HARRY IRVING KATZ, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, 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.
The court held that the Board of Medical Examiners' order denying reinstatement was deficient for failing to set forth sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Appellant sought reinstatement to the practice of medicine, but the Florida Board of Medical Examiners denied his petition. The appellant argued the h…
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 Agency Rulemaking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order of the Florida Board of Medical Examiners denying his petition for reinstatement to the practice of medicine in the state of Florida. Two points raised by appellant merit discussion.
First, appellant argues that the reinstatement hearing was materially unfair due to the Board’s failure to promulgate rules of procedure for such hearings. We are unpersuaded by this argument as the Board had adopted the model rules of procedure for all informal and formal proceedings. See Rule 21M-18.04. Florida Administrative Code. Appellant has not shown any prejudice resulting from the Board’s failure to adopt more explicit rules. We reject appellant’s argument that Florida Statutes Section 458.331(4) requires appellant’s reinstatement because of the failure of the agency to develop guidelines for the reissuanee of a license. We view the statute as directory only and not mandatory in the sense that the absence of guidelines would automatically require the reinstatement of every applicant regardless of the reasons for or the terms and conditions of his suspension.
Second, appellant contends the order of the Board is inadequate in that it fails to set forth sufficient findings of fact or conclusions of law. We agree. The order is totally deficient in findings of fact or statements of policy supporting the denial of the reissuance of this license. An agency which has opted not to establish guidelines for a particular proceeding is required to make specific findings of fact and state the policy reasons supporting the agency action. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Thus, due to the lack of appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law the order is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
McCORD and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., and LILES, WOODIE A., Associate Judge (Ret.), concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 468 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Lash, Inc. v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, 411 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Katz v. Florida State Board of Medical Examiners, 405 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).…
-
Raymond H. Wood, Jr., D.D.S. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 490 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…etition for reinstatement considered. . Home Health Professional Services, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 463 So. 2d 345, 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). . Id. at 348. See also, Katz v. Florida State Board of Medical Examiners, 405 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (where no guidelines had been established for action on physician’s petition for reinstatement of license to practice medicine, Board was required to make specific findings of fact and state the policy reasons supporting the Boar…
-
Newell Jerome Griffith, M.D. v. Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs, 454 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…t his medical judgment, as evidenced by his history of misconduct, has improved such that it is unlikely that he will again violate the Medical Practice Act and the rules or orders of the Board.” In Katz v. Florida State Board of Medical Examiners, 405 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), this court rejected Katz’s argument that Section 458.331(4), Florida Statutes,2 required Katz’s reinstatement because of the failure of the agency to develop guidelines for the reissuance of a license. However, we further held:…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDONALD v. Dep't OF Banking & Fin., 346 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)