MANUEL A. ESCOBAR, 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. Escobar challenges the Board of Medicine's decision to revoke his medical license after he was found guilty of gross negligence during a face-lift procedure. The court affirms the revocation, holding that the Board properly justified the penalty increase under Florida administrative law by citing the physician's inability to acknowledge his limitations and resistance to retraining.
The Board's penalty increase was proper. The Board adequately justified the departure from the hearing examiner's recommended penalty by specifically citing the physician's inability to acknowledge his competence limitations and his lack of amenability to correction or reform, which constitute proper grounds for the enhanced penalty under administrative law.
[1] An administrative agency may increase a recommended penalty if it states with particularity the reasons for the increase, citing to the record and justifying the action.
[2] An administrative agency's determination of a physician's non-amenability to correction or reform, based on the agency's expertise, is entitled to deference.
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“The agency may accept the recommended penalty in a recommended order, but may not reduce or increase it without a review of the complete record and without stating with particularity its reasons therefor in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action”
Establishes the statutory requirement that administrative agencies must state with particularity the reasons for modifying a hearing officer's recommended penalty
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Escobar performed a face-lift procedure that resulted in injury to the patient, and made an unsuccessful attempt to correct the damage in a follow…
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 Essential Requirements Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
A hearing examiner found Dr. Escobar guilty of gross negligence in the perform- anee of a face-lift on a female patient and in an abortive attempt to correct the damage done in the initial operation. The penalty recommended to the Board of Medicine was a one year suspension followed by three years probation and a $2,500 fine. Upon review, the Board adopted the findings of guilt but increased the penalty to revocation of the physician’s license to practice. This appeal challenges only the latter ruling upon the ground that the Board’s order does not justify the increase under section 120.57(l)(b)10, Florida Statutes (1989).1 We disagree and affirm.
The primary ground2 adopted by the Board for the “departure” penalty was that the doctor was “unable ... to acknowledge the limitations of his competence or experience ... and [gave] little if any indication that [he] is interested in or capable of benefiting from retraining or reeducation.... ” 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, 554 So. 2d 1168 (Fla.1989).
For these reasons, the present order is decisively distinguishable from those in which the Board failed to state the reasons for an increase with the requisite particularity, e.g., Pages v. Department of Professional Regulation, 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), or merely disagreed with the hearing officer’s assessment of the severity of the offense in question. See Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), aff’d, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988); accord Hanley v. Department of Professional Regulation, 549 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Pluto v. Department of Professional Regulation, 538 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).3 In our view, the Board’s opinion as to the doctor’s knowing propensity to treat patients in defiance of his inability to do so skillfully, which amounts to a determination of simple recklessness, as well as his non-amenability to correction or reform, are applications of the Board’s “expertise and discretion” in the practice of medicine, Bernal, 531 So. 2d at 968, to which we are required to defer. Bernal, 531 So. 2d at 967; Jimenez, 556 So. 2d at 1219; Grimberg, 542 So. 2d at 457.
10. The agency may adopt the recommended order as the final order of the agency. The agency in its final order may reject or modify the conclusions of law and interpretation of administrative rules in the recommended order, but may not reject or modify the findings of fact unless the agency first determines from a review of the complete record, and states with particularity in the order, that the findings of fact were not based upon competent substantial evidence or that the proceedings on which the findings were based did not comply with essential requirements of law. The agency may accept the recommended penalty in a recommended order, but may not reduce or increase it without a review of the complete record and without stating with particularity its reasons therefor in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action, [e.s.]
Affirmed.
.In pertinent part, the subsection provides:
. See infra note 3.
. While other grounds assigned by the Board for its departure sentence may well run afoul of what may be called the "mere disagreement," rule established in Bernal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 517 So. 2d 113, 115 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), aff’d, 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla.1988), we are certain that the Board would impose the same penalty decision upon the grounds we find sufficient in this opinion. Accordingly, we see no reason to remand for reconsideration of the penalty. State v. Weston, 510 So. 2d 1001, 1003 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Steiner v. State, 469 So. 2d 179, 182 n. 10 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 479 So. 2d 118 (1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Huguet v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 574 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…al of appellant as a state employee. We conclude that the Commission acted within the parameters permitted by Department of Professional Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So. 2d 967, 968 (Fla.1988). See also Escobar v. Department of Professional Regulation, 560 So. 2d 1355, 1356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Grimberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, 542 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 548 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1989). [*1223] The order under review is therefore affirmed.…
-
Crim. Just. Standards & Training Comm'n v. Bradley, 596 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1992)…of the offenses could not justify an increase in the recommended penalty. The district court also certified conflict with Allen v. School Board, 571 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Escobar v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 560 So. 2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Grimberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 542 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 548 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1989); and Pages v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 542 So. 2d 456 (…
-
Ippolito v. State, 824 F. Supp. 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993)…trickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). 9 . Dep’t of Professional Regulation v. Rampell, 589 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4 Dist.Ct.App.1991). 10 . Escobar v. Dep’t of Professional Regulation, 560 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 3 Dist.App.Ct. 1990). 11 . Northwest Florida Home Health Agency v. Merrill, 469 So.2d 893 (Fla. 1 Dist.Ct.App.1985). 12 . Carter v. Dep't of Professional Regulation, 613 So.2d 78 (Fla. 1 Dist.Ct.App.1993). 13…
Authorities Cited (11 total)
- Steiner v. State, 469 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. Pedro F. Bernal, M.D., 531 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Weston, 510 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Beltran J. Pages, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- 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)
- Moises Grimberg v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 542 So. 2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- M. James Hanley, R.N. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 549 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Pluto v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 538 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Fernando Jimenez, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 556 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)