MELODIE K. MOOREHEAD AND JOAN M. DIGREGARIO, APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, 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.
Appellants challenged the Board of Psychological Examiners' denial of their applications to sit for the Florida psychology licensure exam based on degrees from Union Graduate School. The court reversed, holding that the statutory term "comparable to" means similar, not equivalent, and the Board erred in rejecting the hearing officer's factual finding that the Union program was comparable to Florida state university programs.
The term "comparable to" must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning, which includes both "similar" and "equivalent" according to dictionary definition. The Board erred in interpreting "comparable to" to mean only "equivalent," and the Board's acceptance of the hearing officer's factual finding that the programs were comparable, combined with the correct legal interpretation of "comparable to," requires reversal.
[1] The plain and ordinary meaning of "comparable to" does not require programs to be equivalent or the same.
[2] A statutory term of common usage, not a technical term, must be interpreted according to its plain and ordinary meaning.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“It is a fundamental tenet of statutory construction that words of common usage are accorded their plain and ordinary meaning.”
Establishes the principle that "comparable to" should not receive a specialized interpretation but rather its ordinary meaning
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants Moorehead and DiGregario each obtained a Ph.D. in psychology from Union Graduate School in Ohio, which was unaccredited at the time. The he…
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 Plain Meaning Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Appellants, the petitioners below, appeal a final order of appellee Board of Psychological Examiners (Board) which rejected the hearing officer’s conclusion and found that the doctoral psychology program of then unaccredited Union Graduate School in Ohio under which appellants each obtained a Ph.D. in psychology was not “comparable to” the programs of Florida’s state universities pursuant to § 490.005(1), Fla. Stat. (1983). See Moorehead v. Department of Professional Regulation, 503 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Based upon this finding the Board denied appellants’ application to sit for the Florida li-censure exam.
We agree with appellants’ assertion that the Board erred in its interpretation of the statutory term “comparable to.” The hearing officer determined as a finding of fact that the Union program was “comparable to” the programs of Florida’s state universities, and the Board accepted this finding but concluded as a matter of law that “comparable to” as used in the statute means “equivalent” rather than “similar.”
It is a fundamental tenet of statutory construction that words of common usage are accorded their plain and ordinary meaning. Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 453 So. 2d 1351 (Fla.1984).
The term “comparable to” is not a technical term requiring the Board’s expertise to interpret it. Instead, the term must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, defines “comparable” as “1: capable of being compared: a: having enough like characteristics or qualities to make comparison appropriate ... b: permitting or inviting comparison often in one or two salient points ... 2: suitable for matching, coordinating, or contrasting: EQUIVALENT, SIMILAR.” There is no basis for the Board’s determination that “comparable” only means equivalent or the same. The Board accepted the finding of fact that the programs were comparable.
Therefore, the Board erred in rejecting the hearing officer’s conclusion of law that appellants had shown the Union doctoral program to be comparable to the doctoral psychology programs within Florida’s state universities. The final order of the Board is reversed with directions that appellants be permitted to pursue licensure.
SMITH and MINER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Prof'l Reg. v. Fla. Dental Hygienist Ass'n, Inc., 612 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ccredited schools and colleges. 26. To be comparable to an accredited school or college, an unaccredited school or college need not be the same as but need only be equivalent to an accredited school or college. See Moorehead v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 550 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). But both the proposed designation rule and the proposed criteria rule would approve programs of dental hygiene instruction that would not be the equivalent of schools or colleges approved by the Commission on Accreditation of th…
-
S. Fla. Cargo Carriers Ass'n, Inc. v. State, 738 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…dge officers.20 The Board has accepted the ALJ’s findings (COL 84) and construes the term “comparable” in the statute to mean “similar” as opposed to “equivalent.” Moorehead v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, 550 So. 2d 521, 522 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).21 Given this fact, the Board accepts the ALJ’s findings (FOF 41) that the top actually earned wage of a master of a U.S. flagged vessel would be approximately $140,000 for approximately 125 workdays.22 For pilots, who work…
Authorities Cited
- Se. Fisheries Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't OF Natural Res., 453 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 1984)
- Melodie K. Moorehead v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 503 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)