Woodward v. Department of Professional Regulation

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Woodward v. Department of Professional Regulation

432 So. 2d 146, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19322

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 1983

DocketNos. AM-198, AO-459

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 432 So. 2d 146 (Woodward 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

Woodward v. Department of Professional Regulation, 432 So. 2d 146, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19322 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

ROBÉRT P. SMITH, Jr, Chief Judge.

In its final order disciplining this licensed funeral home and its licensed director, by license suspension and fines, the Board rejects certain findings of fact and the ultimate conclusion of the DOAH hearing officer to whom the matter was referred for hearing, and who upon the evidence recommended dismissal of the charges.

The hearing officer and the Board disagree on the key finding or conclusion, whether the licensees unlawfully “knowingly employed] unlicensed persons in the practice of funeral directing .... ” We need not rehearse the evidence. To the extent the critical issue was one of fact, conventionally considered, the hearing officer’s finding prevails notwithstanding the Board’s contrary view of the record, which in this case is not elaborated. Bekiempis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 421 So.2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). To the extent the issue is one on which we should defer to the Board’s professional expertise, the order comes to us without the necessary elucidation of the Board’s definition of “the practice of funeral directing,” and without a record foundation that would support the views attributed to the Board upon this appeal. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

The Board’s order, consequently, is REVERSED, and the charges are DISMISSED.

SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ, concur.

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

ROBÉRT P. SMITH, Jr, Chief Judge.

In its final order disciplining this licensed funeral home and its licensed director, by license suspension and fines, the Board rejects certain findings of fact and the ultimate conclusion of the DOAH hearing officer to whom the matter was referred for hearing, and who upon the evidence recommended dismissal of the charges.

The hearing officer and the Board disagree on the key finding or conclusion, whether the licensees unlawfully “knowingly employed] unlicensed persons in the practice of funeral directing .... ” We need not rehearse the evidence. To the extent the critical issue was one of fact, conventionally considered, the hearing officer’s finding prevails notwithstanding the Board’s contrary view of the record, which in this case is not elaborated. Bekiempis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 421 So.2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). To the extent the issue is one on which we should defer to the Board’s professional expertise, the order comes to us without the necessary elucidation of the Board’s definition of “the practice of funeral directing,” and without a record foundation that would support the views attributed to the Board upon this appeal. McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

The Board’s order, consequently, is REVERSED, and the charges are DISMISSED.

SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

432 So. 2d 146, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 19322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodward-v-department-of-professional-regulation-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack