Agency for Health Care Administration v. Gonzalez

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Agency for Health Care Administration v. Gonzalez

657 So. 2d 56, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7289, 1995 WL 387170

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2393

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 657 So. 2d 56 (Agency for Health Care Administration v. Gonzalez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agency for Health Care Administration v. Gonzalez, 657 So. 2d 56, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7289, 1995 WL 387170 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The order of the Division of Administrative Hearings awarding attorney fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes, to a medical doctor after the disciplinary action against her was dismissed is REVERSED. The evidence which the hearing officer acknowledged was before the probable cause panel constituted substantial justification for institution of the disciplinary action, but he erroneously determined that this evidence did not constitute substantial justification in light of the Board of Medicine’s subsequent dismissal of the proceeding after more evidence was presented. See Gentele v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry, 513 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. Toledo Realty, Inc., 549 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

BARFIELD, KAHN, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The order of the Division of Administrative Hearings awarding attorney fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes, to a medical doctor after the disciplinary action against her was dismissed is REVERSED. The evidence which the hearing officer acknowledged was before the probable cause panel constituted substantial justification for institution of the disciplinary action, but he erroneously determined that this evidence did not constitute substantial justification in light of the Board of Medicine’s subsequent dismissal of the proceeding after more evidence was presented. See Gentele v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry, 513 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); see also Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. Toledo Realty, Inc., 549 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

BARFIELD, KAHN, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 So. 2d 56, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7289, 1995 WL 387170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agency-for-health-care-administration-v-gonzalez-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack