The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner filed an application or request for reactivation of his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Carlos Warter, M.D., 4/ was first issued a license to practice medicine in the State of Florida on August 2, 1977. It was a license by endorsement. For several years following 1977, the Petitioner practiced medicine in Chile. By letter dated July 2, 1980, the Florida Board of Medical Examiners wrote to the Petitioner about the status of his Florida license. The letter included the following: Pursuant to Section 458.051(3), Florida Statutes, a license obtained by endorsement in this State shall become void and of no force and effect unless the recipient utilizes the same by actively engaging in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida within three (3) years after the issuance of the license and continues such practice in this State for a minimum period of one (1) year. This practice requirement may be postponed only if and while the holder of an endorsement license is in the active military service of the United States or in an AMA approved training program. The Petitioner never actively engaged in the practice of medicine in Florida. Accordingly, by operation of Section 458.051(3), Florida Statutes, his Florida license, obtained by endorsement, became void and of no force and effect. After practicing for many years in other jurisdictions, the Petitioner decided he wanted to live in Florida and practice medicine in Florida. To that end, he contacted the staff of the Board of Medicine to inquire as to what would be required of him to obtain a license to practice medicine in Florida. As a result of his conversations with Board staff, the Petitioner believed that he could not reactivate his prior Florida license, which had become void by his failure to ever practice medicine in Florida. 5/ Based on that belief, the Petitioner did not file an application seeking to reactivate his void license. Rather, he filed an application seeking a new license by endorsement pursuant to Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner filed an application for licensure by endorsement on or about April 19, 1998. Question 9 on the application form reads: "Are you or have you ever held any professional/medical license in any State in the U.S., to include Canada, Guam, Puerto Rico or U.S. Virgin Islands? (If yes, list profession(s), state(s), license numbers(s), and date(s) of issuance.)" The Petitioner's answer was: "California 1980 to date/A35572." The Petitioner did not list his prior Colorado or New Mexico licenses to practice medicine. More importantly, he did not list his prior, now void, license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. Further, the Petitioner's prior license to practice medicine in the State of Florida is not mentioned anywhere else in the Petitioner's application for license by endorsement filed on May 19, 1998. 6/ Following several requests for additional information, the Petitioner's 1998 application was scheduled for consideration at a meeting of the Credentials Committee of the Board of Medicine on November 14, 1998. The Petitioner was present at the November 14, 1998, meeting, at which time he was not represented by legal counsel. At the conclusion of that meeting, the Credentials Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement be denied. During the meeting on November 14, 1998, there was no mention by either the Petitioner or any member of the Credentials Committee of the subject of reactivating the Petitioner's prior void license. The Petitioner was, of course, disappointed with the vote of the Credentials Committee. He was also of the view that the members of the Credentials Committee had treated him in a shabby, rude, and disrespectful manner, and that they had failed to properly perform their duties. Following his first appearance before the Credentials Committee of the Board of Medicine, the Petitioner obtained legal counsel. On January 20, 1999, the Petitioner wrote a letter to Governor Jeb Bush, which included the following comments: I first called the Board of Medicine and asked to have my license reactivated, but was informed that was not possible, and that I would have to reapply for licensure. * * * I then hired an attorney to assist with my application. She notified me that I was eligible to receive a license under a provision that allowed for reactivation of my license in certain circumstances. Therafter, the Petitioner's legal counsel made numerous efforts to persuade the Credentials Committee and the full Board of Medicine to treat the Petitioner's application of May 19, 1998, as an application for reactivation under Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes. Those efforts were unsuccessful and the Board of Medicine, on March 5, 1999, issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Licensure by Endorsement. The stated grounds in the notice were failures to meet several requirements of Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes. The notice did not mention Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioner, Carlos Warter, M.D., is not eligible for licensure under Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes, because he admittedly fails to meet all of the requirements for issuance of a license under Section 458.313(1), Florida Statutes, and that he is not eligible for licensure under Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes, because he has never filed an application for reactivation of his prior voided license pursuant to Section 458.313(8), Florida Statutes, and the statutory deadline for filing such applications has expired. 7/ DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1999.
The Issue Whether respondent's licence as a medical doctor should be disciplined on charges that he: (1) was convicted in a foreign country of a crime relating to the practice of medicine, (2) obtained his license to practice medicine by fraud or deceitful misrepresentation, (3) had his license acted against by the licensing authority of another state, (4) made misleading, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine or employed a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine, (5) engaged in unethical, deceptive, or deleterious conduct harmful to the public, (6) failed to prescribe controlled substances in good faith and in the course of his medical practice, and (7) engaged in immoral or unprofessional conduct, incompetence, negligence, or willful misconduct, all in violation of Section 458.1201, Florida Statutes (1973), and Section 458.331, Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact Count I: Conviction of a Crime Relating to the Practice of Medicine In 1960, respondent was a first-year medical student at Fribourg University in Switzerland. On May 11, 1960, he was tried and convicted by the Criminal Court of Sarine in Fribourg, Switzerland, of the crimes of "attempted abortion committed by a third person, attempted abortion on an unsuitable object by a third person, and violation of the law regarding the health regulations." He was sentenced to a ten-month prison term, minus the time of detention served while awaiting trial, with a suspended execution of sentence during five years. Respondent was also fined 500 Swiss francs, deported from Switzerland, and barred from reentry for a period of fifteen years. (Testimony of Gordon, Alonso; P-3.) II. Count II: Obtaining Florida Medical License by Fraud or Misrepresentation On December 17, 1971, respondent filed with the Florida State Board of Medical Examiners a sworn application for examination and licensure as a medical doctor in the State of Florida. On his application, he responded in the negative to questions asking whether he had ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor. The application also contained the following statement, in bold type, above the signature line of the applicant: I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind, and I declare under penalty of perjury that my answers and all statements made by me herein are true and correct. Should I fur- nish any false information in this applica- tion, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for the denial, suspension, or revocation of my license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Florida. (P-2.) On August 30, 1972, based on his application and passage of the examination, the Board of Medical Examiners issued respondent a license (license No. 24291) to practice medicine and surgery in Florida. (Testimony of Gordon; P-2.) Respondent explains his failure to reveal his Switzerland conviction on his application as a "peccadillo." (Tr. 245.) Since the New Jersey Medical Board records (where he was previously licensed) reflected his Switzerland conviction, he testified that he felt the New Jersey board would have notified the Florida board of the conviction. (Tr. 245-246.)(Testimony of Gordon.) By 1974, within two years after he was licensed in Florida, the Department became aware of his criminal conviction in Switzerland. In 1973 or 1974, soon after respondent opened his medical practice in North Miami Beach, a Department investigator, A. J. Stack, told him that the Department knew of his criminal conviction in Switzerland. (Testimony' of Gordon; R-2.) III. Count III: New Jersey's Action Against Respondent's Medical License On September 29, 1972, the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners issued an administrative complaint seeking to suspend or revoke respondent's New Jersey medical and surgical license on charges he sexually assaulted two female patients and dispensed amphetamines to two other patients without good medical cause. One month later, the New Jersey board supplemented its complaint by adding two additional charges: (1) that he was convicted as an abortionist in Switzerland in May, 1960, and (2) that he failed to complete Section 12 of the application (i.e., disclose the Switzerland conviction), thereby obtaining his New Jersey medical license by fraud. (P-4, R-2.) On December 11, 1972, the New Jersey Department of Health suspended, for an indefinite period, respondent's New Jersey controlled substance registration. The suspension order states that, after being notified by certified mail, respondent failed to appear before the Department and show cause why his registration should not be suspended. No other reason is given for the suspension action. Respondent now asserts that the Department of Health did not notify him of its action to suspend his controlled substance registration. (Tr. 251-252.)(Testimony of Gordon; P-4.) The charges brought against respondent by the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners were never adjudicated on their merits. On February 27, 1973, he resigned from the practice of medicine in New Jersey and surrendered his New Jersey medical license to the Board of Medical Examiners. (Testimony of Gordon; P-4, R-2.) When the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners brought its charges against respondent, he had already obtained his Florida medical license. The Florida board of Medical Examiners learned of the New Jersey charges and respondent's resignation in May, 1973. In February, 1974, the board's counsel advised that "there is really nothing we can do unless Dr. Gordon violates the Florida laws." (R-2.) And, on May 15, 1974, the board's executive director made this notation in respondent's file: If he [respondent] has any trouble here in Florida we can suspend his license on the basis of the N.J. Board's action. (R-2.) IV. Counts IV, V, VI, and VII: Professional Misconduct in Treating Elizabeth Buffum Respondent began to practice medicine in Florida in 1973 at North Miami Beach, Florida. In December of that year--at the request of a third party--he went to the home of Elizabeth Buffum and treated her for alcoholism. Thereafter, he continued to treat her for chronic alcoholism. His treatment was to limit her use of alcohol and prescribe various sedatives, such as Thorazine and Sparine, which are scheduled controlled substances. In June, 1974, he and Ms. Buffum began living together; in September they were married. From December, 1973, until Ms. Buffum left him in November, 1975, respondent continuously acted as her physician and provided treatment for her alcoholism. (P-1.) Ms. Buffum was a woman of great wealth. During her marriage to respondent, she relied on respondent not only as her physician but also as her confidant and financial advisor. Extensive 9/ civil litigation which followed their broken marriage resulted in the Circuit Court of Dade County rendering a judgment in Bellman v. Gordon, Case No. 75-18967 (Fla. 11th Cir. Ct. 1979) [affirmed, Gordon v. Gordon, 386 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980), opinion filed July 29, 1980], finding that: Edward Gordon breached this fiduciary duty [to Ms. Buffum and converted her assets to his own use and the use of his family so that nearly all of her assets were divested from her. The court ordered the return of her assets. (P-1, P-5.) In treating Ms. Buffum's alcoholism, respondent would allow her to drink limited amounts of alcohol: the thrust of his treatment program was to gradually decrease the dosages of alcohol. (Frequently, he would add water to her liquor bottles in an attempt to lessen the effects of alcohol.) He sometimes gave her an alcoholic drink to calm her, and ordinarily allowed her an alcoholic drink before evening meals. He also gave her vitamin B12 and Valium. When he thought she was having delirium tremors, he administered Thorazine. He acknowledges that, when she was in such a condition, it would have been proper to place her in the hospital, but he felt--at the time--that he could properly care for her at home. (Testimony of Gordon; P-1.) Dr. Delores Morgan, a qualified expert in family practice and alcoholism treatment, testified that respondent's medical treatment of Ms. Buffum deviated from the generally accepted and prevailing medical practice in the Miami area between 1973 and 1975. She testified Benzodiazepins (including Librium and Valium), rather than Phenathiazines (including Thorazine and Sparine) should be administered to patients suffering from alcohol withdrawal symptoms, such as delirium tremors; that such patients are medical emergencies and must be hospitalized, where their progress can be monitored and a thorough physical examination can be given, including checking eletrolyte patterns, potassium deficiencies, and chemical profiles; that, rather than decreasing doses of alcohol, treatment of alcoholism requires complete abstinence; and that if an alcoholic patient refused hospitalization, he or she should have been involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to state law. These opinions of Dr. Morgan are persuasive and are expressly adopted as findings. Respondent's contrary opinions are rejected as self-serving and uncorroborated. (Testimony of Morgan.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's license to practice medicine and surgery in Florida be suspended for one (1) year. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 22nd of June, 1982 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of June, 1982.
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Respondent violated the provisions of the Insurance Code as alleged in the Administrative Complaint by pleading guilty to a felony and failing to report such plea to the Petitioner; (2) whether the offense to which Respondent pleaded guilty is a crime involving moral turpitude; and (3) if yes to either of the foregoing, what penalty should be imposed on Respondent's license as a non- resident life and health insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in the State of Florida as a non-resident life and health insurance agent. Respondent has been a licensed insurance agent for twenty-four years, having first been licensed in Florida in 1994. In addition to holding a Florida insurance license, Respondent is also licensed as an insurance agent in North Carolina. On or about January 13, 1997, an information was filed in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pasco County, Florida, Case No. 97-00245CFAWS, charging Respondent with one count of scheme to defraud. This offense constitutes a felony. On September 4, 1997, Respondent pled guilty to the charge of scheme to defraud. The judge withheld adjudication of guilt, placed Respondent on probation for three years, and indicated that he would consider early termination of probation after Respondent served 50 percent of his sentence. On September 12, 1997, the court entered a written Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation that stated in part the following: It appearing to the satisfaction of the court that you are not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct, and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that you should presently be adjudged guilty and suffer the penalty authorized by law. Now, therefore, it is ordered [and] adjudged that the adjudication of guilt [and] imposition of sentence are hereby withheld, [and] that you are hereby placed on probation for a period of three years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections subject to the Florida law. . . . Respondent did not inform the Department that he pled guilty to a felony and was on probation as required by Section 626.621 (11), Florida Statutes. The reason that Respondent failed to report the guilty plea and probation was that he believed that it was unnecessary because he was not adjudicated guilty. The aforementioned criminal charge against Respondent and his ultimate guilty plea to the felony of scheme to defraud stemmed from an incident that occurred in 1996. At that time, Respondent was unable to obtain automobile loans due to his bad credit resulting from his divorce. In order to obtain a loan from First Union Bank to purchase automobiles for himself, his wife, and his daughter, Respondent used the name and social security number of his brother, Mark Wilson. As a result of using his brother's name and social security number, Respondent was able to obtain a loan for $43,000.00 to purchase three vehicles, a 1993 Grand Prix, a 1990 Eagle Talon, and a 1995 Lincoln. Several months after Respondent obtained the loan, his brother, Mark Wilson, discovered the loans were on his credit record. Thereafter, Mark Wilson's credit record was corrected and Respondent entered into a stipulated settlement with First Union, whereby he agreed to pay the loans and First Union's attorney's fees incurred in connection with the case. Respondent's brother did not file charges against him. Respondent was current on the loan payments when Mark Wilson, Respondent's brother, learned that loans had been taken out in his name. At the time of the hearing, on August 5, 1998, the loans had been paid down to approximately $7,800.00, and Respondent was current in paying the balance. No person or entity lost any money as result of Respondent's actions. At the time Respondent used the aforementioned deception to obtain the automobile loans, he was very depressed and was undergoing psychological therapy by Marcia N. Davis, a licensed therapist in Asheville, North Carolina. Respondent has continued to undergo psychological treatment by Marcia N. Davis. Her current prognosis is that Respondent has made definite improvement and that she would not expect that he would break the law again. The criminal charge against Respondent was not related to any action taken by Respondent in his role as a licensed insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that a Final Order be entered suspending the license of Respondent, Perry Murray Wilson, for two months. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Paul B. Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 3416 Tampa, Florida 33601 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
