Gifford v. Department of Professional Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gifford v. Department of Professional Regulation

622 So. 2d 636, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8652, 1993 WL 317077

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 23, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2505

StatusPublished

This text of 622 So. 2d 636 (Gifford 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

Gifford v. Department of Professional Regulation, 622 So. 2d 636, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8652, 1993 WL 317077 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kathryn Gifford, a licensee of the Board of Nursing, was charged with possession of a hypodermic syringe and seven vials of a controlled substance. After an informal hearing, the Board entered a final order which found that Gifford had violated section 464.018(l)(h), Florida Statutes, and which imposed certain penalties. She has appealed to this court, arguing that the penalties imposed are not supported by the charges in the complaint. Upon consideration of appellee’s confession of error, we vacate the final order and remand with directions for entry of a final order which imposes a penalty consistent with the charges in the administrative complaint. See Celaya v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 560 So.2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA1990).

JOANOS, BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kathryn Gifford, a licensee of the Board of Nursing, was charged with possession of a hypodermic syringe and seven vials of a controlled substance. After an informal hearing, the Board entered a final order which found that Gifford had violated section 464.018(l)(h), Florida Statutes, and which imposed certain penalties. She has appealed to this court, arguing that the penalties imposed are not supported by the charges in the complaint. Upon consideration of appellee’s confession of error, we vacate the final order and remand with directions for entry of a final order which imposes a penalty consistent with the charges in the administrative complaint. See Celaya v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 560 So.2d 383 (Fla. 3d DCA1990).

JOANOS, BARFIELD and MINER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

622 So. 2d 636, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 8652, 1993 WL 317077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gifford-v-department-of-professional-regulation-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack