STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 94-0292
)
BRIAN HARDCASTLE, M.D., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon due notice, this cause came on for formal hearing on January 9-10, 1995, in Gainesville, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly assigned hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The style of this cause is amended to reflect the transfer of authority from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation to the Agency for Health Care Administration, which occurred after the administrative complaint was filed.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Arthur B. Skafidas, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre
1940 North Monroe Street, Legal A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: John D. C. Newton, Esquire
Messer, Vickers, et al. Post Office Box 1876 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether Respondent is guilty of sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine in violation of Sections 458.329 and 458.331(1)(x) F.S.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By a December 17, 1993 administrative complaint, the disciplinary agency charged Respondent with sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine by using the physician-patient relationship to engage Patient E.C. in sexual activity outside the scope of a generally accepted preoperative examination prior to sinus surgery by fondling Patient E.C.'s breasts under the guise of performing a breast examination.
At formal hearing, Petitioner's Motion for Official Recognition of Respondent's disciplinary record and the agency's penalty rules was granted.
The parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation was admitted as Hearing Officer Exhibit A.
Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Patient E.C.; William Darby Glenn, M.D., expert witness; Scott Goldberg, M.D., expert witness; Ann Smith; and Linda Kilgore. Amy Abreu testified by deposition, admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit 4 with exhibit 1 thereto withdrawn. Petitioner had seven exhibits admitted in evidence.
Respondent presented the oral testimony of Patricia Yorton; Jeanine Wiggins Rothwell; Martha King; Donna Robertson; and Heather Hardcastle, M.D.; and testified on his own behalf.
Edward Weinshelbaum, M.D., expert witness, testified by deposition, admitted as Respondent's Exhibit 2. Respondent had a total of two exhibits admitted in evidence.
A transcript was filed in due course, and all timely-filed proposed findings of fact have been ruled upon in the appendix to this recommended order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2) F.S.
FINDINGS OF FACT
At all times material, Respondent has been a Florida-licensed medical physician, license number ME 0015980.
Respondent was trained in medicine at Leeds Medical School in England. He has been licensed in Florida since 1965. He served as an assistant Professor at University of Florida's Shands Teaching Hospital from 1966 through 1971. He is board-certified in otolaryngology. He retired from practice in 1994, after the events giving rise to the charges herein.
On October 11, 1991, Patient E.C., a 34 year old female presented to Respondent with complaints of not being able to breathe through her nose.
Respondent's examination of E.C. revealed a lump in her nose which was deviated to the right. He recorded that her nasal septum was deformed so that it met with the outside wall of the nose causing a considerable obstruction. Respondent discussed the possibility of performing a surgical reconstruction of the septum, a septorhinoplasty. He prescribed medication and instructed her to return in two weeks.
E.C. returned on October 23, 1991, reporting no improvement, and septorhinoplasty was again discussed.
On October 30, 1991, E.C. contacted Respondent and requested that the operation be scheduled for November 14, 1991. She was told to return to his office on November 13, 1991 for a preoperative examination. As directed, E.C. presented for that preoperative examination on November 13, 1991.
Respondent shared office space with his wife, Heather Hardcastle, M.D., a psychiatrist.
Preoperative physical examinations are normally performed prior to surgery in order to assure that the patient is fit for surgery and is not at an increased risk for anesthesia.
Expert otolaryngologists, William Darby Glenn, M.D. and Scott H. Goldberg, M.D., opined that a preoperative breast examination is not routinely performed for septorhinoplasty and has no relationship to standard preoperative goals.
At all times material, it was Respondent's custom to conduct a brief breast examination on female patients as part of his usual physical examination prior to surgery on the ear, nose, or throat because he considered breast examinations important for the patient's health and because he had been criticized in the past for not conducting sufficiently complete physical examinations on otherwise healthy ear, nose, and throat patients.
Respondent and his two female office staff members who testified concurred that the procedure he routinely followed on these occasions was to have his technician and nurse, Martha King, place the female patient in an examining room with a paper gown or other drape beside her on the examining table. The patient would then undress from the waist up and put on the gown or drape. Respondent would enter the examining room after the patient was gowned/draped, and the physical examination would be conducted with Mrs. King or another female staff member present. Respondent's breast examinations included observation of the breasts and palpation of the breasts and of the axilla nodes underneath the armpits while the patient was sitting, followed by palpation of each breast, one at a time, while the patient reclined with one arm beneath her head. Then, Respondent would exit the examining room while the patient dressed. The foregoing procedure meets the acceptable standard of care within the scope of a generally accepted breast examination as described by all testifying medical experts.
Several female patients also testified that the foregoing is Respondent's usual procedure and that he has never by look, word, or action treated them with less than the utmost professionalism and respect. Respondent's office staff and wife shared the same view based upon their observation of his behavior with patients. They shared a high regard for him.
E.C. testified that during her preoperative visit on November 13, 1991, after conducting a breathing test on her in another room, Respondent personally brought her to the examining room. He then stated, "Let's see what you have on there," and told her to take off her top things and put her winter coat back on. Respondent exited the room while E.C. undressed and draped herself with her coat as instructed. When Respondent returned to the examining room, he sat in a corner of the room at a distance from the examining table where E.C. sat and discussed her concerns or fears of the impending surgery with her and satisfactorily answered her questions. Afterwards, Respondent walked over to the examining table, stood to E.C.'s right side, and told her to drop the coat to her waist. Respondent then placed his stethoscope on several areas of E.C.'s back and listened to her breathing. He repeated this procedure on her chest, including under the collarbone and under her left breast, listening to her heart. Then, while E.C. remained sitting upright, Respondent cupped her left breast in his right hand, pushed up and squeezed, slightly pressing his fingers around the outside of the breast. He then placed his hand on the top of the breast, pushed downward and squeezed. He repeated the procedure with E.C.'s right breast. At no time did E.C. and Respondent make eye contact. The only thing he said to her during this procedure was to breathe and to inquire if she had ever had a mammogram. She claims she was never asked to lie down and was never examined lying down. Afterwards, Respondent told E.C. to get dressed, and he exited the room while she did so. Respondent then took photographs of E.C.'s nose in the first room.
E.C. described herself as filled with terror at the thought that something awfully wrong had been done to her, primarily because she had many breast examinations and none had been done this way. She was uncomfortable because of the absence of another female, the lack of a drape, and because no part of the breast examination was conducted with her lying down. She admitted, however, that the entire examination was conducted with her facing away from the door.
Any female staff member or Respondent's wife could have entered the examination room while E.C. was not facing the door and she would not necessarily have seen someone there.
Drs. Glenn and Goldberg felt that the scope of the examination described by E.C. was an appropriate preoperative examination for septorhinoplasty except for the examination of her breasts. Dr. Edward Weinshelbaum, M.D., a general surgeon with a practice emphasis on breast cancer patients, opined that the scope of a preoperative examination should include a breast examination. All three experts and the Respondent considered any failure to have a female patient present and any failure to drape to be inappropriate, although Dr. Glenn felt the use of a coat if all the drapes/gowns were used up would be a reasonable alternative. All three experts and the Respondent concurred that a failure to examine the patient's breasts while reclining was below the standard of care for a generally accepted breast examination; that absent this last procedure, a breast examination would not include a medically essential element; and that an appropriate and effective breast examination cannot be performed with the patient sitting up throughout.
Respondent had no specific recollection of E.C.'s November 13, 1991 office visit, but categorically denied her description of the breast examination, insisting that if his records indicated that a breast examination had been performed, it must have been performed according to his usual routine, and if it were performed as E.C. described, the breast examination would be inappropriate.
Respondent's records show that he conducted examinations of E.C.'s head, ears, nose, throat, chest, abdomen, and breasts during the preoperative examination. He has never attempted to conceal that he examined her breasts.
Ms. King was able to recall that she and her assistant were in the office all of November 13, 1991. She had no clear recollection of E.C., but that is not particularly significant because Respondent was seeing between 20 and 30 patients per day at the time.
Donna Robertson, another female office staff member, only recalled that E.C. had "an attitude" when she left after her preoperative examination because she had been asked to make an insurance co-payment.
E.C. repeatedly used the words "afraid" and "fearful" to describe her reaction to fairly routine events in her life. Although E.C. has remained consistent about the events on November 13, 1991 as she recalls them, she has repeatedly failed to "remember" reasonable questions concerning her medical history and past surgical procedures such as breast augmentation surgery, repair of breast implants, and abortions, during the course of discovery in this case. She describes these occurrences as "going blank", failure to remember, and not understanding the questions at the time the questions were first put to her. Although she later disclosed medical procedures she had at first "forgotten" or
misunderstood, her initial "blanks" render suspect her ability to remember the significant events in this case and detract from her credibility.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), F.S.
The duty to go forward and the burden of proof in license disciplinary actions is upon Petitioner. The burden is that of clear and convincing evidence. See, Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
Section 458.329 F.S. [1989], under which Respondent is charged, provides, in pertinent part:
. . . Sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine means violation of the physician- patient relationship through which the physician uses said relationship to induce or attempt to induce the patient to engage,
or to engage or attempt to engage the patient, in sexual activity outside the scope of the practice or the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment of the patient. . . .
The statute is broad enough to prohibit a physician from fondling a patient for self-gratification as well as to attempt to induce or engage the patient in sexual activity outside the scope of a generally accepted examination or treatment. However, even if one accepts E.C.'s version of events, the elements of sexual misconduct have not been proven.
E.C.'s version of the November 13, 1991 event, even if wholly credible, does not clearly reveal an attempt by Respondent to engage E.C. in sexual activity or a sexual intent behind Respondent's actions. Respondent's inquiry as to whether or not E.C. had ever had a mammogram is professional, not suggestive or lecherous, under the totality of the circumstances, and E.C.'s testimony does not rule out that there was a female observer present whom she did not see.
Respondent credibly denied the breast examination occurred as E.C. described it. His notes and records do not attempt to conceal that a breast examination was administered to E.C. His version of his standard procedure presents a generally accepted scope, methodology, and ambiance. Third party supporting evidence as to Respondent's standard practice and reputation enhanced his credibility.
A breast examination that simply falls short of the generally accepted standard of care for breast examinations by itself does not create the sole inference that sexual activity was involved. An otherwise acceptable preoperative examination that goes beyond the generally accepted minimum to also include a breast examination does not create the sole inference that sexual activity was involved. Petitioner would need to have established both premises to prevail herein and has established neither premise, because expert testimony to either effect hangs on the accuracy and credibility of E.C.'s version of events.
E.C.'s overall accuracy and credibility is not dependable. Her testimony to the effect that she was terrified and fearful of several other incidents reveals a very sensitive personality, susceptible to irrational concerns and anxieties, or possibly one given to exaggeration. Third party evidence is to the effect that the co-payment problem caused E.C. to leave Respondent's office dissatisfied. E.C.'s general lack of candor in her prior deposition testimony as to other medical matters in her life renders her memory concerning medical events, including this one, less than credible.
"Clear and convincing evidence" requires that the evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to which the witnesses testify must be precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction without hesitancy, as to the truh of the allegations sought to be established. See, Smith v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 522 So. 2d 956 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Petitioner has not met its burden to establish guilt by clear and convincing evidence.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the
administrative complaint against Respondent.
RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of May, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida.
ELLA JANE P. DAVIS
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 3rd day of May, 1995.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-0292
The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF).
Petitioner's PFOF:
1-15 Accepted except that unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material has not been included.
16 Rejected as covered in FOF 9-11, 16.
17-18 Accepted except that unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material has not been included.
19-46 Accepted that E.C. testified to this effect. The substance of her testimony is covered in FOF 13-14. The proposal is not proven for the reasons given in the recommended order, including but not limited to FOF 21.
47-60 Rejected as subordinate to the facts as found or as arguments on credibility. While prior inconsistent statements may affect credibility, prior consistent statements do not tend to reinforce credibility. The substance is covered in FOF 14 and 20-21.
61-62 Accepted in part and rejected in part in FOF 8-11 and 16.
63 Rejected as subordinate.
64-65 Accepted as covered in FOF 11 and 16. 66-67 Rejected as not proven.
68 Accepted in part and rejected in part as covered in FOF 8-11 and 16. 69-70 Rejected as not proven and as a conclusion of law.
Respondent's PFOF:
1-7 With corrected dates, accepted. However, unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material has not been included.
8-12 Not clearly proven, but more credible than E.C.'s version. See FOF 11-12.
13-15 Accepted as covered in FOF 8-11 and 16.
Rejected as subordinate.
Accepted as covered in FOF 20.
18-22 Covered only as necessary in FOF 21. Unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material not included.
23-24 Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material has not been utilized.
Rejected as argumentation or unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material.
Covered only as necessary in FOF 12.
27-29 Rejected as argumentation or unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material.
30 Covered only as necessary in FOF 17-20. 31-35 Rejected as irrelevant.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Arthur B. Skafidas, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre
1940 North Monroe Street Legal A
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
John D. C. Newton, Esquire Messer, Vickers, et al.
P.O. Box 1876
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Douglas M. Cook, Director A H C A
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Tom Wallace, Asst Dir. A H C A
325 John Knox Rd 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 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.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Arthur B. Skafidas, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre
1940 North Monroe Street Legal A
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
John D. C. Newton, Esquire Messer, Vickers, et al.
P.O. Box 1876
Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Douglas M. Cook, Director A H C A
2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Tom Wallace, Asst Dir. A H C A
325 John Knox Rd Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Rejected as not proven and as a conclusion of law.
Respondent's PFOF:
1-7 With corrected dates, accepted. However, unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material has not been included.
8-12 Not clearly proven, but more credible than E.C.'s version. See FOF 11-12.
13-15 Accepted as covered in FOF 8-11 and 16.
Rejected as subordinate.
Accepted as covered in FOF 20.
18-22 Covered only as necessary in FOF 21. Unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material not included.
23-24 Accepted, except that unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material has not been utilized.
Rejected as argumentation or unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material.
Covered only as necessary in FOF 12.
27-29 Rejected as argumentation or unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material.
30 Covered only as necessary in FOF 17-20. 31-35 Rejected as irrelevant.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Arthur B. Skafidas, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre
1940 North Monroe Street Legal A
Tallahassee
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 18, 1995 | Final Order filed. |
| Jun. 09, 1995 | (2) Order sent out. (Motion denied) |
| May 31, 1995 | Petitioner`s Motion to Determine Reasonableness of Expert Fee of Scott Goldberg, M.D., to Determine Reasonable Time for Payment, or, in the Alternative, to Tax Expert Fee as Costs filed. |
| May 05, 1995 | Petitioner`s Motion to Determine Reasonableness of Expert Fee, Determine Reasonable Time for Payment, or, in the Alternative, to Tax Expert Fee as Costs filed. |
| May 03, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 01/09-10/95. |
| Mar. 29, 1995 | Order sent out. (Motion granted) |
| Mar. 20, 1995 | Respondent`s Unopposed Motion to Accept Late Filed Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 17, 1995 | Proposed Recommended Order Including Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law of Brian Hardcastle, M.D. filed. |
| Mar. 14, 1995 | Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Mar. 14, 1995 | (Respondent) Agreed to Motion to Extend Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders Until March 16, 1995 filed. |
| Feb. 14, 1995 | Post Hearing Order sent out. |
| Feb. 09, 1995 | Transcript filed. |
| Jan. 17, 1995 | (6) Subpoena Ad Testificandum; Receipt; (6) Return of Service; Letter to Process Service from J. Newton, II re: Witness fee check Tagged filed. |
| Jan. 09, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Jan. 09, 1995 | Order sent out. (Respondent`s subpoena directed to Dr. Nesmith is quashed) |
| Jan. 06, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena Pursuant to Rule 1.351, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 60Q-2.019, Florida Administrative Code; Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Duces Tecum filed. |
| Jan. 06, 1995 | Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.'s Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena of Dr. Nesmith's Records; Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to ServeSubpoena Duces Tecum on Cliff Levin, M.D., and Emily Hoon Ph.D.; Withdrawal of Notice of In tent to Serve Subpoena D |
| Jan. 06, 1995 | Petitioner`s Notice of Filing Case law in Support of its Motions to Quash Subpoenas filed. |
| Jan. 05, 1995 | (Petitioner) 3/Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, Or In The Alternative, Limit Subpoena filed. |
| Jan. 04, 1995 | (Respondent) Dr. Hardcastle`s Motion to Extend Time to File Response to Motions to Quash and Request for Hearing filed. |
| Jan. 04, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Response to Respondent`s Second Request for Production of Documents to Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed. |
| Jan. 03, 1995 | Petitioner`s Motion to Take Official Recognition filed. |
| Dec. 27, 1994 | Letter to Hearing Officer from J. Newton, II re: opposition to three Motions to Quash Subpoena or in the Alternative Limit Subpoena filed. |
| Dec. 20, 1994 | Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s, Notice of Taking Deposition; Amended Notice of Taking Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum, Or In The Alternative, Limit Subpoena filed. |
| Dec. 16, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Production of Documents and Things Without Deposition; Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| Dec. 14, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition In Lieu of Live Testimony filed. |
| Dec. 12, 1994 | (Respondent) Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena Pursuant to Rule 1.351, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 60Q-2.019, Florida Administrative Code; (4) Subpoena Duces Tecum filed. |
| Dec. 09, 1994 | (Petitioner) (8) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Dec. 06, 1994 | Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s Notice of Taking Deposition; Respondent`s, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s Second Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed. |
| Dec. 01, 1994 | Joint Prehearing Stipulation; Petitioner`s Witness List; Respondent`s Witness List filed. |
| Oct. 04, 1994 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 1/9/95; at 10:30am; in Gainesville) |
| Aug. 08, 1994 | (Respondent) Agreed to Motion to Reschedule Hearing filed. |
| Jul. 14, 1994 | Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s Notice of Serving Answers to Petitioner`s Second Request for Admissions and Interrogatories; Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Second Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Jun. 27, 1994 | Order sent out. (Quashing Nesmith Subpoena) |
| Jun. 23, 1994 | Petitioner`s Response to Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order filed. |
| Jun. 20, 1994 | Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s Motion to Quash and for Protective Order filed. |
| Jun. 13, 1994 | Letter to A. Skafidas from EJD (RE: enclosing copy of letter from Emily Hoon filed w/DOAH) filed. |
| May 27, 1994 | Letter to EJD from S. Fowler (RE: response to subpoena) filed. |
| May 27, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion to Quash Subpoena, Or In The Alternative Limit Subpoena filed. |
| May 24, 1994 | Order on all Pending Motions and Order of Continuance to Date Certain sent out. (hearing rescheduled for 10/19/94; 10:30am; Gainesville) |
| May 20, 1994 | Subpoena Duces Tecum (4: from J. Newton); Return of Service filed. |
| May 20, 1994 | Joint Motion for Continuance filed. |
| May 19, 1994 | Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena Pursuant to Rule 1.351, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 60Q-2.019, Florida Administrative Code; Subpoena Duces Tecum (4) filed. |
| May 18, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion to Expedite Discovery; Notice of Serving Petitioner`s Second Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| May 18, 1994 | Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s Motion to Participate In Deposition By Telephone; Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed. |
| May 13, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Serving Addendum to Petitioner`s List of Expert Witnesses filed. |
| May 13, 1994 | Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s Notice of Taking Subpoena Duces Tecum of Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed. |
| May 13, 1994 | Amend Witness List of Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D. filed. |
| May 04, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Response to Respondent`s Interrogatories to Petitioner filed. |
| May 03, 1994 | Order Granting Telephonic Depositions sent out. |
| May 03, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Response to Respondent`s First Request for Admissions filed. |
| May 03, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| May 02, 1994 | Witness List of Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D. filed. |
| Apr. 29, 1994 | Subpoena Ad Testificandum; Return of Service (5) filed. |
| Apr. 25, 1994 | (Petitioner) Motion to Allow Petitioner to Participate In Depositions Telephonically filed. |
| Apr. 21, 1994 | Order sent out. (Re: date for filing final witness lists and exhibit lists is 5/2/94; date for filing final expert witness list is 5/13/94) |
| Apr. 21, 1994 | Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D.`s, Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed. |
| Apr. 21, 1994 | Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M. D`s Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Apr. 15, 1994 | Joint Prehearing Stipulation & Motion to Extend Deadline for Exchanging Witness and Exhibit Lists filed. |
| Apr. 14, 1994 | Notice of Response to Respondent`s Second Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed. |
| Apr. 13, 1994 | (Petitioner) Notice of Taking Deposition filed. |
| Apr. 11, 1994 | Respondent`s, Brian Hardcastle, M.D., First Request for Admissions to Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed. |
| Mar. 30, 1994 | Respondent's, Brian Hardcastle, M.D., Second Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation; Notice of Serving Respondent's Answsers to Petitioner's FirstInterrogatories and R equest for Admissions w/ |
| Mar. 30, 1994 | Respondent's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Production ofDocuments; Notice of Service of Respondent's, Brian Hardcastle, M.D. First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Department of Business andProfessional Regualti on w/Interrogatories to |
| Mar. 28, 1994 | Notice of Response to Respondent`s First Request for Production of Documents to Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed. |
| Feb. 21, 1994 | Respondent`s First Request for Production of Documents to Department of Business and Professional Regulation filed. |
| Feb. 15, 1994 | Order of Prehearing Instructions sent out. |
| Feb. 15, 1994 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 6/1/94; 10:30am; Gainesville) |
| Feb. 14, 1994 | (Petitioner) Status Report filed. |
| Feb. 14, 1994 | Notice of Serving Petitioner`s First Set of Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Request for Production of Documents filed. |
| Feb. 03, 1994 | (Respondent) Response of Brian Hardcastle to Initial Order; Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Feb. 01, 1994 | Petitioner`s Response to Initial Order filed. |
| Jan. 24, 1994 | Initial Order issued. |
| Jan. 19, 1994 | Notice of Appearance (A. Skifidas); Agency referral letter; Administrative Complaint; Election of Rights filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 10, 1995 | Agency Final Order | |
| May 03, 1995 | Recommended Order | Patient not credible. Even if her version believed, breast exam was not fondling. Expert testimony on scope, method, and ambiance hung on her testimony |
