The Issue The issue for consideration was whether Respondent properly rejected Petitioner's proposal to provide emergency medical service and paramedic examinations for the Department.
Findings Of Fact Prior to the taking of testimony, the parties stipulated that the University of South Florida, Petitioner herein, has standing to protest the award in issue here; that all notices were adequate and timely; that all procedural requirements have been satisfied by both parties; and that the only issue of fact is the validity of the Department's rejection of Petitioner's Proposal. Charles E. Barner, Jr. is a principal in Regulatory Agency Management Systems, (RAMS), headquartered in Tallahassee, a management consultant firm involved in the providing of hardware and software systems to regulatory agencies. Mr. Barner was formerly Assistant Director of the Department of Professional Regulation and in that capacity, was familiar with the qualification examination system. Until the instant procurement, the Department of Professional Regulation had administered, for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the examinations for emergency medical services and paramedics which it had developed because DHRS had no built in expertise to develop and administer examinations. However, prior to the instant cycle, DHRS officials decided to go outside the state system to procure the service, and a Request For Proposals, (RFP), was developed and issued seeking proposals to provide the development and administration of an examination and evaluation system. In furtherance of this decision, DHRS gave to RAMS an outline of what it desired and RAMS developed the full RFP to give as broad a coverage as possible. RAMS provided the agency with numerous options on various salient parts of the RFP, and the intent of the agency was to provide a full package of services. The ultimate thrust of the proposal was to farm out the entire test and evaluation process from development to evaluation to remove DHRS from those activities. The RFP developed was provided to those prospective proposers on the Department of General Services' list of prospective proposers and was advertised. The RFP was designed to do several things: (1) to determine the qualifications of the proposer, and (2) to determine the dollar cost if there were qualified vendors. The primary concern of DHRS in accomplishing the procurement in this fashion was that in farming out an entire service from solicitation to challenge, they would get qualified proposers to accomplish the required task within the agency budget. RAMS was involved in the agency's evaluation of the proposals submitted by each of the three proposers. The rating committee was made up of Mr. Woodard, Mr. Huskey, and, as a de facto member, Mr. Barner. The rating criteria utilized by the evaluation committee was furnished by RAMS, and there is no indication the committee used any criteria other than those. The committee met three or four times, but no minutes were kept of any of the meetings. The evaluation process included a review of each proposal, independent of each other, by evaluators acting independently; a comparison of the notes made by each evaluator as to each proposal; and the formulation of a recommendation to the Department. When the Petitioner's proposal was evaluated, it was determined not to meet the criteria in some facets of the RFP requirements. Primarily this related to two areas. The first dealt with Petitioner's perceived refusal to defend the examination, a primary reason for disqualification. The second dealt with the inability of the evaluators to determine the relationship between the University and those who would review the examination, deposit funds, and otherwise administer the process. The RFP specifically prohibited subcontracting. With regard to the defense of challenges to the examination, RAMS, in its evaluation, contends the University indicated it would not defend an examination item it did not develop. RAMS concluded this was not a proper response to the request. Challenges deal not only with examination questions but also with conditions of the examination and challenge defense was clearly a part of the RFP. When the agency "vendorized" the examination process, it intended that the contractor would defend the entire examination process. Rejected applications were to be defended against by the agency but all other aspects of the process, including the examination and the conditions thereof, were to be defended by the vendor. This was clearly set out in the RFP. According to Mr. Barner, those requirements are not at all atypical, and under the circumstances, are not inappropriate. In fact, this is done nationally by various accrediting agencies and the other two proposers agreed without qualification to defend the examination. With regard to the issue of subcontracting, RAMS personnel concluded upon evaluation that on the basis of the proposal itself, not considering post- submitted documentation, the relationship between the University and a Mr. Brandt was unclear. It was the agency's intention to have a single party responsible for the entire process and not to rely on a joint venture. After opening, substantial effort was made to verify the references in the proposal to Mr. Brandt to determine his relationship with the University, and based on all available information at the time, RAMS, on behalf of the agency, concluded that Mr. Brandt was not and would not be an employee of the University. RAMS' analysis of the proposal did not indicate Petitioner could not defend an examination or question the quality of Mr. Brandt's operation. RAMS' position, adopted by the agency, was that the University proposal did not respond appropriately to the RFP in this case. The RFP provided with reference to examination challenges: The provider shall respond to all legal challenges and civil suits that may develop as a result of the examination, its content, the sites or the administration of the sites, and shall defend the examination before any Division of Administrative Hearings or appeals to that process to the District Court of Appeals or other courts. The Department shall not be responsible for any costs related to a defense of the examination, its content, or the administration. Both other proposers, the University of Central Florida and NAI, indicated their willingness to comply with all terms and conditions of the RFP with regard to legal defenses to the examination process including both current and future items. Review of the Petitioner's proposal indicates that the University took the position, in regard to the examination challenges, that it would not defend the examination unless there was a provision for an extra fee for this service. In pari materia it stated: The Institute is of the opinion that the Department cannot, via this RFP or otherwise, exonerate itself from ultimate legal responsibility for the examinations' content and process. The Institute will provide data and professional support in connection with any legal challenges and civil suit that may develop as a result of the portion of the examination that was developed at the Institute or related to the administration of the sites. The Institute cannot accept any responsibility for test items developed prior to this contract. The Institute cannot accept responsibility for legal defense of the department, of course, nor can it assume responsibility for costs involved in sending personnel to legal defenses, unless a contingency against this eventuality is included in the, project grant award. The RFP allowed for a modification of terms in a proposer's response and the University claims that it did not specifically decline to undertake exam challenge defense, but merely suggested an additional fee therefor, and that this is an alternative proposal which meets the standard. The agency, on the other hand, contends that modification is appropriate only after the proposer agrees to comply with the terms of the request for proposal. It asserts that in the instant case, the condition generated a nonresponsive precondition to examination defense. Upon evaluation of the conflicting positions, it is found that the University's proposal was not a mere modification but more a counterproposal, and as such, was not responsive. With regard to the relationship between Mr. Brandt and the University, as was stated previously, the RFP provides for no subcontracting. The University claims that employees of Brandt and Associates will be "employed by ...(from Brandt Associates)", and Mr. Brandt, an employee of Brandt Associates, would be employed by the University. Review of the documentation and the testimony makes it clear that Mr. Brandt will be responsible to the University as a university employee and not as a subcontractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a Final Order denying the protest of the University of South Florida in the instant procurement and awarding the contract to develop and administer emergency medical service and paramedic examinations for the Department to NAI. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearing The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 11th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3374BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings o Fact submitted by the Petitioner herein. 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the evidence. Rejected as contra to the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Justin R. Lumley Associate General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 Fowler Avenue Tampa, Florida 33620-6250 John Rodriguez, Esquire Interprogram & Developmental Technical Assistance Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building One, Room 304 1317 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 13-16, 1992, petitioner, James S. Moore, a chiropractic physician, was a candidate on the chiropractic licensure examination. Doctor Moore is a recent graduate of Life Chiropractic College and was taking the examination for the first time. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Chiropractic (Board). On July 2, 1992, DPR issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that while he had received passing grades on the X-ray interpretation and technique portions of the examination, he had received a score of 70.5 on the physical diagnosis portion of the test. A grade of 75.0 is necessary to pass this part of the examination. By letter dated September 23, 1992, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his score. In his letter, Dr. Moore generally contended that he had been denied licensure without any reason or explanation, and that during the review process his contentions were not given meaningful consideration. As further clarified at hearing, petitioner contended that he should have received higher scores on procedures 1, 2, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination, and thus he should have received a passing grade. That portion of the test is a practical examination requiring the candidate to give verbal and demonstrative responses to a series of questions designed to test the candidate's diagnostic skills. Among other things, the candidate is required to perform certain tests and procedures on a volunteer patient. To memorialize a candidate's performance, the examination is videotaped, and a copy of petitioner's performance is found in joint exhibit 1 received in evidence. Petitioner generally contends that he should have received a higher grade on the above questions. To support his position, petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his uncle-employer, a chiropractic physician in Jacksonville, Florida, who has seven years experience in the field. Respondent offered the testimony of a Miami chiropractic physician who has been a grader on the examination for the last twelve years and was accepted as an expert in the field of chiropractic. It is noted that both physicians reviewed petitioner's examination prior to giving testimony. However, respondent's expert did not regrade the examination but rather evaluated the questions, petitioner's responses and the grades of the two examiners who graded petitioner to determine if the scores were within acceptable guidelines. As might be expected, the two physicians offered conflicting opinions regarding petitioner's examination scores. In resolving the conflicts in the testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and this testimony is embodied in the findings below. There are two independent chiropractors who grade each candidate on the physical diagnosis part of the examination. Each examiner is given one hour of standardization training prior to the examination, there is no discussion by the examiners during the examination itself, and they grade independently of one another. There is no evidence to support a finding that the two examiners who graded petitioner conferred with each other prior to assigning a grade or otherwise acted improperly in the performance of their duties. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the examination, the questions or information given to a candidate will not be repeated verbatim here but rather only a general description will be given. As to question 1, petitioner was penalized one point (or given a grade of three out of four points) because he stated that the normal range for a particular joint was at 100 degrees. He derived this answer from the American Medical Association Guidelines for Impairment, which is the standard used for disability evaluation. Because impairment standards are not synonymous with a normal range of motion, petitioner's response was incorrect and his score of three should not be changed. In procedure 2, the candidate was given a hypothetical case history of a female patient and was required to choose four appropriate orthopedic tests that related to her condition and to then perform each test. The question noted that if an incorrect test was selected, no credit would be given even if the test was performed correctly. Petitioner selected only two correct tests and accordingly received a grade of two out of four possible points. Respondent's expert confirmed that only two correct answers were selected, and thus petitioner's grade should not be changed. Among other things, procedure 7 required the candidate to use and interpret the Wexler scale, a reflex scale used by chiropractic and orthopedic physicians. Petitioner contended that the Wexler scale is considered zero to five, and he used this range to fashion his answer. Although at hearing respondent asserted that the scale is actually zero to four, it now concedes that petitioner's response was correct and that his grade on this question should be adjusted upward by 1.5 points. Procedure 10 related to diagnostic imaging and generally required the candidate to select the appropriate x-rays to be taken for a given set of facts. Because petitioner failed to take a necessary spot hip x-ray, he did not receive full credit on the question. At hearing, petitioner contended that the omitted x-ray would over-radiate the patient and that the large views taken of the patient would give sufficient detail of the primary complaint area. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. Therefore, the request to change the grade on this procedure should be denied. In procedure 15, petitioner was given certain information concerning a patient and was required to make a specific diagnosis to be written in the patient's records. The question also provided that if an incorrect diagnosis was selected, the candidate would receive no credit. In this case, petitioner failed to select the proper diagnosis. His response that the patient suffered from a "sprain/strain" of a particular muscle was incorrect since there is no such thing as a sprain of a muscle. Indeed, only joints and ligaments can be sprained. Although respondent's expert conceded that the correct answer was not "easy" to ascertain, all candidates faced the same level of difficulty on the question and thus no change in petitioner's grade is warranted. Petitioner next contends that he was given an incorrect grade on procedure 17, which required him to identify which physical examination procedures (more than one) he would use based upon a hypothetical patient history. The question provided that unless all procedures were identified, no credit would be given. Because petitioner did not state that he would take the patient's vital signs, a necessary procedure for a new patient, he properly received a zero score. Finally, procedure 18 used the same hypothetical patient history given in procedure 17 and required the candidate to demonstrate on a volunteer patient the necessary examination procedures. Of particular significance was the requirement that the candidate not only correctly perform the procedures, but also demonstrate those procedures in the usual and customary order. Unfortunately, petitioner performed the first of four procedures last, which would affect the reliability of the findings, and thus he received no credit. Therefore, petitioner's grade on this question should not be changed. In summary, with the exception of procedure 7, the scores given to petitioner on each of the challenged procedures are supported by logic and reason, and there is no justification in changing the overall score to a passing grade. In addition, the test was fairly administered in every respect to all candidates, including the provision in some questions that unless the entire question was correctly answered, no partial credit would be given. Thus, petitioner's contention that he should have received partial credit instead of no credit on several questions is without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order raising petitioner's grade on the physical diagnosis part of the May 1992 chiropractic licensure examination from 70.5 to 72.0 but denying his petition in all other respects. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of January, 1993. Respondent: APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6162 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 3-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dr. James S. Moore P. O. Box 229 Doctor's Inlet, FL 32030 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0752
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to the Florida Equal Access To Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner seeks to recover his attorney's fees and costs incurred when defending an action brought against him by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine. The issue for determination is whether Respondent, the state agency charged with regulation of the professional conduct of physicians in the State of Florida, was substantially justified with regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Petitioner, a licensed physician, in DOAH Case No. 90-4205, DPR Case No. 89-05921, and whether, in the absence of such substantial justification, Petitioner is entitled to the award of the amount of attorney's fees and costs sought, or if there exists special circumstances which would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a state agency which initiated a proceeding with the filing of an Administrative Complaint against Ronald F. David, M.D. As stipulated, Petitioner's Attorney's Fees and Costs are not unreasonable. Petitioner was the prevailing small business party in the underlying case, Department of Professional Regulation v. Ronald F. David, M.D., DOAH Case No. 90-04205, DPR Case No. 89-05921, when the case against Dr. David was dismissed on January 25, 1991. As stipulated, there are no known circumstances which would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust. The one remaining issue of fact to be determined is whether sufficient evidence was presented to the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine to support a finding of probable cause against the Petitioner, and whether the Panel properly considered that evidence. S. A. was a premature infant who had a patent ductus arteriosus (PDA). Petitioner, a pediatric surgeon with credentials to do general surgery, pediatric surgery, and chest surgery, was consulted by S. A.'s pediatrician. Petitioner, in turn, consulted Dr. Johnston, a thoracic cardiovascular surgeon, concerning surgery to close S. A.'s PDA. Dr. Johnston performed the surgery with Petitioner as assistant surgeon on May 31, 1986, at the Orlando Regional Medical Center. Petitioner had assisted in numerous such surgical procedures in the past but did not hold himself out as competent to perform them on his own. At surgery the left pulmonary artery was mistakenly ligated instead of the PDA. S. A.'s condition deteriorated and tests indicated the probable mistaken ligation. The baby was transferred to Shands Hospital where she died before a second operation could be performed. Autopsy revealed the mistaken ligation and the pathologist implicated the compromised cardiopulmonary system as a cause of death. No anatomical anomalies of the vessels were noted at autopsy. On the basis of a closed claim report to the Department of Professional Regulation, the circumstances surrounding the death of S. A. were reviewed by a physician employed by the Department's Division of Medical Quality Assurance. Petitioner was informed of this review on January 13, 1989. Review of the medical records resulted in cases being opened against three of the seven physicians who participated in the care of S. A. Petitioner was notified of the case by certified mail on August 1, 1989. Petitioner was interviewed on August 10, 1989. Dr. Johnston was interviewed by the same investigator on August 25, 1989. According to the investigator's notes, Petitioner stated that Dr. Johnston did not consult him during the surgery, that the anatomy did not appear to be the same as in prior cases, but that he did not question Dr. Johnston's decision as to which vessel to ligate. Dr. Johnston stated that he asked Petitioner to examine the anatomy when he (Johnston) had located what he thought was the ductus, and that Petitioner obliged by examining the operation field, but did not object to the procedure. The medical records of S. A. were obtained by subpoena from the Orlando Regional Medical Center. On February 5, 1990, both Petitioner's and Dr. Johnston's investigative files were sent to Dr. William Price, a thoracic and vascular surgeon, for his review. The letter requesting his opinion clearly separates the actions of Petitioner and Dr. Johnston to be considered. On February 21, 1990, Dr. Price's analysis stated, "The assistant, Dr. Ronald David, should have been accomplished enough to recognize the proper anatomy, but the ultimated [sic] responsibility was not his." (Respondent's exhibit 2, 3) The cases, Department of Professional Regulation v. Ronald F. David, M.D., DPR Case No. 89-05921, and Department of Professional Regulation v. Alan Johnston, M.D., DPR Case No. 89-05922, were prepared for the Probable Cause Panel meeting scheduled for May 11, 1990. Materials were sent to the three Panel members and their counsel at least one week in advance of the meeting. Materials sent to the panel included the complete investigative case file, including any exhibits, and a recommendation from the Department. Present at the meeting of the Panel on May 11, 1990 were: Dr. Robert Katims, Chairman of the Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Marilyn Wells and Mr. Gilbert Rodriguez, members of the Panel; Ms. Catherine Lannon, Assistant Attorney General and counsel to the Panel; Mr. Carlos Ramos and Ms. Stephanie Daniel, attorneys from the Department of Professional Regulation, and Mr. Brian Lynch, Administrative Assistant at the Department, whose duty it was to prepare and distribute materials for the Panel's consideration. Ms. Lannon instructed the Panel members to direct any questions concerning their legal duties and interpretation of laws or rules to her. She cautioned the Panel members that any factual questions concerning the investigation or why a certain recommendation was made were to be directed to the Departmental attorneys. She asked if the members had sufficient time to review all the materials sent to them; each member replied in the affirmative. And she cautioned the members that it must be clearly stated or implied from the record that the members are making independent judgments on the cases and that they are discussing the correct case. The Panel first considered Dr. Johnston's case. The Department recommended that an Administrative Complaint be filed alleging that Dr. Johnston practiced below the standard of care in that, "[He] inadvertently ligated the left pulmonary artery instead of the patient ductus arteriosus, by relying on the anesthesiologist's observation that the murmur had disappeared and the surgical assistant's failure to object or recognize the proper anatomy." (Respondent's exhibit 1, page 4-5) The Panel was informed that Petitioner's companion case was on the agenda. The Panel at this time discussed Petitioner at some length, including Petitioner's role as the referring physician, that Petitioner assisted at the surgery, that Petitioner was not a chest but a pediatric surgeon, and that Dr. Johnston and Petitioner disagreed as what was said and done by whom at the operation. Dr. Wells acknowledged that the surgeon in charge in the "captain of the ship"; the Chairman, Dr. Katims, in response to a question from Ms. Lannon, denied that the assistant surgeon is exonerated from all responsibility. Thereupon Probable Cause was found in Dr. Johnston's case and the Panel voted to file an Administrative Complaint. (Respondent's exhibit 1, page 7-8) The Panel later in the meeting considered Petitioner's case. The Department had recommended that Probable Cause be found and a letter of guidance be issued. Mr. Ramos presented the basic facts to the Panel. Both physicians on the Panel immediately disagreed with the Department's recommendation and requested an Administrative Complaint to be filed against Petitioner. The Panel affirmed its two main concerns: that Petitioner referred the patient to Dr. Johnston, and that at surgery Dr. Johnston said he specifically asked the Petitioner to review his ligation. (Petitioner's exhibit 4, page 6-7) Consideration of the transcripts of both Dr. Johnston's and Petitioner's cases reveals that there was considerable discussion and awareness by the panel of the specifics of S. A.'s case, that they were quite sensitive to the fact that Petitioner was the assistant surgeon and that he denied he was asked to verify the procedure. The vote was unanimous that Probable Cause be found and that an Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner. The Administrative Complaint was duly filed on May 22, 1990, alleging Petitioner fell below the standard of care by failing to object to any part of the procedure performed by Dr. Johnston and by failing to point out the proper anatomy for ligation. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) In a subsequent meeting of the Probable Cause Panel, the Department presented it's recommendation that Petitioner's case be closed without prosecution based on a second expert's opinion that " . . . ligation of the wrong vessel was a known but although unfortunate complication of this procedure but not necessarily below the standard of care . . . " (Petitioner's Exhibit 12, 1). This recommendation was eventually accepted. The ultimate dismissal of the complaint does not negate the fact that at the time that probable cause was found, the panel had sufficient and competent information upon which it made its decision. It had conflicting statements by the two physicians; it had an expert's opinion; and it had extensive medical reports. It was not required to seek out sufficient evidence to assure success in a formal hearing on the complaint.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for medical licensure by endorsement has expired and Respondent is therefore without authority to act on the application, as Petitioner claims? If not, whether the application should be denied on the grounds that Petitioner is guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(a) and (gg), Florida Statutes,1 as Respondent has preliminarily determined.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations set forth in the parties' December 8, 2005, Prehearing Stipulation3: Petitioner is now, and has been since 1998, a Napperville, Illinois anesthesiologist licensed to practice medicine in the State of Illinois. At no time has she resided in Florida or used a Florida mailing address. "[A]t the end of 2002," Petitioner hired US Medical Licensing (USML) to help her obtain licenses to practice medicine in Florida, California, and Nevada, including "put[ting] together the application[s for such licensure] for [her]." In making these arrangements with USML, Petitioner dealt with USML's Melinda Hilterbrand, with whom she spoke over the telephone. Petitioner paid USML by credit card. USML first "charged [Petitioner's] credit card in January" of 2003 (using the credit card number Petitioner had given Ms. Hilterbrand during their telephone conversation). Petitioner provided USML, at USML's request, information and documentation (including a "standard credentialing application [she used in] Illinois") for USML to utilize in "put[ing] together [her Florida, California, and Nevada] application[s]." None of the information and documentation Petitioner provided was, to her knowledge, false or inaccurate. USML "put together the application[s]," as it had agreed to do. It then submitted them to the Florida, California, and Nevada medical licensing agencies without Petitioner's review, approval, or signature, notwithstanding that Petitioner had not given USML authorization to make such submissions. On June 16, 2003, Respondent received the Florida application that USML had "put together" for Petitioner (Petitioner's Florida Application) using the appropriate Respondent-developed form . Petitioner's Florida Application gave Petitioner's mailing address as "5631 Ballybunion Drive, Pace, Florida" (Pace, Florida Address). This was actually USML's mailing address, not Petitioner's. Petitioner's Florida Application gave Petitioner's telephone number as "(850) 994-4646." This was actually USML's telephone number, not Petitioner's. 10. Items 12, 12a., 12b., 15a., and 19b. on the application form on which Petitioner's Florida Application was submitted (Florida Application Form) asked the following questions: 12. Was attendance in Medical school for a period other then the normal curriculum? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.) 12a. Did you take a leave of absence during medical school? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.) 12b. Were you required to repeat any of your medical education? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.) 15a. Have you ever been dropped, suspended, placed on probation, expelled or requested to resign from a postgraduate training program? (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet providing accurate details.) 19b. Have you ever applied for, taken an examination for, or failed to receive specialty board certification or recertification for any reason?" (If "yes," explain on a separate sheet, providing full details). Each of these questions was incorrectly answered "no" on Petitioner's Florida Application. Item 15 on the Florida Application Form asked the applicant to "[l]ist in chronological order from date of graduation from Medical school, to present, all professional/postgraduate training (Internship/Residency/ Fellowship)." In response to this request, Petitioner's Florida Application listed her participation (following graduation from medical school) in programs at the University Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, at the Medical College of Ohio in Toledo, Ohio, at the Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois, and at St. Anthony's Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. No other post-graduate programs were listed, notwithstanding that Petitioner had also received post-graduate training at the Vanderbilt University Medical Center. At the time, Petitioner did not even know that her Florida Application had been submitted, much less that it contained any erroneous information, inasmuch as she had not seen it or been made aware of its contents. As will be discussed in more detail below, it was not until approximately three months later that she first learned of her Florida Application’s submission, and it was even later, at her July 24, 2004, appearance before Respondent’s Credentials Committee, that she first became aware "that there was any incorrect information on [her] application." No one from USML had ever contacted Petitioner and asked her for her responses to items 12, 12a., 12b., 15, 15a., 19b. or any other item on the Florida Application Form. Item 18 on the Florida Application Form was an Affidavit of Applicant, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: I affirm that these statements are true and correct and recognize that providing false information [ma]y result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 456.067, 775.083 and 775.084, Florida Statutes. I hereby authorize all hospitals, institutions, my references, personal physicians, employers (past and present) and all governmental agencies and instrumentalities (local, state, federal or foreign) to release to the Florida Board of Medicine information which is material to my application for licensure. 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 furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice Medicine in the State of Florida. * * * Date of Expiration (Signature of Applicant required) 4 (Date Signed required) The Affidavit of Applicant in Petitioner's Florida Application contained what purported to be, but was not, Petitioner's signature. It was dated May 30, 2003. Petitioner had not authorized USML to sign her Florida Application on her behalf or otherwise "submit documents using [her] signature," nor was she "aware that [USML was] going to do [so]." On July 14, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address (which, as noted above, was USML’s, not Petitioner’s, mailing address) a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (July 14, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The July 14, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of medical school transcripts from St. George's University Medical School and Ross University Medical School. It appears you transferred to Ross University after your third year. The transcript received from Ross University indicates your third year of medical school was repeated. Please submit a written explanation regarding attend[ing] two medical schools and why you answer[ed] no to question 12 (Was attendance in Medical School for a period other than the normal curriculum?) and 12b (Were you required to repeat any of your medical education?). A letter has been sent to St. George's University to confirm you left the medical school in good standing. Your file has been submitted in for advisement regarding your examination score reports submitted to the board office. It appears question 1 of your licensure application was left blank. However, you should apply by endorsement. Enclosed is a copy of page 1, please check the appropriate box. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. On page 3, question 15 needs to list the specialty area of training. Please complete the enclosed copy of page 4. Explain why you switched training programs from Medical College of Ohio to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. Did you leave the program in good standing? Were you offered a contract to continue and complete the program? A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to retrieve[] further information on your performance. Submit a written explanation on why you started your training programs with Medical College of Ohio and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center off cycle. Please complete the enclosed fingerprint card. Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 1/89 to 6/92 and 6/93 to 4/94, and 5/96 to 1/97, and 11/98 to 2/99, and 11/02 to Present. Submit a copy of your legal name change document. Explain in writing why the name "Randa Mariana Prochazka" appears on your supporting documentation. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. Submit two current letters of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s). We await licensure verification from the Illinois State Medical Board. The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800)767-6732. The AMA Physician Profile sheet has not been received. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -University Medical Center, regarding your Internship, from 6/92 to 6/93 -Medical College of Ohio, regarding your Residency, from 4/94 to 5/96 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 -Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center, verifying your staff privileges and good standing. * * * On August 15, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (August 15, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The August 15, 2003 Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of medical school transcripts from St. George's University Medical School and Ross University Medical School. It appears you transferred to Ross University after your third year. The transcript received from Ross University indicates your third year of medical school was repeated. Please submit a written explanation regarding attend[ing] two medical schools and why you answer[ed] no to question 12 (Was attendance in Medical School for a period other than the normal curriculum?) and 12b (Were you required to repeat any of your medical education?). We are in receipt of the evaluation form submitted by Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center. They indicate you did not perform competently and you were not regularly appointed. Please submit a written explanation. It appears question 1 of your licensure application was left blank. However, you should apply by endorsement. Enclosed is a copy of page 1, please check the appropriate box. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. On page 3, question 15 needs to list the specialty area of training. Please complete the enclosed copy of page 4. Explain why you switched training programs from Medical College of Ohio to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. Did you leave the program in good standing? Were you offered a contract to continue and complete the program? Submit a written explanation on why you started your training programs with Medical College of Ohio and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center off cycle. Please complete the enclosed fingerprint card. Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 1/89 to 6/92 and 6/93 to 4/94, and 5/96 to 1/97, and 11/98 to 2/99, and 11/02 to Present. Submit a copy of your legal name change document. Explain in writing why the name "Randa Mariana Prochazka" appears on your supporting documentation. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. Submit two current letter of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s). The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800) 767-6732. The AMA Physician Profile sheet has not been received. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -University Medical Center, regarding your Internship, from 6/92 to 6/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * It was not until sometime in or around September of 2003, during a telephone conversation (she had initiated) with USML's Ken Carroll, that Petitioner first learned that her Florida Application had been submitted to Respondent. Petitioner was "very surprised" when Mr. Carroll told her about the application's submission because she had thought that she was "going to get to look at the application" and "go over it" before it was sent to Respondent and she had not been given this opportunity. Nonetheless, she did not voice any objections to Mr. Carroll during her telephone conversation with him. Rather, "[she merely] asked him if there were any problems with [the application], and he said that everything was okay." Petitioner assumed, erroneously, that USML had completed the application accurately. She did not, at that time, request a copy of the application to verify the application's accuracy, nor did she do anything to indicate that she did not want Respondent to treat the application as hers. Indeed, until becoming aware of the actual contents of the application, it was her desire that Respondent act on the application and grant her licensure, and her actions were consistent with such a desire. On September 17, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application remained "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (September 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The September 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of medical school transcripts from St. George's University Medical School and Ross University Medical School. It appears you transferred to Ross University after your third year. The transcript received from Ross University indicates your third year of medical school was repeated. Please submit a written explanation regarding attend[ing] two medical schools and why you answer[ed] no to question 12 (Was attendance in Medical School for a period other than the normal curriculum?) and 12b (Were you required to repeat any of your medical education?). We are in receipt of the evaluation form submitted by Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center. They indicate you did not perform competently and you were not regularly appointed. Please submit a written explanation. It appears question 1 of your licensure application was left blank. However, you should apply by endorsement. Enclosed is a copy of page 1, please check the appropriate box. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. On page 3, question 15 needs to list the specialty area of training. Please complete the enclosed copy of page 4. Explain why you switched training programs from Medical College of Ohio to Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center. Did you leave the program in good standing? Were you offered a contract to continue and complete the program? Submit a written explanation on why you started your training programs with Medical College of Ohio and Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center off cycle. Please complete the enclosed fingerprint card. Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 1/89 to 6/92 and 6/93 to 4/94, and 5/96 to 1/97, and 11/98 to 2/99, and 11/02 to Present. Submit a copy of your legal name change document. Explain in writing why the name "Randa Mariana Prochazka" appears on your supporting documentation. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. Submit one current letter of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s). The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800) 767-6732. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 464-5199. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office indicates you had training with Vanderbilt University in Anesthesiology from 7/93 to 11/93. However, this training is not listed on question 15 of your licensure application. Please submit a written explanation. Also, a training evaluation form will have to be completed. A letter has been sent to the training program to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office indicates your training with Medical College of Ohio is incomplete. Please provide a written explanation. A letter has been sent to the program to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to . . . our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * On September 26, 2003, Respondent received a letter, dated September 23, 2003, that was addressed to one of its employees, Lakeisha Henderson, and purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her (September 26, 2003, Letter). The September 26, Letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows: In answer to your questions in the letter you sent me 9/17/03 [sic], I am providing these answers: I left St. George's because of the war in Grenada. I waited till I was sure the situation was stable and I also took a leave to study for my ECFMG. I was not satisfied with the situation at the school so I transferred/moved to Ross. One course prior to the start of my clinicals was required at Ross before I could start there in the clinical phase. This was a repeat from St. George[']s, but the only one. During this period, I had numerous child care and child health issues with my children which caused me to not be available for work and surgery. Page one is attached. Page three is attached. Page 4 is attached. In answer to question #7, there was a change at Medical College of Ohio. The Program Director left due to illness and subsequently the program started changing, so I finished my second year and then did my third year at another program. I left in good standing, getting credit for everything. I could have continued if I had elected to do so but I declined. In question 8, I started my third year based on what was needed to complete and where the class was. I was having a child and was allowed to start off cycle. Non-Employment Dates: 01/89-6/92-Child Birth and child care, studied for tests. 05/96-01/97-Unemployed 11/98-02/99-Moving and vacation 11/02-04/03-Unemployed 05/03-Present @ Surgical Center of Downers Grove, IL I thought the fingerprint card had been sent to your office (Question #9) Item #11 has been requested. Question #12. I was married for a short period of time and while married took the last name of husband Prochazka. When we divorced I retained my maiden name. Question #18- The program was overfilled with Residents and I elected to leave with no credit as I only attended for a short period of time. Question #19- I was given full credit for my training there, so I do not understand the question. I have attached my diploma. All other items have been requested and will be sent directly to you. On September 30, 2003, Respondent received another letter, also dated September 23, 2003, that was addressed to Ms. Henderson and purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her (September 30, 2003, Letter). The September 30, 2003, Letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows: I am sorry I forgot to include the fact that I was arrested for disturbing the peace. I have included all those documents. I forgot till Ken Carroll asked. I thought it was not needed as it was over 10 years ago, sorry to cause any issues. I have also included my divorce papers. Among the documents that were "included" with the September 30, 2003, Letter to Ms. Henderson was a statement in Petitioner’s handwriting, dated June 10, 1996, which provided an explanation of the circumstances surrounding Petitioner’s arrest. This handwritten statement was among the materials that Petitioner had furnished USML for use in the application preparation process. On October 16, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (October 16, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The October 16, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. We are in receipt of the letter dated September 23, 2003, [in which] you indicate employment with Surgical Center of Downers [Grove]. Do you hold staff privileges with this hospital? If so, an evaluation form will have to be completed. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. Submit a written account of your employment/non-employment activities from 6/93 to 4/94. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. We are in receipt of the letter of recommendation from Dr. Kianoosh Jafari. Please submit an additional letter of recommendation, addressed to the Florida Board of Medicine. "To Whom It May Concern" is not acceptable. Recommendation letter(s) must be current, original, personable and from physician(s). The National Practitioner Data Bank, self-query has not been received. You may contact the NPDB at (800) 767-6732. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. 19. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * Respondent received, in response to the October 16, 2003, Deficiency Notice, a letter that purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her. The letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows: Question #5 from letter of 10/13/03 [sic] I left [the] program after one year to move closer to my husband at the time wh[o] was in the Midwest. I spent the time from 7-93 till 4-94 looking for a program and applying to programs. Petitioner was not married during the time period referenced in the letter. To the extent that the letter suggests otherwise, it is inaccurate. In or around the end of October of 2003, Petitioner received a letter from the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners (Nevada Board) concerning an application for licensure that USML had submitted to the Nevada Board on her behalf. The letter, which was dated October 28, 2003, read as follows: Dear Dr. Sawan: Please find enclosed a new application for medical licensure for the State of Nevada. You will be required to complete this application without the assistance of a credentialing service. The Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners does not accept any documentation from the credentialing company U.S. Medical Licensing and Credentialing. After receiving this letter, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Carroll and asked him why "this Nevada licensure application . . . was not accepted." Mr. Carroll, in response to Petitioner’s inquiry, explained that "there were some other doctors that did not get their licenses and they were upset with [USML]" and had complained to the Nevada Board. Having received this response to her inquiry, Petitioner "did not dig anymore" into the matter. Petitioner subsequently completed the application form she had been sent by the Nevada Board and then returned it. Approximately, four and a-half months later she received her Nevada medical license On November 17, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (November 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The November 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. We are in receipt of the letter dated September 23, 2003, [in which] you indicate employment with Surgical Center of Downers [Grove]. Do you hold staff privileges with this hospital? If so, an evaluation form will have to be completed. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. The copy of your valid ECFMG certificate submitted to the board office is unreadable. The valid through area is not readable. Please resubmit a copy to the board office. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * Respondent received, in response to the November 17, 2003, Deficiency Notice, a letter that purported to be, but was not, from Petitioner and signed by her. The letter, of which Petitioner had no knowledge, read as follows: Question #2 from letter of 11/14/03 [sic] Downers Grover Surgical Center is an out patient center. Not a hospital. Question #5 A copy of my ECFMG is enclosed. On December 19, 2003, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice). The December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * The December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson, addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (December 19, 2003, Deficiency Letter), which read as follows: Your application remains incomplete. Please review the attached update [the December 19, 2003, Deficiency Notice] outlining the remaining deficiencies. Please be advised previous malpractice, criminal charges, discipline, addictions/impairment, unfavorable evaluations, etc. may require that you appear before the Credentials Committee for determination of eligibility for licensure. If your appearance is required, you will be notified in writing once your file is complete. Any information received by this office may require additional explanation and/or documentation to be requested in order to further determine licensure eligibility. After all requested documentation is received, your file will be submitted for a standard supervisory review. Should additional information be required, you will be notified. Once your file is determined complete, it will be presented to the Board for consideration at the next scheduled meeting. As documentation is received in our office, an updated list of deficiencies will be mailed to you. Your application will remain incomplete until all deficiencies are completed. In addition, notify the Board office immediately in writing of any occurrence(s) that would in any way change or affect any answer given in the application or an answer provided in response to any of our direct questions to you. If I can be of any assistance, please contact me at (850) 245-4131 extension 3512 or e-mail me at Lakeisha_Henderson @doah.state.fl.us. On January 22, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (January 22, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The January 22, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. On page 3, question 10 needs to list the date your medical degree was granted. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * On February 24, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (February 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The February 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * On March 24, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (March 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The March 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio to confirm your written explanation. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board office list[s] your graduation year incorrectly. Please have the AMA [Physician Profile] corrected. You may contact the AMA at (312) 484-5199. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to inquiry/evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 -Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center, regarding your Residency, from 1/97 to 11/98 * * * The March 24, 2004, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson, addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (March 24, 2004, Deficiency Letter). The body of the March 24, 2004, Deficiency Letter was identical to the body of the December 19, 2003, Deficiency Letter. On March 31, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (March 31, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The March 31, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION'S EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004 APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. We are in receipt of the training evaluation form from Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center. The evaluation form indicates you resigned and your staff privileges were terminated. It appears you should have answered yes to question 18c. Please submit a written explanation as well [as] explain the no answer given for question 18c. A letter has been sent to Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center to retrieve[] further information. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the evaluation form. A letter will be sent to each training program requesting a copy of your training file. A letter has been sent to the Medical College of Ohio requesting further clarification on the letter submitted from them dated July 22, 2003. A letter has been sent to Vanderbilt University Medical Center to retrieve[] further information on your performance. We await verification of ECFMG examination results, direct from ECFMG, which must be requested by the applicant. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. We await responses to evaluation forms, which were mailed from our office to the following: -Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Department of Anesthesiology, regarding your Residency, from 7/93 to 11/93 * * * The March 31, 2004, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson, addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (March 31, 2004, Deficiency Letter). The body of the March 31, 2004, Deficiency Letter was identical to the bodies of the December 19, 2003, and March 24, 2004, Deficiency Letters. In or around March of 2004, during a telephone conversation with Mr. Carroll, Petitioner inquired as to whether her "talk[ing]" to Respondent "could help expedite" the processing of her Florida Application. Mr. Carroll, in turn, gave Petitioner Ms. Henderson’s name and telephone number and suggested Petitioner call Ms. Henderson. Petitioner followed Mr. Carroll’s suggestion and spoke with Ms. Henderson. Petitioner asked Ms. Henderson "if there [was] any problem with the application" and offered to provide "anything extra that [Ms. Henderson] may need." Ms. Henderson "did not say that there were any problems," but she did indicate "that she would like additional information," which she described for Petitioner. After speaking with Ms. Henderson, Petitioner prepared a handwritten letter, which she sent to Ms. Henderson by facsimile transmission on April 9, 2004. The letter read as follows: You requested an explanation for why staff privileges at Valley Ambulatory Surgery Center were terminated. It has been my understanding from their contract agreement that once I stop working there (resign), the staff privileges are automatically terminated. The following day, April 10, 2004, Petitioner sent to Ms. Henderson by facsimile transmission a handwritten list of references, as well as letters of recommendation (from others about her). Ms. Henderson had not asked Petitioner to provide these materials, but Petitioner sent them anyway, thinking that Ms. Henderson "might like to have them." On May 4, 2004, Respondent prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a notice advising that Petitioner's Florida Application was still "deficient" and explaining what needed to be done in order for the application to be considered "complete" (May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice). The May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice read, in pertinent part, as follows: We will consider no application complete for licensure until we receive all requested documentation by the board. The applicant must ensure that the board receives all requested documentation. Verbal responses are inadmissible. * * * YOUR APPLICATION EXPIRATION DATE IS: June 15, 2004. APPLICATION SUBMITTED REMAINS DEFICIENT FOR LACK OF THE FOLLOWING: We are in receipt of the evaluation form from Advocate Illinois Medical Center. The evaluation form indicates they recommend you with some reservation. Please review the enclosed copy of the evaluation and provide a written response. Also, a letter has been sent to Advocate Illinois Medical Center to retrieve[] further information. A letter will be sent to each training program requesting a copy of your training file. A letter has been sent to Medical College of Ohio requesting further clarification on the letter submitted from them dated July 22, 2003. The AMA Physician Profile submitted to the board indicates you have an inactive resident license in Nevada. Please have the Nevada State Medical Board send a license verification letter to our office. * * * The May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice was accompanied by a letter from Ms. Henderson addressed to Petitioner at the Pace, Florida Address (May 4, 2004, Deficiency Letter). The body of the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Letter was identical to the bodies of the December 19, 2003, March 24, 2004, and March 31, 2004, Deficiency Letters. Petitioner never received the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice or the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Letter; nor had she ever received any of the previous deficiency notices and letters. On June 15, 2004, Petitioner’s Florida Application was still incomplete inasmuch as Respondent had not received all of the information it had requested in the May 4, 2004, Deficiency Notice (including the letter from Petitioner requested in item 1 of the notice, the training files from University Medical Center in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Vanderbilt University Medical Center requested in item 2 of the notice, and the "license verification letter" requested in item 4 of the notice, which were all materials that were reasonable for Respondent to have asked for as part of the application review process). On June 28, 2004, Chandra Prine, Respondent’s Program Operations Administrator (and Ms. Henderson’s supervisor), prepared and sent to the Pace, Florida Address a letter addressed to Petitioner (June 28, 2004, Letter) advising her that she was required to make a personal appearance before the Credentials Committee on July 24, 2004, to discuss: Your medical education and your failure to answer yes to questions numbers 12, 12a & 12b on the licensure application. Failure to list your training at Vanderbilt from 7/93-11/93 and your failure to answer yes to question number 15a on the licensure application. In addition, the Committee may inquire into any other issues relating to your application and eligibility for licensure. Petitioner did not receive this letter. In July of 2004, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Henderson to inquire about the status of Petitioner’s Florida Application. She was unable to speak with Ms. Henderson, so she left a message asking Ms. Henderson to return the call. Petitioner subsequently received a telephone message from Ms. Henderson. In her message, Ms. Henderson stated that she thought Petitioner "was going to be going to a hearing" on her Florida Application, but suggested that Petitioner telephone Ms. Prine "just to be sure." Ms. Henderson did not say anything about there being "questions that were answered incorrectly on [the] application." After receiving Ms. Henderson’s message, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Prine and spoke with her. Petitioner told Ms. Prine that Ms. Henderson had left a message about an upcoming hearing concerning Petitioner’s Florida Application and had suggested that Petitioner contact Ms. Prine regarding the matter. Ms. Prine responded, "Yes, we sent you a letter saying you have to show up for this hearing," referring to the June 28, 2004, Letter. Petitioner replied that she had "not received any letter" from Respondent. Ms. Prine then "gave [Petitioner] the address" to which the June 28, Letter had been mailed. Petitioner informed Ms. Prine that this address (the Pace, Florida Address) was not hers. She then "gave [Ms. Prine] her home address for [Ms. Prine] to send [her] another letter." Petitioner asked Ms. Prine during their telephone conversation "what the hearing was going to be about." Ms. Prine's response was that Petitioner should be prepared to answer questions at the hearing regarding certain specific items on her Florida Application, which Ms. Prine identified by number. Petitioner told Ms. Prine that she "had never seen the application," to which Ms. Prine retorted, "Oh, but you signed it." Petitioner insisted that she "didn’t remember signing anything" and asked Ms. Prine to send her, along with the letter concerning the hearing, "a copy of whatever [she supposedly] signed." At no time during the telephone conversation did Ms. Prine tell Petitioner that her Florida Application contained any incorrect information, nor did she reveal to Petitioner anything about those items on the application that Petitioner would be questioned on at the hearing other than what their numbers were and that they pertained to her "schooling and training." It did not come as surprise to Petitioner that the Credentials Committee "wanted to hear from [her]" about her "schooling and training" given the difficulties she had encountered in these areas. Petitioner did not ask Ms. Prine to elaborate any further on what the Credentials Committee would inquire about at the hearing. Two days after her telephone conversation with Ms. Prine, Petitioner received a letter dated July 14, 2004, from Ms. Prine (July 14, 2004, Letter). The July 14, 2004, Letter was addressed to Petitioner at her Naperville, Illinois address and read as follows: This is in further reference to your application for licensure by endorsement. Please be advised that you are required to make a personal appearance before the Credentials Committee of the Board of Medicine to discuss the following: Your medical education and your failure to answer yes to questions numbers 12, 12a & 12b on the licensure application. Failure to list your training at Vanderbilt from 7/93-11/93 and your failure to answer yes to question number 15a on the licensure application. In addition, the Committee may inquire into any other issues relating to your application and eligibility for licensure. Date: Saturday, July 24, 2004 Time: 8:00 a.m. Location: Radisson Hotel 415 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 224-6000 The meeting room will be posted in the lobby of the Hotel. Additionally, the Committee's recommendation on your application will be presented to the Board of Medicine, August 6-7, 2004 for final action. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Should you have any question regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me. Along with the July 14, 2004, Letter, Petitioner received from Ms. Prine the signature page of the September 26, 2003, Letter. After reviewing the latter, Petitioner telephoned Ms. Prine and left a message advising Ms. Prine that the signature on that document was not hers. The July 14, 2004, Letter was not accompanied by a copy of Petitioner’s Florida Application. Petitioner made a "personal appearance" before the Credentials Committee on July 24, 2004, as scheduled. As noted above, it was during this appearance that she first learned that her Florida Application contained information that was incorrect. In response to questioning, Petitioner truthfully told the Credentials Committee that she had not "even seen the application" and that it was "not [her] signature" that was on the application in that she did not sign it. The Credentials Committee voted to recommend the denial of Petitioner’s Florida Application, a recommendation that Respondent subsequently followed. On August 2, 2004, following her appearance before the Credentials Committee, Petitioner prepared and sent a letter to Ms. Prine formally requesting, for the first time, a "complete copy of [her] application for the Florida medical license [be] mailed to [her]" at her Napperville, Illinois address. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner prepared and sent to Ms. Prine another letter, which read as follows: I am writing to ask that you do not accept any communication from the USML agency regarding my application. I am not working through them anymore. Please call me directly at (773) 405-3718, or send all mail to: RANDA SAWAN M.D. 1304 Dunrabin Road Naperville, IL 60540 Your assistance with this matter will be greatly appreciated. Thank you. After Petitioner had made several post-Credential Committee hearing requests to Mr. Carroll that he send her copies of "anything [he had] involving [her] application," Petitioner received the following letter, dated September 23, 2004, from Mr. Carroll: I am sorry to inform you but your files along with several hundred other physicians' files were destroyed while in our storage area due to Hurricane Ivan which made a direct hit on Pensacola. Our Pensacola office is operating but has limited phone and no internet or cable. Again I apologize for this inconvenience. Petitioner never received any of the documents she had requested from Mr. Carroll.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order finding that Petitioner's Florida Application expired, without being acted on, one year after it was filed and that it is therefore too late for Respondent to either approve or deny the application. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of March, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner meets the requirements for licensure as a Health Care Risk Manager?
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of Health Care Risk Managers in Florida pursuant to sections 395.0971 through 395.0975, Florida Statutes. Petitioner holds a Master of Science Administration from the University of West Florida and is licensed in the state of Florida as a Clinical Laboratory Supervisor. Petitioner filed an application for licensure with AHCA as a Health Care Risk Manager on May 11, 2011. The application was reviewed by Mark Hajdukiewicz, a Health Services and Facilities Consultant employed by AHCA. Section 6 of the application entitled "Qualifications for Licensure" states: "In the appropriate section below, check all of the applicable criteria. Complete only one section." The "sections" on the application are ways or approaches from which an applicant may choose to demonstrate his or her qualifications for licensure as a Health Care Risk Manager. On this initial application, Petitioner completed three sections. By letter dated June 2, 2011 (the Omissions Letter), Mr. Hajdukiewicz notified Petitioner that AHCA received her initial application and, after review, found it to be incomplete. The Omissions Letter further stated: Select one approach to licensure. Resubmit amended pages 4 and 5 of the Health Care Licensing Application form RM-001, Revised 12/2010. Evidence of credentials as a Health Care Administrator as defined in Rule 59A- 10.032(14), F.A.C. An official transcript submitted from the college that satisfies the above rule. The Agency has received the 120 hours certificate. Or Evidence of credentials as a Health Care Professional as defined in Rule 59A- 10.032(15), F.A.C. The application has license SU 3074, a Clinical Laboratory Supervisor, unfortunately that license does not meet the Rule requirements. The Agency has received the 120 hours certificate. Or Official transcripts that include coursework which meets two years of college level studies pursuant to Rule 59A-10.035, F.A.C. Please send the required information no later than 21 days from the receipt of this letter. If the applicant fails to submit all the information required in the application within 21 days of being notified by AHCA of the omissions, the application will be denied and the fees shall be forfeited pursuant to subsection 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes. (emphasis in original) Petitioner submitted a revised section 6 of her application on or about June 23, 2011. On this revised portion of her application, Petitioner elected to seek licensure based upon her credentials as a Health Care Administrator as defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-10.032(14). Petitioner also submitted a copy of her transcript for a Master of Science Administration from the University of West Florida. Mr. Hajdukiewicz reviewed Petitioner's revised application and determined that the documentation submitted by Petitioner in support of her application did not meet the criteria set forth in rule 59A-10.032(14), which defines a health care administrator. Mr. Hajdukiewicz forwarded a recommendation that the application be deemed incomplete to his supervisor, Laura MacLafferty. Ms. MacLafferty concurred with Mr. Hajdukiewicz's recommendation and issued the Notice of Intent to Deem Application Incomplete and Withdrawn from Further Review. Subsequently, Petitioner submitted a copy of her transcript reflecting the curriculum for her master's degree program from the University of West Florida. Although, as a transcript copy, it was extremely difficult to read, Ms. MacLafferty reviewed the curriculum and determined that it was insufficient to warrant reversal of the Agency's decision. At hearing, Petitioner acknowledged that her degree does not say "hospital" as specified in rule 59A-10.032(14) (i.e., hospital administration, hospital finance, hospital management). As Petitioner elected to qualify for licensure pursuant to demonstrating attainment of credentials as a Health Care Administrator as defined in rule 59A-10.032(14), her application was not evaluated pursuant to the other possible ways of demonstrating qualifications for licensure.1/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a Health Care Risk Manager, without prejudice to reapply under the other criteria specified in Florida Administrative Code Rules 59A-10.032(15) and 59A-10.035, and section 6 of the licensure application form. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 8th day of November, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Donald A. Moyant, Petitioner, operates a contractors' exam school in Brandon, Florida, at which he preps builders to take the CILB exam for licensure as contractors. Petitioner took the exam given in June 1985 and received a score of 58.60. A score of 70.00 is required to pass this examination. The only answer that Petitioner questions is the answer he supplied to question No. 2, which related to the number of reinforcing bars required in a concrete slab of given dimensions and spacings of the bars. In Petitioner's solution to the problem he dropped the fractional bar that resulted from dividing the length of the slab by the spacing between bars. The correct solution requires the addition of a bar for this fractional spare. Petitioner's purpose in pursuing this proceeding is to obtain information to use in his Contractors Exam School, Inc. Since he would not have passed the examination even if his solution to question No. 2 had been marked correct, Petitioner is without standing to bring this action because he is doing so on behalf of the school he runs and not to allow him to receive a passing grade.
