STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 78-0101
)
RAY E. GANS, D.C., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This case was heard in the offices of Horvath and Horvath, Court Reporters, 1124 Alfred I. Dupont Building, 169 East Flagler Street, Miami, Florida by Stephen F. Dean, assigned Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. This case was presented upon an administrative complaint containing thirty (30) counts filed by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners against Ray E. Gans. This administrative complaint alleged that Gans was guilty of violations of Section 460.13(3)(a)(n)(m)(h)(k)(d)(b), Section 500.16(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21D-1.02 and 1.04, Florida Administrative Code, through his acts as set forth in the administrative complaint served on the Respondent, Gans. These counts may be divided into two major groups. The first group includes counts one through three which relate to alleged irregularities of Dr. Gans' application for licensure and allegedly practicing prior to being licensed. The second group include counts four through thirty which generally involve Dr.
Gans' relationships with members of the International Association of Cancer Victims and Friends (IACVAF). The allegations of the second group relate specifically to Dr. Gans' relationships with Freda Breece, Susanna Top and her father, Daniel Beher, Sara Sanchez and Gladys Suggs. Evidence was presented on all of the allegations with the exception of Gladys Suggs. No substantial and competent evidence was introduced concerning any of the allegations related to Suggs, counts twenty-two through twenty-nine.
Because of the large number of counts involved in the administrative complaint, the recommended order will consider the findings of facts and conclusions of law related to each set of counts arising from a specific factual allegation.
COUNT I
Issue: Did Ray E. Gans acquire his licensee as a chiropractic physician in the State of Florida fraudulently?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Dr. Gans is a chiropractor licensed in Florida on the basis of examination.
Dr. Gans prepared and filed an application for examination and licensure with the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners.
Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Do you have a chiropractic license in any state?" by stating: "Ohio - Mechanotherapy."
The Ohio authorities recognized several professions whose functions would be included under the practice of chiropractic in Florida. Mechanotherapy generally would be limited to the practice of manipulation only.
Dr. Gans was licensed in Ohio as a mechanotherapist.
Dr. Gans answered the question on the application, "Have you ever been refused licensure in any state?" by stating, "No."
Dr. Gans had applied for, taken, and failed the Ohio chiropractic examination whereupon he was not issued a license as a chiropractor by the State of Ohio.
Dr. Gans was eligible to reapply to take the Ohio examination.
At the time of his application to Florida, Dr. Gans had appealed the determination by the Ohio authorities that he had failed the Ohio examination.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Violation of Section 460.13(3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires an intentional misrepresentation of a material fact bearing on one's licensure as a chiropractic physician in the State of Florida. The law is not designed to punish full disclosure. Dr. Gans replied to the question regarding his licensure in other states as fully as one could be expected to reply. He gave the state and nature of the license he held there. Had Dr. Gans answered the question in the affirmative and not fully explained he could have possibly been guilty of violating this provision. However, Dr. Gans did not indicate he was a chiropractor in Ohio. He stated he was a mechanotherapist in Ohio. Having made this statement on his application, it was then incumbent upon the Florida Board to determine what mechanotherapy was and determine the effects of such licensure on Dr. Gans' application in Florida.
Dr. Gans is also alleged to have violated this provision by the failure to disclose that he had been "refused" a license by Ohio. The facts reveal Dr. Gans was not granted a chiropractic license in Ohio because he failed that State examination for licensure. Dr. Gans was eligible to retake that examination. The question on the application would not elicit from a reasonable person a response regarding any jurisdictions in which the applicant had been "refused" licensure because the applicant had not passed an examination for licensure. Dr. Gans' response does not inherently indicate an intent to mislead or misinform the Florida Board. There is no independent evidence showing Dr. Gans sought to mislead or misinform the Board by his response to this question. In his response to the question addressed above, Dr. Gans put the Florida Board on notice of his professional association as a mechanotherapist in Ohio. Such a disclosure is inconsistent with an intent to "cover up" his failure to pass the Ohio examination. Further, failure of another State's examination is not a disqualification to sitting for the Florida examination, and licensure in another state is not a prerequisite for sitting for the Florida examination. Therefore, Dr. Gans' responses to both of these questions would be immaterial to consideration of his qualifications to sit for the Florida examination. The evidence presented fails to show by substantial and competent evidence that Ray
E. Gans acquired his license as a chiropractor in the State of Florida by fraud
and deception contrary to the provisions of Section 460.13(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
COUNTS 2 AND 3
Issue: Did Dr. Gans treat patients prior to being licensed by the Florida Board?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Dr. Gans was licensed as a chiropracter by the State of Florida in April, 1977.
The earliest evidence of Dr. Gans having practiced at North Krome Avenue shows that Dr. Gans was licensed.
Dr. Gans did associate with Dr. Wymer in February and March, 1977. This was an association in which Dr. Gans and Dr. Wymer agreed that Dr. Gans would not treat any patients.
The sum total of the evidence that Dr. Gans practiced chiropractic during this period was Dr. Wymer's opinion, based upon office records, that Dr. Gans had treated patients. Dr. Wymer had no personal knowledge of Dr. Gans treating any patients and was not the keeper of the records.
Dr. Wymer's clerical assistant, Joann Stein, kept the records upon which Dr. Wymer based his opinion and also functioned as an office assistant. She was familiar with Dr. Gan's work in the office. She testified, and her testimony was unrebutted, that Dr. Gans never performed any treatment of a patient but limited his activities to those which she and the other unlicensed staff had been authorized to do by Dr. Wymer. Ms. Stein also stated that the records did not reflect that Dr. Gans had treated any of the patients.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
There is no substantial and competent evidence that Dr. Gans practiced at North Krome Avenue prior to his licensure. Dr. Wymer's opinion that Dr. Gans practiced while he was associated with Dr. Wymer is based solely on his interpretation of the records. Dr. Wymer had no personal knowledge of Dr. Gans' activities and was not the keeper of the records. The actual keeper of those records stated that Dr. Gans did the same things that she and other unlicensed office staff were permitted to do by Dr. Wymer and that she was unaware of Dr. Gans having treated any patients.
The Board bears the burden of proving the allegations of the complaint. The Board has failed to produce substantial and competent evidence that Dr. Gans practiced chiropractic while associated with Dr. Wymer prior to licensure.
COUNTS 10 THROUGH 13
Issue: Did Dr. Gans treat a diagnosed cancer patient? Did Dr. Gans represent that he was authorized to treat patients by the use of laetrile?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Dr. Gans saw Daniel Beher, who was a diagnosed cancer patient, in his office. Beher had elected not to receive traditional medical treatment for the disease upon being diagnosed as having cancer. Beher was brought to Dr. Gans' office by Beher' daughter, Susanna Top, who is president of IACVAF. Dr. Gans examined Beher and took a blood sample. As a result of the examination, Dr. Gans suggested that Beher might benefit from the use of a rectal lubricant and gave his daughter a quantity for her father to use. This was the only time Dr. Gans saw Beher.
Subsequently, Dr. Gans saw Susanna Top at an IACVAF function. Top expressed her concern over her being at this function while her father was so ill. In the ensuing discussion of Beher's failing condition, Dr. Gans suggested that Beher might be helped by an injection of laetrile directly into his tumor. Dr. Gans did not imply, for did Top understand that Gans was offering to treat Beher or prescribing such injections for him.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Rule 21D-1.02, Florida Administrative Code, prohibits the treatment of cancer by chiropractic physicians. The Rule does not prohibit the treatment of cancer patients for conditions related to the disease.
There is no evidence that Dr. Gans treated Beher beyond the suggestion that Beher use a rectal lubricant. This is not chiropractic treatment for cancer. Similarly, Section 460.13 (2), Florida Statutes, permits a chiropractor to take blood samples. Blood tests are a diagnostic tool, not a treatment. There is no evidence that this was an unreasonable diagnostic test to run on Beher. Top's testimony indicated that her father did not desire traditional treatment for cancer. Dr. Gans' action in examining Beher, in the absence of any evidence showing Dr. Gans undertook to treat Beher's cancer, is not a violation of Rule 21D-1.02 or Section 460.13(3)(h) or (m), Florida Statutes.
Dr. Gans' comments to Susanna Top at the meeting of the IACVAF were not an offer to treat or prescribe. Top did not understand them to be such. Such comments made out of the context of a patient-doctor relationship do not constitute a violation of the Rule and Statutes cited above.
COUNTS 14 THROUGH 16
Issue: Did Dr. Gans advise Sara Sanchez that she had a "65 percent cellular indication of cancer" based on a blood test he had performed on her? Did Dr. Gems recommend that Sara Sanchez take laetrile to treat her condition?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Dr. Gans gave Sara Sanchez a blood test an subsequently explained that test to her and Freda Breece, who accompanied Sanchez because Sanchez's english was not good and she was afraid. There is a conflict in the testimony between what Breece said Dr. Gans told Sanchez and what Sanchez said Dr. Gans told her regarding the results of blood tests and his suggested treatment.
Sanchez testified that Dr. Gans told her that she had a 65 percent chance of having cancer cells based on her blood test. Freda Breece testified that Dr. Gans stated that Sanchez had an elevated LDH level, that LDH was an
indication of cellular activity, and that an elevated LDH level could indicate cancer.
Although Dr. Ronald Harris expressed his expert opinion that Sanchez's test did not show any indication of cancer, Dr. Harris did not state whether a radically elevated LDH would or would not indicate cancer. Dr. Harris explained that LDH was a test relating to metabolism and that Sanchez's specific results did not indicate any cancer because her level was only slightly elevated.
From the context in which Dr. Gans made his statement, it is impossible to determine whether his reference was a general one concerning the significance of LDH level or one relating specifically to Sanchez's test results.
Sanchez testified that D. Gans recommended that she take laetrile. Breece's testimony contains no reference to Dr. Gans prescribing laetrile for Sanchez.
Based on the testimony of Gans, Sanchez, Breece, and Harris, the findings are that Dr. Gans did not diagnose any cancer in Sanchez and did not state that Sanchez had a 65 percent cellular indication of cancer. Dr. Gans did explain that Sanchez had an elevated LDH and that an elevated LDH was a sign of cellular activity (metabolism), and that it could indicate cancer. Dr. Gans told Sanchez that he could not tell her whether she had cancer based on his test and examination.
Dr. Harris explained that chiropractic physicians have both authority to and an obligation to diagnose cancer although they may not treat it.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Dr. Gans is charged with violation of Section 460.13 (3)(h)(m), Florida Statutes. The facts show that Dr. Gan did not perform any unauthorized treatment of Sanchez or prescribe any medications for her. The only testimony regarding the use of laetrile came from Sanchez, who by her own admission took Freda Breece with her because of her own poor english. Breece, who was intensely interested in laetrile treatment, made no reference to Dr. Gans having prescribed laetrile for Sanchez.
The only remaining allegation relates to Dr. Gans' comments regarding a high LDH indicating cancer. In the context in which the statement was made, it cannot be determined whether Dr. Gans was referring to the general significance of LDH testing or Sanchez's test results. In addition, Dr. Gans was authorized to take blood tests and to diagnose cancer. His attempt to do so, even if it were negligent, does not constitute a violation of Section 460.13(3)(h)(m), as alleged. There is no substantial and competent evidence that Dr. Gans violated the statue cited above.
COUNTS 22 THROUGH 29
No substantial and competent evidence was presented by the Board relating to these counts. As a result, no issues relating to these counts were raised. The Board has the burden to present evidence to support its allegations. There having been no evidence presented, these allegations were not proven.
COUNTS 4 THROUGH 9 AND 17 THROUGH 21
These counts are discussed together because all relate to Dr. Gans and his interaction with various members of IACVAF. The following issues were presented:
Counts 4 and 5: Did Dr. Gans hold out that he was authorized to and would treat cancer patients?
Counts 6 and- 7: Did Dr. Gans represent that he was an osteomechanica in Ohio which was the same as an osteopath in Florida?
Counts 8 and 9 : Did Dr. Gans hold out that he had special knowledge and expertise relating to laetrile treatment, particularly that he had practiced with an expert in the field?
Counts 17, 18 and 19: Did Dr. Gans attempt to engage Freda Breece to act as an agent to solicit patients for nutritional, acupuncture, and laetrile treatment?
Count 20: Did Dr. Gans represent that he was authorized to treat by acupuncture when he was not authorized to treat by acupuncture?
Count 21: Did Dr. Gans deliver to Freda Breece a syringe which she represented contained laetrile, krebiozen, and pangamic acid?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Dr. Gans moved to Ft. Lauderdale, Florida from Ohio and established a chiropractic practice in April, 1977.
Subsequently, Dr. Gans who was a distributor for a particular brand of vitamins, contacted Grace Webb concerning sales of vitamins to members of an organization to which she was affiliated, IACVAF.
During their conversation, Webb discovered that Dr. Gans was an advocate of laetrile treatment, although there were no representations made by Dr. Gans that he was authorized to treat patients with this drug, treatment with which was illegal at that time. Because Webb was no longer an officer in IACVAF she referred Dr. Gans to Freda Breece, Vice President of that group. Webb called Breece to tell her about Dr. Gans.
Dr. Gans then contacted Freda Breece concerning the sale of vitamins. Dr. Gans introduced himself as a chiropractor and machanotherapist, a license be held in Ohio. Dr. Gans compared mechanotherapy in Ohio to osteopathy in Florida; however, Dr. Gans did not say he was authorized to practice as an osteopath or mechanotherapist in Florida. Again the subject of conversation turned to laetrile. Dr. Gans indicated that he was knowledgeable of the research that had been done with laetrile and was an advocate of laetrile treatment. As a result of their conversation, Breece called Susanna Top, President of IACVAF, and told her that she thought she had found the person for whom they had been looking. She encouraged Top to have Dr. Gans address a meeting of the IACVAF. This was arranged and Dr. Gans spoke to the group on or about June 25, 1977.
Dr. Gans gave a fairly standard talk which he had developed on nutrition and the value of good nutrition to one's health. Dr. Gans stressed
the consumption of natural foods and vitamins. There is no evidence that Dr. Gans sought to sell his vitamins or tendered any such product for sale in his lecture. Dr. Gans and Grace Webb testified that the talk was primarily about nutrition.
The IACVAF is an organization formed by persons who support non- traditional forms of treatment of cancer to include laetrile. This organization lobbied in favor of the legalization of such treatment and sought supplies of laetrile and sources of treatment for its members and others prior to its legalization.
At the conclusion of his presentation questions regarding laetrile were raised by many of the people present. Dr. Gans stated his opinion in favor of laetrile treatment. There was intense interest in laetrile by the members of this particular group. Dr. Gans answered these questions and in the process represented that he had worked at Ernesto Contretas' Clinic in Mexico. Gans had "worked" there; however, not as a doctor but as an air ambulance pilot. Dr. Gans had carried cancer patients to the clinic and while there sought to inform himself as to the research being done there. Dr. Gans also stated that he was familiar with the laetrile treatment which he was through reading various reports on it. Dr. Gans stated he knew a person who had already obtained a million dollars worth of laetrile for release when the drug became legal.
Dr. Gans did not represent that he was authorized to treat with laetrile, he did not prescribe laetrile, and did not offer to obtain laetrile for them; however, because of his representations and advocacy of such treatment, which was then illegal, many of those present assumed he could and would obtain laetrile for them and assist in laetrile treatment.
There is no indication that Dr. Gans intended to create this impression, but he took advantage of their assumptions in an attempt to create a market for his vitamins and health services through his chiropractic clinic.
After this first meeting, several other meetings occurred between Breece, Gans and other members of the group. One meeting occurred between Dr. Orfas, a naturopath, and Dr. Gans. The purpose of this meeting was for Dr. Orfas to assess Dr. Gans knowledgeability of laetrile treatment. Dr. Gans' expertise satisfied Dr. Orfas. The supply of laetrile which Dr. Gans knew about was discussed. Dr. Gans advised Dr. Orfas that the medication which he knew about was in 2cc. disposable syringes and was a combination of laetrile, krebiozen and pangamic acid. Dr. Orfas was concerned about this representation since it was unusual to find laetrile in other than 10cc. vials and the drugs krebiozen and laetrile were not compatible in solution. The doctors discussed potential testing of the drug to evaluate what medications were contained within these syringes.
Another meeting occurred between Dr. Gans and Breece when she accompanied Sara Sanchez to Dr. Gans' office. Breece accompanied Sanchez to Dr. Gans office to assist Sanchez, and to have an opportunity to speak with Gans about laetrile. Both Breece and Sanchez knew that Dr. Gans was a practicing chiropractic physician. After Dr. Gans had examined Sanchez, Breece asked him straight out if he could supply them laetrile. According to Breece, Dr. Gans delivered to her a syringe which Gans said contained laetrile, Krebiozen and pangamic acid. Dr. Gans did not charge for this medication and the purpose for giving it to Breece was to have the drug tested to determine whether the supply of the drug to which Dr. Gans had access was good. This was consistent with the plans and discussions made by Dr. Orfas, Dr. Gans and Breece at their earlier
meeting. Breece was to take the syringe and have it analyzed; however, the organization lacked finds to have the drug analyzed and this was not done.
In the course of his conversations with Breece, Dr. Gans stated he would not administer the drug nor would he prescribe the drug for anyone. His refusal was based upon his knowledge that treating cancer patients and treatment with laetrile were illegal. However, Dr. Gans stated that he would provide vitamins and chiropractic treatment to include acupuncture and blood testing through his clinic to persons referred by Breece. He suggested that if Greece referred these patients to his clinic he would pay the IACVAF one dollar of every twenty dollars he received. This would be a contribution to the organization's operating budget. Breece refused to do this although she continued her efforts to obtain laetrile from Dr. Gans.
Although Dr. Gans was not qualified in acupuncture other associates at his clinic were qualified in this area.
No laetrile was ever delivered and no treatments were rendered as a result of Dr. Gans association with the IACVAF. This was because Breece became disenchanted with Dr. Gans when he failed to recognize certain laetrile "experts" who attended an IACVAF meeting with whom Gans had lead Breece to believe that he had worked and was familiar. Breece became suspicious of Dr. Gans and subsequently filed a complaint with the Board of Chiropractic Examiners.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Dr. Gan is charged on the facts above with violation of Section 460.13(3)(d)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, and with violation of Section 21D-
1.02 and 1.04, Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, Dr. Gans is charged with attempting to engage Breece as an agent for solicitation of patients, representing that he was authorized to treat cancer patients and to administer acupuncture to patients, delivering a syringe to Breece which she represented contained laetrile, representing that he was an osteomechanica or a mechanotherapist in Ohio which was the same thing as an osteopath in Florida, and representing that he had special knowledge and associations with experts in the field of laetrile treatment.
Looking at the facts, Dr. Gans did not suggest that he could treat with acupuncture. Dr. Gans offered the services of his clinic to members of IACVAF and those referred by them. Members of his clinical staff were qualified to administer acupuncture treatment. This does not constitute a violation of Rule 21D-1.04 and Sections 460.13(3)(h)(m), Florida Statutes.
Concerning the allegations that he gave a syringe of laetrile to Breece, the very purpose of giving her the syringe was to have the contents tested to determine what they were. It would be natural for Dr. Gans to state what was supposed to be in the syringe upon delivering it to Breece. His statement was not an assertion made to mislead her. Dr. Gans had previously expressed his interest in the nature and quality of the drugs to which he had access. Under the circumstances, Dr. Gans could not misrepresent the contents as alleged in the complaint because his delivery for testing inherently expressed his doubts as to the contents. The test was never conducted. Therefore no evidence exist as to the actual contents of the syringe. On the basis of the evidence presented, there is no evidence that Gans' delivery of the syringe to Breece constituted a violation of Section 460.13(3)(h)(m), Florida
Statutes. Neither is there proof of a violation of Section 500.16, Florida Statutes.
Dr. Gans did represent an association Contreras Clinic; however, Dr. Gans had had an association with the clinic as an air ambulance pilot. He was familiar with Contreras' work as a result of his studies of the literature on laetrile. The record does not reflect the exact nature of his representations concerning his associations with the Contreras Clinic with the exception of the representations made to Dr. Orfas. Dr. Gans told Dr. Orfas he was an orderly at Contreras Clinic. The charge here is fraud or misrepresentation. Fraud and misrepresentation relate to material misrepresentations. Dr. Orfas did not depend on Dr. Gans' reported experience as an orderly in assessing Dr. Gans' expertise. There is no evidence that Dr. Gans was not knowledgeable of laetrile treatment. There is no evidence of Dr. Gans' actual statements made to members of IACVAF. This coupled with the fact that Dr. Gans had been to the clinic and was familiar with their operation creates doubt as to whether Gans actually misrepresented his association with the clinic to members of IACVAF other than Dr. Orfas. His representation to Dr. Orfas was not material to Dr. Orfas' assessment of Dr. Gans' expertise. Therefore the evidence does not support allegation that Dr. Gans is guilty of Section 460.13(3)(h)(m) Florida Statutes.
The testimony is uniform that Dr. Gans compared his licensure in Ohio as a mechanotherapist with the function of an osteopath in Florida. The function of a methanotherapist in Ohio and those of an osteopath in Florida are radically different. The mechanotherapist in Florida is not authorized to render the treatment which a chiropractor in Florida could render. An osteopath in Florida may perform the same functions as a medical doctor. This was a misrepresentation of the law which was or should have been within Dr. Gans' knowledge. This representation gave greater credibility to his representations and opinions concerning laetrile treatment. Considering the fact that this representation was made to Breece, and later to members of the IACVAF, there is a showing of an intent to mislead the persons to whom the representation was made as to his credentials. This constitutes a violation of Section 460.13(3)(m), Florida Statutes.
Dr. Gans did seek to get Breece to refer patients to his clinic. This was the motive for Dr. Gans offering to work with IACVAF and his offer to pay them a portion of the income derived from such referrals. This conduct is specifically prohibited by Section 460.13(3)(d), Florida Statutes.
Dr. Gans' conduct, taken as a whole, indicates a scheme to benefit himself through offering to provide service to cancer patients who had elected non-traditional treatment. This was to be done in such a manner to circumvent the provisions of Section 21D-1.02, Florida Administrative Code. By advocating laetrile treatment, attempting to provide laetrile to the IACVAF, and by offering to provide chiropractic services, Dr. Gans gave the impression that he would treat with laetrile when in fact he would not treat patients, inspite of the fact he never expressly stated he would do so. This is unprofessional conduct because it gave the potential patient the impression that Dr. Gans assumed responsibility for their treatment when in actuality he was not qualified nor authorized to do so. Dispite his statements that he would not treat cancer but only provide chiropractic treatment, his entire course of conduct leading up to his request of Breece to refer patients constitutes a violation of Section 460.13(3)(m) Florida Statutes. This course of conduct and the violations indicated above reflect adversely on the good moral character of Dr. Gans to the extent that he is in violation of Section 460.13(3)(b) Florida Statutes.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners revoke the license of Ray E. Gans.
DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 1978 in Tallahassee, Florida.
STEPHEN F. DEAN
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings
530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
COPIES FURNISHED:
John R. Sutton, Esquire
250 Bird Road, Suite 310 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Paul Lambert, Esquire
1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
C. A. Hartley, Director Florida State Board of
Chiropractic Examiners Suite 202, Building B 6501 Arlington Expressway
Jacksonville, Florida 32211
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 29, 1978 | Final Order filed. |
| Oct. 02, 1978 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 28, 1978 | Agency Final Order | |
| Oct. 02, 1978 | Recommended Order | Respondent entered into a scheme to benefit himself by defrauding patients who elected non-traditional cancer therapies. Revoke. |
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs ROBERTO JOSE CALDERON, M.D., 78-000101 (1978)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs NANJUNDA SWAMY, M.D., 78-000101 (1978)
KEN ALLAN NIEBRUGGE vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 78-000101 (1978)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs TAMARA LIOR, M.D., 78-000101 (1978)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs ABBAS SHARIAT, M.D., 78-000101 (1978)
