JOSEPH VEY, APPELLANT,
v.
DISTRICT III MENTAL HEALTH BOARD, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Joseph Vey challenged his discharge from a mental health clinic, arguing that the District III Mental Health Board improperly denied him a formal hearing and instead only reviewed an informal grievance hearing. The court held that the Mental Health Board violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide a formal hearing as required by law.
The Mental Health Board's decision to act as a review board without providing a formal hearing was unauthorized by its own rules and by Chapter 120 (the Administrative Procedure Act) of the Florida Statutes. Vey is entitled to a fair and impartial formal hearing conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act before a hearing officer provided by the Division of Administrative Hearings.
[1] A review board's election to act solely as a review board, rather than granting a formal hearing, may be unauthorized by its own rules and the Administrative Procedure Ac…
[2] An employee is entitled to a fair and impartial formal hearing conducted pursuant to statutory procedures when challenging a termination.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Mental Health Board's election to act as a review board was unauthorized by its own rules and by the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.”
States the core legal violation—the Mental Health Board lacked authority to review-only rather than hold a formal hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVey was employed by the Bradford-Union Guidance Clinic, which operated under contract with the North Central Florida Community Mental Health Center an…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Procedure Act cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Joseph Vey was discharged from his employment with the Bradford-Union Guidance Clinic (Clinic).
The District III Mental Health Board is a planning agency through which funds from the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services are channeled to provider agencies, one of which is the North Central Florida Community Mental Health Center, Inc. (Mental Health Center).
The Clinic provides mental health services in Bradford and Union Counties under contract with the Mental Health Center. The Clinic’s letter terminating the appellant’s employment specified in detail grounds for the discharge. The appellant filed a written grievance with the Clinic’s Personnel Committee and requested immediate hearing on the matter. Appellant received four days’ notice of the scheduled hearing. The hearing was transcribed by a court reporter, witnesses were called, and both the appellant and the Clinic were represented by counsel. After the Personnel Committee upheld appellant’s termination, appellant filed a formal complaint with the District III Mental Health Board. The Mental Health Board refused to grant appellant a formal hearing. Instead, the Mental Health Board elected to merely review the record of the hearing before the Clinic’s Personnel Committee to insure that appellant’s rights had been protected. Appellant filed written protest to the denial of the requested hearing. This appeal followed the Mental Health Board’s final order denying appellant’s grievances.
We reverse. There was only four days’ notice of the hearing. The Chairman of the Personnel Committee repeatedly characterized the hearing as informal. We conclude therefrom and from our review of the transcript that the hearing before the Clinic’s Personnel Committee was intended to be an informal step in the grievance procedure. The Mental Health Board’s election to act as a review board was unauthorized by its own rules and by the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.
Appellant is entitled to a fair and impartial formal hearing conducted pursuant to the procedures provided by Section 120.-57(l)(b), Florida Statutes, and before a hearing officer provided by the Division of Administrative Hearings of the Department of Administration as provided by Section 120.57(l)(a).
Reversed and Remanded for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
MeCORD, Acting C. J., and MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VEY v. Bradford Union Guidance Clinic, Inc., 399 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)…eal resulted in a decision by this court which reversed the Board’s order denying Vey’s request for de novo determination of an employment grievance (already heard and denied by a Clinic personnel committee). Vey v. District III Mental Health Board, 376 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). We found that “the Mental Health Board’s election to act as a review board was unauthorized by its own rules and by the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Appellant is entitled to a fair and impartial f…1 / 2