STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-2207
)
DAVID M. KENTON, M.D., )
)
Respondent. )
)
) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 90-7510
) DAVID MITCHELL KENTON, M.D., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
A formal hearing was scheduled in this case for March 24-25, 1992. Prior to the hearing date, the parties reached a stipulation as to the facts in this case. Both parties requested the Hearing Officer to consider the stipulated facts and enter a recommended order, including conclusions of law and a recommended penalty for consideration by the Board of Medicine. This recommended order is entered pursuant to that request.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Randolph P. Collette, Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation
Suite 60
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: Mark A. Dresnick, Esquire
Grand Bay Plaza - Suite 201 2665 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue is whether the Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what disciplinary actions should be taken against him, if any.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, filed two administrative complaints against Respondent, David M. Kenton, M.D., alleging a violation of the statutes regulating the practice of medicine. Dr.
Kenton timely requested a formal hearing on those allegations. The two administrative complaints involved related allegations, and both cases were consolidated into one proceeding.
An Administrative Complaint was filed January 30, 1990, against Dr. Kenton in Case No. 89-0104887.1 This complaint alleges that Dr. Kenton is a licensed physician, and was the Medical Director of Mobile Health Corporation. According to the complaint, Mobile Health Corporation advertised certain medical tests in the Panama City News Herald on August 28, 1989. It was alleged that the advertisements were false, misleading and deceptive, and that, as Medical Director of Mobile Health Corporation, Dr. Kenton allowed the advertisements to be disseminated.
On October 24, 1990, a second Administrative Complaint was filed against Dr. Kenton in Case No. 89-05880. The this complaint also alleges that Dr.
Kenton was the medical director of Mobile Health Corporation. This complaint alleges that on or about July 19, 1989, the Respondent placed an advertisement in the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper announcing the arrival of Mobile Health to the Tallahassee area on July 21, 1989. The complaint alleges that Dr. Kenton was responsible for the dissemination of this advertisement, and that Dr. Kenton made various claims in the advertisement which were false, deceptive and misleading.
Dr. Kenton has denied the material allegations of both Administrative Complaints. Prior to the formal hearing, however, Dr. Kenton and the Department stipulated to the facts which gave rise to the Administrative Complaints, and have submitted these disciplinary proceedings to the Hearing Officer for determination based on stipulated facts. Both parties have agreed that these facts constitute the factual record in this consolidated proceeding.
The Stipulated Facts were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 24, 1992, and Amended Stipulated Facts were later filed on May 8, 1992. These facts are incorporated verbatim as the findings of fact in this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes.
Respondent, David M. Kenton, M.D., was and is at all times material a physician licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0037023. Dr. Kenton's office address is 1701 West Hillsborough Boulevard, Suite 101, Deerfield Beach, Florida.
Mobile Health Corporation is a corporation organized pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida.
Factual Background
Mobile Health Corporation operates what is known as a multiphasic health testing center. This facility is licensed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) pursuant to the Florida Multiphasic Health Testing Center Law, Section 483.28, et. seq., Florida Statutes (1989).
A multiphasic health testing center is defined in the Florida Statutes as a fixed or mobile facility where specimens are taken from the human body for delivery to registered clinical laboratories for analysis and where certain measurements such as height and weight determinations, blood pressure determinations, limited audio and visual tests, and electrocardiograms are made, Section 483.288, Florida Statutes (1989).
At all times material, Mobile Health Corporation (Mobile Health) was licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services pursuant to License Number 00163, effective June 30, 1989.
Pursuant to its license with HRS, Mobile Health was authorized to provide certain diagnostic tests which included carotid doppler blood flow analysis, heart echocardiography, ultrasounds, mammography, and clinical laboratory tests.
The president of Mobile Health was Christine Byrum. As president, she had the responsibilities to provide for the day- to-day operations and management of the business, and the duties incident to management, marketing, and operations of the company.
Dr. Kenton was at all times material the vice president and treasurer of Mobile Health Corporation, and had employment responsibilities as the medical director for the corporation. Dr. Kenton was responsible for assuring the proper clinical operation of Mobile Health. A copy of Dr. Kenton's job description was attached to the Amended Stipulated Facts as Exhibit A. It states:
GENERAL STATEMENT
With broad general direction, he/she will perform administrative duties for the mobile test unit. He/She is responsible for directing work methods, quality control of procedures performed and interpretation.
DUTIES:
Is responsible for quality of examination performed and the quality of interpretation of studies.
Will keep abreast of new procedures, equipment, products and methods, will review and express an opinion of new equipment evaluation and applications.
Evaluates site problems relating to quality control, staffing problems, work method procedures, safety and any medical and/or legal interests.
Will mediate problems of the Physician staff, such as salary adjustments, discipline and medical/legal matters.
Dr. Kenton, as part of his duties as medical director, signed all requests by Mobile Health for analysis to be conducted by clinical laboratories with respect to specimens collected at the center.
Dr. Kenton reviewed the clinical laboratory analysis, together with the results of any measurements or other testing procedures performed at Mobile Health. Dr. Kenton read, interpreted, and signed all those results before they were sent by Mobile Health to its patients.
Dr. Kenton was responsible to supervise the quality of laboratories used for clinical laboratory tests of patients of Mobile Health. During all times material, all such tests were analyzed by a clinical laboratory licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
As medical director, Dr. Kenton was also responsible for the quality of the studies performed at Mobile Health, and the quality of the interpretation of medical studies.
Dr. Kenton is a cardiologist, and was personally responsible for interpreting the echocardiograms performed by Mobile Health.
A radiologist was under contract to Mobile Health to interpret the mammogram and ultrasound studies. At all times material, these studies were interpreted by a board certified radiologist.
Dr. Kenton performed his duties as Medical Director of Mobile Health in conformance with the provisions of Section 483.308, Florida Statutes (1989).
Pursuant to its license with HRS, Mobile Health was authorized by Florida's Multiphasic Health Testing Center Law to perform all medical tests which were performed at Mobile Health Corporation. Florida's Multiphasic Health Testing Center Law permitted each of these tests to be conducted by Mobile Health without a prior order from a physician.
The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services was responsible to inspect at least annually the premises and operations of all multiphasic health testing centers. Mobile Health had been subject to inspections by HRS. Mobile Health was found to be in compliance with the Florida law applicable to multiphasic health testing centers during an inspection just prior to the incidents in question. A copy of the HRS recommendation for licensure pursuant to an HRS survey conducted on June 7, 1989, disclosing "no deficiencies" was attached to the Amended Stipulated Facts as Exhibit
B. The Advertisements Which Are the Subject of the Administrative Complaint
On July 9, 1989, Mobile Health Corporation published an advertisement in the Tallahassee Democrat newspaper marketing its services, and advising readers that Mobile Health would be providing medical testing services in Tallahassee on July 21, 1989.
On August 28, 1989, Mobile Health Corporation published an advertisement in the Panama City New Herald marketing its services, and advising residents in Panama City, Florida, that Mobile Health would be providing medical testing in Panama City on September 1, 1989.
Mobile Health hired a professional advertising agency for the purpose of creating these advertisements. Dr. Kenton did not select the advertising agency, and did not advise the advertising agency pertaining to the substance or contents of the published advertisements which are the subject of these Complaints.
Both the July 9, 1989, advertisement in Tallahassee and the August 29, 1989, advertisement in Panama City contained medical claims that were false, deceptive or misleading.
The advertisements state in part:
Test 2 - Heart Echocardiography with Doppler THIS TEST DETECTS HEART OR VALVE MALFUNCTIONS THAT COULD LEAD TO HEART ATTACKS DUE TO FATTY BLOCKAGES IN THE CORONARY ARTERIES.
It is a generally accepted principle of medical practice that echocardiography has a limited role in the screening of patients for coronary artery disease because this test cannot always evaluate the presence or absence of fatty blockages. Furthermore, patients with significant coronary artery disease who have not had a prior myocardial infarction can have a normal echocardiogram.
The advertisements also state in part:
Test 3 - Ultrasound Screen for Prostate Cancer. THIS TEST DETECTS THE FOURTH LEADING CAUSE OF CANCER IN MEN.
This safe, painless and noninvasive tests take less than 20 minutes.
Mobile Health used only Suprapubic Ultrasound in its screening of patients for prostate cancer; it did not utilize Transrectal Ultrasound.
It is a generally accepted principle of medical practice that Suprapubic Ultrasound is not effective in the screening of patients for prostate cancer because this test can not detect anything but the largest, most advanced cases of prostate cancer.
These advertisements identified Mobile Health by name and did not identify Dr. Kenton. The advertisements contained the toll free phone number of Mobile Health. This phone number was not the phone number of Dr. Kenton's office.
Although Dr. Kenton was aware generally that advertisements were being placed by Mobile Health, he did not review the advertisements which were published by Mobile Health in the Tallahassee Democrat on July 9, 1989, in the Panama City News Herald on August 28, 1989, prior to their publication.
The advertisements contained a legal disclaimer as required by Section 483.305, Florida Statutes, which stated:
Health screening tests may or may not alert you and your doctor to serious medical problems and are not intended to be a substitute for a physician's examination.
Rule 21M-24.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that:
No physician shall disseminate or cause the dissemination of any advertisement or adver- tising which is in any way false, deceptive, or misleading. Any advertisement shall be deemed by the Board to be false, deceptive, or misleading if it . . . [c]ontains a mis- representation of facts . . . [m]akes only a partial disclosure of relevant facts . . . [c]reates false or unjustified expectations of beneficial assistance . . . [or] . . . [a]ppeals primarily to a layperson's fears,
ignorance, or anxieties regarding his state of well being . . . [or] . . . [f]ails to con- spicuously identify the physician by name in the advertisement.
There were few responses by the public to both of these advertisements.
No patient has indicated any harm as a result of the advertisements or complained to DPR.
The advertisements were discontinued voluntarily by Mobile Health after the deceptive nature of the advertisements were brought to its attention.
There is no evidence that Dr. Kenton participated in disseminating the advertisements.
Dr. Kenton did not profit as a result of these advertisements.
Soon after Petitioner began its investigation into this matter, Dr. Kenton resigned as the Medical Director of Mobile Health. Mobile Health soon thereafter concluded its business operations and allowed its license with HRS to lapse.
Dr. Kenton received his medical degree in 1979 from the State University of New York, Buffalo School of Medicine. He completed his internship at Jackson Memorial Hospital/University of Miami School of Medicine in 1980, and then completed his residency at the same institution in June 1982. Dr. Kenton completed a fellowship in cardiology at the Georgetown University Medical School in June 1984.
Dr. Kenton is a young physician with an unblemished record. He has never previously been the subject of a DPR investigation, and has never been sued for medical malpractice.
Dr. Kenton has staff privileges at several hospitals which include North Broward Medical Center and North Ridge General Hospital in Fort Lauderdale; West Boca Medical Center in Boca Raton; and Delray Community Hospital and Pinecrest Hospital in Delray Beach.
The issuance of sanctions such as a written reprimand, an order of probation, or a license suspension may affect Dr. Kenton in his renewal of staff privileges at his existing hospitals, and may have adverse consequences if
Dr. Kenton should apply for staff privileges at hospitals to which he is not currently on staff.
The stigma of a reprimand, probation, or suspension may also adversely effect his professional standing in the local medical community and may have significant financial consequences upon Dr. Kenton.
Should Dr. Kenton be found to have violated Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (1989), appropriate discipline in this matter should not exceed the imposition of a $2,500 administrative fine, plus an order requiring Dr. Kenton to cease and desist from disseminating misleading advertisements in the future, and a restriction of his medical license to prohibit him from operating any type of multiphasic mobile testing service, as defined in Section 483.288, Florida Statutes (1991), for a period of five years from the date of final action in this matter.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over this matter. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Administrative Complaints in these two consolidated cases allege that Dr. David Kenton has violated the following Florida Statutes, and the following provision of the Florida Administrative Code which are quoted below verbatim:
Section 455.24, Florida Statutes (1989): Advertisement By Health Care Provider Of Free Or Discounted Services; Required Statement.
In any advertisement for a free, discounted fee, or reduced fee service, examination, or treatment by a health care provider licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 460, chapter 461, chapter 462,
chapter 463, chapter 464, chapter 466, chapter 474, or chapter 486, the following statement shall appear in capital letters clearly distinguishable from the rest of the text: THE PATIENT AND ANY OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT HAS A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PAY, CANCEL PAYMENT, OR BE REIMBURSED FOR PAYMENT FOR ANY OTHER SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT WHICH IS PERFORMED AS A RESULT OF AND WITHIN 72 HOURS OF RESPONDING TO THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE FREE, DISCOUNTED FEE, OR REDUCED FEE SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR
TREATMENT. However, the required statement shall not be necessary as an accompaniment to an advertisement of a licensed health care provider defined by this section if the advertisement appears in a classified directory the primary purpose of which is to provide products and services at free, reduced, or discounted price to persons 60 years of age or older and in which the statement prominently appears in at least one place. (emphasis supplied)
Section 458.331(1)(d), (g), (x):
458.331 Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board and department.
The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection
may be taken:
* * *
(d) False, deceptive, or misleading advertising.
* * *
(g) Failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician.
* * *
(x) Violating any provision of this chapter, a rule of the board or department . . . .
Rule 21M-24.001(2), Florida Administrative Code:
No physician shall disseminate or cause the dissemination of any advertisement or advertising which is in any way false, deceptive, or misleading. Any advertisement shall be deemed by the Board to be false, deceptive, or misleading if it . . . [c]ontains a misrepresentation of facts . . . [m]akes only a partial disclosure of relevant facts . . . [c]reates false or unjustified expectations of beneficial assistance . . .
[or] . . . [a]ppeals primarily to a layperson's fears, ignorance, or anxieties regarding his state of well being . . . [or] . . . [f]ails to conspicuously identify the physician by name in the advertisement. (emphasis supplied)
The Department of Professional Regulation has the burden of proof in this proceeding, and must carry that burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987). Since the parties have stipulated to the facts however, the level of proof is no longer an issue. Section 455.24
The charges with respect to violation of Section 455.24, Florida Statutes (1989), can be disposed of easily. There is no proof that the advertisements were for free, discounted fee or reduced fee services or treatment. By its very terms, the statute does not apply.
Even if the statute did apply, while the advertisements placed in the two newspapers by Mobile Health were false and misleading, the evidence does not establish that Dr. Kenton personally disseminated or caused the dissemination of these advertisements. In particular, Stipulated Finding 35 states that "there is no evidence that Dr. David Kenton participated in disseminating the advertisements."
Mobile Health Corporation operated a multiphasic health testing center licensed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services pursuant to the Florida Multiphasic Health Testing Center Law, Section 483.28, et. seq., Florida Statutes (1989). A multiphasic testing center is authorized by Florida law to collect specimens and data for certain medical tests without the necessity of a physician's order. HRS licenses these facilities and is responsible to establish standards related to the operations and procedures utilized at these centers. HRS is not a party to this proceeding.
This proceeding has been brought to discipline Dr. David Kenton, not to discipline Mobile Health for its advertisements. The day-to-day operations of Mobile Health, including the management and marketing of the company, were the responsibility of the company's president, Christine Byrum. (Stipulated Finding 8).
No statute or rule imposed on the medical director of Mobile Health a duty to review its advertisements or imposed vicarious liability on the medical director for advertisements disseminated by Mobile Health which may prove to be false or misleading. As medical director, Dr. Kenton statutorily was responsible for "assuring the proper clinical operation of the center." Section 483.308(1), Florida Statutes (1989). The clinical operation pertains to the medical attention provided to the center's patients. That statute does not impose liability upon physicians for advertisements disseminated by corporations which employ them. Dr. Kenton apparently performed his duties as medical director of Mobile Health in conformance with the provisions of Section 483.308, Florida Statutes; there is no allegation in either of the Administrative Complaints to the contrary.
Section 458.331(d)
The Florida courts have recognized that disciplinary proceedings are "penal" in nature, and statutory provisions allegedly violated must be strictly construed. See, e.g., Federgo Discount Center v. Department of Professional Regulation, 452 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984), and Rush v. Department of Professional Regulation, 448 So.2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984. Any doubt pertaining to the applicability of the statutory provisions to these factual circumstances must be construed in favor of Dr. Kenton. Cf. State v. Llopis, 257 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1971).
The position advocated by the Department here is that as medical director, Dr. Kenton had a responsibility to see that advertisements were medically correct, accurate and did not play on ignorance, fears or anxieties of the public. The imposition of such duties may be salutary, but the question here is not whether such duties ought to be imposed, but whether they actually had been imposed by existing statutes and rules. An agency may not fill in the interstices of its regulatory program through disciplinary actions, retrospectively characterizing conduct as worthy of discipline without first having given clear notice to members of the profession that such conduct was prohibited. The Legislature has recently made this principle an explicit part of the Administrative Procedure Act. Under new Section 120.535(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1992 Supp.), rulemaking must be undertaken "to the extent necessary to provide fair notice to affected persons of relevant agency procedures and principles, criteria, or standards for agency decisions . . ." This is not a new concept, but is a corollary of the rule that penal statutory provisions must be construed strictly.
If the Board of Medicine wants to place a duty on physicians to review advertisement for health care entities which employ them for medical accuracy, misleading language, or attempts to appeal to a lay person's fears, ignorance or anxieties regarding the person's well being, it may give members of the profession notice of this requirement by adopting such a rule. The facts here do not bring Dr. Kenton's actions under the range of conduct forbidden by Rule 21M-24.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, because the facts do not show that he disseminated or caused the dissemination of the offending newspaper advertisements. Nothing in the statutes or rules required him to review ads
placed by his employer, and his job description as medical director of Mobile Health does not show that he assumed such a duty by virtue of his employment. Vicarious Liability
As an officer of a corporation, even a closely held corporation, Dr. Kenton is not personally responsible for misrepresentations by the corporation unless he personally participated in acts constituting misconduct. See, e.g., Charter Air Center, Inc., v. Miller, 348 So.2d 614 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). The facts establish that Dr. Kenton did not participate in disseminating the advertisements, and there is no basis to hold Dr. Kenton's license subject to discipline due to the actions of the corporation.
The Legislature has not imposed statutory vicarious liability upon a medical director of multiphasic health testing centers licensed pursuant to Chapter 483 for misdeeds by those entities. The case of Federgo Discount Center
v. Department of Professional Regulation, 452 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 3rd 1984) involved a situation analogous to that presented here. A pharmacist employed by a licensed community pharmacy had engaged in unlawful activities by diverting drugs. The Court of Appeal held that the licensed community pharmacy was not subject to discipline by the Department of Professional Regulation because the licensed pharmacist it employed failed in his professional duties. This case presents the converse situation, but no provision of law provides that Dr. Kenton, as either the medical director or as an officer of Mobile Health, is liable for the misdeeds of the corporation based merely on his status.
There is also no evidence that Mobile Health acted as Dr. Kenton's agent when it placed these advertisements. To the contrary, the evidence indicates Mobile Health placed these ads in its own behalf. The advertisements identified Mobile Health by name and did not identify Dr. Kenton. The telephone number contained in the advertisements was the telephone number of Mobile Health Corporation and was not the phone number of Dr. Kenton's office (Stipulated Finding 28). Since these advertisements were published on behalf of Mobile Health, Rule 21M-24.001(2) did not require Dr. Kenton's name to be identified in the advertisements.
There is no evidence that Dr. David Kenton disseminated or caused the dissemination of the advertisements.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Dr. Kenton not guilty of
the allegations found in the Administrative Complaints, and dismissing those
Administrative Complaints.
DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of June, 1992.
WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR.
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June 1992.
1/Subsequently an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed on February 7, 1990. The amendment only deleted a reference to Case No. 89-05880 which had been included in the caption of the original administrative complaint by mistake.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Randolph P. Collette, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Mark A. Dresnick, Esquire Grand Bay Plaza - Suite 201 2665 South Bayshore Drive Miami, Florida 33133
Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine
Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street
Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Jack McRay General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street
Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Aug. 31, 1992 | Final Order filed. |
| Jun. 02, 1992 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 3/24-25/92. |
| May 22, 1992 | Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order w/Exhibits A&B filed. |
| May 22, 1992 | Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| May 08, 1992 | (Petitioner) Amended Stipulated Facts w/Exhibit-A&b filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1992 | Order for Briefing sent out. (parties shall serve an amended or supplemented statement of facts by 5-15-92, and proposed recommended orders based on the stipulation by 5-22-92) |
| Apr. 24, 1992 | (Joint) Stipulated Facts filed. |
| Apr. 13, 1992 | Order sent out. (parties are to submit proposed recommended orders on or before 4-30-92, as stipulated in their status report) |
| Mar. 23, 1992 | (Petitioner) Status Report and Stipulation of The Parties filed. |
| Dec. 05, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for March 24-25, 1992; 10:00am; Miami). |
| Nov. 25, 1991 | (Petitioner) Status Report filed. |
| Nov. 21, 1991 | (Petitioner) Notice of Service of Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s First Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Nov. 12, 1991 | Order Granting Continuance sent out. (Hearing cancelled; Status report due). |
| Nov. 07, 1991 | Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Request for Production filed. |
| Nov. 07, 1991 | Petitioner`s Response to Respondent`s Agreed Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Nov. 06, 1991 | Respondent`s Agreed Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Nov. 01, 1991 | (Respondent) Request for Production filed. |
| Aug. 06, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Jan. 13-14, 1991; 10:00am; FT Laud). |
| Aug. 02, 1991 | (Respondent) Response to Status Report filed. (From Val L. Osinski) |
| Jul. 25, 1991 | (Petitioner) Status Report filed. (From Randolph P. Collette) |
| Apr. 25, 1991 | Order Granting Continuance and Placing Case Abeyance sent out. |
| Apr. 24, 1991 | (Petitioner) Motion to Hold in Abeyance filed. (From Randolph P. Collette) |
| Jan. 07, 1991 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for May 8-10, 1991: 10:00 am: Boca Raton) |
| Dec. 24, 1990 | (DPR) Status Report filed. |
| Dec. 24, 1990 | (DPR) Status Report filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1990 | (Respondent) Response to Initial Order of Hearing Officer filed. (From Val L. Osinski) |
| Nov. 29, 1990 | Notice of Appearance; Motion to Consolidate filed. (From R. P. Collette) |
| Oct. 31, 1990 | (Petitioner) Notice of Related Cases filed. (From Randolph P. Collette) |
| Oct. 09, 1990 | Respondent`s Response to Request to Produce & Response to Respondent`s Request for Admissions filed. (From Val L. Osinski) |
| Sep. 17, 1990 | Order of Abeyance(Status report due by 11/16/90) sent out. |
| Sep. 14, 1990 | (DPR) Motion for Continuance filed. (From Randolph P. Collette) |
| Aug. 16, 1990 | Notice of Serving Petitioners First Set of Request for Admissions, Request for Production of Documents and Interrogs. to Respondent filed. |
| Jul. 13, 1990 | (DPR) Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed. (From Randolph P. Collette) |
| Jun. 20, 1990 | Order Granting Continuance and Resetting Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 10/4/90; 9:30am; Ft Lauderdale). |
| Jun. 07, 1990 | (Respondent) Motion for Continuance filed. (from Val L. Osinski) |
| May 14, 1990 | Order Granting Continuance and Resetting Hearing sent out. (hearing rescheduled for Aug. 15-16, 1990; 9:30; Ft. Laud) |
| May 10, 1990 | (DPR) Motion for Continuance filed. (from Joseph Harrison) |
| May 03, 1990 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for June 21-22, 1990; 9:30;Ft. Laud) |
| Apr. 27, 1990 | (Respondent) Compliance With Initial Order filed. |
| Apr. 27, 1990 | (Petitioner) Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Apr. 16, 1990 | Initial Order sent out. |
| Apr. 10, 1990 | Referral Letter; Amended Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 14, 1992 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jun. 02, 1992 | Recommended Order | Physician not liable for misleading ad placed by employer which operated mobile multiphasic health testing center. |
MEADOWVIEW LIFECENTER vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, 90-002207 (1990)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs EMBASSY RETIREMENT HOME, 90-002207 (1990)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs HOUR BLISS, INC., 90-002207 (1990)
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION vs JOHN M. ASSI, M.D., 90-002207 (1990)
