You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Haynes v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine

Citations: 584 So. 2d 656; 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 8906Docket: No. 91-0023

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 11, 1991; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Dr. Haynes is appealing a ruling that denied his request for attorney fees and costs related to a defense against a complaint from the Department of Professional Regulation. Under Florida Statutes § 120.59(2), an agency must address all proposed findings of fact and provide reasons for any denials. Dr. Haynes submitted proposed findings and an opinion, but the hearing officer did not rule on each submission, violating the statutory requirement. The court remands the case to the trial court with instructions to issue an amended order that addresses all of Dr. Haynes’ proposed findings. The court found no merit in Dr. Haynes’ claim that the hearing officer applied an incorrect standard of proof. Further proceedings are ordered consistent with this ruling. Judges Downey, Polen, and Senior Judge James H. Walden concur with the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Remand for Amended Order

Application: The case was remanded with specific instructions for the trial court to issue an amended order addressing all proposed findings of Dr. Haynes.

Reasoning: The court remands the case to the trial court with instructions to issue an amended order that addresses all of Dr. Haynes’ proposed findings.

Requirement for Agency to Address Proposed Findings

Application: The court determined that the agency violated Florida Statutes § 120.59(2) by failing to address all of Dr. Haynes' proposed findings of fact, necessitating a remand for an amended order.

Reasoning: Under Florida Statutes § 120.59(2), an agency must address all proposed findings of fact and provide reasons for any denials.

Standard of Proof in Administrative Hearings

Application: The court rejected Dr. Haynes' argument that the hearing officer applied an incorrect standard of proof, indicating no error in the standard used.

Reasoning: The court found no merit in Dr. Haynes’ claim that the hearing officer applied an incorrect standard of proof.