ROBERT LAZARUS, M.D., LICENSE NO. 11744, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Administrative Order Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final administrative order of the Florida Board of Medical Examiners which suspends the appellant Dr. Robert Lazarus’ medical license for two years.
We affirm the order appealed from based on the controlling authority of Rush v. Department of Professional Regulation, 448 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), except as to one particular. The order under review fails to give any reasons, as required by Section 120.57(l)(b)9, Florida Statutes (1983), for increasing the penalty recommended by the hearing examiner in this case. We therefore reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the Florida Board of Medical Examiners with directions to enter a new final order in this cause which either (a) accepts the penalty recommendation of the hearing examiner, or (b) reimposes the penalty under review stating, with particularity, the reasons for increasing the penalty recommended by the hearing examiner.
Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Steven VAN ORE, M.D. v. Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs, 489 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…ecord, the Board believes that the more appropriate penalty is the recommended reprimand and a two-year probation subject to semiannual appearances and continuing medical education.... In the decision of Lazarus v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 461 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), the court remanded the cause to the Board of Medical Examiners to enter a new final order after the board had failed to give valid reasons for increasing the recommended penalty. In LaRossa v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 47…
-
Zafar Shah, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 804 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ection 120.57(1)(l). See Pages v. Department of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med., 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Van Ore v. Board of Med. Exam’rs, 489 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lazarus v. Department of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 461 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). REVERSED and REMANDED. BARFIELD, WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Hether v. Dep't OF Health, 980 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…1126] ommendation of the hearing examiner, or (b) reimposes the penalty under review stating, with particularity, the reasons for increasing the penalty recommended by the hearing examiner. Lazarus v. Dep’t of Prof. Regulation, Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 461 So. 2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. Bd DCA 1985). In the instant case, the Department failed to state with particularity the reasons for the increased punishment consisting of the additional CE requirements. The penalty increase simply stated: Respondent shall document t…
Authorities Cited
- Rush v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 448 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)