DR. JAMES WRIGHT
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
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 appellate court affirmed an emergency order restricting a pharmacist's license, finding the allegations sufficiently detailed to show an immediate serious danger to the public. The court clarified that actual harm is not required, only the allegation of possible harm creating such a danger.
Yes, the allegations were sufficiently detailed on the face of the order to permit the Department to issue the emergency order. The statute does not require actual harm, but rather the allegation of possible harm creating an immediate serious danger.
[1] An emergency suspension or restriction of a professional license under Florida Statute § 120.60(6) may be issued upon allegations of possible harm creating an immediate s…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“When evaluating the sufficiency of an emergency suspension order, an appellate court is limited to examining the face of the order itself to determine if the elements were alleged in sufficient detail.”
Establishes the standard of review for emergency suspension orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA licensed pharmacist disputed facts in an emergency order that restricted his license to practice pharmacy. The Department of Health issued the order…
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 Least Restrictive Means cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner is a licensed pharmacist. He disputes certain facts in the emergency order which restricted his license to practice pharmacy on an emergency basis. See § 120.60(6), Fla. Stat. (2021). However, “[w]hen evaluating the sufficiency of an emergency suspension order, an appellate court is limited to examining the face of the order itself to determine if the elements were alleged in sufficient detail.” Kruse v. Dep’t of Health, 270 So. 475, 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).
Here, the allegations against Petitioner were sufficiently detailed to show an “immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare” to permit the Department to issue the emergency order. § 120.60(6). Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the language of the statute does not require actual harm to have occurred before an emergency order can issue. It is sufficient for the Department to allege “possible harm” creating an immediate serious danger, so long as the other requirements of section 120.60(6) are satisfied. Bio-Med Plus, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Health, 915 So. 2d 669, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).*
DENIED.
BILBREY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur; B.L. THOMAS, J., dissents with opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Showntail the Legend, LLC v. State of Fla. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
- Bio-Med Plus, Inc. v. State, 915 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Ragu P. Nath v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Health, 100 So. 3d 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)