2002

q       February 20, Executive Director of the Board of Nursing Dan Coble signs declaratory statement which declares RN’s “may not perform hair removal procedures with a laser device unless the nurse is licensed pursuant to Chapter 478, Florida Statutes.”  (paragraph 10, below)

q       Additionally, Executive Director of Nursing Dan Coble went on record stating that ARNP’s were not allowed to operate hair removal lasers.  (below)

q       July 22, Florida licensed and certified electrologists have complied with the current rules and have successfully used lasers for hair removal for one (1) year.  The Electrolysis Council adopted new language (below) to change the rules which would allow our supervising physicians to decide which patients they should physically see, and delineate such in their protocol with the electrologist. 

64B8-56.002 (b) The written protocol shall include and require that the initial consultation with a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 458 or 459, Florida Statutes, provide approval to the electrologist for each patient seeking laser and light-based hair removal or reduction treatment each patient must include an examination and assessment by a physician licensed pursuant to chapter 458 or 459, Florida Statutes.  Such approval may be given by telephone, fax, email, or hard-copy.

q       August 2-3, full BOM agreed with the Electrolysis Council and unanimously approved the rule change above. 

q       November 15, Rules committee holds a workshop (again!) requested by FSD/FMA regarding the above rule change.  They have effectively learned how to request rules hearing in order to place everything on hold and keep electrologists under the hardship of requiring every consumer to pay a physician to clear them for treatment. 

o       BOM staff has failed to include the proposed rule change language in the agenda.  No one in the building has a copy of the proposed language, and the BOM staff state that they cannot obtain it. 

o       Our supervising physicians mailed in letters of support for the rule change.  Additionally, many other physicians wrote letters of support and over 300 Florida consumers signed pages expressing support of the change.  No one on the committee appeared to have read these letters in their agenda.  One letter was from Dr. Woods, former BOM member.   (below)

q       FMA representative Franci Plendl stated that they are outraged that electrologists are telling the Board what to do! 

q       Dr. Mark Nestor stated on the record, that electrologists are attempting to eliminate all physician supervision with this proposed rule change.  Review of this proposed language reveals that this of course is not true.  This statement could only be construed as an attempt to scare and mislead the Board. 

q       Dr. Mark Nestor stated on the record, that the rules that electrologists are currently working under, require a physician on site.  This is also incorrect and was intended to mislead the BOM. 

q       Dr. Mark Nestor stated on the record that electrologists have been granted a ‘special consideration’ to use lasers for hair removal.  This is an obvious attempt to mislead the board, since electrologists are allowed by statute to use lasers for hair removal. 

q       Dr. Nestor stated on record that he was aware of a case of skin damage to a woman with dark skin that was performed by a Florida electrologist who was operating a laser.  When asked to substantiate that allegation, he was unable to do so.  Dr. Nestor named a Florida city, but no such claim could be discovered.  Such unsupported claims again seem to be a clear intention to mislead the Board. 

q       Dr. Nestor informed a laser sales representative that he should leave this meeting immediately, or his company’s name would appear on a list that would be provided to the FSD.  The rep was told that he would not be allowed to attend future FSD meetings as a vendor if he supported electrologists in any way.  The rep immediately left in fear.

456.227  Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement.--

(1)  The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:

(a)  Making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of the licensee's profession.

(m)  Making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of a profession or employing a trick or scheme in or related to the practice of a profession. 

q       Based on misinformation and the absence of the language for the proposed rule change, our rule remained unchanged. Consumers, supervising physicians, and electrologists are grossly inconvenienced with unnecessary appointments and scheduling issues. The requests of our supervising physicians are ignored. 

CLICK HERE FOR TIMELINE PAGE 5