DANIEL CAMPBELL DAUBE, JR., M.D. v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
DANIEL CAMPBELL DAUBE, JR.,
M.D.,
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 1D05-0251
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Respondent.
_________________________/
Opinion filed May 19, 2005.
Petition for Review- Original Jurisdiction.
Lisa Shearer Nelson of Holtzman Equels, Tallahassee; Julie Gallagher of
Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Dana Baird, Senior Attorney, Appellate Section, DOH Bureau of Health Care,
Prosecution Services Unit, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Dr. Daniel Daube petitions this Court for review of the Department
of Health’s emergency order issued under section 120.60(6), Florida Statutes (2004).
The Department initially issued an Order of Emergency Suspension of License on
January 14, 2005. Petitioner also motioned this Court for a stay of the emergency
order pending review, which this Court granted in an unpublished order, followed by
a written opinion. Daube v. Dep’t of Health, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D514 (Fla. 1st DCA
Feb. 22, 2005) ) (”Daube I”). In the opinion, this Court stated that “[b]ecause the
agency's emergency order was broader than that ‘necessary to protect the public
interest under the emergency procedure’ as provided in section 120.60(6)(b), a more
narrowly tailored emergency order is appropriate.” Id. The Court indicated that the
stay was granted on the “condition that [petitioner] immediately halt all use of the
unapproved product and that any wrinkle reduction treatment by petitioner be limited
to the use of BOTOX®.” Id. The Department was authorized to monitor this
condition and to set restrictions on petitioner’s use of BOTOX®. Id.
Subsequently, the Department modified the order suspending petitioner’s
license to conform to this Court’s opinion in Daube I after this Court relinquished
jurisdiction for this purpose. This second order lifted the emergency suspension of
petitioner’s license and instead imposed restrictions on petitioner’s license, prohibiting
petitioner from using any products the Food and Drug Administration has not
approved for wrinkle reduction treatments. In doing so, the Department’s second
order largely mooted the petitioner’s arguments. To the extent petitioner’s arguments
also pertain to the second order, we reject them without further comment.
PETITION DENIED.
DAVIS, LEWIS AND POLSTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
