Case Name: Paul S. PARISER and Daniel C. Fowler, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-07-09
Citations: 490 So. 2d 1078
Docket Number: Nos. 83-221, 83-222
Parties: Paul S. PARISER and Daniel C. Fowler, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Appellee.
Judges: ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 490
Pages: 1078–1079

Head Matter:
Paul S. PARISER and Daniel C. Fowler, Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Appellee.
Nos. 83-221, 83-222.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
July 9, 1986.
Michael L. Rosen, of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for appellants.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
UPON APPELLANTS' EMERGENCY REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO PROCEED IN THE LOWER TRIBUNAL ON MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM PRIOR DISCIPLINARY ORDERS.
PER CURIAM.
The appellants' emergency request for permission to proceed in the lower tribunal on motion for relief from prior disciplinary orders filed by appellants, Paul S. Pariser and Daniel C. Fowler, is hereby denied because consent of this court is not re quired as a condition precedent for the appellee's consideration of appellants' request for relief from the Board. Ohio Casualty Group v. Parrish, 350 So.2d 466 (Fla.1977); Richter v. Florida Power Corporation, 366 So.2d 798 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). We distinguish Wood v. Department of Professional Regulation, 490 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in that the instant case does not involve the law of the case; but, rather, whether the discovery of recent information requires a new hearing and reconsideration of disciplinary action by the Board.
DENIED.
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.