MICHAEL ANDREW MORAN
v.
RICHARD CORCORAN, AS THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
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.
Appellant, an educator, challenges the severity of a penalty imposed by the Education Practices Commission, claiming his due process rights were violated because he would have attended an informal hearing had he known how harshly Commission members would characterize his conduct. The court affirms the Commission's penalty, finding no due process violation and holding that courts are not at liberty to substitute their judgment for the Commission's penalty decision when it is statutorily authorized.
The court affirmed the Education Practices Commission's penalty, finding no violation of due process rights. The court held that it is not at liberty to impose its own view of the appropriate penalty or to review the severity of a sanction when the penalty is authorized by statute and based on uncontested facts.
[1] An appellate court is without authority to review or modify the severity of a disciplinary penalty imposed by an administrative agency when the penalty is authorized by s…
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 intelligenceAppellant did not dispute any facts alleged in the administrative complaint against him. He requested an informal hearing but elected not to attend. T…
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 Administrative Penalties cases and more on FLexlaw
LOGUE, J.
Appellant challenges the severity of the penalty imposed upon him by the Education Practices Commission. The record shows that he did not dispute any of the facts alleged in the administrative complaint; he responded to the complaint by requesting an informal hearing which he elected to not attend; and the Commission adopted the uncontested findings of fact in the complaint and imposed a penalty within the authority of sections 1012.795(1)(j) and 1012.796(7), Florida Statutes, even though the penalty exceeded the recommendation by the Department of Education’s attorney.
Appellant asserts, however, that his due process rights were violated because he would have attended the informal hearing had he known how harshly some Commission members would characterize his communications which gave rise to the complaint filed against him. We find no support for this due process claim.
In these circumstances, whether or not we would have chosen so severe a sanction, this Court is not at liberty to impose its own view of the appropriate penalty. See, e.g., Cabezas v. Corcoran, 293 So. 3d 602, 604 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (affirming permanent revocation of educator’s certificate following informal hearing where penalty was authorized by statute);
Gonzalez-Gomez v. Dep’t of Health, 107 So. 3d 1139, 1140–41 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (affirming permanent revocation of doctor’s license where the doctor did not dispute any of the facts in the administrative complaint and requested an informal hearing before the Board of Medicine); Decola v. Castor, 519 So. 2d 709, 711 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“The EPC found appellant guilty based on the admitted facts stated in the complaint, and the penalty imposed was within the authority of section 231.28. Thus, this court is not authorized to review the penalty.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Alberto Gonzalez-Gomez, M.D. v. Dep't OF Health, 107 So. 3d 1139 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Decola v. Castor, 519 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Cabezas v. Richard Corcoran as the Commissioner of Education (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)