Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard W. Merritt, D.C. is a chiropractic physician licensed under Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, and is actively practicing chiropractic in the State of Florida. By this action Petitioner challenges the validity of Rule 61F2- 17.007(6)(a), F.A.C.. The pertinent portions of the challenged Rule purport to define several terms to be utilized by the peer Review Committee in evaluation of chiropractor performance as brought before it. Specifically in issue are provisions of Rule 61F2-17.007: (6)(a) "Appropriate medical treatment" as used in Section 460.4104, Florida Statutes, is defined as a determination made of treatment and other services performed, which by virtue of a substantiated and properly diagnosed condition, appears to be of a type consistent with that diagnosis as reviewed by the peer review committee. "Properly utilized services" as used in Section 460.4104, Florida Statutes, means a determination made of appropriate medical treatment services rendered including frequency and duration which are substantiated as being necessary and reasonable by clinical records and reports of the provider as reviewed by the peer review committee. "Appropriate costs" as used in Section 460.4104, Florida Statutes, mean a determination made of charges submitted for properly utilized services performed which appear to be necessary and reasonable charges for similar provider services in the judgement of the peer review committee. As a licensed chiropractic physician subject to Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is substantially affected by the challenged rule because: he is a "health care provider" as defined by Section 460.403(5), Florida Statutes, and as used in Section 460.4104, the specific authority for and statute implemented by the challenged rule; the challenged rule expressly applies to health care providers and establishes definitions of statutory standards applicable to the peer review of the practice of chiropractic by chiropractic physicians including Petitioner; and the rule, when applied in conjunction with Section 460.4104, Florida Statutes, may subject chiropractic physicians, including Petitioner, to potential penal sanctions for the practice of chiropractic which violates the definitions incorporated in the challenged rule applied consistent with the statutory standard. The Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, (now Agency for Health Care Administration), Board of Chiropractic, (Board), promulgated the challenged rule and has the responsibility for implementing it as well as the whole of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes and Chapter 61F2, F.A.C..
The Issue Whether Respondent violated a rule of the Board of Medicine or the Department by advertising in a deceptive or misleading manner, thereby violating a provision of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, which makes a licensee subject to disciplinary action if found guilty of violating a rule of the Board or Department.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed as a physician by the Florida Board of Medicine since 1976 and holds license number ME0026906. He has completed a residency program in his speciality of orthopedics but has not been Board certified in this speciality by a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialists. Respondent identifies himself as a diplomate of the Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons on letterhead on correspondence mailed from his office. He has been so designated by this Academy since 1980. Respondent also identified himself as a diplomate of the Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons on various correspondence disseminated to Associated Insurance Brokers Claims Management in regard to patient E.S. Although Respondent contends that he did not intend his identification on his letterhead as a diplomate to be advertising, he did acknowledge that such designation enhances his stature as an orthopedic surgeon. Many insurance carriers approve for payment higher patient charges assessed by various specialists. Respondent testified that in order to be designated as a diplomate of the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons he had to pass a rigorous examination; however, no evidence was submitted from which a comparison could be made between this designation and a similar designation from a Board approved by the American Board of Medical Specialists (ABMS). The American Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons is not now and never has been a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties. Nor has it ever pertitioned the Florida Board of Medicine for recognition as a speciality board. The American Federation of Medical Accreditation, which recognizes the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons, has never been a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialists; nor has the Federation ever petitioned the Florida Board of Medicine for approval as a recognizing agency for medical specialties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Edward Neil Feldman guilty of violation of Sections 458.331(1)(d) and (x), Florida Statutes; and that he be given an official reprimand and fined $2,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3804 Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted except as noted below: Accepted as testimony of Dr. Feldman. However, no evidence was submitted comparing this test to the test given by a speciality board approved by the ABMS. Second sentence rejected. By stating he is a diplomate, Respondent implies certain recognition. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected. See Hearing Officer #5 and #6. See Hearing Officer #5 and #6. Rejected as irrelevant. 15. Respondent's attempt to equate the notice on letterhead that Respondent was a diplomate to an entry in a curriculum vitae (c.v.) is misplaced. A c.v. is similar to a professional life history and is totally inapt for advertising. The same cannot be said when the achievement is placed on a letterhead. 18. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas Saieva, Esquire SAIEVA & WALSH, P.A. 800 West DeLeon Street Tampa, Florida 33606-2722 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be given credit for certain answers provided on the State Officers Certification Examination (officers certification examination).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, James H. Hall, Jr., took the officers certification examination and, thereafter, challenged certain answers to questions on the examination. Specifically, challenged questions were numbered 40, 49, 63, 89, 112, 115, 156, 143, 203, and 211. At hearing, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to questions 143 and 211, leaving eight questions to be challenged. The Commission is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering officers certification examinations and establishing "standards for acceptable performance on each officer certification examination." § 943.1397(1), Fla. Stat. (2005).1 The officers certification examination is a multiple- choice examination with four answer choices for each question. Only one of the proposed answers is deemed correct. The answer deemed to be correct is the best of the four answer choices. The content of all the questions on the officers certification examination are derived from the basic recruit curriculum and from objectives that come from a job task analysis. The objectives appear in the beginning of every lesson of the curriculum. The curriculum materials are available to all applicants who take the officers certification examination. All the questions on the officers certification examination have been validated and field tested. Question 40 was clear and unambiguous and asked applicants to identify immunizations required for law enforcement officers. The correct answer to the Question 40 is (a). Petitioner selected answer choice (c), based on his belief as to what communicable disease officers should and could be vaccinated against. The correct answer to Question 40 is included in the curriculum materials and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 69 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner's reason for choosing (c) as the answer to Question 40 does not constitute persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 49 was clear and unambiguous and required the applicants to demonstrate knowledge and application of the phonetic alphabet used by the Federal Communications Commission and the United States military. The correct answer to Question 49 is (a). Petitioner selected answer (c), based on his belief that the response next to that choice "flowed, that it didn't have too many syllables in it." The correct answer to Question 49 is included in the curriculum materials and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 89 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered the question correctly. Petitioner's rationale for selecting answer (c) does not constitute persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 63 was clear and unambiguous and required the applicants to demonstrate their understanding of various mental disorders. The correct answer to the question is (d). Petitioner selected answer (a). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer chosen by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 91 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 89 is clear and unambiguous and required applicants to know what an officer should do when a suspect is shot. The correct answer is (b). Petitioner selected answer choice (c). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the same answer selected by Petitioner. Question 89 is statistically valid, and 90 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 112 is clear and unambiguous and required applicants to demonstrate knowledge relative to parties at a traffic crash scene. The correct answer to the question is (d). Petitioner selected answer choice (b). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 68 percent of all test takers who answered this question answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 115 is clear and unambiguous and required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge of the officers' duty regarding the Miranda warning. The correct answer choice is (a). Petitioner selected answer choice (b). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 85 percent of all test takers who answered this question answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 156 is clear and unambiguous and required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge regarding the consent given by an adult needing assistance. The correct answer for Question 156 is (a). Petitioner selected answer choice (b). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 73 percent of all persons who have answered this question have answered it correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct. Question 203 is clear and unambiguous and required the applicant to demonstrate knowledge regarding the officers' responsibility in domestic violence incidents. The correct answer for Question 203 is (c). Petitioner selected the answer choice (d). The correct answer is included in the curriculum material and is not the answer selected by Petitioner. The question is statistically valid, and 68 percent of all test takers who have answered this question have answered the question correctly. Petitioner failed to introduce persuasive evidence establishing that the answer he chose is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement enter a final order rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the scoring on Questions 40, 49, 63, 89, 112, 115, 156, and 203 and dismissing the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 31st day of May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Carlos De La Fe, M.D., is now and was at all times material to these proceedings, a licensed physician in the State of Florida having been issued License No. ME 0017825. On January 15, 1985, the Board of Medical Examiners issued a final order wherein disciplinary action was taken against the Respondent's license to practice medicine. The order stated in part that: it is hereby ordered and adjudged that Respondent be reprimanded. Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida shall be placed on probation for a period of three years under the following terms and conditions: * * * (d) Respondent must take and pass within six months part three of the examination by the National Board of Medical Examiners in lieu of the first 50 hours of continuing medical education. The Respondent applied to take Part III of the National Board Examination but was notified in March, 1985, by the National Board that he was not eligible to sit for the examination. On May 2, 1985, the Respondent informed the Florida Board of Medical Examiners that he was not eligible to take the National Board's test. At a meeting held by the Board of Medical Examiners on June 1, 1985, the Respondent was present and agreed to take and pass Part II of the Flex examination in lieu of the National Board of Medical Examiner's test which he was previously ordered to take and pass in the Final Order of January 15, 1985. The Flex Examination was scheduled for mid-June, 1985. Although Respondent agreed to the substitution of examinations, he indicated to the Board that he might not be able to adequately prepare for the examination in such a short period of time. Respondent took Part II of the Flex examination on June 12, 1985, but failed to pass it. Respondent received a score of 71. Flex examinations are offered every six months in June and December. The Flex Examination was offered in December, 1985 and June, 1986, but the Respondent failed to take either examination. The Respondent attempted to apply to take the December, 1985 examination, but was beyond the registration deadline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing a reprimand, a $500 administrative fine, and suspending Respondent's license to practice medicine unless and until he successfully passes the Flex Examination Part II. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of November, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1851 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as subordinate. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (None submitted) COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert K. Estes, Esquire 717 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Suite 232 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wings E. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 3233 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for license to practice medicine by endorsement pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, should be approved. Petitioner appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel and was advised of her rights and applicable procedures in administrative proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. She elected to represent herself in this matter. This case arises from the provisional denial of Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement to practice medicine, pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. By Respondent's Order, dated January 29, 1982, the application was denied pursuant to subsection 458.313(1)(d), Florida Statutes, on the ground that Petitioner had not been certified by licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., and is 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. In its Order, Respondent advised Petitioner-of her right to petition for a hearing. Petitioner so requested a hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, by letter to Respondent, dated May 2, 1982.
Findings Of Fact On October 1, 1981, Petitioner Elda Giannantonio filed an endorsement application with Respondent on a standard form provided by the agency, together with supporting documents and the standard application fee. (Exhibit 1) By "Final Order" of the Board of Medical Examiners, dated January 29, 1982,which recited action taken by the Board on December 4, 1981, it was found that Petitioner had not been certified by licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., and is 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. It was therefore concluded by the Board that Petitioner had not met the statutory requirements for licensure by endorsement pursuant to Section 458.313(d), Florida Statutes. In all other respects, Petitioner has met the necessary requirements for licensure by endorsement. (Testimony of Faircloth, Exhibit 1, Stipulation) Petitioner was born and educated in Italy where she received her Medical degree in 1953. To be licensed by endorsement in Florida, a foreign graduate must have received a standard certificate after passing an examination given by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. Petitioner received such a certificate on March 28, 1962. (Testimony of Faircloth, Petitioner, Exhibit 1) A statutory requirement of all applicants for licensure by endorsement is that the applicant must have been certified by licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (FLEX) or certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners as having completed its examination; provided that said examination required shall have been so certified within the ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for licensure. The National Board of Medical Examiners examination is administered only to students at Medical schools in the United States. Petitioner has not been certified by either licensure examination. All states, including Florida, recognize the FLEX examination as the standard test for licensure. (Testimony of Petitioner, Faircloth, Exhibit 1) Petitioner was of the mistaken opinion that the fact she had Practiced medicine in New York and had been certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates was sufficient to qualify her for licensure by endorsement, without the need for either National Board or FLEX certification. However, the instructions provided applicants by Respondent clearly showed that both requirements must be met by foreign graduates. (Testimony of Petitioner, Faircloth, Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That the application of Petitioner Elda Giannantonio for licensure by endorsement pursuant to Section 458.313, Florida Statutes, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1982, 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 24th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Elda Giannantonio, M.D. 27 Kohr Road Kings Park, NY 11754 Chris D. Rolle, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy J. Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
