456.079
Disciplinary guidelines.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
456.079 Disciplinary guidelines.—
(1) Each board, or the department if there is no board, shall adopt by rule and periodically review the disciplinary guidelines applicable to each ground for disciplinary action which may be imposed by the board, or the department if there is no board, pursuant to this chapter, the respective practice acts, and any rule of the board or department.
(2) The disciplinary guidelines shall specify a meaningful range of designated penalties based upon the severity and repetition of specific offenses, it being the legislative intent that minor violations be distinguished from those which endanger the public health, safety, or welfare; that such guidelines provide reasonable and meaningful notice to the public of likely penalties which may be imposed for proscribed conduct; and that such penalties be consistently applied by the board.
(3) A specific finding in the final order of mitigating or aggravating circumstances shall allow the board to impose a penalty other than that provided for in such guidelines. If applicable, the board, or the department if there is no board, shall adopt by rule disciplinary guidelines to designate possible mitigating and aggravating circumstances and the variation and range of penalties permitted for such circumstances.
(4) The department must review such disciplinary guidelines for compliance with the legislative intent as set forth herein to determine whether the guidelines establish a meaningful range of penalties and may also challenge such rules pursuant to s. 120.56.
(5) The administrative law judge, in recommending penalties in any recommended order, must follow the penalty guidelines established by the board or department and must state in writing the mitigating or aggravating circumstances upon which the recommended penalty is based.
History.—s. 70, ch. 97-261; s. 97, ch. 2000-160; s. 16, ch. 2001-277.
Note.—Former s. 455.627.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Fernandez v. Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing
Fernandez v. Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing (2012)
“Fernandez argues that the penalty imposed is unlawful because the Department failed to comply with the legislative requirement that there be penalty guidelines in place pursuant to section 456.079, Florida Statutes (2008), so as to alert licensees of prohibited actions and to…”
Donna Leah T. Brewer, LPN v. Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing (2019)
“” Section 456.079(1), Florida Statutes, authorized the Board “to adopt by rule .”
Fernandez v. Department of Health (2013)
“Section 456.079(3), Florida Statutes (2008), gives the Board discretion to depart from the penalty guidelines set forth in rule 64B9-8.”
Kimberley McQueary v. Florida Department of Health, State of Florida Board of Nursing (2022)
“” § 456.079(1), Fla. Stat. These guidelines “provide reasonable and meaningful notice to the public of likely penalties which may be imposed for proscribed conduct .”
Denise Melissa Campbell, L.P.N. v. Department of Health (2017)
“§ 456.079(3), Fla. Stat. (2015). And while the disciplinary guidelines do not authorize revocation for a first inaccurate-recording offense, they do authorize revocation for a first offense for falsifying patient records.”
Cunningham v. Department of Health (2024)
“” § 456.079(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). The Board failed to do so here.”
Liang v. Department of Health (2025)
“But the Board deviated from the recommended penalty for a first offense and revoked Liang’s license based on an aggravating factor—the “deterrent effect of the penalty imposed” under rule 64B7–30.”
Heshmati v. Department of Health (2008)
“First, contrary to Appellant's argument, neither section 456.079, Florida Statutes (2001), or Rule 64B8-8.”
— 456.079(1) — 2 cases
Donna Leah T. Brewer, LPN v. Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing (2019)
“” Section 456.079(1), Florida Statutes, authorized the Board “to adopt by rule .”
Kimberley McQueary v. Florida Department of Health, State of Florida Board of Nursing (2022)
“” § 456.079(1), Fla. Stat. These guidelines “provide reasonable and meaningful notice to the public of likely penalties which may be imposed for proscribed conduct .”
— 456.079(2) — 1 case
Kimberley McQueary v. Florida Department of Health, State of Florida Board of Nursing (2022)
“” § 456.079(1), Fla. Stat. These guidelines “provide reasonable and meaningful notice to the public of likely penalties which may be imposed for proscribed conduct .”
— 456.079(3) — 6 cases
Fernandez v. Florida Department of Health, Board of Nursing (2012)
“Fernandez argues that the penalty imposed is unlawful because the Department failed to comply with the legislative requirement that there be penalty guidelines in place pursuant to section 456.079, Florida Statutes (2008), so as to alert licensees of prohibited actions and to…”
Fernandez v. Department of Health (2013)
“Section 456.079(3), Florida Statutes (2008), gives the Board discretion to depart from the penalty guidelines set forth in rule 64B9-8.”
Denise Melissa Campbell, L.P.N. v. Department of Health (2017)
“§ 456.079(3), Fla. Stat. (2015). And while the disciplinary guidelines do not authorize revocation for a first inaccurate-recording offense, they do authorize revocation for a first offense for falsifying patient records.”
Kimberley McQueary v. Florida Department of Health, State of Florida Board of Nursing (2022)
“” § 456.079(1), Fla. Stat. These guidelines “provide reasonable and meaningful notice to the public of likely penalties which may be imposed for proscribed conduct .”
Cunningham v. Department of Health (2024)
“” § 456.079(3), Fla. Stat. (2022). The Board failed to do so here.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.