STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JOHN W. DELK, D.D.S., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 92-2703F
) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF )
DENTISTRY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Mary Clark, held a formal hearing on June 30, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Kelvin L. Averbuch, Esquire
3008 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32803
Thomas E. Gordon, Jr., Esquire
320 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite B-5 Orlando, Florida 32801
For Respondent: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
The issue for determination is whether the Petitioner, John W. Delk, D.D.S., is entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs under Section 57.111, F.S., for defending against certain disciplinary actions initiated by the Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry.
After stipulations of the parties, these central issues remain for disposition: whether the underlying disciplinary proceeding had a "reasonable basis in law and fact at the time that it was initiated by [the] state agency", as provided in Section 57.111(3)(e), F.S.; and whether multiple counts in a single complaint and multiple complaints consolidated for a single evidentiary hearing "stack" the $15,000.00 maximum award provided for in Section 57.111(4)(d)2., F.S.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This proceeding was initiated on May 4, 1992 when Petitioner timely filed his petition for attorney's fees and costs with the Division of Administrative Hearings, following a March 25, 1992 corrected opinion by the Fifth District Court of Appeal reversing an order by the Board of Dentistry.
On May 21, 1992 Respondent filed a motion for extension of time to respond to the petition; and on May 22, 1992 the response and motion to dismiss was filed with a series of exhibits. On June 5, 1992 Respondent filed two exhibits which had been previously identified in its response, but had been unavailable: Exhibit F (audiotape of probable cause panel discussion, January 4, 1987) and Exhibit G (transcript of the June 7, 1988 probable cause panel meeting.)
Petitioner objected in writing to the extension of time to obtain transcripts of the probable cause panel meetings but the objection was filed at the Department of Professional Regulation and not at the Division of Administrative Hearings, and was provided to the hearing officer after the hearing. Nonetheless, oral argument was considered at the hearing and was taken under advisement.
Petitioner's objections are overruled, and the following exhibits identified at hearing have been received into evidence in this proceeding:
Ex. A. Fifth District Court of Appeal Opinion/Correction Opinion Mandate
Ex. B. Filed Administrative Complaint DPR Case 00-89897, October 20, 1988 Transcript of Probable Cause Panel
Ex. C. Final Order Board of Dentistry/ Recommended Order of Daniel M. Kilbride, Hearing Officer
Ex. D. Materials submitted to 10/20/88 PCP for DPR Case 00-89897
Ex. E. Rule 21G-16, Florida Administrative Code.
Ex. F. January 04, 1987 Probable Cause Panel Minutes, Letter from Court Reporter, Memorandum of Probable Cause. To be supplemented with transcript of January 04, 1987 Probable Cause Panel Meeting and excerpt of audiotape discussion.
Ex. G. Transcript June 07, 1988 Probable Cause Panel Meeting
Ex. H. Filed Administrative Complaint DPR Case 00-56166, Memorandum of Probable Cause, Transcript of October 20, 1988 Probable Cause Panel Meeting
Ex. I. Materials submitted to 10/20/88 PCP for DPR Case 00-56166
Ex. J. Transcript of the August 21, 1989 Probable Cause Panel
Ex. K. Filed Administrative Complaint DPR Case 0066548, Memorandum of Probable Cause, Transcript of December 12, 1988 Probable Cause Panel Meeting
Ex. L. Materials submitted to December 12, 1988 PCP for DPR Case 99-066548
Ex. M. Transcript of the January 04, 1991 Meeting of the Board of Dentistry
Ex. N. Affidavit John Delk, D.D.S.
Ex. O. Affidavit of Kelvin L. Averbuch, Esquire
Ex. P. Affidavit of Thomas E. Gordon, Jr., Esquire
Ex. Q. The Initial, Answer, and Reply Briefs filed with the Fifth District Court of Appeal
Ex. R. Affidavit of Charles Babb, C.P.A.
Ex. S. Estimate of DPR attorney time spent on Dr. Delk's case.
At Respondent's request, and without objection by Petitioner, Exhibits B, D and F through M are sealed to protect patient confidentiality.
The hearing in this case consisted primarily in legal argument on the issues and on the exhibits described above. Kelvin Averbuch, Esquire and Thomas Gordon, Esquire also testified with regard to the hours and hourly rates upon which the fees were based.
After the hearing the parties filed thorough argument and a chronology of events in proposed final orders and a reply brief. These have been carefully considered and the material facts proposed by each are substantially adopted herein.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts are established in the parties' prehearing stipulation, filed on June 26, 1992, and confirmed at the hearing on June 30, 1992:
The Respondent is the State agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.30, Chapter 455, and Chapter 466, F.S.
The Petitioner is a licensed dentist
having been issued license number DN-0005106.
The Petitioner maintains a professional dental practice and principal place of residence in the State of Florida having a principal business address of 2000 Weber Street; Sarasota, Florida 34239 and has maintained a professional dental practice and principal place of residence within the State of Florida since at least 1984 except for a six (6) weeks period of time in 1987 when the Petitioner practiced outside of the State. The Petitioner has a net worth of less than two million dollars including both personal and business investments and has never had a net worth of more than two million dollars. The Petitioner employs less than twenty-five full-time employees and has never employed more than twenty-five full-time employees.
The attorneys' fees and costs sought by the Petitioner in this proceeding are reasonable in relation to the hourly rate charged and the time spent in preparation, review, and litigation of the underlying proceeding, appeal, and for this proceeding.
On November 3, 1988 and December 21, 1988, Respondent initiated disciplinary action against Petitioner's license, through the filing of three Administrative Complaints.
The Administrative Complaint in DPR Case number 0089897 (later DOAH Case number 89-0646) alleges that Respondent provided dental services to patient, J.R., from March 27, 1984 to April 23, 1985. Count I of the Complaint alleges that Respondent allowed his dental assistants to provide a series of dental services on patient J.R. in violation of Section 466.028(1)(aa), F.S. (1983). Count II of the complaint alleges Respondent incompetently performed root canal therapy and bridge work on patient J.R., in violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), F.S. (1985)[sic].
The Administrative Complaint in DPR Case number 0056166 (later DOAH number 89-0647), alleges that Respondent examined patient R.B. on December 3, 1984 and accomplished crown preparation work on patient R.B. on January 19, 1985. The complaint alleges that Respondent failed to diagnose pulp necrosis and failed to remove dental caries prior to crown preparation in violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), F.S. (1985)[sic].
The Administrative Complaint in DPR Case number 0066548 (later DOAH number 89-3313) alleges that Respondent, as dentist of record, treated patient
P.F. on July 18, 1984. The complaint alleges that Joan Chen, D.D.S. at the direction of Respondent began crown preparation on four of patient P.F.'s teeth, and that the treatment by Respondent consisted of root canal therapy and placement of crowns. The complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 466.028(1)(y) F.S. (1984) by failing to complete endodontic treatment, placing a permanent crown over a fractured tooth and perforating one tooth.
Investigation and Probable Cause in DPR Case number 0089897
(DOAH number 89-0646)
On Thursday, October 20, 1988, the probable cause panel of the Board of Dentistry met to consider among other matters, the complaint by patient J.R. against Dr. Delk.
The panel was comprised of two members, William Robinson, D.D.S. and Thomas Kraemer, C.P.A.
At the meeting the panel members had available the draft Administrative Complaint and an investigative packet, comprised of investigative reports, several pages of the patient's handwritten account of her treatment, and a written report by consultant, P. Anthony Pirkle, D.D.S., who had examined the records as well as the patient herself and concluded that Dr. Delk did not meet the acceptable standard of care in his examination, diagnosis and treatment.
Dr. Pirkle's written report also recounted the patient's statement that a large amount of the dental care was rendered by dental assistants exclusively.
The packet included copies of Dr. Delk's office notes for the patient, and documents related to a civil action by the patient, including a report by another dentist, consultant to the patient's lawyer. That consultant, like Dr. Pirkle, expressed concern about the patient's cooperation and prior home care, but still concluded, like Dr. Pirkle, that the work attempted by Dr. Delk was below the standard of care.
After confirming that they had received and reviewed the supporting materials and documentation, the two panel members voted unanimously to find probable cause based on the draft Administrative Complaint, citing Sections 466.028(1)(aa) and 466.028(1)(y).
Investigation and Probable Cause in DPR Case number 0056166
(DOAH number 89-0647)
The Administrative Complaint in this case identifies the patient as "R.B."; the investigative packet, however, indicates throughout that the patient was R. [name deleted] J. W. [name deleted].
This case was initially presented to a probable cause panel on January 4, 1987, with two members present: Maxine Sindledecker, D.D.S. and W. Edward Gonzalez, Jr. D.M.D.
The panel referred the case back to the department for a supplemental investigation, and in particular, the obtaining of original X-rays.
Another panel was convened on June 7, 1988 on this, and multiple other cases. The panel members included Edward F. Baines, D.D.S., Thomas C. Kraemer, and William F. Robinson, D.D.S. Because he had submitted a consultant's opinion in this case that Dr. Delk violated Section 466.028(1)(y), F.S., Dr. Robinson recused himself from the consideration of probable cause.
After discussion of the materials and information provided by DPR the remaining members of the panel considered probable cause, but then voted to require another supplementary investigation. The requested x-rays were still not available and one of three consultants' opinions was inconsistent.
This case was next presented to the probable cause panel on October 20, 1988. This was the same panel that considered DPR case number 008987, as
discussed in paragraph 9 above. This time, Dr. Robinson did not recuse himself, but voted with Mr. Kraemer to find probable cause based on violations of Section 466.028(1)(y).
The transcript of the probable cause panel proceeding reveals that Dr. Robinson did not have all of his information packet. It was found, and the panel took a five-minute break for him to review it.
The investigative packet included a February 18, 1988 letter from P. Anthony Pirkle, D.D.S., recommending no action against Dr. Delk in this case because Dr. Delk was not alerted to problems by the patient and he was not, therefore, given the opportunity to find the problems that did exist. This opinion was in contrast with Dr. Pirkle's earlier, June 4, 1987 letter concurring with another consultant's findings that Dr. Delk "failed to use necessary judgment". (Exhibit I) The written opinions of that consultant, Dr. Lewis Earle, is in the investigative packet, with Dr. Robinson's written opinion. Also included in the packet are notes from the investigator's interviews and office notes from Dr. Delk, a letter from Dr. Delk and notes from a subsequent treating dentist.
After filing the Administrative Complaint, but before the formal hearing, DPR realized that Dr. Robinson should not have participated in the probable cause finding and the case was referred to a panel for reconsideration one last time.
On August 21, 1989, the panel included: Robert T. Ferris, D.D.S.; Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S. and Thomas Kraemer. Dr. Ferris recused himself from consideration of the Delk cases because of his personal knowledge and a previous referral relationship.
After discussing their concern with regard to conflicting opinions, the remaining two members voted to find probable cause.
Investigation and Probable Cause in DPR Case number 0066548
(DOAH number 89-3313)
A draft Administrative Complaint involving treatment of patient, P.F., was presented to the probable cause panel on December 12, 1988. The panel was composed of Edward Baines, D.D.S. and Tom Kraemer.
The Board's counsel noted that the case had previously been before the panel but was sent out for additional information. There is no record of the previous panel's consideration.
After confirming that they had received and reviewed the back up information, the two panel members voted for ". . . an Administrative Complaint based on Section 466.028(1)(y)" (Exhibit K, p.3). While the specific terms, "probable cause" were not used, the panel's intent to find probable cause is manifest in the context of the discussion.
The back up packet included a complaint form by P.F. (then, P.A.) dated 4/17/85 and a letter from her subsequent treating dentist, Dr. Barnes, outlining an opinion that prior root canal work and crown placement was a deviation from acceptable minimal standards of care.
The packet included investigator's notes of multiple interviews, including interviews with Dr. Delk, another dentist previously in his employ, several other employees of Dr. Delk, the patient's lawyer, and the agency's expert consultant, Wayne Bennett, D.M.D.
The packet also included Dr. Delk's office records, with notes and x-rays, a copy of the civil complaint by P.F. against Dr. Delk and his employees, a written opinion by the consultant, Dr. Bennett, that failure to complete endodontic treatment prior to the permanent placement of crowns was below minimum standards.
The Hearing, Final Order and Appeal
After the Administrative Complaints were filed in each of the three cases and after Dr. Delk contested their allegations and requested formal administrative hearings, the cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH), where they were consolidated and eventually considered in a single proceeding conducted by Hearing Officer, Daniel M. Kilbride.
The hearing was conducted in Orlando, Florida over a three-day period in March 1990, and a fourth day in May 1990.
The hearing officer's recommended order dated September 26, 1990, found Dr.
Delk violated Section 466.028(1)(aa) in case number 89-0646, violated 466.028(1)(y) in case number 89-0647, and violated "466.208(1)(y)"[sic] in case number 89-3313.
The Board of Dentistry considered the consolidated cases on January 4, 1991, and its final order was filed on February 25, 1991.
The final order substantially adopted the hearing officer's recommendations, with some non-material changes in the findings of fact and some "corrections" in the Conclusions of Law, to what the Board perceived were improper rule or statutory citations. The Board added a violation, Section 466.024(1)(a) F.S. (1985), found neither in the Administrative Complaint nor in the recommended order.
The Board imposed fines in the total amount of $2,000.00; two-years' suspension, with 18 months stayed if the licensee completed a University of Florida dentistry course; and two years' probation after the suspension.
Dr. Delk appealed the Board's order to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
In its initial opinion, filed January 24, 1992, the appellate court, per curiam, reversed the Board's final order, finding that Dr. Delk was charged with violations of statutes which were not in existence when the violations occurred. The opinion was corrected and reissued on March 25, 1992, to provide that he was tried under statutes retroactively applied. (Exhibit A).
The opinion provides, in pertinent part:
. . . Although the dentist contested the alleged facts and denied that any of his conduct violated the statutes, the hearing officer found otherwise and recommended
sanctions. It was brought to the attention of the Board of Dentistry reviewing the hearing officer's findings, conclusions and recommendations that the misconduct charged allegedly occurred in 1984 and 1985 but that the statutes the dentist was found to have violated were amended and enacted as amended effective October 1, 1986. [footnote deleted] Notwithstanding, the Board of Dentistry approved certain of the hearing officer's findings and conclusions and imposed sanctions.
In this appeal the dentist argues that he cannot be found guilty of violating statutes effective in 1986 by virtue of conduct occurring in 1984 and 1985. The DPR argues that while the statutes in question were amended in 1985 and 1986 and while the defendant was tried under the 1986 statutes, nevertheless, the basic statutes were in effect in 1984 and that the 1985 and 1986 statutory amendments were not significant.
The dentist argues that the statutory changes involve both form and substance and that the 1986 statutes he was found to have violated were substantially and materially different than the 1983 statutes.
We have examined the statutes and the changes and cannot hold with certainty that the 1986 statutes were substantially the same as the 1983 version which were applicable to the dentist's alleged misconduct. Presumptively the Legislature intends to change a statute when it is amended and the statutes after the amendments appear to either prohibit conduct not prohibited by the 1983 statutes or to more clearly prohibit conduct which was not clearly prohibited by the 1983 statutes.
. . .
The dentist was never charged with, nor found guilty of, a violation of Section 466.024(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by the hearing officer and the Board of Dentistry found the dentist guilty of that charge because it considered that statute more applicable to the facts found by the hearing officer than the statute specified in the charges. Therefore, the determination of the violation of that statute must be reversed.
The record shows that Sections 466.028(1)(aa) and 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1986) were not in existence a the time of the conduct alleged. The determination that the dentist violated those statutes must also be
reversed because those statutes, as distinguished from their 1983 predecessor statutes, cannot be retroactively applied to the earlier misconduct charged. The final order of the Board is REVERSED. Delk v.
Department of Professional Regulation, 595 So.2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Summary Findings
The appellate opinion establishes without question that Petitioner Delk is a prevailing party. The parties' stipulations establish that he is a small business party.
The parties also have stipulated to the reasonableness of the fees and costs sought for the underlying proceeding, appeal and this fees case. As of the time of the stipulation those fees and costs totalled $67,698.90. In addition, Petitioner, through counsel has submitted a supplementary affidavit for the remaining hours and costs in preparation, hearing and posthearing work in the instant proceeding, for an additional total of $12,300.00 in fees and
$632.00 in costs.
That the probable cause panels had ample "reasonable basis in fact" to direct the initiation of the proceedings is evident in the packets before the panels, containing the patient's complaints and voluminous investigative reports and written opinions, with one minor inconsistency from professional consultants. In each case the record established that the probable cause panel members had been furnished and reviewed the materials. In some cases there was extensive discussion on the content of the materials, and particularly on the written opinions of the consultants and the subsequent treating dentists.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Section 57.111(4), F.S. and Section 120.57(1), F.S.
Subsection 57.111(4)(a), F.S. provides: (4)(a) Unless otherwise provided by law,
an award of attorney's fees and costs shall
be made to a prevailing small business party in any adjudicatory proceeding or administrative proceeding pursuant to chapter
120 initiated by a state agency, unless the actions of the agency were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust.
"A proceeding is 'substantially justified' if it had a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time it was initiated by a state agency." Subsection 57.111(3)(e), F.S.
The burden is on the Department of Professional Regulation to demonstrate that its actions were substantially justified or that special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust. Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate v. Toledo Realty, Inc., 549 So.2d 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The pertinent time is when the agency initiates
the proceeding, which in this case was the filing of the complaints at the direction of the probable cause panels.
The decision to prosecute turned on a credibility assessment of the matters available to the probable cause panels, which matters in all three cases amply established a reasonable basis in law and fact. See Gentele v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 513 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
That the panels were not comprised of three members as required by rule 21G-13.001(2) or its predecessor 13.01(2), F.A.C., does not alter the substantial evidence before those panels regarding alleged violations of Chapter 466, F.S. by Dr. Delk. It is within the province of the hearing officer to determine the reasonableness; otherwise there would be no basis ever to look behind the finding of probable cause. The finding of probable cause, even procedurally correct, does not insulate the agency from fees and costs. See, for example, Mills v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 13 FALR 4254 (DOAH Final Order, October 4, 1991), where the hearing officer rejected as lacking reasonable basis, two separate findings of probable cause by panels presumably properly constituted.
As argued by the Petitioner here, the investigative files and deliberations of the panel are ordinarily hearsay. Their authenticity is stipulated, and they are not considered in this proceeding for truth of the matters asserted. The matters in the thorough investigative files are consistent with the charges described in each of the three administrative complaints. Whatever the procedural defects, including Dr. Robinson's failure to recognize a case in which he consulted, the panels had evidence which, if credited at the final hearing, would reasonably indicate that the violations occurred. Gentele v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 9 FALR 310, 320 (DOAH Final Order June 20, 1986) aff'd 513 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
The credibility of the investigation process and the consultants' opinions before the panels was not at issue here. See, Susan T. Taylor v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 13 FALR 2461 (DOAH Final Order June 14, 1991).
Petitioner correctly asserts that the law of the case, the "latest and highest decision" (Proposed Final Order, p. 18) is Delk v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 595 So.2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). The appellate court, when it corrected its opinion to find that Dr. Delk was tried, instead of charged with violations of statutes not yet in existence when the conduct occurred, plainly recognized that the fatal errors compelling reversal occurred not at the time Dr. Delk was charged by the agency, but later. Again, as stated above, the relevant time for consideration in this proceeding is when the cases were initiated.
The administrative complaints each cite to violations of the 1983 and 1985 statutes for conduct which occurred in 1984 and 1985. (See Findings of Fact, paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, above). As noted in Delk, supra, 967, the statutes were amended in 1986. The text of the 1983 and 1985 versions of the relevant sections of Chapter 466 is the same.
It is unnecessary to consider Petitioner's "stacking" argument as it is concluded that the agency met its burden of proving "a reasonable basis in law and fact" existed at the time that it initiated the underlying proceedings. It is sufficient to note that at the time they were initiated there were three actions by the agency, not one.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby,
ORDERED that Petitioner's request for fees and costs is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
MARY CLARK
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 29th day of September, 1992.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Kelvin L. Averbuch, Esquire 3008 East Robinson Street Orlando, FL 32803
Thomas E. Gordon, Jr., Esquire
320 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite B-5 Orlando, FL 32801
E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional
Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional
Regulation
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
William Buckhalt, Exeuctive Director Board of Dentistry
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW
A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS ARE GOVERNED BY THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE
COMMENCED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND A SECOND COPY, ACCOMPANIED BY FILING FEES PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST DISTRICT, OR WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE PARTY RESIDES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED.
================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION
=================================================================
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
JOHN W. DELK, D.D.S., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
Appellant, DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
v. CASE NO. 92-3525
DOAH CASE NO. 92-2703F
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS and PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
Appellee.
/ Opinion filed December 3, 1993.
An appeal from an order of the Division of Administrative Hearings, Mary W. Clark, Hearing Officer.
Kelvin L. Averbuch, Orlando, for Appellant.
Kathryn L. Kasprzak, Staff Attorney, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
BOOTH, MINER and KAHN JJ., CONCUR.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 20, 1994 | Mandate & Opinion filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1993 | First DCA Opinion filed. |
| Jul. 21, 1993 | By Order of the Court (Notice of substitution granted) filed. |
| Feb. 01, 1993 | Index, Record, Certificate of Record sent out. |
| Jan. 15, 1993 | BY ORDER of THE COURT (Appellee`s motion for extension of time to serve reply brief is GRANTED) filed. |
| Jan. 04, 1993 | Check from John W. Delk for 6.00 for record filed. |
| Dec. 21, 1992 | Supplemental Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Dec. 18, 1992 | Supplementary Directions to Clerk (from Kelvin L. Averbuch) filed. |
| Dec. 11, 1992 | Check from John W. Delk in the amount of $62.00 for record filed. |
| Dec. 04, 1992 | Corrected Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Dec. 01, 1992 | Index & Statement of Service sent out. |
| Dec. 01, 1992 | Affidavit sent out. (affidavit for prior case no. 89-646, included with record of 92-2703F) |
| Oct. 26, 1992 | Notice of Appearance w/cover letter filed. |
| Oct. 19, 1992 | Letter to DOAH from DCA filed. DCA Case No. 1-92-3525 |
| Oct. 14, 1992 | Certificate of Notice of Administrative Appeal sent out. |
| Oct. 14, 1992 | Notice of Administrative Appeal filed. |
| Sep. 29, 1992 | CASE CLOSED. Final Order sent out. Hearing held 6-30-92. |
| Aug. 26, 1992 | Respondent`s Reply to Petitioner`s Proposed Final Order filed. |
| Aug. 17, 1992 | Final Order filed. |
| Jul. 31, 1992 | Proposed Final Order filed. |
| Jul. 01, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing filed. |
| Jun. 30, 1992 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jun. 26, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing w/Joint Pre-Hearing Statement filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1992 | Respondent`s Motion to Supplement the Record filed. |
| Jun. 05, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing And Motion to Seal Repondent's Exhibit "G" w/Certificate & Bd of Dentistry Probable Cause Panel Meeting Minutes January 4, 1987 + Bd of Dentistry Transcript of Proceedings; (1) Tape of Probable Cause Panel Meeting r |
| Jun. 03, 1992 | Order and Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 6-30-92; 9:00am; Tallahassee) |
| May 26, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Scrivener`s Error filed. |
| May 22, 1992 | Response to Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs and Motion to Dismiss w/Exhibits A-M filed. |
| May 21, 1992 | (Respondent) Motion for Extension of Time Respondent`s Response to Petition for Attorney`s Fees and Costs filed. |
| May 12, 1992 | (Respondent) Notice of Appearance filed. |
| May 06, 1992 | Notification card sent out. |
| May 04, 1992 | Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs; Affidavit filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 03, 1993 | Opinion | |
| Sep. 29, 1992 | DOAH Final Order | In spite of procedural defects in probation cause panel composition, panels had ample basis for finding probable cause and resonable basis in law and fact- no fees. |
