The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a license as a Registered Pharmacy Technician should be approved.
Findings Of Fact On May 22, 2008, based on a plea of nolo contendere, Petitioner was adjudged guilty of the offense of Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor, a second-degree felony. She was placed on five years of Sexual Offender Probation. The special conditions of Petitioner’s probation included the following: a. Restitution to the victim in the amount of $425.00; b. No contact with the victim; and c. Attend parenting classes. The standard conditions of Sex Offender Probation were imposed upon Petitioner, including: (a) A mandatory curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.; (b) A prohibition on living within 1,000 feet of a school, day care center, park, playground, or other place where children regularly congregate; (c) Participation in a sex offender treatment program; (d) No contact with any children under the age of 18, unless court approved; and (e) A prohibition on working for pay or as a volunteer at any place that children regularly congregate, including but not limited to any school, day care center, park, playground, pet store, library, zoo, theme park or mall. On October 5, 2009, Petitioner submitted an application for licensure as a Registered Pharmacy Technician. On December 9, 2009, the Board voted to deny Petitioner’s application. A Notice of Intent to Deny reflecting the vote was filed on December 31, 2009. Petitioner testified that she has been a pharmacy technician since 1981. There was no evidence presented, however, indicating that Petitioner has been licensed in Florida as a Registered Pharmacy Technician. Petitioner is currently employed by Randolph Margrave, preparing intravenous medications (IVs) and supplies for administering to patients in their homes. She works in a clean room under a hood in an isolated barrier. She has no contact with the public, and she has no contacts with the patients. Although her position does not require Petitioner to review patient records, she has access to patient records. According to her current employer, Petitioner does an excellent job. Prior to her current position, Petitioner worked in a retail pharmacy from 1981 to 1989. From 1989 to 1999 she worked in the pharmacy department of a hospital. Petitioner’s current employment does not require her to have contact with the public. Petitioner described the circumstances that led to her arrest and subsequent conviction. She testified that she performed oral sex on her daughter’s seventeen-year-old boyfriend. In her testimony, Petitioner stated: My daughter’s boyfriend was very abusive. We got a restraining order against him, and they only granted it for two weeks, temporary. And he threatened me through her. And as it turned out, I made a bad decision. And it was an oral sex one time and . . . [h]e was 17 years old at the time. Petitioner testified that her daughter’s boyfriend was a very mature 17-year-old. Petitioner further testified: And I thought my daughter’s life was being threatened, and it was like making a deal with the devil. And it was a one-time thing and a very bad thing. In a typical retail pharmacy setting, a pharmacy technician is the first point of contact for patients that drop off or pick-up a prescription. A pharmacy technician in a retail setting gathers the patient’s information, enters it into the computer, prepares the label and counts and pours the medication. Pharmacy technicians have access to personal information of the patients that patronize the pharmacy. This information includes but is not limited to the patient’s name, gender, phone number (including cell number), address, allergy information and prescription medication history. Minors may purchase and pick-up medications from a pharmacy. A licensed Registered Pharmacy Technician may practice at any location without restriction.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Pharmacy enter a final order denying Celeste Donald’s application for licensure as a Registered Pharmacy Technician. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III 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 30th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds community pharmacy permit number 0007857, which is issued for the location of 7121 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida 33144. Filimon Galo is the president, and Miriam Galo is the secretary of Gamy Discount Pharmacy, Inc. On December 9, 1985 and on December 11, 1985, investigators for the Department of Professional Regulation conducted a routine pharmacy inspection of Gamy Discount Pharmacy, Inc. They re-inspected Respondent on January 22, 1986. During each of those inspections, Respondent's prescription department was unclean, unsanitary, and overcrowded. During those inspections, the investigators located several outdated medications in the prescription department. Those medications seized on January 22, 1986, bore expiration dates more than 4 months prior to the date of that inspection. Those medications which were seized by Petitioner contained medicinal drugs and are also known as pharmaceuticals. During the January inspection Respondent had no sign displayed stating the hours when the prescription department is open. During each of Petitioner's inspections, the pharmacy had no sign posted concerning generically equivalent drugs. There was no negative drug formulary in the pharmacy at the time of the inspections. On January 22, 1986, the investigators found one container of a prescription drug--prolizin, a medicinal drug-- which was located outside of the prescription department. During the January inspection, no pharmacist was employed at Respondent's pharmacy. During the January inspection, one vial was seized which bore a handwritten label stating "Diabinol." This vial actually contained a generic equivalent of Diabinol. The vial was misbranded in that it was false or misleading by being labeled with the "brand name" instead of the generic name and did not contain the name and place of business of the manufacturer. During the January inspection, a second vial was located which bore no label. This vial contained a medicinal drug Tranxene and was misbranded in that it did not contain the name and place of business of the manufacturer. During the inspections, prescriptions for controlled substances were discovered which did not contain the name and address of the person for whom the controlled substance was dispensed, the initials of the pharmacist filing the prescription, or the date on which the prescription was filled. During the inspections, Respondent pharmacy had no current drug compendium.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking Respondent's community pharmacy permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of December, 1986, at Tallahassee, 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 19th day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Rod Presnell, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Enrique Miranda, Esquire 2542 SW 6th Street Miami, Florida 33135 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings S. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Natalie Patton, is a licensed pharmacist and has been licensed since 1959. She is a graduate of Sanford University, Birmingham, Alabama, and was initially licensed in Alabama as a pharmacist. She has worked as a licensed pharmacist for twelve years in Highlands County in the vicinity of Sebring. She is licensed as a pharmacy consultant as well and has been employed at several hospitals and pharmacies in that geographical area. She opened her present pharmacy' business in November, 1978, in a rural area southwest of Sebring at the community of Spring Lake. Her's is the only pharmacy in seventeen miles and her business volume reflects the rural nature of her business location and clientele in that she fills an average of thirty-five to fifty prescriptions a day. On "Race Friday," the day prior to the Sports Car Race at Sebring, a man entered her pharmacy complaining of severe headache and allergy to fumes associated with the infield and pits at the racetrack. He asked for Darvon, explaining that this was the only medication successful in treating his headaches. He explained he was from another part of the State and had no way to contact his physician. She sold him a non-prescription drug. He came back the next day, the day in question, March 22, and explained that her suggestion that he go to the emergency room the day before was impractical because a newspaper ad he had seen described the emergency room as overloaded and turning patients away. He complained of a worsening headache. She testified that she felt sympathy for him and ultimately and reluctantly sold him, at her cost, four Darvon to be used that Saturday and four for that Sunday. The individual requesting the medication then revealed himself to be a Deputy Sheriff of Highlands County, who arrested her on the spot, charging her with dispensing the Darvon without a prescription in violation of the above authority. She ultimately was tried on the charges and convicted, but adjudication was withheld and she was placed on three years probation by the Circuit Judge. A second related criminal charge was ultimately dismissed. She has been under the direction of a probation officer since that time and must report all her activities and receive permission before traveling out of her county. She also has been required to pay fifty dollars a month to reimburse the public defender for his services on her behalf. She is still operating her business and her customers have professed loyalty to her and her business is still increasing in volume. She has never had any altercation with law enforcement authorities of any type in her past and has never been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor. With the agreement of counsel for the Petitioner, certain testimonial letters on her behalf from persons who were not in attendance at the hearing were admitted as composite exhibit 1. These letters attest to and establish the fact, in corroboration of her testimony, that she is a decent and useful citizen and that she was totally unaware that she was committing a felonious act. These letters corroborate her testimony and establish that she is a crucial asset to her rural community. She is depended upon by numerous citizens, many of whom are of advanced years and who require frequent medication and are unable to travel any great distance. She has obviously gone to great lengths to operate her business in a professional and compassionate manner even to the extent of delivering medications to senior citizens and others long after the closing hours of her pharmacy. These letters in support of her position also are replete with instances described where she adheres strictly to the dictates of the various physicians' prescriptions and refused on a number of occasions to prescribe medication without a prescription. There is no question that the evidence in this record establishes that the Respondent is clothed with the highest personal integrity and moral character and that the isolated incident when she dispensed medication in violation of the above authority is not characteristic of the regular and otherwise consistent manner in which she practices pharmacy and conducts her business. The Respondent's probation officer sent a letter which is incorporated in Respondent's Exhibit 1 attesting to her conscientious efforts to obey the law and her usefulness as a citizen. He expressed the belief that she was unaware that she was actually committing a crime when the subject violation occurred and that she was simply and compassionately attempting to help a customer in trouble. He is convinced that revoking her pharmacy license would serve no useful purpose and would indeed impose a hardship on the rural customers she serves. He firmly believes she would not consciously violate the law or purposefully commit an illegal act. The Respondent was authorized by the Circuit Judge in the Respondent's criminal proceeding to make the following statement on the record in this proceeding: In re Natalie Patton: In open Court, in disposing of this case, and putting Natalie Patton on probation without adjudication, I made note of the numerous letters I received from people in the community, urging the Court to be lenient. The Respondent then noted that there were a hundred and forty signatures on those testimonial letters. At the conclusion of the Respondent's case the Respondent requested that the penalty herein be limited to a letter of reprimand. The Petitioner introduced no evidence and otherwise took no position with regard to the question of an appropriate penalty.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the candor and demeanor of the witness and the evidence in the record, it is RECOMMENDED: That Natalie N. Patton and Spring Lake Pharmacy remain licensed and that Natalie Patton be accorded a written reprimand by the Board regarding the subject violation and that she be placed on probation by the Board for a period of time coextensive with the probation imposed in the criminal proceeding related hereto during which time her conduct of the practice of pharmacy be subjected to periodic monitoring by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Trombley, Esquire 329 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870 P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 4th day of November, 1981.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint1 and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's licensure and employment Respondent, Nury D. Soler, is now, and was at all times material hereto, licensed as a pharmacist by the State of Florida, having been issued license number PS 0014628. Pertinent to this case, Respondent was the prescription department manager for Westchester Pharmacy for a two-month period extending from some time in October 1996 and at least through December 13, 1996. Westchester Pharmacy is a community pharmacy licensed by Petitioner, pursuant to Section 465.018, Florida Statutes, and located at 7253 Southwest 24th Street, Miami, Florida. The pharmacy owner or permittee was Noriel Batista. The pharmacy inspection On December 14, 1996, a Saturday, Richard Castillo, an investigator employed by the State of Florida, entered the Westchester Pharmacy to conduct a routine community pharmacy inspection. Upon entry, Mr. Castillo observed only one person in the pharmacy, a man later identified as the permittee (Mr. Batista). At the time, Mr. Batista was observed in the vicinity of the prescription area, at the rear of the store. Mr. Castillo proceeded to the counter at the rear of the store, and was approached by Mr. Batista. Thereupon, Mr. Castillo feigned a toothache, and the following events transpired: . . . I put my hands on my face and I said I have some tooth pain, is there anything you can do about it. At which time, he said you really need to go see a dentist. I said that dentists cost a lot of money and that I believed that it was an infection. At which time he came back with a bottle of twenty Amoxicillin, 500 milligram capsules. He sold me the bottle for $10.00 and I gave him the $10.00. He then gave me some preliminary instructions, and went back into the prescription department area. He returned and said that as a gift I'm going to give you these medications; which was four capsules of Motrin 800 milligrams. Amoxicillin is a prescription drug, which Mr. Batista, who was not licensed as a pharmacist, sold without benefit of a prescription. Following the sale, Mr. Castillo identified himself as an investigator, told Mr. Batista he was present to conduct a routine inspection, and asked to speak with the pharmacist. When told the pharmacist was not available, Mr. Castillo asked Mr. Batista to telephone her and ask her to come to the store. Mr. Batista did so, and about an hour later Respondent arrived. Mr. Castillo inspected the pharmacy and completed a community pharmacy inspection report on which he noted a number of perceived deficiencies. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). First, with regard to Mr. Batista's sale of amoxicillin, Mr. Castillo noted three deficiencies or violations against the pharmacy business, to-wit: (1) there was no pharmacist on duty when the prescription department was open (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-28.109, Florida Administrative Code); (2) there was no pharmacist present to provide patient counseling, if requested (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-27.820, Florida Administrative Code); and, (3) since Mr. Batista did not document the sale, Mr. Castillo considered the pharmacy records of dispensing to be incomplete (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-28.140(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code). Other deficiencies noted by Mr. Castillo against the pharmacy business were as follows: (1) there was no sign displayed that the pharmacy was closed (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-28.109(1), Florida Administrative Code); (2) the pharmacist's (Ms. Soler's) license was not displayed (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-27.100(1), Florida Administrative Code); and, (3) there was no sign displayed which stated the hours the prescription department was open each day (a perceived violation of Rule 64B16-28.404, Florida Administrative Code). No further deficiencies were observed and, apart from those noted deficiencies, the prescription department appeared appropriately maintained and operated. Following Respondent's arrival at the pharmacy, Mr. Castillo discussed with her the various deficiencies he had found and had noted on his report. Then, as the "Pharmacist," Respondent signed the report. By signing the report, she acknowledged that "I have read and have had this inspection report and the laws and regulations concerned herein explained, and do affirm that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge." Among the information provided on the inspection report was the name of the prescription department manager, which was stated to be the Respondent. Respondent's employment status with Westchester Pharmacy on the date of the inspection Notwithstanding her appearance at Westchester Pharmacy on Saturday, December 14, 1996, and her signing of the inspection report as the Pharmacist for Westchester Pharmacy, Respondent averred, at hearing, that by December 14, 1996, she was no longer affiliated with the pharmacy or responsible for the deficiencies noted. According to Respondent, by December 12, 1996, she had agreed with another pharmacy, Coral Way Pharmacy, Inc., (Coral Way Pharmacy) to serve as its pharmacist effective December 16, 1996, at its pharmacy located at 6965 Southwest 24th Street, Miami, Florida, and that her last date of employment with Westchester Pharmacy was December 13, 1996. While perhaps not entirely free from doubt (given the facial inconsistency between Respondent's contention at hearing and the conclusion one could reasonably draw regarding her association with Westchester Pharmacy, as evidenced by her activities on the date of inspection), the proof demonstrates, more likely than not, that, as Respondent averred, she was no longer employed by Westchester Pharmacy on the day of inspection, her presence on the day of inspection was a matter of accommodation to Mr. Batista, and her signing of the report was a matter of misunderstanding. In so concluding, it is observed that, while the pharmacy was open Monday through Saturday, the prescription department was not open on Saturday, or, stated differently, under the terms of Respondent's employment with Weschester Pharmacy she did not work week-ends. Given that Respondent and Coral Way Pharmacy, reached an agreement on December 12, 1996, for her to begin work at Coral Way Pharmacy on December 16, 1996, it is reasonable to conclude, given the nature of her work-week at Westchester Pharmacy, that her last day of employment with Westchester Pharmacy was Friday, December 13, 1996. Moreover, consistent with the conclusion that Respondent's association with Weschester Pharmacy terminated on December 13, 1996, is the absence of Respondent's wall certificate and license on the date of inspection. Notably, Respondent had not suffered prior disciplinary action in 19 years of practice, and presumably knew that, if employed, she was required to display her wall certificate and license in or near the prescription department. Conversely, she also knew, presumably, that she could not lawfully display them, if she was no longer employed by Westchester Pharmacy. Rule 64B16-27.100, Florida Administrative Code. Since it is presumed that persons will observe the law, the absence of Respondent's wall certificate and license on the date of inspection is consistent with her assertion that, by that date, she was no longer employed by Westchester Pharmacy. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Mach, 57 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1952). Finally, also consistent with the conclusion that Respondent's employment with Westchester Pharmacy terminated before the date of the inspection is a statement Respondent made to the inspector. According to the investigator, when asked about the infractions, Respondent stated the following: . . . She said that things needed to change. She asked if she were to leave the pharmacy whether that would change anything, and I said, no, it doesn't matter because you're the pharmacist of record at this point of time. Such statement, when considered in context with other proof of record, discussed supra, is consistent with Respondent having resolved, previously, to terminate her employment with Weschester Pharmacy and, since she did not specifically tell the investigator of her decision, his response evidenced a misunderstanding that resulted in Respondent's execution of the report.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 25th day of August, 1998.
The Issue Whether petitioner should take disciplinary action against respondent for the reasons alleged in the administrative complaint?
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent has held a Florida pharmacist's license, No. PS0017402, and has been president of American Chemist Shops, Inc., which holds permit No. PH0009600 to operate The Medicine Shoppe, a community pharmacy, at 488 NE 125th Street in North Miami, Florida. A second generation pharmacist, Mr. Ally trained in his native (British) Guyana and at the Chelsea School of Pharmacy in London, before qualifying as a pharmacist in England. He also worked at Rand Memorial Hospital in Freeport, Bahama Islands, before his initial licensure in Florida in 1979. After three years as a staff pharmacist at one Florida hospital and five and a half years as director of pharmacy at another, he went to work for Mrs. Friedman, a pharmacist's widow, then bought the pharmacy from her. Ever since he started at The Medicine Shoppe, respondent has been director of the pharmacy department. Even when Howard Friedmann was alive, Bonita Liston, a woman in her twenties, was a regular customer of The Medicine Shoppe. From time to time a Dr. Murray prescribed pain killers or antibiotics for her. The shop kept a file or card on Ms. Liston as it did on other regular customers. Ms. Liston's record reflected the filling of several prescriptions, but none after June 10, 1988, the date respondent's assistant made a note in the file which reads, "North Miami Detectives came in Shoppe, Do not disperse any Rx's." Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1. Nevertheless, on November 28, 1988, Mr. Ally gave Ms. Liston a brown two-ounce bottle full of Tussionex, a Schedule III "medicinal drug" containing hydrocodone. Coughing, she had arrived without a prescription shortly before the pharmacy closed that day. Dr. Murray had prescribed six-ounce supplies of this medicine for her on two occasions in September of 1987, and, respondent testified, she told him she would secure another such prescription the next day, return for four more ounces, and make payment. With Ms. Liston at the pharmacy on November 28, 1988, was Jodie Schuster, at the time an undercover policewoman working for the North Miami Police Department. Concealed on her person was a microphone or "body bug" which allowed special agent Jeffrey Michael Portz of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to monitor conversations in the pharmacy. On December 7, 1988, respondent's 35th wedding anniversary, Ms. Schuster returned to the pharmacy similarly wired, and Mr. Portz resumed monitoring. She asked for more cough medicine for Ms. Liston, and respondent gave her two ounces of Hycodan, a drug not unlike Tussionex. Respondent's testimony that he did not also give her Valium tablets has been credited. Again no money changed hands, nor was any consideration offered or discussed. Taken from the pharmacy in handcuffs, respondent was criminally prosecuted and, on May 22, 1987, sentenced. Among other things, the sentencing judge suspended respondent's pharmacist's license effective that date. Petitioner reinstated the license on January 31, 1991, and renewed it shortly before hearing. Before his arrest, respondent and his assistant filled 80 to 120 prescriptions a day. In keeping with legal requirements, physicians prescribing controlled substances report the number assigned them by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), by writing it or causing it to be written on the prescription form. Every such number is preceded by two letters, "A" followed by the first letter of the doctor's last name. Among the prescriptions for controlled substances filled by respondent or under his supervision at The Medicine Shoppe were some 30 which another pharmacist testified he would not have filled without verification. Two do not have patients' addresses. One prescription filled, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1A, lacks a legible doctor's name, and has no DEA number. Another gives DEA number AH 224 3119 for a Dr. A. Carlos Casademont. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6B. These irregularities notwithstanding, petitioner did not offer competent evidence to prove that any of the prescriptions were forged or invalid. An expert testified that good practice would have required verification, but was unable to say that respondent had in fact failed to verify the prescriptions. Petitioner did not allege or prove the absence of a written record (apart from the cancelled prescriptions themselves) of controlled substances, or prove the contents of any such records.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended: That petitioner suspend respondent's pharmacist's license for two (2) years, with credit for any suspension on account of delivery of Tussionex to Bonita Liston already accomplished. That petitioner suspend respondent's pharmacy permit for one (1) year, with credit for any suspension on account of delivery of Tussionex to Bonita Liston already accomplished. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5809 With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 1, the testimony was that the drug delivered to Ms. Schuster on December 7, 1988, resembled Tussionex but was not Tussionex. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2 is rejected as against the weight of the evidence. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the evidence showed that certain prescriptions lacked the patient's address, the physician's DEA number or other detail, but petitioner's expert said it was acceptable practice to fill such prescriptions, if verified. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4 has been accepted at least as regards the Casademont prescription with DEA No. AH 224 3119. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 5 is really a proposed conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 3, including subparts, has been adopted in substance, insofar as material, and to the extent reported in the findings of fact. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4.1 through 4.4 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 4.5 through 4.9 and No. 5, including subparts, have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: John Taylor, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael A. Mone, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0752 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Garfield & Associates 3500 North State Road 7, Suite 333 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319
The Issue Whether respondent's licence as a medical doctor should be disciplined on charges that he: (1) was convicted in a foreign country of a crime relating to the practice of medicine, (2) obtained his license to practice medicine by fraud or deceitful misrepresentation, (3) had his license acted against by the licensing authority of another state, (4) made misleading, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine or employed a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine, (5) engaged in unethical, deceptive, or deleterious conduct harmful to the public, (6) failed to prescribe controlled substances in good faith and in the course of his medical practice, and (7) engaged in immoral or unprofessional conduct, incompetence, negligence, or willful misconduct, all in violation of Section 458.1201, Florida Statutes (1973), and Section 458.331, Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact Count I: Conviction of a Crime Relating to the Practice of Medicine In 1960, respondent was a first-year medical student at Fribourg University in Switzerland. On May 11, 1960, he was tried and convicted by the Criminal Court of Sarine in Fribourg, Switzerland, of the crimes of "attempted abortion committed by a third person, attempted abortion on an unsuitable object by a third person, and violation of the law regarding the health regulations." He was sentenced to a ten-month prison term, minus the time of detention served while awaiting trial, with a suspended execution of sentence during five years. Respondent was also fined 500 Swiss francs, deported from Switzerland, and barred from reentry for a period of fifteen years. (Testimony of Gordon, Alonso; P-3.) II. Count II: Obtaining Florida Medical License by Fraud or Misrepresentation On December 17, 1971, respondent filed with the Florida State Board of Medical Examiners a sworn application for examination and licensure as a medical doctor in the State of Florida. On his application, he responded in the negative to questions asking whether he had ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. The application also contained the following statement, in bold type, above the signature line of the applicant: 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 fur- nish any false information in this applica- tion, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for the denial, suspension, or revocation of my license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Florida. (P-2.) On August 30, 1972, based on his application and passage of the examination, the Board of Medical Examiners issued respondent a license (license No. 24291) to practice medicine and surgery in Florida. (Testimony of Gordon; P-2.) Respondent explains his failure to reveal his Switzerland conviction on his application as a "peccadillo." (Tr. 245.) Since the New Jersey Medical Board records (where he was previously licensed) reflected his Switzerland conviction, he testified that he felt the New Jersey board would have notified the Florida board of the conviction. (Tr. 245-246.)(Testimony of Gordon.) By 1974, within two years after he was licensed in Florida, the Department became aware of his criminal conviction in Switzerland. In 1973 or 1974, soon after respondent opened his medical practice in North Miami Beach, a Department investigator, A. J. Stack, told him that the Department knew of his criminal conviction in Switzerland. (Testimony' of Gordon; R-2.) III. Count III: New Jersey's Action Against Respondent's Medical License On September 29, 1972, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners issued an administrative complaint seeking to suspend or revoke respondent's New Jersey medical and surgical license on charges he sexually assaulted two female patients and dispensed amphetamines to two other patients without good medical cause. One month later, the New Jersey board supplemented its complaint by adding two additional charges: (1) that he was convicted as an abortionist in Switzerland in May, 1960, and (2) that he failed to complete Section 12 of the application (i.e., disclose the Switzerland conviction), thereby obtaining his New Jersey medical license by fraud. (P-4, R-2.) On December 11, 1972, the New Jersey Department of Health suspended, for an indefinite period, respondent's New Jersey controlled substance registration. The suspension order states that, after being notified by certified mail, respondent failed to appear before the Department and show cause why his registration should not be suspended. No other reason is given for the suspension action. Respondent now asserts that the Department of Health did not notify him of its action to suspend his controlled substance registration. (Tr. 251-252.)(Testimony of Gordon; P-4.) The charges brought against respondent by the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners were never adjudicated on their merits. On February 27, 1973, he resigned from the practice of medicine in New Jersey and surrendered his New Jersey medical license to the Board of Medical Examiners. (Testimony of Gordon; P-4, R-2.) When the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners brought its charges against respondent, he had already obtained his Florida medical license. The Florida board of Medical Examiners learned of the New Jersey charges and respondent's resignation in May, 1973. In February, 1974, the board's counsel advised that "there is really nothing we can do unless Dr. Gordon violates the Florida laws." (R-2.) And, on May 15, 1974, the board's executive director made this notation in respondent's file: If he [respondent] has any trouble here in Florida we can suspend his license on the basis of the N.J. Board's action. (R-2.) IV. Counts IV, V, VI, and VII: Professional Misconduct in Treating Elizabeth Buffum Respondent began to practice medicine in Florida in 1973 at North Miami Beach, Florida. In December of that year--at the request of a third party--he went to the home of Elizabeth Buffum and treated her for alcoholism. Thereafter, he continued to treat her for chronic alcoholism. His treatment was to limit her use of alcohol and prescribe various sedatives, such as Thorazine and Sparine, which are scheduled controlled substances. In June, 1974, he and Ms. Buffum began living together; in September they were married. From December, 1973, until Ms. Buffum left him in November, 1975, respondent continuously acted as her physician and provided treatment for her alcoholism. (P-1.) Ms. Buffum was a woman of great wealth. During her marriage to respondent, she relied on respondent not only as her physician but also as her confidant and financial advisor. Extensive 9/ civil litigation which followed their broken marriage resulted in the Circuit Court of Dade County rendering a judgment in Bellman v. Gordon, Case No. 75-18967 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 1979) [affirmed, Gordon v. Gordon, 386 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980), opinion filed July 29, 1980], finding that: Edward Gordon breached this fiduciary duty [to Ms. Buffum and converted her assets to his own use and the use of his family so that nearly all of her assets were divested from her. The court ordered the return of her assets. (P-1, P-5.) In treating Ms. Buffum's alcoholism, respondent would allow her to drink limited amounts of alcohol: the thrust of his treatment program was to gradually decrease the dosages of alcohol. (Frequently, he would add water to her liquor bottles in an attempt to lessen the effects of alcohol.) He sometimes gave her an alcoholic drink to calm her, and ordinarily allowed her an alcoholic drink before evening meals. He also gave her vitamin B12 and Valium. When he thought she was having delirium tremors, he administered Thorazine. He acknowledges that, when she was in such a condition, it would have been proper to place her in the hospital, but he felt--at the time--that he could properly care for her at home. (Testimony of Gordon; P-1.) Dr. Delores Morgan, a qualified expert in family practice and alcoholism treatment, testified that respondent's medical treatment of Ms. Buffum deviated from the generally accepted and prevailing medical practice in the Miami area between 1973 and 1975. She testified Benzodiazepins (including Librium and Valium), rather than Phenathiazines (including Thorazine and Sparine) should be administered to patients suffering from alcohol withdrawal symptoms, such as delirium tremors; that such patients are medical emergencies and must be hospitalized, where their progress can be monitored and a thorough physical examination can be given, including checking eletrolyte patterns, potassium deficiencies, and chemical profiles; that, rather than decreasing doses of alcohol, treatment of alcoholism requires complete abstinence; and that if an alcoholic patient refused hospitalization, he or she should have been involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to state law. These opinions of Dr. Morgan are persuasive and are expressly adopted as findings. Respondent's contrary opinions are rejected as self-serving and uncorroborated. (Testimony of Morgan.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license to practice medicine and surgery in Florida be suspended for one (1) year. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd of June, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1982.
