Florida Statute 459.025 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXII
REGULATION OF PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS

Chapter 459
OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINE

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 459.025

459.025 Formal supervisory relationships, standing orders, and established protocols; notice; standards.—

(1) NOTICE.—

(a) When an osteopathic physician enters into a formal supervisory relationship or standing orders with an emergency medical technician or paramedic licensed pursuant to s. 401.27, which relationship or orders contemplate the performance of medical acts, or when an osteopathic physician enters into an established protocol with an advanced practice registered nurse, which protocol contemplates the performance of medical acts or acts set forth in s. 464.012(3) and (4), the osteopathic physician shall submit notice to the board. The notice must contain a statement in substantially the following form:

I, (name and professional license number of osteopathic physician) , of (address of osteopathic physician) have hereby entered into a formal supervisory relationship, standing orders, or an established protocol with (number of persons) emergency medical technician(s), (number of persons) paramedic(s), or (number of persons) advanced practice registered nurse(s).

(b) Notice shall be filed within 30 days after entering into the relationship, orders, or protocol. Notice also shall be provided within 30 days after the osteopathic physician has terminated any such relationship, orders, or protocol.

(2) PROTOCOLS REQUIRING DIRECT SUPERVISION.—All protocols relating to electrolysis or electrology using laser or light-based hair removal or reduction by persons other than osteopathic physicians licensed under this chapter or chapter 458 shall require the person performing such service to be appropriately trained and to work only under the direct supervision and responsibility of an osteopathic physician licensed under this chapter or chapter 458.

(3) SUPERVISORY RELATIONSHIPS IN MEDICAL OFFICE SETTINGS.—An osteopathic physician who supervises an advanced practice registered nurse or physician assistant at a medical office other than the osteopathic physician’s primary practice location, where the advanced practice registered nurse or physician assistant is not under the onsite supervision of a supervising osteopathic physician, must comply with the standards set forth in this subsection. For the purpose of this subsection, an osteopathic physician’s “primary practice location” means the address reflected on the physician’s profile published pursuant to s. 456.041.

(a) An osteopathic physician who is engaged in providing primary health care services may not supervise more than four offices in addition to the osteopathic physician’s primary practice location. For the purpose of this subsection, “primary health care” means health care services that are commonly provided to patients without referral from another practitioner, including obstetrical and gynecological services, and excludes practices providing primarily dermatologic and skin care services, which include aesthetic skin care services.

(b) An osteopathic physician who is engaged in providing specialty health care services may not supervise more than two offices in addition to the osteopathic physician’s primary practice location. For the purpose of this subsection, “specialty health care” means health care services that are commonly provided to patients with a referral from another practitioner and excludes practices providing primarily dermatologic and skin care services, which include aesthetic skin care services.

(c) An osteopathic physician who supervises an advanced practice registered nurse or physician assistant at a medical office other than the osteopathic physician’s primary practice location, where the advanced practice registered nurse or physician assistant is not under the onsite supervision of a supervising osteopathic physician and the services offered at the office are primarily dermatologic or skin care services, which include aesthetic skin care services other than plastic surgery, must comply with the standards listed in subparagraphs 1.-4. Notwithstanding s. 459.022(4)(e)6., an osteopathic physician supervising a physician assistant pursuant to this paragraph may not be required to review and cosign charts or medical records prepared by such physician assistant.

1. The osteopathic physician shall submit to the Board of Osteopathic Medicine the addresses of all offices where he or she is supervising or has a protocol with an advanced practice registered nurse or a physician assistant which are not the osteopathic physician’s primary practice location.

2. The osteopathic physician must be board certified or board eligible in dermatology or plastic surgery as recognized by the Board of Osteopathic Medicine pursuant to s. 459.0152.

3. All such offices that are not the osteopathic physician’s primary place of practice must be within 25 miles of the osteopathic physician’s primary place of practice or in a county that is contiguous to the county of the osteopathic physician’s primary place of practice. However, the distance between any of the offices may not exceed 75 miles.

4. The osteopathic physician may supervise only one office other than the osteopathic physician’s primary place of practice.

(d) An osteopathic physician who supervises an office in addition to the osteopathic physician’s primary practice location must conspicuously post in each of the osteopathic physician’s offices a current schedule of the regular hours when the osteopathic physician is present in that office and the hours when the office is open while the osteopathic physician is not present.

(e) This subsection does not apply to health care services provided in facilities licensed under chapter 395 or in conjunction with a college of medicine or college of nursing or an accredited graduate medical or nursing education program; offices where the only service being performed is hair removal by an advanced practice registered nurse or physician assistant; not-for-profit, family-planning clinics that are not licensed pursuant to chapter 390; rural and federally qualified health centers; health care services provided in a nursing home licensed under part II of chapter 400, an assisted living facility licensed under part I of chapter 429, a continuing care facility licensed under chapter 651, or a retirement community consisting of independent living units and either a licensed nursing home or assisted living facility; anesthesia services provided in accordance with law; health care services provided in a designated rural health clinic; health care services provided to persons enrolled in a program designed to maintain elderly persons and persons with disabilities in a home or community-based setting; university primary care student health centers; school health clinics; or health care services provided in federal, state, or local government facilities.

(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR NOTICE AND REVIEW.—Upon initial referral of a patient by another practitioner, the osteopathic physician receiving the referral must ensure that the patient is informed of the type of license held by the osteopathic physician and the type of license held by any other practitioner who will be providing services to the patient. When scheduling the initial examination or consultation following such referral, the patient may decide to see the osteopathic physician or any other licensed practitioner supervised by the osteopathic physician and, before the initial examination or consultation, shall sign a form indicating the patient’s choice of practitioner. The supervising osteopathic physician must review the medical record of the initial examination or consultation and ensure that a written report of the initial examination or consultation is furnished to the referring practitioner within 10 business days following the completion of the initial examination or consultation.

(5) LIMITATION ON RULEMAKING.—This section is self-executing and does not require or provide authority for additional rulemaking.

History.—s. 7, ch. 2006-251; s. 114, ch. 2007-5; s. 8, ch. 2007-167; s. 8, ch. 2010-37; s. 4, ch. 2010-55; s. 4, ch. 2012-170; ss. 21, 26, ch. 2016-224; s. 54, ch. 2018-106; s. 82, ch. 2019-3.

F.S. 459.025 on Google Scholar

F.S. 459.025 on Casetext

Amendments to 459.025

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 459.025

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 459.025.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 459.025

Total Results: 20

Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-05-23

Citation: 159 So. 3d 126, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 8432, 2014 WL 2218972

Snippet: compensation for the resulting expense. Id. at 459, 25 S.Ct. 471. The Supreme Court had earlier determined

Kowalczyk v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1978-01-17

Citation: 354 So. 2d 417

Snippet: 186, 69 So. 701 (1915); Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 So. 63 (1898); Abbott v. State, 334 So.2d 642 (Fla

Price v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 1974-05-24

Citation: 295 So. 2d 338

Snippet: test of his competency." Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 So. 63 (1898). "Prospective jurors are examined

Singer v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1959-02-13

Citation: 109 So. 2d 7

Snippet: 203, 15 So. 925; Brown v. State, 1898, 40 Fla. 459, 25 So. 63; Melbourne v. State, 1906, 51 Fla. 69, 40

Hahn v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1952-04-15

Citation: 58 So. 2d 188, 1952 Fla. LEXIS 1147

Snippet: discretion of the trial Court. Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 So. 63; Bryant v. State, 117 Fla. 672, 158 So.

Roberson v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1939-04-11

Citation: 188 So. 127, 137 Fla. 526, 1939 Fla. LEXIS 1866

Snippet: Fla. 400, 83 So. 291; Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 So. 63. The question of the sanity of the defendant

Hall v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1939-03-14

Citation: 187 So. 392, 136 Fla. 644, 1939 Fla. LEXIS 1591

Snippet: 31 Fla. 340, 12 So. 689; Brown v. State,40 Fla. 459, 25 So. 63; as well as the Blackwell and Jeffcoat cases

Blackwell v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1931-02-26

Citation: 132 So. 468, 101 Fla. 997

Snippet: v. State, 17 Fla. 662; Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 So. 63; Melbourne v. State, 51 Fla. 69, 40 So.

Lamb v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1925-12-19

Citation: 107 So. 530, 90 Fla. 844

Snippet: 203, 15 South. Rep. 925, Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459,25 South. Rep. 63; Marlow v. State, 49 Fla. 7,38 South

Crosby v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1925-10-09

Citation: 106 So. 741, 90 Fla. 381

Snippet: of challenge for cause. Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459,25 South. Rep. 63. There was therefore no error in

Barker v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1917-10-12

Citation: 74 Fla. 95, 76 So. 676

Snippet: not been exercised. See Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 63; McCoggle v. State, 41 Fla; 525

Scott v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1912-06-15

Citation: 64 Fla. 490

Snippet: 618, 17 L. R. A. 484; Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 63; Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32

Charles v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1909-06-15

Citation: 58 Fla. 17

Snippet: 525, 26 South. Rep. 734; Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 63; Davis v. State, 44 Fla. 32, 32

Johnson v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1908-01-15

Citation: 55 Fla. 46

Snippet: be liberally exercised. Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 63; Ortiz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Crosby

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1907-01-15

Citation: 53 Fla. 400

Snippet: v. State, 17 Fla. 643; Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South Rep. 63; Roberson v. State, 40 Fla. 509,

Pittman v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1906-01-15

Citation: 51 Fla. 94

Snippet: 509, 24 South. Rep. 474; Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 453; McCoggle v. State, 41 Fla. 525

Melbourne v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1906-01-15

Citation: 51 Fla. 69

Snippet: challenges to them for cause. Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 63; Olive v. State, 34 Fla. 203, 15

Marlow v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1905-01-15

Citation: 49 Fla. 7

Snippet: was properly overruled. Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 63; English v. State, 31 Fla. 340,

Thomas v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1904-01-15

Citation: 47 Fla. 99

Snippet: Davis v. State, supra; Brown v. State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 63. This disposes of all the assignments

Bryan v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 1903-01-15

Citation: 45 Fla. 8

Snippet: appear to have been abused. Brown v State, 40 Fla. 459, 25 South. Rep. 63. There was evidence which, if believed