STANLEY M. DRATLER, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, APPELLEES
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.
Dr. Dratler appealed the Board of Medicine's practice plan conditions imposed upon reinstatement of his medical license after suspension. The court struck the Board's imposition of a specific five-year monitoring period as invalid because it was never formally considered or voted upon, but affirmed the imposition of indefinite supervised practice as authorized by Florida Statutes.
The court struck the five-year monitoring period because it was never formally considered, discussed, or voted upon by the Board of Medicine. However, the court affirmed the imposition of an indefinite period of supervised practice as a valid restriction authorized by sections 458.331(2)(c) and (h), Florida Statutes, which do not require a definite time period.
[1] A condition imposed on a medical practice plan is invalid if it was not considered, discussed, or voted upon by the Board of Medicine.
[2] A medical board may impose an indefinite period of supervised practice as a corrective action or restriction on practice, even without a definite time period.
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“Although the Board initially had the right to order a period of probation, imposition of a five year period was never considered, discussed or voted upon by the Board of Medicine and was therefore improperly made a condition of the practice plan as ultimately set out in the order on review.”
Establishes that the Board lacked authority to impose the five-year period because it was never formally adopted through Board action.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Dratler's medical license was reinstated after a three-year suspension. The Board of Medicine approved a practice plan requiring direct supervisio…
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.
KAHN, Judge.
Appellant Stanley M. Dratler, M.D., appeals a corrected order in which the Board of Medical Examiners approved a practice plan for appellant, whose medical license was reinstated after a three year suspension. On appeal, appellant contends that (1) the Board’s imposition of a five year monitoring period, during which Dr. Drat-ler could practice only under supervision, is invalid, because it was never considered or adopted by the Board of Medicine, and (2) the imposition of an indefinite period of supervised practice (assuming the infirmity of the five year requirement) is invalid because it is unauthorized by section 458.-331(2), Florida Statutes. We strike the imposition of a five year period and otherwise affirm the order. Although the Board initially had the right to order a period of probation, imposition of a five year period was never considered, discussed or voted upon by the Board of Medicine and was therefore improperly made a condition of the practice plan as ultimately set out in the order on review. The resulting imposition of an “indefinite” period of supervised practice is, however, a valid restriction pursuant to section 458.-331(2)(c) & (h), Florida Statutes. Subsection (c) authorizes the restriction of practice while subsection (h) authorizes corrective action. Neither subsection requires a definite time period for the restriction of practice or corrective action.
Moreover, appellant sought reinstatement which included supervised practice for an unspecified amount of time. In appellant's amended petition for reinstatement dated March 17, 1989, appellant set forth a plan for practice which limited appellant’s practice to the general practice of medicine under the supervision of another physician, in the same office as that of the supervising physician “until such time as the Board approves another practice setting.” The supplement to the amended petition noted the same restrictions of practice and likewise provided for direct supervision “until such time as the Board approves another practice setting.” At the hearing on the most recent plan submitted, appellant’s counsel told the Board that “[t]he plan that we’re presenting to you today is the same as that which we first submitted to you.” The most recent practice plan indicates that there would be a period of supervision and never requests a specific or definitive period of supervision.
Accordingly, the provision for a five year monitoring period is stricken from the corrected order of the Board of Medicine, and the order which now requires direct supervision for an unspecified time period is otherwise AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON and MICKLE, JJ., concur.