Yalamanchi v. Department of Health

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Yalamanchi v. Department of Health

909 So. 2d 395, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12232, 2005 WL 1844512

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 5, 2005

DocketNo. 1D05-1502

StatusPublished

This text of 909 So. 2d 395 (Yalamanchi v. Department of Health) 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

Yalamanchi v. Department of Health, 909 So. 2d 395, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12232, 2005 WL 1844512 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

BROWNING, J.

The petitioner, a medical doctor, seeks review of the Department of Health’s emergency order placing restrictions on the petitioner’s license to practice medicine in Florida. Given the Department’s modifications of its prior ruling in the petitioner’s case in light of Daube v. Dep’t of Health, 897 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), we conclude that the Department’s factual allegations satisfy the requirements of section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2004), that the order (as amended) employs the least restrictive reasonable means of protecting the public, and that the petitioner has not shown reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See Daube v. Dep’t of Health, 902 So.2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

PETITION DENIED.

KAHN, C.J.; and THOMAS, J., concur.

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

BROWNING, J.

The petitioner, a medical doctor, seeks review of the Department of Health’s emergency order placing restrictions on the petitioner’s license to practice medicine in Florida. Given the Department’s modifications of its prior ruling in the petitioner’s case in light of Daube v. Dep’t of Health, 897 So.2d 493 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), we conclude that the Department’s factual allegations satisfy the requirements of section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2004), that the order (as amended) employs the least restrictive reasonable means of protecting the public, and that the petitioner has not shown reversible error. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See Daube v. Dep’t of Health, 902 So.2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

PETITION DENIED.

KAHN, C.J.; and THOMAS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 So. 2d 395, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12232, 2005 WL 1844512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yalamanchi-v-department-of-health-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack