BELTRAN J. PAGES, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, APPELLEE
JAMES C. DAUKSCH, Jr., Associate Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of appel-lee suspending appellant from the practice of medicine for three years and for probation for an indefinite period thereafter.
The evidence amply supports the penalty recommended by the hearing officer, to six months suspension and a fine and two years probation. 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 was not done here and that failure requires reversal.
We reverse the order increasing the penalty and remand the matter to the Board of Medicine for entry of a proper order. Upon remand the Board may want to reconsider, or be prepared to justify, its “indefinite,” potentially lifetime, probation requirement.
Penalty order reversed; remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moises Grimberg v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 542 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…eciate the gravity of an inability to make accurate diagnoses — is fully explicated in the record and in the Board’s final order. See Schomer v. Department of Prof. Reg., 417 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Compare Pages v. Department of Prof. Reg., 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (failure to state in the order reasons for increasing the hearing officer’s recommended penalty necessitated reversal). It is otherwise agreed that the increased penalty falls within the permissible range. The appellate function…
-
M. James Hanley, R.N. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 549 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…he penalty recommended by the Hearing Officer it would have to state with particularity its reasons for increasing the penalty and cite to those reasons which justify the action. See Pages v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In Bernal one of the reasons given by the board for increasing the penalty was the appellant doctor’s lack of candor in his te…
-
Rajendr Bajrangi v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 561 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…erence of opinion or disagreement with the assessment of the seriousness of the offense, the panel majority reversed and remanded for imposition of the hearing officer’s recommended penalty. 549 So. 2d at 1165. See also Pages v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In Jimenez v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., 556 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), a different panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the Board of Medicine’s increase of a penalty on two grounds: (1) that the physician had lie…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. Pedro F. Bernal, M.D., 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1988)
- 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)