STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 95-2535
)
ALEXANDER SONKIN, M. D., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its designated Hearing Officer, William F. Quattlebaum, held a formal hearing in this case on October 12, 1995, in Tampa, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Hugh Brown, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: Grover C. Freeman, Esquire
201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By Administrative Complaint dated April 26, 1995, the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent violated provisions of law by failing to maintain adequate records and by filing false records. The Respondent requested a formal administrative hearing to address the allegations of the complaint. The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses and had exhibits identified as A-C, E, and G-I admitted into evidence. The Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses, testified on his own behalf, and had exhibit numbered A admitted into evidence. The prehearing stipulation filed by the parties was admitted as a Hearing Officer's exhibit.
The hearing transcript was filed on November 3, 1995. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders and filed subsequent notices of scrivener's error. The corrected proposed findings of fact are ruled upon in the Appendix which is attached and hereby made a part of this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Petitioner is the state agency charged by statute with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida.
At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been a physician in the state, holding Florida license number ME 0044838.
The Respondent's last address of record is 11216 North Dale Mabry, Tampa, Florida, 33168
The Respondent has practiced in Florida since 1984 in Internal Medicine.
At all times material to this case, Patient number 1 was a 72 year old male.
In early December of 1988 the Respondent performed a physical examination of Patient number 1 on behalf of the American Weight Clinic weight loss program. The records of that examination were forwarded to the clinic. Because the Respondent was not the patient's physician, he did not retain a copy of the exam report.
Patient number 1 returned to the Respondent on December 28, 1988 and became his patient.
Between December 1988 and May 1989, Patient number 1 was examined and/or treated by the Respondent on approximately ten visits.
The Respondent became familiar with Patient number 1 over the course of the six months. Patient number 1 was obese, diabetic, and suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), glaucoma and heart disease.
COPD can not be cured. Patients with COPD generally deteriorate over time. Treatment of COPD may include medications to open bronchial tubes, but most treatment results in minimal improvement.
The overall treatment rendered to the patient by the Respondent included weight loss and "maintenance" of the COPD. The Respondent's treatment of the COPD can essentially be described as the "fine tuning" of medications.
Although not codified during the time period relevant to this proceeding, effective professional standards required that physicians make contemporaneous medical records to justify the course of treatment provided to patients. Medical records protect both the patient and the physician. Such records provide an historical record of a patient's physical condition, diagnosis and treatment, and are valuable both to the recording physician and to any subsequent physician who provides treatment to the patient. The Respondent was aware of the purpose of keeping medical records.
During the time period relevant to this case, the Respondent's receptionist would greet each patient who entered the Respondent's office. Thereafter, a nurse would guide the patient to an examining room, check the patient's "vital signs" and record the main presenting complaint. After the nurse entered the information on the chart, the Respondent would talk with and examine the patient.
Also during this time, the Respondent began utilizing a dictation system to record the results of physical examinations. The Respondent continued to hand write diagnosis and medication information but relied on the dictation for recordation of physical exam findings.
The office employee responsible for transcribing the dictation performed inadequately. Examination results were apparently not being entered into the medical records.
The Respondent also had problems during this time with the employee responsible for management of his office.
The family of Patient number 1, apparently unhappy with the medical care being provided to the patient by the Respondent, began utilizing the services of another physician. The family sought to obtain the patient's medical records from the Respondent.
Eventually, Patient number 1's son obtained a copy of his father's records in approximately August of 1989, after making repeated requests to obtain the records.
Although the Respondent asserts that he did not review records for completeness until or unless a copy of the record was requested, the records provided to Patient number 1's son in August, 1989 were apparently not reviewed for completeness by the Respondent.
The Respondent asserts that he was not made aware by his office manager that such records had been requested.
The medical records released to the son in August 1989 fail to document the patient's physical condition for three specific office visits.
The record of Patient number 1's office visit on December 28, 1988 sets forth the nurse's documentation of vital signs and medication records. The record does not include a description of physical examination findings made contemporaneously at the time of the examination.
Based on the lack of physical examination information, the Respondent's medical record related to and made contemporaneously with Patient number 1's office visit on December 28, 1988 does not justify the course of treatment of the patient as identified in the record.
The record of Patient number 1's office visit on February 21, 1989 does not include a description of physical examination findings made contemporaneously at the time of the examination.
Based on the lack of physical examination information, the Respondent's medical record related to and made contemporaneously with Patient number 1's office visit on February 21, 1989 does not justify the course of treatment of the patient as identified in the record.
The record of Patient number 1's office visit on April 18, 1989 does not include a description of physical examination findings made contemporaneously at the time of the examination.
Based on the lack of physical examination information, the Respondent's medical record related to and made contemporaneously with Patient number 1's office visit on April 18, 1989 does not justify the course of treatment of the patient as identified in the record.
The Respondent asserted that he dictated the physical examination reports of the patient conducted on December 28, 1988, February 21, 1989 and April 18, 1989. There is no credible evidence to the contrary.
After the records were provided to the Patient number 1's son in August, 1989, the Respondent became aware that examination information for December 28, 1988, February 21, 1989 and April 18, 1989 was missing from the medical records.
Based on his mental recollection of the Respondent and a review of the existing record, he added physical examination findings to the medical records of Patient number 1 for exams conducted on December 28, 1988, February 21, 1989 and April 18, 1989.
Standard practice among physicians is to initial and date any additions or changes made to a patient's medical records.
The additions made by the Respondent to Patient number 1's medical records are not initialed or dated. There is no notation made on the records which would indicate that the information was not recorded contemporaneously at the time of the examination.
The Respondent testified that at the time of the additions, he had sufficient recollection of Patient number 1 to permit the addition of information related to specific office visits to the medical records. The testimony was not persuasive.
The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent's recollections of the patient are of such sufficient reliability to establish that the subsequent additions to the medical records were reliable.
At some point in the treatment of the patient, he presented to the Respondent with complaints of hemoptysis. The number of such complaints is indeterminable. Testimony by the patient's family directed to the number of visits and quantities of expelled blood being brought to the office lack sufficient precision to be credible. It appears, based on the medical records, that hemoptysis was reported as early as January, 1989. In any event, the evidence fails to establish that incidents of hemoptysis were reported to and not recorded by the Respondent.
There is no credible evidence that the Respondent sought to conceal the fact that information was added to the medical records of Patient number 1.
The Respondent's primary medical practice involves a substantial level of managed care. According to the Respondent, the effect of a reprimand or probation will be termination of managed care contracts.
The Respondent has not been previously disciplined.
The Respondent currently hand writes all medical records because he is not convinced of the reliability of dictation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Petitioner has responsibility for disciplinary action taken against licensed physicians. The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to establish the truthfulness of the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Section 458.331(3), Florida Statutes.
In relevant part, Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes, provides as follows:
The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions in subsec- tion (2) may be taken:
* * *
(h) Making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false, intentionally or negligently failing to file a report or record required by state or federal law, willfully impeding or obstructing such filing or inducing another person to do. Such reports or records shall include only those which are signed in the capacity as a licensed 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.
Count One of the complaint charges the Respondent with violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing "to maintain appropriate medical records in that Respondent admittedly altered Patient number 1's medical records subsequent to Patient number 1's office visits." Paragraph six of the Administrative Complaint states that the "Respondent failed to maintain appropriate medical records in that subsequent to the patient's office visits Respondent added to and/or changed Patient number 1's medical records."
As to Count One, the Petitioner has met the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct The evidence establishes that the medical records were amended by the addition of information which was not recorded contemporaneously at the time of the physical examinations.
Count Two of the complaint charges the Respondent with violation of Section 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by "filing a report...which he knew to be false...in that Respondent admittedly altered Patient number 1's medical records subsequent to Patient number 1's office visits."
As to Count Two, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Respondent filed "false" reports. The filing of an incomplete report does not establish that the information which is set forth on the report is untrue or "false."
The Respondent asserts that the Petitioner is prohibited by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from "relitigating" the allegations addressed in this case. The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars a party from relitigating in a second action issues that were adjudicated in prior litigation between the same parties or their privies. Final judgement in the first proceeding precludes the parties in the second action from relitigating issues common to both causes of action which were actually presented, fully litigated, and resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction in the prior action. The doctrine of collateral estoppel is applicable to administrative orders and decisions. Mobile Oil Co. v. Shevin, 354 So.2d 372 (Fla. 1977); DHRS v. P. J. M., 656 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1995); Hochstaedt v. Orange Broadcast, 588 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Brown v. DPR, 602 So.2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
The Respondent asserts that the allegations at issue in this proceeding were adjudicated in DBPR v. Alexander Sonkin, M.D., DOAH Case No. 93- 3339, DBPR Case No. 89-12719. Review of the Recommended Order, Final Order and materials relevant to the prior case fail to establish that the allegations set forth in the instant Administrative Complaint were fully adjudicated in the prior case. The prior Administrative Complaint did not address the instant allegations. Findings of Fact related to record-keeping which were included in the Recommended Order entered by a previous Hearing Officer were not relevant and were rejected by the Board of Medicine's Final Order in the prior case. The doctrine of collateral estoppel does not bar the Petitioner from litigation in the instant case.
Rule 59R-8.001, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth the disciplinary guidelines of the Board of Medicine applicable to violations of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes, and in relevant part, provides as follows:
Purpose. Pursuant to Section 2, Chapter 86-90, Laws of Florida, the Board provides within this rule disciplinary guidelines which shall be imposed upon applicants or licensees whom it regulates under Chapter 458, F. S. The
purpose of this rule is to notify applicants and licensees of the ranges of penalties which will routinely be imposed unless the board finds it necessary to deviate from the guidelines for the stated reasons given within this rule. The range of penalties provided below are based upon a single count violation of each provision listed; multiple counts of the violated provisions or a combination of violations may result in a higher penalty than that for a single, isolated violation. Each range includes the lowest and highest penalty and all penalties falling between. The purposes of the imposition of discipline are to punish the appli- cants or licensees for violations and to deter
them from future violations; to offer opportunities for rehabilitation, when appropriate; and to deter other applicants or licensees from violations.
Penalty guidelines for violation of disciplinary statutes are set forth at Rule 59R-8.001(2), Florida Administrative Code. The penalty for each violation of Section 458.331(1)(m) ranges from a reprimand to denial or two years suspension, and an administrative fine from $250 to $5,000.
Based upon consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors present in an individual case, the Board may deviate from the disciplinary guidelines. The aggravating and mitigating factors which the Board shall consider are stated in Rule 59R-8.001(3), Florida Administrative Code, as follows:
Exposure of patient or public to injury or potential injury, physical or otherwise:
none, slight, severe, or death;
Legal status at the time of the offense: no restraints, or legal constraints;
The number of counts or separate offenses established;
The number of times the same offense or offenses have previously been committed by the licensee or applicant;
The disciplinary history of the applicant or licensee in any jurisdiction and the length of practice;
Pecuniary benefit or self-gain inuring to the applicant or licensee;
Any other relevant mitigating factors.
In this case, the failure to keep adequate medical records did not expose the patient or public to injury or potential injury. The Respondent was operating under no legal constraints. Only Count One was established by clear and convincing evidence. There is no evidence that the Respondent has previously committed the same offense. There is no evidence of prior discipline imposed against the Respondent. There is no evidence that the offense resulted in any pecuniary benefit to the Respondent.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED:
That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order determining that Alexander Sonkin, M. D., has violated Sections 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $1,000. It is also recommended that the Respondent be required to complete such course of education related to appropriate methods of patient care documentation as the Board deems acceptable.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of November, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.
WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM
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 November, 1995.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, DOAH CASE NO. 95-2535
To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, the following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties.
Petitioner
The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:
2. Rejected, irrelevant.
5-7. Rejected, the dates of reported hemoptysis are not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
Respondent
The Respondent's proposed findings of fact, set forth at pages 16-22 of the proposed recommended order are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows:
1. Rejected, incorrect license number cited.
4. Rejected, subordinate.
16-18. Rejected, not supported by credible and persuasive evidence.
Rejected, subordinate.
Rejected, irrelevant. The Respondent is not alleged to have provided inappropriate or unreasonable medical treatment.
24-25. Rejected, cumulative.
29. Rejected, not supported by cited testimony. Dr. Stein did not state that he knew of no standard for making "after the fact" record additions.
30-31. Rejected, irrelevant.
32. Rejected, immaterial.
DOAH CASE NO. 95-2535 COPIES FURNISHED:
Douglas M. Cook, Director
Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel
Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine
Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre
1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Hugh Brown, Esquire
Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Grover C. Freeman, Esquire
201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602
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,
AHCA Case No: 94-11460
Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO: 95-2535 LICENSE NO: ME 0044838
v.
ALEXANDER SONKIN, 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 February 3, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida, for consideration of the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order, Petitioner's Exceptions to the Recommended Order, Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Exceptions (Attached as App. A, B and C), and Respondent's ore tenus Exception to the Recommended Order in the case of Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine v. Alexander Sonkin, M.D. At the hearing before the Board, Petitioner was represented by Hugh R. Brown, Senior Attorney. Respondent was not present and was represented by Grover C. Freeman, 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:
RULING ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTION TO FINDING OF FACT
The Petitioner's exception to the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact in paragraph 36 of the Recommended Order, wherein the Hearing Officer found no credible evidence that the Respondent sought to conceal the fact that information was added to the medical records of Patient #1, is accepted.
The Board adopts Petitioner's Exception to this Finding of Fact for the reasons stated by Petitioner, and rejects the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact as set forth in paragraph 36 of the Recommended Order.
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, with the exception of the Hearing Officer's Finding of Fact in paragraph 36 of the Recommended Order, as noted above.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Board's findings, as amended herein.
RULING ON PETITIONER'S EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Petitioner's exception to the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law in paragraph 46 of the Recommended Order, wherein the Hearing Officer found that the Respondent did not violate Section 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report with the licensee knows to be false, intentionally or negligently failing to file a report or record required by state or federal law, willfully impeding or obstructing such filing or inducing another person to do so, is accepted.
The Board adopts the Petitioner's Exception to Conclusion of Law for the reasons stated by the Petitioner, and thus finds that the Respondent violated Section 458. 331(1)(h), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report with the licensee knows to be false, intentionally or negligently failing to file a report or record required by state or federal law, willfully impeding or obstructing such filing or inducing another person to do so. Such reports or records shall include only those which are signed in the capacity as a licensed physician.
Having rejected the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law in paragraph 46 of the Recommended Order, the Board substitutes the following Conclusion of Law:
As to Count Two, the evidence is sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the Respondent filed false reports, in that the medical records did not reflect what actually occurred, and the filing of a late entry without the appropriate contemporaneous date and initial is a false report.
RULING ON RESPONDENT'S EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent's ore tenus exception to the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law in paragraph 47 of the Recommended Order, wherein the Hearing Officer found that the doctrine of collateral estoppel did not apply to these proceedings, is rejected. Respondent was not charged with a violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, in the previous action. The Board finds that the issue of the adequacy of Respondent's medical records, although raised in the prior disciplinary action as a matter of evidence in support of other charges against Respondent, was not previously adjudicated by this Board and therefore not subject to the doctrine of collateral estoppel.
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 findings of fact set forth above do establish that Respondent has violated Sections 458.331(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint.
The Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order, as amended, are approved and adopted and incorporated herein.
DISPOSITION
Based upon the Recommended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommended the following penalty: That the Respondent pay a fine of $1,000, and that Respondent shall complete such course of education related to appropriate methods of patient care documentation as the Board deems acceptable.
The Board believes that the penalty imposed by the Hearing Officer is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, it is found, ordered and adjudged that the Respondent is guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and pursuant to Rule 59R-8, F.A.C., the Board of Medicine imposes the following:
Respondent shall pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00 within thirty
(30) days of the filing of the Final Order in this case;
Respondent shall complete the course "Quality Medical Records Keeping for Health Care Professionals," sponsored by the Florida Medical Association, or a Board-approved equivalent, within one (1) year of the date of the Final Order in this case.
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 April, 1996.
BOARD OF MEDICINE
GARY E. WINCHESTER, M.D. CHAIRPERSON
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 Alexander Sonkin, M.D., 11216 North Dale Mabry, Tampa, Florida 33168, Grover C. Freeman, Esquire, 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33602, William F. Quattlebaum, 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 11th day of April, 1996.
Marm Harris, Ed.D. Executive Director
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 15, 1996 | Final Order filed. |
| Nov. 29, 1995 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 10/12/95. |
| Nov. 20, 1995 | (Petitioner) Notice of Scrivener`s Error filed. |
| Nov. 20, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Scrivener`s Error filed. |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Nov. 13, 1995 | Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed. |
| Nov. 03, 1995 | Transcript of Proceedings filed. |
| Oct. 30, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice of Filing Exhibits in Support of Affirmative Defense of Collateral Estoppel filed. |
| Oct. 13, 1995 | (Respondent) Notice to Produce at Formal Hearing filed. |
| Oct. 12, 1995 | CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
| Oct. 10, 1995 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s Request for Official Recognition filed. |
| Oct. 02, 1995 | (Joint) Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed. |
| Sep. 28, 1995 | Respondent`s Response to Petitioner`s First Set of Request for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Production of Documents and Motion to Strike filed. |
| Sep. 28, 1995 | Petitioner`s Request for Official Recognition W/Tagged Attachments; Cover Letter filed. |
| Sep. 06, 1995 | Notice of Serving Petitioners First Set of Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and for Production of Documents to Respondent filed. |
| Sep. 05, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion for Rehearing On Order Denying Leave to File Affirmative Defenses filed. |
| Aug. 24, 1995 | Order on Motion for Leave to File Answer and Affirmative Defense sent out. |
| Aug. 10, 1995 | Reply to and Motion to Reject Affirmative Defense filed. |
| Aug. 07, 1995 | (Petitioner) Response to Respondent`s Motion for Leave to File Answers and Affirmative Defense filed. |
| Jul. 31, 1995 | (Respondent) Motion for Leave to File Answer and Affirmative Defense filed. |
| Jul. 31, 1995 | (Respondent) Answer to Administrative Complaint and Affirmative Defense filed. |
| Jun. 26, 1995 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 10/12/95; 9:30am; Tampa) |
| Jun. 26, 1995 | Order Establishing Prehearing Procedure sent out. |
| Jun. 06, 1995 | Letter to WFQ from Grover Freeman (RE: request for subpoenas) filed. |
| Jun. 01, 1995 | (Petitioner) Joint Response to Initial Order filed. |
| May 22, 1995 | Initial Order issued. |
| May 18, 1995 | Agency referral letter; Administrative Complaint; Request for Formal Hearing; Notice of Appearance filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Apr. 08, 1996 | Agency Final Order | |
| Nov. 29, 1995 | Recommended Order | Failure to maintain proper record is ground for discipline. |
