Case Name: Jerome ROTSTEIN, M. D., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION, State Board of Medical Examiners of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1980-07-24
Citations: 397 So. 2d 305
Docket Number: No. OO-426
Parties: Jerome ROTSTEIN, M. D., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION, State Board of Medical Examiners of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ERVIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 397
Pages: 305–313

Head Matter:
Jerome ROTSTEIN, M. D., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION, State Board of Medical Examiners of Florida, Appellee.
No. OO-426.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 24, 1980.
On Rehearing March 11, 1981.
Gary M. Farmer of Abrams, Anton, Robbins, Resnick, Schneider & Mager, Hollywood, Sam Spector of Spector & Tunnicliff, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Deborah J. Miller, Dept, of Professional Regulation, and Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.
We affirm the order of the State Board of Medical Examiners revoking the license of appellant Rotstein to practice medicine in Florida. The ground on which discipline was sought and on which revocation was ordered is that Dr. Rotstein was convicted of willfully making a false statement to an agency of the United States, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1001. Under Section 458.1201(l)(c), Florida Statutes (1977), it was a ground for discipline of a licensed medical doctor that the licensee was
convicted of a felony in the courts of this state or any other state, territory, or country. Conviction as used in this paragraph shall include a conviction of an offense which if committed in this state would be deemed a felony without regard to its designation elsewhere . . .
The offense for which Dr. Rotstein was convicted, on his plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, is a felony under federal law. As such, the conviction was grounds for discipline under the Florida statute because the offense was a felony under the laws of a "country," the United. States, referred to in the statute. Section 458.1201(l)(c) contemplated that "any other state, territory, or country" included the United States. We reject the argument that an offense made a felony by the United States Code, but not by Florida Statutes, could not constitute grounds for discipline. The statute does not exclude from consideration felony convictions under out-of-state laws more far-reaching than Florida's; rather, the statute "includes" out-of-state misdemeanor convictions which under Florida law would constitute felony convictions. In Re Weathers, 159 Fla. 390, 31 So.2d 543 (Fla.1947) is not to the contrary; that decision construed Section 458.12(2), Florida Statutes (1941), requiring that the out-of-state conviction, constituting the basis for discipline, be for a crime "which if committed within the state of Florida would constitute a felony under the laws thereof." Section 458.1201(l)(c) was not similarly restrictive.
Appellant urges that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed by the Board's failure to comply with Section 120.60(6), requiring, "prior to the institution of agency proceedings" for license discipline, that notice and an opportunity to show compliance be accorded the licensee. Appellant did not urge this before the Board at any time, and the point is waived. Sheppard v. Board of Dentistry, 385 So.2d 143 (Fla.1st DCA 1980). Appellant also urges that the Board lost jurisdiction by its failure to enter a final order within 90 days after service of the hearing officer's recommended order. Section 120.59(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1979). The Board, which reviewed the entire record after initially hearing the case, entered its order some two weeks beyond the 90-day schedule. No prejudice was shown before the Board at its final hearing, which was also held beyond the 90-day schedule, and no particular prejudice is suggested here. The delay in filing the final order does not, therefore, vitiate the proceedings. Jess Parrish Mem. Hosp. v. Florida Pub. Empl. Relations Comm'n, 364 So.2d 777 (Fla.1st DCA 1978).
Appellant's final point is that the revocation of his license constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the State and Federal Constitutions. Appellant has not sustained this constitutional claim and, absent any contention concerning the regularity of the Board's review of the record to fix a penalty or otherwise concerning the Board's exercise of discretion according to Florida Real Estate Comm'n v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978), it is inappropriate for this court to inquire further into the manner in which the Board exercised and explained its discretion to revoke appellant's license. The revocation order is
AFFIRMED.
ERVIN, J., concurs.
WENTWORTH, J., dissents with opinion.
. Count one of the information charged:
From on or about March 30, 1973 to on or about October 30, 1973, in the Southern District of New York, JEROME ROTSTEIN, the defendant, unlawfully, knowingly and wilfully falsified and concealed material facts, made and caused to be made false, fictitious and fraudulent statements and representations and made and used false writings and documents, knowing the same to contain false, fictitious and fraudulent entries within the jurisdiction of the United States Food and Drug Administration, a department and agency of the United States, in that JEROME ROTSTEIN, the defendant, while conducting clinical research on the investigational drugs Sudoxicam, Flazalone and SaH. 43-715 made and submitted to Pfizer, Inc., Riker Laboratories, Inc., and Sandonz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., false and fictitious clinical reports and laboratory data refíecting medical examinations which had not been performed as represented and laboratory data which was false; all in the course of experimental drug studies conducted within the jurisdiction of the said United States Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (Emphasis added.)
. Webb squarely rejects the argument that Section 120.57(l)(b)9 requires a license-revoking agency "to explain its rationale for increasing the penalty recommended by the hearing officer." 367 So.2d at 204. Rotstein's appeal makes no point of any deficiencies in the Board's order, so it seems inappropriate to inquire in this case whether any other sections of Chapter 120, where McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 582 (Fla.1st DCA 1977) found a duty to explicate the exercise of discretion, may impose that duty on license-revoking agencies. It must be said, however, that Judge Wentworth's dissent makes a compelling argument for the desirability of imposing such a duty of exposition, even if a reviewing court is empowered to do no more than disapprove an inadequate statement and remand for reconsideration. Section 120.-68(12). Our experience suggests that inconsistent and draconian penalties are more than a possibility when professional regulatory boards, composed of part-time judges largely chosen from the accused's peer group, Section 20.30, Florida Statutes (1979), are at liberty to disregard, without a stated reason, a reasoned penalty recommendation.