Case ID: so2d_399/html/0039-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph R. PROFFITT, D. V. M., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, Appellee.
    No. 80-2152.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 19, 1981.
    Paul A. Lehrman, Richard B. Bush, Tallahassee, Roger McClelland, Key West, for appellant.
    Boyd, Harris & Smith, Tallahassee, for appellee.
    Before HUBBART, C. J., and BARK-DULL and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. We find the Board properly reviewed the entire record and accepted the hearing officer’s findings of fact, adding as additional facts only those admitted to by appellant in the record. The Board acted within its discretion in determining the disciplinary penalty. § 120.57(l)(b)(9), Fla. Stat. (1979); § 120.68(10), Fla.Stat. (1979); § 474.214, Fla.Stat. (1979). Florida Real Estate Comm’n v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978); McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 346 So.2d 1256 (Fla.1977).