Florida Woman Faces Criminal Charges Of Practicing Without A License After Allegedly Disfiguring Patient

We have previously discussed the criminal and civil liability of those posing as doctors.  Alcalira Jimenez De Rodriguez, 56, follows a familiar pattern in doing cosmetic surgeries without a license. One of the criminal charges however is concerning.

A man claimed that he was disfigured by Jimenez De Rodriguez in a botched nose job.  Vincenzo Zurlo had a second rhinoplasty operation but it still was deformed so he asked for her license and insurance. She allegedly declined and was later arrested.

These cases often involve both criminal and tort cases. In negligence cases, the defendant is often subject to the standard of the profession to determine culpability. Thus, if you hold yourself out as a doctor, you are subject to the standard of a reasonable doctor.

What was striking however was the charge with practicing medicine without a license (which was later elevated to a second-degree felony because of the patient’s disfigurement).  She was charged with “resisting arrest without violence.” We have previously discussed that charge which is nebulous and problematic. In this case, the police say that Jimenez De Rodriguez tensed her arm and pulled away when she was being handcuffed.

Here is the provision:

843.02 Resisting officer without violence to his or her person.Whoever shall resist, obstruct, or oppose any officer as defined in s. 943.10(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), or (9); member of the Florida Commission on Offender Review or any administrative aide or supervisor employed by the commission; county probation officer; parole and probation supervisor; personnel or representative of the Department of Law Enforcement; or other person legally authorized to execute process in the execution of legal process or in the lawful execution of any legal duty, without offering or doing violence to the person of the officer, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Resisting or opposing without violence is incredibly vague and allows for prosecutors to stack on additional charges (which add pressure for defendants to accept plea agreements). What constitutes resisting can apparently be as little as tensing an arm or moving as restraints are being applied.  That creates a dangerously fluid and subjective basis for criminal charge, even a misdemeanor.

39 thoughts on “Florida Woman Faces Criminal Charges Of Practicing Without A License After Allegedly Disfiguring Patient”

  1. Well, this solves one mystery. I was wondering where Nancy Pelosi was going to during the COVID “epidemic” for her period botox and pull and tug treatments.

  2. The torts here are battery and fraud, not malpractice: the patient consented to surgery being performed by a licensed physician. This person was not a physician, much less a licensed one. Use of the title “MD”, meaning “medical doctor” is limited to those who hold a valid license to practice medicine.(ironically, if you graduate from a medical school and are awarded the degree of “medical doctor”, you cannot put “M.D.” after your name if you aren’t licensed; however, if one is a law school graduate, one can put “J.D.” after one’s name, which only means “juris doctor”, but you cannot refer to yourself as an attorney if you aren’t licensed). Holding oneself out as a licensed physician when one is not licensed is fraud–the consent to surgery was therefore procured by fraud, and therefore, there was no valid consent. Without valid consent, the operator’s conduct was a battery. Additionally, if a hospital or freestanding surgical center allowed this person to use their facilities without vetting the matter of licensure, that, too, would subject the hospital or surgical center to liability. A hospital cannot allow someone without a license to write physician’s orders or use its facilities to perform procedures without verifying that the person is at least licensed.

  3. G.Gordon Liddy used to say of overzealous prosecutors that they could “indict a ham sandwich with Mobry and intent to creep” if memory serves me right. Was hilarious , but true when he uttered that often as he did.

  4. This is a crazy law. How do I prove I didn’t tense my arm? How does the cop prove I did?
    Criminal charges that can have no observable trace of harm are custom-made for tyranny.

    1. “How do I prove I didn’t tense my arm?”

      That’s easy.

      You use a flux capacitor to return to the precise moment under dispute. Then you use an arm wrench to measure limb tension — making sure that the arm wrench has been “calibrated by top members of the state and federal Departments of Weights and Measures, to be dead-on balls accurate.”

    2. A cop’s word is all that a cop needs and the law will prefer it over the suspects denial.

  5. You can’t have patience without a licence. A patient is a different matter.
    Doctors Without Patience is an organization in the USSR which rules the waves.

  6. “Resisting or opposing without violence is incredibly vague”

    Vague laws are dangerous for they provide the State with power over the individual where the individual has been lawful. I wonder what incident was being addressed by that law. The history of the law could tell us what we should avoid in the future.

    The Chauvin case is demonstrating how emotions and lack of knowledge dominate our legal system. We need to consolidate our laws and remove the vagueness.

    1. Vague laws like that are no accident. The criminal system wasn’t designed to function for all citizens. It would be impossible. This law could never stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. But it serves the purpose of making plea bargains. The huge majority of cases are disposed of by plea deals in which prosecutors trade away charges like these. That’s their only purpose. And the system allows this because that way everybody looks like they got a benefit from it. All you have to give up is due process, truth and justice.

    2. Persons defending Chauvin, who pressed his knee (since officially banned by all or most PD) against the deceased’s neck for almost 10 minutes, even after his co-worker suggested to stop: “Who you gonna believe; me or your lying eyes?”

      If I’m on that jury and the legal door opens with any sliver of daylight justifying murder, I’d convict that callous POS Chauvin, hope he gets the stiffest penalty and sleep like a baby that night.

      If you’re callous and a LEO, quit before you kill someone like Chauvin did.

      1. “Persons defending Chauvin, who pressed his knee (since officially banned by all or most PD) against the deceased’s neck for almost 10 minutes, even after his co-worker suggested to stop: “Who you gonna believe; me or your lying eyes?””

        Have your guardian help you write back if you find out Chauvin was working for one of those other police departments or if the manual says he did something wrong.

  7. This is an excellent law precisely because it provides authority with discretion to stack charges.

    Authority needs discretion and plenty of it. This is why the laws against certain mind altering chemicals are so valuable. Using mind altering chemicals is normal human behaviour. Make a law against normal human behaviour and then there are so many potential crimes that no justice system can afford to prosecute more than a few of them. This allows investigators to concentrate enforcement in areas where they already know that there is a greater concentration of criminals like the high crime areas where poor Blacks and Hispanics live. Police prefer to observe criminals so as to catch them doing crime rather than waiting for evidence of crime to occur and then determining who committed it.

    The drug laws in the US are the main tool of ethnic hygiene maintenance to remedy the ethnic hygiene problem created by that most egregious case of human rights overreach wokeness and political correctness the abolition of the valuable system of Black slavery.

    Once the Blacks were freed they became a criminal underclass that must be controlled to prevent uppity behaviour such as upward social mobility. Social mobility is a zero sum game so if one person moves up somewhere else another moves down.

    Humans use drugs for many reasons and different people use for different reasons. Some use because the drug because it gives a nice feeling which is not a great problem for them unless the law gets involved, others use because the reality of life as a member of a hopeless underclass means that there undrugged state of mind is beyond bearing and this is called addiction which also inevitably involves the law. Of course people in the underclass use drugs more selfmedicating with them as antidepressants but the main effect of the laws is to allow army of occupation policing to pipeline brown people into prison at a great rate and in prison they are prevented from accumulating assets and after release they are banned as felons from voting and from certain professions on the basis their bad character and relegated to poverty wage McJobs.

    Advocates of drug law reform propose harm minimization but supporters of law and order advocate the process of harm maximization by the very effective policy of prohibition.

  8. Once we see several charges covering one incident, we ought to have our antenna up.

    Prosecutors are given a huge amount of both power and discretion. When we see vague charges, it is often “stacking “.

    Once you are arrested, you lose your reputation and start suffering (just ask anybody subjected to a person walk if they feel the “presumption of innocence”?).

    Plan on spending the night in jail (or the weekend if the prosecutor is trying to soften you up).

    Bail? Not automatic, but unless you are wealthy, you need to use a bail bondsman – 10% of your bail gone in fees.

    Then you hire a lawyer. $25,000 retainer.

    Still feeling the presumption of innocence?

    This is a pretty law/order crowd, but think about Michael Flynn and recognize that a prosecutor can destroy our lives before the jury convicts.

    1. Uh, Michael Flynn DID LIE to the FBI. Pro-Trump media can beat the drum all day long trying to portray him as a victim, but HE DID LIE to the FBI. If he hadn’t, he wouldn’t have been charged. It’s as simple as that, so if anyone destroyed Flynn’s life, it was Flynn.

      1. Natacha, the FBI created what is known as a “perjury trap” for Flynn.

        The exact language from the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the charges against Flynn:

        “The Government is not persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue. Moreover, we do not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.”

        And you claim to be a lawyer?! You’re no lawyer.

        “Pro-Trump media”

        You just can’t give up your Donald obsession. Just admit that you can’t live without him, Natacha.

        Admitting your problem is the 1st step towards recovery.

        1. The government had previously stated that there was a legitimate investigative basis for interviewing Flynn and that Flynn’s statements were material. The government never explained its own conflicting statements about this.

        2. There is no such thing as a “perjury trap”: no one can “trap” someone into lying. This is a Fox News talking point. Bear in mind that the Trump-controlled DOJ issued the quotation above from the motion to dismiss, but nothing contained in the motion changes the simple fact that Flynn is a liar. The “materiality” of the lie doesn’t render it NOT a lie.

          1. ah we see again that you may have gone to law school but seem not to have practiced much law

            ….if you think a person can’t be tricked into lying.

            here’s a classic. sal sar

Leave a Reply