GEORGE MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF OPTICIANRY, 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.
The agency's final order is reversed and remanded because it failed to comply with statutory requirements for rejecting a hearing officer's recommended order.
The hearing officer recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint against the appellant. The agency rejected this recommendation and imposed a…
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 Administrative Procedure Act cases and more on FLexlaw
SANDERLIN, Judge.
This is an administrative appeal of an agency’s final order entered against appellant. We reverse and remand.
According to section 120.57(l)(b) 9, Florida Statutes (1985): [t]he agency may adopt the recommended order as the final order of the agency. The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative rules in the recommended order, but may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law....
In this case the hearing officer recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint as filed against the appellant. The agency’s final order rejected this recommendation and imposed a penalty of $500. Contrary to the statute, the agency’s final order does not reflect a review of the complete record or state with particularity its reasons for rejecting the hearing officer’s recommendation.
Therefore, we reverse and remand the case to the agency for entry of a final order in compliance with the statute. Thereafter, any party aggrieved by such an order and wishing to seek relief therefrom, must file a new appeal.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rabren v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 568 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…o penalty was recommended or imposed. We disagree, and hold that the procedural provision was applicable in the instant case. We also note that the provision was applied under similar circumstances in Martin v. Department of Professional Regulation, 485 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Another argument posed by DPR is based upon the definition of “complete record.” According to DPR, section 120.-57(1)(b)(6), Florida Statutes (1987), which defines the term, is phrased as a limitation on what may be included in…
-
Holmes v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 504 So. 2d 1338 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…the agency responsibility under section 120.57(l)(b)9 to review the complete record and state “with particularity its reasons therefor in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action.” Martin v. Department of Professional Regulation, 485 So. 2d 39 (Fla.2d DCA 1986); Devor v. Department of Insurance, 473 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), pet. for review den., 476 So. 2d 673 (Fla.1985). We agree, however, with appellant’s contention as to the final provision of the order: “The Respondent is per…