THOMAS WORSTER, D.D.S., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 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. Thomas Worster appealed a disciplinary order from the Florida Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, challenging findings that he failed to maintain adequate patient records and failed to meet minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment. The appellate court affirmed the disciplinary order, rejecting his due process and evidentiary sufficiency arguments, and finding that a third issue regarding poorly fitted crowns was not properly preserved for appeal.
The court affirmed all disciplinary findings against Dr. Worster. The findings that he failed to maintain adequate patient records and failed to meet minimum standards of performance were supported by competent substantial evidence and did not violate due process. Although the court agreed that discipline for the poorly fitted crowns may have constituted discipline on a charge not included in the complaint, this issue was not properly preserved for appeal because Dr. Worster failed to file exceptions to the administrative law judge's recommended order on this specific finding.
[1] A party cannot argue on appeal matters which were not properly excepted to or challenged before the agency.
[2] A finding that a dentist failed to keep written dental records justifying a patient's course of treatment may be supported by competent substantial evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We find without merit appellant's arguments that the administrative law judge denied him due process and that no competent substantial evidence supported the findings that he failed to meet minimum standards of performance or failed to maintain adequate patient records justifying the course of treatment.”
The court rejected Dr. Worster's primary arguments challenging the sufficiency of evidence and due process violations for the record-keeping and standards of performance violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Worster was disciplined by the Board of Dentistry for two primary violations: failing to keep written dental records justifying patients' course o…
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 Care cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Thomas Worster appeals a final order of the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, finding that Dr. Worster failed to keep written dental records justifying his patients’ course of treatment in violation of subsection (m) of section 466.028(1), Florida Statutes (1997), and failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment in violation of subsection (x) of section 466.28(1), Florida Statutes (1992) and (1997).
We find without merit appellant’s arguments that the administrative law judge denied him due process and that no competent substantial evidence supported the findings that he failed to meet minimum standards of performance or failed to maintain adequate patient records justifying the course of treatment.
With respect to Issue III, we agree with appellant that his discipline for violating the applicable standard of care by applying poorly fitted crowns which caused the patient to suffer periodontal disease constituted discipline on a charge that was not included in the administrative complaint.
Nevertheless, appellant did not file exceptions to the recommended order of the administrative law judge which had expressly found that the poorly fitted crowns constituted a violation of the applicable standard of care. In an appeal from an administrative proceeding, a party cannot argue on appeal matters which were not properly excepted to or challenged before the agency. See Commission on Ethics v. Barker, 677 So. 2d 254, 256 (Fla.1996); Gray v. Russell Corp., 681 So. 2d 310, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Couch v. Commission on Ethics, 617 So. 2d 1119, 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993).
Thus, appellant’s argument on Issue III has not been preserved for appellate review. Id.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM as to all issues.
BOOTH, MINER AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. Dep't of Health, 954 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…Henderson argues that she "[has] been told that [she] was a victim of reverse discrimination.” Ms. Henderson did not raise any claim of reverse discrimination below. As a result, this claim cannot be raised on appeal. See Worster v. Dep’t of Health, 767 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reiterating that in appeal from administrative proceeding, party cannot argue on appeal matters that were not properly excepted to or challenged before agency). . Matters not excepted to or raised properly before a licens…
-
Mack v. Dep't of Fin. Servs., 914 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…the insurance ■ code in connection with a transaction between Ms. Webster, an unlicensed employee in the insurance agency where 'Ms. Mack worked, and a Ms. Brown. Not all of the issues urged on appeal were preserved. See Worster v. Dep’t of Health, 767 So. 2d 1239, 1240 (Fla. 1st DCA [*988] 2000) (“In an appeal from an administrative proceeding, a party cannot argue on appeal matters which were not properly excepted to or challenged before the agency.”). Some were not even mentioned below. None of the issues…
-
Fowler v. Dep't of Health, 821 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…enalty); Hutson v. Casey, 484 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Appellant’s remaining issues on appeal either were not preserved for appellate review or subsequently were waived during the administrative proceedings. Worster v. Department of Health, 767 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (finding that appellant/dentist did not preserve claim that he was disciplined on charge not included in administrative complaint, where appellant failed to file exceptions to ALJ’s recommended order that found particular acts vi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Couch v. Comm'n ON Ethics, 617 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Comm'n ON Ethics v. Barker, 677 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1996)
- Gray v. Russell Corp., 681 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)