WILLIAM CHEW, M.D., PETITIONER,
v.
STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF FLORIDA, 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. William Chew, an ENT specialist, challenged a disciplinary order by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners that suspended his general medical and surgical license for 90 days and restricted his surgical practice for two years based on his misconduct in performing ear surgery. The court found the Board abused its discretion by imposing restrictions on his general medical practice when the evidence only supported restrictions on ear-related procedures.
The Board abused its discretion by suspending Dr. Chew's general medical and surgical license. While the Board properly restricted him from performing ear-related surgical procedures and imposed a two-year probationary period with educational requirements, a total suspension from general medical and surgical practice was unwarranted where no evidence showed lack of competence in other medical areas.
[1] A medical board abuses its discretion by imposing sanctions beyond the scope of the evidence presented.
[2] Disciplinary actions taken by a medical board must be supported by evidence justifying each factual determination.
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“there must be some evidence to justify each factual determination made and the totality of such facts must obviate suspicion of arbitrary punishment or restriction”
Establishes the court's standard for reviewing the Board's discretion—evidence must support each factual finding and collective facts must not suggest arbitrary 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. Chew, an ear, nose and throat specialist, was charged with fraud and unprofessional conduct in performing certain ear operations, specifically sta…
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 Unprofessional Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
William Chew, M.D., an ear, nose and throat specialist, was charged in an eight count complaint by the State Board of Medical Examiners of Florida with fraud in the practice of medicine within the intent and meaning of the Medical Practice Act, § 458.12(1) (a), F.S.1967, and with unprofessional conduct in the practice of medicine within the intent and meaning of the Medical Practice Act, § 458.12(1) (j), F.S.1967. Following negotiations and correspondence between the attorney for the *543Board and petitioner’s attorney a settlement hearing was held and it was determined that the Board should hold a hearing on the complaint.
A hearing officer was appointed and he entered his recommended order. The Board chose to follow neither its attorney’s recommendation nor the recommendation of the hearing officer; but instead entered its own order, suspending Dr. Chew’s license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Florida for a period of ninety days; that his license and privilege to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Florida be limited or restricted, so that he be precluded from performing any surgical, restorative, or corrective techniques or procedures involving the ear or any appurtenances thereto for a period of two years; and in addition, that Dr. Chew’s license and privilege to practice any surgery in the State of Florida be limited or restricted so that he be precluded from performing any surgery or surgical techniques or procedures for a period of two years; and during this two year period, Dr. Chew demonstrate as prerequisite to renewing said surgical practice that he has attended and completed an appropriate course of study in said discipline approved in advance by the Executive Director of the Board.
We have no quarrel with the factual conclusions of the Board as they relate to a basis for restrictive and punitive measures. However, the entire matter involved Dr. Chew’s conduct in performing certain operations relating to the human ear, particularly stapedectomies and fenestrations. There was not one scintilla of evidence that he is not professionally ethical or proficient in other areas of the practice of medicine or surgery. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Board grossly abused its discretion in suspending Dr. Chew’s license and privilege to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Florida for a period of 90 days and in suspending such license and privilege to practice any surgery for a period of two years. Clearly, it was proper to limit or restrict him in the performance of surgical, restorative or corrective techniques or procedures involving the ear and to impose the further educational requirements relating thereto. Moreover, we think the entire probationary period of two years was fitting and amply supported by the record. But total suspension from the general practice of medicine and/or surgery, except that relating to the ear and appurtenances, for cmy period appears to us to be unwarranted.
In reaching this conclusion we recognize it is not this court’s prerogative to substitute its judgment for that of the Board; and we do not do so. We simply point out that there must be some evidence to justify each factual determination made and the totality of such facts must obviate suspicion of arbitrary punishment or restriction.
The final order of the State Board of Medical Examiners, therefore, should be, and it is hereby, quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter an order consistent with this opinion.
Certiorari granted.
LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.