Mother can represent disabled child in administrative appeal
Unlicensed Practice of Law Standing Committee members discussed a recent Third District Court of Appeal ruling that a mother could represent her disabled daughter in an administrative appeal.
The committee reviewed A.C. c/o V.R. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 3D19-365, at its October 18 gathering at the Bar’s Fall Meeting. Bar UPL Counsel Will Spillias presented it as an informational item, and the committee took no action beyond the discussion.
In the case, V.R., a single mother of three, was representing her 13-year-old disabled daughter on an administrative appeal in a Medicaid case, saying she could not afford an attorney on her $750 monthly income. The Agency for Health Care Administration did not oppose the mother’s representation, but did bring it to the court’s attention in case issues arose later.
The court cited several reasons for allowing the mother to proceed, but also delayed the appeal to see if a lawyer would volunteer to represent V.R. and her daughter in it’s September 11 ruling on ACHA’s clarification request.
“To AHCA’s credit, AHCA merely raised the question rather than moving to strike V.R.’s notice of appeal or preclude V.R. from filing a brief or other pleading on behalf of A.C. in this Court,” Judge Vance Salter wrote for the unanimous three-judge panel. “We address AHCA’s motion in this opinion in order to advise V.R. that, absent further order or guidance from The Florida Bar or Florida Supreme Court, she is not precluded from filing papers in this case.”
In a footnote, Salter noted the Third DCA clerk had sent a list of legal aid agencies and other pro bono sources to V.R., but no attorney had filed a notice of appearance.
Nonetheless, the opinion concluded: “[W]e take the further step of abating this case for sixty days to allow a non-profit legal service provider or Florida-licensed attorney to volunteer pro bono assistance to the appellant in this case, in the event one steps forward after reading this opinion. We express no present opinion regarding the merits or outcome of the case.”
The opinion allowed V.R.’s representation of her daughter because:
• Under Florida law, “‘Each parent has a fundamental obligation to support his or her minor or legally dependent child.’ §61.29(1), Fla. Stat. (2019).”
• The child, identified as A.C., cannot represent herself and Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.540(a) requires that courts provide reasonable accommodations for disabled persons to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• The courts are “open to every person for redress of any injury” and it would be illogical to allow V.R. to represent her daughter in the administrative hearing but not in the resulting appeal “unless she can apply her scant resources to hiring an attorney.” Salter, in another part of the opinion wrote, “It seems apparent that V.R. lacks the resources to retain and pay for an attorney.”
• Although V.R. is a nonlawyer, there is no reported case law or advisory opinion, “involving the parent’s claim on behalf of his or her child,” nor has AHCA sought an UPL advisory opinion under Florida Bar rules.
