STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PHILIP A. PAYNE, D.D.S., )
DAVID M. ROSHKIND, D.D.S. AND ) THE FLORIDA ACADEMY OF LASER DENTISTRY, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 93-5941RP
) DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF DENTISTRY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to notice, Don W. Davis, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on October 30, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Jeffrey H. Barker
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 1107 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondent: Allen R. Grossman
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The issue for determination is whether a proposed amendment to existing Rule 54Q-16.001(1), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By Petition Seeking Administrative Determination Of The Invalidity of Proposed Rule Amendment, dated October 13, 1993, Petitioner challenged the validity of Respondent's proposed amendment to Rule 59Q-16.001(1), Florida Administrative Code. The proposed amendment, as stipulated by the parties, was originally published as an amendment to Rule 61F-16.001(1), Florida Administrative Code, but subsequent changes to Respondent's assigned chapter numbers in the Florida Administrative Code resulted in the change of the rule number.
The proposed rule addresses a change in the rule definition of the term "remediable tasks" to prohibit consideration of "the use of a laser or laser device" as a remediable task.
At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of three (3) witnesses and ten (10) exhibits. Respondent presented testimony of two (2) witnesses and twenty-two (22) exhibits. A transcript of the final hearing was filed on December 5, 1995.
The parties requested and were granted leave to file posthearing submissions more than 10 days after the filing of the transcript, and in accordance with Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code, waived provisions of Rule 28-5.402, Florida Administrative Code.
Proposed findings of fact previously submitted by the parties were considered by the undersigned and are addressed in the appendix to this final order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Standing Of The Parties
Petitioners Roshkind and Payne are each dentists, licensed to practice in the State of Florida and regulated by the Board of Dentistry. Both Roshkind and Payne utilize dental lasers in their practice of dentistry.
Petitioners Roshkind and Payne both own laser dental equipment and employ dental hygienists in their respective practices who perform or have performed, under supervision, a task known as gingival curettage by using laser equipment.
Should the rule amendment challenged in these proceedings become effective, neither Roshkind or Payne will be able to delegate the task of gingival curettage by use of laser equipment to their dental hygienists and, as a consequence, will have to perform these tasks personally.
Further, in the absence of the ability to delegate performance of gingival curettage with laser equipment to dental hygienist employees, both dentists will be forced to see fewer patients if they continue the use of laser equipment for the performance of this task by themselves with a resultant increase in cost of this service to patients.
Both dentists will be substantially impacted by the adoption of the rule amendment.
No record testimony regarding the status of the Florida Academy of Laser Dentistry was presented during the Final Hearing by either party.
Respondent Board of Dentistry is the statutory agency authorized to regulate the licensure and practice of dentistry and dental hygiene. The Respondent maintains offices at 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765.
The Proposed Rule Amendment, Statutory Basis, And The Process
The existing rule, with the proposed amendment underlined, reads as follows:
59Q-16.001 Definitions of Remediable Tasks and Supervision Levels.
Remediable tasks, also referred to as expanded functions of dental assistants, are those intro-oral tasks which do not create unalterable changes in the oral cavity or contiguous structures, are reversible and do not expose a patient to increased risk. The use of a laser or laser device of any type is not a remediable task.
Section 466,023, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part that:
Dental hygienists may remove calculus deposits, accretions, and stains from the exposed surfaces of the teeth and from the gingival sulcus; perform root planning and curettage; . . . and perform all tasks delegable
by the dentist in accordance with Section 466.024.
Section 466.024, Florida Statutes, provides:
A dentist may not delegate irremediable tasks to a dental hygienist or dental assistant, except as provided by law. A dentist may delegate remediable tasks to a dental hygienist or dental assistant when such tasks pose no risk to the patient. A dentist may only delegate remediable tasks so defined by law or rule of the board. The board shall be rule designate which tasks are remediable and delegable,
except that the following are by law found to be remediable and delegable:
Taking impressions for study casts but not for the purpose of fabricating any intraoral restorations or orthodontic appliances.
Placing periodontal dressings.
Removing periodontal or surgical dressings.
Removing sutures.
Placing or removing rubber dams.
Placing or removing matrices.
Placing or removing restorations.
Placing or removing temporary restorations.
Polishing amalgam restorations.
Polishing clinical crowns of the teeth for the purpose of removing stains but not for changing the existing contour of the tooth.
Obtaining bacteriological cytological specimens not involving cutting of the tissue.
Nothing in the subsection shall be construed
to limit delegable tasks to those specified herein.
[Notwithstanding subsection (1), a dentist may delegate the tasks of gingival curettage and root planning to a dental hygienist but not to a dental assistant]. [emphasis supp.]
The term "irremediable tasks" is defined in Section 466.003(11), Florida Statutes, as:
[T]hose intraoral treatment tasks which when performed are irreversible and create unalter- able changes within the oral cavity or the contiguous structures or which cause an incr- eased risk to the patient.
The term "remediable tasks" is defined in Section 466.003(12), Florida Statutes, as:
[T]hose intraoral treatment tasks which are reversible and do not create unalterable
changes within the oral cavity or the contiguous structures and which do not cause an increased risk to the patient.
In January 1992, the issue of laser use in the practice of dentistry came to the attention of the Board of Dentistry and a committee was formed to examine the issue.
The Board's laser committee held numerous meetings and considered information from several sources. One committee recommendation was the language at issue in the current rule challenge.
On September 17, 1993, the Board of Dentistry filed notice of the proposed laser rule with the Secretary of State's Office and with the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee. On October 8, 1994, the Board of Dentistry held a final public hearing on the proposed laser rule. This public hearing did not resolve the issues between the parties.
The legislature has designated the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as the government agency responsible for the promulgation of rules to protect personal health and safety of persons exposed to laser devices. Section 501.122(2), Florida Statutes.
Curettage
In dental practice, the task known as curettage, subgingival curettage, or gingival curettage is the removal of inflamed, infected, or diseased soft gum tissue from inside an area known as the periodontal pocket.
Curettage was named after the instrument by which it was first performed, a curette; however, several other instruments or devices are now used to perform the task, including curettesm sonic devices, ultrasonic devices, piezo electric devices, and lasers.
As established by testimony of Petitioners' expert witnesses, Drs. Parkins and Roshkind, and corroborated by authorities relied upon by them, there is use for gingival curettage, including performance of that task by lasers.
A laser is not a task.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the Parties and subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes.
Petitioners Roshkind and Payne will be substantially impacted by the proposed rule amendment which is the subject of this proceeding and have standing to bring this proceeding.
In the absence of any appearance at the final hearing or presentment of record testimony regarding the status of the Florida Academy of Laser Dentistry during the Final Hearing, this entity is dismissed as a party to this proceeding.
Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes, states:
Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule
is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply:
The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth
in s. 120.54;
The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7);
The rule enlarges, modifies, or cont- ravenes the specific provisions of law imple- mented, citation to which is required by
s. 120.54(7);
The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or
The rule is arbitrary or capricious.
Under current statutory provisions, dental hygienists may perform remediable tasks as defined in Section 466.024(1), Florida Statutes "and, notwithstanding" the definitions of those remediable tasks, the tasks of gingival curettage and root planning as specified in Section 466.024(2), Florida Statutes.
Nothing in Section 466.024(2), Florida Statutes, the statutory authority for dental hygienists to perform gingival curettage and root planning, suggests that the legislature has defined either of those tasks as remediable or not remediable. Instead, the performance of these tasks by dental hygienists has been exempted from the Board of Dentistry's authority to effectively determine through the process of determining if the procedure is remediable, whether a task may be a subject for delegation by a dentist.
Nevertheless, the net effect of Respondent's rule amendment, if implemented, is a determination that the task of gingival curettage is not remediable if performed with laser technology. Such a determination is without a basis in statutory authority and cannot override the specific separation, provided by Section 466.024(2), Florida Statutes, of gingival curettage and root planning from the definition of remediable tasks.
Alternatively stated, Respondent may determine by rule, with exception of the task of gingival curettage and root planning, whether a task is remediable. Section 466.024, Florida Statutes. The mechanism that Respondent should use to determine remediability is the application of the definition of "[r]emediable tasks" set forth in Section 466.003(12), Florida Statutes.
Respondent may determine, minus the noted exceptions and in accordance with the statutory elements of Section 466.003(12), Florida Statutes, which intraoral treatment tasks are reversible, which treatment tasks do not create unalterable changes, and which treatment tasks do not cause increased risk to patients.
The definitional parameters of Section 466.003(12), Florida Statutes, do not permit Respondent to make such determinations with regard to a particular device used for performance of a treatment task.
Further, Respondent does not have the legislatively delegated authority to redefine gingival curettage or root planning as remediable, or not remediable, for the purpose of prohibiting the use of certain instrumentation to carry out those tasks.
To the extent that Respondent seeks to address safety concerns of individuals with regard to lasers, it should be noted that efforts in this regard could be considered duplicative of the legislative designation of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as the government agency responsible for the promulgation of rules to protect personal health and safety of persons exposed to laser devices. Section 501.122(2), Florida Statutes.
To the extent that the proposed amendment to Rule 59Q-16.001(1), Florida Administrative Code, would prohibit dentists from delegating the task of gingival curettage by use of dental lasers, the proposed rule exceeds the authority delegated by the legislature to Respondent and may not be adopted.
With due regard to the well established principle that contemporaneous construction of a statute by the agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight, deference to an agency's interpretation is not absolute and Respondent cannot implement any conceivable construction of a statute. Department of Natural Resources v. Wingfield Development Co., 581 So. 2d 193, 197, 198 (1st DCA 1991). The rule contravenes provisions of Subsection 466.024(2), Florida Statutes, and, to that extent, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority when applied to dental hygienists in the performance of the task of gingival curettage.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED that the proposed amendment to Rule 59Q-16.001(1), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority under Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes, to the extent that it seeks to prohibit performance of gingival curettage with laser technology by dental hygienists.
DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DON W. DAVIS, 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 February, 1996.
APPENDIX
The following constitutes my rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, upon proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings.
1.-16. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. 17.-41. Rejected, unnecessary to conclusion.
42.-50. Rejected, hearsay.
51.-54. Adopted, not verbatim. 55.-57. Rejected, unnecessary. 58.-62. Accepted, not verbatim. 63.-66. Rejected, unnecessary.
67. Adopted.
68.-73. Subordinate to HO findings. Respondent's Proposed Findings.
Adopted in substance.
Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 3.-6. Adopted in substance.
7.-27. Rejected, subordinate to HO summary of these matters.
Further, the statements contained in exhibits are, absent stipulation of the parties, insufficient in themselves to serve as the basis for a finding of fact.
28. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 29.-30. Rejected, argumentative.
31. Rejected, weight of the evidence. 32.-34. Adopted, not verbatim.
35.-36. Rejected, relevance.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Jeffrey H. Barker, Esquire Post Office Box 1107 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
William Buckhalt, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Medical Quality Assurance 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Jerome Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building 3
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Richard T. Farrell, Secretary Department of Business and
Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Liz Cloud, Chief
Bureau of Administrative Code Department of State
The Elliott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Holland Building, Room 120 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
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 Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
=================================================================
DISTRICT COURT OPINION
=================================================================
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
BOARD OF DENTISTRY, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.
vs. CASE NO. 96-870
DOAH CASE NO. 93-5941RP
PHILIP A. PAYNE, D. D. S. and DAVID M. ROSHKIND,
Appellees.
/ Opinion filed January 22, 1997.
An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General and Allen R. Grossman, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellant.
Jeffrey H. Barker, Tallahassee for Appellees and Paul Watson Lambert, Tallahassee, for Amicus Curiae.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Board of Dentistry (Board) challenges an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings holding that a proposed amendment to Rule 59Q-16.001(1), Florida Administrative Code is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority to the extent that it seeks to prohibit performance of gingival curettage with laser technology by dental hygienists. We reverse because the hearing officer placed tighter constrictions on the board's authority than the law requires. Although the statutes applied by the hearing officer restrict the Board's ability to prohibit a dentist from delegating the task of gingival curettage to a dental hygienist, nothing in the statutes completely bars the Board from regulating the use of certain tools available to perform a delegable task.
Under Chapter 466 Florida Statutes, the Board is authorized to regulate the licensure and practice of dentistry and dental hygiene. Section 466.024, Florida Statutes provides:
A dentist may not delegate irremediable tasks to a dental hygienist or dental assistant, except as provided by law. A dentist may delegate remediable tasks to a
dental hygienist or dental assistant when such tasks pose no risk to the patient. A dentist may only delegate remediable tasks so defined by law or rule of the board. The board shall by rule designate which tasks are remediable and delegable, except that the following are by law found to be remediable and delegable:
Taking impressions for study casts but not for the purpose of fabricating any intraoral restorations or orthodontic appliances.
Placing periodontal dressings.
Removing periodontal or surgical dressings.
Removing sutures.
Placing or removing rubber dams.
Placing or removing matrices.
Placing or removing restorations.
Placing or removing temporary restorations.
Polishing amalgam restorations.
Polishing clinical crowns of the teeth for purpose of removing stains but not for changing the existing contour of the tooth.
Obtaining bacteriological cytological specimens not involving cutting of the tissue. delegable
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit delegable tasks to those specified herein.
Notwithstanding subsection (1), a dentist may delegate the tasks of gingival curettage and root planing to a dental hygienist but not to a dental assistant.
By enacting the rules contained in chapter 59Q-1E, Florida Administrative Code, the Board has attempted to fulfill its responsibility of setting out those tasks that are remediable and delegable by a dentist to a dental hygienist or dental assistant. The existing rule, with the proposed amendment underlined, reads:
59Q-16.001 Definitions of Remediable Tasks and Supervision Levels.
(1) Remediable tasks, also referred to as expanded functions of dental assistants, are those intro-oral tasks which do not create unalterable changes in the oral cavity or contiguous structures, are reversible and do not expose a patient to increased risk. The use of a laser or laser device of any type is not a remediable
The hearing officer found the proposed laser rule "contravenes provisions of Subsection 466.024(2), Florida Statutes, and, to that extent, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated authority when applied to dental hygienists in the performance of the task of gingival curettage." The hearing officer based this ultimate conclusion upon his reasoning that, "[T]he net effect of (the) rule amendment, if implemented, is a determination that the task of gingival curettage is not remediable if performed with laser technology. Such a determination is without a basis in statutory authority and cannot override the specific separation, provided by Section 466.024(2), Florida Statutes, of gingival curettage and root planing from the definition of remediable tasks."
Notwithstanding this reasoning, however, the laser rule does not improperly infringe upon the legislature's determination that a dentist may delegate gingival curettage to a dental hygienist. The rule does not even address curettage; 1/ rather, it addresses the propriety of a dental hygienist's use of a laser device. We cannot agree with the hearing officer's conclusion that the Board is completely stripped of any power to regulate, rather than prohibit a hygienist's performance of a task found by the legislature to be delegable.
We are directed by the Board to numerous instances in rule chapter 59Q-16 where an identified task is delegable only when performed with specified equipment.
See, e.g. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59Q-16.005(1)(c), (d), (e), (f); 59Q-
16.006(3)(a), (b), (d), (h) 59Q-16.007(1)(b)(1995).
When the legislature authorizes an agency of the state to enforce a statute enacted under the police power, such as the instant statute, the legislature is not required to prescribe specific rules of action or to specifically cover every conceivable situation that may confront the agency. Astral Liquors, Inc.
v. Department of Bus. Reg., 463 So.2d 1130 (Fla. 1985); Florida State Bd. of Architecture v. Wasserman, 377 So.2d 653, 656 (Fla. 1979) Rule making authority may be implied to the extent necessary to properly implement a statute governing the agency's statutory duties and responsibilities. Department of Prof. Reg. Bd. of Prof. Engineers v. Florida Soc'y of Prof. Land Surveyors, 475 So.2d 939, 942 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The legislative purpose of chapter 466 is to "ensure that every dentist or dental hygienist practicing in this state meets minimum requirements for safe practice." s 466.001, Fla. Stat. (1995). The Board was apparently influenced by matters of record suggesting that lasers have qualitively different effects on human tissue than do other dental instrumentalities. This was, in our judgment, a matter within the Board's expertise, and nothing in the order on review suggests otherwise.
Accordingly, we REVERSE the hearing officer's order and uphold the proposed rule.
REVERSED.
ERVIN, KAHN and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
ENDNOTE
1/ According to the record, gingival curettage is the removal of inflamed, infected, or diseased soft gum tissue from inside an area known as the periodontal pocket. Traditionally, this task has been accomplished with a surgical steel instrument, inserted into the space between the tooth and gum and swiped along the side of the tissue to remove infected or inflamed tissue. In recent years other instruments, including lasers and sonic devices have been used in dentistry to accomplish the same results as traditional curettage.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 07, 1997 | Order on Motion for Return of Evidence sent out. |
| Mar. 25, 1997 | Motion for Return of Physical Evidence with cover letter (from Petitioner) filed. |
| Mar. 20, 1997 | First DCA Opinion and Mandate filed. |
| Jan. 24, 1997 | First DCA Opinion (Reversed) filed. |
| Aug. 30, 1996 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT (Amicus Curiae to show cause within 10 days why Motion to Strike amended brief should not be granted) filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1996 | Index, Record, Certificate of Record sent out. |
| Jun. 17, 1996 | BY ORDER OF THE COURT (Motion for Extension of time is granted) filed. |
| May 30, 1996 | Payment in the amount of $126.00 filed. |
| Apr. 23, 1996 | Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Apr. 17, 1996 | Letter to DOAH from DCA filed. DCA Case No. 1-96-870. |
| Apr. 10, 1996 | Letter to DOAH from DCA filed. DCA Case No. |
| Mar. 05, 1996 | Certificate of Notice of Appeal sent out. |
| Mar. 05, 1996 | Notice of Appeal filed. |
| Feb. 07, 1996 | CASE CLOSED. Final Order sent out. Hearing held 10/30/95. |
| Jan. 29, 1996 | (Petitioner) Disk filed. |
| Jan. 24, 1996 | Respondent`s Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Order W/Disk (Hearing Officer has disk) filed. |
| Jan. 24, 1996 | Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order filed. |
| Dec. 17, 1995 | Order Granting Stipulated Request for Extension of Time sent out. (proposed final Order should be filed no later than 5 pm on 1/24/96) |
| Dec. 13, 1995 | (Petitioners) Joint Stipulation for Extension of Time for Filing Proposed Final Orders filed. |
| Dec. 05, 1995 | Transcripts (Volumes I, II, tagged) filed. |
| Nov. 06, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing Transcript; Deposition of Dr. Robert T. Ferris filed. |
| Oct. 30, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 26, 1995 | Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Oct. 19, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Oct. 05, 1995 | (Petitioners) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Jul. 31, 1995 | Order Providing Notice of Final Hearing (set for Oct. 30-31, 1995; 9:30am; Tallahassee) sent out. |
| Jul. 28, 1995 | (Petitioners) Status Report and Request for Hearing Date filed. |
| May 23, 1995 | Order Continuing Abeyance Status sent out. (Parties to file status report by 7/31/95) |
| May 01, 1995 | (Petitioners) Status Report and Stipulation for Abatement filed. |
| Feb. 01, 1995 | Order Abating Proceedings sent out. (Parties to file status report by 5/1/95) |
| Jan. 31, 1995 | Joint Motion for Abeyance filed. |
| Oct. 24, 1994 | Order of Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 1/31/95) |
| Oct. 21, 1994 | (Petitioners) Status Report and Stipulation for Abatement filed. |
| Sep. 15, 1994 | Order Granting Further Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 10/21/94) |
| Sep. 12, 1994 | (Respondent) Status Report filed. |
| May 20, 1994 | Order Granting Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report due by 9/14/94) |
| May 19, 1994 | Joint Motion for Abeyance filed. |
| May 10, 1994 | Order sent out. (Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Detailed Written Statement of Facts and Circumstances Justifying Proposed Rule Denied; Petitioner`s Motion to Compel Economic Impact Statement Denied; Respondent`s Motion for Protective Order Granted) |
| May 05, 1994 | Respondent`s Motion for Protective Order w/Exhibits A-C; Response to Motion to Compel Detailed Written Statement of Facts and Circumstances Justifying Proposed Rule w/Exhibit-A; Response to Motion to Compel Economic Impact Statement w/Exhibit-A filed. |
| Apr. 28, 1994 | Order Granting Extension of Time sent out (Respondent to respond to Discovery by 5/6/94) |
| Apr. 25, 1994 | (Respondent) Motion for Extension of Time filed. |
| Apr. 20, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion to Compel Economic Impact Statement; Motion To Compel Detailed Written Statement of facts and Circumstances Justifying Proposed Rules; Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Apr. 20, 1994 | (Petitioners) Notice of Filing Answers To Interrogatories; Interrogatories filed. |
| Mar. 10, 1994 | Order Providing Notice of Final Hearing sent out (6/6/94; 1:00pm; Tallahassee) |
| Mar. 07, 1994 | (Petitioners) Status Report filed. |
| Jan. 10, 1994 | Second Order of Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 3/5/94) |
| Jan. 05, 1994 | Joint Status Report filed. |
| Dec. 30, 1993 | (Petitioners) Notice of Service of Interrogatories filed. |
| Nov. 02, 1993 | Order of Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 1/5/94) |
| Nov. 01, 1993 | Joint Stipulation for Continuance filed. |
| Oct. 21, 1993 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 11/19/93; 9:30am; Tallahassee) |
| Oct. 21, 1993 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| Oct. 19, 1993 | Order of Assignment sent out. |
| Oct. 18, 1993 | Letter to Liz Cloud & Carroll Webb from Marguerite Lockard w/cc: Agency General Counsel sent out. |
| Oct. 13, 1993 | Petition Seeking Administrative Determination Of The Invalidity Of Proposed Rule Amendment filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 20, 1997 | Mandate | |
| Jan. 22, 1997 | Opinion | |
| Jan. 22, 1997 | Opinion | |
| Feb. 07, 1996 | DOAH Final Order | Board of Dentistry is not authorized to regulate ginival curettage by dental hygienists and proposed rule is accordingly invalid. |
