JAMES EDWARDS, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & 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.
The Commission lacked authority to modify a hearing officer's recommended penalty without a complete record, and the employee's failure to provide a transcript precluded his appeal.
[1] A public employee's failure to provide a transcript of an evidentiary hearing to the Public Employees Relations Commission when filing exceptions precludes the Commission…
[2] A party's failure to provide a transcript of an evidentiary hearing to an appellate court precludes the court from considering arguments that the administrative agency er…
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 intelligenceAn employee was demoted for unauthorized use of state personnel. The employee appealed to the Commission, which adopted the hearing officer's recommen…
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 Standard Of Review For Agency Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
James Edwards, an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, appeals a final order of the Public Employees Relations Commission [hereinafter Commission], The Commission adopted the recommended order of a Commission-appointed hearing officer and affirmed Edwards’ disciplinary demotion from public assistance specialist supervisor to public assistance specialist II based upon Edwards’ unauthorized use of state personnel. We affirm.
The Commission was without authority to reduce or increase the penalty recommended by the hearing officer, because Edwards failed to produce a transcript of the proceedings conducted before the hearing officer when he filed his exceptions with the Commission. Pursuant to section 120.57(l)(b)10, Florida Statutes (1989), the Commission “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....” The “complete record” required by this statute includes the official transcript of the evidentiary hearing held before the hearing officer. See Battles v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 2 F.P.E.R. ¶ 180 (1987).
Similarly, Edwards’ failure to provide this court with a transcript of the evidentiary hearing held before the hearing officer precludes his argument that the commission erred in accepting the facts set forth in the hearing officer’s recommended order. Florida Dep’t of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Based upon the hearing officer’s findings of fact, which must be accepted by this court, Edwards’ disciplinary demotion was within the range of disciplines established by the Commission, and therefore proper. We note by way of dicta that while the disciplinary demotion meted out by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to Mr. Edwards was permissible, we believe it to be a harsh penalty.
AFFIRMED.
LETTS and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roberts v. Dep't OF Corr., 690 So. 2d 1383 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…ded penalty.” Bradley, 596 So. 2d at 663. At issue is whether reviewing the transcript is necessary, in order to comply with the statute. On this point, the Fourth District held squarely in Edwards v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 592 So. 2d 1249, 1249-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), that “[t]he ‘complete record’ required by this statute includes the official transcript of the evi-dentiary hearing held before the [PERC] hearing officer.” We have likewise expressed the view that “the commission did n…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Dep't OF Corr. v. Bradley, 510 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)