Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Hoover v. The Agency for Health Care Administration

District Court of Appeal of Florida
676 So.2d 1380 (1996)


Facts

The Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) (plaintiff) filed an administrative complaint against Hoover, an internal medicine physician, to the state’s Board of Medicine (Board) alleging that she prescribed controlled substances and for providing treatment below the standard of care. At the hearing, the Agency offered two physicians to provide expert testimony that Hoover had prescribed possible lethal amounts of narcotics and had practiced below the standard of care. Neither had chronic pain expertise nor had examined any of Hoover’s patients or reviewed their medical records. Their testimony was based solely on pharmacy printouts. Hoover testified in detail about the condition, diagnosis, and treatment plan for each of her seven patients involved in the suit as well as alternative modalities considered. Another physician provided similar expert testimony on her behalf regarding the appropriateness of the care she provided. The hearing officer found that the Agency had failed to meet its burden of proof on all charges relating to Hoover’s patients. The officer also noted in her findings that the only available federal guidelines relevant in this situation dealt with physicians using controlled substances to treat pain in cancer patients. None of Hoover’s patients had cancer. The Agency filed exceptions to the hearing officer’s findings of fact and conclusions of law for five of the seven patients to the Board. Despite the hearing officer’s findings that Hoover acted appropriately in each of the five patients’ cases, the Board amended the order with the Agency’s suggestions. As a result, Hoover was assessed a reprimand, a $4,000 administrative fine, continuing medical education on prescribing abusable drugs, and two years probation. Hoover appealed to the district court.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Jorgenson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 170,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.