Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for certification as a physician assistant pursuant to Section 458.347(7)(b), Florida Statutes, a special avenue of certification as a physician assistant for graduates of foreign medical schools. In furtherance of that application, he appeared before the Physician Assistant Committee of the Board of Medicine. Subsequent to his appearance before that Committee, on August 13, 1992, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: This is to advise that your application for issuance of a temporary certification with the requirement that prior to issuance of temporary certificate you submit within 30 days of date of appearance, a new corrected and complete application to be reviewed by the Board staff. Please complete the enclosed application. You will be required, as a condition to take the examination, 2 new personalized letters of recommendation, specifically recommending you as a physician assistant. The letter did not enclose an application form for Petitioner to complete. Respondent admits that the information in the letter was incorrect because it confused temporary certification with the requirements for examination. It is apparent that the letter is also incorrect because it fails to advise Petitioner if his application was being granted or denied; moreover, the wording of the letter makes no sense. By Order dated August 26, 1992, the Board of Medicine notified Petitioner that his application for temporary certification as a physician assistant was denied pursuant to the Committee's August 1 determination and the Board's August 9 determination that the length of time since Petitioner had last worked in the field of medicine or received significant medical education or training precluded him from being able to establish that he could practice as a physician assistant with reasonable skill and safety to the public. That Order further advised Petitioner, however, that the Board had granted Petitioner's application to sit for the certification examination pursuant to Section 458.347(7)(b), Florida Statutes, because Petitioner was eligible to take the examination to become certified as a physician assistant and that passage of the examination would serve to establish Petitioner's qualifications for practice. The Order specifically provided that the Board's permission for Petitioner to sit for the certification examination was "contingent upon and subsequent to receipt within 30 days" of Petitioner's appearance before the Physician Assistant Committee of (1) a complete and correct application and (2) two more letters of recommendation which specifically recommend Petitioner as a physician assistant. It would have been difficult for Petitioner to timely comply with the Order entered August 26 requiring him to file documents within 30 days of his August 1 appearance before the Committee. By letter dated August 31, 1992, Petitioner requested an extension of one week by which to obtain the second letter of recommendation due to the devastation produced by Hurricane Andrew and Petitioner's inability to communicate with the doctor who would sign it. Petitioner did, however, submit another application which was postmarked August 31, 1992, and received by Respondent early in September. At hearing, Respondent advised that it was waiving the 30-day deadline contained in the August 26, 1992, Order due to the intervention of Hurricane Andrew and because Respondent had not strictly enforced such deadlines as to other applicants. Rather, Respondent simply required that Petitioner comply with its Order within a reasonable period of time. By letter dated December 21, 1992, Respondent advised Petitioner that his application was incomplete because the Board had only received Petitioner's new application, one letter of recommendation, and Petitioner's request for an extension of time for submittal of the second letter. The letter further advised that the Board's staff's review of Petitioner's recent application had revealed some discrepancies requiring an explanation by Petitioner. The letter, therefore, advised Petitioner to submit one more recommendation letter, provide an explanation for six specified areas, and submit pages 8 and 9 of the application regarding Petitioner's clerkships. The letter further advised Petitioner that all information must be received by the Board no later than December 31, 1992. On January 20, 1993, Respondent received an undated letter from Petitioner referencing Respondent's December 21, 1992, letter which was received by Petitioner on December 30. Petitioner's letter enclosed the additional letter of recommendation requested by the Board, responded specifically to the six areas of inquiry, and enclosed pages 8 and 9 of the Board's application form. On January 20, 1993, the Board received a letter from Dr. Jose M. Bermudez, recommending Petitioner as a physician assistant. On January 28, 1993, the Board sent Petitioner a letter advising him that the Board had received the letter of recommendation from Dr. Bermudez and pages 8 and 9 of the application. That letter further provided as follows: However, the Physician Assistant Committee required you to submit a new complete and accurate application, and two (2) additional letters of recommendation which specifically recommend you as a physician assistant. Enclosed you will find a complete physician assistant application. Please fill the application out in its entirety and submit it to the Board of Medicine as soon as possible. In compliance with that request, Petitioner submitted yet another application for certification as a physician assistant, which was received by the Board on February 8, 1993. On February 24, 1993, the Board of Medicine entered its Order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a physician assistant. The Order recited that the denial was based upon the determination made by the Physician Assistant Committee on January 8 and by the Board on January 13 because Petitioner "failed to submit a new and complete and accurate application and one new personalized letter of recommendation within the time frame allotted by the Board." That Order does not mention Petitioner's application to sit for the certification examination, the issue pending before the Board, since the Board had already denied Petitioner's application for certification by Order entered August 26, 1992. That February Order also advised Petitioner of his right to request an administrative hearing regarding the Board's determination. On February 26, 1993, the Board's staff sent Petitioner a letter advising him that he had been certified by the Board to take the examination for licensure as a physician assistant to be administered in September, 1993. On March 10, 1993, the staff sent Petitioner a letter acknowledging Petitioner's "request for a hearing on the denial of your application for certification as a physician assistant," and advising Petitioner that the February letter advising him that he had been certified to take the examination for licensure as a physician assistant had been sent to Petitioner in error. A "corrected" letter was enclosed. That "corrected" letter dated March 10 advised Petitioner that the Board had preliminarily denied him certification to take the examination for licensure as a physician assistant. By letter dated March 18, 1993, the Board's staff sent an additional letter to Petitioner advising Petitioner as to the correct dates for the examination. In applying for temporary certification as a physician assistant and/or to sit for the certification examination, Petitioner has filed an additional application each time he has been instructed to do so by the Board or by the Board's staff and has submitted a letter explaining the information given in his applications each time that the Board's staff has requested that he do so. Petitioner has filed at least three such applications and has responded by letter to inquiries regarding the contents of his applications at least three times. Additionally, Petitioner has personally appeared before the Physician Assistant Committee on August 1, 1992, to be questioned regarding his qualifications. The Board has discovered some "discrepancies" or omissions in analyzing those various documents. Petitioner's August application states that the ending date for medical school, assumedly the date he received his degree, was February 25, 1965. That date appears in three places. Further, the copy of his diploma submitted to the Board reflects that date. Yet, the December 21, 1992, form from the Board to Petitioner advises him that he must explain his ending date for medical school. In response to that indication that he must provide different information, Petitioner's letter received by the Board on January 20, 1993, states that the ending date for medical school was February 29, 1962. At hearing, Petitioner explained that he attempted to differentiate between the date he completed classes and the date he completed all requirements, including internships, in order to receive his diploma. The information contained in Petitioner's application is correct. The August application contains an answer in the negative to question numbered 9 asking Petitioner if he is or has ever been emotionally or mentally ill. Although Petitioner's subsequent February 1993 application contains no answer to that question, the Board did not have before it the February application when it decided in January to deny Petitioner's application. Even so, Petitioner had no intention to be incomplete or inaccurate when he failed to answer that question on the February application. In his August application Petitioner does not list the completion of any social service work in either section inquiring about post-graduate training or practice employment. In an application that Petitioner filed in 1985 requesting licensure as a physician, Petitioner had specifically detailed the social service work performed by him as part of his medical school training. In that application he listed the dates as January 1, 1963 to December 31, 1963. The letter Petitioner wrote to the Board in response to its December 1992 request for a better explanation states that his social service work was done between March 1, 1963 and September 30, 1963. There is no dispute regarding whether Petitioner did in fact complete his social service work requirement as part of his education in order to receive his diploma, and it is clear that such work was done in 1963. Although there is a discrepancy regarding which months during 1963 he did his social work, the discrepancy as to the months during which Petitioner did something 30 years ago does not make his application inaccurate. In fact, the August application may be more accurate than the 1985 application form. The August application required Petitioner to list in chronological order from the date of graduation to the present all practice experience and/or employment. Petitioner advised that from February 28, 1970, to April 30, 1976, he was in private practice in Nicaragua. The Board's December 1992 letter asked for clarification because a prior application indicated additional activity. Petitioner's response letter advised that he was also in pediatric practice at the General Hospital of Managua from 1970 to 1972. His 1985 application did not mention the pediatric practice at General Hospital. At final hearing, Petitioner explained that he was in private practice at the same time that he practiced at the clinic in the hospital. Petitioner's 1985 and February 1993 applications, although not the subject of this proceeding, also contained some minor discrepancies regarding Petitioner's employment experience. For example, one shows Petitioner beginning his employment with the Nicaraguan Red Cross on May 1, 1976, and the other shows Petitioner's employment beginning on May 31, 1976. The parties do not dispute that Petitioner in fact practiced with the Nicaraguan Red Cross during that time period. In further response to the question requiring Petitioner to list all of his practice experience or employment, Petitioner did not list his activities from September 10, 1984, and thereafter. The Board's December 21, 1992, letter to him requested that he account for all his activities for the time period of January 1, 1984, and thereafter. In his response he did not identify those activities except to say that during that time period he was living in Miami. The detailed information had been provided to the Board in response to a letter to Petitioner from the Board dated March 8, 1992, in conjunction with his original application for certification as a physician assistant, although he did not again provide that information when he was ordered by the Board to file a new application. In Petitioner's August application, he listed no ending date regarding his private practice begun on January 1, 1984 in Managua, Nicaragua. Petitioner's 1985 physician license application showed that that employment ended September 10, 1984, whereas his February application showed that practice to have ended on September 15, 1984. Such a discrepancy is not material to Petitioner's application or eligibility. The application form contains a section regarding clerkships and requests that each clerkship be specified. In the August application Petitioner did not specify his four individual clerkships. After being asked pursuant to the Board's staff's December 1992 letter to resubmit pages 8 and 9 as to his clerkships, Petitioner did so by referring to them as a group rather than breaking them down individually. He did the same in the February 1993 application. The parties do not dispute that Petitioner performed the required clerkships. It is unclear how many letters recommending him as a physician assistant Petitioner has submitted to the Board. Petitioner referenced his submittal of photocopies of the "last two" letters of recommendation, the originals of which had previously been submitted to the Board, in a letter that Petitioner sent the Board in March of 1992. In correspondence from the Board to Petitioner in May of 1992 reference is made to the requirement that Petitioner submit another letter of recommendation because the Board did not have the original of that letter in its file. When the Board's staff instructed Petitioner to appear before the Physician Assistant Committee on August 1, 1992, the absence of necessary letters of recommendation was not one of the reasons given. The Board's August 26, 1992, Order requests "two more letters", which indicates that letters had been previously submitted. The staff's December 21, 1992, communication to Petitioner acknowledges receipt of one additional letter but requests another, which request was complied with at least by the submittal of the letter from Dr. Bermudez received by the Board on January 20, 1993. Petitioner applied to be certified as a physician assistant and the Board determined that he was eligible to take the examination. Thereafter, through a series of mistakes and correct acts, the Board's staff requested Petitioner on a number of occasions to file additional applications which he did. When the Board's staff asked for clarification he responded in writing and by telephone call, and the Board agrees that it has telephone slips in Petitioner's file. Each time the Board's staff asked for different information than had been given in Petitioner's previous application(s), Petitioner provided more and/or different information. There is no suggestion that Petitioner attempted to provide inaccurate or false information, and it is found that Petitioner provided correct and complete information to the best of his ability. Petitioner's mistakes are certainly no greater than the mistakes made by the Board's staff in sending Petitioner conflicting instructions, conflicting correspondence, and one letter that did not make any sense.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered permitting Petitioner to sit for the physician assistant examination to be administered during September of 1993. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-1550 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10 have been adopted in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Catherine Lannon, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Enrique Rueda Arguello 9409 Fountainbleau Boulevard, Apt. #101 Miami, Florida 33172 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner has met the requirements for licensure by examination as set forth in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner is 48 years old and resides at 210 Tibet Avenue, No.L-2, Savannah, Georgia 312406. Petitioner attended City College of Medicine, Cebu City, Philippines during the 1962-63 school year. While at City College, Petitioner failed four out of the five courses he was taking which, along with his father's financial hardship, forced Petitioner to drop out of medical school. Petitioner enrolled in medical school at Southwestern University, Matias H. Azklnar, Memorial College of Medicine, Inc., Villa Aznar, Cebu City, Philippines (Southwestern) for the school year 1965-66. During the 1965-66 school year at Southwestern Petitioner passed, among others, those courses which he had failed at City College during the 1962-63 school year. During the 1966-67 school year Petitioner failed pharmacology 2 and physical diagnosis but passed those courses during the 1967-68 school year, while failing surgical pathology which he passed during the 1968-69 school year. During the 1968-69 school year Petitioner failed pharmacology 3 in the first and second semester. Although Petitioner testified that he passed pharmacology 3, Petitioner's transcript from Southwestern does not indicate that Petitioner passed pharmacology 3 before graduating from Southwestern University in 1971. Petitioner graduated from and received his medical degree from Southwestern in 1971. Southwestern is registered by the World Health Organization. Petitioner served an internship at Detroit-Macomb Hospital Association from July 1, 1982 until June 30, 1983. Petitioner received an overall evaluation of "good" on his internship and was recommended as qualified and competent. Petitioner took the Federation Licensing Examination (FLEX) in December 1982, June 1983, December 1983 and December 1984, and failed the examination each time. In June 1985, Petitioner took the FLEX examination again and passed Component 2 but failed Component 1 by one point. In December 1985, Petitioner took Component 1 again and passed. Petitioner successfully passed the medical examination portion of the Educational Commission For Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) examination on January 21, 1981 and the English examination portion on July 22, 1981 and was issued certificate number 245-840-4 on January 8, 1982. That ECFMG has remained valid since that date. Before passing the ECFMG examination in 1981, Petitioner had failed that examination six times. Petitioner is licensed to practice medicine in the states of Michigan and Georgia, and has been licensed in those states since March 3, 1986 and June 11, 1986, respectively. However, other than serving an internship, Petitioner has never practiced medicine in the state of Michigan. Petitioner's licenses to practice medicine in the state of Michigan and Georgia have never had any disciplinary action taken against them. Petitioner practiced medicine at Central State Hospital (a mental institution) at Milledgville, Georgia as a general physician in family practice, working also in the area of psychiatry, from April 1, 1988 until his resignation on October 24, 1988. At the time of the hearing, Petitioner had been practicing medicine as an emergency room physician for approximately 8 months at Stattanall Memorial Hospital near Savannah, Georgia, and had been working as the physician in charge at the Immediate Med Clinic near Savannah, Georgia for a couple of months. Petitioner also practiced medicine for a brief period at Folkston Memorial Hospital in Folkston, Georgia, but terminated this employment due to the long distance from Savannah, Georgia where Petitioner resided. Although Petitioner was a staff member at Central State Hospital, he did not have staff privileges in that he was not authorized to admit patients to Central State Hospital. Petitioner did not have staff privileges at any other hospital or clinic where he practiced medicine in that he was not authorized to admit patients. Petitioner is an active member of the American Medical Association (AMA) in good standing. Petitioner has never been a defendant in a medical malpractice suit. Petitioner has established facts to show that he is qualified and competent to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety, notwithstanding that it took him 7 years to complete a five-year medical curriculum, that it took him 6 tries before passing the ECFMG examination, that it took him 5 tries before passing the FLEX examination, that he has practiced in Georgia for only approximately 2 years mainly in general practice and, his performance in his medical education and training. There was no evidence that Petitioner had "exhibited a consistent pattern of less than successful or borderline performance" in his "medical education and training". Respondent Board did not present any evidence from an expert or "person with special expertise" or anyone else to show a rational relation between Petitioner taking 7 years to complete a 5-year medical school curriculum, Petitioner failing the ECFMG examination 6 times before passing, Petitioner failing the FLEX examination 5 times before passing, Petitioner's practice in Georgia and his medical school education and training performance; and the ability of Petitioner to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Carlos De La Fe, M.D., is now and was at all times material to these proceedings, a licensed physician in the State of Florida having been issued License No. ME 0017825. On January 15, 1985, the Board of Medical Examiners issued a final order wherein disciplinary action was taken against the Respondent's license to practice medicine. The order stated in part that: it is hereby ordered and adjudged that Respondent be reprimanded. Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida shall be placed on probation for a period of three years under the following terms and conditions: * * * (d) Respondent must take and pass within six months part three of the examination by the National Board of Medical Examiners in lieu of the first 50 hours of continuing medical education. The Respondent applied to take Part III of the National Board Examination but was notified in March, 1985, by the National Board that he was not eligible to sit for the examination. On May 2, 1985, the Respondent informed the Florida Board of Medical Examiners that he was not eligible to take the National Board's test. At a meeting held by the Board of Medical Examiners on June 1, 1985, the Respondent was present and agreed to take and pass Part II of the Flex examination in lieu of the National Board of Medical Examiner's test which he was previously ordered to take and pass in the Final Order of January 15, 1985. The Flex Examination was scheduled for mid-June, 1985. Although Respondent agreed to the substitution of examinations, he indicated to the Board that he might not be able to adequately prepare for the examination in such a short period of time. Respondent took Part II of the Flex examination on June 12, 1985, but failed to pass it. Respondent received a score of 71. Flex examinations are offered every six months in June and December. The Flex Examination was offered in December, 1985 and June, 1986, but the Respondent failed to take either examination. The Respondent attempted to apply to take the December, 1985 examination, but was beyond the registration deadline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing a reprimand, a $500 administrative fine, and suspending Respondent's license to practice medicine unless and until he successfully passes the Flex Examination Part II. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1851 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None submitted) COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert K. Estes, Esquire 717 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Suite 232 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings E. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 3233 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Jose A. Torres was a licensed medical doctor, having been issued License No. ME0029982. By Administrative Complaint filed March 23, 1982, he was charged with 31~counts of violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Dr. Torres entered an admission as to seven counts of that Administrative Complaint and the other counts were dismissed prior to hearing. The matter came before the Board of Medical Examiners as an informal hearing and the Board voted to revoke Dr. Torres' license to practice medicine (P-3). The undersigned ruled at formal hearing, contrary to Petitioner's urging, that it is inappropriate to go behind the formal final order of revocation to vary the circumstances leading up to that revocation.9 At that time, by requesting an informal proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Torres admitted not simply to conclusions of law as to what statutory violation was found, but also to there being no disputed issues of material fact as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Accordingly, the specific facts admitted by Torres related to the treatment of seven different patients and the prescription of controlled substances to each of those patients in the following amounts over the following time period: John Dodge 852 Dilaudid Less than 3 months Joann Diaz 425 Dilaudid Less than 2 months Robert Pendegar 427 Dilaudid Two and one half months Richard Pendegar 168 Dilaudid Less than 1 month Charles Penno 330 Dilaudid Less than 3 months Robin Simpson 174 Dilaudid Less than 6 months Graham Boylan 130 Dilaudid Less than 1 month In addition to admitting the facts relating to the number of pills prescribed over a specified period of time as to each individual patient, Torres admitted (See P-3-4) that each patient: Was a drug abuser, a fact that was or should have been known to Respondent [Dr. Torres]. Respondent did not prescribe above- prescribed controlled substance for a medically-justified purpose. Said prescriptions were inappropriate or excessive and inappropriate quantities.10 It was based upon those admissions of fact that the Board of Medical Examiners determined that Torres had violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, for prescribing a controlled substance other than in the course of his professional practice in each of the seven counts and revoked his medical license. He has been without his license for approximately 29 months at this writing. It was stipulated, and is accordingly found, that Petitioner has never previously nor subsequently been charged with or been found in violation of any provision of the Medical Practices Act (Chapter 458, Florida Statutes) nor any rule of the Board of Medical Examiners, other than those which were committed in 1981 and which led to the revocation of Petitioner's license on June 15, 1983. It was stipulated, and is accordingly found, that Petitioner falls in the category of persons applying for and eligible for reinstatement pursuant to Board policy in effect prior to June 5, 1983. There are no statutes or written rules or policies of Respondent defining what is a "grave" violation nor what "grave" violation(s) would show "such a lack of judgment and lack of ability or willingness to conform to the law" so as to guide Petitioner in applying such criteria in the reinstatement process. Both Drs. Katims and Bass testified that each Board member's decision on what was or was not a "grave" offense was based upon their own subjective interpretation and criteria, and that for persons in the Petitioner's pre-June 5, 1983 category, the Board did not consider any particular formula nor any one factor but looked at the totality of the circumstances in arriving at conclusions concerning who should be reinstated and who should not be reinstated. Respondent had not, prior to the time Petitioner filed his Petition for Reinstatement, adopted any written reinstatement rules which covered persons in Petitioner's category of those applying for reinstatement. Rule 21M-20.03 Florida Administrative Code became effective on January 3, 1985. Any effect or lack of effect thereof is considered infra under "Conclusions of Law". Petitioner's Exhibit 6 seeks to establish incipient policy by a summary of prior actions taken by the Board of Medical Examiners. Of the seventeen cases listed in the summary, all but one involved charges of inappropriate and excessive prescriptions. Only three involved revoked licenses. One of those three with revoked license was Petitioner herein; one was Dr. Richard S. Flatt, one was Dr. Newell Griffith.ll All of the other cases documented in P-6 were ones in which the initial discipline imposed fell short of revocation,l2 and one of those was the acceptance of a voluntary relinquishment of licensure with leave to request reinstatement. In addition, documentation on which the summary was based was introduced as Composite P-17. A review of those materials reveals that procedurally, only five of the cases cited, in addition to the case of Petitioner Torres, were before the Board for informal proceedings. Five were stipulations accepted by the Board, none of which contained admissions as to the truth of the allegations of fact in the Administrative Complaint. Four were before the Board after formal hearings at which the case was fully tried and evidence of violations or defenses thereto was fully available. The remaining cases involved one voluntary relinquishment (Major) and one case (Flats) in which the documents relate to reinstatement and do not reveal the procedural posture of the underlying discipline. Of all of the informal hearings reflected in the documentation, only two of the Respondents failed to make an appearance, either in person or through counsel, to offer an explanation of their conduct or offer evidence in mitigation at the time the Board was imposing discipline: this Petitioner Torres and Dr. Newell Griffith. Petitioner Torres states that he did not appear at his April 9, 1983, hearing due to faulty advice concerning the date thereof given him by his former attorney. Dr. Newell Griffith's situation is discussed in greater detail, infra. In only one of the other cases (Seller) involving an informal hearing did the Administrative Complaint contain the specific allegations of fact that the patient was a known drug abuser and that the Respondent did not prescribe the controlled substance for a medically-justified purpose (Seller). In one other case (Waldheim) the allegations did include an allegation that the prescriptions were not for a medically-justified purpose, but there was no allegation therein with respect to the fact that the patient was a known drug abuser. Although both parties have argued a variety of similarities of the various aspects, issues, Respondents, etc. of the seventeen cases by which Petitioner has attempted to demonstrate incipient policy, the only ones specifically found relevant and material are those involving revocation: Torres, Flatt and Griffith.l3 The charges against Dr. Richard S. Flatt were couched in terms of bargaining with not-medically justified prescriptions for the sexual favors of a single female patient. Although Dr. Flatt's license was revoked, the initial revocation was stayed and the license was suspended for three years. A specific time limit was placed on the revocation (which probably is more correctly termed a suspension) with no further conditions for the stay imposed, but nonetheless it is found, for purposes of comparison re incipient policy, to be a revocation case. Dr. Flatt was without his license for 35 months. Thus, we come to the sole case which appears to be closely comparable, in any real sense, to the circumstances of Petitioner Torres: the case of Newell Jerome Griffith. Dr. Griffith was initially charged in 1981 with excessive and inappropriate prescribing of controlled substances to three patients, and was, at that time, given a disciplinary penalty of a revocation of the privilege to prescribe Schedule II controlled substances, with stay of such revocation, and a suspension of those privileges until after certain continuing medical education courses were completed, at which time the privileges would be reinstated on probation. Subsequently, Dr. Griffith was charged with prescribing Schedule II controlled substances to five patients while his privilege to do so was revoked. The final order in that cause indicates that Dr. Griffith did not attend the hearing on the charges, either in person or through counsel, that Dr. Griffith was found guilty after filing an Election of Rights admitting the facts, and that Dr. Griffith's license to practice medicine was revoked. When Dr. Griffith was asked by the Respondent in a second disciplinary action whether he knew at the time of the subsequent prescriptions that his license to do so was suspended and why under those circumstances he did so, Dr. Griffith replied: "I guessed I hoped it would not be picked up . . ." (P- 7, page 19). The final revocation was because Dr. Griffith prescribed 488 tablets of Schedule II drugs to five patients while his privileges to prescribe Schedule II drugs had been suspended. Respondent's proposals concede "that particular offense does appear to show an inability or unwillingness to conform to law," and it is so found. It is also found that the quantity and gravity of the drugs involved in Dr. Griffith's ultimate revocation case is less than those which led to Petitioner Torres' license revocation. When both the suspension and revocation cases are considered there is great similarity in quality and quantity of Griffith's prescriptions with those of Torres. In the revocation situation of Griffith however, there was no showing of prescription to drug abusers or prescription for a non-medically justifiable purpose and it involved fewer patients and pills than prescribed by Petitioner. Despite the fact that Dr. Griffith has violated the Medical Practices Act on two separate occasions (Petitioner having done so only once), and prescribed similar total quantities of controlled substances, including Dilaudid, and despite the fact that Dr. Griffith the second time around expressly engaged in conduct clearly showing "lack of judgment" and "his unwillingness to conform to the law", the Respondent has permitted Dr. Griffith to be reinstated and he is now practicing medicine. His license revocation was for a total of 24 months (P-6). Dr. Griffith's license was reinstated by the Board of Medical Examiners after repeated Petitions for Reinstatement had been denied and the appellate court had ordered the Board to articulate a basis for the denial and standards for Dr. Griffith to use in determining when the Petition for Reinstatement would be "mature" for presentation to the Board.14 After Petitioner Torres was charged with the specific violations of the Medical Practices Act involving improper prescription of controlled substances, he took and successfully completed a six and one- half hour Continuing Medical Education (CME) course involving the specific activities (prescription of controlled substances) for which his license was revoked. After successfully completing this Drug Law Seminar, Petitioner continued to take and complete continuing medical education courses including attendance at conferences and seminars and the reading of numerous medical periodicals and journals. These included three books or pamphlets concerning drug abuse, heroin, and other aspects of drug dependence. After the revocation of his license, the Petitioner and his wife jointly agreed that he would do everything he could to stay in touch with the medical profession so as to enhance the possibility of eventual reinstatement of his license. Both the Petitioner and his wife have continuously struggled at menial jobs to support their family of four children. Petitioner took a job providing audio visual materials at Hollywood Memorial Hospital for other doctors. Dr. Seidel, Director of Medical Education and In-House Chief of Staff for Hollywood Memorial Hospital, found the Petitioner to be an honest and hardworking person who completed all audio visual, chart review auditing, and quality assurance tasks assigned to him in an exemplary fashion. Petitioner viewed many of the continuing medical education programs and courses as part of this audio visual job. Petitioner urges that over 100 hours of CME have been completed, but Respondent argues these hours should be discounted because many hours were admittedly part of Petitioner's audio visual tasks. Based on the testimony and exhibits, it is impossible to separate which "hat" Petitioner was wearing for which topics or for how many hours, but it appears most logical that he was present in the room while at least 54 hours of Florida Medical Association-approved CME material was being presented by audio visual techniques. Without contrary evidence, one must assume Petitioner was at least as attentive as the Hollywood Memorial Hospital physicians required to attend these presentations by the hospital's quality assurance program. Certainly, hope of reinstatement of his license must have been an effective motivator for Petitioner. Even if there were some question concerning Petitioner's attention to these audio visual programs, which there is not, there remain 46 hours of CME accomplished by the Petitioner through other means. Most of the letters and petitions signed by physicians (P-1C) in support of Petitioner being permitted to practice medicine, though admitted into evidence by stipulation, are simply not probative of the basic issue of current safety to practice. Their probative value on this point is diminished on the same weight and credibility grounds as are most of the physicians' live and deposition testimony, or they fail because they are undated, stale, or at least confused about the fact that revocation has already occurred. By expert testimony, of Drs. Coopersmith, Shabanah, Di Giorgi, Piskur, Rand, and Bautista,l5 all testified that in their opinions, the Petitioner could now safely engage in the practice of medicine. Drs. Coopersmith, and Shabanah base their opinions upon Petitioner's CME hours and qualify the Petitioner's safety to practice in terms of being properly supervised or monitored. With the exception of Dr. Seidel and Dr. Bautista, most of the physicians who testified or gave affidavits in support of Petitioner Torres testified that he had practiced with reasonable skill and safety all along: this clearly was not so. These physicians' assertions show a lack of awareness of the full nature of Torres' practice before revocation, and, therefore, a lessened ability to judge whether Torres has changed in a manner sufficient to assure the Board and the public that he will practice with reasonable skill and safety within the confines of the requirements of the applicable Florida Statutes. Testimony by Drs. Coopersmith, Shabanah, Di Giorgi, Piskur and Rand specifically fall in this category of lessened weight and credibility. For the same reasons, the testimony of Mr. Tom Mulroney, a retirement village operator, and Mr. Lawrence Esteban, a paramedic/fireman, is equally lacking in weight and credibility. All written as well as oral evidence originating with Dr. Seidel has been weighed. Although Dr. Seidel apparently knew the entire prescribing history of Petitioner's medical career and of this case, he expressed the opinion that Petitioner's license should be reinstated and it is found that inherent in that opinion of Dr. Seidel is his belief that Petitioner can now safely practice medicine even though Dr. Seidel did not employ those "magic words." Dr. Seidel has known Petitioner for many years and his opinion in favor of reinstatement is particularly impressive in light of his almost daily observation of Petitioner since his license revocation and in light of Dr. Seidel's past knowledgeable observation and supervision of him as a house physician at Hollywood Memorial Hospital when Torres was first practicing there in 1977. The weight of Dr. Seidel's opinion is further amplified by Dr. Seidel's continuing service on peer review committees for this hospital. Dr. Bautista's knowledge of Petitioner's entire past prescribing went beyond just talking to Petitioner. Although she had agreed to oversee him if a probationary period were ordered with reinstatement, she also gave her unqualified professional opinion that Torres may now safely practice medicine. Since revocation, Petitioner has taken and passed both a physical and mental examination. Each examining physician concluded he could now safely engage in the practice of medicine. The description in psychiatrist James S. Weiner's report of the status of Petitioner's legal case before the Board and/or theDivision of Administrative Hearings and the apparent discrepancies between the facts as established by the initial final order of revocation by the Board and Petitioner's explanation to Dr. Weiner of what had occurred from Petitioner's point of view are as attributable to a non-lawyer's misunderstanding of the legal terms "suspension" and "revocation" and of the finality and legal consequences of the Board's 6/15/83 order as they are attributable to any alleged misrepresentation or lack of candor by Petitioner. Contrary to Respondent's urging in its proposals, Petitioner's credibility is not thereby diminished. While there were many patients who testified through affidavit or whose testimony was proffered without admission, as to how much they liked Petitioner and how much they wanted him back in practice, patients are not in a position either to judge Petitioner's ability to practice with reasonable skill and safety before revocation where, as here, they had no clear knowledge of his prescribing practices before revocation, and where, as here, they were not knowledgeable concerning his rehabilitation efforts, if any, since revocation. However, it is clear that despite newspaper publicity, Petitioner continues to enjoy a good reputation among many in the community. Petitioner's Plan of Re-Instatement was part of his Petition for Reinstatement affixed to his Petition for Administrative Hearing. It contains two (2) distinct Plans of Supervision during any probationary period Respondent might elect to set as a condition for Petitioner's re-instatement, including one plan where the practicing physician would supervise the Petitioner on a day-to-day basis and the other plan would include direct supervision within the confines of a publicly-owned and regulated medical facility with the parameters of that supervision to be set by the Respondent. As part of the first Plan of Supervision, an affidavit of a presently practicing physician in good standing with the Respondent, Videonia Bautista, M.D. was provided. She agreed, within her affidavit (and in live testimony recounted, supra) to supervise Petitioner on a day-to-day basis in her own office for as long as the Respondent felt such supervision was reasonably necessary. Petitioner also testified personally regarding his rehabilitation. Petitioner readily and candidly admitted that what he did in 1981 was wrong. The totality of his testimony and his general demeanor reveal that the acute embarrassment and subsequent financial and familial hardships and sacrifices that he and his family have endured since his downfall have instilled in him a valuable lesson which will constantly serve as a reminder to him of the standards of conduct required of one licensed in the medical profession. The Petitioner expressed remorse and regret for the actions he took in 1981. He apologized to his family, his peers and his patients. He expressed his frustration and disappointment in not being able to continue to serve his patients because of what he views as his past errors in judgment. Petitioner admitted to having a flaw in his character, that flaw being too trusting and too naive as to the subjective complaints of his former patients. Such a flaw of character is not inconsistent with the earlier disjunctive admission/finding that Torres "knew or should have known" (emphasis supplied) that he was prescribing to drug abusers. Torres explained that the experience he has endured has brought that flaw vividly to his attention and he has done everything within his power to reasonably ensure that the same problem never happens again. When the Petitioner was asked if he had learned anything from his experience, he testified: I have each and every time of the day pondered upon the mistake that I committed and the result that it has done to me and my family and my patients. That because of that, I will never do it again. Petitioner, a church-goer, and his wife and four children have suffered newspaper publicity, public humiliation, and a drastic reduction in their standard of living throughout this lengthy revocation period. Petitioner acknowledged and agreed to adhere to the Plan for Re-Instatement contained in the Exhibits to his Petition. He also agreed to abide by any reasonable requirements set by the Respondent to ensure that he would continue to safely engage in the practice of medicine and would not repeat the errors in judgment which led to the revocation of his license. The potential for Petitioner, if reinstated, to commit the same offense(s) is very dim.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Florida Board of Medical Examiners enter a final order reinstating Petitioner's license to practice. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee Florida. ELLA JANE P.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issues presented here are based upon an Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent seeking the revocation, suspension, or other disciplinary action against the Respondent, and his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Count I to the Administrative Complaint accuses the Respondent of making misleading, deceptive, untrue and fraudulent representations in obtaining his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. It is further contended that Respondent has not and cannot demonstrate that he graduated from medical school, and alleges that Respondent cannot demonstrate that he has met the minimal medical education, training and experience necessary for licensure by the Petitioner. Based upon these allegations, Respondent has purportedly violated Subsection 455.1201(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1977), by failing to demonstrate qualifications and standards for licensure contained in Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, or the rules and regulations of the Board of Medical Examiners. Count II, utilizing the same factual basis as has been alleged in the initial count, accuses the Respondent of violating Subsection 455.1201(1)(b) , Florida Statutes (1977), by practicing fraud or deceit in obtaining a license to practice medicine. Count III accuses the Respondent, based upon the aforementioned facts, with violating Subsection 458.1201(1) Florida Statutes (1977), by engaging in unethical, deceptive or deleterious conduct or practice harmful to the public. Count IV is based upon the facts as related in Count I and asserts that Respondent has violated Subsection 455.1201(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1977), by being guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct, negligence or willful misconduct. Count V, utilizing the facts related in Count I, alleges that Respondent has violated Subsection 455.327(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1951), and thereby violated Subsection 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1981), by violating a provision of Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. Finally, Count VI, asserting the facts as discussed herein, alleges that Respondent has violated Subsection 455.331(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1951), by attempting to obtain and obtaining a license to practice medicine by fraudulent misrepresentations CASE HISTORY On September 24, 1981, the Petitioner filed the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent which is the subject of this proceeding and which is referred to in summary fashion by the Issues statement to this Recommended Order. Subsequently, Respondent requested a hearing in this cause on November 11, 1981, by indicating, in substance, that he disputed the allegations as contained in the Administrative Complaint. On that same date, Respondent, through counsel, answered the Administrative Complaint. This answer was made a part of the record in the course of the final hearing and is being forwarded with the Recommended Order in this action. On November 30, 1981, the Division of Administrative Hearings received the case from Petitioner, the Petitioner having requested the Division to conduct a formal hearing in this matter. On December 3, 1981, Respondent's initial counsel withdrew from representation of Respondent. Respondent subsequently obtained the assistance of his present counsel, Rodney Smith, Esquire, and a final hearing was conducted on March 9, 1982, in keeping with Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's presentation consisted of testimony by Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director, Board of Medical Examiners, State of Florida. Petitioner also offered seven (7) items as evidence. All those items, with the exception of Nos. 5 and 6, have been received. Respondent gave testimony and presented as witnesses Edward M. Crawford, President, High Springs, Florida, Chamber of Commerce; Lorna J. Peters, resident, High Springs, Florida; Leslie Ann Morgan, X-Ray Technologist in the office of Respondent; Angela Anderson, employee of Respondent; Mireya Braga, Respondent's wife; Lacey William Register, Mayor, High Springs, Florida; a Mr. Westmoreland, resident, High Springs, Florida; Cybil M. Crawford, Vice- President, High Springs Bank, High Springs, Florida; and Thomas William Wolfe, Chief of Police, High Springs, Florida. Respondent offered six (6) items of evidence. All items have been received. The parties, in the person of counsel, have offered proposed recommended orders and supporting argument. Those matters have been reviewed prior to the entry of this Recommended Order. To the extent that those items are consistent with this Recommended Order, they have been utilized. To the extent that the matters are inconsistent with this Recommended Order, they are hereby rejected.
Findings Of Fact In February, 1976, Respondent made his initial application to the Board of Medical Examiners to become a licensed physician in the State of Florida. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. This application was received beyond the time of the deadline for filing and as a consequence, Respondent was required to submit a further application. The second application was made on January 17, 1977. A copy of that application may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence. Both applications were prepared by the Respondent and sworn to as to their accuracy. This attestation also acknowledged that if false information was given in the application, that Respondent agreed that the act of falsifying the application constituted cause for denial, suspension or revocation of his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Following the submission of the second application for licensure, Braga stood the Board of Medical Examiners' license examination, given in English, and was a successful candidate for licensure. He was awarded License No. ME0032004 and has renewed that license by the payment of applicable fees since the initial award of the license in 1978. The Administrative Complaint which has been discussed in the course of this Recommended Order challenges the accuracy of the information presented in the applications which were submitted by Respondent. In the initial application filed by the Respondent for licensure dating from February, 1976, Braga states that he attended Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos in Sao Paulo, Brazil, from February, 1971, through December, 1967. In the application, Respondent indicates that he practiced and/or was employed at the INPS (Institute National of Providence Social) , Sao Paulo, Brazil, in General Practice, between 1970 through 1972; Clinica Nuesta Senora, Sao Paulo, Brazil, in General Practice, between 1971 through 1972; Heliopolis Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil, between 1969 through 1970, and the Fundacao Centro Nacional, San Paulo, Brazil, between January, 1968 and December, 1968. The initial application of February, 1976, also contained a document written in Portuguese, which was sworn and certified to by Braga as being a true, authentic and legitimate photocopy of the original of his medical diploma issued by Medic Sciences of Santos in Brazil. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) There is also contained in the application of February, 1976, an indication, under oath by Respondent, concerning a document as attached, purportedly issued by Heliopolis Hospital in San Paulo, Brazil. Finally, Respondent had attached to the form application, and found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, affidavits from three physicians; Antonio J. Maniglia, Jorge Macedo and Humberto Munoz. These affidavits indicated that the physicians swore and affirmed that, by their personal knowledge, Respondent attended and graduated from Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, and practiced lawfully in the profession of medicine in Brazil in the years 1968 through 1972, and further indicated that the physicians had practiced in Brazil during that time. It has been proven and Respondent acknowledges that the application of February, 1976, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, was false to the extent that it indicated his attendance at Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos in Sao Paulo, Brazil, during the years 1971 through 1967; to the extent that the application indicated he practiced in the hospitals and clinics as set forth above, and to the extent that the application indicated that the physicians who had signed the affidavits had personal knowledge of Respondent's graduation from the medical school and his practice of medicine in Brazil. In the January, 1977, application with associated documents, found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, admitted into evidence, Respondent indicates to the Board of Medical Examiners that he attended Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, Sao Paulo, Brazil, from December 1967 to February, 1971, and received his degree of Doctor of Medicine from that school on January 7, 1967. He indicates in the application, on the subject of residency or other postgraduate training, that he worked at the Fundacao Lusiada, Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, from January, 1967, through October, 1967; and attended a Vascular Surgery Course, in the Heliopolis Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil, November, 1970. His employment was described in the application as being at the INPS (Institute National of Providence Social) Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil, General Practice, 1970 through 1972; at Clinica Nuestra Senora, Sao Paulo, Brazil, General Practice, 1971 through 1972; at Heliopolis Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil, General Practice, 1969 through 1970; and Fundacao Centro Nacional, General Practice, January, 1968 through December, 1968. The second application, which is found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, attached a medical diploma purportedly from the School of Medical Sciences of Santos (Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos). This document shows a date of January 7, 1967, and was dissimilar to the diploma document which was attached to the February, 1976, application. There were certain affidavits with the January, 1977, application from physicians Jose A. Pardo, Jaime Motta and Pedro Melo, which affidavits indicated that the physicians had personal knowledge of Braga's attendance and graduation from Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and that he had lawfully practiced the profession of medicine in Brazil in the years 1967 through 1972. It was shown and Respondent admits that the January, 1977 application for licensure was false, in that Respondent did not attend the Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos in Sao Paulo, Brazil, from December 1967 through February, 1971; that be had not practiced medicine in the hospitals and clinics as listed; that be had not attended residency or postgraduate training programs as shown in the application; and that the physicians who signed the affidavits for Respondent did not have personal knowledge of his graduation from medical school or his practice of medicine in Brazil. In reality, while it is accepted, that Respondent, who is a native of Brazil, has obtained a medical doctor's knowledge, Braga is not found to have graduated from a medical school either in that country or elsewhere or to have, following graduation from a medical school, practiced medicine as a general practitioner for five years or practiced in a one-year internship program, prior to licensure in Florida. Respondent departed Brazil sometime either in 1968 or 1969. Fe did so in the face of circumstances in his country, in which Respondent had been imprisoned. After gaining his freedom he migrated to the United States. When Braga arrived in the United States, he moved to Chicago, Illinois, and practiced medicine in that community without the benefit of a medical license. He subsequently left the State of Illinois and moved to Florida. After arriving in Florida and while employed in the Milagrosa Clinic in Miami, Florida, practiced medicine. At that time he had not been licensed by the State of Florida to practice medicine. Prior to the date of licensure by the State of Florida, Respondent attended and successfully completed the Florida State Board of Medical Examiners' continuing education program for 1977, which was offered by the Office of International Medical Education, University of Miami, School of Medicine, In turn, he successfully stood the requisite medical examination offered in English and was licensed. After receiving his medical license in 1975, Respondent moved to High Springs, Florida, and opened a medical practice which is primarily involved with the general practice of medicine. In the course of his practice, he has treated some 15,000 to 20,000 patients. Respondent offered as witnesses many persons from the community of High Springs, Florida, who, from the point of view of these individuals, are impressed with his good moral character. No evidence was presented from either side on the subject of Respondent's reputation as a medical practitioners as perceived by members of his profession.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner correctly answered questions 37, 44, 49, 83, and 206 of the General Written Exam portion of the Physician Assistant Examination administered June 25 through June 29, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Health is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating physician assistants. Sections 455.574 and 458.347(7), Florida Statutes (1997). Mr. Molina sat for the Physician Assistant Examination administered on June 25 though 29, 1998. At the hearing, he disputed the Department's determination that the answers he gave to questions 37, 44, 49, 83, and 206 are incorrect. The questions that comprise the General Written Exam portion of the June 1998 Physician Assistant Examination were objective, multiple-choice questions. The questions were drawn from a bank of questions written by licensed physician assistants trained by a psychometrician employed by the Department. Prior to being included in the question bank, these questions were reviewed and field-tested to ensure that they were good, fair questions that adequately and reliably tested the applicant's ability to practice as a physician assistant with reasonable skill and safety. After the test questions for the June 1998 examination were selected from the question bank, the questions were reviewed before the examination and after the examination. The candidates taking the examination in June 1998 were directed in the instructions to the examination to choose the best answer from among four possible answers. This instruction was included in the examination booklet provided to each candidate, and the Department's normal procedure was to read the instructions aloud prior to the examination. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 37 is "C"; Mr. Molina chose answer "B." Although question 37 is, on its face, clear and unambiguous, the reference book relied upon by the Department to support its answer, although an authoritative source for physician assistants, does not, in fact, unambiguously support the Department's answer. Question 37 refers to the "entire anterior chest," and the answer to the question can be derived from the "Rule of Nines." The "Rule of Nines" is a standard rule used in the practice of medicine and is illustrated in an authoritative text entitled Current Medical Diagnosis and Treatment, which contains a chart showing the outline of the human body divided into sections, each representing approximately nine percent of the body's surface area. The chart shows, in pertinent part, the trunk of the human body divided into the "posterior" upper trunk and the "posterior" lower trunk, with a line drawn somewhat above the umbilicus to illustrate the division of the trunk into the upper and lower portions. The Department's expert testified, without explanation, that the "entire anterior chest" is composed of both the upper and the lower trunk. This conclusion cannot be drawn from the chart contained in the reference book relied upon by the Department, and Mr. Molina's answer to question 37 is as reasonable as the answer the Department considers correct. Accordingly, Mr. Molina should receive credit for his answer to question 37. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 44 is "D"; Mr. Molina chose answer "B." Question 44 asks for the "MOST likely diagnosis" based on the facts contained in the question. Question 44 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from information included in the reference book entitled Ophthamology for the Primary Care Physician, which is considered an authoritative text by physician assistants. Mr. Molina should not receive credit for his answer to question 44 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. 3/ According to the Department, the correct answer to question 49 is "A"; Mr. Molina chose answer "C." Question 49 asks for the "MOST likely" diagnosis based on the facts contained in the question. Question 49 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in volume 1 of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, a reference book included in the list of recommended books sent to the candidates for the Physician Assistant Examination and considered an authoritative text by physician assistants. Mr. Molina should not receive credit for his answer to question 49 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 83 is "D"; Mr. Molina chose answer "C." Question 83 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in volume 1 of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, a reference book included in the list of recommended books sent to the candidates for the Physician Assistant Examination and considered an authoritative text by physician assistants. Mr. Molina should not receive credit for his answer to question 83 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 206 is "C"; Mr. Molina chose answer "A." Question 206 asks for the "MOST common" presentation of a precancerous lesion. Question 206 is clear and unambiguous, and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in volume 2 of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, a reference book included in the list of recommended books sent to the candidates for the Physician Assistant Examination and considered an authoritative text by physician assistants. Mr. Molina should not receive credit for his answer to question 206 because the answer he gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding that Nigel Molina is entitled to credit for his answer to question 37 of the General Written Exam portion of the Physician Assistant Examination administered June 25 through June 29, 1998; finding that Mr. Molina is not entitled to credit for his answers to questions 44, 49, 83, and 206 of the General Written Exam portion of the Physician Assistant Examination administered June 25 through June 29, 1998; and recalculating Mr. Molina's score on the General Written Exam portion of the Physician Assistant Examination administered June 25 through June 29, 1998. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 8th day of February, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made to supplement the parties' factual stipulations: Petitioner's Pre-Immigration Activities In Nicaragua Petitioner is a native of Nicaragua. He obtained his medical education at the National University of Nicaragua (hereinafter referred to as the "University"). He graduated from the University in 1961 with a Doctor of Medicine and Surgery degree. Petitioner later received a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from Nicaragua's Central American University. Thereafter, he completed law school in Nicaragua; however, because he was an outspoken critic of the Sandinista government, he did not receive his law degree. Petitioner practiced medicine in Nicaragua for more than 26 years before immigrating to the United States for political reasons 3/ on March 10, 1988. His reputation as a physician in Nicaragua was excellent. Moreover, he provided at his "White Cross" (also referred to herein as "Cruz Blanca") clinic in the city of Managua, which he established in 1972, free medical services to those who were unable to pay for such services. He also volunteered his time and services to various organizations such as the Nicaraguan Professional Boxing Association, of which he was at one time the President, and the Nicaraguan national baseball team. Petitioner's Application For Licensure As A Physician Approximately 19 months after immigrating to the United States, Petitioner submitted to the Board an application for licensure as a physician pursuant to Section 458.311(10), Florida Statutes. On the application form, under the heading "Medical Education," Petitioner indicated that he had studied at the University's Leon, Nicaragua campus from April 1, 1952, to January 30, 1953, and at the University's Managua, Nicaragua campus from April 1, 1958, to January 30, 1959. He provided no other information under this heading. Under the heading "Practice/Employment," Petitioner indicated that from January 1, 1962, to October 30, 1972, he had seen "[p]rivate [p]atien[t]s" at his "[o]wn [c]linic" in Managua and that from November 1, 1972, to February 20, 1988, he had been the "Director of Internal and Famil[y] Medicine" of the "White Cross of Nicaragua" in Managua. He provided no other information under this heading. On December 1, 1989, the Board sent Petitioner written notification that his application was incomplete for the following reasons, among others: The World Directory of Medical Schools indicates duration of studies six years with one year being a rotating internship and one year social service before you are awarded the Doctor of Medicine and Surgery and registration with the Ministry of Public Health you may engage in private practice. In the form of a sworn affidavit please explain or answer the following questions regarding your application: It appears your studies only lasted 18 mos. (4-52 to 1-30-53) and (4-1-58 to 1-10-59). It is not apparent you completed the required 1 yr social service. Application indicates you were in medical school from 4-1-58 to 1-1-59 and in residency at General Hospital from 1-1-59 to 12-1-59. Please explain the apparent discrepancy. . . . 7. Account for the following time: 2-2-88 to the present. . . . Petitioner responded by writing the Board a letter. The Board received the letter, as well as the attachments Petitioner sent along with it, on January 6, 1990. Petitioner's letter provided in part as follows: Following your letter of December 1, 1989, here are my answers to the questions made to me in order to complete my Application No. 88, within the framework of the law No. 458.311, "Licensure by examination." SEE ENCLOSED ATTACH[MENT] ONE (1).- Studies: 4-1-52 to 12-31-58. I enclose evidence on intense medical practice; when I graduated there was not Social Service for graduated medicine students, however, in addition to the rotatory practice I have 2 internship years. See enclosed Attach[ments] two (2) and three (3) Residency General Hospital from 1-1-59 to 12-31-59. See Enclosed attach[ments] (1) and (3). . . . 7. Since 2-2-88 I live in Miami without practicing my profession; presently I am doing some research and writing two recently finished books. From Miami I am also managing the medical institution "CRUZ BLANCA," of which I am the Director - see enclosed Certificate-; the latter, together with other data-evidence confirms my medical professional practice since I graduated. -See Enclosed attach[ments] (4) and (3). . . . I hope I have completed all the information requested; I will be waiting to hear from you for any other point th[at] may arise regarding my request. Thanks. Attachment (1) referred to in Petitioner's letter was a written statement by Petitioner in which he stated the following: The Medical Education in Nicaragua was of seven years and one year of practice in the General Hospital. The Medical School had two locations respectively in Leon and Managua. My Medical Education was from April 1, 1952, to Dec. 31, 1958 = seven years. MEDICAL EDUCATION Name of Medical School: Medical School of the National University of Nicaragua: LEON- Nicaragua From: April 1, 1952 To: January 30, 1953 April 1, 1953 To: January 30, 1954 April 1, 1954 To: January 30, 1955 April 1, 1955 To: January 30, 1956 April 1, 1956 To: January 30, 1957 April 1, 1957 To: January 30, 1958 Managua- Nicaragua From: April 1, 1958 To: December 31, 1958 There are two months of vacations : February and March, every year. Leon and Managua Nicaragua are the same University in different localities. My INTERNSHIP: General Hospital of Managua from 1-1-59 to 12-31-59. On January 10, 1990, the Board sent Petitioner written notification that his application was still incomplete. In this written notification, the Board requested, among other things, that Petitioner have his letter, "retyped in the form of a sworn affidavit." Petitioner complied with this request and resubmitted the letter, in affidavit form, to the Board, along with other materials. Among the other materials he sent to the Board was a certificate from the Secretary of the Board of Directors of Cruz Blanca, which provided as follows: The undersigned Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Cruz Blanca Institution of Medical Social Service, established according to the laws of the Republic of Nicaragua, issues these presents to certify that Dr. Leon Cesar Delgadillo was our founder in the year nineteen hundred seventy-two and that he has acted as our Medical Director and Executive President of the Board of Directors since then, being also in charge of the responsibility of Internal Medicine. Dr. Leon Cesar Delgadillo is a well-known and experienced doctor in the Republic of Nicaragua. He attended seven years of academic studies at the National University of Nicaragua and one year as intern at the General Hospital of Managua which was destroyed by a devastating earthquake in nineteen hundred and seventy-two. He then became an intern at the Social Security Hospital for one more year followed by another year of residency at the Psychiatric Hospital of Managua, Nicaragua. At that time the Medical Social Service did not exist, but Dr. Delgadillo who has a great human sensibility has practiced Social Medicine at Cruz Blanca. His License to practice both private and institutionally as well as his diploma are legally registered at the Ministry of Health. Dr. Delgadillo is also author of "La Dieta Feliz" (The Happy Diet) a best seller in Nicaragua and Central America and presently he has finished writing two books which will soon be published "VIDA Y SALUD CON FISIODINAMIA" (LIFE AND HEALTH WITH PHYSIODYNAMICA) and an educational novel of intense drama about AIDS titled "INFIERNO EN LA TIERRA" (HELL ON EARTH). Due to political reasons, he has lived in the United States since February 2, 1988, but from there he directs our Institution and has been busy there, in the USA, with the abovementioned books of which he is the author. His degree of Medicine was signed by the President of the Republic because that was the law and practice at that time. On February 19, 1990, the Board, having determined that Petitioner had "substantially complied with the requirements set forth in Section 458.311(10)(a), Florida Statutes," and that it was "likely that [Petitioner would] be able to fully comply with all the requirements," issued an order granting "conditional certification of the application of [Petitioner] pursuant to Section 458.311(10)(a), Florida Statutes," thereby authorizing Petitioner to enroll in the University of Miami's Comprehensive Medical Review Program, which was designed to prepare foreign medical school graduates to take the FLEX licensure examination. Petitioner subsequently enrolled in and successfully completed the program. In response to a letter from the Board indicating what he needed to do to "fully comply with all of the requirements of Section 458.311(10)(a), Florida Statutes," Petitioner sent the Board a letter, dated March 26, 1990, in which he stated, among other things, the "corre[c]t date [he] left [his] country [was] 3- 10-88." On July 10, 1990, Petitioner sent another letter to the Board. In his letter, he stated, among other things, the following: My date and port of entry into E.U. is Miami, Mar. 10-86 and the same day arrived [in] San Francisco. I am newspaper reporter. (see page 3 Immigration Statement). Petitioner enclosed page 3 of the "Immigration Statement" to which he referred in his letter. On this page of the "Immigration Statement," Petitioner had indicated that he was a "travelling correspondent of the news radio 'El Momemto de Radio Mundial de Nicaragua.'" On July 26, 1990, the Board sent Petitioner a letter advising him that he had to submit the following material in order to complete his application file: In the form of a sworn affidavit please account for your activities from the date [you] entered the United States until the present[. Y]ou[r] application and other supporting documents contain discrepancies regarding the exact date, port of entry and your activities in the United [S]tates. INS verification indicates date of entry of 3/10/86. Your letter of July 10, 1990 is not acceptable. In response to this letter, Petitioner submitted to the Board a sworn affidavit, dated August 2, 1990, in which he stated the following: Since I entered [t]he United States [o]n 03-10-88, I have been working as a foreign journalist for a Nicaraguan news agency. On this date I entered into the United States by the International Airport in Miami, Florida. This information is in the Declaration signed by me on March 28th of 1988 and filed in your office. Petitioner applied to take the December 1990 FLEX examination. He submitted the completed application and a $500.00 examination fee to the Board. In a letter, dated October 19, 1990, accompanying the fee, Petitioner reiterated that he was working as a foreign journalist for a news agency. On November 7, 1990, the Board sent Petitioner a letter which contained the following advisement: Pursuant to the Final Order dated February 19, 1990 the following material is required to complete your application file. This material must be received in this office no later than November 14, 1990. The Office of Naturalization and Immigration verifies your date of entry as March 10, 1986; but you give your date of entry as March 10, 1988. Please have INS submit to this office a verification of your exact date of entry into the United States. Information requested above must be received in this office on or before 11/14/90 or you will not be allowed to take the December 1990 FLEX EXAM. Petitioner timely furnished the Board with documentation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service verifying that he entered the United States on March 10, 1988. On November 21, 1990, the Board, through its Executive Director, sent Petitioner the following letter: This is to advise you that your application to take the Course developed by the University of Miami as directed in Chapter 89-374, Laws of Florida, is now complete. Based on your demonstration of full compliance with the requirements of Section 458.311(10)(a), F.S., as amended by 89-541, Laws of Florida, your application will be presented to the Board of Medicine for full certification for the Course at a meeting of the Board November 30,- December 2, 1990. You will not be required to be in attendance at this meeting. Should you have any questions whatsoever, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Petitioner took and failed the December 1990 FLEX examination. He contested his failing grade in a letter received by the Board on March 20, 1991. In his letter, he stated that he was a "Medical Doctor, Ps[y]chologist and Lawyer of Nicaragua" and he accused the Board of discriminating against him and infringing upon his civil rights. Petitioner's examination challenge was referred by the Board to the Division of Administrative Hearings, but was subsequently returned to the Board with the recommendation that the Board dismiss Petitioner's challenge. Petitioner's Application For Certification As A Physician Assistant On or about June 21, 1991, Petitioner filled out an Examination Application for Certification as a Physician Assistant (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"). He thereafter submitted the Application, along with a $400.00 application fee, to the Board. The Board received the Application and fee on June 24, 1991. On the first page of the Application, Petitioner indicated, among other things, that he had received his Doctor of Medicine and Surgery degree from the University on August 11, 1961. On the second page of the Application, Petitioner indicated that on July 1, 1990, his place of residence was Miami, Florida. He further indicated that he wished to be issued a temporary certificate. In response to the question on page 2 of the Application, "Did you attend a college or university," Petitioner answered "no." In response to the question on page 2 of the Application, "Did you receive a degree other than an M.D., to include undergraduate degree," Petitioner also answered "no." On pages 2 and 10 of the Application, Petitioner listed "all places of residence (where lived) during all periods of medical school" as follows: Leon, Leon Nicaragua from April 1, 1952 to January 30, 1958 Managua, Managua, Nicaragua from April 1, 1958 to Dec. 31, 1958 Miam[i], Florida from Feb. 24, 1990 to Nov. 20, 1990. February 24, 1990, to November 1990, was the period that Petitioner attended the University of Miami's Comprehensive Medical Review Program. Petitioner further indicated on pages 2 and 10 of the Application that had attended "medical school" at the Leon campus of the University from April 1, 1952, to January 30, 1958, at the Managua campus of the University from April 1, 1958, to December 31, 1958, and at the University of Miami School of Medicine from February 24, 1990, to November 20, 1990. On pages 2 and 3 of the application form, applicants were asked to provide information regarding their "Postgraduate Training" and "Practice Employment." They were instructed as follows: Account for all time from date of graduation from medical school to present. Do not leave out any time. Under "Postgraduate Training" applicants were requested to "[l]ist in chronological order from date of graduation to present date, all postgraduate training (Internship, Residency, Fellowship)." Petitioner indicated that he was in an internship program at the General Hospital of Managua from January 1, 1959, to December 31, 1959, a residency program at the Social Security Hospital of Managua from January 1, 1960, to December 31, 1960, and another residency program at the Mental Health Hospital in Managua from January 1, 1961, to December 31, 1961. Under "Practice Employment" applicants were requested to "[l]ist in chronological order from date of graduation to present date, all practice experience and/or employment." Petitioner indicated that from November 1, 1972, to February 20, 1988, he was the "Director of Familiar Medicine" at the "White Cross of Nicaragua" in Managua. He listed no other "practice experience and/or employment." On page 8 of the application form, applicants were asked to list their "clerkship(s)" and "all places of residence (where lived) during clerkship(s)." Petitioner indicated that he lived in Managua from January 1, 1959, to December 31, 1959, while in a University-supervised internship program at the General Hospital of Managua, that he lived in Managua from January 1, 1960, to December 31, 1960, while in a University-supervised residency program at the Social Security Hospital of Managua, that he lived in Managua from January 1, 1961 to December 31, 1961, while in a University-supervised residency program at the Mental Health Hospital, and that he lived in Managua from November 1, 1972, to December 20, 1988, while he was the "Director of Medicine Familiar" at the "White Cro[s]s of Nicaragua." On August 2, 1991, the Board's Physician Assistant Section (hereinafter referred to as the "Section") sent Petitioner a letter advising him that his Application was incomplete because he failed to submit the following: An accounting of your activities for the following period(s) of time: clerkships from 12/61 to 11/72, 2/88 to 12/88, 12/88 to 2/90, page 3 application practice employment 2/88 to present. page 2 application did you attend a college or university you marked NO explain. page 4 application question 8 you marked NO correct and resubmit. Petitioner responded to this letter by submitting to the Section an affidavit dated August 7, 1991, in which he stated the following: Page 2 application; I attend at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua, UNAN. [University].- Leon and Managua, Nicaragua April 1, 52 to December 31, 58. Also I attend 5 years Universidad Centro- Americana, UCA [Central American University] degree Psichologist. Clerkships: from 12/61 to 11/72 own private medicine. From 2/88, 12/88 to 2/90, 2/88 to present: In E.U.; don't work in medicine. Question 8, page 4 application question: since I live in E.U. from 2/88 to present don't work in Medicine for do not have license of M.D. On August 26, 1991, the Section sent Petitioner a letter advising him that his Application was still incomplete. The letter further provided as follows: In your affidavit of August 7, 1991 (copy attached) you indicated that you attended Universidad Centro-Americana, UCA for 5 years and obtained a degree in Psichologist. Please submit diploma and transcripts and translations of transcripts, notarized as stated above, dates of attendance and where the university is located. Please resubmit pages 8 and 9 (attached) listing only core clerkships while attending medical school at Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua UNAN. Be specific with dates, location of hospital, institution or individual where clerkship was performed or supervised. List affiliate University/College. We need one additional acceptable source of documentation of Florida residency on July 1, 1990, notarized as stated above. It must verify residency covering the period of July 1, 1990. Please account for your activities for the following periods of time, listing in chronological order from date of graduation to present date, including all practice experience and/or employment or unemployment: From February 20, 1988 to present. Petitioner responded by letter dated August 29, 1991. In his letter, Petitioner argued that it was not necessary for him to provide any additional information regarding his psychology degree because such information was "impertinent or irrelevant." He further contended that he had "sufficiently explained" the "other points [in the Section's August 26, 1991] letter (2,3,4)." In addition, he invited the Section, if it wanted more detailed information about his past, to examine the materials in his physician licensure application file (hereinafter referred to as "File No. 88"). The Section followed Petitioner's suggestion and reviewed his File No. 88. Not having received any response to his August 29, 1991, letter, Petitioner, on September 23, 1991, sent the Section another letter complaining about the "harassment and intimidation" to which, according to him, he was being subjected by the Section. The Section, on October 15, 1991, wrote to Petitioner and advised him that he needed to do the following to complete his Application: In your affidavit of August 7, 1991 and in your "declaration" notarized on March 26, 1990, you stated that you had completed a Bachelors degree in Psychology; and stated that you attended Jesuit University in Nicaragua where you "finished the school of law." Please substantiate these statements with the appropriate documentation and dates of attendance. You have submitted a certificate issued December 15, 1989 from the Nicaraguan Board of Pharmacy indicating your registration in their books. Please send a notarized copy of the license and/or certificate required to prescribe drugs in Nicaragua. In your declaration of March 26, 1990, you state that you are enclosing several documents, none of which were enclosed. Among those documents was a "medical file of U.C. Davis (University of California, Davis) Medical Center of Sacremento of March 19, 1988." Please provide all reports of treatment and/or evaluation from the Medical Center of Sacremento to include diagnosis and prognosis. We need one additional source of information of Florida residency on July 1, 1990, notarized as stated above. It must verify residency covering the period of July 1, 1990. Please resubmit pages 8 and 9 (enclosed) listing only core clerkships and rotations while attending medical school at Universidad Autonoma de Nicaragua. Be specific with dates, location of hospital, institution or individual where the clerkships was performed or supervised. List affiliate University or College. You have failed to respond adequately to questions concerning your activities from the time of your graduation from medical school until the present time. On page 3 of the application form (enclosed) please complete the information under "practice experience" as instructed. List all practice experience and/or employment, including month, day and year of practice and/or employment. Do not leave out any period of time. Your application will not be considered complete until you have adequately explained your activities from graduation until the present. You have reported your date of entry into the United States as a Nicaraguan exile as: March 10, 1986; February 6, 1988; February 23, 1987; February 2, 1988 and March 10, 1988, in letters and affidavits prepared by you. Please explain these discrepancies. Also we have received two conflicting statements from the Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding your date of entry as an exile. It will be necessary for you to request an explanation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to clarify their conflicting documents. Petitioner responded by letter dated October 23, 1991. In his letter, he stated the following: I see you have my file 88 of the Board of Medicine. I am attempting to reconcile your accustomed hostility and for this reason I send you letter Nov. 21/90 of "full compliance from Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director, Florida Board of Medicine. Please, you think, think, think . . . and you don't contradict and the Board of Medicine and its Executive Director. For politeness I send you "personal documents" and I feel you are intimidateing to me or also You are inciteing to me at to lie. Documents: Letter Florida Board of Medicine 11/21/90 Original FPL's Bill Jul. Aug. -Ju Jul. -May. Jun., 90 Medical File of U.C. Davis . . . Sacramento . . . "PRIVATE" Two Verifications of Information from Migration . . . Below Signed for Richard B. Smith (on Yellow) District Director. - You don't have jurisdiction in this. (Abuse of authority). -Bachelors in Psychology and "finihes the school of law" degree is impertinent and irrelevant to Physician Assistant Section and all this in Nicaragua. -I have only certificate from the Nic. Board of Pharmacy. -Clerkship only General Hospital of Managua, Social Security Hospital, and Mental Health Hospital. After private medicine all time. You are harassing to me, intimidateing and abuseing of my civil rights and I will have to go at the Judge; You are having to me damage. 4/ On November 14, 1991, the Section sent Petitioner a letter advising him that his application was still incomplete and repeating the requests made in numbered paragraphs 1, 5, 6 and 7 of its October 15, 1991, letter to Petitioner. The letter, like the previous letters the Section had sent him, was unsigned. Petitioner responded by letter dated November 18, 1991, in which he stated the following: I have full my file by Physician Assistant and please, I don't want "nobody else" your anonymous letter, without signature and full of bureaucratic harassment. My rights I will debate it in the instance of Law that it concern. At the bottom of the letter, under Petitioner's signature, was a "Postscript," dated November 20, 1991, which read as follows: I send you fotocopy of Immigration and Naturalization service; "fast" you will have original from Immigration by mail. You don't have jurisdiction on matter of Immigration and your hostility is it "abuse of authority" and also is illegal. You infringe my civil rights. "We have to avoid the risorgimento of the Nazism and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in all the sectors," this involve: Racialism, Prepotency, irrationality, intolerance, perversion, terrorism, intimidation . . . etc. and it is crime of hate (Law by crime of hate F.S. 1989) The Section next communicated with Petitioner by letter dated December 17, 1991. The letter advised Petitioner that he needed to do the following to complete his application: Translation of medical school diploma, prepared as instructed: The translation of the diploma is a copy and is not notarized as stated above; the translation does not indicate that it was done by a certified translator. Translations must be done by a certified translator and bear his seal or statement of certification. Please provide the translator with a copy of criteria for translation (enclosed). Translations or transcripts, prepared as instructed: The notary did not affix the seal to the translation of the transcripts. The translation is a copy and as such must be notarized as is stated above. On page 2 of the application under Medical Education your dates of attendance at the University of Nicaragua do not agree with your previous application, (exile file #88). PA Application: Med School: 4/1/52-1/30/58 Exile File #88: " " 4/1/52-1/30/53 and 4/1/58-1/30/59 Please clarify these discrepancies in affidavit form. Please resubmit pages 8 and 9 of the application to indicate your core clinical clerkships only. List specific date(s), type of rotation, and name and location of hospital, institution or individual where clerkship was performed or supervised. List affiliate University/College. An accounting of your activities for the following period(s) of time: 12/31/61 to 11/1/72. List all practice experience and/or employment, do not leave out any period of time. The Aids certificate submitted does not indicate AMA approved category I. Please submit proof of AMA Category I approved training, or request in affidavit form a 6 month extension in order to obtain AMA approved Category I course. Petitioner responded by affidavit dated December 31, 1991, to which he appended various documents, including a revised version of pages 8 and 9 of his Application as requested in numbered paragraph 4 of the Section's December 17, 1991, letter. In the affidavit, Petitioner stated the following: Translation of medical school diploma, prepared as instructed: notarized, the translation was done by a certified translator and it has or bear his seal and statement of certification. There are in Exile file No. 88 and my file for Certification as a Physician Assistant in each one, respective translation of the diploma "full criteria of law for translation." Translations was prepared by a Certified translator of Professional Traslating Services, Inc.- Suite 540, Courthouse Tower Building.- 44 West Flaguer Street.- Miami, Florida 33130 Phone: (305) 371-7887 I ask for please, send to me fotocopy of each one, file No. 88 and PA application, in order to delimitate responsibility. Translations of transcripts, prepared as instructed: The notary affixed the seal to the translation of the transcripts and it was notarized. Please, send to me fotocopy of each one, file No. 88 and PA application to delimitate responsibility. The discrepancies of dates under Medical Education of attendance at the University of Nicaragua was clarified on letter notarized January 19, 1990 in reply letter of December 1, 1989 by William R. Flynn, Senior Clerk, Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medicine, paragraph No. 1 file No. 88 (attached fotocopy) and affidavit of the 7th day of August, 1991 in reply your letter of the august 2, 1991 paragraph No. 1, that have your OK on the left margin (to see attached fotocopy). Confirmation Date: Med. School, April 1, 1952 to December 31, 1958.- Application Physician Assistant Section. These discrepancies are result of mistake in the transcription and dates and numbers at the remote time and distance and it was in opportune moment clarified. But it is more important to appoint that the application for certification as a Physician Assistant of the 21 day of June, 1991 page 2 and 10 they are with its correct dates and that your letter 12/17/91 paragraph 3 are free Objections I am incorporating as pages 3 and 4 in this affidavit the corresponding pages 8 and 9 of the application to indicate my core clinical clerkships; really this question was formulate with confused and ambiguous terms. My application is concrete and certain, page "8" application for certification as Physician Assistant. From 12/31/61 to 11/1/72 own private medicine; See affidavit of the 7th day of August, 1991, attached fotocopy. The AIDS certificate of Miami Dade Community Dade, Medical Center Campus for Allied Health Professions. Attached program; You will receive direct information of the Miami-Dade Community College Med. Center Campus. Petitioner, after receiving the Section's December 17, 1991, letter, also sent a letter to Vytas Urba, an assistant general counsel with the Department of Professional Regulation. In his letter, he accused the Section of acting with "madness and hatred" and claimed that he was the victim of a "conspiracy" to violate his civil rights that had resulted in damages of $99,999.99. By affidavit dated January 14, 1992, Petitioner requested that the Section give him a "6 month extension in order to obtain an AMA, AIDS certificate approved Category I course." Among the documents appended to the affidavit was a translation of his "Medical School Diploma." On January 28, 1992, the Section sent Petitioner a letter, which indicated that "the following [was] necessary to complete [his] application:" While you have stated on several occasions that you have not practiced medicine since arriving in the United States, you have not responded to questions regarding your activity or employment. It is not enough to merely state that you are not practicing medicine, you must account for your activities from 3/10/88 until the present. You have previously stated that you are a correspondent for Nicaraguan newspaper and radio station but have not substantiated this employment with any information. This will be the THIRD REQUEST for you to account for your activities from 3/10/88 until the present. Please complete the enclosed page 3 of the application as instructed. You must identify, by address and location the names of all employers, or state in affidavit form that you have not been employed in any way since 3/10/88. You have previously stated that in the period from 12/61 to 11/72 that you had a private practice in Managua. You have not identified what type of practice this was. What specialty, or field of medicine did you practice during this time. Your affidavit of 7 August 1991 states that you attended for 5 years the Universidad Centro-Americana, and that you received a degree of "Psichologist" from this school. Please provide the location of this school and the dates of your attendance. Your previous response that this information is "irrelevant" is not acceptable. You have voluntarily submitted this affidavit, which conflicts with other statements that you have made regarding your activities and you must verify the location of the school and dates of attendance. The translation of your diploma recently submitted is returned; this document is obviously a copy. Any copy must be notarized as is stated above. Your previous application does not contain a copy of this translation that is notarized as required. Please resubmit a translation of your diploma that is either an original document or properly notarized. The translation of your transcripts was also a copy that was not notarized however there was an acceptable copy in your previous application. With regard to HIV/AIDS training your request for a six month extension is accepted. The instructions provided with the application clearly state that this training must be AMA Category I approved training. This information should be requested of the provider prior to taking any HIV/AIDS course. You may enquire of Miami Dade Community College as to whether they are authorized to provide AMA Category I training. If they can provide you with verification of this course being AMA Category I approved, the training will be accepted upon receipt of this verification. Petitioner responded by affidavit dated February 10, 1992, in which he stated the following: There are in file No. 88 letter January 19, 90 . . . . notarized DOCUMENTS with my activities from 3/10/88 until the present, question 1 and the period from 12/61 to 11/72 my private practice in Managua, question 2 (attached); also affidavit 22th day of August, 1990 and notarized letter January 19, 1990 (attached fotocopy) over-marked on green. Next page I ratify and complement question number 1 and I state that in the period from 12/61 to 11/72 I practiced Familiar Medicine, question number 2. I attended for 5 years at the Universidad Centro-Americana, - from 1969 to 1972, this University in Managua, Nicaragua, C.A. (Re: question number 3). - Psichology School. I resubmit (THIRD TIME) my diploma notarized as required; please send me two previous documents submitted. I requested at the Florida Board of Medicine, Physician Assistant Section through Cecilia Abrahansem (Director) . . . to eliminate the unlawful monopoly with HIV/AIDS AMA Category I course. I am foreign journalist for "El Momento" Nicaraguan news agency, Radioperiodico El Momento, RADIO MUNDIAL, Managua, Nicaragua. This activity until the present. (From 1/30/88 to present) Among the documents appended to the affidavit was a revised version of page 3 of Petitioner's Application, which reflected, in addition to his previously disclosed employment with the "White Cross" as its "Director of Familiar Medicine" from November 11, 1972, to February 20, 1998, his employment as a "Foreign Journalist" with "El Momemto Nicaraguan news agency" from "1/30/88 To: the present." By letter dated June 4, 1992, Petitioner was directed to appear before the Physician Assistant Committee of the Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") at its June 12, 1992, meeting. Petitioner appeared before the Committee at its June 12, 1992, meeting as directed. Inasmuch as he has substantial difficulty understanding, and communicating effectively in, English, the Committee provided Petitioner with the services of an interpreter. Members of the Committee asked Petitioner various questions. The questions were asked in English and translated to Spanish, Petitioner's native language, by the interpreter. Petitioner responded in Spanish. The interpreter translated his responses to English for the benefit of the Committee. Asked when he had arrived in the United States, Petitioner responded, "March 10, 1988." He was then asked when he had last practiced medicine. His initial response was, "in Managua, Nicaragua." After the question was repeated, however, he answered, "before this time." In response to the question of whether he had had any exposure to the practice of medicine since his arrival in the United States, Petitioner stated, "never here in the States." Petitioner told the Committee, in response to their inquiry regarding the matter, that since his arrival in the United States he had been "a writer and a reporter." Petitioner responded in the affirmative when asked if his only exposure to medicine since he had been in the United States was the intensive review course he had taken at the University of Miami from February to November, 1990. Petitioner was asked whether he had gone to law school. After responding in the affirmative, he was asked when he had gone to law school. Petitioner answered that he was unable to give an "exact date," but it had been "about five years before he [had] left the country." He added that he had gone to law school at night. Asked whether he had received a law degree, Petitioner responded that he "couldn't" because it "wasn't possible . . . politically." At no time in responding to the Committee's questions or during any other phase of the application process did Petitioner knowingly provide false information or withhold pertinent information with the intent to mislead or deceive those evaluating his Application about his qualifications to be certified as a physician assistant. Any inaccuracies or omissions in the information he provided was the product of, not an intentional effort to defraud, but rather either inadvertence, carelessness, faulty or limited recall, misunderstanding, limited English language comprehension and communication skills, 5/ or a good faith belief that the information in question was not germane. After questioning Petitioner, the Committee voted to deny Petitioner's Application. On August 15, 1992, the Board issued a written order denying the Application on the following grounds: Your failure to submit a properly completed application. You have demonstrated a lack of good moral character based upon your testimony and inconsistent and evasive answers. The Board has also determined that based upon review of your application and documentation, and due to the extended length of time since you last worked in the field of medicine, and because of the length of time since any significant medical education or training has taken place, you have not established that you are currently able to practice as a physician assistant with reasonable skill and safety to the public. Petitioner's Other Activities Since His Arrival in the U.S. As he attempted to make clear during the application process, Petitioner has not engaged in the practice of medicine in the United States since his arrival in this country. He has studied medicine on his own, as well as performed medical- related research in connection with several books he has written, however. He has also done volunteer work for the Red Cross. Petitioner has continued to direct and administer from the United States the operations of the "White Cross" clinic. Recently, he has started to again visit the clinic on a fairly regular basis and treat patients. The first of these post-March 10, 1988, visits occurred sometime in 1992. Since 1988, Petitioner has not received any compensation for the work he has performed for the clinic. In addition to the foregoing activities, Petitioner has worked as a journalist since coming to the United States as he indicated on the revised version of page 3 of his Application. Petitioner has not lost the ability he demonstrated throughout his many years of practice in Nicaragua before immigrating to the United States to treat patients in a safe and effective manner. He is currently able to practice as a physician assistant with reasonable skill and safety to the public, notwithstanding that he may have had some difficulty in following the instructions he was given (in English) by the Section during the application process and providing the Section with the information he desired. 6/ Furthermore, Petitioner is of good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order certifying that Petitioner is eligible to take the examination for certification as a physician assistant pursuant to Section 458.347(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and granting him temporary certification pursuant to Section 458.347(7)(b)2., Florida Statutes, pending the results of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of June, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1993.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's paramedic license should be disciplined based upon alleged violations of Sections 401.411(1)(a) and (k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, HRS, Office of Emergency Medical Services (EMS), is the state agency which certifies and disciplines emergency medical technicians (EMTs) and paramedics in Florida pursuant to Chapter 401, Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Chapter 10D-66, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Respondent, Joseph L. Riggall, was initially certified as a paramedic in Florida under Section 401.27 and Rule 10D-66.057, F.A.C., in 1990, and was last recertified by EMS for the biennial period December 1, 1992 through December 1, 1994 pursuant to an application he submitted to the department through its agent on October 25, 1992. Respondent Riggall has not filed for recertification as a paramedic in Florida subsequent to the automatic expiration of his certification on December 1, 1994. A paramedic is a medical paraprofessional authorized under Florida law and administrative rules to administer advanced life support treatment with respect to life-threatening medical emergencies. Florida law defines advanced life support to include the use of techniques such as endotracheal intubation, the administration of drugs or intravenous fluids, telemetry, cardiac monitoring and cardiac defibrillation. A paramedic is authorized to perform invasive techniques in order to help save lives threatened by medical emergencies or severe injuries. As a paramedic, Respondent has a responsibility to the public, HRS-EMS and his employer, Polk County Emergency Medical Services, to perform his patient care duties without being impaired by alcohol, habit forming drugs or controlled substances. Respondent was employed by Polk County Emergency Medical Services for a period of time, including March 1994. Respondent was arrested on March 14 1994 in Polk County, Florida, on charges of prescription forgery to obtain controlled substances. HRS-EMS began an investigation of Respondent on March 23, 1994 based upon a complaint. In early March, 1994, Respondent reported to his shift supervisor that on March 11, 1994, while he was on duty as a paramedic, all of the controlled substances (morphine and Valium) had been stolen and were missing from his ambulance stationed at Fort Meade, Polk County, Florida. Respondent's supervisor immediately requested that Respondent submit to a drug test at Polk General Hospital. Respondent complied. Respondent was drug tested at approximately 12:45 a.m., March 12, 1994 at Polk General Hospital. The results of the tests taken at Polk General Hospital, and submitted to Metpath Laboratory for testing on samples from Respondent's serum and blood revealed a very high level of morphine (opiates) in Respondent's bloodstream. The level of opiates in his blood was greater than 1,999 mcg/1 and confirmed by immunoassay by the testing laboratory. Respondent admitted to the use of prescription opiate medication on March 11 and 12, 1994 while on duty as a paramedic. As a result of the drug testing of Respondent conducted the evening of March 11 and continuing the morning of March 12, 1994, and Respondent's arrest on March 14, 1994 on other charges related to improperly obtaining controlled substances or prescription medications, the Polk County EMS Medical Director rescinded Respondent's ability to function under the medical director's medical license. Furthermore, Respondent's employer, Polk County EMS, suspended Respondent without pay from his position as a paramedic with Polk County. Subsequently, Polk County EMS discharged Respondent, after providing a pre- determination conference, on August 26, 1994. HRS-EMS issued an Administrative Complaint, dated July 18, 1994, charging Respondent with a violation of EMS statutes, in particular Section 401.411(1)(a) and (k), Florida Statutes by having tested positive to controlled substances while on duty as a paramedic for Polk County EMS, March 12, 1994. HRS-EMS has adopted an "impaired" EMTs or paramedics policy and program pursuant to Rule 10D-66.0571, F.A.C.. While the administrative complaint tracks the department's impaired practitioner's rule and provided notice to Respondent relative to the rule, Respondent failed to take advantage of this beneficial program. Under the impaired practitioner's rule of HRS-EMS, a paramedic who becomes impaired as a result of drug or alcohol use or addiction may avoid administrative sanction by performing voluntary activities including those listed in the department's administrative complaint against Respondent. Respondent reported for duty as a paramedic while taking a level of controlled substances which impaired his ability to safely provide care to patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: 1. The paramedic certification of Respondent be revoked and an administrative fine of one thousand ($1,000) dollars for the violation of paramedic certification requirements be imposed. It is further RECOMMENDED that should Respondent reapply for certification as a paramedic or EMT in Florida, he be required to submit to, and successfully complete, the conditions set forth in Rule 10D-66.0571(2), Florida Administrative Code, and pay the administrative fine recommended above, prior to recertification. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (in part), 19, 20, and 21. Rejected as subsumed or covered in the Preliminary Statement: paragraphs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 22. Respondent has not submitted proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Robert P. Daniti, Esquire Emergency Medical Services Department of HRS 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph L. Riggall 13711 Hatchienha Road Haines City, Florida 33844
