Weaver v. Department of Health, Board of Nursing

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weaver v. Department of Health, Board of Nursing

215 So. 3d 1283, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5105

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 13, 2017

DocketCase 5D16-2366

StatusPublished

This text of 215 So. 3d 1283 (Weaver v. Department of Health, Board of Nursing) 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

Weaver v. Department of Health, Board of Nursing, 215 So. 3d 1283, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5105 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Lisa Bonny Weaver, a registered nurse, appeals a final administrative order permanently revoking her nursing license for violations of sections 456.072(l)(c) and 464.018(l)(d)2., Florida Statutes (2015). We affirm.

On appeal, Ms. Weaver argues that her attorney failed to properly represent her by providing sufficient facts to the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, so that it could make an informed decision. Ms. Weaver’s dissatisfaction with her counsel and the quality of her representation is not a basis for reversal. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premised on a violation of an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, *1284 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Mullins v. Dep’t of Law Enf., 942 So.2d 998, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). However, no Sixth Amendment right to counsel exists in the context of administrative proceedings involving the revocation of state-issued licenses. Mullins, 942 So.2d at 1000; see Santacroce v. State, Dep’t of Banking & Fin., 608 So.2d 134, 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (explaining that while agency cannot prevent person from obtaining and utilizing counsel in administrative proceedings, constitutional guarantee of right to counsel is not applicable to administrative proceedings involving revocation of licenses issued by state to those engaged in regulated businesses and professions); see also Slavin v. Comm’r, 932 F.2d 598, 601 (7th Cir. 1991) (recognizing “[t]here is no principle of effective assistance of counsel in civil cases”).

Because there is no right to counsel, there is no right to collaterally challenge the effectiveness of counsel. Accordingly, Ms. Weaver, who was represented by counsel of her own choosing, cannot now complain that the representation was inadequate as a means to challenge the permanent revocation of her nursing license. See Mullins, 942 So.2d at 1001 (concluding that officer had no right to collaterally challenge effectiveness of his counsel in revocation of his law enforcement license proceedings); Prieto v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Regs., 876 So.2d 633, 633-34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim brought by real estate appraiser to challenge agency’s suspension of his license).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Lisa Bonny Weaver, a registered nurse, appeals a final administrative order permanently revoking her nursing license for violations of sections 456.072(l)(c) and 464.018(l)(d)2., Florida Statutes (2015). We affirm.

On appeal, Ms. Weaver argues that her attorney failed to properly represent her by providing sufficient facts to the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, so that it could make an informed decision. Ms. Weaver’s dissatisfaction with her counsel and the quality of her representation is not a basis for reversal. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is premised on a violation of an individual’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See, e.g., Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, *1284 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Mullins v. Dep’t of Law Enf., 942 So.2d 998, 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). However, no Sixth Amendment right to counsel exists in the context of administrative proceedings involving the revocation of state-issued licenses. Mullins, 942 So.2d at 1000; see Santacroce v. State, Dep’t of Banking & Fin., 608 So.2d 134, 136 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (explaining that while agency cannot prevent person from obtaining and utilizing counsel in administrative proceedings, constitutional guarantee of right to counsel is not applicable to administrative proceedings involving revocation of licenses issued by state to those engaged in regulated businesses and professions); see also Slavin v. Comm’r, 932 F.2d 598, 601 (7th Cir. 1991) (recognizing “[t]here is no principle of effective assistance of counsel in civil cases”).

Because there is no right to counsel, there is no right to collaterally challenge the effectiveness of counsel. Accordingly, Ms. Weaver, who was represented by counsel of her own choosing, cannot now complain that the representation was inadequate as a means to challenge the permanent revocation of her nursing license. See Mullins, 942 So.2d at 1001 (concluding that officer had no right to collaterally challenge effectiveness of his counsel in revocation of his law enforcement license proceedings); Prieto v. Fla. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof'l Regs., 876 So.2d 633, 633-34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (rejecting ineffective assistance claim brought by real estate appraiser to challenge agency’s suspension of his license).

AFFIRMED.

ORFINGER and BERGER, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 So. 3d 1283, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 5105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weaver-v-department-of-health-board-of-nursing-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack