Ospina v. Agency for Health Care Administration

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ospina v. Agency for Health Care Administration

654 So. 2d 1010, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5018, 1995 WL 271471

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 1995

DocketNo. 94-2641

StatusPublished

This text of 654 So. 2d 1010 (Ospina v. Agency for Health Care Administration) 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

Ospina v. Agency for Health Care Administration, 654 So. 2d 1010, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5018, 1995 WL 271471 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Board of Nursing which suspended the appellant’s license as a licensed practical nurse, but stayed the suspension provided that she successfully complete a two-year probationary period. We find no merit in either of the claims (a) that a prior disposition of a proceeding for elderly abuse instituted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services precluded the present disciplinary action by the Nursing Board, see Newberry v. Florida Dep’t. of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Comm’n., 585 So.2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), or (b) that the Board lacked authority to impose the penalties involved in this case. See § 464.018(5), Fla.Stat. (1993); Fla.Admin.Code R. 59S-8.006. We do agree with both parties that the penalty portion of the order apparently contains a scrivener’s error and that it is unclear as to whether it conforms to the Board’s pronouncements at the hearing. Accordingly, the order is affirmed and the cause x’emanded to correct and clarify the penalties imposed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order of the Board of Nursing which suspended the appellant’s license as a licensed practical nurse, but stayed the suspension provided that she successfully complete a two-year probationary period. We find no merit in either of the claims (a) that a prior disposition of a proceeding for elderly abuse instituted by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services precluded the present disciplinary action by the Nursing Board, see Newberry v. Florida Dep’t. of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Comm’n., 585 So.2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991), or (b) that the Board lacked authority to impose the penalties involved in this case. See § 464.018(5), Fla.Stat. (1993); Fla.Admin.Code R. 59S-8.006. We do agree with both parties that the penalty portion of the order apparently contains a scrivener’s error and that it is unclear as to whether it conforms to the Board’s pronouncements at the hearing. Accordingly, the order is affirmed and the cause x’emanded to correct and clarify the penalties imposed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

654 So. 2d 1010, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 5018, 1995 WL 271471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ospina-v-agency-for-health-care-administration-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack