concurring:
Dr. Tinner has been licensed to practice medicine for twenty years in New York, for *839eighteen years in New Jersey, and for six years in Maryland. It appears to be undisputed that he has an unblemished record as a physician. Under these circumstances, I do not see how it can significantly affect his qualifications for the practice of medicine in the District that, when he passed the FLEX in New Hampshire twenty-one years ago, he did so in two sittings instead of one. I suspect that, for no persuasive reason, patients in the District are being deprived of the services of an experienced doctor, and that Dr. Tinner is unfairly being denied the opportunity to practice in the District.
Counsel for the Board insists that the Board “was entitled to enforce its FLEX requirements strictly.” Assuming that this is so, I believe that in this case, the exercise of a little flexibility with regard to the FLEX would have served justice and common sense.
I raised most of these issues, however, in my dissenting opinion in Roberts v. District of Columbia Bd. of Medicine, 577 A.2d 319 (D.C.1990). My colleagues in the majority were not persuaded. I do not believe that the present case can fairly be distinguished from Roberts1 with respect to the questions which divided the court in that case. Accordingly, I concur in the judgment of the court.
. I note, however, that following our remand, Dr. Roberts was admitted to practice in the District.