STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FLORIDA BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC ) EXAMINERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 76-0126

)

LAWRENCE A. JOHNSON, D.C., )

License No. 1967, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, held a public hearing in this case on April 19 and 20, 1976, in St. Petersburg, Florida.

APPEARANCES

The following appearances were entered: Ronald C. LaFace, Tallahassee, Florida, for the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners; and Martin E. Rice, St. Petersburg, Florida, for Lawrence A. Johnson, D.C.

On or about December 29, 1975, the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners ("Board" hereafter) issued a complaint against Lawrence A. Johnson, D.C., an individual who is licensed to practice as a chiropractor in the State of Florida. The licensee requested a formal hearing. The Administrative Complaint and the Request for Hearing were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 19, 1976. Thereafter the Board filed a Motion for Leave to Amend the Administrative Complaint and the motion was granted by order entered March 5, 1976. Through the Amended Complaint the Board has raised 8 separate counts against the-licensee. Counts I, II, III, and V relate to the licensee's diagnosis and treatment of Mabel-Ann Miller. These four counts factually allege a single charge against the licensee. In Count IV it is alleged that the licensee permitted an untrained person to administer treatments to Mabel-Ann Miller. In Count VI it is alleged that the licensee refused to release x-rays to Philip W. Settepani, a former patient of the licensee. In Count VII it is alleged that the licensee made fraudulent statements to Shirley Sabo, while Mrs. Sabo was a patient of the licensee. In Count VIII it is alleged that the licensee filed legal claims as a "clinic" while he was in fact a sole practitioner.

The final hearing was scheduled to be conducted on April 19 and 20, 1976, by notice dated March 5, 1976. The licensee filed a Motion for Physical Examination of Complaining Witnesses, which motion was denied by order entered March 23, 1976.

At the hearing the licensee filed a "Suggestion for Recusal of Members of Board", and an affidavit in support of the motion. Through this motion the

licensee is seeking the recusal of present members of the Board from further consideration of this case. The motion is directed to the members of the Board and not to the undersigned hearing officer, and has been forwarded with this order to the Board.

The Board called the following witnesses: Shirley Sabo, a former patient of the licensee; Dr. Quinton W. Derr, a licensed Chiropractor; Philip W. Settepani, a former patient of the licensee; Dr. Paul Tilka, a licensed Chiropractor; Barbara Duynslager, a former employee of the licensee; William S. Norman, an employee of the Board; Mabel-Ann Miller, a former patient of the licensee; Dr. Gerald Balduf, a licensed Chiropractor; Dr. Royce Hobby, a Medical Doctor who specializes in bone and joint surgery; Mabel Anna Miller, the mother of a former patient of the licensee; and Dr. Lee Edward Arnold, a licensed Chiropractor. The licensee called the following witnesses: Dr. George Stanford Pierce, a licensed Chiropractor; Thelma B. Lewis, a patient of the licensee; O.

1. Whipple, a patient of the licensee; Grace D. Funk, a patient of the licensee; Mrs. Catherine Cohen, a patient of the licensee; Dr. Peter Fernandez a licensed Chiropractor; Dr. David Millman, a licensed Chiropractor; and the licensee. Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1 was received into evidence at the hearing. Board Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 were received into evidence at the hearing. Board Exhibit 12 was offered into evidence but was not received. Board Exhibit 4 was marked for identification but was not offered into evidence and did not become part of the record in this case. Licensee's Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 were offered into evidence and were received. Licensee's Exhibits 1, 2,

   3, and 4 were marked for identification at the hearing but were not offered into evidence and did not become part of the record in the case. Each party has submitted a Proposed Recommended Order.

   
   

   Conflicting testimony was presented at the hearing with respect to several matters. In resolving these conflicts, due regard has been given to the demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Lawrence A. Johnson, D.C., is duly qualified and licensed to practice as a Chiropractor in the State of Florida. Dr. Johnson holds a license issued by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

      
      

   2. From on or about July 18, 1975 until August 18, 1975, Dr. Johnson treated Mabel-Ann Miller. Ms. Miller had been having pain in her back and legs and was seeking chiropractic treatment in the hope of alleviating the pain. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on approximately twenty occasions during the one month that she was under his care. The testimony from several of the witnesses was understandably somewhat vague with respect to what was said or done on any given visit. It is apparent, however, that during the early consultations with her, Dr. Johnson told her that he could help her, and that more than a year of treatment would be necessary. Dr. Johnson initially represented to her that the cost of treatment would be approximately $200, and that she would be permitted to pay $5 per week and the remainder when she finished her schooling. Dr. Johnson diagnosed a degenerated or herniated disc, a scoliosis or curvature of the spine, and a pelvic obliquity. Dr. Johnson told Ms. Miller that she was loosing fluid from her spine, and that unless she received immediate chiropractic treatment she would require an operation within a year, that the operation would have only a 50/50 chance of success, and that without chiropractic treatment she would stand a very good prospect of spending her life in a wheelchair.

   3. Mabel-Ann Miller's boyfriend, Chuck Alexander, had been Dr. Johnson's patient prior to the time that Ms. Miller went to Dr. Johnson. Alexander told Dr. Johnson about Ms. Miller, and prior to Ms. Miller's seeing Dr. Johnson as a patient, Alexander agreed to pay all of her expenses that she could not pay herself. He signed an agreement to this effect (licensee's Exhibit 6). The existence of this side agreement was not revealed to Ms. Miller until her second, third, or fourth visit. Ms. Miller became incensed at the arrangement, and told Dr. Johnson that she would pay her own bills. Dr. Johnson then related to her that the cost of her treatments would exceed $1,000. He told her that he would treat her on a "case fee" basis for $1,060.30. It was agreed that she would pay him a small portion of this case fee until she finished her schooling and was able to pay the entire bill. There after Dr. Johnson endeavored to have Ms. Miller sign a note for the "case fee". He initially requested 7 percent interest on the note, but later changed that amount to 5 percent. A copy of an agreement to pay which Dr. Johnson presented to Ms. Miller was received in evidence as Board Exhibit 6. Ms. Miller never signed the agreement.

      
      

   4. The testimony respecting Mabel-Ann Miller's condition varied somewhat. Dr. Johnson's diagnosis did not vary to an extraordinary degree, however, from the diagnosis given by other chiropractors, and by Dr. Hobby, a Medical Physician. The most creditable testimony demonstrates that Ms. Miller had a very mild curvature of the spine or scoliosis. She suffered a pelvic obliquity. Her left pelvis was 1.2 centimeters higher than her right pelvis. The pain being suffered by the patient was primarily muscular in nature. Ms. Miller would have benefited from chiropractic treatments, but her condition was not so severe as to require more than a year of intensive chiropractic therapy. Primarily she needed a good exercise program. After leaving Dr. Johnson's care, Ms. Miller submitted to the care of Dr. Hobby, who advised that she use an elevation on her shoe to level the pelvis and engage in an exercise program.

      She followed Dr. Hobby's advice, and at least up until the time of the hearing her condition improved, and she was no longer suffering pain.

      
      

   5. As has been said, Dr. Johnson's diagnosis of Ms. Miller's condition was not inaccurate. His statements respecting the severity of the condition were, however, quite exaggerated. Any disc deterioration that Ms. Miller suffered was very slight. Her scoliosis was not so severe as to require intensive chiropractic treatment. Her pelvic obliquity was not a severe problem. Dr. Johnson's statement that she would require surgery if she did not receive immediate chiropractic attention was not true. Neither was it true that she would require more than a year of intense chiropractic treatment.

      
      

   6. Dr. Johnson frequently utilized the "case fee" system of billing, and he attempted to utilize this system in billing Mabel-Ann Miller. Under the "case fee" system, a patient pays a lump sum for all needed chiropractic treatment rather than a per-visit fee. The testimony revealed that the average per-visit fee for chiropractic services in the St. Petersburg area varied from

      $8 to $12. Dr. Johnson's quoted "case fee" of more than $1,000 is so out of line with typical fees charged in the St. Petersburg area as to raise suspicions respecting Dr. Johnson's motives. There was no reason to expect that Ms. Miller required so many treatments as to justify such a case fee. Dr. Johnson's exaggerated statements respecting her condition could only have been motivated by his desire to have her contract for a fee far out of line with fees normally charged in the St. Petersburg area, and far out of line with the nature of treatment that Ms. Miller needed whatever fees were charged.

      
      

   7. Since Ms. Miller never signed a note agreeing to a "case fee" Dr. Johnson rendered her a statement for services on a per-visit or per-service

      basis. The statement was for $1,411.16. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on fewer than twenty occasions. Although she enjoyed the full range of services available at Dr. Johnson's office during these visits, the treatment and services she received were not remotely worth the amount which Dr. Johnson billed her. Dr. Johnson never had any agreement with the patient which would have justified such a bill which so far exceeds the community standards of the value of chiropractic services.

      
      

   8. During the time that Ms. Miller was under Dr. Johnson's care she received treatment known as Galvanic treatment in his office. A Galvanic machine renders heat to areas of the patient's body where the pads from the machine are placed. Use of the machine is somewhat risky in that a patient can be burned as a result of errors that are easy to make. Galvanic treatment was rendered to Ms. Miller at Dr. Johnson's office by Barbara Duynslager. Ms. Duynslager was trained in use of the Galvanic machine primarily by Dr. Johnson's wife, who served as Dr. Johnson's office manager. Dr. Johnson witnessed Ms. Duynslager using the machine on two occasions. Generally she was supervised in use of the machine, if at all, by Dr. Johnson's wife. It is normal procedure in the St. Petersburg area for chiropractic assistants to watch from five to ten Galvanic treatments and to be closely supervised on from five to ten more treatments before they are permitted to administer treatments unsupervised. Ms. Duynslager was given less training than that. Given the community standards, and given the risk involved in using the machine, it is apparent that Ms. Duynslager was not adequately trained.

      
      

   9. During the time that she was being treated, Ms. Miller received a minor burn on her lower back. There was no direct testimony from which it could be concluded that the burn came from the Galvanic machine; however, there is ample circumstantial evidence from which it can be determined that she did receive the burns from the machine. The burns appeared during the time she was receiving Galvanic treatment, the nature of the irritation is consistent with a Galvanic burn, and no other source of such an irritation was known. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that Barbara Duynslager was negligent in using the machine; however, the existence of the burn dramatizes the necessity for careful training on the machine.

      
      

   10. During late September and early October, 1975, Dr. Johnson consulted Philip W. Settepani, as a patient. Mr. Settepani was experiencing back pains, and he sought chiropractic assistance from Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson showed Settepani x-rays of his back, and described what Dr. Johnson characterized as "spurs" on the x-rays. Mr. Settepani was quite upset at what he saw on the x- rays, and he eventually sought and received chiropractic treatment from a Dr. Tilka rather than Dr. Johnson. Dr. Tilka did not describe Mr. Settepani's condition as "spurs". This led Mr. Settepani to believe that Dr. Johnson either made an erroneous diagnosis or misrepresented the diagnosis in order to scare the patient. Several of the expert witnesses who testified identified Mr. Settepani's condition as spurs . It is apparently the use of that term which caused Mr. Settepani to complain to the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that Dr. Johnson made an erroneous diagnosis of Mr. Settepani, or made any fraudulent or misleading statements to Mr. Settepani.

       
       

   11. In early February, 1976, Ms. Shirley Sabo visited Dr. Johnson's office as a patient. Dr. Johnson's wife told Ms. Sabo that Dr. Johnson never had a patient he couldn't cure, and that the cure would be quick. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that these statements were authorized by Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson informed the patient that she would require

       approximately one year of treatment, and that the cost would be $1,000. Ms. Sabo did not continue treatment with Dr. Johnson. She eventually received treatment from another Chiropractor and was billed $160 for x-rays and twelve visits. The fee quoted by Dr. Johnson was far out of line with customary fees in the St. Petersburg area, and is difficult, if not impossible, to justify.

       Nonetheless, there is no evidence from which it could be determined that Dr. Johnson misrepresented any facts to Ms. Sabo.

       
       

   12. Dr. Johnson instituted two law suits under the name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. The name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. was recorded in the public records of Pinellas County as a fictitious name for Johnson Chiropractic Clinic. Dr. Johnson performs as a sole practitioner. There was no other evidence respecting any advertising undertaken by Dr. Johnson in the name of a clinic, or any announcements made by Dr. Johnson that his office was a clinic.

       
       

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to this action, and over the subject matter. Florida Statutes, 120.57(1), 120.60.

       
       

   14. The burden of proving that a licensee has violated the provisions of a licensing statute so as to justify disciplinary action being taken lies with the licensing authority. State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1973).

   15. Florida Statutes, 460.13(3) provides in pertinent part as follows: "(3) The Board, pursuant to the procedure

       prescribed in this Act, shall have the authority to discipline any applicant for license, or the holder of a license to practice as a chiropractic physician, who is found guilty by the Board of one or more of the following:

       * * *

       (f) Making any untrue, false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, extravagant, or grossly improbable claims or statements concerning the science or practice of chiropractic;

       * * *

       (h) That he is in any way guilty of any deception, misrepresentation, or fraud in the practice of chiropractic;

       * * *

       1. That he is guilty of unprofessional conduct which is defined to mean: Any conduct which is reasonably likely to deceive or defraud the public; sharing office space with any person illegally practicing any of the healing arts;

          the employing either directly or indirectly of any unlicensed chiropractic physician whose license has been suspended; or the violation of the code of ethics or any

          provisions thereof adopted by the board.

       2. That he has violated any of the provisions of this chapter, or any of the rules and regu- lations of the board."

       
       

       The exaggerated statements that Dr. Johnson made to Mabel-Ann Miller respecting her condition and her need for treatment from him constitute violations of Florida Statutes, 6460.13(3)(f),(h) and (m). Dr. Johnson is guilty of the offense alleged in Counts I, II, III, and V of the Amended Administrative Complaint.

       
       

   16. By permitting Barbara Duynslager to administer Galvanic treatment to patients, Dr. Johnson was necessarily holding her out as being adequately trained to perform such treatment. Holding Barbara Duynslager out as adequately trained to perform such treatment violated the provisions of Florida Statutes, 460.13(3)(h), and (m). Dr. Johnson is guilty of the offense alleged in Count IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint.

       
       

   17. There was insufficient evidence offered at the hearing from which it could be determined that Dr. Johnson committed the offenses alleged in Count VI of the Amended Administrative complaint.

       
       

   18. There was insufficient evidence offered at the hearing from which it could be determined that Dr. Johnson committed the offenses alleged in Count VII of the Amended Administrative Complaint.

   19. Rule 21D-2.03 of the Florida Administrative Code provides as follows: "No licensed individual chiropractor or group

       of chiropractors or licensed chiropractors

       who are associated professionally shall use

       the terms "chiropractic clinic" or "chiropractic center" or "clinic" or "center" in any advertisements or announcement or telephone listing or professional card or professional listing unless two (2) or more licensed chiropractic physicians are practicing the advertised facility."

       
       

       Filing suit in the name of a clinic, and registering a fictitious name do not constitute advertisements or announcements within the meaning of the rule. Dr. Johnson therefore did not commit any offense as alleged in Count VIII of the Amended Administrative Complaint.

   20. Florida Statutes, 460.138 provides in pertinent part as follows: "The board shall have authority to enter an

       order to discipline any person who, after proper hearing, has been found guilty by the board of a violation of one or more provisions of this chapter or any rule and regulation of the board adopted pursuant

       thereto. The board, based upon the evidence and its finding of fact, may enter its final order, which may include one of the following provisions:

       1. Suspend, or limit the right to practice

          in this state, for a period to be determined by the board;

       2. Revoke the license to practice chiropractic. Following the revocation of such license, the licensee may be relicensed at the discretion of the board with or without examination;

       3. Refuse to issue or renew a license;

       4. Suspend the imposition of judgment and penalties;

       5. Impose judgment and penalties, but suspend enforcement thereof and place the licensee or applicant for license on probation;

       6. Take such other action in relation to disciplining as the board in its discretion may deem proper and in the interest of the public health;

       7. Withhold any license, when the same has not been delivered, either permanently or for a period of time."

The violations of Florida Statutes, 460.13 as set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of these Conclusions of Law justify the suspension of Dr. Johnson's license to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida for a period of six months.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

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

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Board of Chiropractic Examiners as follows:

1. Finding Lawrence A. Johnson, D. C. guilty of the offenses alleged in Counts I, II, III, and V of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and suspending him from the practice of chiropractic in the State of Florida for a period of six (6) months.

   
   

2. Finding Lawrence A. Johnson, D. C. guilty of the offense charged in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint, and suspending him from the practice of chiropractic in the State of Florida for a period of one (1) month, said suspension to run concurrently with the suspension imposed under paragraph 1 of this Recommended Order.

   
   

3. Dismissing Count VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint.

   
   

4. Dismissing Count VII of the Amended Administrative Complaint.

   
   

5. Dismissing Count VIII of the Amended Administrative Complaint.

RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida.

G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 323

COPIES FURNISHED:

Mr. C. A. Hartley Coordinator

Board of Chiropractic Examiners 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32211

Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302

Martin E. Rice, Esquire Post Office Box 173

St. Petersburg, Florida 33731

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF PROFESSIONS, BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS

IN RE: The revocation or suspension of the license of

LAWRENCE A. JOHNSON, D. C.

License No. 1967

/

CASE NO. 76-0126

FINAL ORDER

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard in an informal proceeding before the FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS (herein-after Board), pursuant to 120.57(2), F.S. The proceeding was convened on October 5, 1977, at the Holiday Inn, U.S. Route A1A, Palm Beach, Florida, and was continued to December 8, 1977, at the Kahler Plaza, Orlando, Florida.

The Respondent had been charged with violations of 460.13 (3)(b)(f)(h)(m) and (n), F.S.,, in an Administrative Complaint issued by the Board on June 3, 1977. Service was attempted on Respondent by Certified U.S. Mail to the last known address of Respondent provided to the Board. When such mailing was returned, having not been accepted or otherwise received by the Respondent, additional certified mailings were made to other addresses within and without this State which by virtue of diligent investigation appeared to be possible new addresses of Respondent. When these attempts failed to yield a certification of receipt and when Respondent refused to divulge his location in the course of intermittent telephone calls which he initiated to the Board's Coordinator, the Board deemed him to be willfully avoiding service of the Complaint and directed that substituted service be made by filing a copy of said Complaint and Notice thereof with the Department of State, State of Florida, pursuant to 48.161, F.S., and that constructive service be made by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, pursuant to Ch. 49, F.S., and 460.133(4), F.S. When no response was received to these Notices within the time provided therein, Respondent was deemed to have elected an informal proceeding, pursuant to 120.57(2), F.S. Upon convening of the informal proceeding on October 5, 1977, the Board was presented, by its legal counsel, with documentary evidence relevant and material to the allegations in the Complaint. Because of the volume of the documents, the proceeding was continued until December 8, 1977, so that the members of the Board could be provided with copies of the documents admitted and have an opportunity to review them individually.

On December 8, 1977, after due deliberation, the Board made its findings and conclusions, and caused this Final Order to be rendered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Raymond Albert Chmielewski was involved in an automobile accident of a minor nature, from which he had no cause to suspect he had received any injury. Raymond Albert had been a patient of Respondent prior to and for matters not related to said accident. His mother, Geraldine Chmielewski, nevertheless, advised Respondent of the accident and was told to get Raymond Albert to Respondent's office as soon as possible, stating that injuries many times did not show up immediately and that Raymond Albert could be a cripple by his middle twenties if the injury were not caught in time.

   
   

2. Raymond Albert Chmielewski thereupon initiated a series of appointments with Respondent, which included the taking of X-rays, a urine test, and a schedule card for further treatment. At no time did Raymond Albert have any pain or other symptom that could be related to the accident, despite Respondent's diagnosis that his neck had been thrown out and Respondent's suggestion that he would suffer dizzy spells, which never occurred.

   
   

3. When Raymond Albert advised Respondent that he wished to discontinue treatment, he was advised that it would be he who suffered in the end, and that the money should not bother him because the insurance company would pay. Respondent also told Raymond Albert that if called by the insurance company he was not to talk to them nor to allow his parents to talk to them and to direct the company to talk to Respondent. Respondent later told Raymond Albert that if called by the insurance company he was to tell them that a blood count and a urine test had been taken and that he had been suffering from headaches and dizzy spells, even though no blood test had ever been performed and no dizzy spells had occurred. The headaches that Raymond Albert suffered from after the accident were no different in character or degree from the headaches he had been

   having for a year prior to the accident and for which he had been receiving treatment from Respondent.

   
   

4. After Raymond Albert endorsed over to Respondent a check received from his insurance company for treatment which Respondent had informed the company was as a result of the accident, Respondent informed Raymond Albert that

   $1,400.00 was still owed as a result of claims submitted for alleged treatment as a result of the accident. The Chmielewskis then advised the insurance company that additional bills submitted by Respondent were not authorized, whereupon Respondent told the Chmielewskis that they would he personally liable if the insurance company failed to pay and that he would sue them to collect.

   
   

5. A suit was filed for this amount against the Chmielewskis with Respondent being the real party plaintiff in interest. The Chmielewskis counterclaimed for fraud and deceit regarding Respondent's actions in his capacity as a chiropractor as to his dealings with Raymond Albert. Upon trial before the Court Respondent's claim was dismissed and a judgement entered on behalf of the Chmielewskis pursuant to their counter-claim. At the trial it was established that no proper blood test had been performed and that there was no basis to support the diagnosis reported to the insurance company. Respondent and his wife were held in contempt of Court by the trial judge for their willful failure to produce the X-rays which could have formed a basis to support Respondent's diagnosis.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

6. That the Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this cause pursuant to 460.13(3), F.S., and has acquired in personam jurisdiction over the Respondent by virtue of its diligent efforts to execute service and provide notice as set forth supra.

   
   

7. That as a result of Respondent's willful avoidance of service of the Administrative Complaint, despite his actual knowledge that probable cause for the issuance of the Complaint had been found and that issuance of the Complaint had been directed by the Board, and Respondent's failure to respond in any way to the Complaint, the Board was authorized to deem the facts alleged in the Complaint to be not in dispute, and to set the cause for an informal proceeding pursuant to 120.57(2), F.S.

   
   

8. That the documents forming the evidence of record in its informal proceeding were of such nature as to be admissible for the purpose of establishing, prima facie, the factual allegations in the Complaint and that such documents in the aggregate constitute sufficient substantial, competent evidence to support the findings and conclusions contained herein.

   
   

9. That the conduct of Respondent as established by these proceedings demonstrates that the Respondent no longer possesses good moral character for which his license may be revoked, pursuant to 460.13(3)(b), F.S.

   
   

10. That the conduct of Respondent as established by these proceedings constitutes the making of untrue, false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive , extravagant, or grossly improbable statements concerning the science or practice of chiropractic, in violation of 460.13(3)(f), F.S.

    
    

11. That the conduct of Respondent as established by these proceedings demonstrates that Respondent was guilty of fraud and deception in the practice of chiropractic, in violation of 460.13 (3)(h), F.S.

12. That the conduct of Respondent as established by these proceedings demonstrates that he is guilty of unprofessional conduct as provided in 460.13(3)(m), F.S.

    
    

13. That the conduct of Respondent as established by these proceedings demonstrates that Respondent has violated the provision of Ch. 460, F.S., for which his license may be revoked pursuant to 460.13(3)(n), F.S.

WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED the license of Respondent, LAWRENCE A. JOHNSON, to-wit: License No. 1967, is hereby revoked and his right to practice the profession of chiropractic in this State is terminated.

DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of December, 1977.

FLORIDA BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS

(BOARD SEAL) DR. PAUL VOGEL, D.C. PRESIDENT

DR. WALTER AIKEN, D.C. SECRETARY-TREASURER

I HEREBY CERTIFY this is a true and accurate copy as it appears in the records of the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners.

C. A. HARTLEY, COORDINATOR BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of December 1977.

DOROTHY J. SIMPERS

Notary Public, State of Florida at Large My commission expires Mar. 15, 1978.

Docket for Case No: 76-000126

Orders for Case No: 76-000126