FRANCES B. GLENN, D.D.S., APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, EX REL. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION AND BOARD OF DENTISTRY, 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. Glenn, an orthodontist, was suspended from practicing dentistry for four months by the Department of Professional Regulation. When she continued her office presence during suspension while employing another orthodontist to treat patients, the state sought enforcement and the trial court imposed an additional thirty-day suspension for non-compliance. The appellate court reversed, finding no substantial evidence that Dr. Glenn actually practiced dentistry during the suspension period.
The court reversed the additional suspension, holding that there was no substantial competent evidence that Dr. Glenn practiced dentistry in violation of the suspension order. Dr. Glenn's presence in her office and non-dentist activities were not prohibited by the suspension order or statutes, even though her presence may have been perceived by patients as similar to her pre-suspension activities.
[1] A dentist's presence in their office during a suspension period, while engaging in non-dentistry related activities and having another licensed professional take over pat…
[2] A suspension order for the practice of dentistry prohibits the performance of irremediable dental tasks or other acts defined as practicing dentistry, not merely being pr…
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“there simply is no substantial competent evidence in this record to show that Dr. Glenn was performing irremediable tasks, see § 466.024, Fla.Stat. (1983), or was otherwise practicing dentistry, see § 466.03, Fla.Stat (1983).”
Establishes the core holding that absence of competent evidence of actual dental practice defeats the enforcement action
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Glenn was suspended from dental practice for four months by the Department of Professional Regulation. During the suspension period, Dr. Glenn was…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In a petition brought pursuant to Section 120.69, Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), to enforce a final agency order which, inter alia, suspended Dr. Glenn, an orthodontist, from the practice of dentistry for a period of four months, the appellee agency alleged that Glenn had not complied with the suspension order and had engaged in the practice of dentistry, as defined in Section 466.-03(3), Florida Statutes (1983), during the since-concluded suspension period. After a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment finding that Dr. Glenn had “substantially ... but not fully” complied with the suspension order and ordering that she be suspended from the practice of dentistry for another thirty days. From that judgment, Dr. Glenn appeals. We reverse.
The record before us demonstrates that Dr. Glenn was almost continuously present in the operatory of her office during the four-month suspension period, but had employed another orthodontist, a colleague of many years, to take over the care of her patients. While Dr. Glenn’s activities during the suspension period understandably might have been perceived by her longstanding patients as not substantially different from her activities before the suspension, there simply is no substantial competent evidence in this record to show that Dr. Glenn was performing irremediable tasks, see § 466.024, Fla.Stat. (1983), or was otherwise practicing dentistry, see § 466.03, Fla.Stat (1983).
It is true that Dr. Glenn might have avoided the agency’s continued wrath and pursuit by remaining out of her office during the suspension period,1 but nonetheless, her presence in her office and her non-dentist activities there were not prohibited by the suspension order or the statute prohibiting the practice of dentistry without a license. The final judgment of the trial court suspending Dr. Glenn from the practice of dentistry for thirty days is
Reversed.
. Indeed, the trial court in its final judgment recommended that "to avoid protracted litigation in the interests of both parties, ... [Dr. Glenn] avoid, during the period of suspension, going to the dental offices.”