LAWRENCE R. ENGEL, D.D.S., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Dr. Lawrence Engel challenged his license suspension and fine imposed by the Florida Board of Dentistry for violations of dental practice statutes, including incompetence, failing to designate a dentist of record, improper license display, and misleading advertising. The appellate court affirmed the Board's disciplinary order, finding the charges supported by competent substantial evidence.
The Board's findings and conclusions were supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, and Dr. Engel failed to demonstrate reversible error warranting reversal of the disciplinary order.
[1] A Board of Dentistry's findings and conclusions regarding violations of dentistry statutes are reviewable for competent substantial evidence.
[2] A disciplinary order against a dentist may be affirmed if the Board's findings are supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Board's findings and conclusions are supported by competent substantial evidence in the record.”
Establishes the standard of review and the court's finding that the administrative decision meets the required evidentiary threshold.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Engel was charged with eleven violations of Florida's dental practice statutes. A hearing officer found him guilty of six counts: incompetence reg…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Clear And Convincing Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Lawrence R. Engel, D.D.S. was charged by appellee with various violations of chapter 466, Florida Statutes (1981) [“Dentistry, Dental Hygiene and Dental Laboratories”].
Following hearing, the hearing officer entered her proposed order that recommended that Dr. Engel be found guilty, as charged in six counts of the eleven count complaint, of: incompetence, (in regard to two patients); failing to perform a statutory or legal obligation relative to requirements for a dentist of record (in regard to two patients); failing to perform a statutory or legal obligation relative to requirements for proper display of state licenses or permits; and advertising in false or misleading manner, or contrary to law. The hearing officer further recommended that Dr. Engel’s license to practice dentistry be suspended for thirty days and that his license be placed on probation for one year after the suspension period, according to terms and conditions set by the Board of Dentistry, and that he be assessed an administrative fine of $3,000.
Upon hearing, the Board of Dentistry considered the recommended order of the hearing officer, heard argument of counsel for both Dr. Engel and appellee and adopted in toto the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as making one additional finding of fact. The Board ordered that Dr. Engel be reprimanded; that his license to practice dentistry be suspended for three months and that his license also be placed on probation for two years, during which time he must complete certain continuing education requirements; and that Dr. Engel be assessed an administrative fine of $6,000.
It is appellant’s contention on appeal that the Board failed to prove the charges against him by clear and convincing evidence.
We have carefully considered appellant’s contention in the light of the briefs, record and argument of counsel and have concluded that appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error. The Board’s findings and conclusions are supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. See Graham v. Estuary Properties, Inc., 399 So. 2d 1374, 1379 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1083, 102 S.Ct. 640, 70 L.Ed.2d 618 (1981); Gershanik v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 458 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla.3d DCA 1984), pet. for rev. denied, 462 So. 2d 1106 (Fla.1985); Cohen v. School Board of Dade County, 450 So. 2d 1238 (Fla.3d DCA 1984); Kinlaw v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 417 So. 2d 802 (Fla.5th DCA 1982).
Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Graham v. Estuary Props., Inc., 399 So. 2d 1374 (Fla. 1981)
- Martins Ferry Hosp. Assn. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 454 U.S. 1083 (U.S. 1981)
- Schlesinger v. Schlesinger, 454 U.S. 1083 (U.S. 1981)
- Barbara and Karl Cohen v. The Sch. Bd. OF Dade Cnty., 450 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- IDY Corp. v. Freedman, 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Ricardo O. Gershanik, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Kinlaw v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 417 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Linkous v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. & Bd. of Real Est., 417 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)