IVAN ITURRALDE, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 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.
Ivan Iturralde appeals the Board of Medical Examiners' revocation of his medical license. The court reverses and remands because the Board failed to explicitly rule on each of Iturralde's twenty-four exceptions to the hearing officer's recommended order, as required by administrative procedure rules.
An administrative agency must explicitly rule on each exception to a recommended order submitted by a party in a section 120.57 proceeding, except for exceptions determined to be subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary, which must be designated as such. A blanket rejection without explicit rulings on each exception violates administrative procedure requirements.
[1] An agency must explicitly rule on each exception filed by a party to a recommended order, unless the proposed facts are subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessar…
[2] An agency is not permitted to summarily reject exceptions to a recommended order without providing specific grounds for denial.
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“a party to a 120.57 proceeding is entitled to submit proposed findings of fact (s.l20.57(l)(b)4), and that an agency must explicitly rule on those proposed findings of fact (s.120.-59(2))”
Establishes the core requirement that agencies must provide explicit rulings on submitted exceptions and proposed findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a lengthy formal hearing, a hearing officer from the Department of Administrative Hearings recommended revocation of Iturralde's medical lic…
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 Proposed Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Iturralde appeals an order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, which revoked his medical license. We reverse and remand.
Subsequent to a lengthy formal hearing a hearing officer from the Department of Administrative Hearings filed a recommended order urging Iturralde’s license be revoked for violations of Sections 458.-331(l)(n), (q), (t) and (cc), Florida Statutes (1981). Iturralde duly filed twenty-four exceptions to the recommended order as he is entitled to by sections 120.57(l)(b)4 and 8, F.S. (1983).
The Board of Medical Examiners adopted the recommended order in its entirety and ordered Iturralde’s license revoked. Itur-ralde’s exceptions were summarily rejected with the statement: “The exceptions to the recommended order posed by Respondent are rejected in that the evidence in the record supports the hearing officer’s findings of fact and the Board is comfortable with the evidentiary rulings of the hearing officer. Further, to accept the exceptions posed by Respondent would require the Board to rule on constitutional questions. This the Board may not do.”
Rule 28-5.405(3), which was adopted by the Department of Professional Regulations in Rule 21M-18.04, states:
If a party files exceptions to a recommended order or submits proposed findings of fact to the Agency, the final order shall include an explicit ruling on each exception or proposed finding of fact as well as a brief statement of grounds for denying the exception or proposed finding of fact; provided, however, an Agency is not required to make explicit rulings on subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, or unnecessary proposed facts and such proposed facts may be rejected in the final order by simple statement that they are irrelevant or immaterial.”
We have expressly held that a party to a 120.57 proceeding is entitled to submit proposed findings of fact (s.l20.57(l)(b)4), and that an agency must explicitly rule on those proposed findings of fact (s.120.-59(2)). The agency is excused from the duty of explicit rulings only if the facts proposed are subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary and the agency designates them as such. See Island Harbor Beach Club, Ltd. v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Kinast v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 458 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Pelham v. Superintendent of School Board of Wakulla County, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Wong v. Career Service Commission, 371 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Forrester v. Career Service Commission, 361 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Stuckey’s of Eastman, Georgia v. Dept. of Transportation, 340 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). “Otherwise the requirement of s.l20.57(l)(b)4 would be no requirement at all and would be meaningless.” Pelham v. Superintendent, supra, citing, Forrester v. Career Service Commission, supra.
The same reasoning applies in this case. Both sections 120.57(l)(b)4 and 8 grant parties to an administrative proceeding the right to submit exceptions to recommended orders. Rule 28-5.405(3) requires the agency to explicitly rule on these exceptions. The Rule does not even seem to give the agency the leniency of finding the exceptions subordinate, cumulative, immaterial or unnecessary.
It is clear from the record on appeal that the Board specifically decided against expressly ruling on Iturralde’s exceptions. Rule 28-5.405(3) does not allow the Board that luxury. See also Lloyd v. Department of Professional Regulation, 473 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
Consequently, we remand the final order to the Board of Medical Examiners to expressly rule on the exceptions submitted by Iturralde. Because of this disposition, we do not reach Iturralde’s other allegations of error. Reversed and remanded.
SHIVERS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Life Care Ctrs. OF Am., Inc. v. Sawgrass Care Ctr., Inc., 683 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…orders within fifteen days of their entry, § 120.57(l)(i), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996), and agencies that receive recommended orders remain under a duty to address exceptions taken in a timely fashion. Iturralde v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In these circumstances, repeal of the second sentence of former section 120.59(2) does not preclude adequate judicial review of quasi-judicial adjudication undertaken by the executive branch. Repeal of the second sentence of se…
-
Earl B. Britt, M.D. v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 492 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…...” An agency’s failure to comply with this rule may necessitate reversal and remand of the agency order. See Lloyd v. Department of Professional Regulation, 473 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). In Iturralde v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), this court determined that an agency’s statement that exceptions were rejected because “the evidence in the record supports the hearing officer’s findings of fact” did not satisfy the requirement of an explicit ruling. However,…
-
Beacon Fin., Inc. v. Dep't of Ins., 656 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…section 120.54(10), Florida Statutes, and we hold that Beacon’s exceptions were timely under the rule.2 Since it would be inappropriate for this court to pass on the merits of Beacon’s exceptions, Iturralde v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So. 2d 1315, 1316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), on remand it will be incumbent upon the Department to consider them. The Department’s final order must also be reversed to the extent that the Department’s application of the provisions of section 624.418, Florida Statute…
Authorities Cited
- Stuckey's OF Eastman v. Dep't OF Transp., 340 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Wong v. The Career Serv. Comm'n & the Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 371 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- Forrester v. Career Serv. Comm'n of Fla., 361 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Island Harbor Beach Club, Ltd. v. Dep't OF Natural Res., 476 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Lifschitz v. Filomena Troccoli and Emilio Troccoli, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Berthold Kinast v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Lloyd v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 473 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)