BRET L. LUSSKIN, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, APPELLEE
BRET L. LUSSKIN, M.D., APPELLANT,
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, APPELLEE
611 So. 2d 1
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1992)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents with opinion.
Dissent
ANSTEAD, Judge,
dissenting.
This is a rather bizarre case involving allegations of professional and sexual misconduct by the appellant-physician. While there is substantial, perhaps overwhelming, evidence in the record to sustain the charges against appellant, the fact remains that the hearing officer, in detailed findings, found in the appellant’s favor. Because there is also evidence to support those findings, I would reverse and hold that the Department acted beyond its authority in setting aside the factual conclusions made by the hearing officer. Cf. Glover v. Sanford Child Care, Inc., 429 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brett L. Lusskin, M.D. v. Dep't of Health, 820 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…he Department of Health: The procedural history of this case is fairly long. Suffice it, to. say that this Court has previously .affirmed and reversed decisions of the Board concerning Dr. Lusskin. Lusskin v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation Bd. of Med., 611 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Lusskin v. Dep’t of Prof'l Regulation Bd. of Med., 731 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Upon remand from the last appeal, the Board filed an amended administrative complaint, alleging that the doctor was unable, to practice medici…
-
Ace Edmund Brule v. State, 692 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…n of probation, was not orally pronounced at sentencing. The trial court denied the motion without attaching any documentation which would refute this claim raised by Brule. See Kirkland v, State, 633 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Rogers v. State, 611 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). In all other respects the trial court’s order is affirmed. Accordingly we reverse. On remand, should the trial court again deny the motion, it must attach portions of the record which refute Brule’s claim. See Becton v. State,…
Authorities Cited
- Glover v. Sanford Child Care, Inc., 429 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)