STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 90-3831

)

JOHN HENRY VAN EEDEN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing on June 29, 1990, on the Administrative Complaint leading to the emergency suspension of the license of John Henry Van Eeden as a medical doctor.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire

Lynn Quimby-Pennock, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

For Respondent: James W. Linn, Esquire

James C. Adkins, Esquire 1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent submitted false information to the Florida Board of Medicine which induced the Board to issue Respondent a license by endorsement in 1982 and whether Respondent graduated from a medical school.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By Administrative Complaint filed June 22, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of John Henry Van Eeden as a medical doctor. As grounds therefor, it is alleged that when applying for licensure by endorsement from the Florida Board of Medicine in 1981, Respondent in his sworn application stated that he obtained the degree of Doctor of Medicine from London Hospital Medical College, London England, at which he was in attendance from August 1967 to June 1972. On June 15, 1990, DPR entered an Order of Emergency Suspension of the medical license of John Henry Van Eeden, M.D., on grounds that Van Eeden had fraudulently obtained his license by endorsement when he swore on his application that he had obtained his medical degree from the London Hospital Medical College when, in fact, he had never been enrolled at that college.

Respondent initially requested a hearing to challenge the emergency suspension order and moved for consolidation of the hearings on the emergency suspension and the Administrative Complaint. This Motion was denied on the basis that the emergency suspension was a Final Order which could be challenged only in the court of appeals; however, the allegations contained in the emergency suspension order on which the suspension was based, which were essentially the same allegations made in the Administrative Complaint, would be the issues which the Petitioner had the burden to prove in these proceedings.

Further, in view of the emergency suspension, an expedited hearing was held 14 days following the emergency suspension.

At the commencement of this hearing, Respondent's motion to consolidate was repeated; and it was ruled that although the two requests for hearing would not be consolidated, the issues, as a matter of law, merged in these proceedings.

Petitioner then moved for an order compelling Respondent to answer questions he had refused to answer during his deposition on June 28, 1990. Questions pertaining to Respondent's education and colleges he attended outside the United States were not responded to by Respondent on the basis he had a Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to answer those questions. After receiving short argument from counsel, Respondent was directed to answer those questions or be denied the right to testify in these proceedings. Respondent, over objection, opted to respond to the questions; and the hearing was recessed to allow the deposition of Respondent to be completed. When the hearing resumed, Petitioner called two witnesses, Respondent called four witnesses, including Respondent, and 33 exhibits were offered into evidence. Objection to Exhibit 14, a composite exhibit of final orders, was sustained on grounds of relevancy. However, official recognition is taken of those final orders. Ruling on objections to exhibits 15, 16 and 17, which were foreign documents, was reserved. For reasons contained in conclusions of law, those exhibits are now admitted. Exhibit 18 was withdrawn by Petitioner after being marked for identification and was not offered into evidence. All other exhibits were admitted.

Proposed findings have been submitted by the parties. There is little dispute regarding the ultimate facts here involved; accordingly, the proposed findings are generally included herein unless deemed unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Treatment accorded those findings which are not accepted is included in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part hereof.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. By application dated March 24, 1981, John Henry Van Eeden, Respondent, applied for a license by endorsement to practice medicine in Florida (Exhibit 2).

   
   

2. In this application, Respondent showed successful completion of the FLEX examination, admission to practice in England, South Africa, and Georgia, all of which are true.

   
   

3. Respondent also listed under medical education that he attended London Hospital Medical College, London, England, from August 1967 to June 1972. This was not true.

4. The information submitted by Respondent in 2 and 3 above was subscribed and sworn to by Respondent on this application to be true and correct under penalties of perjury and cause for denial or revocation of license.

   
   

5. Respondent was born January 12, 1938 in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He attended school in South Africa and testified that he attended medical school at the University of Pretoria for four years between 1960 and 1964, leaving school before graduation. The registrar of the University of Pretoria submitted a document authenticated by a United States Consular Official stating a search of school records uncovered no evidence that John Henry Van Eeden ever attended the University of Pretoria (Exhibit 17). Respondent submitted no additional evidence, apart from his testimony, to substantiate his attendance at the University of Pretoria.

   
   

6. Respondent further testified that he worked in South Africa from 1964 to 1967 as a drug salesman for a pharmaceutical company. In 1967, Respondent migrated to London where he attempted to enroll in a medical school. Unable to gain admission to a medical university, Respondent proceeded on an alternate route for medical licensure in England.

   
   

7. This alternate route involved working at hospitals under a regime similar to internship where the "students" attended lectures, assisted in and performed under supervision a prescribed number of procedures in each phase of medicine and finally passed an examination in medicine, surgery, midwifery and pathology. Upon successful completion of this program, and examination, the Society of Apothecaries of London, the medical licensing agency in England, issued a Diploma to Respondent on June 19, 1972 which authorized him to practice medicine in Great Britain and northern Ireland.

   
   

8. The Society of Apothecaries of London is recognized by the General Medical Council in England as a Non-University Licensing Board authorized to license those who complete the requirements to practice medicine, surgery and obstetrics and gynecology (Exhibit 15).

   
   

9. Upon receipt of the Diploma from the Apothecaries, Respondent proceeded to Port Elizabeth, South Africa, where he was employed at Livingston Hospital in an internship-type program (Exhibit 26) upon completion of which he was registered as a medical practitioner (Exhibit 27) and authorized to practice medicine in South Africa.

   
   

10. Respondent engaged in the general practice of medicine in South Africa until 1976 when he returned to England with the intent to enter the United States. Respondent spent approximately one year in England in the general practice of medicine before leaving for the United States.

    
    

11. Prior to leaving England in 1977, Respondent contacted the Educational Commission of Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) to ascertain requirements foreign doctors had to meet to qualify for licensure in the United States. Upon arrival in the United States, Respondent continued his quest for licensure. Documentation submitted by Respondent to ECFMG was not satisfactory, and correspondence was exchanged between ECFMG and Respondent.

    
    

12. When the issues could not be resolved by correspondence, Respondent went to the ECFMG headquarters in Philadelphia. There he was told his application could not be approved because the hospitals in London at which he claimed his training occurred were not listed in the World Health Organization's (WHO) list of approved universities from which applicants had to graduate to

    qualify for the FLEX exam. However, the London Hospital Medical College, which Respondent had included in those hospitals at which he was trained, was listed as an approved school by WHO and if he showed graduation from that college, his application would receive approval.

    
    

13. Thereafter, Respondent listed London Hospital Medical College as the school where he received his medical education and degree on all applications he submitted for licensure in the United States. ECFMG accepted Respondent's sworn application without verifying his enrollment at the London Hospital Medical College and allowed Respondent to take the FLEX examination, which he passed in 1981.

    
    

14. After his arrival in the United States in 1977, Respondent studied for the FLEX exam; served on the staff as assistant professor at the University of Florida, Department of Community Health and Family Medicine (Exhibit 28); served as staff physician at Lake Butler Correctional Institute in 1979- 1980 (Exhibit 29); served on the staff at Polk General Hospital, Bartow, Florida, in 1981 (Exhibit 11); and, following his licensure in Georgia in 1981, served as emergency room physician at Wayne Memorial Hospital in Jessup, Georgia, in 1981- 1982 (Exhibit 11).

    
    

15. Respondent was licensed in Florida in October 1982 and has practiced medicine in the Orlando area since shortly thereafter.

6. Before issuing the Florida license to Respondent, the staff of the medical board sent several communications to Respondent to confirm his medical education, but no grade transcripts were ever received. The files of ECFMG and Georgia were requested regarding Van Eeden's qualifications, and both had accepted his assertion that he had obtained a medical degree from London Hospital Medical College. Florida licensing authorities also accepted his sworn application showing receipt of a medical degree from London Hospital Medical College.

1. In 1984-1985, the Department discovered some Caribbean schools "selling" medical diplomas, and offshore medical schools became suspect. Once during that period Respondent's medical education came under scrutiny, but the proceedings were halted in 1985, although no evidence had been received confirming Respondent's graduation from a medical school.

   
   

2. In 1988, further inquiries were instituted regarding Respondent's medical education, but these, too, were not followed through.

   
   

3. By letter dated March 15, 1990 (Exhibit 30), the Department notified Respondent that it was commencing an investigation of a complaint alleging he had been guilty of sexual improprieties with a female patient during his treatment of the patient. Although that complaint appears to have been dismissed, the accuracy of Respondent's claim that he had graduated from London Hospital Medical College again came to the fore, and communications with London Hospital Medical College revealed Respondent had never been enrolled as a student at that college.

   
   

4. Three medical witnesses called by Respondent testified to his knowledge of medicine and surgery and to his competency in these fields. Here, his technical competency as a physician is not an issue.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

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

   
   

6. During his deposition, Respondent claimed a Fifth Amendment privilege regarding supplying answers to questions pertaining to his attendance at educational institutions. As grounds for his claim of privilege, Respondent cited State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1973).

   
   

7. Vining held the Florida Statute unconstitutional which provided for revocation sua sponte of the license of real estate brokers who failed to respond to an administrative complaint under oath. In deciding this issue, the Vining opinion stated disciplinary actions are "penal in nature," and the Fifth Amendment privilege is applicable in disciplinary proceedings. While the court inferred that a respondent in a license revocation proceeding has a constitutional right to remain silent and not be compelled to give testimony that may lead to revocation of his license, this was dicta.

   
   

8. It is a cardinal judicial principle that courts can decide only issues before them. There was no issue in Vining pertaining to the incriminating nature of Vining's answers to the Administrative Complaint. Vining provided no answers, and by reason of his failure to answer the Administrative Complaint under oath the Commission revoked his license. Vining could have been prosecuted for perjury had he falsely denied under oath the accusations against him. Further, all cases cited by the Vining court to support the position that the Fifth Amendment privilege extended to license disciplinary proceedings involved answers which were assumed to be incriminating or to lead to incriminating evidence.

   
   

9. Here, there is no possibility of criminal proceedings being brought against Van Eeden by virtue of his answers to questions regarding his medical education. Assuming that he could have been prosecuted in 1983 for submitting a false sworn statement in his application for licensure to the Board, the statute of limitations on that criminal offense ran two years after the false statement was submitted. Accordingly, Respondent was directed to respond to these questions regarding his education. He was told that if he refused to answer these questions he would be barred from testifying in these proceedings.

   
   

10. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination is applicable to these proceedings. However, this privilege applies only when the Respondent is compelled to make a testimonial communication that is incriminating. Fisher v. U.S., 425 U.S. 391, 408, 96 S.Ct. 1569, 1979, 49 L.Ed.2d. 39 (1976). The matter of deciding what answers may be incriminating is not solely up to the witness himself, but is one requiring the trial court's discretion. State v. Kelly, 71 So.2d 887 (Fla. 1954). The court may require the witness to answer only if it is perfectly clear that the witness is mistaken in his apprehension, and the answers cannot possibly have a tendency to incriminate. United States v. Godwin, 625 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1980).

    
    

11. When a party in a noncriminal proceeding invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege to discovery, the trial court should refer to the deposition questions and determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the answers may evoke a response "forming a link in the chain of evidence" which might lead to criminal prosecution. DeLisi v. Bankers Ins. Co., 436 So.2d 1099, 1101 (Fla.

    4th DCA 1983). A witness need only show a realistic possibility that his answers will be used against him in a criminal prosecution. Pillsbury v. Canboy, 459 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608, 74 L.Ed. 430 (1983).

    
    

12. Florida Department of Ins. v. Schuler, 510 So.2d 622 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1987), involved a license revocation proceeding against an insurance agent. Schuler had refused to produce certain records on the basis of an alleged Fifth Amendment privilege. The hearing officer had sustained the claim of privilege without an in camera inspection of the records for which the privilege was claimed. In remanding the case for a determination that the documents were in fact incriminating, the court held at p. 623:

    
    

    . . . Mere conclusionary assertion that his constitutional privileges against self-incrimination are implicated is insufficient to discharge his burden

    of demonstrating that there exists a reasonable or realistic possibility that the production of his remaining business records will lead to criminal prosecution.

    
    

13. The mere invocation of self-incrimination privilege is insufficient to support such a claim in the absence of information showing a reasonable fear of prosecution. Earhardt, Florida Evidence, Section 501.1 (2 Ed. 1984).

    
    

14. In the instant proceedings, Respondent presented no information or evidence tending to show that his answers to questions regarding his medical education could in any manner lead to criminal prosecution. Accordingly, his claim of privilege was denied, and he was directed to answer those questions.

    
    

15. During the proceedings, Petitioner offered into evidence three foreign documents as Exhibits 15, 16 and 17. Objections to the admissibility of those documents was reserved at the hearing. The basis for objection was the documents are hearsay, and there is insufficient proof of the authenticity of the documents.

1. Exhibit 15 is an affidavit from D.H.C. Barrie, Registrar, Society of Apothecaries of London, dated June 26, 1990, subscribed and sworn to before a vice counsel of the United States of America, Tom Underwood, at London, England, on June 26, 1990. This document bears what purports to be the signature of Barrie and Tom Underwood. Underwood's signature carries the Seal of the U.S. Embassy in London.

   
   

2. Exhibits 16 and 17 are affidavits from the London Hospital Medical College and the University of Pretoria, respectively. Exhibit 16 is signed by

   H.A.H. Butler, Registrar, under which is a Seal of the London Hospital Medical College, and this is subscribed and sworn to before a vice consul of the United States with the vice consul's signature and the seal of the U.S. Embassy in London. Exhibit 17 contains the signature of Mrs. Rita Venter with a stamp seal of the University of Pretoria, all subscribed and sworn to before a U.S. vice consul at the American Embassy in Pretoria with the signature of the vice consul and seal of the U.S. Embassy.

3. The initial objection to these documents is that they are hearsay. This is true; however, the real issue is whether they are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The second objection goes to the authentication of the documents. Without a witness to testify to the authenticity of the documents, they must pass muster as self-authenticating documents.

   
   

4. Exhibits 16 and 17 qualify for the exception shown in Section 90.802(10), Florida Statutes, as being in the form of testimony that a diligent search of school records has failed to disclose Respondent's enrollment and attendance at either the London Hospital Medical College or the University of Pretoria. Exhibit 15 qualifies for the exception shown in Section 90.802(6), Florida Statutes, as a record of regularly conducted business activity that Respondent was accepted as a candidate for licentiate in medicine and surgery by the Society of Apothecaries of London, that he passed all parts of the final examination, that he qualified for a license to practice medicine in the United Kingdom, and that he was issued diploma no. 6319.

   
   

5. The next issue is whether these documents are self- authenticating. Section 90.902, Florida Statutes, provides extrinsic evidence of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required for:

   
   

   1. An official foreign document, record, or entry that is:

      1. Executed or attested by a person

         in his official capacity authorized by the laws of a foreign country

         to make the execution or attesta- tion; and

      2. Accompanied by a final certification, as provided herein, of the genuineness of the signature and official position of

         1. The executing person; or

         2. Any foreign official whose certificate of genuineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation.

            The final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, . . . or consular agent of the United States . . . .

            When the parties receive reasonable opportunity to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official foreign documents, the court may order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them in evidence by an attested summary with or without final certification.

            
            

6. Of the three documents challenged, the only one with significance to the charges here under consideration is Exhibit 16, the certification by London Hospital Medical College. Exhibit 15, the affidavit from the Society of Apothecaries of London, is admissible in these proceedings as hearsay

   corroborating admissible evidence received from Respondent freely and without reservation or objection. After all, Respondent's training, which he contends qualifies him for licensure in the United States, was the training which qualified him for licensure in England.

   
   

7. Likewise, Exhibit 17 is not material or relevant to the charges here under consideration as Respondent never claimed to be qualified for licensure by endorsement based upon his medical studies of the University of Pretoria. However, this document is admissible for the same reason Exhibit 16 is admissible

   
   

8. Foreign documents have always presented problems to the courts following the strict rules of evidence, especially attesting to the genuineness of the document. However, it is recognized that official foreign documents have a high degree of reliability as their forgery is easy to detect and the inaccuracy of the document relatively easy to prove. These factors resulted in the presumption of genuineness of foreign documents and their admissibility when the parties receive reasonable opportunity to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official foreign documents. Here, the documents were not received by the Petitioner until January 27 or 28, 1990, one or two days before the hearing. Accordingly, the presumption of genuineness is a slender reed upon which to rely in view of the limited opportunity of Respondent to disprove the genuineness of the documents.

   
   

9. Prior to the modern view of discounting the efficacy of seals on official documents, a seal was used to provide circumstantial evidence that the person signing a document bearing the seal of the entity upon whose behalf the document was signed, was the person authorized by the entity to sign the document. The seal thus evidences (a) that there is an official by that name and title; (b) that this is genuinely the impression of his seal of office; and

   1. that he himself affixed it. Wigmore, A Student's Textbook of the Law of Evidence, (1935).

      
      

10. On both Exhibits 16 and 17, below the signature of the person signing the document as Registrar, is the seal of the entity for whom the signer purports to be the Registrar. This seal serves to identify the signer as the Registrar and that (s)he has the authority to sign on behalf of the entity. The signature of the vice consul of the United States Embassy with the Seal of the United States Embassy constitutes the final certification needed to render Exhibits 16 and 17 self- authenticating. Since there is no seal on Exhibit 15 identifying the person signing this document as Registrar and no other certification that the signer is who he purports to be, this document is not admissible as a self-authenticating document.

    
    

11. The argument that Exhibit 16 is admissible as hearsay to corroborate the testimony of Van Eeden is accepted based upon my holding that Van Eeden had no Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify regarding his education. Van Eeden's testimony that he was never enrolled as a student at the London Hospital Medical College was mandated over his claim of Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify respecting his medical education. Accordingly, if Respondent has a Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid giving non- incriminating testimony that could lead to the revocation of his license, testimony from him that he was never enrolled at London Hospital Medical College cannot be used as admissible evidence corroborated by Exhibit 16 so as to allow the admissibility of Exhibit

    16 pursuant to Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes.

12. Section 458.313, Florida Statutes, provides that the Department shall issue a license by endorsement to any applicant who, inter alia, demonstrates to the Board that he has met the qualifications for licensure in Section 458.311(1)(b)-(f), and has obtained a passing score on the FLEX examination. Section 458.311 establishes requirements for applicants desiring to take the licensure examination. These requirements include that he

    
    

    . . . be a graduate of a foreign medical school registered with the World Health Organization and certified pursuant to

    s. 458.314 as having met the standards required to accredit medical schools in the United States or reasonably comparable standards. (Section 458.311(1)(f)2.a.)

    
    

13. Section 458.331(1) establishes grounds for revocation, suspension or other actions against a license that may be taken and includes:

    
    

    (a) Attempting to obtain, obtaining or renewing a license to practice medicine by bribery, by fraudulent misrepresentations, or through error of the department or the board.

    
    

14. In license disciplinary proceedings, the Petitioner has the burden to prove the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington,

    510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987). Petitioner has here met that burden of proof.

    
    

15. Further, had the Board of Medicine been aware in 1981 that Respondent had not graduated from a medical school registered with the World Health Organization and certified pursuant to s. 458.314 as having met standards required to accredit medical schools in the United States, Van Eeden would not have been approved for licensure by endorsement. The false and fraudulent misrepresentations by Respondent that he had received his medical degree from London Hospital Medical College was a critical factor in the approval of his application. Absent this misrepresentation, Respondent would not have received his license by endorsement to practice as a physician in this state. Thus, the evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent obtained his license to practice medicine by fraudulent misrepresentations, and neither the Department nor the Board of Medicine ever demanded and received proof positive that Respondent had indeed graduated from the London Hospital Medical College as Van Eeden claimed.

    
    

16. Respondent's argument that his actions were not fraudulent because he had no intent to deceive when he presented his diploma from the Apothecaries of London as his "medical diploma", is interesting but without merit. Rule 21M- 2201, Florida Administrative Code, which was in effect at the time Respondent applied for licensure by endorsement, defined foreign medical graduates and medical degrees as:

    
    

    A foreign medical graduate is a person holding a medical degree awarded by a college or school located outside the United States or Canada. A medical degree as described herein is deemed to be that paper or document which

    would permit the holder the unrestricted practice of medicine in the country or state wherein the college or school attended is located and wherein the degree is bestowed.

    
    

17. The paper or document which permitted Respondent to practice medicine in England was the diploma from the Apothecaries in London, a non-university licensing board. This was not a medical degree awarded by a college or school, and Respondent fully understands this to be the case. Accordingly, when Respondent showed on his application that he obtained his medical education at London Medical Hospital College and that he held no degree other than the degree of medical doctor, he knew both of these statements to be false and that he needed to show a medical degree in order to be licensed. This constitutes a fraudulent misrepresentation.

    
    

18. Even if Respondent's misrepresentation could be held not to be fraudulent, in licensing Respondent without him being a graduate of a medical school, the Board of Medicine erred. Holding a medical degree is an essential requirement for licensure, and it is error to license one who does not have such a degree. Accordingly, Respondent's license is subject to revocation because of an error by the Board in issuing the license in 1982.

    
    

19. From the foregoing, it is concluded that Respondent submitted a false and fraudulent representation on his application for licensure as a physician in Florida by endorsement; that he misrepresented that he had received his medical degree from the London Hospital Medical College; that without this misrepresentation his application to be licensed as a physician in Florida would not have been approved; and that, at the time his application was submitted, Respondent knew that this information was false, yet he signed this application under oath. Absent a medical degree from an approved school, Respondent is not legally qualified to be licensed as a physician in Florida regardless of his competence as a physician.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that John Henry Van Eeden's license to practice medicine in Florida be revoked.

ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida.

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 1990.

APPENDIX

Petitioner's proposed findings not accepted.

19. Rejected as irrelevant to the charges in the Administrative Complaint.

1. Rejected as irrelevant.

2. Rejected as irrelevant.

31. Second and 4th sentences rejected.

Respondent's proposed findings not accepted.

2. Rejected as fact. Accepted as testimony of Van Eeden.

4. London Hospital Medical College is one entity. No evidence was submitted that there is a London Hospital and Medical College.

Van Eeden's testimony that the hospital is an integral part of London Hospital Medical College is accepted.

13. Rejected. No credible evidence was submitted that medical students at University Medical schools and non-university trainees attended all of the same lectures.

1. Rejected. Exhibit 22 is a blank form to be submitted to the Apothecaries of London by applicants for LMSSA examinations. It is not credible that Respondent could obtain verification of his medical studies at the University of Pretoria in 1967, and no such record now exits.

2. Same as 15.

28. Rejected.

31-32. Accepted insofar as included in H.O. #11.

34. Rejected. Van Eeden's application to ECFMG in 1977 was not acceptable to qualify him to take the FLEX exam. Exhibit 6 does not contain Part B of the applications submitted

subsequent to July 1977 when Van Eeden applied to take the exam in London.

37. Accepted only insofar as included in H.O. #12.

39. Rejected.

1. Second sentence rejected.

2. Had Van Eeden submitted his University of Pretoria's record to the Apothecaries in 1967 it is not understood how he could know he would be unable to document such attendance in 1977.

60. Accepted only insofar as it refers to board or department's actions prior to 1982.

1. Rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. Van Eeden's testimony (T. 195) is "He (Duncan) told Mr.

   Irwin, the administrator of the hospital that my credentials were in order prior to coming

   to my office, and I know that for a fact because

   Mr. Irwin called me and said `Mr. Duncan from the DPR is coming over to see you, see him and listen to what he has to say because I believe the news is favorable.'"

2. The primary complaint of which Van Eeden was notified on March 15, 1990 (Exhibit 30) was gross malpractice involving sexual improprieties with a patient.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Lynn Quimby-Pennock, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

James W. Linn, Esquire James C. Adkins, Esquire 1711-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308

Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine

Department of Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Docket for Case No: 90-003831

Orders for Case No: 90-003831