Turner v. Department of Professional Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Turner v. Department of Professional Regulation

591 So. 2d 1136, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 101, 1992 WL 1347

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 8, 1992

DocketNo. 91-0984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 591 So. 2d 1136 (Turner v. Department of 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

Turner v. Department of Professional Regulation, 591 So. 2d 1136, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 101, 1992 WL 1347 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

FARMER, Judge.

We affirm the revocation of appellant’s license to practice as a chiropractic physician. There was competent and substantial evidence in the record, which the DPR could have found clear and convincing, to support DPR’s finding that appellant had made misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of chiropractic. See section 460.-413(1)(Z), Florida Statutes (1989).

There is no authority, however, for DPR to add a provision to its order that the revocation is “without right of reinstatement or relicensure.” Section 460.413(2), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes one or more of the following penalties for deceptive or misleading representations: denial of a license, revocation or suspension of a license, restriction of practice, imposition of a fine, issuance of a reprimand, or probation. There is nothing in the statute that empowers DPR to deny a licensee, whose license has been revoked, the right to seek reinstatement or relicensure.

As the statute is penal, it must be strictly construed in favor of the licensee and against the state. Rotstein v. Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation, 397 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We also note that the First District has construed comparable provisions in the nurse’s and pharmacist’s licensing schemes to the same effect. See Schiffman v. Department of Professional Regulation, 581 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Jordan v. Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

We therefore affirm the final order revoking appellant’s license, but we correct the order to delete the words “without right of reinstatement or relicensure.”

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED.

POLEN, J., concurs. LETTS, J., concurs in the affirmance of the revocation of the license but dissents without opinion as to the correction of the order.

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

FARMER, Judge.

We affirm the revocation of appellant’s license to practice as a chiropractic physician. There was competent and substantial evidence in the record, which the DPR could have found clear and convincing, to support DPR’s finding that appellant had made misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of chiropractic. See section 460.-413(1)(Z), Florida Statutes (1989).

There is no authority, however, for DPR to add a provision to its order that the revocation is “without right of reinstatement or relicensure.” Section 460.413(2), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes one or more of the following penalties for deceptive or misleading representations: denial of a license, revocation or suspension of a license, restriction of practice, imposition of a fine, issuance of a reprimand, or probation. There is nothing in the statute that empowers DPR to deny a licensee, whose license has been revoked, the right to seek reinstatement or relicensure.

As the statute is penal, it must be strictly construed in favor of the licensee and against the state. Rotstein v. Department of Professional & Occupational Regulation, 397 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We also note that the First District has construed comparable provisions in the nurse’s and pharmacist’s licensing schemes to the same effect. See Schiffman v. Department of Professional Regulation, 581 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and Jordan v. Department of Professional Regulation, 522 So.2d 450 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

We therefore affirm the final order revoking appellant’s license, but we correct the order to delete the words “without right of reinstatement or relicensure.”

AFFIRMED AS CORRECTED.

POLEN, J., concurs. LETTS, J., concurs in the affirmance of the revocation of the license but dissents without opinion as to the correction of the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

591 So. 2d 1136, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 101, 1992 WL 1347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-department-of-professional-regulation-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack