The Issue The issue is whether the medical license of Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D., should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Ahmed M. Elmariah is a licensed physician in Florida, holding license number ME 0027974 issued February 11, 1976. Dr. Elmariah practices in Panama City, Florida, at 1018 Harrison Avenue. Patient E.G. saw Dr. Elmariah during April or May, 1988, and thereafter until July 18, 1988. On July 18, 1988, at approximately 1:00 p.m., E.G. called Dr. Elmariah's office and requested that his medical records be sent to another doctor. He was told to come in and sign a release form that afternoon. At about 4:30 p.m. that day, E.G. went to Dr. Elmariah's office and was told by the office person, Lisa, that the medical records would not be sent because Dr. Elmariah had instructed that the records not be released. E.G. then verbally requested that the records be given to him. The office personnel refused to give him the records. E.G. talked to Dr. Elmariah personally and he would never give a reason for his refusal to release E.G.'s medical records. E.G. finally filed a replevin action and filed a complaint with DPR. DPR Investigator William Taylor attempted to serve a subpoena for E.G.'s records. After several attempts by DPR to serve the subpoena were futile, the Sheriff's Office served the subpoena on November 16, 1988. The subpoena directed that the medical records of E.G. be made available for inspection and copying by a DPR Investigator at Dr. Elmariah's office on November 22, 1989. Mr. Taylor called Dr. Elmariah on November 22, 1988, to make sure that the doctor was going to honor the subpoena. Dr. Elmariah's wife said the records had been taken to Tallahassee on November 21, 1989, and would not be available to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor was also told that Dr. Elmariah would not be in his office to speak to Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor checked with DPR in Tallahassee and determined that the records had not been delivered. He then called Dr. Elmariah's office again and was told that Dr. Elmariah was in, but would not speak to him. Mr. Taylor was told that Dr. Elmariah said that the documents would not be available and the subpoena would not be honored. Dr. Elmariah never furnished the requested medical records of E.G. and the subpoena was never honored. Dr. Elmariah has been the subject of disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine in the past. On October 14, 1988, the Board of Medicine issued its Final Order in DOAH Case No. 86-4527 (DPR Case Nos. 0053824 and 0057164). The Final Order was filed on October 24, 1988, with the Department Clerk. The Final Order suspended Dr. Elmariah's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida for at least one year and conditioned reinstatement on Dr. Elmariah's appearance in front of the Board of Medicine to demonstrate his ability to safely engage in the practice of medicine. These two previous cases involved Dr. Elmariah's attempts to get hospital privileges by a pattern of fraudulent misrepresentations to hospitals. Dr. Elmariah was served a copy of the Final Order by certified mail on November 4, 1988. On November 5, 1988, DPR Investigator Alfred Clum went to Dr. Elmariah's office to serve a subpoena and to pick up Dr. Elmariah's license pursuant to the suspension order. Mr. Clum was first told that Dr. Elmariah was in the office. After Mr. Clum identified himself and the purpose for his visit, he was told that Dr. Elmariah was not in and that he would not see anyone without an appointment. The office person, Lisa Sims, refused to accept the subpoena and the suspension documents. On November 8, 1988, DPR Investigator Paul Bratton went to Dr. Elmariah's office to deliver a letter from Mr. Taylor regarding the suspension. He arrived at 9:52 a.m. and found a note on the door saying the office was closed. The door was open, so Mr. Bratton entered the office. He served the suspension documents on the woman at the desk. She tried to get him to take the documents back and he refused. She refused to give her name. When he left, the woman followed him to the door and threw the documents out the door and down the steps. On November 16, 1988, Mr. Clum returned to Dr. Elmariah's office to pick up his license. He was told that Dr. Elmariah was not there. He tried to leave the documents with the receptionist, but she refused to accept them. He left the documents, including the Final Order, on the woman's desk. Dr. Elmariah filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Final Order with the Board of Medicine. The Board of Medicine considered the Emergency Motion to Stay Final Order on December 3, 1988. Dr. Elmariah was advised by letter dated November 30, 1988, that the meeting would occur for consideration of the motion. Further, the November 30, 1988, letter advised Dr. Elmariah that "unless and until you have an order from the Court or from the District Court of Appeal granting you a stay, your license to practice medicine is suspended. Continuing to practice medicine on a suspended license could result not only in additional disciplinary proceedings against your license, but to criminal penalties as well." After consideration at its December 3, 1988, meeting, the Board of Medicine denied the Motion to Stay Final Order. The order denying the stay was entered on December 20, 1988. Dr. Elmariah then filed several more motions-- Verified Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration of Order on Motion to Stay the Final Order; Verified Motion and Affidavit for Disqualification of Attorney Daniel and All Participating Attorneys for Petitioner; and Verified Petition and Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration and to Rescind, Relieve from and/or Modify Final Order. These motions were considered by the Board at its February 4, 1989, meeting and all were denied by written order dated March 25, 1989. Dr. Elmariah filed a Motion for Stay with the District Court of Appeal, First District, on April 6, 1989. The Court denied the motion for stay by written order dated May 31, 1989. Patient L.E. was a patient of Dr. Elmariah's during 1988 and 1989. L.E. saw Dr. Elmariah during January, February, and March, 1989, while Dr. Elmariah's license was suspended. Dr. Elmariah never told L.E. that his license was suspended and he continued to see L.E. as a patient at his office. Patient W.W. was a patient of Dr. Elmariah's and last saw the doctor in February or March, 1989. The visits to Dr. Elmariah, at his office, were regularly scheduled visits at two week intervals. Dr. Elmariah never told this patient that his license was suspended. Patient G.L.M. was also a patient of Dr. Elmariah at his office in Panama City. He saw Dr. Elmariah on December 15 and 22, 1988, and January 19, 1989. Dr. Elmariah never told him that his license was suspended. On December 13, 1988, Dr. Elmariah was arrested for contempt and brought before the Honorable Thomas R. Ellinor, County Court Judge, in the replevin action filed by E.G. to get his medical records. The transcript of that contempt hearing clearly shows that Dr. Elmariah knew that his license had been suspended and knew that no stay had been issued. The contempt arose from Dr. Elmariah's failure and refusal to appear for duly noticed hearings and to respond to subpoenas. The judge made Dr. Elmariah's duty to appear at hearings very clear and Dr. Elmariah acknowledged that he understood his obligation in that regard and would appear in the future. Dr. Elmariah has engaged in a flagrant course of conduct to evade and avoid the lawful orders, subpoenas and notices in gross disregard for the laws of the State of Florida and in gross disregard for the obligations imposed upon him for the privilege of practicing medicine in this state. He has actively resisted enforcement of the Final Order suspending his privilege and license to practice medicine. He has openly and contemptuously refused to cease practice pursuant to the suspension order and he has refused to surrender his medical license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a Final Order finding Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D., guilty of all violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, and revoking the medical license of Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D. Post Office Box 16473 Panama City, FL 32406-1473 Robert D. Newell, Jr. Attorney at Law 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, FL 32303-6313 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The Administrative complaint dated September 19, 1994, alleges that Respondent, a licensed class "D" security officer, violated section 493.6118(1)(j), F.S. by committing a battery on or about January 28, 1994. The issue is whether that violation occurred and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this action, Respondent, Ivan Machiz, was licensed as a class "D" security officer, license number D91-19035, by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, pursuant to chapter 493, F.S. The proceeding at issue is the only disciplinary action in evidence against Mr. Machiz' license. On January 28, 1994, Mr. Machiz visited Jameryl Curley at her apartment in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Machiz and Ms. Curley had been roommates. Mr. Machiz sought to recover his claimed possessions, including some chairs and a French racing bicycle. Ms. Curley told Mr. Machiz she had sold the items as payment for some delinquent bills and that he was not entitled to take them. He moved to take the bicycle and she hung on to it. The couple argued and struggled over the bicycle. In the struggle Mr. Machiz grabbed Ms. Curley and pinned her left arm behind her back, twisting it and causing her to cry for help. Benjamin Dobrin, who lived with his brother in the next door apartment and shared a back porch with Ms. Curley, answered the call and found Mr. Machiz on top of Ms. Curley, forcing her face-first into a couch or futon, and twisting her arm behind her back. Mr. Dobrin immediately returned to his apartment and called "911" for help. He then went back to Ms. Curley's apartment. By then, she was up and was holding on to the bicycle and Mr. Machiz was dragging it with her. She was crying and yelling, "Help, you're hurting me. Stop!" Mr. Dobrin and his brother stopped the bicycle and Mr. Machiz left. Deputy Chris Williams arrived shortly thereafter and found Ms. Curley upset and hyperventilating. After interviewing the Dobrins, Ms. Curley, and then Mr. Machiz (at his apartment in the next building), Deputy Williams arrested Mr. Machiz. He admitted that he put Ms. Curley in a wristlock because she was struggling against his attempts to recover what he claimed was his. He was not protecting himself or another from physical harm. At the criminal trial on one count of a battery charge, on March 24, 2994, County Judge Cynthia A. Holloway heard the testimony of the Deputy, Mr. Dobrin, Ms. Curley, and Mr. Machiz, and admonished that Mr. Machiz had no right to "self-help" recovery of his property, to go to someone's apartment to remove property over objection, and to "pulverize anybody to get that property back". (Respondent's exhibit #1, p. 20) The court withheld adjudication of guilt, and placed Mr. Machiz on six months probation, with the provision for termination after four months on the condition that he perform 25 hours of community service, pay court costs and write a letter of apology to Ms. Curley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order finding that Ivan Drew Machiz violated section 493.6118(1)(j), F.S., and imposing a penalty of $500 fine. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Dept. of State/Division of Licensing The Capitol MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ivan Drew Machiz 481 Hardendorf Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30307
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent’s license to practice as a certified nursing assistant should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based on the charges of unprofessional conduct by stealing from a patient.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Tamar Laurent, is a certified nursing assistant (CNA) in the State of Florida having been issued license CNA 43605. This is the first time action has been taken by DOH and the Board to discipline her license. In December 2012 and January 2013, the Respondent was employed by Westminster Towers. While working at Westminister Towers, the Respondent was assigned to care for patient R.G. R.G. was given a cell phone by his son R.G. III. The Respondent picked up the cell phone, which was lying on the floor next to R.G.’s bed, and placed it in the drawer of a nightstand that was for and contained R.G.’s personal items. The Respondent thought the phone belonged to R.G. One week later, she went back into the drawer and took the cell phone to give to her son. While visiting his father, R.G. III realized that the cell phone was missing. R.G. III attempted to find the phone using family location tracking and looking up the call log. The information he uncovered was given to the Orlando Police Department and Westminster Towers. Nicole Daigneault was the director of nursing at the time of the incident. After receiving the information from R.G. III, she initiated an internal investigation and reported the incident as a theft to the Agency for Healthcare Administration. The internal investigation discovered that the Respondent and the Respondent’s son were in possession of the cell phone. The Respondent contacted Detective Osso of the Orlando Police Department. During an interview with Detective Osso, the Respondent admitted to taking R.G.’s cell phone. A few days after the interview, the Respondent retrieved the cell phone from her son and gave it to her attorney to return to R.G. III. During the hearing, the Respondent maintained that she did not know the cell phone belonged to R.G. and that she placed it in his bedside table because she found it next to his bed. This contradicted her own testimony during the hearing, and in the Respondent’s earlier statement to the Orlando Police Department, that she assumed the cell phone belonged to R.G. when she put it in his drawer. The Respondent knew that the cell phone did not belong to her and that she did not have a right to take it. During the hearing, the Respondent stated her supervisor, Rita, gave her permission to take the cell phone if she brought it back the next day. However, Rita Burginia, the supervisor of nursing assistants at the time of the incident, never had a conversation with the Respondent or would never authorize anyone to take the personal property of a patient. After the testimony of Ms. Burginia, the Respondent then claimed she spoke to a different supervisor, also named Rita. Nicole Daigneault can only recall one Rita working at Westminster Towers at that time, Rita Burginia. In any event, the Respondent did not return the cell phone the next day but rather kept it for a few weeks.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged; and revoking her license to practice as a certified nursing assistant; and assessing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 11th day of September, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Ana Margarita Gargollo-McDonald, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Tamar Laurent 1270 Woodman Way Orlando, Florida 32818 Judson Searcy, Esquire Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3252 (eServed) Daniel Hernandez, Interim General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) COURTESY COPY FURNISHED: Ann-Lynn Denker, PhD, ARNP Chair Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3252
The Issue Whether Respondent's medical license should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined on charges that he was convicted or found guilty of a crime directly relating to the practice of medicine or his ability to practice medicine, in violation of Section 48.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the charge, Respondent was a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida, having been issued license No. ME 0020485. I. Prior Disciplinary Action Against Respondent The Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary proceedings instituted by the Department. On February 7 and 8, 1984, an administrative hearing was conducted by Diane Tremor, hearing officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings in Fort Myers, Florida. The issue for determination was whether his license as a medical doctor should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined for the medical treatment he provided to five named patients, one of whom was Holli Schmidt. On July 24, 1984, the hearing officer submitted her recommended order to the Board of Medical Examiners. With regard to patient Schmidt, the hearing officer found that Respondent inserted an intrauterine contraceptive device without taking adequate precautions to insure that the patient was not pregnant at the time of insertion, and concluded that his treatment of patient Schmidt fell below an acceptable standard of care, skill and treatment, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. On January 9, 1985, the Board of Medical Examiners adopted the hearing officer's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, but modified her recommended penalty of a one year suspension by providing that he could petition for reinstatement after serving six months of the suspension. II. Criminal Proceedings Against Respondent In the meantime, Respondent was the subject of a criminal proceeding arising out of his treatment of patient Holli Schmidt. On October 28, 1981, the Assistant State Attorney of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit filed an information charging Respondent with Culpable Negligence, a misdemeanor violation of Section 784.05, Florida Statutes. The information alleged that between February 1, 1981 and March 30, 1981, Respondent "exposed Holli Schmidt to personal injury through culpable negligence." (Joint Exhibit 6). On March 23, 1984, in the County Court of Lee County, Florida (Case No. 81MM6984), a jury found Respondent guilty as charged. (Joint Exhibit 4). On June 18, 1984, County Judge Radford R. Sturgis, the presiding judge, entered an order (1) reciting that Respondent had been found guilty (by the verdict of a jury) of culpable negligence; (2) withholding adjudication of guilt; and (3) placing him on probation for a period of six months. The order also reflects that the Court was satisfied that Respondent was "not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct, and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that [he] should presently be adjudged guilty and suffer the penalty authorized by law." (Joint Exhibit 5). Respondent was ordered to serve 50 hours of Community Service, pay a $500 fine, and serve 59 days of jail time (49 days were suspended and 10 were to be served on weekends). The crime, of which Respondent was found guilty, related to the practice of medicine. In their prehearing stipulation, the parties agree that "[t]here is an identity of underlying facts supporting both [the] criminal conviction . . . and the current suspension of [Respondent's] license by the Board of Medical Examiners based upon the [prior hearing officer's] Recommended Order. . . . Respondent timely appealed the jury's verdict (finding him guilty of Culpable Negligence) to the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida, which appeal is still pending.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's medical license be suspended for a period of six months, such suspension to run concurrently with the suspension previously imposed by the Board of Medical Examiners for his treatment of patient Holli Schmidt. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of April, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of April, 1985.
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 comect gepy of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this {30-day of Fora , 2014. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Shaddrick Haston, Unit Manager Facilities Intake Unit Assisted Living Unit (Electronic Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Patricia R. Caufman, Field Office Manager Revenue Management Unit Areas 5 and 6 (Electronic Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Katrina Derico-Harris Medicaid Accounts Receivable Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Thomas J. Walsh II, Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Medicaid Contract Management Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Tracy George, Chief Appellate Counsel Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) Christina Mesa, Esquire MESA Law, P.A. P.O. Box 10207 Tampa, Florida 33679-0207 Thomas P. Crapps Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic 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.
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 issued the attached Administrative Complaint to the Respondent to revoke its health care clinic license due to Respondent’s principal being ineligible for licensure or exemption from disqualification from licensure pursuant to Section 435.07, F.S.. (Ex. 1) The Respondent filed a Petition for Formal Hearing and the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. During the proceedings, the Agency filed a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction based upon the lack of any material facts in dispute. In response, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order to Show Cause to Respondent, followed by an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction stating that the Agency was authorized to enter a Final Order against the Respondent. (Ex. 2) Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 2. The Administrative Complaint is UPHELD and the Respondent’s health care clinic license is REVOKED. 3. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for retaining and appropriately distributing all client records within the timeframes prescribed in the authorizing statutes and applicable administrative code provisions. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. 4. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for any refunds that may have to be made to the clients. 5. The Respondent is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Respondent 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. 1 Filed July 23, 2013 10:20 AM Division of Administrative Hearings ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 727 ~day of key , 2013. Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Hegith Care Administration NOTICE OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. 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 this 2 7A of this Final Order_was | was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this ~ Jad a, » 2013. Richard Shoop, Agency Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Facilities Intake Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Thomas Jones, Unit Manager Health Care Clinic Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Robert Dickson, Field Office Manager Local Field Office Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Katrina Derico-Harris Medicaid Accounts Receivable Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Warren J. Bird, Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Harry Vassilakis, Registered Agent Medicaid Contract Management All Care Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc. Agency for Health Care Administration 505 Deltona Boulevard, Suite #103 (Electronic Mail) Deltona Florida 32725 (U.S. Mail) E. Gary Early Harry Vassilakis, Unit Manager Administrative Law Judge All Care Chiropractic & Wellness, Inc. Division of Administrative Hearings 807 Beville Road (Electronic Mail) South Daytona, Florida 32119 (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.
Findings Of Fact At all times, material hereto, Respondent Antonio J. Maniglia, 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 December, 1962. He came to the United States in 1963, and has practiced from then until the present date. He was licensed as a medical doctor by the State of Florida in 1971. On or about February 11, 1976, Maury Braga appeared at Respondent's office requesting to see him. Respondent had never before met Braga and had never heard of him. Braga brought with him a letter of introduction from a processor in Brazil whom Respondent knew. 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, Antonio J. Maniglia, M. D., F.A.C.S., of 1776 NW 10th Ave, Miami, Florida 33136, do hereby swear and affirm by my personal knowledge, that Maury Braga attended and graduated from Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos and did lawfully prac- tice the profession 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 Tallahassee, 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
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent has violated Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, by practicing dentistry without an appropriate, active license to practice dentistry and, if so, what penalty should be imposed for such a violation.
Findings Of Fact Based on the exhibits received in evidence and on the testimony of the witness called at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, James Wilson, D.D.S., held a dental license, number DN0002819, issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry. Respondent was awarded a licensed certificate to practice dentistry in the state of Florida on August 10, 1959, by the Florida State Board of Dental Examiners. Respondent was licensed to practice dentistry in the state of Florida for the 1982/83 biennial period which ended on December 31, 1953. The license of Respondent expired on January 1, 1984. Respondent was advised by Department personnel, on April 23, 1984, that his license was delinquent. Respondent was also advised of the procedures required to renew said delinquent license. Respondent made payment to the Board of Dentistry in the amount of $200 on July 23, 1984, for renewal of his expired license, which payment applied toward the 1984/85 biennial period. The amount of $200 reflects the sum of the renewal charge of $150, plus $50 for his late renewal. Respondent, from the period January 1, 1984, to August 8, 1984, was actively practicing dentistry, during which time his license was expired.
Recommendation Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Finding Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint; Reprimanding Respondent for being guilty of such violation; Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250 on Respondent; and Allowing the Respondent 30 days from the date of entry of the final order in this case within which to pay the administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 30th day of September, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy M. Snurkowski, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Wilson, D.D.S. 3116 Moncrief Road Jacksonville, Florida 32209 James Wilson, D.D.S. 7145 Dostie Drive East Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Wings Slocum Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
