LEON GANDY, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE CAREER SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Leon Gandy challenges a disciplinary suspension imposed by the Department of Offender Rehabilitation and upheld by the Career Service Commission. Although the record appears to support the charges, the court quashes the agency's decision due to a due process violation: the hearing examiner relied on evidence that was objected to and fell outside the scope of issues narrowly defined by stipulation of the parties.
A hearing examiner cannot, absent express or implied consent, consider evidence received over objection that is outside the stipulated issues, nor may such evidence be used to a party's detriment when that party has been lulled into a limited response based on the narrowed scope.
[1] A hearing officer or court may not rely on evidence received over objection which is outside the scope of stipulated issues, absent consent.
[2] Evidence adduced over objection outside the scope of issues narrowed by stipulation may not be used to a party's detriment.
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“It is axiomatic that neither a hearing examiner nor a court may, in the absence of consent, either express or implied, consider evidence received over objection which is outside the issues and then rely upon that evidence as a basis for his or its ultimate order.”
Establishes the core due process principle that evidence objected to and outside the scope of issues cannot be considered without consent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a disciplinary hearing, the parties' counsel debated the issues and admissibility of evidence. After discussion, petitioner's attorney stipulat…
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 Petition For Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Gandy seeks review of a final agency action of the Career Service Commission which sustained a disciplinary suspension ordered by the Department of Offender Rehabilitation. Although the record appears to sustain the charges leveled against petitioner, we are unable to reach the merits of the case because of a procedural problem of due process proportions. The record reveals that during the hearing before the hearing officer counsel for the respective parties became engaged in a controversy as to the issues involved and the admissibility of certain evidence. Finally, the record reveals, both attorneys stated the issue whereupon petitioner’s attorney recited:
“That is the sole issue and that is the sole question on negligence, and I will stipulate to that, and any other testimony which has been introduced is clearly irrelevant and that is the sole issue, and, therefore, I will object.”
Whereupon the hearing officer stated:
“Counsel, I’ll agree to your stipulation retrospectively but retroactively. Let’s roll on.”
The issue was thereby narrowly defined as was the scope of the evidence. The record clearly reveals that following that stipulation petitioner’s attorney curtailed the scope of his examination and confined himself to the agreed issue. Nevertheless, as appears from the hearing examiner’s recommended order, the examiner relied upon evidence, objected to, outside the scope of the stipulated issue. Petitioner filed objections to the recommended order but it was adopted and forms the basis for the review now sought.
It is axiomatic that neither a hearing examiner nor a court may, in the absence of consent, either express or implied, consider evidence received over objection which is outside the issues and then rely upon that evidence as a basis for his or its ultimate order. Further, when the issues have been narrowed by stipulation and a party thereby lulled into responding to evidence adduced over his objections outside the issues, such evidence may not be used to his detriment.
The petition is therefore granted and the order of which review is sought is
QUASHED.
McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manatee Cnty. v. Fla. Pub. Emps. Relations Comm'n & Manatee Cnty. Mun. Emps., Local 1584, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 387 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)…gency to take into account due process considerations when dealing with stipulations or agreements of the adversarial parties submitted during the course of administrative hearings. This court ruled in Gandy v. Department of Offender Rehabilitation, 351 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), that it is “axiomatic” that neither a hearing examiner nor a court may, in the absence of consent, either express or implied, consider evidence received over objection which is outside the issues and then rely upon that evidence…
-
M. Carl Nest, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 490 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…). Moreover, when the issues in a case have been narrowed by stipulation and a party is thereby lulled into responding to information outside the issues, such evidence may not be used to his detriment. Gandy v. Department of Offender Rehabilitation, 351 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Manatee County v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 387 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In the recommended order, the hearing officer found as a conclusion of law that Dr. Nest had amply demonstrated he was able to…