Findings Of Fact In October 1985, Dennis J. Donegan, Petitioner, qualified for and took the examination for medical technologist in hematology. He passed the examination and was subsequently so licensed. Effective January 1, 1986 new rules were adopted increasing the requirements for eligibility for applicants to take examinations in the various fields of medical technologist specialties. Although this rule was adopted by Respondent after complying with the procedural requirements for adopting rules, Petitioner was not personally notified of the change and was unaware of the increased requirements until his application to take the fall 1986 examinations in chemistry and microbiology specialties was denied. By letter dated August 27, 1986 Respondent denied the application because Petitioner did not meet the education requirements established by the rule which became effective January 1, 1986. Petitioner contends that had he known of the proposed rule change he would have applied and sat for all of the various laboratory technologist specialty examinations before the rule change became effective. Petitioner further contends that under Rule 10D-41.69(6) he is qualified to sit for the examination by reason of being an applicant who was qualified to sit for an examination prior to January 1, 1986.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated April 14, 1986, the Respondent denied the Petitioner's application to take the medical technologist examination in microbiology under the provisions of the Florida Clinical laboratory Law, Chapter 483, Florida Statutes because the Petitioner did not show "verification of 4 years pertinent microbiology experience required under Section 10D-41.69(5), Florida Administrative Code." By letter dated May 6, 1986, the Petitioner disputed the factual allegations contained in the Respondent's letter of denial and requested an administrative hearing. An informal administrative hearing was held in this cause on August 25, 1986. The hearing officer at the informal proceeding concluded that there were disputed issues of material fact and that the case should be reset for a formal hearing. On November 26, 1986, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings for conduct of a formal administrative hearing. On February 17, 1987, a Notice of Hearing was mailed to both parties setting this cause for April 15, 1987, in Miami, Florida. The Petitioner's notice was addressed to 461 Lee Drive, Miami Springs, Florida 33166. All documents within the case file indicate that that is the Petitioner's correct address. The Notice was not returned to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the postal service. The Petitioner failed to attend the formal hearing, did not send a representative and did not communicate with the undersigned in any way regarding the formal hearing. After waiting approximately 45 minutes past the scheduled time for commencement of the formal hearing, the hearing was opened and the Respondent indicated that it did not desire to present any evidence. Therefore, no evidence was taken and the hearing was adjourned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application to take the medical technologist examination in microbiology be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of day May, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire District XI Legal Counsel 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Suite 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Robert Acle 461 Lee Drive Miami Springs, Florida 33166 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, including the stipulation of counsel, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, First Environmental Laboratories, Inc. (FEL), is a Delaware corporation organized on April 10, 1989, for the purpose of owning, operating and carrying on an environmental laboratory testing business. It has no divisions or subsidiaries. Its principal place of business is located at 2 Stewart Court, Bridgeview Business Park, Denville, New Jersey. The corporation was issued a certificate of authority to transact business in the state of Florida on September 1, 1989. Under that certificate, FEL has engaged in business operations and transactions with public entities as defined by Section 287.133, Florida Statutes. One such entity is the Department of Environmental Protection for whom FEL has provided services and bid on contracts. FEL commenced active business operations on May 1, 1989. Effective the same date, Richard D. Posner was employed by FEL to be president of the company and to manage its business. Prior to joining FEL, Posner had been employed for many years by a company named United States Testing Corporation (USTC) in a senior management position. USTC also provides environmental laboratory testing services and is registered to do business with the state of Florida. Posner caused FEL to employ certain other individuals who worked for him at USTC. Among others, they included Jane Dunn, Stephen Pevera, Seyed Dastgheyb, Hossein Behzadi and Eliezer Patxot (Posner associates). In August 1989, FEL was served with a complaint in a civil lawsuit filed by USTC in Superior Court of New Jersey. Named as defendants were Posner, the Posner associates, FEL and Inchcape Inspection & Testing Services Limited, an affiliate of FEL located in England. The lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Posner and the Posner associates, while employed at USTC, had committed certain wrongful acts at issue in a government investigation of USTC. FEL received a notice of temporary suspension from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dated June 15, 1990, for a period of one year. The notice was based on what Posner and the Posner associates were alleged to have done while with USTC and the fact that they were subsequently employed by FEL. The EPA determined that FEL and Posner and his associates were "affiliates." The notice did not cite, however, any wrongdoing on the part of FEL, nor was it alleged that Posner and the associates committed any wrongful acts while employed by FEL. By notice dated May 17, 1991, FEL's notice of temporary suspension by the EPA was amended to include allegations with respect to certain laboratory testing work performed by FEL in connection with a contract being performed by a company named EG&G for the Air Force. Subsequently, the suspension period was extended for a period of six months. Posner and the Posner associates received individual notices of temporary suspensions from the EPA on June 19, 1990. The suspensions were for a period of one year and were based on acts committed by them while with USTC. None of the improper activities contained in the notices involved FEL. FEL has not had any fines or damages imposed against it which would require payment. Moreover, FEL has cooperated with the EPA and the Department of Justice. More specifically, it submitted proposals to restructure the company, realign positions and duties, terminate certain personnel, including Posner and the Posner associates, and institute new quality assurance procedures. In addition, when it learned of the federal criminal investigation, it cooperated by providing copies of documents in its possession to the federal government. The federal government's investigation centered on the activities of Posner and the Posner associates while with USTC, and included inquiry into the activities of Posner and the others while they were with FEL. The inquiry also focused on FEL's laboratory testing work in connection with the EG&G/Air Force contract. No charges were ever brought against FEL in connection with this investigation. Posner was later convicted in Federal District Court on two counts of violating Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1001 and 1002, a public entity crime. He was thereafter placed on the Florida convicted vendor list on May 17, 1993, by order of respondent, Department of Management Services (DMS). FEL fully cooperated with DMS in connection with this investigation. It has disassociated itself from Posner, the Posner associates, and certain other employees hired by Posner by terminating their employment. Their termination occurred prior to Posner's conviction of a public entity crime and thus Posner was not active in the management of FEL after being convicted. FEL's temporary suspension by the EPA expired on December 20, 1991. The EPA did not seek to extend or reimpose the suspension of FEL or to debar or otherwise preclude FEL from bidding on or performing government contracts. FEL is not now subject to any suspension, debarment or other similar action by any federal, state or local government department or agency. Placing FEL on the convicted vendor list will reduce competition in the procurement of laboratory testing services. Also, both parties agree that FEL has demonstrated good citizenship by voluntarily terminating Posner's employment after it became evident that there was apparent substance to the charges against him by the EPA and the Justice Department, and by cooperating with investigations by those agencies and DMS.
The Issue Should the Board of Nursing (the Board) impose discipline on Respondent's nursing license for violating Section 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2003)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts At all times material to this Complaint, Respondent was a registered nurse (R.N.) within the state of Florida, having been issued license number RN 2055672. Respondent's address of record is Rt. 22, Box 2347, Lake City, Florida 32024. On or about April 21, 2004, Respondent submitted to a pre-employment drug screen. The drug screen returned on or about April 24, 2004, indicating a positive test result for cannabinoids - tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal active component of Marijuana. Marijuana is a schedule I controlled substance pursuant to Section 893.03(1)(c)35., Florida Statutes. A substance in Schedule I has a high potential for abuse and has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and its use under medical supervision does not meet acceptable safety standards. Respondent did not have a lawful prescription or a legitimate medical reason for using Marijuana, or any other substance that might test positive for cannabinoids - tetrahydrocannabinol. Specimen Submission On April 21, 2004, when Respondent underwent a pre- employment drug screen, it was by providing a urine specimen. As the donor she signed a form with the following language: I certify that I provided my urine specimen to the collector: that I have not adulterated it in any manner: each specimen bottle used was sealed with a tamper evidence seal in my presence and that the information provided on this form and on the label affixed to each specimen bottle is correct. It was specimen ID number 190920 to be submitted for drug testing at Doctors Laboratory, Inc. (Doctors Laboratory) in Valdosta, Georgia. The reason Respondent provided the urine specimen was in relation to a job application with Shands, Lake Shore, Live Oak and Starke (Shands) whose business address is in Gainesville, Florida. Respondent was tested for drugs in accordance with the Florida Drug Free Work Place Program that is part of the pre-employment process for the prospective employer. The urine specimen was tested for the presence of amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines and methaqualone. Respondent's urine specimen was packaged and shipped to Doctors Laboratory in Valdosta, Georgia, where it was received on April 22, 2004, for testing. The test designed to detect cannabinoids is referred to as "9 CARBOXY-THC." The laboratory test performed on Respondent's urine specimen returned as positive for the presence of cannabinoids, outside what would be considered an acceptable range. On April 23, 2004, Doctors Laboratory released Respondent's test results to the Occupational Health Services Unit within Shands, which was received by that unit on the same date as evidenced by a stamp found on the laboratory test information copy. On April 26, 2004, nurse Denise Cannon signed a document that is headed "Shands Healthcare Occupational Health Services Positive/Abnormal Drug Screen." It pertains to Respondent. It mentions the prospective hiring of the Respondent to work at Lakeshore in the position of R.N./ICU. It notes of the positive drug screen for: 9 CARBOXY-THC-Marijuana. It notes that nurse Cannon notified Respondent of the results on April 26, 2004. Part of the notification was to verify Respondent's identity by social security and date of birth and to advise Respondent of Shands Drug Free Work Place Policy, as well as rights/responsibility under the Florida Drug Free Work Place Act of 1988. The form indicates that Respondent requested a consultation with the MRO, short for Medical Review Officer. It comments that the Respondent was not hired. The comment section states that Respondent "would like to contest the drug screen." On April 28, 2004, a MRO Verification Worksheet was completed in relation to the Respondent and specimen ID 190920, which shows that a positive result was received on April 27, 2004. On April 28, 2004, the worksheet was signed by Dr. Ku-Lang Chang M.D., M.R.O. According to the MRO Verification Worksheet, an attempt was made to call Respondent on April 27, 2004. On April 28, 2004, as the worksheet describes, a message was left "LM with husband." The Verification Worksheet goes on to describe that on April 28, 2004, an interview was conducted in which the "applicant decided not to pursue this." This is understood to refer to Respondent as the applicant. In the April 28, 2004, conversation Respondent was informed of the test results. The MRO Verification Worksheet has a notation that "reported to IPN 5/3/04" IPN is read to refer to the intervention project for nurses. In conclusion, the MRO Verification Worksheet made a verification decision: positive for 9 CARBOXY-THC. On April 28, 2004, Dr. Ku-Lang Chang notified N. Denise Cannon, R.N., Occupational Health Unit within Shands, of the positive drug screen. On May 10, 2004, nurse Cannon executed a form provided by the Department reporting on Respondent's positive drug screen. On June 10, 2004, nurse Cannon wrote Ms. Julie Weeks, of the Department, outlining the drug screen process, notification of the results on April 26, 2004, and the advice to Respondent to contact IPN. The June 10, 2004, correspondence refers to Respondent's request that the results of the drug screen be turned over to Dr. Ku-Lang Chang, Medical Review Officer (MRO). The June 10, 2004, correspondence from nurse Cannon to Ms. Weeks speaks of the intervention project, the IPN, Intake Case Manager Pat Falke and Respondent's failure to follow through with the recommendations of IPN. As a consequence, Nurse Cannon corresponded with the Department to undertake an investigation. On May 28, 2004, Pat Falke, had written nurse Cannon indicating that efforts at gaining Respondent's participation with IPN had not succeeded and reminding nurse Cannon to proceed with the execution of the uniform complaint on the Department's form. Laboratory Analysis Doctors Laboratory where Respondent's urine specimen was analyzed is a clinical reference laboratory that serves Florida, among other states. Its affiliation with Florida is in relation to the Florida Drug Free Work Place Program in providing forensic urine drug testing for employment screening. Richard Earl Struempler, B.S., M.T., (ASCP), MS, MA, NRCC is the Director of Operations and the Director of Toxicology for Doctors Laboratory. As such, he is responsible for the day-to- day operations of the forensic urine drug testing laboratory pertaining to procedures and protocols, in the interest of making certain that the procedures followed in the laboratory comply with rules, regulations, and certification standards for the Florida Drug Free Work Place Program employment drug testing, among other affiliations. By stipulation, Mr. Struempler was accepted as an expert in toxicology and drug testing for purposes of his testimony. On April 22, 2004, Doctors Laboratory received Respondent's urine specimen for drug testing. Tests were performed to detect the class of drugs that have been described. Within that grouping was Marijuana which is also known as THC. THC stands for tetrahydrocannabinol, with delta nine tetrahydrocannabinol being the main psychoactive ingredient found in Marijuana. The test conducted on the urine specimen was designed to look for the metabolite of this substance in the carboxylic acid form. Respondent's urine specimen was collected in Gainesville and taken by carrier to Doctors Laboratory in Valdosta, Georgia. When it arrived by carrier, it was placed in the accessioning area within the laboratory for immediate transfer to the drug testing area within the laboratory. The accessioning area is a secured facility within the laboratory with limited access, access only to the individual(s) who would need to work with the specimen. Shipping containers are opened in the accessioning area and the individual specimens are removed with an interest in discovering any damage or tampering that may have occurred during shipment. The sample is assigned an accessioning number and is marked as being received in the drug testing laboratory accessioning area. Nothing about Respondent's sample indicated that there were signs of tampering or damage. It was specifically indicated that the primary seal bottle for the urine specimen was intact upon arrival. The accessioning number for Respondent's drug specimen was 07163062. That number was utilized in tracking the urine specimen through activities associated with the urine specimen while in the laboratory. Two tests were employed to analyze Respondent's urine specimen in Doctors Laboratory. The first test, referred to as an initial test, was the immunoassay test designed to identify categories of drugs, to include cannabinoids. It is an antibody antigen reaction test to reveal a color associated with a given drug. At this stage the laboratory also does specimen validity testing, looking for the presence of any indicators that might show that the specimen was tampered with. These steps in the process were utilized in analyzing Respondent's urine specimen. The initial test was by use of an aliquot of the urine specimen. The immunoassay test is accepted in the scientific community and is contemplated as a protocol related to the Florida Drug Free Workplace Program. Respondent's results show the presence of cannabinoids at the cut-off level of 15 nanograms per milliliter or greater. Being within that range, it was considered to be a positive test. Recognizing the positive results, the laboratory staff tested the urine specimen further through what is referred to as confirmation testing. When the confirmation test was performed, a fresh aliquot was obtained from the urine specimen bottle. The confirmation test is designed to extract from the urine, delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol or delta 9 THC carboxylic acid. The extracted material is concentrated in a small vial and derivatized or converted into a form that allows it to be analyzed by an instrument known as a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer, also referred to as GC/MS. This step in the process is designed to separate THC from other things found in the urine specimen, breaking it down into molecular components. The components are measured as to size, weight, and amount. The GC/MS test is considered within the scientific community to be accurate and reliable. The results of the test on Respondent's urine specimen revealed the presence of delta 9 THC carboxylic acid at 57.5 nanograms per milliliter, a significant amount confirming the presence of the drug. The immunoassay and GC/MS test equipment was properly calibrated before performing the test on Respondent's urine specimen. The tests were properly performed. The chain of custody from the collection point through the testing regimen was not breached and is well documented. The chain of custody was maintained in accordance with standards required at Doctors Laboratory. Respondent's urine specimen that remained following the laboratory test was retained for at least a year, the period required for retention. During that time, no request was made to make the specimen available for independent testing outside the laboratory. As an expert, Dr. Struempler offered his professional opinion that Respondent's urine specimen was collected and submitted to the Doctors Laboratory in accordance with standard operating procedures, that the test and handling of the specimen was in accordance with standard operating procedures, and that the results of the tests reported on April 23, 2004, as being positive for the presence of cannabinoids, THC, was a true and accurate reflection of the nature of the substance found. No administrative or technical errors in the handling and testing occurred. Dr. Struempler expressed the opinion that the Respondent, donor, would have had to have consumed Marijuana or a Marijuana THC containing product one to four days prior to submission of the specimen or as long as 10 days prior to the submission under extreme circumstances. Dr. Struempler's expert opinion is accepted.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2003), for failing to meet the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practices through a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.005(2)(k) and that Respondent be fined $250, subject to IPN evaluation and placed on a period of probation for one year, in accordance with the disciplinary guidelines provision set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.006(2)(vv). DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 2nd day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Miller, Esquire Ellen Simon, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Duncan Alden Jones, Esquire 330 Southwest Fourth Avenue High Springs, Florida 32643 Rick Garcia, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tom Koch, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following facts: That at all times material to these proceedings, Respondent, Luis A. Doural was licensed as Clinical Laboratory Technologist, License No. JC 0008567, in the specialty areas of Serology, Hematology and Immunohematology. which are 2, 4 and 5, respectively. That Respondent, Luis A. Doural altered his Clinical Laboratory Technologist License by adding the specialty areas of Microbiology and Clinical chemistry which are 1 and 3, respectively. This alteration resulted in Respondent's license showing specialty areas of Microbiology, Serology, Clinical Chemistry, Hematology and Immunohematology which are 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. That Respondent, Luis A. Dural altered his Clinical Laboratory Technologist license in order to obtain a job as a Clinical Laboratory Technologist at Miami General Hospital. That the alteration was discovered in a routine check of Miami General Hospital by Petitioner and not as a result of a malfeasance or misfeasance on the part of Respondent. The following facts were determined at the hearing: That Respondent had failed to pass the test in Microbiology and Clinical Chemistry. That Respondent had performed some procedures in Clinical Chemistry under supervision but in his Petition For Administrative Hearings he alleged that he was not called upon to perform any procedure in the unlicensed areas. That Respondent tried to cover-up the misrepresentation of his license when confronted by the hospital. The following testimony of Respondent went unrebutted: That he was under extreme pressure and financial hardship due to medical care needed by his daughter and that these circumstances caused his poor judgment in his intentional misrepresentation of his license. That he had lost his job with the Miami General Hospital. That if his license was revoked he would lose his present job where he is now working in the area of specialties in which he is licensed.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 4S3.21(2)(7) and 483.23(2), Florida Statutes (1983). For such violations, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violations, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order suspending Respondent's Clinical Laboratory Technologist License for a period of two (2) years and assess the Respondent with an Administrative Fine of $500.00, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of two (2) years, with conditions necessary to carry out the probation provided Respondent pays the $500.00 Administrative Fine within ninety (90) days. The Respondent's failure to pay the fine within the time specified will result in his license being suspended for a period of two (2) years with the requirement that when the fine is paid and the suspension lifted, the Respondent must appear before the Petitioner for reinstatement of his license. Appearance before the Petitioner for reinstatement will not be required provided the fine is paid timely and the conditions of probation are not violated in any respect. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Health Department 1350 NW 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Verne L. Freeland, Esquire., P. O. Box 693652 Miami, Florida 332169 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Shelly Gans, graduated from high school in June, 1973. She attended Broward Community College during terms 1 and 3 of the 1973-74 academic year, where she earned fifteen (15) credits. She does not have two years of academic study as required by Rule 10D-41.069(5). She then attended Sheridan Vocational Technical Center from February, 1974 to February, 1975. She was thereafter employed by Dr. Stephen Katzman from March, 1975 through August, 1979 as a technologist doing laboratory testing including phlebotomy. She was thereafter employed at Florida Medical Center as a technologist doing blood banking, hematology, chemistry and part time phlebotomy. Ms. Gans passed the October, 1983 proficiency examination for clinical laboratory technologists given by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control. After passing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services examination, Ms. Gans was licensed as a clinical laboratory technician by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Office of Licensure and Certification, Laboratory Personnel Licensure, through June 30, 1986. In October, 1984, Ms. Gans was examined by HRS for licensure as a clinical laboratory technologist in the specialties of clinical chemistry, hematology and immuno- hematology. She passed the immunohematology examination but failed the hematology and clinical chemistry examinations. She re-applied and took those examinations in April, 1985 when she passed the hematology examination but failed the chemistry examination a second time. Under Rule 10D- 41.071(9), Florida Administrative Code, Ms. Gans was required to take continuing education before she could re-apply to sit for the chemical chemistry examination a third time. Ms. Gans enrolled in Broward Community College in the second term of the 1985-1986 school year and took three hours in general chemistry. That course ended after January 1, 1986. She re-applied for examination as a technologist in the specialty of clinical chemistry on July 14, 1986. Her application for that examination was denied on August 14, 1986 because she did not have sixty (60) semesters of college credits which the Department believed was required under Section 10D-41.C69(5), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Shelly Gans be permitted to sit for the technologist examination in clinical chemistry when it is next given because she meets the requirements of Rule 10D- 41.069(6), as currently written and has taken retraining in clinical chemistry after she twice failed the examination, as is required by Rule 10D-41.071(9), Florid Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3670 The following constitute my rulings on proposed findings of fact pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, (1985). Rulings on Proposed Findings by Petitioner The proposals by the Petitioner are generally in the form of argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Relevant proposed factual findings have been made in the Recommended Order. Rulings on Proposed Findings by Respondent Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 4. Covered in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as an improper reading of Rule 10D-41.069(6). Rejected because the issue is not when notice of the rule was given, but what the rule says. Rejected as based on hearsay. Moreover, even if it was the intention of Centers of Disease Control that the Department of Health and Human Services examination not be a permanent means of credentialing in lieu of education and experience requirements, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has not implemented that intent in the rule which it enacted. Rejected as unnecessary. That Ms. Gans' application was received after January 1, 1986 is covered in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis Staff Attorney HRS Office of Licensure & Certification 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Shelly Gans 4163 Southwest 67th Avenue Apartment 104C Davie, Florida 33314 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
