Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the charges against respondent, R. Hughes, Inc. d/b/a The Odyssey, contained in the Notice To Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9673 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1984.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for a Pari-Mutuel Wagering occupational license and request for a waiver should be granted or denied for the reasons set forth in the Respondent's letter dated August 20, 2009.
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: The Division is the state agency responsible for issuing occupational licenses to employees of pari-mutuel facilities in Florida. See § 550.105(1), Fla. Stat. On or about April 2, 2009, Ms. Jennings submitted an application for a pari-mutuel wagering license, specifically for a cardroom license that would allow her to be a dealer in the poker room of a pari-mutuel facility. Ms. Jennings indicated on the application form that she had never held a pari-mutuel license in Florida. In the section of the license application entitled "To Be Completed by Cardroom Applicants Only," Ms. Jennings answered "no" to the following question: "Have you ever been convicted of, or had adjudication of guilt withheld for, a felony or misdemeanor involving forgery, larceny, extortion or conspiracy to defraud or filing false reports to government agency, racing or gaming commission or authority, in this state or any other stated under the laws of the United States?" In the section of the application entitled "Background Information", Ms. Jennings answered "no" to the following question: "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for any crime, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any criminal charges against you? If yes, give details in the space provided below." In the space provided, Ms. Jennings wrote: "Had adjudication; As part of a prosecution of someone else, I cooperated and gave testimony. However, I was personally not convicted of any wrongdoing." Upon investigation, the Division learned that Ms. Jennings had been adjudicated guilty of one count of grand theft in the third degree on January 26, 1995, in Brevard County, Florida. She was sentenced to two years' probation and required to report monthly to her probation officer. Ms. Jennings spent approximately three months in jail prior to her conviction because she could not pay for her bail. On April 22, 2009, Ms. Jennings submitted a request for a waiver from the Division so she could obtain her pari-mutuel wagering license. A waiver must be obtained by, among others, any new applicant for a Florida pari-mutuel license who has been convicted of any felony. Ms. Jennings was 27 years of age when she was convicted of grand theft. She explained that, at the time of the offense, she was involved with a boyfriend who had threatened to kill her and her family when she first became involved with him. She stated that she became "brainwashed and co-dependent on him and basically scared for my life."2 As a result, Ms. Jennings did whatever her boyfriend wanted her to do. According to Ms. Jennings, she was charged with grand theft because, at her boyfriend's direction, she obtained a cell phone under a false name. Ms. Jennings testified that she answered "no" to the question asking if she had been convicted of a crime because she was told by a federal prosecutor named Larry Turner that she would "have a clean record" if she testified against her boyfriend, who had been charged with murder.3 Ms. Jennings testified, and her boyfriend was convicted. Ms. Jennings assumed, therefore, that she would not have "anything in [her] background as a criminal record."4 Ms. Jennings gave the following testimony at the final hearing: She told the Division's investigators about the circumstances of her criminal conviction but did not tell them that she believed her criminal record had been sealed. She was shocked when the Division's investigators told her they had found records of her conviction: "I was like, Huh?"5 She had to go look up the records of the conviction and then her recollection of the arrest and conviction "came back to [her] . . . eventually."6 She was shocked when the Division's investigators told her they had found this conviction because she thought the conviction had been erased. Ms. Jennings has a high school education. After her conviction, Ms. Jennings tried to go to school, but she did not finish. For a time, she worked at a restaurant as a waitress; she had a part-time job doing promotional work for night clubs; and she also worked as a blackjack dealer at a nightclub where blackjack was played for entertainment. When asked what she had done with her life, Ms. Jennings responded: "I had boyfriends and long-term relationships and basically I was taking care of them."7 Ms. Jennings's current boyfriend, her sister, and her best friend testified that Ms. Jennings had always been honest with them. The totality of the evidence presented by Ms. Jennings is insufficient to establish she is rehabilitated and possesses good moral character: She failed to disclose her conviction for grand theft in her application for licensure; her explanations of the reasons for failing to disclose the conviction are inconsistent; her explanation of the act underlying her conviction of grand theft, procuring a cell phone under a false name, is unconvincing; and her vague description of her life since the conviction fails to demonstrate any accomplishments or any positive change in her circumstances since her conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order denying the application of Soon Young P. Jennings for a pari-mutuel wagering license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent was a licensed dentist in Florida holding license number DN 0001025. Respondent graduated from Emory University Dental School in 1945, thereafter served two years apprenticeship with a practicing orthodontist before opening his own office in Coral Gables, Florida, where he practiced orthodontics for some 25 years before selling his practice and moving to the Tampa Bay area. Respondent is eligible for board certification. In November 1981 Respondent was working as an orthodontist at the Sheppard Dental Clinic in Seminole, Florida. On November 23, 1981, Valarie Rosenfeld went to Respondent to discuss orthodontic treatment to correct a deep overbite and severe overjet. At the time of this visit Miss Rosenfeld was 17 years old and had a severe Class II skeletal discrepancy with a 9.5 degree discrepancy between upper and lower jaws and an overjet of 12 mm. Respondent took some seven photographs of Miss Rosenfeld (Exhibit 2) showing generally the condition of her teeth and her facial profile. Be also took a cephalometric x-ray (Exhibit 3) and a panoramic x-ray (Exhibit 4) of Miss Rosenfeld. Respondent advised Miss Rosenfeld that it would be necessary to extract one tooth in her upper jaw and maybe a second tooth in order to improve her appearance. The purpose of this extraction was to make room in which to move the upper teeth to reduce the overjet. Respondent did not discuss surgery with Rosenfeld or fully explain to her the options available and the probable consequences of each of the options she may elect. Miss Rosenfeld has a thin maxillary bone which does not show up very well on the cephalometric x-ray taken due to a burnout in this x-ray at the location this fact could be determined. Absent adequate bone in which to move teeth it becomes very difficult to obtain much movement. In accordance with orders issued by Respondent Miss Rosenfeld's tooth number 12 was extracted by another dentist at a subsequent visit to the clinic. Respondent next saw Rosenfeld on December 16, 1981, when he put separators between her teeth to make room for bonds. Respondent intended first to install light wire braces to better level the teeth before this was replaced by heavier wire which would be tightened from time to time to move the upper teeth back and the lower teeth forward. Although he testified he planned to reduce the malocclusion using intrusion mechanics Respondent did not discuss with Miss Rosenfeld the headgear which she would have to wear at night during this process or fully explain the procedure to her. Following her December 16 visit, Rosenfeld was seen by a Dr. Bryant, an orthodontist who was replacing Respondent at the Sheppard Dental Clinic. Bryant saw Rosenfeld on December 22, 1981, when he fitted and cemented bonds on the teeth and put in the flexwire to level the teeth. She was next seen at the clinic on January 23 when Bryant religated the flexwire. The next visit on February 15, 1981, Bryant again religated the braces. Rosenfeld was last seen by Respondent on March 20, 1982, when he religated upper arch and observed lower arch. Rosenfeld was seen on April 24, 1982, by Bryant who advised her that three additional extractions would be required to correct the malocclusion. Rosenfeld then decided to obtain a second opinion before losing anymore teeth and went to see another orthodontist, John Harrison. When Dr. Harrison examined Rosenfeld he explained the three options available to her to wit: (1) do nothing, (2) attempt some movement of the teeth to reduce the overjet and overbite and (3) surgery. Dr. Harrison took additional x-rays and attempted to obtain the dental records from Sheppard's Dental Clinic but without much success. By this time Respondent no longer worked at Sheppard's and Harrison became quite frustrated by the lack of cooperation he got in attempting to obtain Rosenfeld's records. He received only the panoramic x-ray. Harrison made models of Rosenfeld's mouth, took cephalometric x-rays, made intra and extra-oral photographs and did quite a number of tracings from the cephalometric x-rays to better ascertain the misalignment of the upper and lower jaws. He discussed the various options with Rosenfeld and, at her request, commenced the mechanical intrusion needed to move the upper teeth back and the lower teeth forward. Harrison would not have extracted tooth number 12 because there is insufficient maxillary bone to allow much movement of the upper teeth or to fill the void created by the extraction. Harrison further opined that the orthodontic problem faced by Rosenfeld is wholly in the lower jaw and this can be fully corrected only by risky and expensive surgery. Attempting to correct the problem by retracting the upper teeth is, in his opinion, the wrong approach. He considers the entire problem is in the lower arch and retracting the upper teeth, which are satisfactory, to obtain a better alignment between the upper and lower teeth, simply creates another problem, viz. changing the existing good profile of the upper lip. Furthermore the thin maxillary bone in which the upper teeth are being moved is not adequate to accomplish much movement of the teeth and when the bonds are removed the upper teeth will likely return to their original position or close thereto. The cephalometric x-ray taken by Respondent on November 23, 1981, was overexposed in the part of the x-ray which would best show Rosenfeld's maxillary bone and thereby alert Respondent to the problem of moving the upper teeth. Dr. Harrison formed his opinion that Respondent's diagnosis and treatment of Rosenfeld was below minimum acceptable standards on his initial assumption (from the records he obtained from Sheppard's Dental Clinic) that the diagnosis and course of treatment were made with panoramic x-rays only. When he learned the day before the hearing that Respondent also had the benefit of the cephalometric x-ray, Harrison hedged his opinion and ultimately concluded that Respondent's diagnosis and course of treatment did reach minimal acceptable standards. Petitioner also called Dr. DeDominico, an orthodontist, who, at the request of Petitioner, examined Rosenfeld and her dental records. DeDominico concurred with Harrison that extraction of tooth number 12 was not indicated and it is unlikely the space vacated by the removal of that tooth can be closed by the movement of the other teeth on the upper jaw. DeDominico further opined that and adequate diagnosis could not be made from the x-rays taken by Respondent due to the "burnout" in this critical area of the cephalometric x-ray which concealed the thinness of Rosenfeld's maxillary bone. Failure to retake this x-ray before embarking on a plan of treatment that required an adequate maxillary bone for success, and that included an unnecessary extraction was, in his opinion, below the minimal acceptable standards for the dental profession. Respondent testified that his more than 20 years experience in orthodontics qualified him to properly diagnose Rosenfeld's problem without doing tracings from the cephalometric x-ray, and that he considered the cephalometric x-ray adequate for the diagnosis that was made. Further, extraction of tooth number 12 was necessary to provide space into which the upper could be moved to accomplish the retraction of the upper teeth desired. He did not explain the available options to Rosenfeld and never considered surgery as a viable option for the orthodontic problem presented by Rosenfeld. He also failed to apprise her of the full implications of the treatment he planned, such as headgear, for the mechanical intrusion or of the limited success to be expected from this procedure. Respondent's expert witnesses, whose depositions were received into evidence as Exhibits 9 and 10, both opined that the diagnosis and treatment of Rosenfeld by Respondent met minimum acceptable standards of the dental profession. One of these witness' credibility is somewhat tarnished by his testimony that the mandible can be induced to grow in an adult. Not only was this testimony deemed incredible by other expert witnesses but also even a layman generally understands that the skeletal structure does not continue to grow after maturity.
Findings Of Fact By application dated April 29, 1988, Petitioner applied to Respondent for a Florida real estate salesman's license. Petitioner disclosed on the application, in response to question six, that he had been convicted of second degree murder in the killing of his wife on October 10, 1969, during a domestic dispute. He was sentenced to 15-20 years and paroled after seven years in December, 1977. He successfully completed his parole on January 16, 1980. Petitioner also disclosed on his application that he was arrested for the solicitation of a prostitute on November 18, 1987, in Daytona Beach. By a Pre-Trial Intervention Agreement entered into by Petitioner and the State Attorney's Office, the parties agreed that the case would be dropped if Petitioner did not violate any other criminal laws for the next six months expiring on September 10, 1988. Petitioner has not violated the provisions of the Pre-Trial Intervention Agreement and, presumably, the solicitation case has been dropped. Petitioner was also arrested and convicted of either driving under the influence or disorderly conduct in Michigan. This conviction, which resulted in a $50 fine, was not disclosed on the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for a real estate salesman's license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 5th day of December, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Gifford Lorimer Crippen 4018 North Harbor City Boulevard Melbourne, Florida 32935 Manuel E. Oliver, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 212, 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Darlene F. Keller Division Director 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of being convicted or found guilty of a crime directly relating to the ability to practice pharmacy or the practice of pharmacy and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent received his license to practice pharmacy in Pennsylvania in 1962. He has been continuously licensed in Florida since December 31, 1973, through March 28, 1995, when his Florida license was suspended by emergency order of the Board of Pharmacy for the reasons set forth below. His Florida license number was PS0013841. Respondent has not previously been disciplined. Respondent has been employed for many years with a large pharmacy chain. Over the years, he was promoted into positions of increasing managerial responsibility. At one point, he was in charge of the operations of over 25 stores. Sometime prior to the incidents described below, Respondent's responsibilities were reduced, evidently due to corporate restructuring. At the same time, his wife of 15 years had an affair. Respondent suffered other stresses, including a homicide involving someone in a close relationship. Respondent was ill-equipped to deal with these setbacks. He was a hard- working, intense person with no emotional outlets. Two prior marriages had failed in part due to Respondent's lack of emotional insight. Respondent has long defined his role in relationships almost entirely in terms of his income- earning ability. Unable to deal with the stress, Respondent one night picked up a streetwalker in Bradenton and paid her to have sex with him. Respondent identified himself to her. A sexual relationship ensued. The woman had a child, and they lived in squalor. Respondent' initial sexual impulse toward the woman yielded to an impulse by Respondent to rescue the mother and child and serve as their savior or hero. The woman made increasing demands of Respondent. Several times, Respondent tried to end the relationship, but the woman threatened to disclose the relationship to Respondent's wife and employer. Respondent informed her that he had no more money to give her, but she continued her demands. Eventually, Respondent began to steal from the pharmacy store at which he worked. At first, he stole boxes of cigarettes. Later, he stole prescription drugs, including various Schedule III and IV controlled substances. The drugs contained codeine, and Respondent knew that the woman was selling the drugs on the street. At least one of the drugs was popular among drug abusers. About a year after meeting the woman, Respondent was caught in the act of stealing drugs in the early-morning hours at the store. He immediately made a full confession and was prosecuted by federal authorities for the controlled substances and by state authorities for the cigarettes and other miscellaneous merchandise. In Count I of the federal indictment, Respondent was charged with a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 by knowingly and intentionally combining, conspiring, confederating, and agreeing with the woman and other persons to possess with intent to distribute acetaminophen with codeine and hydrocodone bitartrate, which are Schedule III controlled substances, and diazepam and alprazolam, which are Schedule IV controlled substances. A Schedule III controlled substance has a potential for abuse less than substances contained in Schedules I and II and has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of a Schedule III controlled substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. A Schedule IV controlled substance has a potential for abuse less than substances contained in Schedules I, II, and III and has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of a Schedule IV controlled substance may lead to limited physical or psychological dependence. Respondent pleaded guilty to Count I, which carried a maximum sentence of five years, fine of $250,000, and probation of three years, as well as restitution. The United States noted Respondent's acceptance of responsibility as a factor in mitigation. In the plea agreement, Respondent acknowledged that he began diverting controlled substances, once or twice a week, in September 1993. He had been caught and arrested in April 1994. On February 24, 1995, The United States District Court entered a judgment adjudicating Respondent guilty of Count I, placing him on six months' house arrest, placing him on five years' probation, and ordering restitution to the pharmacy chain of $10,574.84 for the diverted controlled substances. The judge stated her desire that Respondent continue to work as a pharmacist in order to pay for what he had stolen. Respondent's conviction directly relates to his ability to practice pharmacy or to the practice of pharmacy. At the time of Respondent's arrest, the pharmacy chain had fired him. Following the arrest but before the conviction, Respondent worked as a pharmacist for a corporation that supplies licensed replacement pharmacists on a short-term or indefinite basis. Primarily assigned to one client working with terminally ill patients, Respondent was valued as a pharmacist by the clients and his employer for the six months that he was so employed. Respondent's employment as a licensed pharmacist ended when the Board of Pharmacy issued an emergency order suspending his license on March 28, 1995. Respondent has since attempted to find employment, but he has found none. His ability to make restitution has been impeded, although he has made some payments. Respondent has received private psychological counselling since October 1994. The psychologist's diagnosis was that Respondent was suffering from an adjustment reaction with depressed mood. Helping Respondent to analyze his past mistakes and equip himself to deal with stress, the psychologist opines that it is very unlikely that Respondent would repeat this behavior and would not represent a threat to the public safety, health, or welfare if he were to continue practicing pharmacy. Respondent has participated in the PRN since August 1994. The impaired practitioner program typically serves licensees who are unable to practice due to mental illness, substance abuse, or physical disability. The program has determined that Respondent suffers from no chemical dependency, sexual disorder, or psychiatric illness. Rather, at the time of the criminal behaviors, Respondent was under extreme stress. However, the director of the program testified that Respondent is progressing very well, free of all illness, and gaining insight into his difficulties so that he can now express his feelings and handle his stresses. The director also opines that Respondent would not pose a threat to public safety, health, or welfare if he were to continue practicing pharmacy. Respondent has entered into a five-year contract with the PRN. The program monitors Respondent for a lifetime. If at anytime the director were to determine that Respondent is not progressing, such as by failing to renew a contract when asked to do so by the program, the director would file a complaint with Petitioner. It has been almost two years since Respondent began diverting controlled substances to the prostitute and almost a year and one-half since he was caught. This relatively recent behavior was not isolated, but lasted six months. Respondent was caught and did not turn himself in. Respondent's behavior harmed himself, his family and friends, and his employer, which spends considerable resources to develop public trust and employee morale, both of which were damaged by Respondent's actions. Respondent's behavior also harmed the woman, whose squalid circumstances were worsened by Respondent's "generosity." And his criminal behavior threatened the safety, health, and welfare of numerous persons who purchased the controlled substances that Respondent had stolen and given to the woman. On the other hand, Respondent poses no risk to the public. This is the opinion of two mental-health professionals working closely with Respondent. Also, Respondent did not steal controlled substances while working for six months as a temporary pharmacist and while under considerable stress from the criminal prosecutions. Although Respondent did not turn himself in, he did confess immediately and completely. As a practical matter, his ability to make restitution is dependent on his ability to practice pharmacy. Respondent and Petitioner each present numerous final orders of the Board of Pharmacy evidencing past penalties. Petitioner's final orders include Newman, Case No. 94- 20465 (five years' suspension and $2000 fine for state conviction for sale, purchase, or delivery of Schedule IV controlled substance; and Dunayer, Case No. 07300 (revocation for shortage of over 500,000 dosage units of many of the same codeine- containing drugs). Respondent's final orders include Feldman, Case No. 92- 07313 (three years' suspension, retroactive 14 months to when licensee was ordered by court to surrender license, three years' probation, and $3000 fine for federal conviction for distributing and dispensing outside course of professional practice of pharmacy--although some of the same codeine-containing drugs were involved, it appears that considerably greater quantities may have been involved); Swoy, Case No. 93-11716 (two years' suspension, of which 22 months were stayed and several years' probation for state conviction of delivery of one of the same codeine-containing drugs--quantity unclear); and Levine, Case No. 92-04729 (two years' suspension that was stayed and four years' probation for state conviction of impaired practitioner for theft from pharmacy of relatively small quantities of Schedule II controlled substances).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Pharmacy enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 465.016(1)(f), suspending his license for one year from the date of the emergency suspension, imposing a $3000 fine to be paid within 90 days after the end of the suspension, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of five years. ENTERED on August 8, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on August 8, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: John Taylor, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Nancy M. Snurkowski Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Salvatore A. Carpino 8001 North Dale Mabry Hwy. Suite 301-A Tampa, FL 33614
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, a licensed physician, committed violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against his license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Michael A. Fuentes, M.D., a licensed physician at all times pertinent to these proceedings, holding medical license number ME 0044461. Respondent's last known address is 311 Akron Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15216. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. The Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine is the licensing authority for the State of Pennsylvania. The Connecticut Board of Medicine is the disciplining body for the State of Connecticut. On or about July 27, 1994, the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine indefinitely suspended Respondent’s license to practice medicine and then stayed that suspension while placing Respondent on five year's probation. The Board found Respondent to be an impaired physician who had been non-compliant with treatment recommendations. On or about August 26, 1996, the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine, reviewed its earlier decision and shortened the probationary period to three years. Respondent did not report the Pennsylvania State Board of Medicine’s action in either instance to Petitioner’s representatives in the State of Florida. On October 19, 1993, the Connecticut Board of Medicine summarily suspended Respondent’s license to practice medicine due to his mental impairment and failure to undergo a complete psychiatric evaluation. Subsequently, on or about June 20, 1995, the Board revoked Respondent’s license to practice medicine in Connecticut. Respondent did not report the Connecticut State Board of Medicine's action in either instance to Petitioner's representatives in the State of Florida. Respondent is guilty of having action taken against his license to practice medicine by the licensing authorities of the State of Pennsylvania and the State of Connecticut, violations of Section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Additionally, Respondent did not notify the Florida Board of Medicine within 30 days of the license disciplinary actions taken by either the State of Pennsylvania or the State of Connecticut against his license, notifications required by Section 458.331(1)(kk), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint and revoking his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 September, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Lanfri, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Stephen M. Chizmadia, Esquire 125 Sun Dance Road Stamford, Connecticut 06905 Michael A. Fuentes 32 Lake Drive Darien, Connecticut 06820 Michael A. Fuentes c/o The Royal Inn Route 219, Boot Jack Summit Ridgway, Pennsylvania 15853 Marm Harris, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102-E 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 James Howell, Secretary Department of Health Building 6, Room 306 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been since October 4, 1979, a licensed pharmacist in the State of Florida. He holds license number PS 0017661. In October of 1987, based upon Respondent's having the year before "pled guilty [in criminal court] to one count of grand theft and one count of possession of diazepam," the Board of Pharmacy suspended Respondent's license for a period of one year and placed him on probation for a period of three years, commencing upon the conclusion of his suspension. On February 4, 1991, February 11, 1991, February 19, 1991, March 6, 1991, and April 18, 1993, in exchange for cash, Respondent sold to Melvin Owens, who was serving as a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, 3/ various quantities of drugs, to wit: quazepam, under the brand name of Doral (February 4, February 19, and March 6), triazolam, under the brand name of Halcion (February 4, February 11, February 19, March 6, and April 18), alprazolam, under the band name of Xanax (February 11, February 19, March 6, and April 18), and diethylpropion hydrochloride, under the brand name of Tenuate Dospan (March 6), without first being presented with a prescription for these drugs. All five transactions took place in Palm Beach County, Florida. Although Respondent was employed as a pharmacist at a Phar-Mor Discount Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as "Phar-Mor") located in Palm Beach County at the time of these transactions, in selling these controlled substances to Owens, Respondent was not acting in the usual course of his professional practice as a Phar-Mor pharmacist. Respondent did not have a permit authorizing him to act as a drug wholesaler at the time of these transactions. On April 24, 1991, Respondent was indicted in federal court on five counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances for his role in the above-described transactions. Subsequently, the Department issued a three-count Administrative Complaint charging Respondent with wrongdoing in connection with these transactions. Respondent pled guilty to the federal criminal charges pursuant to a plea agreement. Thereafter, Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 60 days confinement, followed by two years of supervised release, on each count of the federal indictment, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him for having committed these violations by revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of October, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's real estate broker's license application should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rhonda S. Dietz, is a 36-year-old woman who currently holds a real estate sales associate's license. She was first licensed by the State of Florida in December 2001 and has held her license in good standing since that time. At the time Petitioner obtained her sales associate license, she disclosed in her application that she had a criminal background. That background included two grand larcenies, possession of a controlled substance, failure to appear, violation of probation, and obtaining property with a worthless check. Each of the offenses will be further discussed below. Despite the criminal history, Respondent approved Petitioner's sales associate's license, and Petitioner has been selling real estate for the past six years. In 2006, Petitioner first applied for a real estate broker's license. Petitioner maintains that in her 2006 application, she disclosed each of the aforementioned events in her criminal history.1 Nonetheless, her application was denied. In May 2007, Petitioner again filed an application for a real estate broker's license. That application clearly contained documentary evidence of her entire criminal history. The events in that history are hereby discussed: The first grand larceny in Petitioner's background was related to the purchase of goods from a K-Mart in 1994 with a bad check belonging to a roommate. Upon discovering the check was bad, Petitioner immediately turned herself in, made restitution, and paid court costs. She was sentenced to five years' probation for that charge. The second grand larceny involved allegations in 1994 by Petitioner's then-current roommates that Petitioner stole property from them when she moved out of the residence. Although Petitioner denied the charge because the claim was merely retaliation by her roommates for moving out, she agreed to a plea bargain at the advice of counsel. Again, she was given five years' probation and made to pay restitution. In 1998, Petitioner was charged with possession of a controlled substance: a vial of testosterone and some pain pills. She explained that these drugs came from a pharmacy where she was working. The pharmacy specialized in treatment of AIDS patients. She had the drugs in her possession so she could turn them over to a medical group that could disperse them to AIDS patients. The pharmacy supported Petitioner and paid for her defense against the possession charge. Petitioner was sentenced to 24 months' probation, court costs, and 50 hours of community service for that charge. Petitioner also had a probation violation in 1998 for failing to appear and for failing to pay a fine related to one of the aforementioned charges. She did not pay the fine due to lack of funds. She failed to appear due to lack of notice. She was placed on ten months' house arrest for the violation of probation. Petitioner met all other conditions of her probation and has not had any criminal activity since the charges listed above. She does not deny the existence of her prior criminal history and has not attempted to hide it from Respondent. When Petitioner applied for a broker's license in 2005, she filed an application that included her criminal history. The application disclosed all of the charges addressed above. Respondent confirmed the charges by referring to a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) report. When Petitioner re-applied in 2007, she personally obtained a FDLE report on her criminal background, which she submitted along with her application. Again, she listed all of her prior history in the application. There is no competent evidence to suggest otherwise. Since the time of her last criminal charge, Petitioner has been gainfully employed. She has worked in an office doing medical billing, in a pharmacy, and as a real estate agent. In her current position, she has been entrusted with large sums of money for clients. She has had no adverse employment actions taken against her. Her co-workers state that she has good moral character and is trustworthy. Petitioner has passed the classroom work needed to become a broker; her application for licensure will complete that process. Meanwhile, she continues to sell real estate and is involved in an investor monitoring program. The broker's license will simply allow Petitioner to make a career move by expanding her capabilities in the area of real estate sales. Respondent did not call any witnesses at the final hearing and did not refute or rebut the facts as stated by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Real Estate Commission granting Petitioner's application for a real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 17th day of October, 2007.
