Stoneburner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stoneburner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry

571 So. 2d 6, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2905, 1990 WL 52315

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 1990

DocketNo. 89-00943

StatusPublished

This text of 571 So. 2d 6 (Stoneburner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry) 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

Stoneburner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry, 571 So. 2d 6, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2905, 1990 WL 52315 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Respondent, an optometrist, appeals from a final order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry. The order, inter alia, increased by $5000 the administrative fine recommended by the hearing officer for respondent’s violation of section 463.016(l)(e) and (g), Florida Statutes (1985). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

We find no merit in respondent’s contentions on appeal except for one which the Board concedes. That is that the Board in its final order increased the recommended fine by $5000 without stating with particularity its reasons for so doing and without citing to the record to justify its action, as required by section 120.57(l)(b)9. Therefore, the Board’s $5000 increase in the administrative fine is stricken.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Respondent, an optometrist, appeals from a final order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry. The order, inter alia, increased by $5000 the administrative fine recommended by the hearing officer for respondent’s violation of section 463.016(l)(e) and (g), Florida Statutes (1985). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

We find no merit in respondent’s contentions on appeal except for one which the Board concedes. That is that the Board in its final order increased the recommended fine by $5000 without stating with particularity its reasons for so doing and without citing to the record to justify its action, as required by section 120.57(l)(b)9. Therefore, the Board’s $5000 increase in the administrative fine is stricken.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 So. 2d 6, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2905, 1990 WL 52315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stoneburner-v-department-of-professional-regulation-board-of-optometry-fladistctapp-1990.