Case Name: Dulce Secades VALDEZ, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS, BOARD OF PHARMACY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-07-07
Citations: 509 So. 2d 976
Docket Number: No. 86-1514
Parties: Dulce Secades VALDEZ, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS, BOARD OF PHARMACY, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 509
Pages: 976–977

Head Matter:
Dulce Secades VALDEZ, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS, BOARD OF PHARMACY, Appellee.
No. 86-1514.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
July 7, 1987.
Nathan P. Diamond, Miami, for appellant.
Lisa S. Nelson and H. Reynolds Sampson and Bruce D. Lamb, Tallahassee, for appel-lee.
Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
BASKIN, Judge.
Dulce Secades Valdez, a pharmacist and president of La Universal Drug, Inc., entered a plea of no contest to charges of second-degree grand theft of $103.85, arising from the pharmacy's unwarranted recovery of medicaid funds. The Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Pharmacy [Board], then filed an administrative complaint alleging that Ms. Valdez's conviction directly related to her ability to practice pharmacy. Ms. Valdez did not appear at the hearing but submitted a letter stating that she was unable to afford counsel and that she had not intended to commit any wrongful act. After conducting a disciplinary hearing, the Board revoked her license to practice pharmacy.
On appeal, Ms. Valdez contends that the Board's confusion as to her identity caused it to impose such an unusually severe penalty that she was deprived of due process of law. Specifically, she challenges the fairness of her hearing. A review of the record reveals that the Board was extremely confused about the person whose conduct it was considering. Although the owner of the pharmacy and secretary of La Universal Drug, Inc., was Thomas Valdez, the Board continually referred to Ms. Valdez as "Mr. Valdez" and even as "the owner in charge of the pharmacy." Thus, the Board's revocation of Ms. Valdez's license is not supported by substantial competent evidence, § 120.68(10), Fla.Stat. (1985), but is the result of the Board's demonstrated confusion concerning Ms. Valdez's identity. The Board's failure to afford Ms. Valdez a fair hearing denied her due process of law.
We reverse and remand for a de novo penalty hearing. See Florida Real Estate Comm'n v. Webb, 367 So.2d 201 (Fla.1978).
Reversed and remanded.
. The pharmacy submitted false medicaid claims for $119.46 and received payments in the sum of $103.85. Purchasers were permitted to trade prescriptions for merchandise.