N. JOSEPH SHAMP, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF ORTHOTISTS AND PROSTHETISTS, 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 court affirmed the Board of Orthotists and Prosthetists' denial of Shamp's licensure application under section 468.805, holding that constitutional challenges to the statute's in-state experience requirement should be brought in a declaratory action in circuit court rather than in administrative appeal.
Constitutional challenges to a licensing statute's in-state experience requirement must be brought by declaratory action in circuit court, not through administrative appeal.
[1] Constitutional challenges to the validity of a professional licensing statute must be brought by declaratory action in circuit court rather than through administrative ap…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceShamp, with over 20 years of out-of-state experience in orthotics and prosthetics, moved to Florida in 1996 and applied for Florida licensure in 1999.…
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 Dormant Commerce Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
N. Joseph Shamp (Appellant) appeals a final order of the State of Florida Board of Orthotists and Prosthetists (Appellee) finding Appellant ineligible for licensure pursuant to section 468.805, Florida Statutes (1997), and denying his application for Florida licensure. Appellant, who has more than 20 years’ out-of-state experience in the field of orthotics and prosthetics, moved to Florida to practice in 1996 and filed an application for Florida licen-sure in 1999. He argues that the provision in section 468.805(1) requiring 5 years of experience “in this state” in lieu of certain educational requirements violates substantive due process and the protections provided in the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the “dormant” Commerce Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. At oral argument, Appellee asserted that the ap propriate avenue for Appellant to seek relief is a declaratory action in the circuit court addressing the statute’s constitutionality. See § 86.011, Florida Statutes (1997); Butler v. State, Dep’t of Insur., 680 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Given the paucity of the record, we affirm, without prejudice to Appellant’s right to seek any appropriate relief in the circuit court on the constitutional issues raised in this appeal. See Great House of Wine, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Business & Professional Regulation, 752 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Butler v. State, 680 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Great House OF Wine, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 752 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)