BEK-NEW CHEMIST, INC. AND HOWARD NEWMAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF PHARMACY, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1984-08-07
Nos. 83-2139, 83-2140
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., DANIEL S. PEARSON, J., and ROBERT C. SCOTT, Associate Judge.
453 So. 2d 881 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1984) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Topics
License Revocation Administrative Law Default Judgment Due Process

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse License Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants, Howard Newman, a pharmacist, and Bek-New Chemist, Inc., a pharmacy, were charged with dispensing a controlled substance without a prescription and failing to maintain accurate records of a controlled substance. At a brief hearing, which appellant Newman failed to attend, the hearing officer recommended to the Department of Professional Regulation that Newman’s license and Bek-New Chemist’s permit be revoked based upon evidence presented. The Department acted on the recommendation and the hearing concluded before Newman’s arrival. It appears that Newman arrived some twenty minutes late for the hearing and sought to vacate the default and schedule a rehearing. His efforts, however, were futile. From a review of the record, it appears unduly harsh and oppressive to deprive Newman of his livelihood upon his default in this case.

We note that Appellee’s counsel was granted a continuance earlier in the proceedings.

Additionally, appellants’ failure to employ counsel to steer them through the procedural shoals should not be fatal to their appeal. We therefore reverse and direct that the cause be remanded for a hearing on the merits.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Ivery v. State, 548 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
    …-Santos, 497 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1986). The trial court erred in not instructing the jury that Walton’s prior inconsistent statement was relevant only to Walton’s credibility and not as proof or evidence of the defendant’s guilt. See Brumbley v. State, 453 So. 2d 881 (Fla.1984). We reject the state’s argument that the error was harmless. The only other evidence against the defendant was circumstantial and certainly not compelling. Absent Walton’s prior inconsistent statement, the evidence against the defendant…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw