Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Blas E Padrino
Blas E Padrino
Visitors: 52
0
Bar #178106(FL)    
Coral Gables FL

Are you Blas E Padrino? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

86-000234  BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS vs. CELESTINO DE LA HERIA LEDESMA  (1986)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Jun. 17, 1986
The issues framed by the administrative complaint are whether disciplinary action should be taken against Dr. De La Heria for failure to renew his medical license while continuing to practice medicine during the period January 1, 1982 through December 8, 1984 (Count I); failure to practice medicine with the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances with respect to corrective surgery he performed upon the ears of a minor patient (Count II); and acceptance and performance of professional responsibilities which he knew or had reason to know he was not competent to perform in connection with that surgery (Count III).Resp's lic should be susp & put on probation for failure to renew lic and practicing plastic surgery beyond the scope of his training or competence.
83-003916  BOARD OF PHARMACY vs. DORA VILLANUEVA  (1983)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Nov. 07, 1984
Suspend pharmacy and pharmacist licenses for ninety days for dispensing without prescriptions, inadequate controlled substance records and unlicensed practice.
83-000122  BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS vs. ALBERT P. OTEIZA  (1983)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Mar. 09, 1984
The following issues of fact were considered: Did the Respondent aid, assist, procure, or advise an unlicensed person to practice medicine? Did the Respondent delegate professional responsibilities to persons when he knew or had reason to know that said persons were not qualified by licensure to perform them? Did the Respondent presign prescription forms? Both parties submitted posthearing findings of fact, which were read and considered. Those findings not incorporated herein are found to be either subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary, or not supported by the evidence.Respondent was guilty of delegating duties to unqualified person. and he should have known he didn't qualify them. He was not guilty of prescribing drugs.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer