The Issue Whether Respondent’s Rule 59R-11.001, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Chelation therapy is the introduction of a man-made amino acid into a patient’s vein. It has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and is used for the treatment of heavy medal toxicity and the removal of lead. American Board of Chelation Therapy (ABCT) is an autonomous organization that provides education and certification to any physician who wishes to become knowledgeable in Chelation therapy. ABCT was established in 1982 for the purpose of establishing the criteria necessary for certification in the area of Chelation therapy. The Board of Medicine is a statutory entity, established by Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, as the primary regulatory authority for the practice of allopathic medicine in the State of Florida. Pursuant to section 458.301, Florida Statutes, the legislature recognizes that the practice of medicine is potentially dangerous to the public if conducted by unsafe and incompetent practitioners. The section further provides that the primary legislative purpose in enacting the medical practices act is to “ensure that every physician practicing in this state meets minimum requirements for safe practice.” In keeping with the legislative mandate to ensure that purpose of the medical practices act, the legislature created the Board of Medicine and authorized the Board to create administrative rules for the purpose of implementing chapter 458. Rule 59R-11.001, Florida Administrative Code, is the advertising rule of the Board of Medicine.3 The rule codifies provisions of section 458.331(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and provides criteria for identifying false, deceptive, or misleading advertising. In particular, the rule governs advertising on physician letterhead and limits the use of the term “specialist” unless the specialty is recognized by (1) a specialty board of the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or (2) a board that meets the requirements of Rule 59R-11.001, Florida Administrative Code. For those specialties recognized by organizations that do not meet the requirements of the rule, the physicians may still advertise their specialty so long as they provide a disclaimer. By rule the disclaimer must state the following “The Specialty recognition identified herein has been received from a private organization not affiliated with or recognized by the Florida Board of Medicine.” ABMS is generally recognized in the United States as the agency that approves allopathic medical specialty boards and the Board of Medicine has historically relied upon ABMS and its standards and, as reflected in the current rule, continues to rely on ABMS and its standards for approving recognizing agencies. On July 17, 1995, the Petitioner, ABCT submitted an application to Florida Board of Medicine for the purpose of being certified as a “recognizing agency” pursuant to rule 59R-11.001. ABCT is not a specialty board of the ABMS. Because ABCT is not a member board of the ABMS, the Board of Medicine looked to the requirements of rule 59R- 11.001(2)(f) to determine whether ABCT met the criteria enunciated in the rule and whether it is therefore a “recognizing agency” capable of bestowing specialty status on a physician. Rule 59R-11.001(2)(f), Florida Administrative Code, provides that non-ABMS Boards may seek recognition as “recognizing agencies” if they meet the following criteria: The recognizing agency must be an independent body that certifies members as having advanced qualifications in a particular allopathic medical specialty through peer review demonstrations of competence in the specialty being recognized. Specialty recognition must require completion of an allopathic medical residency program approved by either the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada that includes substantial and identifiable training in the allopathic specialty being recognized. Specialty recognition must require successful completion of a comprehensive examination administered by the recognizing agency pursuant to written procedures that ensure adequate security and appropriate grading standards. The recognizing agency, if it is not an ABMS board, must require as part of its certification requirement that each member receiving certification be currently certified by a specialty board of the ABMS. The recognizing agency must have been determined by the Internal Revenue Service of the United States to be a legitimate not for profit entity pursuant to Section 501 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code. The recognizing agency must have full time administrative staff, housed in dedicated office space which is appropriate for the agency’s program and sufficient for responding to consumer or regulatory inquiries. The recognizing agency must have written by-laws, and a code of ethics to guide the practice of its members and an internal review and control process including budgetary practices, to ensure effective utilization of resources. However, a physician may indicate the service offered and may state that practice is limited to one or more types of services when this is in fact the case; On April 15, 1996, the Board of Medicine issued an order denying the ABCT’s application for specialty status. As basis for the denial, the order stated that the application of the ABCT failed to establish compliance with the requirements for approval as set forth in Rule 59R-11.001(2)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the order stated: The requirements for diplomat status in ABCT do not require advanced qualifications in a particular allopathic medicine specialty; specialty recognition given by ABCT does not require completion of an allopathic medical residency program approved by the ACGME or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada that include substantial and identifiable training in the allopathic specialty being recognized; specialty recognition provided by the ABCT does not require successful completion of a comprehensive examination pursuant to written procedures that ensure adequate security and appropriate grading standards in that ABCT requires only a score of 60% to pass the examination, the examination consists of true false questions and answers, and the examination is not a medically comprehensive examination; ABCT is not an ABMS board and does not require that each member it certifies be currently certified by an ABMS board; and ABCT has not provided evidence that it is a legitimate not-for-profit entity pursuant to Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code as determined by the Internal Revenue Service. Each of the requirements of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f) were addressed at the administrative hearing. With regard to criteria (1) of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f), advanced qualifications in a particular allopathic medical specialty through peer review, the ABCT does not require an advanced qualification in a particular allopathic medical specialty. Furthermore, ABCT admitted that it does not meet the requirement of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f)(1). Criteria (2) of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f) provides that the specialty recognition must require completion of an allopathic medical residency program approved by either the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. The ACGME is generally recognized as the organization that sets criteria for graduate medical education in the United States. The Board of Medicine has incorporated that recognition in the rule by requiring that the advanced education component of the rule be ACGME approved. The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada is ACGME’s counterpart in Canada. With regard to criteria (2) of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f), ABCT does not require completion of an allopathic residency program approved by either the ACGME or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. In fact, ABCT has no requirement for a residency program. ABCT reasoned that a there is no need for a residency program for Chelation therapists because Chelation therapy does not require overnight hospital stay. The only requirement remotely relating to residency is an ABCT requirement that applicants for diplomat status administer a minimum of 1000 Chelation treatments. There is no requirement that these treatments be supervised and no requirement for verification that the minimum number of treatments were administered. With regard to criteria (3) of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f), requiring successful completion of a comprehensive examination, ABCT does not require all applicants for diplomat status to complete a written examination in order to obtain certification. Specifically, some candidates are grandfathered in without being required to complete the written examination. For those applicants that are required to submit to an examination, Dr. Arthur L. Koch testified that the examination is composed of approximately sixty percent true/false questions. In addition, Dr. Koch testified that another ten percent of the test is not medically oriented but rather addresses the history and politics of Chelation therapy in the United States. At the hearing, ABCT submitted its Spring 1994 examination as an exhibit. That examination contained a majority true/false questions and a few multiple choice questions. To pass the ABCT diplomat examination, the candidate is required to achieve a score of 62.5 percent. In contrast, the Board of Medicine generally requires a passing score of at least 75%. The Board of Medicine expressed concern about the low passing score accepted by ABCT on its certification examination. The Board of Medicine also expressed concern over the large number of true/false questions used in the example examination submitted by ABCT. Uncontroverted testimony was presented at the hearing to support a finding that an examination consisting of a majority of true/false questions is not a viable method of testing knowledge. With regard to criteria (4) of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f), requiring members of non-ABMS boards to also be certified by a specialty board of the ABMS, the ABCT does not require that each physician seeking diplomat status be currently certified by an ABMS specialty board. Furthermore, ABCT admitted that it does not meet the requirement of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f)(4). With regard to criteria (5) of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f), that the recognizing agency must be a legitimate not for profit entity under the Internal Revenue Code, evidence was presented to verify that ABCT is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization. With regard to criteria (6) of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f), requiring the recognizing agency to have full-time administrative staff sufficient to respond to consumer or regulatory inquiries, no evidence was presented at the hearing relating to this criteria. With regard to criteria (7) of rule 59R-11.001(2)(f), requiring the recognizing agency to have written by-laws and a code of ethics to guide the practice of its members, ABCT submitted its Constitution and Bylaws as adopted in March of 1982 and subsequently amended. The Constitution and bylaws, however, did not include a written code of ethics and therefore did not fully comply with the requirements of the rule.
Findings Of Fact In June, 1982, a rules workshop was held by the Board. At that time the adoption of a rule was proposed which would define certain statutory phrases included in Section 458.313(1)(d), Florida Statutes, which provides: Has been certified by licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (FLEX) or is certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners as having completed its examination... Following the June, 1982, rules workshop, public notice of the proposed adoption of Section 21M-29.01(2), Florida Administrative Code, was published in the July 23, 1982, Florida Administrative Weekly. In support of Rule 21M-29.01(2), Florida Administrative Code, the Board adopted an economic impact statement which was prepared by the Board's attorney. In its entirety, the economic impact statement provides as follows: An estimate of the cost to the agency of the implementation of the proposed action: The only cost to the agency by this proposed rule will be the cost of notic- ing and printing. An estimate of the cost or the economic benefit to all persons directly affected: No additional cost or benefits are anticipated. An estimate of the impact of the proposed action on competition and the open market for emoloyment: No significant impact on competition or the open market for employment is anticipated. A detailed statement of the data and method used in making each of the above estimates: As this proposed rule merely provides a clearer understanding of what certain phrases mean, no new data or methodology is needed to reach the foregoing con- clusions. (Emphasis added.) Since the effective date of Rule 21M-29.01(2), Florida administrative Code, approximately two thousand applications- cations for licensure by endorsement have been filed with the Board. Approximately fifteen, or three- fourths of one percent of these applications, have been denied for failure to obtain a FLEX-weighted average of 75 percent from one complete- sitting on the examination. On August 7, 1983, the Board adopted Rule 21M-29.01(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides as follows: The phrase has been certified by licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc.' (FLEX) or as certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners as having com- pleted its examination as used in Section 458.313(1)(d), F.S., shall mean the following: A FLEX-weighted average of seventy- five percent (75.0 percent) from one complete sitting on the FLEX, or an average score of seventy-five percent (75.0 percent) on the National Board. On November 10, 1983, the foregoing rule became effective and thereafter governed the application of Section 458.313, Florida Statutes. Prior to 1979, the Board had required a 75 percent FLEX weighted average to be obtained from one sitting of the FLEX, the same requirement contained in the challenged rule after its adoption. In 1979, however, legal counsel for the Board advised the Board that it lacked authority to require that an applicant for licensure by endorsement obtain a 75 percent score from only one sitting of the FLEX. Therefore, after 1979, and up to the promulgation of the challenged rule, the Board considered the highest grade obtained for a section of the FLEX examination when a candidate for licensure by endorsement had taken that section more than one time within the time frame required by Section 458.313, Florida Statutes. On December 21, 1982, Petitioner submitted by mail an application for licensure by endorsement to the Board. The application was received by the Board on December 28, 1982. Sometime between December 28, 1982, and January 19, 1983, the Board requested additional information from Petitioner relating to his professional activities during the period from June, 1967, to June, 1968. Petitioner responded to this inquiry by letter dated January 19, 1983, and therewith provided the Board the requested information. This letter was received by the Board on January 24, 1983. By use of a form dated February 23, 1983, the Board made another request for information from Petitioner relating to two omissions in his application. Petitioner responded to this inquiry by letter dated March 15, 1983, providing the requested information. This letter was received by the Board on March 21, 1983. Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement is based upon his previously obtained FLEX certification. Petitioner took the FLEX, a three-part examination, incidental to applying for medical licensure by examination in the State of Illinois. Petitioner sat for the FLEX examination in Illinois on June 13, 14, and 15, 1972 and again on December 6 and 7, 1972. Following conclusion of each examination, Petitioner's responses to the examination questions were forwarded to the National Board of Medical Examiners for evaluation and scoring. On or about January 17, 1973, the National Board of Medical Examiners completed its evaluation and scoring of Petitioner's responses to the December, 1972, examination, and on or about January 19, 1973, the scores achieved by Petitioner were forwarded to the State of Illinois. On February 7, 1973, Petitioner was licensed by the State of Illinois, based upon the scores obtained by Petitioner on the June and December, 1972, FLEX examinations. The weighted average of the scores achieved by Petitioner on which licensure as granted by the State of Illinois was 75 percent. This weighted average was computed by assigning a one-sixth weight to the basic science portion of the FLEX examination taken by Petitioner on June 13, 1972; a two- sixth weight to the clinical science portion of the FLEX examination taken by Petitioner on December 6, 1972; and a three-sixth weight to the clinical competence portion of the FLEX examination taken by Petitioner on December 7, 1972. By letter dated March 1, 1983, a representative of the Board notified Petitioner that approval of Petitioner's application could not be recommended to the Board since Petitioner had not obtained a score of 75 percent or above at one sitting of the complete FLEX examination. The same letter informed petitioner that his application would be presented to the Board for consideration at its April 9-10, 1983, meeting, and that Petitioner would be notified of the Board's final decision within proximately fifteen days from the date of that meeting. On April 10, 1983, the Board at a regularly noticed public meeting considered Petitioners application Petitioner's attorney appeared before the Board and addressed the Board on behalf of Petitioner. After considering the information, argument, and legal authority presented by Petitioner's attorney, and the advice and information presented by its staff, the Board, through its chairman declared Petitioner's application was not filed within the ten-year period required by Section 458.313(d), Florida Statutes. The Board also determined that Petitioner had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 21M-29.01(2), Florida Administrative Code, because he had not scored a FLEX- weighted average of 75 percent or better during only one complete sitting of the FLEX examination.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Adel N. Assad, D.V.M. (Respondent), failed to comply with a lawful Final Order of the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine (Board) previously entered in a disciplinary hearing in violation of Section 474.214(1)(f), Florida Statutes. The Order required, among other things, that Respondent take a specific examination to determine his competency to practice.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed veterinarian, having been issued license number VM-2404 by the Board. Respondent has been practicing, subject to discipline at various times, in the State of Florida since October 1979. On December 27, 2000, the Board issued a Final Order Approving Settlement Counter-stipulation (Order) requiring Respondent to take and successfully complete the NBEC special purpose examination in small animal medicine. The Order required Respondent to take and pass the NBEC special purpose examination within the first two years of his probation, or by December 27, 2002. The NBEC special purpose examination was created and regulated by the NBEC, which was renamed the National Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (NBVME) in July 2001. The NBEC special purpose examination was thereafter renamed the NBVME species specific examination in small animal medicine in July 2001, in order to reflect the organization's name change and is currently administered under that name. It has not changed in substance or format since its creation in 1997 and is currently available in the original substance and format under the name "National Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners species specific examination in small animal medicine." Respondent or any other Florida licensee required to take the NBVME species specific examination must contact the Board in order to request administration of the examination. Any Florida licensee who directly contacts the NBVME to request the species specific examination or its current equivalent would be informed that he or she must contact the Board to request the examination. The NBVME does not offer standard examinations directly to veterinarians. Linda Tinsley is a government analyst employed by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. She is currently assigned to the Board where she serves as the liaison between the Board and the NBVME. Ms. Tinsley is responsible for coordinating the paperwork and procedures for requesting and purchasing the NBEC special purpose examination in small animal medicine or its current equivalent, the NBVME species specific examination in small animal medicine. Ms. Tinsley is also responsible for receiving phone calls and correspondence from applicants and licensees submitted to the Board's office. In this capacity, she would be the person referred to if seeking or requesting administration on the NBVME species specific examination. Respondent was reminded that he was required to take the NBEC special purpose examination in small animal medicine at the September 2002 meeting of the Board. At that meeting, Ms. Tinsley informed those in attendance, inclusive of Respondent, that a licensee must contact the Board's office in order to request the NBVME species specific examination. Respondent never contacted the Board's office to request or to schedule the administration of the NBVME species specific examination. Consequently, he has not taken or passed the NBVME species specific examination in small animal medicine, as required by the Order. Respondent's disciplinary record, as established by past Final Orders of the Board documenting discipline imposed on his license, makes clear that Respondent presents a danger to the public in the practice of veterinary medicine. Respondent has previously been disciplined seven times by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered (a) finding the Respondent guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 474.214(1)(f), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and (b) in view of the aggravating circumstances in this case, the revocation of the Respondent’s license to practice as a veterinarian in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 19th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire Infantino & Berman Post Office Box 30 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Sherry Landrum, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner is eligible for licensure by endorsement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received, the statement of position offered by counsel for Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, Ariel Hollero Garcia, M.D., filed an application for licensure by endorsement with the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners (Respondent) on or about September 29, 1981. Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement was denied by the Respondent based on its determination that Petitioner has not been certified by licensure examination of the National Board of Medical Examiners and that, while he was certified by the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., as having completed its examination, it was not within the ten (10) years immediately preceding the filing of his (Petitioner's) application for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner was certified by the Federation of State Medical Examiners in June of 1971. Petitioner agrees with the above-recited facts; however, he feels that the ten (10) year requirement should be waived for him in these circumstances, inasmuch as his application was submitted for licensure by endorsement within only approximately three (3) months beyond the ten (10) year filing period during which an applicant can be certified (licensed) by endorsement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement be DENIED. 1/ JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 12th day of August, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) has jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim that Respondent discriminated against him in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Respondent has never employed 15 or more employees at any point in time. At the most, Petitioner has employed three employees, the owner and two other people including Petitioner. Lab One/Exam One may employ more than 15 people. However, Respondent's only relationship with Lab One/Exam One is as an independent contractor. At no time material to this case has Respondent or its owner acted as an agent, representative, or employee for Lab One/Exam One. In his Petition for Relief, Petitioner states that Respondent is an independent contractor that is affiliated with Exam One, a world-wide medical exam company. According to the petition, Respondent uses a computer program known as Exam Link to send bi-monthly bills to Exam One for services rendered. Petitioner also alleges that Lab One/Exam One uses e-mail or facsimile transmissions to request Respondent to perform medical exams. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that Lab One/Exam One had sufficient influence over Respondent to ensure that Petitioner received his final paycheck from Respondent. However, the witness Petitioner subpoenaed to provide testimony in support of this proposition did not make an appearance. Petitioner's attempt to show that Respondent's relationship with Lab One/Exam One was based on more than a contract was unsuccessful.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 29th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy M. Lombardo 321 Stone House Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3355 Julius F. Parker, III, Esquire Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP 3600 Maclay Boulevard, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated a rule of the Board of Medicine or the Department by advertising in a deceptive or misleading manner, thereby violating a provision of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, which makes a licensee subject to disciplinary action if found guilty of violating a rule of the Board or Department.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed as a physician by the Florida Board of Medicine since 1976 and holds license number ME0026906. He has completed a residency program in his speciality of orthopedics but has not been Board certified in this speciality by a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialists. Respondent identifies himself as a diplomate of the Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons on letterhead on correspondence mailed from his office. He has been so designated by this Academy since 1980. Respondent also identified himself as a diplomate of the Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons on various correspondence disseminated to Associated Insurance Brokers Claims Management in regard to patient E.S. Although Respondent contends that he did not intend his identification on his letterhead as a diplomate to be advertising, he did acknowledge that such designation enhances his stature as an orthopedic surgeon. Many insurance carriers approve for payment higher patient charges assessed by various specialists. Respondent testified that in order to be designated as a diplomate of the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons he had to pass a rigorous examination; however, no evidence was submitted from which a comparison could be made between this designation and a similar designation from a Board approved by the American Board of Medical Specialists (ABMS). The American Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons is not now and never has been a member of the American Board of Medical Specialties. Nor has it ever pertitioned the Florida Board of Medicine for recognition as a speciality board. The American Federation of Medical Accreditation, which recognizes the American Academy of Neurological and Orthopedic Surgeons, has never been a member board of the American Board of Medical Specialists; nor has the Federation ever petitioned the Florida Board of Medicine for approval as a recognizing agency for medical specialties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Edward Neil Feldman guilty of violation of Sections 458.331(1)(d) and (x), Florida Statutes; and that he be given an official reprimand and fined $2,000.00. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 20th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3804 Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted. Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted except as noted below: Accepted as testimony of Dr. Feldman. However, no evidence was submitted comparing this test to the test given by a speciality board approved by the ABMS. Second sentence rejected. By stating he is a diplomate, Respondent implies certain recognition. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected. See Hearing Officer #5 and #6. See Hearing Officer #5 and #6. Rejected as irrelevant. 15. Respondent's attempt to equate the notice on letterhead that Respondent was a diplomate to an entry in a curriculum vitae (c.v.) is misplaced. A c.v. is similar to a professional life history and is totally inapt for advertising. The same cannot be said when the achievement is placed on a letterhead. 18. Rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas Saieva, Esquire SAIEVA & WALSH, P.A. 800 West DeLeon Street Tampa, Florida 33606-2722 Jack McRay, Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
