Hoover v. Agency for Health Care Admin.
1996 WL 346971, 676 So.2d 1380 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative agency may not reject a hearing officer's findings of fact unless it reviews the complete record and states with particularity that the findings were not based on competent substantial evidence. The agency cannot simply substitute its own opinion or preference for expert testimony for that of the hearing officer, who is the designated finder of fact.
Facts:
- Dr. Katherine Hoover, a board-certified physician, treated seven patients for intractable pain stemming from various non-cancerous diseases.
- She prescribed Schedule II controlled substances to these patients to manage their chronic pain.
- Dr. Hoover testified that she frequently wrote prescriptions to allow for close monitoring of her patients' conditions.
- Her course of treatment resulted in uniformly improved function for the patients.
- The patients were indigent residents of Key West, where referral to specialized pain management clinics was not a viable option.
- When Dr. Hoover closed her practice, she transferred her detailed medical records to her patients or their successor physicians.
Procedural Posture:
- The Department of Business and Professional Regulation (later the Agency for Health Care Administration) filed an administrative complaint against Dr. Katherine Hoover.
- Dr. Hoover requested a formal hearing, which was conducted by a hearing officer.
- The hearing officer issued a recommended order, finding that the agency had failed to meet its burden of proof and recommending dismissal of the charges.
- The agency filed exceptions to the hearing officer's recommended order with the Board of Medicine.
- The Board of Medicine issued a final order that rejected the hearing officer's findings of fact, found Dr. Hoover in violation, and imposed penalties, including a fine and probation.
- Dr. Hoover, as Appellant, appealed the Board of Medicine's final order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an administrative agency err when it rejects a hearing officer's findings of fact that are supported by competent substantial evidence and substitutes its own opinion to find a physician in violation of professional standards?
Opinions:
Majority - Jorgenson, J.
Yes. An administrative agency, like the Board of Medicine, cannot reject a hearing officer's findings of fact when those findings are based on competent substantial evidence. The Board failed its statutory duty to 'state with particularity' why the hearing officer's findings were unsupported. The hearing officer's findings were supported by Dr. Hoover's detailed testimony and her expert's testimony, which the officer was entitled to find more credible than the testimony of the agency's experts. The agency's experts based their opinions solely on pharmacy computer printouts without examining the patients or their medical records, rendering the agency's evidence 'woefully insufficient' to meet the required clear and convincing evidence standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces the deference reviewing administrative bodies must give to a hearing officer's findings of fact, especially those based on witness credibility. It serves as a critical check on the power of professional licensing boards, preventing them from overturning a hearing officer's decision simply because the board disagrees with the outcome or prefers its own experts' conclusions. By requiring the board to articulate with particularity a lack of 'competent substantial evidence,' the ruling protects professionals from disciplinary actions founded on incomplete investigations or a board's policy preferences rather than on the factual record developed at a hearing.
