Findings Of Fact The following are facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation of the parties: Petitioner, Dr. Bachynsky, has been a duly licensed Medical Doctor in good standing in the State of Texas since 1973, and currently practices medicine in Houston, Texas, under a valid license issued by that state. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4) Dr. Bachynsky received his Ph.D. in Chemistry from Baylor University in Dallas, Texas, in 1968 and his Degree of Doctor of Medicine from the University of Tennessee Medical School, Memphis, Tennessee, in 1971, where he was an honors student with a class ranking of 3/100. Dr. Bachynsky was a Resident in Medicine and Pathology at the Mayo Clinic Graduate School of Medicine in Rochester, Minnesota, from 1972-73 and completed his Residency in Pathology at the Baylor University Hospital and Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, from 1973-74. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7) On September 27, 1982, Dr. Bachynsky executed an Endorsement Application, seeking medical licensure by endorsement in the State of Florida, under the provisions of Section 458.313, Florida Statutes, and submitted same to the Board. The Endorsement Application was received by Respondent on October 6, 1982. A true copy of the Endorsement Application is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". During the processing of Dr. Bachynsky's application, the Board requested and received an evaluation form concerning Dr. Bachynsky completed by George J. Race, M.D., Ph.D., the pathologist-in-chief of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. The evaluation form was dated October 12, 1982, and received by the Respondent on October 25, 1982. Dr. Race served as the director of Dr. Bachynsky's postgraduate residency training at Baylor University Medical Center from July 1, 1973, to December 1, 1974. Dr. Race gave Dr. Bachynsky exclusively "good" and "superior" ratings on 12 of the 15 specific categories of the evaluation form. Dr. Race did not give a rating in three of the categories. However, his overall evaluation of Dr. Bachynsky was "with some reservation." A copy of Dr. Race's October 14, 1982, evaluation form is attached as Exhibit "B". On October 27, 1982, the Board requested Dr. Bachynsky to provide additional information on Dr. Race's evaluation. On November 10, 1982, Dr. Bachynsky wrote to the Board that it was his understanding that Dr. Race's recommendation "with some reservation" related to two personal incidents that occurred during Dr. Bachynsky's residency. Dr. Bachynsky stated that he had discussed these matters with Dr. Race, and that Dr. Race, because he did not know the facts and details of Dr. Bachynsky's involvement in the criminal matter during his residency, felt compelled to give his recommendation "with some reservation." A copy of Dr. Bachynsky's November 10, 1982, letter to the Board is attached as Exhibit "C." (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) The criminal matter about which Dr. Race was concerned was Dr. Bachynsky's plea of guilty to the federal misdemeanor charge of possessing stolen automobile parts of a value of less than $100.00 which Bachynsky knew in all probability had been stolen and transported in interstate commerce. A complaint was filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation against Petitioner on August 13, 1974, charging him with transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce. The complaint was subsequently dismissed and Dr. Bachynsky pled guilty to the misdemeanor offense on October 23, 1974, and received a two year unsupervised, probated sentence, which sentence was discharged at the end of eight months and the case was dismissed. A true copy of the Judgment and Commitment against Dr. Bachynsky is attached as Exhibit "D." In his initial Endorsement Application Dr. Bachynsky had responded "no" when asked if he had ever been convicted of a misdemeanor. Dr. Bachynsky responded "no" after a discussion with a Texas attorney, Larry R. Johnson. The attorney states that he had erroneously assumed the application of Texas law rather than federal law when he advised Dr. Bachynsky to answer "no." The Board had received an affidavit from Larry Johnson prior to its notice of intent to deny Dr. Bachynsky's application. True copies of Larry R. Johnson's letter of February 11, 1983, to the Board and his affidavit of the same date are attached as composite Exhibit "E". Subsequently, on December 7, 1982, Respondent notified Dr. Bachynsky that a copy of the misdemeanor charge and the disposition of the charge would be required before processing of his application could be completed. Dr. Bachynsky then provided the Board with this information. In addition to receiving the information provided by Dr. Bachynsky relative to the charge, the Board contacted the United States Attorney James A. Rolfe who, then as an Assistant United States Attorney, prosecuted Dr. Bachynsky on the misdemeanor charge in 1974. By letter dated January 7, 1983, U.S. Attorney Rolfe explained the disposition of the criminal charge against Dr. Bachynsky. A true copy of Rolfe's January 7, 1983, letter to the Board is attached as Exhibit "F." Dr. Bachynsky personally appeared before the Board at a public meeting on February 13, 1983, to address the Board's concerns regarding his medical licensure application. At that time, Dr. Bachynsky further discussed with the Board the circumstances surrounding his 1974 misdemeanor conviction, as well as the circumstances surrounding Dr. Race's evaluation of Dr. Bachynsky. On March 22, 1983, the Board issued its notice of intent to deny Dr. Bachynsky's application for Licensure by Endorsement. The notice suggested that Dr. Bachynsky secure more information with respect to his postgraduate training at Baylor University and his conviction and reappear before the Board. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Prior to Dr. Bachynsky's second personal appearance before the Board on April 10, 1983, the Board received a tape recording of proceedings in the United States Magistrate Court on the 1974 misdemeanor charge. The tape recording reveals that Dr. Bachynsky knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge, which was described by the U.S. Magistrate as a "minor offense under the Federal Penal Law." Also prior to Dr. Bachynsky's second personal appearance before the Board on April 10, 1983, the Board received a letter dated March 31, 1983, from Dr. Race asking that his evaluation of Dr. Bachynsky be upgraded from "Recommend with some reservation" to "Recommend as qualified and competent." In his letter, Dr. Race explained that the upgrading of the recommendation was based upon Dr. Race's reviewing additional information from U.S. Attorney Rolfe regarding Dr. Bachynsky's 1974 misdemeanor conviction. A true copy of Dr. Race's March 31, 1983, letter to the Board is attached as Exhibit "G." (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Dr. Bachynsky personally appeared a second time before the Board on April 10, 1983, contending that he had fully satisfied the two concerns expressed in the Board's March 22, 1983, notice of intent to deny. After hearing from Dr. Bachynsky and his attorney, Respondent voted to affirm its March 22, 1983, notice of intent to deny Dr. Bachynsky's application. The following are additional facts adduced at the hearing: Dr. George S. Palmer, a medical consultant to the Board of Medical Examiners, reviewed Petitioner's application file in November 1982, and found that Petitioner met all of the requirements for licensure by endorsement. He noted, however, that before final approval of the application, "the episode concerning the 'stolen' car be cleared up." Although he had no knowledge of the details of that incident, he felt that it could have a bearing on a determination of Petitioner's moral character. Inquiry by the Board's staff to the medical boards of Tennessee and California, where Petitioner held active licenses, failed to reveal that he had ever been subject to disciplinary action in those states. It was further determined that Texas medical authorities had taken no action with regard to Petitioner's license as a result of his misdemeanor conviction. Inquiries to various hospitals at which Petitioner practiced failed to reveal any derogatory information. (Testimony of Palmer, Faircloth; Petitioner's Exhibit 5) Petitioner testified that he had been in continuous practice since 1972. He is a family practitioner with emphasis on internal medicine. He is a member of the Harris County Medical Society and Texas Medical Association. He testified that although he regretted the incident in 1974, it did not involve patients nor affect his ability to practice medicine. However, he acknowledged that the conviction had "followed me and done much damage." A number of Houston physicians submitted letters in Petitioner's behalf which attested to his superior medical qualifications, active practice, and ethical conduct. (Testimony of Petitioner; Petitioner's Exhibits 3, 8)
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medical Examiners approve the application of Petitioner, Nicholas Bachynsky, for licensure by endorsement to practice medicine. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 10th day of January, 1984.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent has violated section 458.331(1)(b), (kk), and (nn), Florida Statutes (2011), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a medical doctor licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 89113. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is also licensed as a medical doctor in the State of New Jersey. The Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners (New Jersey Board) is the licensing authority regulating the practice of medicine in the State of New Jersey. On or about February 21, 2012, the New Jersey Board entered an Order of Automatic Suspension of Respondent’s New Jersey medical license. The basis for the Order was Respondent’s purported failure to comply with a Private Letter Agreement previously entered between Respondent and the New Jersey Board, in that she allegedly failed to undergo an independent psychiatric evaluation and failed to provide required psychiatric reports to the state’s Physician Assistance Program (PAP).2/ The action by the New Jersey Board constitutes action against Respondent’s medical license by the licensing authority of another jurisdiction. Respondent did not report the action against her New Jersey license to the Florida Board of Medicine on or before March 23, 2012, or within 30 days of the action against her license. When documents are received by the Department, they are imaged into the Department’s system. Mail for the licensing unit is picked up several times a day, and all documents are indexed by the licensee’s license number. A licensee can check to see if documents are received by contacting the Department by telephone or e-mail. As of the week before the hearing, no information regarding Dr. Ackerman had been received by the Department from Dr. Ackerman. Respondent claims that she notified the Board by both United States Mail and by certified mail of the action against her New Jersey license. A copy of the letter she claims to have sent is Respondent’s Exhibit 1. This letter is dated March 2, 2012, is not signed, does not contain her license number in Florida or New Jersey, and is addressed to “Florida License Board.” The document does not include an address beyond Tallahassee, Florida. No zip code is included. Dr. Ackerman could not say whether she had a receipt for the certified mail, only that she probably “had it somewhere.” She could not identify who, if anyone, signed for it. When asked for the address where she mailed the letter, Dr. Ackerman said, after a considerable pause, 452 Bald Cypress Way, and claimed she knew that address “off the top of her head.”3/ The copy admitted into evidence only reflects a faxed date of March 22, 2014, two days before the hearing.4/ By contrast, Board staff testified credibly as to the process for logging mail at the Department, and that no notification had been received from Dr. Ackerman. While staff acknowledged that it is “possible” for mail to come to the Department and not be routed appropriately, the more persuasive evidence in this case is that the Board staff received nothing from Dr. Ackerman. Respondent’s claim that both copies of her letter somehow slipped through the cracks is simply not believable. Moreover, Dr. Ackerman is a physician. As such, she is presumed to be a relatively intelligent person, capable of providing appropriate notification to the Board. The docket and evidentiary record in this case demonstrate that when she wants to get a message across, she is capable of doing so (and equally capable of avoiding answering a direct question if it is not to her advantage). Her claim that she notified the Board of the action against her license in New Jersey is not credible, and is rejected. Dr. Ackerman also did not update her practitioner profile. Practitioner profiles can be updated by faxing the updated information, using the fax number available on-line; by mailing the information to the Department; or by logging into the practitioner profile database using the licensee’s specific log- in ID and password. Dr. Ackerman did none of those.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 458.331(1)(b), (kk), and (nn). In addition, it is recommended that the Board impose the following penalty: a reprimand of Respondent’s license to practice medicine; an administrative fine of $5,000; suspension of Respondent’s license to practice medicine until such time as Respondent demonstrates that her license in New Jersey has been reinstated and demonstrates the ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety; and reservation of jurisdiction by the Board to impose a period of probation should Respondent successfully petition the Board for reinstatement and demonstrate compliance with the terms described in recommendation three. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed by the State of Florida as a Clinical Laboratory Technician. He applied to the Respondent for licensure as a Clinical Laboratory Technologist, specializing in clinical chemistry. On April 1, 1980, Respondent denied Petitioner's application for a technologist's license for the reason that Petitioner does not have the sixty semester hours required by Section 10D- 41.25(9), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner is a high school graduate. There after he graduated from Charron-Williams Paramedical College, technician training school. He has not attended an accredited college or university. Petitioner has been employed as a technician for approximately five years, and his witnesses testified as to the quality of his work. Petitioner has not taken the U.S. Public Health Service proficiency examination in clinical laboratory technology.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for a technologist's license pursuant to the provisions of The Florida Clinical Laboratory Law. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Collins Building Room 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Devon L. Carter 16615 S.W. 103rd Court Miami, Florida 33157 Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Department of Public Health 1350 N.W. 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 Mr. Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by Petitioner, Raymond A. Baker, for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, Petitioner would be allowed to return to work as a supervisor in a unit for developmentally disabled adults at Florida State Hospital (FSH). Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. In a preliminary decision entered on September 2, 1997, a DCFS committee denied the request. Petitioner is now barred from doing such work because of a disqualifying offense which occurred on September 19, 1993. On that date, Petitioner was arrested for the offense of committing a "battery upon his live-in girlfriend," a misdemeanor under Section 784.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). Since the victim in that case was a person with whom Petitioner was then residing, the offense constituted domestic violence as it subsequently became defined in 1994 by Section 741.28, Florida Statutes. Petitioner entered a plea of No Contest to the charge of "[b]attery-domestic" on October 12, 1993. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, he was fined $150.00, and he was placed on twelve months probation. In addition, he was required to complete "New Hope & Alcohol Counseling," and he was ordered to have no contact with the victim. Petitioner successfully completed all terms of his probation, including counseling courses in both spousal abuse and substance abuse. In October 1993, Petitioner began working at FSH in an Other Personnel Services position. Eventually, he attained the position of unit treatment rehabilitation senior supervisor I in Unit 4, a position involving supervision of developmentally disabled adults. Due to a change in the law, in 1996, he was required to undergo a background screening. That screening uncovered his 1993 offense, and on July 18, 1997, he was disqualified from working in a position of special trust with developmentally disabled adults. Petitioner then accepted a position of fiscal assistant in the financial services section of FSH, a position having no contact with residents. He has continued working in that position pending the outcome of this case. Because of his desire to return to his former position, he has applied for an exemption from disqualification. Petitioner is a graduate of Florida State University with a degree in government and criminology. He also holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence from Howard University School of Law. He eventually plans to take the Florida Bar examination, and if he passes the examination, the Florida Bar will accept him for membership, notwithstanding his 1993 misdemeanor conviction. This assertion was not contradicted. In interpreting the statutory criteria which govern the granting of exemptions, the DCFS considers the following factors, among others, to be important. First, the applicant should not minimize the seriousness of the offense; he must express some remorse; and he must have insight into the seriousness of the incident and the risks involved. A three-person committee preliminarily denied the request in early September 1997 because at that time it believed that Petitioner minimized the incident, that he expressed little or no remorse, and that he had no insight into the seriousness of his offense. More than four years have elapsed since the criminal incident, a sufficient time for rehabilitation. Since that time, there have been no other blemishes on Petitioner's record. Except for a "bleeding toe," which was caused when the victim either cut it on broken glass or accidentally jammed it against the door, there was no injury to the victim. Petitioner has worked continuously at FSH since the incident, and he was described by former colleagues in Unit 4 as having a good rapport with patients and staff. According to co-workers, he also handled crises in the unit "in the right way." During the years 1995, 1996, and 1997, he received satisfactory evaluations from his supervisor. There is no evidence that Petitioner would present a danger to the residents if the exemption is granted. Petitioner's description of the circumstances surrounding the incident was not altogether accurate. This finding is made after considering the testimony of the victim who reluctantly testified on behalf of DCFS. For example, Petitioner recalled that the altercation ensued after the two had an argument over finances. However, it was established that it was caused when the victim attempted to break off the relationship and to leave the premises. In an effort to keep her from leaving, Petitioner tried to disrobe her. Also, he was extremely argumentative when speaking with the investigating law enforcement officer, and he refused to leave the premises when requested. According to the victim, Petitioner's verbally abusive behavior and his refusal to leave, rather than the altercation itself, ultimately led to his arrest that evening. While Petitioner was somewhat evasive and had no recollection about some of the facts surrounding the incident, this is probably attributable, at least in part, to his being highly intoxicated when the incident occurred. Petitioner expressed regret for his actions on the evening of September 19, 1993. His assertion that he has had no problems with alcohol since that night was not contradicted. Given the lapse of time since the incident, a record of continuous employment with the FSH with good evaluations, the completion of two counseling courses, and an expression of regret, the request for an exemption should be granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of February, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent, Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0027974. The Respondent's last known street address is 215 Pine Ridge Drive, Panama City, Florida 32405. During calendar year 1978, the Respondent was a practicing orthopedic physician in Lakeland, Florida. During calendar year 1978 he had staff privileges at Lakeland General Hospital in Lakeland, Florida, and, pursuant to those staff privileges, admitted patients and performed surgery at Lakeland General Hospitals. By letter dated July 24, 1978, from Luther A. Youngs, III, M.D., President of the Attending Staff at Lakeland General Hospital, the Respondent was notified as follows: This is to inform you that a hearing will be held before the Executive Committee of the Attending Staff of Lakeland General Hospital at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 2, 1978, in the hospital Board Room, to determine whether disciplinary action should be taken against you on the basis of the following charges: [Here followed four paragraphs of charges.] These charges are serious and may result in suspension or revocation of your probational privileges in Orthopedic Surgery. A regularly scheduled meeting of the entire Medical Attending Staff was held on October 17, 1978. An item on the agenda for that meeting was a proposal that the Respondent's hospital privileges be terminated. Shortly before the commencement of that meeting, the Respondent delivered a letter addressed to Luther A. Youngs, III, M.D., which letter stated. "I hereby resign from membership of the medical attending staff at Lakeland General Hospital as of today Tuesday October 17, 1988". Thereafter the Respondent's resignation was accepted by the Governing Board of Lakeland General Hospital. Subsequent to the Respondent's resignation from Lakeland General Hospital, on or about June 6, 1979, the Respondent applied to Lake Seminole Hospital in Seminole, Florida, for, staff privileges. As part of the application process at Lake Seminole Hospital, the Respondent was required to fill out an application form. Among the questions on the application form was the following: "Have your privileges at any hospital ever been suspended, diminished, revoked or not renewed?" The question was followed by a "yes" box and a "no" box. The Respondent answered the above-quoted question by placing a typed "x" in the "no" box. When the Respondent submitted his 1979 application to Lake Seminole Hospital, he knew that he had resigned his hospital privileges at Lakeland General Hospital during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings involving allegations that he had improperly or unnecessarily performed various surgeries. Thereafter, on or about January 25, 1984, the Respondent applied for appointment to the medical staff at Humana Hospital Northside in St. Petersburg, Florida. As part of the application process at Humana Hospital Northside, the Respondent was required to fill out an application form. Among the questions on the form were the following: Have your privileges at any hospital ever been suspended, diminished, revoked or not renewed? Have you ever been denied membership or renewal thereof, or been subject to disciplinary action in any medical organization? The foregoing questions (along with some others) were followed by a "yes" box and a "no" box. The Respondent did not indicate "yes" or "no" in response to either of the questions quoted immediately above on his initial application to Humana Hospital Northside. Instead, he left both of these questions unanswered. The Respondent was subsequently notified by Humana Hospital Northside that the two questions last quoted above were unanswered on the initial application form and that those questions must be answered in order for the Respondent's application to be processed. Along with that notification, Humana Hospital Northside also provided the Respondent with another blank application form. The Respondent thereafter furnished to Humana Hospital Northside an application form which was blank, except for a signature at the end and the following typed information: On the first page of the application form were the words "Addendum to Original Application Dated 1/26/84," followed by the name "Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D." On the third page of the application there was an "x" in each of the "no" boxes corresponding to the following four questions: Has your license to practice medicine in any jurisdiction ever been limited, suspended or revoked? Have your privileges at any hospital ever been suspended, diminished, revoked or not renewed? Have you ever been denied membership or renewal thereof, or been subject to disciplinary action in any medical organization? Has your narcotic or dangerous drug certificate ever been suspended or revoked? When the Respondent furnished the above-described addendum to his application, he knew that he had resigned his hospital privileges at Lakeland General Hospital during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings involving allegations that he had improperly or unnecessarily performed various surgeries. On or about January 26, 1984, the Respondent made a second application for medical staff privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital. Again the Respondent was required to file an application form. The application form included the following questions under Section 16: F. Have your privileges or Staff Membership at any hospital ever been denied, suspended, diminished, revoked, not renewed, or otherwise acted against? H. Have you ever been denied membership or renewal thereof, or been subject to disciplinary action, in any medical organization or by any licensing agency of any state or country? The foregoing questions (along with some others) were followed by a "yes" box and a "no" box. The Respondent did not indicate "yes" or "no" in response to either of the questions quoted immediately above on his initial 1984 application form submitted to Lake Seminole Hospital. Instead, he left both of those questions unanswered. The Respondent was subsequently notified by Lake Seminole Hospital that the two questions last quoted above were unanswered on the initial 1984 application form and that those questions had to be answered in order for the Respondent's application to be processed. Along with that notification, Lake Seminole Hospital returned Respondent's initial 1984 application form so that he could complete it. Shortly thereafter the Respondent returned the initial 1984 application form to Lake Seminole Hospital, where it was received on February 15, 1984. When the Respondent returned the application form on February 15, 1984, there was a typed "x" in each of the two "no" boxes corresponding to the two questions last quoted above. When the Respondent returned his 1984 application to Lake Seminole Hospital on February 15, 1984, he knew that he had resigned his hospital privileges at Lakeland General Hospital during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings involving allegations that he had improperly or unnecessarily performed various surgeries.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-4527 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings Proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate, unnecessary details. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant and as not established by clear and convincing evidence. (It should be noted that the Amended Administrative Complaint does not allege any negligent acts by the Respondent.) Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance, with some additional findings. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance with certain unnecessary or irrelevant details omitted. Paragraph 7: Rejected as irrelevant and as not fully supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: This paragraph is accepted with the exception of the portions described immediately hereafter. In the penultimate sentence, everything after the second comma is rejected as unnecessarily repetitious. The last sentence is rejected as not being fully in accord with the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Most of last three lines rejected as repetitious. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 13: First five lines accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as in part irrelevant, in part not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and in part not fully in accord with the greater weight of the evidence. Findings Proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Bryant, Reeves & Deer 220 East Madison Street Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D. Post Office Box 16473 Panama City, Florida 32406-1473 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
