STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD ) OF MEDICINE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) DOAH CASE NO. 87-2285

) DPR CASE NO. 0049540

KEVIN M. TRAYNOR, M.D. )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Notice was provided and on November 4, 1987, in Jacksonville, Florida, a formal hearing was conducted in this cause under the authority of Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Charles C. Adams was the Hearing Officer. This recommended order is being entered following the receipt and review of the transcript of proceedings and exhibits. Consideration has also been given to the proposed recommended orders offered by the parties, the last of which was filed on December 8, 1987. To the extent that the factual proposals do not coincide with the facts found in this recommended order, they are distinguished in an appendix to the recommended order.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire

Senior Attorney

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

For Respondent: S. Gordon Blalock, Esquire

Independence Square, Suite 2301 Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5059

ISSUES

The issues for consideration in this case are those promoted by an administrative complaint in which the Petitioner has accused the Respondent of violating certain provisions within Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes, pertaining to licensure. This relates to the contention by Petitioner that Respondent has obtained his license to practice medicine in Florida by fraudulent means. These allegations are more completely described in the conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is a licensed physician having been issued license number ME0043541.

   
   

2. On or about September 9, 1983, Respondent submitted an application to the Board of Medical Examiners, now known as the Board of Medicine, seeking a license to practice medicine in Florida. This request was for licensure by endorsement.

   
   

3. On the form application there is a section which refers to the applicant's medical education. It instructs the applicant to be specific and account for each year of the medical education calling upon the applicant to give the name of the medical school and the location. In response to this requirement, Respondent indicated that he attended the Universidad del Noreste in Tampico, Mexico, from July, 1977 to May, 1978; from July, 1978 to May, 1979 and from June, 1979 until May, 1980. He further stated that he attended Universidad Cetec, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, from June, 1980 until May, 1981 and received a degree of doctor of medicine from that university on June 8, 1981.

   
   

4. In submitting the application for licensure by endorsement, he did so under oath and in the course of signing the application he acknowledged the following in his affidavit and oath:

   
   

   "I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservation of any kind, and I declare under penalty of perjury that my answers and all statements made by me herein are true and correct. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such action shall constitute cause for the denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Florida.

   
   

5. As part of the application process, Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director to the Board of Medical Examiners, sent a letter to Dr. Traynor on September 30, 1983, requesting additional information. The text of that letter was as follows:

   
   

   Dear Dr. Traynor:

   
   

   With further reference to your application for licensure in Florida by you are required to provide to this office, in the form of an affidavit, a narrative report on

   all your activities relating to your medical education beginning with date of enrollment in medical school. Such report should include, but not be limited to, all classes attended (dates and name and location of institution) which were not conducted at the main teaching hospital of the medical school from which you received a medical diploma.

   You are also required to complete the enclosed form, providing additional information regarding your medical education and places of residence while in medical training.

   
   

   Upon receipt of the above requested material, you may be required to make a personal appearance before the Board for consideration of your application.

   
   

6. The form referred to in the second paragraph of the correspondence from Ms. Faircloth is the form entitled: Attachment for Application for Licensure. Within that form it asks that the applicant "list all places of residence during medical school." This is broken down into various lines on the form requiring the applicant to state the city, state or country and the various period in which he resided in those places. A copy of the executed form offered by the Respondent on October 7, 1983 may be found as a part of Petitioner's composite exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. In the course of describing his residence, he refers to Tampico, Mexico in the period August, 1977 through July, 1978; August, 1978 through July, 1979 and August, 1979 through July, 1980. He then describes his place of residence during medical school as being Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, in the period July, 1980 through June, 1981.

   
   

7. The attachment for application for licensure form then has a section which states "Medical Education: be specific. Account for each year. List all universities or colleges where you attended classes and received training as a medical student." In response to this request, the Respondent provided the same information which he had given in his initial endorsement application form described before. In swearing to the accuracy of those matters set forth in the Attachment for Application for Licensure offered on October 7, 1983, Respondent gave the same oath as related to the endorsement application form acknowledging the possibility of denial, suspension or revocation of any license which was received by the giving of false information.

   
   

8. In reply to the first paragraph of the September 30, 1983 correspondence from Ms. Faircloth, Respondent offered a document entitled "Clinical Training." A copy of that document may be found as part of Petitioner's composite exhibit 5. That document states:

   
   

   CLINICAL TRAINING Kevin M. Traynor

   
   

   Aug. '77 - July '79: Basic science courses at Del Noreste; Tampico, Mexico

   
   

   August - Dec. '79: Del Noreste Hospital,

   Tampico, Mexico

   1. Pulmonary

   2. Ear, nose & throat

   3. Cardiology

   4. Ophthalmology

      
      

      Jan. - June '80: Del Noreste Hospital;

      Tampico, Mexico

      1. Traumatology (orthopedics)

      2. Forensic medicine

      3. Gastroenterology

      4. Dermatology

      
      

      July - Dec. '80: University Hospital; Cetec School of Medicine, Santo Domingo,

      Dominican Republic

      1. Neurology

      2. Infectious disease

      3. Endocrinology

      4. General surgery

      
      

      Jan. - June '81: University Hospital; Uni- versity Cetec School of Medicine, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic

      1. Psychiatry

      2. Internal medicine

      3. OB-GYN

      4. Pediatrics

      
      

9. By the representations set forth in the statement of clinical training which were made by the Respondent, the impression is given that all of his activities related to his medical education from the point of enrollment to the completion of his medical school training were conducted at the Universidad del Noreste and University Cetec and the hospitals affiliated with those institutions. Given that the Respondent is silent on other activities outside those settings, a reading of his explanation leads one to believe that he had no such activities. This is not a true depiction of his training in medical school. In this respect, the Respondent has misled the Florida Board of Medical Examiners in that the vast majority of clinical rotations which the Respondent participated in during his medical school education occurred during externships in the United States.

   
   

10. In addition, Respondent, in his comments in the endorsement application form and in the Attachment for Application for Licensure form, has misled the Board of Medical Examiners by describing his residence in medical school as Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, in the period July, 1980 through June, 1981. He was not residing in the Dominican Republic until January, 1981. Respondent's domicile or official residence was in Tampico, Mexico, until the end of 1980. Respondent did not receive medical education in the sense of attending classes and receiving training as a medical student in affiliation with the Universidad Cetec until January, 1981. This is contrary to his representations about residence and medical education in which he describes his association with Universidad Cetec dating from July, 1980.

    
    

11. Respondent had made an inquiry about being admitted to Universidad Cetec in December, 1980, and was given the impression that that request would be approved. Respondent's official acceptance by Universidad Cetec occurred on January 8, 1981.

    
    

12. In referring to the activities related to medical education spoken to in the September 30, 1983 correspondence from Ms. Faircloth, the records reveal that Respondent did externship at St. Francis Hospital in Miami Beach, Florida from July 9, 1975 through November 20, 1979. He further did externship at Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center in Brooklyn, New York, from January, 1980 through May, 1980, rotations involving medicine, pediatrics and surgery. In that same institution from June 30, 1980 through July 13, 1980, Respondent did a rotation in neurology. In the period July, 1980 through December, 1980,

    Respondent performed unofficial and uncredited externship at Kingsbrook. All of these activities occurred under the aegis of his status as a medical student at Universidad del Noreste.

    
    

13. In the period February, 1981 through May, 1981, while at Universidad Cetec, Respondent did an externship at Brookdale Hospital Medical Center in New York in hematology and renal and electrolytes. In April, 1981, as an extern at Nassau County Medical Center in East Meadow, New York, Respondent performed a clerkship in urology.

    
    

14. Under the circumstances in examining the places of residence during medical school, while Respondent may have been in official residence in Mexico and the Dominican Republic, his actual residence was in various locations within the United States in the periods described in the preceding paragraphs.

    
    

15. Following his graduation, Respondent also participated in training programs at Brookdale Hospital Medical Center related to an elective in emergency services from the period August 10, 1981 through September 4, 1981. He performed an elective in the period September, 1981 through October, 1981 in the Division of Pulmonary Medicine at the Down State Medical Center which is affiliated with the Department of Medicine, AIE University of New York. From 1981 through June, 1984, Respondent was involved in an internal medicine residency at Jersey Shore Medical Center/Fitken Hospital in Neptune, New Jersey.

    Beginning in 1984 through June, 1986, Respondent completed a cardiology fellowship program in Jacksonville, Florida, at the University Hospital which is part of JHEP, a training program associated with the University of Florida medical school.

    
    

16. In explaining why he has reported his residence in his medical education as commencing in July, 1980 at Universidad Cetec, Respondent indicates that he had been told by the dean of the medical school at Cetec, upon his admission there, that his enrollment would be back-dated to the beginning of the fall semester, or June, 1980. To this end Respondent paid Universidad Cetec

    $2,500 which represented a tuition payment for the seventh semester running from approximately June, 1980 to December, 1980. This payment for back-dating and credit for the seventh semester was made on April 23, 1981. There is no indication that those records were back-dated to show acceptance of a seventh semester under association with Universidad Cetec. Respondent did not undertake any clinical training in that period which could be credited, with the exception of his urology clerkship at Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center in the period June 30, 1980 through July 13, 1980. He did not stand examination in any of the subject areas pertaining to his medical education in that seventh semester running from June, 1980 to December, 1980, having foregone the examination sessions given by Universidad del Noreste at the conclusion of that seventh semester.

    
    

17. In the final analysis, Respondent did not accomplish anything toward advancing his medical education in the seventh semester running from approximately June, 1980 through December, 1980 as recognized by either medical school which he attended.

    
    

18. There is evidence that part of the unofficial work done by the Petitioner in the fall of 1980 at Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center related to dermatology and E.R.

    
    

19. Even accepting the concept explained by the Respondent to the effect that both of the medical schools he attended would allow a student to stand

    examination in medical subjects at times not correlated with the performance of clinical clerkships, to the extent that the seventh semester unofficial clinical clerkships being performed are germane, they have not been credited. Respondent claims that the period from the end of the fall of 1980 was not crucial in that he had fulfilled enough weeks in clinical rotation to allow his graduation. In any event, Respondent did graduate, was certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, passed the FLEX examination and has been licensed in the states of Georgia and New Jersey.

    
    

20. In explaining his response to the requirements related to his application for licensure in Florida to practice medicine, Respondent indicates that he was of the persuasion that he need only provide information pertaining to his clinical training as credited by the two schools he attended. This is not a fair reading of the requirements expressed in the correspondence of September 30, 1983, in which all activities involving the medical education are sought. This contemplates that specific information as to the exact nature and location of the externship rotations performed in the United States should be explained. Respondent failed to do this and what he did offer by way of explanation is misleading in that clerkships are set forth pertaining to experience in the period July, 1980 through December, 1980 associated with the Universidad Cetec which did not occur at that time because the Respondent was not enrolled at Universidad Cetec during that period. In addition, the statement about clinical training given by the Respondent would have one believe that the training occurred in the affiliated hospitals associated with the two medical schools he attended which is erroneous. The clinical training statement by the Petitioner does not coincide with his actual clinical training, an example being that during the period January, 1980 through June, 1980 while affiliated with the Universidad del Noreste, he says that he received training in traumatology (orthopedics), forensic medicine, gastroenterology, and dermatology when in fact the training he was receiving at that time at Kingsbrook Jewish Medical Center was in the fields of medicine, pediatrics and surgery. It appears that Universidad del Noreste gave him credit for those subjects he relates, but this was not the clinical training he was undergoing in that time sequence. During the period July through December 1980 where he indicates that he received clinical training in neurology, infectious disease, endocrinology and general surgery, the only official training he received was in neurology.

    
    

21. It is debatable whether the requirements for establishing residence as described in the endorsement application form and the Attachment for Application for Licensure form sought the official residence, that is, his residence in the country where he attended medical school or the actual residence where externships were being performed as well as when he was actually at the university. In any event, if it was seeking the official residence, his information is misleading in that he describes his official residence as Santo Domingo in the period July, 1980 through December, 1980, when in fact his official residence was Tampico, Mexico.

    
    

22. Respondent was given his medical license by the State of Florida on December 5, 1983, based in part upon the information as set out in the endorsement application form, the Attachment for Application for Licensure form and the narrative on clinical training provided by the Respondent.

    
    

23. Before the occasion of the present administrative complaint, there is no indication that the Respondent has been disciplined by the State of Florida.

24. At present, Respondent is practicing medicine in Florida and is a resident of Stuart, Florida.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

25. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties too this action in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

26. Respondent is accused of violating Section 458.327(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1985). This provision makes it a felony of the third degree for a person to attempt to obtain or obtain a license to practice medicine by knowing misrepresentation. This provision does not confer jurisdiction upon the Petitioner to prosecute. That responsibility is left to the prosecutor in the criminal division of the circuit court within this state. Therefore, Respondent could not be found to have violated that provision. Also Section 458.327, Florida Statutes (1983), in effect at the time that the license was sought by the Respondent at Section 458.327(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1983), made it a misdemeanor to obtain a license to practice medicine by fraudulent misrepresentation, not a felony.

    
    

27. Respondent is said to have violated Section 458.331(1)(a), Florida Statutes, which deals with the attempt to obtain, obtaining or renewing of a license by fraudulent misrepresentations. Respondent is guilty of having obtained his license by fraudulent misrepresentations related to his residence and nature of his clinical training as to the place received and the particulars of that training. The evidence is clear and convincing that he knowingly and with intent misrepresented these matters and that this misinformation was relied upon by the licensing agency in its decision to license him. Consequently, he is subject to the discipline set forth in Section 458.331(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

28. Respondent is said to have violated Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, which provides for penalties to be assessed if the Respondent has violated provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, rules of the Board, lawful orders of the Board or Department of Professional Regulation that had been entered in a previous disciplinary hearing or failing to comply with a lawfully issued subpoena of the Department. The exact nature of this violation is related to reference to Section 458.327(1)(c), Florida Statutes, for reasons discussed before that violation cannot be found.

    
    

29. Respondent is said to have violated Section 455.227(1)(e), Florida Statutes. This affords grounds for discipline based upon obtaining a license by fraudulent or material misrepresentations of material fact. It allows for revocation, suspension and other discipline if it is determined that the Respondent violated that provision. The Respondent did violate the provision in that he obtained the license through fraud and material misrepresentation of material fact with knowledge and with intent to advance the misinformation.

    
    

30. Respondent is said to have violated Section 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1985), now Section 458.33(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), by failing to perform any statutory or legal obligations incumbent upon a licensed physician. This provision is said to relate to the need for providing accurate information in the application process. That facet of discipline is spoken to in those provisions that have been discussed dealing with obtaining a license by fraudulent means. Therefore, reference to Section 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1985), is not an appropriate basis for discipline in this instance.

Based upon the consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That a final order be entered which finds the Respondent guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(a) and 455.227(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and absolves the Respondent of violations pertaining to Sections 458.327(1)(c), 458.331(1)(x), and 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes. For these violations Respondent should be suspended for one (1) year, subject to being set aside if Respondent provides an acceptable amended application within the suspension period. In addition, Respondent should pay a $3,000 fine.

DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1988.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2285

Having considered the facts offered by the parties, the following findings are made concerning those fact proposals:

Petitioner's Facts

Paragraphs 1-16 are subordinate to facts found.

Paragraph 17 is not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are subordinate to facts found.

Respondent's Facts

Paragraphs by the Respondent are not numbered. Consequently, they are dealt with in sequence beginning with the first paragraph on page five.

The second paragraph related to previous training before medical school is not needed. The balance of that paragraph is subordinate to facts found.

Related to paragraph 3, there is no evidence 'pertaining to malpractice because there is no accusation of malpractice. On the subject that was in that paragraph concerning educational fitness to practice medicine, that is not a contingency set forth in the administrative complaint.

Paragraph 4 is a paraphrase of the Respondent's contentions by characterization of the nature of the administrative complaint and is not fact finding.

Paragraph 5 is contrary to facts found.

Paragraph 6 is not relevant in the sense that the collateral findings of the ECFMG or the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates are not controlling in this case.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Senior Attorney

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

S. Gordon Blalock, Esquire Suite 2301

Independence Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5059

William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

BEFORE THE BOARD OF MEDICINE

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Petitioner,

DPR CASE NO. 0049540

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 87-2285

LICENSE NO. ME 0043541

KEVIN MICHAEL TRAYNOR, M.D.,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

This cause came before the Board of Medicine (Board) pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)9., Florida Statutes on April 8, 1988 in Orlando, Florida, for the purpose of considering the hearing officer's Recommended Order, Respondent's Exceptions, and Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Exceptions (a copy of which are attached here to as Exhibits A, B, and C respectively) in the above- styled cause. Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, was represented by Stephanie A. Daniel, Attorney at Law. Respondent was present and represented by S. Gordon Blalock, Attorney at Law.

Upon review of the Recommended Order, the argument of the parties, and after a review of the complete record in this case, the Board makes the following findings and conclusions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order are approved and adopted and incorporated herein.

   
   

2. There is competent substantial evidence to support the findings of fact.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Board has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.

   
   

2. The conclusions of law set forth in paragraphs 1, 3, 5, and 6 of the Recommended Order are approved and adopted and incorporated herein.

   
   

3. The Board rejects paragraphs 2 and 4 of the conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order and adopts the following conclusion of law in lieu thereof:

   
   

   Respondent is accused of violating Section 458.327(1)(c), F.S. (1985).

   This provision makes it a felony of

   the third degree for a person to attempt to obtain or obtain a license to practice medicine by knowing misrepresentation.

   This provision, by itself, does not confer jurisdiction upon the Petitioner to prosecute a disciplinary violation. How- ever, when this provision is read in conjunction with Section 458.331(1)(x), F.S., which provides for penalties to be assessed if the Respondent violated provisions of Chapter 458, F.S., it is clear that the conduct is cognizable in

   a disciplinary action by the Petitioner

   and is punishable by the Board. However Section 458.327, F.S. (1983) in effect at the time

   that the license was sought by Respondent at Section 458.327(2)(c), F.S. (1983),

   made it a misdemeanor to obtain a license to practice medicine by fraudulent mis- representation, not a felony. Respondent has been proven guilty of attempting to

   obtain or obtaining a license to practice medicine by knowing misrepresentation.

   
   

4. There is competent substantial evidence to support the conclusions of law of the Board.

RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS

1. Reject; there is competent substantial evidence to support the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer.

   
   

2. Reject; there is competent substantial evidence to support the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer.

   
   

3. Reject; there is no evidence in the record to support the allegations of this exception.

   
   

4. Reject; the Board accepts and relies on the reasons stated by the Respondent in its Response to Petitioner's Exceptions.

   
   

5. Reject; the Board accepts and relies on the reasons stated by the Respondent in its Response to Petitioner's Exceptions. Furthermore, the Board strikes the letter referred to in this exception and references to it because they are outside the record in this cause.

   
   

6. Reject; the Board accepts and adopts the reasons stated by the Petitioner in its response to Respondent's Exception #6.

   
   

7. Reject; the Board accepts and adopts the reasons set forth by Petitioner in its response to Respondent's Exceptions.

Upon a complete review of the record in this case, the Board determines that the penalty recommended by the Hearing Officer be amended so as to stay the suspension recommended and, in lieu thereof, impose a term of probation.

The reasons for the change of penalty are that the Board believes that honesty in recordkeeping, particularly medical recordkeeping, is extremely important and that the penalty should reflect this fact. Respondent was shown in this record to have a lack of honesty in the application process and to have, in fact, conspired to conceal information from the Board.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT

1. Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of $3000 to the Executive Director within 30 days of the date this Final Order is filed.

   
   

2. Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is SUSPENDED for a period of one year; however, the suspension shall be stayed.

   
   

3. Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is placed on PROBATION for a period of 5 years, subject to the following terms and conditions:

   
   

   1. Respondent must submit a complete and accurate application to the Board office.

   2. Respondent shall comply with all state and federal statues, rules and regulations pertaining to the practice of medicine, including Chapters 455, 458, and 893, Florida Statutes, and Rules 21M, Florida Administrative Code.

      
      

   3. In the event Respondent leaves the State of Florida or the practice of medicine in Florida, for a period of thirty days or more, Respondent's probation shall be tolled and shall remain in a tolled status until Respondent returns to the State of Florida or to the practice of medicine, at which time the probationary status shall resume. Respondent must keep current residence and business addresses on file with the Board. Respondent shall notify the Board within ten (10) days of any changes of said addresses.

      
      

   4. During the next 5 years, Respondent shall perform 100 hours of community service per year. Community service shall consist of medical service without fee in a not-for-profit setting and outside Respondent's usual practice setting. Affidavits detailing the community service performed shall be filed with the Board as part of Respondent's quarterly reports.

      
      

   5. Respondent shall submit quarterly reports in affidavit form, the contents of which shall be specified by the Board. The reports shall include:

1. Brief statement of why physician is on probation.

   
   

2. Practice location.

   
   

3. Describe current practice (type and composition).

   
   

4. Brief statement of compliance with probationary terms, including affidavit with respect to provision of community service.

   
   

5. Advise Board of any problems.

   
   

6. Respondent understands that during this period of probation, semiannual investigative reports will be compiled by the Department concerning his compliance with the terms and conditions of probation and the rules and statutes regulating the practice of medicine. Respondent hereby waives confidentiality with regard to these reports as to the Board only, thus permitting the Board to review the investigative reports notwithstanding any statutory or rule provisions which may be interpreted as prohibiting such review.

This order takes effect upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation.

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of April, 1988.

BOARD OF MEDICINE

EMILIO D. ECHEVARRIA, M.D. CHAIRMAN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing FINAL ORDER has been provided by certified mail to Kevin Michael Traynor, M.D., 128 St.

Lucie Lane, Stuart, Florida 33494 and S. Gordon Blalock, Attorney at Law, Suite 2301, Independence Square, Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5059; by U.S. Mail to Charles C. Adams, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, 2009 Apalachee parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32302; and by interoffice delivery to Stephanie A. Daniel, Attorney at Law, Department of professional Regulation, 130 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 at or before 5:00 p.m., this 5th day of May, 1988.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Docket for Case No: 87-002285

Orders for Case No: 87-002285