17-005154 Department Of Business And Professional Regulation vs. Megan Mcmurran Lajara Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, January 31, 2018.

Summary: The Department established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent practiced veterinary medicine without a license, which warrants an administrative fine.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 5154

MEGAN MCMURRAN LAJARA,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this matter was conducted before

J. Bruce Culpepper, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings, pursuant to sections 120.569, and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2017), on November 28, 2017, by

video teleconference w ith sites in Tallahassee and Orlando,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Whitney Rebecca Hays, Esquire

Anthony Brian Coniglio, Esquire

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Megan Lajara , pro se

855 Franklin Street

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issue in this matter is wheth er Respondent practiced

veterinary medicine without a license; and, if so, what

disciplinary action is appropriate.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On January 25, 2017, Petitioner, Department of Busin ess and

Professional Regulation (the Ð DepartmentÑ), issued an

Admi nistrative Complaint, charging Respondent, Megan McMurran

Lajara, with practicing veterinary medicine without a license. 1 /

Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing to

dispute the Department Ó s allegations. On September 19, 2017, the

Departme nt referred this matter to the Division of Administrative

Hearings ( Ð DOAHÑ). The undersigned Administrative Law Judge

( Ð ALJÑ) was assigned to conduct a chapter 120 evidentiary

hearing.

The final hearing was held on November 28, 2017. At the

final hearing , the Department presented the testimony of

Elizabeth Henderson, Tony King, and Patricia Austin. The

Department also presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Scott

Richardson. 2 / Department Exhibits 1 through 5 were admitted into

evidence. Respondent te stified on her own behalf. Respondent Ó s

Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted into evidence.

A one - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed at

DOAH on December 27, 2017. At the close of the hearing, the

parties were advised of a ten - day timeframe after receipt of the

hearing transcript to file post - hearing submittals. Both parties

timely filed post - hearing submittals which were duly considered

in preparing this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Department is the state agency charged with

regul ating the practice of veterinary medicine in Florida. See

§ 20.165(4)(a)13 . and ch . 474, Fla. Stat . (2017) .

2. The Department brings this action alleging that

Respondent engaged in the unlicensed practice of veterinary

medicine in violation of section 4 74.213(1)(i) , Florida Statutes

(2015) . 3 / The Department specifically charges that Respondent,

who does not hold a license as a veterinarian, used certain

procedures to treat several horses , which constituted Ð veterinary

medicineÑ as the term is defined in section 474.202(9).

3. Respondent owns and operates Peak Performance Equine

Dentistry. Respondent is not, nor has she ever been, licensed as

a veterin arian in the S tate of Florida.

4. As part of her Ð equine dentistryÑ services, Respondent

Ð floatsÑ hors es Ó teeth. Ð FloatingÑ is the term used to describe

filing or grinding down horses Ó teeth to prevent overgrowth.

Unlike humans, horses Ó permanent teeth continue to grow

throughout their lifetime. (Hence, the origin of the phrase

Ð long in the tooth.Ñ) Be cause of the manner in which horses

chew, their teeth can develop sharp points and edges. Floating

is the process of filing down those points to balance out or

flatten the teeth. Floating helps horses masticate, as well as

prevents tooth problems.

5. Fl orida law specifically allows non - veterinarians to

manually float teeth, i.e. , with a hand - held file or rasp. See

§ 474.203(5)(b), Fla. Stat. However, only licensed

veterinarians, or persons immediately supervised by a

veterinarian, may float teeth usin g power tools. See

§ 474.203(7), Fla. Stat. Floating teeth by hand is a labor -

intensive and lengthy process. Using a power tool, on the other

hand, allows the practitioner more control over the filing

process, as well as reduces the time needed to trea t the teeth.

6. On February 15, 2016, Tony King contacted Respondent to

schedule an appointment for her to float the teeth of several of

his horses. Mr. King learned of Respondent Ó s services through

her advertisement for Ð equine dentistryÑ on the interne t.

7. On February 24, 2016, Respondent arrived at Mr. King Ó s

barn at approximately 10:00 a.m. Mr. King identified nine horses

whose teeth needed to be floated. Seven of the horses belonged

to Mr. King. The other two horses were boarding at his barn.

( None of the horses were owned by Respondent.)

8. After unloading her equipment, Respondent proceeded to

float the teeth of the first horse. She use d a hand file and

manually ground down the horse Ó s teeth.

9. After Respondent floated the teeth of the fi rst horse,

she moved onto the second horse. Again, Respondent used a file

and ground down the horse Ó s teeth by hand. However, Respondent

soon found that the second horse was more difficult to treat.

It became quite agitated as she worked on its teeth. Therefore,

Mr. King decided to place a Ð twitchÑ on the horse Ó s nose. A

Ð twitchÑ is a metal clamp that is strapped to the horse Ó s nose to

calm it down and keep it under control.

10. As Respondent continued floating, however, the horse

suddenly reared up on its hind legs. When the horse descended,

the twitch on its nose struck Mr. King on the left side of his

face. Mr. King was knocked to the ground. He instinctively

reached up to the wounded area. He felt that his eyeball had

popped out of its socket and was resting on his cheek. (The eye

was still attached to the optic nerve.) He impulsively shoved

his eyeball back into the socket.

11. When Mr. King gathered his wits, he quickly realized

that he needed medical attention. He urged Respondent to

con tinue working on the horses. Then, despite his blurred vision

in one eye, he drove himself to a nearby surgery center where his

wife was working. At the center, an eye doctor examined Mr. King

and determined that his eye and vision issues would

satisfact orily resolve themselves without treatment. (Mr. King

did receive several stitches for a small cut under his left eye.)

After his examination, Mr. King drove back to the barn returning

approximately three hours later.

12. At the barn, Mr. King was unset tled by what he found.

According to his (one) eye witness testimony, Respondent was

still working on the horses. However, in his absence, Mr. King

believed that Respondent had 1) used a power tool to float the

teeth of several horses, 2) administered a s edative to up to five

horses, and 3) was preparing to pull Ð wolfÑ teeth from several

horses.

a. The Use of a Power Tool

13. Regarding the use of a power tool, Mr. King testified

that after Respondent arrived at his barn, she unloaded several

pieces of e quipment from her car. In this equipment, Mr. King

observed power tools and a sedation bag.

14. Upon returning to the barn after his trip to the eye

center, Mr. King witnessed Respondent use an electric power tool

to float the teeth of his horse, Warrior . Mr. King described the

tool as having a motor and a head that Respondent applied to the

horse Ó s mouth. He also saw that the tool was plugged into a

power outlet in the barn.

b. Sedation

15. Floating teeth, especially with a power tool, often

include s sedating the horse. Sedation makes the horse more

docile and reduces the risk of harm during the treatment. Under

Florida law, administering medication and drugs is considered the

practice of veterinary medicine. See § 474.202(9), Fla. Stat.

An unlic ensed person may sedate a horse only if they are under

the immediate supervision of a licensed veterinarian. See

§ 474.203(7), Fla. Stat.

16. Mr. King testified that when he returned to the barn

from the eye center, Warrior appeared to be heavily seda ted. The

horse was having difficulty keeping his head up on the rest. His

ears were flat, and his nose hung down almost to the ground.

Mr. King further noticed that at least four other horses showed

signs of sedation in that they could not hold their h eads up

either. Mr. King also observed several plastic tubes or plungers

on the ground which he believed were used to administer a gel -

type sedative to the horses. Finally, Mr. King testified that

Respondent, in fact, told him that she had sedated the ho rses.

17. Mr. King further attested that he directly witnessed

Respondent administer a sedative to a paint mare. Mr. King

remarked that he saw Respondent holding a small syringe with a

needle. He then watched her poke the paint mare several times

with t he needle, searching for a vein, before she injected the

drug. Mr. King also relayed that Respondent commented that her

needles were too small, as her mother had purchased the wrong

size.

c. Removing Ð WolfÑ Teeth

18. A horse Ó s Ð wolfÑ teeth are deciduous premolars. (They

are similar to human wisdom teeth.) Wolf teeth often interfere

with the fit of a bit in a horse Ó s mouth. Therefore, wolf teeth

are frequently removed. Extracting wolf teeth, however, is not

considered part of floating a horse Ó s teeth. Instead, removing

wolf teeth is a surgical procedure due to the fact that pulling

teeth typically requires sedation, as well as the use of certain

medical equipment. As such, removing wolf teeth cannot be

performed by an unlicensed person, unless such p erson is under

the immediate supervision of a veterinarian. See §§ 474.202(13)

and 474.203(7), Fla. Stat.

19. Regarding Respondent Ó s removal of Ð wolfÑ teeth,

Mr. King testified that after he observed the gel tubes and the

syringe, Respondent informed hi m that several horses needed their

wolf teeth extracted. Mr. King watched as Respondent pull ed the

wolf teeth from three horses, including Warrior, Scout, and the

paint mare. Mr. King expressed that Respondent appeared to have

difficulty removing the wol f tooth from the paint mare, as it

took a long time.

20. Within days after Respondent Ó s visit to his barn,

Mr. King noticed that several horses were having trouble chewing.

Upon inspecting his horses, Mr. King found at least one tooth

that still had a p oint, and other teeth that were rounded ,

instead of filed flat. Shortly thereafter, Mr. King sought the

care of a veterinarian to fix the problems. Soon afterwards,

Mr. King complained to the Department about Respondent Ó s equine

dentistry services.

21 . Based on Mr. King Ó s complaint, the Department charged

Respondent with three counts of practicing veterinary medicine

without a license, including:

a. floating teeth using a power tool , instead of by hand ,

in violation of sections 455.227(1)(q), 474.213 (1)(i), and

474.202(13) , Florida Statutes ;

b. pulling Ð wolfÑ teeth in violation of

sections 455.227(1)(q), 474.213(1)(i), and 474.202(13); and

c. sedating at least one horse in violation of

sections 455.227(1)(q), 474.213(1)(i), and 474.202(9.

22. In response to the Department Ó s allegations, Respondent

flatly denied that she used a power tool to float the teeth of

Mr. King Ó s horses. Respondent testified that she floated all of

the horses by hand with a file. Respondent also refuted

Mr. King Ó s tes timony that she sedated any horses or pulled any

wolf teeth.

23. Respondent further denied that she has ever used power

tools in he r business. Neither has she ever sedated horses or

pulled their teeth. Respondent maintained that she floats teeth

exclu sively by hand and with hand tools.

24. Respondent also disputed key portions of Mr. King Ó s

account. Respondent testified that it was Mr. King who raised

the option of sedating his horses. Despite his suggestion,

Respondent contended that she refused to do so. Respondent

further insinuated that the metal object Mr. King observed in her

hand was a tool used to scrap tarter off of a horse Ó s teeth.

Finally, Respondent argued that she finished her floating

treatment on all nine horses before Mr. King ret urned to the barn

from the eye center. Therefore, he could not have watched her

use a power tool, pull teeth, or sedate horses.

25. Notwithstanding Respondent Ó s assertions, evidence

presented at the final hearing established that Respondent is

familiar with, and has received training in, the use of a power

tool to float horses Ó teeth. In May 2015, Respondent attended an

equine dentistry program in Virginia during which time she

received training on how to float horse Ó s teeth using both hand

and rotary p ower tools. Shortly thereafter, she started her

equine dentistry business in Florida. Several photographs of

Respondent using a power tool on a horse are posted on her

business Ó s Facebook page.

26. Respondent acknowledged that the use of power tools and

sedation, as well as the removal of wolf teeth, constitute the

practice of veterinary medicine in Florida. Therefore, she could

only perform these procedures and techniques under the immediate

supervision of a veterinarian.

27. Unrelated to the issue of Respondent Ó s use of a power

tool and sedation, Respondent and Mr. King disputed whether

Respondent received full payment for her equine dentistry

services.

28. Respondent testified that after she floated the nine

horses, she presented Mr. King with inv oices for her work. At

the final hearing, Respondent produced nine separate Equine

Dental Records detailing the amount she charged, as well as the

treatment she provided for each horse. Respondent testified that

it is her routine practice to complete an Equine Dental Record

while she works on a horse and provide a copy to the client.

29. Respondent relayed that her standard charge for

floating services is $75 per horse. The Equine Dental Records

that she produced record that she billed Mr. King $75 pe r horse

($675 total) and for no other treatment. Therefore, Respondent

asserts that her documents confirm that she only floated the nine

horses Ó teeth and did not pull wolf teeth or administer sedation.

30. Respondent also stated that Mr. King only had $ 500 in

cash when she presented him with the invoices. Therefore, he

told her that he would mail her a check for the remainder.

However, when she called Mr. King a week later to follow up on

his payment, he refused to pay the rest of the bill. Instead, h e

demanded that she pay him $500 to cover the medical cost of his

eye injury.

31. At the final hearing, Respondent declared that Mr. King

filed a false complaint against her in an effort to extort

payment from her for his medical expenses. Respondent al so

pointed out that the amount she charged, as recorded on the

Equine Dental Records she prepared, does not match the figure

Mr. King recalled he paid her. Therefore, his memory of the

event is not credible or reliable.

32. Mr. King remembered that Re spondent charged him around

$600 for the floating procedure. But, he asserted that she

charged him an additional amount for the sedation and the

extraction of the wolf teeth. Mr. King stated that he paid

Respondent the full amount of her services, in cas h, on the date

she treated his horses.

33. Mr. King denied that he ever received or saw the Equine

Dental Records Respondent produced at the final hearing.

Mr. King disputed Respondent Ó s claim that she supplied him with a

written bill, invoice, or rec eipt of any kind for her floating

services.

34. Mr. King further denied that he demanded Respondent pay

for his medical expenses. He represented that he owed nothing

for his hospital visit because his wife worked at the facility.

35. The Department int roduced the testimony of Patricia

Austin in rebuttal. 4/ Ms. Austin testified regarding a similar

floating service she received from Respondent on her horse.

Ms. Austin was acquainted with Respondent from boarding her horse

at a barn where Respondent too k lessons and occasionally cared

for horses.

36. Ms. Austin testified that in May 2016, she hired

Respondent to float the teeth of her horse, Sapphire. During the

procedure, Ms. Austin observed Respondent use a power tool to

file down Sapphire Ó s teeth. Ms. Austin described the power tool

as a long metal device with a grinder on the end. The tool was

equipped with a power cord and was plugged in during the

treatment.

37. Ms. Austin also witnessed Respondent sedate her horse.

Ms. Austin watched as Respo ndent injected Sapphire with a needle.

Following the injection, Ms. Austin relayed that Sapphire Ó s head

and ears began to droop, and she appeared sleepy.

38. Ms. Austin paid Respondent for her services in cash,

half at the time of treatment and the other half two weeks later.

Respondent did not provide Ms. Austin with an invoice or receipt.

Neither did Ms. Austin receive an Equine Dental Record from

Respondent documenting her work on Sapphire.

39. Respondent denied that she ever floated the teeth of

Sa pphire or any other horse for Ms. Austin. Instead, Respondent

asserts that she simply looked at Sapphire Ó s teeth and determined

that the horse did not need dental care.

40. The Department incurred $288.47 in investigative costs

associated with this matte r.

41. Based on the competent substantial evidence produced at

the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the

record establishes that Respondent engaged in the practice of

veterinary medicine without a license. Accordingly, the

Department me t its burden of proving that Respondent should be

disciplined for her unlicensed conduct.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to sections 120.5 69, 120.57(1), and

455.225(5) , Florida Statutes (2017) .

43 . The Department brings this disciplinary action to

sanction Respondent for her conduct on February 24, 2016 . The

Department alleges that Respondent practiced veterinary medicine

without a license in violation of section 474.213(1)(i) .

44 . Persons desiring to practice veterinary medicine in

Florida must obtain the appropriate professional license from the

state. See ch . 474, Fla. Stat. The Department has jurisdiction

over the unlicensed practi ce of veterinary medicine pursuant to

sections 455.227(2) and 455.228. Section 455.201(2) directs that

the Department shall regulate the professions and occupations so

designated when:

(a) Their unregulated practice can harm or

endanger the health, safet y, and welfare of

the public, and when the potential for such

harm is recognizable and clearly outweighs

any anticompetitive impact which may result

from regulation.

(b) The public is not effectively protected

by other means, including, but not limited

t o, other state statutes, local ordinances,

or federal legislation.

(c) Less restrictive means of regulation are

not available.

45 . Section 474.213(1)(i) states that no person shall:

Practice veterinary medicine in this state,

unless the person holds a valid, active

license to practice veterinary medicine

pursuant to this chapter.

46 . Section 474.202(9) defines the Ð practice of veterinary

medicineÑ to mean:

[D] iagnosing the medical condition of animals

and prescribing, dispensing, or administering

drug s, medicine, appliances, applications, or

treatment of whatever nature for the

prevention, cure, or relief of a wound,

fracture, bodily injury, or disease thereof.

47 . Section 474.202(13) defines Ð veterinary medicineÑ to

include:

[W] ith respect to animal s, surgery,

acupuncture, obstetrics, dentistry, physical

therapy, radiology, theriogenology, and other

branches or specialties of veterinary

medicine.

48 . Notwithstanding the above, section 474.203 carves out

several exemptions from chapter 474. Section 474.203(5)(b)

specifically directs that chapter 474 does not apply to:

[A] person hired on a part - time or temporary

basis, or as an independent contractor, by an

owner to provide farriery and manual hand

floating of teeth on equines . (emphasis

added) .

4 9 . The Department Ó s action to impose an administrative

sanction on Respondent is penal in nature. Accordingly, the

Department bears the burden of proving the grounds for

disciplinary action by clear and convincing evidence. Dep Ó t of

Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. & Investor Prot. v. Osborne Stern &

Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla. 1996); see also Fla. Dep Ó t of

Child. & Fams. v. Davis Fam. Day Care Home , 160 So. 3d 854, 856

(Fla. 2015).

50 . Clear and convincing evidence is a heightened standard

that requires more proof than a Ð preponderance of the evidence Ñ

but less than Ð beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt.Ñ

Clear and convincing evidence is defined as an intermediate burden

of proof that:

[R]equires that the evidence must be found to

be credib le; the facts to which the witnesses

testify must be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and explicit and the

witnesses must be lacking in confusion as to

the facts in issue. The evidence must be of

such weight that it produces in the min d of

the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction,

without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations sought to be established.

S. Fla. Water Mgmt. v. RLI Live Oak, LLC , 139 So. 3d 869, 872 - 73

(Fla. 2014)(quoting Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 8 00 (Fla.

4th DCA 1983)). Ð Although this standard of proof may be met where

the evidence is in conflict . . . it seems to preclude evidence

that is ambiguous.Ñ Westinghouse Elec . Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590

So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1991).

51 . Based on the co mpetent substantial evidence in the

record, the Department proved, by clear and convincing evidence,

that Respondent, on February 24, 2016 : 1) float ed the teeth of a

horse with a power tool (not by hand) ; 2) practiced dentistry on

several hor ses by pullin g their wolf teeth; and 3) administered a

drug to a horse. The testimony from the Department witnesses was

explicit, precise, and lacked in confusion. As mo re specifically

addressed below (even with only one good eye) , Mr. King Ó s

recollection of Responde nt Ó s conduct in his barn was clear and

unambiguous. Mr. King Ó s statement was supported by Ms. Austin who

relayed evidence of Respondent Ó s similar actions prior to her

conduct on February 24, 2016 .

a . Respondent Ó s Use of a Power Tool

52 . The clear and convincing evidence establishes that

Respondent used a power tool to float the teeth of a horse at

Mr. King Ó s barn. Mr. King unequivocally attested that he

observed Respondent float the teeth of his horse, Warrior, with a

power tool. Mr. King remembere d significant and substantial

details to support his narrative. Mr. King described the metal

implement Respondent used to float Warrior Ó s teeth. Mr. King

capably depicted the manner and method Respondent used to operate

the device. While testifying, Mr. King was not challenged or

questioned in a manner that caused the undersigned to doubt his

credibility or veracity.

53 . Florida law allowed Respondent to manually float the

teeth of the horses in Mr. King Ó s barn. The exemption under

section 474.203(5)(b ), however, did not extend to the use of

power tools. By using a power tool to float the teeth of

Warrior, Respondent dispensed Ð treatment of whatever nature for

the prevention, cure, or relief of . . . bodily injury.Ñ Such

conduct constitutes the Ð pract ice of veterinary medicineÑ as the

term is defined in section 474.202(9). Therefore, when

Respondent decided to switch from her hand file to a power tool

to float Warrior Ó s teeth (without immediate supervision), she

engaged in the practice of veterinary m edicine without the

required Florida license.

b . Removal of Wolf Teeth

54 . The clear and convincing evidence also establishes that

Respondent removed wolf teeth from several horses at Mr. King Ó s

barn. As with Respondent Ó s use of a power tool, Mr. King

emphatically declared that he witnessed Respondent pull wolf teeth

from three horses. Mr. King Ó s testimony included descriptive and

substantive details. Mr. King comprehensively described

Respondent Ó s actions, including the moment when he was distressed

at how vigorously Respondent worked at the paint mare Ó s wolf

tooth.

55 . Under section 474.202(13), veterinary medicine

specifically includes Ð dentistry.Ñ Extracting wolf teeth is

considered a surgical procedure. Therefore, when Respondent

pulled the wolf teeth from the horses in Mr. King Ó s barn, she

engaged in veterinary medicine within the definition of

section 474.202(9). Consequently, Respondent violated

section 474.213(1)(i) by practicing veterinary medicine (without

the necessary supervision) without the required license.

c . Administering Sedation

56 . Lastly, t he clear and convincing evidence establishes

that Respondent administered drugs (a sedative) to at least one

horse in Mr. King Ó s barn. Mr. King relayed how he watched

Respondent unload a Ð sedative bagÑ from her car. Later, after he

returned from the eye center, he noticed gel tubes/dispensers on

the ground. He also observed that his horses behaved as if

sedated. Subsequently, and most significantly, he personally

watched as Responden t injected a horse (the paint mare) with a

syringe prior to pulling the horse Ó s wolf tooth. Again, while

testifying, Mr. King did not exhibit a reason for the undersigned

to doubt his credibility or veracity.

57 . Section 474.202(9) specifically states th at the

Ð practice of veterinary medicineÑ includes Ð prescribing,

dispensing, or administering drugs, [or] medicine.Ñ The evidence

introduced at the final hearing demonstrates that Respondent

administered a sedative to a horse. Accordingly, by injecting a

horse with a drug (without immediate supervision), Respondent

engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine, without a license,

in violation of section 474.213(1)(i).

58 . Mr. King Ó s statement was corroborated by Ms. Austin Ó s

testimony reporting her prior encounter with Respondent. 5/

Ms. Austin described Respondent using the same plan and procedures

(floating teeth with a power tool and sedating her horse) and

operating with the same equipment (a metal device with a

grinder/file on the end and a syringe with a needle) that

Respondent employed in Mr. King Ó s barn. Ms. Austin Ó s testimony

not only supports Mr. King Ó s statement, thus strengthening his

credibility, but belies Respondent Ó s denial of the same.

5 9 . Conversely, while Respondent steadfastly deni ed that

she used a power tool, administered a drug, or extracted wolf

teeth, her uncorroborated testimony was not sufficiently

persuasive to create some Ð hesitancyÑ in finding that she

engaged in the Ð practice of veterinary medicineÑ as defined in

sectio n 474.202(9). Neither did Respondent Ó s denials overcome

Mr. King Ó s unwavering account of Respondent Ó s actions and

treatment of the horses in his barn on February 24, 201 6 .

6 0 . Consequently, the testimony and evidence presented at

the final hearing estab lishes, by clear and convincing evidence,

that Respondent, without the required veterinary license :

1) floated a horse Ó s teeth with a power tool ; 2) practiced

dentistry by pulling the wolf teeth of several horses ; and

3) administered a drug to at least o ne horse. Therefore, the

Department met its burden of proving that Respondent committed

three separate violations of section 474.213(1)(i) in that she

practiced veterina ry medicine without a license.

61 . Under section 455.227(1)(q), the Department is

aut horized to impose disciplinary sanctions for Ð [v]iolating any

provision of this chapter, [or] the applicable professional

practice act.Ñ

62 . Regarding available sanctions, section 455.227(2) states

that when the Department Ð finds any person guilty of the grounds

the applicable practice act, including conduct constituting a

substantial violation of subsection (1) or a violation of the

applicable practice act which occurred prior to obtaining a

license,Ñ it may enter an order imposing one or more of the

following penalties:

(a) Refusal to certify, or to certify with

restrictions, an application for a license.

(b) Suspension or permanent revocation of a

license.

(c) Restriction of practice.

(d) Imposition of an administrative fine not

to exceed $5,000 for each count or separate

offense.

(e) Issuance of a reprimand.

(f) Placement of the licensee on probation

for a period of time and subject to such

conditions as the board, or the departm ent

when there is no board, may specify. Those

conditions may include, but are not limited

to, requiring the licensee to undergo

treatment, attend continuing education

courses, submit to be reexamined, work under

the supervision of another licensee, or

sa tisfy any terms which are reasonably

tailored to the violations found.

(g) Corrective action.

6 3. Based on the evidence in the record, the undersigned

concludes that an administrative fine is the appropriate sanction

against Respondent.

64 . Pursuant t o rulemaking authority under section 455.2273,

disciplinary guidelines have been adopted to determine the

appropriate penalty the Department may impose. Florida

Administrative Code Rule 61G18 - 30.001 sets forth those

disciplinary guidelines. Rule 61G18 - 30 .001(1)(a) addresses

practicing veterinary medicine without holding an active license

and provides that:

In the case of a non - veterinarian practicing

veterinary medicine in the State of Florida

the board shall request that the

Department . . . impose an a dministrative fine

from three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) to

five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each

count.

65 . The facts in the record establish that Respondent

committed three instances of unlicensed activity. Accordingly,

the undersigned determ ines that a n administrative fine in the

amount of $9,000 ($3,000 for each violation) is appropriate under

the circumstances.

66 . In addition to an administrative fine, section

455.227(3)(a) states that the Department Ð may assess costs

related to the inves tigation and prosecution of the case

excluding costs associated with an attorney Ó s time.Ñ The

Department established that it expended $288.47 in its

investigation and prosecution of this matter. The undersigned

concludes that this cost should also be ass essed against

Respondent.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and

Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that

Respondent, Megan McMurran Lajara, viol ated section 474.213(1)(i)

and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $9,000 ($3,000

for each separate violation), as well as assess costs in the

amount of $288.47.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Flori da.

S

J. BRUCE CULPEPPER

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 3 1st day of January , 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

1 / On February 23, 2017, the Department issued an Amended

Administrative Complaint , which alleged an additional count of

unlicensed activity (p ulling wolf teeth) against Respondent.

2 / Dr. Richardson Ó s deposition was admitted into evidence as the

deposition of an expert witness under Fl orida Rule of Civ il

Pro cedures 1.330(a)(3)(F).

3 / Unless otherwise stated, all stat utory references are to t he

2015 codification of the Florida Statutes.

4 / Ms. Austin Ó s testimony is admitted under section 120.57(1)(d) ,

which states that:

[S] imilar fact evidence of other violations,

wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant

to prove a material fact in issu e, such as

proof of motive, opportunity, intent,

preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or

absence of mistake or accident, but it is

inadmissible when the evidence is relevant

solely to prove bad character or propensity.

Ms. Austin Ó s testimony is relevan t to Respondent Ó s

preparation, plan, and knowledge of the floating procedure she

used to treat horses. Evidence of Respondent Ó s prior treatment

of Ms. Austin Ó s horse is probative of Respondent Ó s Ð state of

mindÑ in that Respondent allegedly used the same Ð plan or

patternÑ to treat Mr. King Ó s horses. See also § 90.404(2)(a),

Fla. Stat. ; and O Ó Flaherty - Lewis v. State , 42 Fla. L. Weekly 2331

(4th Dist. Ct. App. 2017) ( citing Williams v. State , 110 So. 2d

654 (Fla. 1959) ) ( Ð The seminal case of Williams v. Stat e approved

the admission of other crimes to establish that, in committing

the charged crime, the defendant followed a Ò plan or pattern Ó

that he had used on other occasions.Ñ) .

5 / The Department did not charge Respondent with any m isconduct

in her treatme nt of Ms . Austin Ó s horse. Accordingly, this matter

and the discipline recommended only concerns Respondent Ó s actions

on February 24, 2016 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Whitney Rebecca Hays, Esquire

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

2601 Blair S tone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Megan Lajara

855 Franklin Street

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701

(eServed)

Anthony Brian Coniglio, Esquire

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Alison Parker, Deputy General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

Capital Commerce Center

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

(eServed)

Jason Maine, General Counse l

Department of Business

and Professional Regulation

Capital Commerce Center

2601 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 2202

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days f rom 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.