IVAN C. ROSS, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF PROFESSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATIONS, FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, RESPONDENT
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.
Ivan Ross, a chiropractor with 22 years of unblemished practice, sought review of the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners' revocation of his license based on a patient complaint involving alleged improper conduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's factual findings but reversed the penalty as excessive, imposing a six-month suspension instead of revocation.
The court affirmed the Board's factual findings that were supported by substantial competent evidence but reversed the license revocation as an excessive penalty. The court remanded with instructions that Ross be suspended for six months rather than have his license revoked.
[1] Substantial competent evidence is required to support the findings of a licensing board.
[2] A licensing board's findings of fact will be affirmed if supported by substantial competent evidence, even if an appellate court might have reached a different conclusion…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Although we might have reached a different result, there is substantial competent evidence to support the Board's findings of fact and we affirm its findings of fact.”
The court's standard for reviewing administrative findings, affirming the factual basis despite potential disagreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA female patient complained that Ross treated her for a back condition by using a vibrator in her pubic area, causing her to have an orgasm, and that …
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 Unprofessional Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Ross seeks review of an order of the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (Board) revoking his license to practice chiropractic in Florida. Although a number of issues have been raised, the issues which are determinative of this review are whether there is substantial competent evidence to support the findings of the Board and whether the penalty imposed on Ross was excessive. On the basis of a patient’s complaint, the Board charged Ross with lack of good moral character, Section 460.13(3)(b), Florida Statutes (1975), as well as unprofessional conduct with which we are not concerned. A hearing officer found the facts to be those generally set forth below and recommended that Ross’ license be revoked. The Board adopted the hearing officer’s recommended order and revoked Ross’ license.
A female patient of Ross claimed that while under his treatment for a back condition, Ross used a vibrator in her pubic area causing her to have an orgasm. Following this event, the patient contends that Ross undressed, straddled her legs while she was on the examining table in the nude and manipulated himself to an orgasm. Ross denied the accusation.
Although we might have reached a different result, there is substantial competent evidence to support the Board’s findings of fact and we affirm its findings of fact.
The revocation of Ross’ license is too severe and we reverse on this issue. Ross has been a licensed practicing chiropractor in Florida since January 1953. No prior complaints of any kind were filed against him. A number of people filed affidavits attesting to his good moral character. The only evidence to the contrary is that of the patient which is uncorroborated and involves a single incident. It is unnecessary that we go into the details of other mitigating circumstances reflected by the record. We are of the opinion that to terminate Ross’ livelihood after twenty-two years of unblemished service to his profession and patients is unreasonable and excessive. See Richardson v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 326 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
The revocation of Ross’ license is quashed and this case is remanded with instructions that the Board suspend Ross from the practice of chiropractic in Florida for a period of six months following which he is to be reinstated. Otherwise, the petition for review is denied.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur specially.
BOYER, Chief Judge,
concurring specialty-
If the facts recited in the foregoing opinion were the totality of the facts in this case, I would not be inclined to agree with the decision. However, the record reveals extensive evidence relative to the conduct of the complaining witness, the recitation of which would serve no useful purpose here, but which in my view is material and which requires the decision here reached. I, accordingly, concur.
McCORD, Judge,
concurring specially.
I agree with the foregoing opinion of Judge Mills as amplified by the special concurring opinion of Chief Judge Boyer and, therefore, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. Fla. State Bd. OF Dentistry, 326 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)