JEAN W. GENTRY, PETITIONER,
v.
THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATIONS, STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT

Fla. 1st DCA | 1973-10-04
No. S-494
RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur.
283 So. 2d 386 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1973) Positive Treatment
Cited by 18 cases

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.

Synopsis

Jean Gentry challenged a Florida Board of Medical Examiners disciplinary order for failing to contain required findings of fact. The court granted her petition for certiorari, quashing the order and remanding for the agency to issue a new order with proper findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasoned disposition.


Holding

The Board's final order was quashed because it failed to contain specific findings of fact as required by law. An administrative agency exercising quasi-judicial functions must include separate and independent findings of fact, conclusions of law, and reasoned disposition in its final order to satisfy due process and equal protection requirements.


Headnotes

[1] A final order entered by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions must contain specific findings of fact upon which its ultimate action is…

[2] An administrative order that fails to contain specific findings of fact is ineffectual as a predicate for enforcement.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“it contains no findings of fact as a predicate for the disciplinary action taken by respondent as required by law”

States the core deficiency in the Board's order that led to its invalidation

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Gentry was charged with four violations of Florida's Medical Practice Act. A hearing examiner conducted proceedings and filed a report with findings o…

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
WIGGINTON, Judge.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Petitioner was charged by respondent with four separate violations of the Medical Practice Act, Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. governing the practice of medicine by duly licensed medical doctors in Florida. A hearing examiner was duly appointed and testimony was adduced concerning the charges so made against petitioner. The hearing examiner filed with respondent his report containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for disposition of the case. Exceptions to the special examiner’s report were filed and heard by respondent, following which a final order was rendered overruling petitioner’s exceptions and adopting, ratifying, and confirming three of the special examiner’s recommendations with regard to disciplinary action which should be taken against petitioner, and modifying the fourth recommendation made for the same purpose.

Petitioner now seeks review by certiorari of the final order rendered by respondent pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, F.S. Chapter 120, F.S.A. One of the points urged by petitioner is that the final order sought to be reviewed should be quashed and held for naught because it contains no findings of fact as a predicate for the disciplinary action taken by respondent as required by law. With this contention we are impelled to agree. A careful examination of the final order sought to be reviewed affirmatively discloses that it contains no findings of fact by respondent, nor does it adopt, ratify, or confirm the findings of fact expressed in the special examiner’s report and recommendations. The order merely recites that respondent has considered the recommendations of the hearing examiner, the exceptions filed thereto, the rules of the Florida State Board of Medical Examiners, and thereupon orders that the exceptions be overruled, that three of the special examiner’s recommendations be adopted, and that the fourth be modified to provide different conditions.

It has been repeatedly held by the courts of this state that in order to assure due process and equal protection of the laws, every final order entered by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions must contain specific findings of fact upon which its ultimate action is taken. An administrative order which fails to contain such findings is ineffectual as a predicate for the order sought to be enforced.1

Because of the insufficiency of the order sought to be reviewed herein, it is hereby quashed and jurisdiction of this cause is temporarily relinquished and the cause remanded to respondent with directions that an appropriate final order be entered containing respondent’s separate and independent findings of fact, its conclusions of law, and the disposition to be made of the complaint brought against petitioner. Respondent is directed to comply with the requirements of this mandate within IS days from the date of its rendition and to then file in this cause with the Clerk of this Court a certified copy of the final order so rendered by it. Petitioner shall have 15 days thereafter within which to file a supplemental brief directed to the final order so rendered by respondent if she is so advised.

RAWLS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur. . Ford v. Bay County School Board (Fla.App.1970), 246 So. 2d 119;

Powell v. Board of Public Instruction of Levy County (Fla.App.1970), 229 So. 2d 308; Hickey v. Wells (Fla.1957), 91 So. 2d 206, 210.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …ate action is taken. An administrative order which fails to contain such findings is ineffectual as a predicate for the order sought to be enforced. [*366] Gentry v. Dept, of Professional & Occupational Regulations, State Board of Medical Examiners, 283 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). Accord, e.g., Hickey v. Wells, 91 So. 2d 206 (Fla.1957); Laney v. Holbrook, 8 So. 2d 465, 467 (Fla.1942); Harvey v. Nuzum, 345 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Edwards v. Division of Beverage, Board of Business Regulations,…
  • Harvey v. Nuzum, 345 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
    …tain findings of fact based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, and specifically state the charges which the agency finds to have been sustained. . . . ” And, as this court in Gentry v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, 283 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), stated: “It has been repeatedly held by the courts of this state that in order to assure due process and equal protection of the laws, every final order entered by an administrative agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial…
  • Morton J. Schomer v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 417 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
    …n agency order is sufficiently expositive to satisfy statutory requirements, City of Orlando v. International Association of Fire Fighters, Local, 384 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Gentry v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, 283 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), the only remaining question is whether the hearing officer’s disposition of appellant’s proposed findings satisfied the statute. The basis for the requirement in section 120.59(2) that an administrative party’s proposed finding…

Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw