DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, PETITIONER,
v.
PEDRO F. BERNAL, M.D., RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed a case involving revocation of a physician's medical license by the Board of Medicine. The court held that while administrative agencies have broad discretion, reviewing courts may examine whether an agency's reasons for modifying a hearing officer's recommended penalty are legally sufficient and supported by the record.
Reviewing courts can and should review the reasons asserted by an agency in modifying a hearing officer's recommended order. If the reasons for the change are legally insufficient or not properly referenced to the record, courts may remand with instructions to approve the hearing officer's recommendations. However, courts cannot substitute their judgment for the agency's if valid reasons exist in the record.
[1] An agency's reasons for modifying a hearing officer's recommended order are subject to judicial review for legal sufficiency.
[2] If an agency's reasons for modifying a hearing officer's recommended order are legally insufficient, a reviewing court may remand with instructions to adopt the hearing o…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We hold that the district court can and should review the reasons asserted by an agency in modifying a hearing officer's recommended order. If the reasons for the change are legally insufficient, it is entirely appropriate to remand with instructions to approve the hearing officer's recommendations.”
Establishes the core holding that courts have authority to examine agency reasoning when modifying hearing officer recommendations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA hearing officer recommended a ninety-day suspension followed by one-year probation after finding that Dr. Bernal assisted the practice of medicine b…
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 Deference To Agency Expertise cases and more on FLexlaw
McDONALD, Justice.
We accepted Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), for review because the district court certified conflict with Britt v. Department of Professional Regulation, 492 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, and approve Bernal and disapprove Britt.
A hearing officer recommended a ninety-day suspension followed by a one-year probation after finding that Dr. Bernal had assisted the practice of medicine by unlicensed persons.1 The Department of Professional Regulation filed exceptions to the penalty and recommended a one-year suspension. The Florida Board of Medicine, however, revoked Dr. Bernal’s medical license outright. Its recited reasons for rejecting the recommended penalty were that Dr. Bernal was less than candid in his testimony before the hearing officer and that patients were endangered by unlicensed persons practicing medicine.
The district court, noting the provisions of subsection 120.57(l)(b)10, Florida Statutes (Supp.1986), found that the reasons utilized to modify the recommended order were insufficient and directed the board to implement the penalty recommended by the hearing officer. DPR argues that the district court cannot substitute its judgment for the medical board and must approve the board’s recommendations. This is not what the district court did. It found that the board did not comply with the statute’s requirement of stating valid reasons and citing to the record to justify its action. We hold that the district court can and should review the reasons asserted by an agency in modifying a hearing officer’s recommended order. If the reasons for the change are legally insufficient, it is entirely appropriate to remand with instructions to approve the hearing officer’s recommendations.2
While we approve the district court of appeal’s decision in this case, we are mindful that the medical board has great expertise and discretion. Reviewing courts cannot substitute their judgment for a board’s determination if valid reasons for the board’s order exist in the record and reference is made thereto. See Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1978). The district court recognized that principle of review here.
We approve the decision under review and, to the extent it conflicts with this opinion, disapprove Britt v. Department of Professional Regulation, 492 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur. . Dr. Bernal cross-appealled the finding of guilt. We reject his contention on this.
. We reject DPR’s contention that the matter should be remanded to the board to give it a second chance to modify the penalty.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (32 total)
-
Beltran J. Pages, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ation. In order for the appellee to increase the penalty, as it did, it is necessary to comply with Section 120.-57(l)(b)(10), Florida Statutes (1987). See Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), affirmed, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988). It is necessary for the Board of Medicine to conduct a “review of the complete record ...” and state “with particularity its reasons” for increasing the penalty “... in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action.” That w…
-
Harloff v. City OF Sarasota & Sw. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 575 So. 2d 1324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…es 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. (1989); Dep’t of Prof Reg. v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988); O’Connor v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., 566 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). There is, however, no comparable statutory requirement that an agency state with particularity its reasons for rejecting conclusions of law that do not involve a penalty…
-
Munch v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 592 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…permit it to reconsider the penalty imposed upon appellant in light of this opinion. See Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1978); Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), approved, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988). However, in doing so, we note our agreement with the hearing officer that the violation of Section 475.25(l)(e) was “minimal [and] technical ... arising from changes in statutes.” We also believe that it is appropriate to set out the fol…
Previewing 3 of 32 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)
- Deroy Carter v. State, 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Pedro F. Bernal, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Earl B. Britt, M.D. v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 492 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)