STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF NURSING, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 91-0642
) SUZANNE R. FERGUSON COOKE, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on July 9 and 23, 1991, in Miami, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Roberta L. Fenner, Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: Richard Lee Ruben, Esquire
10761 Southwest 104th Street Miami, Florida 33176
David B. Mishael, Esquire
155 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the Administrative Complaint?
If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her?
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On November 19, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation (Department) issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, the body of which reads as follows:
Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes.
Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RN 60839-2. Respondent's last known address is 818 Capri Street, Miami, Florida 33134-2504.
At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as an agency nurse at Larkin General Hospital (hereinafter LGH), South Miami, Florida.
On or about July 17, 1990, the Respondent was working the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at LGH.
During her shift, the Respondent was assis- ting another agency nurse in the care of a sixteen (16) year old female patient in crit- ical condition. Respondent was not assigned primary care of this patient.
The Respondent subsequently contacted Jackson Memorial Hospital (JMH) regarding the availability of a bed for transfer of said patient. At the end of her shift, the Respon- dent notified the Nursing Supervisor and the patient's physician, informing them of her contact with JMH.
At the time of the above incident, LGH's protocol regarding the transfer of patients requires an order from a physician. At no time did the patient's physician issue an order for patient's transfer nor had he dis- cussed transfer of the patient with the Re- spondent prior to her call.
After being terminated from her nursing agency and being placed on a "Do not Use" list at LGH, the Respondent continued to telephone staff members and the Director of Nursing of LGH requesting information on the patient's condition.
9. Rule 21O-10.005(1)(e)(15), Florida Admini- strative Code, states that the Board of Nursing may impose disciplinary penalties upon a deter- mination that a licensee is guilty of unprofes- sional conduct which shall include, but not be limited to, practicing beyond the scope of the licensee's license, educational preparation or nursing experience.
10. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent is in violation of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, for unprofessional conduct.
Respondent denied these allegations of wrongdoing and requested a formal hearing. On January 28, 1991, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct such a hearing.
The hearing in this case was originally scheduled for May 1, 1991. At the request of the Department, the hearing was continued until July 9, 1991. At hearing, the Department presented the testimony of three witnesses: Lynda Plummer, the Director of Nursing at Larkin General Hospital; Nancy Cox, a registered nurse who testified as an expert in the area of nursing practice; and Dr. Ira Bloomfield, the attending physician of the young patient referenced in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent testified on her own behalf. She presented no other testimony. The Department and Respondent each offered one exhibit into evidence. Both exhibits were received by the Hearing Officer.
At the close of the evidentiary portion of the hearing on July 23, 1991, the Hearing Officer announced on the record that post-hearing submittals had to be filed no later than 15 days following the Hearing Officer's receipt of the transcript of the hearing. On August 12, 1991, the Department filed a motion requesting that the deadline for the filing of post-hearing submittals be extended to September 10, 1991. The motion was granted by order issued August 14, 1991. On August 30, 1991, and September 6, 1991, respectively, Respondent and the Department filed proposed recommended orders. The findings of fact proposed by the parties in their proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered and are specifically addressed in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made:
Respondent began her nursing career in the State of Indiana in 1968.
She is now, and has been since July 14, 1972, licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida. She currently holds license number RN 60839-2, which expires April 30, 1993.
In July, 1990, Respondent was employed by the All-Star Nursing Agency, an agency used by Larkin General Hospital (Larkin), a small community hospital located in Dade County, Florida.
The chain of command for nursing personnel at Larkin is as follows: nurse; charge nurse; head nurse; nursing supervisor; nursing director; and administrator.
During a four-day period concluding on July 17, 1990, Respondent was assigned to the intensive care/coronary unit (ICU) at Larkin. She worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift.
Among the patients in Larkin's ICU during the period of Respondent's assignment was a 16-year old, critically ill girl.
The girl's condition, which had deteriorated during her stay at the hospital, was a major concern of the nurses assigned to the unit.
Respondent and the other nurses on her shift, including the charge nurse, discussed the plight of this young patient. The consensus of opinion was
that the patient would be better off in a facility, such as Miami Children's Hospital or Jackson Memorial Hospital, that offered specialized pediatric services not available at Larkin. 1/ Respondent was led to believe during these discussions that the patient could not be transferred to such a facility because no beds were available.
At no time was Respondent assigned the primary care of this 16-year old patient; however, at around 3:00 a.m. on July 17, 1990, after the patient had suffered a grand mal seizure, the assigned nurse asked Respondent for her assistance. For the remainder of her shift that day, pursuant to the assigned nurse's request, Respondent assisted in caring for the patient. It is not uncommon for a nurse to render such assistance at the request of a colleague.
Following the completion of her shift on July 17, 1990, Respondent went home. Although she was off-duty, her thoughts centered around the young patient she had helped care for earlier that morning.
After getting some sleep, Respondent made a couple of telephone calls from her home. First, she telephoned Miami Children's Hospital and, without giving her name or the name of the patient, asked if there were any vacant beds in its pediatric intensive care unit. The person to whom she spoke advised her that no such beds were available.
Respondent then called a friend who was a resident at Jackson Memorial Hospital (Jackson). Respondent asked the friend what procedure needed to be followed in order for a patient to be transferred to Jackson. After the friend explained the procedure to her, Respondent thanked him and hung up.
Shortly thereafter, the friend called back to ask Respondent if she needed a bed at Jackson for one of her patients. Respondent indicated that she was "not able to comment on that" and the conversation ended.
Later that same day, Respondent telephoned Larkin and spoke with Randy Dickson, the nursing supervisor on duty, and inquired about the young patient's condition. Dickson responded that there had not been any significant change in the condition of the patient. During her conversation with Dickson, Respondent expressed her view that the patient should be transferred from Larkin to another hospital.
After speaking with Dickson, Respondent telephoned Dr. Ira Bloomfield, the patient's attending physician at Larkin. Respondent asked Bloomfield if he had been advised that his patient had suffered a grand mal seizure earlier that day. Bloomfield answered in the affirmative and told Respondent that the matter was under control. Respondent then raised the issue of the patient's transfer to another hospital. She told Bloomfield that she and the other nurses thought that such a transfer would be in the best interests of the patient. Furthermore, she offered to do what she could, including speaking with the Dade County State Attorney, Janet Reno, to assist Bloomfield in effectuating such a transfer if he needed such assistance.
Later that same day, Respondent had another telephone conversation with Bloomfield. During this second telephone conversation, Respondent told Bloomfield that she had contacted Janet Reno and that he could do the same if he had a problem finding a suitable facility with an available bed for his patient.
At no time did Respondent tell Dickson or Bloomfield that she had made arrangements to have the patient transferred. In fact, she had made no such arrangements.
Respondent fully recognized that she was without authority to initiate the transfer of the patient and that a physician's order from Bloomfield was necessary for such a transfer to occur. Her purpose in speaking with Bloomfield was to provide him with information that he would be able to use in deciding whether to issue such a transfer order. 2/ Respondent believed that it was important for Bloomfield to know that, if he wanted to transfer the patient to a facility like Jackson, a bed could be made available for that purpose. She therefore took it upon herself to convey this information to Bloomfield.
Although Respondent was attempting to be helpful, her efforts were not appreciated by Bloomfield. It was his belief that Respondent's intervention in the matter was inappropriate. Accordingly, he contacted Lynda Plummer, Larkin's Director of Nursing, to complain about Respondent. Plummer responded to Bloomfield's complaint by contacting Respondent's nursing agency and requesting that Respondent not be assigned to work at Larkin anymore. The agency complied with Plummer's request. Respondent did not work at Larkin after the end of her shift on July 17, 1990.
Nonetheless, Respondent remained interested in the patient's progress. She called Larkin on various occasions subsequent to July 17, 1990, to find out about the patient's condition. She expected to obtain such information from the switchboard operator at the hospital, who usually answers such inquiries. Respondent's calls, however, were routed either to an ICU staff member or to Plummer or another supervisor, notwithstanding that Respondent did not ask to speak with anyone other than the switchboard operator.
On at least one occasion, when Respondent's call was transferred to Plummer, Respondent sought to engage Plummer in a discussion regarding the care the patient was receiving. Plummer declined to partake in such a discussion.
During a subsequent telephone conversation with Respondent, Plummer, who had been informed by her staff of the previous phone calls that Respondent had made to the hospital, told Respondent that her phone calls were disruptive to patient care and that they should therefore stop.
Plummer instructed her nursing staff, if they received a telephone call from Respondent, to tell Respondent that she should not make any further inquiries regarding the patient.
Bloomfield never ordered the transfer of the patient. The patient therefore remained at Larkin.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board of Nursing (Board) is statutorily empowered to discipline licensed registered nurses based upon any of the grounds enumerated in Section 464.018(1), Florida Statutes.
The proof establishing the existence of these grounds for discipline must be clear and convincing. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Evans Packing Company v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 550 So.2d 112, 116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Pascale v. Department of Insurance, 525 So.2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). "The evidence must be of such
weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So.2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).
Furthermore, the disciplinary action taken may be based only upon the offenses specifically alleged in the administrative complaint. See Kinney v. Department of State, 501 So.2d 129, 133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Hunter v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
In determining whether the licensee has violated Section 464.018, Florida Statutes, as charged in the administrative complaint, one "must bear in mind that it is, in effect, a penal statute . . . this being true the statute must be strictly construed and no conduct is to be regarded as included within it that is not reasonably proscribed by it. Furthermore, if there are any ambiguities included such must be construed in favor of the . . . licensee." Lester v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, 348 So.2d 923, 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
The Administrative Complaint issued in the instant case alleges that the Board of Nursing has grounds to discipline Respondent pursuant to Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes.
Subsection (1)(h) of Section 464.018, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board to take disciplinary action against a licensed registered nurse for "[u]nprofessional conduct, which shall include, but not be limited to, any departure from, or the failure to conform to, the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice, in which case actual injury need not be established."
Florida Administrative Code Rule 21O-10.005(1)(e) enumerates various acts that constitute "unprofessional conduct," within the meaning of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, for which a licensed registered nurse may be disciplined. Among these acts is "[p]racticing beyond the scope of the licensee's license, educational preparation or nursing experience." Fla. Admin. Code Rule 21O-10.005(1)(e)15.
The Department contends in its proposed recommended order that Respondent "exceeded the scope of her nursing license" in violation of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, "[by] assuming responsibility for the care of a patient not assigned to her and [by] attempting to initiate a transfer without the appropriate authorization of a physician." The evidence adduced at hearing, however, is insufficient to support these allegations of "unprofessional conduct."
While Respondent did assist in the care of the 16-year old, critically ill patient referenced in the Administrative Complaint during the latter part of her shift on July 17, 1990, she did so at the request of the assigned nurse. In complying with the assigned nurse's request for assistance, Respondent did not exceed the scope of her license, nor did she otherwise violate any controlling standard of professional conduct. To the contrary, she did what any dedicated and caring nurse with her training and experience would have done under like circumstances.
As the Department suggests, a nurse who initiates, or attempts to initiate, the transfer of a patient without the attending physician's authorization is guilty of acting outside the scope of her license. Respondent, however, did not take any steps to initiate such an unauthorized transfer in the instant case. While she telephoned other area hospitals, she did so merely to
obtain information regarding bed availability, which information she intended to, and ultimately did, pass on to the attending physician. By gathering such information and conveying it to the attending physician for him to consider and weigh in deciding whether to issue a transfer order, Respondent did not exceed the scope of her license, nor did she otherwise violate any controlling standard of professional conduct.
Respondent made other telephone calls that, according to the Administrative Complaint, she should not have. Specifically, subsequent to July 17, 1990, she telephoned Larkin on a regular basis to find out the condition of the patient. Although the Department established that these telephone calls were made, it failed to demonstrate that there is anything "unprofessional" about a nurse making regular inquiries regarding the condition of a former patient as did Respondent in the instant case.
Because the Department has not met its burden of demonstrating that Respondent is guilty of "unprofessional conduct," within the meaning of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the instant Administrative Complaint, said Administrative Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order (1) finding the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent engaged in "unprofessional conduct," within the meaning of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as charged in the instant Administrative Complaint, and (2) dismissing said Administrative Complaint in its entirety.
RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September, 1991.
STUART M. LERNER
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 19th day of September, 1991.
ENDNOTES
1/ Nurses at Larkin are expected to follow the chain of command in expressing any concerns they may have regarding the adequacy of care a patient is receiving.
2/ Before issuing a transfer order, pursuant to protocol, the attending physician must find a hospital to accept the patient and, if he does not have privileges at the accepting hospital, he must also find a physician with such privileges willing to assume the care of the patient. Typically, the primary
care nurse at the transferring hospital does not become actively involved in the process until the transfer order issues.
3/ The Hearing Officer has credited Respondent's version of what she said to Bloomfield during their telephone conversations on July 17, 1990, and rejected Bloomfield's account of these conversations to the extent that it conflicts with Respondent's testimony. Compared to Respondent, Bloomfield displayed only a dim and spotty recollection of the critical details of these conversations.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0642
The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in the instant case:
The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact
1-8. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order.
Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Accepted and incorporated in substance.
11-13. Rejected because it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 3/
14-27. Accepted and incorporated in substance.
28. Rejected because it is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact
1-3. Accepted and incorporated in substance.
4. Rejected because it is more in the nature of argument concerning the significance of testimony given at hearing than a finding of fact.
5-6. Rejected because they would add only unnecessary detail to the factual findings made by the Hearing Officer.
7-8. Accepted and incorporated in substance.
9. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a summary of testimony than a finding of fact.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Roberta Fenner, Esquire Department of Professional
Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Richard Lee Ruben, Esquire 10761 S.W. 104th Street Miami, Florida 33176
David Mishael, Esquire
155 S. Miami Avenue Suite 1100
Miami, Florida 33130
Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing
Department of Professional Regulation
504 Daniel Building
111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:
ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ALL AGENCIES ALLOW EACH PARTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. SOME AGENCIES ALLOW A LARGER PERIOD OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE CONCERNING AGENCY RULES ON THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF NURSING
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
Petitioner,
vs. | DOAH CASE NO.: | 91-0642 |
DPR CASE NO.: | 90-9379 | |
SUZANNE R. FERGUSON COOKE, |
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
Respondent, Suzanne R. Ferguson Cooke, holds Florida license no. RN 60839-2 as a registered nurse. Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint seeking disciplinary action against the license.
Respondent requested a formal hearing and one was held before the Division of Administrative Hearings. A Recommended Order has been forwarded to the Board pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. A copy of the Recommended Order is attached to and by reference made a part of this order.
The Board of Nursing met on December 5, 1991, in Tampa, Florida, to take final agency action. The Board has reviewed the entire record supplied in the case. The Petitioner filed exceptions to the Recommended Order. The Respondent did not file any response to those exceptions. Neither Respondent nor her counsel were present at the Board meeting.
RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS
The Board accepts Petitioner's First Exception. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are based on hearsay and have no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support them. (Transcript p. 33, 160, 234). They are stricken.
The Board accepts Petitioner's Second Exception and strikes the final sentence of Paragraph 9 of the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support this allegation.
The Board accepts Petitioner's Third Exception. There is competent, substantial evidence in the record to support allegations of unprofessional conduct (Transcript p. 94, 103). Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law are rejected to the extent that as a matter of law Respondent's assumption of care of a patient not assigned to her does constitute unprofessional conduct even if it was at the request of another nurse.
The Board accepts Petitioner's Fourth Exception. The evidence adduced, as a matter of law, constitutes unprofessional conduct.
The Board rejects Petitioner's Fifth Exception and accepts the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law in Paragraph 10.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board accepts and adopts the Findings of Fact in the Recommended Order, as amended by the Rulings on Exceptions.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board accepts and adopts paragraphs 1-6 and 10 of the Conclusions of Law contained in the Recommended Order.
Based on its Rulings on Exceptions, the Board, sua sponte, rejects paragraph 11 of the Conclusions of Law contained in the Recommended Order, as well as paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 pursuant to its Rulings on Exceptions.
DISPOSITION
The Board finds the Respondent in violation of one count of unprofessional conduct, contrary to Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes.
The Board reprimands the license of Suzanne R. Ferguson Cooke.
She must pay a $200 administrative fine within ninety days of this order.
The licensee shall enroll in and successfully complete courses in legal aspects. This shall be in addition to other normally required continuing education courses. Home study courses will not be accepted to satisfy this condition unless specifically authorized by the Board. Verification of course content and course completion must be submitted to the Probation Supervisor within 6 months from the date of this Order.
Pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, the parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Final Order by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the clerk of the agency and by filing the filing fee and one copy of a notice of appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty days of the date that this order is filed.
Done and Ordered this 31st day of January, 1992.
BOARD OF NURSING
Sandra Darling, ORNA, ARNP Vice Chairman
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been furnished by certified mail to RICHARD LEE RUBEN, ESQUIRE, 10761 Southwest 104th Street, Miami, Florida 33176; DAVID B. MISHAEL, ESQUIRE, 155 South Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33130; SUZANNE COOKE, 818 Capri Street, Miami, Florida 33134-2504; and by interoffice mail to ROBERTA L. FENNER, Attorney at Law, Department of Professional Regulation, 1940 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, FL 32399-0773; and STUART M. LERNER, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550, this
31st day of January, 1992.
Judie K. Ritter Executive Director
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Feb. 03, 1992 | Final Order filed. |
| Sep. 19, 1991 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held July 9 and 23, 1991. |
| Sep. 06, 1991 | Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed. (From Roberta Fenner) |
| Aug. 30, 1991 | (Respondent) Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Aug. 16, 1991 | (Respondent) Objection to Continuance filed. (From Richard Lee Ruben) |
| Aug. 14, 1991 | Order sent out. (proposed recommended orders due 9/10/91) |
| Aug. 13, 1991 | Transcript (Vols 1&2) filed. |
| Aug. 12, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion For Enlargement of Time to File a Proposed Recommended Order filed. (From Roberta L. Fenner) |
| Aug. 09, 1991 | Letter to SML from Richard L. Ruben (re: telephone coversation) filed. |
| Aug. 07, 1991 | (Respondent) Motion to Withdraw filed. (From Richard Lee Ruben) |
| Jul. 23, 1991 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jul. 18, 1991 | Notice of Availability for Hearing filed. (From Robert L. Fenner) |
| Jul. 17, 1991 | Order sent out. (hearing set for 7/23/91; 11:00am; Miami) |
| Jul. 09, 1991 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held, continued to 7/23/91; 11:00am; Miami) |
| Jul. 03, 1991 | Order sent out. (Re: Larkin's motion to strike, denied). |
| Jul. 02, 1991 | Larkin General Hospital's Memorandum of Law in Support of Its Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Strike; Motion for Protective Order; Motion to Strike; & cover letter from K. Shapiro filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1991 | Petitioner's Supplimental Response to Respondent's Interrogs. filed. |
| Jun. 28, 1991 | Memorandum of Law (unsigned) filed. (From Richard Lee Ruben) |
| Jun. 24, 1991 | Order sent out. (re: motion to compel production of documents/discovery) |
| Jun. 17, 1991 | Respondent's Motion to Compel Production of Documents/Discovery filed. |
| Jun. 06, 1991 | Re-Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. (From Richard Lee Ruben) |
| Jun. 03, 1991 | Re-Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (3) filed. (From Richard Lee Ruben) |
| May 15, 1991 | Order sent out. (Re: Respondent's Motion to Compel Production of documents/discovery). |
| May 13, 1991 | Respondent's Motion to Compel Production of Documents/Discovery filed. (From Richard Lee Ruben) |
| May 01, 1991 | Order sent out. (re: respondent's motion to compel discovery) |
| Apr. 18, 1991 | (Petitioner) Response For Respondent's Motion to Compel Discovery filed. (from Tracey Hartman) |
| Apr. 10, 1991 | Order sent out. (hearing reset for 7/9/91; 11:15am; Miami) |
| Apr. 08, 1991 | (Respondent) Motion to Discovery Compel filed. (From Ricahrd Lee Ruben) |
| Apr. 03, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Mar. 22, 1991 | Notice of Service of Petitioners Request for Admissions, Request to Produce and First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent; Petitioners First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent; Petitioners Request for Admissions; Petitioners Request to Produce; Petitio |
| Mar. 14, 1991 | (Petitioner) Notice of Sendcing Respondent's Interrogatories w/exhibit-A; Request For Production; Answer to Adminsitrative Complaint; Notice of Sending Request For Production filed. (From Richard Lee Ruben) |
| Feb. 20, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 5/1/91; at 9:00am; in Miami) |
| Feb. 13, 1991 | (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed. (From Tracey S. Hartman) |
| Jan. 31, 1991 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jan. 28, 1991 | Agency referral letter; Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 31, 1992 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 19, 1991 | Recommended Order | RN did not act unprofessionally in assisting in care of patient at assigned nurse's request or in making telephone inquiries re: patient. |
