FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES CLARENCE JAMES, JR., M.D., 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 Florida State Board of Medical Examiners revoked Dr. James's medical license without hearing evidence because he failed to appear at his scheduled hearing. The circuit court quashed the revocation on certiorari, finding the Board violated due process by revoking the license without any supporting evidence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that even when a licensee fails to appear, the Board must present evidence to support revocation.
No. Even when a licensee fails to appear at a hearing, the Board must present some evidence to support the charges before revoking the license. Failure to appear does not constitute default or admission of guilt and does not relieve the Board of its obligation to present evidence in this penal proceeding.
“This is a penal proceeding. It deprives a man of his property rights and he is entitled to due process of law. There must be some evidence upon which a conviction, to use that term, will stand, even if the man isn't there and the Board is not authorized to use its own information as a basis for it.”
Establishes that license revocation is a penal proceeding requiring due process and evidence, even when the licensee fails to appear.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Board scheduled a hearing to consider charges against Dr. James regarding his license to practice medicine. Dr. James failed or refused to appear …
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 Scope Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
The Florida State Board of Medical Examiners entered an order revoking the right of Charles Clarence James, Jr., M.D., to practice medicine in the State of Florida. -This decision was reviewed on certiorari in the circuit court where it was held that the Board departed from the essential requirements of law in revoking the doctor’s license. This appeal is from the judgment on certiorari in the circuit court. At the outset it is well to point out the limited scope of appellate review. See Morris v. City of Hialeah, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So.2d 615 and cases cited therein. De-Groot v. Sheffield, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 912; Townsend Fruit Company v. Mayo, Fla.App.1957, 98 So.2d 345.
The trial judge quashed the order of the Florida State Board of Medical Examiners and remanded the cause to the Board for further proceedings.1 We need to consider only one ground of several upon which the trial judge relied in reaching his determination. This ground was a holding that the order of the Medical Board was illegally entered without supporting evidence. The Medical Board ruled that because the doctor had failed or refused to attend the scheduled hearing, no evidence was necessary.
The facts relevant to this point are that á hearing was scheduled at which the ap-pellee failed or refused to appear. Thereupon the Board after waiting approximately one hour, entered the order revoking appellee’s license to practice medicine without taking any evidence to support the charge. The circuit judge'found as follows :
“To recapitulate quickly, this man is authorized a hearing. There was a hearing, but no opportunity for cross examination of witnesses or argument through counsel. This is a penal proceeding. It deprives a man of his property rights and he is entitled to due process of law. There must be some evidence upon which a conviction, to use that term, will stand, even if the man isn’t there and the Board *817is not authorized to use its own information as a basis for it So, there has been a complete failure to follow the statute and the applicable statutes in referring to any hearing. The Board is simply relying on the fact that the man never filed an answer and I don’t see any provision for that. And he did not come to the hearing, which, within itself, simply does not authorize the taking of a property right under the cases in Florida.”
The appellant’s reliance on Hime v. Florida Real Estate Commission, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 182, is not well-founded because the statute therein involved expressly defined the word “default” as including the defendant’s failure to respond to the Real Estate Commission’s charges. Furthermore, the information unlike the complaint against Dr. James, expressly gave notice that a default would be entered for failure to respond. In the instant case the failure to respond cannot be considered as admitting guilt of the charges against him.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Harry Needelman, M.D. v. Dade Cnty. Med. Ass'n, 205 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…da eases dealing with the requirement of notice before termination of membership, see Tropical Park v. Ratliff, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 169; Wright v. Roller, Fla.App.1959, 111 So. 2d 485; Florida State Board of Medical Examiners v. James, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 815. See also Virgin v. American College of Surgeons, 1963, 42 Ill.App.2d 352, 192 N.E. 2d 414; Leland v. Kansas State Board of C. Examiners, 1954, 176 Kan. 334, 270 P. 2d 255. . Although not controlling for the disposition of this appeal, certain fact…
-
Harry Meyer Katz, M.D. v. State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs, 201 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…it court. Section 458.123(4), Fla.Stat, F.S.A., and Brunson v. State Board of Medical Examiners, Fla.App. 1966, 186 So. 2d 276. However, the scope of review in such cases is limited. Florida State Board of Medical Examiners v. James, Fla. App. 1965, 175 So. 2d 815. The decision here reviewed is that of the circuit judge, not that of the Board. It was the duty of that judge to examine the Board’s decision and to determine [*806] whether or not such decision was rendered in accordance with the essential requir…
-
Scott v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 603 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…to the complaint against her. However, the appellant’s failure to appear or respond does not relieve the appellee of its obligation to substantiate the charges by presenting sufficient evidence. See Florida State Board of Medical Examiners v. James, 175 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). The only evidence which the appellee presented at the hearing was a hearsay report which would not have been admissible over objection in a civil action. As indicated in § 120.58(l)(a), Florida Statutes, this evidence was not suf…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- Morris v. City OF Hialeah, 140 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Hime v. Fla. Real Est. Comm'n, 61 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 1952)
- Townsend Fruit Co., Inc. v. Mayo, 98 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)