The Issue The issue in this case is whether Patrick Dennis (Petitioner) should be granted additional credit for any physical diagnosis practical examination questions which he answered on the May, 1990, chiropractic examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (Respondent), or whether, in the alternative, he should be permitted to retake the chiropractic practical examination at no additional charge.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a graduate of the New York Chiropractic College, is licensed to practice chiropractic in New York and New Jersey, and is seeking licensure as a chiropractor in the State of Florida. He took the chiropractic practical examination administered by the Respondent in May, 1990, receiving grades of 96.6% in X-ray interpretation, 95.3% in technique, and 63.75% in physical diagnosis. A grade of 75% on each portion of the practical examination is required to pass. After receiving notification that he had failed the examination, Petitioner timely requested a hearing to determine if he should be granted additional credit on this practical exam. It was established that the practical exam was properly administered, appropriate standardization procedures were followed, and each examiner independently graded Petitioner's exam, and was qualified to serve as an examiner. At hearing, the Petitioner solely disputed the score he received in the content areas of general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. A four point scoring system is used on the practical examination. A score of 4 means that the candidate demonstrated an exceptional knowledge and understanding of the subject area; a score of 3 represents an adequate understanding; a score of 2 indicates an inadequate knowledge of the subject area; and a score of 1 indicates that the candidate would be a danger to the public if allowed to practice in that particular subject area. If a grader feels that the candidate's answer demonstrates a degree of knowledge that is between two of these scores, a .5 credit can be given. This is a subjective, rather than an objective, scoring system that requires each examiner to use his own judgment in evaluating the completeness of a candidate's response; generally, there are no simple right or wrong answers to practical exam questions. In arriving at a candidate's overall percentage score, a score of 4 equals 100 points, a score of 3 equals 75 points, 2 equals 50 points, and 1 equals 25 points. A .5 score equals 12.5 points. For example, a score of 3.5 would equal 87.5 points. Each content area of the practical exam is weighted equally, and there were 5 content areas in the May, 1990, chiropractic practical exam. Two examiners are used to score each candidate's practical examination, and the scores given by each examiner are then averaged to give the candidate's overall grade. In this instance, out of a possible 4 credits, the Petitioner received a grade of 1 and 1.5 from his two examiners in general physical examination, and grades of 1.5 and 2 from the examiners in laboratory diagnosis. In this case, the Petitioner has presented challenges to the grades he received on these two content areas of the practical exam, general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. Since there are five portions of the physical diagnosis exam, and an average of 75%, or an average score of 3, is required to pass the examination, a cumulative average score of 15 (3 points times the 5 exam areas) is required. The Petitioner's cumulative average score was 12.75, or 2.25 points short of passage. Thus, he would have to receive an increase of 2.25 points in the average of the grades he received from the two examiners on the general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis portions of the exam, in order to receive an overall passing score. Regarding the general physical examination content area, the Petitioner was asked to describe how a prostate examination should be conducted. Petitioner understood that this was a rectal exam, but he testified that he was not trained to perform such examinations at New York Chiropractic College, and he had not seen one performed. Therefore, he could not, and did not, describe how to perform a prostate exam. The evidence is conflicting concerning whether New York Chiropractic College offered instruction in prostate examinations. The Petitioner testified that such instruction was not offered, but Dr. Todd Zazulia, who graduated from that college in 1978 and who is a licensed Florida chiropractor, testified that such instruction was offered at New York Chiropractic College. Documentary evidence received from the Dean of Academic Affairs at New York Chiropractic College, Dr. Anthony Onorato, confirms Dr. Zazulia's testimony. Dr. Salvatore D. LaRusso graduated from this same college in 1984, after Petitioner and Dr. Zazulia, and he testified that instruction in the examination of the prostate was not offered at that time. The Petitioner testified that he was taught to recognize signs and symptoms associated with prostate problems since they cause lower back pains, and that he was taught laboratory tests that would signify prostatic problems. He admitted that he felt an obligation to recognize potential problems from signs and symptoms associated with the prostate. The greater weight of the evidence supports the Respondent's position that the Petitioner was offered instruction in signs and symptoms of prostate problems, as well as rectal prostatic examinations, at New York Chiropractic College. Therefore, the Petitioner has failed to establish that he should not have been asked a question about prostate examinations on his practical examination. The Respondent introduced competent substantial evidence to establish that some chiropractors in Florida do perform prostate examinations, and that this practice is within the recognized scope of practice of chiropractic in Florida. Although a substantial number of chiropractors in Florida do not perform this examination, and although there is evidence that it is a violation of chiropractic licensing statutes and rules in a majority of states for chiropractors to perform prostate examinations, nevertheless there is no evidence that the Florida Board of Chirporactic has adopted any rule or taken any action against any chiropractor in Florida for performing such examinations. In fact, Dr. Phil Leon, a licensed Florida chiropractor and licensure examiner, testified that he has asked a question about prostatic examinations of almost every applicant he has examined over the past five years. Documentary evidence submitted by the Respondent from other examiners confirms Dr. Leon's testimony that such questions are a regular part of the chiropractic practical examination in Florida, and also indicates that prostatic examinations are covered on the exam given by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Even Dr. Thomas P. Toia, who was called on behalf of the Petitioner, testified that the ability to recognize prostate problems is within the scope of the practice of chiropractic, and that prostate examinations are an authorized chiropractic procedure. Based on the evidence in the record, it is found that the Petitioner has not established that the grades he received on the general physical exam content area of the practical examination were arbitrary or capricious. Dr. Leon testified that he gave the Petitioner a grade of 1.5 because he did not know where the prostate was, could not describe how to perform a prostate examination, and did not evidence an awareness or understanding of the fact that pain in the low back area could be related to the prostate. Dr. Zazulia testified that he also would have given the Petitioner a grade of 1.5. Dr. Toia testified that when a candidate has no knowledge about a particular question, a grade of 1 is appropriate. Regarding the exam content area of laboratory diagnosis, the Petitioner was asked to identify the tests that should be given to diagnose gonorrhea and lupus. For gonorrhea, the Petitioner identified the chocolate agar test, and for lupus, the Petitioner identified the antinuclear antibody test (ANA). While these are correct answers, the Petitioner's grades in this content area were lowered to 1.5 and 2 by the two examiners because he failed to mention an additional test which can also detect systemic lupus, the LE prep test, and he failed to describe how the lab samples are taken and how these tests are performed in the laboratory. Based upon the evidence in the record, it is found that Petitioner has not established that the grades he received on the laboratory diagnosis content area were arbitrary or capricious. While Dr. Toia testified that he would have given the Petitioner higher grades on this content area, Dr. Zazulia supported the grades given. Dr. Zazulia testified that the Petitioner's failure to inform the patient about what they were likely to expect at the lab when they had the tests performed, and his inability to differentiate the test for gonorrhea as a smear, swab or blood test would result in a grade of 1.5. Because systemic lupus affects almost every system of the body, the Petitioner's failure to identify the LE prep test for complete screening was significant and would result in a grade of 2. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the grades which the Petitioner received on the laboratory diagnosis content area of the practical exam.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grades he received on the May, 1990, chiropractic practical examination in the content areas of general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. This is a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. 2-4. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 1 and 5. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 3, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as simply an excerpt of testimony and not a proposed finding. Rejected as citations to statutes and rules and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 9, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 15-16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected in Findings 8-10. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 8. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Adopted in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 21-23. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Findings 11 and 12. Copies furnished: Lawrence J. Langer, Esquire 400 Executive Center Drive Suite 210 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade she received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure examination administered in November of 1997. The examination consisted of four parts: "x-ray interpretation"; "technique"; "Florida laws and rules"; and "physical diagnosis." The minimum passing score for each part was 75. Petitioner passed the "Florida laws and rules" and "technique" portions of the examination. She failed the "x-ray interpretation" and "physical diagnosis" portions of the examination, with scores of 63.20 and 70.50. respectively. As noted above, Petitioner's evidentiary presentation at hearing addressed only the "physical diagnosis" portion of the November 1997 licensure examination. On this portion of the examination, candidates demonstrated their knowledge of physical diagnosis by responding to test questions, in the presence of two examiners, either verbally or, where appropriate, by demonstrating on a "patient." Their responses were independently evaluated and graded by the two examiners. A candidate's final score was the average of the examiners' scores. Prior to the administration of the "physical diagnosis" portion of the November 1997 licensure examination (PD Test), examiners were provided with written instructions (Examiners' Instructions) regarding their role in the examination process and the standards they should follow in grading candidates' performance. In addition, examiners were required to attend a pre-examination organizational meeting at which they were provided with further instructions and training designed to enhance grading standardization. Questions 11 through 13 on the PD Test covered the subject of orthopedics. Candidates were presented with a written case history to which they were to refer in responding to these questions, as well as to all subsequent questions on the PD Test (including those at issue in the instant case). In question 11, candidates were asked to select (from a list) four orthopedic tests which, under the circumstances presented in the case history, were appropriate to administer to the "patient." As Petitioner conceded at hearing, of the four tests she selected, only three were appropriate. The fourth test she selected, Yergason's Test, was not an appropriate test to administer in view of the "patient's" case history. In question 12, candidates were asked to demonstrate on the "patient" how they would administer the tests they selected in response to question 11. Question 12 was worth four points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded four points for selecting and properly demonstrating four appropriate tests; three points for selecting and properly demonstrating three appropriate tests; two points for selecting and properly demonstrating two appropriate tests; and one point for selecting and properly demonstrating one appropriate test. Both examiners awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 12. Although she selected three appropriate tests, she properly demonstrated only two of these three tests. The test she did not properly demonstrate was Tinel's Sign. The "patient's" case history suggested that ulnar nerve, not median nerve, testing needed to be done on the "patient." There are five types of Tinel's Sign tests. One is designed to test the ulnar nerve and involves tapping on the "funny bone." Another is for testing the median nerve and involves tapping on the wrist. Petitioner demonstrated the type of Tinsel's Sign test used to probe the median nerve, when she should have demonstrated the type used to test the ulnar nerve. Because she selected only three appropriate tests and demonstrated only two of these tests properly, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner more than two points for question 12. Question 13 required candidates to state what conditions would be suggested by positive results from the tests selected and demonstrated. Question 13 was worth four points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded four points for selecting four appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive test results; three points for selecting three appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive test results; two points for selecting two appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive results; and one point for selecting one appropriate test and correctly stating, as to that test, what condition would be indicated by positive test results. Both examiners awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 13. Petitioner did not correctly name the condition suggested by a positive Cervical Compression test, one of the three tests she correctly selected in response to question 11. Because Petitioner selected only three appropriate tests and, with respect to one of these tests (the Cervical Compression test), failed to correctly state what condition would be indicated by positive test results, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner more than two points for question 13. Questions 14 through 16 on the PD Test covered the subject of range of motion. In question 16, candidates were asked to explain the difference and significance between active range of motion and passive range of motion. Question 16 was worth one point. The Examiners' Instructions provided that no partial credit could awarded for answers to question 16. Neither examiner awarded Petitioner any credit for her response to question 16. In responding to the question, Petitioner gave an accurate explanation of the difference between active range of motion and passive range of motion (by noting that the former, unlike the latter, is performed by the patient without assistance), but she did not accurately explain the significance of the difference, as required by the second part of the question. Petitioner incorrectly stated, in attempting to answer this part of the question, that active range of motion is characterized by ligament involvement. Because Petitioner did not correctly answer question 16 in its entirety, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner any points for this question. Questions 17 through 19 on the PD Test covered the subject of neurology and focused upon muscle testing. Question 17 required candidates to name all relevant muscles that that they would test in light of the case history with which they were presented (which reflected that the "patient" had neck pain and numbness radiating down her right arm into her ring finger and little finger). Question 17 was worth two points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points for naming four relevant muscles; one and a half points for naming three relevant muscles; one point for naming two relevant muscles; and a half point for naming one relevant muscle. Neither of the two examiners awarded Petitioner any credit for her response to question 17. There was no connection between the muscles Petitioner named and the nerve root that the symptoms (described in the case history) suggested was the cause of the "patient's" problems. Inasmuch as Petitioner named no relevant muscles, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner any points for question 17. Question 18 required candidates to demonstrate on the "patient" how to test two muscles selected by the examiners. Petitioner was asked to test the "patient's "triceps muscle and the interossei muscles of the "patient's" hand. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points (full credit) for correctly demonstrating both tests and one point for correctly demonstrating one of the two tests. One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her demonstration in response to question 18. The other examiner did not award Petitioner any points. Accordingly, Petitioner received one point (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 18. Petitioner tested the interossei muscles of the "patient's" hand in a manner that is unconventional, but nonetheless acceptable. She did not test the "patient's" triceps muscle correctly, however, inasmuch as she did not, during her demonstration, do what was necessary to isolate that muscle. Because she performed only one of the two tests correctly, awarding Petitioner more than the one point she has already received for her response to question 18 would be inconsistent with the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions. To receive credit for question 19, candidates had to explain and interpret a grade level of muscle testing selected by the examiners. (There are six such grade levels: zero through five. The examiners were instructed to select one of these six grade levels.) Petitioner was asked by the examiners to explain and interpret grade level three testing. Question 19 was worth one point. The Examiners' Instructions provided that no partial credit could awarded for responses to question 19. One examiner awarded Petitioner one point for her response to question 19. The other examiner did not award Petitioner any points. Accordingly, Petitioner received a half point (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 19. Petitioner incorrectly stated, in response to question 19, that grade level three testing involves range of motion without gravity. Grade level three testing actually involves range of motion with gravity. Accordingly, pursuant to the scoring guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions, Petitioner should not have received any credit for her response to question 19. Questions 20 and 21 on the PD Test covered dermatomes and sensory testing. Question 20 required candidates to name all relevant dermatome patterns that they would test for in light of the "patient's" case history and to demonstrate one of these tests (selected by the examiners) on the "patient." Petitioner was asked to demonstrate dermatome C5 testing. Question 20 was worth two points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points for correctly naming all relevant dermatome patterns and correctly demonstrating the selected test, and one point if they correctly named all relevant dermatome patterns or correctly demonstrated the selected test (but failed to do both). One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 20. The other examiner awarded Petitioner one point. Accordingly, Petitioner received one and a half points (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 20. Petitioner correctly named all of the relevant dermatome patterns, but she incorrectly demonstrated dermatome C5 testing inasmuch as she focused upon the trapezium ridge, rather than the lateral aspect of the arm. Accordingly, pursuant to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions, Petitioner should have received one point for question 20. Question 21 was worth two points. One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 21. The other examiner awarded Petitioner one point. Accordingly, Petitioner received one and a half points (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 21. Respondent concedes that Petitioner should have received full credit (two points) for her response to question 21, and there is no evidence indicating otherwise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade she received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Richard Powers, was at all times material hereto a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH0003372. Respondent has routinely advertised his chiropractic practice in the Palm Beach Post. On July 8, 1984, July 15, 1984, and September 2, 1984, Respondent ran an advertisement in the Palm Beach Post which offered a free examination and which stated that the "usual value of this exam is $80. This includes X-rays if needed." The advertisement did not include the disclaimer mandated by Section 455.24, Florida Statutes. That statute, effective June 12, 1984, required that: In any advertisement for a free, discounted fee, or reduced fee service, examination, or treatment by a health care provider ... (such as Respondent) ... the following statement shall appear in capital letters clearly distinguishable from the rest of the text: THE PATIENT AND ANY OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT HAS A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PAY, CANCEL PAYMENT, OR BE REIMBURSED FOR PAYMENT FOR ANY OTHER SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT WHICH IS PERFORMED AS A RESULT OF AND WITHIN 72 HOURS OF RESPONDING TO THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE FREE, DISCOUNTED FEE, OR REDUCED FEE SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT. By memorandum dated September 30, 1984, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic (Board), advised all licensees of the aforesaid amendment to section 455.24. Respondent asserts he had no knowledge of the amendment until his receipt of the Board's memorandum in October, 1984, and that he complied, or attempted to comply, with the amendment at all times thereafter. The evidence supports Respondent's assertions. The advertisements of July 8, 1984, and July 15, 1984, were captioned in bold type "ADVANCED APPLIED CHIROPRACTIC," listed Respondent as a diplomate of the National Board of Chiropractic, and concluded in bold type "A STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE." The advertisement of September 2, 1984, touted Respondent's clinic as "Advanced Applied Chiropractic and Comprehensive Pain Center." The generally accepted definition within the medical community of diplomate is an individual who has completed an extensive post graduate program and successfully passed the board's examination. This establishes superior qualifications in the individual's field of practice. Although the National Board of Chiropractic issues diplomate certification to those individuals who pass its examination, its examination is a basic licensing examination which establishes minimal competency, not excellence. Respondent's use of the phrase "Advanced Applied Chiropractic" to describe his clinic implies that he possesses skills superior to the average chiropractor. Respondent has registered the phrase "Advanced Applied Chiropractic" as a fictitious name. Respondent was, on one prior occasion, disciplined by the Board for an advertising violation.
The Issue The issue presented is whether or not Petitioner passed the 1987 chiropractic examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mary Campilii, was a candidate for the May 14-17, 1987 chiropractic examination. Petitioner achieved an overall score of 72, as reflected by an upward revision to her original score of 66, on the practical section of the examination. Petitioner achieved a score of 76 on the Florida laws and rules section of the examination. A minimum score of 75 is required to pass both the practical and laws and rules sections of the examination. Petitioner has challenged the method of grading utilized by the Respondent contending that it is subjective as it elates to her, and did not properly reflect her level of achievement and knowledge to the questions that she answered on the May 1987 examination. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she demonstrated expert or superior knowledge in her answers to any of the questions on the May 1987 exam that she now challenges. The oral practice examination for chiropractic certification is an independent, subjective grading of a candidate's responses to questions asked by two graders. The graders have all been licensed to practice chiropractic for more than five (5) years in Florida and have undergone several hours of standardization training prior to examining the candidates for license certification. One of the techniques required of graders is that they must write their comments if they give a candidate any score less than a 3, which is a passing grade. The grade range is from 1-4. A score of 3 is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimum competency and a score of 4 is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested. Petitioner presented Thomas P. Toja, an expert in grading chiropractic examinations for the Board, who offered his opinion that had the grading system utilized by Respondent been different, i.e. a system whereby a candidate could be accorded a score somewhere between a 3 and 4, when such candidate has demonstrated more than minimum competency but less than superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested, a candidate, such as Petitioner, could have achieved an additional 3 points to her score of 72, and thereby received a passing score of 75. Petitioner has not, however challenged validity of the existing rule which permits Respondent to utilize the grading procedures applied in this case. Stephen Ordet, a licensed chiropractor in Florida for more than 7 years was received as an expert in the grading of chiropractic examinations in Florida, and was one of the graders during the May 1987 examination. Ordet's opinion, which is credited, was that Petitioner did not earn a score of 4 on any of the questions that she now challenges, and was correctly assigned a score of 3 for each of the responses she gave to questions she challenged. Thomas P. Hide, a chiropractor who specializes in the area of sports related injuries, was tendered and received as an expert in the area of reviewing x-rays and the grading of the chiropractic examination. Hide credibly testified and it is found that Petitioner was properly assigned a score of 3 on questions 8, 12, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30 and 33.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met the minimum criteria to pass the challenged chiropractic examination and deny her request for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 8th day of November, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dr. Mary Camiplii 2921 Buckridge Trail Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of making or filing a false report signed in the capacity of a licensed chiropractic physician, in violation of Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and, if so, the penalty.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed chiropractor in Florida since 1978, holding license number CH0002696. Petitioner requires licensed chiropractors to file Mandatory Practitioner Profile Questionnaire Packets (Profiles). The subject Profile was due on or before April 15, 1999. The Profile asks the licensee to supply various items of information and answer several questions. Section II of the Profile requires information concerning "medical education." In response to the question of what medical school Respondent attended, he wrote: "Logan 'Quack Con-Artist' School of Chiropractic." In response to the type of his degree, Respondent wrote: "Quack Con-Artist Chiropractic Degree." In response to questions concerning medical training, Respondent answered: "'Fraudulent' Automobile Personal Injury Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)" and "'Fraudulent' Workers Compensation Cases (Robbing Insurance Companies)." Respondent also added to these responses, as well as the responses cited in the preceding paragraph, the following: "Caveat: see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director)." Section VIII of the Profile requires information concerning criminal offenses. This section asks: "have you ever been convicted or found guilty, regardless of whether adjudication of guilt was withheld, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to a criminal misdemeanor or felony in any jurisdiction?" The question then states: "If "YES," briefly describe the offense(s), indicate whether the conviction is under appeal, and attach copy of notice of appeal." The form supplies three lines for each of these items of information. Respondent answered "no" to the first question in Section VIII and left the remainder of the section blank. The Profile concludes, immediately above the signature line: "I affirm these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 455.624, 458.327, 458.331, 459.013, 459.015, 460.413, 461.013, 775.082, 775.083 and 775.084, Florida Statutes." Respondent signed on the signature line and added the date of April 7, 1999. Immediately beneath the signature line, Respondent added: "Notice: Signed under caveat--see letter dated April 7, 1999 sent to Gloria Henderson, Division Director." Respondent's four-page letter to Gloria Henderson dated April 7, 1999, references the Profile, notifies Ms. Henderson and Petitioner of Respondent's intent to sue, and demands that Petitioner omit Respondent's listing from a website of chiropractors because, in part, "I do NOT accept their 'valueless treatment' known as an "adjustment" (it is a waste of money and time), and because I practice health care from an "Allopathic" (medical approach) point of view, including but not limited to, surgery, drug prescription, physical therapy " Respondent states in the letter that the Petitioner's failure to incorporate his comments in all computer files listing him as a chiropractor will result in his filing a federal action under tort and constitutional law seeking $1 million plus punitive damages. The final caveat in the April 7 letter states: My (Roy A. Day) signature on the instant letter, and the associated completed questionnaire, reflects the denial of Roy A. Day to have meaningful access to so-called "licensed attorney" courts of law, and the associated denials of each and all discovery, and trial by jury, and the right to each and all appeals, and the denial to write a brief on appeals, and each and all associated "railroading" of Roy A. Day, with the overlay for "licensed attorney" courts of law to deny the law, facts and evidence existed when they pertained to Roy A. Day, since Roy A. Day is not represented by a so-called "licensed attorney" at $300.00 per hour in artificial-monopolistic legal fees. In addition, the signature reflects each and all associated "forced and coerced" action, specifically, Roy A. Day has been denied "due process and equal protection of the law." On February 6, 1995, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered an Order of Probation. The Order states that Respondent pleaded guilty to aggravated stalking, interception of oral communication, and uttering a check with a forged endorsement. The Order withholds adjudication and places Respondent on probation for two years. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of two counts of the third-degree felony of uttering a check with a forged endorsement, in violation of Section 831.02, Florida Statutes. The checks totaled approximately $20,000, and, sometime between March 13 and May 5, 1993, Respondent passed each check knowing that the signature of his brother, Donald Day, was forged. For each count, the court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 130 days he had already served in jail, and the sentences ran concurrently. As a result of Respondent's violation of the conditions of probation, on September 20, 1996, Pinellas County Circuit Court entered a judgment finding Respondent guilty of the third-degree felony of aggravated stalking, in violation of Section 784.048(3), Florida Statutes. The stalking consisted of repeated and harassing telephone calls that Respondent made to the house of a person who had, at one time, expressed interest in purchasing a home in which Respondent had an interest, but later decided not to pursue the purchase. The court sentenced Respondent to one year in jail with credit for 133 days that he had already served in jail, and this sentence ran concurrently with the sentences for uttering a check with a forged endorsement. Petitioner lacked a copy of a judgment concerning the interception of oral communications. This offense arose out of Respondent's surreptitious recording of a conversation that he had with a police officer who was investigating the stalking charges. Absent a copy of the judgment, however, insufficient evidence of this conviction exists for the purpose of this disciplinary case. At the final hearing, Respondent explained that he did not disclose these criminal convictions on the Profile because doing so would somehow implicate him as a "co-conspirator" in the injustices perpetrated upon him by the authorities involved in prosecuting these offenses. Respondent falsely failed to disclose on the Profile his convictions for aggravated stalking and uttering a check with a forged instrument. His failure to disclose this information constitutes fraudulent concealment of these criminal offenses. In a fairly straightforward case, Respondent has filed nearly 250 pleadings containing thousands of pages. He also abused the subpoena power of this tribunal by subpoenaing judges and court officials from every level of the federal and state judiciaries. Last but not least, Respondent has defamed and discredited numerous persons without apparent reason, although some question exists whether Respondent is capable of exercising consistent control over the impulses leading to at least some of these utterances. The crimes of which Respondent was convicted may have arisen out of family disagreements, possibly concerning the sale of a family home. Respondent may be obsessively preoccupied with actual or perceived injustices that he suffered as a result of this transaction. Undoubtedly, Respondent compulsively litigates everything that has the most remote bearing upon this transaction, using court files as archives for materials that he believes will vindicate him, despite an ardent and often- expressed repulsion for judges, lawyers, and others connected with the legal system. No penalty but revocation is suitable under the circumstances, absent a showing by Respondent that he has commenced or is continuing therapy and that the prognosis is reasonably good. The record lacks such evidence. Respondent is not unintelligent, nor is he entirely devoid of insight. His thinking, although at times disordered, is capable of impressive organizational efforts, as best revealed by his meticulous organization in his proposed recommended order of what otherwise seemed to be a bewildering variety of materials that Respondent has seen fit to file in this case. Although his behavior seems at times compulsive, Respondent was capable of a certain level of self-restraint, at least during the hearing and when not directly confronting the underlying transaction or crimes. If they occur at some point in the future, successful diagnosis and treatment of Respondent should inform Petitioner's interpretation of the events and behaviors described in this Recommended Order, if Respondent seeks relicensure as a chiropractor.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of July, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Jr. Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Wings S. Benton, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration Office of General Counsel Medical Quality Assurance Practitioner Regulation--Legal Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Roy A. Day Post Office Box 33 Tarpon Springs, Florida 34688-0033
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Anthony S. Coco, held chiropractic license number 0001508 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners. He is authorized to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida and presently maintains an office at 65 Royal Palm Beach Boulevard, Vero Beach, Florida. In response to a newspaper advertisement, Thomas A. Murphy visited the office of Respondent on May 13, 1980, regarding treatment of low back pain, impotence, nervousness, headaches and general aches and pains. Murphy had a 100 percent service-connected disability and was already being treated by a medical physician for other undisclosed ailments. Murphy was given a complete examination by Coco, including neurological and orthopedic tests. Additionally, eight x-rays were taken of the patient. As a general practice, Coco does not record negative (or normal) results on the patient's records. Because all tests except the x-rays were negative, the results of the examination were not reflected on Murphy's patient records. However, a detailed record of his findings were prepared in a request for authorization to provide chiropractic treatment forwarded to the Veteran's Administration (VA) on May 15, 1980. The request was later denied by the VA, and Murphy terminated his relationship with Respondent. Murphy became involved in a dispute with a secretary in Coco's office and filed a complaint against him with Petitioner. Petitioner then retained the services of an outside consultant, Dr. Fred C. Blumenfeld, to examine Murphy's patient file. Blumenfeld was initially given an incomplete file to examine, and based upon his initial review of the incomplete file, concluded that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care in his treatment of Murphy. That precipitated the instant proceeding. Prior to the final hearing, Blumenfeld gained access to the entire file, and upon examining the same, reached an opinion that no "malpractice" had occurred. Although he testified that he would have marked the x-rays differently, and would have noted all negative findings on Murphy's patient chart, he did not otherwise criticize Coco's treatment of Murphy, and saw no basis for the issuance of an administrative complaint. Three other experts, including a nationally recognized professor of chiropractic and a former member of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, each concluded that Coco's treatment of Murphy was proper and consistent with generally recognized standards of skill and care of chiropractors in the community. They also concluded that Coco's diagnosis of Murphy's ailments, as reflected on his patient notes and letter of May 15, were consistent with the x- rays taken of Murphy. Although Mr. Murphy appeared at the final hearing, he did so reluctantly and had no complaint regarding his examination and the diagnosis rendered by Coco.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of March, 1983.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, the Respondent Karl Cohen was licensed as a chiropractic physician by the Florida Board of Chiropractic. On or about September 5, 1976, Maxine Grebin sustained injuries in a roller skating accident. Mrs. Grebin sought treatment from the Respondent on September 24, 1976, and her treatment continued through December 3, 1976. Thereafter, Mrs. Grebin instituted a civil proceeding against Gold Coast Roller Rink. During the pendency of the civil suit, Mrs. Grebin requested that the Respondent provide her or her attorney an itemized statement of the services rendered for purposes of the damages suit. Mrs. Grebin never received an itemized statement from the Respondent. On February 14, 1977, the Respondent mailed a bill and report to Mrs. Grebin's attorney and copy of the bill to Mr. Joel Grebin, the complainant in this case, on March 11, 1977. When the Respondent failed to receive payment for services rendered by him to Mrs. Grebin, he filed suit in Dade County and after a trial, at which the Grebins appeared, received a final judgment on May 4, 1981, for $388 plus costs. On September 25, 1981, the Respondent was visited at his office by Martin Brandies, a Department investigator. The Respondent furnished Brandies with his entire file concerning Maxine Grebin, and made copies of pertinent documents for him. Subsequently, on June 22, 1982, the Respondent was served with a subpoena by John McDonough, investigator for the Department. The documents requested were virtually identical to the documents previously provided to Brandies. 1/ Since the documents were previously voluntarily provided to the Department, the Respondent did not believe that he was required to furnish a second set of documents, and accordingly, did not comply with the subpoena duces tecum. At the hearing on February 8, 1983, the Petitioner moved to amend Count II of the Administrative Complaint to charge a violation of Section 460.413(1)(n), Florida Statutes, rather than Section 460.413(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The motion to amend was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Board of Chiropractic enter a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(w), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand pursuant to Section 460.413(2), Florida Statutes DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of January 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 16th day of January 1984.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Curtis J. McCall, Jr., is licensed by the Florida Board of Chiropractic Examiners to practice chiropractic in Florida. At all times material hereto he has been so licensed. In June 1978, Dr. McCall filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida a document entitled "The Declaration of the Chiropractic Adjuster General of the United States of America CAP-USAF". Since that time Dr. McCall has assumed the self-created title of Chiropractic Adjuster General of the United States of America (CAG). The purpose of the office is to lobby the United States government to recognize the chiropractic healing arts and to provide the medical benefits which cover government employees, both civil and military, include professional chiropractic healing. In carrying out his goal Dr. McCall has written to every imaginable federal official, from the President of the United States to the acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Resources and Programs), who might have any function relating to government health care. In his correspondence with these federal officials Dr. McCall has used stationery which represents himself as the CAG. He uses the stationery only for his lobbying activities. He has separate professional stationery for corresponding with his patients and the public. Dr. McCall has never used his CAG stationery to correspond with members of the public. The only time that Dr. McCall used his CAG stationery for other than lobbying was on May 14, 1980, when he wrote a letter to Dr. Ronald L. Harris as President of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. This letter was a complaint alleging that an organization called Soma Institute was practicing chiropractic in the State of Florida without a license. It was this letter which brought Dr. McCall's self-appointed title of CAG to the attention of Petitioner. Except as "created" by Dr. McCall there is no office called the Chiropractic Adjuster General of the United States of America. In between two bookcases and behind his desk at his professional offices at 811 Grace Avenue, Panama City, Florida, Dr. McCall displays a seal of the CAG. The seal is approximately 4 to 5 inches in diameter and is a copy of the seal imprinted on Dr. McCall's stationery, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix A. While the seal behind Dr. McCall's desk was observed by Mr. William Taylor, an investigator for the Department, there is no evidence to show that this seal is seen by Dr. McCall's patients or by members of the public. Dr. McCall is sincere in the creation of the Office of the CAG. He does not employ the title to falsely enhance his ability as a chiropractor. He has instead been a one-man crusade for the recognition of the chiropractic art by the United States government. Dr. McCall does not use the title CAG in his practice of the chiropractic profession. He does use the title only as a private citizen petitioning his government for a change in its politics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Dr. Curtis J. McCall, Jr. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON 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 13th day of October, 1981.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Corrected Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed chiropractic physicians such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Chiropractic Medicine has found probable cause to suspect that the chiropractic physician has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a chiropractic physician licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 2363. Background / Arrangement with Dr. Wagner In or around 1975, Respondent completed his training at the National University of Health Sciences and began to practice chiropractic medicine shortly thereafter. Some 15 years later, Respondent and an acquaintance—— Dr. Joseph Wagner, also a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida——matriculated at a medical school in the Dominican Republic. Although both Respondent and Dr. Wagner ultimately earned Doctor of Medicine ("MD") degrees in the mid 1990s, Respondent was not licensed in Florida to practice as an MD until early 2006. Significantly, Dr. Wagner never obtained licensure as a medical doctor. In 2007, Respondent and Dr. Wagner entered into a joint venture designed, in the words of Respondent, to "expand" Dr. Wagner's chiropractic practice. At that time, and for the duration of their business agreement, Respondent's principal place of business was located in Palm Beach County, while Dr. Wagner practiced chiropractic medicine in Daytona Beach. Under the joint venture (which continued until August 2011, when both their offices were raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation), Respondent traveled to Daytona Beach several times each month and interacted with Dr. Wagner concerning some, but not all, of Dr. Wagner's chiropractic clients (hereinafter "joint-venture clients" or "JVCs"). From what can be gleaned of the credible portions of Respondent's deposition and final hearing testimony, it appears that Respondent's activity with respect to JVCs included a review of client files, and, in some cases, a determination that one or more medications——including narcotics——should be prescribed. Indeed, Respondent's level of participation was so minimal that his face-to-face interaction with JVCs consisted, at most, of an initial introduction, and on no occasion did Respondent personally examine——or perform treatments upon——any JVC. At the conclusion of an office visit, Dr. Wagner——and Respondent, if the JVC was seen on a day when Respondent was present in the Daytona office——dictated medical notes that Dr. Wagner usually transcribed at a later time. Respondent has acknowledged, both at the final hearing and during his deposition, that he provided Dr. Wagner with blanket authority to create claim forms and medical notes in connection with each JVC. Incredibly, Respondent also granted Dr. Wagner complete authority to affix his (Respondent's) signature to claim forms and submit them——without Respondent looking at the forms beforehand——to insurance carriers for reimbursement. This was accomplished not by the use of a stamp, which medical professionals often provide to their subordinates to expedite business affairs, but by Dr. Wagner manually signing, in cursive, "John P. Christensen" inside the box of the claim form labeled "signature of the physician or supplier." Another unusual aspect of the business arrangement between Respondent and Dr. Wagner was the manner in which they dealt with reimbursement checks from insurance carriers. By agreement, reimbursement checks for claims that related to JVCs were received by mail at Dr. Wagner's place of business in Daytona Beach. Upon their receipt, Dr. Wagner deposited the checks into a SunTrust checking account for which Respondent had sole signatory authority. At the end of each month, Respondent would transfer the entire balance of the SunTrust account into his business account at PNC Bank. Shortly thereafter, Respondent would draft a check on the PNC account to Dr. Wagner in an amount equal to 50 percent of the monthly proceeds.2/ Against the foregoing backdrop, the undersigned will turn to the specific allegations enumerated in the Complaint, namely: that Dr. Wagner, in connection with JVCs, submitted claims to an insurance carrier for services that were never provided——i.e., he overbilled——and that Respondent approved, authorized, and/or knew or should have known of the misconduct (as charged in Counts One and Three); and that the Respondent and Dr. Wagner's billing practices with respect to the four JVCs constituted fraudulent, deceptive, or untrue representations related to the practice of a profession (Count Two). The undersigned will begin with a discussion of the facts relating to Count Two. Deceptive Billing Practices In or around August 2009, three individuals——S.J., J.J. (S.J's cousin), and L.J. (S.J's mother)——were involved in an automobile accident. Thereafter, in late 2009 and early 2010, S.J., J.J., and L.J. presented themselves on a number of occasions for chiropractic services at Dr. Wagner's office in Daytona Beach. Roughly one year earlier, patient C.H. was likewise involved in a car accident. C.H. was subsequently referred to Dr. Wagner for chiropractic treatment by her personal injury attorney, Joshua Wagner, who happens to be the son of Dr. Joseph Wagner. It appears from the record that C.H. was treated at Dr. Wagner's clinic on multiple dates. Pursuant to the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, it is undisputed that S.J., J.J., L.J., and C.H. each had personal injury protection (PIP) insurance from Direct General Insurance Company ("DGIC"). PIP insurance coverage allows a medical or chiropractic provider to treat insured persons and then submit a reimbursement claim to the insurance company for the service(s) provided. Beginning with the claims associated with C.H., Respondent has consistently maintained that C.H. was not a joint-venture client, that he had no knowledge of C.H., and that any claim submitted by Dr. Wagner in connection with C.H. was without his knowledge or authorization. The undersigned credits this portion of Respondent's testimony; thus, any bills that relate to C.H. cannot sustain a finding of a deceptive or fraudulent practice. However, the cases of S.J., J.J., and L.J. are another matter. Based upon Respondent's deposition testimony, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Wagner, with Respondent's knowledge and authorization, submitted reimbursement claims to DGIC in connection with S.J., J.J., and L.J. that bear the following dates: January 30, 2010 (S.J.); January 30, 2010, and March 13 and 27, 2010 (L.J.); and April 10 and 24, 2010 (J.J.).3/ While the exact services billed to DGIC varied by JVC and date, the content of each of these claim forms represented unambiguously that the examinations and/or treatments——e.g., a trigger point injection for L.J. on March 27, 2010——were performed by Respondent and no other. This was unquestionably deceptive in light of Respondent's consistent testimony that he never physically conducted medical examinations or treatments in connection with any joint-venture client. Alleged Overbilling In contrast to Count Two, the charges that relate to overbilling (Counts One and Three) cannot be sustained merely by proof that claims for reimbursement——i.e., the claims identified in paragraph 16 above, which Respondent authorized——were submitted for services that Respondent did not perform. Rather, it is incumbent upon Petitioner to demonstrate that the services billed were not performed at all. In this regard, the deposition transcripts of L.J. and S.J., which consist entirely of hearsay, are the only evidence that the billed services were not performed by anyone. While the deposition testimony of L.J. and S.J. is credible, there is a complete absence of non-hearsay evidence as to what procedures or services were never provided to these specific patients during their office visits. All that was proven——based upon Respondent's admissions and supplemented by the hearsay testimony of the JVCs——is that Respondent did not perform the billed services, which, as explained in greater detail in the Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order, is insufficient to satisfy Petitioner's burden. Ultimate Findings of Fact It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of his profession. It is further determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Respondent submitted to a third-party payor a claim for a service or treatment that was not actually provided to a patient. Finally, as a matter of ultimate fact, it is determined that that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent, in connection with a personal injury protection claim, intentionally submitted a bill or claim for reimbursement for services that were not rendered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine: Dismissing Counts One and Three of the Corrected Amended Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent violated section 456.072(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count Two; Suspending Respondent's license to practice chiropractic medicine for a period of one year; Placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years, with conditions deemed appropriate by the Board; and Imposing a fine of $10,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2012.
