STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ) ADMINISTRATION, BOARD OF MEDICINE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 94-3274

)

RONALD L. COHEN, 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 January 9, 1996, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Albert Peacock

Senior Attorney

Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6506

For Respondent: Paul Watson Lambert, Esquire

2851 Remington Green Circle, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3749

Donald G. Korman, Esquire Korman, Schorr and Wagenhiem The Dart Building

2101 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 400 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent violated Sections 458.331(1)(g), (j), (m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On March 8, 1993, Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, now the Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine, filed a five count administrative complaint against Ronald M. Cohen, M.D., alleging that he violated Sections 458.331(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes, by having sexual relations with a patient; that he violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by prescribing valium and Prozac for a patient without keeping written records of the prescriptions or records documenting the justification for such prescriptions; that he violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, by

prescribing a legend drug inappropriately; and that he violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by having sexual relations with a patient and inappropriately prescribing Prozac for the patient. The case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 10, 1994, for assignment to a Hearing Officer. Due to the unavailability of Respondent's counsel, the hearing was scheduled for January 5-6, 1995. On November 4, 1994, Respondent filed a Motion for Continuance to allow for the completion of a related pending civil action. The case was placed in abeyance. By Order dated September 5, 1995, the case was rescheduled for hearing on January 9-10, 1996.

At the final hearing, the parties stipulated to the facts contained in Section VI of the prehearing stipulation.

At the final hearing Joint Exhibits 1-10 were admitted in evidence. Joint exhibits 10A and 10B are the transcript and a video tape of the deposition of Dr. Reisman. Petitioner called no witnesses. Respondent testified in his own behalf.

The parties agreed to file proposed recommended orders within 30 days of the filing of the transcript. The transcript was filed on February 1, 1996. The parties's proposed findings of fact are addressed in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section

   20.20 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes.

   
   

2. Respondent, Ronald L. Cohen, M.D. (Dr. Cohen), is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0024014. Dr. Cohen's last known address is 7800 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 216, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

   
   

3. Dr. Cohen's area of practice is urology, and he is board certified. He has been practicing in Fort Lauderdale since 1976. During his years of practice, he has enjoyed an excellent professional reputation.

   
   

4. Between on or about July 2, 1990, through on or about May 16, 1992, Dr. Cohen treated Patient R.G. for various complaints.

   
   

5. On or about July 2, 1990, Patient R.G., a thirty-four year-old female with a history of chemical dependency from the age of twelve for which she first underwent treatment in or about 1986, presented to Dr. Cohen with voiding complaints including post void dysuria, frequency, urgency, and urgency incontinence. However, such information about chemical dependency was unknown to Dr. Cohen until a subsequent time. Patient R.G. did not reveal to Dr. Cohen either her history of chemical dependency or treatment of that dependency.

   
   

6. Dr. Cohen performed a physical examination of Patient R.G. wherein Dr. Cohen dilated Patient R.G.'s uretha. Dr. Cohen noted that Patient R.G.'s urinalysis was entirely within normal limits. Dr. Cohen then diagnosed Patient

   R.G. with urethritis, urthrel stenosis, and trigonitis. Dr. Cohen prescribed Patient R.G. a three-day supply of Noroxin and pyridium to improve Patient R.G.'s symptoms. Noroxin is an antibacterial agent indicated for the treatment of adults with complicated urinary tract infections. Pyridium is an analgesic

   agent indicated for the symptomatic relief of pain, burning, urgency frequency and other discomfort arising from irritation of the lower urinary tract mucosa.

   
   

7. Patient R.G.'s symptoms persisted. On or about July 13, 1990, Patient

   R.G. underwent a cystoscopy, urethal dilation, and hydraulic bladder distention by Dr. Cohen at Outpatient Surgical Services in order to rule out interstitial cystitis. Dr. Cohen's postoperative impressions were as follows: Interstitial cystitis (inflammatory lesion of the bladder) and urethral stenosis.

   
   

8. On or about July 17, 1990, Patient R.G. presented to Dr. Cohen's office in severe pain secondary to the cystoscopy and bladder distention. At that time, Patient R.G. complained of feeling bloated suprapubically. Dr. Cohen instilled dimethyl sulfoxide to relieve Patient R.G.'s pain. Patient R.G.'s symptoms were subsequently temporarily resolved.

   
   

9. On or about January 19, 1991, Patient R.G. next presented to Dr. Cohen with complaints of a recurrent episode of urinary frequency and burning on the previous day.

   
   

10. Shortly thereafter, in early 1991, Dr. Cohen asked Patient R.G. to go to lunch. Dr. Cohen and Patient R.G. subsequently began a social relationship which included sexual intercourse.

    
    

11. At the time that Dr. Cohen initiated the relationship with Patient

    R.G. he was aware of the prohibitions against such conduct, knew he had choices available to him, but declined to exercise professional self-discipline. Dr. Cohen did exercise influence as Patient R.G.'s physician for the purpose of engaging in sexual relations.

    
    

12. Dr. Cohen has never had a sexual relationship with any other patient.

    
    

13. On or about April 8, 1991, Dr. Cohen wrote a prescription for thirty units of Valium 10 mg. for Patient R.G. who had at that time complained to Dr. Cohen of anxiety due to marital difficulties.

    
    

14. Valium is defined as a legend drug by Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, and contains diazepam, a Schedule IV controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Valium is indicated for the management of anxiety disorders or for the short-term relief of symptoms of anxiety.

    
    

15. Dr. Cohen's medical records of Patient R.G.'s urologic condition do not include any reference to the Valium prescription and therefore the records fail to justify his prescription of Valium, a controlled substance indicated for the treatment of anxiety, to Patient R.G.

    
    

16. On May 16, 1992, Dr. Cohen wrote a prescription for thirty units of Prozac 20 mg.

    
    

17. Prozac is defined as a legend drug by Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, and contains Fluoxetine Hydrochloride which is not a controlled substance. Prozac is indicated for the treatment of depression.

    
    

18. Dr. Cohen's medical records of Patient R.G.'s urologic condition do not include any reference to the Prozac prescription and therefore the records fail to justify his prescription of Prozac.

19. Dr. Cohen inappropriately prescribed Prozac, a legend drug indicated for the treatment of depression. Prozac, however, was not indicated in the treatment of Patient R.G.'s urologic condition, interstitial cystitis.

    
    

20. Dr. Cohen admitted to having prescribed Prozac to Patient R.G. as a favor so that Patient R.G. did not have to see her psychologist for said prescription.

    
    

21. Dr. Cohen admitted to having a sexual relationship with Patient R.G.

    
    

22. Dr. Cohen, by virtue of his sexual relationship with Patient R.G. and his inappropriate prescribing of Prozac for Patient R. G., failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.

    
    

23. Dr. Cohen underwent an evaluation by Thomas J. Goldschmidt, M.D., a specialist in neurology and psychiatry, in conjunction with Richard Westberry, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist. Dr. Goldschmidt issued a report on their evaluation in which he stated:

    
    

    We see no evidence of any exploitative tendency regarding Dr. [Cohen] in his relationship with this patient. There is no evidence of any sexual addiction component. And we do not feel that his

    is behavior that is likely to reoccur or compromise his ability to practice urology. We see this as an isolated incident that Dr. [Cohen] approached in a very naive fashion and was primarily orchestrated

    by the dynamics of a sexually provocative, aggressive female who proposed a sexual act that was nonthreating (sic) to the patient while simultaneously providing ego gratification for longstanding, underlying emotional conflicts dealing with castration fears

    and anxiety.

    
    

24. Dr. Cohen voluntarily entered into a contract with the Physician's Recovery Network to assist him in dealing with his despondency and depression. Dr. Cohen continues to see Dr. Westberry on a weekly basis for his despondency.

    
    

25. Dr. Cohen has never had any disciplinary action taken against his license nor has he been dismissed from any position at a hospital at which he had staff privileges. Dr. Cohen has staff privileges at four hospitals. Dr. Cohen was Vice Chief of Staff at one of the hospitals until he voluntarily resigned that position when this case surfaced in order to avoid embarrassment to the hospital.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

26. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

27. Disciplinary licensing proceedings are penal in nature. State ex rel. Vining v. Florida Real Estate Commission, 281 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1973). In this

    disciplinary proceedings the Agency must prove the violations alleged in the administrative complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Ferris v.

    Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

    
    

28. AHCA has alleged that Dr. Cohen violated Sections 458.331(1)(g), (j), (m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes which provide:

    
    

    1. The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:

       * * *

       (g) Failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician.

       * * *

       (j) Exercising influence within a physician- patient relationship for purposes of engaging a patient in sexual activity. A patient shall be presumed to be incapable of giving free, full, informed consent to sexual activity with his physician.

       * * *

       (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 hospitalizations.

       * * *

       (q) Prescribing, dispensing, administer-ing, mixing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug, including any controlled substance, other than in the course of the physician's professional practice. For the purposes of this paragraph, it shall be legally presumed that prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing legend drugs, including all controlled substances, is not in the best interest of the

       patient and is not in the course of the physician's professional practice, without regard to his intent.

       * * *

       (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. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s.

       766.102 when enforcing this paragraph. . . .

       
       

29. AHCA has alleged that Dr. Cohen violated Section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by violating the statutory obligations set forth in Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, which provides:

    
    

    The physician-patient relationship is founded on mutual trust. 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. Sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine is prohibited.

    
    

30. The Agency has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Cohen violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes by failing to keep written records of the prescriptions for Valium and Prozac and the justifications for those prescriptions. Dr. Cohen has admitted in his proposed recommended order that he violated the statute.

    
    

31. The Agency has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Cohen violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, by inappropriately prescribing Prozac. Dr. Cohen has admitted in his proposed recommended order that he violated the statute.

    
    

32. The Agency has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Cohen violated Section 458.331(1)(g) by engaging in sexual misconduct which is prohibited by Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, and that Dr. Cohen violated Section 458.331(1)(j), Florida Statutes. The presumption in Section 458.331(1)(g) that the patient is incapable of giving free, full consent to sexual activity with a physician is a rebuttable presumption. See the Recommended Order in Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine v. Ralph Albert Rophie, DOAH Case No. 92-25, F.O. issued October 26, 1992 for a discussion of the presumption. Dr. Cohen has failed to overcome the presumption. Dr. Cohen initiated the relationship with Patient R.G. by asking her to lunch, and he admitted having a sexual relationship with Patient R.G.

    
    

33. The Agency has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Dr. Cohen violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by engaging in sexual activity with a patient and by inappropriately prescribing Prozac for Patient R.G.

    
    

34. Rule 59R-8.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides the range of penalties for violations of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes. The recommended penalty range for a violation of subsection (g) is from a reprimand to revocation or denial, and an administrative fine from $250 to $5,0000. For a violation of subsection (j), the recommended penalty range is from a one year suspension to revocation, or denial, and an administrative fine from $250 to

    $5,000. For a violation of subsection (m), the recommended penalty ranges from a reprimand to denial or two years suspension followed by probation, and an administrative fine from $250 to $5,000. The recommended penalty range for a violation of subsection (q) is from one year probation to revocation or denial, and an administrative fine from $250 to $5,000. For a violation of subsection (t), the recommended penalty ranges from two years probation to revocation or denial and an administrative fine from $250 to $5,000.

    
    

35. Rule 59R-8.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, deals with aggravating and mitigating circumstances which can be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.

    
    

    Based upon consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors present in an individual case, the Board may deviate from the penalties

    recommended above. The Board shall consider as aggravating or mitigating factors the following:

    1. Exposure of patient or public to injury or potential injury, physical or otherwise; none, slight, severe, or death;

    2. Legal status at the time of the offense; no restraints or legal constraints.

    3. The number of counts or separate offenses established;

    4. The number of times the same offense or offenses have been previously committed by the licensee or applicant;

    5. The disciplinary history of the applicant or licensee in any jurisdiction and the length of practice;

    6. Pecuniary benefit or self-gain enuring to the applicant or licensee;

    7. Any other mitigating factors.

    
    

36. There are a number of mitigating factors present in this case. Dr. Cohen has been practicing medicine in Fort Lauderdale since 1976. He has no prior history of discipline against his license. He has never had a sexual relationship with another patient. He has contracted with the Physician's Recovery Network. It is unlikely that a sexual relationship with a patient will reoccur.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Dr. Cohen violated

Sections 458.331(1)(g), (j), (m), (q) and (t) as set forth in Counts 1-5 in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a $5,000 fine for the violations of Sections 458.331(1)(g) and (j), Florida Statutes and a $5,000 fine for violations of Sections 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statues, for a total of $10,000, and placing Dr. Cohen on probation for two years under terms and conditions to be set by the Board of Medicine.

DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1996, 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 15th day of March, 1996.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3274

To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Paragraphs 1-9: Accepted.

2. Paragraphs 10-11: Accepted in substance.

3. Paragraphs 12-14: Accepted.

4. Paragraph 15: Rejected as irrelevant because the administrative complaint did not state such a violationas it related to the valium but only as to the Prozac. The violation relating to valium was the record keeping.

5. Paragraphs 16-19: Accepted.

6. Paragraph 20: Accepted except as to the valium. The administrative compliant did not allege such a violationas it related to valium.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact.

1. Paragraphs 1-2: Accepted.

2. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance.

3. Paragraph 4: Accepted as to his professional reputation. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary.

4. Paragraph 5: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found.

5. Paragraph 6: The first sentence is accepted. The remainder is unnecessary.

6. Paragraphs 7-13: Accepted.

7. Paragraph 14: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found.

8. Paragraph 15: Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Dr. Cohen is the party whoinitiated the social relationship with R.G. when heasked her out to lunch. He was physically attracted tothe patient and that is why he asked her out.

9. Paragraph 16: Accepted.

10. Paragraph 17: The first sentence is accepted. The last sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts found because Dr. Cohen did prescribe medication forR.G. which had nothing to do with the complaints forwhich she was seeing Dr. Cohen.

11. Paragraph 18: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. See paragraph 17.

12. Paragraphs 19-22: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found.

13. Paragraph 23: The first and second sentences are rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The thirdsentence is accepted to the extent that he has enteredcounseling.

14. Paragraphs 24: Accepted to the extent that he is in counseling and that such a relationship will not likelyoccur again.

15. Paragraph 25: Accepted in substance.

16. Paragraph 26: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary.

17. Paragraph 27: Accepted in substance that such a relationship is unlikely to happen in the future. Rejected to the extent that it implies that

    R.G. gavefree, full informed consent to the sexual activity.

18. Paragraphs 28-29: Accepted in substance.

19. Paragraph 30: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found.

20. Paragraphs 31-34: Accepted in substance.

21. Paragraph 35: Rejected as unnecessary.

22. Paragraphs 36-39: Accepted in substance.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Donald G. Korman, Esquire Korman, Schorr and Wagenheim The Dart Building

2101 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 400 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311

Paul Watson Lambert, Esquire

2851 Remington Green Circle, Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3749

Albert Peacock, Esquire Department of Business

and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6506

Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director

Agency For Health Care Administration Board of Medicine

1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770

Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel

Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive

Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431

Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403

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,

AHCA CASE NO: 92-13241

1. DOAH CASE NO: 94-3274

   LICENSE NO: ME 0024014

   RONALD L. COHEN, M.D.,

   
   

   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 June 7, 1996, in Miami Beach, Florida, for consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order (Attached as App. A) in the case of Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine v. Ronald L. Cohen, M.D. At the hearing before the Board, Petitioner was represented by Larry G. McPherson, Jr., Chief Medical Attorney. Respondent was present and was represented by Paul W. Lambert, 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

   
   

   1. 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.

      
      

   2. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's findings herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Board has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this case pursuant to Section 120.57 and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.

   
   

2. The findings of fact set forth above do establish that Respondent has violated Sections 458.331(1)(g), (j), (m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes as charged in the Administrative Complaint.

   
   

3. The Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order are approved and adopted and incorporated herein.

DISPOSITION

WHEREFORE, the Board finds the Respondent in violation of Sections 458.331(1)(g),(j),(m),(q) and (t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

The Board rejects the Recommended Penalty of the Hearing Officer, and based upon the number of violations found, the gravity of the violations; the serious impact of prescribing controlled substances in a doctor-patient sexual relationship and the Board's previous practice of imposing serious penalties for such situations involving controlled substances and sexual misconduct, the following penalty is imposed.

1. The Respondent shall receive a Reprimand from the Board of Medicine.

   
   

2. Within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order in this cause, the Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to the Board of Medicine.

   
   

3. Upon the filing of the Final Order in this cause, the Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida shall be SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months. However, the penalty of suspension is hereby STAYED pending appellate review with the following agreed to restrictions of the parties:

   
   

   1. Respondent shall not examine or treat any female patients without a female clinical health care practitioner licensed by the Agency for Health Care Administration being present in the room. The health care licensee shall be present at all times during the treatment and examination. It shall be recorded in the patient record that the health care licensee was present at all times during the treatment and examination. Said notation shall be signed by both the Respondent and the health care licensee. The Respondent shall also maintain a separate log, to be available during office hours for inspection on a random and unannounced basis by the Agency's investigator. Said log shall include the names of all female patients that the Respondent examines or treats, the date of examination or treatment, and the name of the health care licensee present in the room during the examination or treatment. Each entry in the log shall be signed and dated both by the Respondent and the health care licensee.

      
      

4. Upon reinstatement the Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida the Respondent's license shall be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. The terms and condition shall be set by the Board at the time of reinstatement.

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 8th DAY OF JULY, 1996.

BOARD OF MEDICINE

MARY KATHRYN GARRETT, 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 Ronald L. Cohen, M.D., 7800 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 216, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33351- 1127, Paul Watson Lambert, Esquire, 2851 Remington Green Circle, Suite C, Tallahassee, Florida 32308- 3749, Susan B. Kirkland, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 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 July, 1996.

Marm Harris, E .D Executive Director

Docket for Case No: 94-003274

Orders for Case No: 94-003274