Kunen v. Department of Business & Professional Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Kunen v. Department of Business & Professional Regulation

642 So. 2d 60, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8375, 1994 WL 454875

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 1994

DocketNo. 93-187

StatusPublished

This text of 642 So. 2d 60 (Kunen v. Department of Business & 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

Kunen v. Department of Business & Professional Regulation, 642 So. 2d 60, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8375, 1994 WL 454875 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This matter questions the validity of proceedings and the penalties recommended by a hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding brought against a medical doctor. Evidence of a criminal matter in another jurisdiction was erroneously admitted into evidence. First, it was not validly noticed pursuant to § 90.204, Fla.Stat. (1993). Second, even if validly noticed, it was not material. See and com/pare Maddox v. Department of Professional Regulation, 592 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rev. denied 601 So.2d 552 (Fla.1992); Holland v. Florida Real Estate Comm’n, 352 So.2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Notwithstanding the erroneous admission of this evidence, the record supports the findings of guilt without consideration of this invalid evidence, however, its admission may have contributed to the penalties imposed. Therefore, we set aside the penalties and return the matter to the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, for reimposition of penalty without consideration of the foreign criminal proceeding.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

This matter questions the validity of proceedings and the penalties recommended by a hearing officer in a disciplinary proceeding brought against a medical doctor. Evidence of a criminal matter in another jurisdiction was erroneously admitted into evidence. First, it was not validly noticed pursuant to § 90.204, Fla.Stat. (1993). Second, even if validly noticed, it was not material. See and com/pare Maddox v. Department of Professional Regulation, 592 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), rev. denied 601 So.2d 552 (Fla.1992); Holland v. Florida Real Estate Comm’n, 352 So.2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Notwithstanding the erroneous admission of this evidence, the record supports the findings of guilt without consideration of this invalid evidence, however, its admission may have contributed to the penalties imposed. Therefore, we set aside the penalties and return the matter to the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, for reimposition of penalty without consideration of the foreign criminal proceeding.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 So. 2d 60, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 8375, 1994 WL 454875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kunen-v-department-of-business-professional-regulation-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack