TIRADO
v.
EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION
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.
A professional disciplinary agency may increase a recommended penalty upon review of the complete record if the increased penalty falls within the statutory guidelines and the agency states its reasons with particularity.
[1] A professional disciplinary agency may increase a recommended penalty upon administrative review if the increased penalty falls within the statutory penalty guidelines an…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency, charged with implementing and enforcing its own statute, when that agency has imposed a penalty within the permissible range of penalties.”
Mendez v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 943 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
Tirado appealed a disciplinary decision by the Education Practices Commission that increased a recommended penalty. The case involved review of whethe…
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.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See § 120.57(1)(l), Fla. Stat. (allowing an agency to increase a “recommended penalty” upon review “of the complete record” and “stating with particularity its reasons therefor in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action”); see also Crim. Just. Standards & Training Comm’n v. Bradley, 596 So. 2d 661, 663 (Fla. 1992) (finding “that it is a primary function of professional disciplinary boards to determine the appropriate punishment for the misconduct of the professionals it regulates” and that “[a]s long as the statute under which a professional agency operates provides guidelines for imposing penalties, the agency complies with section 120.57(1)(b)10, and the increased
penalty falls within the guidelines established by its statute, a professional board or agency has the discretion to increase the recommended penalty”); Mendez v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 943 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency, charged with implementing and enforcing its own statute, when that agency has imposed a penalty within the permissible range of penalties.”); Aldrete v. Dep’t of Health Bd. of Med., 879 So. 2d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (recognizing that “[p]enalty imposition is a complex task requiring the ALJ, in making a recommendation, and the Board, in choosing a penalty, to weigh numerous factors,” such that “the decision rests within the [professional board’s] sound discretion”).
ROWE, M.K. THOMAS, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- J. Antonio Aldrete, M.D. v. Dep't of Health Bd. of Med., 879 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)