STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )
REGULATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-3650
) JOSE RODRIGUEZ LOMBILLO, M.D., )
)
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 May 27 through 29 and June 2, 1987 at Naples, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: David E. Bryant, Esquire
Suite 104
1107 East Jackson St. Tampa, Florida 33602
For Respondent: Lawrence D. Martin, Esquire
George Vega, Esquire 2660 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 33962
By Amended Administrative Complaint filed May 13, 1987, the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), Petitioner, seeks to revoke, suspend, or otherwise discipline the license of Jose Rodriguez Lombillo, Respondent, as a medical doctor in the State of Florida. As grounds therefore it is alleged that Respondent exercised influence on a doctor-patient relationship with Laura Hodge, Sandi Karppi and Diane Beck for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity; that he gave medications to these patients without their knowledge and consent; that he prescribed medication to them not in the course of his professional practice; and that in treatment of these patients, he failed 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, all in violation of Sections 458.33l(1)(h), (k), (1), (q), (t), and (x), Florida Statutes.
At the hearing, Petitioner called 19 witnesses, Respondent called 12 witnesses including Respondent and 92 exhibits were offered into evidence. Rulings on Ex 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 65, and 66 to which objection was raised
was reserved at the hearing. Objections to Ex 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 on grounds of relevancy are now sustained. Objections to Ex 65 and 66 are overruled and those exhibits are now admitted in evidence. It is noted that Dr. Afield's deposition was offered as a late filed exhibit, to be taken and
submitted subsequent to the hearing, at the close of Petitioner's case. That exhibit was admitted as Exhibit 64. Thereafter, when Respondent's first exhibit was offered into evidence, it too was given the number 64. Dr. Afield's deposition has been renumbered Ex. 92 to eliminate the confusion.
Proposed findings have been submitted by the parties. Treatment accorded those proposed findings is contained in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part hereof.
BACKGROUND
To facilitate the preparation of this Recommended Order and provide order to the evidence presented, the findings with respect to the three complaining witnesses will be presented chronologically according to their association with Respondent. The charges in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case followed Respondent's arrest on criminal charges stemming from the same evidence that was presented at this hearing. This fact is here noted to delineate both what this hearing is to determine and what is not in issue. The charges here involved are allegations against Respondent as a physician. The criminal charges, of which he was acquitted, alleged unlawful conduct as an individual who happened to be a physician. Further, the standard of proof in this case is different from the standard of proof in the criminal proceeding.
To properly frame the issues evidence presented regarding the search of Respondent's residence and his subsequent arrest and trial are included.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent grew up in Havana, Cuba and was a university student there when Castro came into power. As did most university students, Respondent initially supported Castro but later became disenchanted with the regime.
Respondent became interested in photography as a boy and became proficient to the point he sold photographs to the news media and helped defray the expense of his medical training through photography. Following the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Respondent smuggled out of Cuba photographs of the Russian missiles that had been delivered to Cuba.
Respondent acknowledged that he took all of the photographs and videotapes entered into evidence in these proceedings.
At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed as a physician by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners. He graduated from medical school in Madrid, Spain in 1964, completed his internship at Johnson Willis Hospital, Richmond, Virginia, in 1965, and his residency in psychiatry at the Menninger School of Psychiatry, Topeka, Kansas in 1968.
Respondent came to Naples, Florida in 1969 as Director of Collier County Mental Health Clinic which post he held for several years before devoting all of his time to his private practice. Respondent was married in 1962, and divorced in 1978. He is the father of three children. His two older daughters are working on advanced degrees while the younger son is entering high school.
Following his divorce Respondent concluded that by marrying at a young age, he had perhaps missed out on much of life and decided to try a more libidinous life-style.
In 1980, Respondent became attracted to a 19-year old licensed practical nurse who was working at Naples Community Hospital. Although he saw her several times in the hospital, they did not engage in conversation but made eye contact in passing each other.
In October 1980, another doctor referred a patient who had suffered head injuries in a motorcycle accident to Respondent for treatment. This patient, Joseph DiVito, was seen in the hospital several times by Respondent and again after DiVito was released from the hospital. At the first hospital visit with DiVito, Respondent was surprised to see Laura Hodge, the LPN at Naples Community Hospital, whose eyes had attracted Respondent. She was the woman with whom DeVito was living at the time of his accident.
The charges in the Administrative Complaint involving Laura Hodge are sustained only if a doctor-patient relationship existed between Respondent and Hodge. The doctor patient relationship, if it existed, was related solely to the treatment provided DiVito. Hodge testified that she was counseled by Respondent jointly with DiVito and also alone; that Respondent gave her the drug Artine to give DiVito in the event he suffered a reaction from the drug Haldol, which was given DiVito to aid in his memory loss; that after his release from the hospital DiVito was like a baby who had to be taught to feed himself, to walk, and to get around; that she had lunch with Respondent twice, once at Keewaydin Island, where they went by Respondent's boat, and once at a restaurant in North Naples; that following the lunch she felt dizzy and does not remember removing her clothes at her apartment when returned there by Respondent and having pictures taken of her; that after being shown nude photographs of herself, she was afraid of Respondent and feared he would show the pictures to DiVito; that she Accompanied Respondent on an overnight trip to Miami where they shared a motel room; that they went to dinner at a caberet where she drank some wine and began feeling strange; that when they returned to the motel that night, she does not remember anything until the following morning when she awoke upset and began crying; and that Respondent then drove her back to Naples.
Shortly thereafter, Hodge left Naples with DiVito and went to Panama City where DiVito operated a boat leasing business during the summer of 1981. She returned to Naples that fall but had no further contact with Respondent.
Respondent testified that he was surprised to see Hodge the first time he went to DiVito's room in the hospital; that Hodge told him that she didn't want to stay with DiVito; that the principal person who took care of DiVito when he was released from the hospital was his brother, William DiVito; that DiVito had been a very active man and was anxious to leave the hospital before he was physically ready to do so; that he was ambulatory, could feed himself and his principal problem was loss of memory; that Hodge was never his patient; that they had lunch twice, once at Keewaydin Island and again at a restaurant in North Naples; that both of these times Respondent took numerous photographs of Hodge and gave them to her; that following the lunch and picture-taking at Vanderbilt Beach (North Naples) he drove her to the apartment she had just moved into; that he visited her at this apartment at a later date and while she changed clothes, he took pictures of her in various stages of undressing; that he showed her these pictures after they had been developed; that she accompanied him to Miami where they shared a motel room and went out to dinner; and that they returned to Naples the following day because Hodge was upset.
Photographs of Hodge which were admitted into evidence are of a person who appears fully aware that she is being photographed and in many of the pictures appears to be posing.
Haldol, the drug given DiVito, can cause an epileptic type reaction; however, the treatment for this reaction is by injection and not orally because of the time it takes oral ingestion to work. The testimony of Hodge respecting Respondent entrusting to her the Artine tablets to place in DiVito's cheek if he had a reaction to the Haldol is less credible than is the testimony of Respondent. Although Respondent saw Hodge when he was treating DiVito and talked to the two of them, he did not thereby make Hodge his patient. Furthermore, no credible evidence was presented that Respondent surreptitiously gave Hodge any drug which could cause her to not remember the taking of the nude photographs. Her coordination and awareness shown in those photographs belie the contention that she was drugged.
Diane Beck, R.N., arrived in Naples in 1981 and worked as a nurse at Naples Community Hospital where she met Respondent. After declining several dates with Respondent, Ms. Beck accepted an offer to go scuba diving from Respondent's boat. This involved a weekend trip to the Florida Keys on the boat and they had sex over this weekend. Respondent also took some nude photographs of Ms. Beck with her consent.
Evidence presented to establish a doctor-patient relationship between Respondent and Beck included one instance where, following a D & C on Beck, the gynecologist asked Respondent if he had Tylenol #3 which Beck could take if needed for pain. When Respondent replied in the affirmative, the gynecologist did not write a prescription for medication for Beck. Although Beck testified that while they were living together, Respondent gave her Darvocet, Motrin and Tylenol #3 for dismenorreah from which she chronically suffered, Respondent denied prescribing these medications for her. The most likely scenario in this regard is that Respondent had such medication available in his home and Beck took them in accordance with instructions previously received from her gynecologist. This did not create a doctor-patient relationship between Respondent and Beck.
Respondent prescribed benzodiasepines to many of his patients as a tranquilizer and sleeping pill. During the period December 1981 and October 1982 the Upjohn representative (detailer) whose territory included Respondent's office, gave Respondent 465 Xanax tablets as samples. Xanax is a benzodiasepine and the Xanax tablets were .25 mg and .5 mg in strength.
The Upjohn company detailer who serviced the Naples area between October 1982 and June 1984 did not testify and no record of benzodiasepines left as samples with Respondent during this period was available at the hearing. Records of those drugs are maintained by Upjohn for the current year and two preceding years only. At the time of this hearing, the earliest record Upjohn had of drugs dispensed to physicians was January 1, 1985.
Around November 1982, Upjohn came out with a benzodiasepine called Halcion. This drug was left with Respondent by detailers as samples. Halcion is packaged in sleeves with two tablets in a sleeve. Generally when Halcion is left as a sample, the box contains five sleeves with two tables per sleeve. Halcion has advantages over some other benzodiasepines that it works quickly, the effects wear off quickly and it leaves no hangover effect. Furthermore, the patient may have a memory lapse for the time sedated with Halcion. Use of Halcion is contraindicated by a woman of childbearing age because the drug can adversely affect and cause deformities in a fetus in the early stages of development. Halcion (as well as other drugs) may be obtained by a physician in a stockbottle which generally consists of 100 tablets in a square bottle with a
round top. To obtain a stockbottle the physician places his order with the detailer, signs the appropriate FDA forms, the detailer sends the order to his area office and the stockbottle is mailed directly to the physician. No credible evidence was presented that Respondent ever obtained a stockbottle of Halcion from Upjohn.
When benzodiasepines are taken in conjunction with the ingestion of ethyl alcohol, the effects of both are enhanced. Hence, there is a danger in taking sedatives while drinking alcoholic beverages. Alcohol alone is a sedative and it is quickly absorbed in the soft tissue such as the brain. When a benzodiasepine is taken at the same time ethanol is being ingested, the alcohol provides a vehicle which allows the benzodiasepine to be more quickly absorbed into the body.
While Diane Beck was dating and living with Respondent, several videotapes were made of her and Respondent engaged in various sexual activities. Ms. Beck acknowledged that she voluntarily participated in some of these videotapes but that she was unaware that others were taken. She has no recollection that some of the tapes were being made, nor did she subsequently (before the charges here considered first arose) learn of these videotapes. In those tapes, Beck had been administered Halcion by Respondent without her knowledge or consent. This finding is based upon the following facts:
Respondent told Beck he had given her a lot of Halcion.
When Beck became pregnant by Respondent in mid-1983, Respondent told her of potential dangers caused by the use of Halcion and suggested she have an abortion. An appointment was made by Respondent with Dr. McCree, a gynecologist, to perform the abortion and on July 11, 1983, Dr. McCree performed a D & C on Beck, aborting the fetus.
On one or more occasions Beck observed what appeared to be residue in her after dinner drink, and on at least one occasion asked Respondent about it. Respondent told her it was sugar from the old brandy she was drinking.
Respondent acknowledged that he often performed sexual acts on Beck while she was "passed out" and unaware of what he was doing. However, he contended she enjoyed it and had given him permission.
The videotapes of a comatose female being shifted around by Respondent to improve the angle for the pictures being taken. This does not appear to be a person merely intoxicated, certainly not one intoxicated with ethanol. This person is as limp as a rag with all muscles appearing to be totally relaxed who is certainly oblivious to what is going on. It is not believed a person merely intoxicated (unless dead drunk) could be moved and manipulated the way Beck was without some reaction. Had Beck been dead drunk, she would perhaps still be intoxicated when she awoke and/or be hung over. Neither of these events occurred.
Respondent's steady relationship with Beck terminated in April 1984 after the date for a wedding could not be agreed upon. She moved out of his house but they remained on friendly terms until the existence of the videotapes became known.
The third complaining witness, Sandi Karppi, met Respondent in June 1984 on the beach in Naples. At the time Ms. Karppi was an LPN on private duty with a patient where she had one hour off in the late afternoon which she used
to walk on the beach. One day while walking along the beach, she was followed by Respondent who was attracted to the energy with which she walked. Respondent overtook her and engaged her in conversation. During the conversation Respondent disclosed his name and that he was a psychiatrist. Ms. Karppi disclosed to him that she had a pap smear taken which was suspicious, that a second test had been done, and she was anxious to obtain the results but her doctor did not return her calls. Respondent volunteered to obtain the results of the later test and inform her. Karppi told Respondent that she walked the beach almost every afternoon and Respondent began visiting the beach to meet her during her hour off from her nursing duties.
A short time after the first meeting Respondent called Karppi to tell her that he had the results of her lab test and offered to take her to dinner to give her the results. She consented. Thereafter he continued to meet her on the beach and engage her in conversation.
Respondent's version of the timing of the initial events of their relationship is a little different from the version testified to by Karppi; however, these differences are not material to the issue here presented. Respondent testified that Karppi told him of her problems with the pap smear test several days after their first meeting and that he agreed to get the results of the tests. Dr. King advised Respondent obtaining the results of the pap smear and passing them to Karppi.
During the meetings on the beach and on boat trips Karppi took on Respondent's boat, Respondent took numerous photographs of Karppi. On one occasion, they went on an overnight trip to Keewaydin Island with Respondent's son Eric and a friend of Eric. The two boys slept in a tent on the beach leaving Karppi and Respondent on the boat. On another occasion they went alone on the boat to Captiva Island where they spent the night on board. Karppi testified that she went to sleep fully clothed while at Keewaydin Island in a bunk bed on one side of the cabin with Respondent in another bed and when she awoke, she was naked.
Nude photographs of Karppi in a comatose state are contained in Exhibit 1. Karppi never consented to having her picture taken in the nude.
Respondent's version of the nude photographs is that he frequently talked to Karppi about taking nude photographs but she never consented, saying only that maybe she would allow the photographs if out of town or if she was tipsy. Respondent contends these photographs were taken while they were at Captiva Island with only the two of them on the boat and that Karppi drank a lot of wine and passed out. He then disrobed her and took the photographs. Respondent contends he gave Karppi no drugs before she passed out. However, it is concluded that Karppi was given some sedative along with the wine she drank. This conclusion is based upon the following facts:
Respondent had access to Halcion, Xanax, Tylenol #3, and other drugs that could induce coma.
Respondent had used such drugs on Diane Beck and was aware of the potential for use of these drugs.
In order to take some of the photographs in Exhibit 1, Karppi had to be moved around enough to awaken one who was just sleeping or only sleeping off ethanol induced sleep.
Some of the actions of Respondent as depicted in these photographs would have awakened or aroused one who was not fully comatose.
Karppi has no recollection such photographs were ever taken, though she was sober and had no hangover the next morning.
Subsequent to the boat trips Respondent took a vacation during most of the month of July during which he travelled to Europe and the Caribbean. Upon his return to Naples, he renewed his courtship with Karppi and she moved into his home August 26, 1984, the day after Respondent's oldest daughter returned to college. Respondent's testimony that they first had sex that night which Karppi spent in his bedroom is not disputed by Karppi. If they engaged in sex before that time, Karppi was unconscious and unaware of it.
During part of the time Karppi stayed at Respondent's home and shared his bedroom, her mother also visited and slept in another bedroom at Respondent's home.
This relationship terminated around September when Karppi moved into her own apartment. She and Respondent remained friendly and saw each other occasionally.
One night in late December 1984, Karppi called Respondent from the hospital to tell him she had a headache and to ask him to prescribe some medication for her. After learning that Karppi had tried without success to get her doctor on the telephone and that her doctor had prescribed Cafergot for her headaches, Respondent called in a prescription to the hospital pharmacy to give
4 Cafergot tablets to Karppi. The label from the bottle dated December 29, 1984 was admitted as Exhibit 16.
In early January 1985, Respondent went to Vail, Colorado, with another woman and Karppi offered to stay at his house with Respondent's elderly mother while he was gone. He agreed and Karppi moved in.
While looking for a book in Respondent's bedroom closet, Karppi discovered the nude photographs of her which were admitted into evidence as Exhibit 1. Having no recollection these pictures had been taken, she was quite shocked and called Respondent at his hotel in Vail. He told her to be calm and they would discuss the matter when he returned. Following a more extensive search, Karppi found numerous other photographs of naked women as well as several videotapes.
Karppi contacted her doctor for advice, and he referred her to an attorney who in turn referred her to the State Attorney's Office. At the State Attorney's Office, she produced the photographs of herself she had removed from Respondent's residence and her affidavit was taken. On the basis of Karppi's affidavit and the photographs, a search warrant was obtained and on January 11, 1985, a search of Respondent's home was conducted. During this search, Exhibits
1 - 16 were seized. Subsequent to the conclusion of the hearing, those exhibits unrelated to any individual involved in these charges which were objected to at the hearing were not admitted into evidence as having no relevance to these charges.
Following the search of Respondent's residence, criminal charges were brought against Respondent in the Circuit Court in and for Collier County alleging sexual battery and administering drugs to Karppi without her knowledge or consent. Respondent was acquitted of those charges.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.
Respondent is here charged with violating Section 458.33l(1)(h), (k), (l), (q), (t), and (x), Florida Statutes (1983), which constitute grounds for disciplinary action against a physician licensed to practice medicine in this State. These sanctions are:
(h) Failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician.
Exercising influence within a patient- physician relationship for purposes of engaging a patient in sexual activity.
A patient shall be presumed to be incapable of giving free, full and informed consent to sexual activity with his physcian.
Making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent misrepresentations 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.
(q) Prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug, including any controlled substance other than in the course of the physician's professional practice. For the purpose of this paragraph it shall be legally presumed that prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing or otherwise
preparing legend drugs, including all controlled substances, inappropriately or in excessive or inappropriate quantities is not in the best interest of the patient and is not in the
course of the physician's professional practice, without regard to his intent.
(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 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph.
(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 lawfully issued subpoena of the department.
The provision of this chapter specifically alleged to have been violated under subsection (x) above is Section 458.329 which provides:
The physician-patient relationship is founded on mutual trust. Sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine means violation of the physician-patient relationship through which the physician uses said relationship to induce or attempt to induce the patient to engage, or to engage or attempt to engage the patient, in sexual activity outside
the scope of the practice or the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment of the patient. Sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine is prohibited.
While several provisions of the statutes are alleged to have been violated by Respondent, the same act is charged as a violation of several sections of the statute. The same act which may violate several statutory provisions will be considered, for punishment purposes, as one violation.
Here the burden is on the Petitioner to prove the allegations by clear and convincing evidence. Turlington vs. Ferris, 12 FLW 393 (Fla.Sup.Ot., Case No. 69,561, July 16, 1987).
Essential to alleged violations of Section 458.331(1)(h), (k) and (x) is establishment of a doctor-patient relationship between Respondent and each of the three complaining witnesseses. In this regard, it is significant that all of the complaining witnesses were nurses, none first encountered Respondent as a patient in his office, none was ever seen by Respondent as a patient in his office, and none really considered herself a patient of Respondent. The only one who could possibly have considered herself a patient of Respondent was Hodge.
With respect to Laura Hodge, this doctor-patient relationship is alleged to have been established during Respondent's treatment of Hodge's boyfriend when Respondent counselled them together. Finding of Fact #12 negates this conclusion.
With respect to Diane Beck, the initial encounter between Respondent and Beck was social and not professional. They had talked several times at the hospital on personal as opposed to professional matters and he had asked her for a date several times before she consented. This first date was over a weekend where they went scuba diving in the Keys. After dinner and several drinks, they slept together and had sexual relations on this first date. No doctor-patient relationship was established at this time and the issue for determination is whether any subsequent medication given to Beck by Respondent established such a doctor-patient relationship. Petitioner's witnesses opined that giving any medication to any of these women created a doctor-patient relationship with that woman while Respondent's expert witnesses opined that no doctor-patient relationship was thereby created under the existing circumstances.
The purpose of the statutory prohibition banning sex between doctor and patient is to preclude the doctor from taking advantage of one who must trust the physician to obtain maximum benefit from the prescribed treatment. It is the violation of this trust which constitutes the gravamen of the offense. Here the relationships were social rather than professional, and sexual
relations between Beck and Respondent commenced before any medications were given. The Cafergot was prescribed for Karppi well after their sexual relations had terminated and were never again renewed. These women's' relations with Respondent were those of girlfriends as opposed to patient; none was ever an office patient of Respondent for whom medical charts were kept nor were they billed for professional services; and none considered herself a patient at the time she associated with the Respondent.
While it is true that Respondent might well be considered more favorable as a bed fellow by a nurse because of his professional and financial stature than would one occupying a less prestigious station in life, the same could be true of any man in another of the more acceptable professions as compared to a suitor in a lower profession or occupation. This factor is not what is contemplated in the statutory prohibition against a doctor engaging a patient in sexual relations. Nor would one seriously consider a doctor who treats a cut on his wife's arm or gives her a painkiller for a headache to thereby be banned from further conjugal relations. The presumption that a doctor is generally too emotionally involved to most effectively provide medical services to a member of his immediate family does not apply in treating minor ailments of his family. Here, no doctor- patient relationship developed between Respondent and the three complaining witnesses. Accordingly, Respondent must be found not guilty of Counts One, Two, Six, Seven, Ten and Eleven of the Amended Administrative Complaint.
Benzodiasepines are controlled substances and may be used only upon prescription. By surreptitiously putting Xanax and/or Halcion in drinks being ingested by Beck and Karppi, Respondent failed to prescribe controlled substances in good faith and in the course of his professional practice, in violation of Section 458.33l(1)(q), Florida Statutes. That this act is also a violation of subsection (1)(1) and (t), Florida Statutes, is not material in arriving at an appropriate punishment.
From the foregoing it is concluded that Respondent is guilty of Counts Three, Four, Five, Eight, Nine and Twelve, and not guilty of all other charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint.
In determining an appropriate penalty for the violations of which Respondent has been found guilty the following factors have been considered:
None of the victims were patients of Respondent and no complaint against Respondent has been registered by any of his patients.
Respondent enjoys a good reputation as a psychiatrist in the community in which he practices.
In drugging these victims and thereafter engaging them in sexual acts Respondent used his knowledge of medicine in a manner highly deleterious to the medical professional and repugnant to good morals.
Physicans should be held to a standard of conduct commensurate with their status. Many physicians serve as role models and may reasonably be required to adhere to a higher standard of personal conduct than is required of others.
Having fully considered the offenses of which Respondent has been found guilty, his reputation in the community, his training as a psychiatrist
and eliminating, insofar as possible, any bias arising from the repugnancy of the sexual activities performed by Respondent on comatose women, it is
RECOMMENDED that Jose Rodriguez Lombillo's license to practice medicine in this State be suspended for a period of two years and that thereafter he be placed on probation for a period of five years upon such terms and conditions as the Board of Medical Examiners deems appropriate.
ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1987, 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 of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of September, 1987.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3650
Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact
Finding 1 and 2 are accepted. All other proposed findings are rejected as a mere recitation of the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses.
Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact
Proposed Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23,
26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 are accepted.
Proposed Findings 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 29, 30 and 36 are rejected as not supported by the evidence adduced at this hearing, or as legal conclusions.
COPIES FURNISHED:
David E. Bryant, Esquire Suite 104
1107 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602
George Vega, Esquire Lawrence D. Martin, Esquire 2660 Airport Road South Naples, Florida 33962
Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director
Board of Medical Examiners
130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation
130 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Sep. 02, 1987 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Oct. 30, 1987 | Agency Final Order | |
| Sep. 02, 1987 | Recommended Order | Respondent guilty of administering drugs to people without their knowledge or consent. Videotaped sexual episodes with drugged women. |
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE vs DAVID SIMON, D.O., 86-003650 (1986)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs ZAFAR S. SHAH, M.D., 86-003650 (1986)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs ZAFAR S. SHAH, M.D., 86-003650 (1986)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs RONALD MALAVE, M.D., 86-003650 (1986)
