raSTATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
RENE DELGADO LEON, M.D., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 85-0728
)
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICAL ) EXAMINERS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case before Michael M. Parrish, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings, on August 20, 1985. The parties were represented at the hearing by the following counsel:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Jorge A. Sibila, Esquire
2751 Coral Way
Miami, Florida 33145
For Respondent: M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Room LL-04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
INTRODUCTION
Subsequent to the hearing a transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Hearing Officer on October 15, 1985, and the parties were allowed until November 11, 1985, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed timely proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Accordingly, the Petitioner's motion for sanctions is denied. Careful consideration has been given to the parties' proposed recommended orders in the
preparation of this Recommended Order. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact submitted by each party is included in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Rene Delgado Leon, M.D., is eligible for examination for licensure to practice medicine in the state of Florida. The Petitioner, of course, contends that he is eligible. The Respondent, Board of Medical Examiners, contends that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate eligibility, having previously advised him, inter alia:
Your application and supporting documentation contained substantial omissions of material information relative to your medical education. Additionally, your application and supporting documentation does not provide sufficient information to demonstrate that you can practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. See Section 458.301, Florida Statutes.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact.
The Petitioner, Dr. Rene Pedizo Delgado Leon, was born on November 26, 1936, in Cuba. All of his formal education prior to medical school was obtained in Cuba. He attended medical schools, off and on, at various times and places between 1955 and June of 1980. His medical education commenced in 1955 at the Medical School of the University of Havana and ended when he-was awarded his medical degree from the University of Dominica in June of 1980. The Petitioner's first language was Spanish and he is not completely fluent in the English language. When communicating in English he appears to have a tendency to interpret statements and questions in a very literal manner. The Petitioner does not appear to have intended to deceive the Board of Medical Examiners or to misrepresent information about his education and experience. Nevertheless, he has not been very clear about a number of details.
Since receiving his degree from the University of Dominica in 1980, the Petitioner has completed a residency in pathology, has passed the FLEX exam in conjunction with his application for licensure in the state of Georgia, and has been licensed to practice medicine in the state of Georgia.
There were several discrepancies between information given by the Petitioner to the Board of Medical Examiners and to the Hearing Officer concerning various aspects of his background, particularly concerning his medical education. With regard to his medical education, Petitioner listed on his first application that he attended medical school in Havana, Cuba, from April 1954 until December 1962. On his second application he stated that he attended medical school in Havana, Cuba, from September 1955 until September 1960. He testified before the Foreign Medical Graduate Committee that he attended medical school at the University of Havana from 1955 until 1962. At the final hearing he testified that he attended the University of Havana from 1955 until 1962.
On his first application, in response to the direction that he list all universities or colleges where he attended classes and received training as a medical student, he stated only that he attended the University of Dominica from June of 1977 until June of 1980. He subsequently filed a form, received by the Board on October 26, 1983, stating that he had attended the University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain, and received training as a medical student from November of 1974 until April of 1975. On his second application, he stated that he had attended the University of Zaragoza as a medical student from November of 1974 until April of 1975. At the final hearing he testified that in 1973 while he was in Zaragoza he applied to revalidate old courses taken in Havana and that thereafter he took all examinations up to the third year. He stated that he took other courses in Zaragoza, but that he did not take the examinations for any of the medical courses taken in Zaragoza. He also testified that he was given credit for courses at Zaragoza even though he did not take the examinations.
The next segment of his medical education was consistently testified to as having been had at the Universidad Central del Este in the Dominican Republic. He attended the Universidad Central del Este for only one semester, during which he took six or seven subjects. He testified that Universidad Central del Este did give him some credit for the third year of medical school; in spite of the fact that he did not take examinations in any of the third-year courses he took in Zaragoza.
In January of 1979 he transferred to Universidad Nordestana and spent approximately one year there. Univeraidad Nordestana gave him two and one half to three years of credit.
Although his initial application showed that he had attended the University of Dominica in the West Indies from June of 1977 until June of 1980, his subsequent written and oral testimony was that he was enrolled at the University of Dominica only from January of 1980 until June of 1980. He testified before the Foreign Medical Graduate Committee that at the time he transferred from Nordestana, he was basically finished with his medical education and he said he transferred to Dominica because they did not talk in English in Santo Domingo. He also testified that he transferred to Dominica so that he could get some exposure to how medicine was practiced in the United States.
Petitioner testified that although he transferred to the University of Dominica and he received his degree from the University of Dominica six months after he transferred there, he did not pay any monies to the University of Dominica. His explanation of why he did not pay money to the University of Dominica is that he wrote things for them, like a pathology booklet.
The application form which Petitioner completed requested that he specify all places of residence since beginning medical training. On his first application he showed that he resided in Dominica, West Indies, from January of 1980 until June of 1980. On his second application he listed as residences since initiation of medical training only the University of Miami, Jackson Memorial, VA Hospital, and the University of South Florida, Tampa. In August of 1983 he followed up the second application with a letter to Mrs. Faircloth which stated that his place of residence while attending medical school was the "students quarters and dormitories" at Portsmouth, University of Dominica, West Indies. However, at the hearing before the Foreign Medical Graduate Committee and at the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that he was, in fact, on the campus of the University of Dominica only one day, and that was on graduation day. In fact, when he testified before the Foreign Medical Graduate Committee, he was specifically asked, "When you left Nordestana, where did you go?" To that question he replied, "Oh, to Dominica." However, he later admitted that when he left Nordestana, he went to Miami and he did not go to Dominica until he went six months later in order to graduate.
On both of his written applications, Petitioner was asked to list the degrees earned other than M.D. On neither application did he list a bachelor's degree. Yet, in testimony before the Committee and at the final hearing, he testified that
he had earned the equivalent of a B.S. in chemistry at the University of Havana. He testified that the reason that he omitted it was that he thought the question referred to medical education. However; in response to the same question, he listed that he had obtained a Licensee in Science and a Doctor in Science from the University of Zaragoza.
With regard to the matter of what clerkships, if any, Petitioner performed as part of his medical education, the record shows that he was enrolled at the University of Dominica, the school from which he received a medical degree, from January or February of 1980 until June of 1980. The record also shows that during that five- or six-month period he performed what purported to be clerkships at the VA Hospital and at Coral Gables Hospital, in Miami, and at the same time was an employee of the VA Hospital. He testified that his clerkship at the VA Hospital was in pathology and that he was employed full time in the same area as he was receiving clerkship credit. He arranged the clerkships himself and informed the university of the clerkships. He testified that he did the same activities as the other clerks did, but he worked approximately forty hours and they worked thirty to forty hours. He effected his transfer to the University of Dominica by writing to the New York office and by taking some "required" examinations in basic sciences and clinical studies. He took the examinations in Miami and passed everything but gynecology. He eventually passed gynecology, but not until May of 1980 after he had almost completed clerkships.
He testified that when he did his "rotation" at the VA Hospital, he was told that he could "moonlight." He testified that he did all of the autopsies while the other medical students watched. He testified that he went in to work at about 7:00 a.m. and left around 4:00 p.m. and that the other residents did not arrive until about 8:00 a.m. However, he did testify that the clerks arrived at 6:00 a.m. Petitioner testified that he was doing a clerkship at the time, not a residency, and that it was the extra time that he put in that justified his being both paid and given credit for an educational experience.
Dr. Robert M. Clark was Petitioner's supervisor during the period of approximately January of 1980 until June of 1980. Petitioner worked in the morgue as a Physician's Assistant and also did "resident physician work." Petitioner was paid at the same time as he was doing a rotation because there was a shortage of residents. Petitioner had the same exposure to pathology as the other residents, all of whom were from the University of Miami. None of the other students were paid employees. A
Physician's Assistant requires two years of medical school. Dr. Clark was introduced to Petitioner by Dr. Kuhnhardt. Dr.
Kuhnhardt was not connected in any way with the medical school at the University of Dominica.
The only other purported clerkship about which there was testimony at the hearing related to a clerkship at Coral Gables Hospital. That clerkship was under Dr. Hurst. That clerkship was done from January of 1980 until June of 1980, the same period during which the clerkship at the VA Hospital was done. Petitioner testified that he went to Coral Gables Hospital after he left the VA Hospital, usually after 4:00 p.m., and stayed however long was necessary, possibly as late as 8:00 or midnight. Dr. Hurst only let the students observe medical procedures. That clerkship was conducted in a community hospital.
As for the supervision by the school, the testimony was that the school played no role in arranging the clerkships. Petitioner testified that people from the school came for general meetings every once in a while during the clerkships. As for evaluation, Petitioner testified that the school sent evaluation forms to him and he distributed the forms to whoever was supervising him.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and on the applicable legal principles; I make the following conclusions of law.
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Sec. 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.
In a case of this nature the burden of showing entitlement to sit for the licensure examination is on the applicant. See Rule 28-6.08(3), Florida Administrative Code, and J.W.C. Company, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). On the basis of the foregoing facts and for the reasons set forth in the following paragraphs; the Petitioner has failed to meet his burden of proof.
In the resolution of this case attention must be focused on several provisions of the Medical Practice Act (Chapter 458, Florida Statutes), including the statement of purpose in Section 458.301, Florida Statutes, which includes the following:
The sole legislative purpose in enacting this chapter is to ensure that every physician practicing in this state meet minimum requirements for safe practice. It is the legislative intent that physicians who fall below minimum competency or who otherwise present a danger to the public shall be prohibited from practicing in this state. (emphasis added)
Inasmuch as the Petitioner is a graduate of a foreign medical school and is seeing licensure by examination, subsections (1) and (2) of Section 458.311; Florida Statutes, must also be considered. Those subsections provide; in pertinent part:
Any person desiring to be licensed as a physician shall apply to the department to take the licensure examination. The department shall examine each applicant who the board certifies has:
Completed the application form and remitted an approved examination fee not to exceed $250 as set by the board.
Graduated from a medical school or college recognized and approved by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Office of Education.
Completed an approved internship of at least 1 year or at least 5 years of licensed practice.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (l)(b), graduates of foreign medical schools, except approved schools in Canada, who are otherwise qualified, whose medical credentials have been evaluated by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, and who have passed the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates examination may be accepted for the examinations in this state. (emphasis added)
The foregoing statutory provisions must also be considered in light of the following language from the first sentence of subsection (5) of Section 458.311, Florida Statutes:
Each applicant who successfully passes the examination and meets the requirements of this chapter is entitled to be licensed as a physician, with rights as defined by law. (emphasis added)
Reading the foregoing statutory provisions together in light of their purpose and in light of the well established legal principle that regulatory agencies have a wider range within which to exercise their discretion when determining the fitness of applicants to practice a profession [see Florida Waterworks v. Florida Public Service Commission, 473 So.2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Department of Business Regulation; Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco v. Jones, 474 So.2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Astral Liquors, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation,
463 So 2d 1130 (Fla. 1985)], leads one logically to the following conclusion reached by the Hearing Officer in Raul Ivan Vila vs. Board of Medical Examiners, 7 FALR 5538 (Nov. 12, 1985):
Respondent [Board of Medical Examiners] has a responsibility to look behind a foreign medical degree to determine if in fact Petitioner in this case has received a "medical education." To argue otherwise is to ignore Sections 458.313(1)(c), (4) and 458.311(2), (3)(d). It would also require Respondent to ignore the purpose behind Chapter 358, Florida Statutes, which "is to ensure that every physician practicing in this state meet minimum requirements for safe practice." Section 458.301. Clearly Respondent has the authority to prescribe minimum requirements for practice which include a medical education with approved clinical training. A contrary conclusion could lead to the absurd result that Respondent would have no authority to look behind a "foreign medical degree" even if that degree was conferred by a mail-order college which the student never attended and even if the student's "clinical training" consisted solely of mailing in his money for the degree. The legislature could not have intended such a result.
To similar effect see Jack I. Newcomer vs. Board of Medical Examiners, 7 FALR 5224 (October 28, 1985).
Applying the foregoing to the facts in this case, it is first noted that although the Petitioner has submitted extensive documentation about his educational and work experiences to the Board of Medical Examiners (Board Ex. 1), has testified before a committee of the Board of Medical Examiners (Board Ex. 2), and has testified at the hearing in this case in an effort to clarify the details of his somewhat unusual medical education, the record is still fraught with contradictions and uncertainties. Absent some resolution of these contradictions and uncertainties, which resolution does not appear to be possible from the record in this case, it is impossible to conclude with any degree of reasonable assurance that the Petitioner's medical education has been sufficient to prepare him to meet minimum requirements for safe practice in this state.
Although the Petitioner has been awarded a medical degree from the University of Dominica (now Ross University), a great number of questions remain unanswered with regard to how and why that degree was awarded and what is really represents. Among those questions are such things as the following. There is documentation that indicates that the Petitioner "registered" at the University of Dominica in January of 1980 and other documentation that he "matriculated" there in February of 1980. Yet other documentation indicates that he had something to do with the University of Dominica as early as 1977. One document indicates the Petitioner was given credit at the University of Dominica for courses completed at other medical schools without the University of Dominica assigning any grades to those courses. Yet on another University of Dominica document the Petitioner is given grades for courses he appears to have passed at prior medical schools; but the grades on the University of Dominica document are different from the grades on documents from the prior medical schools. Petitioner asserts that he took and passed exams given by the University of Dominica before he began his clerkships in Miami in January of 1980, but documents from the University of Dominica show that he took the clinical sciences exam in May of 1980. Further complicating the sequence of events is a document prepared by Petitioner which summarizes his medical education and asserts that he finished the sixth, seventh, and eighth semesters at the Universidad Nordestana del Este during 1979 and began the ninth semester at that university, but transferred to the University of Dominica in January of 1980. Yet records of the Universidad Nordestana del Este show that the semester that began in October 1979 (when Petitioner took his eighth semester) lasted at least to, if not through; February of 1980. If the last-mentioned records are accurate, Petitioner would not have been able to start the ninth semester until sometime in February (or perhaps March) of 1980, at a time when
he was supposedly already back in Miami enrolled in the University of Dominica and attending to his approved clerkships under the auspices of the last-mentioned institute of higher learning.
Other unresolved questions- include the following. How, when, and where were the Petitioner's 1980 clerkships in Miami arranged, authorized, or approved by the University of Dominica. There is no documentation to shed any light on the last-mentioned question. Another unresolved question is: By what process, if any; did the Unlversity of Dominica grant credit to Petitioner for his studies at prior universities? It may have been done quite properly and logically, but it also may have been done otherwise. It may well be that if the Petitioner left the Universidad Nordestana del Este in December of 1979 in the middle of a semester that ended in February of 1980; the University of Dominica gave him credit for eighth semester courses that he never finished along with perhaps bootstrapping into his transcript courses he did not finish at the University of Zaragoza for which he may have been given credit at one or both of the medical schools in the Dominican Republic as well as perhaps some credit for some twenty-year-old courses at the University of Havana, about which the record in this case does not tell us very much.
The Petitioner's medical education is without doubt an unusual one. And it may be that at some future date with more carefully assembled documentation and more cogent explanation of some of the perplexing details of his educational history, he can establish that his medical education, albeit unusual, is quite sufficient. But the record in this case is insufficient to establish a likelihood that the Petitioner's medical education has prepared him to meet minimum requirements for safe practice within the meaning of the statutory provisions discussed above.
Yet another statutory provision which must be considered is Section 458.331(3), Florida Statutes, which provides, in pertinent part:
The board shall not. . . cause a license to be issued to a person it has deemed unqualified, until such time that it is satisfied that. . . such person is capable of safely engaging in the practice of medicine.
When the foregoing statutory provision is considered in light of the legislative purpose set forth in Section 458.301, Florida Statutes (see paragraph 3 of these conclusions of law), it provides even further support for the proposition that the Board
has not only the authority but also the duty to look at the quality of the educational experience behind the mere paper diploma in order to ascertain that an applicant can practice with safety.
As a closing observation; it should also be noted that since 1980 the Petitioner has successfully completed what appears to be a conventional four-year residency program in hospitals in this state and has managed to achieve licensure status as a medical doctor in the state of Georgia. These achievements tend to some extent to mitigate the uncertainties and contradictions in the record of the Petitioner's medical education.
Accordingly, while it is my recommendation that the Board deny the instant application without prejudice to the filing of a future application; I would also commend to the Board's consideration the philosophy underlying the Florida Supreme Court's decision in Lopez v. Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 231 So.2d 819 (Fla. 1969). In that case the Florida Supreme Court decided to take a chance on Mr. Lopez, who was also a Cuban national; even though he falsely and fraudulently withheld certain information on his application for a license to practice law. In so doing the court stated:
We have carefully examined the charges made against the applicant and can find nothing in the information withheld that would have justified the denial of the application, had the facts been submitted forth-rightly and fully in the first place, as they were in an amended application. It seems clear that the applicant could have had no fraudulent design in withholding information that could have had little, if any, damaging effect on his application. The habit of concealment and equivocation that is so natural for a person of applicant's political learning when living under a Communist regime will undoubtedly be dissipated eventually when applicant becomes fully acclimated to life in this democracy.
***
The applicant's failure to disclose the information at the time of his initial application was, of course, improper; but the concealment of such relatively innocuous matter cannot be considered so odious as to render applicant forever unfit to practice law in this state.
The applicant has given reasonable explanation of the other matters cited by the Board, and after reviewing the entire record, it is our opinion that applicant's long, diligent and determined efforts to obtain permission to practice his profession in this country should be recognized as some indication of his stability. To deny him the right to take the oath at this time would be the equivalent of a permanent disbarment which is not justified by the evidence. It is true that much of the evidence creates some suspicion about his ethical responsibility; but it must be remembered that as he enters the practice of law he will be bound by, and required to adhere strictly to, the canons of ethics relating to the legal profession and should he falter; The Florida Bar; under the rules of this court; possess adequate machinery to bring him to accountability. Earlier this year applicant stood a rigid Bar examination and passed it.
Many of these same considerations are applicable to the Petitioner's lengthy efforts to obtain licensure as a medical doctor in this state. And it might also be noted that disposition of this case in a manner consistent with the Lopez case would also be consistent with the reasoning behind the case of Gentile v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 448 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Explicit in the Gentile decision is the proposition that: "If appellant [applicant] perjured himself by intentionally falsifying his application or untruthfully responding to Board inquiries, this is a valid ground for denying him a license." (448 So.2d at 1090) Implicit in Gentile is the proposition that if an applicant makes mistakes or errors in an application or through misunderstanding unintentionally includes incorrect information in an application, it may be appropriate to consider mitigating circumstances.
Based upon all of the foregoing it is my recommendation, because of the contradictions and uncertainties on the record in this case regarding the nature of the Petitioner's medical education, that the Board of Medical Examiner issue a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure by examination without prejudice to the filing of any future application for licensure by examination or endorsement, unless; for reasons analogous to those set forth in the Lopez decision, supra, the
Board is persuaded that the shortcomings in the application and its supporting evidence may be overlooked in light of the Petitioner's achievements since 1980.
DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of January, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida.
MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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
3rd day of January, 1986.
COPIES FURNISHED:
M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Room LL-04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Jorge A. Sibila, Esquire 2751 Coral Way
Miami, Florida 33145
Dorothy Faircloth; Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Fred Roche; Secretary
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
APPENDIX
The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by each of the parties.
Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings:
The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact consist of a two- line introductory clause and six unnumbered indented paragraphs. The six unnumbered indented paragraphs are addressed below in the order in which they appear in the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact.
First Paragraph: Rejected. This paragraph is merely a commentary on the state of the record and does not contain any proposed finding of fact.
Second Paragraph: Rejected for the same reason as the first paragraph.
Third Paragraph: Rejected in part and accepted in part. Rejected portions are rejected for the most part for the same reason as the rejection of the first two paragraphs. The "fully explained" portion of this paragraph is rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Findings have been made consistent with the portions of this paragraph relating to when Petitioner's medical education began and ended, his completion of a residency in pathology, and his passing of the FLEX examination.
Fourth Paragraph: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected in part because it is merely a commentary on the state of the record and in part because it is inconsistent with the evidence of record. Dr. Clark did not explain the Petitioner's work in detail: to the contrary, his testimony was rather vague about a number of the details and he failed to recall a number of specific details. The last sentence of this paragraph is rejected because it is not supported by competent substantial evidence.
Fifth Paragraph: Rejected for the same reason as the first paragraph.
Sixth paragraph: The first sentence of this paragraph is rejected because the Petitioner's explanations were incomplete. With regard to the second sentence of this paragraph, it is accepted that the Petitioner is "not fluent/native in the English language or in legal terminology," and that the Petitioner did not intend to deceive the Board or misrepresent information to
the Board. m e remainder of the second sentence is rejected on the grounds that it is in part irrelevant and immaterial as well as on the grounds that the ultimate factual conclusion urged in the second sentence is not warranted by the evidence in the record.
Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings:
The Respondent's proposed findings of fact consist of seventeen separately numbered paragraphs. The paragraph numbers which follow correspond to the numbers of the paragraphs of the Respondent's proposed findings.
Accepted in substance with certain gratuitous editorial material deleted.
Accepted in substance.
Accepted in substance with the exception of the sentence reading: "In contradiction, he testified at the final hearing, on both direct and cross-examination, that he furthered his medical education in Spain in 1970." The quoted sentence is rejected because it does not accurately reflect the totality of the Petitioner's testimony on this subject. Some other redundant material in this paragraph is also rejected.
Rejected on the grounds that it consists of irrelevant and cumulative details which are not necessary to the disposition of this case.
Accepted in substance with certain gratuitous editorial material deleted.
The first sentence of this paragraph is accepted. The second sentence is accepted with the exception of the words ". . . at which time he needed three years." The quoted language is rejected as not being supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence.
Accepted.
The first two sentences of this paragraph are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as irrelevant in part, cumulative in part, and not supported by competent substantial evidence in part.
Accepted in substance with certain gratuitous editorial material deleted.
Accepted.
Accepted in part and rejected in part. Reasons for rejection include the feet that although most of this paragraph is an accurate summary of portions of the Petitioner's testimony; some of the testimony on this subject was not persuasive and has not been used as the basis for findings of fact. The parenthetical mention of the pathology booklet is rejected because there is no competent substantial evidence as to when Petitioner wrote any pathology books
Accepted in substance.
Accepted in part and rejected in part. Reasons for rejection include the fact that although much of this paragraph is an accurate summary of portions of Dr. Clark's testimony, much of the testimony on this subject was not persuasive and has not been used as the basis for findings of fact. Portions of this paragraph have also been rejected on the grounds that they constitute commentary on the quality of the testimony or argument and are not proposed findings of fact.
Accepted in part and rejected in part. Reasons for rejection include the fact that although most of this paragraph is an accurate summery of portions of the Petitioner's testimony, much of the testimony on this subject was not persuasive and has not been used as the basis for findings of fact.
Accepted.
Rejected as findings of fact because it constitutes argument rather than proposed findings of fact. [Much of the argument is well taken, but it is argument nevertheless and not appropriately part of the findings of fact.]
Rejected for the same reason as Paragraph 16.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 03, 1986 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jan. 03, 1986 | Recommended Order | Evidence is insufficient to show that candidate for medical licensure exam has required educational background. |
