Department of Health, Board of Medicine v. Thomas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Department of Health, Board of Medicine v. Thomas

890 So. 2d 400, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19706, 2004 WL 2964068

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 2004

DocketNo. 1D03-5074

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 890 So. 2d 400 (Department of Health, Board of Medicine v. Thomas) 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

Department of Health, Board of Medicine v. Thomas, 890 So. 2d 400, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19706, 2004 WL 2964068 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

The Department filed a disciplinary action against Appellee, which was eventual[401]*401ly dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, Appellee moved for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The ALJ awarded such fees and costs, and Appellant seeks relief.

Section 57.111 provides for such an award “to a prevailing small business party in any adjudicatory proceeding initiated by a state agency, unless the actions of the agency were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.” § 57.111(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). The parties stipulated that Appellee is a small business party and that no special circumstances exist here. The Department was obligated to prove that the disciplinary action was substantially justified, having “a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state agency.” § 57.111(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2002).

Here, we conclude that the Department did make such a showing, in that one of the three expert opinions before the Department indicated that Appellee did not meet the standard of care. The AL J’s factual conclusions that the panel did not consider two of the expert opinions and that the decision to prosecute did not include a consideration of the credibility of the expert witnesses are unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The Department was free to believe the opinion of one expert despite the existence of two expert opinions to the contrary because a decision to prosecute that turns on a credibility assessment has a reasonable basis in fact and law. See Gentele v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Optometry, 513 So.2d 672, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.

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

BROWNING, J.

The Department filed a disciplinary action against Appellee, which was eventual[401]*401ly dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, Appellee moved for an award of attorney’s fees and costs under section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The ALJ awarded such fees and costs, and Appellant seeks relief.

Section 57.111 provides for such an award “to a prevailing small business party in any adjudicatory proceeding initiated by a state agency, unless the actions of the agency were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.” § 57.111(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002). The parties stipulated that Appellee is a small business party and that no special circumstances exist here. The Department was obligated to prove that the disciplinary action was substantially justified, having “a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state agency.” § 57.111(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2002).

Here, we conclude that the Department did make such a showing, in that one of the three expert opinions before the Department indicated that Appellee did not meet the standard of care. The AL J’s factual conclusions that the panel did not consider two of the expert opinions and that the decision to prosecute did not include a consideration of the credibility of the expert witnesses are unsupported by competent substantial evidence. The Department was free to believe the opinion of one expert despite the existence of two expert opinions to the contrary because a decision to prosecute that turns on a credibility assessment has a reasonable basis in fact and law. See Gentele v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Optometry, 513 So.2d 672, 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

LEWIS and POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

890 So. 2d 400, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 19706, 2004 WL 2964068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/department-of-health-board-of-medicine-v-thomas-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack