STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY ) MEDICINE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 88-4691

)

PHILLIP F. HABIB, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice Division of Administrative Hearings by K. N. Ayers held a public hearing in the above styled case on April 27, 1989 at Clearwater, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire

Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729

For Respondent: Louis Kwall, Esquire

138 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

In treating Ms. Cottrell's English bulldog on May 15, 1987:

1. Whether Respondent knowingly concealed information relevant to violations of Chapter 474, Florida Statutes;

   
   

2. Whether Respondent knowingly prepared a false report or record;

   
   

3. Whether Respondent performed or prescribed unnecessary treatment;

   
   

4. Whether Respondent was negligent or guilty of misconduct in this treatment;

   
   

5. Whether Respondent falsified records pertaining to this treatment; and

   
   

6. Whether Respondent was incompetent or unprofessional in his dealings with Ms. Cottrell.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Amended Administrative Complaint dated August 10, 1988, the Department of Professional Regulation, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of Phillip F. Habib, Respondent, as a doctor of veterinary medicine. As grounds therefor it is alleged that on May 15, 1977, in his treatment of an English bulldog owned by Sandra Cottrell Respondent knowingly concealed information relative to violations of Chapter 474, Florida Statutes and that he committed fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine.

At the hearing Petitioner called six witnesses, Respondent called four witnesses including Respondent, and eleven (11) exhibits were admitted into evidence. Exhibit eleven (11) is a late filed deposition of an expert witness for Respondent.

Proposed finding have been submitted by the parties. Treatment accorded those proposed findings is contained in the appendix attached hereto and made a part hereof.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times relevant hereto Phillip F. Habib, Respondent, was licensed as a doctor of veterinary medicine as alleged.

   
   

2. On May 15, 1987, Ms. Sandra Cottrell came home from work at approximately 5:00 p.m. and observed her three-year-old English bulldog "Jake" to be lethargic, which was unusual.

   
   

3. Being familiar with English bulldogs and aware that their state of health can change rapidly, Ms. Cottrell called her veterinarian, Dr. LaDue, who advised her to take the dog's temperature, keep a close watch on the dog and call back with temperature results and any changes in the dog.

   
   

4. At this time Ms. Cottrell was living at her mother's home and did not have a thermometer with which to take Jake's temperature. She called Dr. LaDue back to report she was unable to take Jake's temperature but he seemed to be in no present distress.

   
   

5. Shortly thereafter Ms. Cottrell decided to take Jake for a walk. By the time they reached the end of the driveway she realized that Jake was acting abnormally and she became concerned. She aborted the walk and decided to take Jake to her veterinarian.

   
   

6. By this time Jake had begun to have difficulty breathing. Ms. Cottrell then decided that Jake's condition required emergency intervention and had her sister-in-law look in the telephone book for the nearest animal clinic. That clinic was Hope 'n Happiness Animal Clinic in Clearwater, Respondent's place of business. Ms. Cottrell, accompanied by her sister-in- law, drove Jake to this clinic.

   
   

7. Both Hope Habib, wife of Respondent, and Respondent testified that Ms. Cottrell told them upon her arrival that she had been playing frisbee with Jake when he became ill. The only activity of Jake that Ms. Cottrell testified to was attempting to take Jake for a walk. Ms. Cottrell was not called as a rebuttal witness (although she was still present) to confirm or deny the frisbee testimony. Although Respondent testified he didn't know what a frisbee was

   until he later asked his six-year-old child, the Habibs' testimony is not deemed credible. If, in fact, Respondent was told that Jake had been chasing a frisbee when he became ill this presented a conclusive reason for suspecting Jake was suffering from hyperthermia.

   
   

8. Upon arrival at the clinic Jake was carried into the reception area and Hope Habib showed them into an examination room. During this time Jake was wheezing and having difficulty breathing. Respondent promptly started examining Jake with Ms. Cottrell present.

   
   

9. English bulldogs are very susceptible to heat prostration or hyperthermia. Up to 50 percent of English bulldogs who get hyperthermia die. This phenomenon is widely known among English bulldog owners and veterinarians. Temperatures above 103 degree F. for English bulldogs need to be reduced quickly.

   
   

10. At no time while Jake was being examined and treated by Respondent did Ms. Cottrell see the Respondent take Jake's temperature. Nevertheless, Respondent entered temperature of 103.0 degrees on the medical record (Exhibit 5). He also recorded Jake's weight at 80.0 pounds. Jake's normal weight is 67-

    68 pounds. At no time did Ms. Cottrell observe Respondent weigh Jake. When first interviewed by Petitioner's investigator Respondent admitted that he had estimated the dog's weight.

    
    

11. Shortly after commencing his examination of Jake, Respondent advised Ms. Cottrell that Jake was having a heart attack and that she had killed her dog by letting him get too fat. Subsequently he diagnosed Jake as having a diaphragmatic hernia which required immediate surgery. X-ray equipment needed to diagnose such a hernia was not available at Hope 'n Happiness Clinic on May 15, 1987. Respondent referred Ms. Cottrell to an emergency animal clinic in Clearwater several blocks distant for surgery. Respondent also called this clinic to alert them of the referral.

    
    

12. While treating Jake, Respondent administered some 750 mg soludeltacortef, which is a recommended treatment for animals suffering heat prostration (Exhibit 6). This drug serves to reduce the effects of shock to the animal and it is recommended to be given IV (Exhibit 6). Respondent testified, and his medical record indicate, that soludeltacortef was administered intravenously. Ms. Cottrell testified that Respondent was unable to locate a vein for an IV injection and that several "shots" were given Jake in the hip muscle. In his notes, apparently written later that evening (Exhibit 5), Respondent lists possible diagnoses of: shock, "lung damage or diaphragmatic hernia, heart problem and maybe other diagnosis." He does not include heat prostration as a possible diagnosis.

    
    

13. To demonstrate the diaphragmatic hernia Respondent pressed on Jake's abdomen which caused the animal to regurgitate. X-rays subsequently taken in Tampa did not confirm a diaphragmatic hernia. The existence of a diaphragmatic hernia cannot be determined by palpitating the abdomen.

    
    

14. During the treatment of Jake by Respondent attempts to administer oxygen were made by placing a face mask over Jake's nose. This was unsuccessful and further agitated the animal. This effort was discarded and Ms. Cottrell was referred to the emergency clinic. Respondent and his wife's testimony that the oxygen given Jake revived him to the extent that he could stand on the floor without assistance and could have walked out of the Respondent's clinic is not credible under the circumstances.

15. During the 30-45 minutes Jake that was being treated by Respondent, Ms. Cottrell was very upset and crying due to her concern for her dog's health. However, she remained in the examining room the entire period but for a few seconds when she went to the lobby to get her sister-in-law to come to the examining room. Hope Habib testified that Ms. Cottrell was in and out of the examining room frequently to make telephone calls while Jake was being treated. Considering the circumstances and the potential bias of the witness the testimony of Ms. Cottrell is deemed more credible.

    
    

16. When Ms. Cottrell asked Respondent how long Jake would live she was told anywhere from 30 minutes to 5 hours or more. Upon leaving Respondent's clinic Ms. Cottrell decided to take Jake to Tampa to the clinic of her regular veterinarian. This was a trip of 30-35 minutes as compared to the 5-10 minute ride to the emergency clinic to which she had been referred by Respondent.

    
    

17. The weather on May 15, 1987 was normal for that time of year with a high of 83 degrees F. and a low of 71 degrees F. The temperature recorded by the Department of Commerce at the St. Petersburg-Clearwater airport at 5:50

    p.m. and 6:51 p.m. was 74 degrees F. (Exhibit 10). Although Ms. Cottrell's car was not air-conditioned, she had the windows down during the drive from Clearwater to Tampa and Jake was in the front seat on the passenger's side during this trip.

    
    

18. At the time Jake departed Respondent's clinic, Respondent believed that Jake was being taken to the emergency animal clinic in Clearwater. When he called this clinic to see if Jake had arrived and learned he had not, he then called Ms. Cottrell's home phone where he learned that Jake had been taken to the Tampa clinic. Respondent then called the Tampa clinic and advised the doctor there treating Jake that Respondent had given Jake soludeltacortef and to inquire about the dog. The medical records pertaining to the treatment given Jake by Respondent (Exhibit 5) were prepared after Jake arrived at the Tampa clinic. Respondent's testimony that these notes were prepared that evening is otherwise unrebutted.

    
    

19. Upon arrival at the Tampa clinic Jake's temperature was 107 degrees F. and emergency treatment for hyperthermia was begun. The animal was immediately hosed down in an attempt to reduce his temperature. Temperature readings were taken frequently during this period until Jake's temperature was reduced to 103 degrees F. and at a wider spaced interval after that temperature was reached.

    
    

20. No evidence was presented regarding the possibility or likelihood of Jake's temperature rising from 103 degrees F. while at Respondent's clinic to

    107 degrees F. some 30-45 minutes later when he arrived at the Tampa clinic. The conditions under which this 35-40 minute ride was made was in a non air conditioned but open car with the outside temperature of 74 degrees F.

    
    

21. The dog was closely monitored at the Tampa Bay Animal Center after being taken there Friday evening, May 15, 1987. Ms. Cottrell visited the center to see Jake on Saturday, May 16, 1987 when the dog appeared to be semicomatose; and Jake died Saturday evening.

    
    

22. Respondent's method of writing medical records in the third person led some witnesses to conclude that these records had been prepared after charges of malpractice were made. Respondent's testimony that he always prepared medical records after the close of the clinic was unrebutted as was the testimony of

    other witnesses who had reviewed many of Respondent's records that Respondent writes all of his medical records in the third person.

    
    

23. After learning of the complaint filed in this case, Respondent telephoned Ellen Trapp, D.V.M., the veterinarian who treated Jake at Dr. LeDue's Tampa clinic, and Dr. LeDue; and indicated that they, as veterinarians needed to stick together. When Dr. LeDue responded that Respondent had failed to properly diagnose Jake's condition by failing to take his temperature, Respondent hung up on him. Respondent also stated to Dr. Trapp that he would not be held responsible for his actions if something happened at the end of this court hearing. To Petitioner's investigator Respondent subsequently denied ever contacting any veterinarian regarding this case.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

24. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter, of these proceedings.

    
    

25. Respondent is here charged with violating Section 474.214(1), Florida Statutes, which provides the following acts shall constitute grounds for which disciplinary action may be taken:

    
    

    1. Performing or prescribing unnecessary or unauthorized treatment.

       (o) Fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine.

       
       

26. In any license disciplinary case the agency has the burden to prove the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d. 292 (Fla. 1987).

    
    

27. With respect to the charge of performing or prescribing unnecessary or unauthorized treatment, the treatment Respondent performed on Jake consisted principally of the injection of soludeltacortef and providing or attempting to provide oxygen. Both of these treatments are indicated when treating a dog for hyperthermia. The fact that Respondent failed to properly diagnose the problem as hyperthermia is not relevant insofar as the charge of performing or prescribing unnecessary or unauthorized treatment is concerned. Although Respondent told Ms. Cottrell that Jake needed surgery for a diaphragmatic hernia and told her to take the animal to the emergency animal clinic, that is not equivalent to performing such unnecessary treatment. Accordingly the evidence will not support a finding of guilty of this charge.

    
    

28. Evidence supporting the allegations of fraud consist principally of the medical records identifying the treatment rendered to Jake. While these records were obviously prepared after Jake had left Respondent's clinic there is little, if any, evidence to support the finding that they were prepared with the intent they be used to rebut the charges in the administrative complaint. Evidence regarding allegations of deceit is the same as allegations pertaining to fraud. Likewise, the practice of Respondent of writing medical records in the third person, while unusual, is not fraudulent, even if prepared a few hours after the incidents recorded.

    
    

29. However, with respect to the entries on these records respecting temperature and weight of the animal being treated, these entries were fraudulent as they did not represent measurements made by Respondent. To the

    extent that both of these entries tend to support Respondent's diagnosis and give credence to his failure to diagnose hyperthermia, these entries smack of fraud.

    
    

30. Failure to take an accurate temperature of Jake under the circumstances, constitutes negligence or misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine. Although Respondent contends that he took Jake's temperature twice and got a reading of 103 degrees F. both times this testimony is not credible for the following reasons:

    
    

    1. Less than one hour after Respondent says he found 103 degrees F. temperature the dog's temperature was recorded at 107 degrees F.

       
       

    2. Respondent testified that Ms. Cottrell told him that she had been playing frisbee with Jake which should have alerted him to the possibility that the dog had become overheated and an accurate temperature was essential. This is particularly true where, as here, the dog exhibited symptoms of hyperthermia.

       
       

    3. Respondent's medical record was prepared at least several hours after he had treated Jake.

       
       

    4. The record shows temperature as 103.0 (to the nearest tenth of a

    degree).

    
    

31. Failure to diagnose Jake as suffering from hyperthermia constitutes negligence and/or misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine. This led to the failure to take appropriate steps to immediately lower the animal's temperature. Such professional conduct represents medical treatment below the minimum standard recognized as acceptable by a similar prudent veterinarian under similar conditions and circumstances.

    
    

32. In telling Ms. Cottrell that she had killed her dog by allowing him to become obese, Respondent exhibited poor judgment particularly when his conclusion that the dog was overweight at 80 pounds was merely an estimate. However, this does not rise to the status of incompetence or misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine.

    
    

33. From the foregoing it is concluded Phillip F. Habib falsified medical records when he recorded the temperature and weight of an animal when those measurements were not actually taken and that he was guilty of negligence and incompetence in failing to diagnose Jake as suffering from hyperthermia and according the animal appropriate treatment.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the license of Phillip F. Habib as a doctor of veterinary medicine be revoked. It is further recommended, that the revocation be stayed for a period of 3 years probation under such terms and conditions as the Board of Veterinary Medicine deems appropriate, and that, at the expiration of the three years probationary period, unless sooner vacated, the revocation be set aside and Respondent restored to good standing.

ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1989.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4691

Treatment accorded Petitioner's proposed findings:

1. Included in H.O. #1.

2. Included in H.O. #2, 3, 4.

3. Included in H.O. #4, 5.

4. Included in H.O. #7.

5. Included in H.O. #10.

6. Included in H.O. #9.

7. Included in H.O. #9.

8. Included in H.O. #13.

9. Included in H.O. #11, 12.

10. Included in H.O. #9, 14.

11. Accepted.

12. Accepted in H.O. #10, 15.

13. Accepted.

14. Accepted in H.O. #17.

15. Included in H.O. #15, 16, 18.

16. Included in H.O. #9.

17. Accepted. However, this statement was made long after Jake's death was determined to have resulted from hyperthermia.

18-19. Included in H.O. #11.

1. Accepted.

2. Included in H.O. #22.

22-23. Accepted as conclusions of law.

1. Included in H.O. #8.

2. Accepted

3. Accepted insofar as included in H.O. #12.

4. Accepted only insofar as included in H.O. #13.

5. Included in H.O. #13.

6. Rejected as irrelevant.

30-32. Rejected as irrelevant.

1. Accepted. However, Respondent testified that only a date was added to the record.

2. Rejected as unsupported by credible evidence.

3. Accepted.

Treatment accorded Respondent's proposed findings.

1. Included in H.O. #2, 3, 4.

2. Included in H.O. #5.

3. Included in H.O. #8, 14.

4. Accepted as testimony of witness.

5. Accepted insofar as included in H.O. #5, 15.

6. Included in H.O. #14.

7. Included in H.O. #3, 9. 8-9. Rejected as irrelevant.

1. Included in H.O. #16.

2. Accepted.

3. Included in H.O. #3, 9.

4. Irrelevant.

5. Irrelevant. Dr. LaDue was not involved in treatment of Jake.

6. Accepted

7. Included in H.O. #15.

8. Accepted.

9. Rejected as irrelevant when decision made.

10. Included in H.O. #3 and 6.

11. Included in H.O. #10.

12. Accepted insofar as no one could explain the missing X-ray.

13. Rejected as irrelevant.

14. Rejected as irrelevant.

15. Rejected as irrelevant.

16. Accepted.

17. Rejected as unsupported by Douglas' testimony.

18. First sentence accepted. Last sentence rejected.

19. Rejected as irrelevant.

20. Rejected as irrelevant.

21. Rejected as repetitious (see 12).

22. Accepted but irrelevant.

23. Accepted but irrelevant.

24. Rejected. Record shows dog's weight as 80.0 pounds.

25. Irrelevant.

26. Irrelevant.

27. Irrelevant. Dr. Douglas never saw the dog.

28. Irrelevant because of duplicity.

29. Accepted.

30. Accepted but irrelevant.

31. Accepted but irrelevant.

32. Rejected except to the extent that almost anything is possible.

33. Irrelevant.

34. Accepted.

35. Accepted.

36. Accepted as testimony of Mandelker.

37. Irrelevant.

38. Accepted in part. Manner in which Habib prepared records only part of basis for Green's opinion.

39. Irrelevant.

40. Rejected.

41. Accepted but irrelevant here.

42. Irrelevant.

43. Irrelevant.

44. Rejected. No evidence submitted that Jake was ever hypothermic on May 15, 1987. Term hypothermia misused or reporter error.

45. Accepted.

46. Irrelevant.

47. Rejected as unsupported by Cottrell's testimony.

48. Accepted-insofar as in H.O. #13.

49. Rejected.

50. Accepted insofar as included in H.O. #14.

51. Rejected. See H.O. #13.

52. Irrelevant.

53. Irrelevant.

54. Accepted.

55. Accepted. See H.O. #21.

56. Included in H.O. #21.

57. Accepted.

58. Rejected. Habib's testimony in this regard differs from that of his wife. However, the accuracy of the testimony is not material.

59. Rejected.

60. Rejected.

61. Rejected. See H.O. #13.

71. See H.O. #15.

1. Irrelevant.

2. Included in H.O. #17.

3. Included in H.O. #17.

75. See H.O. #21.

1. Accepted.

2. Accepted. Trapp didn't see the dog until he was presented that evening.

3. Irrelevant.

4. Accepted.

5. Accepted.

6. Accepted insofar as included in H.O. #12.

7. Accepted but irrelevant.

8. Irrelevant.

9. Included in H.O. #17.

10. Repetitious.

11. Irrelevant.

12. Irrelevant. Cottrell was not working at the LaDue clinic in May 1987 and was getting no discount at that time.

13. Irrelevant.

14. Accepted.

15. Accepted as Goldston's opinion.

16. Accepted as Goldston's opinion.

17. Rejected.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Department of Professional

Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729

Louis Kwall, Esquire

138 North Ft. Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 34615

Kenneth Easley Esquire Department of Professional

Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729

Linda Biedermann Executive Director

Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Professional

Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729

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

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

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

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Petitioner,

vs. DPR CASE NUMBER: 0086191

DOAH CASE NUMBER: 88-4691

PHILLIP F. HABIB, D.V.M.,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

This cause came before the Board of Veterinary Medicine (Board) pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)9., Florida Statutes, on October 10, 1989, in Miami, Florida, for the purpose of considering the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein.) Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, was represented by Laura P. Gaffney, Attorney at Law. Respondent was present and was represented by Louis Kwall, Esquire.

Upon review of the Recommended Order, the Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order, the Respondent's Exceptions to the Recommended Order, the arguments of counsel, and after a review of the complete record in this case, the Board makes the following findings and conclusions.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER

Petitioners exceptions to the Recommended Order which only go to penalty are DENIED for the reasons set forth in the Penalty section of this Order.

RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER

1. Respondent's exception number 1 is DENIED. Because English bulldogs are so susceptible to hear prostration and hyperthermia (Findings of Fact p. 4, Recommended Order), if Dr. Habib was told Jake had been playing frisbee then he should have suspected that Jake was suffering from hyperthermia.

   
   

2. Respondent's exception number 2 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. It is granted insofar as it requests that there be stricken from the Findings of Fact the second sentence of the second paragraph number 12 of the Findings of Fact, at page 6 of the Recommended Order: "X-rays subsequently taken in Tampa did not confirm a diaphragmatic hernia." The exception is granted to this extent because Respondent did not have the opportunity to review the x-ray or present testimony concerning it since the x-ray could not be produced. The remainder of the exception is denied. The hearing office whose function it was to determine the credibility of the witnesses believed the testimony of the Complainant, Ms. Cottrell, that the abdomen was palpitated by Respondent.

   
   

3. Respondent's exception number 3 is DENIED. Whether a base-line temperature of 103 degrees is accepted or not there is no evidence that Jake's temperature rose from that point to 107 degrees when he arrived at the Tampa clinic.

   
   

4. Respondent's exception number 4 is GRANTED. There is no clear and convincing evidence in the record that Respondent falsified the medical records with regard to Jake's temperature.

   
   

5. Respondent's exception number 5 is GRANTED. The Respondent's records admitted into evidence indicate that he estimated Jake's weight.

   
   

6. Respondent's exception number 6 is DENIED. The Recommended Order's Findings of fact accepted by the Board support the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law that Respondent was guilty of negligence and incompetence in failing to diagnose Jake as suffering from hyperthermia and according the animal appropriate treatment.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The second sentence in the second paragraph 12 of the Findings of Fact on page 6 of the Recommended Order is rejected. It is an essential requirement of law that Respondent have been given the opportunity to review the x-ray and to present it to others who could testify whether it showed a diaphragmatic hernia or not and to use it for purposes of cross-examination. The remainder of the Findings of Fact is the Recommended Order are approved, adopted and incorporated herein.

   
   

2. There is competent substantial evidence to support the Recommended Order's Findings of Fact approved and adopted by the Board.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Respondent was not proven clearly and convincingly to have falsified medical records when he recorded the temperature and estimated weight of Jake.

   
   

2. Respondent is guilty of negligence and incompetence in failing to diagnose Jake as suffering from hyperthermia and according him appropriate treatment.

PENALTY

The license of Phillip F. Habib is REVOKED. The revocation is stayed for a period of one years probation during which Respondent must take a communications course that is approved by the Board and complete 10 hours of continuing education in internal medicine in addition to any other continuing education requirement of this Board. At the last meeting of this Board prior to the expiration of the probationary period or at the first meeting of this Board in Tampa following the completion of probation Respondent must appear personally before the Board.

At the expiration of the one year's probationary period, provided Respondent has successfully met the terms imposed above and no grounds exist for disciplinary action of Respondent, by this Board, the revocation will be set aside and Respondent will be restored to good standing.

The Board has no reason to increase the recommended penalty as requested by Petitioner in Petitioner's exceptions. The reason the probationary period of the recommended penalty is reduced from three years probation to one year of probation is because this Board reached the conclusion of law that Respondent did not falsify his medical records with regard to the recorded temperature and weight of Jake.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Respondent's license is REVOKED and that the Revocation is stayed for a period of one year of probation under the terms of this Order and that, at the expiration of the probationary period, provided Respondent successfully completes probation, the revocation be set aside and Respondent be restored to good standing.

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

DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of November, 1989.

BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE

MELANIE DONOFRO, D.V.M. CHAIRMAN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order has been provided by certified mail to Phillip F. Habib, D.V.M., and Louis Kwall, Esquire, 138 North Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 34615 and to K. A. Ayers, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto

Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550; and by interoffice delivery to Laura P. Gaffney, Attorney at Law, Department of Professional Regulation, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399- 0787 at or before 5:00 P.M., this 22nd day of November, 1989.

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 THIRTY (30) DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.

Docket for Case No: 88-004691

Orders for Case No: 88-004691