STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ) ADMINISTRATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 93-3887
)
ANTONIO R. GASSET, M.D., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Susan B. Kirkland, held a formal hearing in this case on February 9, 1994, in Miami, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Carlos J. Ramos, Esquire
Kenneth J. Metzger, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: David P. Dittmar, Esquire
Roland Continental Plaza 3250 Mary Street, Suite 400
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondent violated Sections 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On February 11, 1993, Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), Board of Medicine, formerly Department of Business and Professional Regulation, filed a two count administrative complaint against Respondent, Antonio R. Gasset, M.D. (Gasset), alleging that he violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to dilate Patient #1's pupils and failing to reach an appropriate diagnosis and that he violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to document Patient #1's complaint. Gasset requested an administrative hearing and the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment to a hearing officer. The case was originally assigned to Hearing Officer Michael M. Parrish but was transferred to Hearing Officer Susan B. Kirkland to conduct the final hearing.
The case was scheduled for final hearing on November 4, 1993. Petitioner filed a motion for continuance which was granted and the hearing was rescheduled for February 9, 1994.
At the final hearing, Petitioner called Dr. Nelvis Velazquez, M.D. and Patient #1 as witnesses and presented the testimony of Dr. Lawrence S. Halperin by deposition. Petitioner Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4A, 4B and 5 were admitted into evidence. Respondent called Dr. Morris Frank Segall and Antonio Xavier Gasset as witnesses. Respondent Exhibits 1-5 were admitted into evidence.
At the final hearing, the parties agreed to file proposed recommended orders within ten days of the filing of the transcript. The transcript was filed on March 2, 1994. On March 7, 1994, Petitioner filed a Notice of Death of Counsel/Motion to Hold in Abeyance. The motion was granted and the case was placed in abeyance until April 6, 1994. Petitioner filed a joint motion to continue abeyance. The motion was granted and the case was placed in abeyance until May 16, 1994, at which time the parties were to file their proposed recommended orders. Petitioner filed a motion to extend the time for filing proposed recommended orders. The motion was granted and the parties were given until May 18, 1994, in which to file their proposed recommended orders. The parties timely filed their proposed recommended orders. The parties' proposed findings of fact are addressed in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
On May 23, 1994, AHCA filed a Motion for Brief Response. The motion is DENIED.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, Antonio R. Gasset, M.D. (Dr. Gasset), is and has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida. His license number is ME 0015074. Dr. Gasset specializes in opthamology.
Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the State agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.165, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes.
In April 1986, Dr. Nelvis Velazquez, worked with Dr. Gasset at the Miami Eye Institute, Inc., which was owned and operated by Dr. Gasset and his immediate family. On April 14, 1986, Dr. Velazquez saw Patient #1 who was complaining of not seeing well. She performed an eye exam which consisted of checking his vision, checking his eye pressure, and dilating his pupils. She diagnosed his problem as cataracts.
On April 23, 1986, she performed cataract surgery on Patient #1's right eye. She saw him again on April 24, 25, and May 2 and removed the stitches on May 16.
On June 6, 1986, Dr. Velazquez did a slit lamp examination and a fundus exam on Patient #1. On July 18, Patient #1 saw Dr. Velazquez, complaining that his eye lids were coming down so far that they interfered with his vision. She examined his eyes and determined how much the lids were interfering with his vision.
On September 26, she did the pre-op for lid surgery. On October 8, she performed lid surgery and saw Patient #1 for post-op on October 9. Dr. Velazquez removed the stitches on October 13.
On October 27 she again saw Patient #1 and noted the wrinkling of a membrane which is left behind after cataract surgery. On October 31, she performed a yag laser capsulotomy to remove the membrane.
Patient #1 returned to the Miami Eye Institute on November 7 and was seen by Dr. Gasset. A slit lamp eye examination was performed. He noted a cataract in the left eye, which was the same diagnosis made by Dr. Velazquez on Patient #1's initial visit to the Miami Eye Institute.
On December 19, Dr. Gasset saw Patient #1 for a routine checkup after laser treatment. Patient #1 was complaining of a floater. A slit lamp examination was performed.
Patient #1 did not appear at the Miami Eye Institute again until July 14, 1987, at which time he was seen by Dr. Velazquez. His vision had decreased. Dr. Velazquez performed a vision test, a slit lamp examination, and dilated his eyes. On July 21, Patient #1 had an infection in his eyelid. On August 4, he was seen again but his vision was 20/40 with no explanation for the decrease in the vision. Dr. Velazquez told Patient #1 to return, which he did on August 11. He still had an eyelid infection, and Dr. Velazquez drained the lid.
On August 25, 1987, Patient #1 came in for a fluorescein angiogram. As a result of the test, Dr. Velazquez diagnosed a macular edema. On September 1, she performed a slit lamp examination and a vision test, injected a cortiocosteroid, and placed him on Pred Forte, cortiocosteriod drops, for the macular edema.
On September 15, Dr. Velazquez gave Patient #1 another injection and told him to continue with the Pred Forte drops. He was again seen on September
29 at which time his vision had improved a little. Dr. Velazquez again told him to continue with the Pred Forte.
Based on financial and operational disagreements, Dr. Velazquez terminated her working relationship with Dr. Gasset on October 9, 1987.
On October 23, 1987, Patient #1 returned to the Miami Eye Institute and was seen by Dr. Gasset. The patient complained of decreased vision. Dr. Gasset performed a slit lamp examination.
Patient #1's next visit to the Miami Eye Institute was on May 13, 1988, when he was seen by Dr. Gasset. The patient complained of poor night vision. He was given a slit lamp examination and a pressure check and was told to return in six months.
On October 10, 1989, Patient #1 came to Dr. Gasset for a routine checkup. A slit lamp examination was performed as well as a pressure check. The patient's visual acuity was 20/25 OD and 20/60, left eye.
Patient #1's next visit to Dr. Gasset was on August 28, 1990. Patient #1 came to the office complaining that he had lost his reading glasses. Having judged the credibility of Patient #1, I find that Patient #1 did not tell Dr. Gasset that he was seeing "a black ball" in his eye or in any way indicate that he was experiencing floaters.
Based on Patient #1's complaint, Dr. Gasset performed a pressure check, noted a cataract on the left eye, and wrote "status quo" on the patient's chart. Patient #1's vision was 20/20 minus in his right eye and 20/60 minus in his left eye. Dr. Gasset did not dilate Patient #1's eyes during his examination. On the same date, Dr. Gasset prescribed glasses for Patient #1, and Patient #1 obtained eyeglasses from the optical department at the Miami Eye Institute.
Dr. Gasset did not dilate Patient #1's eyes from October 23, 1987, through August 28, 1990.
On September 17, 1990, Patient #1 went to see Dr. Velazquez, complaining that he had had decreased visual acuity in his right eye for approximately 20 days. An eye examination was performed and Patient #1's visual acuity was 20/100 in the right eye and 20/70 in his left eye. A pressure check was also performed. Dr. Velazquez dilated Patient #1's eyes and discovered a retinal detachment. A retinal detachment refers to a condition wherein a tear or hole develops in the retina and the fluid dissects, causing the retina to bulge forward, affecting the vision. Patient #1 had a horseshoe tear in the superior nasal quadrant of his eye. The detachment was bullous, meaning that it was billowing out like a sail.
Because of the location and nature of the tear, the retinal detachment most probably occurred very rapidly. Additionally, it is more likely than not, the tear was not present when Dr. Gasset saw Patient #1 on August 28, 1990.
Dr. Velazquez sent Patient #1 to the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute (Bascom Palmer) that same day. Patient #1 had retinal detachment surgery at Bascom Palmer on the following day.
The next time Dr. Velazquez saw Patient #1 was on December 10, 1990. His best corrected vision was 20/200. He was still being seen by the doctor at Bascom Palmer.
Patient #1's next visit to Dr. Velazquez was on January 28, 1991. Dr. Velazquez did a slit lamp exam and a vision check and dilated his eyes to check his retina.
On March 18, 1991, Patient #1 was again seen by Dr. Velazquez. He was complaining of distorted vision. The best that she could get him to see was 20/100. Patient #1 was rather nearsighted in the right eye and farsighted in the other eye. The disparity between the visual acuity in his eyes bothered him.
Based on the testimony of Drs. Segall and Velazquez, the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances in the instant case would be dilation of Patient #1's eyes at least once each year.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
AHCA has the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint against Dr. Gasset. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
AHCA has alleged in the Administrative Complaint that Dr. Gasset violated Sections 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to dilate Patient #1's pupils and failing to reach an appropriate diagnosis and that he violated Section 458.331 (1)(m), Florida Statutes, in that he failed to document Patient #1's complaint.
Sections 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, provide as follows:
The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:
* * *
(m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories; examination results; test results; records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered; and reports of consultations and hospitalization.
* * *
(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. . . .
AHCA has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Gasset violated Section 478.331(1)(m) by failing to document Patient #1's complaint. Having judged the credibility of Patient #1, I find that he did not advise Dr. Gasset of a black ball in his eye or otherwise indicate to Dr. Gasset that he was experiencing floaters in his right eye. Thus, the medical record of Patient #1's visit on August 28, 1990 accurately reflects the patient's complaints.
At the final hearing, ruling was reserved on AHCA's tender of Dr. Lawrence S. Halperin as an expert. Dr. Halperin is accepted as an expert in the area of opthalmology care and treatment and retinal conditions, including retinal detachments.
The standard of care which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances is to dilate the patient's eyes at least once a year. Based on Dr. Gasset's own records, he did not dilate Patient #1's eyes from October 23, 1987 through August 28, 1990. Having failed to dilate Patient #1's eyes during that time period, Dr. Gasset violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes.
AHCA has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Gasset violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to reach an appropriate diagnosis. AHCA did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that had Dr. Gasset dilated Patient's #1's eyes on August 28, 1990, that he would have found that Patient #1 had a tear in his retina or a retinal detachment.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count Two of the
Administrative Complaint, dismissing the portion of Count One of the Administrative Complaint which alleged that Respondent failed to reach an appropriate diagnosis, finding that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to dilate Patient #1's pupils on a timely basis, issuing a reprimand, and imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.
DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
SUSAN B. KIRKLAND
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 November, 1994.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3887
To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact
Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted in substance.
Paragraph 4: Based on the credibility of the witnesses, it is rejected.
Paragraphs 5-7: Rejected as unnecessary.
Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance.
Paragraphs 9-12: Rejected as unnecessary.
Paragraphs 13-17: Accepted in substance.
Paragraph 18: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found.
Paragraphs 19-21: Accepted in substance.
Paragraphs 22-23: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found.
Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance.
Paragraphs 25: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony.
Paragraph 26: Accepted to the extent that it states the standard of care but rejected to the extent that it implies that Patient #1 complained of floaters to Dr. Gasset.
Paragraph 27: Accepted in substance but rejected to the extent that it implies that Patient #1 told Dr. Gasset that he had decreased vision and floaters.
Paragraphs 28-29: Rejected as unnecessary.
Paragraph 30: Rejected as recitation of testimony.
Paragraph 31: Having judged the credibility of Patient #1, I reject the portion which states that Patient #1 told Dr. Gasset that he was having difficulty in reading because he could see a little black ball while reading. The remainder is accepted in substance.
Paragraph 32-34: Rejected as recitation of testimony.
Paragraphs 35-40: Rejected as unnecessary.
Paragraph 41: Rejected as recitation of testimony.
Paragraph 42: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found.
Paragraph 43: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony.
Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact
Paragraph 1: Accepted.
Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance.
Paragraph 3: Rejected as unnecessary.
Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance.
Paragraph 5: Rejected as unnecessary and constituting argument.
Paragraph 6: Rejected as unnecessary.
Paragraph 7: The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance.
Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance.
Paragraph 9: Rejected as recitation of testimony.
Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance.
Paragraph 11: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found.
Paragraph 12: Rejected as constituting argument.
Paragraph 13: The first sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law.
Paragraph 14: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony.
Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting recitation of testimony and argument.
Paragraphs 16-17: Rejected as constituting argument.
Paragraph 18: Accepted in substance.
Paragraph 19: The first sentence is rejected as constituting recitation of testimony. The last sentence is accepted in substance.
Paragraphs 20: Rejected as recitation of testimony and constituting argument.
Paragraph 22: Rejected as recitation of testimony.
Paragraph 22-23: Rejected as unnecessary.
Paragraphs 24-25: Rejected as recitation of testimony.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Carlos J. Ramos, Esquire Kenneth J. Metzger, Esquire
Agency For Health Care Administration Northwood Centre, Suite 60
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
David P. Dittmar, Esquire
Roland Continental Plaza, Suite 400 3250 Mary Street
Coconut Grove, Florida 33133
Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine
Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770
Harold D. Lewis, Esquire The Atrium, Suite 301
325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
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 ten 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.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF MEDICINE
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE,
Petitioner,
v. CASE NO: 91-13874
DOAH CASE NO: 93-3887
ANTONIO R. GASSET, M.D. LICENSE NO: ME 0015074
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Medicine (hereinafter Board) pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes, on August , in Orlando, Florida, for consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order (Attached as App.
in the case of Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine v. Antonio R. Gasset, M.D. At the hearing before the Board, Petitioner was represented by Larry G. McPherson, Jr., Chief Medical Attorney. Respondent appeared and was represented by David P. Dittmar, Esquire. Upon consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order after review of the complete record and having been otherwise fully advised in its premises, the Board makes the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Hearing Officer's Recommended Findings of Fact are approved and adopted and are incorporated herein by reference as the Findings of Fact of the Board in this cause.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's findings herein.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case pursuant to Section 120.57 and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.
The Board rejects the second sentence of paragraph 34 of the recommended Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer. The Petitioner did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Gasset dilated Patient's #1's eyes on August 28, 1990, that he would have found that Patient #1 had a tear in his retina or a retinal detachment.
The remaining recommended Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer are adopted.
DISPOSITION
For reasons stated above, the penalty recommended by the Hearing Officer is not appropriate as set forth in the Recommended Order and is hereby rejected.
Respondent specifically waived the right to seek costs and attorney fees in this case.
WHEREFORE, it is found, ordered and adjudged that the Respondent has not violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes and pursuant to Rule 61F-20, all charges filed against Respondent in this case shall be DISMISSED.
This Final Order becomes effective upon its filing with the Clerk of the Agency for Health Care Administration.
NOTICE
The parties are hereby notified pursuant to Section 120.59(4), Florida Statutes, that an appeal of this Final Order may be taken pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Agency for Health Care Administration and one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the required filing fee with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date this Final Order is filed.
DONE and ORDERED this 16th DAY OF December, 1994.
BOARD OF MEDICINE
EDWARD A. DAUER, M.D. CHAIRMAN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order and its attachments have been forwarded by U.S. Mail to Antonio R. Gasset, M.D., 11860 SW 47th Street, Miami, Florida 33175, Susan B. Kirkland, Hearing Officer, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida
32399-1550, David P. Dittmar, Esquire, Roland/Continental Plaza, Suite 400, 3250 Mary Street, Coconut Grove, Florida 33133, and by hand delivery to Larry G. McPherson, Jr., Chief Medical Attorney, Agency for Health Care Administration, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 on this 22nd day of December, 1994.
Marm Harris, Ed.D. Executive Director
=================================================================
CORRECTED AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION BOARD OF MEDICINE
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE,
Petitioner,
CASE NO: 91-13874
v. DOAH CASE NO: 93-3887
LICENSE NO: ME 0015074
ANTONIO R. GASSET, M.D.
Respondent.
/
CORRECTED FINAL ORDER
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Medicine (hereinafter Board) pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes, on December 4, 1994, in Orlando, Florida, for consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, Respondents Exceptions and Petitioner's Responses thereto (Attached as App. A, B and C, respectively) in the case of Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine v. Antonio R. Gasset, M.D. At the hearing before the Board, Petitioner was represented by Arthur B. Skafidas, Senior Attorney. Respondent appeared and was represented by David P. Dittmar, Esquire. Upon consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, the exceptions and responses of the parties and after review of the complete record and having been otherwise fully advised in its premises, the Board makes the following findings and conclusions:
The Board, having found that the evidence of record does not rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was in violation of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, this case is DISMISSED. The Respondent specifically waived his right to seek attorneys fees and costs in this case.
WHEREFORE, it is found, ordered and adjudged that the Respondent has not violated Sections 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes and pursuant to Rule 61F6-20, all charges filed against Respondent in this case shall be DISMISSED.
NOTICE
The parties are hereby notified pursuant to Section 120.59(4), Florida Statutes, that an appeal of this Final Order may be taken pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Agency for Health Care Administration and one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the required filing fee with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date this Final Order is filed.
NUNC PRO TUNC DONE and ORDERED this 10th DAY OF May, 1995.
BOARD OF MEDICINE
EDWARD A. DAUER, M.D. CHAIRMAN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order and its attachments have been forwarded by U.S. Mail to Antonio R. Gasset, M.D., 11860 SW 47th Street, Miami, Florida 33175, Susan B. Kirkland, Hearing Officer, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida
32399-1550, David P. Dittmar, Esquire, Roland/Continental Plaza, Suite 400, 3250 Mary Street, Coconut Grove, Florida 33133, and by hand delivery to Larry G. McPherson, Jr., Chief Medical Attorney, Agency for Health Care Administration, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 on this 15th day of May, 1995.
Marm Harris, Ed.D. Executive Director
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 17, 1995 | Corrected Final Order filed. |
| Dec. 28, 1994 | Final Order filed. |
| Nov. 02, 1994 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 2-9-94. |
| Aug. 10, 1994 | Order of Substitution of Parties sent out. (AHCA be substituted as the party of interest for Business and Professional Regulation) |
| May 23, 1994 | Respondent`s Response To Petitioner`s Motion for Brief Response filed. |
| May 20, 1994 | Petitioner`s Motion for Brief Response filed. |
| May 19, 1994 | Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| May 17, 1994 | Order Extending Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders sent out. |
| May 16, 1994 | Petitioner`s Motion for Extension of Time; Petitioner`s Motion to Substitute and/or Notice of Scrivener`s Error filed. |
| May 16, 1994 | Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1994 | Order Extending Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 5/16/94) |
| Apr. 06, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Absence; Status Report and Joint Motion to Extend Abeyance filed. |
| Mar. 17, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed. |
| Mar. 11, 1994 | Order Placing Case in Abeyance sent out. (Parties to file status report by 4/6/94) |
| Mar. 07, 1994 | Notice of Death of Counsel/Motion to Hold in Abeyance filed. (From Randolph P. Collette) |
| Mar. 02, 1994 | Transcript filed. |
| Feb. 21, 1994 | Subpoena Ad Testificandum w/Return of Service filed. (From David P. Dittmar) |
| Feb. 09, 1994 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Feb. 07, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion to Take Official Recognition filed. |
| Feb. 04, 1994 | (joint) Prehearing Stipulation filed. |
| Feb. 03, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Feb. 02, 1994 | (ltr form) Request for Subpoenas filed. (From David P. Dittmar) |
| Feb. 01, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony filed. |
| Jan. 26, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Canceling Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony filed. |
| Jan. 21, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony filed. |
| Nov. 22, 1993 | Second Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 2/9/94; 8:45am; Miami) |
| Nov. 22, 1993 | Order sent out. (Re: Petitioner`s Motion for Order Compelling Discovery and to Deem Admitted Denied) |
| Nov. 15, 1993 | Joint Response to Order Granting Continuance filed. |
| Nov. 15, 1993 | Respondent`s Response to Order to Show Cause; Notice of Filing w/Respondent`s Responses to Petitioner`s First Set of Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Nov. 01, 1993 | Notice of Service of Responses to Petitioner`s First Set of Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Oct. 28, 1993 | Order to Show Cause sent out. |
| Oct. 28, 1993 | Order Continuing Hearing sent out. (hearing date to be rescheduled at a later date; parties to file status report within 15 days) |
| Oct. 27, 1993 | Respondent`s Answer to Amended Administrative Complaint filed. |
| Oct. 14, 1993 | Petitioner`s Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Sep. 30, 1993 | Petitioner`s Motion for Order Compelling Discovery and to Deem Admitted w/Petitioner`s First Set of Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Respondent filed. |
| Aug. 26, 1993 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| Aug. 25, 1993 | (Petitioner) Motion for Issuance of Order of Prehearing Instructions filed. |
| Aug. 23, 1993 | Order sent out. (Re: Petitioner`s Motion to Amend Administrative Complaint Granted) |
| Aug. 19, 1993 | (Petitioner) Motion to Amend Administrative Complaint w/Amended Administrative Complaint filed. |
| Aug. 12, 1993 | (Petitioner) Notice of Serving Petitioner`s First Set of Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Production of Documents to Respondent filed. |
| Aug. 09, 1993 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 11/4/93; 8:45am; Miami) |
| Jul. 29, 1993 | Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Jul. 19, 1993 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jul. 13, 1993 | Agency referral letter; (Petitioner) Notice of Appearance; Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 16, 1994 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 02, 1994 | Recommended Order | Doctor failed to dialate patient's eyes at least once each year. Not guilty of failing to make proper diagnoses or failing to document patients complaint. |
