STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 81-2980
)
MAURY BRAGA, M.D., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on March 9, 1982, in Gainesville, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire
Deputy General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Rodney W. Smith, Esquire
Post Office Box 628
409 Northeast First Street Alachua, Florida 32615
ISSUES
The issues presented here are based upon an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent seeking the revocation, suspension, or other disciplinary action against the Respondent, and his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of making misleading, deceptive, untrue and fraudulent representations in obtaining his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. It is further contended that Respondent has not and cannot demonstrate that he graduated from medical school, and alleges that Respondent cannot demonstrate that he has met the minimal medical education, training and experience necessary for licensure by the Petitioner. Based upon these allegations, Respondent has purportedly violated Subsection 455.1201(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), by failing to demonstrate qualifications and standards for licensure contained in Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, or the rules and regulations of the Board of Medical Examiners.
Count II, utilizing the same factual basis as has been alleged in the initial count, accuses the Respondent of violating Subsection 455.1201(1)(b) , Florida Statutes (1977), by practicing fraud or deceit in obtaining a license to practice medicine.
Count III accuses the Respondent, based upon the aforementioned facts, with violating Subsection 458.1201(1)
Florida Statutes (1977), by engaging in unethical, deceptive or deleterious conduct or practice harmful to the public.
Count IV is based upon the facts as related in Count I and asserts that Respondent has violated Subsection 455.1201(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1977), by being guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct, negligence or willful misconduct.
Count V, utilizing the facts related in Count I, alleges that Respondent has violated Subsection 455.327(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1951), and thereby violated Subsection 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1981), by violating a provision of Chapter 455, Florida Statutes.
Finally, Count VI, asserting the facts as discussed herein, alleges that Respondent has violated Subsection 455.331(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1951), by attempting to obtain and obtaining a license to practice medicine by fraudulent misrepresentations
CASE HISTORY
On September 24, 1981, the Petitioner filed the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent which is the subject of this proceeding and which is referred to in summary fashion by the Issues statement to this Recommended Order. Subsequently, Respondent requested a hearing in this cause on November 11, 1981, by indicating, in substance, that he disputed the allegations as contained in the Administrative Complaint. On that same date, Respondent, through counsel, answered the Administrative Complaint. This answer was made a part of the record in the course of the final hearing and is being forwarded with the Recommended Order in this action.
On November 30, 1981, the Division of Administrative Hearings received the case from Petitioner, the Petitioner having requested the Division to conduct a formal hearing in this matter.
On December 3, 1981, Respondent's initial counsel withdrew from representation of Respondent. Respondent subsequently obtained the assistance of his present counsel, Rodney Smith, Esquire, and a final hearing was conducted on March 9, 1982, in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Petitioner's presentation consisted of testimony by Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director, Board of Medical Examiners, State of Florida. Petitioner also offered seven (7) items as evidence. All those items, with the exception of Nos. 5 and 6, have been received.
Respondent gave testimony and presented as witnesses Edward M. Crawford, President, High Springs, Florida, Chamber of Commerce; Lorna J. Peters, resident, High Springs, Florida; Leslie Ann Morgan, X-Ray Technologist in the office of Respondent; Angela Anderson, employee of Respondent; Mireya Braga, Respondent's wife; Lacey William Register, Mayor, High Springs, Florida; a Mr.
Westmoreland, resident, High Springs, Florida; Cybil M. Crawford, Vice- President, High Springs Bank, High Springs, Florida; and Thomas William Wolfe, Chief of Police, High Springs, Florida. Respondent offered six (6) items of evidence. All items have been received.
The parties, in the person of counsel, have offered proposed recommended orders and supporting argument. Those matters have been reviewed prior to the entry of this Recommended Order. To the extent that those items are consistent with this Recommended Order, they have been utilized. To the extent that the matters are inconsistent with this Recommended Order, they are hereby rejected.
FINDINGS OF FACT
In February, 1976, Respondent made his initial application to the Board of Medical Examiners to become a licensed physician in the State of Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. This application was received beyond the time of the deadline for filing and as a consequence, Respondent was required to submit a further application. The second application was made on January 17, 1977. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence.
Both applications were prepared by the Respondent and sworn to as to their accuracy. This attestation also acknowledged that if false information was given in the application, that Respondent agreed that the act of falsifying the application constituted cause for denial, suspension or revocation of his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Following the submission of the second application for licensure, Braga stood the Board of Medical Examiners' license examination, given in English, and was a successful candidate for licensure. He was awarded License No. ME0032004 and has renewed that license by the payment of applicable fees since the initial award of the license in 1978.
The Administrative Complaint which has been discussed in the course of this Recommended Order challenges the accuracy of the information presented in the applications which were submitted by Respondent.
In the initial application filed by the Respondent for licensure dating from February, 1976, Braga states that he attended Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos in Sao Paulo, Brazil, from February, 1971, through December, 1967. In the application, Respondent indicates that he practiced and/or was employed at the INPS (Institute National of Providence Social) , Sao Paulo, Brazil, in General Practice, between 1970 through 1972; Clinica Nuesta Senora, Sao Paulo, Brazil, in General Practice, between 1971 through 1972; Heliopolis Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil, between 1969 through 1970, and the Fundacao Centro Nacional, San Paulo, Brazil, between January, 1968 and December, 1968.
The initial application of February, 1976, also contained a document written in Portuguese, which was sworn and certified to by Braga as being a true, authentic and legitimate photocopy of the original of his medical diploma issued by Medic Sciences of Santos in Brazil. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) There is also contained in the application of February, 1976, an indication, under oath by Respondent, concerning a document as attached, purportedly issued by Heliopolis Hospital in San Paulo, Brazil.
Finally, Respondent had attached to the form application, and found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, affidavits from three physicians; Antonio J. Maniglia, Jorge Macedo and Humberto Munoz. These affidavits indicated that the physicians swore and affirmed that, by their personal knowledge, Respondent attended and graduated from Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, and practiced lawfully in the profession of medicine in Brazil in the years 1968 through 1972, and further indicated that the physicians had practiced in Brazil during that time.
It has been proven and Respondent acknowledges that the application of February, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, was false to the extent that it indicated his attendance at Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos in Sao Paulo, Brazil, during the years 1971 through 1967; to the extent that the application indicated he practiced in the hospitals and clinics as set forth above, and to the extent that the application indicated that the physicians who had signed the affidavits had personal knowledge of Respondent's graduation from the medical school and his practice of medicine in Brazil. In the January, 1977, application with associated documents, found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence, Respondent indicates to the Board of Medical Examiners that he attended Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, Sao Paulo, Brazil, from December 1967 to February, 1971, and received his degree of Doctor of Medicine from that school on January 7, 1967. He indicates in the application, on the subject of residency or other postgraduate training, that he worked at the Fundacao Lusiada, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, from January, 1967, through October, 1967; and attended a Vascular Surgery Course, in the Heliopolis Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil, November, 1970. His employment was described in the application as being at the INPS (Institute National of Providence Social) Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil, General Practice, 1970 through 1972; at Clinica Nuestra Senora, Sao Paulo, Brazil, General Practice, 1971 through 1972; at Heliopolis Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil, General Practice, 1969 through 1970; and Fundacao Centro Nacional, General Practice, January, 1968 through December, 1968.
The second application, which is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, attached a medical diploma purportedly from the School of Medical Sciences of Santos (Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos). This document shows a date of January 7, 1967, and was dissimilar to the diploma document which was attached to the February, 1976, application.
There were certain affidavits with the January, 1977, application from physicians Jose A. Pardo, Jaime Motta and Pedro Melo, which affidavits indicated that the physicians had personal knowledge of Braga's attendance and graduation from Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and that he had lawfully practiced the profession of medicine in Brazil in the years 1967 through 1972.
It was shown and Respondent admits that the January, 1977 application for licensure was false, in that Respondent did not attend the Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos in Sao Paulo, Brazil, from December 1967 through February, 1971; that be had not practiced medicine in the hospitals and clinics as listed; that be had not attended residency or postgraduate training programs as shown in the application; and that the physicians who signed the affidavits for Respondent did not have personal knowledge of his graduation from medical school or his practice of medicine in Brazil.
In reality, while it is accepted, that Respondent, who is a native of Brazil, has obtained a medical doctor's knowledge, Braga is not found to have graduated from a medical school either in that country or elsewhere or to have, following graduation from a medical school, practiced medicine as a general practitioner for five years or practiced in a one-year internship program, prior to licensure in Florida.
Respondent departed Brazil sometime either in 1968 or 1969. Fe did so in the face of circumstances in his country, in which Respondent had been imprisoned. After gaining his freedom he migrated to the United States.
When Braga arrived in the United States, he moved to Chicago, Illinois, and practiced medicine in that community without the benefit of a medical license. He subsequently left the State of Illinois and moved to Florida.
After arriving in Florida and while employed in the Milagrosa Clinic in Miami, Florida, practiced medicine. At that time he had not been licensed by the State of Florida to practice medicine.
Prior to the date of licensure by the State of Florida, Respondent attended and successfully completed the Florida State Board of Medical Examiners' continuing education program for 1977, which was offered by the Office of International Medical Education, University of Miami, School of Medicine, In turn, he successfully stood the requisite medical examination offered in English and was licensed.
After receiving his medical license in 1975, Respondent moved to High Springs, Florida, and opened a medical practice which is primarily involved with the general practice of medicine. In the course of his practice, he has treated some 15,000 to 20,000 patients.
Respondent offered as witnesses many persons from the community of High Springs, Florida, who, from the point of view of these individuals, are impressed with his good moral character. No evidence was presented from either side on the subject of Respondent's reputation as a medical practitioners as perceived by members of his profession.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
Ruling had been reserved on the question of the admissibility of Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6. These items are purportedly documents of foreign officials.
In view of the fact that Section 120.55, Florida Statutes, does not treat the question of documents of this nature in specific terms and taking into account the comprehensive discussion of admissibility of such a document, related to its authentication, found in the Florida Evidence Code at Subsection 90.902(3), Florida Statutes, 1/ that portion of the Code shall be relied on in determining the question of admissibility of the subject evidential items.
When measured in keeping with those provisions, Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 are denied admission, in that those documents do not demonstrate that the alleged authors are authorized by the law of Brazil to make execution or attestation; nor are those documents accompanied by final certification as to the genuineness of the signature and official position held by the executing parties or other foreign officials designated in the provision. Finally, the opportunity afforded the Respondent to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of the putative foreign documents would not allow a determination of presumptive authenticity to be made by this Hearing Officer or was not such that would allow those items to be presented as evidence through the process of an attested summary without final certification.
The purported foreign documents not having been found to be authentic, it is not necessary to address the question of their competency. In summary, Petitioner's evidential items Nos. 5 and 6 are denied admission.
Ruling was reserved on the question of the admissibility of Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Upon consideration of that question, Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 is admitted. See Section 120.55, Florida Statutes.
At the tide of Respondent's application for licensure by the Board of Medical Examiners of the State of Florida, in order to be accepted, it was necessary for Respondent to have studied in the alleged medical school in Brazil, and that school must have been recognized by the World Health Organization. He must have completed one year of approved internship or five years of private practice and successfully participated in one year of continuing medical education, and passed the medical examination offered by the State of Florida, Board of Medical Examiners. These were the requirements, among others, at the time Respondent applied for and was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. See Chapter 455, Florida Statutes.
To ascertain his compliance with the requirements, the application form utilized by Petitioner in reviewing the credentials of candidates for licensure, required the Respondent to submit indication of his completion of medical school in Brazil. Proof in this hearing demonstrated that Braga had not graduated from the subject medical school in Brazil.
The application form, in an effort to ascertain the completion by the Respondent of one year of approved intership or five years of private practice called upon Braga to submit the affidavits of practitioners who knew of his internship or private practice. Those affidavits that were submitted with the application were false and in fact Braga did not practice five years in private medicine or complete one year of approved internship as a medical doctor.
Braga did participate in the University of Miami's Continuing Medical Education Program which he successfully completed and he did stand the Board of Medical Examiners' examination and passed that phase of the licensing process.
Based upon a consideration of the matters presented in the course of the hearing and by way of ruling on the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Administrative Complaint premised upon the belief that the case may not be advanced unless charges have been provided by a member of the Board of Medical Examiners or some person who had made sworn affidavit, delivered to the Secretary of the Board of Medical Examiners, that element of the Motion to Dismiss is denied.
Count I to the Administrative Complaint charges a violation of Subsection 455.1201(1)(a), 2/ Florida Statutes (1977), by the Respondent's failure to demonstrate the qualifications and standards for licensure as contained in Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, or the rules and regulations of the Board.
Subsection 455.1201(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was subsequently repealed and the. reenactment of the Medical Practice Act which established new provisions for discipline under Section 455.331, Florida Statutes (1951), which latter provision was in effect at the time the Administrative Complaint was brought, does not contain a provision similar to that in the 1977 law that forms the basis of the allegation in Count I. Therefore, it was no longer a violation at the time of the Administrative Complaint to fail to comply with the language as set out in Subsection 455.1201(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and the Respondent is not guilty of Count I and should not be disciplined for violation of, that count
Count II to the Administrative Complaint alleges a violation of Subsection 455.1201(1)(b), 3/ Florida Statutes (1977), in that Respondent practiced fraud and deceit in obtaining his 'license to practice medicine'. Again, that section has been repealed.
At present, there exists Subsection 458.331(1)(a), 4/ Florida Statutes (,1951), which law existed at the time that the Administrative Complaint was filed and the language of the 1951 law is sufficiently similar to that of the 1977 law as to be deemed to prohibit the same form of conduct, namely the idea of obtaining a license, to practice medicine by fraud. Consequently if Respondent is found to have obtained his license by fraudulent means, then he may be disciplined for such violation, not to exceed those penalties as set forth in the 1977 law related to the practice of medicine.
It is clear from the facts presented that Respondent committed fraud in the obtainment of his medical license in the State of Florida by indicating falsely that he was a medical school graduate from Brazil, and that he had met the requirements for internship or private practice prior to being licensed under Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. He is therefore subject to disciplinary action pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.
Count III to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent, under Subsection 455.1201(1)(h), 5/ Florida Statutes (1977), of engaging in unethical, deceptive or deleterious conduct or practice harmful to the public. Petitioner does not allege in the complaint, but does argue, that notwithstanding the repeal of Subsection 455.1201(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1977), there now exists Subsection 455.331(1)(1), 6/ Florida Statutes (1981), which has similar language and was utilized as a basis for prosecution.
The two provisions are not sufficiently similar to allow the "carry forward" concept to be employed. Moreover, neither the 1977 nor 1981 provision conforms to the facts in this case. They both pertain to treatment of patients and not fraud in the obtainment of a license. As a result, Respondent is not guilty of Count III and should not be disciplined for violation of that count.
Count IV accuses the Respondent of violating Subsection 458.1201(1)(m), 7/ Florida Statutes (1977), by being guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct, negligence or willful misconduct. That provision was repealed and at the time the Administrative Complaint herein was promoted, there was no counterpart in Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, to the provision discussed in this paragraph. which was in effect in 1977.
The aforementioned provision 458.331(1)(.1), Florida Statutes (1951), and provision 458.331(1)(t), 8/ Florida Statutes (1951), though not in the allegation, were argued, but are found to be dissimilar to the 1977 provision. Additionally, the provisions discussed in this count don't apply for the second ground for dismissal set forth in conclusions related to Count III. Therefore, Respondent is not guilty of Count IV, and should not be disciplined for violation of that count.
Count V to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of violating Subsection 455.327(2)(c), 9/ Florida Statutes (1951), and by such violation violating Subsection 458.331(1)(x), 10/ Florida Statutes (1981), by violating a provision of Chapter 455, Florida Statutes.
Subsection 458.327(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1951), is a criminal law statutory provision, which did not exist, in the same or similar form, at the time when Respondent obtained his medical license by fraudulent misrepresentation. For that reason, the Respondent may not be found in violation of that provision, nor in violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1951), for having violated a provision of Chapter 455,Florida Statutes (1981). Moreover, the Petitioner may not determine a violation of a criminal law statute and having so determined such a violation, punish Respondent for violating Subsection 455.331(1)(x) , Florida Statutes (1981). In any event, punishment for fraudulently obtaining a license as has been addressed in Count II through administrative action, as available through that legislation, and in Count VI, and it is not necessary and was not intended that the Petitioner be allowed to resort to establishing a violation of Subsection 458.327(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), to form a basis for disciplining the license of one of its practitioners. In summary, Respondent is not guilty of Count V and should not be punished for violation of that count.
Count VI alleges a violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1951), in that the Respondent is accused of attempting to obtain and obtaining a license to practice medicine by fraudulent misrepresentations. This accusation has been discussed in the treatment of Count II in which the Respondent is found to be guilty of a violation as alleged in Count II, and Count VI is now treated as part of Count II. Therefore, any penalty to be assessed for violation of Counts II and VI should be a single penalty.
To the extent that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss has not otherwise been granted or ruled upon, it is hereby denied.
Based upon a full consideration of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and other matters presented, it is
That a final order be entered dismissing Counts I, III, IV and V, and finding the Respondent guilty of Counts II and VI, and imposing the penalty of revocation of Respondent Maury Braga's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida.
CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1982.
ENDNOTES
1/ (3) An official foreign document, record, or entry that is:
Executed or attested to by a person in his official capacity authorized by the laws of a foreign country to make the execution or attestation; and
Accompanied by a final certification, as provided herein, of the genuineness of the signature and official position of:
The executing person; or
Any foreign official whose certificate of genu- ineness of signature and official position relates to the execution or attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the execution or attestation.
The final certification may be made by a secretary of an embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent of the United States or a diplomatic or consular official of the foreign country assigned or accredited to the United States. When the parties receive reasonable opportunity to investigate the authenticity and accuracy of official foreign documents, the court may order that they be treated as presumptively authentic without final certification or permit them in evidence by an attested summary with or without final certification.
2/ (1) The board shall have authority to deny an application for a license or to discipline a physician licensed under this chapter or any antecedent law who, after hearing, has been adjudged unqualified or guilty of any of the following:
Failing to demonstrate the qualifications of standards for a license contained in this chapter or rules and regulations of the board, in which proceeding the burden of proof shall be upon the applicant.
3/ (1) The board shall have authority to deny an application for a license or to discipline a physician licensed under this chapter or any antecedent law who, after hearing, has been adjudged unqualified or guilty of any of the following:
Making misleading, deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine; employing a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine; practicing fraud or deceit in obtaining a license to practice medicine; or making deceptive annual registration with the Board.
4/ (1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:
(a) Attempting 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.
5/ (1) The board shall have authority to deny an application for a license or to discipline a physician licensed under this chapter or any antecedent law who, after hearing, has been adjudged unqualified or guilty of any of the following:
(h) Engaging in an unethical, deceptive, or deleterious conduct or practice harmful to the public, in which proceeding proof of actual injury need not be established.
6/ (1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:
Making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine or employing a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine when such scheme or trick fails to conform to the generally prevailing standards of treatment in the medical community.
7/ (1) The board shall have authority to deny an application for license or to discipline a physician licensed under this chapter or any antecedent law who, after hearing, has been adjudged unqualified or guilty of any of the following:
Being guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct, incompetence, negligence, or willful misconduct. Unprofessional conduct shall include any departure from, or the failure to conform to, the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice in his area of expertise as determined by the board, in which proceeding actual injury to a patient need not be established when the same is committed in the course of his practice, whether committed within or without this state.
8/ (1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:
(t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of Section
765.45 when enforcing this paragraph.
9/ (2) Each of the following acts constitute a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in Section 775.052, Section 775.083, or Section 775.084:
(c) Attempting to obtain or obtaining a license to practice medicine by fraudulent misrepresentation.
10/ (1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:
(x) Violating any provision of this chapter, a rule of the board or department, or a lawful order of the board or department previously entered in a disciplinary hearing or failing to comply with a lawful issued subpoena of the department.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Deputy General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Rodney W. Smith, Esquire Post Office Box 625
409 N. E., First Street Alachua, Florida 32615
Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
================================================================= BEFORE THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 13731
DOAH CASE NO. 81-2980
MAURY BRAGA
License Number: 32004,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER OF
THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
This matter came for final action by the Board of Medical Examiners pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)9., F.S. at a public meeting on June 4, 1982, in Sarasota, 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, Maury Braga. A transcript of the proceedings is available, if necessary.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Following 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 Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are rejected inasmuch as the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are supported by competent substantial evidence.
Following a review of the complete record, the Board of Medical Examiners adopts and incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact of the hearing officer.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Petitioner orally withdrew its exception to the conclusions of law contained in Paragraph (2)(c) of Petitioner's Exceptions to Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer.
The Board hereby rejects the hearing officer's conclusions of law in Paragraph two (2) and three (3) of the Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order denying admission of Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, and admitting Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 respectively.
The Board hereby accepts the Petitioner's Exceptions to the conclusions of law contained in Paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) of Petitioner's Exceptions to Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer, thus Petitioner's Exhibits Nos. 5 and
6 are admitted into evidence and Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 is excluded.
The Respondent's exceptions to the conclusions of law contained in Paragraphs five (5) and six (6) of the Respondent's Exceptions to Hearing Officer's Recommended Order are found to be without merit and are rejected.
The Board does, however, adopt the remainder of the hearing officer's conclusions of law and incorporates them herein by reference.
The Board, hereby adopts the Recommendation of the hearing officer and Respondent's exceptions to the recommended penalty contained in Paragraph seven
(7) of the Respondent's Exceptions to Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is rejected. Accordingly, based upon a review of the complete record by the Board, the Findings of Fact and the Modified Conclusions of Law, IT IS THEREFORE
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the license to practice medicine in the State of Florida of Maury Braga be and hereby is revoked. This Order shall take effect on the date of filing.
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of 1982.
BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS
By: RICHARD T. CONARD
Vice Chairman
cc: All Counsel of Record Maury Braga
Post Office Box 1118
High Springs, Florida 32643
Rodney Smith, Esquire
P. O. Box 625,
409 NE 1st Street Alachua, Florida 32615
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 29, 1990 | Final Order filed. |
| Apr. 09, 1982 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 10, 1982 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 09, 1982 | Recommended Order | Respondent obtained medical license by fraud and deceit and through misrepresentations. Recommended Order: revoke medical license. |
