The issue is whether Petitioner should revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline Respondent’s certification as a law enforcement officer pursuant to Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes.Respondent guilty of having sex on duty and of making false statements under oath.

The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint.Evidence of practice of medicine below acceptable level not sufficient to support discipline of physician's license.

The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent, Alfred O. Bonati's, license as a medical doctor in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.Failure of doctor to make incision large enough to make proper diagnosis in light of test results was below standard of care and supporting discipline.

Whether Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Administrative Complaint.Revocation of license in another state is grounds for discriminary action here despite fact that the other state's revocation is on appeal.

Respondent publicly reprimanded because his records over years of counseling with a patient were inadequate and did not meet minimum community standards.

Whether Respondent's license to practice medicine should be suspended, revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 450, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated March 1, 1984. The Amended Administrative Complaint in this proceeding alleges that Respondent, either individually or in concert with other attending physicians, ordered or prescribed certain nephrotoxic drugs to a patient who suffered from renal impairment, "that Respondent failed to appropriately monitor such medication or its effects," and that the patient suffered renal failure and vestibular and cochlear impairment. It is alleged in the complaint that Respondent therefore violated Section 458.331(1)(t) Florida Statutes, by committing gross or repeated malpractice or failure to practice medicine at an acceptable level of care, skill, and treatment. The complaint also alleges that Respondent altered patient records by inserting false laboratory reports, additional progress notes, and other additions, and failed to appropriately document the justification for the patient's course of treatment, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(i),(1), and Florida Statutes. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of 9 witnesses and submitted 7 exhibits in evidence. Respondent called 5 witnesses, and the parties stipulated to the expected testimony of Dr. Maynard Taylor. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner introduced into evidence a deposition of Respondent which was taken in a civil proceeding in the Pasco County Circuit Court to which Respondent was not a party, but which involved the same medical treatment provided to patient Michael Marotta that resulted in the Administrative Complaint herein. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) The Hearing Officer determined that any admissions made by the Respondent that are reflected in the deposition were admissible in this proceeding pursuant to Section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes. Petitioner submitted a posthearing list of purported admissions contained in the deposition, and Respondent filed a response thereto conceding that some of the statements by Respondent constituted admissions and that others did not. Those statements of Respondent which are deemed to constitute admissions are included in the following findings of fact. Petitioner also sought to have its Request for Admissions deemed admitted pursuant to Rule 1.370, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, due to Respondent's untimely response thereto. Respondent opposed Petitioner's request on the ground that his response was timely under the rules of discovery and, even if such rules were inapplicable in an administrative proceeding, he should be granted relief due to excusable neglect or inadvertence. Although Respondent's claims are not deemed meritorious, certain of the requests for admissions which were denied by Respondent were not in conformance with the evidence presented at the hearing. Those admissions which are properly considered to be within the scope of discovery requests are reflected in the following findings of fact. The proposed recommended orders filed by the parties have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary or irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact.Doctor made late additions to patient record that were misleading and deceptive. Doctor failed to keep medical records justifying his actions.