Bryant v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bryant v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing

603 So. 2d 131, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8572, 1992 WL 191605

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 11, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 603 So. 2d 131 (Bryant v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing) 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

Bryant v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing, 603 So. 2d 131, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8572, 1992 WL 191605 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Bryant appeals from a final administrative order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing, suspending his license to practice nursing in Florida for five years. He argues that the Department did not give him “reasonable notice” of the administrative hearing to be held concerning charges against him. We agree and reverse.

“A fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality ‘is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency’ of an action.” Highsmith v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 499 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 1st DCA1986), citing Quay Development Inc. v. Elegante Bldg. Corp., 392 So.2d 901, 903 (Fla.1981). Finding no relevant distinctions between this case and Highsmith, we reverse the order of suspension and remand with directions to the Board to hold a new hearing following the issuance of reasonable notice to Bryant and his counsel.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Bryant appeals from a final administrative order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing, suspending his license to practice nursing in Florida for five years. He argues that the Department did not give him “reasonable notice” of the administrative hearing to be held concerning charges against him. We agree and reverse.

“A fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality ‘is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency’ of an action.” Highsmith v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 499 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 1st DCA1986), citing Quay Development Inc. v. Elegante Bldg. Corp., 392 So.2d 901, 903 (Fla.1981). Finding no relevant distinctions between this case and Highsmith, we reverse the order of suspension and remand with directions to the Board to hold a new hearing following the issuance of reasonable notice to Bryant and his counsel.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

603 So. 2d 131, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 8572, 1992 WL 191605, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bryant-v-department-of-professional-regulation-board-of-nursing-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack