The Issue Whether the license, No. 1454, issued to licensee should be revoked, annulled, withdrawn or suspended.
Findings Of Fact The Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners filed an Administrative Complaint against licensee Stanley Turner, D.C., who holds license number 1454. Count I alleged Respondent made sexual advances toward four patients. Count II alleged that Respondent made improper sexual advances toward employees. Count III alleged that Respondent has been addicted to the habitual use of narcotics, stimulants, or other habit-forming drugs since July 1, 1975. Count IV alleged that Respondent made improper sexual advances on a patient under the guise of necessary chiropractic treatment. Count V alleged that Respondent offered and administered medicines and drugs to two patients. Count VI was dropped at the hearing. Count VII was dropped at the hearing. Count VIII alleged that the foregoing Counts constitutes unprofessional conduct. Respondent denied each of the allegations of the Petitioner. The testimony of the various women who testified against Dr. Turner, together with the testimony of the women who testified for Dr. Turner, does not establish the fact that "improper sexual advances" were actually made by the Respondent, Dr. Turner. The nature of the practice of acupuncture and of the practice of chiropractic is such that the procedures themselves could be misleading as to the intent of the practitioner. Testimony of six medical doctors and two dentists that they had filled prescriptions for the Respondent, Dr. Turner, which prescriptions were for various drugs, Valium, Darvocet, Milhouse, Percodan, Tylenol, Robaxin, was coupled with their testimony that they issued these drugs through "professional courtesy" without ordinary examinations of the patient and that in fact Dr. Turner did suffer from a variety of ills including a back injury, an accident with a horse, and "hangovers." The evidence submitted does not establish that the Respondent took all of these drugs himself or was addicted to the habitual use of narcotics, stimulants or the habit-forming drugs. It does establish that drugs were secured by Dr. Turner in a manner and amount that could be and perhaps was embarrassing to those doctors who wrote the prescriptions for Respondent. The evidence does not support a finding that drugs were offered or administered to patients and employees and other persons. The testimony does establish that the Respondent was guilty of unacceptable conduct inasmuch as the testimony as a whole establishes the fact that Dr. Turner did take advantage of the medical community in requesting prescriptions and that his conduct toward his clients and employees was casual and at times undignified.
Recommendation Give Respondent Stanley Turner a public reprimand then dismiss the complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles F. Broome, Esquire Post Office Box 729 Titusville, Florida 32780 =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Robert Paul Catanese, D.C., violated Section 456.072(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2001)-(2006), and Section 560.413(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2001)-(2006), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, filed by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on January 23, 2007, in DOH Case Number 2006-03224, and subsequently amended; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice chiropractic medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving chiropractic physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 460, Fla. Stat. (2006). Respondent, Robert Paul Catanese, D.C., is, and was at all times material to this matter, a chiropractic physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida pursuant to Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. The Indictment and Conviction. On or about February 2, 2006, Dr. Catanese was indicted in United States of America v. Joseph Sutera, Eric Ressner, Agustin Castellanos, Robert Catanese, and Stephanie Mirante, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 06-80020 CR, (hereinafter referred to as the "Indictment"). Dr. Catanese was charged with conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Generally, the indictment alleges that Dr. Catanese, between June 2001 and September 2005, transferred private health insurance information concerning his patients to a co- conspirator, Joseph Sutera, knowing that the information would be used to submit false and fraudulent claims for reimbursements for Ketamine and other prescription medications. As it relates to Dr. Catanese, the indictment was predicated upon the following allegations of “Background” fact: Defendant ROBERT CATANESE was a licensed doctor of chiropractic and the owner Catanese Chiropractic Center, a clinic through which he offered chiropractic services and through which he employed licensed physicians, including defendant AUGUSTIN CASTELLANOS, to write prescriptions and provide other medical services for his patients. Count One of the Indictment charges Dr. Catanese with conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C., § 347, alleging the following facts: . . . . 22. Defendant ROBERT CATANESE transferred the private health insurance information of his patients to defendant JOSEPH SUTERA knowing the information would be used to submit false and fraudulent prescription drug claims for Ketamine HCL and other prescription medications through The Medicine Shoppe to The Private Health Insurance Companies. . . . . 30. Defendant ROBERT CATANESE received approximately $31,000 in the form of checks and additional amounts in cash from defendant JOSEPH SUTERA and The Medicine Shoppe which represented proceeds from the payments received from false and fraudulent prescription drug claims. . . . . On or about December 23, 2005, Dr. Catanese signed a Plea Agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy, “in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, an object of which was to commit health care fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1347.” On or about July 24, 2006, consistent with his Plea Agreement, Dr. Catanese pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. During the plea hearing, the prosecutor described the factual basis for the plea as it relates to Dr. Catanese as follows: Yes, Your Honor, had this gone to trial the Government would prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in or between June 2001 and September 2005, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, Palm Beach County within the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere the defendants Joseph Sutera, Robert Catanese, Agustin Castellanos and others, Eric Ressner and Stephanie Mirante knowingly conspired to commit health care fraud through false and fraudulent prescription drug claims for the purpose of enriching or otherwise benefiting themselves. The Government would prove that Joseph Sutera was a licensed pharmacist. As a licensed pharmacist, although he was licensed to dispense medication, he was not authorized to prescribe prescription medication including compounds, creams or other substances and was not authorized to dispense any prescription medications without a valid prescription from a licensed physician, prescription medications because of their toxicity and potential harmful effects deemed not for use to administer such drugs. Augustine Castellanos was a medical doctor specializing in neurology and sleep disorders. Dr. Catanese was a doctor of chiropractic, and owner of Catanese Chiropractic Center. He employed Agustin Castellanos. His job was to write prescriptions and provide medical services for his chiropractic patients. Mr. Sutera owned and operated a retail pharmacy called The Medicine Shoppe. It was a franchise which was located [at] 3365 Burns road in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Through this pharmacy, Mr. Sutera submitted thousands of insurance claims to approximately 200 private health insurance companies, and these claims were false in that they were for prescription medications that were not prescribed, not requested, and, in many cases, not delivered. Although these claims were for virtually every type medication that there is, the majority were for medications for which there was a high reimbursable from the insurance costs. These included things such as pain patches, a certain cancer drug called Levac, and claims for a drug called Ketamine. Ketamine is a Schedule III controlled substance controlled by the Drug Enforcement Administration. It is a prescription medication most often used as an anesthetic for children and as a battle field anesthetic in adults. It produces dissociative effect, for battle field purposes, when a limb is being taken off that is a good thing. Dissociative effect makes it popular for illicit purposes. It has become popular for a club drug, where it is used for purposes of getting high, so to speak. In addition to these uses, the drug recently has also been found to have some pain applications and Mr. Sutera as a pharmacist helped develop a cream that had as its main ingredient Ketamine. He distributed this cream under a number of different names, including formula 2 and Ketazone. What was attractive about this cream for insurance fraud purposes, was that the reimbursement for the jars of the cream or the tubes of the cream was rather high and could be as much as $1,000 per claim. In order to submit these claims, however, Mr. Sutera needed at least two things. He needed patient information. He needed names, addresses, and health insurance information for particular individuals, and he also needed the names of doctors who could be listed as the prescribing physicians. It was important that, particularly, the doctors have some knowledge of what was happening because the private health insurance companies would regularly audit the distribution of drugs from the pharmacy and would send out letters to the prescribing physicians asking if, in fact, they had prescribed certain medications. . . . . For purposes of getting the patient health information, Mr. Sutera did that in a number of different ways. . . . . . . . In addition to that, on at least three different occasions, Dr. Catanese who ran a chiropractic clinic as Your Honor is aware sold his patient list to Mr. Sutera. When I say he sold his patient list to Mr. Sutera, he sold all of the patient lists and, in exchange, Mr. Sutera agreed to give Dr. Catanese $100 per jar of the cream that was being prescribed by doctors through, Catanese’s clinic. Dr. Catanese was aware at the time that, in fact, these names were going to be used to submit false claims, as well as, for the submission of any claims for patients that really did get the cream. The quid pro quo, if you will, was at the time, Dr. Catanese had a drug problem as Your Honor is aware, and Mr. Sutera provided him with large amounts of Percocet. In addition to that, Mr. Sutera also provided Dr. Catanese with cash and with at least $31,000 in money in the form of checks, as well. . . . . The presiding judge specifically asked Dr. Catanese about his involvement in the acts described by the prosecutor: BY THE COURT: Q. Dr. Catanese, would you come to the lectern. Let me pose these questions to you. You had an opportunity to listen to what Ms. Bell had to say as pertains to your involvement. Do you agree you did and said the various things Ms. Bell suggested A. Yes, Your Honor. Q. Now, again, and I know you listened, and I am sure this is a matter of enormous concern to you, but this crime because the punishment is potentially longer than one year in jail, it is classified as a felony offense. If the court concludes that you really know what you are doing, that you are making a voluntary and informed decision, what I would do is accept your plea, you see, and adjudicate you to be guilty. The moment that happens, you are then classified as a convicted felon, and, of course, you will automatically lose those valuable civil rights, the right to vote, the right to possess a firearm or serve on a jury or run for public office. Do you understand you will lose those civil rights? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, again, I would imagine this also would have an impact on your medical license. Do you understand that as well? A. Yes, sir. Q. Knowing and understanding these things, I want to indicate I certainly have had an opportunity to observe you and talk with you. You are a highly intelligent person. I am satisfied you are competent to make the decision that you are thinking about making. We’ve gone through the rights of trial by jury and all those other rights. We’ve gone through all of the provisions of the plea agreement. Is there anything out there I haven’t touched on, any questions or concerns you have that you wanted to raise? A. Not at this time, Your Honor. Is it your desire, then, to continue forward and enter the pleas we have been discussing? A. Yes, sir. THE COURT: Mr. Lubin, would you do that for the doctor? MR. LUBIN: Yes, Your Honor. On behalf of Robert Catanese, we would withdraw previously entered plea of not guilty and enter a plea of guilty to Count 1 which is the conspiracy count. THE COURT: Doctor, is that what you want to do? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: 06-80020, United States versus Robert Catanese, it is the finding of the court that Dr. Catanese is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea. I find his plea is a knowing and voluntary plea supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of this particular offense, therefore, I accept the doctor’s plea and I now adjudicate him to be guilty of the crime of having knowingly and willfully conspired to commit health care fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. On November 7, 2006, United States District Judge Daniel T.K. Hurley adjudicated Dr. Catanese guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, a felony. Judge Hurley sentenced Dr. Catanese to serve 40 months imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and required that he forfeit $31,000.00. The Relationship of Dr. Catanese's Convictions to the Practice of Medicine. In light of Dr. Catanese’s guilty plea to Count One of the indictment and his agreement with the prosecutor’s summary of the factual basis for his plea, it is concluded that Dr. Catanese engaged in the activities alleged in the indictment and summarized by the prosecutor for purposes of this proceeding. All of those activities related to the practice of chiropractic medicine. But for Dr. Catanese’s license to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, Dr. Catanese would not have been able to commit the crime for which he was found guilty. It was his license to practice chiropractic medicine that facilitated his ability to open the Catanese Chiropractic Clinic and to obtain the private health insurance information of his patients which was provided to his co-conspirator for use in committing health care fraud. The crime for which Dr. Catanese was convicted is a crime that “directly relates to the practice of chiropractic medicine.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine finding that Robert Paul Catanese, D.C., has violated Sections 456.072(1)(c), and 460.413(1)(c), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order; and imposing discipline consistent with the Board’s guidelines after giving Dr. Catanese an opportunity to address any additional mitigating factors which he wishes to present to the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Tobey Schultz, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Robert Paul Cantanese #75488-004 Federal Correctional Institution Miami Post Office Box 779800 Miami, Florida 33177 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive a passing grade on the chiropractic licensure examination administered November 13 through 16, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At the time the examination at issue herein was administered, the Agency for Health Care Administration was responsible for administering examinations to certain professionals, including chiropractic physicians, seeking to be licensed to practice in Florida. Sections 20.42(2)(a)2, 455.2141, and 455.2173, Florida Statutes. Dr. Foss sat for the chiropractic licensure examination administered in November, 1996. Part of that examination tested a candidate's competency in physical diagnosis and consisted of an oral practical examination administered to each candidate by a panel of two examiners. A standardization system was used with the examination to create consistency in the questioning and grading of the various examiners. Each examiner was given a manual which identified the procedures which were to be followed in particular situations and the questions which could be asked if, for example, the response of a candidate was not sufficiently specific. In addition, all of the examiners attended meetings each morning of the examination which were designed to standardize the criteria and grading guidelines which were to be applied. The examiners were specifically told to grade independently the responses given by the candidates and not to look at the grades given by the other examiner. The physical diagnosis portion of the November, 1996, examination consisted of twenty-seven questions which the examiners asked the candidates. These questions were derived from two cases involving hypothetical patients whose symptoms were presented to the candidate by the examiners. A series of questions was asked about each patient, and the examiners separately assigned points for the answers given. The total points were then averaged to arrive at the final grade. In Question 8, Dr. Foss was asked to state the specific diagnosis he would derive from the symptoms which had been presented to him and the case history he had developed in response to previous questions regarding one of the hypothetical patients. The question was clear and unambiguous, and Dr. Foss had all of the information needed to make the correct diagnosis. Although Dr. Foss responded to the question with a diagnosis which correctly categorized the disease, his answer did not include the specific diagnosis which he could have derived from the information available to him. Dr. Foss was asked by one of the examiners to be more specific as to the cause of the disease he had diagnosed. After several minutes, Dr. Foss responded with an answer which he has admitted was incorrect. Question 8 was worth eight points on the examination, and neither examiner gave Dr. Foss any points for his answer. The decision of the examiners to award no points to Dr. Foss for his answer to Question 8 was not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. Question 15 was clear, unambiguous, and specifically identified the source to be used in formulating the answer. Dr. Foss did not use the methodology recommended in the source specified in the question; rather, he used a different methodology based on information contained in another source. Question 15 was worth two points on the examination, and one examiner gave him no points for his answer, while the other examiner gave him one point. The number of points awarded to Dr. Foss for his answer to Question 15 was not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. In Question 27, Dr. Foss was directed to state his clinical judgment in response to a question asked by the examiners. The question asked was clear and unambiguous. Dr. Foss's response that he would not treat the patient but would refer her to a physician other than a chiropractor was contrary to the results of clinical studies reviewed in a widely- disseminated chiropractic research journal which suggest that chiropractic treatment would be appropriate. Question 27 was worth four points on the examination, and neither examiner gave Dr. Foss any points for his answer. The decision of the examiners to award no points to Dr. Foss for his answer to Question 27 was not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order dismissing the challenge of Bryan L. Foss, D.C., to the grade assigned him for the physical diagnosis portion of the November, 1996, chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kim A. Kellum, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox, Building No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Dr. Bryan L. Foss, pro se 867 Tivoli Circle, No. 205 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox, Building No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact At all times material here to, Respondent has been a chiropractic physician licensed under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent placed the following ad, which appeared in the Miami Herald newspaper on Sunday, November 8, 1981, only: DRUGS? (note: A picture of Dr. is on the original document on file HEART PROBLEMS with the Clerk's Office.) HEADACHES Dr. Bob Bacher DIABETES Director HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE SKIN PROBLEMS 15.27 billion dollars spent in drug storeslast year. This does not include other sources, such as hospitals, clinics, etc; How can your lives be normal depending on drugs? To take a pill each day is dependency. Dependency is addiction. Pushed or prescribed you are an addict. Chiropractic can free you from drug dependency. Chiropractic finds the cause of sickness, corrects it, and allows the life within to heal the body. Come talk to us. We will tell you what you can do to get well and then it's up to you. \ALL CASES ACCEPTED REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY/ \ / We Accept: FREE X-RAYS Workers Compensation FOR MEDICARE PATIENTS Auto Accident Insurance $50-$100 Value When Necessary! Group Health Insurance Individual Health Insurance- Family Plan BACHER CHIROPRACTIC LIFE CENTER 9001 N.E. 2nd AVE. 756-LIFE CALL TODAY (5433) Some persons who have undergone chiropractic treatment and who have also suffered from the conditions listed in Respondent's advertisement have experienced, during the course of that treatment, some improvement in those conditions to the extent that some could reduce the medication taken for those conditions. The conditions listed in the ad encompass broad categories of diseases and include subcategories of those diseases for which a person must take medication in order to live. In a number of the diseased states listed, the medications being taken are not optional but rather are life-saving. The ad fails to distinguish among persons taking a daily multi-vitamin pill, persons requiring medication to remain alive due to some genetic defect, and persons addicted to illegal drugs for recreational purposes. The words "pill," "medication," and "drugs" are interchangeable only sometimes. A person can take a pill each day without being dependent or addicted. The words "dependency" and "addiction" mean the same thing to some medical professionals only. Many kinds of heart problems, headaches, diabetes, high blood pressure, and skin problems have never shown a response to chiropractic care alone, and there is no scientific or medical data showing that chiropractic treatment can curtail or eliminate the use of prescribed medication in all of the listed conditions. The implication of the ad, read in its entirety, is that every person who has the listed conditions can be helped by chiropractic and can be taken off pills/drugs/medication. Chiropractic does not have a high success rate of freeing people from drug dependency. Respondent's advertisement has the ability to endanger the health of the public for two reasons. First, persons may cease taking life-sustaining medication simply because they have gone to a chiropractor. Second, in situations involving true addiction to certain drugs, it is necessary that any attempts by the person addicted to withdraw from use of that drug be made only under the supervision of a medical doctor.
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 each and every allegation contained within the Administrative Complaint and assessing against him an administrative fine of $1,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 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 25th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Frances Carter, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence M. Malman, Esquire Biscayne Building, Suite 412 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, the Respondent Karl Cohen was licensed as a chiropractic physician by the Florida Board of Chiropractic. On or about September 5, 1976, Maxine Grebin sustained injuries in a roller skating accident. Mrs. Grebin sought treatment from the Respondent on September 24, 1976, and her treatment continued through December 3, 1976. Thereafter, Mrs. Grebin instituted a civil proceeding against Gold Coast Roller Rink. During the pendency of the civil suit, Mrs. Grebin requested that the Respondent provide her or her attorney an itemized statement of the services rendered for purposes of the damages suit. Mrs. Grebin never received an itemized statement from the Respondent. On February 14, 1977, the Respondent mailed a bill and report to Mrs. Grebin's attorney and copy of the bill to Mr. Joel Grebin, the complainant in this case, on March 11, 1977. When the Respondent failed to receive payment for services rendered by him to Mrs. Grebin, he filed suit in Dade County and after a trial, at which the Grebins appeared, received a final judgment on May 4, 1981, for $388 plus costs. On September 25, 1981, the Respondent was visited at his office by Martin Brandies, a Department investigator. The Respondent furnished Brandies with his entire file concerning Maxine Grebin, and made copies of pertinent documents for him. Subsequently, on June 22, 1982, the Respondent was served with a subpoena by John McDonough, investigator for the Department. The documents requested were virtually identical to the documents previously provided to Brandies. 1/ Since the documents were previously voluntarily provided to the Department, the Respondent did not believe that he was required to furnish a second set of documents, and accordingly, did not comply with the subpoena duces tecum. At the hearing on February 8, 1983, the Petitioner moved to amend Count II of the Administrative Complaint to charge a violation of Section 460.413(1)(n), Florida Statutes, rather than Section 460.413(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The motion to amend was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Board of Chiropractic enter a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(w), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand pursuant to Section 460.413(2), Florida Statutes DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of January 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 16th day of January 1984.
