The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for technologist license should be approved pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes. Petitioner appeared without counsel at the hearing and was advised of his rights in administrative proceedings. He acknowledged understanding such rights and elected to represent himself in this matter.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Irving Zahler resides at Golden Beach, Florida. In September 1979, he submitted an application to Respondent for licensure as a clinical laboratory technologist in the specialties of serology, clinical chemistry, hematology, and immunohematology. His application reflected his education, laboratory training, and experience in the field. Specifically, it showed that he had been the director of a diagnostic laboratory for a period of 32 years. Prior to that period, from 1940 to 1949, he had been employed as a medical technician for the Veterans Administration, Bronx, New York. He has obtained 35 academic college credits in his field at accredited colleges or universities. (Testimony of Petitioner, Taylor, Exhibits 1-2). By letter of February 13, 1980, Respondent's director of Office of Laboratory Services advised Petitioner that his application had been denied because he did not have 60 semester hours of education as required under Section 10D-441.25(9), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner informally requested review of the decision to determine if he met other qualification standards under the rule. By letter of arch 12, 1980, Respondent sent him another letter again informing him that his application had been denied for failure to show that he had achieved a satisfactory grade in the U.S Public Health Service approved proficiency examination in clinical laboratory technology, as specified in Section 10D-41.25(10), F.A.C. Petitioner thereafter requested an administrative hearing. (Exhibit 3). The U.S. Public Health Service proficiency examination was administered from 1975 to March 1979 when it was discontinued. Petitioner did not take the examination during that period and cannot do so at this time since it is not available to applicants. However, during the period 1967-1968, he passed qualifying examinations given by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in General, microbiology, chemistry, mematology, serology, blood grouping and typing. These examinations qualified him to serve as the director of a clinical laboratory. In 1979 he was issued a license as a director of a clinical laboratory by the City of New York. (Testimony of Petitioner, Taylor, supplemented by Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That Petitioner Irving Zahler be issued a license as a clinical laboratory technologist in those specialties set forth in his application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard Helfand, Esquire District 11 Legal Counsel 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Irving Zahler 100 Golden Beach Drive Golden Beach, Florida 33160 Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Steven W. Huss, Staff Attorney Central Operations Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES IRVING ZAHLER, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 80-710 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born in Tarlac, the Philippines, on July 16, 1959. He received a Bachelors of Science degree in October, 1978, from the University of East Manilla. He received his medical degree in April, 1983, from the University of the East Ramon Magsaysay. He obtained a license to practice medicine in the Philippines. This license is irrelevant to the present case and expired about two years after Petitioner arrived in the United States. After graduating from medical school, Petitioner worked in the Philippines. He first participated in a rotating clerkship. He then practiced medicine in a rural area of the Philippines for six months. Petitioner married a nurse in the Philippines in December, 1984. In February, 1985, she immigrated to the United States to practice nursing. Petitioner immigrated to the United States in May, 1985, and joined his wife in Queens, New York City where they resided. In July, 1985, Petitioner sat for the FMGEMS and passed the language and clinical science sections on his first attempt, leaving only the basic medical science section to be passed upon retesting. He passed this last section in January, 1986, and thereby became eligible to enter an accredited program of graduate medical education in the United States, although he evidently had some problem finding a program to accept him. In the interim, after a short period of employment unrelated to medicine, Petitioner began to seek work in a medical field. A mutual friend suggested that Petitioner contact Dr. Hidalgo, who is a Filipino-American then practicing medicine in Brooklyn, New York City. In November, 1985, Dr. Hidalgo hired Petitioner to serve as a medical assistant. Dr. Hidalgo knew that Petitioner had no license to practice medicine anywhere in the United States. Dr. Hidalgo also knew that he was not authorized to have unlicensed physicians treat his patients in any setting. At the time, Dr. Hidalgo had another Filipino-American medical assistant, but later he had four Filipino-American medical assistants. Petitioner's job with Dr. Hidalgo was to see his patients, announce that he was a medical assistant, obtain a history, perform a physical examination, form a working diagnosis, discuss the case with Dr. Hidalgo, and then carry out Dr. Hidalgo's orders. Petitioner also completed Medicaid forms using codes that Dr. Hidalgo provided him. During the first couple of years of this employment, Dr. Hidalgo remained at the offices where he consulted with Petitioner and the other medical assistants. However, during Petitioner's last six months of employment with Dr. Hidalgo, he eventually hired a licensed pediatrician to remain at the office and consult with the medical assistants. Dr. Hidalgo did not thereafter appear at the office, although fraudulently completed Medicaid forms, including some prepared by Petitioner, continued to show that he was seeing patients. Petitioner also assisted Dr. Hidalgo in performing unnecessary tests, such as x-rays on initial visits by patients complaining only of coughing in connection with what appeared to be nothing more than common upper respiratory infections. It is unlikely that Petitioner knew with certainty that his practice with Dr. Hidalgo was unauthorized. However, Petitioner testified that he was unaware that anything with respect to his involvement with Dr. Hidalgo's operation was illegal or improper. This testimony is discredited for several reasons. First, Petitioner several times sought the reassurance of Dr. Hidalgo's attorney/accountant that all of their practices were legal. Second, regardless whether Petitioner should have known that Dr. Hidalgo should not bill Medicaid for patients that he had not seen, Petitioner certainly should have known that it was improper to perform unnecessary tests on patients. In addition, when the authorities visited Dr. Hidalgo's office and questioned Petitioner, he, on the advice of Dr. Hidalgo, lied to the investigators about the practices in the offices. Petitioner was arrested by New York authorities in May, 1988. Because he had not personally profited from the Medicaid fraud and offered to cooperate with the authorities, Petitioner and the authorities were able to reach a plea bargain. The prosecution agreed to drop the charges of the unauthorized practice of medicine in return for Petitioner pleading guilty to a misdemeanor of offering to file a false instrument and receiving three years' probation. The false statement pertained to filing Medicaid claims forms for unnecessary services. Petitioner cooperated in good faith with the prosecutors in the successful prosecution of Dr. Hidalgo. Petitioner also entered his guilty plea to the misdemeanor charge in August, 1988, and was sentenced in December, 1988, to three years' probation. He has since completed the probation successfully. Returning to his medical career, Petitioner began a three year residency at Easton Hospital from July 1, 1988, through June 30, 1991. Petitioner never formally informed the hospital of the New York arrest and subsequent conviction. He mentioned the matter to the Chief of Residency early in his residency and to an attending physician later in his residency. These individuals were supportive of Petitioner, who generally performed his duties with integrity and high competence. To perform as a resident, Petitioner was required to obtain a Graduate Medical Trainee license from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This license is restricted; it may only be used at the hospital at which the licensee is training and under the supervision of licensed doctors. The application form for the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license asks: "Have you ever been convicted of a crime (exclus[ive] of parking and traffic violations) or received probation without verdict, disposition in lieu of tr[ia]l, or an accelerated rehabilitative disposition in the United States or any other country?" When first applying for the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license, Petitioner correctly indicated that he had not been so convicted. The application was dated April, 1988, and he was not arrested until May, 1988. When applying for the first annual renewal of the license on April 23, 1989, Petitioner indicated that he had been so convicted and disclosed the details of the above-described events involving Dr. Hidalgo. On April 2, 1990, Petitioner had to apply for another renewal of the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license. On this form, he answered the above-quoted question in the negative. Petitioner testified that he thought, notwithstanding the clear language of the question, that the question pertained only to the year that had passed since the prior question. No one at the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine contacted Petitioner in connection with the conviction until October, 1991, after he had resubmitted the form for the renewal of the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license, noting, where asked, that he was no longer in training. After the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine determined that Petitioner had in fact earlier disclosed the conviction, it decided to issue only a reprimand against Petitioner's Graduate Medical Trainee license, rather than place his license on six months' probation, as had earlier been considered. The formal reprimand was issued on December 20, 1991, and mailed to Petitioner on December 20, 1991. On May 26, 1992, Petitioner received an unrestricted license to practice medicine in Pennsylvania. Immediately following the conclusion of his residency at Easton Hospital on June 30, 1991, Petitioner began a fellowship at the University of South Florida College of Medicine in nephrology on July 1, 1991. In connection with the fellowship, Petitioner submitted a residency application to the Veterans Administration because his fellowship duties with the University of South Florida College of Medicine would require his working at the VA hospital in Tampa. Petitioner signed the VA residency application on April 16, 1991, certifying on that date that all information in the application was "true, correct, complete, and made in good faith," to the best of Petitioner's knowledge and belief. The VA residency application asked Petitioner to list "all states/territories in which you are now or have ever been licensed." Petitioner accurately responded by noting his Graduate Medical Trainee license. He stated that it was no longer current, having expired on June 30, 1991. The VA residency application also asked Petitioner: "Have you ever had any license revoked, suspended, denied, restricted, limited, or issued on a provisional basis?" Petitioner answered "no," which, strictly speaking, was accurate. The VA residency application asked: "During the past seven years have you been convicted, imprisoned, on probation or parole or forfeited collateral, or are you now under charges for any offense against the law not included [in the preceding question]?" Petitioner answered yes and disclosed the conviction. At the same time, Petitioner was applying to the University of South Florida College of Medicine for the fellowship in nephrology. He did not disclose the conviction, although it is not clear that the USF application requested such information. Petitioner testified that he believed that, due to the joint nature of the programs, the disclosure on the VA residency application form was sufficient, and, barring evidence of an affirmative misrepresentation on the USF application form, Petitioner is correct in this regard. At the same time that he was applying to the VA hospital and USF College of Medicine, Petitioner was also applying to the Florida Board of Medicine for licensure by endorsement. On April 16, 1991, Petitioner attested to the truth and correctness of his application to the Florida Board of Medicine seeking licensure by endorsement. Petitioner has satisfied all requirements for licensure by endorsement except for the matters that are the subject of this proceeding. The Florida Board of Medicine application asked: "Have you ever had a license to practice medicine/surgery revoked, suspended, or other disciplinary action taken in any state, territory, or country?" Petitioner answered no, which was correct because the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine did not contact Petitioner about his license until October, 1991. The Florida Board of Medicine application asked: "Have you ever been convicted of . . . a misdemeanor?" Petitioner responded in the affirmative and disclosed the details of the conviction. The Florida Board of Medicine application also asked: "Have you ever been licensed in any State, Guam, Puerto Rico or U. S. Virgin Islands? . . . (If yes, list state(s), license number(s) and date(s) of issuance.)" Petitioner responded "no" to this question, even though he had on the same day indicated on the VA residency application disclosed the existence of the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license. Petitioner's testimony that he did not regard the restricted Pennsylvania license as a license is discredited based on his correct disclosure of the license on the VA residency application. Petitioner testified that he learned from a secretary at the VA hospital or USF College of Medicine that he should disclose the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license on the VA residency application. But this "explanation" leaves unexplained why he felt no need to correct--not merely update--the Florida Board of Medicine application that he had signed presumably earlier on the same day. Petitioner neglected to update his Florida Board of Medicine application by disclosing the reprimand that he received in December, 1991 from the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine on his Graduate Medical Trainee licensee. However, this omission is understandable given Petitioner's testimony that he was unaware at the time of the duty to update and the failure of the Florida Board of Medicine application to restate this duty. Petitioner's application was considered by the Florida Board of Medicine Credentials Committee at meetings on March 16, 1992, and January 22, 1993, as well as the Florida Board of Medicine on April 3-5, 1992.. During the March 16 meeting, the Board members discussed the omission of the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license based on Petitioner's claim that he did not know that that qualified as a license. The Board evidently was not aware that Petitioner had the same day disclosed the restricted license on his VA residency application. Toward the end of its March 16 discussion of Petitioner's application, the following motions ensued after a discussion of Petitioner's failure to disclose the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license: Cavallaro: 1/ I make a motion to deny. Campbell: 2/ Seconded. Chair: 3/ Based on: Cavallaro: Based on lack of truthfulness on the application, omissions. * * * Chair: And the action taken in New York. Mr. Grossman: Did he say also the action in New York. Cavallaro: Well, yeah. Incomplete information about the action taken in New York. Based on that action. [Petitioner]: I gave that action, sir. Cavallaro: Well, based on the action taken in New York. Mr. Grossman: The criminal action? Cavallaro: Criminal action. Petitioner: But I gave that information. Cavallaro: Yeah. Okay. I corrected it. We're basing it on the action that was taken in New York. Faircloth: 4/ I'm sorry. Are you deleting then the lack of truthfulness and omissions: Mr. Grossman: It's two grounds, right? Cavallaro: Yeah. Two grounds. . . . One, for not telling us about his license in Pennsylvania and the action taken there. Two, the action--criminal action taken in New York. That's the second one. Joint Exhibit 1, pages 96-97. Following the above-cited clarification of the grounds, the Chair noted that the Board might be able to give Petitioner the benefit of the doubt as to the nature of the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license. With respect to the conviction, the Chair observed that the Board had recently licensed a prostitute and a peeping Tom. The Board then failed to pass the motion to deny by a 2 to 2 vote. At this point, Petitioner argued that "what I did in New York is bad and I paid for it." Without identifying any punishment, except completing the three years' probation by staying out of trouble, Petitioner described the payment as the work he had undertaken during his residency and the impact on his family if he were denied a Florida license. Id. at page 102. The Chair responded accurately: "We're at a deadlock right now. What's happened is you're not going to get your license--you're not going to be approved, but you're not denied either because we can't get a motion." Id. at page 102. The Chair suggested that the Board defer action until it obtained information from the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine, including how satisfied they were with Petitioner's candor. This motion passed unanimously. During the April 3, 1992, Florida Board of Medicine meeting, the full Board decided to deny Petitioner's request for licensure based on the conviction, omission of the Pennsylvania Graduate Medical Trainee license, reprimand against the Pennsylvania restricted license, and failure to disclose the reprimand. By letter dated December 7, 1992, Petitioner's counsel requested reconsideration of the decision to deny Petitioner's request for licensure. The January 22, 1993, meeting of the Credentials Committee of the Florida Board of Medicine took up the request for reconsideration. After Petitioner's counsel summarized the prior action of the Board's Credentials Committee and subsequent information, such as the issuance of an unrestricted Pennsylvania license and positive letter from the New York Medicaid prosecutor, the new Chair, Fuad Ashkar, M.D., expressed surprise that the Board allowed the matter to proceed without a simple denial based on "major Medicaid fraud." Id. at page 267. Referring to an uncontested revocation of membership by the American Medical Association based exclusively on the conviction, the new Chair stated: "I'm not prone for reconsideration. I don't see the merits of it. We don't need problem physicians in Florida. We have too many physicians." Id. at page 268. Receiving a motion to deny and a second, the Credentials Committee unanimously passed the motion. Petitioner has shown competency and academic integrity in his work at the University of South Florida College of Medicine. In general, he has a reputation for honesty among his colleagues.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. ENTERED on April 26, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 26, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The application of Petitioner, John David Young, M.D., for licensure by endorsement initially was filed on March 13, 1991. The initial application was not completed within one year and, under F.A.C. Rule 61F6-22.016, was not acted upon by the Board of Medicine. The Petitioner reapplied on September 1, 1992, and his application was denied by Respondent's Order rendered on November 4, 1993. The basis of denial stated in the November 4, 1993, Order is: You failed to show a medical education as that term is used in Chapter 458 in Sections 458.313(1)(a) and 458.311(1)(f) and have failed to show medical practice as required by Section 458.313(1)(c). Additionally, you have misrepresented your education. Sections 458.313(1)(a) and (7); 458.311(1)(c) and (d); 458.331(1)(a) and (gg), F.S. Medical Education Dr. Young received his Doctorate of Medicine Degree from Grace University School of Medicine, St. Kitts, Nevis, West Indies, June 4, 1986. Grace University is registered with the World Health Organization. Dr. Young began his medical education on May 5, 1981, at the Universidad de Mundial, Dominican Republic, where he completed one year as reflected by the transcripts found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 195. Dr. Young transferred to CETEC, Dominican Republic, because of his concerns that Universidad de Mundial would close within a few years. The transfer to CETEC occurred in late December, 1981. CETEC allowed Dr. Young to take pathology and physiology at the University of Southern California on the condition that CETEC would administer exams on those subjects before they would give him credit. The University of Southern California did not give credit for the courses, which was not a concern to Dr. Young because he was seeking credit from CETEC upon taking the CETEC examination. CETEC attempted to establish a liaison with Orange State University School of Medicine in Southern California whereby students could take courses at Orange State and receive credit by CETEC. Dr. Young completed his basic science course work at Orange State as reflected by the transcript at Joint Exhibit 1, page 193, for which CETEC gave him credit. Melvin A. Shiffman, M.D., was temporary dean at Orange State University and submitted a letter to the Board of Medicine confirming Dr. Young's attendance from May through August, 1982, and that Dr. Young took the CETEC final examinations on all the subjects taught at Orange State for which they gave credit. Dr. Young began his clinical rotations upon completion of his basic sciences as follows: Basic Medicine at Pine Ridge Indian Health Hospital, Pine Ridge, South Dakota, from August 31, 1982 to September 30, 1982; surgery at Oral Roberts University School of Medicine from October 4, 1982 to December 22, 1982; surgery at Fitkin Hospital, Swaziliand, South Africa, in 1983; basic medicine at Pine Ridge Indian Hospital, Pine Ridge, South Dakota, from April 18, 1983 to May 29, 1983. While at Pine Ridge Indian Hospital the second time, Dr. Young was asked to leave by the acting hospital administrator, on the allegation that he was attending CETEC, which was not an approved school, which in fact it was. In shock at being asked to leave based on those allegations, Dr. Young travelled to Kansas City to stay with relatives to study for the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) examination required for all foreign medical graduates. The Petitioner took and passed the ECFMG examination on July 27, 1983. Upon completion of the examination, Dr. Young continued his clinical rotations as follows: Psychiatry at Bay Front Medical Center, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida; medicine at University of Natal, Republic of South Africa, from September 26, 1983 to January 1, 1984; obstetrics/gynecology at Addington Hospital, University of Natal, Republic of South Africa, from January 3, 1984 to March 4, 1984; pediatrics from March 12 to May 13, 1984 at Addington Hospital; University of Natal; and surgery from May 13, 1984 to July 16, 1984 at Addington Hospital, University of Natal. In late May or early June, 1984, while Dr. Young was in the surgery rotation, he learned, upon calling home and speaking to his mother, that CETEC closed as of March 4, 1984. Dr. Young was shocked at learning of the closing, but decided to complete the surgery rotation, since he was working with a well known professor, and to return to the U.S. after that to try to find another medical school. Dr. Young registered at the University of Health Science in Antigua in September, 1984. The University of Health Science required Dr. Young to take their exams for credit of his basic sciences course work, which he took in December, 1984. Because the transcripts from CETEC were not available, Dr. Young produced to the University of Health Sciences cancelled checks showing payment for his tuition, which was accepted. The University of Health Sciences, therefore, required Dr. Young to pass their examinations for the basic science courses in lieu of the CETEC transcript. Dr. Young found the exams to be suspicious in that they seemed to be random photocopies of medical text book pages. Accordingly, Dr. Young went to the U.S. Embassy at Antigua to discuss the medical school and was advised to change schools because of problems they were having with the school. Dr. Young learned later that 30 former students filed suit in federal court against the school for the irregularities. Upon completion of the examinations, Dr. Young continued his rotations. He did a rotation in cardiology at Bay Pines Veterans Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida from December 18, 1984 to January 31, 1985. He did a rotation in internal medicine at Metropolitan General Hospital, Pinellas Park, Florida from February 1, 1985 to April 30, 1985. He did a rotation in pediatrics with Dr. DeGall at All Childrens Office in St. Petersburg, Florida from May 1 to July 29, 1985. Dr. Young then enrolled in Grace University Medical School, St. Kitts, Nevis, West Indies, in December, 1985. Grace University gave Dr. Young credit for course work done for previous medical schools approved by the World Health Organization, but told him that he would be required to take validation exams for that course work and would probably need to take some additional clerkships. This was explained to the Board of Medicine by the Vice President and CEO of Grace University, J.P. McNaughton-Louden, M.D., by letter dated February 20, 1991, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 103. In that letter, Dr. Louden also confirms that CETEC was approved by the World Health Organization, that CETEC closed while Dr. Young was taking rotations in South Africa, that students at University of Health Sciences in Antigua were advised by the U.S. Consul authorities to transfer because of problems, that Dr. Young would be given credit for studies done at medical schools approved by the World Health Organizations co-validated by examinations at Grace University, and that Dr. Young's clerkships had been accepted and that he graduated on June 4, 1986. The transcripts of Grace University found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 104, shows that Dr. Young was admitted in March, 1984, even though his actual enrollment was December, 1985, because the school dated the admission retroactively to the date that CETEC closed. Dr. Young listed what he considered to be his accurate date of enrollment on his application for licensure as December 21, 1985. Dr. Young did the following additional rotations for Grace University: pediatrics with Dr. DeGall in St. Petersburg, from December 29, 1985 to February 26, 1985; and general medicine and emergency medicine at a refugee camp under the auspices of the United States and Christian Missionary Life from March 3 to April 30, 1985. FLEX Exam Dr. Young took and passed the Federation of State Medical Boards' Licensing Examination (known as "FLEX") on the first attempt in December, 1988. Residency 21 Dr. Young completed one year of residency in internal medicine at Marshall University on January 31, 1989. Maurice A. Mufson, M.D., Dr. Young's professor and Chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, submitted an evaluation of the residency to the Board of Medicine recommending him as qualified and competent. After completion of the one year residency in internal medicine, Dr. Young realized that in order to fulfill his desire to practice missionary medicine, he would need a broader education. Accordingly, he changed his residency to family practice. Marshall University gave Dr. Young seven months credit from his one year of internal medicine residency towards his family practice residency which was completed in June, 1991. Robert B. Walker, M.D., Dr. Young's professor and Chairman of the Department of Family and Community Health, submitted to the Board of Medicine and evaluation of Dr. Young's family practice residency recommending him as qualified and competent. The AMA physician profile on Dr. Young, submitted to the Board of Medicine by the AMA, shows that Dr. Young completed the family practice residency and one year of internal medicine residency. However, the AMA profile mistakenly shows Dr. Young's internal medicine residency as from 2/87 to 1/88, instead of the accurate dates of 2/88 to 1/89. Dr. Young brought this error to the attention of the AMA which did not correct it. Letters recommending Dr. Young for licensure were sent to the Board of Medicine by: Stephen Petrany, M.D., Dr. Young's former Director of the Family Medicine Residency at Marshall University; and Jack Ditty, M.D., a Board certified dermatologist in Kentucky who was adjunct professor at University of Kentucky and Marshall University (who writes that Dr. Young is of high moral character and has knowledge and experience which would be necessary to practice medicine in Florida.) Post-Residency After completion of his residency in 1991, Dr. Young became licensed to practice medicine in West Virginia. Since his licensure, there have been no complaints or probable cause determinations made against his license, and no malpractice claims have been filed against him. Since completion of his residency, he has served as Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of West Virginia and as Adjunct Professor of Medicine at Marshall University School of Medicine. He also has worked as a ship's doctor for a cruise line, worked as Assistant Professor of Medicine at University of West Virginia, moonlighted as an emergency room doctor in Beckley, West Virginia, lectured extensively in the Republic of South Africa on sexually transmitted diseases, and has worked as an emergency room doctor for the U.S. Military in Arizona. ECFMG Certification The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) verifies the medical education of each person to whom it awards a certificate following passage of its examination. The ECFMG's investigation of Dr. Young's medical education took several years, because of allegations involving a Mr. Pedro de Mesones falsifying information from some medical schools in the Dominican Republic, including CETEC, on behalf of some applicants to various state medical boards. Dr. Young never met nor spoke with Pedro de Mesones nor was he involved with him in any way. The ECFMG advised Dr. Young of this investigation by letter dated June 7, 1984, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 167. Further complicating the ECFMG investigation of Dr. Young's medical education was the closing of CETEC. The Dominican Republic government established an agency known as CONES to assist in getting transcripts of students who attended CETEC. Dr. Young wrote to CONES in an attempt to obtain his CETEC transcript from CONES. Even though Dr. Young was unable to obtain transcripts of CETEC from CONES, ECFMG verified all of Dr. Young's medical education, clinical rotations, and residency. The ECFMG investigation of Dr. Young's medical education concluded with no irregularities in his credentials having been found. The ECFMG issued its certificate to Dr. Young on October 13, 1987; it is valid indefinitely. Specialty Board Certification Dr. Young is certified as a diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice for the period of 1992 - 1999. The certificate from the American Board of Family Practice indicates: that Dr. Young met the requirements to be certified as a Diplomate of the Board; that he has completed a 3-year residency; and that the American Board verified Dr. Young's medical education and found it to be authentic. Board of Medicine Investigation As part of the routine investigation of Dr. Young's application for licensure filed with the Board of Medicine, the Board staff wrote to CONES requesting confirmation of the CETEC education and received a response dated March 6, 1992, by letter found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 87, stating that Dr. Young was not found on their lists and that they could not process the Board's request until they had Dr. Young's student registration number. However, an earlier certification by CONES dated May 12, 1987, found at Joint Exhibit 1, pages 9 and 10, shows that CONES did have Dr. Young's student identification number and had a file on him. Paul L. Allyn, M.D. also confirmed to the Board of Medicine by letter dated June 30, 1993, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 88, that Dr. Young did attend CETEC. The transcript of the Credentials Committee Meeting at Joint Exhibit 2 shows that the committee focused on the March 6, 1992, letter rather than the May 12, 1987, letter. The Board staff contacted the University of Health Sciences to confirm Dr. Young's attendance and received a letter from its President dated October 21, 1991, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 99. That letter states that Dr. Young did not receive credit for his previous medical education, that he attended the institution from September 19, 1984 to July 11, 1985, that he did not leave the institution in good standing, and that he was dismissed because he was unable to provide the school with official transcripts from the previous medical school he attended. Dr. Young had not seen that letter until a few months before hearing while reviewing the Board's file on him in preparation for the hearing. Dr. Young takes issue with the statements in the letter because the school did give him credit for the rotations he completed while enrolled at Universidad de Mundial and because he never had been told that he left the institution in poor standing. Dr. Young left the University upon advice of the U.S. Consulate in Antigua. The transcript of the Credentials Committee Meeting at Joint Exhibit 2 shows that the committee focused on this letter rather than Dr. Young's affidavits submitted with his application which contradict the letter. The Board obtained and reviewed the ECFMG file on Dr. Young in considering his application. In the ECFMG file at Joint Exhibit 1, page 230, is a letter to the ECFMG from John Casken, Quality Assurance Coordinator, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, dated May 15, 1985, relating to Dr. Young's second clinical rotation at Pine Ridge Indian Health Hospital in 1983. In the letter, Mr. Casken states: that a closer look at Dr. Young's credentials after he presented himself for the second time showed that he had basically no medical education; that Dr. Young was asked to leave; and that, had they known in 1982 when he appeared for his first rotation what they knew in 1983, they would not have taken on Dr. Young as a m edical student. Dr. Young first saw that letter a few months before the hearing while preparing for trial. Dr. Young disagrees with that letter in that the schools he was attending, Universidad de Mundial, and after that, CETEC, were both approved by the World Health Organization. Further, a letter written on April 18, 1985, by Leonard L. Finger, Hospital Administrative Officer, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to the ECFMG, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 231 , verifies Dr. Young's rotation without adverse comment. Further, the ECFMG found no problem with Dr. Young's education or with the rotations at Pine Ridge. The transcript of the Credentials Committee Meeting at Joint Exhibit 2 shows that the committee focused on Dr. Caskin's letter rather than Mr. Finger's letter and the fact that all of Dr. Young's medical schools were approved by the World Health Organization. Board of Medicine Practice and Policy The Board of Medicine has licensed individuals who have attended CETEC. The Board of Medicine and its staff rely upon the ECFMG certifications of applicants as verification of their education. The certification by the American Board of Family Practice complies with the requirement of Rule 61F6-22.004(2) and 61F6-22.018(3)(d). The ECFMG certificate complies with the requirements of Section 458.311(1)(f), (2), and (3), Florida Statutes; There is nothing in the rules of the Board or Chapter 458, and no Board policy or practice, which prohibits an applicant from going to more than one university or medical school, from going to more than one medical school and failing out of one, or from going to a school that later goes out of business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine, enter a final order granting the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7146 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted and incorporated. 2.-4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 5.-15. Accepted and incorporated. 16. The pediatrics rotation at Addington Hospital, University of Natal was from March 12 to May 13, 1984, and the surgery rotation was from May 13, 1984 to July 16, 1984. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 17.-30. Accepted and incorporated. 31.-37. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 38. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 7.-8. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 9.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, the lack of a credible Orange State transcript to support the Petitioner's testimony is more a reflection on Orange State's credibility than on the Petitioner's. Orange State was in existence for a short period of time, never was recognized by the State of California, and has been defunct for about ten years. It is understandable why the Petitioner has had difficulty getting a credible response from Orange State. The irregularities in the response from Orange State do not impugn the Petitioner's truthfulness in attempting to describe his unorthodox and circuitous medical education in his application for licensure. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, it is even more understandable why the Petitioner has had difficulty getting a credible response from CETEC. As with Orange State, CETEC was closed about ten years ago. In the case of CETEC, which was in the Dominican Republic, the closing was under allegations of misconduct and fraud. Records were unavailable for a period of time while the government of the Dominican Republic investigated. Later, records were destroyed. As with Orange State, the irregularities in the response from CETEC do not impugn the Petitioner's truthfulness in attempting to describe his unorthodox and circuitous medical education in his application for licensure. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Respondent did not leave UHSA in good standing. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 14.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Third and fourth sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 20.-21. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. The city in South Africa was Durban, not Durham. CETEC was the affiliate until it closed in March, 1994. The rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted. The rest is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 24.-25. Accepted and incorporated. 25. Accepted but unnecessary. (No such finding was made.) COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Watson Lambert, Esquire 2851 Remington Green Circle Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3749 Gregory A. Chaires Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Peter P. McKeown, is a graduate of the University of Queensland Medical School in Brisbane, Australia. He holds the degrees of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery. Doctorates of Medicine, under the British system, are reserved for specialists. Nonetheless, the medical training Petitioner received equates to that leading up to the award of the degree of Doctor of Medicine in the United States, and he is a physician and licensed as such in several states. He has completed residencies in general and thoracic surgery in Australia and the United States and has taken advanced training in cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at Emory University. Immediately before coming to the University of South Florida, (USF), Dr. McKeown was an Assistant Professor of Surgery at the University of Washington. In mid to late 1988, Dr. McKeown responded to an advertisement USF had placed in the Journal of the American Medical Association seeking applicants qualified for appointment at the Associate Professor level "... to join the Department of Surgery at the University of South Florida College of Medicine as the Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery." He was selected for the position and joined the faculty effective May 1, 1989. All the correspondence leading up to Petitioner's joining the University faculty referred not only to his appointment as Associate Professor but also his assignment as Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division. Only the actual state employment contract described his employment exclusively as Associate Professor and made no mention of the Chief position. Under these circumstances, Petitioner did not gain any proprietory interest in the position of Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division. Dr. McKeown held the position of Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division until April, 1994, when, as a result of a decision made by the Chairman of the school's Department of Surgery, he was replaced as Chief and that position was filled, on a temporary basis, by the Department Chair. Petitioner claims that when he arrived at USF to assume the directorship, an administrative position, he saw an opportunity to develop the position into something significant. He contends he would not have come to USF unless he was to be the Chief of the Division as there was no appeal to him in a position as a general faculty member. He wanted an opportunity to budget, hire people, and develop plans and programs, and in order to advance in academic medicine, one must, at some point, hold an administrative position. Apparently the Department of Surgery had experienced a rapid turnover in faculty. It is not clear whether this caused or was the result of a dispute with administrators and medical staff at Tampa General Hospital, (TGH), where much of the clinical medical school activity is carried on. However, the program was recognized as being weak in cardiothoracic surgery, and this condition offered Petitioner the challenge he wanted. In his five years as Chief, Petitioner increased both the number and quality of personnel and revenues considerably. He developed affiliations with several foreign universities and recruited qualified people, built up the laboratory, secured more grants, developed a program of continuing medical education and raised the examination scores of the school's graduates. He opened new clinical programs and built up both billings and collections to the point where the program revenues were increased at least 2 to 5 times. By 1992- 1993, the Division was making money and generating a surplus and still used clinic funds to support research. During his tenure as Chief of the Division, Petitioner served under two Department of Surgery chairmen. The first was Dr. Connar, the individual who recruited him; and the incumbent is Dr. Carey, the individual who removed him. Petitioner asserts that at no time during his tenure in the position of Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division was he ever told, by either Department Chairman, that his performance was unsatisfactory. All Division heads within the Department were, from time to time, counseled about personnel costs, and Petitioner admits he had some differences with Dr. Carey about that subject and some other financial aspects of the job, but nothing different than anywhere else in academia. Petitioner was removed by Dr. Carey based in part upon his alleged inability to get along with people. Though he claims this is not true, he admits to three areas of conflict. The first related to his objection to transplants being accomplished by unqualified surgeons which, he alleges, Dr. Carey permitted to further his own ends. The second related to the pediatric heart transplant program for which Petitioner supported one candidate as chair and Dr. Carey supported another. The third related to Petitioner's reluctance to hire a physician whom Dr. Carey wanted to hire but to whom Petitioner purportedly objected. Of the three areas of dispute, only the first two came before his removal, but he contends at no time was he advised his position was a problem for the Department. By the same token, none of Petitioner's annual performance ratings reflected any University dissatisfaction with his performance. At no time was he ever rated unsatisfactory in any performance area; and prior to his removal, he had no indication his position as Chief of the Division was in jeopardy. Dr. Carey indicates he did counsel with Petitioner often regarding his attitude but did not rate him down because he hoped the situation would improve. Dr. McKeown was called to meet with Dr. Carey in his office on April 12, 1994. At that meeting, Dr. Carey was very agitated. He brought up the "Norman" incident and indicated he was going to remove Petitioner as Chief of the Division. Dr. McKeown admits to having made an inappropriate comment regarding Dr. Norman, another physician, to a resident in the operating room while performing an operation. He also admits that it was wrong to do this and apologized to Dr. Norman both orally and in writing shortly thereafter. Dr. Norman accepted his apology and Petitioner asserts that after his removal, Dr. Norman called him and assured him he, Norman, had not prompted the removal action. Dr. Norman did not testify at the hearing. Dr. Carey removed Petitioner from his position as Chief because of the comments he had made regarding Dr. Norman. Almost immediately after the meeting was concluded, Dr. Carey announced in writing his assumption of the Chief's position, in which position he remained until he hired Dr. Robinson as Chief in April, 1995. Petitioner found out that Carey's threat to remove him had been carried out the following day when his nurse told him his removal had been announced at the Moffett Cancer Center. He thereafter heard other reports of his removal from other sources, and based on what had happened, concluded his removal was intended to be and constituted a disciplinary action for his comment regarding Dr. Norman. He was not advised in advance of Carey's intention to impose discipline nor given an opportunity to defend himself before the action was taken. He claims he was not given any reason for his removal before or at the time of his dismissal. It is found, however, that the removal was not disciplinary action but an administrative change in Division leadership. Dr. McKeown at first did nothing about his removal, believing it would blow over. However, after he heard his removal had been publicized, he called several University officials, including a Vice-President, the General Counsel and the Provost, to see how the matter could be handled. He claims he either got no response to his inquiries or was told it was a Medical College problem. He then met with the Dean of the College of Medicine who indicated he could do nothing. After he was removed as Division Chief, Petitioner's salary remained the same as did his supplement from his practice. He claims, however, his removal has had an adverse effect on his reputation in the medical and academic communities. It is his belief that people now feel something is wrong with him. Dr. Carey's blunt announcement of his assumption of the Chief's position, without any reasons being given for that move or credit being given to Petitioner for his past accomplishments has had an impact on his ability to work effectively. After his removal, he received calls from all over the world from people wanting to know what had happened. The removal has, he claims, also made it more difficult for him to get grants and has, thereby, adversely impacted his ability to do productive research. In addition, his removal made it difficult for him to carry out his academic duties. His specialty is still presented in student rotations, only in a different place in the medical curriculum. Dr. McKeown has sought reinstatement to the administrative position of Chief of the Division. He is of the opinion that Dr. Carey's action in removing him from his position as Division Chief was capricious and damaging to the University as well as to his career. Petitioner admits he could have been less confrontational in the performance of his duties as Division Chief, but he knows of no complaints about him from TGH, All Children's Hospital or the VA Hospital. There are, however, letters in the files of the Department Chairman which indicate some dissatisfaction with Petitioner's relationships in some quarters and, as seen below, there were signs of dissatisfaction from both TGH and All Children's Hospitals. Petitioner admits he may have been somewhat overbearing or abrasive, but neither his alleged inability to properly steward finances nor his alleged inability to get along with people were mentioned to him at the time of dismissal or before. After Dr. Carey assumed the Chairmanship of the Department of Surgery in July, 1990, he saw Dr. McKeown frequently on an official basis at first. A Chief, as Petitioner was, has many and varied functions such as administration, teaching, fiscal, research, clinic administration and the like. People skills are important because of the necessary interface with colleagues, faculty, administrators and the public. When Dr. Carey came to USF, Dr. McKeown had not been in place very long, and the Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery was not doing well financially. There were contract negotiations going on with the VA Hospital which were not going well, at least partly because, Dr. Carey asserts, Dr. McKeown had made some major unacceptable demands. As a result, Dr. Carey stepped in, along with Dr. Benke, who was very effective in dealing with the VA, and as a result, an agreement was reached which resulted in somewhere between $275,000 and $300,000 per year coming in which put the Division in the black. Dr. Carey recalls other instances indicating Dr. McKeown's inability to get along with others. One related to the relationship with TGH previously mentioned. TGH had made a decision to use a particular physician as head of its transplant program because, allegedly, Dr. McKeown had so angered private heart patients they would not let him be appointed even though Dr. McKeown was Dr. Carey's choice. As it turned out, Dr. Carey convinced the TGH Director and another physician to agree to a plan whereby Dr. McKeown would be head of the program 50 percent of the time. This would have been good for the University, but Dr. McKeown refused indicating that if he could not be in charge all of the time, he would not be in charge at all. Another incident relates to All Children's Hospital. That institution wanted to initiate a pediatric heart transplant program and a meeting was set up to which Dr. McKeown was invited. Petitioner so infuriated the community surgeons attending that meeting they would not work with him, and without his, Carey's, efforts, Dr. Carey claims the program was doomed to failure. As a result, Carey asked Dr. Nevitsky to help get the program started. This gave the USF an opportunity to participate in the program, but when Nevitsky left, they lost it. Still another example, according to Dr. Carey, is the fact that some surgeons on staff have called to complain about Dr. McKeown's attitude and unwillingness to compromise and negotiate and about his demands for service and staff, all of which creates friction among the hospital staff. A few days before Dr. Carey removed Petitioner as Chief, he spoke with the Dean of the College of Medicine, a Vice-president of the University, and others who would be impacted, about his concern regarding the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division and, in fact, he had had discussions with other officials even before that time. Long before making his decision to remove Petitioner, Carey spoke of his consideration of possibly shifting the emphasis within the Division to non-cardiac thoracic surgery in place of the cardiac program which Dr. Carey felt was not very successful. He believed the program did not do enough procedures to support the medical school affiliation. Dr. Carey chose to dismiss Dr. McKeown as Chief of the Division on April 12, 1994, after learning of McKeown's destructive attack on another surgeon before a junior physician in a public place, an operating room, (the Norman incident). He notes that over the years there was a building concern regarding Dr. McKeown's abilities as an administrator, and this incident with Dr. Norman was the last straw. Dr. Carey had received complaints about Petitioner from other physicians, all of which he discussed with Dr. McKeown. Finally, with the Norman incident, it became abundantly clear that Dr. McKeown's capabilities as a leader had diminished to the point where a change was necessary. Before he dismissed Petitioner, and during the investigation which led up to the dismissal, Dr. Carey admits, he did not give Dr. McKeown any opportunity to give any input to the decision. By the time Carey met with McKeown on April 12, 1994, his mind was made up. The Norman incident was demonstrative of what Carey perceived as McKeown's lack of supervisory ability, and it was that factor which led Carey to the ultimate decision to remove McKeown. He felt it necessary to act then and not leave Dr. McKeown in place during the search for a replacement. Petitioner cites alleged comments made by Carey to others that he would have relieved anyone for doing what Petitioner did in the Norman incident. Dr. Carey cannot recall having made such a statement. He claims he considered disciplinary action against Petitioner for the Norman comments but decided against it. However, it was the last in a series of incidents which caused him to question the propriety of McKeown's placement in the Chief's position, and which ultimately cemented his decision to replace him. Dr. Carey met with Dr. McKeown several times before the dismissal and counseled him about administrative deficiencies in his performance, but he never told Dr. McKeown that unless he improved, he would be dismissed. This is consistent with Petitioner's testimony that he was not warned of his shortcomings or of the administration's dissatisfaction with his performance. Disagreements in conversations between superior and subordinate, meant by the former to be corrective in nature, are not always taken as such by the latter. Dr. Carey did not document any of this in Dr. McKeown's personnel files but put some of the information he received by way of communications from others in the files. These are the letters submitted by the University, pursuant to agreement of the parties, subsequent to the hearing. They contributed to Carey's increasing concern about Dr. McKeown's ability to lead the Division. At no time, however, though he questioned Dr. McKeown's leadership, did Dr. Carey ever question his good faith and sincerity, nor does he do so now. When he finally decided action was necessary, on April 12, 1994, Dr. Carey wrote a memorandum to the Medical College faculty concerning his assumption of the position as Chief of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Division. He also advised Dr. McKeown of his removal. Dr. Carey remained in the Chief's position, holding that title in an administrative capacity and not from a clinical standpoint, for approximately one year, intending to stay in the position only until he could find a fully qualified thoracic surgeon to take the job. After Carey removed Petitioner, he was contacted by the Medical College Dean who asked that he get with McKeown and try to work something out. He thereafter offered Dr. McKeown the position of Chief of the cardiac section of the Division but McKeown declined. Dr. Carey also, on April 26, 1994, wrote to TGH recommending that Dr. McKeown be allowed to have more impact on the hospital's transplant program, pointing out that the change in McKeown's position at the University was occasioned by a need for a change in leadership. According to Dr. Tennyson J. Wright, Associate Provost of the University, disciplinary action against nonunion faculty members is governed by Rule 6C4-10.009, F.A.C., and requires notice of proposed action be given before such disciplinary action is taken. The contract which Dr. McKeown holds and has held since the inception of his tenure at the University, is a standard USF/State University System contract. It reflects Petitioner was hired as an Associate Professor, which is one of the three types of personnel classifications used within the system. These are faculty, administration and support. Petitioner's contract does not refer to his holding the Division Chief position and it is not supposed to. Such a position is an administrative appointment within a Department and a working title used to define the holder's duties, and service in such a position is at the pleasure of the Department Chair. Appointment to or removal from a Chief position is an administrative assignment. The position of Department Chairperson, on the other hand is a separate position and subclassification within the University classification system and is different.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Peter P. McKeown's, grievance against the University of South Florida School of Medicine arising from his removal as Chief, Cardiothoracic Surgery Division in the Department of Surgery be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-1832 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. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Though the documents in question refer to appointment, in actuality the personnel action was an appointment to the faculty with an administrative assignment to the position of Director of the Division. & 10. Accepted. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 19. Accepted and incorporate herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as inconsistent with the better evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as inconsistent with the better evidence of record. & 27. Accepted. & 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 32. - 34. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as inconsistent with the better evidence of record. 35. - 37. Accepted. 38. Rejected as argument. 39. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Benjamin H. Hill, III, Esquire William C. Guerrant, Jr., Esquire Danelle Dykes, Esquire Hill, Ward & Henderson, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Tampa, Florida 33601 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez 109 North Brush Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 639 Tampa, Florida 33601 Olga J. Joanow, Esquire University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620 Noreen Segrest, Esquire General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, ADM 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner's application for a medical license by endorsement should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Findings of the Facts of tbe Recommended Order are adopted by the Board of Medicine as being based on competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered certifying petitioner's application to the Department of Professional Regulation, for licensure by endorsement with, should the Board be persuaded that such is appropriate, placement of petitioner on probation for such term and subject to such conditions as the Board may reasonably specify. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of April 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed by the State of Florida as a laboratory technologist. Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a supervisor. On February 2, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's application to take the supervisory examination for the stated reason that Petitioner did not have ten years of experience. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Fine Arts from Florida International University. Petitioner has supplemented his education by taking additional science courses. The science courses taken before and after Petitioner received his Bachelor's degree total 26 semester credits. The courses taken after receipt of his degree have been specifically related to his field. Petitioner has been employed by the Miami Heart Institute since July 11, 1976, except for the period between September, 1976, and August, 1977. Dr. Jerome Benson is a pathologist and is the Director of Laboratories at the Miami Heart Institute. He is also Vice Chairman of the National Accreditation for Clinical Laboratory Sciences, the organization which accredits approximately 1,000 programs in the medical technology field and which is responsible for the Committee on Higher Education and Accreditation of the United States Office of Education, which accredits laboratories. He is familiar with accreditation of medical technology programs throughout the country and locally. He serves on the Advisory Committee at Miami-Dade Community College, and he planned the curriculum for the medical technology programs at both Miami- Dade Community College and at Florida International University. He was recognized as an expert by both parties. Dr. Benson believes that Petitioner is qualified to sit for the supervisory examination in terms of education, in terms of experience time, in terms of intent of the law, and in terms of protecting the public safety. He further believes that the science courses Petitioner has taken, both pre-baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate, qualify Petitioner for a Bachelor's degree in medical technology. Norman Bass was formerly Petitioner's immediate supervisor. He evaluates Petitioner's performance in the laboratory as excellent and believes that Petitioner is qualified through experience and academic courses to sit for the supervisory examination. At the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Petitioner had a total of 12,935 hours of work time at the Miami Heart Institute. Respondent considers 37.5 hours as constituting a full work week. George S. Taylor, Jr., reviewed Petitioner's application on behalf of Respondent. The application was received on January 18, 1982, and was denied on February 2, 1982, for the reason that Petitioner did not have ten years' experience. At the time, Respondent did not have current transcripts reflecting courses taken by Petitioner. Respondent did not request any, but simply used transcripts on file with Respondent which had been filed when Petitioner applied for his technologist's license, even though Petitioner's application for licensure as a supervisor reflected that he had taken various science courses at Miami-Dade Community College. Taylor is of the opinion that an applicant with 120 college credits must have between 25 and 30 of those credits in science courses in order to have a major in science; an applicant with 90 semester hours in college is required to have 17 to 24 credits in science in order to have a science major.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application to take the examination for a supervisor's license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel S. Forman, Esquire The Counsel Building 2016 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Health Department 1350 North West 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Petitioner meets the requirements for licensure by endorsement pursuant to section 458.313, Florida Statutes (2013), and whether the Board’s interpretation of section 458.311(3), Florida Statutes, is an unadopted rule in violation of section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations of the parties and the documentary evidence presented, the following facts are found: Petitioner, Leon Rawner, M.D., is a licensed medical doctor in the state of Wisconsin and an applicant for licensure as a medical doctor by endorsement in Florida. The Florida Board of Medicine is the agency charged with the licensing and regulation of allopathic medical doctors pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Applicants for licensure by endorsement must meet the requirements specified in section 458.313. Those requirements include meeting the qualifications identified in section 458.311(1)(b)-(g) (alternative one) or section 458.311(1)(b)-(e), (g), and (3) (alternative two). Petitioner is over 21 years of age, and has submitted a set of fingerprints on a form and under procedures specified by the Department of Health, along with a payment in an amount equal to the costs incurred by the Department of Health. Petitioner has successfully passed the required criminal background screening. Petitioner’s application for licensure by endorsement demonstrates that he is licensed to practice medicine in another jurisdiction, the state of Wisconsin, and that he has been active in the practice of medicine for at least two of the four years immediately preceding the application. Petitioner has a clean record in his current medical practice in Wisconsin and is not under any investigation in any jurisdiction for an act or offense which would constitute a violation under section 458.331, and has not committed any act or offense in any jurisdiction which would constitute the basis for disciplining a physician pursuant to section 458.331. Petitioner has completed the equivalent of two academic years of pre-professional, postsecondary education, as determined by rule of the Board, which included, at a minimum, courses in anatomy, biology, and chemistry prior to entering medical school. Petitioner received a bachelor’s degree from Brandeis University, an accredited United States university. Petitioner has passed the appropriate medical licensure examinations, the United States Medical Licensing Examination, Step-1, Step-2, and Step-3. Petitioner holds an active, valid certificate issued by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) and has passed the examination used by the Commission. In 2006, Petitioner graduated with a degree of Doctor of Medicine from American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine. Petitioner graduated from an allopathic foreign medical school (American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine) which is recognized by the World Health Organization. Petitioner completed all of the formal requirements for graduation from American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine. Petitioner’s application for licensure demonstrates that he has completed the academic year of supervised medical training prior to graduation as required under section 458.311(3)(d). Petitioner did not graduate from an allopathic medical school or allopathic college recognized and approved by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Office of Education. Petitioner did not graduate from an allopathic medical school or allopathic college within a territorial jurisdiction of the United States recognized by the accrediting agency of the governmental body of that jurisdiction. Petitioner is not a graduate of an allopathic foreign medical school registered with the World Health Organization and certified pursuant to section 458.314, Florida Statutes, as having met the standards required to accredit medical schools in the United States or reasonably comparable standards. Petitioner has not completed an approved residency or fellowship of at least two years in one specialty area. Petitioner’s application for licensure demonstrates that he does not meet the postgraduate training requirements under section 458.311(1)(f)3. Petitioner completed one year of residency training in the Internal Medicine Program at Mt. Sinai-Elmhurst Hospital Center, Queens, New York. Besides the residency training program at Mt. Sinai– Elmhurst Hospital Center, Queens, New York, Petitioner has not completed any other residency or fellowship training. Petitioner does not have two years of any residency or fellowship training which can be counted toward regular or subspecialty certification by a board recognized and certified by the American Board of Medical Specialties. Since January 24, 2011, Dr. Rawner has been practicing medicine in Wausau, Wisconsin, as a staff physician with Knee Pain Solutions Center. Accordingly, he has been in the active practice of medicine for the two years preceding his Florida application. Dr. Rawner submitted his application for licensure by endorsement on March 13, 2013. Supplemental documentation was filed with the Board by letter dated March 18, 2013. In that letter, Dr. Rawner expressly stated that he was relying on the second alternative for establishing licensure by endorsement, which does not include the requirements identified in subsection 458.311(1)(f). On April 3, 2013, the Board requested additional information, and in response, Dr. Rawner provided a copy of his undergraduate degree and information related to his one year of supervised medical training. Other information requested in the April 3, 2013, letter was sent directly to the Board office by the appropriate agencies, including an official United States medical examination transcript, indicating that Dr. Rawner passed USMLE Steps I, II, and III; a letter from the residency program director, indicating that Dr. Rawner completed one year of residency training; confirmation from the Wisconsin Medical Board confirming his current, valid medical license in the state of Wisconsin; an American Medical Association (AMA) profile letter; and Dr. Rawner’s fingerprints and clear background check. Program Operations Administrator Chandra Prine notified Dr. Rawner by letter dated June 26, 2013, that he was required to appear before the Credentials Committee of the Board. The purpose of the appearance was to discuss: Failure to meet the training requirement pursuant to section 458.313(1)(a), 458.311(1)(f)3.c., Florida Statutes. Failure to complete an academic year of supervised clinical training pursuant to section 458.311(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Dr. Rawner appeared before the credentials committee of the Board of Medicine on August 1, 2013. The committee recommended that his license be denied. On August 22, 2013, the Board of Medicine issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure, stating that it intended to deny Dr. Rawner’s application because Dr. Rawner did not meet the requirements of section 458.313(1), which requires an applicant to meet the qualifications outlined in either section 458.311(1)(b)-(g) (alternative one), or in section 458.311(1)(b)- (e), (g) and (3) (alternative two). The notice stated that with respect to alternative one, Dr. Rawner did not meet the requirements of section 458.311(1)(f)3., because he had not completed an approved residency or fellowship of at least two years in one specialty area. With respect to alternative two, the Board determined that Dr. Rawner did not meet the requirements of section 458.311(3)(c) because, in the Board’s view, the section was inapplicable to Dr. Rawner because he had completed all requirements of the foreign medical school, with none outstanding, and did not meet the requirement of (3)(d) because he had not completed an academic year of supervised clinical training in a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association. Dr. Rawner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing with respect to the Notice of Intent to Deny, and the matter was reconsidered at the credentials committee’s meeting on October 3, 2013. The credentials committee voted to reconsider the application based on the issues presented in the Petition. On October 22, 2013, the Board issued an Amended Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure. With respect to alternative two, in the Amended Notice, the Board stated: [t]he application file reveals that Dr. Rawner fails to meet subsection (3) for the reasons set forth below. Subsection (3) provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (1)(f)3., a graduate of a foreign medical school need not present the certificate issued by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates or pass the examination utilized by that commission if the graduate: Has received a bachelor’s degree from an accredited United States college or university. Has studied at a medical school which is recognized by the World Health Organization. Has completed all of the formal requirements of the foreign medical school, except the internship or social science requirements, and has passed part I of the National Board of Medical Examiners examination or the Educations Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates examination equivalent. Has completed an academic year of supervised clinical training in a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association and upon completion has passed part II of the National Board of Medical Examiners examination or the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates examination equivalent. Subpart (3)(c) provides in relevant part all of the formal requirements of the foreign medical school, except the internship or social service requirements, and has passed certain examinations. A plain reading of this subpart is that the foreign medical school has an internship or social service requirement and that the internship or social service requirement has not been completed. The application file demonstrates that Dr. Rawner graduated in June, 2006, with a degree of Doctor of Medicine from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine. Thus, subpart (3)(c) is inapplicable to Dr. Rawner, because the application file reveals that he completed all of the formal requirements of the foreign medical school and there are no outstanding or pending internship or social service requirements. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated that he meets the requirements for licensure by endorsement set forth in Section 458.313(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Amended Notice no longer listed failure to complete an academic year of supervised clinical training as a basis for the denial of Dr. Rawner’s application. There is no persuasive evidence presented that Respondent’s interpretation of the requirements of section 458.311, Florida Statutes, as it applies to this case, is a statement of general applicability.
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 approving Leon Rawner, M.D.’s application for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 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 28th day of April, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna C. McNulty, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Amy W. Schrader, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Allison M. Dudley, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Division of Medical Quality Assurance Boards/Councils/Commissions 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Edward A. Tellechea, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issues presented concern the question of whether Dr. Paul Joseph Rucinski (Petitioner) has completed the prerequisites for standing the license examination of the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine (Respondent). This examination is known as the FLEX examination. In particular, Petitioner has been denied the opportunity to take this examination based upon the perception held by the Respondent that Petitioner did not complete core clerkship training in internal medicine, one of the prerequisites to undergo the examination session.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner attended medical school at Ross University in the British West Indies and received his medical degree. Consequently, for purposes of license examination in Florida, Dr. Rucinski is considered to be a foreign medical graduate. Part of the medical training in his undergraduate course work was received in the United States. This education was in association with completion of clerkships necessary to obtain his medical degree. An organization known as the Jacksonville Health Education Program, constituted of certain hospitals in the city of Jacksonville, Florida, was providing clerkship training for medical students during the time within which Petitioner received his clerkship training. The Jacksonville Health Education Program (JHEP) was affiliated with the University of Florida School of Medicine and as such was part of that institution's educational program. In this connection, Petitioner was referred to JHEP as an organization which could arrange for his clinical clerkship training. As described in Petitioner's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence, Petitioner received clerkship training in psychiatry, ob/gyn, surgery, pediatrics, family practice, dermatology, anesthesiology, general surgery, emergency room medicine and critical care, all through JHEP. Respondent takes no issue with the sufficiency of that training to establish credentials for license examination in Florida. This point of view is held because Respondent is convinced that the institutions within which the training in the various specialties was conducted were allopathic institutions. The only contention in this cause arises based upon the Respondent's belief that the clerkship training which Petitioner received in internal medicine was not given in an institution associated with JHEP and did not have allopathic emphasis. Instead, the focus of the training in internal medicine was alleged by the Respondent to be osteopathic. This speaks to core clerkship training the Petitioner received in internal medicine at Jacksonville General Hospital, Jacksonville, Florida, now known as Jacksonville Medical Center. The period of time within which the training was received was November 5, 1982, to January 27, 1983, and again on April 11, 1983, to June 17, 1983. The clerkship in internal medicine was supervised by Dr. Glenn J. Gerber, an osteopathic physician. According to Dr. Gerber, Petitioner successfully completed his core clerkship training in internal medicine as evidenced by the evaluation forms set forth in Petitioner's composite Exhibit 7 admitted into evidence. Although Dr. Gerber is not licensed pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, to practice allopathic medicine, he was board certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in the field of internal medicine effective 1978. This board is a board pertaining to allopathic medicine. Moreover, Dr. Gerber's unrefuted testimony establishes that training in internal medicine for allopathic medical students versus osteopathic medical students does not differ. To his understanding, textbooks do not exist which deal with osteopathic internal medicine separate and apart from allopathic internal medicine. During the time that Dr. Gerber taught at the Jacksonville General Hospital, to include the time of instruction pertaining to Petitioner, other students who sought medical degrees in allopathic medicine were involved in training which he conducted. Dr. Gerber served as the director of clinical education for the Jacksonville General Hospital during the period 1981 through 1984. The nature of the internal medicine training which Petitioner received through Jacksonville General Hospital was under the auspices of an internal medicine service for students as well as residents. The daily functions of the core internal medicine training included daily rounds where patients were met who had been admitted the night before and involvement with patients who were being managed on an ongoing basis. This training included frequent pathology rounds, cardiology rounds almost daily and radiology rounds daily. Typically, different topics were considered which had been assigned the night before. An example would be miocardial infraction. Discussions were entered into on current management and therapy. On October 18, 1976, Jacksonville General Hospital was informed by letter that it had been accepted as a member of the JHEP Consortium. This correspondence was from D. J. Lanahan, president of the JHEP Board of Trustees and appears on the stationery of J. Hillis Miller Health Center, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Jacksonville Division. A copy of the letter is found as Petitioner's Exhibit 10 admitted into evidence. This correspondence does not set forth a circumstance whereby Jacksonville General Hospital is received as a member for purposes of offering core clerkship training in allopathic medicine, nor does it establish a contrary position. On the other hand, Lois Gray, director of medical legal affairs at Jacksonville Medical Center, offered unrefuted testimony that Dr. Gerber held a faculty appointment with JHEP. Petitioner's Exhibit 11 admitted into evidence, which describes the nature of JHEP's affiliation with the University of Florida, J. Hillis Miller Health Center, speaks to the concept of undergraduate medical education but it is silent on the question of Jacksonville General Hospital's involvement in the education of undergraduate medical students and their clinical clerkship training. Respondent's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence concerns the fact that the Jacksonville General Hospital in the years 1982 and 1983 was associated with the American Osteopathic Association and provided internship programs and residency programs related to osteopathic medicine; however, this excerpt of the yearbook and directory of osteopathic physicians does not exclude the possibility of affiliation with the accrediting organization related to hospitals that provide allopathic care. In fact, Jacksonville General Hospital was recognized as an allopathic facility by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals in the relevant time frame. Further, an excerpt of the 1982-83 directory of residency training programs accredited by the accreditation council of graduate medical education, a complimentary copy from the American Medical Association, was offered and received as Respondent's Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence. This document speaks to the provision of residency training by Jacksonville hospitals affiliated with JHEP. It does not include an indication that Jacksonville General Hospital was one of the institutions providing residency training in the Jacksonville, Florida, area in the relevant years. However, it does not speak to undergraduate medical training. Therefore, it does not establish the fact that Jacksonville General Hospital did not offer allopathic medical training in internal medicine to the Petitioner as part of core clerkship training. Finally, Respondent's attempt to introduce the remarks of Dr. Will Neal of the University of Florida, School of Medicine, does not serve to corroborate competent evidence offered by the Respondent on the subject of Jacksonville General Hospital's lack of affiliation with JHEP and failure to provide undergraduate medical training in allopathic medicine. His remarks are hearsay and stand alone and cannot be utilized in fact finding for reasons explained in the conclusions of law. Jacksonville General Hospital, in 1982, had among its active staff, 40 M.D.s and 31 D.O.s. On the whole, Dr. Rucinski is found to have received appropriate allopathic medical training in his core clerkship in internal medicine. Dr. Rucinski is currently undergoing training at the University of Wisconsin, affiliated hospitals program, St. Luke's Hospital, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This is a hospital that has association with the American Medical Association. Dr. Rucinski is a resident in postgraduate year 3. Dr. Rucinski is interested in general medicine, family practice. As part of his postgraduate training, he has had extensive training in internal medicine which he has successfully responded to. He has not been able to discern differences in the underlying emphasis in the internal medicine training received as a resident in St. Luke's Hospital and that received at Jacksonville General Hospital. Against this background, prior to August 15, 1986, Petitioner made timely application to take the FLEX examination to gain a license to practice medicine in the state of Florida. This examination was to be given December 2- 4, 1986. On November 12, 1986, Dr. Rucinski was invited to appear before the Foreign Medical Graduate Committee of the Board of Medicine. A copy of that invitation may be found as part of Petitioner's Exhibit 6 admitted into evidence. In addition to the invitation, a second item within that exhibit describes the subjects upon which he could be interrogated and makes specific reference to items which could be submitted in furtherance of this session, but these items were not exclusive. This speaks to his passport and visa involved with time periods when he was out of the United States during his medical training. The second page indicated that the Petitioner should be prepared to provide documentation of his physical location for periods of medical education. Petitioner made the appearance on November 21, 1986, and was examined by members of the Foreign Medical Graduate Committee, and it was determined to deny Petitioner's opportunity to stand the FLEX examination based upon the belief held by the committee members that his internal medicine clerkship was osteopathic training and unacceptable. Petitioner was made aware that the committee would recommend to the Board of Medicine that he not be allowed to take the FLEX examination. These remarks were offered at the time of Petitioner's appearance before the foreign medical graduate committee on November 21, 1986. On the next day, the Board of Medicine, in furtherance of the recommendation of the committee, declared Petitioner ineligible to stand examination. On November 24, 1986, Petitioner was advised in writing of the decision of the Board of Medicine. A copy of that exhibit may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 5 admitted into evidence, and it states that the request to stand examination is denied. It goes on to suggest that an order would be prepared which set forth the reasons for denial. The letter identifies the fact that the Petitioner could then request a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, following receipt of the final order. That final order was entered on February 19, 1987, and may be found as part of Respondent's composite Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. It indicates that the reason for denial is that the Petitioner had failed to complete allopathic medical education as described in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, related to the inadequacy, as the Board of Medicine saw it, of Petitioner's core clerkship in internal medicine, in that the training was osteopathic in nature and not allopathic medical education. The Petitioner received a copy of the order of denial in late February 1987. Petitioner took issue with this point of view and petitioned for a formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. That petition was received as filed before the Respondent on March 15, 1987. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent's Exhibit 4 is admitted into evidence. The proffered testimony of Dr. Will Neal is not accepted as evidence which can lead to factual findings. This determination is made in accordance with Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Although a reasonably prudent person might expect the individual who is associated with the University of Florida medical school, such as Dr. Neal, would have some understanding of those institutions which are part of the JHEP program, his remarks do not constitute an exception to the proposition that hearsay evidence is not competent evidence. Furthermore, his remarks do not serve to supplement, corroborate or explain otherwise competent evidence. Consequently, they cannot be relied upon in determining relevant facts in this inquiry. In the deposition of Dr. Gerber wherein he attempts to explain the similarities between the core clerkship program in internal medicine at Jacksonville General Hospital and the residency program in internal medicine that he had some involvement with at St. Vincent's Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, is not accepted, based upon the belief that it is irrelevant testimony. Petitioner, who seeks licensure, has the burden to prove his entitlement to stand the FLEX examination. See Balino vs. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv., 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). To that end, Respondent has accepted his candidacy for licensure with the exception of the question of his training in internal medicine while a medical student. That training must have been allopathic medical education as envisioned by Section 458.331(3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986). On balance, Petitioner has carried the burden. He received training in an institution which he was led to believe had affiliation with JHEP, an accepted educational outreach from the University of Florida medical school. The institution where he received internal medicine training and core clerkship was one accredited by the accrediting agency for allopathic hospitals. The training was supervised by an osteopathic physician. Nonetheless, this physician and the Petitioner have established that the nature of training in internal medicine for allopaths and osteopaths at the student level is akin. Moreover, the expertise of Dr. Gerber in internal medicine had been recognized by the board certifying organization related to allopathic internal medicine practice. It is not unreasonable to expect that these credentials could be brought to bear in the training of Dr. Rucinski. Finally, although it does not speak directly to the question of his competence gained through undergraduate medical training at the point in time wherein he sought the opportunity to take the FLEX examination, Dr. Rucinski's successful performance in his residency program in an allopathic hospital in the subject area of internal medicine should allay any fears that he is not a fit candidate to stand examination at this point in time. Respondent, in considering the fitness of the Petitioner to stand license examination in the December 1986 examination session did not act contrary to the purposes of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes. Based upon a consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which grants the Petitioner the opportunity to take the FLEX examination for licensure to practice medicine in the state of Florida in accordance with Section 458, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 10th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-1593 Having considered the fact proposals of the parties, those proposals were accepted with the following exceptions: Petitioner's facts At paragraph 2, the reference to December 21, 1986, is corrected to November 21, 1986. Paragraph 5 is subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 6 is a recitation of a statutory provision. It is not fact finding. Paragraphs 7 through 18 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 19 constitutes legal argument and not fact finding. Respondent's facts Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 4 is accurate, but it is also noted that Jacksonville General Hospital offered allopathic care as well. Paragraphs 5 and 6 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 7 is contrary to facts found. Paragraph 8 is subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank M. Gafford, Esquire Post Office Box 1789 34 North Marion Street Lake City, Florida 32056-1789 Patricia V. Russo, Esquire M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a physician through endorsement by application dated May 20, 1986. On October 9, 1986, Petitioner appeared before the Board of Medical Examiners, Foreign Graduate Committee regarding his application for licensure. The Board of Medical Examiners (hereinafter "Board") at its meeting of October 11, 1986, voted to deny his application for licensure by endorsement. The Board stated as grounds for the denial that Petitioner had failed to document that he was a legitimate graduate of a foreign medical school. The Petitioner attended the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua in the country of Nicaragua. The National Autonomous University of Nicaragua requires, under Nicaraguan law, the completion of "social service" prior to receipt of a medical school diploma. The social service requirement involves between 1 and 3 full years of medical service in Nicaragua, usually at or very near to, the war zone. The Petitioner completed all course work required for the Diploma of Doctor in Medicine and Surgery from the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua but completed only eleven months of the social service requirement. The Petitioner left Nicaragua and came to the United States in April 1981. The Petitioner was not awarded his medical diploma because he failed to complete the social service requirement. The Petitioner testified at the final hearing that he failed to complete the social service requirement and fled his native country because of political persecution. The Petitioner stated that he was in fear for his life when he left Nicaragua. In order to take the Federation of State Medical Board's licensure examination (FLEX), Petitioner needed a medical school diploma. While in this country, the Petitioner searched for a medical school that would award him a diploma for his work in Nicaragua. The Petitioner's search included schools in Mexico, Honduras, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. The Petitioner received a favorable response from CIFAS University in the Dominican Republic. CIFAS reviewed the Petitioner's transcripts of completed course work from the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua. Petitioner did not do any additional course work or training through CIFAS. Upon completion of its review of the Petitioner's medical education and training, CIFAS awarded Petitioner a medical degree on January 10, 1983. On February 17, 1983, Petitioner was issued a certificate from the Education Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. The Petitioner took and passed the FLEX in June of 1983 and received a medical license in the State of Georgia. At the time of filing his application, Petitioner was a permanent resident of the United States.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of May, 1988 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0979 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner: (None submitted). Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent: 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. 4. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 6. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 9. 7. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 8. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. 9. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 10. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. 11. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 13. 12. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 10. 13. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 11. 14. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 12. 15. Adopted In substance in Finding of Fact 12. 16. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. 17. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfonso Oviedo-Reyes, Esquire 2100 Coral Way, Suite 403 Miami, Florida 33145 Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dr. Winifred Chambers received a master's degree in religion and art in 1957, a second master's degree in 1968 in philosophy with a specialization in ethics and social philosophy and a Ph.D. (with honors) in 1975 in the philosophy of science, all from the University of Chicago. While working on her dissertation, she studied at the Chicago Institute of Psychoanalysis. After working around hospitals and conducting classes and workshops on medical ethics for medical personnel, Petitioner decided to attend medical school. Because her educational training did not include extensive background in certain scientific areas, Petitioner was concerned with her ability to score well on the MCATS, which are the entrance examinations required by all medical schools in the United States. In addition, Petitioner's age (she was in her mid 40's at the time) was considered a negative factor by many medical schools in the United States. As a result, she inquired about attending certain foreign medical schools. She was limited in the schools that she could consider because she did not speak Spanish. Medical Education In 1979, Petitioner applied to the American University of the Caribbean (AUC). AUC taught its medical courses in English and Petitioner was only required to make up a few undergraduate science courses (including physics) in order to enroll in the medical school. Petitioner enrolled in classes at AUC in May of 1980. She actually started classes a few days after the semester began. She completed the first two semesters from May to December 1980 and then went home during the Christmas break. During the break, Petitioner learned that she had received an F in her course in neurosciences. Petitioner met with the professor from that course to discuss the failing grade she received and also met with the President of AUC. As a result of these meetings, it was her understanding that the grade was changed to a passing grade. In January of 1981, Petitioner visited CETEC (another Caribbean medical school located in the Dominican Republic,) and met with officials of the school to discuss transferring from AUC to CETEC. Petitioner applied to CETEC during her visit and, prior to leaving, was informed of her acceptance into medical school at CETEC. Petitioner returned to AUC and completed her third semester at the school. In May of 1981, she officially enrolled at CETEC by initiating clinical rotations at Sharp Hospital in San Diego, California. Even though Petitioner had only completed three semesters at AUC, she was granted status as a fifth semester medical student. She contends that she was granted this status based upon CETEC'S evaluation of her transcript and the number of hours she took at AUC. Prior to her enrollment at CETEC, Petitioner provided CETEC with a transcript indicating she had passed neurosciences at AUC and CETEC gave her credit for the course. From May 4, 1981 to June 6, 1982, Petitioner participated in clinical rotations at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego, California as part of her medical education at CETEC. During this time period, Petitioner also participated in a clinical rotation at Children's Hospital in San Diego, California (from 12/28/81 to 2/20/82). Beginning in 1983, the media and some state licensing agencies began challenging the validity and/or authenticity of the credentials and training of some CETEC medical graduates. CETEC medical school was ultimately closed in 1984. The Dominican Republic government formed an agency to verify and certify the transcripts of CETEC graduates. This agency was called the "Counsel For Superior Education" also referred to by the acronym of CONES. CONES verified and certified the legitimacy of higher education credentials from all Dominican schools submitted to other countries. As part of her pending Florida Application, Petitioner has submitted a certification from CONES dated October 15, 1987 attesting to Petitioner's graduation from medical school at CETEC on June 12, 1982. Petitioner has also submitted a second certification from CONES dated July 8, 1988 confirming her graduation on June 12, 1982. Included as part of the documents submitted by Petitioner from CONES is a Certification of Clinical Rotations dated July 14, 1987 (the "CONES Report") and an academic transcript dated July 14, 1987 (the "CONES Transcript.") The "Education Commission For Foreign Medical Graduates" ("ECFMG") provides a certification of the education of applicants from foreign medical schools who seek licensure in the various United States and offers an examination required by some state licensing boards for licensure of applicants graduating from foreign medical schools. Petitioner passed the ECFMG examination and was certified by the ECFMG in 1982. However, after the CETEC scandal began in 1983, the ECFMG started an investigation of graduates of CETEC (including Petitioner) for the purpose of reverifying their medical training. The ECFMG required clearance from CONES of Petitioner's CETEC education before reverifying her ECFMG certificate. The ECFMG reinstated Petitioner's ECFMG certification on June 26, 1987. The earliest certification from CONES that has been submitted by Petitioner is dated July 14, 1987, approximately two and a half weeks after the ECMFG certification. It is not clear what the ECFMG relied upon in reissuing a certification to Petitioner. While Petitioner contends that CONES had originally certified her CETEC transcript shortly after her graduation in June of 1982, no competent evidence was presented to establish when or if an earlier CONES certification was issued. In any event, Petitioner currently holds a valid ECFMG certificate. In certifying Petitioner's medical degree from CETEC, CONES gave Petitioner credit for courses taken and work done at non-medical schools (i.e., the University of Chicago) prior to entering medical school. These credits are discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 17. Although the ECFMG has apparently accepted CONES' certification of Petitioner's medical education at CETEC, there are several inconsistencies on the face of the CONES Report. The CONES Report states that during the period from May 4, 1981 to June 6, 1982, Petitioner completed fifty six (56) weeks of clinical rotations. However, in reaching this total the CONES Report provides one week of credit for a rotation (from 5/24/82 to 5/28/82) in obstetrics and gynecology which overlapped with another rotation (from 5/10/82 to 6/5/82) in obstetrics and gynecology. It it also provides double credit for a single two week clinical rotation (from 5/4/81 to 5/16/81) in obstetrics and gynecology. In addition, there are two periods of time (from 2/21/82 to 3/14/82 and from 4/25/82 to 5/9/82, which total approximately five (5) weeks), during which no clinical rotations were taken. Since the period between May 4, 1981 and June 6, 1982 consisted of approximately fifty seven (57) weeks, it does not appear that Petitioner actually completed fifty six (56) weeks of rotations as listed. Deleting the double credit received for the 5/4/81 to 5/16/81 clinical rotation, the CONES Report only appears to certify completion of fifty four (54 weeks) of clinical rotations. Moreover, those fifty four (54) weeks of rotations include one week of credit for five (5) days in obstetrics and gynecology (from 5/24/82 to 5/28/82) which directly overlapped a separately listed clinical rotation in obstetrics and gynecology, and one (1) week of credit for six (6) days in obstetrics and gynecology from 6/1/82 to 6/6/82. Thus, on the face of the CONES Report it appears that Petitioner actually completed only fifty three (53) weeks of rotations at most. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that, according to the CONES Report, there were approximately five (5) weeks of the fifty-seven (57) week period during which no clinical rotations were taken. Petitioner contends that the CONES Report fails to take into account a five (5) week clerkship in family medicine which she completed at Sharp Hospital and which was accepted by the ECFMG when Petitioner applied for licensure in California. This clerkship is reflected in the CETEC Transcript even though it is not reflected in the CONES Report. It is not clear why this rotation was not included in the CONES Report However, the evidence did establish that Petitioner completed the rotation. One of the five weeks of this family medicine rotation overlaps with an OB/GYN rotation (from 5/4/82 -5/8/82). The time frame of the family medicine rotation roughly coincides with the period of time during which no rotations are reflected in the CONES Report. Thus, this rotation would only add four more weeks to the clerkship total listed on the CONES Report. Even if this four week rotation is added to the fifty three (53) weeks certified in the CONES Report, the Report would still only indicate that Petitioner completed a total of fifty seven (57) weeks of clinical rotations. According to the boiler-plate language on the CONES Report, sixty (60) to seventy-two (72) total weeks of clinical rotations had to be completed by CETEC students who took their clinical rotations outside of the Dominican Republic. Thus, the CONES Report does not reflect completion of the required weeks of clinical rotations even though CONES has issued a certification that purports to certify successful completion of the degree requirements. This discrepancy has not been adequately explained. The CONES Report does not reflect any clinical rotations by Petitioner in psychiatry. However, the CETEC Transcript does indicate that Petitioner was granted eight hours credit for her graduate studies at the University of Chicago from 1971-1973. Petitioner contends she is entitled to at least four hours of clerkship in psychiatry for those studies. However, it appears from the CONES Transcript that the credit she received was applied towards classes in Human Conduct which were a part of the curriculum during the first two years of medical school. There is no evidence to indicate that CETEC or CONES granted or should have granted Petitioner credit for clinical rotations in psychiatry based upon her graduate studies at the University of Chicago. During a three week period (between her second and third semesters at AUC) from December 20, 1980 to January 10, 1981, Petitioner participated in an OB/GYN clinical rotation at Sharp Memorial Hospital in San Diego, California (hereinafter this rotation will be referred to as the "Unsanctioned Rotation.") This rotation is usually not done until after a student completes the third semester of medical school. Petitioner's participation in this Unsanctioned Rotation was not authorized by any medical school and was not a part of any medical school program. Petitioner contends that she satisfied the required sixty (60) clerkship weeks if the Unsanctioned Rotation at Sharp Hospital from December 20, 1980 to January 10, 1981 is added to the undisputed clinical rotations and the family medicine rotation discussed in Findings of Fact 15. However, the Unsanctioned Clerkship was not accepted by CONES and Petitioner has not provided sufficient evidence to establish that it should be counted towards her required clinical rotations. Although CETEC had previously granted Petitioner credit for the neurosciences course at AUC, CONES was not able to verify that Petitioner passed the course and CONES required Petitioner to retake the course in order to obtain the 1987 certification from CONES. Petitioner attended Northwestern University during the spring quarter of 1987 and completed a four credit hour course (based on a quarter system) in neurosciences. This neurosciences course was apparently given five hours ex post facto credit by CONES to fulfill the neurosciences requirement for Petitioner's 1982 CETEC medical diploma. From December, 1987 to March, 1988, Petitioner attended Xochicalco Medical School in Ensenada, Mexico in order to take additional coursework in partial fulfillment of a requirement by the California licensing board in a stipulated agreement for additional medical training before licensure. (Petitioner's stipulation with the State of California is discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 47-50.) The courses taken at Xochicalco were approved by the California licensing agency and included clinical pathology, pharmacology (two courses) and physiology (two courses). Petitioner successfully passed all of the courses. However, no evidence was presented as to the accreditation status of this school. Petitioner completed a five week rotation in emergency medicine at Cruze Roja Hospital in Mexico in 1988 while she was completing the remedial science classes required by the California Licensing Board. Post-Graduate Training Petitioner completed one year of post graduate training from July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1983 in the family medicine residency program at Holston Valley Community Hospital through East Tennessee State University's Quillen-Dishner College of Medicine. Petitioner has presented a certificate verifying succcessful completion of her first post graduate year of training in this program. Petitioner performed her residency at two hospitals which are part of the East Tennessee State University Quillen-Dishner College of Medicine: Kingsport Family Practice Center and Holston Valley Community Hospital. She saw patients at the Kingsport Family Practice Center for 7 months, one afternoon each week under the supervision of various physicians. The rest of Petitioner's residency was performed at the Holston Valley Community Hospital. Dr. Lee S. Hyde was the program director of the Kingsport Family Medicine Center. Petitioner's contact with Dr. Hyde was limited, but she did have several consultations with him about patients. In an evaluation submitted to the Florida Board of Medicine in connection with Petitioner's application for licensure, Dr. Hyde evaluated Petitioner's diagnostic ability and relationships with patients as poor. He also stated that Petitioner came to the program with a "poor fund of knowledge, clinical habits, and basic medical education". Although he felt Petitioner made progress during the residency program, he did not think it was sufficient. However, his overall evaluation was to recommend with reservations. Dr. Hyde's evaluation of Petitioner to the Board was received by the Board on July 18, 1983. Dr. Hyde noted on the back of the evaluation form that Petitioner was not ready to begin a second year of unsupervised practice. Petitioner was not and would not have been offered a contract for a second year in the residency program. Dr. Hyde also commented that Petitioner demonstrated poor judgment by once going "AWOL" from the program. While Petitioner did take a three (3) day leave over a weekend while assigned to a particular rotation with another physician contrary to the rules of the program, she did so with the permission of her supervisor at the time. Prior to the negative evaluation submitted by Dr. Hyde in July of 1983, Dr. Hyde had previously written a letter dated March 24, 1983 to the Florida Board of Medicine recommending Dr. Chambers for licensure stating that she was in good standing with the program and of reasonable professional competence and excellent moral character. Leslie P. Reynolds, Jr., M.D., was a professor of Family Medicine, assistant Dean, and Director of Medical Education at the Holston Valley Hospital during Petitioner's year of residency. In a June 29, 1983 evaluation form submitted to the Florida Board, Dr. Reynolds, gave an evaluation of Petitioner's performance during the family medicine residency and recommended her as an outstanding applicant. Dr. Reynolds subsequently submitted an affidavit to the Florida Board of Medicine dated October 21, 1987 attesting that Petitioner earned the respect of both her instructors and fellow residents and that the hospital's records suggest that she performed well on all her services and that she was very helpful to other residents. Several other physicians who served as clinical supervisors during Petitioner's residency at Holston Valley have submitted letters of recommendation and virtually all other evaluations of her work were positive. Aside from the letter from Dr. Hyde, (Dr. Hyde did not testify and his letter is hearsay,) no other evidence was presented to demonstrate that Petitioner is incapable of practicing medicine with reasonable skill and safety. The weight of the evidence established that Petitioner is capable of practicing with reasonable skill and safety. Numerous letters from the physicians who have worked with Petitioner over the last several years corroborate to her ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. Petitioner was employed as a house physician at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami from July 11, 1983 to October 31, 1983. Her position was under the supervision of the Department of Family Medicine in the Ambulatory Care Unit of the Emergency Room Department and the Family Medicine Clinical Faculty from the University of Miami. However, the position was not an advanced residency program and the nature of the supervision and training that Petitioner received has not been fully explained. Furthermore, the evidence did not establish the exact nature of her duties and functions. From October 1984 to March 1985, Petitioner participated in a series of clinical rotations at the Wesley Medical Center which is affiliated with the University of Kansas. The exact nature of Petitioner's position is not clear. The position at the Wesley Medical Center was a non-paying position during which Petitioner completed an eight week rotation in Internal Medicine, twelve weeks in General Surgery and four weeks in psychiatry functioning in each rotation at the level of a first-year resident. Petitioner was not officially enrolled as a resident in this program. However, she did receive evaluations from the attending physicians and her evaluations by the supervising physicians in that program were acceptable. In 1988, Petitioner completed an eight month internship at Universal Medical Center in Plantation, Florida Universal Medical Center is an osteopathic teaching institution. This internship was undertaken to satisfy a requirement of the California licensing authority for eight months of "remedial" clinical work. See, Findings of Fact 50. Petitioner was evaluated as performing in a competent and professional manner in this program. At the Universal Medical Center, Petitioner completed thirty three (33) weeks of clinical rotations. The program extended from March 21, 1988 through November 3, 1988. Her duties and responsibilities were similar to other interns in the program. In sum, Petitioner has successfully completed several additional science courses and completed at least thirty eight (38) additional weeks of clinical training beyond her medical school rotations and first post-graduate year residency. Those weeks of training include thirty three (33) weeks at Universal Medical Center which is an approved osteopathic medical training program that was accepted by the California Licensing Agency for purposes of Petitioner's remedial clinical work. Licensure Applications Petitioner passed the FLEX exam in June, 1982 with a score of 78. She also passed the ECFMG exam in January, of 1982 with a score of 76. In addition, she passed an oral examination administered by the California State Licensing Board in 1988. After graduating from CETEC in June 1982, Petitioner initiated efforts to obtain licensure in several states. In her initial attempts at licensure, Petitioner submitted several misleading applications which have backfired into a morass of complications and confusion. In 1982, Petitioner knowingly submitted a fraudulent application to the State of Oregon. Petitioner filed the application with the Oregon licensing authority in order to take the Federal Licensing Examination known as the FLEX. Oregon was one of the few states which allowed applicants to take the FLEX examination prior to graduation and also granted applicants some choice in the location of the exam. Petitioner took the FLEX in the Virgin Islands in June of 1982. This was the nearest location to the Dominican Republic where she was attending graduation ceremonies at CETEC around the same time. On the application to take the FLEX exam filed with Oregon, Petitioner falsely stated that she attended AUC from May, 1979 to April, 1981. She actually attended AUC from May, 1980 through April, 1981. In the early part of 1983, Petitioner submitted applications for licensure to South Carolina, California, Georgia, New Mexico, and Florida. South Carolina determined that Petitioner was not eligible for licensure in that state because she had not completed the required post-graduate training. Her application for licensure in that state was returned without action. In her applications to Georgia, California and Florida in 1983, Petitioner misrepresented her attendance at CETEC as having commenced in May, 1979 rather than reporting attendance at AUC starting in May, 1980 and ending in May, 1981 when she transferred to CETEC. Petitioner admits that she falsely stated that she began her medical education in May, 1979 on the Oregon FLEX application, as well as the California, Georgia and 1983 Florida applications. In an attempt to justify these false statements, Petitioner points out that the Dean from CETEC had issued a letter to these licensing agencies stating that Petitioner had completed eight (8) semesters at CETEC from 1979 to 1982. Petitioner claims she completed the misleading applications because she wanted her statements to be consistent with the CETEC Dean's certification of attendance. It would appear that an additional motivation for falsifying the applications was to avoid having to explain that she had received medical education credit for some of her non-medical course work at the University of Chicago approximately ten years earlier. It is unclear why the Dean's certification letters were not accurate. While no evidence was presented to directly link Petitioner to the issuance of these incorrect Dean's letters, the shady circumstances surrounding her involvement with Pedro de Mesones around this same time period (discussed in Findings of Fact 87-95 below) leads to an inference that Petitioner was at least indirectly responsible for these misleading letters. In her February 1983 application to New Mexico, Petitioner accurately stated the dates and locations of her medical school education. No adequate explanation was given as to why the correct dates were listed on this 1983 application but not the other applications filed around the same time in Georgia, Florida and California. Petitioner listed the correct dates of attendance at AUC and CETEC on her 1984 Florida application and the 1988 filing which are discussed in more detail in Findings of Fact 69-72 below. Georgia and New Mexico granted Petitioner licensure based upon the 1983 applications. California initially denied her licensure. However, as described in Findings of Fact 47-51 below, Petitioner challenged that decision. Florida permitted Petitioner to withdraw her 1983 Application rather than go to hearing on the Board's intent to deny licensure. See Findings of Fact 67-68. Petitioner's application for licensure in California was filed in the Spring of 1983. Petitioner received a letter in April of 1983 returning her application without action. Petitioner requested reconsideration of her application which, eventually, resulted in a proposed order of denial dated June 9, 1986. Petitioner requested a hearing on that proposed denial. The proposed denial was resolved without hearing by a stipulation between Petitioner and the California licensing agency in an order dated November 5, 1987 (the "California Stipulation"). The stipulated findings of fact in the November 5, 1987 California Stipulation recognize that the application filed by Petitioner in March, 1983 remained pending without action until the 1987 California Stipulation was entered. The California Stipulation notes that the proposed denial of her application in 1986 was based on the grounds that: (a) Petitioner had not listed on her application her attendance at AUC; (b) she had falsely stated under oath that she began her medical education at CETEC beginning in May, 1979; and (c) her medical education did not conform to California requirements. The California Stipulation provides that it supersedes the reasons set forth in the 1986 proposed denial so long as Dr. Chambers abides by the terms of the Stipulation. The California Stipulation makes no findings of fact or conclusions of law regarding wrongdoing on the part of the Petitioner. The California Stipulation provides that Petitioner would be issued a license to practice medicine in California upon completion of remedial medical education specified in the Stipulation, completion of an additional academic year of clinical training before September, 1990, satisfactory proof of certification by CONES, and passage of an oral examination. The California Stipulation also provides that Petitioner shall take forty (40) hours of continuing medical education within the first two (2) years of licensure in addition to the continuing education classes statutorily required for licensure in California. Petitioner was issued her license to practice medicine in California on November 11, 1988 demonstrating that she satisfied the requirements of the November 1987 California Stipulation. In her application to the State of Georgia in June of 1983, the Petitioner specifically represented that she attended CETEC from May of 1979 to April 1980, attended AUC from April, 1980 to May, 1981 and CETEC again from April 1981 through June, 1982. The Dean of CETEC certified to the Georgia licensing agency that Petitioner enrolled in the school of medicine in May, 1979 and attended eight semesters of 4.2 months each. As discussed in Findings of Fact 43, the basis for this certification by the Dean is unclear. Petitioner obtained a license to practice medicine in Georgia based on her 1983 application and did in fact practice medicine in that state from January, 1984 to August, 1984. On August 17, 1984 the Georgia State Board of Medical Examiners issued a Notice of Hearing to Petitioner setting forth charges against her including failure to meet the standards for licensure and/or intentionally making false statements in obtaining a license to practice medicine. The charges also included an allegation that Petitioner "was denied a license by the Board of Medical Quality Assurance of the State of California based on evidence of making false statements on a sworn application and submitting false and/or inaccurate certificates of education to obtain a license to practice in that state." In fact, in 1984 the California licensing authority had not formally denied Petitioner's application for licensure. The proposed denial of Petitioner's California application was pending, but not acted upon. Indeed, a formal denial of her California application was never finalized. Instead, the issues were resolved by the California Stipulation in November, 1987. On September 22, 1984, Petitioner executed a "Voluntary Surrender" which was approved by the Georgia State Board of Medical Examiners and served as the final order of that agency with respect to the Notice of Hearing discussed in Findings of Fact 54. By voluntarily surrendering her license to practice medicine in Georgia, Petitioner waived her right to a hearing on the charges contained in the Notice of Hearing. The first paragraph of the "Voluntary Surrender" states: "I hereby acknowledge that this surrender shall have the same effect as revocation of my license, and I knowingly forfeit and relinquish all right, title and privilege of practicing medicine in the State of Georgia, unless and until such time as my license may be reinstated, in the sole discretion of the Board." Notwithstanding this language, Petitioner contends the "Voluntary Surrender" should be distinguished from a revocation because she did not admit to any wrongdoing and because she was allowed to seek reinstatement upon application and demonstration of the ability to safely practice medicine. The Voluntary Surrender of the Georgia license contains no specific findings of fact or conclusions of law that establish any wrongdoing on the part of the Petitioner. The "Voluntary Surrender" states that Petitioner did not admit to any wrongdoing and it allows Petitioner to seek reinstatement. The Executive Director of the Composite State Board of Medical Examiners of Georgia certified to the Florida Board of Medicine on August 2, 1988, that Petitioner's Georgia license had been issued in 8/83, surrendered in 9/84 and that license had not been "suspended or revoked." Thus, while disciplinary action was clearly initiated against Respondent in Georgia, her license was not revoked. Petitioner was licensed to practice medicine in the State of New Mexico in November, 1983. On January 10, 1985, the New Mexico Board of Medical Examiners served on Petitioner a Notice of Contemplated Action notifying her of charges including having made misrepresentations in applying for and procuring a license to practice medicine in New Mexico and having her license in Georgia revoked. The New Mexico case was referred to a hearing officer who considered argument and briefs by the parties regarding the nature and effect of Petitioner's surrender of her Georgia license. By an order of the New Mexico State Board of Medical Examiners, Petitioner's New Mexico medical license was revoked in January, 1986. The New Mexico order of revocation treated Petitioner's voluntary surrender of her Georgia medical license as the functional equivalent of a revocation for purposes of the New Mexico licensing statute. In reaching this determination, the New Mexico Board relied upon the wording of the Voluntary Surrender and the Georgia Statutes which both indicate that a voluntary surrender shall have the same effect as revocation. No other specific grounds were cited by the New Mexico Board in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. As indicated above, Petitioner's initial application to the Florida Board of Medicine (the "Board") for licensure was filed March, 1983. When the Board proposed denial, Petitioner requested a formal hearing. Prior to hearing, the Board obtained leave from the hearing officer to amend the basis for denial to include grounds relating to information presented to the Board by U.S. Postal Service investigators regarding Petitioner's truthfulness on her application form and the validity of certain documents she utilized in her attempt to obtain a Florida medical license. The Board was granted leave to amend as requested by order dated February 20, 1984. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner filed with the hearing officer a motion to withdraw her application because of the new information presented from the "federal investigation." The Board granted the request to withdraw the 1983 Application in an order rendered May 29, 1984. The Board's proposed denial of Petitioner's 1983 Application was on the basis that the Board had reason to believe that Petitioner, "as a graduate of CETEC, was not capable of safely engaging in the practice of medicine as a result of a report of the California Board of Medical Quality Assurance which indicated gross irregularities in the degree granting process of CETEC University and which raised serious doubts about the adequacy of medical education certified by CETEC." Petitioner filed with the Board a second application for licensure in Florida in December of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 1984 Application.) In response to a request for additional information from the Board regarding this second application, Petitioner executed a waiver of the requirement that the Board act upon the application within 90 days. As a result, the 1984 Application was left pending. The 1984 Application was for licensure by endorsement based upon Petitioner's license in New Mexico. As discussed in Findings of Fact 62-66, action was initiated against that New Mexico license in January, 1985 ultimately leading to the revocation of the license in January, 1986. After her New Mexico license was revoked, Petitioner did not hold a valid license to practice medicine in any other state until California issued her a license in November, 1988. On August 1, 1988, Petitioner filed another application with the Board as an update to the 1984 Application. (This August 1988 application is referred to as the "1988 Filing.") In her 1988 Filing, Petitioner included a recertification from ECFMG. At the time she filed her 1984 Florida application, Petitioner's original ECFMG certification had been placed on hold because of the CETEC scandal. Petitioner was required to provide a revalidation of her medical education by ECFMG in order to obtain consideration of her application in Florida. This revalidation was not provided until the 1988 Filing. On September 12, 1988, Petitioner filed a supplement to the 1988 Filing. On November 2, 1988 the Board requested additional information relating to the application. On December 12, 1988 Petitioner filed a response to this request. The Board issued an Order of Intent to Deny on March 3, 1989 stating as grounds for denial in Paragraph 2: You have had licenses in Georgia, New Mexico and California acted against by the licensing bodies of those states. See, Subsections 458.331(1)(b) and 458.311(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1988). The only year of training you received was in 1982-1983 at Holston Valley Community Hospital and the Kingsport Family Practice Center through the auspices of East Tennessee State University Quillen-Dishner College of Medicine. You were recommended less than favorably by both hospitals and you were not permitted to return for a second year of residency training by the College of Medicine. Your poor performance in your only year of medical training evidences your inability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. See, Sections 458.301 and 458.331(4), Florida Statutes (1988). There are material discrepancies between answers and information provided in your 3 different applications and supporting documents submitted to the Board; and you have provided fraudulent information and misrepresented or concealed information regarding your medical education. See Subsections 458.311(1)(c) and 458.331(1)(a) and (hh), Florida Statutes (1988). Inconsistencies in the Application There are several discrepancies between Petitioner's 1983 Florida Application, her 1984 Application, and her 1988 Filing. On the 1984 Application, Petitioner reported her participation in the Unsanctioned Rotation at Sharp Memorial Hospital from December 20, 1980 to January 10, 1981 as part of her clinical clerkships. The Unsanctioned Rotation is not listed on the 1988 Filing. Petitioner contends that it was not until after submission of the 1984 Application that she found out that CONES refused to recognize the clerkships taken in 1980 because Petitioner was not enrolled as a student at CETEC at the time. Therefore, Petitioner deleted those unapproved clerkship weeks from the 1988 Filing. However, while specific reference to the clerkship was deleted in 1988, Petitioner admitted at the hearing that she counted the Unsanctioned Rotation as part of sixty (60) weeks of clerkships claimed in the 1988 Filing. The 1988 Filing states Petitioner completed sixty (60) weeks of clinical clerkships as part of her medical education at CETEC. However, as discussed in Findings of Fact 13 through 18, Petitioner's submitted a CONES verification of clinical rotations that only details fifty six (56) weeks (including duplicate and overlapping credit) of clinical clerkships. In the 1988 Filing, Petitioner did report the actions taken against her medical licenses in Georgia and New Mexico and mentioned her problems obtaining licensure in California. On the 1984 Application, Petitioner responded to the question "Have you ever been notified to appear before any licensing agency for a hearing on a complaint of any nature, including, but not limited to, a charge or violation of the medical practice act, unprofessional or unethical conduct?" by stating "after my voluntary surrender, notice of hearing in Georgia, [sic] charging denial and Flafalse documents re licensure (both false)." Both the Notice of Hearing and the Voluntary Surrender in Georgia were issued prior to the completion of Petitioner's 1984 Florida Application. Thus, while Petitioner did disclose the voluntary surrender, she only provided a brief and somewhat misleading explaination. The 1984 Application does not mention Petitioner's application in South Carolina (which was returned without action) nor does it discuss Petitioner's licensure difficulties in California other than to say she had been denied a license because of "informal deficiencies." The 1984 Application also omits Petitioner's licensure problems in New Mexico which is understandable since the Notice of Contemplated Action in that case was not filed until January, 1985. The application form requires the applicant to list all universities or colleges where the applicant "took classes/received training." Petitioner listed her training at the University of Kansas, Wesley Medical Center under the medical education section of her 1984 Application. In the 1984 application, she refers to it as a "externship". That position is also listed in the medical education section of the 1988 Filing with an explanation indicating that she was not actually a resident. As discussed in Findings of Fact 30, her position at the Wesley Medical Center is not easily described due to the unusual circumstances that led to her participating in the program. She was repeating clerkships in certain areas in accordance with the stipulation reached with the California licensing agency. Although Petitioner was not officially enrolled in classes or a residency program in that position, she considers it as part of her medical education and training and, therefore, listed it as such. In her 1984 Application, Petitioner listed time spent at Jackson Memorial Hospital (University of Miami) and Wesley Medical Center (Unversity of Kansas) on a sheet entitled graduate and post-graduate education. On her 1988 Filing, she listed both positions as post-graduate training. Both of these positions were actually house staff positions rather than part of the training programs of the affiliated medical schools. In the 1984 Application, Petitioner listed her dates of training at the Wesley Medical Center as October, 1984 to April 1985 (which was her projected completion date.) The 1984 Application was filled out and filed with the Board in December 1984, four months prior to the projected completion date of the Wesley position. In the 1988 Filing, Petitioner listed her actual completion date of March, 1985, which was approximately two weeks earlier than the projected completion date referred to in the 1984 Application. From January 1984 to August 1984, Petitioner worked for Spectrum Emergency Care in emergency rooms and free-standing clinics in Georgia. Petitioner listed different dates of service with Spectrum on the 1984 Application and the 1988 Filing. Petitioner contends the differences are due in part because the 1988 Filing included employment at Spectrum in New Mexico in December 1984 and January 1985 after submission of the 1984 Application. However, the 1988 Filing states that Petitioner was continuously employed by Spectrum from January 1984 - January 1985. In fact, she was not employed during the months of August, September, October and November, 1984. Moreover, her employment with Spectrum in New Mexico in December, 1984 and January, 1985 overlaps with her "externship" at the Wesley Medical Center/University of Kansas which took place from October, 1984 through March, 1985. Apparently, this overlap was possible because her work for Spectrum in December, 1984 consisted of one weekend and a holiday and in January, 1985 consisted of one weekend. In sum, the 1988 Filing significantly overstates her actual experience with Spectrum. The 1988 Filing contains several inconsistent statements regarding Petitioner's employment as a ship's physician. Under the practice/employment section of that Filing, she states she was a ship's physician for SeaEscape from April, 1985 to September, 1985 and a ship's physician for Commodore Cruise Lines from February, 1986 to September, 1986. Later in the application, under postgraduate medical training and work experience, she states she was a Chief Medical Officer for cruise ships from April, 1985, through September, 1986. However, according to the previously cited information, for at least a four month period during that time frame, she was not employed. In another portion of her application, Petitioner lists under clinical medicine that she worked on the two ships from April, 1985 through September, 1987. Even assuming that there is a typographical error and Petitioner meant September, 1986 as indicated in the other listings, by deleting any reference to the four months that she was not employed, an impression is created that Petitioner has more clinical experience than was actually true. There is a conflict between the AUC transcript that Petitioner submitted with the 1988 Filing and earlier versions of the transcript that appear in her records. The course titles are consistent in the transcripts, but the numbers of some of the courses are different. Only the last digit of the course numbers are different. Whether a course is listed in the 100 series, 200 series and 300 series is consistent in all of the transcripts. The series numbers reflect first semester, second semester and third semester courses respectively. The AUC transcript submitted with the 1988 Filing was the most recent one obtained by Petitioner from AUC. That transcript was prepared in June, 1986 and reflects a failing grade in the neurosciences course. However, as discussed in Finding of Fact 4, that grade was changed to a passing grade as reflected in a 1981 transcript from AUC which was submitted to CETEC when Petitioner transferred to that school. No adequate explanation has been given to explain why the 1986 AUC transcript is not consistent with the earlier one. Postal Investigation The confusing circumstances surrounding Petitioner's medical education are further complicated by her involvement with Pedro de Mesones. The circumstances surrounding her involvement with Pedro de Mesones have not been fully explained. While Pedro de Mesones' exact status or position is unclear, Petitioner believed him to be a representative of CETEC. He has subsequently been convicted of mail fraud in connection with selling medical diplomas and has been sentenced to a federal prison term. Between July, 1981 and January, 1982, while Petitioner was conducting her clinical rotations in San Diego, she attempted to get information and documentation from CETEC, but she had trouble getting responses to her repeated telephone calls, letters and telegrams. Petitioner sought the help of Pedro de Mesones in getting cooperation and/or responses from CETEC regarding transcripts and other documents necessary for the loan applications and residency applications which she had to file prior to her anticipated medical school graduation date of June, 1982. Another reason Petitioner hired Pedro de Mesones was to get confirmation that CETEC would give her credit towards her medical degree for her prior work on her Ph.D. at the University of Chicago. These credits were necessary for Petitioner to graduate in June of 1982 as she anticiapted. Petitioner was advised by others familiar with the school that Pedro de Mesones could help her in her dealings with CETEC. She first contacted Pedro de Mesones by telephone in February, 1982. She agreed to pay him a total of more than $8,000 for his services. Petitioner explains her payments to Pedro de Mesones as a $3000 fee, plus the next two (2) semester's tuition payments totaling an additional $5000.00 plus a $100.00 graduation fee. Pedro de Mesones advised Petitioner that she had to pay CETEC's tuition totalling $5,000 for two (2) additional semesters even though she did not have to take any classes at CETEC because she was given credit for her work at the University of Chicago. At one point during her dealings with Pedro de Mesones, Petitioner signed a false transcript from a Mexican medical school at Pedro de Mesones' request. This transcript reflected work which Petitioner never completed. No adequate explanation was given as to why these false transcripts were ever prepared. While Petitioner contends that she asked Pedro de Mesones not to use the false Mexican transcript for any purpose, it appears that these transcripts were prepared in the event that Petitioner could not secure two semesters credit from CETEC for her Ph.D. work at the University of Chicago. Ultimately, CETEC decided to give her credit for some of the Ph.D. course work she completed at the University of Chicago. As a result, Petitioner was able to graduate in June of 1982 from CETEC without having to use the false Mexican transcripts. It does not appear that the fraudulent Mexican transcript were ever used by Petitioner in any of her applications. Petitioner provided Pedro de Mesones with two false transcripts regarding her AUC medical education. It is clear that she intended for him to use those transcripts, if necessary, to get a dean's certification from CETEC. One of the false AUC transcripts she prepared made its way into the records of CETEC. It is not clear how CETEC obtained that transcript. Because Petitioner was given credit for her graduate work at the University of Chicago, she did not need the extra credits reflected on the false AUC transcripts. Petitioner subsequently wrote the Dean of CETEC requesting removal of the false AUC transcript after she saw it in her CETEC records during a visit to CETEC to obtain a letter from the Dean showing her to be in good standing. Petitioner asked Pedro de Mesones to provide her with letters signed by the CETEC Dean showing her to be in good standing and on track for graduation in June, 1982. She intended to use these letters in applying for licensure for residency programs. Petitioner felt that she was on track to graduate and indicated to Pedro de Mesones that because of time pressures, she felt it would be acceptable for him to forge the signature of the Dean on the letters required by the various state licensing agencies. However, there is no indication that he did so. While none of the false transcripts prepared by Petitioner were directly submitted by her in any of the applications for licensure filed with any state licensing authorities, it is clear the Dean's certification letters included in Petitioner's 1983 Applications in some of the states were false. See Findings of Fact 39-44. No direct connection has been drawn between the false Dean's certification letters submitted with Petitioner's applications in Georgia and California and Pedro de Mesones. However, the circumstances surrounding Petitioner's dealings with Pedro de Mesones raise a question as to how the certifications were obtained. More importantly, it is clear that Petitioner was aware that the representations contained in the Dean's certifications and the dates of attendance at medical school listed on her 1983 Applications were false. Nevertheless, she still submitted the applications. Petitioner's dealings with Pedro de Mesones ended on June 14, 1982, two days after her graduation ceremonies at CETEC. Practice Experience Petitioner has at various times practiced medicine in Georgia and New Mexico prior to surrendering or losing her license in those states. She has also worked on cruise ships as a ship's doctor for several months. She is currently licensed and practicing in California. She has been licensed in that state since November, 1988. She has practiced emergency medicine at various hospitals and has been practicing as a primary care physician for Castle Air Force Base in California since December 1988. There is no indication that she has been deficient in carrying our her professional duties in any of these positions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medical Examiners enter a Final Order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a physician in the State of Florida subject to a probationary period of two years upon such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of July, 1990. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37, 46-50 and 67. 2. Aubored in substance in Findings of Fact 67 and 68. 3. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 69. 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 70. 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 71. 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 72. Adopted in substance in the preliminary statement. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2-4 and 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 6. Suborindate to Findings of Fact 6 and 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 96. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 9. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 11 and 33. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 87. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 87 and 88. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 88. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 89. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 90-94. The first sentence is rejected as constituting argument. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 94. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 95. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 35. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 36. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 36 and 39- 42. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 45. The first sentence is adopted in Findings of Fact 87. The remainder is rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 47-66. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 47. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 48. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 50. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 51. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 49. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 54. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 55. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 57, 59-60. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 58. Suborindate to Findings of Fact 61. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 59. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 62-66. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 66. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20-30. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22 and 27. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 24. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 23. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 25-26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 27. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 24 and 25. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 74. See proposed findings 26-30 above. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 79-80. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 81. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 82-83. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 38. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 78. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 83. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 77. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 78. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 84. Addressed in Findings of Fact 12-18. Rejected as irrelevant. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 12-19. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Findings of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 2. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 3. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 4. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 6. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 9 and 13. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 13 and 14. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. Subordinate to indings of Fact 35. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 37. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 48. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 39. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 44. Subordinate to Fndings of Fact 46-52 and 67- 68. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 69. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 78. Subordinate to Findings of 78. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 76. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 70. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 76, 77 and 78. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 71. Adopted in substance in Findings of 72. 26. Adopted in substance in the preliminary statement. 27. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. 28. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 73. 29. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 54. 30. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 56. 31. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 78. 32. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 63. 33. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 65. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 47-51. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 24-26. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 27. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 25. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 31 and 79- 81. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 29. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 12 and 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 19. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 87-95. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 97. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 87-95. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 40. Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 47-68. Rejected as constituting argument. Rejected as constituting argument. Copies furnished: Paul Watson Lambert, Esquire Attorney at Law 1355 Mahan Drive P. O. Box 31 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 1602 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
