FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-4433

_____________________________

LOREN D. KING, II,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Board of Nursing.

Joe R. Baker, Jr., Executive Director. 

May 6, 2019

OPINION ON MOTION FOR WRITTEN OPINION

B.L. THOMAS, C.J.

We have before us Appellant's motion for written opinion. We 

grant Appellant’s motion and, accordingly, withdraw our former 

opinion of March 1, 2019, and substitute this opinion in its place. 

Appellant, a registered nurse, challenges the Board of 

Nursing’s (the “Board”) final order suspending his nursing license. 

On April 17, 2017, the Department of Health (the 

“Department”) filed an administrative complaint alleging that 

Appellant tested positive for marijuana on a confirmed preemployment drug screen, that Appellant did not provide a lawful 
2

prescription for marijuana, and that Appellant did not have a 

legitimate medical reason for using marijuana. 

Appellant opted for an informal hearing on the administrative 

complaint conducted pursuant to section 120.57(2), Florida 

Statutes, stating that he did not dispute the allegations of material 

fact in the complaint. 

At the hearing before the Board, Appellant stated that “I got 

a marijuana card coming,” and counsel for the Department noted 

that in October 2015, the time of Appellant’s drug screen, medical 

marijuana was not available in Florida, and did not become 

available until August 2016. At the hearing, Appellant stated, “It’s 

my fault. I did something illegal and I’m sorry for it.”

On September 21, 2017, the Board issued a final order 

adopting the findings of fact set forth in the administrative 

complaint and suspending Appellant’s nursing license until he 

undergoes evaluation coordinated by the Intervention Project for 

Nurses (“IPN”) and complies with any terms and conditions 

imposed by IPN. 

“[A] reviewing court may set aside agency action only when it 

finds that the action is dependent on findings of fact that are not 

supported by substantial competent evidence in the record, 

material errors in procedure, incorrect interpretations of law, or

an abuse of discretion.” Henderson v. Dep’t of Health, Bd. of 

Nursing, 954 So. 2d 77, 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (quoting Malave v. 

Dep't of Health, Bd. of Med., 881 So.2d 682, 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 

2004)).

Section 456.072(1)(aa), Florida Statutes, provides that 

“[t]esting positive for any drug . . . on any confirmed 

preemployment or employer-ordered drug screening when the 

practitioner does not have a lawful prescription and legitimate 

medical reason for using the drug” is grounds for discipline for a 

healthcare professional. 

Section 456.072(2), Florida Statutes, states that, if a board 

finds that a person has violated subsection (1), it may enter an 

order suspending the person’s license or restricting the license as 

“necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and 

welfare.”
3

Appellant did not dispute the facts alleged in the 

Department’s administrative complaint, including the allegations 

that he “tested positive for marijuana on a confirmed preemployment drug screen,” that he “did not provide a lawful 

prescription for marijuana” and “did not have a legitimate medical 

reason for using marijuana.” At the hearing, and in his initial 

brief, Appellant did not contest that marijuana was in his system 

during the drug screen. Appellant stated at the hearing that he 

would have a “marijuana card” at some point in the future, but 

never disputed the Department’s allegation that he did not have a 

lawful prescription for marijuana or a legitimate medical reason 

for using marijuana at the time of the drug screen.

Competent, substantial evidence, in the form of the 

undisputed allegations in the Department’s administrative 

complaint, support the finding that Appellant violated section 

456.072(1)(aa), Florida Statutes. Section 456.072(2) allows the 

suspension imposed on Appellant if a board finds that Appellant 

violated section 456.072(1)(aa), Florida Statutes. The Board 

correctly interpreted section 456.072 and did not abuse its 

discretion in suspending Appellant’s license until he is evaluated 

by IPN.

AFFIRMED. 

KELSEY and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Loren D. King, II, pro se, Appellant.

Christine E. Lamia, Chief Appellate Counsel, Katelyn R. Boswell, 

Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of Health, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.