Findings Of Fact The findings of fact stipulated to by the parties are as follows: The Respondent's license was suspended for a period of three years by Final Order of the Board of Medical Examiners filed on or about June 25, 1985. The Respondent filed a timely Notice of Appeal of the foregoing Final Order. The Respondent filed a Motion to Stay the Final Order with the Board of Medical Examiners, through appellate counsel, but said motion was not ruled upon by the Board of Medical Examiners at any time pertinent to the dates related to the Administrative Complaint. No petition for stay was filed by the Respondent until August 6, 1985, with the appellate court having jurisdiction of the direct appeal, when said motion was filed by appellate counsel. The District Court of Appeal, First District, entered a temporary stay of the Final Order of the Board of Medical Examiners on August 6, 1985, but dissolved the stay on August 9, 1995, upon written response from the Department of Professional Regulation. No other stay was in effect at any time pertinent to the times material to the matters raised in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. The Respondent continued to practice medicine subsequent to the filing of the Motion to Stay filed with the Board of Medical Examiners until contacted in person by investigators of the Department of Professional Regulation who informed the Respondent, on August 12, 1985, that no stay of the Final Order was in effect. At that point, the Respondent immediately surrendered his medical license to the investigators of the Department of Professional Regulation and informed said investigators that the investigators should contact his appellate Counsel because of the "Confusion." The Respondent believed, and was specifically advised by appellate Counsel, that the Final Order of the Board of Medical Examiners filed June 25, 1985, was stayed automatically by the District Court of Appeal, First District, notwithstanding the fact that the only stay entered by the District Court of Appeal, First District, was from August 6 to August 9, 1985. Not only was the Respondent advised by appellate counsel orally that such a stay was automatically effected by the filing of the Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal, First District, but appellate counsel provided written confirmation of the alleged existence of such a stay to Jacksonville hospitals providing medical privileges to the Respondent. An example of such written confirmation is a letter dated July 30, 1985, to the President, Board of Trustees of St. Vincent's Medical Center advising St. Vincent's Medical Center that the Final Order of the Board of Medical Examiners was automatically stayed by operation of Section 120.68(3), Florida Statutes. In that letter, appellate counsel not only advised St. Vincent's Medical Center of the existence of an alleged automatic stay, but copied the Respondent with said advice, confirming to the Respondent that the Final Order of the Board of Medical Examiners had in fact been stayed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Jorge Macedo, M. D., has been licensed as a medical doctor under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent graduated from medical school in Brazil in 1954, and practiced in Brazil for one year thereafter. He then came to the United States, where he has practiced from 1956 until the present date. On February 13, 1976, Maury Braga came to Respondent's office in Hialeah, Florida. Respondent had never before met Braga and had never heard of him. Braga advised Respondent that he was a medical doctor from Brazil, that he had attended and graduated from the Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, Brazil, that he had practiced the profession of medicine in Brazil during the years of 1967 through 1972, that he was in the process of obtaining his medical license in Florida, and that to complete his Florida medical application he needed statements from local doctors acknowledging that Braga was a Brazilian medical doctor. Braga showed to Respondent documentation concerning his education and practice, including his medical diploma. Based upon his interview of Braga and his examination of Braga's documents, Respondent signed a form utilized by Petitioner, which form is entitled "Affidavit" and which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: I, Jorge Macedo, M. D., of 1060 E. 4th Ave., Hialeah, Florida, do hereby swear and affirm by my personal knowledge, that Maury Braga attended and graduated from Falcudade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos and did lawfully practice the pro- fession of medicine, in Brazil during the years of 1967 through 1972, and that I also practiced the same profession in Brazil. When Respondent signed the "affidavit," it was not notarized. Respondent had no personal knowledge regarding whether Braga had ever attended or graduated from medical school or regarding whether Braga had ever practiced medicine in Brazil. Respondent relied totally on the information contained in the documents Braga showed to him and upon what Braga told him. After Braga left Respondent's office, he had the "affidavit" signed by Respondent notarized. He attached the "affidavit" to an Application for Examination and Course in Continuing Medical Education, which application he then submitted to the Florida Board of Medical Examiners. On February 26, 1976, the same day that Braga's application was received, the Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners wrote to Braga advising him that his application was received after the deadline of January 26, 1976, and was therefore rejected. The application was not returned to Braga, but rather was placed in a file opened under Braga's name to be retained in the event that Braga again applied within the next three years to take the course in continuing medical education and the examination for licensure. On January 17, 1977, Braga filed a second application to take the course in continuing medical education which would then qualify him to take the examination for licensure. The second application included "affidavits" from medical doctors other than Respondent. One of Braga's two applications was approved; Braga completed the course in continuing medical education; Braga took and passed the examination for licensure; and Braga was licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida on March 10, 1978. Maury Braga did not attend or graduate from the Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, and did not lawfully practice the profession of medicine in Brazil during the years 1967 through 1972. Braga's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida has been revoked. At least prior to the revocation of his license, Braga's file with the Petitioner contained both the application he filed in 1976 and the application he filed in 1977. No evidence was introduced to show which application was reviewed when Braga's application to take the educational course and examination for licensure was approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint, dismissing Counts One, Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint, and placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of one year, subject to terms and conditions set forth by the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee7 Florida 32301 Jack E. Thompson, Esquire Ingraham Building, Suite 516 25 SE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-114 JORGE MACEDO, M.D. License Number: 10095 Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent, Malcolm T. Watkins, violated sections 455.227(1)(t) and 471.033(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers (the Board), is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes (2016). The Florida Engineers Management Corporation (the Corporation) is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. The Complaint at issue was filed by the Corporation on behalf of the Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a Florida licensed professional engineer, having been issued license number 64064. On July 17, 2015, Respondent was found guilty on the following criminal counts by the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, in Case 2011- CF-002890-01: (1) Traveling to meet a Minor for Unlawful Sexual Conduct; (2) Use of Computer for Child Exploitation; (3) Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Battery; and (4) Unlawful Use of a Two-Way Communications Device. Respondent was sentenced to 10 years’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation. On Count 2, Respondent was sentenced as a Sex Offender. The sworn assertions in the April 25, 2011, Polk County Sheriff’s Affidavit (the Affidavit), and the allegations in the 4th and 6th Amended Information (the Informations) filed by the State Attorney in Case 2011-CF-002890-01, set out the facts supporting Respondent’s conviction. The allegations were grounded in Respondent’s having contacted, via the internet, a fictitious 24-year-old person posing as the custodian of a 13-year-old girl. Respondent arranged a meeting with the supposed 13-year-old, through her “custodian,” at which Respondent would have sexual relations with the 13-year-old. Respondent was arrested on April 25, 2011, at a location in Polk County where he had arranged to meet the “custodian” along with the female minor. On December 21, 2015, five months after Respondent’s conviction, Petitioner’s Investigator, Wendy Anderson, received a written complaint from Kyle Cartier, P.E., notifying Petitioner of the fact of Respondent’s conviction. Upon receipt, Petitioner opened Corporation Case Number 2016000255 (the Complaint). On January 4, 2016, Ms. Anderson notified Respondent via U.S. Mail of the opening of the Complaint. On January 21, 2016, Respondent replied to the Complaint and directed Petitioner to Respondent’s counsel. Respondent subsequently sent two letters to Petitioner, both dated March 11, 2016. The letters were provided to Walton Correctional Institution for mailing on March 18, 2016, and were received by Petitioner on March 23, 2016. The first letter notified Petitioner of Respondent’s conviction, and alleged that the conviction was not final because it had been appealed. The second letter claimed that the conviction did not relate to the practice of engineering and reiterated that Respondent’s conviction was not final because it had been appealed. Respondent’s March 11, 2016, letter notifying Petitioner of the conviction was received 238 days after Respondent’s conviction. Following her investigation of the Complaint, which commenced on December 21, 2015, and concluded on July 28, 2016, Ms. Anderson presented her investigative report to the Board. The Board filed the instant two-count Administrative Complaint against Respondent on September 23, 2016. Count I alleges that Respondent violated section 471.033(1)(d), which includes as grounds for disciplinary action, being convicted or found guilty of a crime “which directly relates to the practice of engineering or the ability to practice engineering.” Count II alleges that Respondent violated section 471.033(1)(a), which includes as grounds for disciplinary action, failing to report in writing to the Board within 30 days after the licensee is convicted or found guilty of a crime in any jurisdiction. Pursuant to section 455.227(2), the Board may impose any one in a range of penalties against Respondent for violating the cited provisions, including license suspension or revocation, practice restrictions, administrative fines, reprimand, and probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding that Malcolm Watkins violated sections 455.227(1)(t) and 471.033(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2017.
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent (Ex. 1). The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. 3. The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2). Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. _ The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The Respondent’s assisted living facility license is SURRENDERED. The Respondent agrees not to seek initial licensure nor operate any facility licensed by the Agency for a period of 5 years from the date of execution of this Agreement. 3. An administrative fine of $13,500.00 is imposed against the Respondent, but $13,000.00 of the fine is STAYED for purposes of collection as long as the Respondent does not seek any new type of licensure from the Agency. In the event Respondent seeks licensure after the period set forth above, the Respondent will pay the $13,000.00 before any application for licensure can be considered. 4. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $500.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within Filed July 8, 2013 11:00 AM Division of Administrative Hearings 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number(s) should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 5. The Petitioner is responsible for any refunds that may be due to any clients. 6. The Petitioner shall remain responsible for retaining and appropriately distributing client records as prescribed by Florida law. The Petitioner is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions as well as any other statute that may apply to health care practitioners regarding client records. 7. The Petitioner is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity. The Petitioner is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Petitioner is notified that the cancellation of an Agency license may have ramifications potentially affecting accrediting, third party billing including but not limited to the Florida Medicaid program, and private contracts. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 3 day of ane4 , 2013. dministration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to 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 CERTIFY that a true and correct Sopot this Final Order was served on the below-named 3 day of wa , 2013. persons by the method designated on this Jan Mills Facilities Intake Unit (Electronic Mail) Richard Shoop, Agency Clen Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Shaddrick Haston, Unit Manager Licensure Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Revenue Management Unit (Electronic Mail) Theresa DeCanio, Field Office Manager Local Field Office Agency for Health Care Administration Katrina Derico-Harris Medicaid Accounts Receivable Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Suzanne Suarez Hurley Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Medicaid Contract Management Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Eva Tomines, Owner/Administrator Golden Haven, LLC d/b/a Golden Haven 10805 William and Mary Court Orlando, FL 32821 (U.S. Mail) NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity.-- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency.
The Issue The following issues of fact were considered: Did the Respondent aid, assist, procure, or advise an unlicensed person to practice medicine? Did the Respondent delegate professional responsibilities to persons when he knew or had reason to know that said persons were not qualified by licensure to perform them? Did the Respondent presign prescription forms? Both parties submitted posthearing findings of fact, which were read and considered. Those findings not incorporated herein are found to be either subordinate, cumulative, immaterial, unnecessary, or not supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Albert P. Oteiza, is licensed to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Florida and has been so licensed at all times relating to the charges in the Administrative Complaint. The Respondent was president and director of the Union Latina Association, Inc. (the Association), located at 1313 Southwest First Street, Miami, Florida. The Respondent was paid by the Association, which provided medical services to patients who were members of the Association. The Respondent practiced at Clinical Union Latina (the Clinic), located at 1313 Southwest First Street, Miami, Florida, and was the medical director of the Clinic. The Respondent was not an officer or director of the Clinic. The president of the Clinic was Rigoberto Garcia, and the business manager was Christian Carmona. Florencio Sanchez-Lopez was employed as a physician's assistant at the Clinic by Christian Carmona, who assigned Sanchez-Lopez's duties. Sanchez-Lopez was not a licensed physician and was not a certified physician's assistant. Sanchez-Lopez admitted seeing and treating patients at the Clinic. Sanchez- Lopez saw those patients who were in serious condition in the presence of the Respondent. Those patients who were not in serious condition, Sanchez-Lopez saw without the Respondent being present, and Sanchez-Lopez prescribed treatment and medications for these patients. Sanchez-Lopez examined and prescribed medications and treatment for Ralph Nunez, an investigator for the Board of Medical Examiners, in the manner Sanchez-Lopez had admitted to examining and prescribing for other patients. Valerio Matta was employed as a physician's assistant at the Clinic by Carmona, who assigned Matta's general duties. Matta was not a licensed physician or a certified physician's assistant. Matta saw patients at the Clinic, examining them and prescribing medications and treatment for them without the presence of a licensed physician, as he did with Georgina Jorge, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation. Matta also admitted that he had performed minor surgery on patients, but only when the Respondent was present in the Clinic. Carlos Manuel Rodriguez-Murgia was employed as a physician's assistant at the Clinic by Carmona, who assigned Rodriguez-Murgia his general duties. Rodriguez-Murgia was not a licensed physician or certified physician's assistant. Rodriguez- Murgia saw patients at the Clinic, examining and prescribing medications and treatment for them without the presence of a licensed physician, as he did with Georgina Jorge, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation. The acts performed by Sanchez-Lopez, Matta, and Rodriguez-Murgia all constituted the practice of medicine. However, these acts did not exceed the acts which could have been performed by a physician's assistant. The Respondent was aware or should have been aware that Sanchez-Lopez, Matta, and Rodriguez-Murgia were engaged in seeing patients at the Clinic and performing acts which constituted the practice of medicine. Carmona was deceased at the time of the hearing. Garcia, president of the Clinic, outlined Carmona's duties. Carmona was responsible for having Sanchez-Lopez, Matta, and Rodriguez-Murgia certified as physician's assistants. All three men confirmed that Carmona represented to them they would be licensed and they were "legal" to perform their duties. Sanchez-Lopez, Matta, and Rodriguez-Murgia could not swear that it was the Respondent's signature on the prescriptions they used or that they had seen the Respondent sign the prescriptions. There were other licensed physicians who worked at the Clinic.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of three counts of violating Section 458.331(1)(w), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, it is recommended that the Board of Medical Examiners suspend the license of the Respondent, Albert P. Oteiza, for a period of 12 months and assess a civil penalty against him of 3,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Blas E. Padrino, Esquire 2355 Salzedo, Suite 309 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Petitioner, vs. Case No. 83-122 ALBERT P. OTEIZA, M.D., License No. 20879 Respondent. /
The Issue An Administrative Complaint dated February 8, 1999, alleges that Respondent committed violations of Section 493.6118, Florida Statutes, when he performed armed security officer services without a proper license and when he failed to cooperate with an official investigation and gave false information regarding his identity and address. The issues in this proceeding are whether the alleged violations occurred and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Vance H. Britto, was licensed by the Florida Department of State as a security officer some time prior to 1993. His license expired and he was deemed ineligible for re- licensure because of an unpaid disciplinary fine. On August 27, 1998, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Richard Yates, an investigator with the Florida Department of State, conducted a pro-active investigation at Windhover Apartments in Orlando, Orange County, Florida. Investigator Yates was accompanied by his colleague, Ed Sundberg. The investigators approached an individual wearing a security officer's uniform and badge and carrying a 38-caliber revolver. They identified themselves and asked the individual for his name and security officer's license. The individual gave his name as David Wilson but said that his license was at his employer's office being laminated. Although he was in a white Ford sedan with security markings, the individual denied having his driver's license or social security card with him. He gave his address as 2203 Page Street in Orlando. He gave his supervisor's name as Ricky Heath and his employer as Security Enforcement Services, Inc. After a brief exchange with the investigators, the individual sped away in his vehicle. Investigator Yates made a note of the license plate and made further notes on an inspection checklist. When he returned to his office and described the individual and the encounter to his supervisor, and with the aid of a file photograph, Investigator Yates was able to identify the individual as Vance Britto, a former licensee. In 1998 and to the present time, Mr. Britto has not been licensed with either a "Class G" or "Class D" license. No one knew Mr. Britto at the Page Street address he gave the investigators and when they checked his address in the computer file they learned that he had not lived there in over two years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: that the agency enter its formal order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 493.6118(1)(g) and (o), Florida Statutes, and assessing an administrative fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Vance H. Britto 6525 Pompeii Drive Orlando, Florida 32822 Honorable Katherine Harris Secretary of State Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Lower Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner, by means of a one-count Administrative Complaint, seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of his alleged violation of Section 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Eduardo S. Mendez, M.D., was born in Cuba, was reared in Cuba, and was educated in Cuba. His education in Cuba included a degree in Medicine. He came to the United States of America in 1995. Shortly after moving to this country, the Respondent became the owner of a retail pharmacy and medical equipment business in Florida. The Respondent did not have a license to practice pharmacy in Florida. On the basis of conduct which took place between July of 1998 and June of 2000, an Information was issued in Case No. 02-20859 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida charging the Respondent with engaging in a conspiracy to pay and receive health care kickbacks in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. The basic facts forming the basis for the criminal charge are described as follows in the Information: Medicare was a "Federal health care program" as defined in Title 42, United States Code, Section 1320a-7b(f)(1). Confortec D.M.E., Inc. ("Confortec") was a pharmacy located in Miami, Florida. Confortec was authorized by Medicare to submit claims to Medicare Part B for reimbursement of the cost of certain medications that Confortec dispensed by prescription to Medicare beneficiaries. Defendant EDUARDO S. MENDEZ was a resident of Miami and the sole owner of Confortec. Defendant EDUARDO S. MENDEZ offered to pay kickbacks to various patient recruiters so that they would provide the names and Medicare identification numbers of Medicare beneficiaries, along with prescriptions relating to these beneficiaries. Confortec filled these prescriptions and then filed claims with Medicare for reimbursement of the cost of the prescribed medications. After receiving payment on these claims from Medicare, defendant EDUARDO S. MENDEZ used a portion of the payments to pay kickbacks to the patient recruiters or their associates. * * * 12. Using a portion of the money received from Medicare payments, defendant EDUARDO S. MENDEZ paid or caused to be paid approximately $200,000 in kickbacks to the patient recruiters or their associates so that the recruiters would continue to refer Medicare beneficiaries and related Medicare prescription business to Confortec. Following his arrest, the Respondent cooperated extensively with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and assisted the FBI in their investigation of his own activities, as well as in their investigation of similar criminal activities by others. Because of the Respondent's assistance to the FBI, the federal prosecutor recommended a substantial reduction in the sentence that might otherwise have been imposed on the Respondent. On November 14, 2000, the Respondent entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed "to plead guilty to an Information or an Indictment that charges him with the crime of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, namely, a violation of Title 42, United States Code, Section 1320a-7b(b)(2)(knowingly and intentionally offering and paying kickbacks and bribes to any person to induce the referral of individuals for the furnishing of services or items for which payment may be made under a Federal health care program), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371." On or about February 12, 2003, a United States District Judge signed a judgment in which the Respondent was adjudicated guilty of the criminal offense described above. The Respondent's sentence was three years of probation, three months of home confinement (with electronic monitoring), 150 hours of community service, and a fine of $100.00. The Respondent has fulfilled all of the terms of his sentence. Although the recruitment methods described above are prohibited by federal law and are a crime, that criminal activity does not involve any element of fraudulent billing seeking reimbursements from the Medicare program for services or items that were not provided. To the contrary, all of the prescriptions for which Confortec sought Medicare reimbursement were prescriptions that were actually filled for medications that were actually provided to the Medicare beneficiaries. During the period from July of 1998 through June of 2000, the Respondent did not have a license to practice medicine in Florida. Accordingly, the criminal conduct described above was not related to the Respondent's practice of medicine, because the Respondent was not practicing medicine at that time. As discussed in greater detail in the conclusions of law, the criminal conduct described above was directly related to the practice of medicine by the physicians who wrote the prescriptions that were filled in the course of the subject criminal activity. As also discussed in greater detail in the conclusions of law, the criminal conduct described above was directly related to the ability to practice medicine. The Respondent is presently a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida. He has been so licensed since November of 2001. His license number is 83615. The criminal charges described above are the only criminal charges that have ever been filed against the Respondent. There has never been any prior disciplinary action taken against the Respondent's license to practice medicine.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2002), and imposing the following penalties: Suspending the Respondent's license to practice medicine for a period of nine months; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of five thousand dollars; and When the Respondent is reinstated following the nine- month period of suspension, placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years subject to such terms of probation as may appear to the Board of Medicine to be necessary and appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 16th day of September, 2005.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent has violated section 458.331(1)(b), (kk), and (nn), Florida Statutes (2011), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a medical doctor licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 89113. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is also licensed as a medical doctor in the State of New Jersey. The Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners (New Jersey Board) is the licensing authority regulating the practice of medicine in the State of New Jersey. On or about February 21, 2012, the New Jersey Board entered an Order of Automatic Suspension of Respondent’s New Jersey medical license. The basis for the Order was Respondent’s purported failure to comply with a Private Letter Agreement previously entered between Respondent and the New Jersey Board, in that she allegedly failed to undergo an independent psychiatric evaluation and failed to provide required psychiatric reports to the state’s Physician Assistance Program (PAP).2/ The action by the New Jersey Board constitutes action against Respondent’s medical license by the licensing authority of another jurisdiction. Respondent did not report the action against her New Jersey license to the Florida Board of Medicine on or before March 23, 2012, or within 30 days of the action against her license. When documents are received by the Department, they are imaged into the Department’s system. Mail for the licensing unit is picked up several times a day, and all documents are indexed by the licensee’s license number. A licensee can check to see if documents are received by contacting the Department by telephone or e-mail. As of the week before the hearing, no information regarding Dr. Ackerman had been received by the Department from Dr. Ackerman. Respondent claims that she notified the Board by both United States Mail and by certified mail of the action against her New Jersey license. A copy of the letter she claims to have sent is Respondent’s Exhibit 1. This letter is dated March 2, 2012, is not signed, does not contain her license number in Florida or New Jersey, and is addressed to “Florida License Board.” The document does not include an address beyond Tallahassee, Florida. No zip code is included. Dr. Ackerman could not say whether she had a receipt for the certified mail, only that she probably “had it somewhere.” She could not identify who, if anyone, signed for it. When asked for the address where she mailed the letter, Dr. Ackerman said, after a considerable pause, 452 Bald Cypress Way, and claimed she knew that address “off the top of her head.”3/ The copy admitted into evidence only reflects a faxed date of March 22, 2014, two days before the hearing.4/ By contrast, Board staff testified credibly as to the process for logging mail at the Department, and that no notification had been received from Dr. Ackerman. While staff acknowledged that it is “possible” for mail to come to the Department and not be routed appropriately, the more persuasive evidence in this case is that the Board staff received nothing from Dr. Ackerman. Respondent’s claim that both copies of her letter somehow slipped through the cracks is simply not believable. Moreover, Dr. Ackerman is a physician. As such, she is presumed to be a relatively intelligent person, capable of providing appropriate notification to the Board. The docket and evidentiary record in this case demonstrate that when she wants to get a message across, she is capable of doing so (and equally capable of avoiding answering a direct question if it is not to her advantage). Her claim that she notified the Board of the action against her license in New Jersey is not credible, and is rejected. Dr. Ackerman also did not update her practitioner profile. Practitioner profiles can be updated by faxing the updated information, using the fax number available on-line; by mailing the information to the Department; or by logging into the practitioner profile database using the licensee’s specific log- in ID and password. Dr. Ackerman did none of those.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 458.331(1)(b), (kk), and (nn). In addition, it is recommended that the Board impose the following penalty: a reprimand of Respondent’s license to practice medicine; an administrative fine of $5,000; suspension of Respondent’s license to practice medicine until such time as Respondent demonstrates that her license in New Jersey has been reinstated and demonstrates the ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety; and reservation of jurisdiction by the Board to impose a period of probation should Respondent successfully petition the Board for reinstatement and demonstrate compliance with the terms described in recommendation three. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Rule 64B8-4.022(1), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, in violation of Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner obtained a bachelor's degree from Yale University in 1970. He obtained a Juris Doctor degree from St. John's University in 1980 and practiced law in New York City for five years. Petitioner then completed coursework at Columbia University in preparation for medical school. He obtained a medical degree from New York Medical College in 1990. Petitioner obtained a license to practice medicine in New York in 1993. However, problems with depression interfered with Petitioner's completion of post-graduate work in medicine. In 1995, Petitioner applied for a physician's license in California. This application was initially denied in 1998, but it was granted in January 2002 with a condition of probation for five years with some sort of psychiatric monitoring during and possibly after the termination of the probationary period. In the interim between the two actions on Petitioner's application for a California license, New York revoked Petitioner's license to practice medicine, although it later reduced the sanction to a suspension of the latter of one year or a showing of safeness to practice. In May 1997, Petitioner relocated to Florida and, the following year, after having completed additional rehabilitative therapy, applied for a license to practice medicine in Florida. Respondent has denied the application in reliance upon Rule 64B8-4.022(1), Florida Administrative Code. (All references to Rules are to the Florida Administrative Code.) Rule 64B8-4.022 states in its entirety: In most cases the Board evaluates applicants on a case-by-case basis; however, in the following circumstances the Board, as a matter of policy, shall deny the application for licensure in Florida: When the applicant has had action taken against a medical license or the authority to practice medicine by the licensing authority of another jurisdiction and the applicant does not demonstrate that the applicant has a license in the jurisdiction which took action and that license is in good standing and unencumbered. When the applicant has been convicted of, been found guilty of, or entered a plea of nolo contendere to a crime and the applicant does not demonstrate that all criminal sanctions imposed by the court have been satisfied. Petitioner challenges Rule 64B8-4.022(1) on the grounds that it requires in all cases that Respondent deny applications when, for any reason, the applicant has had action taken against his or her medical license in another jurisdiction or the applicant's application has been denied in another jurisdiction, unless, in either case, the applicant presently has an unencumbered license in that jurisdiction. Petitioner contends that this categoric denial of licensure under these circumstances exceeds the underlying statutory authority for denial of licensure. The rule implements three statutes. Section 458.311, Florida Statutes, governs licensure by examination. (All references to Sections are to Florida Statutes.) Section 458.313 governs licensure by endorsement. And Section 458.331 provides grounds for the denial of an application or discipline of an existing license. As is relevant to this case, Section 458.311 provides: The board may not certify to the [Department of Health] for licensure any applicant who is under investigation in another jurisdiction for an offense which would constitute a violation of this chapter until such investigation is completed. Upon completion of the investigation, the provisions of s. 458.331 shall apply. Furthermore, the department may not issue an unrestricted license to any individual who has committed any act or offense in any jurisdiction which would constitute the basis for disciplining a physician pursuant to s. 458.331. When the board finds that an individual has committed an act or offense in any jurisdiction which would constitute the basis for disciplining a physician pursuant to s. 458.331, then the board may enter an order imposing one or more of the terms set forth in subsection (8). Each applicant who meets the requirements of this chapter shall be licensed as a physician, with rights as defined by law. Upon certification by the board, the department shall impose conditions, limitations, or restrictions on a license if the applicant is on probation in another jurisdiction for an act which would constitute a violation of this chapter. When the board determines that any applicant for licensure has failed to meet, to the board's satisfaction, each of the appropriate requirements set forth in this section, it may enter an order requiring one or more of the following terms: Refusal to certify to the department an application for licensure, certification, or registration; Certification to the department of an application for licensure, certification, or registration with restrictions on the scope of practice of the licensee; or Certification to the department of an application for licensure, certification, or registration with placement of the physician on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the board may specify, including, but not limited to, requiring the physician to submit to treatment, attend continuing education courses, submit to reexamination, or work under the supervision of another physician. As is relevant to this case, Section 458.313 provides: Upon certification by the board, the department shall impose conditions, limitations, or restrictions on a license by endorsement if the applicant is on probation in another jurisdiction for an act which would constitute a violation of this chapter. The department shall not issue a license by endorsement to any applicant who is under investigation in any jurisdiction for an act or offense which would constitute a violation of this chapter until such time as the investigation is complete, at which time the provisions of s. 458.331 shall apply. Furthermore, the department may not issue an unrestricted license to any individual who has committed any act or offense in any jurisdiction which would constitute the basis for disciplining a physician pursuant to s. 458.331. When the board finds that an individual has committed an act or offense in any jurisdiction which would constitute the basis for disciplining a physician pursuant to s. 458.331, the board may enter an order imposing one or more of the terms set forth in subsection (7). When the board determines that any applicant for licensure by endorsement has failed to meet, to the board's satisfaction, each of the appropriate requirements set forth in this section, it may enter an order requiring one or more of the following terms: Refusal to certify to the department an application for licensure, certification, or registration; Certification to the department of an application for licensure, certification, or registration with restrictions on the scope of practice of the licensee; or Certification to the department of an application for licensure, certification, or registration with placement of the physician on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the board may specify, including, but not limited to, requiring the physician to submit to treatment, attend continuing education courses, submit to reexamination, or work under the supervision of another physician. As is relevant to this case, Section 458.331 provides: The following acts constitute grounds for denial of a license or disciplinary action, as specified in s. 456.072(2): * * * (b) Having a license or the authority to practice medicine revoked, suspended, or otherwise acted against, including the denial of licensure, by the licensing authority of any jurisdiction, including its agencies or subdivisions. The licensing authority's acceptance of a physician's relinquishment of a license, stipulation, consent order, or other settlement, offered in response to or in anticipation of the filing of administrative charges against the physician's license, shall be construed as action against the physician's license. * * * The board may enter an order denying licensure or imposing any of the penalties in s. 456.072(2) against any applicant for licensure or licensee who is found guilty of violating any provision of subsection (1) of this section or who is found guilty of violating any provision of s. 456.072(1). In determining what action is appropriate, the board must first consider what sanctions are necessary to protect the public or to compensate the patient. Only after those sanctions have been imposed may the disciplining authority consider and include in the order requirements designed to rehabilitate the physician. All costs associated with compliance with orders issued under this subsection are the obligation of the physician.
