STATE OF FLORIDA : DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS | SE a eR teat a ~ DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, L. Petitioner ve te CASE NO. 1999-59310 ; DAVID GOLDSBERRY, M.D., Respondent. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE COMES NOW the undersigned and files this Notice of Appearance as counsel of’: record for Petitioner thereby notifying this Administrative Law Judge’that the undersigned: will be representing the Petitioner In the above-styled proceeding, TThé undersignéd further requests that he be copied with all papers and pleadings fled in these Proceedings. © 8-27 OIE 7a Date irley J, Whitsitt, Fla. Bar. No. 0040525 , Attorney for Petitioner 2727 Mahan Dr., Mailstop 39-A Tallahassee, FL 32308 Tel: (850) 488-6367 686T pir ase “WIITCAW WIA YOHY 82:ST c@G2-L2-YoW eee 6861 yLYOS8 = :CISO a}owey 686L Ly OSE -4epuag gL :sebed Wd 12: sOulL CO/LZ/E 797eQ (pepsssong jUdAg) JUaAW paaiovoy CoE! _STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH oe, CASE NUMBER 1999-59310 DAVID TODD GOLDSBERRY, M.D,, RESPONDENT. Ne ee ee ee ee INE | COMES NOW the Petitioner, Department of Health, hereljafter raferred to as: “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint bcfore the Board of Medicine oanst , David Goldsberry, M.D., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent,” and alleges: 1, Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged witty £ ‘ regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Rorida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to the provisions of | - Séttion 20.43(3), Florida Statutes, the Petitioner has contracted ‘with the Agency’ for Health) Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, Investigative, abd’. prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Aur, council bosids, 2s appropriate. 2. Respondent Is and has been at all times material hereto a Wcanael ¥ physidian in the state of Florida, having been Issued license rum. ME oos2723 ' 4 on Pad 686T plp ass WOIdSW WIA WYDHY 8e:STt c@Gc-22-YuW ———_ SSS 6861 Vly O0S8 = ‘CISD sjowey 6861 Ly OSE depusg SL :soBed Wd 12:€ soul, ZO/LZIE :03eq (papaasong juan) juaag paaresay Respondent is board certified in Surgery and Surgery Critical Care. 4. On or about May 18, 1999, Patient DC had a surveillance colonoscopy-(a Procedure that uses a scope to look at the colon), at Columbia South Bay Hospital: {because of a history of colonic polyps (small non-cancerous masses in the colon}.' Patient DC's primary care physician scheduled the colonoscopy. A 4, cm. sessiié (attached by a broad base) mass was found approximately 12 cm. from the anal verge: (inher exige of the rectum) and was photo documented. The pathology report from the’ - golonescopy Tevealed a tubular adenoma. 5. On or about May 26, 1999, an alr contrast barium enema (B.E.) was Colonescopy. The B.E. was interpreted as showing Irregular filling defects in the cecu ' (where'large and small bowel meet, approximately three feet from the anal verge). : 6. Onor about June 1, 1999, Patient DC was seen for an office evaluationiby « Respondent. Patient DC gave the B.E. results to Respondent, who lookad at the repoit and retumed the x-rays to Patient DC.’ Respondent noted that a large cecal mass’ mass-found in the area where the large and smail Intestine meet) had-béen found.ori. the colonoscopy of May 18, 1999. A rectal examination was deferred and 8 diagnosis of a Cacal-mass was made and a right hemicolectomy (removal of part of the right side-of- X. the colon) was planned. Respondent misinterpreted the colonoscopy aid B.E Thie: ' meiss was not in the cecum but was in the rectum arca Instead. 686T pip ase WOIdSW WIAVYOHY 6Z:ST 2QZ-LZ-UeW kw SSS 6861 pLy0S8 = :ISD ajowey 686L vLy OSS -40puag gL :sabeg Wd 12:€ sou, ZO/LZ/E :93eq (papassong juaA3) JUaAW peniasoy : : Qn or about June 8, 1999, Respondent performed an tence (removal of part of the bowel where the appendix and small bowel ineety throug a right sided horizontal abdominal incision after feeling a mass within the cecum. ° 8. No lesion was noted in this specimen and the mass felt was described ‘as being a pl. : ~ 9. . Respondant then reviewed the preoperative test reports (not induding the 6.E. x-ray, which had been retumed to the clinic where it was performed) and noted . that the = only fesion identified was in the rectum at approximately 12 cm. from the anal 20. ‘Respondent then made a midline incision and the teft colon was moved: and-Felt, with no lesions noted. ; 11. Patiant DC was repositioned to allow access to the rectum and va " sigmoidoscope (a small flexible scope with a light) was used to Identify the turner: ; located. 10 cm. from the anal verge. 12. Respondent removed this lesion with a stapling device and the pathology "report indicated the tumor to be a tubular adenoma (a benign tumor that forms a tube)’. with moderate to severe dysplasia (abnormal cell growth). . 13. On or about June 14, 1999, Patient DS was discharged with a diagnoses: "Of rectat tubulovillous adenoma and ‘possible cecal mass’. Las . Count i 14. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirteen: (13), a6 if fully set forth herein this Count I. . : ie 686T PIr ase WOICSW WIATVYSHY @E:ST CAGc-L2-yOW —$—$—$— eee 6861 ply 0S8 = =-CISO eyowey 6861 vLy OSE -depuas SL :seBed Wd 12: SOUL ZO/LZIE 793eq (papaezons yuaag) JUaAW peniaoay - respondent falied to practice medicine with that level | of are ski, 3 treatment which Is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptae vader similar conditions and circumstances, Jn the following facts: Sy 8) Respondent failed to adequately review all films and reports prior to ~ surgery, $0 a5 to determine correct location of Patient TO’s tumor and: ° . thereby performed unnecessary abdominal surgery on Patient TO. : , b) Respondent subjected Patient DC to unnecessary incisions and removat of portions of the bowel due to lack of knowledge of the actual location: of' the tumor. ©) — Respondent removed the lleocecal valve (a one-way valve ‘between the we small and large bowel) unnecessarily because of lack of Knowledge of the F actual location of the tumor, d) — Respondent failed to have all films dclincating the pathology of Patient DC : ‘ readily available during surgery. e) Respondent falled to perform a rectal exam on Patient DG, who had . rectal tumor. Ff) Respondent failed to perform a complete and proper History’ and Physical Examination prior to surgery, since Respondent noted that the lesion in question was found In Patient DC’s cecum with the B.E. ¢) Respondent failed to properly plan the surgery, involving proper; positioning of Patient DC on the operating table, also Includitig the type incision to use, because of lack of knowledge of the actual location of fe ‘tumor. -16, Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 458.331(1X(t), Florida’ Statutes, by falling to practice medicine with that level of cate, stall, treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. ee 6861 PIP ase 7WO1GSW TWO YOHY TE:ST 2QOZ-2L2-aW eee 6861 vLyOS8 = -ISD e}oweYy 6861 Ly OSB -depuas gL :seBeq Wd 12: soul CO/LC/E 797eq (papeecong juang) JUsAq paalasay \“ a Count 1 oy 17. _ Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) thrdgh thirteec - (13), ‘and: paragraph fifteen (15) as if fully set forth herein this Count II. 18. Respondent falled to keep medical records that justify the course :of treatment of the.patient In the following facts: ““a) Respondent did not completely document and justify the course. ' ‘treatment utilized in the care of Patient DC; b) —- Patient DC's medica! records were Incomplete, with mistaken chronology: and findings for the preoperative test procedures; d) Respondent's Operative Report, dictated after the proceiiure, sta ‘Several obvious Inconsistencles. 19, Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by falling to keep legible, as defined by department rule in consultation with, the board, medical records that identify the licensed physician or the physician extender and supervising physician by name and professional title who Is or are responsible for rendering; ordering, supervising, or billing for each diagnostic or treatment procedis and’ that’ justify the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited ‘ta,.” - patient’ histories; examination results; test results; records of drugs: prescribed, : dispensed, or administered; and reports of consultations and hospitalizations, WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Medicine enter‘ai order’ imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanant revocation: or i: suspension of the Respondent's license, restriction of the Respondent's practica . imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Bd 6861 PTr ase WOIdAW WIS eOHY CLIST 2OB2Z-22-NOW Se SFSSSSFSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSsm 6861 VLYOS8 = -dISO ajowey 6861 HL OSE sdapuas 8L isobed Wd 1L2-€ SOUL CO/LZ/E 93eq (pepeacons juaAg) JUaAq paaiaday

Docket for Case No: 02-001274PL