Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the documentary and testimonial evidence submitted, including the demeanor of the witnesses, the following facts are determined. Steve Adams is a microbiology instructor in the Science Department of Lake City Community College. The introductory course which he teaches consists of laboratory work and lectures. During his lectures, his practice is to use cultures of live microorganisms for demonstration purposes. Adams believes that use of live cultures during his lectures is helpful in teaching various microbiological phenomenon, such as "contact inhibition" and the different surficial qualities of microorganism cultures. (Testimony of Adams) Walter E. Parnell, Jr., is the Dean of the College Parallel Division, Lake City Community College. His responsibilities include supervision, through the various Department heads, of all College faculty members in that Division. The instructors and academic programs of the Science Department are subject to the Dean's supervisory authority. (Testimony of Parnell) It has been an established practice of Dean Parnell to occasionally place memoranda commemorating a particular action or achievement in the personnel file of the appropriate instructor. These memoranda may be favorable and beneficial, or unfavorable and adverse to the particular instructor involved. However, the power to take disciplinary action against a college instructor falls within the exclusive province of the College Board of Trustees; Dean Parnell's function in such cases consists of recommending appropriate disciplinary action to the Board. (Testimony of Parnell) There are no published policies or rules which establish standards of conduct and behavior or define the various grounds for disciplinary action against faculty members at Lake City Community College. Neither are there any written policies which authorize or set out grounds for placing memoranda in instructors' personnel files by a supervising Dean. For the most part, the College instructors learn of such practice, if at all, through individual experience. (Testimony of Parnell, Smith, Sedmera, Rigsby) During the winter of 1979, the College microbiology course taught by Adams began experiencing a significant increase in student enrollment. In an effort to resolve the increased enrollment problem, on December 10, 1979, Dean Parnell and Steve Adams discussed the situation and agreed to add an additional lecture course and laboratory section-- each class to accommodate a maximum of fourteen (14) people. By memorandum to Dean Parnell dated December 11, 1979, Adams confirmed his agreement to teaching the additional classes, conditioned upon the number of students attending his current lectures remaining at twenty- two (22) and twenty-three (23), respectively. He cautioned the Dean: ". . . When I see 23 or more people in the first lecture section and 24 or more people in the second, those people will be sent to your [Dean Parnell's] office to be reassigned to the newly opened lecture section or wherever you can put them so that the original class size limita- tions are met. I want it perfectly understood that the original limita- tions must be maintained and if they aren't its going to be your job not mine to get them straightened out. . . . If you wish to have additional openings in the spring of 1981 from the original plans of this school year the provisions for them should be started now and not be a last minute thing as this has been. The labs can contain only 15 people each and 4 labs x 15 people means 60 people total in microbiology. The 60 people will have to be divided up into 3 lecture sections of 20 each, since neither the room nor I will tolerate 30 in a lecture section." (Testimony of Parnell, Petitioner, Exhibit No. 5) Dean Parnell was somewhat taken back by the tone of Adams' December 11, 1979, memorandum, and felt it was unwarranted and unduly strident. On December 13, 1979, the Dean drafted what he considered a mild response to Adams' memorandum. Addressing the question of lecture section size, the memorandum states: ". . . I understand the problem created by space limitation on lecture section size, but should a situation arise whereby the space limitation factor is removed, we need to discuss what further factors can legitimately limit sec- tion size. In the future we can con- sider more efficient use of your energies by considering the possibility of perhaps a single large lecture sec- tion with multiple labs. This does not preclude fair remuneration for this additional load. We need to consider all alternatives at an early date since we know, as the situation now looks, that we will have increased loads in lab courses for next year." (Testimony of Parnell, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) On December 13, 1979, Dean Parnell, accompanied by Dennis Rigsby, the head of the Science Department, met with Adams in the latter's office for the purpose of delivering the December 13, 1979, memorandum and discussing the size of Adams' lecture section for the 1980 spring semester. After handing Adams the December 13, 1979, memorandum, Dean Parnell told Adams that they would have to sit down and find a way to expand Adams' microbiology lecture section, and suggested the possibility of holding the lectures in the larger Galloway Auditorium. Adams replied loudly, and emphatically: "Hell no, I won't do it, and I'll fight you all the way if you try to make me " or words to that effect. Adams warned that if he was required to run a large demonstration lecture in Galloway Auditorium, he would ask for an investigation by the National Institute of Health, Department of Public Safety, and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. (Testimony of Parnell, Adams, Rigsby, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) There was conflicting testimony as to whether, during this conversation, Adams cited "safety" as the reason why he would "fight" relocating the microbiology lecture to Galloway Auditorium. It is clear, however, that no specific safety hazards were identified at that time. While Adams recalls that he mentioned that Galloway Auditorium would be, generally, unsafe, both Parnell and Rigsby testified otherwise, and their testimony on this point is considered more creditable. (Testimony of Adams, Parnell, Rigsby, Petitioner's Exhibits 6, 9) The people present during this conversation differ as to whether or not Dean Parnell's request to Adams was considered a direct "order." While Rigsby construed it as an "order," Adams and Parnell did not. (Testimony of Parnell, Adams and Rigsby) Subsequent to that conversation, Adams expressed his belief that the use of live cultures of microorganisms are necessary to effectively conduct microbiology lectures, and that, for various reasons, such live cultures cannot safely be used in Galloway Auditorium. However, based on the opinion of Karen F. Belcher, former head of the Science Department and a College instructor in life sciences for approximately fifteen (15) years, it is determined that basic microbiology lectures can be adequately taught without using live cultures of microorganisms. Although disputed by Adams, she also opined that non-pathogenic live organisms could safely be used during microbiology lectures in Galloway Auditorium. Based on Ms. Belcher's experience as an instructor and former Science Department head, and her professional and detached demeanor, her opinion is persuasive. (Testimony of Adams, Belcher)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Steve Adams' actions toward Dean Parnell on December 13, 1979, be considered by the Board of Trustees of Lake City Community College as constituting insubordination, and that the memorandum of Dean Parnell dated December 13, 1979, describing Adams' insubordinate conduct be placed in Adams' official personnel file. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Frank M. Gafford, Esquire 60 East Orange Street Lake City, Florida 32055 Julian E. Collins, Esquire Post Office Box 2149 Lake City, Florida 32055
Findings Of Fact Based upon the deposition testimony and documentary evidence from the petitioner's application file, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner is a 1979 graduate of the University of Karachi and Dow Medical College in Pakistan. At the time of his application for Florida licensure by endorsement, he was licensed to practice medicine in Iowa. He is currently licensed to practice medicine in the states of Iowa, Georgia and Maryland. When the Florida Board of Medicine noticed its intent to deny petitioner's application, he had obtained a passing score on the federal licensing examination (FLEX). Contained within petitioner's application file are numerous letters from physicians who had, at one time or another, worked with the petitioner at various health care facilities. With one exception, all such letters recommended him for licensure in Florida and are quite positive regarding petitioner's competency as a physician. The one exception came from Dr. David W. Schultz, who was the director of petitioner's first year residency program at Lutheran Medical Center in Ohio. Petitioner participated in and completed a first year internal medicine residency program at Lutheran Medical Center from July 1, 1983 through June 30, 1984. Dr. David W. Schultz had held the position of director of the residency program for over twenty years. During petitioner's year of residency, Dr. Schultz taught the first year residents only one class. Other than his teacher/student relationship with petitioner during that one class in October and/or November of 1983, Dr. Schultz had no opportunity to directly and personally observe petitioner's ability to practice medicine. The entire faculty was involved in the teaching and observation of the residents. The "firm" or group to which petitioner was assigned as a first year resident did not manage or treat any of the patients admitted by Dr. Schultz. Other than his class observations, Dr. Schultz's opinions regarding petitioner's competency are based solely upon verbal reports and comments from other physicians and residents during the year. On January 13, 1984, Dr. Schultz wrote a letter "To Whom It May Concern," stating that petitioner is a "hard working and sincere physician" who "seems to get along with fellow residents and the Attending Staff." He recommended petitioner "for acceptance into your program." On or about February 10, 1984, Dr. Schultz completed and returned a form sent to him by the Florida Board of Medicine. The form advised Dr. Schultz that petitioner had applied for medical licensure in Florida and requested Dr. Schultz to rate petitioner in fifteen areas as either "poor," "fair," "good," "superior," or "don't know," and to provide an overall evaluation by checking one of the following: " 1. Recommend as outstanding applicant. 2. Recommended as qualified and competent. 3. Recommended with some reservation. 4. Cannot recommend." If either numbers 3 or 4 were checked, a written explanation was requested. Dr. Schultz rated petitioner "good" in all fifteen categories and checked item number 2 above -- "recommended as qualified and competent." On June 20, 1984, Dr. Schultz wrote a similar "To Whom It May Concern Letter" recommending petitioner "for acceptance into your program." On June 25, 1984, Dr. Schultz wrote a letter to the Florida Department of professional Regulation recommending petitioner "for a license in the State of Florida." Both of the June, 1984, letters again state that petitioner is "a hard working and sincere physician" and that "he seems to get along with fellow residents and the Attending Staff." In October of 1984, the Board of Medicine received a second completed form from Dr. Schultz regarding the petitioner. This form called for the identical information as the form completed by Dr. Schultz in February of 1984. However, this time Dr. Schultz rated petitioner as "fair" in thirteen categories, "poor" in one category (relationship with colleagues) and "good" in only one category (knowledge of English). As an overall evaluation, Dr. Schultz checked Item Number 3, "recommended with some reservation," but no written explanation was provided. At his deposition taken on September 17, 1987, Dr. Schultz attempted to explain the discrepancies between his evaluations of petitioner submitted in January, February and June of 1984 and his October, 1984, evaluation. When asked what happened between the two forms submitted in February and October of 1984, Dr. Schultz testified that it was only petitioner's failure to improve. Elaborating somewhat, Dr. Schultz stated: "I think, I admit to you it seems difficult to justify. I think if you have had the experience I've had over a period of many, many years in training residents and starting residents in what is a three-year program that you are always hopeful `that people who don't perform well at the first-year level may be able to find themselves, improve their basic knowledge level, and apply it better in the two years they have left in training, and that is the only justification I can give you for those letters. During his deposition, Dr. Schultz opined that petitioner was the "poorest" of the eight first year residents in the areas of basic medical knowledge, ability to apply knowledge to the effective management of patients and willingness to work hard. It was his opinion that, during the time of his first year residency, petitioner was not competent to independently practice medicine with skill and safety. The petitioner's application file also contains two letters written in January and February of 1984, from Dr. William T. Wilder, who was then an associate clinical director of the Medical Geropsychiatric Unit at Lutheran Medical Center. These letters represent that Dr. Wilder has worked closely with the petitioner during his residency program and that Dr. Wilder regards petitioner as having "excellent moral character" and "excellent qualifications to practice as a physician." He describes petitioner as a "very dedicated and thorough resident," "diligent in follow up on patient problems," and able to work well with patients. In 1983, Lutheran Medical Center was required to reduce the number of second year resident positions from eight to six. In the opinion of Dr. Schultz, even if Lutheran had had eight available second year residency positions, petitioner would not have been offered one of them because "his performance didn't warrant that." Petitioner was informed in October of 1983, that he would not be offered a second year residency position at Lutheran. Apparently, the month of October is a uniform appointment time throughout the country for residents in hospitals with approved medical programs. During the end of his second full month of residency at Lutheran Medical Center, petitioner underwent emergency eye surgery for a detached retina. It was petitioner's understanding that he was not offered a second year residency at Lutheran Medical because of his eye problems and because of the cutback in the number of second year residency positions. Although other residents were placed on probation due to unsatisfactory performance, petitioner was never placed on probation during his residency at Lutheran. On July 3, 1984, after the completion of his residency, petitioner filed a civil rights action against Lutheran Medical Center alleging that he had been discriminated against due to his eye problems. Dr. Schultz's deposition was taken in connection with that action in the summer of 1984. Since November of 1986, petitioner has been employed as a staff physician at the Georgia State Prison in Ridgeville, Georgia. In that capacity, petitioner sees approximately twenty to thirty male inmate patients per day and performs some minor surgery. His immediate supervisor is the medical director of the Georgia State Prison, Dr. Henry A. Robinson, who is board certified in obstetrics/gynecology and has been practicing medicine for 31 years. Dr. Robinson observes petitioner on a daily basis, and recommends him for licensure in Florida with no reservation. It is Dr. Robinson's opinion that petitioner is "very firm in his medical skills," has good medical knowledge which he applies very well, is willing to work, is cooperative and gets along well with his peers and his patients. Dr. Robinson has had fewer complaints from inmate patients regarding petitioner than any other health care worker. When asked to give an overall rating of petitioner as a physician, Dr. Robinson replied "I think he's well trained. He's motivated and does a fine job in the day-to-day practice."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement be GRANTED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 25th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2680 The proposed findings of fact submitted by counsel have been carefully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in the Recommended Order, except as noted below. Respondent 5, last sentence: Rejected; if respondent is referring to "approved" medical training, this is irrelevant and immaterial. The evidence does establish that petitioner has been practicing medicine since the time of his residency. 9. The first two sentences and the last four sentences are accepted. The last sentence is accepted as a reason stated by the Board, but not as a sufficient reason for denial. The remaining portions are rejected as contrary to the conclusions drawn by the undersigned upon a reading of the entire deposition. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary D. Fields, Esquire 230 Royal Palm Way Suite 400 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Administrative Law Section Suite 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The ultimate issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether the Petitioner should be awarded a doctor of education degree by Florida State University. Petitioner contends that he properly completed the requirements for the degree, that a valid offer of the degree was made to him, that he accepted the offer, and that the degree was then wrongfully withheld. The university contends that Petitioner did not meet the requirements for the degree and that no valid, enforceable offer of it was made to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact In 1976, Petitioner was admitted into the doctoral program in biology at Florida State University. He applied to transfer to the science education program and was admitted to the doctoral program in science education within the College of Education at Florida State University on June 24, 1977. He was pursuing a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.) degree. Among the requirements that Petitioner needed to meet in order to receive the degree were successful completion of a diagnostic examination, completion of thirty-six resident hours of course work, course work in the field of statistics, a preliminary examination, approval of a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation, and presentation of an acceptable dissertation and a successful dissertation defense. Following his admission into the Ph.D. program in science education, a supervisory committee was established for the Petitioner, and a major professor was appointed. It was the major professor's and supervisory committee's function to monitor Petitioner's progress and ultimately to make a recommendation as to whether petitioner should be awarded a degree. By November 7, 1980, Petitioner had completed all of the requirements for a Ph.D. degree except for the presentation of his dissertation and the dissertation defense. These were scheduled to be conducted by the supervisory committee on November 7, 1980. Petitioner had been advised by at least two members of the committee that he might not be ready to present and defend his dissertation. Petitioner felt that he was. On November 7, 1980, Petitioner met with his supervisory committee and presented and defended his dissertation. After his presentation, Petitioner left the room, and the committee evaluated the dissertation and defense. The committee unanimously concluded that the dissertation and defense were inadequate. The dissertation was not marginally inadequate. It was grossly below standards. The committee unanimously and appropriately concluded that the dissertation and defense were not acceptable, and that Petitioner had not met the requirements for a Ph.D. degree. Petitioner's major professor felt that the Petitioner had devoted considerable time, energy, and hard work to the degree program. He was concerned that the effort not be totally wasted. He requested that the committee consider accepting the dissertation as adequate for the award of a doctor of education (Ed.D.) degree or a "master's specialist" degree, and that the committee recommend that Petitioner be awarded one of those degrees or that he be allowed to continue working toward a Ph.D. degree. None of the members of the supervisory committee had had experience with the Ed.D. degree. They all considered it an inferior degree and felt that awarding it to Petitioner would constitute something of a "consolation prize." In fact, an Ed.D. degree from Florida State University is not intended to be an inferior degree. Its focus is somewhat different, but the requirements for obtaining the degree are basically the same. The committee was mistaken in considering the offer of such a degree to Petitioner. Indeed, the requirements for an Ed.D. degree being similar, and in some cases identical to those for the Ph.D. degree, Petitioner had not qualified for the award of an Ed.D. degree. After the committee adjourned its proceedings on November 7, Petitioner's major professor discussed the committee's actions with Petitioner. He told Petitioner that pending proper approval, Petitioner would have the options of continuing to work toward a Ph.D. degree, or receiving an Ed.D. or master's specialist degree. It appears that the major professor was overly sensitive about the Petitioner's feelings, and he may not have bluntly advised Petitioner that he failed his dissertation, presentation, and defense. Petitioner considered his options and told his major professor that if it was possible, he would be amenable to accepting an Ed.D. degree. The major professor contacted administrative officials and was advised that the award of an Ed.D. degree would be possible. The major professor advised the Petitioner of that and told him that pending approval from the department chairman who had charge of the science education program, Petitioner could receive the Ed.D. degree. The major professor also advised Petitioner that some revisions would need to be made in the dissertation and that the title page would need to be retyped in order to reflect that it was being submitted in support of an Ed.D. degree. Petitioner complied with the direction to retype the first page, but made only minor revisions in the dissertation. Members of the supervisory committee signed off on the dissertation as being acceptable in support of an Ed.D. degree. The matter was submitted to the department chairman. The department chairman read the dissertation and concluded that it was grossly inadequate. He determined that he would not authorize the award of an Ed.D. degree because Petitioner would need to be properly accepted into an Ed.D. program before he could be awarded such a degree, and additionally because he considered the dissertation inadequate to support an Ed.D. degree. This action was communicated to the supervisory committee. The committee met again and determined that since the Ed.D. degree could not be awarded, that Petitioner should be given failing grades for the dissertation, presentation, and defense. Prior to the department chairman's review of the dissertation, Petitioner had paid his fees and was anticipating being awarded an Ed.D. degree. Since it was not approved by the department chairman, the degree was not awarded. Thereafter, the Petitioner opted not to apply to have his work considered in support of an Ed.D. degree or master's specialist degree. He continued working toward a Ph.D. degree for approximately six months. Ultimately, he decided to drop out of the program, and he initiated this proceeding.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by Florida State University denying Petitioner's application for award of an Ed.D. degree and dismissing the Petition for Administrative Hearing. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John D. Carlson, Esquire Woods, Johnston & Carlson 1030 East Lafayette Street Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia A. Draper, Esquire Charles S. Ruberg, Esquire Florida State University Suite 311, Hecht House Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Dr. Bernard F. Sliger President Florida State University 211 Westcott Tallahassee, Florida 32306
Findings Of Fact The agency presented the testimony of Martha Bass, who is an employee of HRS and works in that agency's section which licenses medical technologists and technicians. She testified that Mrs. Lucy Escalada had come to her office seeking information on licensure. While there, Mrs. Escalada had prepared an application for licensure as a medical technician with supporting documents which Mrs. Bass identified and which were received as Exhibit F. Mrs. Bass stated that on the day following Mrs. Escalada's visit she had found certain documents on the floors adjacent to where Mrs. Escalada had been sitting. Mrs. Bass identified Exhibits A, B, and C as the documents she had found. Exhibit A was identified as the original of a Registry Certificate from the American Society of Clinical Pathologists. Exhibit B was an apparent altered copy of certificates of high school completion. Copies of Exhibit A and B were attached to Mrs. Escalada's application. Mrs. Bass stated she had turned Exhibits A, B, and C over to the legal department of HRS who had sent them to the Florida department of Criminal Law Enforcement (FDCLE) crime laboratory for analysis. She further identified Exhibit D as the report which she received from FDCLE on Exhibits A, B. and C. Mrs. Bass testified that Mrs. Escalada had been written and advised that the documents supporting her application were unsuitable and that she would have to submit other proof of her completion of High school. This had not been done by Mrs. Escalada. The Hearing Officer has examined the Exhibits A, B, and C and, without reference to Exhibit D concludes that Exhibit B is an altered original of Exhibit A and that a photocopy of Exhibit B was attached to Exhibit F to prove Mrs. Escalada's completion of high school.
Recommendation The Hearing Officer having found that the document, Exhibit B, to be an altered copy of Exhibit A, and having further found that a photocopy oft Exhibit B was used to substantiate Mrs. Escalada's satisfactory completion of high school recommends that Mrs. Escalada's application be denied pending submission of appropriate documentation of her educational, background, and further that the temporary license issued Mrs. Escalada be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara D. McPherson, Esquire Division of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida Mrs. Lucy M. Escalada 6110 S. W. 13th Terrace Miami, Florida 33144 also copy to: Mrs. Lucy M. Escalada at Manual Bocollao Apartado Postal #6-32 Guadalajara, Jalisco Mexico
Findings Of Fact Jack I. Newcomer, a foreign medical school graduate, applied for licensure by endorsement and the Board of Medical Examiners considered his application on April 12, 1985. Newcomer's application was denied by Order of the Board dated May 9, 1985, on the following ground: The applicant's supervised clinical training was not obtained in either a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association or in a residency program approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 21M21.18[sic]. Pierre Andre, M.D., a foreign medical-school graduate certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) applied for licensure by endorsement. Andre had passed the ECFMG examination and also the Foreign Licensure Examination (FLEX). The Board considered his application, and denied said application on the ground that his supervised training was not obtained in either a hospital affiliated with a medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or in a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in the specialty area in which his clinical training was obtained as required by Rule 21M-22.18, Florida Administrative Code. The Board adopted Rule 21M-22.18, which took effect on November 28, 1984, and it provided: Foreign Medical Graduates: Qualification Requirements. Before any foreign medical school graduate, except a graduate of an approved school in Canada is admitted to take the written licensure examination or be licensed by endorsements[sic], he or she must demonstrate (in addition to other requirements set forth in Chapter 458, F.S.) that the supervised clinical training received in the United States as part of the curriculum of the foreign medical school was obtained either in a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association or in a residency program approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The Board subsequently amended Rule 21M-22.18, and the amendment took effect March 13, 1985, to provide: Foreign Medical Graduates: Qualification Requirements. Before any graduate of a medical school not accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, except a graduate of an accredited school in Canada, is admitted to take the written licensure examination or be licensed by endorsement; he or she must demonstrate (in addition to other requirements set forth in Chapter 458, F.S.) that the supervised clinical training received in the United States as part of the curriculum of the medical school was obtained either in a hospital affiliated with a medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or in a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in the specialty area in which the clinical training is being obtained. This rule, as well as its amendment, were adopted to implement Sections 458.311 and 458.313(4), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated at the hearing that only Rule 21M-22.18 as originally enacted was applied to Petitioners and not the amendment which took effect March 13, 1985. According to Charles P. Gibbs, M.D., Assistant Dean for Curriculum at Shands Teaching Hospital and former chairman of the clerkship committee at Shands, clerkships are an essential part of a medical education because they are the first time the student is introduced to the real practice of medicine and contact with patients. Clerkships occur in the third and fourth years of a medical education, after the student has had courses in the basic sciences, pathology, pharmacology and an introduction to clinical medicine. During a clerkship, the student participates as part of a team and does patient histories, physicals, participates in discussions about patient care, observes operations and attends lectures. Dr. Gibbs testified that written exams, such as FLEX or the National Board, are important in measuring a student's cognitive knowledge and determining minimum qualifications, but cannot measure clinical qualities of a doctor such as how he relates to patients and reacts in stress situations, how he works with colleagues, and how he communicates. Clerkships are important in determining a student's performance level in these clinical qualities. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education has adopted standards for the accreditation of medical education programs which were ratified by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association on March 1, 1985, and the Executive Council of the Association of American Medical Colleges on April 4, 1985, and which state in part: The traditional required clinical subjects, which should be offered in the form of required experiences in patient care (customarily called clerkships), are internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry and surgery. Additionally, many schools require a clerkship in family medicine . . . . The curriculum must provide grounding in the body of knowledge represented in the disciplines that support the fundamental clinical subjects, for example, diagnostic imaging and clinical pathology. Students must have opportunities to gain knowledge in those content areas that incorporate several disciplines in providing medical care, for example, emergency medicine and the care of the elderly and disabled. In addition, students should have the opportunity to participate in research and other scholarly activities of the faculty. Robert B. Katims, M.D., testified as a member of the Board and Chairman of the Foreign Medical Graduates Committee of the Board. As Committee Chairman he had noted problems with the clinical experience being received by graduates of certain foreign medical schools that are not accredited and that are relatively new schools whose primary purpose is to train United States students rather than their own nationals. Dr. Katims observed that problems with the clinical experience offered at these schools arise because there are not enough teaching hospitals in some foreign countries, and therefore students cannot receive clinical training in those countries through a clerkship. Instead, they must arrange their own clinical experience, usually a preceptorship, in the United States. A preceptorship differs substantially from a clerkship in that it is usually either a one on one affiliation with a practicing physician with very little structured training, or occurs at an outpatient prepaid health plan facility. Dr. Katims testified that preceptorships do not meet the clinical training standards of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, and do not represent supervised clinical training.
Findings Of Fact By application dated July 20, 1995, Petitioner applied to Respondent for a Clinical Laboratory Supervisor's license. Petitioner has not earned a doctoral degree in clinical laboratory science, one of the specialty areas, or one of the chemical or biological sciences. Petitioner does not have a masters degree in clinical laboratory science, one of the specialty areas, or one of the chemical or biological sciences. Petitioner does not have a baccalaureate degree in medical technology, one of the specialty areas, or one of the chemical or biological sciences. Petitioner does have a baccalaureate degree in business administration and has taken college level courses in biology, human anatomy and chemistry. Petitioner has demonstrated that she has five years of pertinent experience following receipt of the degree. Accompanying her application for licensure, Petitioner presented documentation that she completed an advanced clinical practicum as a Specialist in Blood Bank Technology in 1995 and has been certified by the national Board of Registry in Chicago, Illinois. Petitioner did submit an evaluation of her college transcript by a qualified staff member of the Board of Registry, Chicago, Illinois. Petitioner did not submit an evaluation of her college transcript by a Chairperson of a chemical or biological science department of a regionally accredited U. S. college or university. Petitioner did not file a motion for an extension of time in which to submit an evaluation of her college transcript prior to the expiration of the thirty day extension period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a Clinical Laboratory Supervisor. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 27th day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-2187 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings. Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: Paragraphs 2 (see Preliminary Statement) and 3 (see preliminary statement). COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand L. McCharen Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Diane Orcutt, Executive Director Board of Clinical Laboratory Personnel Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Mary Donna Lee, pro se 2544 Robert Trent Jones Drive Apartment Number 816 Orlando, Florida 32835
The Issue The Administrative Complaint herein charges Respondent with violation of Section 458.331(1)(x) F.S. (violating Rule 21M-28.002 F.A.C.) by failing to submit documentation verifying his continuing medical education for the period January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987 in response to the Board of Medicine's random audit and further charges him with violation of Section 458.331(1)(a) by attempting to obtain, obtaining, or renewing a license to practice medicine by bribery, fraudulent misrepresentations, or through error of the department or board, to wit: falsely certifying that he had completed the continuing medical education requirements for the period from January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed by the Florida Board of Medicine, License No. ME 0034111. Respondent's Florida license expired on December 31, 1989 and has not been renewed. The Board of Medicine does not permit licensees to renew their licenses during a period of suspension. Pursuant to an October 29, 1990 Final Order, Respondent's license was suspended until such time as he complied with a prior December 16, 1988 Final Order reprimanding him and imposing an administrative fine of $2500 for a violation of Section 458.331(1)(b) F.S., discipline in another state, Texas. This cause involves Respondent's last biennial license renewal for the period 1988-1989. Pursuant to Section 455.213(5) F.S. as a condition of renewal of a license, the Board of Medical Examiners (Board of Medicine) shall require licensees which it regulates to periodically demonstrate their professional competency by completing at least 40 hours of continuing education every two years, of which at least five hours shall concern risk management. Criteria for, and content of, continuing education courses shall be approved by the Board. Pursuant to Rule 21M-28.002 F.A.C. every physician licensed pursuant to Chapter 458 F.S. shall be required to complete 40 hours of continuing medical education (CME) approved by the Board in the 24 months preceding each biennial renewal period as established by the Department. At least five of such CME hours required for renewal shall concern risk management. Pursuant to Rule 21M-28.002(2)(a) F.A.C. "risk management" means the identification, investigation, analysis, and evaluation of risks and the selection of the most advantageous method of correcting, reducing, or eliminating identifiable risks. Pursuant to Section 21M-28.002(3) F.A.C., part of the application for renewal shall include a form on which the licensee shall state that he has completed the required continuing education. Additionally, the licensee is affirmatively charged with retaining such receipts, vouchers, certificates, or other papers, such as physician recognition awards issued by the American Medical Association (AMA), as may be necessary to document completion of the continuing medical education listed by the licensee on the renewal form for a period of not less than four years from the date the course was taken. The Board is affirmatively charged with randomly auditing such numbers of licensees as is necessary to assure that the continuing education requirements are met. On or about January 18, 1988, Respondent signed the following statement which was thereafter submitted as part of his request to renew his license to practice medicine: I hereby certify that during the period January 1, 1986, through December 31, 1987, I have obtained no fewer than forty (40) hours of continuing medical education courses which meets the requirement of Chapter 455.213(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21M-28.002(6), Florida Administrative Code. I further certify that at least five (5) of the forty (40) hours concern risk management pursuant to Rule 21M-28.002(2), Florida Administrative Code. I understand that I must maintain such receipts, vouchers, certificates, or other papers to document completion of the CME requirements for a period of not less than four (4) years from the date the course was taken. I affirm that these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in a fine, suspension or revocation of my license as provided in Florida Statutes 455.2275, 775.082, or 775.084. The aforementioned statement concerning CME courses taken January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987 was required as part of the renewal process for the licensing period from January 1, 1988 through December 31, 1989. Without this statement, Respondent would not have been permitted to renew his license to practice medicine in Florida, but having made it, he was permitted to renew his Florida license. That renewal was based, in part, on the aforementioned statement signed by Respondent regarding completion of the mandatory CME credits. Thereafter, Respondent was selected randomly for audit purposes to verify his continuing medical education for the January 1, 1986 through December 31, 1987 period covered in his statement made January 18, 1988, as a predicate to license renewal. Respondent was required, pursuant to rule, to retain his documentation of 1986-1987 CME courses up through that course's same month and day in 1990 (for 1986) and 1991 (for 1987). On February 17, 1989, the agency received some CME documentation from Respondent, but it was returned to Respondent because it failed to document the required 5 hours in risk management (TR-12). Thereafter, Petitioner prosecuted Respondent for failure to provide adequate documentation of 5 hours of risk management CME credits and 35 hours of Category I CME. (TR-12-13 and the Administrative Complaint herein.) Mr. George Schaffer, the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) investigator, testified that he also wrote Respondent for documentation of all 1986-1987 CME credits (TR-26-27). Respondent replied to Mr. Schaffer's letter on June 12, 1990, stating, in pertinent part, as follows: I am in receipt of your letter of 6/7/90 concerning continuing education for 1985. To the best of my knowledge, this was submitted when requested. Due to lack of storage space, I am unable to keep papers from these activities longer than two years and I no longer have papers for CME 1985 in my possession. Part of my CME for that period was in Medical management and quality assurance and I did receive my MBA in June of 1986. (P-5) [Emphasis supplied.] Mr. Schaffer's letter is not in evidence, and Respondent's foregoing June 12, 1990 letter suggests that Respondent was under the impression that Mr. Schaffer was asking him to submit only 1985 materials concerning risk management courses. It is noted that as of 6/7/90, Respondent was only required by law to have available documentation from 6/7/86 forward (four years from date of any CME course), and that if Respondent had completed all his required CME credits between January 1, 1986 and June 6, 1986, he was not required by statute and rule to retain and produce the proof thereof after June 6, 1990, and given the agency's return of his documents to him in February 1989 with no question raised to all his CME credits, but only to his risk management credits, it is not unreasonable that he might not have retained all of his CME documentation. However, in his response to Mr. Schaffer, Respondent has admitted that, contrary to law, he has failed to retain any CME materials more than two years. Likewise, once he was timely informed in February 1989 that his risk management hours were incompletely documented, he was on notice as of that date to submit proper documentation for his risk management hours, and as of that date charged with retaining and producing that documentation. After the Administrative Complaint herein was filed, the Respondent mailed to the DPR attorney of record a January 2, 1991 letter from "Prof. The Hon. Dr. M.E. West, O.M." on stationery of the University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica Campus. That letter states: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN CATEGORY 1 CME HOURS This is to certify that Dr. The Hon. Albert B. Lockhart has participated in a going Medical Education in the area of Risk Management from 1985-90. The hours are as following:- 1985 10 hours 1986 12 hours 1987 10 hours 1988 15 hours 1989 12 hours 1990 10 hours TOTAL 69 hours (Signature) Prof. The Hon. Dr. M.E. West, OM (P-6) Rule 21M-28.002 (6) F.A.C. describes and defines the CME courses approved by the Board and does not on its face certify as approved the courses set out in the foregoing finding of fact. The letter from "Dr. West" is not verified or notarized, and there is no evidence in this record to establish who "Dr. West" is or what constitutes his authority with regard to "going" Medical Education, whatever that may be. Respondent did nothing further to establish his compliance with the Florida CME requirements. The result is that Respondent has only established that during 1986 and 1987, the years he was requested to document, he took 22 hours of medical education, which hours have not been shown to meet the quality standards established by the Board for either Category I CME or risk management courses, pursuant to rule. 1/
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Count I of the Administrative Complaint by violation of Section 458.331(1)(x) F.S. and not guilty of Count II of the Administrative Complaint, imposing a $5,000 penalty, and suspending Respondent's license until such time as he has paid the penalty and proved to the satisfaction of the Board that he has completed an additional approved 35 CME hours and 5 risk management CME hours, such hours to be in addition to any hours previously earned or required by rule. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1991, 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 14th day of May, 1991.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's academic record meets the academic requirements that are prerequisites to taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for approval to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. The Petitioner studied engineering at the Tongji University in the People's Republic of China from 1991 to 1995. He majored in Building Engineering and was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Engineering on July 10, 1995. Beginning in September of 1995, the Petitioner studied engineering at the graduate level at Tongji University. His graduate studies lasted until April of 1998, at which time he was awarded the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Structural Engineering. During the course of his graduate studies at Tongji University from September of 1995 until April of 1998, the Petitioner completed a total of 38 semester credit hours. Those semester credit hours included the following courses with their indicated semester credit hours: Applied Statistics 2 credit hours Numerical Analysis 3 credit hours The courses titled Applied Statistics and Numerical Analysis are both higher mathematics courses. In the fall of 2000, the Petitioner began further graduate studies in engineering at Auburn University. He studied at Auburn University through the spring of 2002. The courses taken by the Petitioner at Auburn University included the following, with the indicated number of semester credit hours: Advanced Structural Analysis 3 credit hours Advanced Stress Analysis 3 credit hours Structural Dynamics I 3 credit hours Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics 3 credit hours The course titled Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics is a higher mathematics class. The other three Auburn courses listed immediately above, if not pure mathematics courses, are certainly courses which involve the application of advanced principles of mathematics. To successfully complete such courses, a person would have to be well-grounded in higher mathematics. In the fall of 2002, the Petitioner transferred to the University of Florida where he continued his graduate studies in engineering. On December 20, 2003, the University of Florida awarded the Petitioner the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Civil Engineering. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 20.007 the Petitioner submitted his educational credentials to an educational evaluator approved by the Board. The evaluator selected by the Petitioner was Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. (Silny). Following its evaluation of the Petitioner's educational credentials, Silny prepared a Report of Evaluation of Educational Credentials (Silny Report) dated June 15, 2005. The Silny Report reached the conclusion that the Petitioner's undergraduate education at Tongji University was not the equivalent of a degree in engineering earned from a program approved by ABET. Silny was of the view that the Petitioner's undergraduate course of study at Tongji University was not equivalent because his curriculum was deficient five semester credit hours in higher mathematics and basic sciences and was deficient one semester credit hour in humanities and social sciences.1 The conclusions reached in the Silny Report were based on an evaluation of the Petitioner's undergraduate course work at Tongji University from 1991 to 1995. The Silny Report did not take into consideration any of the courses taken by the Petitioner during his graduate studies at Tongji University from 1995 to 1998, during his graduate studies at Auburn University from 2000 to 2002, or during his graduate studies at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2003. During his undergraduate engineering studies at Tongji University, the Petitioner completed 36 semester hour credits of course work in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences. Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University represent less study than semester credit hours completed at an accredited engineering school in a university in the United States of America. Specifically, Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University are the equivalent of only 75 percent of semester credit hours earned in accredited engineering programs in the United States of America. Accordingly, when Silny evaluated the Petitioner's undergraduate education credentials, Silny multiplied the 36 semester credit hours the Petitioner had completed at Tongji University in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences by a factor of 0.75, and concluded that those 36 semester credit hours were equivalent to only 27 semester credit hours at an accredited engineering program in the United States of America.2 Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007 includes the following requirements regarding applicants with degrees from foreign institutions: Applicants having degrees from foreign institutions shall be required to document “substantial equivalency” to the 2002 ABET Accreditation Yearbook for Accreditation Cycle Ended September 30, 2002 engineering criteria. This document is hereby incorporated by reference. In order to document “substantial equivalency” to an ABET accredited engineering program, the applicant must demonstrate: 32 college credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences. The hours of mathematics must be beyond algebra and trigonometry and must emphasize mathematical concepts and principles rather than computation. Courses in probability and statistics, differential calculus, integral calculus, and differential equations are required. Additional courses may include linear algebra, numerical analysis, and advanced calculus. As for the hours in basic sciences, courses in general chemistry and calculus-based general physics are required, with at least a two semester (or equivalent) sequence of study in either area. Additional basic sciences courses may include life sciences (biology), earth sciences (geology), and advanced chemistry or physics. Computer skills and/or programming courses cannot be used to satisfy mathematics or basic science requirements. 16 college credit hours in humanities and social sciences. Examples of traditional courses in this area are philosophy, religion, history, literature, fine arts, sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology, economics, and no more than 6 credit hours of languages other than English or other than the applicant’s native language. Courses in technology and human affairs, history of technology, professional ethics and social responsibility are also acceptable. Courses such as accounting, industrial management, finance, personnel administration, engineering economics and military training are not acceptable. Courses which instill cultural values are acceptable, while routine exercises of personal craft are not. 48 college credit hours of engineering science and engineering design. Courses in this area have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. Examples of traditional engineering science courses are mechanics, thermodynamics, electrical and electronic circuits, materials science, transport phenomena, and computer science (other than computer programming skills). Courses in engineering design stress the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation. In order to promote breadth, at least one engineering course outside the major disciplinary area is required. In addition, evidence of attainment of appropriate laboratory experience, competency in English, and understanding of the ethical, social, economic and safety considerations of engineering practice must be presented. As for competency in English, transcripts of course work completed, course content syllabi, testimonials from employers, college level advanced placement tests, Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores of at least 550 in the paper- based version, or 213 in the computer-based version, will be accepted as satisfactory evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner has met the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, and is eligible to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the pleadings and the evidence adduced at the hearings in this cause, the following pertinent facts are found: On November 25, 1974, H. M. Harmes, then Director of the School Service Center, notified respondent by letter of his appointment to teach ED 598, "Crucial Issues in Education", during Quarter II, 1975. The letter of appointment explained respondent's salary and the materials and consultants available to him. The letter further stated: "This is a credit bearing contract short course; therefore all college and university regulations pertaining to credit courses must be observed. In addition, you should read the enclosed description of instructor's procedures and follow them carefully." The letter noted that it had an enclosure. It was the practice of the Division of Continuing education to include a copy of a document entitled "Credit Institute Instructor's Procedures" with each letter of appointment. Respondent accepted the appointment on November 26, 1974, by signing the letter and returning it to the Division of Continuing Education. The course in question was a continuing education offering for teachers and administrators. The course was to begin on February 7, 1975 and meet for ten hours (three hours on Friday evening and seven hours on Saturday) on each of five weekends, the student earning five quarter credit hours upon successful completion. The "Credit Institute Instructor's Procedures" contains several provisions regarding the registration of students. It provides that: "For programs which will meet fewer than ten times, this (registration) must be done at the first meeting. If the program will have ten or more meetings, registration may continue to the second meeting, but no later." Other provisions are "under no circumstances are you to accept or handle money from students. . . for payment of fees . . ." and "students may register only during the open registration period. Therefore, all students will appear on the first class roll. None will be added." A flyer prepared by respondent to advertise the course provided for preregistration and stated that checks were to be made payable to Florida Atlantic University. On or before the date the class first met on February 7, 1975, twenty students were properly registered. On the third class meeting (Friday, February 14, 1976), three additional students appeared and inquired of respondent if they could register at that time. These three persons had wives or friends already registered in the class, and it was convenient for them to travel to and from class with those already registered. Respondent allowed these three persons to register and instructed them to date their application February 7, 1975; and to make their checks payable to respondent. Respondent informed them that he would register them for the course if possible. If not, he would register them for the same course to be offered by respondent the following quarter. This arrangement was agreeable to the three students. At that time, respondent had not been appointed to teach the course for the following quarter. He was subsequently appointed to teach the same course for Quarters III and IV. On February 14, 1975, the three late students filled out the application forms, dated them February 7th, and wrote checks payable to respondent. On February 18, 1975, respondent deposited the three checks in his personal checking account. He did not feel that the administration would permit the late applicants to register and therefore, without making inquiry, he did not register the three students for the winter quarter and the students did not receive credit for completing the course. Respondent misplaced somewhere in his office the application forms completed by the three students in question. Although requests were received by respondent from each of the three students as to their receipt of credit for the course, respondent took no steps to register these students during the following two quarters in which he taught the course. Sometime during the summer of 1975, respondent found the applications in his office. However, it was not until the University intervened on behalf of one of the three students - in September of 1975 - that respondent turned in the applications and paid the University $300.00 for their registration fees. The three students were then given credit and grades for the course. By a complaint dated October 2, 1975, petitioner charged respondent with misconduct and sought to terminate his employment contract for cause. Respondent requested a hearing on the compliant and petitioner's President requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the hearing. The undersigned was assigned as the Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent's contract of employment be immediately terminated for cause. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of March, 1976. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Glenwood L. Creech President Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Leonard H. Klatt, Esquire University Attorney Florida Atlantic University Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Frank A. Kriedler, Esquire Attorney for Respondent 141 S.E. Avenue C P. O. Box 881 Belle Glade, Florida 33430
