Mendelsohn v. State, Department of Health
68 So. 3d 965
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Petitioner is a Florida-licensed physician under ch. 458.
- DOH suspended petitioner’s license via an emergency suspension order (ESO) after a federal felony conviction.
- On Dec. 9, 2010 petitioner pled nolo contendere to conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. §371).
- DOH relied on section 456.074(1) to issue the ESO without a hearing, listing offenses including those relating to Medicaid.
- Petitioner argued the conviction was not related to Medicaid and thus not within the ESO’s scope; the court must determine if §456.074(1)(l)(b) applies and whether the ESO requires further factual findings.
- Court concludes the statutory construction and legislative intent limit the ESO to offenses relating to Medicaid; the ESO is stricken.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §456.074(1)(l)(b) authorizes an ESO for a conviction not related to Medicaid. | Petitioner argues the conviction is unrelated to Medicaid. | DOH contends the enumerated offenses, including those relating to Medicaid, justify the ESO. | ESO not authorized; must be related to Medicaid. |
| Whether 'relating to the Medicaid program' modifies all offenses listed in §456.074(l)(b). | Plain language applies to all listed offenses. | Modifiers apply only to the last listed offenses. | Modifier applies to all offenses listed. |
| Whether legislative intent supports issuing an ESO only for offenses relating to Medicaid. | SB 1986 aimed to curb Medicaid fraud; only Medicaid-related offenses justify ESO. | ESO scope broader based on statutory text. | Legislative intent supports limiting ESO to Medicaid-related offenses. |
| What is the remedy given the improper ESO? | ESO should be struck for lack of proper justification. | ESO acted within statutory authority. | ESO to be striken; petition granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bethencourt-Miranda v. State, Department of Health, 910 So.2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (DOH must suspend immediately for enumerated circumstances; but not necessarily require further findings.)
- Witmer v. Dep’t of Bus. and Prof'l Regulation, 631 So.2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (ESO must set out specific facts and reasons on its face.)
- Kaplan v. State, Dep’t of Health, 45 So.3d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (cited on standards for ESO reasoning.)
- Crudele v. Nelson, 698 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (reiteration of required justification for emergency actions.)
- Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803 (Fla. 2008) (grammar/last antecedent rule for modifying phrases.)
- Owens v. Pearson, 156 So.2d 4 (Fla.1963) (interpretation of modifying phrases in statutes.)
- Edgewater Beach Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Walton County, 833 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (clarifies application of modifying phrases in statutes.)