HAROLD J. TICKTIN, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 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 court held that the Board of Medicine's final order revoking a medical license lacked legally sufficient reasons for increasing the penalty recommended by the hearing officer.
A hearing officer recommended a six-month suspension and two-year probation for gross malpractice. The Department of Professional Regulation excepted …
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 Law cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an administrative order which revoked his license to practice medicine. The hearing officer recommended a six-month suspension followed by a two-year probation period after finding appellant guilty of gross malpractice in that he failed to provide the degree of care, skill and treatment that would be exercised by a prudent similar physician in such cases. We reverse and remand.
The Department of Professional Regulation filed exceptions to the penalty and recommended revocation of appellant’s license. The Florida Board of Medicine in its Final Order revoked appellant’s license. Its recited reasons for rejecting the recommended penalty are as follows:
Upon a complete review of the record in this case, the Board determines that the penalty recommended by the hearing officer be rejected as too lenient under the circumstances. The penalty is increased because of the seriousness of the offenses of the grossly inadequate examination of the patient and the failure to diagnose the fetal age.
The final order fails to state legally sufficient reasons for the change in the penalty, nor does it give citations to the record to justify its action as is required by the recent supreme court case of Department of Professional Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988).
We therefore reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the Florida Board of Medicine to enter a new final order which accepts the recommended penalty of the hearing officer and allows the appellant credit on his suspension for the time his license has been revoked pending this appeal.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
THOMPSON, ZEHMER and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rajendr Bajrangi v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 561 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…[*415] “should not be dealt with lightly.” These reasons appear similar to the reasons found invalid in Bernal. The First District Court found the Board of Medicine’s reasons for augmenting a penalty insufficient in Ticktin v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., 550 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), and in Pluto v. Dep’t of Prof. Reg., 538 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), the Second District Court of Appeal similarly rejected the increase of a penalty by the Real Estate Commission. The case at bar is, in one sense, very much…
-
Fowler v. Dep't of Health, 821 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…in part and remand with instructions not to impose the administrative fine. Department of Prof. Reg. v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988); Bajrangi v. Department of Bus. Reg., 561 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ticktin v. Department of Prof. Reg., 550 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Hanley v. Department of Prof. Reg., 549 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Pluto v. Department of Prof. Reg., 538 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (reversing penalties imposed by Real Estate Commission and remanding with instructions…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. Pedro F. Bernal, M.D., 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1988)
- Harold J. Ticktin, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 532 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)