Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Francine Clair Landau
Francine Clair Landau
Visitors: 42
2
Bar #303151(FL)     License for 45 years; Member in Good Standing
Jacksonville FL

Are you Francine Clair Landau? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

  Ago  (1989)
Florida Attorney General Reports Filed: Oct. 10, 1989
Mr. Richard R. Michelson City Attorney City of Lauderhill Suite 200 7101 West McNab Road Tamarac, Florida 33321 Attention: Ms. Lisa N. Hodapp Assistant City Attorney Dear Mr. Michelson: You ask substantially the following question: Is the fire chief of a municipality covered by the provisions of the "Firefighters' Bill of Rights," Part VIII, Ch. 112 , F.S. In sum, I am of the opinion that: If the fire chief is certified in accordance with s. 633.35 , F.S., and is employed solely within the fire d..
78-325  Ford v. Loeffler  (1978)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Sep. 19, 1978 Citations: 363 So. 2d 23
363 So. 2d 23 (1978) Janis FORD, Appellant, v. John LOEFFLER, Appellee. No. 78-325. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. September 19, 1978. Rehearing Denied October 23, 1978. *24 Gold & Fox and Roberta Fulton Fox, Coral Gables, for appellant. Daniel P. Tunick, Miami, for appellee. Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and KEHOE, JJ. KEHOE, Judge. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint for declaratory judgment. In the complaint, plaintif..
86-001710  BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICAL EXAMINERS vs. JAMES E. MHOON  (1986)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Mar. 02, 1988
The issue is whether the osteopathic medical license of James E. Mhoon, D.O., (Mhoon) should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint.Failure to maintain records justifying course of treatment.
86-002031  BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS vs. ROBERT C. BARTLETT  (1986)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 04, 1988
This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations contained in a five-count Administrative Complaint. The charges against the Respondent may be summarized as follows: Count One charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1985) , by failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed on a licensed physician. Count Two charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(1), Florida Statutes (1985), by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine when such scheme or trick fails to conform to the generally prevailing standards of treatment in the medical community. Count Three charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1985), by failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. Count Four charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes (1985), by prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug, including any controlled substance, other than in the course of the physician's professional practice. Count Five charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1985), by gross or repeated malpractice, or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, or treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The Respondent filed an answer to the Administrative Complaint. In his answer, the Respondent admits some of the factual allegations in the Administrative Complaint, but denies all allegations of wrongdoing. Following the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings at hearing was filed on September 16, 1987, and the parties were allowed fifteen days from that date within which to file proposed recommended orders. The Respondent filed a proposed recommended order on October 1, 1987, and the Petitioner filed one on October 2, 1987. Careful consideration has been given to the parties' proposed recommended orders, and specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.Evidence establishes violations of subsections; evidence insufficient as to other violations charged

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