JAMES L. TITZEL, P.E., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, 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 reversed the Board of Professional Engineers' license revocation order because the agency rejected the hearing officer's recommendation to dismiss despite insufficient evidence, and awarded attorney's fees for gross abuse of discretion.
An agency's rejection of a hearing officer's recommendation to dismiss when the agency failed to prove its allegations constitutes gross abuse of discretion warranting reversal and attorney's fees.
[1] An agency's rejection of a hearing officer's recommendation to dismiss an administrative complaint when the agency has failed to prove the allegations constitutes gross a…
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames L. Titzel's professional engineering license was revoked by the Board of Professional Engineers following an administrative hearing where the he…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 Burden Of Proof In Administrative Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James L. Titzel appeals an order of the Board of Professional Engineers which revoked his professional license. A hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings had recommended that the complaint be dismissed because the agency had not proved the allegations of the complaint at hearing. The agency rejected that recommendation in its final order but now concedes its error in doing so. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions to dismiss the administrative complaint with prejudice.
We also find that the agency action which precipitated the appeal was a gross abuse of discretion and grant appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees. Fla.Stat. § 120.57(l)(b)10. (1991). This matter is remanded to the hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings to hold an evidentiary hearing, if the parties are unable to stipulate, and to make recommendations to this court as to the amount of attorney’s fees for the appellant at the hearing level and on appeal. A report shall be filed within forty-five (45) days of the date of this opinion and a separate order taxing attorney’s fees will then be entered by this court. See Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Veterinary Medicine, 461 So. 2d 134, 137-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
JOANOS, C.J., and ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Procacci Commercial Realty, Inc. v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 690 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…rds against an agency may in appropriate circumstances encompass fees and costs “for the administrative proceeding and the appellate proceeding,” § 120.595(5), Fla.Stat. (Supp.1996), see Titzel v. Department of Profl Regulation, Bd. of Profl Eng’rs, 599 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Johnston v. Department of Prof'l Regulation, Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 456 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 1st [*610] DCA 1984), neither former section 120.57(l)(b)10. nor its successor authorizes an award against a private party for costs or fees…
-
Ippolito v. State, 824 F. Supp. 1562 (M.D. Fla. 1993)
Authorities Cited
- Purvis v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 461 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)