The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive a passing grade on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge and Basic Science & Disease Process portions of the Florida Medical Licensure Examination ("FMLE") administered November 15 and 16, 2001.
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 is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating physicians practicing medicine in Florida, including foreign-licensed physicians. Sections 458.311 and 458.3115, Florida Statutes (2001); Rule 64B8-5.002, Florida Administrative Code. The Department is also authorized to administer licensing examinations to physicians seeking to practice medicine in Florida. Section 456.017, Florida Statutes (2002). Dr. Rivero was accepted as a candidate for the FMLE and sat for the examination on November 15 and 16, 2001. Dr. Rivero attained a scaled score of 332 points on the Basic Sciences & Disease portion of the examination and 331 points on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge portion of the examination. Each of these portions of the FMLE administered November 15 and 16, 2001, had a minimum passing score (also known as "cut score") of 350 points. On November 15, 2001, the first day of the examination, the Department staff who were to administer the examination were notified that the Federal Express shipment of examination materials was incomplete and did not include the laboratory value sheets and the answer sheets to be used for each portion of the examination. The supervisor of the examination administration arranged to have copies of the appropriate documents available that morning. The examination candidates, who had been told to arrive at the examination site at 7:30 a.m., were not admitted to the examination room until 8:30 a.m. as a result of the problem with the laboratory value and answer sheets. The candidates were told to skip the questions that required use of the laboratory value sheets and to write the answers in the examination booklets for the questions that required use of the answer sheets. The candidates were advised prior to beginning the examination that they would be allowed additional time to transfer their answers from the booklet to the answer sheet. The examination began at 9:30 a.m. on November 15, 2001, after a delay of one hour. The administration supervisor made an error calculating the time and gave the candidates four hours and ten minutes to complete the examination, rather than the prescribed four hours. In addition, all candidates who wanted additional time to transfer their answers from the examination booklet to their answer sheets were given as much additional time as necessary. Dr. Rivero experienced stress and nervousness as a result of the delay and confusion in the administration of the examination that might have affected her performance on the examination. She did, however, have sufficient time to complete the examination on November 15, 2001, and to transfer her answers to the answer sheet. The minimum passing score on both portions of the examination was 350 points. These "cut scores" were developed for the November 2001 FMLE using the Angoff method of scoring. The Angoff Method is a widely used method for selecting the "cut score" for an examination. For each administration of the FMLE, a group of physicians are chosen to review the examination and determine, question by question, the percentage of minimally competent people who would answer each question correctly. The "cut score" for each portion of the examination is developed by averaging the responses of the physicians. The Angoff method was a valid methodology for ascertaining the "cut scores" for the November 2001 administration of the FMLE. After the examination was scored, a group of physicians and a psychometrician met to review all of the questions that were the subject of a complaint by examination candidates and all of the questions that a statistically significant number of candidates answered incorrectly. The group also conducted a Point by Serial review of the examination, which involves establishing that the candidates scoring highest on the examination answered a particular question correctly, while candidates scoring lowest on the examination answered the same question incorrectly. As part of this post-examination review, the November 2001 FMLE was reviewed for discrepancies between the order of the answers to questions in the English version of the examination and the order of the answers to questions in the Spanish version of the examination. No discrepancies were found.2 In addition, Dr. Rivero conceded that there were no discrepancies between the English and Spanish versions of the questions she answered incorrectly. The results of the review of the November 2001 FMLE established that the examination was fair, reliable, and valid. The November 2001 FMLE was developed, scored, and reviewed in accordance with the procedures normally used by the Department. Dr. Rivero has failed to establish that she should be awarded additional credit for any question the Department scored as incorrect on the Basic Sciences & Disease and on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge portion of the examination.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the petition of Ana Rivero challenging her failing scores on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge and Basic Science & Disease Process portions of the FMLE administered November 15, and 16, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2002, 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 20th day of December, 2002.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is currently licensed to practice registered nursing in the State of New York and has been so licensed since 1969. Petitioner is a graduate of Kingston Public Hospital and Victoria Jubilee Hospital in Kingston, Jamaica, West Indies, which are registered schools of nursing. Petitioner was required to and did complete the following requirements in order to become licensed as a registered nurse in the State of New York: Successful completion of the Matins Examination; Successful completion of a 12-week course in medical/surgical nursing; Successful completion of a 12-week course in psychiatric nursing; and Successful completion of the New York Pediatrics Test. Respondent has determined that the successful completion of the requirements set forth in Paragraph numbered 3 above by applicants licensed in New York in 1969 is equivalent to or more stringent than the requirements which existed in Florida at that time, and that those requirements are equal to or more stringent than the State Board Test Pool Examination. Petitioner sat for the State Board Test Pool Examination in New York on two occasions but failed to pass the examination. Petitioner has never practiced nursing in the State of Florida without being properly licensed. Petitioner has been a registered nurse in New York for ten years and has held positions as staff nurse, head nurse and nurse supervisor. She practiced nursing in the Veterans Administration Hospital in Miami for approximately six months. No evidence was introduced to show that Petitioner has performed her duties in other than a safe and competent manner. The State Board Test Pool Examination is a licensing examination developed by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. No evidence was presented as to the validity of that examination as a measure of testing the competency of nurses who have been out of nursing school for a number of years and have continually practiced their profession since graduation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a registered nurse by endorsement. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan B. Gest, Esquire 18260 NE 19th Avenue North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Percy W. Mallison, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Helen P. Keefe, Executive Director Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive, East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for medical licensure by endorsement has expired and Respondent is therefore without authority to act on the application, as Petitioner claims? If not, whether the application should be denied on the grounds that Petitioner is guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(a) and (gg), Florida Statutes,1 as Respondent has preliminarily determined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' December 8, 2005, Prehearing Stipulation3: Petitioner is now, and has been since 1998, a Napperville, Illinois anesthesiologist licensed to practice medicine in the State of Illinois. At no time has she resided in Florida or used a Florida mailing address. "[A]t the end of 2002," Petitioner hired US Medical Licensing (USML) to help her obtain licenses to practice medicine in Florida, California, and Nevada, including "put[ting] together the application[s for such licensure] for [her]." In making these arrangements with USML, Petitioner dealt with USML's Melinda Hilterbrand, with whom she spoke over the telephone. Petitioner paid USML by credit card. USML first "charged [Petitioner's] credit card in January" of 2003 (using the credit card number Petitioner had given Ms. Hilterbrand during their telephone conversation). Petitioner provided USML, at USML's request, information and documentation (including a "standard credentialing application [she used in] Illinois") for USML to utilize in "put[ing] together [her Florida, California, and Nevada] application[s]." None of the information and documentation Petitioner provided was, to her knowledge, false or inaccurate. USML "put together the application[s]," as it had agreed to do. It then submitted them to the Florida, California, and Nevada medical licensing agencies without Petitioner's review, approval, or signature, notwithstanding that Petitioner had not given USML authorization to make such submissions. On June 16, 2003, Respondent received the Florida application that USML had "put together" for Petitioner (Petitioner's Florida Application) using the appropriate Respondent-developed form . Petitioner's Florida Application gave Petitioner's mailing address as "5631 Ballybunion Drive, Pace, Florida" (Pace, Florida Address). This was actually USML's mailing address, not Petitioner's. Petitioner's Florida Application gave Petitioner's telephone number as "(850) 994-4646." This was actually USML's telephone number, not Petitioner's. 10. Items 12, 12a., 12b., 15a., and 19b. on the application form on which Petitioner's Florida Application was submitted (Florida Application Form) asked the following questions: 12. Was attendance in Medical school for a period other then the normal curriculum? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.) 12a. Did you take a leave of absence during medical school? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.) 12b. Were you required to repeat any of your medical education? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.) 15a. Have you ever been dropped, suspended, placed on probation, expelled or requested to resign from a postgraduate training program? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.) 19b. Have you ever applied for, taken an examination for, or failed to receive specialty board certification or recertification for any reason?" (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet, providing full details). Each of these questions was incorrectly answered "no" on Petitioner's Florida Application. Item 15 on the Florida Application Form asked the applicant to "[l]ist in chronological order from date of graduation from Medical school, to present, all professional/postgraduate training (Internship/Residency/ Fellowship)." In response to this request, Petitioner's Florida Application listed her participation (following graduation from medical school) in programs at the University Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo, Ohio, at the Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, and at St. Anthony's Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. No other post-graduate programs were listed, notwithstanding that Petitioner had also received post-graduate training at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center. At the time, Petitioner did not even know that her Florida Application had been submitted, much less that it contained any erroneous information, inasmuch as she had not seen it or been made aware of its contents. As will be discussed in more detail below, it was not until approximately three months later that she first learned of her Florida Application’s submission, and it was even later, at her July 24, 2004, appearance before Respondent’s Credentials Committee, that she first became aware "that there was any incorrect information on [her] application." No one from USML had ever contacted Petitioner and asked her for her responses to items 12, 12a., 12b., 15, 15a., 19b. or any other item on the Florida Application Form. Item 18 on the Florida Application Form was an Affidavit of Applicant, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: I affirm that these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information [ma]y result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 456.067, 775.083 and 775.084, Florida Statutes. I hereby authorize all hospitals, institutions, my references, personal physicians, employers (past and present) and all governmental agencies and instrumentalities (local, state, federal or foreign) to release to the Florida Board of Medicine information which is material to my application for licensure. I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind, and I declare under penalty of perjury that my answers and all statements made by me herein are true and correct. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice Medicine in the State of Florida. * * * Date of Expiration (Signature of Applicant required) 4 (Date Signed required) The Affidavit of Applicant in Petitioner's Florida Application contained what purported to be, but was not, Petitioner's signature. It was dated May 30, 2003. Petitioner had not authorized USML to sign her Florida Application on her behalf or otherwise "submit documents using [her] signature," nor was she "aware that [USML was] going to do [so]." On July 14, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address (which, as noted above, was USML’s, not Petitioner’s, mailing address) a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (July 14, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The July 14, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of medical school transcripts from St. George's University Medical School and Ross University Medical School. It appears you transferred to Ross University after your third year. The transcript received from Ross University indicates your third year of medical school was repeated. Please submit a written explanation regarding attend[ing] two medical schools and why you answer[ed] no to question 12 (Was attendance in Medical School for a period other than the normal curriculum?) and 12b (Were you required to repeat any of your medical education?). A letter has been sent to St. George's University to confirm you left the medical school in good standing. Your file has been submitted in for advisement regarding your examination score reports submitted to the board office. It appears question 1 of your licensure application was left blank. However, you should apply by endorsement. Enclosed is a copy of page 1, please check the appropriate box. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. On page 3, question 15 needs to list the specialty area of training. Please complete the enclosed copy of page 4. Explain why you switched training programs from Medical College of Ohio to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. Did you leave the program in good standing? Were you offered a contract to continue and complete the program? A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to retrieve[] further information on your performance. Submit a written explanation on why you started your training programs with Medical College of Ohio and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center off cycle. Please complete the enclosed fingerprint card. Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 1/89 to 6/92 and 6/93 to 4/94, and 5/96 to 1/97, and 11/98 to 2/99, and 11/02 to Present. Submit a copy of your legal name change document. Explain in writing why the name "Randa Mariana Prochazka" appears on your supporting documentation. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. Submit two current letters of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s). We await licensure verification from the Illinois State Medical Board. The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800)767-6732. The AMA Physician Profile sheet has not been received. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -University Medical Center, regarding your Internship, from 6/92 to 6/93 -Medical College of Ohio, regarding your Residency, from 4/94 to 5/96 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 -Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center, verifying your staff privileges and good standing. * * * On August 15, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (August 15, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The August 15, 2003 Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of medical school transcripts from St. George's University Medical School and Ross University Medical School. It appears you transferred to Ross University after your third year. The transcript received from Ross University indicates your third year of medical school was repeated. Please submit a written explanation regarding attend[ing] two medical schools and why you answer[ed] no to question 12 (Was attendance in Medical School for a period other than the normal curriculum?) and 12b (Were you required to repeat any of your medical education?). We are in receipt of the evaluation form submitted by Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center. They indicate you did not perform competently and you were not regularly appointed. Please submit a written explanation. It appears question 1 of your licensure application was left blank. However, you should apply by endorsement. Enclosed is a copy of page 1, please check the appropriate box. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. On page 3, question 15 needs to list the specialty area of training. Please complete the enclosed copy of page 4. Explain why you switched training programs from Medical College of Ohio to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. Did you leave the program in good standing? Were you offered a contract to continue and complete the program? Submit a written explanation on why you started your training programs with Medical College of Ohio and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center off cycle. Please complete the enclosed fingerprint card. Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 1/89 to 6/92 and 6/93 to 4/94, and 5/96 to 1/97, and 11/98 to 2/99, and 11/02 to Present. Submit a copy of your legal name change document. Explain in writing why the name "Randa Mariana Prochazka" appears on your supporting documentation. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. Submit two current letter of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s). The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800) 767-6732. The AMA Physician Profile sheet has not been received. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -University Medical Center, regarding your Internship, from 6/92 to 6/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * It was not until sometime in or around September of 2003, during a telephone conversation (she had initiated) with USML's Ken Carroll, that Petitioner first learned that her Florida Application had been submitted to Respondent. Petitioner was "very surprised" when Mr. Carroll told her about the application's submission because she had thought that she was "going to get to look at the application" and "go over it" before it was sent to Respondent and she had not been given this opportunity. Nonetheless, she did not voice any objections to Mr. Carroll during her telephone conversation with him. Rather, "[she merely] asked him if there were any problems with [the application], and he said that everything was okay." Petitioner assumed, erroneously, that USML had completed the application accurately. She did not, at that time, request a copy of the application to verify the application's accuracy, nor did she do anything to indicate that she did not want Respondent to treat the application as hers. Indeed, until becoming aware of the actual contents of the application, it was her desire that Respondent act on the application and grant her licensure, and her actions were consistent with such a desire. On September 17, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application remained "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (September 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The September 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of medical school transcripts from St. George's University Medical School and Ross University Medical School. It appears you transferred to Ross University after your third year. The transcript received from Ross University indicates your third year of medical school was repeated. Please submit a written explanation regarding attend[ing] two medical schools and why you answer[ed] no to question 12 (Was attendance in Medical School for a period other than the normal curriculum?) and 12b (Were you required to repeat any of your medical education?). We are in receipt of the evaluation form submitted by Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center. They indicate you did not perform competently and you were not regularly appointed. Please submit a written explanation. It appears question 1 of your licensure application was left blank. However, you should apply by endorsement. Enclosed is a copy of page 1, please check the appropriate box. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. On page 3, question 15 needs to list the specialty area of training. Please complete the enclosed copy of page 4. Explain why you switched training programs from Medical College of Ohio to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. Did you leave the program in good standing? Were you offered a contract to continue and complete the program? Submit a written explanation on why you started your training programs with Medical College of Ohio and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center off cycle. Please complete the enclosed fingerprint card. Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 1/89 to 6/92 and 6/93 to 4/94, and 5/96 to 1/97, and 11/98 to 2/99, and 11/02 to Present. Submit a copy of your legal name change document. Explain in writing why the name "Randa Mariana Prochazka" appears on your supporting documentation. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. Submit one current letter of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s). The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800) 767-6732. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 464-5199. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office indicates you had training with Vanderbilt University in Anesthesiology from 7/93 to 11/93. However, this training is not listed on question 15 of your licensure application. Please submit a written explanation. Also, a training evaluation form will have to be completed. A letter has been sent to the training program to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office indicates your training with Medical College of Ohio is incomplete. Please provide a written explanation. A letter has been sent to the program to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to . . . our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * On September 26, 2003, Respondent received a letter, dated September 23, 2003, that was addressed to one of its employees, Lakeisha Henderson, and purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her (September 26, 2003, Letter). The September 26, Letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows: In answer to your questions in the letter you sent me 9/17/03 [sic], I am providing these answers: I left St. George's because of the war in Grenada. I waited till I was sure the situation was stable and I also took a leave to study for my ECFMG. I was not satisfied with the situation at the school so I transferred/moved to Ross. One course prior to the start of my clinicals was required at Ross before I could start there in the clinical phase. This was a repeat from St. George[']s, but the only one. During this period, I had numerous child care and child health issues with my children which caused me to not be available for work and surgery. Page one is attached. Page three is attached. Page 4 is attached. In answer to question #7, there was a change at Medical College of Ohio. The Program Director left due to illness and subsequently the program started changing, so I finished my second year and then did my third year at another program. I left in good standing, getting credit for everything. I could have continued if I had elected to do so but I declined. In question 8, I started my third year based on what was needed to complete and where the class was. I was having a child and was allowed to start off cycle. Non-Employment Dates: 01/89-6/92-Child Birth and child care, studied for tests. 05/96-01/97-Unemployed 11/98-02/99-Moving and vacation 11/02-04/03-Unemployed 05/03-Present @ Surgical Center of Downers Grove, IL I thought the fingerprint card had been sent to your office (Question #9) Item #11 has been requested. Question #12. I was married for a short period of time and while married took the last name of husband Prochazka. When we divorced I retained my maiden name. Question #18- The program was overfilled with Residents and I elected to leave with no credit as I only attended for a short period of time. Question #19- I was given full credit for my training there, so I do not understand the question. I have attached my diploma. All other items have been requested and will be sent directly to you. On September 30, 2003, Respondent received another letter, also dated September 23, 2003, that was addressed to Ms. Henderson and purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her (September 30, 2003, Letter). The September 30, 2003, Letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows: I am sorry I forgot to include the fact that I was arrested for disturbing the peace. I have included all those documents. I forgot till Ken Carroll asked. I thought it was not needed as it was over 10 years ago, sorry to cause any issues. I have also included my divorce papers. Among the documents that were "included" with the September 30, 2003, Letter to Ms. Henderson was a statement in Petitioner’s handwriting, dated June 10, 1996, which provided an explanation of the circumstances surrounding Petitioner’s arrest. This handwritten statement was among the materials that Petitioner had furnished USML for use in the application preparation process. On October 16, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (October 16, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The October 16, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. We are in receipt of the letter dated September 23, 2003, [in which] you indicate employment with Surgical Center of Downers [Grove]. Do you hold staff privileges with this hospital? If so, an evaluation form will have to be completed. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 6/93 to 4/94. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. We are in receipt of the letter of recommendation from Dr. Kianoosh Jafari. Please submit an additional letter of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s). The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800) 767-6732. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. 19. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * Respondent received, in response to the October 16, 2003, Deficiency Notice, a letter that purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her. The letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows: Question #5 from letter of 10/13/03 [sic] I left [the] program after one year to move closer to my husband at the time wh[o] was in the Midwest. I spent the time from 7-93 till 4-94 looking for a program and applying to programs. Petitioner was not married during the time period referenced in the letter. To the extent that the letter suggests otherwise, it is inaccurate. In or around the end of October of 2003, Petitioner received a letter from the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (Nevada Board) concerning an application for licensure that USML had submitted to the Nevada Board on her behalf. The letter, which was dated October 28, 2003, read as follows: Dear Dr. Sawan: Please find enclosed a new application for medical licensure for the State of Nevada. You will be required to complete this application without the assistance of a credentialing service. The Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners does not accept any documentation from the credentialing company U.S. Medical Licensing and Credentialing. After receiving this letter, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Carroll and asked him why "this Nevada licensure application . . . was not accepted." Mr. Carroll, in response to Petitioner’s inquiry, explained that "there were some other doctors that did not get their licenses and they were upset with [USML]" and had complained to the Nevada Board. Having received this response to her inquiry, Petitioner "did not dig anymore" into the matter. Petitioner subsequently completed the application form she had been sent by the Nevada Board and then returned it. Approximately, four and a-half months later she received her Nevada medical license On November 17, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (November 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The November 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. We are in receipt of the letter dated September 23, 2003, [in which] you indicate employment with Surgical Center of Downers [Grove]. Do you hold staff privileges with this hospital? If so, an evaluation form will have to be completed. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * Respondent received, in response to the November 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice, a letter that purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her. The letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows: Question #2 from letter of 11/14/03 [sic] Downers Grover Surgical Center is an out patient center. Not a hospital. Question #5 A copy of my ECFMG is enclosed. On December 19, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * The December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson, addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (December 19, 2003, Deficiency Letter), which read as follows: Your application remains incomplete. Please review the attached update [the December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice] outlining the remaining deficiencies. Please be advised previous malpractice, criminal charges, discipline, addictions/impairment, unfavorable evaluations, etc. may require that you appear before the Credentials Committee for determination of eligibility for licensure. If your appearance is required, you will be notified in writing once your file is complete. Any information received by this office may require additional explanation and/or documentation to be requested in order to further determine licensure eligibility. After all requested documentation is received, your file will be submitted for a standard supervisory review. Should additional information be required, you will be notified. Once your file is determined complete, it will be presented to the Board for consideration at the next scheduled meeting. As documentation is received in our office, an updated list of deficiencies will be mailed to you. Your application will remain incomplete until all deficiencies are completed. In addition, notify the Board office immediately in writing of any occurrence(s) that would in any way change or affect any answer given in the application or an answer provided in response to any of our direct questions to you. If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at (850) 245-4131 extension 3512 or e-mail me at Lakeisha_Henderson @doah.state.fl.us. On January 22, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (January 22, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The January 22, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * On February 24, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (February 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The February 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * On March 24, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (March 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The March 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * The March 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson, addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (March 24, 2004, Deficiency Letter). The body of the March 24, 2004, Deficiency Letter was identical to the body of the December 19, 2003, Deficiency Letter. On March 31, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (March 31, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The March 31, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. We are in receipt of the training evaluation form from Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center. The evaluation form indicates you resigned and your staff privileges were terminated. It appears you should have answered yes to question 18c. Please submit a written explanation as well [as] explain the no answer given for question 18c. A letter has been sent to Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center to retrieve[] further information. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the evaluation form. A letter will be sent to each training program requesting a copy of your training file. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio requesting further clarification on the letter submitted from them dated July 22, 2003. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 * * * The March 31, 2004, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson, addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (March 31, 2004, Deficiency Letter). The body of the March 31, 2004, Deficiency Letter was identical to the bodies of the December 19, 2003, and March 24, 2004, Deficiency Letters. In or around March of 2004, during a telephone conversation with Mr. Carroll, Petitioner inquired as to whether her "talk[ing]" to Respondent "could help expedite" the processing of her Florida Application. Mr. Carroll, in turn, gave Petitioner Ms. Henderson’s name and telephone number and suggested Petitioner call Ms. Henderson. Petitioner followed Mr. Carroll’s suggestion and spoke with Ms. Henderson. Petitioner asked Ms. Henderson "if there [was] any problem with the application" and offered to provide "anything extra that [Ms. Henderson] may need." Ms. Henderson "did not say that there were any problems," but she did indicate "that she would like additional information," which she described for Petitioner. After speaking with Ms. Henderson, Petitioner prepared a handwritten letter, which she sent to Ms. Henderson by facsimile transmission on April 9, 2004. The letter read as follows: You requested an explanation for why staff privileges at Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center were terminated. It has been my understanding from their contract agreement that once I stop working there (resign), the staff privileges are automatically terminated. The following day, April 10, 2004, Petitioner sent to Ms. Henderson by facsimile transmission a handwritten list of references, as well as letters of recommendation (from others about her). Ms. Henderson had not asked Petitioner to provide these materials, but Petitioner sent them anyway, thinking that Ms. Henderson "might like to have them." On May 4, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004. APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation form from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. A letter will be sent to each training program requesting a copy of your training file. A letter has been sent to Medical College of Ohio requesting further clarification on the letter submitted from them dated July 22, 2003. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. * * * The May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (May 4, 2004, Deficiency Letter). The body of the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Letter was identical to the bodies of the December 19, 2003, March 24, 2004, and March 31, 2004, Deficiency Letters. Petitioner never received the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice or the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Letter; nor had she ever received any of the previous deficiency notices and letters. On June 15, 2004, Petitioner’s Florida Application was still incomplete inasmuch as Respondent had not received all of the information it had requested in the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice (including the letter from Petitioner requested in item 1 of the notice, the training files from University Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center requested in item 2 of the notice, and the "license verification letter" requested in item 4 of the notice, which were all materials that were reasonable for Respondent to have asked for as part of the application review process). On June 28, 2004, Chandra Prine, Respondent’s Program Operations Administrator (and Ms. Henderson’s supervisor), prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a letter addressed to Petitioner (June 28, 2004, Letter) advising her that she was required to make a personal appearance before the Credentials Committee on July 24, 2004, to discuss: Your medical education and your failure to answer yes to questions numbers 12, 12a & 12b on the licensure application. Failure to list your training at Vanderbilt from 7/93-11/93 and your failure to answer yes to question number 15a on the licensure application. In addition, the Committee may inquire into any other issues relating to your application and eligibility for licensure. Petitioner did not receive this letter. In July of 2004, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Henderson to inquire about the status of Petitioner’s Florida Application. She was unable to speak with Ms. Henderson, so she left a message asking Ms. Henderson to return the call. Petitioner subsequently received a telephone message from Ms. Henderson. In her message, Ms. Henderson stated that she thought Petitioner "was going to be going to a hearing" on her Florida Application, but suggested that Petitioner telephone Ms. Prine "just to be sure." Ms. Henderson did not say anything about there being "questions that were answered incorrectly on [the] application." After receiving Ms. Henderson’s message, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Prine and spoke with her. Petitioner told Ms. Prine that Ms. Henderson had left a message about an upcoming hearing concerning Petitioner’s Florida Application and had suggested that Petitioner contact Ms. Prine regarding the matter. Ms. Prine responded, "Yes, we sent you a letter saying you have to show up for this hearing," referring to the June 28, 2004, Letter. Petitioner replied that she had "not received any letter" from Respondent. Ms. Prine then "gave [Petitioner] the address" to which the June 28, Letter had been mailed. Petitioner informed Ms. Prine that this address (the Pace, Florida Address) was not hers. She then "gave [Ms. Prine] her home address for [Ms. Prine] to send [her] another letter." Petitioner asked Ms. Prine during their telephone conversation "what the hearing was going to be about." Ms. Prine's response was that Petitioner should be prepared to answer questions at the hearing regarding certain specific items on her Florida Application, which Ms. Prine identified by number. Petitioner told Ms. Prine that she "had never seen the application," to which Ms. Prine retorted, "Oh, but you signed it." Petitioner insisted that she "didn’t remember signing anything" and asked Ms. Prine to send her, along with the letter concerning the hearing, "a copy of whatever [she supposedly] signed." At no time during the telephone conversation did Ms. Prine tell Petitioner that her Florida Application contained any incorrect information, nor did she reveal to Petitioner anything about those items on the application that Petitioner would be questioned on at the hearing other than what their numbers were and that they pertained to her "schooling and training." It did not come as surprise to Petitioner that the Credentials Committee "wanted to hear from [her]" about her "schooling and training" given the difficulties she had encountered in these areas. Petitioner did not ask Ms. Prine to elaborate any further on what the Credentials Committee would inquire about at the hearing. Two days after her telephone conversation with Ms. Prine, Petitioner received a letter dated July 14, 2004, from Ms. Prine (July 14, 2004, Letter). The July 14, 2004, Letter was addressed to Petitioner at her Naperville, Illinois address and read as follows: This is in further reference to your application for licensure by endorsement. Please be advised that you are required to make a personal appearance before the Credentials Committee of the Board of Medicine to discuss the following: Your medical education and your failure to answer yes to questions numbers 12, 12a & 12b on the licensure application. Failure to list your training at Vanderbilt from 7/93-11/93 and your failure to answer yes to question number 15a on the licensure application. In addition, the Committee may inquire into any other issues relating to your application and eligibility for licensure. Date: Saturday, July 24, 2004 Time: 8:00 a.m. Location: Radisson Hotel 415 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 224-6000 The meeting room will be posted in the lobby of the Hotel. Additionally, the Committee's recommendation on your application will be presented to the Board of Medicine, August 6-7, 2004 for final action. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Should you have any question regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Along with the July 14, 2004, Letter, Petitioner received from Ms. Prine the signature page of the September 26, 2003, Letter. After reviewing the latter, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Prine and left a message advising Ms. Prine that the signature on that document was not hers. The July 14, 2004, Letter was not accompanied by a copy of Petitioner’s Florida Application. Petitioner made a "personal appearance" before the Credentials Committee on July 24, 2004, as scheduled. As noted above, it was during this appearance that she first learned that her Florida Application contained information that was incorrect. In response to questioning, Petitioner truthfully told the Credentials Committee that she had not "even seen the application" and that it was "not [her] signature" that was on the application in that she did not sign it. The Credentials Committee voted to recommend the denial of Petitioner’s Florida Application, a recommendation that Respondent subsequently followed. On August 2, 2004, following her appearance before the Credentials Committee, Petitioner prepared and sent a letter to Ms. Prine formally requesting, for the first time, a "complete copy of [her] application for the Florida medical license [be] mailed to [her]" at her Napperville, Illinois address. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner prepared and sent to Ms. Prine another letter, which read as follows: I am writing to ask that you do not accept any communication from the USML agency regarding my application. I am not working through them anymore. Please call me directly at (773) 405-3718, or send all mail to: RANDA SAWAN M.D. 1304 Dunrabin Road Naperville, IL 60540 Your assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. After Petitioner had made several post-Credential Committee hearing requests to Mr. Carroll that he send her copies of "anything [he had] involving [her] application," Petitioner received the following letter, dated September 23, 2004, from Mr. Carroll: I am sorry to inform you but your files along with several hundred other physicians' files were destroyed while in our storage area due to Hurricane Ivan which made a direct hit on Pensacola. Our Pensacola office is operating but has limited phone and no internet or cable. Again I apologize for this inconvenience. Petitioner never received any of the documents she had requested from Mr. Carroll.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order finding that Petitioner's Florida Application expired, without being acted on, one year after it was filed and that it is therefore too late for Respondent to either approve or deny the application. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a physician through endorsement by application dated May 20, 1986. On October 9, 1986, Petitioner appeared before the Board of Medical Examiners, Foreign Graduate Committee regarding his application for licensure. The Board of Medical Examiners (hereinafter "Board") at its meeting of October 11, 1986, voted to deny his application for licensure by endorsement. The Board stated as grounds for the denial that Petitioner had failed to document that he was a legitimate graduate of a foreign medical school. The Petitioner attended the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua in the country of Nicaragua. The National Autonomous University of Nicaragua requires, under Nicaraguan law, the completion of "social service" prior to receipt of a medical school diploma. The social service requirement involves between 1 and 3 full years of medical service in Nicaragua, usually at or very near to, the war zone. The Petitioner completed all course work required for the Diploma of Doctor in Medicine and Surgery from the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua but completed only eleven months of the social service requirement. The Petitioner left Nicaragua and came to the United States in April 1981. The Petitioner was not awarded his medical diploma because he failed to complete the social service requirement. The Petitioner testified at the final hearing that he failed to complete the social service requirement and fled his native country because of political persecution. The Petitioner stated that he was in fear for his life when he left Nicaragua. In order to take the Federation of State Medical Board's licensure examination (FLEX), Petitioner needed a medical school diploma. While in this country, the Petitioner searched for a medical school that would award him a diploma for his work in Nicaragua. The Petitioner's search included schools in Mexico, Honduras, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. The Petitioner received a favorable response from CIFAS University in the Dominican Republic. CIFAS reviewed the Petitioner's transcripts of completed course work from the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua. Petitioner did not do any additional course work or training through CIFAS. Upon completion of its review of the Petitioner's medical education and training, CIFAS awarded Petitioner a medical degree on January 10, 1983. On February 17, 1983, Petitioner was issued a certificate from the Education Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. The Petitioner took and passed the FLEX in June of 1983 and received a medical license in the State of Georgia. At the time of filing his application, Petitioner was a permanent resident of the United States.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of May, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0979 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: (None submitted). Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 11. 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. 15. Adopted In substance in Finding of Fact 12. 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfonso Oviedo-Reyes, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33145 Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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, the following relevant facts are found. Pursuant to a sworn application for a limited license filed by Petitioner on approximately March 5, 1982, and received by the Respondent on March 12, 1982, the Respondent, Board of Medical Examiners (herein sometimes referred to as the "Board") on April 17, 1982, considered Petitioner's application for limited licensure. By a Final Order of the Board dated May 11, 1982, Petitioner was advised that he did not meet the statutory requirements for limited licensure pursuant to Section 458.137, Florida Statutes, and therefore his application for limited licensure was being denied. Petitioner was further advised of his rights pursuant to Sections 120.57 and 120.60, Florida Statutes, to petition for a hearing and otherwise seek review of the Board's decision. Petitioner timely filed a request for a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing concerning whether or not he is in fact entitled to a limited license. The Petitioner, on June 1, 1981, retired from the position of Corporate Medical Director for Abbott Laboratories in North Chicago, Illinois. The Petitioner has been a licensed medical doctor since approximately 1945. Since his admission to practice medicine, Petitioner has enjoyed an illustrious career. His professional qualifications are not at issue herein. Petitioner wants a retired physician's license to "lend dignity to his status as a retired physician." The Petitioner does not desire to practice medicine and, in fact, represented that pursuant to his retirement plan with Abbott Laboratories, he would be forced to return to Abbott Laboratories all monies earned from any medical practice. During the hearing herein, when Petitioner was advised that Florida has no procedure to obtain a limited license such as that which he now seeks, Petitioner requested (1) that a refund of his $100 application fee be returned or (2) that the $100 fee be applied to his application to sit for the next medical licensing examination. During a brief period since he retired in June, 1981, the Petitioner was employed on a part-time basis at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Broward County, Florida. As stated, Petitioner does not now seek to practice medicine at that center or any other public or private institution.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: 1. That the Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a limited license to practice medicine in this State. 3/ RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January 1983.
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 issue in these two consolidated cases is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Luis J. Marti, M. D., hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Marti," and/or Jesus Escar, M.D., hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Escar," based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, contained in the separate Administrative Complaints filed against each of the Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties; on the testimony of the witnesses, and on the exhibits received in evidence at the hearing; I make the following findings of fact. Respondent Escar is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0034247. Respondent Escar's last known address is 935 West 49th Street, Suite #107, Hialeah; Florida 33012. Respondent Marti is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0034842. Respondent Marti's last known address is 24355 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33125. Respondent Marti went to medical school in Madrid, Spain. In approximately 1970, while Respondent Marti was in medical school in Madrid, Spain, Respondent Marti met Jose A. Tudela for the first time. At the time, Tudela had come to Madrid, Spain, for the purposes of starting medical school. In approximately 1975, while Respondent Marti was working as a resident at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, Respondent Marti again saw Jose A. Tudela. At about the same time, Respondent Escar met Tudela for the first time. Tudela's father, Francisco Tudela, a physician, was an attending physician at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital. Respondents Marti and Escar saw Jose and Francisco Tudela in 1975 while on rounds at the hospital. In 1979, while Respondents Marti and Escar were working at Palm Springs General Hospital, Jose A. Tudela came to the hospital to apply for a position as a house physician and saw Respondents Escar and Marti. When Tudela applied for the position of house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital, Respondents Marti and Escar were both residents at the hospital. On the day that Jose A. Tudela came to apply for the position of house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital, Tudela came to the doctors' lounge at the hospital where he spoke with Respondents Escar and Marti. Tudela had with him a diploma which appeared to Respondents Escar and Marti to be authentic and which appeared to have been issued by the Universidad Central del Este. The diploma had on the back what appeared to be official stamps and seals and the signature of the Vice Consul of the United States. Additionally, a translation of the diploma was attached to the diploma. On the date that Tudela came to apply for the position of house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital, Tudela also showed Respondents Escar and Marti what appeared to be a transcript of his grades from the Universidad Central del Este and a letter purportedly from one Victoria Marcial de Gomez. The transcript and letter appeared to Respondents Escar and Marti to be original and authentic. The letter from Gomez, who purportedly was the medical director for the health center of Trujillo Alto Health Department, in the associated Free State of Puerto Rico, appeared to verify the fact that Dr. Jose A. Tudela had worked in the Health Center of Trujillo Alto for seven months. When Respondent Marti reviewed Tudela's documents, he knew it was important that foreign papers be certified because he had had the experience of having to leave Cuba and re-establish himself. Respondent Marti's own diplomas from Spain bear attestations of notarization of a foreign government. Respondent Escar believed that Tudela's documents were originals because of his experience in having seen similar original documents of other residents in the past. On or about August 1, 1979, Jose A. Tudela completed an application for employment as a house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital. The application contained basic personal information about Tudela and listed some of Tudela's education and work experience. According to the application, Tudela went to Belle Glade High School, in Belle Glade; Florida; Warwick High School, in Newport News, Virginia, where he graduated in 1965; and the University of Miami; in Coral Gables, Florida where he graduated in 1970. According to the application, Tudela worked in an unspecified capacity in the Centro de Salud, in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, from 1978 to 1979. The application form does not contain any information about Tudela's medical education. Specifically, it does not contain any mention of University of Santo Domingo, Universidad Central del Este, or U.C.E. On or about August 8, 1979, Jose A. Tudela was employed by Palm Springs General Hospital as a house physician. Jose A. Tudela remained at Palm Springs General Hospital as a house physician until October 29, 1979. Tudela left Palm Springs General Hospital on that date to become a surgical assistant at Miami Children's Hospital. While employed a Miami Children's Hospital, Tudela received the highest score on every item on his employee evaluation form. That hospital never knew of any problem with Tudela's performance or credentials until this case occurred. Between approximately 1979 and 1983, Respondents Escar and Marti practiced medicine together as partners. In 1980, Jose A. Tudela approached Respondent Marti and asked Respondent Marti to sign an affidavit on behalf of Tudela. Therefore, on or about March 13, 1980, Respondent Marti signed a Form B-1 which was addressed to Rafael A. Penalver, M.D., Director, Office of International Medical Education, University of Miami School of Medicine; Miami; Florida. The form B-1 contained the following sworn statement: This is to certify that Jose A. Tudela born in Cuba and a graduate from the University Santo Domingo on 1978 was legally engaged in the practice of medicine from ---- to in Puerto Rico. I have known the applicant since 1975 and was acquainted with him/her during the time he practiced medicine. I was algo (sic) engaged in the practice of medicine in Miami U.S.A. during the years of 1975 and up. At some time after Respondent Marti signed the Form B-1, the abbreviation "(U.C.E.)" was added to the above-referenced sworn statement after the school name, "University Santo Domingo." Respondent Marti did not place the quoted abbreviation on the Form B-1. Prior to signing the subject Form B-1, Respondent Marti reviewed, for verification purposes, the employment application of Jose A. Tudela for Tudela's employment as a house physician at Palm Springs General Hospital. However, the employment application in question does not reflect any attendance by Tudela at any educational institution in the Dominican Republic or Santo Domingo. Furthermore, the employment application does not indicate the capacity in which Tudela worked in the Centro Salud in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico, and does not specifically indicate that Tudela practiced medicine in Puerto Rico. In 1980, Jose A. Tudela also approached Respondent Escar and asked Respondent Escar to sign an affidavit for him. Therefore, on or about March 13, 1980, Respondent Escar signed a Form B-1 which contained the following sworn statement: This is to certify that Jose A. Tudela born in Cuba and a graduate from the University of Santo Domingo on 1978 was legally engaged in the practice of medicine from ---- to in Puerto Rico. I have known the applicant since 1970 and was acquainted with him/her during the time he practiced medicine. I was algo (sic) engaged in the practice of medicine in Miami, Fla during the years of 1977 and up. The Form B-1 was addressed to Rafael A. Penalver, M.D., Director; Office of International Medical Education, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. At some time after Respondent Escar signed the Form B-1, the abbreviation "(U.C.E.)" was added to the above-referenced sworn statement after the school name, "University of Santo Domingo." Respondent Escar did not place the quoted abbreviation on the Form B-1. Respondent Escar relied upon Respondent Marti's verification of Tudela's background information in signing the Form B-1 described in the immediately preceding paragraph. Respondent Escar did not personally review Tudela's application for employment at Palm Springs General Hospital but discussed the information contained in the employment application with Respondent Marti. At the time Respondents Marti and Escar signed the Forms B-1, they did not know Tudela very well and did not know very much about his background. Although they both thought Tudela was probably a graduate of a medical school, they did not remember what school he had supposedly graduated from, as evidenced by the fact that they put the wrong school name on the Forms B- 1. Both Respondent Escar and Respondent Marti lacked personal knowledge of the information contained in the Forms B-1 which they signed for Jose A. Tudela. Neither of the Respondents saw or taught Tudela at medical school in the Dominican Republic. Furthermore, neither Respondent Escar nor Respondent Marti was in Puerto Rico at the time Jose A. Tudela allegedly practiced medicine at the Centro Salud in Trujillo Alto, Puerto Rico. Neither of the Respondents had any source of information about Tudela's alleged medical education in the Dominican Republic or his alleged practice of medicine in Puerto Rico other than statements Tudela may have made to them, statements Tudela wrote on the application form at Palm Springs General Hospital, and whatever information could be gleaned from a casual review of Tudela's forged credentials. Jose A. Tudela has never graduated from the Universidad Central del Este, which is located in the Dominican Republic, nor from any other medical school. Tudela enrolled in the Universidad Central del Este (U.C.E.) medical school in August, 1977. There is no evidence in the school records for U.C.E. that Tudela passed any of his courses. In May of 1978 Tudela was no longer at the university. Tudela was given a special concession at U.C.E. so that upon presentation of a pre-medical certificate which Tudela claimed to possess, Tudela could receive credit for the pre-medical program training. However, Tudela never presented the required proof of his pre-medical program. Tudela did not complete any of the twelve semesters at U.C.E. which make up the medical degree program including pre-medical training. Although Respondent Marti first met Tudela in 1970 and Respondent Escar met him in 1975, the Form B-1 signed by Respondent Marti states that he met Tudela in 1975, and the one signed by Respondent Escar states that he met Tudela in 1970. The reason for this error is that both of the forms were prepared by Respondent Marti and the forms were inadvertently switched at the time they were signed. The Forms B-1 signed by Respondents Marti and Escar were submitted to the Board of Medical Examiners by Jose A. Tudela as attachments to an Application for Continuing Medical Education Program, which was submitted as part of Tudela's application for licensure as a physician in Florida. Tudela applied for licensure in Florida under the provisions of a special law which provided that the Board of Medical Examiners would establish continuing education courses designed to qualify for licensure those individuals who were resident nationals of the Republic of Cuba and were residents of Florida on July 1, 1977. In order to qualify for the continuing education program set up by the Board of Medical Examiners for Cuban nationals, an applicant had to demonstrate that he was a graduate from a medical school with a medical degree and that he was a resident national of the Republic of Cuba and a resident of Florida on July 1, 1977. Upon approval of the applicant to participate in the continuing education program set up by the Board of Medical Examiners, the applicant would have to complete the continuing education program. Upon completion of the continuing education program, the applicant would be qualified to take the licensing examination. In or about March of 1980, Tudela submitted an Application for Examination, an Application for Florida State Board of Medical Examiners Continuing Education Program, and the necessary attachments, which included the Forms B-1 signed by Respondents Escar and Marti and copies of what purported to be his diploma and transcript of grades. After successfully completing the continuing medical education program and the licensure examination, Tudela became certified to practice medicine and surgery by the Board of Medical Examiners on August 23, 1982. At the time of Tudela's application for medical license, the staff of the Board of Medical Examiners conducted the initial review and made the initial determination as to whether an individual was qualified to take the continuing education course and to take the licensure examination for certification to practice medicine and surgery in Florida. In making such determinations, consideration is given to all of the information contained in an applicant's file, which includes such things as the applicant's degree or diploma, transcript of grades, and the Forms B-1. At the time Tudela applied for licensure, the staff of the Board of Medical Examiners did not verify the medical education of applicants and conducted no investigation into the school or the graduation of applicants for licensure. Prior to approving Tudela's application, neither the Board members nor the staff independently contacted the Universidad Central del Este to verify whether Tudela actually graduated from medical school. The Board members did not personally review Tudela's application. The staff reviewed the papers and presented the Board with a list of applicants who appeared to be eligible for the continuing education course and the licensure examination. The diploma and the transcript of grades which Tudela showed to the Respondents and filed with the Board of Medical Examiners are forgeries. They are very good forgeries and bear a remarkable resemblance to genuine diplomas and transcripts issued by the Universidad Central del Este. The false documents provided by Tudela to the Board as part of his application, along with the Forms B-1 signed by Respondents Marti and Escar, deceived the staff into recommending Tudela for the continuing education course, the licensure exam, and ultimately for certification to practice medicine. Tudela's application to the Board also contains several letters of recommendation from other physicians who were convinced of Tudela's competence. The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates granted Tudela a certificate despite his forged documents. In November 1984, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Jose A. Tudela which alleged that Tudela did not graduate from or obtain a degree of Doctor of Medicine from U.C.E., contrary to what Tudela had indicated in his application for licensure examination described above. In March 1985, the Board of Medical Examiners entered an order accepting the surrender for revocation of Jose A. Tudela's license to practice medicine in lieu of further prosecution of the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint which had been filed in November 1984. Tudela is not currently licensed as a physician in the state of Florida. No further action was taken against him for his having fraudulently obtained a medical license in Florida. Respondents Escar and Marti were both aware of the fact that the Forms B-1 which they signed were to be submitted as part of the application for the continuing medical education program which had been established by the Board of Medical Examiners for Cuban nationals as a prerequisite to take the licensure examination. In fact; Respondent Marti became eligible to take the medical licensure examination in Florida by completing the same continuing medical education program. When the Respondents Escar and Marti signed the subject Forms B-1, neither of them had any personal knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the statements therein regarding Tudela's medical education and experience; yet they deliberately certified, under oath, to the truthfulness of matters about which they were distinctly uninformed. When the Respondents Escar and Marti signed the subject Forms B-1, both of them knew the purpose of the forms and both knew that the Board of Medical Examiners would rely on the information in the forms.
Findings Of Fact Jack I. Newcomer, a foreign medical school graduate, applied for licensure by endorsement and the Board of Medical Examiners considered his application on April 12, 1985. Newcomer's application was denied by Order of the Board dated May 9, 1985, on the following ground: The applicant's supervised clinical training was not obtained in either a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association or in a residency program approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education as required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 21M21.18[sic]. Pierre Andre, M.D., a foreign medical-school graduate certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) applied for licensure by endorsement. Andre had passed the ECFMG examination and also the Foreign Licensure Examination (FLEX). The Board considered his application, and denied said application on the ground that his supervised training was not obtained in either a hospital affiliated with a medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or in a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in the specialty area in which his clinical training was obtained as required by Rule 21M-22.18, Florida Administrative Code. The Board adopted Rule 21M-22.18, which took effect on November 28, 1984, and it provided: Foreign Medical Graduates: Qualification Requirements. Before any foreign medical school graduate, except a graduate of an approved school in Canada is admitted to take the written licensure examination or be licensed by endorsements[sic], he or she must demonstrate (in addition to other requirements set forth in Chapter 458, F.S.) that the supervised clinical training received in the United States as part of the curriculum of the foreign medical school was obtained either in a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association or in a residency program approved by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. The Board subsequently amended Rule 21M-22.18, and the amendment took effect March 13, 1985, to provide: Foreign Medical Graduates: Qualification Requirements. Before any graduate of a medical school not accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, except a graduate of an accredited school in Canada, is admitted to take the written licensure examination or be licensed by endorsement; he or she must demonstrate (in addition to other requirements set forth in Chapter 458, F.S.) that the supervised clinical training received in the United States as part of the curriculum of the medical school was obtained either in a hospital affiliated with a medical school accredited by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education or in a residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in the specialty area in which the clinical training is being obtained. This rule, as well as its amendment, were adopted to implement Sections 458.311 and 458.313(4), Florida Statutes. The parties stipulated at the hearing that only Rule 21M-22.18 as originally enacted was applied to Petitioners and not the amendment which took effect March 13, 1985. According to Charles P. Gibbs, M.D., Assistant Dean for Curriculum at Shands Teaching Hospital and former chairman of the clerkship committee at Shands, clerkships are an essential part of a medical education because they are the first time the student is introduced to the real practice of medicine and contact with patients. Clerkships occur in the third and fourth years of a medical education, after the student has had courses in the basic sciences, pathology, pharmacology and an introduction to clinical medicine. During a clerkship, the student participates as part of a team and does patient histories, physicals, participates in discussions about patient care, observes operations and attends lectures. Dr. Gibbs testified that written exams, such as FLEX or the National Board, are important in measuring a student's cognitive knowledge and determining minimum qualifications, but cannot measure clinical qualities of a doctor such as how he relates to patients and reacts in stress situations, how he works with colleagues, and how he communicates. Clerkships are important in determining a student's performance level in these clinical qualities. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education has adopted standards for the accreditation of medical education programs which were ratified by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association on March 1, 1985, and the Executive Council of the Association of American Medical Colleges on April 4, 1985, and which state in part: The traditional required clinical subjects, which should be offered in the form of required experiences in patient care (customarily called clerkships), are internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, psychiatry and surgery. Additionally, many schools require a clerkship in family medicine . . . . The curriculum must provide grounding in the body of knowledge represented in the disciplines that support the fundamental clinical subjects, for example, diagnostic imaging and clinical pathology. Students must have opportunities to gain knowledge in those content areas that incorporate several disciplines in providing medical care, for example, emergency medicine and the care of the elderly and disabled. In addition, students should have the opportunity to participate in research and other scholarly activities of the faculty. Robert B. Katims, M.D., testified as a member of the Board and Chairman of the Foreign Medical Graduates Committee of the Board. As Committee Chairman he had noted problems with the clinical experience being received by graduates of certain foreign medical schools that are not accredited and that are relatively new schools whose primary purpose is to train United States students rather than their own nationals. Dr. Katims observed that problems with the clinical experience offered at these schools arise because there are not enough teaching hospitals in some foreign countries, and therefore students cannot receive clinical training in those countries through a clerkship. Instead, they must arrange their own clinical experience, usually a preceptorship, in the United States. A preceptorship differs substantially from a clerkship in that it is usually either a one on one affiliation with a practicing physician with very little structured training, or occurs at an outpatient prepaid health plan facility. Dr. Katims testified that preceptorships do not meet the clinical training standards of the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, and do not represent supervised clinical training.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Immaculate Espejo Asuncion, of St. Paul, Minnesota, filed an application with Respondent, Board of Medical Examiners, on September 21, 1982, for licensure by endorsement to practice medicine. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit No. 1) On March 7, 1983, Respondent issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Endorsement Licensure on the grounds that Petitioner had not obtained a 75 percent FLEX weighted average on the licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., as required by Rule 21M- 29.01(2), Florida Administrative Code, and was not certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners as having completed its examination within the ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for licensure by endorsement, as required by Section 458.313(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Petitioner thereafter requested a hearing on the proposed denial of her application. (Testimony of Faircloth, Joint Exhibit No. 1) Petitioner was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Minnesota in 1978. She obtained such licensure by satisfactorily passing the clinical science and clinical competence portions of the FLEX examination, and by successfully completing a basic sciences examination administered by the Minnesota State Board of Examiners. (Testimony of Petitioner, Joint Exhibit No. 1) Petitioner is a graduate of a foreign medical school and is therefore not eligible to take the examination of the National Board of Medical Examiners. The alternate method of obtaining licensure by endorsement is by certification through licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (FLEX). This examination has three parts and is taken over a period of three days. The three parts of the examination are basic science, clinical science, and clinical competence. The scores on the three parts are averaged under a formula to produce a weighted average score. Respondent's Rule 21M-29.01(2), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant have a FLEX weighted average of 75 percent from one complete sitting on the examination. Petitioner took only the clinical science and clinical competence portions of the examination and therefore did not obtain a certified FLEX weighted average score. The Minnesota basic sciences examination taken by Petitioner was not the same basic sciences examination administered as part of the FLEX examination. (Testimony of Faircloth, Joint Exhibit No. 1)
Recommendation That Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Immaculate Espejo-Asuncion, M.D. Dorothy J. Faircloth 80 Battle Creek Place Executive Director St. Paul, Minnesota 55119 Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street John Griffin, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Beginning on October 3, 1995, and at all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida, holding license number ME 69324. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was also a licensed medical doctor in Minnesota. From 1984 to 1998, the Respondent was employed as a professor at the University of Minnesota (University). As a University professor, the Respondent was involved in chemical dependency research and participated in human research projects intended to treat drug addictions. Beginning in June 1993, the Respondent conducted a study wherein Gamma-Hydroxybutrate (GHB) was provided to human test participants. The Respondent was the principal investigator in the study. He personally applied to and received permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct the study. The human participants in the 1993 GHB study were primarily a group of Southeast Asians known as "Nmong" who exhibit high rates of opium addiction. The purpose of the study was to determine whether GHB could be beneficial in detoxification from opium addiction. As the principal investigator, the Respondent was responsible for planning and implementation of the study. Obtaining the "informed consent" of study participants was a requirement of the University's standard protocol, and is a standard requirement for any human research project The informed consent documentation used in the Respondent's GHB study consisted of five English-text pages. The participants in the GHB study were essentially unable to speak or read English. The Respondent assumed that the University hospital, where the study was conducted, would obtain the appropriate informed consent from participants. By the time the GHB study began, informed consent had not been obtained from all the human test subjects. The University apparently became aware of the informed consent issue, and asked the Respondent on August 4, 1993 to discontinue the test. The Respondent terminated the test on August 5, 1993. After the test was terminated, the University reviewed the test's procedures and determined that in addition to the informed consent issue, test administrators had failed in some cases to follow dosing protocol limits, and had also failed to provide a substitute drug (methadone) to study participants who sought the substitution. Based on the improper implementation of the study, the University took disciplinary action against the Respondent including a reprimand, restrictions against conducting research involving university hospital patients, and imposition of a two- year monitoring period of the Respondent's clinical performance. Based on the University action, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice reviewed the situation. The Board is the licensing authority for physicians in the State of Minnesota. By Order dated May 9, 1998, the Respondent entered into a stipulation and order with the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice. The stipulation and order required as follows: provide proof of compliance with requirements imposed by the University of Minnesota; notify the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice if Respondent participated in human research studies for a period of two (2) years; c. obtain a supervising physician, meet with the supervising physician monthly, and provide the supervising physician with information pertaining to Respondent's clinical practice outside the scope of his teaching responsibilities; d) meet with a designated member of the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice quarterly to review Respondent's progress under the terms of the order; and c) pay a civil penalty in the amount of $3,500. Although the Respondent did not have a private clinical practice in Minnesota, he had a limited number of clinical patients at a VA hospital in Minnesota who were outside his teaching responsibilities. In accordance with the terms of the settlement and order, the Respondent obtained a supervising physician who apparently oversaw the clinical practice. In September 1998, the Respondent moved to Florida and began a private clinical practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order imposing a suspension of the Respondent's Florida licensure until the Respondent's Minnesota license is unencumbered. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 20th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way BIN C01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3251 Kristy M. Johnson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Donald W. Weidner, Esquire G. Thomas Bowden, II, Esquire Donald W. Weidner, P.A. 11265 Alumni Way, Suite 201 Jacksonville, Florida 32246
