ALEJANDRO ARPAYOGLOU, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 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.
A Florida physician was disciplined by the Board of Medicine for failing to notify the board of his address change and inadequately completing medical records before relocating to Uruguay. The appellate court affirmed the reprimand and fine but struck the license suspension requirement regarding patient notification because that conduct was not charged in the complaint.
The appellate court affirmed the Board's reprimand and $2,000 fine as supported by the charges and evidence, but reversed and struck the portion of the order suspending the license for failure to notify patients of practice relocation because this conduct was not charged in the administrative complaint.
[1] A medical license may be reprimanded and fined for failure to advise the Board of Medicine of a new address and for failing to adequately complete medical records before…
[2] A disciplinary order suspending a medical license for conduct not charged in the administrative complaint is invalid.
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“However, appellant was not charged with failure to give notice to his patients of the relocation of his practice and availability of patient records; therefore, that portion of the order suspending his license for conduct not charged in the administrative complaint, is stricken.”
Establishes the core holding that a licensee cannot be penalized for conduct not included in the administrative charges.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was a doctor licensed to practice in Florida who relocated to Uruguay. The Board of Medicine charged him with two violations: (1) failure to…
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.
[*9] SMITH, Judge.
Appellant, a doctor who practiced in Florida before moving back to his native country, Uruguay, was charged with failure to advise the Board of Medicine of his new address and failing to adequately complete medical records before leaving the country contrary to sections 458.319(5) and 458.-331(l)(m) and (x), Florida Statutes (1989). The charges contained in the administrative complaint are supported by the evidence and the record. As penalties, the Board ordered that respondent’s “license to practice medicine is reprimanded,”1 and imposed a fine of $2,000.00. The Board also suspended his license until he gave notice to patients of the relocation of his practice and availability of patient records.
However, appellant was not charged with failure to give notice to his patients of the relocation of his practice and availability of patient records; therefore, that portion of the order suspending his license for conduct not charged in the administrative complaint, is stricken. Willner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 563 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); and Wray v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 435 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In all other respects, the Board’s order is affirmed. See Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla.1978) (when findings of the agency are sustained and penalty imposed is within parameters set by statute, penalty is beyond review).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . We take no credit for this terminology but use it because this is the language found in the Board’s final order.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Credicorp v. State, 659 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…upported by competent substantial evidence. The Department therefore acted within its discretion and this court may not overturn the penalty. See Florida Real Estate Comm’n v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1978); Arpayoglou v. Department of Prof. Reg., 603 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; question certified. BARFIELD, J., concurs. ALLEN, J., concurs in part & dissents in part with written opinion. . Mr. Rheinfrank died on October 25, 1993. . Section 520.32, Florida Statute…
-
Arpayoglou v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 603 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…SMITH, Judge. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. Arpayoglou v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 603 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). ZEHMER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. Real Est. Comm'n & Casimir Szpak v. Webb, 367 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1978)
- Robert E. Willner, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 563 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Robert H. Wray, M.D. v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 435 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)