TIRADO v. DIAZ (2023)

Affirmed. See § 120.57(1)(l), Fla. Stat. (allowing an agency to increase a “recommended penalty” upon review “of the complete record” and “stating with particularity its reasons therefor in the order, by citing to the record in justifying the action”); see also Crim. Just. Standards & Training Comm'n v. Bradley, 596 So. 2d 661, 663 (Fla. 1992) (finding “that it is a primary function of professional disciplinary boards to determine the appropriate punishment for the misconduct of the professionals it regulates” and that “[a]s long as the statute under which a professional agency operates provides guidelines for imposing penalties, the agency complies with section 120.57(1)(b)10, and the increased penalty falls within the guidelines established by its statute, a professional board or agency has the discretion to increase the recommended penalty”); Mendez v. Fla. Dep't of Health, 943 So. 2d 909, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“This court cannot substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency, charged with implementing and enforcing its own statute, when that agency has imposed a penalty within the permissible range of penalties.”); Aldrete v. Dep't of Health Bd. of Med., 879 So. 2d 1244, 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (recognizing that “[p]enalty imposition is a complex task requiring the ALJ, in making a recommendation, and the Board, in choosing a penalty, to weigh numerous factors,” such that “the decision rests within the [professional board's] sound discretion”).

PER CURIAM.

Rowe, M.K. Thomas, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.