Discipline: Grounds, Penalties, and Professional Conduct
Domain 4 tests the disciplinary machinery: the statutory grounds, the path from complaint to final order, and the range of penalties the board may impose.
Grounds
Section 460.413(1) and s. 456.072(1) supply the grounds. Recurring ones include fraud or deceit in obtaining or using a license, incompetence or negligence in practice, practicing beyond the scope authorized by chapter 460, false or misleading advertising, violating a board rule or a lawful board order, practicing while impaired, sexual misconduct, and failing to meet minimum standards of care. Discipline imposed in another state is independently actionable.
Process (s. 456.073)
A complaint reaches the Department of Health, which investigates. A probable cause panel drawn from the board decides whether an administrative complaint issues. The licensee then files an election of rights: an informal proceeding under s. 120.57(2) or a formal hearing under s. 120.57(1) before an administrative law judge. The board enters the final order, and review lies in the district court of appeal.
Penalties
Reprimand, administrative fine, probation with conditions, practice restriction, suspension, revocation, additional continuing education, community service, restitution, and assessment of the costs of investigation and prosecution. Emergency suspension under s. 456.074 is available when immediate serious danger to the public exists.
Worked example
An insurer audit shows a chiropractor billed 24 visits when the records support six. Reasoning: submitting claims for services not rendered is fraud and deceit under s. 460.413(1), not merely a recordkeeping lapse. Expect revocation or suspension, restitution, costs, and collateral reporting to other states and national data banks. The records themselves become the evidence, which is why contemporaneous documentation matters long before a complaint arrives.
Traps
- Assuming the investigator decides guilt; probable cause and penalty are separate steps.
- Believing a criminal acquittal bars administrative discipline - disciplinary cases require clear and convincing evidence under s. 120.57(1)(j), a different standard.
- Forgetting that costs of investigation and prosecution are assessed on top of the fine.