Rosenberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosenberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners

488 So. 2d 153, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1125, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7791

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 1986

DocketNo. 85-2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 488 So. 2d 153 (Rosenberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners) 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

Rosenberg v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 488 So. 2d 153, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1125, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7791 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were found guilty of violating Section 460.413(l)(d), (e), (w), Florida Statutes (1981),¹ and certain Department regulations,² fined $1,000 and placed on one-year probation. The appellants were found guilty of those violations because of a “tasteless ad” they ran (which was factually correct) and because of their failure to have the initials D.C. after their names properly identifying themselves as chiropractors.

We find that the Department has no regulation relative as to how a doctor of chiropractic medicine identifies himself. However, it is clear from the ad that ordinary people would not be misled by the advertisement, but would know that the appellants and their clinic practiced chiropractics. Therefore we find no basis for the alleged violation in failing to have the words, D.C. following their names. We likewise find that the regulation relating to advertising³ is overly broad and restricts, unlawfully, free speech, no matter how “tasteless”, and therefore we find the reg[155]*155ulation unconstitutional under the reasoning contained in the following authority. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizen’s Counsel, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976); Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 95 S.Ct. 2222, 44 L.Ed.2d 600 (1975). The ad not being fraudulent, false or misleading, there was no factual basis for finding a violation of Section 460.413(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1981). Therefore the fines and probation here under review be and the same are hereby reversed.

Reversed.

¹

.Section 460.413(l)(d), (e), (w), Florida Statutes (1981), reads as follows:

"460.413 Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board.—

(1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:

(d) False, deceptive, or misleading advertising.

(e) Causing to be advertised, by any means whatsoever, any advertisement which does not contain an assertion or statement which would identify himself as a chiropractic physician or identify such chiropractic clinic or related institution in which he practices or in which he is owner, in whole or in part, as a chiropractic institution.

(w) Violating any provision of this chapter, any rule of the board or department, or a lawful order of the board or department previously entered in a disciplinary hearing or failing to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena of the department."

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were found guilty of violating Section 460.413(l)(d), (e), (w), Florida Statutes (1981),¹ and certain Department regulations,² fined $1,000 and placed on one-year probation. The appellants were found guilty of those violations because of a “tasteless ad” they ran (which was factually correct) and because of their failure to have the initials D.C. after their names properly identifying themselves as chiropractors.

We find that the Department has no regulation relative as to how a doctor of chiropractic medicine identifies himself. However, it is clear from the ad that ordinary people would not be misled by the advertisement, but would know that the appellants and their clinic practiced chiropractics. Therefore we find no basis for the alleged violation in failing to have the words, D.C. following their names. We likewise find that the regulation relating to advertising³ is overly broad and restricts, unlawfully, free speech, no matter how “tasteless”, and therefore we find the reg[155]*155ulation unconstitutional under the reasoning contained in the following authority. Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizen’s Counsel, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976); Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 95 S.Ct. 2222, 44 L.Ed.2d 600 (1975). The ad not being fraudulent, false or misleading, there was no factual basis for finding a violation of Section 460.413(l)(d), Florida Statutes (1981). Therefore the fines and probation here under review be and the same are hereby reversed.

Reversed.

¹

.Section 460.413(l)(d), (e), (w), Florida Statutes (1981), reads as follows:

"460.413 Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board.—

(1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:

(d) False, deceptive, or misleading advertising.

(e) Causing to be advertised, by any means whatsoever, any advertisement which does not contain an assertion or statement which would identify himself as a chiropractic physician or identify such chiropractic clinic or related institution in which he practices or in which he is owner, in whole or in part, as a chiropractic institution.

(w) Violating any provision of this chapter, any rule of the board or department, or a lawful order of the board or department previously entered in a disciplinary hearing or failing to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena of the department."

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

488 So. 2d 153, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1125, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-department-of-professional-regulation-board-of-chiropractic-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack