STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT ) OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 80-2308

)

MAURICE HODGE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above- styled case on 10, 11 and 12 August, 1981 at Cocoa, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Deborah J. Miller, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent: Frank R. Pound, Jr., Esquire and

Leland L. Lovering, Esquire 1970 Michigan Avenue, Suite E Cocoa, Florida 32922

Special Appearance for Mrs. Hodge:

William R. Clifton, Esquire Post Office Box 1888

Cocoa, Florida 32922

By Amended Administrative Complaint filed 6 November, 1980, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of Maurice Hodge, Respondent, as a medical doctor. As grounds therefor it is alleged in a 29- count complaint that Respondent violated specified provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, in his treatment of patients Renate Hall, Linda Lomax, Mabel DeVoe and Geneveive Hodge. In failing to adequately maintain records of controlled substances, he is alleged to have violated Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. These charges involve engaging in unethical, deceptive or deleterious conduct harmful to the public; immoral or unprofessional conduct, incompetence, negligence or willful misconduct; being unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of mental illness; prescribing or administering controlled substances other than in the course of his

professional practice; making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine; failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment for a patient; engaging in sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine and exercising influence within the patient/physician relationship for purposes of engaging the patient in sexual activity; and failing to maintain records of his distribution of controlled substances. Three of these 29 counts allege improper conduct relating to treatment of patient, Mrs. Renate Hall; two counts allege that Respondent failed to maintain records of his distribution of controlled substances and, during the period between March 6, 1979 and September 11, 1980, some two thousand such tablets were unaccounted for; four counts allege diversion of controlled substances from Mabel DeVoe to Respondent's wife, Geneveive Hodge; two counts allege prescribing excessive amounts of controlled substances to his wife, Geneveive Hodge; and 18 counts allege violations relating to the treatment of patient, Linda Lomax.

At the commencement of the hearing testimony was taken on Respondent's motion to have Petitioner's principal witness, Linda Lomax, found incompetent to testify. One psychiatrist opined that Ms. Lomax was not competent to testify and one psychiatrist opined that Ms. Lomax was competent. A police officer who has known Ms. Lomax for some ten years during which time she has been a known drug abuser testified that he would not believe Ms. Lomax under oath; and that, in his opinion, Ms. Lomax had no moral compunction to speak the truth.

The opinion of the psychiatrist called by Respondent was based upon his observation of Ms. Lomax in 1976. The opinion of the psychiatrist called by Petitioner was based upon his examination of Ms. Lomax in July 1981, which examination was conducted for the purpose of determining whether or not Ms. Lomax is a competent witness. This psychiatrist subsequently examined Ms. Lomax a few days before this hearing and found nothing to contradict his earlier finding of competency. After hearing the evidence respecting Ms. Lomax's competency, the motion to disqualify Linda Lomax by reason of incompetency was denied. Having heard Linda Lomax's testimony, as corroborated by Exhibits 12 through 17, no reason for changing the ruling respecting her competency has emerged.

During the course of the hearing seven witnesses were called by Petitioner, three witnesses were called by Respondent and 21 exhibits were offered into evidence. It is noted that two exhibits at the hearing were numbered "6". One of these is renumbered "7A" and the original Exhibit 7 is renumbered "7B".

Objections to Exhibits 2, 3, 7A, 7B, 18 and 19 were made and ruling on the admissibility of these exhibits was reserved at the hearing. Objection to Exhibit 2, the transcript of the testimony of Linda Lomax in another proceeding, is sustained and all other exhibits are admitted into evidence.

Two of the seven witnesses called by Petitioner and two of the three witnesses called by Respondent testified respecting the competency of Linda Lomax as a witness. Respondent's other witnesses testified regarding Respondent's medical practice and that the medication prescribed for Mrs. Hodge was not excessive and was proper. Mrs. Hedge was subpoenaed and sat in the hearing room while two of Petitioner's witnesses testified. Both of these witnesses identified Mrs. Hodge as the Mabel DeVoe who picked up prescriptions called in for Mabel DeVoe by Respondent. Mrs. Hodge's attorney stated that he would advise his client to refuse, on constitutional grounds of self- incrimination, to answer any questions regarding prescriptions written for Geneveive Hodge or Mabel DeVoe by the Respondent. Based on that representation Mrs. Hedge was treated as an unavailable witness as defined by Section 90.804(1)(a), Florida Statutes. No evidence was offered by Respondent to rebut

the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses dealing with Respondent's conduct and statements while these witnesses were alone with Respondent in his office.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Maurice Hedge, M.D., is licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners of the State of Florida as a medical doctor and was so licensed at all times relevant hereto.

   
   

2. Mrs. Renate Hall was a patient of Respondent from late 1977 until early 1979 during which time she saw him approximately bi-monthly. During this period Mrs. Hall, who was born in Germany and came to America as the wife of a U.S. serviceman, was widowed, out of work, and in poor financial circumstances. Respondent was very gallant, often kissed Mrs. Hall's hand and stroked her arm or hair when she came to his office. Several times he offered to take her to dinner, which offer she did not accept. He did not bill her for the visits.

   Her last visit to Respondent's office was to have her son's flu virus treated. After examining Mrs. Hall's son, Respondent came out of the examining room and told Mrs. Hall to come into his office while he wrote a prescription. He closed the door to the office, came close to Mrs. Hall, grabbed her breasts and made moaning and groaning sounds. She pushed him away and departed the office, very upset; never to return. No evidence was presented that Respondent is or was in any way mentally impaired.

   
   

3. During the period 6-29-79 through 4-17-80 Respondent called in 12 prescriptions to Walgreen's Drug Store, Cocoa, for Class IV controlled substances, Fastin, Talwin, Valium and Premarin for patient Mabel DeVoe (Exhibit 6). A lady known at Walgreen's as Mabel DeVoe picked up these prescriptions. Mabel DeVoe and Geneveive Hodge, the wife of Respondent, are the one and the same person. Exhibit 20 is a list of prescriptions written by Respondent for his wife for controlled substances, primarily Fastin and Talwin, during the first nine months of 1980. These prescriptions were filled at Campbell's Pharmacy, Rockledge, Florida. In the affidavit of Mabel DeVoe (Exhibit 7) she states that she works for Dr. and Mrs. Hodge, and picked up prescriptions made out to Mabel DeVoe and turned the drugs over to Mrs. Hodge. The fact that Respondent was writing prescriptions for Fastin and Talwin for Geneveive Hodge at the same time he was calling in prescriptions for Fastin to be issued to Mabel DeVoe, either a fictitious person or an alias for Mrs. Hodge, shows an intent to deceive by Respondent while participating in this charade.

   
   

4. During an audit of Respondent's controlled substances record by the Federal Drug Administration inspectors some two thousand tablets of controlled substances dispensed by Respondent were unaccounted for. Respondent stated to the inspector that most of these unaccounted-for drugs had been dispensed by him rather than administered. When advised of the shortages Respondent made no effort to show that these drugs had been administered, by providing the patients' records to whom he may have administered the drugs. In view of Respondent's admission that these drugs had been dispensed by him, his argument at the hearing that these missing drugs may have been administered and the inspector would have so found had he reviewed all of Respondent's patient records, is without merit.

   
   

5. Linda Lomax has been known in police circles in Cocoa and the vicinity for the past ten years or longer as a drug abuser. At various times until late 1980 she was addicted to Demerol. She was successful many times in going to the emergency rooms of hospitals complaining of back pain, earache, and other problems and getting prescriptions for Demerol and other controlled substances.

   She has a criminal record for assault with a deadly weapon and forgery of prescriptions. In July 1980 Ms. Lomax was apprehended by the police in Rockledge on the basis of a warrant issued in Melbourne for the offense of using forged prescriptions. She was accosted in a drug store while attempting to get drugs on a forged prescription. When the policeman identified himself as such she immediately asked to leave the drug store to "talk".

   
   

6. Without ever being placed under arrest by the police, without promises of leniency, of police dropping of charges or other inducement Ms. Lomax asked if the police were interested in learning who committed recent drug related robberies and when the policeman said "Yes" proceeded to tell him about prior unsolved robberies in the area and of a forthcoming planned robbery. The information given by Ms. Lomax proved reliable. She also knew the drug abusers who were getting drugs from which doctor and agreed to assist in getting evidence against these doctors.

   
   

7. Ms. Lomax subsequently was introduced to John Spanogle, an investigator for Petitioner, and agreed to assist in getting evidence against Respondent.

   She had gone to Respondent's office in mid-June 1980 and had obtained Demerol without a physical examination and without a medical reason for having the drug. She had received information from other drug abusers that she could get Demerol from Respondent. When Respondent asked her during the June visit who sent her to him she told him Karen Schaffer and Karen Pritchard. After giving her a prescription for Demerol, Respondent told her to come back. On this visit she stole some blank prescription pads from Respondent's office.

   
   

8. Ms. Lomax's next visit to Respondent was in mid-July 1980 and on this visit she presented him with a prescription for 50 Demerol she had forged on one of the blanks she had stolen and told him the pharmacist would not fill it. Respondent tore up that prescription and issued her a valid one for 50 Demerol. During these visits Respondent kissed Ms. Lomax and called her "Baby". When Ms. Lomax told Spanogle the substance of her visit to Respondent he asked if she would return with a "bugging" device on her person, to which she agreed.

   
   

9. On July 30, 1980, Ms. Lomax visited Respondent's office carrying a radio transmitter in her purse which was monitored and recorded by Spanogle and the police. At this visit Ms. Lomax told Respondent's nurse that she had an earache. When she met Respondent in the examining room he greeted her with a kiss on the mouth. She told him she didn't have an earache but wanted something for sleep. He asked if Valium would be okay. She said "Yes". When he asked if she wanted 24 or 30 she replied "30". After the greeting kiss Respondent unzipped the front of her dress and played with her breasts. She showed him bruises on her leg and he lifted her dress and remarked that she had sexy underwear and good-looking legs. Her testimony of the events that transpired on this July 30 visit is corroborated by the transcript of the tape of the conversation between Respondent and Ms. Lomax (Exhibit 13). Respondent again agreed to take care of the prescription she had forged from the stolen prescription pad. She made an appointment to return 5 August and left with the prescription. At a prearranged meeting place she turned over prescriptions for

   30 Valium, 5 mg. and 24 Dalwane, 30 mg. (Exhibit 8) to Spanogle.

   
   

10. On 5 August 1980 Ms. Lomax again visited Respondent's office carrying a "bugging" device. During this visit she was kissed several times by Respondent. They discussed his sexual exploits, or rumors thereof, with other patients. Respondent unzipped his pants to expose his penis and asked Ms. Lomax to look at it and touch it, and he kissed and fondled her breasts. No other physical examination was performed. Ms. Lomax told Respondent she wanted

    something to help her sleep. While in the office Respondent gave her a Valium injection and upon her departure he gave her prescriptions for 60 Librium, 10 mg. and 24 Nodular, 300 mg. These prescriptions were delivered to law enforcement officers by Ms. Lomax and were admitted into evidence as Exhibit 9.

    
    

11. On 12 August 1980 Ms. Lomax made a final visit to Respondent's office again carrying a "bugging" device through which their conversation could be monitored and recorded. During this visit Respondent again fondled and kissed Ms. Lomax's breasts, unzipped his pants and requested oral sex from Ms. Lomax, which she declined. She complained that some of the drugs he gave her last time were ineffective and that she wanted something stronger. Also, she wanted something to keep her awake for the night job she was going to start and sleeping pills so she could sleep during the daytime. She stated she preferred Valium over Librium. When she left the office she had prescriptions for 50 Talwin, 50 mg.; 50 Valium, 5 mg.; 30 Ionamin, 30 mg.; and 50 Dalmane, 30 mg., which she delivered to law enforcement officers (Exhibit 10). On none of these visits was she billed by Respondent for medical services.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

12. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

    
    

13. The general rule respecting competency of witnesses is expressed in Section 90.601, Florida Statutes, that "Every person is competent to be a witness, except as otherwise provided by statute."

    
    

14. Section 90.603(2), Florida Statutes, provides:

    
    

    A person is disqualified to testify as a witness when the court determines that he is:

    (2) Incapable of understanding the duty of a witness to tell the truth.

    
    

15. Respondent's expert witness who testified to the competency of Linda Lomax treated her during a two-week period for drug abuse in 1976. At that time he found she was fully capable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood, that she understood the nature of the oath to tell the truth, but, because of her sociopathic personality and the fact that she was a pathological liar, she would not feel bound to tell the truth under oath. The fact that a witness may perjure himself does not render that witness incompetent. The statute only requires a witness be capable of understanding the duty to tell the truth. However, the ruling that Linda Lomax is competent to testify, is primarily founded upon the testimony of Dr. Gutman, who examined Ms. Lomax recently, determined that her sociopathic personality was drug related, and that such a person loses many of the sociopathic traits when off drugs. His evaluation of Ms. Lomax was that she fully understood the nature of the oath she would take and would have a moral compulsion to tell the truth when testifying. Furthermore, I observed the witness and heard her testimony. Her testimony relating to the charges here under consideration was clear, coherent and corroborated by Exhibits 12 through 17.

    
    

16. The statement given by Mabel DeVoe (Exhibit 7A) was made by a person who was unavailable as a witness by reason of her lawyer's assertion that, if called, she would invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege. Other evidence established that Mabel DeVoe was, in fact, Mrs. Geneveive Hodge, the wife of

    Respondent. Admission of Exhibits 7A and 7B into evidence was objected to on grounds of hearsay. It could be argued that the statement in Exhibit 7A was not hearsay because not offered for the truth of the matter asserted but simply to prove that the statement had been made. Even as a false statement it was a statement against interest and admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule in accordance with Section 90.804(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Also, as hearsay, the statement would be admissible in these proceedings to corroborate the testimony of other witnesses that prescriptions written or called in by Respondent for Mabel DeVoe were delivered to Mrs. Hodge, who represented herself to be Mabel DeVoe when these prescriptions were picked up.

    
    

17. In each of the basic allegations against Respondent some three or more statutory violations have been alleged for each set of operative facts. In other words one act constituted the basis for several alleged statutory violations. In making my recommendation each act alleged to be in violation of Chapters 458 or 893, Florida Statutes, will be treated as one offense for punishment purposes and the statutory violations alleged for each act will be treated as one violation for punishment purposes.

    
    

18. From the evidence presented it is clear that with respect to Mrs. Renate Hall Respondent is guilty of Count One and Count Two as alleged in violation of Sections 458.1201(1)(h) and 458.1201(1)(m) and not guilty of Count Three as no mental impairment was shown. With respect to Linda Lomax Respondent is guilty of Counts Four through Nine, Eleven through Fourteen, Sixteen through Eighteen, Twenty and Twenty-one in failing to prescribe controlled substances in good faith in the course of his professional practice, in engaging in sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine and exercising influence within the physician/patient relationship for purposes of engaging the patient in sexual activity; and in making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine. No evidence was presented that Exhibit 11, the medical record of Ms. Lomax, would not justify the course of treatment presented. While the evidence would support a finding that part of the information included in Exhibit 11 was false, that was not the offense charged. Accordingly, Respondent must be found not guilty of Counts Ten, Fifteen and Nineteen.

    
    

19. The evidence was unrebutted that Respondent failed to properly account for controlled substances dispensed by him as alleged in Counts Twenty-eight and Twenty-nine and that he is guilty as alleged. Again, this is treated as one offense for punishment purposes. The evidence was also unrebutted that Respondent issued prescriptions in the name of Mabel DeVoe and that these prescriptions were intended for and diverted to his wife, Geneveive Hodge. Although no medical record of Mrs. Hodge was presented neither was evidence presented that such a record could not be located. Accordingly, Respondent is guilty of Counts Twenty-two, Twenty-three and Twenty-five and not guilty of Count Twenty-four. Again, these three counts are merged for punishment purposes.

    
    

20. No evidence was presented that the medications prescribed by Respondent for Geneveive Hodge were in excessive amounts and were not prescribed for a medically justified purpose. Accordingly, Respondent is found not guilty of Counts Twenty-six and Twenty-seven.

    
    

21. The offenses of which Respondent has been found guilty are serious and go to the essence of the public trust imposed in physicians and the responsibilities imposed upon them to safeguard that trust, especially in the dispensing of dangerous drugs. It is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that the license of Maurice Hedge, as a medical doctor, be revoked.

ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida.

K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

FILED with the Clerk of the Division Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1981.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Deborah J. Miller, Esquire Frank R. Pound, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel and

Department of Professional Leland L. Lovering, Esquire Regulation 1970 Michigan Avenue, Suite E

130 North Monroe Street Cocoa, Florida 32922 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

William R. Clifton, Esquire Post Office Box 1888

Cocoa, Florida 32922

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

================================================================= BEFORE THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Petitioner,

vs. DOAH Case No. 80-2308

MAURICE HODGE, M.D.,

License Number: `

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER OF

THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

This matter came for final action by the Board of Medical Examiners pursuant to Section 12O.57(1)(b)9., F.S., at a public meeting on December 5, 1981, in St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, for review of the recommended order of the hearing officer entered herein, and the exceptions filed by the Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, and the exceptions filed by the Respondent, Maurice Hodge, M.D. A transcript of the proceedings is available, if necessary.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Based upon a review of the complete record, the Respondent's exceptions to the findings of fact contained in Paragraphs one (1) through four (4) of the Respondent's Exceptions to Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer are rejected by this Board, inasmuch as the hearing officer's findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence.

   
   

2. Following a review of the complete record, the Board adopts and incorporates herein by reference the findings of fact of the hearing officer.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Following a review of the complete record, Petitioner's exception to the conclusions of law contained in Petitioner's Exceptions to Recommended Order is found to be without merit and is rejected.

   
   

2. The Respondent's exceptions to the conclusions of law contained in Paragraph five (5) of Respondent's Exceptions to Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer are found to be without merit and are rejected.

   
   

3. Based upon a review of the complete record, the Board hereby adopts and incorporates herein by reference the conclusions of law of the hearing officer. Accordingly, based upon a review of the complete record, the findings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS THEREFORE

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the license to practice medicine in the State of Florida of Maurice Hodge, M.D., be and hereby is revoked; said revocation to be stayed and the Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of three (3) months. Following the period of suspension, Respondent's license shall be reinstated upon Respondent's successful completion of an independent physical and mental examination and Respondent's submission of an appropriate work plan* for his reentry into the practice of medicine. Said reinstatement shall be on a probationary status for a period of five (5) years, subject to those terms and conditions set by the Board at the time of reinstatement. During the aforementioned suspension and probationary periods, Respondent's Schedule II prescription privileges under Chapter 893, F.S. shall be suspended.

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of December, 1981.

BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

================================================================= AGENCY ORDER

================================================================= BEFORE THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 80-2308

MAURICE HODGE, M.D.,

License No. 9517

Respondent.

/

ORDER

This matter came before the Board of Medical Examiners (Board hereinafter) on August 13, 1983, in Tampa, Florida, pursuant to the June 23, 1983, Mandate and April 27, 1983, Opinion of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in the case of Maurice Hodge v. Department of Professional Regulation of the State of Florida, and the Board of Medical Examiners of the State of Florida, So.2d (Fla. 5th DCA, Case No. 82-15, Opinion issued April 27, 1983), for the purpose of reconsidering the penalty imposed upon Respondent and to set an appropriate attorney fee for Respondent's attorney for defending Petitioner's cross-appeal 1/ The Petitioner was represented by Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esq. The Respondent as represented by Frank R. Pourd, Jr., Esq. After a review of the Fifth District Court's Opinion, the complete record from the administrative proceedings, the argument of the parties, and being otherwise advised in the premises, the Board makes the following findings and conclusions.

FINDINGS OF FACT

l. On November 6, 1980, the Department filed a twenty-nine (29) count Amended Administrative Complaint against the Respondent charging him with numerous violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.

1. The hearing officer concluded there was sufficient substantial evidence to establish violations of twenty-two of the counts and recommended revocation of Respondent's license. The Board adopted the hearing officer's findings of fact and conclusions of law in toto. The Board rejected the hearing officer' s recommended penalty and instead revoked Respondent's license but stayed the revocation and imposed a three (3) month suspension to be followed by a five (5) year period of probation.

   
   

2. On appeal, the Fifth District found sufficient substantial evidence to sustain violations of twenty (20) counts and found that these violations were serious enough to merit the penalty imposed by the Board. However, in view of

   its reversal on two (2) counts, the Court remanded this matter to the Board so that it reconsider Its choice of penalty If it chose to do so.

   
   

3. The Board finds that Respondent has presented no persuasive reasons why his Board should reduce the penalty it imposed in its January 4, 1982, Order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Board has Jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the April 27, 1983, Opinion of the Fifth District Court of Appeal In the case of Maurice Hodge

   v. Department of Professional Regulation of the State of Florida and the Board of Medical Examiners of the State of Florida, So.2d (Fla. 5th DCA, Case No. 82-15, Opinion Issued April 27, 1983).

   
   

2. The Board concludes that in view of the seriousness of the violations found the penalty previously imposed on Respondent is appropriate and should remain undisturbed despite the Fifth District's reversal on two, (2) counts.

   
   

3. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's findings and conclusions.

WHEREFORE, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Florida medical license of Maurice Hodge, M.D., be and hereby is revoked; said revocation to be stayed and the Respondent's license to practice medicine is the State of Florida be suspended for a period of three (3) months. Following the period of suspension, Respondent's license shall be reinstated upon Respondent's successful completion of an independent physical and mental examination and Respondent's submission of an appropriate work plan* for his reentry into the practice of medicine. Said reinstatement shall be on a probationary status for a period of five (5) years, subject to those terms and conditions set by the Board at the time of reinstatement. During the aforementioned suspension and probationary periods, Respondent's Schedule II prescription privileges under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, shall be suspended. This Order becomes effective the date of filing.

DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of September, 1983.

Raul Valdes-Fauli, Jr Esquire Chairman, Board of Medical Examiners

ENDNOTE

1/ The Petitioner and Respondent stipulated on the record that they would negotiate a mutually acceptable attorney fee for Respondent's attorney which would thereafter be brought back to the Board for its approval.

================================================================= AGENCY ORDER REACTIVATING LICENSE

================================================================= BEFORE THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Petitioner,

vs. CASE NO. 80-2308

MAURICE HODGE, M.D.

LICENSE NO. 0009517

Respondent.

/

ORDER

This matter came before the Board of Medical Examiners (Board) pursuant to Section 458.331(3), Florida Statutes on June 9, 1984, in Palm Beach, Florida for the purpose of considering Respondent's Second Petition for Reinstatement of License. Petitioner was represented by Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire; Respondent was represented by Frank R. Pound, Jr., Esquire. Upon review of the petition, the proposed work plan* and its supplement, the documentation offered on behalf of Respondent, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Respondent's license to practice medicine be reactivated. The Board approves and adopts the proposed work plan* and its supplement submitted by Respondent. Respondent shall be on probation for a period of five years during which time he shall obtain 50 hours annually of continuing medical education in Category I courses approved by the American Medical Association. During the probation period, Respondent shall not prescribe Schedule II controlled substances in his office practice but may prescribe substances in hospital and nursing facilities where Respondent has staff privileges. During the probation, Respondent shall appear semi-annually before the Board and shall be responsible for his supervising physicians, A.D. Martinez, M.D. and James W. Ettinger, M.D. providing quarterly reports to the Board regarding Respondent's practice. Respondent waived confidentiality with regard to the investigative reports prepared by the department during the probation period. This order takes effect upon filing.

D0NE AND ORDERED this 21st day of July, 1984.

Board of Medical Examiners

Richard J. Feinstein Chairman

cc: All Counsel of Record Maurice Hodge, M.D.

* NOTE: WORK PLAN FOR REENTRY TO PRACTICE OF MEDICINE and SUPPLEMENT TO PROPOSED WORK PLAN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED

are not a part of this ACCESS document, but are avail- able for review from the Division's Clerk's Office.

Docket for Case No: 80-002308

Orders for Case No: 80-002308