MARY MCNEELY, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RESPONDENT
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 court held that the Department of Health's order summarily suspending a nursing license was invalid because it failed to establish that the licensee's positive drug test was a "confirmed drug test" as defined by statute.
The Department of Health summarily suspended Mary McNeely's nursing license based on a positive drug test. McNeely petitioned for review, arguing the …
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.
PER CURIAM.
Mary McNeely petitions for review of an order of the Department of Health summarily suspending her nursing license on an emergency basis. Of the various arguments petitioner presents, we find merit in only one. The statute upon which the agency relies to justify its action, section 456.074(3), Florida Statutes (2000), authorizes summary suspension when a licensee tests positive on a “confirmed drug test, as defined in s. 112.0455.” However, the department’s order does not establish that petitioner’s allegedly positive result was the product of a “confirmed drug test” as that term is defined in section 112.0455(5)(d).1
Accordingly, the order, summarily suspending petitioner’s license is hereby QUASHED. See Commercial Consultants Corporation v. Department of Business Regulation, 363 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)(all elements necessary to the validity of an agency’s emergency order must appear on the face thereof). This disposition is without prejudice to the entry of an amended order establishing that a “confirmed drug test,” as that term is defined in section 112.0455(5)(d), was utilized.
WEBSTER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. . We do agree with the department that section 112.0455 (the Drug-Free Workplace Act) is relevant in this context only to the extent its definition of a "confirmed drug test” is incorporated in section 456.074(3). We therefore reject petitioner's contention that other requirements of the act apply to the department when it is exercising its authority over licen-sure matters.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United Ins. Co. OF Am. v. State, 793 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…using a particular policy form, where order was issued contrary to procedures for emergency or non-emergency orders). All elements necessary to the validity of an agency’s emergency order must appear on [*1185] its face. McNeely v. Dep’t of Health, 770 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Crudele, 698 So. 2d at 879. Department’s emergency orders purport to be final, binding, and permanent, yet they fail to satisfy the minimum statutory requirements. Additionally, the orders do not include the particularized findi…
Authorities Cited
- Commercial Consultants Corp. & Linene Woods, Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. Reg., 363 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)