monica l. rodriguezVs.michael t. flury|Department of Health|... -- eLawyers

Petitioner: RANDA M. SAWAN, M.D.
Respondent: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE
Judges: STUART M. LERNER
Agency: Department of Health
Locations: Miami, Florida
Filed: Sep. 26, 2005
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, March 7, 2006.
Latest Update: May 10, 2006

Summary: Whether Petitioner's application for medical licensure by endorsement has expired and Respondent is therefore without authority to act on the application, as Petitioner claims? If not, whether the application should be denied on the grounds that Petitioner is guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(a) and (gg), Florida Statutes,1 as Respondent has preliminarily determined.Respondent could neither approve nor deny Petitioner`s application because the application had expired, as incomplete, before

05-3533.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

RANDA M. SAWAN, M.D., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 05-3533

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, )

BOARD OF MEDICINE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was conducted in this case on December 12, 2005, by video teleconference at sites in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly-designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Monica L. Rodriguez, Esquire

Dresnick & Rodriguez, P.A. One Datran Center, Suite 1800 Miami, Florida 33156-7817

For Respondent: Michael T. Flury, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Petitioner's application for medical licensure by endorsement has expired and Respondent is therefore without authority to act on the application, as Petitioner claims?
If not, whether the application should be denied on the grounds that Petitioner is guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(a) and (gg), Florida Statutes,1 as Respondent has preliminarily determined.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 24, 2004, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Deny [Petitioner’s application for licensure by endorsement], which read as follows:
This matter came before the Credentials Committee of the Florida Board of Medicine at a duly-noticed public meeting on July 24, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida and the full Board on August 7, 2004, in Tallahassee, Florida. The applicant appeared before the Credentials Committee on July 24, 2004, and present[ed] testimony regarding the licensure application.

The application file demonstrates:
1. The applicant failed to correctly answer questions 12, 12a, 12b, 15a, and 19b on the licensure application.
2. The applicant failed to disclose that attendance in medical school was for a period other than the normal curriculum. The applicant attended St. George's University from on or about January 1982 to December 1985. Then the applicant attended
  Ross University from on or about April 1987 to January 1989.
3. The applicant failed to disclose that she took a leave of absence during medical school at St. George's University from on or about January 26, 1985 to May 25, 1985. The applicant also failed to disclose her academic dismissal from St. George's University in December 1985.
4. The applicant failed to disclose that she was required to repeat her medical education. The applicant failed Clinical Medicine and Surgery at St. George's University.
5. The applicant failed to disclose that she was ever dropped, suspended, placed on probation, expelled or requested to resign from a postgraduate training program. The applicant failed to disclose that she attended Vanderbilt University from July 1993 to November 1993. The applicant was placed on probation at Vanderbilt twice and then terminated. The applicant did not receive full credit for her medical education. Medical College of Ohio reports that the applicant attended from April 1994 to April 1997 but that her training was incomplete. Medical College of Ohio reports that the applicant was placed on probation and that the applicant was asked to leave the program.
6. The applicant failed to disclose that she ever applied for[,] took an examination for [,] or failed to receive specialty board certification for any reason. The applicant testified at the Credentials Committee that she had taken the board certification exam but had failed it.
7. The applicant's evaluations at Medical College of Ohio were below average for personality, conduct, emotional stability or maturity.
8. The applicant's evaluations at Vanderbilt were below average because she had an insufficient fund of medical knowledge and was unable to make clinical judgments necessary for safe patient care.
9. The applicant's final evaluation dated November 11, 1998 from Illinois Masonic Medical Center (Mercy Center Medical) states "I advised Dr. Sawan to seek further training in anesthesia to enhance her ability and confidence." At the Credentials Committee meeting, the applicant testified that she did not seek further training after attending Illinois Masonic Medical Center.
10. The applicant failed to disclose she was required to repeat any of her postgraduate training. However, the applicant did not receive full credit at all of the postgraduate training programs she participated in.
11. The applicant did not satisfactorily complete any of her postgraduate training.
12. At the Credentials Committee [m]eeting, the applicant denied submitting her licensure application to the Florida Board of Medicine. The applicant denied that her signature was on the licensure application and denied ever seeing the licensure application. However, the applicant testified that she did in fact submit some of the supplemental responses to the Florida Board of Medicine once her application was filed.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds the applicant in violation of the following statutes:

a) Section 458.331(1)(gg), Florida Statutes, for misrepresenting or concealing a material fact at any time during any phase

of a licensing or disciplinary process or procedure;

b) Section 458.331(1)(a), F.S., for attempting to obtain, attaining, or renewing a license to practice medicine by bribery, fraudulent misrepresentations, or through an error of the Department or the Board;

Section 458.313(7), F.S., for not meeting the training requirements in [S]ection 458.311, F.S., to the Board's satisfaction; and
Section 458.331(1)(s), F.S., for being unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety due to a mental illness or condition.

Based on the foregoing, the Board may refuse to certify an applicant for licensure, or restrict the practice of the licensee, or impose a penalty, pursuant to Sections 458.331(2) and 456.072(2), Florida Statutes.

It is therefore ORDERED that the application for licensure by endorsement be DENIED.

Petitioner thereafter requested a "formal hearing" pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On April 11, 2005, the matter was referred to DOAH for the assignment of a DOAH administrative law judge to conduct the hearing Petitioner had requested. The case was docketed as DOAH Case No. 05-1297 and assigned to the undersigned.

On May 25, 2005, Respondent, on behalf of both parties, filed a motion requesting that jurisdiction be relinquished to Respondent because "information ha[d] been received which would warrant a reconsideration by [Respondent] of the charges in the

Notice of Intent to Deny." By Order issued May 27, 2005, the motion was granted and the file in DOAH Case No. 05-1297 was closed.

On September 1, 2005, Respondent issued an Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure, which read, in pertinent part, as follows:

Upon motion and argument of the parties, and being otherwise advised of the premises, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED in part.
There is insufficient evidence to support the alleged violation of Section 458.313(7), Florida Statutes, for not meeting the training requirements in [S]ection 458.311, F.S., to the Board's satisfaction, therefore this charge is hereby DISMISSED.
There is insufficient evidence to support [the] alleged violation of Section 458.331(1)(s), Florida Statutes, charge for being unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety due to a mental illness or condition, therefore this charge is hereby DISMISSED.
By failing to answer correctly questions 12, 12a, 12b, 15a, and 19b on the licensure application, the applicant is in violation of:

Section 458.331(1)(gg), Florida Statutes, for misrepresenting or concealing a material fact at any time during any phase of a licensing or disciplinary process or procedure;
Section 458.331(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for attempting to obtain, attaining, or renewing a license to practice medicine by bribery, fraudulent misrepresentations, or through an error of the Department or the Board.

It is therefore ORDERED that the application for licensure by endorsement be DENIED.

Petitioner thereafter requested a "formal hearing" on the matter.

On September 23, 2005, Respondent filed with DOAH a Request to Reopen Case by Renewed Referral for Hearing. By Order issued September 26, 2005, the request was granted and the file in DOAH Case No. 05-1297 was reopened as DOAH Case No. 05-3533.

The final hearing in DOAH Case No. 05-3533 was originally scheduled for November 1, 2005. On September 30, 2005, Petitioner, on behalf of both parties, filed a Joint Motion for Continuance. On October 4, 2005, the undersigned issued an Order granting the motion and rescheduling the hearing for December 12, 2005.

On December 8, 2005, in response to the an Order of Pre- Hearing Instructions the undersigned had issued on September 26,

2005, the parties filed a Prehearing Stipulation, which provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

Nature of the Controversy: The nature of the controversy is:

Whether Respondent had jurisdiction to enter an order denying Petitioner's license, as the Petitioner's application file was incomplete on the date it expired; and, if so,
Whether Petitioner should be denied a medical license for a violation of Section 458.331(1)(gg), Florida Statutes, by attempting to obtain a license by misrepresenting or concealing material facts at any time during any phase of the licensing process, and a violation of Section 458.331(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by attempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license to practice medicine, by bribery, by fraudulent misrepresentations, or through an error of the department or board.

2. Petitioner's Position: Petitioner's position is that the Board of Medicine was without jurisdiction to take action on Petitioner's application for licensure, as the application expired on June 15, 2004. On that date, the application was incomplete because the Board had not received all the documents that were requested, and the file expired as a matter of law.

If it is determined that the application did not expire and was properly considered by the Board of Medicine, it is Petitioner's position that she did not commit the disciplinary violations alleged because she did not make any of the misrepresentations on her application. The application was completed on her behalf by a licensing company and submitted without her review, approval, or signature. Petitioner never saw the application, and was never asked the

answers to the questions on the application. All correspondence regarding the application was sent to the licensing company, and not to Petitioner. She only learned of concerns with the answers provided in the application upon calling the Board office to check on the status of the application, well after the application was submitted. Petitioner thus did not misrepresent or conceal any material facts at any time during the licensing process, nor did she attempt to obtain a license by bribery or fraudulent misrepresentations. All the information provided by Petitioner with respect to her application was accurate. Furthermore, when Petitioner was questioned about the answers provided on her application, she was honest. There is thus insufficient evidence to find that Petitioner violated Section 458.331(1)(g[g]) or (a), Florida Statutes, and Petitioner's license should be granted.

Respondent's Position: Respondent's position is that Petitioner attempted to obtain a license through misrepresentation and concealed material facts during the medical licensure process.

* * *

Facts Admitted:
1. Petitioner hired U.S. Medical Licensing to assist her in completing and gathering supporting information for her application for medical licensure by endorsement in Florida.
2. An application for medical licensure by endorsement to the Florida Board of Medicine was submitted on behalf of Petitioner, and signed with Petitioner's name.
3. There are no documents in Petitioner's application file that authorize anyone else to submit information on behalf of
  Petitioner, or to sign documents on behalf of Petitioner.
4. Petitioner took a leave of absence while attending medical school at St. George's University from on or about January 26, 1985 to May 25, 1985. The application submitted on Petitioner's behalf does not disclose the leave of absence from St. George's University, as requested by question 12a of the application.
5. Petitioner attended medical school from on or about January 1982 to December 1985 at St. George's University, and attended medical school at Ross University from 1987 to January 1989, which is longer than the normal curriculum for medical school.
6. Attendance longer than the normal curriculum was not disclosed on the application submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, as requested by question 12 of the application.
7. Petitioner attended Vanderbilt University from July 1993 to November 1993. This is not disclosed in the application submitted on her behalf, as requested by question 15 of the application.
8. Petitioner was placed on probation and terminated from Vanderbilt University. This was not disclosed on the application submitted on behalf of Petitioner, as requested in question 15a of the application.
9. Petitioner was placed on probation at Medical College of Ohio. This was not disclosed in the application submitted on behalf of Petitioner, as requested by question 15 of the application.
10. Petitioner has met each of the statutory requirements for licensure as a physician set forth in Section 458.313, Florida
  Statutes, other than the grounds set forth in the Notice of Intent to Deny filed on September 23, 2005.
11. All facts admitted in Respondent's [R]esponses to Requests for Admission and Respondent's Amended Response to [Request for] Production.
12. All facts admitted in Petitioner's Response to Requests for Admission.
13. As stated in the letter of May 4, 2004 from the Department of Health listing deficiencies in the application, on June 15, 2004, Dr. Sawan's licensure application was incomplete.
14. The application expiration date for the application submitted on behalf of Petitioner was June 15, 2004.
Issues of Law Agreed to:
1. DOAH has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case.
2. Chapters 120, 456, and 458, Florida Statutes, and the Board of Medicine rules contained in Chapter 64B8, Florida Administrative Code, govern the determination of licensure in this case.
3. Respondent has the burden of establishing the statutory violations set forth in the Notice of Intent to Deny.
Facts to be Litigated:
1. Did Dr. Sawan attempt to obtain a medical license by misrepresentation or concealment of facts on her application for licensure by endorsement?
2. Did Dr. Sawan's application for licensure expire by law, prior to the Board taking action on her application?
Issues of law to be Litigated:

a. Whether Respondent has sufficiently established the violations alleged in the Notice of Intent to Deny.

In Respondent's May 25, 2005, Amended Responses to [Petitioner's] First Request for Admissions, which are referenced in paragraph 5(k) of the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Respondent had admitted the following facts:

The DOH [Respondent] does not have any documents indicating that Dr. Sawan gave anyone else authority to sign an application for licensure in Florida on her behalf.

Dr. Sawan testified under oath that she did not sign the application for licensure that was submitted to the Florida Board of Medicine on her behalf.

Dr. Sawan lives and works in Naperville, Illinois.

The only letter ever sent by the DOH to Dr. Sawan at her address in Illinois was a letter dated July 14, 2004, requesting Dr. Sawan's appearance before the Credentials Committee.

Dr. Sawan notified the Credentials Committee that she hired a licensing agency, U.S. Medical Licensing, to help prepare her licensure application.

The mailing address provided on the licensure application, 5631 Ballybunion Drive, Pace, Florida, is the address for

U.S. Medical Licensing.

Counsel for the DOH was provided with a copy of a complaint from the Florida Governor's office against Ms. Melinda Hilterbrand, the

owner of U.S. Medical Licensing at 5631 Ballybunion Drive, Pace, Florida

The complaint from the Florida Governor's office alleges that U.S. Medical Licensing notarized forged signatures on medical licensure applications for the State of Nevada on behalf of three doctors.

The expiration date for Dr. Sawan's licensure application was June 15, 2004.

On May 4, 2004, the DOH sent Dr. Sawan a letter (to the Pace, Florida address) notifying her that her application was incomplete, and attaching a list of deficiencies (copies of which are attached as Exhibit A).

The letter of May 4, 2004, from the DOH stated that Dr. Sawan's application would remain incomplete until all deficiencies were completed.

As of June 15, 2004, all of the deficiencies listed in the attachment to the letter of May 4, 2004, were not completed or received.

Advocate Illinois Medical Center never responded to the DOH's letter of March 29, 2004, requesting additional information about Dr. Sawan.

The DOH never received Dr. Sawan's training file from Vanderbilt University.

As stated in the letter of May 4, 2004, on June 15, 2004, Dr. Sawan's licensure file was incomplete.

The DOH has no evidence that Dr. Sawan has any type of mental illness or mental condition.

Dr. Sawan completed and obtained credit for at least two years of residency in one specialty area.

In Respondent's November 4, 2005, Amended Response to Request for Production, which is also referenced in paragraph 5(k) of the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, Respondent had indicated that it was further amending its Responses to [Petitioner's] First Request for Admissions to admit the following:

The DOH has no evidence that Dr. Sawan authorized anyone else to submit a licensure application on her behalf without her approval of the information in the application.

The DOH never received a license verification letter from the Nevada State Medical Board.

Petitioner's Response to Requests for Admission, which is referenced in paragraph 5(l) of the parties' Prehearing Stipulation, contains the following statements and admissions made by Petitioner:

Petitioner hired U.S. Medical Licensing to assist her with her application for licensure in Florida, and intended to apply for licensure in Florida. Petitioner did not submit the application, nor did she sign the application, although she was advised at some point by U.S. Medical Licensing that they had submitted the application on her behalf.

Petitioner hired U.S. Medical Licensing to assist her with her application for licensure in Florida. Petitioner did not know or expect U.S. Medical Licensing would submit the application without her review, approval, or signature, and without asking

her the answers to the questions on the application.

Petitioner hired U.S. Medical Licensing to assist her with her application and licensure process in Florida, including completing the application and gathering supporting documentation. Petitioner did not know or expect that U.S. Medical Licensing would submit the application without her review, approval or signature, and without asking her the answers to the questions on the application.

Petitioner was aware that an application for licensure was submitted on her behalf to the Department of Health prior to receiving a notice of hearing letter of July 14, 2004.

Petitioner never requested a copy of the application that was submitted on her behalf prior to appearing before the credentials committee on July 24, 2004.

Petitioner took a leave of absence from medical school at St. George's University from on or about January 26, 1985 to May 25, 1985.

The application submitted on behalf of Petitioner does not disclose the leave of absence from St. George's University, [as] requested by question 12a of the application.

Petitioner attended St. George's University from on or about January 1982 to December 1985.

Petitioner attended Ross University from on or about April 1987 to January 1989.

Attendance in medical school from January 1982 to January 1989 is longer than the normal curriculum.

The application [for] licensure submitted on behalf of Petitioner did not disclose that she attended medical school for a period other than the normal curriculum, as requested in question 12 of the application.

Petitioner was dismissed from St. George's University.

The application for licensure submitted on behalf of Petitioner did not disclose the dismissal from St. George's University.

Petitioner attended Vanderbilt University from July 1993 to November 1993.

Petitioner's application for licensure does not disclose that she attended Vanderbilt University.

Petitioner was placed on probation at Vanderbilt University.

Petitioner was terminated from Vanderbilt University.

The application for licensure submitted on behalf of Petitioner does not disclose her probation at Vanderbilt University, as requested in question 15a of the application.

The application for licensure submitted on behalf of Petitioner does not disclose her termination from Vanderbilt University, as requested by question 15a of the application.

Petitioner was placed on probation at Medical College of Ohio.

The application for licensure submitted on behalf of Petitioner did not disclose any probation at any school.

The faxed letter dated April 9, 2004, attached hereto as Exhibit A, to Lakeisha

Henderson of the Florida Department of Health, was written by Petitioner.

Petitioner failed Clinical Medicine and Surgery at St. George's University.

As noted above, the final hearing in this case was held on December 12, 2005. Two witnesses testified at the hearing: Chandra Prine and Petitioner. In addition, 13 exhibits (Joint Exhibits A through E, Respondent's Exhibit A, and Petitioner's Exhibits A and C through H2) were offered and received into evidence.

At the close of the taking of evidence, the undersigned established a deadline (15 days from the date of the filing with DOAH of the hearing transcript) for the filing of proposed recommended orders.

The Transcript of the hearing (consisting of one volume) was filed with DOAH on January 17, 2006. On January 19, 2006, Respondent filed an unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Recommended Orders. By Order issued January 20, 2006, the motion was granted and the deadline for the filing of proposed recommended orders was extended to February 17, 2006.

Respondent and Petitioner filed their Proposed Recommended Orders on February 17, 2006, and February 21, 2006, respectively.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' December 8, 2005, Prehearing Stipulation3:

Petitioner is now, and has been since 1998, a Napperville, Illinois anesthesiologist licensed to practice medicine in the State of Illinois. At no time has she resided in Florida or used a Florida mailing address.
"[A]t the end of 2002," Petitioner hired US Medical Licensing (USML) to help her obtain licenses to practice medicine in Florida, California, and Nevada, including "put[ting] together the application[s for such licensure] for [her]." In making these arrangements with USML, Petitioner dealt with USML's Melinda Hilterbrand, with whom she spoke over the telephone.
Petitioner paid USML by credit card.
USML first "charged [Petitioner's] credit card in January" of 2003 (using the credit card number Petitioner had given Ms. Hilterbrand during their telephone conversation).
Petitioner provided USML, at USML's request, information and documentation (including a "standard credentialing application [she used in] Illinois") for USML to utilize in "put[ing] together [her Florida, California, and
Nevada] application[s]." None of the information and documentation Petitioner provided was, to her knowledge, false or inaccurate.
USML "put together the application[s]," as it had agreed to do. It then submitted them to the Florida, California, and Nevada medical licensing agencies without Petitioner's review, approval, or signature, notwithstanding that Petitioner had not given USML authorization to make such submissions.
On June 16, 2003, Respondent received the Florida application that USML had "put together" for Petitioner (Petitioner's Florida Application) using the appropriate Respondent-developed form .
Petitioner's Florida Application gave Petitioner's mailing address as "5631 Ballybunion Drive, Pace, Florida" (Pace, Florida Address). This was actually USML's mailing address, not Petitioner's.
Petitioner's Florida Application gave Petitioner's telephone number as "(850) 994-4646." This was actually USML's telephone number, not Petitioner's.

10. Items 12, 12a., 12b., 15a., and 19b. on the application form on which Petitioner's Florida Application was

submitted (Florida Application Form) asked the following questions:

12. Was attendance in Medical school for a period other then the normal curriculum? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.)

12a. Did you take a leave of absence during medical school? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.)

12b. Were you required to repeat any of your medical education? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.)

15a. Have you ever been dropped, suspended, placed on probation, expelled or requested to resign from a postgraduate training program? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.)

19b. Have you ever applied for, taken an examination for, or failed to receive specialty board certification or recertification for any reason?" (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet, providing full details).

Each of these questions was incorrectly answered "no" on Petitioner's Florida Application. Item 15 on the Florida Application Form asked the applicant to "[l]ist in chronological order from date of graduation from Medical school, to present, all professional/postgraduate training (Internship/Residency/ Fellowship)." In response to this request, Petitioner's Florida Application listed her participation (following graduation from medical school) in programs at the University Medical Center in

Las Vegas, Nevada, at the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo, Ohio, at the Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, and at St. Anthony's Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. No other post-graduate programs were listed, notwithstanding that Petitioner had also received post-graduate training at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

At the time, Petitioner did not even know that her Florida Application had been submitted, much less that it contained any erroneous information, inasmuch as she had not seen it or been made aware of its contents. As will be discussed in more detail below, it was not until approximately three months later that she first learned of her Florida Application’s submission, and it was even later, at her July 24, 2004, appearance before Respondent’s Credentials Committee, that she first became aware "that there was any incorrect information on [her] application."
No one from USML had ever contacted Petitioner and asked her for her responses to items 12, 12a., 12b., 15, 15a., 19b. or any other item on the Florida Application Form.
Item 18 on the Florida Application Form was an Affidavit of Applicant, which read, in pertinent part, as follows:
I affirm that these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information [ma]y result in disciplinary
action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 456.067,
775.083 and 775.084, Florida Statutes.

I hereby authorize all hospitals, institutions, my references, personal physicians, employers (past and present) and all governmental agencies and instrumentalities (local, state, federal or foreign) to release to the Florida Board of Medicine information which is material to my application for licensure.

I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind, and I declare under penalty of perjury that my answers and all statements made by me herein are true and correct. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice Medicine in the State of Florida.

* * * Date of Expiration

(Signature of Applicant required)
4
(Date Signed required)

The Affidavit of Applicant in Petitioner's Florida Application contained what purported to be, but was not, Petitioner's signature. It was dated May 30, 2003.
Petitioner had not authorized USML to sign her Florida Application on her behalf or otherwise "submit documents using
[her] signature," nor was she "aware that [USML was] going to do [so]."
On July 14, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address (which, as noted above, was USML’s, not Petitioner’s, mailing address) a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (July 14, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The July 14, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.

Verbal responses are inadmissible.

* * *

YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004

APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:

We are in receipt of medical school transcripts from St. George's University Medical School and Ross University Medical School. It appears you transferred to Ross University after your third year. The transcript received from Ross University indicates your third year of medical school was repeated. Please submit a written explanation regarding attend[ing] two medical schools and why you answer[ed] no to question 12 (Was attendance in Medical
School for a period other than the normal curriculum?) and 12b (Were you required to repeat any of your medical education?). A letter has been sent to St. George's University to confirm you left the medical school in good standing.
Your file has been submitted in for advisement regarding your examination score reports submitted to the board office.
It appears question 1 of your licensure application was left blank. However, you should apply by endorsement. Enclosed is a copy of page 1, please check the appropriate box.
On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted.
On page 3, question 15 needs to list the specialty area of training.
Please complete the enclosed copy of page 4.
Explain why you switched training programs from Medical College of Ohio to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. Did you leave the program in good standing? Were you offered a contract to continue and complete the program? A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to retrieve[] further information on your performance.
Submit a written explanation on why you started your training programs with Medical College of Ohio and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center off cycle.
Please complete the enclosed fingerprint card.
Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 1/89 to 6/92 and 6/93 to 4/94, and 5/96 to
1/97, and 11/98 to 2/99, and 11/02 to Present.
Submit a copy of your legal name change document.
Explain in writing why the name "Randa Mariana Prochazka" appears on your supporting documentation.
The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office.
We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant.
Submit two current letters of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s).
We await licensure verification from the Illinois State Medical Board.
The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800)767-6732.
The AMA Physician Profile sheet has not been received. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199.
We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following:

-University Medical Center, regarding your Internship, from 6/92 to 6/93

-Medical College of Ohio, regarding your Residency, from 4/94 to 5/96

-Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98

-Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center, verifying your staff privileges and good standing.

* * *

On August 15, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (August 15, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The August 15, 2003 Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.
  Verbal responses are inadmissible.
  
  * * *
  
  YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004
  
  APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:
  1. We are in receipt of medical school transcripts from St. George's University Medical School and Ross University Medical School. It appears you transferred to Ross University after your third year. The transcript received from Ross University indicates your third year of medical school was repeated. Please submit a written explanation regarding attend[ing] two medical schools and why you answer[ed] no to question 12 (Was attendance in Medical School for a period other than the normal
    curriculum?) and 12b (Were you required to repeat any of your medical education?).
  2. We are in receipt of the evaluation form submitted by Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center. They indicate you did not perform competently and you were not regularly appointed. Please submit a written explanation.
  3. It appears question 1 of your licensure application was left blank. However, you should apply by endorsement. Enclosed is a copy of page 1, please check the appropriate box.
  4. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted.
  5. On page 3, question 15 needs to list the specialty area of training.
  6. Please complete the enclosed copy of page 4.
  7. Explain why you switched training programs from Medical College of Ohio to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. Did you leave the program in good standing? Were you offered a contract to continue and complete the program?
  8. Submit a written explanation on why you started your training programs with Medical College of Ohio and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center off cycle.
  9. Please complete the enclosed fingerprint card.
  10. Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 1/89 to 6/92 and 6/93 to 4/94, and 5/96 to 1/97, and 11/98 to 2/99, and 11/02 to Present.
  11. Submit a copy of your legal name change document.
  12. Explain in writing why the name "Randa Mariana Prochazka" appears on your supporting documentation.
  13. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office.
  14. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant.
  15. Submit two current letter of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s).
  16. The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800) 767-6732.
  17. The AMA Physician Profile sheet
  has not been received. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199.
  1. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following:
    
    -University Medical Center, regarding your Internship, from 6/92 to 6/93
    -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98
    
    * * *
  2. It was not until sometime in or around September of 2003, during a telephone conversation (she had initiated) with
    USML's Ken Carroll, that Petitioner first learned that her Florida Application had been submitted to Respondent.
    Petitioner was "very surprised" when Mr. Carroll told her about the application's submission because she had thought that she was "going to get to look at the application" and "go over it" before it was sent to Respondent and she had not been given this opportunity. Nonetheless, she did not voice any objections to Mr. Carroll during her telephone conversation with him. Rather, "[she merely] asked him if there were any problems with [the application], and he said that everything was okay." Petitioner assumed, erroneously, that USML had completed the application accurately. She did not, at that time, request a copy of the application to verify the application's accuracy, nor did she do anything to indicate that she did not want Respondent to treat the application as hers. Indeed, until becoming aware of the actual contents of the application, it was her desire that Respondent act on the application and grant her licensure, and her actions were consistent with such a desire.
  3. On September 17, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application remained "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (September 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The
    September 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.
  Verbal responses are inadmissible.
  
  * * *
  
  YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004
  
  APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:
  1. On September 26, 2003, Respondent received a letter, dated September 23, 2003, that was addressed to one of its employees, Lakeisha Henderson, and purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her (September 26, 2003, Letter). The September 26, Letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows:
    In answer to your questions in the letter you sent me 9/17/03 [sic], I am providing these answers:
    1. I left St. George's because of the war in Grenada. I waited till I was sure the situation was stable and I also took a leave to study for my ECFMG. I was not satisfied with the situation at the school so I transferred/moved to Ross. One course prior to the start of my clinicals was required at Ross before I could start there in the clinical phase. This was a repeat from
      St. George[']s, but the only one.
    2. During this period, I had numerous child care and child health issues with my children which caused me to not be available for work and surgery.
    3. Page one is attached.
    4. Page three is attached.
    5. Page 4 is attached.
    6. In answer to question #7, there was a change at Medical College of Ohio. The Program Director left due to illness and subsequently the program started changing, so I finished my second year and then did my third year at another program. I left in good standing, getting credit for everything. I could have continued if I had elected to do so but I declined.
    7. In question 8, I started my third year based on what was needed to complete and where the class was. I was having a child and was allowed to start off cycle.
    8. Non-Employment Dates:
      
      01/89-6/92-Child Birth and child care, studied for tests.
      05/96-01/97-Unemployed
      11/98-02/99-Moving and vacation 11/02-04/03-Unemployed
      05/03-Present @ Surgical Center of Downers Grove, IL
    9. I thought the fingerprint card had been sent to your office (Question #9)
    10. Item #11 has been requested.
    11. Question #12. I was married for a short period of time and while married took the last name of husband Prochazka. When we divorced I retained my maiden name.
    12. Question #18- The program was overfilled with Residents and I elected to leave with no credit as I only attended for a short period of time.
    13. Question #19- I was given full credit for my training there, so I do not understand the question. I have attached my diploma.
    All other items have been requested and will be sent directly to you.
  2. On September 30, 2003, Respondent received another letter, also dated September 23, 2003, that was addressed to Ms. Henderson and purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her (September 30, 2003, Letter). The
    September 30, 2003, Letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows:
    I am sorry I forgot to include the fact that I was arrested for disturbing the peace. I have included all those documents. I forgot till Ken Carroll asked. I thought it was not needed as it was over 10 years ago, sorry to cause any issues.
    
    I have also included my divorce papers.
    
    Among the documents that were "included" with the September 30, 2003, Letter to Ms. Henderson was a statement in Petitioner’s handwriting, dated June 10, 1996, which provided an explanation of the circumstances surrounding Petitioner’s arrest. This handwritten statement was among the materials that Petitioner had furnished USML for use in the application preparation process.
  3. On October 16, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (October 16, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The
    October 16, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.

Verbal responses are inadmissible.

* * *

YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004

APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:

We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information.
We are in receipt of the letter dated September 23, 2003, [in which] you indicate employment with Surgical Center of Downers [Grove]. Do you hold staff privileges with this hospital? If so, an evaluation form will have to be completed.
On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted.
A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation.
Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 6/93 to 4/94.
The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office.
We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant.
We are in receipt of the letter of recommendation from Dr. Kianoosh Jafari. Please submit an additional letter of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s).
The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800) 767-6732.
The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199.
A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance.
The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office.

19. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following:

-Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93
-Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98

* * *

Respondent received, in response to the October 16, 2003, Deficiency Notice, a letter that purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her. The letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows:
Question #5 from letter of 10/13/03 [sic]

I left [the] program after one year to move closer to my husband at the time wh[o] was in the Midwest. I spent the time from 7-93 till 4-94 looking for a program and applying to programs.

Petitioner was not married during the time period referenced in the letter. To the extent that the letter suggests otherwise, it is inaccurate.
In or around the end of October of 2003, Petitioner received a letter from the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (Nevada Board) concerning an application for licensure that USML had submitted to the Nevada Board on her behalf. The letter, which was dated October 28, 2003, read as follows:
Dear Dr. Sawan:

Please find enclosed a new application for medical licensure for the State of Nevada. You will be required to complete this application without the assistance of a credentialing service. The Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners does not accept any documentation from the credentialing company U.S. Medical Licensing and Credentialing.
After receiving this letter, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Carroll and asked him why "this Nevada licensure application . . . was not accepted." Mr. Carroll, in response to Petitioner’s inquiry, explained that "there were some other
doctors that did not get their licenses and they were upset with [USML]" and had complained to the Nevada Board. Having received this response to her inquiry, Petitioner "did not dig anymore" into the matter.
Petitioner subsequently completed the application form she had been sent by the Nevada Board and then returned it. Approximately, four and a-half months later she received her Nevada medical license
On November 17, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (November 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The November 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as
follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.
  Verbal responses are inadmissible.
  
  * * *
  
  YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004
  
  APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:
  1. We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information.
  2. We are in receipt of the letter dated September 23, 2003, [in which] you indicate employment with Surgical Center of Downers [Grove]. Do you hold staff privileges with this hospital? If so, an evaluation form will have to be completed.
  3. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted.
  4. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation.
  5. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office.
  6. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant.
  7. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199.
  8. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance.
  9. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office.
  10. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following:
    
    -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93
    -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98
    
    * * *
Respondent received, in response to the November 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice, a letter that purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her. The letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows:
Question #2 from letter of 11/14/03 [sic]

Downers Grover Surgical Center is an out patient center. Not a hospital.

Question #5

A copy of my ECFMG is enclosed.
On December 19, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered

"complete" (December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as

follows:

We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.

Verbal responses are inadmissible.

* * *

YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004

APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:

We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information.
On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted.
A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation.
We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant.
The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199.
A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance.
The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office.
We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following:

-Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93

-Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98

* * *

The December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson, addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (December 19, 2003, Deficiency Letter), which read as follows:
Your application remains incomplete. Please review the attached update [the December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice] outlining the remaining deficiencies.

Please be advised previous malpractice, criminal charges, discipline, addictions/impairment, unfavorable evaluations, etc. may require that you appear before the Credentials Committee for determination of eligibility for licensure. If your appearance is required, you will be notified in writing once your file is complete. Any information received by this office may require additional explanation and/or documentation to be requested in
order to further determine licensure eligibility. After all requested documentation is received, your file will be submitted for a standard supervisory review. Should additional information be required, you will be notified. Once your file is determined complete, it will be presented to the Board for consideration at the next scheduled meeting.

As documentation is received in our office, an updated list of deficiencies will be mailed to you. Your application will remain incomplete until all deficiencies are completed. In addition, notify the Board office immediately in writing of any occurrence(s) that would in any way change or affect any answer given in the application or an answer provided in response to any of our direct questions to you.

If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at (850) 245-4131 extension 3512 or e-mail me at Lakeisha_Henderson @doah.state.fl.us.
On January 22, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (January 22, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The
January 22, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.
  Verbal responses are inadmissible.
  
  * * *
  
  YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004
  
  APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:
  1. We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information.
  2. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted.
  3. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation.
  4. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant.
  5. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199.
  6. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance.
  7. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office.
  8. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following:
  -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93
  -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98
  
  * * *
On February 24, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (February 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The February 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.
  Verbal responses are inadmissible.
  
  * * *
  
  YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004
  
  APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:
  1. We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the
    enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information.
  2. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation.
  3. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant.
  4. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199.
  5. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance.
  6. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office.
  7. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following:
  -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93
  -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98
  
  * * *
On March 24, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what
needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (March 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The March 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.
  Verbal responses are inadmissible.
  
  * * *
  
  YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.
  Verbal responses are inadmissible.
  
  * * *
  
  YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004
  
  APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:
  1. We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information.
  2. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation.
  3. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant.
  4. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199.
  5. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance.
  6. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office.
  7. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following:
  -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93
  -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98
  
  * * *
The March 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson, addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (March 24, 2004, Deficiency Letter). The body of the March 24, 2004, Deficiency Letter was identical to the body of the December 19, 2003, Deficiency Letter.
On March 31, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's
Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (March 31, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The March 31, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.
  Verbal responses are inadmissible.
  
  * * *
  
  YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004
  
  APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:
  1. We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information.
  2. We are in receipt of the training evaluation form from Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center. The evaluation form indicates you resigned and your staff privileges were terminated. It appears you should have answered yes to question 18c. Please submit a written explanation as well [as] explain the no answer given for question 18c. A letter has been sent to Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center to retrieve[] further information. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the evaluation form.
  3. A letter will be sent to each training program requesting a copy of your training file.
  4. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio requesting further clarification on the letter submitted from them dated July 22, 2003.
  5. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance.
  6. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant.
  7. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office.
  8. We await responses to evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following:
  -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93
  
  * * *
The March 31, 2004, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson, addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (March 31, 2004, Deficiency Letter). The body of the March 31, 2004, Deficiency Letter was identical to the bodies of the December 19, 2003, and March 24, 2004, Deficiency Letters.
In or around March of 2004, during a telephone conversation with Mr. Carroll, Petitioner inquired as to whether her "talk[ing]" to Respondent "could help expedite" the processing of her Florida Application. Mr. Carroll, in turn, gave Petitioner Ms. Henderson’s name and telephone number and suggested Petitioner call Ms. Henderson.
Petitioner followed Mr. Carroll’s suggestion and spoke with Ms. Henderson. Petitioner asked Ms. Henderson "if there [was] any problem with the application" and offered to provide "anything extra that [Ms. Henderson] may need." Ms. Henderson "did not say that there were any problems," but she did indicate "that she would like additional information," which she described for Petitioner.
After speaking with Ms. Henderson, Petitioner prepared a handwritten letter, which she sent to Ms. Henderson by facsimile transmission on April 9, 2004. The letter read as follows:
You requested an explanation for why staff privileges at Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center were terminated. It has been my understanding from their contract agreement that once I stop working there (resign), the staff privileges are automatically terminated.
The following day, April 10, 2004, Petitioner sent to Ms. Henderson by facsimile transmission a handwritten list of references, as well as letters of recommendation (from others
about her). Ms. Henderson had not asked Petitioner to provide these materials, but Petitioner sent them anyway, thinking that Ms. Henderson "might like to have them."
On May 4, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows:
- We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board.
- The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation.
  Verbal responses are inadmissible.
  
  * * *
- YOUR APPLICATION EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004.
  
  APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING:
  1. We are in receipt of the evaluation form from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information.
  2. A letter will be sent to each training program requesting a copy of your training file.
  3. A letter has been sent to Medical College of Ohio requesting further clarification on the letter submitted from them dated July 22, 2003.
  4. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office.
  * * *
The May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (May 4, 2004, Deficiency Letter). The body of the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Letter was identical to the bodies of the December 19, 2003, March 24, 2004, and March 31, 2004, Deficiency Letters.
Petitioner never received the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice or the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Letter; nor had she ever received any of the previous deficiency notices and letters.
On June 15, 2004, Petitioner’s Florida Application was still incomplete inasmuch as Respondent had not received all of the information it had requested in the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice (including the letter from Petitioner requested in item 1 of the notice, the training files from University Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center requested in item 2 of the notice, and the "license verification letter" requested in item 4 of the notice, which were all
materials that were reasonable for Respondent to have asked for as part of the application review process).
On June 28, 2004, Chandra Prine, Respondent’s Program Operations Administrator (and Ms. Henderson’s supervisor), prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a letter addressed to Petitioner (June 28, 2004, Letter) advising her that she was required to make a personal appearance before the Credentials Committee on July 24, 2004, to discuss:
1. Your medical education and your failure to answer yes to questions numbers 12, 12a & 12b on the licensure application.
2. Failure to list your training at Vanderbilt from 7/93-11/93 and your failure to answer yes to question number 15a on the licensure application.
In addition, the Committee may inquire into any other issues relating to your application and eligibility for licensure.

Petitioner did not receive this letter.
In July of 2004, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Henderson to inquire about the status of Petitioner’s Florida Application. She was unable to speak with Ms. Henderson, so she left a message asking Ms. Henderson to return the call.
Petitioner subsequently received a telephone message from Ms. Henderson. In her message, Ms. Henderson stated that she thought Petitioner "was going to be going to a hearing" on her Florida Application, but suggested that Petitioner telephone
Ms. Prine "just to be sure." Ms. Henderson did not say anything about there being "questions that were answered incorrectly on [the] application."
After receiving Ms. Henderson’s message, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Prine and spoke with her. Petitioner told
Ms. Prine that Ms. Henderson had left a message about an upcoming hearing concerning Petitioner’s Florida Application and had suggested that Petitioner contact Ms. Prine regarding the matter. Ms. Prine responded, "Yes, we sent you a letter saying you have to show up for this hearing," referring to the June 28, 2004, Letter. Petitioner replied that she had "not received any letter" from Respondent. Ms. Prine then "gave [Petitioner] the address" to which the June 28, Letter had been mailed.
Petitioner informed Ms. Prine that this address (the Pace, Florida Address) was not hers. She then "gave [Ms. Prine] her home address for [Ms. Prine] to send [her] another letter."
Petitioner asked Ms. Prine during their telephone conversation "what the hearing was going to be about."
Ms. Prine's response was that Petitioner should be prepared to answer questions at the hearing regarding certain specific items on her Florida Application, which Ms. Prine identified by number. Petitioner told Ms. Prine that she "had never seen the application," to which Ms. Prine retorted, "Oh, but you signed it." Petitioner insisted that she "didn’t remember signing
anything" and asked Ms. Prine to send her, along with the letter concerning the hearing, "a copy of whatever [she supposedly] signed."
At no time during the telephone conversation did

Ms. Prine tell Petitioner that her Florida Application contained any incorrect information, nor did she reveal to Petitioner anything about those items on the application that Petitioner would be questioned on at the hearing other than what their numbers were and that they pertained to her "schooling and training." It did not come as surprise to Petitioner that the Credentials Committee "wanted to hear from [her]" about her "schooling and training" given the difficulties she had encountered in these areas. Petitioner did not ask Ms. Prine to elaborate any further on what the Credentials Committee would inquire about at the hearing.
Two days after her telephone conversation with Ms. Prine, Petitioner received a letter dated July 14, 2004, from Ms. Prine (July 14, 2004, Letter). The July 14, 2004,
Letter was addressed to Petitioner at her Naperville, Illinois address and read as follows:
This is in further reference to your application for licensure by endorsement.

Please be advised that you are required to make a personal appearance before the Credentials Committee of the Board of Medicine to discuss the following:
1. Your medical education and your failure to answer yes to questions numbers 12, 12a & 12b on the licensure application.
2. Failure to list your training at Vanderbilt from 7/93-11/93 and your failure to answer yes to question number 15a on the licensure application.
In addition, the Committee may inquire into any other issues relating to your application and eligibility for licensure.

Date: Saturday, July 24, 2004
Time: 8:00 a.m. Location: Radisson Hotel
415 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 224-6000

The meeting room will be posted in the lobby of the Hotel.

Additionally, the Committee's recommendation on your application will be presented to the Board of Medicine, August 6-7, 2004 for final action.

Thank you for your continued cooperation. Should you have any question regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me.
Along with the July 14, 2004, Letter, Petitioner received from Ms. Prine the signature page of the September 26, 2003, Letter. After reviewing the latter, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Prine and left a message advising Ms. Prine that the signature on that document was not hers.
The July 14, 2004, Letter was not accompanied by a copy of Petitioner’s Florida Application.
Petitioner made a "personal appearance" before the Credentials Committee on July 24, 2004, as scheduled.
As noted above, it was during this appearance that she first learned that her Florida Application contained information that was incorrect.
In response to questioning, Petitioner truthfully told the Credentials Committee that she had not "even seen the application" and that it was "not [her] signature" that was on the application in that she did not sign it.
The Credentials Committee voted to recommend the denial of Petitioner’s Florida Application, a recommendation that Respondent subsequently followed.
On August 2, 2004, following her appearance before the Credentials Committee, Petitioner prepared and sent a letter to Ms. Prine formally requesting, for the first time, a "complete copy of [her] application for the Florida medical license [be] mailed to [her]" at her Napperville, Illinois address.
On August 10, 2004, Petitioner prepared and sent to Ms. Prine another letter, which read as follows:
I am writing to ask that you do not accept any communication from the USML agency regarding my application. I am not working through them anymore. Please call me
directly at (773) 405-3718, or send all mail to:

RANDA SAWAN M.D.
1304 Dunrabin Road
Naperville, IL 60540

Your assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
After Petitioner had made several post-Credential Committee hearing requests to Mr. Carroll that he send her copies of "anything [he had] involving [her] application," Petitioner received the following letter, dated September 23, 2004, from Mr. Carroll:
I am sorry to inform you but your files along with several hundred other physicians' files were destroyed while in our storage area due to Hurricane Ivan which made a direct hit on Pensacola.

Our Pensacola office is operating but has limited phone and no internet or cable.

Again I apologize for this inconvenience.

Petitioner never received any of the documents she had requested from Mr. Carroll.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The instant case involves an application for licensure by endorsement to practice medicine in Florida.
Such applications for licensure by endorsement are governed by Section 458.313, Florida Statutes (which deals specifically with the subject), as well as Section 120.60,
Florida Statutes (which deals with agency licensing in general), and Section 456.013, Florida Statutes (which contains the "general licensing provisions" for "profession[s] within the jurisdiction of the [D]epartment [of Health]," including the medical profession).
Subsection (1) of Section 458.313, Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
1. The [D]epartment [of Health] shall issue a license by endorsement to any applicant who, upon applying to the department on forms furnished by the department and remitting a fee set by the board not to exceed $500, the [B]oard [of Medicine] certifies:
  1. Has met the qualifications for licensure in s. 458.311(1)(b)-(g) or in s. 458.311(1)(b)-(e) and (g) and (3);
  2. Prior to January 1, 2000, has obtained a passing score, as established by rule of the board, on the licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (FLEX), on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), or on the examination of the National Board of Medical Examiners, or on a combination thereof, and on or after
    January 1, 2000, has obtained a passing score on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE); and
  3. Has submitted evidence of the active licensed practice of medicine in another jurisdiction, for at least 2 of the immediately preceding 4 years, or evidence of successful completion of either a board- approved postgraduate training program within 2 years preceding filing of an application or a board-approved clinical
competency examination within the year preceding the filing of an application for licensure. For purposes of this paragraph, "active licensed practice of medicine" means that practice of medicine by physicians, including those employed by any governmental entity in community or public health, as defined by this chapter, medical directors under s. 641.495(11) who are practicing medicine, and those on the active teaching faculty of an accredited medical school.
Subsection (3) of 458.313, Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
The [D]epartment [of Health] and the [B]oard [of Medicine] shall ensure that applicants for licensure by endorsement meet applicable criteria in this chapter through an investigative process. When the investigative process is not completed within the time set out in s. 120.60(1) and the department or board has reason to believe that the applicant does not meet the criteria, the secretary or the secretary's designee may issue a 90-day licensure delay which shall be in writing and sufficient to notify the applicant of the reason for the delay. The provisions of this subsection shall control over any conflicting provisions of s. 120.60(1).
Subsection (7) of Section 458.313, Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
When the [B]oard [of Medicine] determines that any applicant for licensure by endorsement has failed to meet, to the board's satisfaction, each of the appropriate requirements set forth in this section, it may enter an order requiring one or more of the following terms:
1. Refusal to certify to the department an
  application for licensure, certification, or registration;
2. Certification to the department of an application for licensure, certification, or registration with restrictions on the scope of practice of the licensee; or
3. Certification to the department of an application for licensure, certification, or registration with placement of the physician on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the board may specify, including, but not limited to, requiring the physician to submit to treatment, attend continuing education courses, submit to reexamination, or work under the supervision of another physician
Subsection (1) of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
Upon receipt of an application for a license, an agency shall examine the application and, within 30 days after such receipt, notify the applicant of any apparent errors or omissions and request any additional information the agency is permitted by law to require. An agency shall not deny a license for failure to correct an error or omission or to supply additional information unless the agency timely notified the applicant within this
30-day period. An application shall be considered complete upon receipt of all requested information and correction of any error or omission for which the applicant was timely notified or when the time for such notification has expired. Every application for a license shall be approved or denied within 90 days after receipt of a completed application unless a shorter period of time for agency action is provided by law. The 90-day time period shall be tolled by the initiation of a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. Any
application for a license that is not approved or denied within the 90-day or shorter time period, within 15 days after conclusion of a public hearing held on the application, or within 45 days after a recommended order is submitted to the agency and the parties, whichever action and timeframe is latest and applicable, is considered approved unless the recommended order recommends that the agency deny the license. Subject to the satisfactory completion of an examination if required as a prerequisite to licensure, any license that is considered approved shall be issued and may include such reasonable conditions as are authorized by law. Any applicant for licensure seeking to claim licensure by default under this subsection shall notify the agency clerk of the licensing agency, in writing, of the intent to rely upon the default license provision of this subsection, and shall not take any action based upon the default license until after receipt of such notice by the agency clerk.)

Subsection (3) of 458.313, Florida Statutes, which is set out above, gives Respondent, under certain circumstances,5 90 days more than it would otherwise have under Section 120.60(1) to approve or deny a "completed application." Furthermore, Subsection (2) of Section 456.50, Florida Statutes (which took effect June 20, 2005) provides that, "[f]or purposes of implementing s. 26, Art. X of the State Constitution,6 the 90-day requirement for granting or denying a complete allopathic or osteopathic licensure application in s. 120.60(1) is extended to
180 days."
Subsection (1)(a) of Section 456.013, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, that "[a]n incomplete application shall expire 1 year from initial filing." (The Board of Medicine’s rules contain a similar provision, in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-4.009(9), which states: "The application [for licensure] may not be used for more than one year from the date of original submission of the application.")
Nowhere in Chapter 456 or 458, Florida Statutes, has the Legislature defined or otherwise specified what constitutes an "incomplete application," as that term is used in Subsection (1)(a) of Section 456.013, Florida Statutes; however, reading Subsection (1)(a) of Section 456.013 in pari materia with the provisions of Subsection (1) of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, which apply to agencies in general, not just to Petitioner, it is apparent that the Legislature, by use of the term "incomplete application" in the former, meant an application not "considered complete" as described in the latter. See P. A. G. v. A. F., 602 So. 2d 1259, 1261 (Fla. 1992)("It is an accepted maxim of statutory construction that a law should be construed together with and in harmony with any other statute relating to the same subject matter or having the same purpose, even though the statutes were not enacted at the same time."); Smith v. State, 645 So. 2d 124, 125-126 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1994)("The term 'weapon' is not defined in chapters 784, 775, or 784. However, it is defined in section 790.001(13), Florida Statutes (1991) . . . . The courts of this state have generally held that the definition in section 790.001(13), Florida Statutes, may properly be utilized where the defendant is charged with an offense that contains no definition of weapon."); Jowhal v. Department of Professional Regulation, 594 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)("We conclude that the doctor has misapprehended the thrust of [Subsection (5) of Section 455.225, Florida Statutes (1989)]. That statute must be read in pari materia with the remainder of the statutory scheme[;] Section 120.60, Florida Statutes (1989), is the portion of the Administrative Procedure Act dealing specifically with licensing."); Schorb v. Schorb, 547 So. 2d 985, 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)("Statutes which relate to the same subject matter should typically receive compatible interpretations."); and Krause v.
Reno, 366 So. 2d 1244, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)("The question of whether the City Manager was an 'agency' as that term is contemplated by Section 286.011 is one which, in our opinion, must also be answered in the affirmative. The Sunshine Law itself contains no definition of 'agency' or 'authority.' Therefore, this court may look to similar or analogous statutory provisions which give effect to the same public policy
underlying the Sunshine Law or which also concern the processes of state and local government.").
Respondent is without authority to approve or deny an application for licensure that has remained incomplete for a year and therefore, by operation of Subsection (1)(a) of Section 456.013, Florida Statutes, has expired. (An expired application, after all, is tantamount to no application at all inasmuch as, after its expiration, it no longer exists and therefore cannot be approved or denied. Cf. Du Bose v. Meister,
110 So. 546, 546-47 (Fla. 1926)("This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the license which was sought to be revoked expired on the 30th day of September, 1926. If this Court, following the law as construed and enunciated in the opinion in the case of Harry E. Prettyman, Inc., v. Fla. Real
Estate Commission, ex rel. -- Fla. --; 109 Sou. 442; should reverse the order of prohibition it could avail nothing, because the license which is sought to be revoked by order of the County Judge no longer exists and therefore, no effective order could be made by the County Judge revoking the same."); In re Chicago Railway Company, 168 F.2d 65, 66 (7th Cir. 1948)("While the appeal was pending on its way to a hearing and decision by this Court, the ordinance expired by its own terms. We therefore are asked to pass upon the validity of an ordinance that no longer exists. If we declare the ordinance void, our decision cannot
make it more defunct than it is. If we decide it is valid, we cannot breathe any life into it after it has become defunct by its own terms. Our decision as to the validity or invalidity of the ordinance cannot change the situation any. The issue is moot here."); and Sierra Club v. Hyundai America, Inc., No. 96- 6131-TC, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20783 (D. Or. April 7, 1998)("In
my original Order, I dismissed plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief after observing that the 1200-C permits issued to defendant had expired (the court cannot enjoin defendant from violating conditions of a permit that no longer exists).") The only action Respondent may take on an application that has expired is to acknowledge the application’s expiration and Respondent’s resultant lack of authority to approve or deny it. Cf. Tucker v. Ohren, 739 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)("A trial court has jurisdiction to rule on the question of its own jurisdiction."); and Spear v. Spear, 516 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)("A necessary adjunct to the hackneyed, but accurate, expression that a court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction is the principle that the court is empowered to conduct the proceedings to determine that question just as it does any other issue.")
On the other hand, Respondent is not only authorized, it is required, to either approve or deny an unexpired "completed application" within the statutorily-prescribed
timeframe. If it does not act in a timely manner, the application, by operation of Subsection (1) of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, will be deemed approved. See Premier International Travel v. Bronson, 843 So. 2d 294, 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). "[T]he approval or denial of the application [need not] be in writing to avoid the operation of the [statute's] 'deemer' provision." State, Department of Transportation v.
Calusa Trace Development Corp., 571 So. 2d 543, 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); see also Sumner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, 555 So. 2d 919, 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)("We agree with the Board that the deemer provision of section 120.60(2) [now found in section 120.60(1)] does not incorporate the written notice requirements of section 120.60(3) so that the Board was required to file its written notice of intent to deny within ninety days after receipt of Sumner's application.").
An application for licensure by endorsement submitted by an applicant who meets the qualifications set forth in Section 458.313, Florida Statutes, may nonetheless be denied by Respondent if the applicant has engaged in any of the acts described in Subsection (1) of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes, including "[a]ttempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license to practice medicine by bribery, by fraudulent misrepresentations, or through an error of the
department or the board" (as described in Subsection (1)(a) of the statute) and "[m]isrepresenting or concealing a material fact at any time during any phase of a licensing or disciplinary process or procedure" (as described in Subsection (1)(gg) of the statute). See § 458.331(2), Fla. Stat. ("The board may enter an order denying licensure or imposing any of the penalties in s.
456.072(2)[7] against any applicant for licensure or licensee who is found guilty of violating any provision of subsection (1) of this section . . . ."). If Respondent is to impose such a penalty, however, as noted above, it must do so within the timeframe prescribed by the Legislature: in the case of an "incomplete application," within "1 year from initial filing"; and, in the case of a "completed application," within 90 or 180 days of the application being "considered complete."
To establish that an applicant committed a violation of Subsection (1)(a) or (gg) of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes, during the application process by failing to accurately and/or completely disclose requested information, it must be shown, not only that the applicant provided false, misleading, or incomplete information, but also that the applicant intentionally and knowingly did so. See Vidal v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, No. 94-1236, 1994 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 5742 *12-14 (Fla. DOAH
October 3, 1994)(Recommended Order)("Section 458.331(1)(a),
Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board of Medicine to deny licensure if an applicant is guilty of 'attempting to obtain . .
. a license to practice medicine by . . . fraudulent misrepresentations . . . .' Section 458.331(1)(gg), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board to deny licensure if the applicant is guilty of '. . . misrepresenting or concealing a material fact at any time during any phase of a licensing or disciplinary process or procedure.' There has been no proof adduced that the Petitioner was, indeed, guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact. The omission in the original application was due to a good-faith, mistaken belief, on the part of the Petitioner, as to what was required to be disclosed on the application. The Petitioner did not believe that his five-month stint in the aborted residency program constituted a 'medical job or position,' which he interpreted to mean being gainfully employed as a practicing physician, and a like mistaken, but good-faith belief, attended the other omissions referenced in this proceeding by the Respondent as to his application as originally filed. The omission in the original application, at most, was negligent on the Petitioner's part, rather than being an intentional effort to conceal or misrepresent. . . . Fraud, misrepresentation or concealment is an offense involving the necessary element of specific intent or scienter to conceal, misrepresent, or
perpetrate fraud. Such intent has not been proven in this case and, in fact, has been affirmatively disproven."); and Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine v. Morrison, No. 93-6228, 1994 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear.
LEXIS 5511 *35 (Fla. DOAH May 3, 1994)(Recommended Order)("Additionally, the act of misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact [prohibited by what is now Subsection (1)(gg) of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes] requires a specific intent to deceive."); cf. Nehme v.
Smithkline Beecham Clinical Labs, Inc., 863 So. 2d 201, 205 (Fla. 2003)("'Conceal' is defined as (1) to prevent disclosure or recognition of; and (2) to place out of sight. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 238 (10th ed. 1994). More specifically, 'concealment' is defined as (1) the act of refraining from disclosure; esp. an act by which one prevents or hinders the discovery of something; and (2) the act of removing from sight or notice; hiding. Black's Law Dictionary 282 (7th ed. 1999). Under these definitions, concealment connotes knowledge."); State v. Rushing, 17 Fla. 226, 233 (Fla.
1879)("Concealment implies design . . . ."); Vetter v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board, No. 2D05-1335, 2005 Fla. App.
LEXIS 19712 (Fla. 2d DCA December 14, 2005)("We construe the statute strictly because denying licensure, like revocation of
an existing license, is penal in nature and constrains a citizen's ability to practice his trade or profession."); Walker
v. Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 705 So. 2d 652, 654 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)("In the instant case, Walker was accused of obtaining a license 'by means of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment . . .' in violation of section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes, which also contemplates that an intentional act be proved before a violation may be found."); Rife v. Department of Professional Regulation, 638 So. 2d 542,
544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)("We recognize that section 458.331 is penal in nature and should be strictly construed in favor of the physician."); Munch v. Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, 592 So. 2d 1136, 1143-44 (Fla. 1st DCA. 1992)("It is clear that Section 475.25(1)(b)[, Florida Statutes, which, in its first clause, authorizes the Florida Real Estate Commission to discipline a licensee guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in any business transaction] is penal in nature. As such, it must be construed strictly, in favor of the one against whom the penalty would be imposed. Reading the first clause of Section 475.25(1)(b) (the portion of the statute which appellant was charged with having violated in Count I of the complaint), and applying to the words used their
usual and natural meaning, it is apparent that it is contemplated that an intentional act be proved before a violation may be found."); Charter Air Center, Inc. v. Miller,
348 So. 2d 614, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)("The elements of fraudulent representation are: a false statement pertaining to a material fact, knowledge that it is false, intent to induce another to act on it, and injury by acting on the statement"); and Gentry v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, 293 So. 2d 95, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)(former statutory provision prohibiting licensed medical doctors from "[m]aking misleading, deceptive and untrue representations in the practice of medicine" held not to apply to "representations which are honestly made but happen to be untrue"; "[t]o constitute a violation, . . . the legislature intended that the misleading, deceptive and untrue representations must be made willfully (intentionally)"); but see Vath v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, No. 93-1310, 1993 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 5627 *21-22 (Fla. DOAH October 12, 1993)(Recommended Order)("It is concluded that the Petitioner knowingly omitted listing Ross University in his first application and knowingly omitted listing any radiology clerkship on the first two applications. His explanation for not listing Ross because he did not consider that he had attended Ross is lacking in credibility, particularly in light
of his extensive testimony at the hearing of his ties with Ross University, both financial and academic, and his explanation of the reason he omitted mentioning the radiology clerkship on the first two applications buttresses the finding of a violation.
Regardless of whether his misrepresentations were actually fraudulent by being intentionally untruthful or inaccurate as executed, it is clear that the misrepresentations and concealment of material facts were made, as prohibited by Subsection 458.331(1)(gg), Florida Statutes.").
If Respondent desires to deny an application for licensure by endorsement on the grounds that the applicant has violated Subsections (1)(a) and (gg) of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes, it must comply with the notice requirements of Subsection (3) of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Each applicant shall be given written notice either personally or by mail that the agency intends to . . . deny, or has . . . denied, the application for license. The notice must state with particularity the grounds or basis for the . . . denial of the
license, . . . . Unless waived, a copy of the notice shall be delivered or mailed to each party's attorney of record and to each person who has requested notice of agency action. Each notice shall inform the recipient of the basis for the agency decision, shall inform the recipient of any administrative hearing pursuant to ss.
120.569 and 120.57 or judicial review pursuant to s. 120.68 which may be available, shall indicate the procedure
which must be followed, and shall state the applicable time limits. The issuing agency shall certify the date the notice was mailed or delivered, and the notice and the certification shall be filed with the agency clerk.
Licensure may be denied only on those grounds specified in Respondent's notice of intent to deny. See Wray v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical
Examiners, 435 So. 2d 312, 314-315 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)("We agree with Dr. Wray's contention that the conclusion of the hearing officer and of the Board that appellant was guilty of professional misconduct for failure to refer the patient to a psychiatrist in the state to which he was moving was error.
First, Dr. Wray was not charged in the administrative complaint with unprofessional conduct for that failure to act. The charges related exclusively to improper and excessive medication prescriptions, of which the hearing officer and the Board found him not guilty. To have then found him guilty of an offense with which he was not charged was a denial of due process."); and Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Del
Valle, No. 96-1697, 1996 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 3284 *27-28

(Fla. DOAH March 1, 1996)(Recommended Order)("Had the Department included poor judgment and untruthfulness among the offenses alleged in the Notice, the Del Valles would have been on notice of the charges against them and would have had the opportunity
to present witnesses to their good judgment and truthfulness. The Department is, therefore, foreclosed from basing it denial of the 1996 renewal of the Del Valles's foster home license on these grounds."). Respondent must also provide the applicant with notice of its intent to seek any penalty in addition to denial of licensure. See Williams v. Turlington, 498 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)("Since Williams was not given notice by either the complaint or later proceedings that he was at risk of having his license permanently revoked, the Commission's imposition of the non-prayed-for relief of permanent revocation, even if justified by the evidence, was error."); and Department of Children and Family Services v. Robinson, No. 97-1669, 1998 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 5471 *11-12 (Fla. DOAH February 5, 1998)(Recommended Order)("In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department has recommended that Mr. Robinson's certification to provide services under the Waiver Program be discontinued. This proposed penalty is rejected because it was not the penalty identified in the letter of February 5, 1997.").
In the instant case, in accordance with the requirements of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, Respondent provided Petitioner with "written notice" (in the form of an Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Intent
to Deny Licensure) of its intention to deny Petitioner's Florida Application based upon the allegation that:
By failing to answer correctly questions 12, 12a, 12b, 15a, and 19b on the licensure application, the applicant [Petitioner] is in violation of:
1. Section 458.331(1)(gg), Florida Statutes, for misrepresenting or concealing a material fact at any time during any phase of a licensing or disciplinary process or procedure;
2. Section 458.331(1)(a), Florida Statutes, for attempting to obtain, attaining, or renewing a license to practice medicine by bribery, fraudulent misrepresentations, or through an error of the Department or the Board.
Petitioner requested an administrative hearing and Respondent referred the matter to DOAH for the assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct the requested hearing in accordance with Section 120.569, Florida Statutes, and Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Where, as in the instant case, an applicant for medical licensure by endorsement disputes Respondent’s announced intention to deny licensure based upon the applicant's alleged wrongdoing, and the applicant requests that an evidentiary hearing be held on the matter, Respondent bears the burden of proving (at the requested hearing) that the applicant committed the alleged wrongful act(s). See Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection v.
Osborne Stern and Company, 670 So. 2d 930, 934 (Fla. 1996)("The general rule is that a party asserting the affirmative of an issue has the burden of presenting evidence as to that issue."); and Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Career Service Commission, 289 So. 2d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)("[T]he burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative on an issue before an administrative tribunal.").
Due process requires that, in determining whether Respondent has met its burden of proof, Respondent's evidentiary presentation be evaluated in light of the specific factual allegation(s) made in the notice of intent to deny. See Wray,
435 So. 2d at 315. Furthermore, "the conduct proved must legally fall within the statute or rule claimed [in the notice of intent to deny] to have been violated." Delk v. Department
of Professional Regulation, 595 So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
At the evidentiary hearing held at Petitioner’s request in the instant case, Respondent failed to prove Petitioner’s guilt of the wrongdoing specifically alleged in the Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure. While it is undisputed that the information provided in response to items 12, 12a., 12b., 15a., and 19b. on Petitioner’s Florida Application was incorrect, the record evidence affirmatively establishes that the application was
submitted, not by Petitioner, but by USML, without Petitioner’s approval or knowledge, and that Petitioner was unaware the application contained any inaccuracies until her appearance before the Credentials Committee on July 24, 2004, more than a year after the application’s submission. Perhaps Petitioner was guilty of failing to exercise due diligence in not doing more, once she learned that her Florida Application had been submitted, to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the application; however, this was not the wrongdoing specifically alleged in the Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure.
Petitioner was accused, not of post-application submission wrongdoing of a negligent nature, but of acting in a dishonest manner in connection with the submission of the application "[b]y failing to answer correctly" items 12, 12a., 12b., 15a,, and 19b. on the application.8 Respondent’s proof at hearing was insufficient to support a finding that Petitioner engaged in this charged misconduct.
Although Petitioner has steadfastly maintained throughout this proceeding her innocence of the charges made against her in the Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure, she has done so only as a fallback to her primary position that, "as Petitioner’s application for licensure was incomplete on June 15, 2004, the
application expiration date, the application expired as a matter of law" and "Respondent was thus without jurisdiction to [thereafter] act on Petitioner’s application for licensure." An examination of the record in this case reveals that Petitioner is correct in arguing that, before Respondent had taken any action on Petitioner’s Florida Application, the application had expired "as a matter of law" (specifically, by operation of Subsection (1)(a) of Section 456.013, Florida Statutes), rendering Respondent powerless to subsequently approve or deny the application. The application had expired because a year had passed without the application’s being "considered complete" and without Respondent having acted to approve or deny the application. The application was not "considered complete" at the time of its expiration inasmuch as Respondent had not yet received "all requested information," and the missing "requested information" was information that Respondent was "permitted by law to require" as part of its investigation into Petitioner’s eligibility for licensure by endorsement.9
In view of the foregoing, Respondent should acknowledge the expiration of Petitioner's Florida Application and its resultant lack of authority to either approve or deny it.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby

RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order finding that Petitioner's Florida Application expired, without being acted on, one year after it was filed and that it is therefore too late for Respondent to either approve or deny the application.

DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

STUART M. LERNER

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 7th day of March, 2006.

ENDNOTES

1/ All references to Florida Statutes in this Recommended Order are to Florida Statutes (2005).

2/ The following exhibits were received into evidence over objection: that portion of Petitioner's Exhibit C consisting of the documents in the application file maintained by Respondent

on Brian Aronson, M.D.; Petitioner's Exhibit D; Petitioner's Exhibit E; and Petitioner's Exhibit F. No finding of fact in this Recommended Order has been based on any of these exhibits notwithstanding their admission into evidence.

3/ The undersigned has accepted these factual stipulations. See Columbia Bank for Cooperatives v. Okeelanta Sugar Cooperative,

52 So. 2d 670, 673 (Fla. 1951)("When a case is tried upon stipulated facts the stipulation is conclusive upon both the trial and appellate courts in respect to matters which may validly be made the subject of stipulation. Indeed, on appeal neither party will be heard to suggest that the facts were other than as stipulated or that any material facts w[ere] omitted"); Schrimsher v. School Board of Palm Beach County, 694 So. 2d 856, 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)("The hearing officer is bound by the parties' stipulations."); and Palm Beach Community College v. Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 579 So. 2d 300, 302 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)("When the parties agree that a case is to be tried upon stipulated facts, the stipulation is binding not only upon the parties but also upon the trial and reviewing courts. In addition, no other or different facts will be presumed to exist.").

4/ The "application instructions" prepared by Respondent to assist applicants in completing the Florida Application Form stated the following regarding the Affidavit of Applicant:

This section of the application must be completed. Please provide an expiration date of the affidavit on the first blank. Please print your name on the second blank. Sign and date the affidavit on the third blank. This section is copied and used as a release for information, therefore the printed name and your signature must be your legal signature.

5/ In the instant case, Respondent did not provide the "90-day licensure delay" notice required to receive an extension of time under Subsection (3) of Section 458.313, Florida Statutes.

6/ Article X, Section 26 of the Florida Constitution provides as follows:

Prohibition of medical license after repeated medical malpractice

No person who has been found to have committed three or more incidents of medical malpractice shall be licensed or continue to be licensed by the State of Florida to provide health care services as a medical doctor.
For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
1. The phrase "medical malpractice" means both the failure to practice medicine in Florida with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law related to health care providers' licensure, and any similar wrongful act, neglect, or default in other states or countries which, if committed in Florida, would have been considered medical malpractice.
2. The phrase "found to have committed" means that the malpractice has been found in a final judgment of a court of law, final administrative agency decision, or decision of binding arbitration.

7/ "[T]he penalties in s. 456.072(2)" include "permanent revocation of a license," but not barring an applicant (who has not yet attained licensure) from reapplying for licensure.

Respondent, therefore, may not, in addition to denying licensure to an applicant who has violated Subsections (1)(a) and (gg) of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes, impose the further penalty of prohibiting reapplication. See State, Department of Environmental Regulation v. Puckett Oil Co., 577 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)("[A]n agency possesses no inherent power to impose sanctions, and . . . any such power must be expressly delegated by statute."); Willner v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, 563 So. 2d 805, 806-807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)("We agree that the $60,000 payment is a penalty. As a penalty, it can only be upheld if the legislative authority relied upon by the agency is sufficiently specific to indicate a clear legislative intent that the agency have authority to exact the penalty prescribed. We find the language of Section 458.331(2)(f), Florida Statutes, to be a general grant of authority to the appellee, lacking in sufficient specificity to

evince a legislative intent to authorize appellee to exact monetary penalties as conditions of probation.")(citation omitted); and McFarlin v. State, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 405 So. 2d 255,

256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)("It is apparent that insofar as Rule 7E- 4.09(3) sought to levy a fine, it was beyond the purview of the agency to adopt or enforce it without specific legislative authority.").

8/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, Respondent asserts (for the first time) that "Petitioner knowingly allowed an application that she knowingly did not sign to be submitted, fraudulently misrepresenting to the Respondent that Petitioner reviewed and signed the application, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(a), Florida Statutes." The record evidence does not establish that Petitioner made such a "fraudulent[] misrepresent[ation]," but even if it did, Respondent would still be precluded from denying Petitioner licensure based on her having done so inasmuch as this act of dishonesty was not the one alleged in the Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure.

9/ In its Proposed Recommended Order, in support of its position that "Petitioner's application was complete [on June 15, 2004] and [it therefore] had jurisdiction to [subsequently] act upon [the application]," Respondent makes the argument that the information that Respondent had requested, but not received as of June 15, 2004, was "supplemental" information that Respondent did not need in order to take action on Petitioner’s Florida Application. Whether or not it was absolutely necessary for Respondent to have had this information in order to determine Petitioner’s eligibility for licensure, the fact remains that Respondent requested it, as Respondent was authorized to do in the discharge of its responsibilities under Section 458.313, Florida Statutes. Having done so, and having neither rescinded its request nor received the requested information by the time of the one-year anniversary of the application's filing, Respondent cannot now (inconsistent with the statements it made in the deficiency notices and letters it sent out) claim that the application was complete on that one-year anniversary date. (Respondent does not specify in its Proposed Recommended Order when, in its opinion, the application first became complete.

If, in the exercise of its final order authority in this case, Respondent were to reject the undersigned's conclusion that the application expired, incomplete, on its one-year anniversary date, determining when the application first became complete

would be of more than academic interest inasmuch as the time within which an agency must approve or deny a licensure application in order to avoid a "licensure by default" outcome pursuant to Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes, begins to run upon the application's being "considered complete.").

COPIES FURNISHED:

Monica L. Rodriguez, Esquire Dresnick & Rodriguez, P.A. One Datran Center, Suite 1800 Miami, Florida 33156-7817

Michael T. Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Edward T. Tellechea, Esquire Rosanna Catalano, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Larry McPherson, Executive Director Florida Board of Medicine Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701

R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin 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.

Docket for Case No: 05-003533

Issue Date	Proceedings
May 10, 2006	Motion for Attorneys` Fees filed. (DOAH Case No. 06-1657F established)
May 02, 2006	Final Order filed.
Mar. 07, 2006	Recommended Order (hearing held December 12, 2005). CASE CLOSED.
Mar. 07, 2006	Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
Feb. 21, 2006	Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Feb. 17, 2006	(Respondent`s) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Jan. 20, 2006	Order Granting Extension of Time (proposed recommended orders shall be filed no later than February 17, 2006).
Jan. 19, 2006	Respondent`s Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
Jan. 17, 2006	Transcript filed.
Dec. 12, 2005	CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Dec. 09, 2005	Letter to Judge Lerner from M. Flury enclosing exhibits for the Hearing filed.
Dec. 09, 2005	Dr. Randa Sawan Chronology of Events filed.
Dec. 09, 2005	Letter to Judge Lerner from M. Rodriguez enclosing copies of exhibits for the upcoming Hearing filed.
Dec. 08, 2005	Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
Dec. 06, 2005	Order on Motion for Official Recognition.
Nov. 28, 2005	Petitioner`s Response to First Request for Admissions filed.
Nov. 23, 2005	Petitioner`s Motion for Taking of Official Recognition filed.
Nov. 04, 2005	Respondent`s Amended Response to Request for Production filed.
Nov. 01, 2005	Notice of Serving Respondent`s First Request for Admissions filed.
Oct. 19, 2005	Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s First Request for Production filed.
Oct. 19, 2005	Petitioner`s Response to First Set of Interrogatories filed.
Oct. 14, 2005	Notice of Change of Address filed.
Oct. 04, 2005	Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (video hearing set for December 12, 2005; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL).
Sep. 30, 2005	Joint Motion for Continuance filed.
Sep. 26, 2005	Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Sep. 26, 2005	Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (video hearing set for November 1, 2005; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL).
Sep. 26, 2005	Order Re-opening File.
Sep. 23, 2005	Request for Formal Hearing filed.
Sep. 23, 2005	Order Granting Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure filed.
Sep. 23, 2005	Renewed Request for Formal Hearing filed.
Sep. 23, 2005	Request to Reopen Case by Renewed Referral for Hearing filed. (Formerly DOAH case number 05-1297)

Orders for Case No: 05-003533

Issue Date	Document	Summary
Apr. 27, 2006	Agency Final Order
Mar. 07, 2006	Recommended Order	Respondent could neither approve nor deny Petitioner`s application because the application had expired, as incomplete, before any action was taken on it.

Source: Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

RANDA M. SAWAN, M.D. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE, 05-003533 (2005)

Docket for Case No: 05-003533

Orders for Case No: 05-003533

Jeff Goodman

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.

RANDA M. SAWAN, M.D. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE, 05-003533 (2005)

Docket for Case No: 05-003533

Orders for Case No: 05-003533

Lawyers who claimed

Jeff Goodman

Counsels

Cites

Florida Laws (17)

Authorities (19)

Cited By (18)

Similar Cases

Note

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.

Search for lawyers by practice areas.