The Issue Whether Medicaid overpayments were made to Petitioner by the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") for services performed during the audit period of August 1, 2000, to August 1, 2002 (the "audit period"), and, if so, what is the total amount of these overpayments.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Parties Respondent, William O. Kabry, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 28394. During the audit period, Dr. Kabry's specialty area of practice was general or family practice, and his office was in Naples, Florida. Dr. Kabry is now retired. AHCA is the agency responsible for administering the Florida Medicaid Program. One of AHCA's duties is to recover Medicaid overpayments from physicians providing care to Medicaid recipients. §§ 409.901, 409.902, and 409.9131, Fla. Stat. (2006). The Provider Agreement During the audit period, Dr. Kabry was authorized to provide physician services to eligible Medicaid patients, pursuant to a valid, voluntary Medicaid provider contract agreement with AHCA, Medicaid Provider No. 065342000. The 1996 Provider Agreement, in effect at the time of the audit, contained the following provisions, among others: Quality of Service. The provider agrees to provide medically necessary services or goods of not less than the scope and quality it provides to the general public. The provider agrees that services or goods billed to the Medicaid program must be medically necessary, of a quality comparable to those furnished by the provider's peers, and within the parameters permitted by the provider's license or certification. The provider further agrees to bill only for the services performed within the specialty or specialties designated in the provider application on file with the Agency. The services or goods must have been actually provided to eligible Medicaid recipients by the provider prior to submitting the claim. Compliance. The provider agrees to comply with all local, state and federal laws, rules, regulations, licensure laws, Medicaid bulletins, manuals, handbooks and Statements of Policy as they may be amended from time to time. * * * 5. Provider Responsibilities. The Medicaid provider shall: * * * (b) Keep and maintain in a systematic and orderly manner all medical and Medicaid related records as the Agency may require and as it determines necessary; make available for state and federal audits for five years, complete and accurate medical, business, and fiscal records that fully justify and disclose the extent of the goods and services rendered and billings made under the Medicaid [sic]. The provider agrees that only records made at the time the goods and services were provided will be admissible in evidence in any proceeding relating to the Medicaid program. * * * (d) Except as otherwise provided by law, the provider agrees to provide immediate access to authorized persons (including but not limited to state and federal employees, auditors and investigators) to all Medicaid- related information, which may be in the form of records, logs, documents, or computer files, and all other information pertaining to services or goods billed to the Medicaid program. This shall include access to all patient records and other provider information if the provider cannot easily separate records for Medicaid patients from other records. * * * (f) Within 90 days of receipt, refund any moneys received in error or in excess of the amount to which the provider is entitled from the Medicaid program. Handbook Provisions Among the "manuals and handbooks" referenced in paragraph 3 of the Provider Agreement in effect during the audit period were the Medicaid Provider Reimbursement Handbook, HFCA- 1500 and Child Health Check-Up 221 ("Reimbursement Handbook") and the Physician Coverage and Limitations Handbook ("C&L Handbook"), with their periodic updates. The term "medically necessary" was defined in Appendix D of the Reimbursement Handbook as follows, in relevant part: Medically Necessary or Medical Necessity Means that the medical or allied care, goods, or services furnished or ordered must: Meet the following conditions: Be necessary to protect life, to prevent significant illness or significant disability, or to alleviate severe pain; Be individualized, specific, and consistent with symptoms or confirmed diagnosis of the illness or injury under treatment, and not in excess of the patient's needs; Be consistent with generally accepted professional medical standards as determined by the Medicaid program, and not experimental or investigational; Be reflective of the level of service that can be safely furnished, and for which no equally effective and more conservative or less costly treatment is available statewide; and Be furnished in a manner not primarily intended for the convenience of the recipient, the recipient's caretaker, or the provider. * * * The fact that a provider has prescribed, recommended, or approved medical or allied care does not, in and of itself, make such care, goods, or services medically necessary or a medically necessary service. The Reimbursement Handbook sets out record keeping requirements for Medicaid providers. Chapter 2 of the Reimbursement Handbook states in pertinent part that Record Keeping Requirement: The provider must retain all medical, fiscal, professional and business records on all services provided to a Medicaid recipient. Records may be kept on paper, magnetic material, film, or other media. In order to qualify as a basis for reimbursement, the records must be signed and dated at the time of service, or otherwise attested to as appropriate to the media. Rubber stamp signatures must be initialed. Record Retention: The records must be retained for a period of at least five (5) years from the date of service. Types of Records That Must be Retained: The following types of records, as appropriate for the type of service provided, must be retained (the list is not all inclusive): Medicaid claim forms and any documents that are attached; Professional records, such as appointment books, patient treatment plans and physician referrals; Medical, dental, optometric, hearing, and other patient records; Copies of sterilization and hysterectomy consents; Prior and post authorization, and service authorization information; Prescription records; Orders for laboratory tests and test results; X-ray, MRI, and CAT scan records; Business records, such as accounting ledgers, financial statements, invoices, inventory records and check registers; Tax records, including purchase documentation; Partnership records; Purchase documentation; Provider enrollment documentation; and Utilization review and continued stay approvals for psychiatric or substance abuse inpatient stays. Right to Review Records: Authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives may audit or examine a provider’s or facility’s records. This examination includes all records that the agency finds necessary to determine whether Medicaid payment amounts were or are due. This requirement applies to the provider’s records and records for which the provider is the custodian. The provider must give authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives access to all Medicaid patient records and to other information that cannot be separated from Medicaid-related records. The provider must send, at his or her expense, legible copies of all Medicaid- related information to the authorized state and federal agencies and their authorized representatives. Requirements for Medical Records: Medicaid records must state the necessity for and the extent of services provided. The following minimum requirements may vary according to the service rendered: History; Physical assessment; Chief complaint on each visit; Diagnostic tests and results; Diagnosis; Treatment plan, including prescriptions; Medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; Progress reports, treatment rendered; The author of each (medical record) entry must be identified and must authenticate his or her entry by signature, written initials, or computer entry; Dates of service; and Referrals to other services. Note: See the service-specific Coverage and Limitations Handbook for record keeping requirements that are specific to a particular service. Incomplete Records: Providers who are not in compliance with the Medicaid documentation and record retention policies described in this chapter may be subject to administrative sanctions and/or recoupment of Medicaid payments. Medicaid payments for services that lack required documentation and/or appropriate signatures will be recouped. Chapter 5 of the Reimbursement Handbook, titled "Medicaid Abuse and Fraud," defines "overpayment" and "incomplete or missing records" as follows: Overpayment. Overpayment includes any amount that is not authorized to be paid by the Medicaid Program whether paid as a result of inaccurate or improper cost reporting, improper claims, unacceptable practices, fraud, abuse, or mistake. * * * Incomplete or Missing Records. Incomplete records are records that lack documentation that all requirements or conditions for service provision have been met. Medicaid may recoup payment for services or goods when the provider has incomplete records or cannot locate the records. Chapter 3 of the C&L Handbook sets forth procedure codes to be used by physicians in claiming reimbursement for services provided to Medicaid recipients. The origin of the procedural and diagnosis codes is as follows, in relevant part: The procedure codes listed in this chapter are Health Care Financing Administration Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) Levels 1, 2, and 3. These are based on the Physician's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) book. The CPT includes HCPCS descriptive terms and numeric identifying codes and modifiers for reporting services and procedures. . . . The CPT book is a systematic listing and coding of procedures and services provided by physicians. Each procedure or service is identified with a five digit code. For purposes of this proceeding, the relevant section of the CPT book is "Evaluation and Management-- Office or Other Outpatient Services," which sets forth the codes used to report evaluation and management services provided in the physician's office or in an outpatient or other ambulatory facility. The CPT book sets forth instructions for selecting the proper level of Evaluation and Management ("E/M") service, as follows in relevant part: Review the Level of E/M Service Descriptors and Examples in the Selected Category or Subcategory The descriptors for the levels of E/M services recognize seven components, six of which are used in defining the levels of E/M services. These components are: history; examination; medical decision making; counseling; coordination of care; nature of presenting problem; and time. The first three of these components (i.e., history, examination, and medical decision making) should be considered the key components in selecting the level of E/M services. An exception to this rule is in the case of visits which consist predominantly of counseling or coordination of care (See numbered paragraph 3, page 7).[1] Determine the Extent of History Obtained The extent of the history is dependent upon clinical judgment and on the nature of the presenting problem(s). The levels of E/M services recognize four types of history that are defined as follows: Problem focused: chief complaint; brief history of present illness or problem. Expanded problem focused: chief complaint; brief history of present illness; problem pertinent system review. Detailed: chief complaint; extended history of present illness; problem pertinent system review extended to include a review of a limited number of additional systems; pertinent past, family, and/or social history directly related to the patient's problems. Comprehensive: chief complaint; extended history of present illness; review of systems which is directly related to the problem(s) identified in the history of the present illness plus a review of all additional body systems; complete past, family and social history. The comprehensive history obtained as part of the preventive medicine evaluation and management service is not problem-oriented and does not involve a chief complaint or present illness. It does, however, include a comprehensive system review and comprehensive or interval past, family and social history as well as a comprehensive assessment/history of pertinent risk factors. Determine the Extent of Examination Performed The extent of the examination performed is dependent on clinical judgment and on the nature of the presenting problem(s). The levels of E/M services recognize four types of examination that are defined as follows: Problem focused: a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system. Expanded problem focused: a limited examination of the affected body area or organ system and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Detailed: an extended examination of the affected body area(s) and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Comprehensive: a general multi-system examination or a complete examination of a single organ system. Note: The comprehensive examination performed as part of the preventive medicine evaluation and management service is multi- system, but its extent is based on age and risk factors identified. For the purposes of these CPT definitions, the following body areas are recognized: Head, including the face Neck Chest, including breasts and axilla Abdomen Genitalia, groin, buttocks Back Each extremity For the purposes of these CPT definitions, the following organ systems are recognized: Eyes Ears, Nose, Mouth and Throat Cardiovascular Respiratory Gastrointestinal Genitourinary Musculoskeletal Skin Neurologic Psychiatric Hematologic/Lymphatic/Immunologic Determine the Complexity of Medical Decision Making Medical decision making refers to the complexity of establishing a diagnosis and/or selecting a management option as measured by: the number of possible diagnoses and/or the number of management options that must be considered; the amount and/or complexity of medical records, diagnostic tests, and/or other information that must be obtained, reviewed and analyzed; and the risk of significant complications, morbidity and/or mortality, as well as comorbidities, associated with the patient's presenting problem(s), the diagnostic procedure(s) and/or the possible management options. Four types of medical decision making are recognized: straightforward; low complexity; moderate complexity; and high complexity. To qualify for a given type of decision making, two of the three elements in Table 2 below must be met or exceeded. Comorbidities/underlying diseases, in and of themselves, are not considered in selecting a level of E/M services unless their presence significantly increases the complexity of the medical decision making. The referenced Table 2, titled "Complexity of Medical Decision Making," sets forth guidelines for the four types of decision-making (straightforward, low complexity, moderate complexity, and high complexity) in terms of the relative number and/or complexity of three elements: number of diagnoses or management options (minimal, limited, multiple, or extensive), amount and/or complexity of data to be reviewed (minimal or none, limited, moderate, or extensive), and risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality (minimal, low, moderate, or high). The "Office or Other Outpatient Services" section of the CPT book provides the codes for those services in terms of the guidelines set forth above. Five codes of increasing complexity are provided for new patients, and five counterpart codes are provided for established patients: New Patient 99201 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient, which requires these three key components: a problem focused history; a problem focused examination; and straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are self- limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99202 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; and straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 20 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99203 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; and medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are of moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 30 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99204 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 45 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99205 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of a new patient which requires these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; and medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problems are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 60 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. Established Patient 99211 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient that may or may not require the presence of a physician. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are minimal. Typically, 5 minutes are spent performing or supervising these services. 99212 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a problem focused history; a problem focused examination; straightforward medical decision making. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are self- limited or minor. Physicians typically spend 10 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99213 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: an expanded problem focused history; an expanded problem focused examination; medical decision making of low complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of low to moderate severity. Physicians typically spend 15 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99214 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a detailed history; a detailed examination; medical decision making of moderate complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 25 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. 99215 Office or other outpatient visit for the evaluation and management of an established patient, which requires at least two of these three key components: a comprehensive history; a comprehensive examination; medical decision making of high complexity. Counseling and/or coordination of care with other providers or agencies are provided consistent with the nature of the problem(s) and the patient's and/or family's needs. Usually, the presenting problem(s) are of moderate to high severity. Physicians typically spend 40 minutes face-to-face with the patient and/or family. Medicaid reimburses physicians according to the level of complexity of the office visit. The more complex the visit (and hence the higher the CPT code number), the greater the level of reimbursement. The Audit During the audit period, Dr. Kabry submitted 3,109 Medicaid claims for services rendered to 760 patients, for which he received Medicaid payments of $195,708.93. Out of those 3,109 claims, 589 were billed at CPT code 99205 (the highest level for a new patient) and 2,332 were billed at CPT code 99215 (the highest level for an established patient). An additional 80 claims were billed at CPT code 99214, the second-highest level for an established patient. The audit was triggered by Dr. Kabry's unusually high percentage of claims billed at the highest levels of service in a family practice setting.2 In making a determination of overpayment, AHCA is not required to review each and every Medicaid claim submitted by a provider. Subsection 409.913(19), Florida Statutes (2002), permits the agency to employ "appropriate statistical methods," including "sampling and extension to the population," to make its determination. In this instance, AHCA randomly selected a "cluster sample" of 30 patients from the 760 Medicaid patients to whom Petitioner had provided services during the audit period and asked Petitioner to produce the medical records he had on file for these 30 patients. AHCA chose the cluster sample of 30 patients according to a statistical formula indicating a 95 percent probability that any overpayment amount would be at least the amount identified. By selecting the 95 percent confidence factor, AHCA attempted to ensure that any potential error in the audit would be resolved in favor of the audited physician. AHCA's statistical expert, Professor Fred Huffer, professor of statistics at Florida State University, validated the methodology used by AHCA. Professor Huffer reviewed AHCA's work and then conducted his own independent analysis that reproduced AHCA's results. Professor Huffer's testimony as to the reliability of AHCA's methodology is credited. Dr. Kabry had submitted a total of 135 claims for services rendered to the 30 patients in the cluster sample during the audit period. Dr. Kabry had been paid $8,396.46 for these 135 claims. Each of these claims was reviewed by AHCA to determine whether it was supported by information contained in the medical records produced by Petitioner in response to AHCA's request. AHCA retained the services of Dr. E. Rawson Griffin to review all the claims for the 30-patient cluster sample. Dr. Griffin is a physician who has been in active practice continuously for 25 years, is board-certified in family practice and geriatrics, and is licensed to practice medicine in Florida, Georgia, and Virginia. Dr. Griffin is qualified as an expert witness and physician peer reviewer consultant to review the claims in the audit for issues of medical necessity, appropriateness, quality of care, and coding issues as required by Section 409.9131, Florida Statutes (2002). Based upon the initial review by Dr. Griffin, AHCA issued the PAAR with a determination that Dr. Kabry had been overpaid $89,589.10 during the audit period. Dr. Kabry communicated with AHCA and sent additional records. Based upon the additional documentation sent and a second review by Dr. Griffin, the overpayment amount was reduced to $89,095.70. The FAAR issued by AHCA on October 25, 2004, stated as follows, in pertinent part: Based upon a review of all documentation submitted, we have determined that you were overpaid $89,095.70 for services that in whole or in part are not covered by Medicaid. Be advised that pursuant to Section 409.913(22)(a), F.S., the Agency is entitled to recover all investigative, legal, and expert witness costs. * * * The following is our assessment of why certain claims paid to your provider number do not meet Medicaid requirements. * * * Review Determination(s) Medicaid policy defines the varying levels of care and expertise required for the evaluation and management procedure codes for office and hospital visits. The documentation you provided supports a lower level of office or hospital visit than the one for which you billed and received payment. The difference between the amount you were paid and the correct payment for the appropriate level of service is considered an overpayment. The overpayment was calculated using a random sample of 30 recipients for whom you submitted 135 claims having dates of service from August 1, 2000 through August 1, 2002. The statistical calculation used the formula appropriate to this sample, which is the cluster sample calculation. Recipients are sampled and all the claims respecting a given recipient form a cluster. In his deposition, Dr. Griffin discussed his review of the records Dr. Kabry had provided regarding the 30 patients in the cluster sample. Dr. Griffin found that Dr. Kabry had almost exclusively billed the highest levels of CPT coding for outpatient services, i.e., 99205 for new patients and 99215 for established patients. Out of 135 claims, Dr. Kabry billed all 23 new patient visits at CPT code 99205, of which Dr. Griffin found only eight fully justified. Dr. Kabry billed 101 out of 108 existing patient visits at CPT code 99215, and the remaining seven at CPT code 99214. Dr. Griffin found that Dr. Kabry failed to document a level of service consistent with these codes. Dr. Griffin performed his own review of Dr. Kabry's medical records and noted his conclusions as to the level of CPT coding that could be supported by the record of each patient for each visit to Dr. Kabry's office. Dr. Griffin found that all 108 of the existing patient visits and 15 out of 23 new patient visits should have been billed at lower levels, based on the documentation provided by Dr. Kabry.3 Dr. Griffin's testimony is credited as to his review of Dr. Kabry's records. Margarete Johnson, AHCA's registered nursing consultant, performed the calculations by which Dr. Griffin's conclusions as to the proper coding were translated into dollar figures. These calculations were a simple function of addition and subtraction, using the relevant Medicaid reimbursement amounts for the various codes. Dr. Kabry had been reimbursed $8,396.46 for the claims related to the 30 patients in the cluster sample. Following Dr. Griffin's analysis, Ms. Johnson calculated that $4,080.09 of that amount constituted overpayments. Using the generally accepted, appropriate, and valid statistical formula described by Dr. Huffer, AHCA extended this result to the total population of 3,109 Medicaid claims that Dr. Kabry had submitted for services rendered during the audit period, and correctly calculated that Petitioner had been overpaid a total of $89,095.70. In his case-in-chief, Dr. Kabry offered two points. First, he contended that the amount of time he spent with each patient justified the higher codings. Both Dr. Kabry and his wife, who worked as an LPN and billing clerk for Dr. Kabry, credibly testified that their Medicaid patients were largely uneducated, spoke little or no English, and required lengthy counseling to make them understand the treatments for such endemic diseases as high blood pressure and diabetes. However, Dr. Kabry did not document in his medical records the amount of time spent with each patient, and thus may not employ time as a controlling factor in his Medicaid billings. See footnote 1, supra. Second, Dr. Kabry contended that AHCA came into his office on several occasions, reviewed selected files, and gave his office a clean bill of health as to its Medicaid practices. As evidence, Dr. Kabry submitted a letter dated December 13, 2000, from Fran Nieves, a Medicaid field office manager from Fort Myers. The letter thanked Dr. Kabry for his assistance and cooperation "with the Medipass chart reviews that were conducted on 12/12 . . . These efforts provide the program with the ability to confirm that services were provided in accordance with the Medipass program, assuring that Medipass members have the access and quality health care that has been guaranteed to them." In rebuttal, Margarete Johnson testified that Ms. Nieves, the Fort Myers field office manager, is not employed by MPI and does not have the authority of MPI employees to check for possible fraud and abuse and Medicaid overpayments. Ms. Johnson testified that Medipass has a separate mission from MPI. Among other duties, Medipass is responsible for training and furnishing information to providers, and for enrolling recipients in Medipass as a cost containing measure. Relevant provisions of the Reimbursement Handbook confirm that Medipass is a "primary, case-management program designed to assure Medicaid recipients access to medical care, decrease inappropriate service utilization, and control costs." Medipass is not charged with MPI's task of recovering provider overpayments and is certainly not authorized to approve a provider's CPT coding practices so as to immunize the provider from a subsequent audit by a peer reviewer, as suggested by Dr. Kabry. Dr. Kabry did not submit any written documentation or exhibits into evidence to rebut AHCA's final overpayment determination of $89,095.07. Dr. Kabry presented no expert testimony or evidence to rebut the expert testimony presented by Dr. Griffin and Dr. Huffer. On the strength of the evidence and testimony presented by AHCA, and in the absence of any evidence or testimony to the contrary, it is found that Petitioner received Medicaid overpayments in the amount of $89,095.07.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that AHCA enter a final order finding that Respondent received $89,095.07 in Medicaid overpayments for services rendered to his Medicaid patients from August 1, 2000, to August 1, 2002, and requiring him to repay this amount to the agency. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 5th day of March, 2007.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Isaac Nosovsky, M.D., committed a violation of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2005), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on July 18, 2006, in DOH Case Number 2006-07801, as amended; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. (2006). Respondent, Isaac Nosovsky, M.D., is, and was at all times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, having been issued license number ME 29814. Dr. Nosovsky’s address of record is 1865 North Corporate Lakes Blvd., Suite 2, Weston, Florida 33326. The Indictment and Conviction. On or about March 23, 2006, Respondent was indicted in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 06-20178 CR, United States of America v. Isaac Nosovsky and Faustina Adela Gonzalez, on seven counts (hereinafter referred to as the "Indictment"): In Count 1, Dr. Nosovsky is charged with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Commit Health Care Fraud. In particular, it is alleged that Dr. Nosovsky committed conspiracy against the United States Department of Health and Human Services in its administration and oversight of Medicare and against Medicare in connection with the delivery of any payment for health care benefits, items, and services, in violation of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 371. In Counts 2 through 7, Dr. Nosovsky is charged with Health Care Fraud. In particular, it is alleged that he committed Health Care Fraud against a health care benefit program affecting commerce, that is, Medicare, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. Sections 1347 and 2, in connection with the delivery and payment for health care benefits, cost of therapies, treatments, and related items and services allegedly performed by the Nosovsky Clinic. Generally, the Indictment was predicated upon the allegation that, in or around August 2004, Dr. Nosovsky and his co-conspirator formed a clinic, the Nosovsky Clinic, which it then used to unlawfully enrichment themselves by "(a) submitting and causing the submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare; (b) paying kickbacks and bribes to Medicare beneficiaries so that they would serve as patients at the Nosovsky clinic, thereby furthering the billing fraud scheme; and concealing the submission of false and fraudulent claims to Medicare, the receipt and transfer of fraud proceeds, and the payment of kickbacks and bribes." The Indictment alleges the following facts regarding the Nosovsky Clinic: The medical clinic of ISAAC NOSOVSKY (hereinafter the "Nosovsky clinic") was located at 2250 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Suite 150, in Miami, Florida, and was in business from in or around November 2004 through in or around April 2005, when it closed. The Nosovsky clinic claimed to specialize in the treatment of patients diagnosed with Human Immunodeficiency Virus ("HIV"). HIV is a viral infection that attacks the patient’s immune system. The Nosovsky clinic purposed to provide intravenous infusion treatments, i.e., the insertion of a needle into a patient's vein, in order to administer certain specialized medications. The Nosovsky clinic also purposed to provide injections, i.e., the insertion of a syringe into the patient's arm, in order to administer certain specialized medications. ISAAC NOSOVSKY was a medical doctor licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to license number ME29814. NOSOVSKY was employed by the Nosovsky clinic and purported to treat patients there from in or around November 2004 through in or around April 2005. FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ was employed as a medical assistant licensed to in the State of Florida pursuant to license number CNA121032. GONZALEZ WAS EMPLOYED BY THE Nosovsky clinic as a medical assistant and purported to treat patients there from in or around November 2004 through in or around April 2005. The Indictment alleges the following facts concerning the Medicare Program: The Medicare Program (Medicare") was a federal program that provided free or below- cost health care benefits to certain individuals, primarily the elderly, blind and disabled. The benefits available under Medicare are prescribed by statute and by federal regulations under auspices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, through its agency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"). Individuals who receive benefits are referred to as beneficiaries. Medicare was a "health care benefit program," as defined by Title 18, United States Code, Section 24(b). Medicare Part B paid for a portion of the cost of certain necessary medical services and medications that were provided and ordered by physicians, clinics, and other qualified health care providers. Medicare Part B was administered in Florida by First Coast Service Options ("FCSO"), a company that contracted with CMS to receive, adjudicate, process, and pay certain Part B claims. Physicians, clinics, and other healthcare providers that provided services to Medicare beneficiaries were able to apply for and obtain a “provider number.” A health care provider who had been issued a provider number was able to file claims with Medicare to obtain reimbursement for services provided to beneficiaries. A Medicare claim was required to set forth, among other things, the beneficiary's name and Medicare identification number, the services that had been performed for the beneficiary, the date the services were provided, the cost of the services, and the name and identification number of the physician or other health care provider who had ordered the services. For Medicare billing purposes, medical services and medications provided to beneficiaries were identified by a Current Procedural Terminology ("CPT") code. For services purportedly rendered from in or around November 2004 through in or around May 2005, the Nosovsky clinic billed Medicare under a provider number assigned to ISAAC NOSOVSKY, 96542O. The indictment alleges that, having formed the Nosovsky Clinic and obtaining a Medicare provider number, Dr. Nosovsky used the Medicare system in his clinic to defraud the United States and commit Health Care Fraud in the following manner: Co-conspirators established the Nosovksy [sic] clinic, with ISAAC NOSOVSKY agreeing to serve as its medical director. ISAAC NOSOVSKY pre-signed numerous, blank health care-related documents including, but not limited to, "Infusion Therapy" sheets, progress notes, and Medicare superbills. FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ failed to provide Medicare beneficiaries with prescribed medications. In some cases, GONZALEZ bandaged patients' arms to give the appearance that a treatment or therapy had been administered. FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ falsely stated on the pre-signed "Infusion Therapy" sheets that she had provided Medicare beneficiaries with infusion therapy or treatments with specific dosages of medications. FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ, among other co-conspirators, fabricated therapy notes and related documents stating that Medicare beneficiaries had received specific treatments, therapies, and dosages of medications, when, in fact, the beneficiaries had actually not received the treatments, therapies, and medications indicated on the therapy notes and documents. To conceal the fact that the Medicare beneficiaries were not receiving the treatments, therapy, and medications that were described in various documents and that were being utilized to bill Medicare, various co-conspirators and FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ obtained fraudulent and/or falsified documents, including the pre- signed documents from ISAAC NOSOVSKY, and placed them in the patient files of the beneficiaries. To promote and further the billing fraud scheme, co-conspirators paid kickbacks and bribes to Medicare beneficiaries so that they would serve as patients. Co-conspirators submitted and caused the submission of numerous false and fraudulent claims to Medicare on behalf of the Nosovsky clinic, seeking reimbursement for the cost of infusions, injections, medications, and other items and services that were not provided, not provided as claimed, or not medically necessary. As a result of the submission of these claims, Medicare paid in excess of $1,300,000 into a bank account in the name of ISAAC NOSOVSKY and a co-conspirator. The Indictment names six patients that were involved in Dr. Nosovsky’s conspiracy to defraud Medicare; E.P., M.P, T.R., J.D., A.C., and J.M. The indictment alleges that Dr. Nosovsky and his co-conspirators used the following means to perpetrate the fraud with regard to Medicare Beneficiary E.P. These alleged facts are, except for dates and the specifics as to medication prescribed, the same for all the other five patients. On or about November 1, 2004, ISAAC NOSOVSKY signed a progress note falsely indicating that he had examined Medicare beneficiary E.P. and that the patient required 80 units of the medication acthar gel . . . . On or about November 1, 2004, FAUSTINA ADELA GONZALEZ prepared an "Infusion Therapy" sheet falsely indicating that GONZALEZ had administered 80 units of acthar gel to Medicare beneficiary E.P. On or about November 1, 2004, ISAAC NOSOVSKY signed a superbill falsely indicating that Medicare beneficiary E.P. had received 70 units of acthar gel. On or about November 1, 2004, a co- conspirator paid a cash kickback to Medicare beneficiary E.P. On or about December 8, 2004, a co- conspirator caused the submission of a false claim to Medicare on behalf of the Nosovsky clinic, seeking reimbursement for a dosage of acthar gel that supposedly had been provided to Medicare beneficiary E.P. on or about November 1, 2004. On or about March 30, 2006, Dr. Nosovsky was arraigned in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, on the Indictment and entered a plea of not guilty. On or about May 31, 2006, Respondent was found guilty by jury verdict of all seven counts of the Indictment. On August 14, 2006, United States District Judge Paul Huck adjudicated Dr. Nosovsky guilty of the criminal offense charged in the Indictment. Judge Huck sentenced Dr. Nosovsky to 60 months’ incarceration on Count 1, 65 months’ incarceration on Counts 2-7, to run concurrently; participation in a drug/alcohol treatment program while incarcerated; three years’ supervised probation; 200 hours of community service; and, restitution in the amount of $1,305.066. The Relationship of Dr. Nosovsky's Convictions to the Practice of Medicine. In light of the jury conviction on all counts of the Indictment, it is concluded that Dr. Nosovsky engaged in the activities alleged in the Indictment for purposes of this proceeding. All of those activities related to the practice of medicine. But for Dr. Nosovsky's license to practice medicine in Florida, Dr. Nosovsky would not have been able to commit the crimes for which he was committed. It was his license to practice medicine that facilitated his ability to open the Nosovsky Clinic, to obtain a Medicare provider number, and to fully participate in the Medicare program. All of the activities he engaged in, such as signing necessary Medicare documents and medical backup, were carried out in his capacity as a licensed Florida physician. Based upon the Affidavit of John P. Mahoney, M.D., which is found credible, the crimes for which Dr. Nosovsky was committed evidenced a lack of honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, good judgment, and sound morale character, all attributes expected of physicians licensed in Florida. The scope and severity of Dr. Nosovsky's conduct evidences a lack of these qualities. Prior Disciplinary Action. Dr. Nosovsky was previously disciplined by the Board of Medicine in Department of Business and Professional Regulation v. Isaac Nosovsky, M.D., DBPR Case No. 92-00411. In particular, Dr. Nosovsky was found to have violated Section 458.311(1)(m), Florida Statutes (failure to maintain medical records justifying a course of treatment), and Section 458.311(1)(t), Florida Statutes (the standard of care expected of physicians).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that Isaac Nosovsky, M.D., has violated Section 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order; and revoking his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 23rd day of March, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Bogenschutz, Esquire Bogenschutz, Dutko & Kroll, P.A. 600 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-2802 April Dawn M. Skilling, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came on for consideration before the Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency”), which finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency issued the Petitioner (“the Applicant”) the attached Notice of Intent to Deny (Ex. 1). The parties entered into the attached Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2), which is adopted and incorporated by reference. 2. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. If the Agency has not already completed its review of the application, it shall resume its review of the application. The Applicant shall pay the Agency an administrative fee of $ 200.00 within 30 days of the entry of this Final Order. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” containing the AHCA number(s) should be sent to: Agency for Health Care Administration Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit 2727 Mahan Drive, MS# 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 3. Any requests for an administrative hearing are withdrawn. The parties shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. This matter is closed. DONE and ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this @2/ day of Canuase/ 2012. Elizabeth Dudek,Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Filed January 24, 2012 9:55 AM Division of Administrative Hearings
Other Judicial Opinions A party that is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to seek judicial review which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the agency clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this pea temas served on the below-named persons/entities by the method designated on thisZ3© day of > 2012. Richard Shoop, Agenc Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Roger Bell, Unit Manager Facilities Intake Unit Health Care Clinic Unit Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) (Interoffice Mail) Finance and Accounting Stevey Barnes, Owner Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) National Family Medical Centers, Inc. c/o Rodney Gregory, Esquire Counsel for Petitioner 4811 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite 1 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (U.S. Mail) Sharon K. Jones, Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Barbara J. Staros Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) Rove NOR | Botfor Health Care forall Floridians alert eral duly 14, 2014 . CERTIFIED MAIL / RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED National Family Medical Centers - : ; License Number: 5402 6349 Beach Blvd : Case #: 2011 00 7423 sacksonville, FL 32216 : : . NOTICE OF INTENT TQ DENY RENEWAL APPLICATION The application for health care clinic renewal. license for National Family Medical Genters is ° denied pursuant to Section 400.991(5)(d); and, s. 400.995 (1), Florida Statutes (F.S.), which’. requires all applicants as.defined by s, 400,991(5)(a), F.S., successfully complete a Level 2 background screening for convictions set forth on s. 435. 04, F.S., as minimum requirement for licensure. Stevey L. Barnes; the 100% owner of National Family ‘Medical Centers Is considered - 8 controlling interest as set forth in s. 408.803 (7), F.S., has failed to successfully pass Level:2 esreering in accordance with 8, 400.991 (5) (a), () and (d), and s, 408,809 (1)(8); 8. 408.810 )F el aa Pr ed an 2 el EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 420.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obfain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements in: Section 28-1 08. 201, Florida Administrative Code F. A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. ce: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 Visit AHCA online at ahos.myflorida.com 2727 Mahan Driye,MS-53 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 L467 / STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL FAMILY MEDICAL CENTERS, DOAH/Case No. 11-3958 Petitioner, v. AHCA No. 2011007423 STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. / SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Petitioner (“the Applicant’) and the Respondent (“the Agency”) voluntarily enter into this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) and agree as follows: 1. Parties/Background. The Applicant filed an application seeking renewal licensure within the jurisdiction of the Agency. After initial review, the Agency issued the Applicant an omissions letter and thereafter a Notice of Intent to Deny (“NOI”). The Applicant has since tendered to the Agency additional information and/or documentation in support of the application, which the Agency is willing to review. 2. Purpose and Effect of Settlement. Both parties wish to resolve this case without further litigation and recognize that by entering into this Agreement, both are expressly waiving their right to any legal proceeding they are entitled, including, but not limited to, formal and informal proceedings under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and appellate review. Both parties consent to the withdrawal of any request for formal or informal hearing if such a request has been made, as well as the relinquishment of jurisdiction of the informal hearing officer or administrative law judge. 3. Resumption of Application Review. The parties agree that this Agreement shall supersede the NOI and that the application will no longer be deemed to be incomplete and withdrawn from further review. If the Agency has not already completed its review of the application, it shall resume its review of the application upon entry of the Final Order adopting this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement, however, shall prohibit the Agency from denying the application based upon any statute, rule, or regulation, and, if applicable, an unsatistactory licensure survey. Applicant shall retain the right to challenge any future denial of application preserving any and all administrative and/or legal rights with respect thereto. 4. Administrative Fee. The Applicant agrees to pay the Agency an administrative fee of $200.00 within 30 days of the entry of the Final Order. 5. Release. The Applicant releases and forever discharges the Agency, its employees and agents, both past and current, from any and all clairas. including, but not limited to, damages, attorney’s fees and costs, arising from or relating to the issuance or litigation of this NOI. Page | of 2 Eoxh6/7 Zz di 6. Costs and Attorney’s Fees. Each party shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. 7. Right to Counsel. The Applicant acknowledges the right to retain independent counsel and has either obtained its own counsel or voluntarily waived the right to counsel. The Applicant further acknowledges that Agency counsel represents solely the Agency and that Agency counsel has not provided any legal advice to, or influenced, the Applicant in the voluntary decision to enter into this Agreement. 8. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understandings of both parties. This Agreement supersedes any prior oral or written agreements that may have existed between the parties. This Agreement may not be amended by either party except in writing. 9. Execution of Agreement. Both parties agree that an electronic signature suffices for an original signature, that an electronic or facsimile copy suffices for an original document, and that this Agreement may be executed in counterparts. This Agreement shall be effective upon full execution by all parties and adoption into a Final Order. After full execution of this Agreement, the Agency will enter a Finai Order adopting this Agreement and ciosing the case. The following representatives have read and understand this Agreement, are signing it freely and voluntarily, and acknowledge that they are authorized to enter into this Agreement. Molly McKikstry, Deputy Secretary Stevey L. L-Ba Health Qual#ty Assurance -’ National Fanpfly Medical Centers. Agency for Health Care Administration So c/o Rodney Gregory, Esquire 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3 Counsel for Petitioner Tallahassee, Florida 32308 4811 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite 1 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 DATED: 7/ 06 fod WG, William H. Roberts, Acting General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Offf€e of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 DATED: pate: ///3 ZZ. Page 2 of 2
The Issue The issues are 1) whether Dr. Veloso's eligibility to participate in the Florida Medicaid program as a provider of physician services should be terminated, due to his guilty plea to a charge of Medicaid fraud in the Circuit Court for the 15th Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida and 2) whether a stay of the termination should be granted pending disposition of Dr. Veloso's appeal.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Dr. Veloso was a provider of medical services to persons who qualify for the Medicaid program and received reimbursement from Medicaid funds for his services. The Department is designated to administer the provision of Medicaid funds in Florida. Dr. Veloso is a licensed physician and a licensed pharmacist who practices in South Florida and whose patients are primarily Medicaid eligible. Dr. Veloso does not necessarily maintain a regular office practice. In addition to treating patients at his offices in West Palm Beach and Miami, he sees them at their homes, at the pharmacy or wherever is most convenient to the patients. As a provider of services to Medicaid eligible patients, Dr. Veloso is charged with the responsibility of being familiar with the rules and law relating to the Medicaid program. On November 4 1987, the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Office of the Auditor General received a call alleging that Dr. Veloso was making a copy of a Medicaid card when he filled a prescription. Dr. Veloso was employed at the caller's pharmacy as a part-time pharmacist. An investigation of Dr. Veloso's medicaid billing practice ensued. The investigation revealed that Dr. Veloso was billing for office visits on Miami Medicaid residents although his practice of record was located in West Palm Beach. The investigators interviewed sixteen households for whom Medicaid billings had been submitted by Dr. Veloso. The interviews resulted in the taking of sworn statements of six of the patients from the sample households who denied that they had received the treatment for which Dr. Veloso had filed reimbursement. None of the six patients was present or testified at the hearing. In his testimony, however, Dr. Veloso, countered the denials of each of the six patients. He described the treatment he had given each of the six and produced the patients' medical records to verify his statements. As to why the patients allegedly made the contradictory statements, Dr. Veloso asserted that they were quite possibly intimidated by the investigator since the patients did not have complete command of the English language and the investigator presented herself with an official badge for identification prior to the interview. Dr. Veloso also stated that if any mistakes had been made, they were only clerical. He explained that his wife prepared most of his billings at their home, and although he admitted that he was responsible for her actions, he represented that mistakes, if any, were inadvertently made. At the hearing, the investigator testified that it was her conclusion that Dr. Veloso did knowingly file false claims for services. Although the files for the six patients were received into evidence and each corroborates that he did in fact treat the patients, the actual disputed billings were not offered at the hearing. A comparison between the treatment given to the patients and the alleged fraudulent billings cannot be made. Given the demeanor of the witnesses, the competent substantial evidence received at the hearing and the lack of corroboration of the affidavits of the six patients, Dr. Veloso's testimony is deemed credible. Criminal proceedings were brought against Dr. Veloso. Dr. Veloso asserted that on the advice of his attorney, he entered his plea on October 2, 1989. The choice of plea on the judgment and sentencing form filed in this case is indicated by checking one of the three blocks on the form. The first block precedes the following statement, "Been tried and found guilty of the following crime(s)." The second block is followed by, "Entered a plea of guilty to the following crime(s)," and the final choice is a block notated by "Entered a plea of nolo contendere to the following crime(s)." The block checked in Dr. Veloso's case is the second block. Above the "X" in the block is a handwritten statement, "Alford Plea." Dr. Veloso argued that it was not his intent to enter a plea which would be an admission of culpability. He entered his plea as merely a matter of convenience and on the representation of his counsel that the plea would result in punishment similar to a misdemeanor traffic offense. Dr. Veloso, further, testified that his plea was on appeal. Except for Dr. Veloso's statements and the official court documents, no additional competent substantial evidence was presented at the instant hearing concerning the circumstances present at the time of Dr. Veloso's plea. However, the judgment and sentencing form dated October 2, 1989 clearly indicates that he entered a plea of guilty to and was adjudicated guilty of a lesser included offense of medicaid fraud under Paragraph 409.325(5)(b), Florida Statutes. His sentence was stayed, and on October 6, 1989, an Order was issued in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County withholding adjudication for the offense and placing Dr. Veloso on probation for one year and requiring that restitution be paid to the Department of $492.00 plus costs. Although Dr. Veloso is a well intended physician, he was, in fact, found guilty of Medicaid fraud, based on a plea of guilty and is subject to termination from further participation in the Medicaid program under existent law, if the Department chooses to exercise its discretion to sanction him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services issue a Final Order dismissing the charges against Dr. Veloso and not imposing the sanction permitted pursuant to Paragraph 409.236(11)(a), Florida Statutes, based on the exercise of its discretion. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28 day of June, 1990. JANE C HAYMAN 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 28th day of June, 1990.
