting the affirmative of an issue has the burden of presenting evidence as to that issue" (quoting Osborne Stern & Co., Inc. v. Dep't of Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. & Inv. Prot. , 647 So. 2d 245, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (Booth, J., concurring and dissenting))); Nash v. Wells Fargo Guard Servs., Inc. , 678 So. 2d 1262, 1264 n.1 (Fla. 1996) (quoting approvingly "the general rule that the burden of proof on any point is upon the party asserting it" (internal quotations and citation omitted); Balino v. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs. , 348 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) ("The general rule is, that as in court proceedings, the burden of proof, apart from statute, is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal."); Martyn v. Amold , 36 Fla. 446, 18 So. 791, 794 (1895) ("The burden of proof, however, is upon the party impeaching the account stated to exhibit such fraud, mistake, or error.").

  4. N.R. v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n

    143 So. 3d 463 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

    hether, if raised by the claimant or other party, the factual determinations regarding the notice requirements in § 766.316 are satisfied. The administrative law judge has the exclusive jurisdiction to make these factual determinations.”); Fla. Birth–Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass'n v. Fla. Div. of Admin. Hearings, 948 So.2d 705, 717 n. 18 (Fla.2007) (noting that the 2006 amendment to section 766.309, Florida Statutes, “ ‘clarifies that since July 1, 1998, the administrative law judge has had the exclusive jurisdiction to make factual determinations as to whether the notice requirements in s. 766.316, Florida Statutes, are satisfied.’ ” (quoting Ch. 2006–8, § 2, at 194, Laws of Fla.)); see also Fla. Health Scis. Ctr., Inc. v. Div. of Admin. Hearings, 974 So.2d 1096, 1099–1100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Because it was the healthcare providers who sought the affirmative application of these provisions, the burden rested on them to show that the statutory requirements were met.” (citing Balino v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (observing that “the burden of proof, apart from statute, is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal”))). As Dr. Ojeda states in pertinent part in his reply brief, “the proper evaluation as to Dr. Ojeda, individually, would have been for the ALJ to ascertain when the provider-obstetrical relationship was established between Dr. Ojeda and N.R. This is mandated by Weeks. While the ALJ specifically made a finding as to when Dr. Maki formed a professional relationship with N.R., the ALJ did not do so as to Dr. Ojeda.”

  5. HE. SCI. v. DIV. OF AD. HEA

    974 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 4 times

    The trial court, pursuant to O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass'n, 757 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that the proper forum for determining the compensability under the Plan is the administrative proceeding), stayed the civil action to allow the Britts to file their petition to determine whether the Plan applied to these injuries. In the administrative forum, the Britts alleged that although the injuries were compensable, notice was deficient and that thus the immunity and exclusivity provisions did not apply. Because it was the healthcare providers who sought the affirmative application of these provisions, the burden rested on them to show that the statutory requirements were met. See Balino v. Dep't of Health Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) ("[T]he burden of proof, apart from statute, is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal."). Furthermore, even if the Britts did have the burden to show that there was no notice of the physician's participation in the Plan, the testimony in the record supports the ALJ's conclusion that Sandra Britt did not receive more than the general brochure from the physician.

  6. FL Hth. Sciences v. Admin. Hearings

    Case Nos. 2D01-3919, 2D01-3970 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2007)

    The trial court, pursuant to O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Ass'n, 757 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding that the proper forum for determining the compensability under the Plan is the administrative proceeding), stayed the civil action to allow the Britts to file their petition to determine whether the Plan applied to these injuries. In the administrative forum, the Britts alleged that although the injuries were compensable, notice was deficient and that thus the immunity and exclusivity provisions did not apply. Because it was the healthcare providers who sought the affirmative application of these provisions, the burden rested on them to show that the statutory requirements were met. See Balino v. Dep't of Health Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) ("[T]he burden of proof, apart from statute, is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal."). Furthermore, even if the Britts did have the burden to show that there was no notice of the physician's participation in the Plan, the testimony in the record supports the ALJ's conclusion that Sandra Britt did not receive more than the general brochure from the physician.

  7. C.F. v. Dept. of Children and Families

    934 So. 2d 1 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 9 times
    Reversing and remanding where hearing officer failed to apply EPSDT standard in determining Medicaid coverage

    Furthermore, because this case involves a reduction of Medicaid services, the Department has the burden of proof. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 65-2.060; Balino v. Dep't of Health Rehab. Serv., 348 So.2d 349, 351-52 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Here, there was no competent substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's determination that the Department met its burden of proof to show that C.F.'s PCA hours were no longer medically necessary.

  8. Espinoza v. Dept. of Business

    739 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    The general rule is that, apart from statute, the burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal. See Balino v. Department of Health Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Furthermore, an applicant who seeks to establish that the initial review of his application was incorrect must show that the agency's initial decision was arbitrary and capricious. See Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So.2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).

  9. Environmental Trust v. State

    714 So. 2d 493 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that an agency statement explaining "how an existing rule of general applicability will be applied in a particular set of facts" is not itself an unadopted rule and does not require agency rulemaking

    A party who asserts a disputed claim before an administrative agency generally has the burden of going forward with the evidence as well as the ultimate burden of establishing the basis for the claim. Young v. Department of Community Affairs, 625 So.2d 831 (Fla. 1993); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Environmental Trust and Sarasota Investors failed to satisfy this burden by showing that there was a legal basis for their claim to reimbursement for the cost of the discounts or the markups.

  10. Board of Trustees of the Northwest Florida Community Hospital v. Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement

    651 So. 2d 170 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    Accordingly, the hearing officer correctly determined that the Hospital's decision to treat Mr. Brown as an independent contractor established the status quo and thus the Division had the burden to demonstrate that Mr. Brown was in fact an employee. See Florida Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Balino v. Department of Health Rehab. Servs., 348 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) ("The general rule is, that as in court proceedings, the burden of proof, apart from statute, is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal."). With regard to the substantive issue of whether an individual is an employee or independent contractor, the hearing officer made extensive findings in which he applied the multiple factors established by the supreme court in Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So.2d 173 (Fla. 1966).