The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m), 458.331(1)(t), and 458.331(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1997),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Respondent failed to fully inform the patient of the experimental nature of the procedure and failed to determine in the record the postoperative endothelial cell count of the patient.

The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2000),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Respondent failed to hospitalize a patient where the diagnosis warranted hospitalization.

The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep legible medical records that justify the course of treatment of a patient, as set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.Petitioner failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to keep legible medical records that justified the course of treatment of the patient.

The issues are whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) is entitled to repayment of $1,152,237.19 in Medicaid reimbursements that it made to Respondent pursuant to section 409.913(11), Florida Statutes; the amount of sanctions, if any, that should be imposed pursuant to sections 409.913(15) through (17); and the amount of any investigative, legal, and expert witness costs that AHCA is entitled to recoup pursuant to section 409.913(23).AHCA proved that claims submitted by Respondent were not medically necessary. Reimbursement and recoupment of costs were appropriate.

On April 17, 2015, Respondent, Department of Health, issued a Notice of Agency Action Denial of License Renewal ("First Denial Notice"), notifying Petitioner, Alicia Chilito, M.D., that it had denied her application for renewal of her physician license. Thereafter, on May 19, 2015, Respondent issued an Amended Notice of Agency Action Denial of License Renewal ("Second Denial Notice"), reiterating, and stating alternative grounds for, its denial of Petitioner's physician license. Petitioner timely challenged Respondent's decision and the matter was referred to DOAH to conduct a hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1). The final hearing initially was scheduled for August 14, 2015, but pursuant to motions, was set for December 16, 2015. On August 14, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, contending that there were no disputed issues of material fact to be resolved in a hearing conducted under section 120.57(1). This motion was denied by order issued on September 1, 2015, on the basis that disputed issues of material fact existed regarding whether Petitioner was entitled to renewal of her license by default pursuant to section 120.60(1). On December 11, 2015, Respondent filed Department of Health's Motion in Limine, seeking to limit the scope of the final hearing. A telephonic motion hearing was conducted on December 15, 2015, the day before the final hearing. The undersigned granted the motion and excluded evidence that may be offered at the final hearing to challenge the underlying factual basis on which the Termination Final Order was entered. The final hearing was held on December 16, 2015. Joint Exhibits 1 through 4 were admitted into evidence. Petitioner did not present any witnesses. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 10 were tendered but not admitted, and were proffered for inclusion in the record. Respondent presented the testimony of Heidi Nitty. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence without objection and Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 6 were admitted over objection. Official recognition was taken of the Final Order issued by the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") in the case of Agency for Health Care Administration v. Alicia Chilito, M.D., Case No. 12-571PH (AHCA November 4, 2013) and the Order Granting Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction in the case of Agency for Health Care Administration v. Alicia Chilito, M.D., Case No. 12-0859MPI (Fla. DOAH July 12, 2012). The one-volume Transcript was filed on January 8, 2016, and the parties were given until January 19, 2016, to file proposed recommended orders. The parties timely filed proposed recommended orders, which were duly considered in preparing this Recommended Order.Petitioner proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she is entitled to renewal of her physician license under the default licensure provision in section 120.60(1).

The issues in this bid protest are whether, in making the decision to award Intervenor Prestige Health Choice, LLC ("Prestige"), a contract to provide Medicaid managed medical assistance services as a provider service network in Region 11 (covering Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties), Respondent Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") acted contrary to a governing statute, rule, or solicitation specification; and, if so, whether such action was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious. (In this protest, Petitioner Care Access PSN, LLC ("Care Access"), challenges AHCA's intended award to Prestige in Region 11, and only that award. Care Access does not seek to upset any other intended awards in Region 11 or in any other Region.)The agency's intended contract award, being contrary to the statutes and project specifications, is clearly erroneous and should be rescinded.

Whether Respondent performed a wrong-site procedure in violation of section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent performed a wrong-site procedure in violation of section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes.

Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's medical license for alleged violations of Sections 456.072(1)(aa), and 458.331(1)(p), Florida Statutes (2003)?Respondent for a second time performed surgery on the wrong site.

The issues for determination are whether Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes (2000), respectively, by failing to keep medical records that justify the course of treatment and by failing 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. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated.)Doctor performed adequate examination and diagnosis; and maintained medical records that justified diagnosis and cause of treatment and were adequate for emergency room record keeping.