Case ID: so2d_444/html/1000-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. BARKDULL, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frances B. GLENN, D.D.S., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF DENTISTRY, Appellee.
    No. 82-1486.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Jan. 10, 1984.
    Rehearing Denied Feb. 20, 1984.
    Richard G. Cushing, New York City; Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine & Under-berg and Stephen T. Maher, Miami, for appellant.
    Salvatore A. Carpino, Tallahassee, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Based on an exception contained in Florida Real Estate Commission v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978), we reversed the penalty imposed on appellant and remanded for reconsideration. Glenn v. Department of Professional Regulation, 410 So.2d 935 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). When the matter came before the board, four members thereof recused themselves. This reduced the normal composition of the board from nine to five. The board imposed a penalty of $1,000 and a four-month suspension. Glenn appeals contending that the board departed from statutory proceedings. Specifically, Glenn claims that it should have replaced the recused members of the board so as to maintain the statutory composition. We disagree.

Section 466.004, Florida Statutes (1981) provides that the board shall consist of nine members, and that six shall be licensed dentists actively engaged in the practice of dentistry. Section 455.207(3), Florida Statutes (1981) provides that business of a board must be conducted by a quorum and that a quorum is fifty-one per cent or more of the members of the board. These are the only statutory requirements for the composition of the board. Since they have been satisfied, we must reject appellant’s contention on this point.

Finding the other arguments to be without merit, we affirm.

BARKDULL, Judge,

dissenting.

The appellant/respondent before the Board was being investigated for alleged professional misconduct. She was entitled to have the Board composed of the requisite number of professionals and lay persons as proscribed by the statutes from which the quorum would be drawn. Without a fully qualified panel from which to draw the quorum, the respondent was denied the equal protection of the law and was not accorded due process as provided in the law. If a member of the Board is involuntarily disqualified, a replacement is named by the appointing authority. See Section 120.71 Florida Statutes (1981). A voluntary recusal is a disqualification the same as an involuntary recusal. It would appear to be a denial of equal protection under the Florida Constitution Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 9, to treat one disqualification different than the other, no matter how they occurred. The ultimate effect is the same; a disqualified member will not sit. I would hold that the respondent was denied the equal protection of the law and due process of law and therefore reverse the order under review and remand for a new hearing. 
      
      . Section 120.71 Fla.Stat. (1981) applies in the instant case because: Sec. 466.004(5) Fla.Stat. provides that all provisions of Ch. 455 relating to boards shall apply to this professional board. Sec. 455.225(4) Fla.Stat. provides for a formal hearing pursuant to Ch. 120 where there is an issue of fact. There was an issue of fact and the respondent herein did in fact request a formal hearing under Ch. 120. Therefore, all provisions of Ch. 120 are applicable to this cause.