Re: Had enough
Morris Gallo
Description
Collection
Title:
Re: Had enough
Creator:
Morris Gallo
Date:
9/22/2000
Text:
Charlie
You never cease to amaze. Do you try to be on the wrong side of every
issue?
This post is full of mis-information.
Two applicants under the grandfather provisions appealed the Board's
denial of license based on them not having worked in Florida for the
requisite length of time. Two District Courts of Appeals have upheld
the
Board's decision. Apparently the judges forgot to consult with you on
whether the grandfather provisions were okay.
The Board's former counsel gave the Board advise on the effects of
pursuing the appeals and the results if the applicant prevailed. A good
attorney gives you all the possibilities and effects of winning or
losing. Even if the applicants would prevail, their win would not
overturn the law. The issue is very narrow in focus and impacts only
two or three individuals so the license law would remain in force.
As to the intent of the grandfather provisions, it was not to keep
anyone from obtaining a license, but rather to help practitioners
working in Florida to achieve license and retain their livelihood.
License law requires a certain level of education, training, and
experience. A special provision in all new license law provides for
existing practitioners to attain license, even if they don't meet some
of the new requirements. In Florida, the law allowed existing
practitioners to be licensed if they could show they had worked in
Florida for a specified time prior to licensure's implementation and
they had passed the appropriate examinations. This meant that
practitioners not meeting the new educational requirements could still
achieve licensure and not be in jeopardy of losing their livelihood.
Since Florida Law impacts only Florida practitioners it is
only fair that the special exemption be limited to those having
practiced in Florida who were going to be acutely impacted. I believe
there are several residents of Georgia and Alabama who were licensed
under the grandfather provisions because they had been working in
Florida even though they lived in another state.
Morris
Charles Barocas,C.O. wrote:
> Justin
> Its going to get worse. There are two lawsuits against the new law on
> constitutional grounds. The Boards own lawyer (now former Board's lawyer)
> has said she thinks they will succeed (good chance) in overturning the
> law. There was a 5 year retroactive provision in the law. It said you
> had to be practicing in the State of Florida for 5 years before
> grandfathering was allowed. Can't do that. You can say 5 years of
> practice, but not 5 years of Practice in the State of Florida. I guess they
> wanted to keep out those pesky Orthotists from Georgia and New York who
> moved down here in the great Interstate 95 immigration saga.
> >
> Charles Barocas, C.O.,
>
>
You never cease to amaze. Do you try to be on the wrong side of every
issue?
This post is full of mis-information.
Two applicants under the grandfather provisions appealed the Board's
denial of license based on them not having worked in Florida for the
requisite length of time. Two District Courts of Appeals have upheld
the
Board's decision. Apparently the judges forgot to consult with you on
whether the grandfather provisions were okay.
The Board's former counsel gave the Board advise on the effects of
pursuing the appeals and the results if the applicant prevailed. A good
attorney gives you all the possibilities and effects of winning or
losing. Even if the applicants would prevail, their win would not
overturn the law. The issue is very narrow in focus and impacts only
two or three individuals so the license law would remain in force.
As to the intent of the grandfather provisions, it was not to keep
anyone from obtaining a license, but rather to help practitioners
working in Florida to achieve license and retain their livelihood.
License law requires a certain level of education, training, and
experience. A special provision in all new license law provides for
existing practitioners to attain license, even if they don't meet some
of the new requirements. In Florida, the law allowed existing
practitioners to be licensed if they could show they had worked in
Florida for a specified time prior to licensure's implementation and
they had passed the appropriate examinations. This meant that
practitioners not meeting the new educational requirements could still
achieve licensure and not be in jeopardy of losing their livelihood.
Since Florida Law impacts only Florida practitioners it is
only fair that the special exemption be limited to those having
practiced in Florida who were going to be acutely impacted. I believe
there are several residents of Georgia and Alabama who were licensed
under the grandfather provisions because they had been working in
Florida even though they lived in another state.
Morris
Charles Barocas,C.O. wrote:
> Justin
> Its going to get worse. There are two lawsuits against the new law on
> constitutional grounds. The Boards own lawyer (now former Board's lawyer)
> has said she thinks they will succeed (good chance) in overturning the
> law. There was a 5 year retroactive provision in the law. It said you
> had to be practicing in the State of Florida for 5 years before
> grandfathering was allowed. Can't do that. You can say 5 years of
> practice, but not 5 years of Practice in the State of Florida. I guess they
> wanted to keep out those pesky Orthotists from Georgia and New York who
> moved down here in the great Interstate 95 immigration saga.
> >
> Charles Barocas, C.O.,
>
>
Citation
Morris Gallo, “Re: Had enough,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 14, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/214939.
