15-005528PL Department Of Health, Board Of Medicine vs. Edwardo Williams, M.D. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, March 4, 2016.

Summary: Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed sexual misconduct with three patients, and pled nolo to a battery charge related to the practice. Recommend revocation.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,

BOARD OF MEDICINE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 15 - 5528PL

EDWARDO WILLIAMS, M.D.,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On December 1 4 and 15, 2015, Administrative Law Judge Lisa

Shearer Nelson of the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH

or the Division) conducted a duly - noticed hearing in

Tallahassee, Florida , pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (2015) .

APPEARANCES

F or Petitioner: Louise Wilhite - St Laurent, Esquire

Jack F. Wise, Esquire

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Phillip Timothy Howard, Esquire

Howard & Associates, P.A.

2120 Killarney Way , Suite 125

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated

section s 456.072(1)(v) , Florida Statutes (2012 - 2013), and

458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes ( 2014) , as alleged in the Second

Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should

be imposed for his conduct.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 26, 2015, Petitioner, Department of Health (DOH or

the Department) , filed a four - count Second Amended

Admi nistrative Complaint against Respondent, Edwardo Williams,

M.D., alleging that Respondent committed sexual misconduct with

respect to three patients, M.M., S.D.H., and B.G., and pled nolo

contendere to a crime directly relating to the practice or the

abili ty to practice medicine. On August 4, 2015, Respondent

disputed the allegations in the Second Amended Administrative

Complaint and requested a hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1 ) .

On October 1, 2015, the matter was referred to the Division for

the assi gnment of an administrative law judge.

The hearing in this cas e wa s scheduled for December 14

and 15, 2015, and proceeded as scheduled. On December 8, 2015,

Petitioner filed a Motion in Limine to e xclude the expert

testimony of Respondent, because he was not identified as an

expert during the course of discovery and the Department did not

have notice of his intent to appear as an expert witness at the

time of his deposition. After a telephone hearing on the motion

on December 10 , 2015, PetitionerÓs motion was denied. However,

by Order dated that same day, Respondent was directed to provide

to Petitioner no later than 5:00 p.m. that day all documents

upon which Respondent intended to rely in his deposition

scheduled for the following day. The Order also i ndicated that

the record for the hearing would be left open in order to allow

the Department to depose an expert witness with respect to any

expert testimony presented by Respondent and to file any such

deposition testimony following the hearing, if necess ary.

Ultimately, the issue became moot because at hearing, the

undersigned declined to qualify Respondent as an expert . While

Respondent was seeking to provide expert testimony in gynecology

and the reactions of patients receiving controlled substances

f or chronic pain, he is not board certified in gynecology, pain

management , or the treatment of addiction. He could not name a

continuing medical education class that he had attended

addressing the issues abo ut which he would speak, and named no

particular journal or treatise that assisted him in forming his

opinions.

On December 4, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Prehearing

Stipulation in accordance with the Order of Pre - hearing

Instructions. The Joint Prehearing Statement contained

stipulated facts tha t, where relevant, have been incorporated

into the Findings of Fact. At hearing, Petitioner presented the

testimony of patient S.D.H. and David Liebert, M.D., and

PetitionerÓs Exhibits 1 through 10 were admitted into evidence .

Those exhibits included the deposition testimony of M.M., B.G.,

and Respondent. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8 - 8.001 was

also officially recognized at PetitionerÓs request. Respondent

testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of

Carrie Jenkins, Savannah White, Lourdes Mosely, patient M.W.,

a nd Kimberly Austin. No exhibits for Respondent were admitted

into evidence.

The three - volume Transcript of the proceedings was filed

with the Division on January 4, 2016. At RespondentÓs request,

the deadline for submitt ing proposed recommended orders was

extended to January 15, 2016. Petitioner filed its Proposed

Recommended Order on January 15, and Respondent filed his

Proposed Recom mended Order on January 18, 2016. No prejudice

resulted from the late filing of Respon dentÓs Proposed

Recommended Order, and both submissions have been considered in

the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Department is the state agency charged with

regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43

and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. The Board of

Medicine is the professional licensing board charged with final

agency action with respect to physicians licensed pursuant to

chapter 458.

2. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent

has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida, and holds

license number ME 50948.

3. Respondent worked as a family practitioner at the

Capital Regional Medical Southwood O ffice (Southwood) in

Tallahassee, Florida, from sometime in 2010 to Februar y 2014.

Patient M.M.

4 . From August 2011 through February 2014, Respondent

provided medical care to patient M.M. During a portion of that

time , Lourdes Mosely was a physician assistant at South w ood.

Ms. Mosely also treated M.M. until Ms. MoselyÓs depa rture from

the practice in July 2013.

5 . Respondent treated M.M. for chronic pain related to her

back and hip, as well as other issues. She had back surgery in

1999 and had pain related to her back since that time.

Dr. Williams prescribed controlled sub stances for her chronic

pain, which required that she be seen every four weeks. When

seen by Ms. Mosely, M.M. also reported gynecological issues ,

including painful intercourse . However, she did not discuss

those issues with Respondent.

6. M.M. initially saw Dr. Williams w hen she came to

Southwood for treatment, but did not feel especially comfortable

with him, so preferred to see Ms . Mosely. She did so until

Ms. Mosely left the practice, at which time she returned to

seeing Dr. Williams.

7. M.M. saw Dr . Williams ap proximately six times after

Ms. Mosely left the practice. During one of the initial visits

following Ms. MoselyÓs departure, M.M. testified that Respondent

acted inappropriately in that Respondent suggested to M.M. that ,

in order to address h er pain with intercourse, she watch an

adult video and insert her fingers into her vagina. M.M.

testified that he also suggested that M.M.Ós husband could

participate and that M.M. could perform oral sex on her husband

and allow him to ejaculate into her mouth. She also testified

that during a different visit , Dr. Williams suggested that she

hang a strap apparatus from the ceiling to elevate her legs

during sexual intercourse. Both the suggestions about

masturbation and oral sex and the suggestion regard ing the strap

apparatus were unsolicited and were not given in response to any

questions about painful intercourse, as this was a subject M.M.

did not discuss with Dr. Williams.

8. M.M. continued to see Dr. Williams because Tallahassee

does not have a sig nificant supply of pain management

physicians, and she needed medications for her chronic pain.

However, she started having her mother , who was also

Dr. WilliamsÓ patient, acc ompany her on her visits to

Dr. Williams, and her mother attended all but one of her

remaining visits. At some of the visits when her mother

accompanied her, toward the end of the visit, Dr. Williams would

direct M.M.Ós mother to step out of the room. It was after she

left the examining room that he would make comments M.M. felt

wer e out of line.

9. At one other visit toward the end of M.M.Ós

appointments at Southwood, M.M. testified that as she was

preparing to leave the examining room, Dr. William slapped her

on the buttocks and suggested that she ÐtwerkÑ for him.

10 . M.M. co nsidered all of RespondentÓs actions described

above to be humiliating, inappropriate , and unprofessional, and

felt that Respondent had crossed a line with her. She called

the receptionist and complained about RespondentÓs conduct, and

testified that Ms. Jenkins, the medical office coordinator , told

her that Dr. Williams was a chauvinist and Ms. Jenkins could not

really say anything to him. While M.M. could not recall when

she called Ms. Jenkins, Ms. Jenkins testified that s he received

a complaint from M. M. after Dr. Williams left the practice in

February 2014.

1 1 . Respondent admits that the conduct, if it occurred,

would constitute sexual misconduct. He denies that it occurred,

however. Instead, he contends that M.M. is not to be believed

because her m emory of the incidents is not clear and because her

claim is based somehow on a desire to get revenge against him

for not continuing to prescribe pain management medications.

1 2 . T he undersigned finds M.M.Ós account of the incidents

in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint to be

sufficiently clear to support the ultimate finding that

Respondent committed the conduct about which she complains. It

is true that M.M. could not identify the specific dates upon

which the incidents occurred , and she candid ly admitted that she

could not recall the specific dates . However, her testimony was

clear and consistent about what happened, and the time - frame in

which it happened. She visited the office once monthly because

of her pain management medications, and Ms . M osely left the

practice in July 2013. She was equally clear that the first

incidence of inappropriate conduct occurred in one of the first

visits following Ms. MoselyÓs departure, and that she had her

mother accompany her after that point to reduce the possibility

of the opportunity for such comments. Moreo ver, RespondentÓs

claim that M.M. somehow made up t hese allegations because

Dr. Williams would no longer be prescr ibing pain management

medications , something M.M. adamantly denied, is simply not

cre dible.

13. While M.M. had complained to the office manager, she

did not complain directly to the Department of Health. Rather,

she was contacted by a Department of Health investigator in

April 2014, a few months after Dr. Williams was no longer at

Sout hwood. Had M.M. fabricated the story as Dr. Williams

claims, it would have made more sense for her to have acted on

the complaint independently, as opposed to simply responding to

an inquiry by the Department.

14. Dr. WilliamsÓ actions with respect to M. M. violated

the trust that a patient places in his or her physician and

co nstitute sexual activity outside of the scope of the

professional practice of medicine.

Patient B.G.

1 5 . Between approximat ely September 2012 and

February 2014, patient B.G. was tre ated at the Southwood office.

She was, like M.M., treated by Ms. Mosely until Ms. MoselyÓs

departure . She was treated at Southwood for a variety of

medical conditions which included treatment for chronic pain

after a knee replacement surgery that was uns uccessful, and for

a herniated disc. At the time of the events in question, B.G.

was approximately 63 years old.

1 6 . B.G. saw Dr. Williams, as opposed to Ms. Mosely, i n

June 2013. At this visit, B.G. testified that when Dr. Williams

came to the examinin g room, he told her that he thought he would

see an older woman, and that she looked younger than he

expected. He then asked her about her sex life, which stunned

her. B.G. replied that he r husband was older, but that their

sex life was fine. Respondent then told her that she needed a

Ðsugar daddy,Ñ and he would be willing to fill that role for

her. B.G. understood this comment to have a sexual connotation,

and replied that she had never cheated on her husband and did

not intend to do so.

1 7 . B.G. al so testified that Dr. Williams referenced an

adult website titled adamandeve.com f or purchasing sex toys.

Dr. Williams Ó remarks to B.G. were unsolicited and no t

associated with any medical problem for which B.G. was

consulting with him. She felt his comm ents were out of line.

She did have to return to the Southwood office and see

Respondent after the incident because of some serious health

conditions she suffered subsequent to the June 2013 visit.

However, the incident caused her to lose confidence in

R espondent and she began to look for another primary care

physician. She also no longer wishes to have a male physician

because she no longer feels comfortable doing so.

1 8 . Respondent admits that the conduct, if it occurred,

would constitute sexual misco nduct. As with M.M., Dr. Williams

believes that B.G. was motivated to make up this story because

she was no longer able to obtain pain management medications

from him. Dr. WilliamsÓ claim is not credible. 1/ Since B.G.

stopped seeing Dr. Williams, her ne w primary care physician has

reduced the amount of pain medication she takes to approximately

half of what she was taking when Dr. Williams prescribed

controlled substances to her.

19. Dr. WilliamsÓ actions with respect to B.G. violated

the trust that a p atient places in his or her physician and

constitute sexual activity outside of the scope of the

professional practice of medicine.

Patient S.D.H.

20 . Patient S.D.H. was treated at Southwood for a variety

of conditions from approximately May 2011 through J anuary 2014.

Her husband, B.H., was also a patient of Dr. Williams. Both

S.D.H. and B.H. were treated for chronic pain and both were

prescribed narcotics. S.D.H. , who is Caucasian, did not see

Dr. Williams for gynecological issues.

21 . Normally, S.D.H. Ó s husband would c om e with her when

she came in for her doctor appointments with Respondent.

However, in or about November or December 2013, S.D.H. testified

that there was one visit where her husband did not accompany

her . S.D.H.Ós medical records indic ate that she had

appointment s with Dr. Williams o n December 4, 2013, and

January 3, 2014. 2/

2 2 . According to S.D.H., a t the relevant appointment,

Dr. Williams commented on her appearance, telling her that she

used to be a Ðfine little thing Ñ when she firs t became his

patient, making smacking noises with his mouth. S.D.H.

testified that he went on to tell her that she was trying to

change herself to Ðplease a man,Ñ comments which S.D.H.

understood to refer to her prior breast augmentation , her weight

gain, and her marriage to her husband.

2 3 . S.D.H. testified that Respondent asked her whether she

had ever been with a black man, and if she knew what Ð they said

about black men , Ñ and gyrated his hips in a thrusting manner.

S.D.H. believed this question and accompanying physical movement

was an allusion to RespondentÓs male ana tomy.

2 4 . S.D.H. became visibly upset and asked Respondent what

these comments had to do with her. She was also shaken during

the testimony at hearing, which was visibly difficult fo r her.

Respondent told her the conversation was just between the two of

them as physician - patient, and that he would hate to see her

husbandÓs care suffer should there be a misunderstanding about

the conversation. Respondent again remarked about her brea sts

and reached over, placed his hands underneath her breasts and

lifted them upward. S.D.H. did not give Respondent permission

to touch her in this manner, and she was sickened and frightened

by his actions. S .D.H. grabbed her patient check out sheet and

left the room.

2 5 . S.D.H. reported the incident to the office

coordinator , and while there is some dispute as to when she

reported the behavior, it is undisputed that she in fact did so.

2 6 . Respondent admits that the conduct, if it occurred,

would constitute sexual misconduct. Respondent denied that the

events occurred and tried to undermine S.D.H.Ós testimony in

several ways. First, S.D.H. testified that after this encounter

she did not see Dr. Williams for care again. There are medical

records for S.D.H. for January 3, 2014, and January 30, 2014.

However, the medical record for January 3, 2014, is not

electronic ally signed until April 28, 2014, long after

Dr. Williams left the practice. It is plausible that January 3,

2014, is the date that th e incident occurred. The note for

January 30, 2014 , is a telephone encounter as opposed to an

office visit. In any event, her testimony is clear, concise,

consistent, and credited.

2 7 . Respondent also suggested that S.D.H.Ós complaint is

motivated by a failed drug test in connection with her

controlled substances monitoring contract. S.D.H. testified

that in an effort to no longer take controlled substances, both

she and her husband went to the Leon County Treatment Center and

began methadone treatment. Records for S.D.H. from the Leon

County Treatment Center notifying the Southwood office of this

treatment are in her medical records. She no longer takes

controlled substances. Likewise, RespondentÓs suggestion that

S.D.H. made up the story in anger ov er treatment decisions made

with respect to her husband is rejected as not credible.

28. Dr. WilliamsÓ actions with respect to S.D.H. violated

the trust that a patient places in his or her physician and

constitute sexual activity outside of the scope of t he

professional practice of medicine.

RespondentÓs nolo plea

2 9 . S.D.H. reported the incident to Carrie Jenkins soon

after it happened, but did not immediately report it to anyone

else. A few months later, she received a telephone call from an

investigat or with the Department of Health inquiring about her

contacts with Dr. Williams. After Ða lot of praying and soul -

seeking,Ñ S.D.H. filed a complaint with the Leon County

SheriffÓs Office. Based upon her complaint, Dr. Williams was

charged with the first - degree misdemeanor of battery on July 24,

2014.

30 . Respondent turned himself in on July 29, 2014, and on

March 19, 2015, he entered a plea of nolo contender e to the

battery charge in State v. Williams , Case No. 2014 - MM - 221441 (2d

Jud. Cir. in and for L eon C nty . ). As a result, adjudication was

withheld, and Respondent was sentenced to 12 monthsÓ probation,

310 hours of community service, and no contact with S.D.H.

31 . Respondent denied that the incident with S.D.H.

occurred. However, Respondent did no t present any evidence to

explain the circumstances related to the plea.

32 . The plea of battery clearly related to the incident

taking place in RespondentÓs medical office during the context

of an office visit. As such, the plea is clearly directly

rela ted to the practice or the ability to practice medicine.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3 3 . DOAH has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the

parties to this action pursuant to sections 120.569 and

120.57(1).

3 4 . This is a proceeding whereby the Department seeks to

revoke RespondentÓs license to practice medicine. The

Department has the burden to prove the allegations in the Second

Amended Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing

evidence. Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern and Co. ,

670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 595 So. 2d 292

(Fla. 1987). As stated by the Supreme Court of Florida,

Clear and convincing evidence requires that

the evidence must be found to be credible;

the facts to which the witnesses testify

must be distinctly r emembered; the

testimony must be precise and lacking in

confusion as to the facts at issue. The

evidence must be of such a weight that it

produces in the mind of the trier of fact a

firm belief or conviction, without

hesitancy, as to the truth of the

alle gations sought to be established.

In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) (quoting

Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1983)).

This burden of proof may be met where the evidence is in

conflict; however, Ðit seems to preclude evid ence that is

ambiguous.Ñ Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590 So.

2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1991).

3 5 . Counts I through III of the Second Amended

Administrative Complaint charge Respondent with violating

section 456.072(1)(v) , b y engaging in sex ual misconduct as

defined and prohibited in section 456. 063(1) . Count IV charges

Respondent with violating section 458.331(1)(c). The 2013

codification of the statutory references provide s in pertinent

part:

456.063 Sexual misconduct; disqualification for

license, certificate, or registration. Ï

(1) Sexual misconduct in the practice of a

health care profession means violation of

the professional relationship through which

the health care practitioner uses such

relat ionship to engage or attempt to engage

the patient or client, or an immediate

family member, guardian, or representative

of the patient or client in, or to induce

or attempt to induce such person to engage

in, verbal or physical sexual activity

outside the scope of the professional

practice of such health care profession.

Sexual misconduct in the practice of a

health care profession is prohibited.

456.072 Grounds for discipline; penalties;

enforcement. Ï

(1) The following acts shall constitute

grounds for which the disciplinary actions

specified in subsection (2) may be taken:

* * *

(v) Engaging or attempting to engage in

sexual misconduct as defined an d prohibited

in s. 456.063 (1).

458.331 Grounds for disciplinary action;

action by the board and department. Ï

(1 ) The following acts constitute grounds

for denial of a license or disciplinary

action, as specified in s. 456.0 72 (2):

* * *

(c) Being convicted or found guilty of, or

entering a plea of nolo contendere to,

regardless of adjudication, a crime in any

jurisdiction which directly relates to the

practice of medicine or to the ability to

practice medicine.

3 6 . Co unt I charges Respondent with violating section

456.072(1)(v) as defined in section 456.063(1), by touching

and/or slapping M.M.Ós buttocks in a manner that constitutes

engaging and /or attempting to engage M.M. in physical sexual

activity outside the scope of the professional practice of

medicine ; engaging or attempting to engage M.M. in verbal sexual

activity by discussing sex acts and/or masturbation with M.M.

outside the scope of the professional practice of medicine; and

inducing and /or attempting to in duce M.M. to engage in physical

sexual activity outside the scope of the professional practice

of medicine by directing M.M. to Ðtwerk.Ñ

37. The Department has established the violation charged

in Count I by clear and convincing evidence.

38. Count II c harges Respondent wi th the same statutory

violation as Count I , but with respect to S.D.H., by touching,

grabbing, and/or shaking S.D.H.Ós breasts in a manner that

constitutes engaging and/or attempting to engage S.D.H. in

physical sexual activity outside the scope of the professional

practice of medicine , and engaging and/or attempting to engage

S.D.H. in verbal sexual activity by making sexually suggestive

remarks to S.D.H. outside the scope of the professional practice

of medicine.

39. The Department ha s established the violation charged

in Count II by clear and convincing evidence.

40. Count III charges Respondent with the same statutory

violation as Count I , but with respect to B.G., by engaging

and/or attempting to engage B.G. in verbal sexual activ ity by

discussing sex and/or sex toys with B.G. outside the scope of

the professional practice of medicine, and inducing or

attempting to induce B.G. to engage in physical activity outside

the scope of the professional practice of medicine by offering

to s erve as B.G.Ós Ðsugar daddy.Ñ

41. The Department has established the violation charged

in Count III by clear and convincing evidence.

42. Count IV of the Second Amended Administrative

Complaint charges Respondent with violating section

458.331(1)(c), b y being convicted or found guilty of, or

entering a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of

adjudication, a crime in any jurisdiction which directly relates

to the practice of medicine or the ability to practice medicine.

43. In this case, Respondent p led nolo contendere to the

crime of battery, which the evidence established occurred in an

examining room during the course of treatment of a patient. In

Ayala v. Department of Professional Regulation , 478 So. 2d 1118 ,

1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), the First District considered a prior

iteration of section 458.331(1)(c), and held that the Board of

Medicine could consider t he nolo contender e plea as evidence of

a conviction for purposes of chapter 458, but that the

R espondent could assert his or her innocence o f the underlying

charges by explaining the reasons and circumstances surround ing

the plea. The current language of section 458.331(1)(c) is now

in line with the language interpreted in McNair v. Criminal

Justice Standards and Training Commission , 518 So. 2d 390, 391

(Fla. 1st DCA 1987), in which the same court observed that Ðthe

plea itself creates noncompliance.Ñ

44. Respondent did not present any evidence to explain the

circumstance of his plea, but disputed the underlying factual

basis of the charge. However, as detailed in the Findings of

Fact, RespondentÓs claim that he did not commit the acts leading

to the criminal charge is rejected. The Department has

established the violation charged in Count IV by clear and

convincing evidence.

45. The Boa rd of Medicine has adopted Disciplinary

Guidelines to place licensees and members of the public on

notice of the range of penalties normally imposed for violations

of chapters 456 and 458, as well as the rules adopted pursuant

thereto. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B8 - 8.001. For a violation of

section 456.092(1)(v), the guideline penalty as it existed in

2013 and 2014 , when these violations took place, is from one

year suspension, followed by a period of probation and a

reprimand , and an administrative fine of $5 ,000, to revocation

or denial of licensure and an administrative fine of $10,000.

For a violation of section 458.331(1)(c), the guideline penalty

is from probation to revocation and a fine ranging from $1,000

to $10,000, to revocation or denial of licensu re and a fine of

$10,000.

46. In this case, Respondent has been found guilty of four

separate violations, all of which include revocation as a

possible minimum penalty.

47. The undersigned is mindful that Respondent has a long

and distinguished caree r in a difficult field. There were

several witnesses who testified positively of the kindness and

professionalism Respondent has exhibited. However, in each of

the three instances at issue, the confidence of the patient s was

irretrievably broken, to the point that each patient now has

concerns about seeing a male health care provider. Respondent

abused a confidential relationship in a manner that cannot be

countenanced.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine issue

a final order finding that Respondent violated sections

456.072(1)(v) and 458.331(1)(c) as alleged in Counts I through

IV of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. It is

fur ther recommended that t he Board revoke RespondentÓs license

to practice medicine; impose an administrative fine in the

amount of $15,000, and impose costs of investigation and

prosecution.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March , 2016 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LISA SHEARER NELSON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 4th day of March , 2016.

ENDNOTE S

1/ Not only is the claim not credible, but it makes little sense

to the undersigned. The patients all testified that they were

unhappy that they would be re quired to seek a pain management

doctor, simply because there are not many such specialists in

the area. However, making up a complaint such as the ones at

issue in this proceeding, would not make getting their

medications any easier. Moreover, in each c ase, while the

patient s complained to staff about Dr. WilliamsÓ behavior, they

did not initiate the complaint against Dr. Williams with the

Department.

2/ S.D.H. was not absolutely sure o f the dates , but remembered

that there were holiday decorations in the office when this

incident occurred. It is possible, given that detail, that the

visit could have been either December 4, 2013, or January 3,

2014, immediately after the holidays.

COPIES FURNISH ED:

Louise Wilhite - St Laurent, Esquire

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Jack F. Wise, Esquire

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Phillip Ti mothy Howard, Esquire

Howard & Associates, P.A.

2120 Killarney Way , Suite 125

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

(eServed)

Michael Jovane Williams, Esquire

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Andre Ourso, Executive Director

Board of Medicine

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C - 03

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3253

(eServed)

Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A - 02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1701

(eServed)

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.