Florida Bd. of Med. v. Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., No. 1D00-3897
Citation | 808 So.2d 243 |
Decision Date | 23 January 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 1D00-3897, No. 1D01-123. |
Parties | FLORIDA BOARD OF MEDICINE, Florida Society of Disposition Anesthesiologists and Florida Hospital Association, Inc., Appellants, v. FLORIDA ACADEMY OF COSMETIC SURGERY, INC.; Charles Graper, M.D., D.D.S., F.A.C.S.; R. Gregory Smith, M.D., Florida Society of Plastic Surgery, Inc. and Florida Society of Dermatology, Inc., Appellees. Florida Board of Medicine, et al., Appellants, v. Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., et al., Florida Association of Nurse Anesthetists and Florida Nurses Association, Appellees. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; M. Catherine Lannon and Lee Ann Gustafson, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellant Board of Medicine; Jerome W. Hoffman of Holland & Knight, LLP, Tallahassee, for Appellant Florida Society of Anesthesiologists; Stephen A. Ecenia and J. Stephen Menton of Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant Florida Hospital Association, Inc.
Alfred W. Clark, Tallahassee, for Appellees Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., Charles Graper, M.D., D.D.S., F.A.C.S., and R. Gregory Smith, M.D.; Christopher L. Nuland of Law Offices of Christopher L. Nuland, Jacksonville, for Appellees Florida Chapter, American College of Surgeons, Inc., Florida Society of Dermatology, Inc., and Florida Society of Plastic Surgeons, Inc.; James W. Linn of Lewis Longman & Walker, P.A., Tallahassee, and Cynthia Mikos, Brandon, for Appellees Florida Association of Nurse Anesthetists and Florida Nurses Association.
Alan L. Briggs and Scott T. Kragie of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Amicus Curiae American Society of Anesthesiologists; Gene A. Blumenreich of Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP, Boston, MA, for Amicus Curiae American Association of Nurse Anesthetists.
In these two consolidated administrative appeals, appellants seek review of final orders entered by an administrative law judge (ALJ) in rule challenge proceedings. Appellants contend that the ALJ committed reversible error when he held that (1) appellees Florida Nurses Association (FNA) and Florida Association of Nurse Anesthetists (FANA) had standing to challenge a portion of appellant Florida Board of Medicine's proposed rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a. that required an anesthesiologist to be present for all level III office surgeries; (2) the Board of Medicine's rule 64B8-9.009(4)(b), requiring physicians without staff privileges who perform level II office surgeries to have a transfer agreement with a licensed hospital within reasonable proximity was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; (3) the portion of proposed rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a. allowing physicians to perform level III office surgeries if they have staff privileges at a licensed hospital within reasonable proximity was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; and (4) the portion of the Board of Medicine's proposed rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a. requiring an anesthesiologist to be present for all level III office surgeries was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. We affirm the holding that FNA and FANA had standing to challenge the portion of proposed rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a. that required an anesthesiologist to be present for all level III office surgeries. However, we reverse the orders to the extent they hold that rule 64B8-9.009(4)(b) and the challenged portions of proposed rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a. constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Having become aware of a number of office surgery deaths and other adverse incidents, in October 1998, the Board of Medicine directed its Surgical Care Committee to evaluate, and to make recommendations for amendments to, Florida Rule of Administrative Procedure 64B8-9.009, which governed the standards of care for office surgery. Following the receipt of recommendations from the Committee and meetings and hearings, the Board published proposed amendments to rule 64B8-9.009 in three separate notices of change. On July 8, 1999, appellants Florida Society of Anesthesiologists (FSA) and Florida Hospital Association (FHA) filed separate rule challenges to several of the proposed amendments. The parties to those pending rule challenges eventually agreed to permit those portions of the proposed amendments that were not being challenged to be submitted to the Department of State for codification. Those amendments were filed with the Department of State on January 28, 2000, and became effective on February 17, 2000. On February 18, 2000, the Board published a fourth notice of change, which proposed additional amendments to the rule.
On March 3, 2000, in Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) case number 00-1058RX, appellees Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc. (FACS), Dr. Charles Graper and Dr. R. Gregory Smith filed a challenge to the recently enacted rule 64B8-9.009(4)(b), which applied to level II office surgery (i.e., surgery requiring preoperative intravenous, intramuscular or rectal medication and sedation). That rule read:
(b) Transfer Agreement Required. The physician must have a transfer agreement with a licensed hospital within reasonable proximity if the physician does not have staff privileges to perform the same procedure as that being performed in the out-patient setting at a licensed hospital within reasonable proximity.
They also challenged rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b), which applied to level III office surgery (i.e., surgery requiring preoperative sedation by use of a general anesthesia or major conduction anesthesia). That rule read:
(b) Hospital Staff Privileges Required. The physician must have staff privileges to perform the same procedure as that being performed in the outpatient setting at a licensed hospital within reasonable proximity.
Leave to intervene was subsequently granted to appellants FHA and FSA, and to appellees Florida Society of Plastic Surgery, Inc. (FSPS), and Florida Society of Dermatology, Inc. (FSD).
FACS, Graper and Smith also filed a challenge to proposed rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a., which had been included in the fourth notice of change. That proposed rule, as amended, read:
This challenge was assigned DOAH case number 00-951RP. Leave to intervene was subsequently granted to appellants FHA and FSA and to appellees FSPS, FSD, FNA, FANA and the Florida Chapter of the American College of Surgeons. FSA argued unsuccessfully that FNA and FANA lacked standing to intervene. On April 17, 2000, FANA filed its own challenge to the portion of proposed rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a. which required an anesthesiologist to be present for all level III office surgeries. That challenge was assigned DOAH case number 00-1622RP. The Board argued unsuccessfully that FANA lacked standing to maintain such a challenge. DOAH case number 00-1622RP was eventually consolidated with DOAH case number 00-951RP.
Following a hearing in DOAH case number 00-1058RX, on September 7, 2000, the ALJ entered a final order holding that the transfer agreement provision of rule 64B8-9.009(4)(b) and the staff privileges provision of rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b) were invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Following a subsequent hearing in DOAH case numbers 00-951RP and 00-1622RP, on November 16, 2000, the ALJ entered a final order holding that the portion of the first sentence of proposed rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a. relating to staff privileges and the last sentence of that rule (requiring anesthesiologist supervision of the administration of general anesthesia), were invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. These appeals follow.
To continue reading
Request your trial- Westphal v. City of St. Petersburg
- K.M. v. Fla. Dep't of Health
-
ADVENTIST HLTH. v. FL. BIRTH-RELATED INJURY, 5D02-892.
... ... So.2d 561 ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC., etc., Appellant, ... FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED ... of Med. v. Florida Acad, of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., 808 ... ...
- Dep't of Health v. Khan
-
Rule-challenge standing after NAACP, Inc. v. Florida Board of Regents.
...law practitioners is simply to be familiar with every case. (1) Florida Board of Medicine v. Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, 808 So. 2d 243, 250 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2002), citing Lanoue v. Fla. Dep't of Law Enforcement, 751 So. 2d 94, 96 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1999); Ward v. Bd. Of Trs. Of Inte......
-
The 2003 amendments to the Florida APA.
...is aimed at resolving the confusion recognized by the court in Florida Board of Medicine v. Florida Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., 808 So. 2d 243,256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), regarding whether "competent substantial evidence" is a standard of proof or a standard of review. The bill also mak......
-
Standards of review under the Florida Administrative Procedure Act.
...Ins. Co. v. Office of Ins. Reg., 849 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2003). (34) Fla. Bd. of Med. v. Fla. Acad. of Cosmetic Surgery, Inc., 808 So. 2d 243, 254-55 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2002); Southwest Fla. Water Mgmt. District v. Save the Manatee Club, Inc., 773 So. 2d 594, 597 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2000......