STANLEY TURNER, D. C., PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Particularity Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner’s license to practice chiropractic was revoked by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners despite findings of the Hearing Examiner that the petitioner was innocent of the particular charges contained in the complaint and a recommendation that the petitioner suffer only a public reprimand.
We find that the Board altered the Hearing Officer’s findings of fact without stating with particularity why certain findings were modified as required by Section 120.-57(l)(b)(9), Florida Statutes (1975). See Moore v. Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, 356 So. 2d 19, 510 (Fla. 4th DCA, Case No. 77-2083, opinion filed February 21, 1978).
Accordingly the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the Final Order is quashed, and upon remand the Board should either adopt the Hearing Officer’s findings of fact or, if it wishes to alter these findings, it should, as required by Section 120.57(l)(b)(9), state with particularity why the findings are modified.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linton S. Waterhouse v. McDEVITT & St. Co., 387 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…Johnson & Walls, Inc. and its surety, Fidelity & Deposit Company. Martin counterclaimed. Fidelity cross claimed against Martin. Martin recovered a judgment against McDevitt; that judgment was appealed. McDevitt & St. Co. v. Martin, Johnson & Walls, 356 So. 2d 1315 (Fla.4th DCA 1978). Fidelity’s claim against Martin was also reduced to judgment. On May 22, 1978, the court ordered McDevitt to pay the amount owed on the judgment against it, plus interest, into the registry of the court. The court then planned to…
-
Borovina v. Fla. Constr. Indus. Licensing Bd., 369 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…. 2d at 401. Numerous cases have held that when an agency rejects or modifies the findings of a Hearing Officer it must strictly comply with the terms of the aforementioned statutory section. Turner v. Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 356 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Moore v. Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, 356 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Harvey v. Nuzum, 345 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Campbell v. State Department of Transportation, 326 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).…
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 356 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)