Whether or not Petitioner is entitled to a license by endorsement to practice medicine pursuant to Section 458.313(1) F.S.Medical Doctor applicant by endorsement ok on character, no fraud, and alcoholic recovery (safe practice) but license could be conditioned due to out-of-state denial.
The issue for determination is whether Petitioner misrepresented or concealed a material fact on his application regarding his qualifications for licensure to practice medicine in the State of Florida.Applicant's intentional omission of unfavorable information from application supports denial of application for license by endorcement.
Whether Petitioner is entitled to sit for the examination for licensure as a physician assistant.Applicant who did not graduated from medical school not entitled to sit for licensure exam as a physician assistant.
Whether Petitioner is entitled to temporary licensure as a physician assistant pending her successful completion of the licensure examination.Agency acted within its discretion in denying temporary certification to applicant who did not establich her curent ability to safely practice.
The issue for determination is whether Petitioner should be certified to take the Florida dental license examination.Mitigating circumstances permit admission to license exam by applicant as opposed to denial of application for licensure.
The issues for resolution in this case are whether Rules 59R-9008(5) and 59R-9008(7), Florida Administrative Code, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as asserted by Petitioner.Rule establishing presumption is invalid. Rule restating statutory rebutt- able presumption is valid.
The issue presented is whether Petitioner's request for reinstatement of his license as a chiropractor should be granted.Denial of petitioner's request for reinstatement of license where license had previously been voluntarily relinquished in writing.
Whether Petitioner is entitled to an unconditional license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.Petitioner should be granted unconditional license to practice medicine despite prior episode of major depression.
The basic issue in this case is whether a statement contained in an order issued by the Board of Medicine is a "rule" within the definition at Section 120.52(16), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), and, if so, whether rulemaking is feasible and practicable, or whether the statement violates Section 120.535(1), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.).Agency order in this case is not a ""statement of general applicability;"" thus statement is not a ""rule"" and cannont be challenged under sec. 120.535.
