LYDIA SIESS, D/B/A BAYVIEW SUPERIOR RETIREMENT HOME, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of appellant’s license to operate an adult congregate living facility.
An agency may reject a hearing officer’s conclusions of law. Alies v. De partment of Professional Regulation, 423 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The agency-concluded as a matter of law that the violations found by the hearing officer amounted to “a substantial danger to health and welfare.” Section 400.414(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1983), authorizes revocation of a license for acts “seriously affecting the health, safety, or welfare of a resident.” We construe the agency’s conclusion of law as falling within this statutory ground for revocation.
This court is without authority to review the penalty imposed by the agency because that penalty is permitted by section 400.414. See Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1978).
AFFIRMED.
RYDER, C.J., and OTT and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harloff v. City OF Sarasota & Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 575 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…ported by competent, substantial evidence. The District has broad powers to reject conclusions of law which have been proposed by the hearing officer. § 120.57(1)(b)(10), Fla.Stat. (1989); Hunter; Siess v. Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 468 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); MacPherson; Alles v. Dep’t of Prof Reg., 423 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). We recognize that if an agency rejects a proposed penalty, it must adequately explain its reasons with “particularity.” § 120.57(1)(b)(10), Fla.Stat. (1…
-
MacPHERSON v. Sch. Bd. OF Monroe Cnty., 505 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…orted by competent substantial evidence. The same is not true for the conclusions of law set out in a hearing officer’s recommended order, which the agency is free to reject in whole or in part. Siess v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 468 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Alles v. Department of Professional Regulation, Constr. Indus. Licensing Bd., 423 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); § 120.57(l)(b)(9), Fla.Stat. (1985). In its final order the Board rejected the hearing officer’s finding that Mac-…
-
Spurlin v. The Sch. Bd. OF Sarasota Cnty., 520 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…of any crime involving mortal turpitude. In its final order, the school board adopted the hearing officer’s findings of fact but disagreed with the conclusion of law, as it was entitled to do, Siess v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 468 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), that the [*296] existence of “good cause” is to be determined within the seven factors enumerated in section 231.36(4)(c). We find that competent substantial evidence supports the school board’s final order and we affirm. The pr…
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
- Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Casimir Szpak v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Liscio, 423 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)