Grimberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Medicine, 89-16
| Decision Date | 02 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-16,89-16 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1088 Moises GRIMBERG, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Taylor, Brion, Buker & Greene and Paul Watson Lambert, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Kenneth E. Easley, Gen. Counsel, Stephanie A. Daniel, Chief Medical Atty., and Lisa S. Nelson and Gregory A. Victor, Attys., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, FERGUSON and COPE, JJ.
Dr. Grimberg appeals that part of an order of the Board of Medicine increasing a penalty recommended by the hearing officer.
The findings of fact by the hearing officer--that the appellant/physician was not competent to make a diagnosis, was guilty of malpractice, and failed to keep records to justify the course of treatment with respect to three patients--are undisputed. The single issue presented is whether the Board of Medicine abused its discretion in rejecting, as too lenient, the penalty recommended by the hearing officer and imposing, inter alia, a license suspension until the physician demonstrates competency by additional training and passing the licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (FLEX). See generally § 458.313(1)(a), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1988). No abuse of discretion is shown. To the contrary, where the physician's conduct demonstrates a lack of competency the Board is obligated to suspend his license until it is satisfied that "such person is capable of safely engaging in the practice of medicine." § 458.331(3), Fla.Stat. (1987). The Board's reason for rejecting the recommended penalty--that the hearing officer did not appreciate the gravity of an inability to make accurate diagnoses--is fully explicated in the record and in the Board's final order. See Schomer v. Department of Prof. Reg., 417 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Compare Pages v. Department of Prof. Reg., 542 So.2d 456 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (). It is otherwise agreed that the increased penalty falls within the permissible range.
The appellate function, on review of penalties imposed by an administrative agency, is to determine whether there are valid reasons in the record in support of the agency's order. See Florida Real Estate Comm'n v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978). Reviewing courts cannot substitute their...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Escobar v. Department of Professional Regulation, Bd. of Medicine, 89-2531
...not duplicate his own reasoning in determining the penalty, is almost identical to the one approved in Grimberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, 542 So.2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), review denied, 548 So.2d 663 (Fla.1989); accord Jimenez v. Department of Professional Regulation, 556 S......
-
Criminal Justice Standards and Training Com'n v. Bradley
...v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 560 So.2d 1355 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Grimberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 542 So.2d 457 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 548 So.2d 663 (Fla.1989); and Pages v. Department of Professional Regulation, Boa......
-
Gonzalez–Gomez v. Dep't of Health, 3D11–1840.
...must determine whether there are valid reasons in the record in support of the agency's order. Grimberg v. Dep't of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med., 542 So.2d 457, 457 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Fla. Real Estate Comm'n v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978). Also, reviewing courts cannot substi......
-
Levy v. Dep't of Health
...We further conclude that there are valid reasons in the record to support the Florida Board's denial of the petition. See Grimberg, 542 So.2d at 457-58. The agreement was entered into between Levy and the Department of Health. When the parties came before the Florida Board for its approval ......