At issue in this case are: (1) the Petitioner's standing; (2) the validity of the Respondent's proposed amendment to F.A.C. Rule 21G-8.004(2) (the so- called designation rule), which would designate the Alabama Dental Hygiene Program (ADHP) as a dental hygiene college or school under Section 466.007, Fla. Stat. (1989); and (3) the validity of the Respondent's proposed amendment to Rule 21G-8.004(3) (the so-called criteria rule), which would establish criteria for approval of a dental hygiene college or school under Section 466.007, Fla. Stat. (1989).Dental board rule allowing approval of unaccredited schools or colleges, or equivalent (comparable), for hygienists, invalid under statute as construed.
At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner's application for a medical license by endorsement should be approved.Application for licensure by endorsement approved notwithstanding applicant's failure to attain bachelors degree.
Whether Petitioner is entitled to compensation based upon his claim for an award filed pursuant to the Florida Crimes Compensation Act, Chapter 960, Florida Statutes.Finacial formula established to determine financial hardship and eligibility for compensation fund made respondent ineligible for fund payment
The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Maria I. Galarza, is eligible to take the dental mannequin exam. The Board proposes to deny the Petitioner's application to take the exam on the grounds that the Petitioner's dental degree from the Universidad Central del Este in the Dominican Republic is not the equivalent of four academic years of dental education. The Petitioner contends her degree is equivalent and meets the criteria for taking the dental mannequin exam.Evidence supports conclusion that the Petitioner's dental education in Dominican Republic was not the equivalent of 4 years of dental education.
Whether Respondent abused its discretion in withdrawing its certification of eligibility which had authorized Petitioner, a physician who was educated and trained in Nicaragua, to enroll in a course at the University of Miami that is necessary for his licensure to practice medicine in the State of Florida.Foreign-trained physician who engaged in unlawful practice of medicine in Florida not eligible to take course required for licensure by examination.
The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a license to practice medicine in the state of Florida.Petitione's application for license should be granted despite prior misrepresentations regarding foreign medical training; she completed addtional rotations and passed FLEX
Whether Petitioner has met the requirements for licensure by examination as set forth in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.Examinee's borderline performance in licensure examination does not per se prove examiner's inability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety.
The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, the Florida State Board of Chiropractic, should grant the application(s) of the Petitioner, Norman Wiedow, D. C., for licensure by endorsement under Section 460.4065, Florida Statutes (1987), on the asserted ground that "the requirements for licensure in [Pennsylvania, where the Petitioner is licensed] are substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of this chapter [460, Florida Statutes.]"Petitioner didn't prove that he passed out-of-state exam in part or that exam covered physical diagnosis and x-ray interpretation or that out-of-state law was same.
Whether the Board of Medicine applied the appropriate law to Dr. Koplin's original application for a public health certificate when he appeared before the Board on April 5, 1987. Whether a public health certificate should be issued because of the Board's failure to approve or deny the application within 90 days after receipt of the original application. Whether the abbreviated oral examination administered by the Board was a reliable indicator that Dr. Koplin is currently incapable of practicing medicine with reasonable skill and safety. Whether Dr. Koplin presented sufficient evidence at hearing that he is currently capable of safely engaging in the practice of medicine.Due to wartime exception to the 12-month residency requirement during World War II, this physician is not to be denied licensure in Florida in 1989.
