Amendments to 458.327

1. Mazurek v. Armstrong

   520 U.S. 968 (1997)   Cited 3,037 times   2 Legal Analyses

   The dissent contends that some States which restrict the performance of abortions to licensed physicians may define "licensed physician" to include "physician-assistant" when the latter works under the former's supervision; thus, the dissent says, the Court of Appeals' decision may not in fact be inconsistent with the physician-only regimes of other States. Post, at 980-981. But the provisions of state law to which the dissent points reflect the general definition of what qualifies as the "authorized practice" of medicine, without making any specific reference to abortion. See, e.g., Fla. Stat. §§ 458.303(1)(a), 458.327( 1), 458.347 (1991 and Supp. 1997); post, at 980-981, n. 7 (citing statutes). Thus, for example, under Florida law, the performance of an abortion by a physician-assistant would not constitute "practic[ing] medicine . . . without a license" for purposes of the felony defined in Fla. Stat. Ann. § 458.327( 1) (Supp. 1997), but there is no reason to think it would not violate the more specific prohibition on the performance of abortions by persons other than "a doctor of medicine or osteopathic medicine licensed by the state under chapter 458 or…

   PAGE 976
2. Mendizabal v. Hernandez-Abreu (In re Hernandez-Abreu)

   506 B.R. 307 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2014)   Cited 1 times

   4 more...

   The practice of medicine by a physician is governed by Chapter 458 of the Florida Statutes. The purpose of Chapter 458 is to ensure the safety of the citizens who seek care from those licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida. Fla. Stat. § 458.31. The law provides for penalties for failure to comply with the various provisions of Chapter 458. Fla. Stat. § 458.327. In particular, Chapter 458 requires a physician have malpractice insurance or have a bond or irrevocable letter of credit for $ 100,000.00 per claim with a minimum aggregate available amount of $300,000.00. Section 458.320(1)(c), Fla. Stat., requires disclosure by the physician to the patient. It is a misdemeanor for any physician to conceal information or violate Fla. Stat. § 458.327(2)(a). Thus, for a medical doctor who is regulated by statute, failure to disclose the status of malpractice insurance may give rise to a claim for false pretenses.

   PAGE 315
3. In re Hanft

   274 B.R. 917 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2002)   Cited 5 times

   1 more...

   On October 14, 1991, the Department of professional Regulation filed an administrative complaint regarding Dr. Hanft's practice of medicine with an inactive license. The administrative complaint charged Dr. Hanft with practicing without an active license in violation of F.S. § 458.327 (1)(a). Violations of that statute constitute third degree felonies. The administrative complaint sought relief imposing one or more of the following remedies: revocation or suspension of license, restriction of Dr. Hanft's practice, imposition of a fine, issuance of a reprimand, or placing Dr. Hanft on probation.

   PAGE 920
4. State v. Crumbley

   247 So. 3d 666 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 1 times

   • Motion to dismiss

   Section 458.3265 requires the registration of pain management clinics. Section 458.327(1)(e) criminalizes the knowing operation, ownership, or management of a nonregistered clinic.

   PAGE 668
5. In re Donald Hanft, M.D., P.A.

   315 B.R. 617 (S.D. Fla. 2002)   Cited 23 times

   • Motion for summary judgment
   2 more...

   Appellant Donald Hanft received his license to practice medicine in Florida in 1970, and renewed it several times thereafter. In December, 1979, he failed to renew his medical license, and it expired and became inactive under Florida law. In February, 1989, Appellant corresponded with the Board of Medicine with respect to reactivating his license. On February 23, 1990, Appellant's license was reactivated after he paid a renewal fee and completed 203 hours of continuing medical education requirements. On October 14, 1991, the Florida Department of Professional Regulation filed an administrative complaint regarding Appellant's practice of medicine without an active license in violation of FLA. STAT. § 458.327(1)(a). The administrative complaint was resolved by a consent decree, which included a formal reprimand and imposition of a $5,000 fine against Appellant.

   PAGE 619
6. Bernal v. Dept. of Prof. Regulation

   517 So. 2d 113 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 9 times

   Upon a complete review of the record in this case, the Board determines that the penalty recommended by the Hearing Officer be REJECTED as being too lenient under the circumstances for the reasons set forth in the Exceptions filed by the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation. Specifically, the Respondent was less than candid in his testimony before the Hearing Officer — as found by the Hearing Officer. Patients were endangered by the fact that unlicensed persons, persons who had not established their ability to practice medicine with skill and safety, were practicing medicine, which is a felony. See section 458.327, Florida Statutes.

   PAGE 115
7. Baker v. State

   501 So. 2d 17 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1987)

   § 458.327(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1985).
8. HALL v. MAAL

   Case No. 1D08-4776 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2009)

   The Legislature has provided an exception for validating marriages that do not meet the exact statutory criteria set out in Chapter 741: "[N]othing contained in this section shall affect any marriage which, though otherwise defective, was entered into by the party asserting such marriage in good faith and in substantial compliance with this chapter." § 741.211, Fla. Stat. (2002). We note that the Legislature is quite capable of writing a strict statute that allows no exception for unlicensed marriages. The Legislature has done just that regarding unlicensed drivers, unlicensed lawyers, unlicensed doctors, and various other activities too numerous to mention. See, e.g., §§ 322.03, 454.23, 458.327, Fla. Stat. In many of these situations, the unlicensed person may incur criminal liability; however, these situations provide no defense for "good faith" assertions made in "substantial compliance" with the relevant statutes.

   PAGE 7
9. Rehab Assoc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, Mass

   38 Mass. App. Ct. 62 (Mass. App. Ct. 1995)   Cited 2 times

   I write separately, not because I am troubled by the majority's reasoning, but because I think that in this era of rapidly rising health care costs (with all the attendant scrutiny and study focused on them) physicians or other medical practitioners should not refer their own patients to major medical testing laboratories or facilities, particularly such an MRI unit as here, owned by them. I cast no aspersions on the parties to this appeal, but it cannot be gainsaid that such a practice is fraught with danger and invites suspicion. See, in this regard, Florida's Medical Practice Statute, Fla. Stat. § 458.327 (2)(c) (1993), making criminal, with certain exceptions, referrals to entities in which the referring practitioner has an equity interest of ten or more percent "unless, prior to such referral, the physician notifies the patient of his financial interest and of the patient's right to obtain such goods or services at the location of the patient's choice." See also G.L.c. 111, § 25C, third par., as inserted by St. 1993, c. 350, § 4. But see Medicare Medicaid Guide (CCH) par. 13,921, at 5669 (1994). The Hippocratic oath commands the physician "never [to] do harm.…

   PAGE 69
10. Florida Medical Ass'n v. Department of Professional Regulation

    426 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 26 times

    Turning to the case before us, we find that both Chapters 463 and 458 are concerned with the protection of the public by insuring that persons engaged in the various health care professions are qualified to do so. These and other statutes pertaining to the health care field (and the various boards acting under authority of the statutes), also serve the purpose of delineating, to a great extent, the relative rights and privileges of health care professionals. It necessarily follows that an agency's determination of what forms of treatment are permissible or prohibited within each health care profession is within the "zone of interest" protected by the statutes. The rule at issue here, according to petitioners, allows optometrists to provide a form of treatment for which they are not qualified, and which has not been authorized by the legislature under Chapter 463. They allege further that the activities permitted by the rule are encompassed within the "practice of medicine," which the legislature has declared to be the exclusive domain of physicians licensed under Chapter 458. The practice of medicine or attempt to practice medicine without a license is a felony of the third…

    PAGE 1117