00-004817PL Department Of Health, Board Of Medicine vs. Zafar S. Shah, M.D. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, August 31, 2001.

Summary: Board failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was guilty of charges set out in Counts 7 through 10 of the Administrative Complaint.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF )

MEDICINE, )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 00-4817PL

)

ZAFAR S. SHAH, M.D. , )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Upon due notice, William R. Cave, an Administrative Law

Judge for the Division of Administrative Hearings, held a

formal hearing in this matter on March 15-16, 2001, in Dade

City, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner : Robert C. Byerts, Esquire

Agency for Health Care Administration

Post Office Box 14229

Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229

For Respondent : Jack D. Hoogewind, Esquire

33283 Cortez Boulevard

Dade City, Florida 33523

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Did the Respondent, Zafar S. Shah, M.D. (Dr. Shah),

commit the violations alleged in Counts 7-10 of the

Administrative Complaint dated June 26, 2000, and, if so, what

penalty should be imposed?

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By an Administrative Complaint dated June 26, 2000, and

filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division)

on August 16, 2000, the Department of Health, Board of

Medicine (Board) is seeking to revoke, suspend, or otherwise

discipline Dr. Shah's license to practice medicine in the

State of Florida. Initially, the Administrative Complaint

contained 10 Counts and was assigned Case Number 00-3455PL. A

formal hearing on Counts 1-6 was held on November 8-9, 2000,

and a Recommended Order as to Counts 1-6 was entered on

February 27, 2001. At the request of Respondent, Counts 7-10

were severed and assigned DOAH Case Number 00-4817PL. This

Recommended Order addresses those remaining counts.

As grounds therefor, the Board alleges that Dr. Shah

violated: (1) Section 458.331(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by

exercising influence within a patient-physician relationship

for the purposes of engaging a patient in sexual activity,

with regard to a patient known as T. H.; (2) Section

458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to practice

medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which

is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as

being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances,

with regard to a patient known as T. H.; (3) Section

458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by violating an express

prohibition against sexual misconduct stated in Section

458.329, Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B8-9.008, Florida

Administrative Code, in his actions with the patient known as

T. H.; and (4) Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by

failing to keep legible, as defined by department rule in

consultation with the board, medical records that identify the

licensed physician or the physician extender and supervising

physician by name and professional title who is or are

responsible for rendering, ordering, supervising, or billing

for each diagnostic or treatment procedure and that justify

the course of treatment of the patient, in that Respondent

failed to document any information to justify writing an

antibiotic prescription for patient T. H.

At the hearing, the Board presented the testimony of

Tammy Rachel, Daniel Alexander Reid, Manhurilma Das, Bruce

Anthony DeKraker, T. H., Rebecca Steponaitis, John Harvey,

Jr., M.D., Corey Rachel, Alicia Payne, Timothy Lee Harris, Joe

Lovering, Timothy Glen Ball, and Kim Norris. The Board’s

Exhibits 1 and 3-8 were admitted in evidence. The Board's

Exhibit 2 was rejected but was proffered by the Board. After

reviewing the Board's proffer, Exhibit 2 is rejected. The

Board's Exhibits 9 and 10 were rejected. Dr. Shah testified

in his own behalf but did not present any other witness.

Dr. Shah's Exhibit 1 was rejected. Dr. Shah's Exhibit 2 was

admitted in evidence. Sections 458.329 and 458.331, Florida

Statutes, and Rules 64B8-8.001 and 64B8-9.008, Florida

Administrative Code, were officially recognized. The Final

Orders and Recommended Orders in Department of Professional

Regulation v. William S. Piper, M.D. , DOAH Case No. 89-3670,

Department of Professional Regulation v. Archbold M. Jones,

Jr., M.D. , DOAH Case No. 90-3591, and Agency for Health Cadre

Administration v. Phillip William Lortz, M.D. , DOAH Case No.

96-0793 were officially recognized.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board requested

that the parties be given 35 days from the date of mailing the

Transcript to file their Proposed Recommended Orders. The

request was granted with the understanding that any time

constraint imposed under Rule 28-106.216(1), Florida

Administrative Code, was waived in accordance with Rule 28-

106.216(2), Florida Administrative Code. By a Motion to Abate

or in the Alternative, Extend Time for Filing Proposed

Recommended Order, the Board requested that the parties be

given an additional 45 days to submit their Proposed

Recommended Orders. However, this motion was subsequently

withdrawn. A four-volume Transcript was filed with the

Division on April 17, 2001. The parties timely filed their

respective Proposed Recommended Orders under the extended time

frame.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence

adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of

fact are made:

1. The Board is the agency charged with regulating the

practice of medicine in the State of Florida.

2. Dr. Shah is and, at all times material hereto, has

been licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida,

having been issued license number ME0071706. Dr. Shah is

board-certified in internal medicine.

3. Dr. Shah was born, and spent the first 29 years of

his life, in Pakistan. Dr. Shah is 35 years of age.

4. Dr. Shah began working at MidTown Clinic in

Zephyrhills, Florida, in October 1996, and continued to work

at MidTown Clinic until he was terminated in 1999.

5. Tammy Rachel (Tammy) worked as a certified nursing

assistant at MidTown Clinic from June 1996 until she was

terminated in March 1999. Tammy worked with Dr. Shah as his

Medical Assistant during Dr. Shah's tenure at MidTown Clinic.

6. At all times material to this proceeding, Tammy was

married to, and lived with, Corey Rachel, her husband.

Although T. H., Tammy's oldest daughter, age approximately 15

years, was at all times material hereto, living in the Rachel

household, her biological father was the custodial parent.

Tammy's two younger daughters also lived with their mother in

the Rachel household.

7. At all times material to this proceeding, Dr. Shah

did not have any family living in the United States. After

Tammy began working for Dr. Shah, she and Dr. Shah became

close friends. As a result, Tammy, along with her husband and

her daughters, including T. H., spent a great deal of time

with Dr. Shah. Tammy and her family treated Dr. Shah as if he

was a member of their family. Tammy and her family, including

her husband, spent almost every weekend with Dr. Shah at his

home or on outings with Dr. Shah. Dr. Shah visited Tammy's

home on week nights during this period of time. This

visitation, both weekend and week nights, between Dr. Shah and

Tammy's family occurred between December 1996 and August 1999.

8. Initially, the relationship between Dr. Shah and

Tammy was a working relationship. However, in February 1997,

Dr. Shah and Tammy began a sexual relationship which lasted

until March 1999. When confronted by Corey Rachel about her

relationship with Dr. Shah, Tammy denied having a sexual

relationship with Dr. Shah. In fact, Tammy did not tell Corey

Rachel of her sexual relationship with Dr. Shah until after

August 5, 1999.

9. During the period of time that Dr. Shah and Tammy's

family were visiting back and forth, Dr. Shah established a

close relationship with T. H., in that Dr. Shah: (a) gave more

attention to T. H. than the other girls; (b) spent more time

with T. H. than with the other girls; and (c) spent time alone

with T. H. when she cleaned his house and at other times at

the mall, etc. Tammy was aware of the relationship between

Dr. Shah and T. H. and that T. H. was alone with Dr. Shah on

occasions. However, there is no evidence that this

relationship was intimate or in any way sexual in nature,

notwithstanding the testimony of Tammy or Corey Rachel to the

contrary, which I find lacks any credibility in this regard.

10. A prescription in the name of T. H. with a date of

January 18, 1999, for 60 250-milligram tablets of

Erythromycin, an antibiotic, was presented to the Winn Dixie

Pharmacy by Corey Rachael. The prescription was filled on

January 20, 1999, and picked up by Corey and Tammy Rachel on

that same date. The prescription carried what appeared to be

the signature of Dr. Shah. However, Dr. Shah denies that he

ever prescribed Erythromycin for T. H. or that he wrote or

signed the prescription in question. Tammy gave the

medication to T. H., which T. H. used, including the refills,

for the acne on her face. However, it was T. H.'s testimony,

which I find to be credible, that Dr. Shah never discussed the

problem of acne with her, and did not prescribe Erythromycin

or any other medication to treat the acne on her face.

However, T. H. did discuss the acne problem with Tammy.

11. It was not unusual for Dr. Shah to carry

prescription pads home with him, which were then available to

those in his home. Likewise, it was not unusual for a Medical

Assistant, such as Tammy, to have access to Dr. Shah's

prescription pads at work. In fact, it was not unusual for a

Medical Assistant to fill in the necessary information on a

prescription for the doctor's signature.

12. The MidTown Clinic has no medical records or any

other records reflecting that Dr. Shah ever saw T. H. as a

patient. Likewise, Dr. Shah did not have any records

reflecting that he had ever treated T. H. as a patient or that

he had given T. H. a physical examination.

13. T. H. did not have a regular physician. When she

needed medical treatment, T. H. went to the Health Department

or Tammy would secure medical treatment for T. H. from

physicians with whom Tammy worked. Other than the allegation

concerning the acne problem, there is no allegation that Tammy

sought medical treatment for T. H. from Dr. Shah, or that

Dr. Shah saw T. H. as a patient.

14. An analysis by the Board's handwriting expert

indicates that the signature on the prescription in question

is consistent with the presumed , not known , signature of

Zafar Shah, M.D. on 20 other prescriptions taken from the Wal-

Mart Pharmacy in Zephyrhills, Florida. The Board offered no

evidence that the signatures on the 20 prescriptions from

Wal-Mart were in fact the signature of Zafar Shah, M.D., other

than the testimony of the pharmacist from Wal-Mart that the

signatures on those 20 prescriptions filled at Wal-Mart

appeared to him to be the signature of Zafar Shah, M.D.

Although the Board's handwriting expert was given the

opportunity to compare current samples of Dr. Shah's

signature, to be given by Dr. Shah prior to the hearing, with

the signature on the prescription in question, he chose not to

make this comparison. The Board's handwriting expert did not

compare the signature in question to any known signature of

Zafar Shah, M.D.

15. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to

show that Dr. Shah wrote the prescription in question,

notwithstanding the testimony of the Board's handwriting

expert to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility in this

regard. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to establish

facts to show that Dr. Shah ever treated T. H. for the acne on

her face or for any other medical problem or that a patient-

physician relationship ever existed between Dr. Shah and

T. H., notwithstanding the testimony of Tammy or Corey Rachel

to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility in this

regard.

16. On August 5, 1999, Dr. Shah had dinner with Tammy,

Corey Rachel, T. H., and Tammy's two younger daughters at the

Rachel's home in Dade City, Florida, as he had on many

previous occasions.

17. On August 5, 1999, Dr. Shah was to spend the night

in the Rachel's home, as he had on many previous occasions.

As usual, Dr. Shah was to sleep on an air mattress in the

living room.

18. Around 11:00 p.m. Tammy and Corey Rachel went to

bed. Sometime thereafter, T. H. went to her room to prepare

for bed and Dr. Shah proceeded to prepare for bed in the

living room on the air mattress.

19. Around 1:00 a.m. on August 6, 1999, Tammy testified

that she was awakened by what she thought was a noise and got

out of bed. After getting out of bed, Tammy checked on her

two younger daughters, and then checked on T. H. who was not

in her bedroom. Tammy then proceeded to look elsewhere in the

house for T. H.

20. Tammy also testified that when she walked into the

living room she observed T. H. and Dr. Shah having, what

appeared to her , to be sexual intercourse. Tammy became very

upset and began beating Dr. Shah on the back and calling Corey

Rachel. Dr. Shah attempted to protect himself from Tammy's

onslaught by gathering his belongings and leaving the house.

During the time Tammy was beating on Dr. Shah, she also

slapped T. H.'s face. Corey responded to Tammy and instructed

T. H. to go to her room. T. H. then went to her room. At this

time, T. H. still had on the long T-shirt and under pants,

which she had worn to bed. Likewise, Dr. Shaw had on the

clothing that he had worn to bed.

21. Tammy reported the incident to the Pasco County

Sheriff's Department. Deputy Timothy Harris and Sergeant

Rowan responded to the call by Tammy. Upon arrival at the

Rachel home, the officers spoke with Tammy, Corey Rachel, and

T. H. When T. H. was interviewed by Deputy Harris, she told

Deputy Harris that she and Dr. Shah had been engaged in sexual

intercourse at the time Tammy came into the living room. In

fact, T. H. related a very explicit account of the incident,

using language which was not in her normal vocabulary. T. H.

also provided a written statement of the incident to Deputy

Harris where she again admitted to having sex with Dr. Shah.

After providing the written statement, T. H. went home with

her father. T. H. was not under oath on either of these

occasions.

22. Deputy Harris inspected the scene of the incident

for physical evidence that sexual intercourse had taken place

between T. H. and Dr. Shah. Deputy Harris did not find any

physical evidence that sexual intercourse had occurred.

Deputy Harris also took some clothing that T. H. had been

wearing as evidence for the purpose of examining for evidence

of sexual intercourse. Upon examination, this clothing did

not yield any evidence of sexual intercourse.

23. Later in the morning of August 6, 1999, Detective

Ball went to the home of Timothy Harvey and interviewed T. H.

In this interview, T. H. again stated that she and Dr. Shah

were engaged in sexual intercourse earlier that morning at the

Rachel's home, and had, on previous occasions, had sexual

intercourse at the Rachel's residence and at Dr. Shah's

residence. She also related that she was in love with

Dr. Shah and that they were going to be married when she

turned 18 years of age. T. H. further related to Detective

Ball that Tammy was jealous of her relationship with Dr. Shah.

When Detective Ball requested that T. H. undergo a physical

examination to uncover possible evidence of sexual intercourse

between T. H. and Dr. Shah, T. H. refused to undergo the

physical examination. T. H.'s reason for not taking the

physical examination was that she loved Dr. Shah and any

evidence found would obviously be used against him.

24. Later, during the day of August 6, 1999, Tammy and

Dr. Shah agreed to meet at Brewmasters, a restaurant in Wesley

Chapel, halfway between Dr. Shah's house and Dade City,

Florida. This meeting was arranged by Tammy at the request of

the Pasco County Sheriff's office in an attempt to get

Dr. Shah to admit to having had sexual intercourse with T. H.

on August 6, 1999. Tammy was wired and the Detectives from

the Pasco County Sheriff's office attempted to monitor the

conversation. However, the monitoring was not too successful.

During this meeting between Dr. Shah and Tammy, which lasted

approximately 45 minutes, Dr. Shah repeatedly denied having

sexual intercourse with T. H.

25. At the conclusion of this meeting with Tammy, the

Detectives approached Dr. Shah and requested that he accompany

them to the County Jail. Although Dr. Shah was not officially

placed under arrest at this time, he was unsure of his rights

and felt intimated by the Detectives. The Detectives did not

offer Dr. Shah the opportunity to drive his vehicle to the

County Jail. Dr. Shah was transported to the County Jail by

the Detectives.

26. Once at the County Jail, the Detectives went through

their interrogation (interview) routine. Dr. Shah's

understanding was that the Detectives were giving him the

choice of admitting to having had consensual sexual

intercourse with T. H. or to having raped T. H. With that

understanding, Dr. Shah admitted to having had consensual

sexual intercourse with T. H. Dr. Shah was upset, confused

and intimidated by the Detectives. Dr. Shah gave the

Detectives the answers that he assumed they wanted. Upon

being advised of Miranda rights, Dr. Shah requested an

attorney and made no further statements.

27. On September 28, 1999, Detective Ball and Bill

Joseph, a Crime Scene Technician, went to the Rachel's home

with a Lumalite for the purpose of illuminating body fluids

that may have been left on the carpet or any other area as

result of the alleged sexual intercourse. No evidence of body

fluids was found.

28. Under oath, during the State Attorney's

investigation, T. H. recanted the story given in her written

statement on August 6, 1999, and the story given verbally to

Deputy Harris and Deputy Ball on August 6, 1999, and denied

that she and Dr. Shah were engaged in sexual intercourse at

the Rachel's home on August 6, 1999, when Tammy came into the

living room or at any time previous to August 6, 1999.

Subsequently, the State Attorney, on February 14, 2000, filed

a No Information concluding that the facts and circumstances

of this case did not warrant prosecution at that time.

29. Again, under oath at the hearing, T. H. recanted the

story given in her written statement on August 6, 1999, and

the story given verbally to Deputy Harris and Deputy Ball on

August 6, 1999, and denied that she and Dr. Shah were engaged

in sexual intercourse at the Rachel's home on August 6, 1999,

when Tammy came into the living room or at any other time.

However, T. H. admitted to having a sexual relationship with

two young males prior to August 1999.

30. T. H.'s reason for not telling the truth in her

recitation of the facts in her initial interview with Deputy

Harris or her written voluntary statement to Deputy Harris or

in her interview with Deputy Ball was that she was aware of

Tammy's involvement with Dr. Shah and was attempting to make

Tammy jealous because she was mad with Tammy due to their

fight the previous evening and because of other problems that

she was experiencing with Tammy. Additionally, T. H. had

overheard a conversation between Tammy and Dr. Shah wherein

Tammy was discussing divorcing Corey Rachel and marrying

Dr. Shah, which upset T. H.

31. T. H. testified that sometime after she and Dr. Shah

had gone to bed in their respective rooms, she went in the

living room to talk to Dr. Shah about the situation between

she and Tammy as she had on other occasions. During their

conversation, T. H. was sitting close to Dr. Shah. As their

conversation progressed, T. H. became emotional and Dr. Shah

"put his arm around her shoulder" to console her as he had on

other occasions when she would discuss problems between her

and Tammy. It was in this posture that Tammy found Dr. Shah

and T. H. at approximately 1:00 a.m. on August 6, 1999.

32. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to

show that T. H. and Dr. Shah were engaged in sexual

intercourse at the Rachel's home on August 6, 1999, or at any

time previous to that date, notwithstanding: (a) Tammy's

testimony to the contrary, which I find lacks credibility due

to her demeanor at the hearing and her involvement with Dr.

Shah; (b) T. H.'s admission that sexual intercourse had

occurred, which T. H. later recanted under oath, and which she

testified was only done for the purpose of making Tammy

jealous; and (c) Dr. Shah's admission, while being

interrogated, that consensual sex had occurred between he and

T. H., which he later recanted under oath at the hearing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

33. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

34. The burden of proof is on the party asserting the

affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal,

Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc. ,

396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Board has the burden

of proof in this proceeding. To meet its burden, the Board

must establish facts upon which its allegations are based by

clear and convincing evidence. Department of Banking and

Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection v.

Osborne Stern Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996) and Sections

120.57(1)(j) and 458.331(3), Florida Statutes (2000).

35. Sections 458.331(1)(j) ,(t), and (x), and (2)(b),(c),

(d), and (f), Florida Statutes, provide in pertinent part as

follows:

Grounds for disciplinary action; action by

the board and department .-

(1 ) The following acts shall constitute

grounds for which the disciplinary actions

specified in subsection (2) may be taken:

* * *

(j ) Exercising influence within a

patient- physician relationship for

purposes of engaging a patient in sexual

activity. A patient shall be presumed to

be incapable of giving free, full, and

informed consent to sexual activity with

his or her physician.

* * *

(m ) Failing to keep legible, as defined

by department rule in consultation with

the board, medical records that identify

the licensed physician or the physician

extender and supervising physician by name

and professional title who is or are

responsible for rendering, ordering,

supervising, or billing for each diagnostic

or treatment procedure and that justify the

course of treatment of the patient,

including, but not limited to, patient

histories; examination results; test

results; records of drugs prescribed,

dispensed, or administered; and

reports of consultations and

hospitalizations.

* * *

(t ) Gross or repeated malpractice or the

failure to practice medicine with that

level of care, skill, and treatment which

is recognized by a reasonable prudent

similar physician as being acceptable under

similar conditions and circumstances . . .

As used in this paragraph, . . . "the

failure to practice medicine with that

level of care, skill, and treatment which

is recognized by a reasonably prudent

similar physician as being acceptable under

similar conditions and circumstances" shall

not be construed so as to require more than

one instance, event, or act.

* * *

(x ) Violating any provision of this

chapter, a rule of the board or department,

or a lawful order of the board or

department previously entered in a

disciplinary

hearing . . . .

* * *

(2 ) When the board finds any person

guilty of any of the grounds set forth in

subsection (1), . . . it may enter an order

imposing one or more of the following

penalties:

* * *

(b ) Revocation or suspension of a

license.

(c ) Restriction of practice.

(d ) Imposition of an administrative fine

not to exceed $10,000 for each count or

separate offense.

(e ) Issuance of a reprimand.

(f ) 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, to attend continuing education

courses, to submit to reexamination, or to

work under the supervision of another

physician.

(Emphasis furnished.)

36. Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, provides as

follows:

Sexual misconduct in the practice of

medicine .-The physician-patient

relationship is founded on mutual trust.

Sexual misconduct in the practice of

medicine means violation of the physician-

patient relationship through which the

physician uses said relationship to induce

or attempt to induce the patient to engage,

or to engage or attempt to engage the

patient, in sexual activity outside the

scope of the practice or the scope of

generally accepted examination or treatment

of the patient. Sexual misconduct in the

practice of medicine is prohibited.

(Emphasis furnished.)

37. Rule 64B8-9.008, Florida Administrative

Code, provides in pertinent part as follows:

(1 ) Sexual contact with a patient is

sexual misconduct and is violation of

Sections 458.329 and 458.331(1)(j),

Florida Statutes.

(2 ) For purposes of this rule, sexual

misconduct between a physician and a

patient includes, but is not limited to;

(a ) Sexual behavior or involvement with

a patient including verbal or physical

behavior which

* * *

2. may reasonably be interpreted as

intended for the sexual arousal or

gratification of the physician, the patient

or any third party; or

3. may reasonably be interpreted by the

patient as being sexual. (Emphasis

furnished.)

38. The Board has failed to demonstrate by clear and

convincing evidence that Respondent is guilty of the

allegations contained in Counts 7-10 of the Administrative

Complaint filed herein:

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order

finding Dr. Shah not guilty of the charges outlined in Counts

7-10 of the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the

charges outlined in Counts 7-10 of the Administrative

Complaint.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2001, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

WILLIAM R. CAVE

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 [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 31st day of August, 2001.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert C. Byerts, Esquire

Agency for Health Care Administration

Post Office Box 14229

Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229

Jack D. Hoogewind, Esquire

33283 Cortez Boulevard

Dade City, Florida 33523

Tanya Williams, Executive Director

Board of Medicine

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701

William W. Large, General Counsel

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way

Bin A02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701

Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way

Bin A00

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit exceptions within 15 days

from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.