Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BOARD OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICAL EXAMINERS vs. GEORGE WARREN FRISON, JR., 78-001664 (1978)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 78-001664 Visitors: 13
Judges: CHARLES C. ADAMS
Agency: Department of Health
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 1979
Summary: The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, has brought an action by Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., charging that on January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, the Respondent issued prescriptions for a substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, and prescriptions for a substance known as Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation wh
More
78-1664.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD ) OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICAL EXAMINERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 78-1664

) GEORGE WARREN FRISON, JR., D.O., )

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on June 25, 1979, in the Commission Chambers, Daytona Beach City Hall, 301 South Ridgewood, Daytona Beach, Florida.


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire

Post Office Drawer 1838

Tallahassee, Florida Tallahassee 32302


For Respondent: Edward R. Kirkland, Esquire

126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801


ISSUES


The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, has brought an action by Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., charging that on January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, the Respondent issued prescriptions for a substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, and prescriptions for a substance known as Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation which contains Amphetamines; both types of prescriptions being controlled substances within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The complaint further alleges that the prescriptions were delivered to a patient, George DeBella, also known as George J. Conlon, without good faith and not in the course of the Respondent's professional practice, and, therefore, unlawfully. See Section 893.03, Florida Statutes.

Finally, the Administrative Complaint alleges that these acts on the part of the Respondent are prohibited by Sections 893.05 and 893.13, Florida Statutes, and are violative of Subsections 459.14(2)(m) and (n), Florida Statutes, in that the Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and has violated the laws of the State of Florida.

FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint filed by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. The Respondent in this cause is George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., who holds license No. 1169 under regulation by the Petitioner. Dr. Frison also held license No. 1169 at all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint is a six-count document, the general nature of which has been outlined in the issues statement of this Administrative Complaint. The specific contentions of the Administrative Complaint will be addressed in the course of these findings of fact.


  2. The proof offered reveals that on January 4, 1978, an officer of the Daytona Beach Police Department, one George Joseph Conlon, went to the office of the Respondent in DeBarry, Florida. At the time of this visit, Officer Conlon was operating under the assumed name of George DeBella. The purpose of Officer Conlon's visit was to ascertain if the Respondent was issuing prescriptions for drugs, not as a part of Dr. Frison's professional practice, but merely to satiate the desires of the ostensible patient and to profit from the encounter by charging the patient for the office visit.


  3. When Conlon entered the doctor's office on January 4, 1978, he was initially seen by Dr. Frison's nurse, who took the patient's blood pressure end weighed him and had the patient complete a form medical history data sheet. Conlon was then ushered in to see the doctor and he proceeded to tell Dr. Frison that he was not a "doper" and was not there for the purpose of getting Dilaudids. He explained to Dr. Frison that he had two jobs and that he was taking small black capsules to keep him going, to which Dr. Frison replied as an interrogatory, "Biphetamines?".


  4. Conlon explained that he didn't know what the substance was but that he had been paying $3.00 apiece to buy them from dealers and that arrangement was stupid and could he get some from the Respondent. Dr. Frison asked if Conlon meant a prescription and Conlon replied in the affirmative, and Frison said that he could get a prescription. Conlon in turn asked if he needed to provide other information. Frison responded by asking Conlon, "How many do you take?" Conlon indicated that he took one in the morning and one around six o'clock p.m.


  5. There was further conversation in which Conlon explained that he worked in a nursery in the daylight working hours and as a bartender from 2:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Conlon also made remarks to the effect that he, Conlon, was not a "freak" and that he was trying to be "straight" with the doctor. Dr. Frison inquired if the small black capsules were the only thing that Conlon took and Conlon, in answering the doctor, indicated he had taken several Quaaludes, which helped to put him to sleep at night and that his frequency of using the drug was three times a week, at most.


  6. In response to the comments about Quaaludes, Dr. Frison asked Conlon if he would like a prescription for a few Quaaludes, and Conlon agreed. Frison indicated that he would give him a prescription for the Quaaludes, but not in the quantity of the Biphetamines which he was prescribing.


  7. There was further conversation about where the patient lived and in answering the Respondent's question, Conlon acknowledged that he lived in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Respondent asked why he didn't ask for a prescription in Daytona Beach and Conlon said it was because someone had

    mentioned Dr. Frison. There was a final series of remarks about buying drugs from other sources and paying $3.00 and that terminated the conversation.


  8. The only other examination or discussion which the doctor had with Conlon on January 4, 1978, involved the doctor taking the pulse of Officer Conlon during their conference. After this meeting between Dr. Frison and Conlon, Dr. Frison prescribed sixty Biphetamines, which is a mixture which contains Amphetamines and is a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893.03, Florida Statutes, specifically a Schedule II item. Dr. Frison also prescribed thirty Quaaludes, also known as Methaqualone, which is a controlled substance within the meaning of Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, and specifically a Schedule II item. A copy of the prescriptions may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Officer Conlon was carrying a concealed transmitter on his person when this visit and the following visits were made to the Respondent's office, and tapes were made of the office conversations which were recorded from Conlon's transmitter. A transcript of the intelligible parts of the conversations between Conlon and the Respondent and Conlon and the Respondent's nurse, that occurred on January 4, 1978, may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence.


  9. On January 31, 1978, Conlon returned to the office of the Respondent in DeBary, Florida. Again, the nurse weighed Conlon and took his blood pressure. Dr. Frison saw the patient and asked how the patient had been progressing and inquired about the number of tablets the patient had taken. Conlon responded that he took two or three a day. Dr. Frison indicated that that number was too many. Dr. Frison also noted that it had only been twenty-seven days since the last visit. Dr. Frison then determined to issue new prescriptions, but to postdate prescriptions for Biphetamines and Quaaludes to February 3, 1978. In connection with this, he prescribed sixty Biphetamines and sixty Quaaludes.


  10. There was some discussion held about the nature of the Quaaludes and how the patient, Conlon, might become dependent on them, leading to potential addiction. Frison also indicated that addiction to Biphetamines is one of the worst addictions and that Conlon should cut down the use of them. There was a further inquiry by Dr. Frison about why the patient did not get the prescriptions in Daytona Beach, to which Conlon replied that he was nervous about that. Frison terminated the conversation by telling Conlon not to take too many of the tablets and agreeing to write the prescriptions. There was no further physical examination of the patient or other discussion of the patient's condition. A copy of the prescriptions dated February 3, 1978, may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence and a copy of the transcript of the conversation between Conlon and the Respondent to the extent the conversation was intelligible, may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence.


  11. Conlon made another trip to Dr. Frison's DeBary, Florida, office on February 28, 1978. He again was weighed and had his blood pressure taken by the nurse. Conlon was seen by Dr. Frison, who checked his pulse and chest. In the course of the visit, the Respondent inquired about Conlon's health and about his job at the bar. Then Frison stated that he would give Conlon prescriptions for that date, but would not be able to give him prescriptions for Quaalude and Biphetamine in the future. He explained to Conlon the reason for termination of the practice was that he was having problems of an unspecified nature. There was some brief discussion about a skin infection which the Patient had and that ended the conversation between the Respondent and Conlon. (Frison did not treat the patient for the skin condition.)

  12. Frison prescribed sixty Biphetamines and sixty Quaaludes and copies of these prescriptions may be found as part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. As before, the intelligible parts of the conversation, as transcribed, may be found in the copy of that transcribed conversation which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence.


  13. In view of the events which occurred on January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, involving George J. Conlon, the ostensible patient of the Respondent, the Petitioner has brought the Administrative Complaint. Counts I and II deal with the events of January 4, 1978, and the prescription for Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone; and Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, Count I dealing with the Quaalude and Count II dealing with the Biphetamine. Counts III and IV deal with the events of January 31, 1978, and the prescription for Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone; and Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, Count III dealing with the Quaalude and Count IV dealing with the Biphetamine. Finally, Counts V and VI deal with the events of February 28, 1978, and the prescription for Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone; and Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, Count V dealing with the Quaalude and Count VI dealing with the Biphetamines. In each of the counts, the Respondent is accused of delivering drugs without good faith and not in the course of professional practice and thereby unlawfully distributing and dispensing a controlled substance described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. According to the allegations, the acts of the Respondent in those instances are prohibited by Sections 893.05 and 893.13, Florida Statutes, and such acts constitute a violation of Subsections 459.14 (2)(m) and (n), Florida Statutes, in showing that the Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and has violated the laws of the State of Florida.


  14. The substantive provisions dealing with disciplinary action against the Respondent are found in Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida Statutes, and Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes. The former provision states:


    459.14(2)(m) A finding of the board that the individual is guilty of immoral or unprofes- sional conduct. Unprofessional conduct shall include any departure from, or failure to conform to, the minimal standards of accept- able and prevailing osteopathic medical prac- tice, without regard to the injury of a patient, or the committing of any act contrary to hon- esty, whether the same is committed in the course of practice or not.


    The evidential facts shown indicate that the substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and the substance known as Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation which contains Amphetamines, a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes; were not prescribed in good faith and in the course of the Respondent's professional practice, as required by Section 893.05, Florida Statutes, if the Respondent is to avoid the penalties of the provisions of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. This lack of good faith constituted unprofessional conduct, in the sense that the Respondent was departing from and failing to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing osteopathic medical practice, set out in Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida

    Statutes. In particular, the departure from and failure to conform to those minimal standards is evidenced by the Petitioner's act of prescribing the controlled substance for Conlon when there was no specific complaint of a physical problem. This finding is made in spite of the witnesses who testified in behalf of the Respondent, who claimed that you could prescribe medication for compassionate reasons, and notwithstanding the Respondent's false entry into the medical chart of the patient, Conlon, indicating that the patient was being treated for the condition of being overweight. The Respondent further violated the standards of his professional community by failing to take an adequate history of the patient's condition on the occasions the patient was seen; failing to make an adequate physical examination of the patient on the occasions when the patient was seen; and by not placing reasonable controls over the drugs that were prescribed for the patient, particularly in his failure to warn the patient not to drive or use heavy machinery while under the influence of the medications. The Physician's Desk Reference manual creates a necessity for these cautionary instructions referred to above, and the Respondent should have warned the patient of the medications' possible effects. The Respondent also violated medical practice by postdating the prescriptions which were issued on January 31, 1978. Finally, the Respondent violated the minimum standards of his profession by prescribing Quaaludes and Biphetamines in combination when these drugs are known to have an antagonistic effect in combination. These findings of violations pertain to each date that the patient was seen; January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, involving both the substances, Quaalude and Biphetamine.


  15. The other substantive grounds of a violation alleged by the Petitioner deal with Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows:


    459.14 (2)(n) Violation of any statute or

    law of this state or any other state or terri- tory of the United States or any foreign country, which statute or law relates to the practice of medicine.


    To establish this violation, it would be necessary for a court of competent jurisdiction to have found the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. This determination cannot be made by an administrative tribunal and in view of the fact that no court of competent jurisdiction has found such a violation, the Petitioner's claim under Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes, has not been sustained.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this cause.


  17. Based upon a full consideration of the facts herein, it is concluded as a matter of law that the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., did on or about January 4, 1978, violate the provisions of Subsection 459.14 (2)(m), Florida Statutes, which prohibit unprofessional conduct. He committed the violation by prescribing the substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, a controlled substance, within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, without good faith and not in the course of his professional practice, related to the purported patient, George DeBella, also known as George J. Conlon. For the reasons as stated before, the Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes.

  18. Based upon a full consideration of the facts herein, it is concluded as a matter of law that the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., did on or about January 4, 1978, violate the provisions of Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida Statutes, which prohibit unprofessional conduct. He committed the violation by prescribing the substance, Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines without good faith and not in the course of his professional practice, related to the purported patient, George DeBella, also known as George J. Conlon. For the reasons as stated before, the Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes.


  19. Based upon a full consideration of the facts herein, it is concluded as a matter of law that the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., did on or about January 31, 1978, violate the provisions of Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida Statutes, which prohibit unprofessional conduct. He committed the violation by prescribing the substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, without good faith and not in the course of his professional practice, related to the purported patient, George DeBella, also known as George

    J. Conlon. For the reasons as stated before, the Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of Subsection 459.14(2)(a), Florida Statutes.


  20. Based upon a full consideration of the facts herein, it is concluded as a matter of law that the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., did on or about January 31, 1978, violate the provisions of Subsection 459.14 (2)(m), Florida Statutes, which prohibit unprofessional conduct. He committed the violation by prescribing the substance, Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, without good faith and not in the course of his professional practice, related to the purported patient, George DeBella, also known as George J. Conlon. For the reasons as stated before, the Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of Subsection 459.14 (2)(n), Florida Statutes.


  21. Based upon a full consideration of the facts herein, it is concluded as a matter of law that the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., did on or about February 28, 1928, violate the provisions of Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida Statutes, which prohibit unprofessional conduct. He committed the violation by prescribing the substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, without good faith and not in the course of his professional practice, related to the purported patient, George DeBella, also known as George

    J. Conlon. For the reasons as stated before, the Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes.


  22. Based upon a full consideration of the facts herein, it is concluded as a matter of law that the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., did on or about February 28, 1978, violate the provisions of Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida Statutes, which prohibit unprofessional conduct. He committed the violation by prescribing the substance, Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, without good faith and not in the course of his professional practice, related to the purported patient, George DeBella, also known as George J. Conlon. For the reasons as stated before, the Petitioner has failed to prove a violation of Subsection 459.14 (2)(n), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION


It is recommended that the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, suspend the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., for a period of one (1) year for the violations established in Counts I and II; for one year for the violations established in Counts III and IV, to run concurrently with the penalty imposed for Counts I and II; and for one (1) year for the violations established in Counts V and VI, to run concurrently with the penalty imposed for Counts I and II.


DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida.


CHARLES C. ADAMS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675



COPIES FURNISHED:


Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302


Edward R. Kirkland, Esquire

126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801


Docket for Case No: 78-001664
Issue Date Proceedings
Oct. 23, 1979 Final Order filed.
Jul. 25, 1979 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 78-001664
Issue Date Document Summary
Oct. 15, 1979 Agency Final Order
Jul. 25, 1979 Recommended Order Suspend respondent for two years for prescribing controlled substances outside of his practice and for non-medical reasons.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer