STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, )
BOARD OF DENTISTRY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 97-2609
) CHARLES E. SCHUTT, D.D.S., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Notice was provided and on February 7 and 8, 2000, a formal hearing was held in this case. Authority for conducting the hearing is set forth in Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The hearing location was Room 431, Yates Building, 231 East Forsyth Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The hearing was conducted by Charles C. Adams, Administrative Law Judge.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Howard Bernstein, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration
Office of the General Counsel 2727 Mahan Drive
Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
For Respondent: Robert L. McLeod, II, Esquire
McLeod & Canan, P.A. Post Office Box 2170
43 Cincinnati Avenue
St. Augustine, Florida 32084
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Has Respondent, Charles E. Schutt, D.D.S., violated Sections 466.028(1)(m) and (p), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Department of Health Case No.
92-02364?1
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration, Case No. 92-02364, brought an administrative complaint against Respondent, Charles E. Schutt, D.D.S. That complaint was dated April 30, 1996. The Respondent contested the facts in the administrative complaint. On June 2, 1997, the Division of Administrative Hearings received the case with the request that a hearing be conducted. Following assignment to Charles C. Adams, Administrative Law Judge, the hearing was heard on the aforementioned dates.
Earlier dates for hearing had been noticed. Those dates were cancelled to allow the parties to prepare for hearing.
The Department of Health moved to substitute itself for the Agency for Health Care Administration as Petitioner. On August 21, 1997, an order was entered granting the motion.
The parties moved to continue the hearing scheduled to commence on April 30, 1998, to allow the case to be returned to the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry to consider changes to the administrative complaint through an amendment.
The Amended Administrative Complaint which forms the basis for this dispute was signed August 5, 1998.
Respondent moved to dismiss the case and amended that motion. Petitioner moved to strike the original motion to dismiss and the amended motion to dismiss. Oral argument was held on July 20, 1999, and August 10, 1999, to consider the motions, together with the presentation of evidence. On September 14, 1999, an order was entered denying Petitioner's motions to strike and denying Respondent's motion to dismiss the administrative complaint as amended.
At hearing J.E.D. testified for Petitioner. J.E.D. was formerly known as J.G., and then J.W., and is the patient referred to in the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner also presented Thomas Eugene Shields, D.D.S., as its witness.
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 was admitted. Petitioner was granted an opportunity to file Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 2-4 as late- filed exhibits. Those exhibits were prior versions of Chapters
466 and 893, Florida Statutes, and Rule 21G-13.005, Florida Administrative Code, in relation to disciplinary guidelines. The reserved exhibit numbers pertained to those three items respectively. The motion to accept the late-filed exhibits is granted. Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 2-4 as attached to the motion are admitted.
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 was denied admission at hearing. The resubmission of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5, Rule 21G-17.002,
Florida Administrative Code, as part of the motion for leave to late-filed exhibits is also denied.
Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 6-11, were admitted. Excerpts from the deposition of Robert Romans, D.M.D., were admitted with the exception that the excerpt at line 22, page 58 through line 12, page 59, was denied admission. Dr. Romans' deposition is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12A was admitted. Petitioner's Exhibit 13, excerpts of the deposition Dr. David Woods, was admitted. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14, excerpts of the deposition of John D. Zongker, D.D.S., was admitted. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 15 was admitted.
Petitioner's Exhibit No. 16 was denied admission.
Respondent testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of John D. Zongker, D.D.S. Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 were admitted.
Thomas Eugene Shields II, D.D.S. was presented as a rebuttal witness.
When the hearing adjourned, counsel for Respondent requested that he be afforded 20 days from the filing of the transcript to file a proposed recommended order. That request was not opposed by Petitioner's counsel and was granted. Subsequent to the hearing, Petitioner's counsel, without opposition from Respondent's counsel, requested an extension until April 14, 2000, to file proposed recommended orders. By these requests the parties waived the requirement that the recommended order be
entered within 30 days of the filing of the transcript. Rule 28- 106.216, Florida Administrative Code. The hearing transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 18, 2000. Petitioner's proposed recommended order was filed on April 15, 2000. Respondent's proposed recommended order was filed on April 17, 2000. The proposed recommended orders have been considered in preparing the Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent is licensed to practice dentistry in Florida. His license number is DN005795.
On and off commencing December 30, 1985, and ending April 20, 1987, Respondent treated a patient known as J.G. She was subsequently known as J.W. She is now known as J.E.D.
During the treatment Respondent prescribed the patient
J.G. Mepergan Fortis 50 mg on numerous occasions. Mepergan Fortis is a Schedule II controlled substance. It is an opoiod analgesic. It contains 50 mg of Demerol. Demerol is a Schedule II controlled substance and is an opoiod analgesic. Mepergan Fortis also contains Phenergan 25 mg. In this combination the Phenergan potentiates the effect of the Demerol.
Schedule II controlled substances present a high potential for abuse in relation to possible addiction.
Respondent prescribed Mepergan Fortis in response to the patient's complaints and upon his clinical findings. The issue is raised whether the prescriptions were in excessive or
inappropriate quantities, thus not in the best interest of the patient and not in the course of professional practice.
On December 30, 1985, when Respondent first saw J.G., it was on an emergency basis. When the patient presented she complained that she had a "tooth ache." The tooth involved was No. 30. Respondent provided treatment through surgery known as an "apico" or "apicoectomy." On that date Respondent prescribed
30 Mepergan Fortis 50 mg and 15 Valium 10 mg. That series of prescriptions was repeated on January 2, 1986.
Between the prescriptions given on December 30, 1985, and the repeat prescriptions on January 2, 1986, the patient's record reports that the patient had to take 2 to 3 pain medications at one time to get comfortable. The patient record indicates that C.E.S., taken to mean the Respondent, said that this was okay. The note in the patient's record concerning the amount of medication "to get comfortable" was entered December 31, 1985.
On January 9, 1986, the patient J.G. received another prescription of Mepergan Fortis 50 mg from Respondent. This was a prescription for 20 tablets. An entry was made in the patient record that at the time the patient still had some swelling but the swelling should subside.
On January 14, 1986, the record for patient J.G. indicates that the patient called and stated that she had some feeling in her lower lip area that was coming back and that she
had pain and wanted pain medication. A note was made that C.E.S. (Respondent) would need to see the patient. A note reflects that there was still some swelling. A note was made that the patient should continue heat and antibiotics. A prescription was provided for 40 tablets V-Cillin K 500 mg. On January 14, 1986, another prescription was written by Respondent for Mepergan Fortis 50 mg, 20 tablets. On that date a note was made that the patient should call tomorrow to inform the office how she was doing. A note was made on that date that C.E.S. (Respondent) would like to see the patient in a week.
The patient J.G. was seen on February 28, 1986. She was prescribed 30 tablets of Mepergan Fortis 50 mg on that date.
On March 7, 1986, an entry was made in the patient record that J.G. was still hurting. A prescription for 25 tablets, Mepergan Fortis 50 mg was written on that date together with V-Cillin K 500 mg, 40 tablets.
On March 14, 1986, the patient J.G. returned to Respondent for extraction of tooth No. 30. On that date the patient was prescribed 20 tablets of Mepergan Fortis 50 mg.
On March 17, 1986, the patient received a prescription of 20 tablets of Mepergan Fortis 50 mg.
On March 19, 1986, patient J.G. called Respondent's office stating that when she "breathed in" there was pain. The patient record notes that C.E.S. (Respondent) states that this sensation is not caused from the extraction of tooth No. 30. The
patient was seen that day. C.E.S. (Respondent) checked the sensitivity of tooth No. 31. According to the patient's record the extraction site of tooth No. 30 was healing well. A prescription of 20 tablets of Mepergan Fortis, 50 mg was prescribed on that date.
On March 27, 1986, the patient, J.G. complained that she was hurting and pointed to tooth No. 31. The patient said she was doing fine until the night before when she was eating. Upon examination C.E.S. (Respondent) explained that sometimes a tooth adjacent to the site of the extraction can be sensitive but usually quiets down. Further arrangements were made to address the patient's condition. Two 5 mg valium were prescribed for
pre-op. On that date, a prescription was provided from Respondent to patient J.G. in the amount of 25 tablets of Mepergan Fortis 50 mg. The appointment that was to take place on March 28, 1986, for possible root canal therapy was rescheduled for April 16, 1986, upon the patient's request.
On April 11, 1986, the patient called and said that she would be in Atlanta until April 21, 1986, and wanted pain medication. According to the patient record, C.E.S. (Respondent) declined to give the patient pain medication unless the patient was undergoing active and regular treatment. This was reported in the patient record as based upon "DPR Regulations."
On November 5, 1986, the patient J.G. called Respondent's office. C.E.S. (Respondent) advised the patient
that root canal therapy was necessary for tooth No. 18. According to the record, the patient agreed that she wanted to save that tooth. On that occasion, Respondent provided J.G. a prescription for 15 tablets of Mepergan Fortis and 40 tablets of Erythromycin, 250 mg. Some treatment was given to the patient for tooth No. 18 on that date with the expectation that the patient would be seen again in 10 days.
On November 7, 1986, the patient called Respondent's office complaining that she still had some discomfort and requesting more pain medication for the weekend. According to the patient's record, C.E.S. (Respondent) "okayed" a prescription for 15 tablets of Mepergan Fortis.
On November 11, 1986, according to the patient's record, the patient J.G. was still having pain in tooth No. 18 where the root canal had been done. C.E.S. (Respondent) opened the root canal, re-irrigated and devoted other attention to the problem. Respondent prescribed 15 tablets of Mepergan Fortis for pain on that occasion.
On November 14, 1986, patient J.G. called Respondent's office from Miami complaining of pain and saying that she would fly back in the "p.m." According to the record, the patient reported that she had one pill left and was still having considerable pain. A note was made in the record that a prescription of Mepergan Fortis in the amount of 10 tablets would be left with a person named "Kay" at the Jiffy Store. In fact,
that prescription was left at the Jiffy Store to be picked-up by the patient.
On November 18, 1986, Respondent completed the root canal therapy on J.G.'s tooth No. 18. The patient's record notes that the patient was to return in three weeks for core build-up. On November 18, 1986, 15 tablets of Mepergan Fortis were prescribed for the patient.
On November 19, 1986, the patient's record reflects that J.G. called reporting that she had a "terrible night" and was taking pain medication 2 or 3 at a time. The record reflects that the patient had some slight swelling. Twenty tablets of Mepergan Fortis were prescribed for the patient on that date. Forty-two Erythromycin tablets, 250 mg were also prescribed.
According to the patient's record, on November 24, 1986, the patient called Respondent's office indicating that there was still some swelling, that she hurt a lot and it hurt to eat. She requested more pain medication. Respondent prescribed
28 tablets of Erythromycin 250 mg and 15 tablets of Mepergan Fortis 50 mg.
On December 4, 1986, Respondent saw patient J.G. concerning tooth No. 18. On that date 15 tablets of Mepergan Fortis 50 mg were prescribed.
According to the patient's record, on February 18, 1987, the patient was having "severe pain" in tooth No. 31. The tooth was marked for root canal therapy and therapy was provided
on that date. On that date 20 tablets of Mepergan Fortis, 50 mg were prescribed with a prescription of 40 tablets of Erythromycin
250 mg.
On March 2, 1987, in relation to tooth No. 31, there was an entry made in the patient's record that the patient was still hurting and that the tooth was sensitive to cold. C.E.S. (Respondent) made an adjustment on the tooth. On that date prescriptions of 20 tablets of Mepergan Fortis, 50 mg and 40 tablets of Erythromycin 250 mg were written.
On March 5, 1987, tooth No. 31 was reopened for treatment based upon the patient's complaints of pain. The patient's record indicates that the patient was to return in about a week to decide how to proceed. On March 5, 1987, a prescription of 30 tablets of Mepergan Fortis was prescribed by Respondent.
On March 9, 1987, the patient's record notes that the patient was still hurting in the area of tooth No. 31 and that
C.E.S. (Respondent) had determined that an "apico" was to be done on the tooth. On March 9, 1987, thirty tablets of Mepergan Fortis were prescribed.
On March 10, 1987, Respondent performed an apicoectomy on tooth No. 31.
According to the patient's record, on March 11, 1987, the patient J.G. called Respondent's office and indicated that Demerol made her nauseated. Instead, J.G. requested Mepergan
Fortis. Respondent prescribed 30 tablets of Mepergan Fortis, 50 mg on that date.
On March 13, 1987, Respondent prescribed J.G. 20 tablets of Valium, 10 mg; 6 tablets of Phenergransupp, 50 mg; 40 tablets of Mepergan Fortis, 50 mg; and 40 tablets of Erythromycin.
On March 16, 1987, patient J.G. presented to Respondent's office with a drain in her tooth that had been placed by another dentist on an emergency basis. According to the patient's record, C.E.S (Respondent) stated that he would leave the drain in until tomorrow. A note in the record on that date indicates that the patient preferred to have an antibiotic and pain medications through an I.V. given at her work. It was noted that her work was in a medical facility. The patient's record indicates that C.E.S. (Respondent) stated that this would be "fine." Demerol, 50 mg/ml was prescribed for the patient J.G.
On March 17, 1987, Respondent removed the drain in J.G.'s tooth. The patient's record notes that the patient was receiving pain medication through I.M. and antibiotics through
I.V. The medications were being administered by a nurse at the patient's place of employment. Respondent prescribed a 3 ml bottle of Demerol injectable, 50 mg/ml and 15 ampules of Phenergran, 50 mg/ml on that date.
On March 19, 1987, the patient J.G. received 30 ml of Demerol, 50 mg/ml and 15 ampules of Phenergran, 50 mg/ml. The
patient's record notes that there was some adema on that date and that the patient was reported to have taken three pain shots the day before of Demerol, 100 mg each time.
On March 23, 1987, a note was made in the patient J.G.'s record concerning some compressibility experienced by the patient. Respondent prescribed 30 ml of Demerol, 50 mg/ml and 5 ampules of Phenergan, 50 mg/ml.
On March 30, 1987, the patient record for J.G. indicates that the patient was still on antibiotics and was "spiking" a fever. Nonetheless, there is an entry that "the tooth does not hurt." On that date Respondent prescribed 20 tablets of Mepergan Fortis, 50 mg.
On April 3, 1987, the patient called Respondent's office stating that she had an earache and wanted "something for swelling." The record notes that C.E.S. (Respondent) would give medication for pain but that nothing else is necessary. Respondent prescribed 40 tablets of Mepergan Fortis on that date.
On April 8, 1987, the patient record for J.G. indicates that the patient had a little residual swelling and that the "pain level" was down quite a bit. Nonetheless, the record indicates that the patient still needed pain medication. On that date Respondent prescribed 40 tablets of Mepergan Fortis, 50mg.
On April 13, 1987, the patient's record indicates that the patient J.G. called and stated that she would be in Miami for
the remainder of the week and requested pain medication. On that date Respondent prescribed 20 tablets of Mepergan Fortis.
On April 17, 1987, Respondent saw patient J.G. in his office. The patient was diagnosed with tendonitis, grade 4. Respondent prescribed 20 tablets of Mepergan Fortis 50mg, "1 cap of 4-6 hr prn for pain."
On April 20, 1987, Respondent saw patient J.G. for TMJ treatment. On that date Respondent wrote a prescription for J.G. for 25 tablets of Mepergan Fortis.
Thomas Eugene Shields, II, DDS, is licensed to practice dentistry in Florida. He reviewed the patient record for J.G. that has been described in relation to the prescription of Mepergan Fortis by Respondent. In Dr. Shields' opinion as a dentist, Respondent over-prescribed Mepergan Fortis. Dr. Shields considered Respondent's prescription of Mepergan Fortis to J.G. over time to be inappropriate. In Dr. Shields' opinion Respondent's prescribing of Mepergan Fortis to J.G. on some occasions was inappropriate as to the length of time prescribed and number of tablets prescribed. Dr. Shields referred to the frequency with which Mepergan Fortis was prescribed at times, given the closeness in time for writing the questioned prescriptions. He criticized the number of pills dispensed at a given time. In Dr. Shields' opinion there is a risk of addiction if Mepergan Fortis is over-prescribed. Given the amount and the frequency of the prescriptions of Mepergan Fortis by Respondent
in this case, Dr. Shields' opinion is that any patient would suffer the risk of becoming addicted to the controlled substance.
In his testimony Respondent explained that he prescribed Mepergan Fortis to J.G. because she kept complaining of pain. He commented that "some people just have a low tolerance for pain." Respondent testified that some people can take Mepergan Fortis every six hours and be comfortable while other people could take two every two hours and not be comfortable, given what their physical make-up may be. In commenting on the reason for these differences Respondent stated, "I have no idea." Given the nature of the procedures the patient was receiving Respondent had reason to believe her reports of pain. In particular, Respondent testified about the fact that a root canal can sometimes cause excruciating pain and that in doing an "apico," when you go into the bone to remove part of the root "that's pretty tough, too, a pretty tough procedure." In summarizing the reasons for prescribing the amount of prescription medications given to J.G. and whether it was inappropriate or excessive, Respondent expressed the opinion that the medications given to J.G. were necessary to alleviate the pain she had. Respondent stated that "she was a difficult patient. And we get them."
Dentists other than Petitioner's principal expert, Dr. Shields, and Respondent testified concerning Respondent's practice prescribing Mepergan Fortis.
Dr. Robert Romans, D.M.D. testified by deposition. He specializes in periodontics. In reviewing Respondent's record concerning the treatment of J.G., Dr. Romans referred to what he saw as "a pattern of rather strong medications in both amount and numbers." He had concerns about the quantities of those drugs being prescribed by Respondent. The drugs being referred to in his remarks were Valium, Mepergan, and Demerol. On the whole, based upon the excerpted testimony from his deposition that was introduced, Dr. Romans rendered no useful opinion concerning the alleged excessive or inappropriate quantities of Mepergan Fortis prescribed by Respondent in treating J.G.
Dr. David D. Woods, an oral surgeon offered his testimony by deposition concerning Respondent's treatment of J.G. His testimony was based upon Respondent's treatment record that has been described. Dr. Woods referred to the amount of narcotics given to J.G. by Respondent as "a lot of narcotics given obviously, but it really -- it really depends on a patient." Dr. Woods testified that J.G. was probably a drug seeker and a manipulator. Having considered the excerpts in the deposition, Dr. Woods did not express an opinion concerning Respondent's prescription of Mepergan Fortis to the patient J.G. that can be relied upon.
Dr. John D. Zongker practices in endodontics. He is licensed in Florida. He had the opportunity to review Respondent's treatment record for J.G. that has been described
concerning prescribing Mepergan Fortis and Valium. In his deposition testimony Dr. Zongker referred to J.G., through "hind- sight," as a patient who has definitely had an abuse problem and who requested a lot of medication, that it was easy to be "hood- winked" by those kinds of patients, and that it was something for which the practitioner needed to be alert. Dr. Zongker refers to the amount of narcotics prescribed as a "little high" because of manipulation by the patient. In the deposition, in addressing whether the quantity of drugs prescribed by Respondent was high in the case of J.G., Dr. Zongker said that he felt that this was an easy trap to get into where the patient may have some legitimate pain and complaint. In which case, at some point a decision has to be made about whether the pain is real. But Dr. Zongker really arrives at no opinion in that deposition testimony concerning the prescribing by Respondent. In his testimony at hearing, Dr. Zongker indicated that he considered it appropriate for a dentist to continue use of pain medication such as Mepergan Fortis as long as the dentist felt that he was still dealing with the same pain and that the dentist believed that the patient was in pain. Dr. Zongker expressed the opinion the J.G. was a patient who required more than the normal amount of medication for the procedures she was undergoing. Dr. Zongker refers to the large dosage of Mepergan Fortis in the numbers of tablets and the fact that it had extended over several episodes of different types of treatment. He refers to the necessity at some point in
time to make a decision whether a patient such as J.G. has a clinical need for the medication or a psychological need. What makes it more difficult to determine in this instance, under Dr. Zongker's analysis, is that there were a number of procedures over time making it "more hazy as to what that cut-off is" for determining whether the patient's need was clinical or psychological.
Having considered all of the opinions by the experts, Dr. Shields' opinion that Respondent prescribed J.G. excessive and inappropriate quantities of Mepergan Fortis on certain occasions, when taking into consideration the amounts within the prescriptions and the frequency with which they were written, is accepted.
As Petitioner's counsel conceded in that party's proposed recommended order, the proof was insufficient to show that Respondent failed to keep written dental records justifying the course of treatment of J.G. in relation to patient history, consent forms for procedures performed, treatment plans, phone call logs, duplicate copies of prescriptions or other items aside from the patient record. There was significant delay in bringing this action against Respondent. Consequently, the patient history, consent forms for treatment, treatment plans, phone call logs, and copies of prescriptions that had been maintained by Respondent were no longer available nor was it necessary for Respondent to have preserved them. The patient record
constituted of patient contact entries and other data had been provided to Petitioner from another source. It is adequate to explain the circumstances concerning the prescribing of Mepergan Fortis.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearing has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties pursuant to Sections
120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
This is a license disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner has the burden to prove the allegations in the amended complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996). Findings of fact have been made consistent with that expectation. Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes.
In relation to the allegation at paragraph 15.(b) alleging a violation of Chapter 466.028(1)(p), Florida Statutes, at times pertinent to the inquiry that section was referred to as Section 466.028(1)(q), Florida Statutes. Under both versions the operative text was the same, with these grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Dentistry:
Prescribing, procuring, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug, including any controlled substance, other than in the course of the professional practice of the dentist. For the purposes of this paragraph, it shall be legally presumed that prescribing, procuring, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing legend drugs, including all controlled substances in excessive or
inappropriate quantities is not in the best interest of the patient and is not in the course of the professional practice of the dentist, without regard to his intent.
Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent prescribed Mepergan Fortis to J.G., a Schedule II controlled substance under Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, in effect in the relevant time period, in excessive or inappropriate quantities, not in the best interest of the patient, and not in the course of the professional practice of Respondent. This constitutes an act for which the Board of Dentistry may impose discipline consistent with Section 466.028(2), Florida Statutes, as it existed at the time the violations occurred and as it continues to exist. The recommended penalty to be imposed is considered in accordance with Rule 21G-13.005(3)(s), (4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code. Aggravating circumstances exist in which Respondent has been disciplined by Petitioner on other occasions as described in Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 9 through 11. Those circumstances have been considered in recommending penalties for the violation.
The proof is insufficient to establish that Respondent violated the regulatory statute in prescribing Valium.
Clear and convincing evidence has not been shown to establish a violation of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in paragraph 15.(c) to the Amended Administrative Complaint. The numbering and language of Section 466.028(1)(m),
Florida Statutes, has remained constant for times pertinent to the inquiry.
Upon consideration of the facts found and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is
RECOMMENDED:
That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 466.028(1)(q), Florida Statutes, now Section 466.028(1)(p), Florida Statutes; imposing a 60-day suspension and a $3,000 administrative fine; and dismissing the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint that Respondent violated Section 466.028(1)(m) and (y), Florida Statutes.
DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 2000.
ENDNOTE
1/ Under the same administrative complaint Petitioner had charged Respondent with violating Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, now Section 466.028(1)(x), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner's counsel during a motion hearing to consider
dismissal of the Amended Administrative Complaint and at the commencement of the final hearing, announced that the alleged violation pertaining to Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, had been abandoned. This removed from consideration any allegations associated with paragraph 15(a) to the Amended Administrative Complaint.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Robert L. Mcleod, Esquire McLeod & Canan, P.A.
43 Cincinnati Avenue Post Office Box 2170
St. Augustine, Florida 32084
Nancy M. Snurkowski, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229, Mail Stop 39 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229
William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Dentistry
Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health
4052 Bald Cypress Way, Suite A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within
15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 16, 2001 | Amended Notice of Administrative Appeal (A. Currie) filed. |
| Jan. 09, 2001 | Notice of Administrative Appeal filed. |
| Jan. 09, 2001 | Appellant`s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed in the District Court of Appeal First District. |
| Jan. 09, 2001 | Notice of Withdrawal of Respondent`s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed. |
| Dec. 19, 2000 | Respondent`s Motion for Stay Pending Appeal filed. |
| Dec. 15, 2000 | Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 15, 2000 | Written Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed. |
| Jul. 28, 2000 | Recommended Order issued. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held February 7 and 8, 2000. |
| Apr. 17, 2000 | Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order (For Judge Signature) filed. |
| Apr. 13, 2000 | Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Apr. 10, 2000 | (Petitioner) Motion for Leave to File Late Exhibits; Exhibits filed. |
| Mar. 02, 2000 | Joint Motion to Extend Time to Prepare Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Feb. 18, 2000 | (2 Volumes) Transcript of Proceedings filed. |
| Feb. 07, 2000 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jan. 25, 2000 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for February 7, 2000; 10:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL, amended as to location only.) |
| Oct. 01, 1999 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for February 7 and 8, 2000; 10:00 a.m.; Jacksonville, FL) |
| Sep. 14, 1999 | Order sent out. (motion to dismiss denied) |
| Aug. 20, 1999 | cc: Deposition of Judy Dunlap filed. |
| Aug. 13, 1999 | (Petitioner) Exhibits P-3 through P-9 filed. |
| Aug. 03, 1999 | (Petitioner) Motion to Strike Amended Motion to Dismiss Administrative Complaint and Action filed. |
| Jul. 23, 1999 | (R. McLeod) Notice of Filing; Amended Motion to Dismiss Administrative Complaint and Action filed. |
| Jul. 22, 1999 | Order sent out. (based upon the outcome of the motion hearing the final hearing shall be reset if necessary) |
| Jul. 09, 1999 | Amended Order on Motion Hearing sent out. (motion hearing scheduled for 7/20/99; 10:30am; Tallahassee) |
| Jul. 08, 1999 | (T.Wright) Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| Jul. 07, 1999 | Order Scheduling Motion Hearing sent out. (motion hearing set for 7/20/99; 10:30am; Tallahassee) |
| Jul. 07, 1999 | (Petitioner) Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel filed. |
| May 14, 1999 | Order of Continuance Re-scheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing set for August 10-11, 1999; 10:00am on 8/10/99 and 9:00am on 8/11/99; Jacksonville) |
| May 12, 1999 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Mar. 05, 1999 | Notice of Substitution of Counsel rec`d |
| Jan. 27, 1999 | Order of Continuance Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (2/22/99 hearing reset for May 17-18, 1999; 10:00am; Jacksonville) |
| Jan. 22, 1999 | (Petitioner) Motion for Continuance (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 08, 1999 | Notic eof Serving of Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Request to Produce; Notice of Serving of Petitoner`s Response to Respondent`s Interrogatories (filed via facsimile). |
| Dec. 24, 1998 | (Respondent) Notice of Production From Non-Party; (7) Subpoena Duces Tecum (R. McLeod) filed. |
| Dec. 18, 1998 | Order Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (1/14/99 hearing reset for Feb. 22-23, 1999; 10:00am; Jacksonville) |
| Dec. 11, 1998 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Dec. 03, 1998 | Order Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (11/16/98 hearing reset for Jan. 14-15, 1999; 10:00am; Jacksonville) |
| Nov. 13, 1998 | (Petitioner) Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| Oct. 23, 1998 | Petitioner`s Request for Admissions filed. |
| Oct. 23, 1998 | Notice of Serving Respondent`s Answers to Interrogatories filed. |
| Oct. 16, 1998 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Request for Production filed. |
| Sep. 29, 1998 | Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Request to Produce filed. |
| Sep. 02, 1998 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Nov. 16-17, 1998; 10:15am; Jacksonville) |
| Aug. 27, 1998 | (Petitioner) Amended Administrative Complaint; Status Report filed. |
| Jun. 03, 1998 | Order sent out. (case to remain inactive; status report due by 8/31/98) |
| May 29, 1998 | (Petitioner) Status Report filed. |
| Apr. 27, 1998 | Order sent out. (hearing cancelled; petitioner to respond by 6/1/98) |
| Apr. 23, 1998 | Motion for Leave to Amend Administrative Complaint filed. |
| Apr. 23, 1998 | Joint Motion to Continue or Abate filed. |
| Apr. 13, 1998 | (Petitioner) Notice of Intent to Offer Similar Fact Evidence filed. |
| Mar. 30, 1998 | (Petitioner) 2/Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| Mar. 09, 1998 | (Respondent) (2) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Feb. 23, 1998 | (From R. McLeod) (3) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Feb. 11, 1998 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for April 30 & May 1, 1998; 10:15am; St. Augustine) |
| Feb. 02, 1998 | Deposition of Howard McVeigh ; Notice of Filing Deposition filed. |
| Jan. 28, 1998 | (From R. McLeod) Notice of Hearing (1/26/98; 10:15 a.m.; Motion to Dismiss Administrative Complaint and Action; Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss; Deposition of Charles C. Coats, III ; Exhibits filed. |
| Jan. 26, 1998 | Order of Continuance sent out. (1/26/98 hearing cancelled) |
| Jan. 26, 1998 | Motion to hold open the record (Petitioner), Motion to Strike motion to Dismiss (Petitioner) (filed via facsimile). |
| Jan. 23, 1998 | (Petitioner) Motion to Strike Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Hold Open the Record filed. |
| Jan. 23, 1998 | Joint Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Dec. 29, 1997 | Return of Service filed. |
| Dec. 15, 1997 | Subpoena ad Testificandum (from R. McLeod); Original Return filed. |
| Nov. 25, 1997 | (From R. McLeod) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Nov. 24, 1997 | Petitioner`s Response To Interrogatories filed. |
| Nov. 03, 1997 | (From T. Wright) Notice of Substitute Counsel filed. |
| Oct. 01, 1997 | Order of Continuance Rescheduling Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 1/26/98; 10:15am; St. Augustine) |
| Sep. 23, 1997 | (Respondent) Motion to Continue Hearing filed. |
| Sep. 16, 1997 | (From C. McCarthy) Notice of Substitute Counsel filed. |
| Aug. 21, 1997 | Order sent out. (Dept of Health Substituted for AHCA) |
| Aug. 06, 1997 | (Petitioner) Motion for Substitution of Party; Order of Substitution of Party filed. |
| Aug. 04, 1997 | (From W. Smith Hansen) Notice of Substitute Counsel filed. |
| Aug. 04, 1997 | Petitioner`s Response to Interrogatories (filed via facsimile). |
| Jul. 09, 1997 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10/8/97; 10:15am; St. Augustine) |
| Jun. 17, 1997 | Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 09, 1997 | Administrative Complaint (filed via facsimile). |
| Jun. 09, 1997 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jun. 02, 1997 | Agency Referral letter; Respondent`s Answer to Petitioner`s Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 14, 2000 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jul. 28, 2000 | Recommended Order | Respondent prescribed a controlled substance in inappropriate amounts. |
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE vs RICHARD D. VITALIS, D.O., 97-002609 (1997)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs WESTWOOD MANOR, 97-002609 (1997)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs GILBERT SHAPIRO, M.D., 97-002609 (1997)
BOARD OF NURSING vs. GREGORY BURGESS STONE, 97-002609 (1997)
BOARD OF NURSING vs. SANDRA J. HOFFMAN, A/K/A SANDRA PAULY, 97-002609 (1997)
