Broyles v. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH

776 So. 2d 340, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 434, 2001 WL 45247
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJanuary 22, 2001
Docket1D00-2502
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 776 So. 2d 340 (Broyles v. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH) 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
Broyles v. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH, 776 So. 2d 340, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 434, 2001 WL 45247 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

776 So.2d 340 (2001)

Bradley J. BROYLES, M.D., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Appellee.

No. 1D00-2502.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2001.

*341 Appellant Bradley J. Broyles, pro se, Leesburg.

Simone Marstiller of Agency for Health Care Administration, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In his pro se petition, Dr. Bradley J. Broyles contests an order entered by the Department of Health suspending Dr. Broyles' license to practice medicine on an emergency basis pursuant to section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (1999). Broyles' arguments, however, primarily contest the factual matters set out in the Department's order. He does not advance any substantial argument that the order, on its face, fails to comply with section 120.60(6). As the Department notes, the statute provides that it may take emergency action against a licensee upon a finding "that immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires (such action)." § 120.60(6), Fla.Stat. (1999). The statute requires, in cases of summary suspension, that the Department promptly institute a formal suspension or revocation proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (1999). It is in these formal proceedings that licensees, such as Dr. Broyles, may dispute the factual matters relied upon by the Department. Our review of the present order, however, indicates that the Department has amply demonstrated on the face of the order that Dr. Broyles' continued medical practice would pose an immediate serious danger to public health, safety, or welfare.

AFFIRMED.

BOOTH, KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Valls v. Dept. of Health
255 So. 3d 515 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
MacHiela v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH, BOARD OF OPTOMETRY
995 So. 2d 1168 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
St. Michael's Academy v. State, Dcf
965 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Pendergraft v. Department of Health
943 So. 2d 1015 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Oakcrest Early Education Center v. Dcf
936 So. 2d 1174 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Field v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH
902 So. 2d 893 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
776 So. 2d 340, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 434, 2001 WL 45247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broyles-v-state-dept-of-health-fladistctapp-2001.