ARTHUR HENSON, D.O., PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, RESPONDENT
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. Arthur Henson sought review of an emergency suspension of his medical license issued by the Department of Health after he violated a prior emergency restriction order prohibiting narcotic prescriptions. The court upheld the suspension, finding that the Department's findings adequately supported that full license suspension was necessary to protect the public.
The emergency suspension of Dr. Henson's license was upheld. The Department's emergency order contained requisite findings demonstrating that Dr. Henson's violation of a prior restriction order, combined with his history of inappropriate narcotic prescribing, established that license suspension rather than mere restriction was necessary to protect the public.
[1] An emergency order suspending a professional license must be narrowly tailored to protect the public interest and cannot be broader than necessary.
[2] A prior finding that an emergency order was overly broad does not preclude a subsequent, more restrictive emergency order if the licensee's conduct has escalated.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Restriction of Dr. Henson's license is not sufficient to protect the public, because Dr. Henson has been previously disciplined for inappropriately or excessively prescribing controlled substances to a patient; currently there is an Administrative Complaint that has been filed alleging that Dr. Henson failed to meet the standard of care and inappropriately or excessively prescribed controlled substances to three (3) patients; and Dr. Henson has disregarded an Emergency Restriction Order”
The Department's key finding justifying emergency suspension rather than continued restriction, establishing the legal basis for the suspension order.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Department previously issued an emergency restriction order in March 2006 prohibiting Dr. Henson from prescribing narcotic pain relievers, followi…
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 Emergency Suspension Of License cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Dr. Arthur Henson, seeks review of an Order of Emergency Suspension of License, rendered June 18, 2007, by respondent, the Department of Health (Department). Previously, the Department rendered another emergency order suspending Dr. Henson’s license to practice as an osteopathic physician. On review of that order, this court found:
Respondent’s emergency order suspending the license of Dr. Henson to practice as an osteopathic physician is broader than that which is ‘necessary to protect the public interest under the emergency procedure,’ as required by section 120.60(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). The harms discussed in the emergency order deal with Dr. Henson’s prescription of excessive amounts of narcotic drugs without proper examination, diagnostic testing, and follow-up drug screening. There are no findings in the order stating that he provides inadequate care to patients for whom he is not prescribing narcotic pain relievers. Narrowly tailoring an emergency order to prohibit Dr. Henson from prescribing narcotics and from treating the three patients named in the emergency order would protect the public from the harm described until the administrative proceeding has been completed.
Henson v. Dep’t of Health, 922 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Thereafter, the Department filed an Emergency Restriction Order on March 30, 2006, restricting Dr. Henson’s license by prohibiting him from prescribing narcotic pain relievers. Dr. Henson violated this order in May 2007, resulting in the Department issuing the instant Order of Emergency Suspension of License. This order contains the requisite findings, including the following paragraph:
21. Restriction of Dr. Henson’s license is not sufficient to protect the public, because Dr. Henson has been previously disciplined for inappropriately or excessively prescribing controlled substances to a patient; currently there is an Ad ministrative Complaint that has been filed alleging that Dr. Henson failed to meet the standard of care and inappropriately or excessively prescribed controlled substances to three (3) patients; and Dr. Henson has disregarded an Emergency Restriction Order which restricted Dr. Henson from prescribing narcotic pain relievers. Dr. Henson has demonstrated a disregard for the duties and responsibilities imposed upon an osteopathic physician practicing in the State of Florida and for the health and welfare of his patients. Dr. Henson has demonstrated a disregard to a lawful order issued by the Department. Nothing short of the suspension of his license will protect the public from Dr. Henson.
See §§ 120.60(6), 456.072(1)(q), 456.072(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2006). See, e.g., Bio-Med Plus, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Health, 915 So. 2d 669, 671-72 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Field v. State, Dep’t of Health, 902 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).
DENIED.
KAHN, PADOVANO, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bio-Med Plus, Inc. v. State, 915 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Steven A. Field, M.D. v. State, 902 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Weisz v. State, 922 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)