Opinion ID: 1846641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutionality of Patient Brokering Statute

Text: In this issue, the defendants argue that section 817.505, Florida Statutes (2002), which prohibits patient brokering, is unconstitutional because it (1) is vague; (2) lacks a mens rea requirement; and (3) fails to impose a mens rea requirement of willfulness. Counts 56-129 charged the defendants with split-fee patient brokering, in violation of section 817.505(1)(b)-(c). The trial court held that the statute was unconstitutional, though it did not identify on what basis it reached this conclusion. The Fifth District reversed the trial court's holding, finding each of the defendants' arguments meritless, and concluded that the statute is constitutional. Rubio, 917 So.2d at 396. We affirm the Fifth District's decision holding the statute to be constitutional and adopt the Fifth District's reasoning on this issue.