Gadsden FL and Administrative law Lawyers | Elizabeth Fletc -- eLawyers

13-000100PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE vs TED OROSKI, D.V.M. (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 09, 2013

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent, Ted Oroski, D.V.M., violated section 474.214(1)(r) and (ee), Florida Statutes (2009), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G19- 18.002(3), as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint with respect to his care and treatment of two horses named “Mattie” and “Coosa.” If Respondent is found guilty of the violations charged, it must be determined what penalty should be recommended to the Board of Veterinary Medicine.Petitioner proved a violation of section 474.214(1)(ee) with respect to Respondent's records for two horses. No standard of care violation proven.

11-003268PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE vs RICHARD LANGFORD, D.V.M. (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 24, 2011

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 474.214(1)(ee), Florida Statutes (2008), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?The Department did not prove that Respondent failed to include specified items in medical records.

11-000912PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE vs JOSE DAVILA-DELGADO, D.V.M. (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 18, 2011

The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether Respondent's actions are exempt from the provisions of chapter 474, Florida Statutes, pursuant to section 474.203(5), and if not, whether Respondent violated section 474.214(1)(ee), Florida Statutes (2008). If Respondent's actions are not exempt and violate section 474.214(1)(ee), then what penalty should be imposed?Respondent's conduct was exempt from Chapter 474 because he owned the animals alleged to be treated. The Department did not establish and exception to the exemption.

08-005457PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE vs PHILIP J. ALEONG, D.V.M. (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 31, 2008

Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.Respondent is guilty of practicing while his license was suspended; that he believed, based on advice of counsel, that such action was not prohibited, militated in favor of a less severe penalty than revocation of his license.

10-002883PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATORS AND INSPECTORS vs MORRIS TESH (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 26, 2010

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated Section 468.621(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Respondent failed to enforce the building code where no specific violation of the building code was proven.

10-006676PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATORS AND INSPECTORS vs RICHARD NOLES (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 30, 2010

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent held himself out as a certificate holder in violation of section 468.629(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?Petitioner failed to prove allegations in Administrative Complaint where it did not allege appropriate statute or underlying conduct.

10-002386PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE vs ROBIN L. CANNIZZARO, D.V.M. (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 30, 2010

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Robin L. Cannizzaro, D.V.M. (Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated July 13, 2009, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner established Respondent's medical records inadequate otherwise failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated standard of care or committed fraud in charges for records

09-005613PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE vs DOUGLAS S. LYDAY, D.V.M. (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 14, 2009

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Douglas Lyday, D.V.M., committed the violation alleged in an Administrative Complaint, DPBR Case Number 2008-055022, issued by Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.Petitioner failed to prove Respondent unable to practice by reason of illness, drunkenness, use of drugs, narcotics, chemicals, or any other material or substance or as a result of any mental or physical condition.

10-007593PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE vs JEFFREY THOMAS SAUNDERS, D.V.M. (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 16, 2010

12-000004PL DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE vs TED OROSKI, D.V.M. (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 03, 2012

Elizabeth Fletcher Henderson