556 A.2d 525 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1989
Opinion by
This case is before us pursuant to a per curiam order of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stating “case remanded to Commonwealth Court for consideration on the merits.”
Petitioner contends that the Board abused its discretion and that this court should reverse the Board’s order revoking his license to practice medicine. Petitioner,
Our inquiry as to whether the Board abused its discretion does not end with this conclusion. The Board did exercise discretion by ordering the revocation to be stayed after 3 months. “This court may consider a claim of abuse of discretion by an administrative agency and may modify the order if the penalty imposed is unduly harsh. ... In doing so, we are limited to determining whether the penalty is reasonable in light of the violation.” Hendrickson v. State Board of Medicine, 108 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 124, 130, 529 A.2d 78, 81 (1987) (citation omitted).
This court in Hendrickson addressed an argument that the Board had abused its discretion in ordering Hendrickson, who was not covered by medical malpractice insurance for 23 months, to serve 6 months of active revocation.
Accordingly, the order of the Board is modified to remove the requirement that Petitioner actively serve 3 months of the revocation of his license to practice medicine and surgery in Pennsylvania.
Order
And NOW, March 29, 1989, the order of the State Board of Medical Education and Licensure in the above-captioned matter is modified to remove the requirement that Petitioner actively serve 3 months of the revocation of his license to practice medicine and surgery in Pennsylvania. The Board’s order is affirmed in all other aspects.
This order was docketed November 15, 1988 at No. 52 E.D. Appeal Docket 1988.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order did not reverse this court’s decision in Slawek I. Therefore, we consider the legal analysis set forth in Slawek I to be correct and precedent for future cases involving the waiver of issues for failure to comply with 1 Pa. Code §35.213.
The revocation was then stayed subject to the same conditions as Petitioner’s revocation stay.