The issues to be determined are whether Driving Under the Influence (DUI) with property or personal damage and DUI manslaughter, are crimes that relate to the practice of, or the ability to practice, dentistry, within the meaning of section 466.028(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the First Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.Petitioner proved that Respondent's DUI was evidence of recklessness and poor judgment that related to the practice of dentistry.
Whether Petitioner is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (2017).Petitioner is entitled to reasonable fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes, as the prevailing party in Case No. 16-6167.
The first issue to be determined is whether Petitioner, Rebecca Coleman Curtis (“Petitioner” or “Dr. Curtis”), is entitled to licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida by virtue of the “deemer” provision in section 120.60(1). The second issue to be determined is whether the Florida Board of Psychology (the “Board”) used an unadopted rule in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), with respect to its decision to deny Dr. Curtis’s application for a license.Petitioner is entitled to licensure pursuant to section 120.60(1). The Board's process of conducting a second review after the Board approved a license application is an unadopted rule.
The issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed sexual misconduct against a patient, in violation of sections 464.204(1)(b) and 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.Petitioner failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent committed sexual misconduct against a patient. The Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has carried her burden of proving that her application for licensure in Florida as a loan originator should be granted.The Office had a sufficient ground to deny the Petitioner's application for a loan originator license, due to the revocation of a real estate salesperson license previously held by the Petitioner.
Whether Petitioner has been substantially affected by agency statements made by Respondent, and, if so, whether the statements violate section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes?Respondent's statements that prescription drugs retain their status as such after disposal as Uniform Pharmaceutical Waste substantially affected Petitioner and, as unpromulgated rules, violated section 120.54(1)(a).
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether proposed rules 59O-2, 59O-3, 59O-5, 59O-7, 59O-9 and 59O-10, Florida Administrative Code, which revise and replace existing provisions of the same rules, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority to the above-named agency, in light of the standards set forth in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.Respondent agency has burden of proof to show proposed rules valid. Did not show, under circumstances that rules supplemented by adequate rationale and attended by logic and reason.
