The issue in this case is whether the Board of Medicine should discipline the Respondent, Sabih Kayan, M.D., on charges contained in a two-count, Amended Administrative Complaint, AHCA Case No. 92-17009. Count I alleges that the Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Fla. Stat. (1989), by: (1) failing to adequately evaluate the mental status of Patient number 1 before ordering him transferred from B-Wing to a Delta Unit of the Pinellas County Jail; (2) failing to adequately and/or further evaluate the patient after the transfer; and (3) failing to adequately monitor and/or further evaluate the patient following the institution of the drug Ascendin. Count II alleges that the Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Fla. Stat. (1989).Administrative Complaint: Psychiatric consulting at county jail, transferred suicidal patient to area with less monitoring. Recommended Order: AHCA misread medical records, monitoring was same; medical records okay.

Whether St. Joseph's Hospital, Inc.'s application for certification as a State Approved Pediatric Trauma Referral Center should be approved.Provisional trauma unit not required to show local plan consistency; all trauma units must have Medical Degree in the pediatric Intensive Care Unit.

Whether certain forms incorporated by reference into the administrative rules of the Respondent constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.HRS form 1840, October 91, is invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.

The issue in this case is whether the Board of Dentistry should discipline the Respondent on charges set out in the Administrative Complaint in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Case No. 91-011671. The Administrative Complaint charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, for incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. It alleged: that the Respondent treated a patient identified by the initials V. G. for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction from August 14, 1986, through July, 1991; that the treatment included maxillary brackets and other orthodontic treatment from August, 1987, through May, 1991; that the patient's TMJ problems recurred during the orthodontic treatment; that the length of time of the Respondent's orthodontic treatment was excessive, resulting in the recurrence of the TMJ problems; that the Respondent utilized an inappropriate circuitous method to accomplish tooth movement (i.e., moving teeth back and forth); that the Respondent's orthodontic treatment had to be corrected by a subsequent treating dentist; and that the "Respondent failed to provide written documentation informing the patient . . . of expected results . . .."Petitioner didn't prove Respondent fell below minimum standards. TMJ case complicated. Lengthy treatment not excessive and didn't cause recurrence. Petitioner expert misled by patient.

The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.Evidence sufficient to show guilty of failure to keep adequate records but not over-prescribing or malpractice.

The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Cryocautery prior to confirmed diagnosis is below acceptable standard of care.

The issue is whether respondent's license as a medical doctor should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the two administrative complaints.Evidence insuf to sustain charge that medical doctor inappropriately touched patients' bodies in a sexual manner while performing necessary examinations.

The issues for determination in this case are whether the Board of Medicine should discipline the Respondent, Jayaprakash Kamath, M.D., on charges set out in the Administrative Complaint, DPR Case No. 89-8841. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint charges that the Respondent was guilty of gross or repeated malpractice or failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances and that he failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of a patient, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Fla. Stat. (1991)--and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.Doctor treated and discharged 23-hour hospital patient without reading Xrays or getting radiologist's report: violation of 458.331(1)(t).

The issue in this case is whether the license of Alexander Buchwald, D.D.S., (Respondent) should be disciplined based upon actions he is alleged to have taken in his treatment of a patient named Dean Fodera, between August 1986, and June 1987, as more particularly set forth in the Administrative Complaint issued herein on or about January 23, 1989, and the Amendment thereto which was allowed by Order entered on May 16, 1990.Respondent failed to meet minimum standards of performance in his treatment of a patient and also delegated dental tasks to a non-dentist without supervision

The issue for determination is whether Respondent, a licensed physician, committed violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against his license.Physician's failure to recognize high risk pregnancy and provide appropriate referral or treatment justified imposition of disciplinary sanctions.