R.W. v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners

District Court of Appeal of Florida

R.W. v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners

566 So. 2d 26, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6116, 1990 WL 116332

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2877

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 566 So. 2d 26 (R.W. v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical 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

R.W. v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, 566 So. 2d 26, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6116, 1990 WL 116332 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

R.W., an osteopathic physician, appeals a final judgment, entered after a hearing, granting the Department of Professional Regulation’s petition to enforce a subpoena duces tecum. The judgment ordered compliance with the subpoena to produce certain patient files, and denied the physician’s request for discovery of evidence presented to the Board of Osteopaths, as well as the Board’s deliberations, where a finding was made that probable cause existed to discipline R.W. for “excessively or inappropriately” prescribing a controlled pharmaceutical product. We affirm both rulings for the following reasons.

First, although section 455.225, Florida Statutes (1989), requires prior notice to a physician of the substance of an informal complaint filed against him and notice of the commencement of an investigation based on the complaint, there is no prohibition against serving both the notice of the investigation and the substance of the complaint along with a subpoena for the physician’s medical records. The trial judge was correct in his finding that the Department’s processes satisfied the statute.

Second, chapter 455 does not provide for participation by a physician in the investigatory process — for the purpose of discovery — prior to the filing of an administrative complaint. The Department, based on its investigatory findings, may decide not to prosecute the complaint. Section 120.58(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that a person subject to a subpoena may, before compliance, attack the subpoena as (1) not lawfully issued, (2) unreasonably broad in scope, or (3) requiring the production of irrelevant material. However, there is no provision for a pre-issuance challenge to the subpoena. The trial court conducted the hearing provided for by section 120.-58(2), found the subpoena unreasonably broad, and tailored it to comport with the dates alleged in the complaint. The record supports the circuit court’s determination [28]*28that the subpoena was otherwise lawfully-issued and that the documents sought were relevant.

R.W.’s remaining challenges to the proceeding are premature.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

R.W., an osteopathic physician, appeals a final judgment, entered after a hearing, granting the Department of Professional Regulation’s petition to enforce a subpoena duces tecum. The judgment ordered compliance with the subpoena to produce certain patient files, and denied the physician’s request for discovery of evidence presented to the Board of Osteopaths, as well as the Board’s deliberations, where a finding was made that probable cause existed to discipline R.W. for “excessively or inappropriately” prescribing a controlled pharmaceutical product. We affirm both rulings for the following reasons.

First, although section 455.225, Florida Statutes (1989), requires prior notice to a physician of the substance of an informal complaint filed against him and notice of the commencement of an investigation based on the complaint, there is no prohibition against serving both the notice of the investigation and the substance of the complaint along with a subpoena for the physician’s medical records. The trial judge was correct in his finding that the Department’s processes satisfied the statute.

Second, chapter 455 does not provide for participation by a physician in the investigatory process — for the purpose of discovery — prior to the filing of an administrative complaint. The Department, based on its investigatory findings, may decide not to prosecute the complaint. Section 120.58(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides that a person subject to a subpoena may, before compliance, attack the subpoena as (1) not lawfully issued, (2) unreasonably broad in scope, or (3) requiring the production of irrelevant material. However, there is no provision for a pre-issuance challenge to the subpoena. The trial court conducted the hearing provided for by section 120.-58(2), found the subpoena unreasonably broad, and tailored it to comport with the dates alleged in the complaint. The record supports the circuit court’s determination [28]*28that the subpoena was otherwise lawfully-issued and that the documents sought were relevant.

R.W.’s remaining challenges to the proceeding are premature.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 So. 2d 26, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 6116, 1990 WL 116332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rw-v-department-of-professional-regulation-board-of-osteopathic-medical-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack