MARK DANIELS, N.H.A.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Fla. 1st DCA | 2020-09-03
No. 20-1395
45 Fla. L. Weekly D1792 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2020) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

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.


Holding

An emergency license suspension order must contain specific factual allegations demonstrating immediate serious danger, and must explain why less restrictive remedies are insufficient before imposing suspension.


Headnotes

[1] An emergency suspension order under section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes, must explain why specific less restrictive remedies enumerated in the statute would be inadequate…

[2] Specific factual allegations detailing an licensee's failures over several days and their direct connection to harm to public health and safety satisfy the requirement of…

Previewing 2 of 2 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

Facts & Procedural History

The Department of Health issued an emergency order suspending a nursing home administrator's license based on his failures to implement COVID-19 scree…

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.


Opinion of the Court

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D20-1395 _____________________________

MARK DANIELS, N.H.A.,

Petitioner,

v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition to Review Non-Final Agency Action—Original Jurisdiction.

September 3, 2020 PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks review of a nonfinal emergency order suspending his nursing home administrator license pursuant to section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2019). Specifically, he claims that (1) the emergency suspension order lacks sufficient detailed allegations demonstrating an immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; and that (2) the suspension of his license pending formal disciplinary action is not necessary to protect the public interest because less restrictive remedies would be sufficient to prevent the alleged harm. We disagree with Petitioner’s first claim but agree with the second. Accordingly, the petition is denied in part and granted in part.

2

Petitioner initially claims that the emergency suspension order lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate an immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. However, the order recites specific facts spanning several days demonstrating that Petitioner failed to implement proper screening measures; failed to provide staff and residents with proper personal protective equipment (PPE); failed to provide adequate training on the use of PPE and hygiene practices to prevent the spread of COVID-19; failed to isolate COVID-19 positive patients from other residents; failed to implement proper isolation protocols for COVID-19 patients; refused to participate in briefings with the Department’s nursing team; dismissed the team’s recommendations on proper procedures; and obstructed the team’s attempts to educate staff on proper procedures. The order finds that the result of these failures caused the spread of COVID-19 in the nursing home facility over which he exercised supervisory authority as the administrator of the facility. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertions, the face of the order demonstrates an immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requiring emergency action on Petitioner’s license. See Cameron v. State, Dep’t of Health, 1D20- 1410 (Fla. 1st DCA Sept. 3, 2020); Rehab. Ctr. at Hollywood Hills, LLC v. State Agency for Health Care Admin., 250 So. 3d 737, 745– 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). For that reason, we deny the petition in part.

Petitioner also asserts that the emergency suspension of his license pending formal disciplinary action is not necessary to protect the public interest because less restrictive remedies would be sufficient to prevent the alleged harm. Although the emergency suspension order found that there was no restriction that would adequately protect the public from Petitioner’s continued practice as a nursing home administrator, the order contains no explanation as to why the less restrictive remedies listed in section 120.60(6) would be inadequate to address the alleged harm. Therefore, that portion of the order is deficient. See Cameron; Lohstreter v. State Dep’t of Health, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1792, D1793 (Fla. 1st DCA July 27, 2020); Failer v. State, Dep’t of Health, 139 So. 3d 359, 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Nath v. State Dep’t of Health, 100 So. 3d 1273, 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012).

3

Accordingly, we GRANT the petition for review in part, QUASH the portion of the emergency order suspending Petitioner’s license as a nursing home administrator, and REMAND to the Department for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The petition is otherwise DENIED.

RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.

_____________________________

Jeffrey J. Molinaro, Christopher M. David, and Joshua M. Salmon of Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, Miami, for Petitioner. Sarah Young Hodges, Chief Appellate Counsel, Florida Department of Health, and Major Thompson, Assistant General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Respondent.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Nipper v. State, 398 So. 3d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024)
    …ry intoxication is not admissible to show that the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit an offense and is not admissible to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense. § 775.051, Fla. Stat. (2020). See Daniels v. State, 313 So. 3d 247, 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“The Legislature abolished the defense of voluntary intoxication when it enacted section 775.051, Florida Statutes.”). The statute allows only one exception, for drug use “pursuant to a lawful prescription issued to the def…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw