M.J.B., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, 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.
M.J.B., a school instructor, appeals the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' decision to classify a child abuse investigation as "confirmed" despite the hearing officer's finding that the corporal punishment at issue did not constitute child abuse. The court reverses, holding that the Department erred by adopting the hearing officer's factual findings while rejecting the legal conclusion that no child abuse occurred.
The Department erred by adopting the hearing officer's findings of fact while denying expungement. The Department may only reject or modify a hearing officer's findings of fact if it determines from the record and states with particularity that the findings were not based on competent evidence or that proceedings violated essential requirements of law. Here, the Department's express adoption of the factual findings mandated issuance of a final order reclassifying the report as other than confirmed.
[1] A department may not reject or modify a hearing officer's findings of fact unless it first determines from a review of the record, and states with particularity in its or…
[2] A department that expressly adopts a hearing officer's findings of fact must issue a final order consistent with those findings.
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“The Department may not reject or modify the hearing officer's findings of fact unless it first determines from a review of the record, and states with particularity in its order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent evidence or that the proceedings did not comply with essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the legal standard an administrative agency must meet to overturn a hearing officer's factual findings.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.J.B., a school instructor, administered corporal punishment (swatting) to student T.L. three times in accordance with school regulations. At the hea…
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 Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GOSHORN, Judge.
M.J.B. appeals the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services’ final order denying his petition for the expungement or reclassification of a child abuse investigation classified by HRS as “confirmed”. We reverse.
At the hearing the parties stipulated that M. J. B. was a school instructor and T. L. a student subject to the rules and regulations of the school; that M. J. B., in his role as a staff member of the school, punished T. L. by swatting her three times; that the corporal punishment was administered in accordance and conformity with the rules promulgated by the school for the administration of such punishment. Additionally, HRS presented two photographs of T. L. to establish its prima facie case. Appellant presented rebuttal evidence from witnesses and a physician. The hearing officer made extensive findings of fact, concluding that HRS failed to prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the corporal punishment administered by M. J. B. constituted child abuse under Chapter 415, Florida Statutes.
Although the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services adopted the hearing officer’s finding of facts, it denied M. J. B.’s request for expunction and ordered the report classified as confirmed. This was error. The Department may not reject or modify the hearing officer’s findings of fact unless it first determines from a review of the record, and states with particularity in its order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent evidence or that the proceedings did not comply with essential requirements of law. § 120.57(1)(b)(10) Florida Statutes (1987); Gershanik v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 462 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1985); Sneij v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 454 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). Here the Department not only failed to make such findings, it expressly adopted the findings of the hearing officer. Accordingly, it was error not to issue a final order reclassifying the investigative report as other than confirmed.
REVERSED and REMANDED
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
G.A. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 695 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ther the report should be expunged as requested in his petition. The hearing officer found the evidence insufficient and, as the Department does not contest that finding, it is bound by it. M.J.B. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 543 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). Having been presented with this adjudication of the facts, the Department was required either to reject the hearing officer’s ruling on the facts for lack of eviden-tiary support after a complete review of the record or, accepti…
Authorities Cited
- IDY Corp. v. Freedman, 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Ricardo O. Gershanik, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Albert Sneij, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 454 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)