37 So. 3d 852 (2010) GREEN v. STATE. No. 1D08-6302. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. June 23, 2010. Decision Without Published Opinion Affirmed.

276 F.2d 705 Calvin McCRAY and Joseph Eross Fields, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 17853. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit. April 14, 1960. Albert J. Datz, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellants. John L. Briggs, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., James L. Guilmartin, U.S. Atty., Southern Dist. of Florida, Miami, for appellee. Before HUTCHESON, BROWN and WISDOM, Circuit Judges. HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge. 1 Jointly charged in a four count indictment 1 with offenses..

As to DOAH Case No. 90-3698: Whether Howell Vinson Peavy's insurance licenses should be disciplined for violations of Sections 626.611(7) and (14) and 626.621(8) F.S., and As to DOAH Case No. 90-6615: Whether Howell Vinson Peavy should be licensed to represent Bankers and Shippers Insurance Company as a general lines insurance agent.Federal guilty plea and conviction entered before Florida Statute amended to require mandatory discipline; trustworthiness demonstrated, may keep license

Whether respondent violated Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (1981), and whether he should be disciplined on charges that he improperly dispensed scheduled controlled substances; prescribed or dispensed a controlled substance other than in the course of a physician's professional practice; employed a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine; engaged in gross or repeated malpractice or failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; and aided, assisted, procured or advised unlicensed persons to practice medicine and delegated professional responsibilities to a person whom he knew or had reason to know was not qualified by training, experience or licensure to perform. Background By a five-count second amended administrative complaint dated May 25, 1982, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners ("Department"), charged that respondent David Scheininger, M.D. ("respondent"): [Count I] violated Sections 893.04(1)(e) and 500.15, Florida Statutes, by improperly dispensing scheduled controlled substances, thereby violating Section 458.331 (1)(h) by failing to perform a statutory or legal obligation placed on a licensed physician; [Count II] violated Section 458.331C1)(q) by prescribing, or dispensing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug other than in the course of the physician's professional practice; [Count III] violated Section 458.331 ()1), ()1) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations or employing a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine which fails to conform to the generally prevailing standards of treatment in the medical community; [Count IV] violated Section 458.331 (1)(t) by gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment required by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; and [Count V] violated Section 458.331(1) (g) and (w) by aiding, assisting, procuring or otherwise advising unlicensed persons to practice medicine and delegating professional responsibilities to a person whom he knew or had reason to know was not qualified by training, experience or licensure to perform them. Respondent's motion to dismiss was granted as to Count I because Sections (1)(e) and 500.15 do not, by their terms, place a statutory obligation upon licensed physicians; and was granted as to that portion of Count III alleging that respondent violated Section 458.331 (1)(1), by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine or employing a trick in the practice of medicine, since the facts alleged were legally insufficient to establish such a violation. Although granted leave to amend its complaint, the Department declined to do so. At hearing, the Department called Julie E, Miller, Geraldine B. Johnson, Deborah R. Hullender, and John Danson as witnesses and offered Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 110 1/ into evidence, Exhibit Nos. 1-6, 8 and 10 were received; ruling on Exhibit Nos, 7 and 9 was reserved. Respondent testified in his own behalf and called Bernard J. Langston as his witness. Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1-5 were received into evidence. Based on the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined:Respondent gave controlled drugs to patients without physical in violation of standards. Recommend civil fine.

Whether or not from January, 1975 until December, 1975, Dr. Richard Blustein did have in his employ a dental auxiliary, to wit: Victoria Lynn Bandosz, who during said time routinely and customarily performed certain illegal dental procedures with the knowledge and authorization of Dr. Richard Blustein. Said procedures included removal of calculus deposits form the exposed surfaces of the teeth and gingival sulcus (commonly known as "scaling"), application of orthodontic plastic brackets and adjustment of dentures, said acts allegedly being in violation of Chapter 466, F.S., and in particular, s. 466.02(4) and 466.24(3)(e), F.S. , as set forth in Count 1 of the Accusation. Count 1 had originally charged a violation of s. 466.24(3)(n), F.S., but that allegation was voluntarily dismissed and was not considered in the hearing. Whether or not, from January, 1975, until August, 1975, Dr. Richard Blustein did have in his employ a dental auxiliary, to wit: Janet Amato, who, did during said time routinely and customarily perform certain illegal dental procedures with the knowledge and authorization of Dr. Richard Blustein. Said procedures included removal of calculus deposits from the exposed surfaces of the teeth and gingival sulcus (commonly known as "scaling"), application of orthodontic plastic brackets and adjustment of dentures, said acts allegedly being in violation of Chapter 466, F.S., and in particular, s. 466.02(4) and 466.24(3)(e), F.S., as set forth in Count 2 of the Accusation. Count 2 had originally charged a violation of s. 466.24(3)(n), but that allegation was voluntarily dismissed and was not considered in the hearing. Whether or not on or about December 23, 1974, Dr. Richard Blustein did carelessly and mistakenly remove several teeth from Shawn McAfee, a minor, when in fact, said teeth should have been removed from Kerry McAfee, sister of Shawn McAfee, said acts allegedly being in violation of Chapter 466, F.S., and in particular, s. 466.24(2) and 466.24(3)(c)(d), F.S., as set forth in Count 3 of the Accusation. Count 3 had originally charged a violation of s. 466.24(3)(n), but that allegation was voluntarily dismissed and was not considered in the hearing. Whether or not prior to December 2, 1974, Dr. Richard Blustein treated Helen Rosen and during said treatment failed to diagnose and/or properly treat advanced periodontal disease and further improperly designed, constructed and installed a six-unit splint in the mouth of said Helen Rosen, said acts allegedly being in violation of Chapter 466, F.S., and in particular s. 466.24(2) or 466.24 (3)(c)(d), F.S., as set forth in Count 4 of the Accusation. Count 4 had originally charged a violation of s. 466.24(3)(n), but that allegation was voluntarily dismissed and was not considered in the hearing. Whether or not, from June, 1974, until December, 1975 Dr. Richard Blustein failed to provide and maintain reasonably sanitary facilities and conditions in and about his office and person, said acts allegedly being in violation of Chapter 466, F.S., and in particular, s. 466.24(3)(1), F.S., as set forth in Count 5 of the Accusation. Count 5 had originally charged a violation of s. 466.24(3)(n), F.S., but that allegation was voluntarily dismissed and was not considered in the hearing. Whether or not, in 1974 and 1975, Dr. Richard Blustein treated Milton Lane and did construct and install in the mouth of said Milton Lane a set of upper and lower dentures, which set of upper and lower dentures never fit properly and were never adjusted to fit properly, despite repeated attempts by Dr. Richard Blustein to correct or adjust said dentures, said acts allegedly being in violation of Chapter 466, F.S., and in particular, s. 466.24(2) or 466.24(3)(c)(d), F.S., as set forth in Count 6 of the Accusation. Count 6 had originally charged a violation of s. 466.24(3)(n), F.S., but that allegation was voluntarily dismissed and was not considered in the hearing. Whether or not, prior to March 17, 1975, Dr. Richard Blustein treated professionally Sarah Rees and while treating or attempting to treat said Sarah Rees, failed to diagnose and/or properly treat periodontal disease, prepared and installed crowns which were inadequate in design, construction, retention and installation, and placed several inadequate restorations, said acts allegedly being in violation of Chapter 466, F.S., and in particular, s. 466.24(3)(c)(d), as set forth in Count 7 of the Accusation. Count 7 had originally charged a violation of s. 466.24(3)(n), F.S., but that allegation was voluntarily dismissed and was not considered in the hearing. Petitioner had filed a Count 8 in the Accusation charging violations of Chapter 466, F.S. and in particular, s. 466.24(2), 466.24 (3)(a)(c)(d) and (n), F.S., but those allegations were voluntarily dismissed and were not considered in the hearing. Whether or not, during 1975, Dr. Richard Blustein treated Bill Soforenko, and during the treatment of said Bill Soforenko, prepared, constructed and installed a porcelain to gold full arch splint, which was entirely inadequate and unacceptable in preparation, design, construction and installation, said acts allegedly being in violation of Chapter 466, F.S., and in particular, s. 466.24(2) or 466.24(3)(c)(d), F.S., as set forth in Count 9 of the Accusation. Count 9 had originally charged the violation of s. 466.24(3)(n), F.S., but that allegation was voluntarily dismissed and was not considered in the hearing. Petitioner had filed a Count 10 concerning certain children referred to him by the Academy of Dentistry, charging violations of Chapter 466, F.S., and in particular, s. 466.24(2) or 466.24(3)(a)(c)(d) and (n), F.S., but those allegations were voluntarily dismissed and were not considered in the hearing.Revoke license of Respondent, but stay for five-year probation for numerous violations of statutes.