Paylan, M.D. v. Depart. of Health
226 So. 3d 296
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Christina Paylan, M.D., was convicted after a jury trial (July 1, 2011 offense; convictions August 22, 2014) of two third-degree felonies: obtaining a controlled substance by fraud (ch. 893) and fraudulent use of personal information (ch. 817).
- Paylan was sentenced to 364 days in jail (with credit) and later, the Board of Medicine suspended her license for two years followed by one year probation and imposed fines and CME requirements.
- While suspended, Paylan timely applied to renew her medical license; the Department of Health denied renewal under Fla. Stat. § 456.0635(3)(a)(2) because she had a third-degree felony under ch. 893, was not enrolled in a qualifying drug court program, and the statutory 10-year waiting period had not elapsed.
- Paylan argued (pro se) the denial was unfair as applied because she went to trial and therefore was not offered drug court, and she also raised administrative finality, double jeopardy, res judicata, and collateral estoppel theories.
- The administrative hearing officer and the Department concluded the statute mandated denial; the Second District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the Department correctly applied § 456.0635(3)(a)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Paylan's Argument | Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 456.0635(3)(a)(2) could be applied to deny renewal after prior disciplinary suspension for same conviction | Denial is punitive and duplicates discipline; administrative finality and double jeopardy bar re‑punishment | Renewal review is distinct from discipline; statute mandates denial absent enrollment or passage of time | Statute applies; no double jeopardy or administrative finality violation |
| Whether the Department had discretion to except Paylan because she was not offered drug court after choosing trial | Application is unjust as‑applied; lack of drug court offer should excuse denial | Statute requires either current enrollment in qualifying drug court or lapse of time; courts do not require trial courts to offer drug court | No discretion to create exception; denial proper |
| Whether denial constituted an unauthorized punitive sanction | Nonrenewal is punitive and disproportionate | Nonrenewal is a regulatory fitness determination to protect public welfare, not a punishment | Court rejects punitive characterization; regulatory, not punitive |
| Whether agency misinterpreted statute or committed procedural error | Statute misapplied as unjust | Agency followed statutory mandate and administrative construction entitled to deference | Agency interpretation upheld; final order affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Malave v. Dep't of Health, Bd. of Med., 881 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (standard for setting aside agency action)
- Bollone v. Dep't of Mgmt. Servs., Div. of Ret., 100 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (agency statutory interpretation review)
- Dep't of Ins. v. S.E. Volusia Hosp. Dist., 438 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1983) (deference to administrative construction)
- Fla. Power Corp. v. Garcia, 780 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 2001) (administrative finality doctrine explained)
- Hayes v. State, 750 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1999) (courts cannot add words to statutes to alter legislative intent)