DR. NORMAN RUSS, PETITIONER,
v.
J. M. PEPPER, AS CHAIRMAN, ROBERT THOBURN, AS VICE-CHAIRMAN, F. A. FINLEY, AS SECRETARY-TREASURER, F. F. FARVER, RUPERT H. GILLESPIE, M. ERVIN WAHNISH, AND CHARLES J. HESTER, AS MEMBERS OF THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, RESPONDENTS
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.
Dr. Norman Russ petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the Florida Board of Dental Examiners' suspension of his dental license for six months based on violations related to allowing unlicensed staff to sign work orders. The court found the suspension was an abuse of discretion and reduced it to 30 days.
The court granted the petition for certiorari, finding that the six-month suspension was excessive and constituted an abuse of discretion. The court reduced the suspension to 30 days, which is the maximum punishment sustainable by the record.
“The offenses of which the petitioner was found guilty are in the main those related to record keeping. It was not shown that an unauthorized person had any physical contact with a patient.”
Establishes that the violations were limited in scope to record-keeping without direct harm to patients, supporting a finding of disproportionate punishment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Russ, a practicing dentist, allowed his receptionist and dental assistant to sign work orders for dental laboratory work. The Board found him guil…
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 Excessive Punishment cases and more on FLexlaw
We are presented with a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the Florida Board of Dental Examiners.. The petitioner, Dr. Norman Russ, was found guilty of violating ■ sections .466.34 and 466.24(3) (d), (e), (h) and (n) of. the Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The accusation charged that Dr.. Russ, as a practicing dentist, allowed his receptionist and his dental assistant to sign work orders or work authorizations for dental laboratory work. After finding the petitioner guilty, the Board ordered a suspension of his license for six months.
The petitioner presents seven points on appeal, six of which urge procedural errors in the Board’s proceedings or challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. We have re-viewéd the record in the light of these six points. The findings of the Board are sup*784ported by the record as measured by the standard set forth in De Groot v. Sheffield, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 912; Florida State Board of Dental Examiners v. Feinglass, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 686; McFall v. Florida State Board of Dental Examiners, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 458.
The petitioner’s remaining point contends that, where the violation is not of such character as to evince a flagrant disregard of the law or to constitute acts that are malum in se, a suspension of the practice of dentistry for six months is so inordinately severe as to constitute an abuse of the discretion vested in the Board. This point finds support in the record. The offenses of which the petitioner was found guilty are in the main those related to record keeping. It was not shown that an unauthorized per’son had any physical contact with a patient. It does not appear that this was an obdurate' violation by the petitioner because he was shown to have abandoned the operation of a separate laboratbfy arid'-to have instituted Board-approved methods of record keeping.
Where the Board has' abused its discretion by prescribing punishment beyond th'at'"pfOpdr 'iii' the case, we have authority tb remedy the error. See Florida Real Estate Commission v. Rogers, Fla. 1965, 176 So.2d 65; Davis v. State, Fla. App.1965, 181 So.2d 559; Fla.Stat.1965, §§ 466.25(4) and 120.31(2), F.S.A.
We find that a six months’ suspension is excessive under the facts presented by this record and that the maximum punishment sustainable by the record is a suspension of the petitioner’s license for 30 days. This suspension will not destroy the professional life of the petitioner, but it is sufficient to emphasize the authority of the Board to enforce the provisions of Chapter 466, Fla. Stat., F.S.A.
The petition for certiorari is granted. The order brought for review is quashed. This cause is remanded to the Florida Board of Dental Examiners, and the Board is directed to enter an amended order reducing the period of suspension to 30 days.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bert F. Erwin, D.D.S. v. State, 320 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…that he” has committed one or more of the enumerated violations. ' Even where the findings of an administrative board are supported by the record, there is authority in this court to' direct changes in the penalty. Russ v. Pepper, Fla.App.3d 1966, 190 So. 2d 783. However, where the penalty is imposed by a peer group of professionals and is within the allowable range, this court is reluctant to disturb it. True, petitioner was not directly given the opportunity to be heard in reference to a proposed penalty…
-
Richardson v. Fla. State Bd. OF Dentistry, 326 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…ional license includes acts done in persistent disregard of the law, those which are malum in se [Davis v. State ex. rel. Florida State Board of Dental Exam., 181 So. 2d 559 (Fla.App.1st, 1966), cert. den., 188 So. 2d 818 (Fla.1966); Russ v. Pepper, 190 So. 2d 783 (Fla.App.3d, 1966)], and those which offend generally accepted standards of conduct within the profession, thereby jeopardizing the interests of the profession and the public it serves. Ladrey v. Comm’n on Licensure to Practice, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 239…
Authorities Cited
- de Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1957)
- Fla. Real Est. Comm'n v. D. L. and Doris Rogers, 176 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1965)
- The Fla. State Bd. OF Dental Exam'rs v. Feinglass, 166 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- McFALL v. Fla. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 173 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Davis v. State of Fla. ex rel. Fla. State Bd. OF Dental Exam'rs, 181 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- Stewart v. Standard OIL Co. OF Ky., 173 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)