ZAFAR SHAH, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Administrative Procedure Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Zafar Shah, M.D., appeals a Final Order of the Florida Board of Medicine which revokes his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Because the order fails to state the reasons for increasing the penalty recommended by the Administrative Law Judge with the requisite particularity required by section 120.57(1)(l), Florida Statutes (2001), we reverse and remand the cause to the Florida Board of Medicine with directions to enter a new order which either accepts the penalty recommendation made by the ALJ, or reimposes the increased penalty stating, with particularity, the reasons for increasing the penalty, as required by section 120.57(1)(l). See Pages v. Department of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med., 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Van Ore v. Board of Med. Exam’rs, 489 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Lazarus v. Department of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 461 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, WOLF and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mark Franklin Prysi, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 823 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…856, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Pillsbury v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Serv., 705 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Reversal is required when an agency increases a recommended penalty without stating its reasons with particularity. Shah v. Dep’t of Health, 804 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Here, the Department’s Final Order fails to comply with the statutory requirements of section 120.57(l)(i), because it fails to “state with particularity” its reasons for rejecting the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusion of l…
-
Criollo v. Dep't OF Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 73 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…he penalty recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge or reimposes the increased penalty stating with particularity the reasons for increasing the penalty as required by section 120.57(1)(l), Florida Statutes (2010). See Shah v. Dep’t of Health, 804 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.…
-
Quiller v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 171 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…la. Stat. (2014); Prysi v. Dep’t of Health, 823 So. 2d 823, 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (finding that reversal is required when an agency increases a recommended penalty without stating its reasons with particularity) (citing to Shah v. Dep’t of Health, 804 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)). Here, the Board’s reasons for rejecting the ALJ’s recommendation appear to be that the use of profanity was not understandable, the Appellant was unprofessional, and the Appellant’s actions hurt the students because they decrea…
Authorities Cited
- Beltran J. Pages, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 542 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Pope v. State, 489 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Steven VAN ORE, M.D. v. Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs, 489 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Robert Lazarus, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 461 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)