STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY ) MEDICINE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 86-4708
)
SAMY H. HELMY, D.V.M., )
)
Respondent. )
) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY ) MEDICINE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-0525
)
SAMY H. HELMY, D.V.M., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in this cause on March 6, 1987, in Inverness, Florida, before the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, Diane K. Kiesling.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: William M. Furlow, Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Douglas A. Walker, Esquire
Post Office Box 24
Southeast First Avenue at Broadway Ocala, Florida 32678
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
There are two issues in these consolidated matters. First, in Case No. 86- 4708, the issue is whether the Respondent, Samy H. Helmy, D.V.M. (Helmy), committed fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine by his conduct toward Karen Scalzi, in violation of Section 474.214(1)(p), Florida Statutes. The issue in Case No. 87-0525 is whether Helmy is unable to practice veterinary medicine with reasonable skill
and safety to patients by reason of illness, drunkenness, use of drugs, narcotics, chemicals or any other material or substance or as a result of any mental or physical condition, in violation of Section 474.214(1)(h), Florida Statutes.
Immediately upon convening of the formal hearing, the Respondent moved for a continuance. The motion was denied.
The Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Veterinary Medicine, presented the testimony of Christine Stewart, Karen Scalzi, Charles L. Ivey, John Sebring, Lisa Ellis, Faith Kendrick, John Chaney, James Adams, Patricia Stoltz, Gustave Galik, Joanne Keegan, Joann Mulroy, and Dr. Michael Gutman. Petitioner had two exhibits admitted in evidence. Helmy presented the testimony of Dr. William Corwin, Susan Burns, Marie Alexander, Anne Alexander, Anne Lorne, Ralph Benfield, Joyce D. Andrea, Juanita Anderson, Mary Ann Thomas, Mohammed Helmy, and Samy Helmy. Respondent also had three exhibits admitted into evidence.
The parties submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
All proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law have been considered. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix attached hereto and made a part of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material to these proceedings, Samy H. Helmy, D.V.M., was a licensed veterinarian in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. VM-2884. Helmy operated the Citrus Fair Animal Hospital in Inverness, Florida.
On August 4, 1986, Karen Scalzi took her cat to Helmy to be spayed. Helmy quoted her a price of $25 for spaying, plus $15 for shots. Scalzi agreed, paid the price, and left her cat. Later that same day, Helmy called Scalzi and said the cat was pregnant, he had aborted six kittens and there would be an additional charge of $5. Scalzi agreed to pay the additional price.
On August 5, 1986, Scalzi went to Helmy's office at 12:05 p.m. to pick up her cat. The office was closed and a signon the door indicated that the clinic was closed for lunch between 12 and 2:00 p.m. Scalzi went back to the clinic at 2:00 p.m. that afternoon and waited until 3:30 p.m. No one opened the clinic. Scalzi returned to her employment and called Helmy at his home. Helmy advised her that he was out sick and that she could pick up her cat the following day.
The following day, August 6, 1986, Scalzi returned to Helmy's clinic to pick up her cat. Scalzi placed $5 on the counter and asked for her cat. Helmy advised her that there was an additional charge of $20 for the extra day of boarding the cat. Scalzi questioned the extra charge and Helmy went to the back of the clinic. He returned with a clear plastic bag in his hand containing dead kitten fetuses. He began yelling at Scalzi that she was going to pay for this and he drew back his arm as if to throw the plastic bag at her. Scalzi ran from the clinic and called the police. The police advised Scalzi to return to the clinic, pay the money, get a receipt, retrieve her cat, and then file a complaint.
Scalzi returned to the clinic, placed $25 on the counter and asked for her cat. At that time, Helmy began screaming obscenities at Scalzi, spitting and making choking motions with his hands. Finally, Helmy returned the cat to
Scalzi and eventually Scalzi did get a receipt from Helmy. Throughout this incident, Helmy made such statements to Scalzi as follows: "You F'ing Bitch," "I'm going to remember your F'ing face," "You ought to be kissing my ass," and "I don't need to hear your F'ing bullshit."
On another occasion, Christine Stewart took her puppies to Helmy for a vaccine. While she was there, Helmy took her into his office and showed her a list of his patients, bragging to her how many patients he had. Following that, he began drawing out vaccines into a needle from two or three different bottles. Stewart became concerned because she raises toy animals and they are quite fragile. When she asked what she was giving the puppies, Helmy became "violently enraged." He grabbed Stewart by the arm, left a bruise and an abrasion, grabbed the crate with the puppies in it and took them away. He insisted that she must pay for the vaccine before he would return her puppies. Stewart left and called the police. A police officer went into Helmy's clinic and arranged for the return of Stewart's puppies. At some time during the course of Helmy's violent outburst, he "slammed" Stewart against the wall.
In early June 1986, Charles L. Ivey, Jr., an investigation manager for the Department of Professional Regulation, went to Helmy's new animal clinic to advise Helmy that he did not have the appropriate permit for the new establishment and that he heeded to get a permit. Ivey entered the building, eventually spoke with Helmy, and discussed the premises permit with him. As Ivey left, he placed one of his business cards on the counter. Ivey exited the building and got into his automobile. Helmy came screaming out of the building. He began beating on the glass of the car window with his fist, after hitting the car glass several times, Helmy screamed, "F You, F You, F You." Ivey drove away.
John Sebring, a Vice President at First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Citrus County, encountered Helmy's violent and obscene behavior on two occasions. On the first occasion, Helmy came to the bank regarding a loan application which had been denied. He began using oaths and obscenities and making gestures with his hand and arm. He was asked to leave but refused. Sebring called the Inverness Police Department and an officer attempted to escort Helmy from the building. Helmy began threatening and shouting in a loud voice at which time he was handcuffed and forcibly removed from the building. In fact, Helmy was charged with disorderly conduct, pleaded no contest and was fined $250.
After the incident in the bank, Mr. Sebring was on foot walking toward the bank building when an automobile driven by Helmy pulled up along side him and Helmy began shouting oaths, obscenities, "including the slang colloquialism for sexual intercourse complete with hand gestures," directed at Sebring. Sebring continued to walk and Helmy drove his vehicle at a slow rate along side of Sebring for approximately one-half block. Helmy continued yelling, screaming, swearing, and using hand gestures.
Patrolman Lisa Ellis was one of the police officers called to the First Federal Savings Loan Building on October 31, 1985, in response to the bank's telephone call regarding the disturbance. When patrolman Ellis entered the bank, she could hear someone screaming at the top of his lungs on the second floor. She went to that floor and observed Helmy screaming at an officer of the bank. She asked Helmy to be quiet and he started screaming at her at the top of his lungs. Patrolman Ellis asked Helmy to be quiet on more than three occasions and eventually placed him under arrest. She handcuffed him and escorted him from the bank. During this time, Helmy told Officer Ellis not to touch him
because she was a female and he addressed her using the same types of obscenities described above including the "F word." He also told her not to touch him because it was against his religion.
In 1985, Helmy became involved in a disagreement with the Citrus County Chronicle, the local newspaper. The dispute was over a bill for advertising. Helmy talked to Faith Kendrick by telephone four or five times. During each telephone conversation Helmy became upset and used a lot of obscenities. He screamed and told Kendrick that all she and the girls in her department needed "was a good -- it starts with a F."
John Adams is the Service Manager for a major automotive dealership. The dealership did some repairs on Helmy's automobile and he refused to pay the bill for the repair service on July 16, 1984. After Helmy refused to pay his bill, he and Mr. Adams got into an argument. Helmy tried to leave without paying and Adams stepped in front of the automobile, asking him to give him the keys until the bill was taken care of. Helmy refused, put the car in gear and moved it forward, toward Adams. Adams jumped out of the way.
In late summer or fall 1986, Patricia Stoltz took her dog to Helmy to have it put to sleep, after having called Helmy's office and been advised that the cost would be $35. Upon her arrival, Helmy told her if she wanted the dog disposed of it would be $50. When Stoltz mentioned that she hadn't been told of the extra charge, Helmy started shouting at her. By the tone of his shouting, she thought he was hard of hearing, but then "could see that he was enjoying himself." She then asked Helmy for someone to help carry the dog in from her oar. Helmy asked her why she didn't bring someone with her. Helmy eventually went out to the car and gave the dog a shot inside the car. The dog began to shake all over and foam at the mouth. The dog then died and Stoltz left. Later that day, her son called Helmy with Stoltz listening to the conversation. Helmy was abrupt and harsh, and he used obscenities. According to Stoltz, "he had a favorite four-letter word that he was using quite often."
In March 1986, Helmy called Gustave Galik, President of the Citrus County Humane Society. Helmy asked about getting the spay and neuter business from that group. Galik told Helmy that it wasn't the business of that organization to tell people where to take their animals. Helmy became very angry, starting called Galik obscene names. Helmy threatened Galik with bodily harm "starting with F in the rear." Galik was frightened and reported the matter to the Sheriff's Department and the District Attorney.
Joanne Keegan went to Helmy's office to retrieve a dog which her mother left there following a fight. Keegan did not want Helmy to treat the dog. When she demanded the return of the dog, Helmy became belligerent and demanded that she pay a bill that was astronomical. The bill reflected numerous tests which had not been requested. The dog was only at Helmy's office for approximately ten minutes. Keegan got the dog and took the dog to her own veterinarian. She was upset and returned to Helmy's office later that afternoon to tell Helmy that she didn't "think he was much of a Vet." Helmy started using very obscene language. Helmy told Keegan "F your Vet" and "you should get down on your hands and knees and kiss my feet." Helmy then came out from behind his desk and followed Keegan out to her car "screaming and carrying out like a lunatic."
During the summer of 1985, Joann Mulroy had a dog neutered by Helmy. She returned to Helmy a few days later because the dog was swollen and purple and she wanted to ask some questions. Helmy told her to wait a few weeks and
she did. However, the dog remained swollen and purple. When she returned to Helmy with the dog, Helmy got "very obnoxious." Mulroy left and took her dog to another veterinarian. Based upon what she was told by the other veterinarian, she returned to Helmy's office and tried to talk to Helmy about the situation.
Helmy began swearing and threatening Mulroy. Mulroy thought Helmy was becoming very violent and she left his office.
Helmy has a different version of each of the incidents described in the foregoing Findings of Fact. Based upon Helmy's demeanor and testimony which was clearly false, no credibility is given to his testimony. Without detailing every inaccuracy and distortion offered by Helmy, his blatant untruths on the stand are as follows:
Helmy told his attorney, the psychiatrist who evaluated him, and the Hearing Officer while Helmy was testifying under oath, that he had never failed a licensing examination. After trying in every way to avoid giving a truthful answer, and when faced with his own application for licensure in Florida, which showed that he failed two licensing examinations in West Virginia and Maryland, Helmy finally admitted that he did in fact fail those examination.
Despite admissions to the contrary to both his attorney and the psychiatrist who evaluated him at his request, Helmy testified twice in the proceeding that he had never used profanity, that he had never used obscene language, that he had never used the "F" word and that he had never used the words attributed to him by the witnesses in this case.
Even after Helmy had been forced to admit that he had provided false testimony in denying that he had failed two licensing examinations, he again testified under oath that he has never told a lie in his life.
Helmy offered the testimony of his son, Mohammed Helmy, to disprove the testimony of Ms. Scalzi. However, the testimony of Mohammed Helmy is also rejected as not credible. Mohammed testified that his father was not "excited" during the discussion with Ms. Scalzi and the confrontation Investigator Ivey. Helmy himself acknowledged that he was very upset during these incidents. Mohammed also testified that he had not talked to anyone about his testimony. However, earlier he acknowledged that his father had told him to "say the truth" and clearly he had discussed his testimony with his father.
Two psychiatrists evaluated Helmy in regard to his mental condition and his ability to practice safely. E. Michael Gutman, M.D., a psychiatrist licensed since 1960, Board certified since 1968 and practicing a subspecialty of neurology since 1964, evaluated Helmy on November 19, 1986, pursuant to an order issued by the Department of Professional Regulation. Dr. Gutman was accepted as an expert in psychiatry and has testified approximately 1,500 times as an expert witness. William Corwin, M.D., a licensed psychiatrist who is Board certified in psychiatry, neurology, and forensic psychiatry, was tendered and accepted as an expert in psychiatry and neurology. Dr. Corwin examined Helmy at Helmy's request on February 5, 12, and 20, 1987.
Dr. Gutman reviewed the investigative file of the Petitioner and materials which Helmy provided, such as newspaper articles. At Helmy's request, his wife was present throughout the evaluation. Dr. Gutman prepared a report and concluded that Helmy was "an impaired and disruptive veterinarian" and that he was not "safe to practice his skill or profession." Dr. Gutman was present throughout the hearing in this proceeding and heard the testimony of the witnesses regarding Dr. Helmy's behavior. He testified that the behavior
described was consistent with his diagnosis of Helmy's mental problems. Dr. Gutman's report included observations and opinions concerning Helmy's behavior which were consistent with Helmy's behavior during this proceeding. Gutman characterized Helmy's behaviors as including expectation of trickery, hyper- vigilance, guardedness and secretiveness, avoidance of accepting blame, intense narrowly-focused searching for confirmation of bias with loss of appreciation for total contact, over concern with hidden motives and special meanings, tendency to be easily slighted and quick to take offense, readiness to counterattack when any threat is perceived, inability to relax, inflated self- esteem, exaggeration of past accomplishments, expansiveness, and trends toward exaggeration. A review of Helmy's testimony during this proceeding shows just how accurate Dr. Gutman's characterizations are. For example, Helmy stated that he thinks investigator Ivey hates him and has something in his heart against Helmy; Helmy believes that the car dealer with whom he had a problem is cheating people all over the country; Helmy believes that the newspaper printed articles about him and the complaints against him in order to sell newspapers; Helmy believes that there is a conspiracy from the newspaper; Helmy believes that every witness who testified against him fabricated their testimony to support the attorney for DPR; and finally Helmy believes that the attorney for DPR hates him. Additionally, Helmy testified that he did nothing wrong in any of these incidents. A review of Helmy's responses to many questions during the proceeding reflects evasiveness, verbosity, and refusal to answer simple questions where the answer may reflect negatively on him. Helmy also stated that the entire incident at the bank was a "trick" and that he asked for his papers "very gently" and the bank never asked him to leave.
Dr. Gutman's observations that Helmy is apt to exaggerate, avoid blame, and be overly concerned with hidden motives is found to be an accurate assessment of Helmy's attitude.
Dr. Gutman diagnosed Helmy as having a Mixed Character Behavior Disorder With Paranoid Passive-Aggressive Features, together with Atypical Bipolar Disorder, Hypomanic Type. He also found Helmy to be experiencing Cultural Dissonance. According to Gutman, "Helmy shows evidence of significant psychiatric symptomatology referable to both a long-standing character and behavior disorder characterized by passive-aggressive personality traits including stubbornness, inefficiency, self-sabotage, inability to see the other's person's point of view and aggressivity." Based upon his evaluation, Gutman found Helmy to be an "impaired and disruptive veterinarian who cannot exercise the proper control over his behavior, decorum and understanding of what is necessary to work within the system in his cultural and professional community. He has cognitive defects that do not allow him to take advice or see what other people see in him and about what he is doing. He has flaws, both in understanding and knowing as well as in choosing and volitional acting." Dr. Gutman sees these as signs of a mental illness that requires psychiatric treatment. Gutman believes Helmy may be a candidate for the use of lithium. Treatment of Helmy's mental disorders "will be absolutely necessary if this man is to be able to conduct himself in the practice of veterinarian medicine." Finally, Gutman does not feel that Helmy "is capable of the unsupervised practice of veterinarian medicine at this time." "Until he undergoes treatment, supervision, and further instruction and then is re-evaluated following that course of rehabilitation, [Gutman does] not believe that he is safe to practice his skill or profession." According to Gutman, Helmy is a disruptive person in his wild and threatening behavior. Based upon his previous threatening behavior and the fact that Helmy comes so close to "losing it," Gutman feels that there is a potential for Helmy to actually lose it and physically carry out a threat.
Dr. Corwin supplied a four-page report following his evaluations of Helmy. Corwin's opinions is that Helmy is safe to practice even though he has some emotional problems. In reaching his opinion, Dr. Corwin reviewed documents furnished to him by Helmy. Additionally, Corwin heard some of the testimony in this proceeding, but did not hear of some of Helmy's actions and did not hear the testimony of Christine Stewart regarding the physical violence against her. Dr. Corwin also reviewed Dr. Gutman's report.
Dr. Corwin's evaluation and opinion is given less weight because it was based on incorrect information and assumptions. Dr. Corwin assumed that Helmy was being truthful about the facts concerning the complaints against him. Helmy told Corwin that he was not an argumentative or hostile person and provided factual explanations for the events. Corwin accepted Helmy's statements as true and accurate, when in fact the subsequent testimony in this proceeding revealed that Helmy did not provide accurate information. Corwin stated that he did not believe Helmy would consciously distort the truth, yet Corwin accepted Helmy's statement that he had done nothing wrong and that the witnesses against him fabricated their stories. Based upon Helmy's statements to him, Corwin did find that Helmy was suffering from some type of mental problem, but that it was not a major mental illness. Corwin acknowledged that Helmy has "emotional patterns which may interfere, particularly when he feels threatened and disturbed." In regard to his opinion that Helmy was safe to practice, Corwin did acknowledge that there could be facts which would change his position.
Eight witnesses for Helmy, who are either clients or former employees, testified that each had never seen Helmy engage in bizarre behavior or misconduct, however, none were actually present during the events described above.
By evaluating the underlying information upon which each doctor reached his opinion, the opinion expressed by each psychiatrist, and Helmy's behavior in the course of this proceeding, it is found that Dr. Gutman's opinion more directly squares with the facts and is entitled to greater weight. Accordingly, it is also found that Helmy is suffering from a mental condition and a mental illness which renders him unable to practice veterinarian medicine with reasonable skill and safety. Dr. Helmy is unsafe to practice veterinary medicine because of his character and behavior disorders which cause violent, disruptive, threatening and dangerous behavior when he becomes upset.
Based upon his actions in regard to Scalzi, it is found that Helmy has engaged in misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this action. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Section 474.214(1)(p), Florida Statutes, provides that disciplinary action may be taken upon a showing that a licensee has engaged in:
(p) Fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of veterinary medicine.
Additionally, Section 474.214(1)(h), Florida Statutes, provides for such disciplinary action against the licensee for:
(h) Being unable to practice veterinary medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness, drunkenness, use of drugs, narcotics, chemicals, or any other materials or substance or as a result of any mental or physical condition . . . .
Helmy's behavior toward Scalzi is misconduct as that term is used in subsection (p) above. It is concluded that Helmy is guilty of violating Section 474.214(1)(p), Florida Statutes, for his misconduct directed at Scalzi.
Based upon the evidence presented and the greater weight given to the opinion of Dr. Gutman, it is concluded that Helmy is potentially unsafe to practice veterinary medicine based upon his violent and disruptive behavior. Helmy has the potential to be a danger in that he may carry out his verbal threats. He is suffering from a mental condition or illness which is the cause of his bizarre, violent and obscene behavior. It is therefore concluded that Helmy has violated Section 474.214(1)(h), Florida Statutes, in that he is unable to practice veterinary medicine with reasonable skill and safety as a result of his mental condition. The evidence presented is as substantial as the consequences of this proceeding and meets the test required under Bowling v. Department of insurance, 394 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The evidence in this regard is both clear and convincing.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of
Veterinary Medicine, enter a Final Order and therein:
Suspend the license of Samy H. Helmy, D.V.M., until such time as he has demonstrated that he can resume the competent practice of veterinary medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients as specified in Section 474.214(1)(h). Upon reinstatement, Helmy should serve a reasonable period of probation in which he shall satisfy reasonable conditions of probation imposed by the Board of Veterinary Medicine, including, but not limited to, refraining from violent and disruptive behavior, appearing before the Board on a regular basis, and submitting regular reports from a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist regarding his mental condition.
The license of Samy H. Helmy be suspended for thirty (30) days and fined $1,000 based upon his violation of Section 474.214(1)(p), Florida Statutes.
DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DIANE K. KIESLING
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April 1987.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NOs. 86-4708 and 87-0525
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE
Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(1); 3(2); 4(2); 5(2); 6(3); 7(3); 8(3); 9(4); 10(4); 11(4); 12(5); 13(5); 15(19); 16(20); 17(20); 18(24); 19(24); 20(26); and 21(26)
Proposed finding of fact 14 is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, SAMY
HELMY, D.V.M.
Proposed findings of fact A-I, K-M, R-T, W, AA, BB, JJ-MN, GO, PP, TT, UU, YY, c-o, s-dd, and gg are subordinate to the facts actually found in the Recommended Order.
Proposed findings of fact O-Q, ZZ, a, b, g, and kk are rejected as unnecessary.
Proposed finding of fact ee is rejected as unsupported by the record.
Proposed findings of fact ff, hh, and ii are rejected as being irrelevant.
Proposed finding of fact jj is rejected as being argument.
Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: J(7); N(7); U(9); V(9); X(11); Y(12); Z(13); CC(13); DD(13); EE(13); FF(13); GG(14); HH(15); 11(15); NN(16); QQ(19); RR(19); 55(20); VV(22); WW(22); p(19); and r(19 & 23).
COPIES FURNISHED:
William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301
Douglas A. Walker, Esquire
P. O. Box 24
Southeast First Avenue at Broadway Ocala, Florida 32678
Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mildred Gardner, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 13, 1987 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 13, 1987 | Recommended Order | Veterinarian guilty of misconduct and was unable to safely practice based on mental condition resulting in bizarre, violent and obscene behavior. |
OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION vs JOHN LAWRENCE GISLASON, 86-004708 (1986)
DIVISION OF FINANCE vs. PETER VAN WIE INVESTMENTS, INC., 86-004708 (1986)
JACK MITCHELL vs. DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE AND TREASURER, 86-004708 (1986)
OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION vs FRANKIE DAMIANO, 86-004708 (1986)
EDUCATION PRACTICES COMMISSION vs. ROBERT EDWIN HOUGH, 86-004708 (1986)
