R. FREDERICK BOEDY, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Board of Medical Examiners has jurisdiction to discipline physicians with inactive licenses. The court affirmed the Board's order rejecting Boedy's argument that it lacked authority to proceed against him because his medical license was inactive.
The Board has jurisdiction to discipline physicians with inactive licenses. A licensee's voluntary assumption of inactive status does not shield them from disciplinary action, as the Legislature intended for all licensees to remain subject to the Board's regulatory authority.
[1] A medical board retains jurisdiction to discipline inactive licenses.
[2] A physician's inactive license status does not immunize them from disciplinary action.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 Board likewise rejects [Boedy's] position that there is no legitimate interest in assuring that nonpracticing physicians are able to practice with reasonable skill and safety.”
Establishes that the Board has a legitimate public interest in regulating inactive licensees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoedy held an inactive medical license. The Board initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. Boedy moved to dismiss, arguing the Board lacked jur…
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.
PER CURIAM.
On remand pursuant to our decision and opinion, 428 So. 2d 758, announced March 25, 1983, the Board of Medical Examiners on April 21, 1983, entered an order denying petitioner Boedy’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, saying:
[Boedy’s] argument that [the Board] lacks jurisdiction to discipline inactive licenses is rejected for the same reasons expressed by the hearing officer in his order denying the motion. [Boedy’s] reliance on the wording “physician practicing in this state” found in Section 458.301, Florida Statutes, to support this jurisdictional claim is undercut not only by the language used in the last sentence of that same section but also by the use of the phrase “any person” in Section 458.331(2), Florida Statutes. The Board likewise rejects [Boedy’s] position that there is no legitimate interest in assuring that nonpracticing physicians are able to practice with reasonable skill and safety. This argument overlooks the fact that a licensee can reactivate his license at his own volition and to suggest that physicians should be able to immunize themselves from prosecution by simply going inactive suggests a form of self-regulation of the medical profession which was obviously rejected by the Legislature when it chose to enact Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. To permit a licensee to indefinitely hide behind an inactive status while evidence is lost, witnesses disappear and memory is eradicated serves no useful public interest.
We have now considered petitioner Boedy’s arguments, previously addressed to the hearing officer’s order, as addressed now to the Board’s order. For the reasons expressed by the Board, Boedy's motion to dismiss is without merit. The Board’s order is accordingly
AFFIRMED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and LARRY G. SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
PER CURIAM.
In our earlier consideration of this case the court did not overlook Boedy’s contention that another order of the hearing officer, requiring Boedy to answer interrogatories concerning the identity of his anticipated witnesses and the subjects on which his experts would testify, improperly compromises Boedy’s fifth amendment privilege not to be a witness against himself. The order does not compel Boedy to testify and the constitutional claim is without merit. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970).
The motion for rehearing is DENIED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and LARRY G. SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't of Prof'l Reg. v. Roger Marrero, M.D., 536 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…it to set forth the terms and conditions by which a certificate may be issued includes as well the necessarily implied power of denying the holder of a teaching certificate his offer to surrender the same); Boedy v. Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 433 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (the voluntary deactivation of a medical license by a licensee did not divest the board of jurisdiction from prosecuting the licensee for alleged violations of Chapter 458). Whether the above authorities persuasively support the…
-
Haggerty v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 716 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…der imposing one or more of the following penalties[.] (Emphasis added.) This wording permits the discipline of a former licensee for conduct committed while the license was active, as was the case in Boedy v. Department of Professional Regulation, 433 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), wherein a physician whose license was inactive challenged the depart [*875] ment’s jurisdiction to discipline him. He argued that section 458.801, Florida Statutes, provided that the legislative purpose of chap? ter 458 was to i…
-
Jose N. Proenza Sanfiel, R.N. v. Dep't OF Health, 749 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…racticing nursing in January 1997, but he was licensed and his license was active and evidently in good standing. Therefore, the Board had jurisdiction to discipline him. Compare Boedy v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 433 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (Board of Medical Examiners had jurisdiction to discipline physician whose license was inactive) with Taylor v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 534 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (Board of Medical Ex…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1970)
- Boedy v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 428 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Whittle v. State, 428 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)