JON F. STONEBURNER, O.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF OPTOMETRY, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Respondent, an optometrist, appeals from a final order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry. The order, inter alia, increased by $5000 the administrative fine recommended by the hearing officer for respondent’s violation of section 463.016(l)(e) and (g), Florida Statutes (1985). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We find no merit in respondent’s contentions on appeal except for one which the Board concedes. That is that the Board in its final order increased the recommended fine by $5000 without stating with particularity its reasons for so doing and without citing to the record to justify its action, as required by section 120.57(l)(b)9. Therefore, the Board’s $5000 increase in the administrative fine is stricken.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davenport v. State, 751 So. 2d 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. Appeal DISMISSED. See Marshall v. State, 481 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Sanmartin v. State, 571 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Duenas v. State, 576 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). And see Fla. R.App. P. 9.600. ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., and SMITH, LARRY G., Senior Judge, CONCUR.…