The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.Clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed a record-keeping violation and made deceptive or untrue representations in or related to the practice of medicine. Recommend letter of concern, $5,000 fine, and continuing education.

The ultimate issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs in an amount not exceeding $50,000 pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Because it is undisputed that Petitioner is a "small business party" who prevailed in a previous administrative proceeding initiated by Respondent, he is entitled to such an award unless Respondent's decision to prosecute an administrative complaint against Petitioner was substantially justified.Respondent was substantially justified in bringing disciplinary proceeding against Petitioner, precluding an award of attorney's fees and costs.

The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be disciplined for being terminated from a treatment program for impaired practitioners by the Physician's Resource Network.DOH proved that impaired physician was terminated from PRN monitoring contract for non-compliance without good cause.

Did Respondent, James Sotrop, M.D. (Dr. Sotrop), violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007),1/ by committing medical malpractice by failing to adequately assess patient P.A.'s complaints and symptoms? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by committing medical malpractice by failing to order diagnostic imaging studies and laboratory tests for P.A.? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by committing medical malpractice by failing to document a complete patient history and physical examination? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by committing medical malpractice by failing to immediately refer P.A. to the emergency department of a hospital on January 14, 2007? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes by committing medical malpractice by failing to refer P.A. for specialized consultations? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes by committing medical malpractice by making an inappropriate diagnosis of P.A.'s condition? Did the Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), fail to properly notify Dr. Sotrop of its investigation and provide an opportunity to respond to the allegations before determining probable cause? If so, do sections 456.073(1) and 458.331(9), Florida Statutes, require dismissal of the complaint?2/Failure to keep adequate or accurate records is not medical malpractice as prohibitted by section 458.331(1)(t). Department of Health failed to prove medical malpractice by failing to prove the applicable standard of care or violation of it.

Count One. Whether Dr. Gillis violated section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) in one or more of the following ways: a. By failing to perform or document performing a complete physical exam of R.S.; b. By failing to explore or document exploring other treatment modalities or rehabilitation for R.S.; c. By failing to obtain or document obtaining a complete medical history of R.S.; d. By failing to document the nature or intensity of R.S.'s pain; e. By failing to document the current or past treatments of R.S.'s pain; f. By failing to document information on the effect of pain on R.S.'s physical or psychological function; g. By failing to develop or document developing a treatment plan for R.S.; and h. By failing to determine or document determining if there were any underlying or coexisting diseases or conditions for R.S. Count Two. Whether Dr. Gillis violated sections 458.331(1)(nn) and 458.326 in one or more of the following ways: a. By failing to diagnose R.S. with intractable pain prior to prescribing controlled substances, i.e., Percocet; b. By prescribing 90 tablets of Percocet 10/325 to R.S. without justification; c. By prescribing Percocet to R.S. without exploring other treatment modalities or rehabilitation; and d. By inappropriately prescribing Percocet to R.S. after R.S. reported that he was not currently being treated for pain. Count Three. Whether Dr. Gillis failed to keep legible medical records justifying the course of treatment for R.S. in one or more of the following ways: a. By failing to document justification for prescribing Percocet to R.S.; b. By failing to document a complete physical examination of R.S. prior to prescribing Percocet; c. By failing to document a complete medical history of R.S. prior to prescribing a controlled substance; d. By failing to document a urine screen on R.S.; and e. By failing to document a diagnosis of intractable pain for R.S. Count Four. Whether Dr. Gillis violated sections 458.331(1)(nn) and 458.326 in one or more of the following ways: a. By failing to perform or document performing a complete physical examination of D.H. on either of two visits; b. By failing to obtain or document obtaining a complete medical history on D.H.; c. By failing to explore or document exploring other treatment modalities or rehabilitation for D.H.; d. By failing to document the nature or intensity of D.H.'s pain; e. By failing to document the current or past treatments of D.H.'s pain; f. By failing to document information on the effect of pain on D.H.'s physical or psychological function; g. By failing to develop or document a treatment plan for D.H.; and h. By failing to determine or document determining if there were any underlying or coexisting diseases or conditions for D.H. Count Five. Whether Dr. Gillis violated sections 458.331(1)(nn) and 458.326 in one or more of the following ways: a. By failing to diagnose D.H. with intractable pain prior to prescribing a controlled substance, i.e., oxycodone; b. By prescribing 120 tablets of 30 mg oxycodone without justification; c. By prescribing 120 tablets of 30 mg oxycodone prior to exploring other treatment modalities or rehabilitation for D.H.; and d. By prescribing oxycodone to D.H. after D.H. reported that he was not experiencing any pain. Count Six. Whether Dr. Gillis failed to keep legible medical records justifying the course of treatment for D.H. in one or more of the following ways: a. By failing to document justification for prescribing 120 tablets of 30 mg oxycodone; b. By failing to document a complete physical examination of D.H. prior to prescribing a controlled substance; c. By failing to document a complete medical history of D.H.; d. By failing to document urine drug screening of D.H. prior to prescribing a controlled substance; and e. By failing to document a diagnosis of intractable pain for D.H. prior to prescribing a controlled substance.Dr. Gillis failed to properly diagnose, treat, and medicate patients; recommend suspension of license and payment of costs and fees.

Count One. Whether Respondent, Jacinta Irene Gillis, M.D. (hereinafter referred to herein as "Dr. Gillis"), violated sections 458.331(1)(nn) and 458.326, Florida Statutes (2008 and 2009), by: a. Failing to diagnose patient M.G. with intractable pain prior to prescribing a controlled substance under Schedules II-V, as provided in section 893.03, from on or about December 19, 2008 through December 30, 2009; b. By inappropriately or excessively prescribing potentially lethal, highly abused, controlled substances, to wit: oxycodone, oxycontin, Percocet, and Valium, to M.G. without justification during the same time period; c. By inappropriately or excessively prescribing controlled substances to M.G. prior to exploring other treatment modalities or rehabilitation; and d. By failing to order a urine drug screen on M.G. at any time during her course of treatment. Count Two. Whether Dr. Gillis failed to keep legible medical records justifying the course of treatment for M.G. in one or more of the following ways: a. By failing to document justification for inappropriately or excessively prescribing controlled substances during her course of treatment; and b. By failing to document justification for not ordering a urine drug screen during the course of treatment. Count Three. Whether Dr. Gillis failed to meet the required standard of care in regards to her treatment of M.G. in one or more of the following ways: a. By inappropriately or excessively prescribing controlled substances without justification; b. By failing to confirm whether M.G. presented to a psychiatrist or psychologist after the initial referral by Dr. Gillis; c. By failing to order a urine drug screening of M.G. during her course of treatment; and d. By inappropriately or excessively prescribing controlled substances prior to exploring other modalities or rehabilitation. Count Four. Whether Dr. Gillis prescribed controlled substances, other than in the course of her professional practice, by prescribing controlled substances inappropriately or excessively in one or more of the following ways: a. By inappropriately or excessively prescribing controlled substances prior to exploring other treatment modalities or rehabilitation for M.G.; b. By inappropriately or excessively prescribing controlled substances without ordering a urine drug screening for M.G.; and c. By inappropriately or excessively prescribing controlled substances to M.G. without justification.Dr. Gillis failed to properly diagnose, treat, and medicate patients; recommend suspension of license and payment of costs and fees.

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a physician, failed to adhere to the applicable level of care in prescribing controlled substances; failed to follow standards for the use of controlled substances for the treatment of pain; and failed to keep legible medical records justifying the course of a patient's treatment; if so, whether Petitioner should impose discipline on Respondent's medical license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.Respondent was not shown to have violated the applicable level of care in prescribing controlled substances, or to have failed to follow the applicable practice standards, but he failed to keep legible medical records, warranting disciplinary action.

The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of: 1) failing to practice medicine within the applicable standard of care, as required by section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by inappropriately and excessively prescribing one or more controlled substances and 2) failing to keep medical records that justify the course of treatment for prescribing one or more controlled substances, as required by section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to document patient histories, examination results, test results, results of drugs prescribed, dispensed or administered, or reports of consultations or hospitalizations, or failing to justify the amount and dosage of pills prescribed.Discipline for 9 counts of medical-records violations and 4 counts of standard-of-care violations by physician prescribing opioids for treatment of pain.

The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, committed medical malpractice in delivering a baby and/or failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of the mother's treatment; if so, whether Petitioner should impose discipline on Respondent's medical license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.Respondent neither committed medical malpractice in delivering a baby nor failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of the mother's treatment.

The issues in this case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.The evidence fails to establish that Respondent committed sexual misconduct.