STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

ROBERT J. H. MICK, D.D.S., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 75-1930

) FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

This cause came on for hearing before the undersigned on March 11, 1976, in Miami, Florida, based on the Petitioner's request for a hearing to determine the legality of the Florida State Board of Dentistry's issuance of a conditional renewal certificate to Petitioner. The Florida State Board of Dentistry, pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 466.17, issued a conditional renewal certificate to the Petitioner based on the fact that he did not currently maintain residence and domicile in the State of Florida. Petitioner disputed this issue and requested a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Robert J. H. Mick, D.D.S.

426 Glen Avenue

Laurel Springs, New Jersey

For Respondent: L. Haldane Taylor

Taylor and Brecher

605 Florida Theater Building

128 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202

1. The issue to be resolved is whether or not the Board properly issued the Petitioner a conditional renewal certificate as provided for in Section 477.17(2), based on its claim that he did not currently maintain residence and domicile in the State of Florida. The Petitioner is the holder of dental license no. 1766, a conditional renewal certificate which was issued by the Board on December 8, 1975. He has been issued a conditional renewal certificate by the Florida State Board of Dentistry for each year since 1973. Petitioner is also a licensed dentist in the state of New Jersey and is actively engaged in practice at 95 Stone Road, Laurel Springs, New Jersey. From 1971 through 1975, Petitioner practiced dentistry in the State of Florida an average of 8 weeks annually during the months January, April, July, and October and this fact is evidenced by statements at the hearing and his sworn exchange application which was filed with the Board in the fall of 1975. Based on this information, the Board rejected Petitioner's exchange application and he was issued a conditional renewal certificate. Petitioner practices in New Jersey the remainder of the year. He has been practicing in New Jersey for approximately 40 years and approximately half of that time, he has been practicing in Laurel Springs, New

   Jersey, prior to becoming licensed in Florida. Petitioner maintains his home in Laurel Springs, New Jersey, where he lives with his wife and another member of his family. He maintains an apartment in Florida. Petitioner is a registered voter of Pinellas County, Florida, and has filed a declaration of domicile with the clerk of the circuit court of Pinellas County on April 12, 1965. He intends to move to Florida and dissolve his practice in New Jersey sometime in the future.

   
   

2. The threshold question to be decided in this case is a proper determination of the Petitioner's domicile. The principle elements of domicile is physical presence in the locality involved and intention to adopt it as a domicile. Both factors must be present and the existence of such must coincide simultaneously. Under the law, every person is compelled to have one and only one domicile. See for example, Minick v. Minick, 111 Fla. 469, 149 So. 483 (1933). Ones future choice of domicile does not replace the existing domicile.

   
   

3. Turning to the facts in this case, the evidence reveals that the Petitioner spends the bulk of his time in New Jersey where he is actively engaged in the practice of dentistry and has been for approximately 40 years. While he stated that he intends to dissolve his practice in New Jersey and relocate in this state, that factor is insufficient to change his domicile at this time. The evidence reveals that he spends approximately 8 weeks annually in Florida and the remainder of his practice time is in New Jersey. With these facts, it is clear that the Petitioner's domicile is not in Florida but rather in New Jersey. His statements regarding his intent to relocate in this state at some time in the future is of no moment in determining his present domicile.

   The fact of the matter is that he is presently domiciled in New Jersey and by law he can only have one domicile. This being the case, and since under the Dental Practice Act, Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, a licensed dentist can only be issued a regular certificate if he currently maintains residence and domicile in that state, the undersigned concludes that the Board correctly issued the Petitioner a conditional license. I shall therefore recommend that the action of the Board in issuing a conditional license to the Petitioner was and is a proper and valid act on its part pursuant to Florida Statutes, 466.17(2). This recommendation by no means estops the Petitioner from petitioning for a regular certificate when his domicile and residence is established in this state.

   
   

   Based on the above and the entire record in this case, I make the following:

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

4. All parties were properly noticed pursuant to notice provisions of Section 120, F.S.

   
   

5. Petitioner's domicile is not in Florida but New Jersey.

   
   

6. Petitioner, under Florida law, is only entitled to a conditional license.

The action of the Florida State Board of Dentistry in issuing Petitioner a conditional license was and is a valid act pursuant to Section 466.17(2), F.S.

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304

(904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

L. Haldane Taylor Taylor & Brecher

605 Florida Theatre Building

128 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Robert J. H. Mick, D.D.S.

426 Glen Avenue

Laurel Springs, New Jersey 08021

Docket for Case No: 75-001930

Orders for Case No: 75-001930