KEITH HAYNES, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, 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.
The court held that the hearing officer's failure to rule on each of Dr. Haynes' proposed findings violated section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes.
Dr. Haynes, who was defending a complaint, submitted proposed findings and an opinion. The hearing officer failed to rule on each proposed finding as …
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 Proposed Findings Of Fact cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dr. Haynes appeals from an order denying his petition for attorney fees and costs associated with his defense of a complaint filed against him by the Department of Professional Regulation. Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1989), provides:
If in accordance with agency rules, a party submitted proposed findings of fact or filed any written application or other request in connection with the proceeding, the order shall include a rule upon each proposed finding and a brief statement of the grounds for denying the application or request.
Dr. Haynes submitted proposed findings and proposed opinion with his petition. However, the hearing officer failed to rule upon each of the proposed findings and did thereby fail to follow the requirements of the mentioned statute. We remand to the trial court with instructions to enter an amended order containing a ruling upon each of Dr. Haynes’ proposed findings. See Kinast v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) and Pelham v. Superintendent of the School Board of Wakulla County, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
We do not agree with Dr. Haynes that the hearing officer used an improper standard of proof in deciding the case.
We remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
DOWNEY and POLEN, JJ., and WALDEN, JAMES H., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lifschitz v. Filomena Troccoli and Emilio Troccoli, 436 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Berthold Kinast v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 458 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)