MOISES GRIMBERG, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, 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.
Dr. Grimberg appeals the Board of Medicine's decision to increase the penalty recommended by a hearing officer for professional misconduct involving diagnostic incompetence and malpractice. The court affirms, finding no abuse of discretion where the Board imposed a license suspension pending competency demonstration through additional training and examination.
The Board of Medicine did not abuse its discretion. Where a physician's conduct demonstrates a lack of competency, the Board is obligated to suspend the license until satisfied that the person is capable of safely practicing medicine. The Board's stated reason for increasing the penalty—that the hearing officer did not appreciate the gravity of an inability to make accurate diagnoses—is fully explained in the record and final order.
[1] A Board of Medicine is not required to accept a hearing officer's recommended penalty if the Board finds it too lenient.
[2] A Board of Medicine may suspend a physician's license until competency is demonstrated through additional training and examination when the physician's conduct shows a la…
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“where the physician's conduct demonstrates a lack of competency the Board is obligated to suspend his license until it is satisfied that 'such person is capable of safely engaging in the practice of medicine.'”
Establishes the Board's statutory obligation when faced with demonstrated incompetence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe hearing officer found that Dr. Grimberg was incompetent to make diagnoses, guilty of malpractice, and failed to keep adequate records justifying t…
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 License Suspension cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dr. Grimberg appeals that part of an order of the Board of Medicine increasing a penalty recommended by the hearing officer. The findings of fact by the hearing officer — that the appellant/physician was not competent to make a diagnosis, was guilty of malpractice, and failed to keep records to justify the course of treatment with respect to three patients — are undisputed. The single issue presented is whether the Board of Medicine abused its discretion in rejecting, as too lenient, the penalty recommended by the hearing officer and imposing, inter alia, a license suspension until the physician demonstrates competency by additional training and passing the licen-sure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (FLEX).
See generally § 458.313(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988).
No abuse of discretion is shown. To the contrary, where the physician’s conduct demonstrates a lack of competency the Board is obligated to suspend his license until it is satisfied that “such person is capable of safely engaging in the practice of medicine.” § 458.331(3), Fla.Stat. (1987).
The Board’s reason for rejecting the recommended penalty — that the hearing officer did not appreciate 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, on review of penalties imposed by an administrative agency, is to determine whether there are valid reasons in the record in support of the agency’s order. See Florida Real Estate Comm’n v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1978). Reviewing courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of medical boards which have great expertise and broad statutory discretion. Department of Prof. Reg. v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eduardo S. Mendez, M.D. v. Fla. Dep't OF Health, 943 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…bationary period. The Board’s imposition of a penalty is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. See Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Silva, 627 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Grimberg v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med., 542 So. 2d 457, 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (“The appellate function, on review of penalties imposed by an administrative agency, is to determine whether there are valid reasons in the record in support of the agency’s order.”). Section 456.072(2), Florida Statutes (2…
-
Alberto Gonzalez-Gomez, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 107 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…(Fla. 1st DCA 2006). On review of penalties imposed by an administrative agency, the appellate court must determine whether there are valid reasons in the record in support of the agency’s order. Grimberg v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med., 542 So. 2d 457, 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Fla. Real Estate Comm’n v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1978). Also, reviewing courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of medical boards, which have great expertise and broad statutory discretion. Dep’t of Pro…
-
Escobar v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 560 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)….. ” This ground, which is based upon the record developed before the hearing examiner but does not duplicate his own reasoning in determining the penalty, is almost identical to the one approved in Grimberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, 542 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 548 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1989); accord Jimenez v. Department of Professional Regulation, 556 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Sneij v. Department of Professional Regulation, 548 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), dismissed,…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. Pedro F. Bernal, M.D., 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1988)
- Beltran J. Pages, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Morton J. Schomer v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 417 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)