Bedi v. Department of Professional Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bedi v. Department of Professional Regulation

479 So. 2d 134, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2294, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16149

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 4, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2068

StatusPublished

This text of 479 So. 2d 134 (Bedi v. Department of Professional Regulation) 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

Bedi v. Department of Professional Regulation, 479 So. 2d 134, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2294, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16149 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

RYDER, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a final administrative order of the Florida Board of Medical Examiners which suspended Dr. Surindar S. Bedi’s medical license for two years and levied a three-year probation period immediately upon its reinstatement. We affirm the order appealed from except as to one particular. The order under review fails to give any reasons, as required by section 120.57(l)(b)9, Florida Statutes (1983), for increasing the penalty recommended by the hearing examiner in this case. We, therefore, reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the Florida Board of Medical Examiners with directions to enter a new final order in this cause which either (a) accepts the penalty recommendation of the hearing examiner, or (b) reimposes the penalty under review stating, with particularity, the reasons for increasing the penalty recommended by the hearing examiner.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

GRIMES and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

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

RYDER, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from a final administrative order of the Florida Board of Medical Examiners which suspended Dr. Surindar S. Bedi’s medical license for two years and levied a three-year probation period immediately upon its reinstatement. We affirm the order appealed from except as to one particular. The order under review fails to give any reasons, as required by section 120.57(l)(b)9, Florida Statutes (1983), for increasing the penalty recommended by the hearing examiner in this case. We, therefore, reverse the order under review and remand the cause to the Florida Board of Medical Examiners with directions to enter a new final order in this cause which either (a) accepts the penalty recommendation of the hearing examiner, or (b) reimposes the penalty under review stating, with particularity, the reasons for increasing the penalty recommended by the hearing examiner.

Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

GRIMES and DANAHY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 So. 2d 134, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2294, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bedi-v-department-of-professional-regulation-fladistctapp-1985.