# Florida FHLR practice questions: Discipline Five original Florida FHLR practice questions on discipline, each answered on this page with a rationale and a source. Last updated: 2026-07-27. ## Question 1 A Florida-licensed dental hygienist inadvertently allows her license to expire. She continues to treat patients at her private practice employment for five months before realizing the error. No patient was harmed and this is her first offense. According to the Board's citation authority, what is the fixed administrative penalty? - A. A $1,000.00 administrative fine and a requirement to complete 4 hours of risk-management CE. - B. A $250.00 administrative fine. - C. A notice of noncompliance requiring the licensee to correct the error within 15 days. - D. Permanent revocation of the license for practicing without an active license. **Answer B:** A $250.00 administrative fine. Rule 64B5-13.0046(2), F.A.C., sets the citation fine for a dental hygienist practicing 2–6 months on a lapsed license at $250. The $1,000 fine plus 4 hours of risk-management CE applies to dentists in the same posture. **Common trap:** Applying the dentist-level citation penalty to a hygienist. Source: [Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B5-13.0046 — Citation Authority](https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleNo.asp?id=64B5-13.0046) ## Question 2 A patient files a complaint regarding a restorative procedure. The case is reviewed by the local dental association's peer review committee. During the subsequent Department investigation, the clinic refuses to produce the original patient chart, arguing it is shielded from discovery because the peer review committee reviewed it. Is the clinic correct? - A. Yes, because any document reviewed by a peer review committee becomes confidential and exempt from discovery. - B. Yes, provided the peer review committee has not yet issued its final findings or opinions. - C. No, because records obtained from original sources are not immune from discovery simply because a committee looked at them. - D. No, but the clinic may only release the records if the patient provides a second, specific waiver for the Department. **Answer C:** No, because records obtained from original sources are not immune from discovery simply because a committee looked at them. Section 466.022(2), F.S., specifies that records "otherwise available and obtained from original sources" are not immune from discovery or use in a disciplinary proceeding merely because they were presented during proceedings of a peer review committee. **Common trap:** Believing the "peer review privilege" is an absolute shield for all documents associated with the committee's work. Source: [s. 466.022, F.S. — Peer review; records; immunity; confidentiality](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0466/Sections/0466.022.html) ## Question 3 A Florida-licensed practitioner realizes they have developed a substance abuse issue. They voluntarily self-refer to the state’s impaired practitioner consultant, sign a monitoring contract, and release their medical records. After several months of compliance, the practitioner stops attending mandatory sessions and is terminated from the program for material noncompliance. What is the immediate administrative consequence of this termination? - A. The consultant must disclose the termination to the Department, and that disclosure constitutes a complaint for discipline. - B. The Board must assess a mandatory $10,000 fine for failing to successfully complete a rehabilitative program. - C. The consultant provides a notice of noncompliance giving the practitioner 15 days to re-enroll before notifying the Board. - D. The practitioner's license is permanently revoked by operation of law due to inability to practice with skill and safety. **Answer A:** The consultant must disclose the termination to the Department, and that disclosure constitutes a complaint for discipline. Under s. 456.076(12)(b), F.S., when a participant is terminated for material noncompliance, inability to progress, or any reason other than completion, the consultant must disclose all information to the department, and such disclosure constitutes a complaint under s. 456.073. Termination for noncompliance is also a standalone ground under s. 456.072(1)(hh). **Common trap:** Thinking the 15-day notice of noncompliance applies (that is only for initial minor violations) or that revocation is automatic (it requires due process). Source: [s. 456.076, F.S. — Impaired practitioner programs](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0456/Sections/0456.076.html) ## Question 4 A dentist repeatedly makes explicit sexual propositions to the mother of a pediatric patient during the child's treatment visits. The mother is not a patient of the dentist. Is this conduct disciplinable under the Florida health professions statutes? - A. No, because the sexual misconduct statutes only apply to the practitioner-patient relationship. - B. No, as long as the dentist does not attempt to perform a clinical procedure on the mother. - C. Yes, but only if the conduct occurs in a setting where the child patient is physically present. - D. Yes, because sexual misconduct includes verbal activity toward a representative or family member of the patient. **Answer D:** Yes, because sexual misconduct includes verbal activity toward a representative or family member of the patient. Section 456.063(1), F.S., defines sexual misconduct in a health profession as using the relationship to induce or engage the patient or an immediate family member, guardian, or representative in verbal or physical sexual activity. **Common trap:** Thinking the dentist-patient definition in s. 466.027 is the only one that applies; the all-professions definition in s. 456.063 is much broader. Source: [s. 456.063, F.S. — Sexual misconduct; disqualification for license, certificate, or registration](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0456/Sections/0456.063.html) ## Question 5 A former patient files a formal complaint with the Department of Health alleging that a practitioner committed sexual battery during a procedure eight years ago. The practitioner moves to dismiss the complaint, citing the standard 6-year statute of limitations for administrative disciplinary actions. How will the Board likely rule? - A. The Board will dismiss the complaint because the incident occurred more than six years prior to the filing. - B. The Board will allow the complaint because there is no time bar for incidents involving sexual misconduct. - C. The Board will allow the complaint only if the patient can prove that fraud prevented earlier discovery of the act. - D. The Board will dismiss the complaint because administrative complaints are strictly capped at a 5-year window. **Answer B:** The Board will allow the complaint because there is no time bar for incidents involving sexual misconduct. Section 456.073(13), F.S., states that the 6-year limitation on filing an administrative complaint does not apply to criminal actions, diversion of controlled substances, sexual misconduct, or impairment. **Common trap:** Assuming the 6-year (or 12-year fraud extension) limits are absolute for all types of conduct. Source: [s. 456.073, F.S. — Disciplinary proceedings](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0456/Sections/0456.073.html) ## Next step [Take the free 15-question FHLR practice test](https://dentovio.com/florida-dental-hygiene-laws-rules/free-practice-test) Official reference: [Chapter 466, Florida Statutes — Dentistry, Dental Hygiene, and Dental Laboratories](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0466/0466.html). Original exam-style questions written for study, never recalled exam content. Independent educational preparation, not legal advice, and not affiliated with or endorsed by the Florida Board of Dentistry. Confirm current requirements with the Board.