Findings Of Fact Diane Potts Kyle is a registered nurse, licensed to practice in the state and is the holder of license number 62079-2. On November 5, 1975, following a formal hearing held pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 120.57(1), Respondent's license to practice nursing as a registered nurse in the State of Florida was suspended for a period of two years, based upon a finding that the Respondent had engaged in unprofessional conduct due to her failure to properly chart or account for controlled narcotics signed out by her for patients in her care. Thereafter, on April 22, 1978, while working as a staff relief nurse at Coral Gables Hospital, Coral Gables, Florida, the Respondent, on several occasions, converted to her own use a controlled drug, to wit: Demerol, by signing out for said narcotic which was intended for patients in her care and failed to administer said drugs to the patients. She thereafter failed to account for said drug withdrawals on the patients' medical charts. On or about May 1, 1978, Respondent voluntarily executed a notarized statement admitting to converting to her own use Demerol ordered for patients in her care by signing out for said drug but not administering same to the patient and not charting it on the patient's medical chart. Thereafter, Respondent subsequently voluntarily surrendered her license to the Petitioner. (See Board's Exhibits A, B, and C.) As stated, there is little dispute respecting the facts in this case, however, the Petitioner appeared on her own behalf and offered testimony in mitigation of the allegations of the complaint which were stipulated to by her. (Board Exhibit A.) Some time during May, 1978, the Respondent enrolled in the Spectrum Drug Abuse Program and has been under the care and guidance of drug counsellor Robert Healy. The Respondent attends weekly sessions and the course uses as a primary approach of therapy, Transactional Analysis. Counsellor Healy, who holds a Master's degree in Psychology and is a drug counsellor at the Spectrum program, appeared and testified that he has been working with the Respondent for approximately six months. He testified that Respondent has undergone serious changes on her own and that he determined that the Respondent's problems stem from stress situations in which she was involved both at work and at home. According to Healy's prognosis, the Respondent will successfully graduate from the Spectrum program within the next six months. Healy opined that the Respondent's life style is one in which she feels that all around her must be "all-perfect" and that based on such a life-style, she is constantly in a state of stress. He testified that since her enrollment in the Spectrum program, she has isolated this problem and is now able to return to work with little danger of abusing drugs. Healy testified that the likelihood of the Respondent receeding to a drug abuser is minimal inasmuch as she is a very confident person and she has a family, her husband and children. The undersigned has considered all of the mitigating factors offered on behalf of the Respondent in this case. However, as noted in the prior case, 1/ a failure to enter medication on a patient's medical chart is a very serious omission on the part of a registered nurse, since it could lead to either the administering of double dosages of medicine or a failure to properly administer medication to nurses as the case may be, which could result in fatal accidents. Such a practice amounts to unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Chapter 464.21, as alleged, and it is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. While the period of probation is in effect, it is further recommended that the Respondent be placed in roles of employment wherein her contact with narcotics and other controlled substances is minimal. Additionally, it is recommended that the Respondent be required to submit to periodic medical examinations as requested by the Board to verify the fact that the Respondent is not abusing drugs. ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issues presented for resolution in the two consolidated cases are whether Rule 10E-16.004(27), Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and whether Petitioner violated that rule on a specified occasion and is subject to fine or other penalty.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Associated Counselling and Education, Inc., doing business as Substance Abuse Family Education (SAFE), is a Florida corporation doing business in Orange County, Florida. SAFE provides substance abuse treatment to adolescents, mostly within the ages of twelve (12) to eighteen (18) years, with a few young adults who have turned nineteen while in treatment. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) is the state agency with statutory authority to license and regulate certain treatment programs, including SAFE. At all times material to this proceeding HRS has licensed SAFE to provide substance abuse treatment services in a category titled "non-residential day and night treatment with a host home component." SAFE is not licensed as a secure facility or an addictions receiving facility. SAFE uses a program similar to the Alcoholic Anonymous twelve-step program as a tool for rehabilitating drug abusing juveniles. The program includes five phases through which the clients progress at varying rates. The "first phase" describes clients who are new to the program. As clients progress they enter into stages of increasing responsibility and freedom, until they are able to graduate and return to the everyday world. The program requires that the youths' parents or legal guardians admit them into treatment, even when children are referred by a court, by HRS or another source. The program requires rigorous participation by the parents and any siblings of the client. SAFE's contract for treatment includes a voluntary withdrawal provision which requires that the client request withdrawal through a "chain of command." The purpose of the deliberate, several-step process is to avoid withdrawal on an impulsive or transitory whim of the client. SAFE's rules, including the withdrawal provision, are explained at the beginning of treatment and are reviewed daily with the clients. Clients who are just starting in the program, "first phasers," spend their days at the program and are placed at night with host parents, generally parents with experience in the program through their own children's participation. Staff and host parents are trained in crisis intervention and aggression control techniques through an HRS-sanctioned training program. The techniques are progressive; they range from verbal intervention, to putting an arm around a client's shoulder, to physically forcing a client to the floor when the client has threatened to injure himself or others. SAFE contends that when a client attempts to leave treatment without going through the withdrawal process and without involving the parents or guardians in the process, the client is in serious danger of injuring himself or others immediately following departure from the program. SAFE uses physical intervention as a last resort to prevent clients from leaving the program without going through the "chain of command." At night, however, such intervention is used by host parents only to restrain dangerously aggressive behavior. SAFE instructs its host parents to not physically stop a child from leaving the host home. S. B. was a "first phaser" in SAFE's program in August 1993. During dinner one evening he had been staring or glaring at other clients and acting in a provoking and disruptive manner. After dinner, during an organized "rap" session, several clients were called on to confront S. B.'s behavior. He reacted by throwing a chair, across several rows of clients, at the client who was confronting him. Then he bolted, or attempted to bolt, from the room through the exit door. He was restrained by staff, was calmed, and he returned to his seat. Very shortly after he returned to his seat S. B. began staring or glaring at a client by the exit door. He jumped up and ran for the door. Again, he was physically restrained as he kicked, fought and yelled with anger. Staffperson Pamela Mardis was one of the persons who participated in the restraint of S. B. on August 27, 1993. She considered the client to be in harm's way if he were permitted to leave the program without the assurance of proper safeguard for his well-being and safety. The January 12, 1994 amended notice of violation provided by HRS to Loretta Parrish, SAFE's owner and executive director, states, in pertinent part: As an amended complaint, the following incidents have been found to be in violation of 10E-16, F.A.C., requirements and are therefore subject to administrative fines: * * * August 27, 1993, 5:20 p.m., (report written August 27, 1993, 6:45 p.m.) in which a client was restrained in an effort to keep the client from leaving treatment, your agency will be fined $100 for non-compliance with 10E-16.004(27)(a), F.A.C., requirements. (Petitioner's exhibit no. 6) HRS interprets its rule to prohibit restraint when the perceived danger to the client is in leaving and getting back on drugs. SAFE contends that to let one client leave voluntarily without going through the withdrawal procedures would mean that all of the clients, adolescents with poor decision- making skills, would walk out. There is a program in Palm Beach County, Florida, purportedly similar to SAFE, called Growing Together, Inc. On January 22, 1994, HRS and Growing Together, Inc., entered into a stipulated Final Declaratory Judgement in case no. CL93-9599-AO, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, which provided, in pertinent part: In the absence of a Court Order restricting the rights of a parent or legal guardian to control decisions affecting the health and welfare of a minor, Growing Together, Inc., may act upon the request of a parent or legal guardian in accepting a minor client for substance abuse treatment regardless of the minor's objections. In the absence of a Court Order limiting the authority of a parent or legal guardian to control decisions affecting the health and welfare of a minor, Growing Together, Inc., may reasonably restrict minor clients from terminating their participation in treatment contrary to the express direction of a parent or legal guardian. So long as the minor's rights to challenge the reasonableness of restrictions imposed at the express direction of a parent or legal guardian are protected -- that is, so long as the minor is informed of his or her rights and is provided a practical means by which to exercise those rights -- Growing Together, Inc., may continue to act in loco parenti in declining to release a minor from treatment where such release is against the will of a parent or legal guardian and no court order has been issued to direct otherwise. The State of Florida , Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is hereby prohibited from taking any action contrary to the legal principles enunciated herein and is expressly prohibited from enforcing any interpretation of F.S. Section 397.601 which interpretation is contrary to the findings of this Judgement. (Petitioner's exhibit no. 7) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Sections 120.56 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. The two cases consolidated above present two separate issues which must be addressed in separate orders, as one issue (the validity of Rule 10E- 16.004(27), Florida Administrative Code) is determined by the Hearing Officer, and the other issue (whether SAFE violated the rule) is determined by the agency upon a recommended order by the Hearing Officer. Notwithstanding the parties' earnest desire to obtain a resolution of the issue of when a program like SAFE can use physical restraint to prevent withdrawal, the Hearing Officer has no authority to issue a "declaratory statement." That function, addressed in Section 120.565, Florida Statutes, is reserved to the agency. Rule 10E-16.004(6)(a), [Florida Administrative Code], provides that "[t]he department shall impose a penalty of no more than $100 per day against a licensed program that commits a [significant violation pertaining to the health and safety of the clients.] ..." [emphasis added] Rule 10E-16.004(27)(a), Florida Administrative Code, provides: (27) Aggression Control Techniques. Programs which use verbal, psychological and physical intervention methods for managing client behavior shall be required to implement the procedures established under HRS Regulation Number 205-1 regarding the use of Aggression Control Techniques (ACT), or other techniques, as approved by the department. (a) Justification and Documentation of Use. In the event that physical intervention is used to restrict a client's movement, clinical justification shall be documented in the client record, and a complete, detailed report of the incident shall be maintained as part of the program's administrative records and reported to the department's district administrator. Physical intervention techniques shall be employed by trained adult staff to prevent a client from injuring himself or others, or to prevent serious disruption of the therapeutic environment. HRS contends that SAFE violated Rule 10E-16.004(27)(a), Florida Administrative Code, when the program restrained its minor client, S. B., from attempting to bolt without going through the "chain of command" described in SAFE's voluntary withdrawal procedures. HRS has the burden of proving the alleged violation. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) HRS does not claim that the techniques used on S. B. were by other than trained adult staff or that the required reports were not made to the agency and properly maintained by the program. Rather, HRS claims that a program such as SAFE cannot detain a child against his or her will. The rule cited by HRS simply does not include that prohibition. It states in the affirmative two circumstances in which a program shall use appropriate physical intervention: to prevent injury to the client or others, or to prevent serious disruption of the therapeutic environment. SAVE contends that permitting a child to leave at will, without following established withdrawal procedures would cause a serious disruption of the therapeutic environment. SAFE presented some competent credible testimony by its director to support its contention. HRS presented no evidence on that subject. HRS, moreover, has failed to justify its policy determination and interpretation of the rule in this case. It argues, for example, that parents do have a right to admit their children to a secure facility and to obtain a court order or alternative involuntary assessment. SAFE is not classified as a secure facility. The procedures and statutes referenced in HRS' proposed recommended order, however, were not in effect at the time of the incident at issue. Chapter 397, Florida Statutes, was substantially revised in 1993 and the revisions became effective October 1, 1993, after the incident at issue. See, Chapter 93-39, Section 51, Laws of Florida. The arguments made by HRS were specifically rejected by the court in Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Straight, Inc., 497 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), a case decided prior to the 1993 amendments and therefore more relevant to the instant case. The determination that HRS has failed to meet its burden of proof in this case does not resolve for the parties their more global issue of whether a non-secure program such as SAFE can detain a child involuntarily placed by his or her parents or guardian. That issue is not resolved in Straight, supra, decided under a different statute; or by HRS' rule Chapter 10E-16.004, Florida Administrative Code, in its current form. Nor, contrary to SAFE's assertions, is the issue resolved in the stipulated judgement entered in the Palm Beach case referenced in paragraph 14, above, affecting a program which is not described in any competent evidence in this record. The conclusion in this case is properly limited to the facts and circumstances presented, and to consideration of a rule and statute in existence at the time of the incident at issue. The conclusion is merely that HRS failed to meet its burden of proving that by detaining S. B. on August 27, 1993, SAFE violated Rule 10E-16.004(27)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order dismissing the January 12, 1994 amended complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Newnum, Esquire TURNBULL, ABNER, DANIELS and ROOKS 147 West Lyman Avenue, Suite 100 Winter Park, Florida 32790-0100 James A. Sawyer, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Richard Doran General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Sandy Coulter, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner Thomasina Barnes should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment pursuant to Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact In January of 1976, Petitioner was caught shoplifting merchandise from a retail clothing store. The police recovered the stolen property in the parking lot where they arrested Petitioner. As a result of that incident, Petitioner pled guilty to a charge of Grand Larceny, a third degree felony on May 5, 1976. On December 14, 1988 Petitioner pled no contest to a misdemeanor charge of Offering for the Purpose of Prostitution. Petitioner was suffering from an addiction to alcohol and/or illegal drugs when she committed the above referenced crimes. After her last arrest in 1988, Petitioner continued to be drug dependent but was able to hold down temporary jobs. She worked as a cook at Popeye’s Restaurant, a mail clerk at Southern Bell, and a data processor for Respondent. Petitioner finally realized she needed help to live a drug free life. She checked herself into a drug detoxification program in March of 1993. After completing the medical detoxification program, Petitioner voluntarily entered a residential drug treatment program where she remained until July of 1993. Petitioner then became a resident of an extended care drug treatment program up through December 7, 1993. When Petitioner completed the residential treatment program, she was actively participating in the Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA)twelve step programs. Petitioner lived a drug free life for twenty months after being discharged from the residential drug treatment program. She had one relapse in 1995. However, Petitioner immediately returned to NA treatment and continued working her twelve step program. Petitioner has not abused any substance in two years. She has maintained a close relationship with her NA sponsor during that time. Her involvement with NA activities has progressed over time. She now serves as a sponsor for other members of NA. She is an officer in her NA home group. Petitioner has become an active member of her church. She sings in the choir, serves as choir secretary, leads devotions, and acts as program leader. Petitioner is also active in her community. One activity she particularly enjoys is helping with her nephew’s little league baseball team. Petitioner currently is employed as an intake coordinator/receptionist at the I.M. Salzbacher Center for the Homeless. Sometime prior to August 23, 1996, Petitioner began working a second job in the evenings at Vannie Edwards Foster Group Home as a cook and house cleaner for six disabled male clients. The clients have mental and physical disabilities and are unable to function independently. In addition to her cooking and cleaning duties, Petitioner also served as a companion and mother figure to the clients. She would sometimes stay at the group home overnight but her normal work hours were from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Petitioner considered this position as an additional means to make “living amends.” On or about August 23, 1996, Respondent advised Petitioner that she was disqualified from continuing employment as a caretaker in a developmental services facility such as the Vannie Edwards Foster Group Home. Petitioner filed a request for exemption from disqualification on or about September 5, 1996. Respondent scheduled an Exemption Hearing for September 18, 1996. After the Exemption Hearing, Respondent denied Petitioner’s request for exemption from disqualification by letter dated September 19, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered granting Petitioner an exemption from disqualification from employment as a caretaker in a developmental services facility. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of March, 1997 in Tallahassee, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger L.D. Williams, Esquire Department of Children and Families Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 Thomasina Barnes 4818 Foxboro Road Jacksonville, FL 32208 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32388-0700 Richard A. Doran, Esquire Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32388-0700
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine based on the administrative complaint in this case, which charges, in general, that he obtained his license through fraudulent misrepresentations and is unable to practice medicine safely because of illness or use of drugs he prescribed for himself illegally under the names of fictitious patients?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Board of Medicine, created by Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, (the "Medical Practice Act,") is the regulatory authority charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida. The Board is within the Agency for Health Care Administration, Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, which, in turn, is within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Id. In particular, as is pertinent to this case, the Board has the power to impose disciplinary penalties on a licensee when it finds guilt of any of the grounds set forth in subsection (1) of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes, the "grounds for disciplinary action" section of the Medical Practice Act. Respondent, John Mark Pennington, M.D., is currently a licensee of the Board of Medicine. He has been continuously licensed as a physician in Florida since March 11, 1994. Currently residing in Terra Ceia, Florida, Respondent has a specialty in anesthesiology. He does not, however, presently practice in his specialty. He practices, instead, as a physician in a walk-in medical clinic where he is closely monitored and his access to drugs and medication is completely restricted. The reason for not presently practicing as an anesthesiologist and being closely monitored at the walk-in clinic is the same: an addiction to narcotics. In recovery from the disease of chemical dependency at the time of hearing, and as long as he remains in recovery, Dr. Pennington is not presently impaired as the result of his addiction. Respondent's Checkered Past History of Drug Use Dr. Pennington's use and abuse of drugs spans many years. His illegal drug use began when he was a teenager in high school. In addition to drinking, he was using marijuana, cocaine and other drugs. He continued in college to use drugs, including amphetamines. In 1981, Dr. Pennington graduated from pharmacy school and began work as a pharmacist licensed by the State of Georgia in the City of Savannah. During his employment, he would take from the pharmacy, without the benefit of a medical prescription and without authorization from the pharmacy, certain drugs for his personal use. These included opiate derivatives, Hydrocordone, for example, which are classified as narcotics, as well as amphetamines and amphetamine-like medications such as Ritalin. Sometime in 1981, shortly after he began using narcotics, Dr. Pennington became addicted to them. Dr. Pennington managed to conceal his narcotic addiction from his closest associates, including his former wife, who was employed as a fellow pharmacist with him at the pharmacy in Savannah. In 1985, following an inventory at the pharmacy that indicated a discrepancy in narcotics, Dr. Pennington admitted his drug usage. He went directly into treatment at Willingway Hospital in Statesboro, Georgia where he remained for six weeks until his release. As the result of the discovery and Dr. Pennington's admission, disciplinary proceedings were brought against Dr. Pennington by the Georgia State Board of Pharmacy. The Georgia Administrative Hearing At the hearing during those proceedings, Dr. Pennington acknowledged his addiction. He testified that he knew that he would have to deal with addiction the rest of his life. But, he further testified, thanks to being in recovery as a result of the program at Willingway and a continuing program of treatment, that he was then drug-free and committed to remaining so. Moreover, he testified, that he felt there was no pressure too great to cause him to return to illicit use of drugs. In his view, no pressure was too great because he was committed to the ongoing drug treatment program in which he was then involved. He found the program to be an effective method for dealing with the addiction, a method he had not even known existed prior to his entry into the Willingway program. With regard to the effect the addiction and his behavior had on his life and others, Dr. Pennington testified: There is no way I can really express the guilt I feel and the remorse I feel for what I have done. I just want to do my best, and whatever the Board wants I will follow any direction they want me to go into. I embarrassed my profession by doing this. I almost lost my life, and my family, and my job and everything else. Regardless of what decision is made, I am going to go in the right direction to get my life back to the way it's supposed to be. Petitioner's Ex. No. 4, pgs. 46 - 47. At this same hearing on the Georgia disciplinary proceeding, Dr. Pennington called as witnesses on his behalf his then current employer, Mr. Rupert Heller, and his then wife, Kim Pennington. Mr. Heller testified that he had allowed Dr. Pennington to return to work at his pharmacy as a pharmacist. But the return was subject to certain conditions. The conditions included weekly random urinalyses, direct supervision by other pharmacists, no access to medications and lie-detector tests when requested. Mr. Heller also testified that Dr. Pennington was a competent, conscientious pharmacist who always performed well the duties of his employment. Kim Pennington testified that she had been unaware that Dr. Pennington had used drugs prior to the revelation of early 1985. She also testified about her involvement in Dr. Pennington's treatment program at Willingway, including spending five days at the facility to integrate her into his care and attendance at family counseling sessions. Persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Pennington, his employer and his wife, Kim, and recommendations by the Attorney for the Board, the hearing officer wrote the following in his Initial Decision: The State produced evidence through testimony and the Respondent produced evidence through testimony of witnesses that the Respondent made a mistake in his life and is coping with that mistake in an attempt to overcome his use of drugs and drug abuse. The Respondent moved on his own volition with the help of others to search out and take advantage of programs that would rehabilitate him with respect to overcoming ... drug abuse ... . The Hearing Officer was persuaded to consider any recommendations which were made by the Attorney for the Board in these matters due to the goodwill effort on behalf of the Respondent as well as the assistance and guidance that has been given to the Respondent b[y] said Respondent's present employer.... Exhibit No. 6 attached to Petitioner's Ex. No. 2. Georgia Discipline Following the hearing in Georgia and the initial decision of the hearing officer, the Georgia Board imposed a suspension of Dr. Pennington's license to practice pharmacy for six months, just as the hearing officer had initially decided. But further, again following the lead of the hearing officer's initial decision, the Board suspended enforcement of the suspension for two years during which Dr. Pennington was to be on probation with conditions. Among other conditions of the probation, Dr. Pennington was required to submit to random urinalyses and to attend professional aftercare treatment and counseling. The probationary period was set from December 1985 until December 1987. Medical School After being on probation for a period of eight months, Dr. Pennington, in August of 1986, entered a medical school in the Caribbean on the island nation of Grenada. Dr. Pennington requested the Board of Pharmacy that the conditions of probation be lifted while he was in medical school because of the difficulty in complying with them in Grenada. The request was granted. After his second year of medical school in Grenada, Dr. Pennington transferred to the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta, Georgia. While in medical school in Georgia, Dr. Pennington began working part-time as a pharmacist again. Dr. Pennington did not resume compliance with the conditions of probation imposed by the order of the Georgia Board of Pharmacy. As to its role in overseeing Dr. Pennington, the Georgia Board apparently simply lost track of his case. In any event, the Georgia Board did not follow up to ensure that Dr. Pennington had completed his probation successfully. Resumption of Drug Use During his third year of medical school, while working as a pharmacist again, Dr. Pennington began drinking. Before long, he was taking drugs from the pharmacy at which he was working for his own personal use, again without authorization from the pharmacy or a prescription. Following graduation from medical school, Dr. Pennington undertook his residency at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans. His drug use continued. But instead of taking drugs from a pharmacy inventory, Dr. Pennington opted for a method not subject to pharmacy inventories. He wrote prescriptions for them in the names of other persons. Access to More Powerful Narcotics as an Anesthesiologist Respondent began his residency in internal medicine but switched to anesthesiology. The switch was not helpful to Dr. Pennington in terms of controlling his addiction. Now, different drugs, often more powerful, were readily available to him. Among them was Sufenta. To narcotic addicts subject to monitoring who want to resume narcotic use, Sufenta is a drug of choice because it is difficult to detect in bodily fluids. Listed as a controlled substance under Schedule II, Section 893.03(2), Florida Statutes, Sufenta is used primarily for analgesia in surgery. In addition to eliminating physical pain, it produces feelings of well-being and stops emotional pain. It has an effect similar to hydrocodone but it is shorter-acting and much more potent. In fact, Sufenta is the most potent opiate used in medicine today. Dr. Pennington began using Sufenta while a resident in anesthesiology either by injecting it or by inhaling it nasally. His use of this extremely powerful narcotic continued throughout the first half of this decade. Application for Florida Licensure as an M.D. In July of 1993, Dr. Pennington's fiance, Rachel, (now his wife,) assisted him in filling out his application for licensure by the Board of Medicine. Just as Dr. Pennington's previous spouse and other family members had been unaware of his narcotic addiction while a pharmacist prior to entering medical school, Rachel Pennington, too, was unaware that Dr. Pennington was using narcotics. Moreover, she did not know of his past history of drug use or his discipline in Georgia. Rachel Pennington typed the application for Dr. Pennington. Questions 4, 9 and 10 on the application were these: Have you ever been notified to appear before any licensing agency for a hearing on a complaint of any nature, including, but not limited to, a charge or violation of the medical practice act, unprofessional or unethical conduct? Are you now or have you ever been addicted to or excessively used alcohol, narcotics, barbiturates, or any other medication? Have you ever voluntarily or otherwise been a patient in a hospital, institution, clinic or medical facility for the treatment of mental/ emotional illness, drug, addiction/abuse, or excessive use of alcohol? Although the correct answer to each of the three questions in Dr. Pennington's case is "yes," the answers he gave on the application to each were "no." Dr. Pennington reviewed and signed the application. At this moment of opportunity to reveal the truth to his fiancee, Dr. Pennington chose to continue to conceal his addiction and past history of both drug use and discipline. The falsified application was submitted to the Board of Medicine in November of 1993. During the hearing in this case, Dr. Pennington was asked on cross examination about his awareness that the application contained misrepresentations: Q You were aware at the time you filled out your licensure application that the answers to those three questions were incorrect, weren't you? A ... I don't think it is adequate to answer the question saying that because of my denial of the disease that I didn't know the question was wrong. I definitely, at some level, knew the question was wrong. Q ... You knew that you had been disciplined before?. A Yes. Q And you knew that you had been in a treatment facility before. A Yes. Q ... Did you consider that you were in a treatment facility because you were excessively using drugs? * * * A Well, I guess to answer that ... I have to say yes, at some level I definitely did. I was not willing to admit that but to answer your question I have to say yes. (Tr. 201). Practice in Florida and Continued Drug Use Dr. Pennington was licensed by the Board of Medicine on March 11, 1994. He continues to hold that license, license number ME 0065888. In June of 1994, Dr. Pennington completed his residency. Shortly thereafter, he moved to Florida to begin practice as an anesthesiologist. He continued to use narcotics. In order to stave off withdrawal symptoms, the onset of which can occur within several hours of using a powerful opiate like Sufenta, Dr. Pennington was forced to use narcotics throughout the day, including while at work. Moreover, he was unable from time-to-time to avoid the side effects of withdrawal, which included chills and diarrhea. To control those symptoms, he used drugs such as Lomotil. Lomotil, like Sufenta and the other opiates Dr. Pennington has used, requires a prescription. Self-prescribing and Fictitious Patients In order to obtain some of these drugs, Dr. Pennington wrote out prescriptions for Bob Pennington (his father), Rachel Pennington (his wife), and Kim Patrick (his ex-spouse), none of whom were patients of his. For example, between November, 1994, and February, 1995, he wrote or called in at least fourteen prescriptions for Hycodan, Lomotil and Tussionex, in the names of the three fictitious patients. In reality, the prescriptions were for himself. The Self-prescribed Medications Hycodan contains hydrocodone bitartrate, and is a Schedule III controlled substance under Section 893.03(3), Florida Statutes. It is used for cough-relief. The maximum recommended daily dose is 30 milliliters, or six tablets, which consists of thirty milligrams of hydrocodone. Tussionex contains hydrocodone polistirex, and is a Schedule III controlled substance under Section 893.03(3), Florida Statutes. It is used for cough relief and upper respiratory symptoms associated with allergies or colds. The maximum recommended daily dose is ten milliliters consisting of twenty milligrams of hydrocodone. Hydrocodone is a semisynthetic narcotic antitussive and analgesic with multiple actions qualitatively similar to those of codeine. It is a narcotic with potential, of course, for abuse. It has the potential for abuse because it is an opiate derivative, one that, attached to the morphine or opiate receptor in the brain, produces effects of somnolence and euphoria, as well as suppressing other nerve impulses. Hydrocodone causes one to feel good about oneself, blurs time relationships, and changes a person's perceptions. It can cause lack of attention or cause one to be easily distracted, traits that pose extreme danger to patients under the care of an anesthesiologist. Once a certain level of tolerance is reached with hydrocodone, it causes twitching, nervousness, diarrhea, flushing, chills, goosepimples, and other classic symptoms of narcotics withdrawal. Lomotil contains diphenoxylate hydrochloride, and is a Schedule V controlled substance under Section 893.03(5), Florida Statutes. It is used in the management of diarrhea, a common symptom of narcotics withdrawal. It is also used to control other symptoms of withdrawal such as pain and twitching. The maximum recommended daily dose of Lomotil is eight tablets a day or twenty milligrams. At high doses, it is addictive, causing codeine-like effects. Between November, 1994, and March, 1995, Dr. Pennington was taking approximately 15-20 hydrocodone tablets, that is, 75- 100 milligrams, per day, and 30 to 50 Lomotil tablets or 75 to 125 milligrams per day. These levels of consumption are three to five times the recommended maximum daily dosage. Dr. Pennington was self-administering these substances for several purposes: satisfying his addiction, fending of withdrawal symptoms and controlling withdrawal symptoms he could not avoid. Caught Again On March 24, 1995, Dr. Pennington was questioned by an official of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and a Pinellas County Sheriff's Office detective regarding the fourteen prescriptions for fictitious patients written in late 1994 and early 1995. The interview took place immediately after Dr. Pennington had completed administering anesthesia during an operative procedure on a patient. Dr. Pennington admitted writing the fraudulent prescriptions. Furthermore, he provided the officers with a syringe containing approximately one cubic centimeter of Sufenta. Dr. Pennington admitted that he had used Sufenta about two hours earlier before administering anesthesia to the patient. Talbott-Marsh On March 25, 1995, the day after the DEA discovered Dr. Pennington was illegally using narcotics, he was admitted to the Talbott-Marsh Recovery System in Georgia, having been referred because of his chemical dependency by the Physicians Recovery Network. An inpatient chemical dependency treatment facility, Talbott-Marsh is specifically designed to meet the treatment needs of chemically addicted health care professionals, especially physicians. Five months after admission, on August 25, 1995, Dr. Pennington was discharged from Talbott-Marsh. He had completed the program successfully. Once again, just as upon successful completion of the program at Willingway, Dr. Pennington was in recovery from the disease of chemical dependency. Addiction: the Disease of Chemical Dependency The Disease and its Stages Chemical dependency or addiction is a chronic illness. An identifiable disease recognized by the medical profession, it is not the result of voluntary behavior. Rather, it is the result of a biogenetic defect, one with which the addicted person is born. Together with introduction into the person's system of a sufficient amount of a mood altering substance, this defect produces addiction. Initially, the disease manifests itself in abuse of the drug. In this early stage, addiction has not yet occurred. As use recurs, however, at some point the person crosses the threshold of addiction. After addiction, the individual becomes more and more preoccupied with obtaining the drug, primarily to avoid withdrawal symptoms when the addiction is not satisfied. The more preoccupied the individual becomes with obtaining the drug, the more avoidance there is of external responsibilities: those related to family, work and self. The disease is characterized by the continued use of the drug in the face of ongoing adversity as the result of the avoidance of external responsibilities. Left untreated, the disease leads to serious consequences: institutionalization due to a number of factors which may include brain damage or uncontrollability, disability, and, in extreme cases, death. Crossing the Wall As the disease progresses, eventually it takes control of not only the individual's use of the drugs but all of the individual's thinking as well. This point is referred by practitioners of addictionology as "crossing the wall." When the addict crosses the wall, the disease is in control. It is not uncommon for an addict who crosses the wall to conceal the drug use from everyone including spouse, other family members, friends, and employers. It is common for an addict who has crossed the wall to lie about drug use and minimize the extent of its effects on the addict's life. The acts of denying, concealing, and lying about drug use are common manifestations of the disease of chemical dependency. They fall into a continuum of symptoms of the disease ranging from denial, which relates to the negative consequences the use is having on the addict, to lying. Physicians as Addicts It is common for physicians addicted to drugs to steal them, divert them, write prescriptions for their own use or engage in other deceptive means of obtaining drugs. The manner used by physicians to obtain drugs is often dependent upon the physician's specialty. Nonetheless, self- prescribing medications is found in almost all of the cases of addicted physicians. Consuming massive quantities of drugs is not unusual for the addicted physician, often, in part, because of ready access to drugs. It is, moreover, a sign of tolerance of the drugs. Even in cases of great consumption, and despite the characteristics of narcotics and opiates, when physicians develop tolerance, they remain able to function well while under the influence of the substance. It is common, therefore, for drug usage to go undetected for long periods of time. Furthermore, with regard to opiates and narcotics, it is often difficult to determine whether a person is using them. There tends to be much less muscular coordination, slurred speech and recent memory deficits as would be observed of persons under the influence of other drugs. An individual addicted to and under the influence of opiates, even a physician practicing in a specialty as demanding as anesthesiology, can appear to be functioning as well as a person not under the influence of drugs. This is the case, in part, because a person addicted to opiates can develop tolerance rapidly. The more powerful the opiate, the sooner tolerance may be developed, as in the case of Sufenta. A physician under the influence of Sufenta can take a massive dose and appear to be basically normal to the untrained eye. Dr. Pennington's Stage of Addiction at the Time of Application Prior to the fall of 1993, that is, the time when Dr. Pennington made out and submitted his application to the Board of Medicine, he exhibited all the symptoms of a person who has crossed the wall. He had concealed his drug use, which at that time had become quite advanced, from his fiancee, his family, friends, and colleagues. He was taking massive quantities of narcotic opiates, yet, to the untrained eye, he was not exhibiting symptoms of a person under the influence. At the time of application, Dr. Pennington was well- thought of by his colleagues in the residency program in Louisiana. He was highly recommended for licensure to the Board of Medicine by the instructors of his residency training program. Treatment, Care and Aftercare Treatment is an important phase of the recovery process. Those suffering chemical dependency generally do well in treatment because of the controlled and structured nature of the treatment environment. The environment is safe. The patient is surrounded by others with similar problems. There is a lot of support both from those suffering the disease as well as from professionals. A successful treatment program must insist that the patient be rigorously honest in order to attain full recovery. Rigorous Honesty Because lying is an integral part of the disease of chemical dependency, a program of recovery demands rigorous honesty. In an effective recovery program, such as the one Dr. Pennington participated in at Talbott-Marsh, the physician is required to face the consequences of addiction and participate in psychotherapy when needed. During the treatment phase, the physician is required to go through identification with the family, have a fourth and fifth step of identifying the history of past defects and telling them to another human being. The Physician Recovery Network The Physician Recovery Network is the program used by the Board of Medicine to monitor physicians impaired by addiction in the State of Florida under Section 455.261, Florida Statutes. The Physician Recovery Network ("PRN,") assists the physician in developing and maintaining a manner of living which demands rigorous honesty. PRN does this by requiring the physician to enter into an Advocacy Contract, a five year contract that can be extended if necessary. The Advocacy Contract is designed to serve as a deterrent, promote honesty, to verify through face-to-face conferences and monthly and weekly meetings and periodic urine screens, that a physician is progressing or improving and is not endangering the public or him or herself. Physicians are required to identify the consequences of their drug use and admit their powerlessness over their ability to stop using drugs. Rigorous honesty is demanded by PRN from its participants because it is absolutely required in order to break denial and to prevent rationalization and denial from returning to the behavioral patterns of the addicted physician. PRN educates physicians about the negative behavioral patterns of their disease and monitors the physicians for the return of erratic behavior or evidence of returning denial or evidence of lying. PRN educates physicians about their own indicators for relapse so that they avoid positions likely to produce relapse and so that they will not be unconsciously driven to resume drug use to relieve personal discomfort. PRN monitors its physician participants through local group facilitators. Monitors are assigned because of geographic proximity that will allow immediate access in order to provide counseling. Initially, the PRN monitor undertakes a direct physical evaluation of the physician and becomes familiarized with the physician's specific problems to allow early identification of developing problems that would endanger the public or the physician. In addition, the monitor maintains close contact with PRN. Reports to PRN are made at least weekly providing information about general progress, insight, attentiveness, responsiveness to urine screens, participation in group sessions, openness of the physician, assessment of honesty, and assessment of coping skills. The contact between the monitor and PRN is so comprehensive that it can be characterized as an ongoing dialogue about all aspects of the physician related to management of the addiction and the medical-legal implications for the physician's practice and protection of the public. The monitor is also charged with providing the participating physician with support. If a physician fails to comply with PRN instructions or relapses, the monitor immediately reports it to PRN so that the physician can be submitted to treatment. If necessary to protect the public in such a case, PRN does not hesitate to report the matter to the Agency for Health Care Administration for entry of an emergency order suspending the license. While some number below 20 percent of physicians who enter PRN require more than one treatment to become firmly committed to recovery, 97 percent of the physicians who enter PRN practice without difficulty after five years. The ninety-seven percent success rate PRN has experienced with addicted physicians is significantly higher than the success after treatment of the general population of sufferers of chemical dependency in returning to lives committed to recovery and free of the problems of addiction. Aftercare Aftercare, the stage of recovery which follows treatment and the diseased physician's entry into recovery, is an essential phase of the recovery process, every bit as important, if not more so, than the initial program of treatment. It must consist of close monitoring with repetitive follow-up. This is provided by PRN. As an aftercare program more highly developed than the aftercare received by Dr. Pennington from Willingway in the previous decade, in part, due to advances in the study of addictionology, PRN provides the type of aftercare that supports recovery as fully as possible in light of the status of addictionology today. For example, the syndrome of "protracted withdrawal from opiates," was not even known to exist at the time Dr. Pennington participated in the Willingway program. The syndrome is the result of the body shutting off its own, natural, manufacture of endorphins and other "internal opiates," necessary to a sense of well-being while taking narcotic opiates and introducing into the body exogenous opiates. As a result, it takes the body several years, a period longer than the initial treatment phase, to begin producing its own internal opiates. In the meantime, the opiate addict will continue to suffer withdrawal symptoms, hence the term "protracted" withdrawal. Unlike the care after the Willingway program, the PRN aftercare program provides treatment for protracted withdrawal. Dr. Pennington's Experience with PRN and Adherence to the Advocacy Contract At least through the time of hearing, Dr. Pennington has maintained a strict adherence to his PRN contract. He has fully complied with monitoring by PRN. He has shown a significant commitment to his program of recovery since entering into the advocacy contract. Since late summer, 1995, PRN has considered Dr. Pennington to be safe to practice under the terms of his advocacy contract with continued monitoring. In making that determination, PRN has considered all of the Respondent's past addictive behavior including the length of his addiction, his ability to function normally while under the influence of opiates and other drugs, lying about drug use, concealing it from family, friends, work colleagues, even the Board, stealing drugs, and self-prescribing. Moreover, PRN has considered his prior discipline by the Georgia Board of Pharmacy, the treatment at Willingway and the failed aftercare in his first effort at recovery. Most importantly, PRN has considered the potential danger Dr. Pennington poses to patients and the public. Because of restrictions imposed upon him by both Talbott-Marsh and PRN, Dr. Pennington is not practicing as an anesthesiologist. He cannot resume that practice until his treatment professionals and PRN agree that it is safe for him to do so. Dr. Pennington is not permitted access to controlled substances. He must utilize triplicate prescriptions, one for the patient, one in the chart, and the other for monitoring. Since leaving Talbott-Marsh, Dr. Pennington has successfully met these requirements imposed for his aftercare from the moment he left Talbott-Marsh: Monitor and addictionologist: Dr. Roger Goetz and a local monitor, Jim Noyes, Ph. D. Primary physician of Marte Kautzler, D.O. Not to return to anesthesiology for at least one year following treatment. Return to Talbott-Marsh for reassessment. Work 40 hours per week maximum. Utilize triplicate prescription pads in his practice. Reside with wife, Rachel, and attend couples therapy as directed by Dr. Noyes. Attend Caduceus and AA, 90 meetings in 90 days, followed by attending at a frequency of four to seven times per week. See Joint Exhibit 1. Board Action Had it Been Aware of the Truth at the Time the Application Was Filed Had the Board been aware at the time Dr. Pennington filed his application that the answers to questions 4, 9 and 10 were inaccurate, Dr. Pennington would have had to appear before the Board's Credential Committee. The Committee would have required a personal appearance of Dr. Pennington and a PRN evaluation. Based on the evaluation and Dr. Pennington's explanation for the inaccuracies in the application, the Committee would have recommended either denial of licensure or issuance of the license. Dr. Pennington is in full compliance with his PRN contract and has demonstrated a strong commitment to his program of recovery and the requirements of PRN. It is likely, based on an analysis of similar cases, that if Dr. Pennington were to apply for a license today, with full disclosure, and under the current circumstances of his good standing in the PRN program, that the Board would grant him a license with conditions. Dr. Pennington's Practice Today Today, Dr. Pennington is employed as a practicing physician at a private walk-in clinic. In addition to the practice of requiring his prescriptions in triplicate, his access to controlled substances is completely restricted and the restriction is closely monitored. The nurses at the clinic maintain the keys which allow access to the drugs. An inventory is conducted in the morning when the facility opens and is matched every day with an inventory done in the evening when the facility closes. A urinalysis to check for recent drug use was performed when Dr. Pennington was hired and random urinalyses are done of all employees, including the owner, from time to time without warning. Dr. Pennington, at the time of hearing, had been subject to two urinalyses. Dr. Pennington is observed at the facility for behaviors that would indicate relapse. At the time of hearing, he had not exhibited any such behaviors. His knowledge of medicine was described by his employer as good. Moreover, Dr. Pennington has shown good clinical judgment in the cases he has encountered as well as excellent skills in dealing with his patients. The Impact of Discipline on Dr. Pennington It would be counter-therapeutic to Dr. Pennington to remove him from the practice of medicine while he is in recovery. In fact, one of the main reasons for the extremely high success rate of PRN's work with physicians suffering from the disease of chemical dependency when compared to the general population of those with the disease, is that the physician is working and his or her license is always at stake. Protection of the Public The department, in an attempt to protect the public, is seeking discipline of Dr. Pennington. Yet, the Board, by not taking emergency action against his license, has conceded that he is not impaired at the moment and so long as he is in recovery. Moreover, by allowing his practice pending this proceeding and not taking emergency action against his license, the Board has determined Dr. Pennington's practice as a physician in a walk-in clinic does not pose an imminent danger to public health safety and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Dr. Pennington's license to practice medicine be suspended for five years; That the suspension be stayed and that he be placed on probation immediately for at least five years with probation to be extended, if necessary at the end of the five years; That appropriate conditions of the suspension be imposed by the Board to include, at a minimum: No practice of anesthesiology during the period of probation; No access to controlled substances, drugs or medicines requiring a prescription during the period of probation; and, Participation in the Physician's Recovery Network for the entire period of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Monica Felder, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint (as limited by the Notice of Limitation of Issues dated June 15, 2004) are correct, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed mental health counselor, holding Florida license number ME 5853. In approximately July 2001, the Respondent began to counsel a five-year-old female, allegedly the victim of sexual abuse by an uncle, the brother of the child's mother. The Respondent believed, based on information provided by the father, that the uncle resided with the child's mother. The child's father had custody of the child, and the mother had some type of visitation rights. In approximately November of 2001, the Respondent began counseling the child's father and his girlfriend for various family-related issues. Towards the end of 2001 or early 2002, the father and his girlfriend married. Although the Respondent testified at the hearing that the couple "seemed to have plenty of money to do certain things," including personal care and entertainment expenses, she apparently believed, based on what she was told by the couple, that they had financial difficulties. The couple resided in a home owned by the child's father. Apparently based solely on the couple's representations, the Respondent believed that the father was in arrears on house payments. One of the issues addressed in counseling was the father's concern that, were he to lose his house, the child would be returned to the mother's custody, where the uncle resided. Also apparently based solely on the couple's representations, the Respondent believed that the couple wanted to purchase a new house and that they needed $7,000 to buy the house. In March of 2002, the Respondent loaned the couple $7,000. The couple repaid within a few weeks a total of $9,000 to the Respondent. At the time of the $7,000 loan, the clients owed to the Respondent a balance of approximately $3,200 in unpaid professional fees related to therapeutic services provided to them by the Respondent. The Petitioner asserts that the $9,000 repaid to the Respondent included interest charges of $2,000. Petitioner's Exhibit number one is a copy of a document dated March 20, 2002, and apparently notarized on March 21, 2002. The document appears to require that the couple repay to the Respondent by not later than May 16, 2002, a principal amount of $7,000 plus $2,000 in "interest" for a total of $9,000. The genesis of the document is unclear. At the hearing, the wife testified that the document memorialized the agreement between the Respondent and the couple. The Respondent testified that she did not require preparation or execution of any loan documentation. The Respondent testified that the funds received from the couple included repayment of the loan plus payment of $2,000 towards the unpaid professional fees. Based on the candor and demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, the Respondent's testimony as to the basis for the payment of the $2,000 is credited. Subsequent to the loan and repayment transactions, the therapeutic situation deteriorated between the Respondent and the couple, particularly as to the wife, who began to believe that the Respondent was romantically involved with the husband. The therapeutic relationship between the couple and the Respondent dissolved acrimoniously within a few months after the loan. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Dr. Owen Wunderman, a Florida-licensed mental health counselor, and Dr. Andrew Wenger, a Florida-licensed psychologist. Both testified as to the Florida Statutes and as to ethical standards adopted by the American Counseling Association (ACA) applicable to the fact situation at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent presented the expert testimony Dr. Barbara Herlihy, a professor at the University of New Orleans and a licensed professional counselor in Louisiana and Texas. Dr. Herlihy has been involved with the adoption of the existing ACA standards and has written texts related to the issue of dual relationships in counseling situations. As identified during the hearing, the ACA standards address the issue of dual relationships as follows: Avoid when possible. Counselors are aware of their influential positions with respect to clients and they avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of clients. Counselors make every effort to avoid dual relationships with clients that could impair professional judgment or increase the risk of harm to clients. (Examples of such relationships include, but are not limited to, familial, social, financial, business, or other close personal relationships with clients.) When a dual relationship cannot be avoided, counselors take appropriate professional precautions such as informed consent, consultation, supervision, and documentation to ensure that judgment is not impaired and no exploitation occurs. Both Dr. Wunderman and Dr. Wenger testified that by making the $7,000 loan to her clients, the Respondent entered into a dual relationship (counselor and creditor) with the couple, and that in doing so, the Respondent failed to meet minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, as well as violated the ACA standards. Dr. Wunderman testified that there was a meaningful risk of non-repayment of the $7,000 loan, given that the clients were several thousand dollars in arrears in paying professional fees, thereby increasing the likelihood that the therapist/creditor would have to take legal action against the clients for repayment, an action likely to impair professional judgment or increase the potential risk of harm to the clients, whether or not legal action was actually initiated. Dr. Herlihy testified that she did not regard the fact situation at issue in this case as a dual relationship because she viewed it as a "one-time" short-term loan and that there was no evidence that the counseling relationship between the parties was harmed. Dr. Herlihy testified that she viewed the situation as a "boundary crossing." Dr. Herlihy acknowledged that short of loaning a client a small sum for cab fare, she was unaware of any mental health counselor making a loan to a client such as occurred in this case. She also acknowledged that she was not familiar with professional performance standards as specifically applied to Florida practitioners. The weight of the evidence establishes that Drs. Wunderman and Wenger are more familiar with the minimum standards of professional performance as measured against generally prevailing peer performance within the State of Florida. The testimony of Dr. Wunderman and Dr. Wenger is credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding the Respondent has violated Subsection 491.009(1)(r), Florida Statutes (2002), and imposing a fine of $1,000, a reprimand, and a one-year period of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Ellen M. Simon, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 William N. Swift, Esquire William N. Swift, Attorney at Law 901 Southwest Martin Downs Boulevard Suite 208 Palm City, Florida 34990 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy & Mental Health Counseling Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Quincy Page, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaints are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Respondent Robert S. Colen was a licensed mental health counselor, holding Florida license MH 0001546. The Respondent’s business address is 800 Belcher Road, North, Suite 1, Clearwater, Florida 34625. The Respondent was trained in a form of mental health counseling identified as “Gestalt” or “humanistic” therapy. Such therapy includes physical, non-sexual, touching, such as hugs. There is no credible evidence that therapeutic touching within a counseling relationship is inappropriate. A number of the Respondent’s clients testified that he almost always hugged them at the end of the counseling session. The only witness who testified that the Respondent did not hug was a male patient who indicated that he was not inclined to permit the Respondent to hug him. Other than the three patients identified herein, none of the witnesses regarded the hugging as sexual, and none seemed at all offended by the physical contact. Patient M. C. Patient M. C. was referred to the Respondent by Dr. Michael Gemino, the patient’s psychiatrist. At the time of the referral, M. C. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, alcohol abuse, and passive aggressive disorder. She was referred to the Respondent for counseling related to alcohol addiction and co-dependency issues. During the course of therapy, the Respondent began to hug M. C. as he did many of his other patients. At some point during the therapy, a discussion of different types of “love” occurred. Based on that discussion, M. C. apparently became convinced that the Respondent was in love with her and she with him. At some point during the counseling, the Respondent and M. C. began to experience some type of emotional involvement which exceeded the typical counselor-client situation. There were extended periods when the Respondent held M. C. in his arms as she recounted painful experiences she had suffered. M. C. asserts that the Respondent told her that he loved her and that beginning in February 1994, she engaged in sexual activity with the Respondent. She asserts that the two would lie on pillows on the floor of his office, that the Respondent would touch her unclothed genital area with his hands and mouth, and that she would perform fellatio on the Respondent. In about July 1994, M. C. reported the alleged sexual activity to Dr. Gemino, who referred her to Kerry Kushmick, an unlicensed individual apparently working with Dr. Gemino. Mr. Kushmick met with the Respondent and M. C. to discuss the matter. Although M. C. repeated her allegations, the Respondent denied any sexual contact, but acknowledged that the two were in a "psychological cocoon,” that he was "in over his head," that he should have terminated therapy earlier, and that there were some “boundary” issues which needed resolution. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent engaged in sexual activity with M. C. The recollection of M. C. as to times and circumstances under which the sexual activity occurred lacks credibility. The Respondent’s office was located immediately adjacent to a public waiting area which served a number of professional offices. The receptionist’s desk in the waiting area was located next to the Respondent’s office. The walls in the office suite were poorly insulated and sound traveled from the offices into the waiting area; however the receptionist testified that she heard nothing indicating any sexual activity ever took place in the Respondent’s office. She also testified that the door to the Respondent’s office closed improperly and would not lock. The evidence establishes that the Respondent did not maintain an appropriate therapeutic relationship with M. C. The Respondent did not recognize that transference and counter- transference were occurring, and did not timely seek assistance to resolve the situation. The Respondent's failure to recognize the developing situation with M. C. was detrimental to her mental condition and constitutes a failure to meet minimum standards of performance as his professional activity. At some point after M. C. spoke to Dr. Gemino, he provided to her the names of other patients whom he had referred to the Respondent for counseling. M. C. met separately with J. M. and R. P. They discussed the interactions with the Respondent. The former patients continued to maintain contact for a period of time after the initial meeting. At the hearing, J. M. and R. P. expressed concern regarding the emotional condition of M. C. Patient J. M. In about October 1993, J. M. was referred to the Respondent by Dr. Gemino, the patient’s psychiatrist. At the time of the referral, J. M. was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. She was referred to the Respondent for marital therapy, after having been involved in sexual relations outside her marriage. J. M. attended initial counseling session with her husband. She attended subsequent sessions without her husband. She also participated in group therapy at the Respondent’s office. J. M. dressed in a “seductive” manner for counseling sessions, frequently wearing very short shorts. At one time, after a group therapy session, the Respondent received a complaint from another patient regarding J. M.’s attire during counseling, stating that she was sitting on a pillow on the floor, was not wearing underwear, and was exposing herself. J. M. testified that she did not wear underwear during the group therapy and further acknowledged that she was not wearing underwear at the time of her testimony. J. M. asserts that during the initial counseling session, while her husband was out of the room, the Respondent told her she was attractive. J. M. asserts that during subsequent session, which she attended alone, the Respondent would lie on the pillows with her, touch her, tell her she was beautiful and call her his “soul mate.” She asserts that the Respondent was always touching her and kissing her. The evidence fails to support the assertions J. M. asserts that the Respondent purchased gifts for her. The Respondent acknowledged that he may have purchased some type of tape for her, but there were not multiple gifts. J. M. asserts that he did not charge for all sessions. The Respondent acknowledged that he did not charge for all her sessions and said that is frequently the case when a patient is undergoing financial difficulty. J. M. testified that the Respondent told her she should take a test for the AIDS virus. She believed that the Respondent made the suggestion for the purpose of determining her health status prior to engaging in sexual relations with her. The Respondent testified that he made the suggestion based on her sexual activity outside her marriage and the fact that she was referred to him for marital counseling. Despite having been interviewed by an investigator for the Department, J. M. testified for the first time at the hearing that the Respondent told her he was going to “lick her pussy like you’ve never had it before.” There is no credible evidence that the Respondent made the statement. J. M. terminated her therapy with the Respondent because he indicated she needed to pay him some of the money she owed from the counseling. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent acted inappropriately in his interaction with J. M. Patient R. P. The Respondent provided therapeutic counseling to R. P. from January to March of 1988. At the time of the 1988 counseling, R. P. was being treated for an inability to accept affection. From August to October 1991, the Respondent engaged in a second round of therapy with R. P. She was depressed, lacked a social support system, and was dependent on prescription pain medication. She was also involved in a difficult relationship with her mother. There were only four sessions during the 1991 round of therapy. During the second round of therapy, the Respondent encouraged her to bring her mother to counseling (her mother declined.) The Respondent hugged and touched R. P during the sessions, told her she was special and a valuable person. R. P. had expressed concern about being able to be physically affectionate with a man. Part of the Respondent’s plan of therapy was physically hugging or holding R. P. in a manner intended to permit her to become comfortable with such attention in a non-threatening environment. Some of the hugs lasted for up to 15 minutes. Depending on the mental status of the patient, a 15 minute hug, while unusual, is not necessarily inappropriate. R. P. asserts that the Respondent told her she was his “soul mate” and discussed sexual relations with her. She asserts that he told her he had feelings about her which he had not experienced with other patients. The evidence fails to support the assertion. After R. P. stopped attending the sessions, she received two letters from the Respondent, the second of which made her feel “threatened.” He also called R. P. several times. R. P. believed he was trying to make her feel guilty. The Respondent asserts that he was concerned about her discontinuation of therapy and the fact that she owed him money. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent acted inappropriately in his interaction with R. P.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Health, Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling, enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $1,000 on, and issuing a public reprimand to, Robert S. Colen. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Childers, Esquire Thomas Wright, Esquire Anne Cox, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall & Showers, P.A. 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Lucy C. Gee, Executive Director Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a mental health counselor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner executed an application for licensure as a mental health counselor on June 13, 1989. He filed the application with the Board of Clinical Social Workers, Marriage & Family Therapists, and Mental Health Counselors on July 6, 1989. The application was accompanied by the appropriate fee and disclosed that Petitioner satisfied all of the educational requirements for taking the examination. However, Respondent determined that the application was incomplete because Petitioner failed to show that he had had the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. By letter dated July 17, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application was incomplete pending receipt of, among other things, documentation of the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. A second letter dated January 17, 1990, from Respondent to Petitioner restated that the application was still missing the items set forth in the prior letter. By Order of Intent to Deny filed April 12, 1990, Respondent informed Petitioner that it was denying his application on the grounds set forth above. Petitioner obtained a master's degree in clinical psychology from the University of Central Florida on December 20, 1985. From October 4, 1985, through October 20, 1988, Petitioner worked full- time as a psychological specialist at the Polk Correctional Institution under the supervision of Gerd Garkisch, Ph.D., who was head of the mental health department at the prison. Petitioner's work qualifies as clinical experience in mental health counseling. Dr. Garkisch does not hold any Florida professional licenses, such as a mental health counselor or psychologist. He is not so licensed in any other state, although he is licensed as a psychologist in Puerto Rico. Dr. Garkisch does not meet the education criteria required for licensure as a mental health counselor. Dr. Garkisch earned a master's degree in clinical psychology, which would otherwise satisfy the educational requirement for licensure as a mental health counselor. However, he received his degree from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Institute of Psychology, which is located in Brazil. The school is not accredited by an accrediting agency approved by the U.S. Department of Education, Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, or Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a mental health counselor. ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Linda Biederman, Executive Director Board of Mental Health Counseling 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Suresh Paul Pushkarna, pro se 309 Hidden Hollow Court Sanford, FL 32773
Findings Of Fact In July, 1988, the Petitioner applied for renewal of dual annual licenses to operate both an alcoholism prevention and treatment program (APT) and a drug abuse treatment and prevention program (DATAP). On July 26, 1988, a representative of the Department, Aixa Reyes-Wajsman, made a site visit to Petitioner's facility to determine whether Petitioner was complying with the provisions of the Florida Administrative Code for the operation of an alcoholism prevention and treatment program (APT) and a drug abuse treatment and prevention program. The Department's representative found that the Petitioner was in violation of several administrative regulations, but the Petitioner took steps to comply with the regulations, and the Department renewed the Petitioner's regular annual DATAP license and regular annual APT license, authorizing the Petitioner to operate those programs through July 30, 1989. On June 27, 1989, a Department representative, Lorenzo Thomas, made a site visit to the Petitioner's facility to determine whether or not Petitioner was complying with regulations for the operation of an APT program. (The Petitioner requested renewal of the APT license only, not the DATAP license.) At the time, the Petitioner, primarily a small human development counseling service, had only two APT clients. By the time Mr. Thomas returned with his supervisor, Gail Potter, for a second site visit on July 27, 1989, the Petitioner had one additional APT client, who had just been accepted as a client. Although the Petitioner's client files included forms which would have allowed for the inclusion of initial and individualized treatment plans which identified target dates for completion of goals identified in the client's plan, the Petitioner did not utilize the forms so as to adequately describe the treatment plan or identify target dates. The Petitioner's client files did include progress notes. But the progress notes were incomplete and disorganized, some consisting of cryptic notes on pieces of scrap paper loose in the files, and did not adequately relate the progress of each client in accordance with the individual treatment plan. The Petitioner took the position that the notes were sketchy so as not to reveal client confidences in the event the records were required to be disclosed pursuant to a subpoena. One of the Petitioner's client files--the file on the new, third client--did not include a psychosocial assessment. The other two client files did include a partially completed psychosocial assessment, but neither was signed, credentialed and dated by the treating counselor. Since there had been no request for the release of client information on the Petitioner's three APT clients, there was no reason for the Petitioner's client files to include a client consent form for the release of confidential information. (The blank forms that the Petitioner had available for use in the event of a request for client information did not include a time limit for the release of such information.) The Petitioner's client files did not include evidence of the development and utilization of admission and discharge criteria or standards. The Petitioner distributed to its APT clients an information sheet upon admission, but the information sheet did not include admission criteria. The Petitioner also had available a questionnaire for new clients to complete. But the questionnaire was not used for the clients the Petitioner had at that time and, besides, did not indicate how the Petitioner would score, or evaluate, the client's answers. Based on the June 27 and July 27, 1989, site visits, HRS issued to the Petitioner an interim APT license from August 1, 1989, to October 29, 1989, instead of a regular annual APT license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a final order affirming the Department's action in issuing to the Petitioner an interim alcoholism prevention and treatment program license instead of a regular license. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1990.
The Issue The issues presented were those advanced by an Administrative Complaint brought against the Respondent by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, in which Respondent is alleged to have violated Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by willfully or repeatedly violating a lawful order of the Board of Nursing previously entered in a disciplinary proceeding. In particular, it is alleged that Respondent violated the terms and conditions of an order of probation entered by the Board of Nursing on November 22, 1983, pertaining to the failure to seek counseling with a psychiatrist, psychologist or other recognized drug alcohol rehabilitation program specialist and to furnish reports to the Board of Nursing. It is further alleged that Respondent failed to submit to a random urine test which was designed to determine if he had consumed, injected or otherwise self-medicated himself with any unprescribed controlled substance.
Findings Of Fact Disciplinary action had been taken against the Respondent by the Board of Nursing stemming from his abuse of the controlled substances percodan and tylenol. The license number in question was license No. 34401-1. On October 15, 1982, Respondent appeared before the Board of Nursing to seek reinstatement of this license. At that time, the Board decided to reinstate the license conditioned upon the service of a probationary term, including special conditions of probation. Among the special conditions of probation was a requirement that "the licensee shall obtain/continue counseling with a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other recognized drug/alcohol rehabilitation program, and shall cause progress reports to be furnished to the Board or probation supervisor every three (3) months during treatment as scheduled by the probation supervisor." The nature of the dialogue at the October 15, 1982, meeting was such that the Respondent was misled into believing that the above- referenced condition of probation would not be required. The Final Order related to the Respondent's reinstatement was issued on November 22, 1982, and it set forth the probation condition related to counseling. It also included a condition to the effect that the Respondent agreed to submit to random blood and/or urine tests to detect the presence of unprescribed controlled substances. Respondent had not been receiving counseling for a drug problem at the time of the October 15, 1982, meeting to consider his reinstatement or at the point in time of receipt of the Final Order relating to the subject of his reinstatement and service of a two-year probationary term. Having reviewed the terms related to attendance of such a program or continuation of the program and the necessity for reports as found in the November 22, 1982 Order, and believing that the remarks made in the course of the October 15, 1982 meeting to consider reinstatement had excluded the necessity to attend such sessions if he was not already in attendance in a rehabilitation program, he contacted Geraldine Johnson, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, to inquire about what he perceived to be a discrepancy between the decision at the meeting in October and the Order entered in November. Ms. Johnson referred Respondent to Helen Keefe, Executive Director of the Board of Nursing, who told King that the Order's terms could not be changed. Additionally, she indicated that a Probation officer would get in contact with King about compliance with the terms and conditions of the Probation Order. John Coats was assigned as the Probation Officer for the Respondent. He first met with the Respondent as Probation Officer on March 10, 1983. At that time, King continued to express concern that the Probation Order and the decision of the Board at the October meeting were "at odds" as to the requirement of counseling. Coats indicated that he felt that the terms of the Probation Order related to counseling were required of King. He nonetheless indicated to King that he would "check into it." On the same date that the initial contact was made, King was requested to give a urine specimen to allow detection of any controlled substance that might be present. This request was made at King's place of employment and in response to King's concern that he not be required to give the sample at the place of employment in order to avoid embarrassment, King was not required to give a random sample at that time. At that point, Respondent was employed at an institution known as Pine Castle which assists mentally retarded adults. At the time of hearing, King was a vocational coordinator for Pine Castle's clients. A further meeting was held between Coats and the Respondent on March 30, 1983, at which time Coats indicated that it was necessary for counseling reports to be provided by the Respondent. King continued to insist that he did not need to attend counseling due to remarks at the Board meeting by Board member, Choulat. Choulat later told Coats that she had not made remarks to that effect. On April 6, 1983, King wrote to the Board of Nursing to ascertain if he indeed had to attend counseling and file reports. This inquiry was responded to by Ms. Keefe on May 3, 1983. In her letter of response, she made reference to the conditions in the Probation Order related to the obtaining or continuing counseling and the necessity for reports and alluded to the fact that in her mind, the first report was due on March 1, 1983, and a second report would be due on June 1, 1983. Further, she indicated that those reports would continue to be due until Respondent was discharged from counseling or a report was received from a counselor indicating that King would no longer need therapy. On May 11, 1983, based upon investigation by Coats, it was determined to pursue charges against Respondent for failing to offer the March 1, 1983, report related to counseling. A report was made by a Dr. Mullen of the Mental Health Clinic of Jacksonville, Inc., on June 22, 1983. This report was addressed to Ms. Keefe. Ms. Keefe was undecided whether this report indicated that the Respondent was released or should be released from any necessity to attend counseling. She did not pursue this matter by presenting it to the Board for their opinion, in view of the fact that the charges of May 11, 1983, had been instituted. From the point of view of Ms. Keefe as spokesperson for the Board of Nursing, it was not necessary to answer this question nor for Respondent to have to continue to offer quarterly reports beyond March 1, 1983, pending the outcome of charges related to the failure to file a report of March 1, 1983. During the course of the exchanges related to the necessity to receive counseling and provide counseling reports on a quarterly basis, Coats continued to seek random urine samples from the Respondent to detect the presence of controlled substances. One of those samples was obtained on April 28, 1983, following contact with the Respondent, allowing him a couple of hours before making the appearance to give that sample. The results of that sample were negative. A similar contact was made with the Respondent on June 29, 1983. The Respondent was telephoned by Coats around two or three o'clock in the afternoon and an arrangement made for Respondent to come by Coats' office around 5:00 p.m. to offer the urine sample. King made his appearance but did not give the sample, indicating that he was unable to void. He requested to be allowed to return the following morning to offer the urine specimen. This arrangement was not pursued by Coats. No further explanation was given to Coats about the inability of Respondent to provide the urine sample and at hearing, Respondent repeated his statement that he was simply unable to perform that task on June 29, 1983. This failure to provide a sample led to a second set of charges dating from July 28, 1983. This charge and the March 1, 1983, failure to file a counseling report formed the basis of the Administrative Complaint of September 6, 1983, filed by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation against Respondent. Respondent requested a formal Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing which was held on January 25, 1984.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which finds the Respondent guilty of violating the Probation Order of the Board of Nursing by failing to submit to a urine test on June 29, 1983, and dismisses the charge of failure to submit a quarterly counseling report for March 1, 1983. By way of penalty, the Final Order should impose a suspension of six months, with the last four months of that terms being set aside if, within the initial two months, Respondent seeks a psychological evaluation from a qualified psychiatrist, psychologist or other qualified mental health care counselor who, by report to the Board, addresses the Respondent's capability of continuing in the nursing profession without posing a threat to the safety of patients based upon abuse of drugs or related matters and the need to continue counseling and conditioned upon Respondent's submitting to random blood or urine samples to detect unprescribed controlled substances during the six months suspension period. The final order should also state that Respondent's failure to provide the counseling report and continue needed counseling or to submit to detection of unprescribed controlled substances through blood or urine sample shall promote the imposition of the remaining four months of the suspension term. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeffery B. Morris, Esquire 437 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
