A Florida court has dismissed an appeal filed by Henry S. Stolar against the Florida Department of Health. The court ruled that Stolar, who filed a complaint against a podiatrist, does not have the legal standing to appeal a decision made by a state agency. This ruling is significant as it clarifies the rights of complainants in disciplinary proceedings.
The case, known as Henry S. Stolar v. Florida Department of Health (docket number 3D19-2181), centers around a complaint Stolar made against a licensed podiatrist. The court's decision affects how individuals can engage with disciplinary actions against licensed professionals in Florida.
Henry S. Stolar filed a disciplinary complaint against a podiatrist regulated by the Florida Department of Health. After investigating the complaint, the Department presented the case to the Probable Cause Panel for the Board of Podiatric Medicine. Following a confidential review, the Panel determined that there was no probable cause for a violation. Stolar was informed of this decision through a letter dated August 13, 2019. He subsequently filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 2019, challenging the Panel's decision.
The Florida Department of Health, represented by Chief Appellate Counsel Sarah Young Hodges, moved to dismiss Stolar's appeal. The Department argued that Stolar did not have standing to appeal because he was not considered a “party adversely affected by final agency action,” as required by Florida law. They maintained that only the podiatrist and the Department itself were parties in the administrative action.
Stolar, on the other hand, contended that he should be granted party status due to his role in initiating the complaint. He argued that, while he was not a formal litigant in the proceedings, he was not a stranger to the record and should have the right to appeal. Stolar's legal team was from Harper Meyer Perez Hagen Albert Dribin & DeLuca LLP.
The court ruled that Stolar did not meet the criteria for standing as outlined in section 120.68(1) of the Florida Statutes. The statute allows for appellate review of final agency action only by a party who is adversely affected. The court noted that Stolar did not fit into any of the defined classes of “parties” under Florida's Administrative Procedures Act.
Judge SCALES, along with Judges GORDO and LOBREE, stated, “Appellant does not fit into any of these specifically delineated definitions of the term ‘party.’” The court emphasized that Stolar was not a participant in the Panel's proceedings and that his interests were not at stake in the same way as those of the podiatrist or the Department.
In its analysis, the court distinguished Stolar's case from a previous ruling in Portfolio Investments Corp. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust. In that case, the appellant had actively participated in the litigation, which was not the situation for Stolar. The court concluded that Stolar lacked both participation in the proceedings and an interest in the outcome comparable to that of the parties involved.
The court's ruling has implications for future disciplinary complaints filed against licensed professionals in Florida. It clarifies that individuals who file complaints may not have the right to appeal decisions made by the relevant agencies unless they can demonstrate that they have a direct stake in the outcome.
This decision may influence how complainants approach the filing of future complaints. They may need to consider their potential standing before initiating an appeal, as the court has set a precedent that restricts the ability of complainants to challenge agency findings.
As for what’s next, Stolar's options for appeal appear limited. The court has dismissed his appeal, and there is no indication that he plans to pursue further legal action at this time. The court filing did not mention any related cases pending that might impact this ruling.