04-003494 Dr. Cleveland Williams vs. Department Of Health, Board Of Medicine Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, February 14, 2005.

Summary: Petitioner is not entitled to a license by endorsement based upon his history of disciplinary actions before medical boards in other jurisdictions and his failure to answer one question correctly on his Florida application.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DR. CLEVELAND WILLIAMS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 04 - 3494

)

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF )

MEDICINE, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORD ER

A formal hearing was conducted in this case on December 20,

2004, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Suzanne F. Hood,

Administrative Law Judge with the Division of Administrative

Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Dr. Cleveland Williams, pro s e

6134 Edsall Road, No. 203

Alexandria, Virginia 22304

For Respondent: Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as

a medical doctor.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 2, 2004, Respondent Department of Health, Board of

Medicine (Respondent) issu ed a Notice of Intent to Deny

Petitioner Dr. Cleveland Williams (Petitioner) a license to

practice medicine. Specifically, Respondent denied Petitioner a

medical license based on alleged violations of Sections

458.331(1)(b) and 458.331(1)(gg), Florida Sta tutes (2004).

On July 19, 2004, Petitioner filed a request for an

administrative hearing. Respondent referred the request to the

Division of Administrative Hearings on September 28, 2004.

In a Notice of Hearing dated October 8, 2004, the

undersigned scheduled the hearing for December 20, 2004.

On November 18, 2004, Respondent filed a Motion to

Continue. The undersigned entered an Order Denying Continuance

on November 23, 2004.

On December 2, 2004, Respondent filed a Motion to Deem

Admissions Adm itted. Petitioner did not file a response to the

motion, which was granted in an Order dated December 13, 2004.

During the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf.

He did not present the testimony of any other witness.

Petitioner's Exhibit No s. P1 - P13 were accepted into the record

as evidence.

Respondent presented the testimony of one witness.

Respondent's Exhibit Nos. R1 - R2 and R4 - R25 were accepted as

record evidence. The undersigned reserved ruling on the

admissibility of Respondent's Exh ibit No. R3, which is hereby

accepted as evidence.

On January 12, 2005, the court reporter filed a copy of the

hearing transcript.

On January 18, 2005, Petitioner filed a Proposed

Recommended Order.

On January 27, 2005, Respondent filed a Proposed

Recommended Order.

All references hereinafter shall be to Florida Statutes

(2004) unless otherwise specified.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner graduated from the University of Florida's

College of Medicine in 1977.

2. After medical school, Petition er served as a physician

in the United States Air Force. During his military service, a

patient named Petitioner as a defendant in a medical malpractice

suit. Petitioner was just one of many named defendants in the

suit, which was subsequently dismissed.

3. Petitioner was released from active duty in the Air

Force in April 1985. He received an honorable discharge on

January 5, 1993.

4. From 1985 through 1992, Petitioner had attending staff

privileges in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the

Washington Hospital Center, Washington, D.C. The Washington

Hospital Center did not require Petitioner to be board - certified

in obstetrics and gynecology in order to have staff privileges.

5. In January 1985, Petitioner applied for departmental

membership and medical staff privileges with the Department of

Obstetrics and Gynecology at Washington Adventist Hospital in

Tacoma Park, Maryland. Washington Adventist Hospital did not

grant staff privileges to doctors who were not board - certified.

6. Petitioner especially was interested in receiving staff

privileges at Washington Adventist Hospital because it is owned

and operated by his church. In the application for staff

privileges, Petitioner misrepresented his professional

credentials by stating that he had been certified as a Diplomat

by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

7. In February 1985, Petitioner made the same

misrepresentation regarding his professional credentials on

forms submitted to the Montgomery County Medical Soci ety in

Rockville, Maryland. Respondent has never been certified as a

Diplomat by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

8. At some point in time, Petitioner took the FLEX exam

and passed only the first part of it. Subsequently, Petitioner

too k the second part of the FLEX exam again and failed it for

the second time. Thereafter, Petitioner was required to retake

both parts of the FLEX exam, which he passed in its entirety.

9. In August 1985, Petitioner applied for a medical

license in Virg inia. After an evidentiary hearing in July 1986,

the Virginia Board of Medicine denied Petitioner a medical

license because his application included false information

regarding the number of times he had taken the FLEX exam.

Petitioner's application inco rrectly indicated that he had

passed the FLEX exam on his second attempt instead of his third

attempt.

10. When Petitioner filed an application to renew his

medical license in the District of Columbia, he did not disclose

that the Virginia Board of Med icine had denied him a license.

Thereafter, the District of Columbia's Board of Medicine gave

Petitioner notice that it intended to revoke his medical

license.

11. During a hearing on February 10, 1988, Petitioner

admitted that he had given false informa tion to District of

Columbia's Board of Medicine by not revealing the denial of

licensure in Virginia. During the hearing, Petitioner argued

that he had provided the false information due to a mental

problem.

12. In March 1988, Maryland's Board of Physi cians,

Commission on Medical Discipline, charged Petitioner with

violating the Medical Practice Act by misrepresenting his

professional credentials in applications for hospital staff

privileges and membership in a medical society. Following an

evidentiary hearing in May 1988, the Commission on Medical

Discipline and Petitioner agreed to change the charge to reflect

that Petitioner was professionally, physically, or mentally

incompetent.

13. A Final Consent Order dated June 21, 1988, suspended

Petitione r's medical license in Maryland for three years and 90

days, with a stay following the first 90 days of suspension, and

probation for the remaining period of time. The Final Consent

Order included the following terms and conditions:

(a) Petitioner had t o continue psychiatric treatment in

connection with a personality disorder; (b) Petitioner had to

file reports regarding his psychiatric treatment; (c)

Petitioner's medical practice was limited to ambulatory clinics

and private practice; and (d) the Maryla nd Medical Board would

perform peer reviews as deemed necessary.

14. At the time that Maryland entered the order suspending

his medical license, Petitioner was employed full - time by the

District of Columbia, Department of Human Services, in the

capacit y of a clinical obstetrician and gynecologist. He had a

private practice in the evenings, mainly in the District of

Columbia. He maintained an office in Maryland, seeing patients

one evening a week.

15. On February 7, 1990, District of Columbia's Board of

Medicine issued a Consent Order in regard to Petitioner's

failure to disclose the denial of licensure in Virginia. The

Consent Order placed Petitioner on probation for two years,

required him to continue psychiatric treatment for a personality

disorder , required the submission of all reports regarding his

psychiatric treatment, and required the submission of all

reports from all peer reviews.

16. In 1991, one of Petitioner's patients filed a pro se

medical malpractice suit against him in the Superio r Court of

Washington, D.C. In 1994, the suit was dismissed for lack of

prosecution. The claim was abolished in Petitioner's subsequent

personal bankruptcy proceeding.

17. In 1988, 1989, and 1990, a member of Maryland's

Medical and Chirurgical Facult y, Peer Review Management

Committee, appeared unannounced at Petitioner's Maryland office.

The peer reviewer requested Petitioner to select 25 files for

review.

18. In July 1991, after the 1990 peer review of

Petitioner's patient records, the Maryland Board of Physician

Quality Assurance charged Petitioner with violating the Maryland

Practice Act by inadequately documenting patients' charts in his

office.

19. In a letter dated August 14, 1991, Petitioner

voluntarily surrendered his Maryland medical license.

20. On March 27, 1992, District of Columbia's Department

of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Occupation and Professional

Licensing Administration, issued a Notice of Summary Action to

Suspend License. The notice alleged that the medical char ts of

Petitioner's patients, as described in the Maryland peer - review

report, showed a consistent pattern of inadequate documentation

and indicated that his conduct presented an imminent danger to

the health and safety of the residents of the District of

C olumbia. The notice also alleged that Petitioner had failed to

submit a copy of the Maryland peer - review report to the District

of Columbia Board of Medicine as required by the 1990 Consent

Order.

21. The District of Columbia licensing agency conducte d a

hearing on April 10, 1992. During that hearing, Petitioner

testified that the Maryland charts were incomplete because he

usually saw the patients in the District of Columbia where he

maintained a complete file for each patient.

22. On April 13, 19 92, the District of Columbia

Administrative Law Judge issued a Final Decision and Order on

Summary Action to Suspend License. The Order states that the

evidence supported a suspension of Petitioner's medical license,

but based on the needs of Petitioner's patients in the clinics

where he worked, the suspension was stayed pending further

review. Additionally, Petitioner was ordered to deliver the

complete patient files for each patient included in the 1990

Maryland peer - review process.

23. In June 1992 , Petitioner began attending law school at

the University of Nebraska's College of Law.

24. On September 30, 1992, Petitioner received a Master of

Public Health degree from George Washington University, in

Washington, D.C. He had been enrolled in the graduate program

since the Fall of 1989.

25. In October 1993, the District of Columbia Board of

Medicine issued an Order lifting the summary suspension imposed

in April 1992. The Order also terminated the probationary

period imposed by the 1990 Consent Order.

26. On October 21, 1994, the Nebraska Department of Health

denied Petitioner's application for licensure as a medical

doctor. The denial was based on the disciplinary action taken

against Petitioner's Maryland medical license.

27. Petitioner received his Juris Doctorate degree from

the University of Nebraska's College of Law in December 1994.

As of the date of the hearing in the instant case, Petitioner

had not taken a bar exam in any state.

28. On November 22, 1994, a hearing offic er for the

Nebraska Department of Health conducted a hearing. On

January 13, 1995, the Director of the Nebraska Department of

Health issued an Order granting Petitioner a medical license.

29. On February 7, 1995, the North Carolina Board of

Medical Exa miners issued a Consent Order granting Petitioner a

medical license. However, the license limited Petitioner's

practice to the Cumberland County Health Department.

30. On August 28, 1995, the North Carolina Medical Board

discontinued the February 1995 Co nsent Order.

31. On January 10, 1996, the North Carolina Medical Board

issued a second Consent Order, which allowed Petitioner to

practice without geographical limitations. It also required

Petitioner to receive written approval before changing practic e

sites in North Carolina.

32. On January 16, 1997, the North Carolina Medical Board

issued an Order. Said Order denied Petitioner's request to

terminate the written approval provision of the January 10,

1996, Consent Order.

33. From October 20, 1997 , to August 26, 2002, Petitioner

worked for the State of Nebraska as a physician for the Nebraska

Health and Human Services System at the Beatrice State

Developmental Center in Beatrice, Nebraska.

34. Petitioner's performance evaluation from October 20 ,

1997, to January 20, 1998, indicates that his performance was

more than satisfactory. From August 15, 2000, to December 15,

2000, and from December 15, 2000, to December 1, 2001,

Petitioner's performance either met or exceeded expectations.

35. In 2002, Petitioner and his supervisor at the Beatrice

State Developmental Center in Nebraska had a difference of

opinion regarding Petitioner's job responsibilities.

Petitioner's employment was suspended pending an investigation

in July 2002. Petitioner re signed his position at the Beatrice

State Developmental Center in August 2002.

36. On June 12, 2003, the Nebraska Board of Medicine and

Surgery issued a Letter of Concern. The letter related to the

following: (a) Petitioner's failure to disclose a prio r medical

malpractice suit when Petitioner applied for employment with the

Beatrice State Developmental Center; and (b) Petitioner's

failure to advise the licensing board that he had resigned his

position at Beatrice State Developmental Center. The letter ,

which did not constitute a disciplinary action, stated as

follows in relevant part:

In view of the history of discipline of your

medical licenses in other states for

misrepresentation of information on

applications, you are strongly encouraged to

caref ully review the accuracy of the answers

and information you provide on future

applications.

37. On September 4, 2003, Petitioner filed his application

for a medical license with Respondent.

38. On the application, Petitioner answered "no" to

Question No. 36, which states as follows:

Have you ever been notified to appear before

any licensing agency for a hearing on a

complaint of any nature including, but not

limited to, a charge or violation of the

Medical practice act, unprofessional or

unethical c onduct?

39. At one point during Petitioner's testimony, Petitioner

stated that, at the time he filed the application, he did not

believe he had ever violated the Medical Practice Act or that he

had ever engaged in any unethical or unprofessional condu ct. He

also stated that he believed he would appear personally before

Respondent to explain his situation and therefore, did not

contact Respondent's staff regarding Question No. 36. However,

Petitioner admitted that he would have answered the question

d ifferently today or would ask for an explanation of the

question.

40. At the time of the hearing in the instant case,

Petitioner was working for the District of Columbia as a Medical

Director for the Potomac Job Corps. He had been employed in

that pos ition for approximately five months.

41. Petitioner currently has an unrestricted license to

practice medicine in the District of Columbia and Nebraska. His

license in North Carolina is subject to the January 1996 Consent

Order. His medical license in Pennsylvania is in the second

year of a two - year period of probation.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

42. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57(1), an d

456.073(5), Florida Statutes.

43. It is the general rule in administrative proceedings

that applicants have the burden of presenting evidence of their

fitness for licensure. See Dept. of Banking and Finance v.

Osborne Stern Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fl a. 1996) quoting ,

Osborne Stern & Co. v. Dept. of Banking and Finance , 647 So. 2d

245, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)(Booth, J., concurring and

dissenting) and Florida Dept. of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co. ,

396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). An agency has "the burden

of presenting evidence that [an applicant] violated certain

statutes and [was] thus unfit for registration. " Osborne Stern

Co , 670 So. 2d at 934. Regardless of which party bears the

burden of presenting certain evidence, the applicant "bears the

b urden of ultimate persuasion at each and every step of the

licensure proceedings." Id. at 934.

44. Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes, states as

follows in pertinent part:

(1) The following acts constitute

grounds for denial of a license or

discipli nary action, as specified in s.

456.072(2):

* * *

(b) Having a license or the authority

to practice medicine revoked, suspended, or

otherwise acted against, including the

denial of licensure, by the licensing

authority of any jurisdiction, including its

agencies or subdivisions. The licensing

authority's acceptance of a physician's

relinquishment of a license, stipulation,

consent order, or other settlement, offered

in response to or in anticipation of the

filing of administrative charges against the

ph ysician's license, shall be construed as

action against the physician's license.

* * *

(gg) Misrepresenting or concealing a

material fact at any time during any phase

of a licensing or disciplinary process or

procedure.

45. Section 458.331(2), Flor ida Statutes, states as

follows in relevant part:

(2) The board may enter an order

denying licensure . . . against any

applicant for licensure or licensee who is

found guilty of violating any provision of

subsection (1) of this section or who is

found gui lty of violating any provision of

s. 456.072(1).

46. In this case, Petitioner failed to disclose material

facts when he answered Question No. 36 in the negative. For

example, Petitioner's answer did not disclose his license

suspension in 1988 in Maryl and, where the licensing authority

specifically found him guilty of violating Maryland's Medical

Practice Act. The disclosure of the Maryland disciplinary

proceeding in response to other questions does not excuse

Petitioner's failure to answer Question No . 36 correctly. The

greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner

violated Section 458.331(1)(gg), Florida Statutes.

47. Additionally, Petitioner admits that his medical

license has been the subject of disciplinary proceedings in

several state s, including Maryland, District of Columbia, North

Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Petitioner also admits that

Virginia denied his application for licensure. The multiple

disciplinary proceedings constitute grounds to deny Petitioner's

application for licens ure pursuant to Section 458.331(1)(b),

Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED:

That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's

application for a medical license.

DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2005, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUZANNE F. HOOD

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Fl orida 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 14th day of February, 2005.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire

Assistant Att orney General

The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1050

Dr. Cleveland Williams

6134 Edsall Road, No. 203

Alexandria, Virginia 22304

Larry McPherson, Executive Director

Board of Medicine

Department of Health

4052 Cypress Way

Tallahasse e, Florida 32399 - 1701

R. S. Power, Agency Clerk

Department of Health

4052 Cypress Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1701

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written 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.