STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-2568
) EDWARD C. HAYWARD, M.D., )
)
Respondent. )
)
Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire, of Tallahassee, for Petitioner. Richard W. Payant, Esquire, of Clearwater, for Respondent.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On May 1, 1987, the Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent alleging that Respondent violated: Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1985), by failing to maintain written medical records justifying the course of treatment of a patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results and test results; and Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1985), by committing gross or repeated malpractice or failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. These allegations pertain to Respondent's treatment of patient L. S.
Respondent requested a formal hearing which was duly noticed and, after continuances requested by both parties, was held in Clearwater on February 10 and 24, 1988. The Petitioner ordered the preparation of a transcript of the final hearing, which was filed on March 17, 1988.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Respondent is, and at all material times has been, a licensed physician, having been issued license number ME 0040551, by the State of Florida.
Respondent is a 1979 graduate of the University of Juarez. Respondent performed an internship at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, from 1979 to 1980. Between 1980 and 1982, Respondent performed a two year internal medicine residency at Grant Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.
Respondent is "Board-eligible" in the area of internal medicine. Internal medicine involves a non-surgical approach to evaluating multiple organ systems. It involves understanding diseases at a "higher" level and dealing with multiple illnesses. Respondent once has taken, but did not pass, the examination to become Board certified in internal medicine.
Respondent has had no other complaints filed against his license to practice medicine in Florida, other than the one at issue in this case.
On or about May 2, 1986, Respondent admitted patient L. S. to Clearwater Community Hospital in Clearwater, Florida, because of a possible cerebral vascular accident which occurred 3 days prior to admission. Patient L.
S. was a 76-year old male patient who was a member of the "Gold Plus" IMC Health Maintenance Organization.
At or about the time of admission of patient L. S. to Clearwater Community Hospital, Respondent obtained a patient medical history from L. S. and performed a physical examination. As a result of the stroke, patient L. S. had speech difficulties at the time of admission to Clearwater Community Hospital.
Respondent's initial patient history for L. S. included the following information:
With respect to the cerebral vascular accident, the patient had awakened 3 days prior to the admission and had difficulty with speech and difficulty using his right hand. The patient was able to ambulate without difficulty and had noted no improvement or worsening in symptoms in the three days prior to admission.
The patient had had intestinal surgery 50 years previously, which, according to Respondent's documented history, resulted in chronic diarrhea. Additionally, the patient had been hospitalized two years earlier for "dysphagia (a difficulty in swallowing) with a negative work-up."
According to the patient, the patient had no coronary artery disease, hypertension, peptic ulcer disease or diabetes.
The patient's social history provided the information that the patient smoked tobacco, one-half pack per day, and did not drink alcohol.
The patient provided information that he was on the following medication: Lomotil p.r.n. (as needed); Lanoxin 0.125 mg. per day; and Quinaglute 100 mg., dose schedule unknown.
Respondent performed an appropriate initial physical examination on patient L. S. Of significance was Respondent's finding with respect to the patient's heart: "Irregular, irregular rhythm with no gallops or murmurs appreciated."
After completing the initial history and physical examination, Respondent's impression was:
Acute CVA, patient now three days post-insult and appears to be stable. He already has good use of his right upper extremities and his speech is intelligible although slurred
History of cardiac arrhythmia
History of chronic diarrhea secondary to intestinal surgery 50 years ago.
As part of his plan for the patient, formulated after obtaining the initial history and physical, Respondent noted, "Will also consider ECHO cardiogram as the heart irregularity may provide the source of the emboli."
While patient L. S. was hospitalized during the May 2, 1986, admission, Respondent ordered the following tests which were performed on the patient: a complete blood count; a prothrombin time test; an activated partial thromboplastin time test; a routine urinalysis; a portable upright chest x-ray; a bilateral duplex carotid ultrasound study; a CT scan of head - stroke routine (non contrast study); a Brain CT Scan Stroke Protocol-Post contrast series only; an electroencephalogram (EEG); a blood chemistry profile; and an electrocardiogram (EKG)(the patient was also placed on a telemetry monitor).
On admission, Respondent ordered Lomotil, one tablet to be given as needed for diarrhea, Lanoxin 0.125 mg. to be given four times a day, and Quinaglute 100 mg. to be given twice a day. On the same day of admission, Respondent changed the order for Quinaglute to 325 mg. to be taken by mouth twice a day.
On admission and again on May 9, 1986, Respondent ordered blood serum levels of digoxin (Lanoxin is a drug containing digoxin). These blood levels revealed that the digoxin level was low on admission (normal laboratory values were listed as between 0.5 to 2.0 - the actual value was 0.1). The repeat digoxin level reflected that the digoxin was within normal limits on May 9, 1986 (the actual value was 1.1). Quinidine levels were also obtained (to determine the level of the drug Quinaglute in the blood), pursuant to Respondent's request. The quinidine level taken on admission was below normal (normal laboratory values were listed between 2.0 and 5.0 - the actual value was .7). The repeat quinidine level performed on May 9, 1986, reflected that the quinidine levels were within normal limits (2.6).
Under the circumstances, the Respondent cannot be severely criticized for the initial history he took from the patient. In ideal circumstances, an internist would attempt to get more detail on the patient's smoking history pertinent to possible chronic obstructive lung disease or possible congestive heart failure, on the patient's chronic diarrhea, and on the patient's drug dosages. But the Respondent was dealing with a 76-year old man who came to see him for symptoms of a stroke three days before. The patient had difficulty making his speech understood and had no family or friends available to help him give his medical history to the Respondent. It was within acceptable standards of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar circumstances for the Respondent to take as much history as the patient was capable of comfortably giving at that time. The Respondent was planning on referring the patient to the hospital's stroke team, which over the course of the hospital stay would completely evaluate the effect of the stroke on the patient. The Respondent planned to have blood serum levels done which would establish proper drug dosages. The Respondent's primary concerns were the possibility of an evolving stroke and the possibility of malignant cardiac arrhythmias. Since there were no complaints or symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure, it was not necessary to pursue the smoking details on the initial history on this admission. As for the diarrhea, the Respondent was dealing with a 76-year old man who reported chronic diarrhea for 50 years. It may have resulted from intestinal surgery 50 years ago, and it may have been exacerbated by the Quinaglute the patient had been prescribed for his heart arrhythmias. Severe malabsorption problems would show up on the blood screen and the complete blood count the Respondent was planning to have the patient undergo. Otherwise, it was acceptable under the
circumstances of this case to concentrate on the two primary concerns and treat the diarrhea symptomatically with Lomotil as needed for the time being.
The Respondent should have followed up on obtaining available previous hospital records, especially the local admission for dysphagia two years prior, but that information would not appear in the initial history.
While L. S. was in the hospital, the Respondent appropriately and adequately evaluated the patient's heart as a possible cause of the stroke. The evidence suggests that it is fairly debatable among physicians whether to order a $500-$600 echocardiogram in a case such as this; it is not necessary to meet the standard of care. When the Respondent initially examined the patient and heard irregularly irregular heart rhythms, he initially considered an echocardiogram. Irregularly irregular heart rhythms suggest atrial fibrillation which can predispose a patient to heart clots (emboli) which can break off, travel through the circulatory system and cause a stroke. But the results of the CAT Scan indicated that the stroke was not caused by a heart embolus but by a constriction of smaller blood vessels. In addition, the results of the EKG and telemetry monitoring revealed that the patient did not have atrial fibrillation but had significant and possibly malignant premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). While this particular heart beat irregularity is serious and can be fatal, it does not predispose a patient to heart emboli and resulting strokes. With this information, the echocardiogram was no longer necessary.
While L. S. was in the hospital, the Respondent appropriately and adequately evaluated his lung function. The chest x-ray and EKG which the Respondent had done for the patient enabled the Respondent to diagnose obstructive pulminary disease (C.O.P.D.) if the patient had it. Milder cases of
C.O.P.D. would have required with a pulmonary function test or a blood gas level. The evidence suggests that it is fairly debatable among physicians whether to have done one of those tests in this case; it was not necessary to meet acceptable standards of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar circumstances. The patient had no complaint of shortness of breath with exertion that would suggest emphysema. To the contrary, he progressed well in physical therapy during the 10-day hospitalization with no indication of this symptom. Nor did the patient have cyanosis or clubbing that would be symptomatic of chronic bronchitis. Those are the two kinds of C.O.P.D. about which a physician evaluating L. S. would be concerned.
Regarding the patient's chronic diarrhea, the Respondent performed some general screening tests which, while non-specific in nature, had potential to provide some information about the patient's nutritional status.
The complete blood count (C.B.C.) may provide information about some deficiencies. Generally, in an isolated deficiency of vitamin B12 or folic acid, one would expect to find an elevated M.C.V. (mean corpuscular volume), which would show up on a C.B.C. In this case, however, the C.B.C. provided no real information about the nutritional status of patient L. S. The M.C.V. was only slightly elevated.
A prothrombin time test can be done to evaluate vitamin K deficiencies and was done in this case. Additionally, the blood levels of several substances can provide information about malnutrition. In this case, the chemistry profile revealed malnutrition. The blood chemistry profile revealed low albumin levels, low globulin levels and low total protein levels.
The possibility exists that patient L. S. suffered from diarrhea which was caused or aggravated by the Quinaglute that the patient was also taking. Quinaglute can cause diarrhea. This was not evaluated by the Respondent. It could not be evaluated by the medication history the patient was able to give (i.e., by determining how long the patient had been taking Quinaglute in relation to the period of time the patient had had diarrhea.) Besides, the Respondent made the decision to stabilize the patient's potentially life- threatening heart arrhythmias using the Quinaglute instead of withdrawing the Quinaglute in an attempt to cure the diarrhea problems with which the patient had lived for 50 years. The Respondent cannot be severely criticized for this decision. On this admission, it was acceptable to treat the patient's diarrhea symptomatically for the time being and further evaluate and treat it after the Respondent dealt with the more serious matters of the C.V.A. and the heart arrhythmias.
On or about May 12, 1986, Respondent transferred patient L. S. to Druid Hills Skilled Nursing Center from Clearwater Community Hospital. As reflected in Respondent's discharge summary for patient L. S., Respondent was not able to determine the precise cause of the stroke which patient L. S. suffered prior to discharging the patient from the hospital. The discharge diagnoses reflect: (1) acute cerebral vascular accident; and (2) cardiac arrhythmias with frequent P.V.C.'s.
The Respondent kept patient L. S. in Clearwater Community Hospital for ten days, from May 2 until May 12, 1986. Although the evaluation and tests were completed within five days, the Respondent did not want to discharge the patient to his home where he would be by himself, but rather to a nursing home. While waiting for a nursing home bed to become available, the Respondent used the resulting extended hospital stay to continue physical therapy.
At the time of transfer from the hospital to Druid Hills, patient L.
S. was frail. He was 76 years old, five feet ten inches tall and weighted only
113 pounds. Having just had a stroke, he was far from the picture of health, and this was noted by some of the nursing staff upon transfer to Druid Hills Skilled Nursing Center. He looked and was ill, but he was stable.
At the time of admission to Druid Hills, patient L. S. was in essentially the same condition as when admitted to Clearwater Community Hospital, ten days earlier. The patient still suffered from slurred speech and had problems with his right arm. But he was stable and anxious to begin speech and physical therapy.
On May 12, 1986, at about 2:00 p.m., Judith Salyer, L.P.N., attempted to contact Respondent in order to confirm routine house orders by "beeping" Respondent. Respondent called the nursing home at 4:30 p.m. on the same day to provide the following admission orders:
Lanoxin 0.125 mg. by mouth four times a day ASA by mouth four times a day
Persantine 75 mg. by mouth two times a day Quinaglute 325 mg. by mouth every eight hours Lomotil by mouth three time a day for diarrhea Tylenol by mouth four times a day
Restoril 15 mg. by mouth at night for sleep as needed Physical Therapy
Speech Therapy
In addition to slurred speech, on May 14, 1986 (two days after admission to Druid Hills), patient L. S. began to have problems with his eye which was red and draining yellow matter (inaccurately described as "pus" in the nursing notes.) When asked by nursing staff if his eye hurt, L. S. advised them that it did. In all other respects, patient L. S.'s condition seemed essentially unchanged. Respondent was not advised of the change in the patient's eye.
On the following date, patient L. S. developed additional symptoms. These included coughing and a runny nose with white mucous. The patient's eyes continued to be pink tinged with a moderate amount of yellow drainage from the eye noted.
At 2:20 p.m. on May 15, 1986, Judith Salyer, L.P.N., spoke with Respondent and received the routine house orders which Salyer had called about on May 12, 1986. Salyer did not advise Respondent of the minor cold symptoms.
Later on the evening of May 15, 1986, it was noted that patient L. S.'s appetite was poor. On May 16, 1986, at 2:00 p.m., it was noted that L. S. was refusing to eat meals and had a inoderately unsteady gait. On May 17, 1986, it was noted that L. S. informed the nurse on duty that he had had loose stools five times. Additionally, it was noted that the patient was refusing to eat meals.
At 9:00 p.m. on May 17, 1986, patient L. S. was noted to be "out of bed." No complaints of diarrhea were noted. Additionally the patient ate 80% of his meal and requested ice cream.
In the early part of the day on May 18, 1986, patient L. S. was noted to have "chronic diarrhea" by nursing staff. (Throughout his nursing home stay, the patient was given Lomotil, an anti-diarrheal agent, in an effort to treat the diarrhea.)
Between at least 9:30 p.m. on May 18, 1986, and the evening of May 19, 1986, patient L. S. appeared to be doing reasonably well. The patient's appetite was good. There were no complaints of diarrhea. The runny nose, coughing and eye drainage were not noted after May IS, 1986.
At 2:00 p.m. on May 20, 1986, Nurse Salyer noted that patient L. S. appeared slightly confused at intervals. The patient had mild congestion and a productive cough. The patient's gait was noted to be unsteady at times. At that time, Salyer "beeped" Respondent in an attempt to advise Respondent of the patient's change in condition. Respondent did not call back on May 20, 1986.
A productive cough is a cough which produces "gobs" of mucous. Such a cough can be indicative of a lower (as opposed to upper) respiratory infection or congestion in the chest. The presence of a productive cough is a cause for concern.
In a later entry made on May 20, 1986, a Nurse Rooker noted that the patient had remained in bed during the shift. His appetite was 40%. It was noted that L. S. was congested, coughing up large amounts of whitish mucous.
On May 21, 1986, at some time before 2:00 p.m., Respondent was notified by telephone of patient L. S.'s stable vital signs, "cold symptoms," that the patient appeared slightly confused at intervals, was refusing to eat, was mildly congested with a productive cough and had an unsteady gait at times.
Given this information, Respondent determined that the patient had a "cold" or upper respiratory infection. New orders were received and transcribed. On May 21, 1986, Respondent ordered Ampicillin 250 mg. to be taken every four hours for eight days. Respondent also ordered Actifed to be taken three times a day as needed for "sinus congestion."
Respondent gave patient L. S. Ampicillin, which is an antibiotic, for his symptoms as a precautionary or prophylactic measure. Antibiotics should not, as a general rule, be ordered without having a well-grounded understanding why the patient is ill. The cause of the infection should be determined. The most basic reason for not giving an antibiotic without first evaluating the source of the infection is that the antibiotic then can serve to simply hide the symptoms. The antibiotic will cause some improvement, making it appear that the patient is not quite as ill, when in fact the infection persists. Additionally, there is a theory in medicine that the antibiotic can serve to cause a resistant strain of infection. Respondent assumed that, like most other nursing home patients, patient L. S. was suffering from a cold. Respondent ordered no further tests to evaluate the patient and Respondent declined to see the patient on May 21, 1986. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it was inappropriate for Respondent to prescribe Ampicillin, an antibiotic, without first evaluating the source of the infection.
Assuming that L. S. had a "cold" or upper respiratory infection, it was appropriate for Respondent to order Actifed, an antihistamine, for L. S. on May 21, 1986. However, given the presence of a productive cough, chest congestion could have been present. With chest congestion, an antihistamine like Actifed would have been inappropriate. Actifed will dry up the chest. Mucous in the chest which needs to be expectorated, and brought up and out, will remain in the chest. A mucolytic expectorant, not an antihistamine, should be ordered when the chest is congested.
Given the facts that patient L. S. was recuperating from a recent CVA, had difficulty in swallowing, and had multiple medical problems, the Respondent could have been more aggressive in either examining this patient, who had a productive cough, or ordering appropriate testing. A reasonably prudent physician, under similar conditions and circumstances, could have personally examined the patient L. S. on May 21, 1986, or soon thereafter. Alternatively, a reasonably prudent physician could have ordered a C.B.C. and a chest x-ray or some other ancillary diagnostic modalities.
A C.B.C. is a method by which one can obtain a count of blood cells, particularly white blood cells, in a patient in order to determine whether there is an ongoing infection. The type of white blood cells present (lymphatic cell or a leukocytic cell) can assist in the determination of whether the infection is bacterial or viral in nature.
A chest x-ray is necessary to diagnose pneumonia or obstruction in the lungs. Given the history of patient L. S.'s difficulty in swallowing, it is entirely possible that the patient aspirated food or mucous. When such a foreign substance is inhaled into the lungs, it blocks off the bronchials (the airways into the lungs) and causes an obstruction which will lead to pneumonia. Given this patient's condition and history, Respondent could have used a chest x-ray to evaluate the patient to rule out the possibility of aspiration.
But it was not necessary for the Respondent to have arranged to personally examine the patient or order tests at this stage. It would be appropriate to
monitor a patient with a viral infection (or "cold") or to prescribe antibiotic such as Ampicillin for a bacterial infection.
On May 21, 1986, the antibiotic Ampicillin was given to patient L. S. by nursing staff at Druid Hills. This antibiotic was administered as ordered until May 29, 1986, when it was discontinued on the eighth day.
On May 22, 1986, Nurse Salyer noted that patient L. S. had diarrhea. Patient L. S. told Nurse Salyer that in the past the patient had taken Ampicillin and that the Ampicillin had caused diarrhea. Salyer further noted on that date that L. S. was coughing up large amounts of yellowish phlegm. On May 22, 1986, at some time prior to 3:00 p.m., Salyer "beeped" Respondent in an attempt to advise Respondent of L. S.'s statement that the antibiotic was causing diarrhea. Respondent did not call Salyer back by the end of her shift on May 22, 1986. On the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift at Druid Hills, on May 22, 1986, Kathy Rooker, L.P.N., was involved in the care of patient L. S. At 4:50 p.m., Rooker noted that Respondent had not returned the earlier telephone call. Therefore, Rooker called the answering service for Respondent again and asked the answering service to "beep" Respondent again. The Respondent did not call Rooker back.
On May 23, 1986, Nurse Salyer notified Respondent of L. S.'s statement that the antibiotic that patient L. S. was taking (Ampicillin) had previously caused the patient to have diarrhea. Respondent decided not to change the antibiotic order for patient L. S.
Ampicillin is known to cause diarrhea in some individuals. But so do many other antibiotics. A reasonably prudent physician, after having been advised that the patient had diarrhea and that the patient previously had had diarrhea while on the same antibiotic, could either change the antibiotic therapy or wait and see if the diarrhea continued or became a problem.
On May 23, 1986, at 2:00 p.m., Salyer noted that patient L. S. continued to experience congestion and a productive cough, and continued to have a poor appetite. The same information was noted on the evening shift on May 23, 1986. This condition persisted on May 24, 1986. Additionally, the patient's temperature was 100 degrees on May 24, 1986. Previously, the patient had had an essentially normal temperature.
On May 25, 1986, it was noted that patient L. S. was still congested with a productive cough. Additionally, the patient's temperature continued to be elevated.
On May 26, 1986, no entry was made in the nurses' notes as to the status of the patient's congestion and cough. It was noted that the patient's friend, "John," came to request permission to take L. S. out for the day. However, L. S. indicated that he felt too weak to go. Both L. S. and his friend asked that Respondent be called for a leave of absence order in the future. It was further noted that the patient continued to have a poor appetite.
In the morning on May 27, 1986, Nurse Salyer "beeped" Respondent for the leave of absence order. Respondent did not return that call during Salyer's shift on May 27, 1986.
In the 2:00 p.m. entry for May 27, 1986, Salyer noted that patient L. S.: had bed rest during the shift; suffered from chronic diarrhea with mucous
in the stool; was refusing to eat with poor fluid intake; had yellow mucous draining from his eyes; and had continued congestion with a productive cough.
At 9:00 p.m. on May 27, 1986, it was noted that the patient's condition as described above had persisted. Additionally, it was noted that Respondent had not returned the telephone call made by Salyer that morning. In fact, it does not appear that Respondent ever returned Salyer's call made on May 27, 1986.
On May 28, 1986, it appeared that patient L. S. was improving some in comparison to the patient's condition on previous dates. It was noted that the patient's respirations were "easy." However, it was also noted that the patient still had periods of confusion, still had poor appetite, still was congested and had yellowish drainage from the right eye.
On May 29, 1986, the patient's condition further deteriorated. On this date, in the morning, it was noted that the patient remained congested. In the afternoon, a friend of L. S. named Sigfred Ivanicki, came to see L. S. Ivanicki had visited L. S. in Druid Hills twice a week (on Sundays and Thursdays) while L. S. was in the nursing home. When Ivanicki saw L. S. on Thursday, May 29, 1986, in the afternoon (Ivanicki usually visited between 4:00
p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), Ivanicki was very concerned about the deterioration he saw in L. S.'s condition and believed at that point that L. S. was dying.
Ivanicki had had an opportunity to see patient L. S. several times before May 29, 1986. Initially, when Ivanicki saw patient L. S. shortly after the admission of the patient to Druid Hills, patient L. S. appeared cheerful and on the road to recovery. Ivanicki would, on each visit, perform tasks of a personal nature for L. S. Thereafter, the patient developed bad congestion with a productive cough and had diarrhea. None of these symptoms appeared too serious to Ivanicki. However, on May 29, 1986, Ivanicki became truly concerned about L. S.
After seeing patient L. S. on May 29, 1986, Ivanicki went to see the head nurse at Druid Hills and asked that Respondent be called to come see the patient and transfer the patient to the hospital. At that time, Ivanicki was told that Respondent was very hard to reach.
At 6:00 p.m. on May 29, 1986, a nurse Febbo assessed patient L. S.'s condition. Nurse Febbo noted that the patient refused to eat, complained of shortness of breath and had a flushed face. The patient's skin was warm and dry. The patient's vital signs were as follows: pulse 102 beats per minute, temperature 99.8, blood pressure 120/60 and respiration rate 28 per minute. The patient's lungs were clear with decreased breath sounds. The patient was congested and was expectorating thick clear mucous. The patient was incontinent of bowel.
On May 29, 1986, at 6:00 p.m., Nurse Febbo noted that she attempted to contact Respondent at 546-5702 unsuccessfully, and had notified Respondent's answering service that she was attempting to contact Respondent.
Respondent returned Nurse Febbo's call at 8:00 p.m., on May 29, 1986. The nursing staff advised the Respondent of patient L. S.'s condition as reflected in Finding 52, above. In response, the Respondent provided the following telephone order for the patient: Lomotil three times a day, discontinue betadine to the little finger, and obtain a splint for right hand. Respondent did not order a C.B.C. or a chest x-ray at that point, even though
both tests would have been appropriate. Additionally, Respondent did not go see the patient when advised of the patient's condition.
Regardless whether the nursing staff had placed a "STAT" call, a reasonably prudent physician, after being advised of the condition of patient L. S., would have either gone in to see the patient or promptly ordered a C.B.C. and a chest x-ray. The vital signs and physical examination results reflect a very sick individual. The decreased breath sounds indicated that pneumonia or a pneumonic process had begun in the patient's lungs. Additionally, the diarrhea had advanced to the stage where the patient was incontinent. Respondent should have either seen the patient (something he had decided not to do up to this date) or should have ordered a chest x-ray and C.B.C.
The nurses' notes for 8:00 p.m. on May 29, 1986, reflect that the patient L. S. was given Actifed by mouth for congestion, consistent with Dr. Hayward's orders given on May 21, 1986, and not changed. Given the presence of a pneumonic process in L. S.'s lungs, Actifed was inappropriate. See Finding 36, above.
On May 30, 1986, it was noted prior to 9:30 a.m. that the patient L.
S. was growing increasingly weak and was coughing up a greenish yellow mucous. The patient's lungs were noisy and appeared to be filled with fluid. The nursing staff had begun attempts to contact Respondent, probably beginning as early as 7:30 a.m. At 9:30 a.m., the nurses' notes reflect that the nursing staff had attempted to call Respondent several times and had paged Respondent at the hospital but had received no return telephone call.
At 10:00 a.m., Gold Plus called the nursing staff at Druid Hills. Mr. Ivanicki had contacted Gold Plus to complain about Respondent's failure to transfer L. S. to the hospital for treatment. Gold Plus, after talking to the nursing staff, was also to attempt to contact Respondent.
At 10:15 a.m., on May 30, 1986, over two hours after the first telephone calls, Respondent finally called Druid Hills and ordered that the patient be sent to the emergency room at Clearwater Community Hospital.
Confusion occurred over the transfer of the patient to the hospital, due to no fault of Respondent. As a result of this delay, the patient was not transported to Clearwater Community Hospital until about 11:45 a.m., on May 30, 1986. However, before the actual transport could occur, the patient partially "coded" or had a cardiopulmonary arrest.
At the time of the arrival of patient L. S. at Clearwater Community Hospital, the patient had a cardiopulmonary arrest and resuscitation techniques were successfully used. A chest x-ray performed showed haziness in the lungs which was suspicious for aspiration pneumonia.
On June 14, 1986, patient L. S. died at Clearwater Community Hospital. The patient had been in a coma since arrival at the hospital. The immediate cause of death was listed as cardiogenic shock. Respondent's final diagnoses were: (1) cardiopulmonary arrest; (2) aspiration pneumonitis; (3) possible acute myocardial infarction; (4) thrombocytopenia; (5) cardiac arrhythmia with frequent PVCs; (6) hyperkalemia; (7) status post-recent CVA; and (8) severe
post-anoxic encephalopathy.
It was the practice of nursing personnel at Druid Hills to identify calls to physicians as "STAT" calls when an emergency or critical situation
existed. With a STAT call, an immediate response was necessary. Nursing staff at Druid Hills did not consider patient L. S.'s condition to be an emergency or critical until May 30, 1986. The calls to Respondent were not identified as "STAT" calls.
It would have been inappropriate for the Respondent to delay his response to telephone calls made by Druid Hills nursing staff pertaining to patient L. S. on May 29 and 30, 1986. A reasonably prudent physician, acting under similar conditions and circumstances, would have returned such telephone calls within an hour unless other emergencies existed. But it was not proved that the Respondent received and delayed his response. The Respondent generally was good about returning telephone calls and was experiencing difficulty both with the Gold Plus switchboard and with his answering service. The Respondent's response to those calls may well have been reasonable under the circumstances.
In contrast, the calls on May 20, 22 and 27 were not of any emergency nature and did not require priority response. It was not proved that the Respondent's response to' those calls were delayed unreasonably. (Gold Plus had a policy of not permitting a leave of absence, the subject of the May 27, 1986, call.)
Except to the extent that the Respondent's course of treatment was inappropriate, as noted above, the Respondent's records (including the hospital and nursing home records) justify his course of treatment of L. S.
Respondent, in his treatment of patient L. S., failed to practice medicine with the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, as a result of the deficiencies and omissions noted above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Section 458.331(2), Florida Statutes, empowers the Board of Medicine to revoke, suspend or otherwise discipline the license of a physician for any of the following violations of
Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes (1985):
(n) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results and test results; and
(t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.
Petitioner has the burden of proof in this license discipline case and must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged violations of the above-cited statutory provisions occurred. Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987).
Count One of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1985), by failing to practice
medicine with acceptable levels of care, skill and treatment with respect to patient L. S. It was not proven that the Respondent failed to appropriately monitor the patient's cardiac status by not ordering an echocardiogram while the patient was hospitalized on the first occasion. It was not proven that the Respondent failed, during that first hospitalization, to appropriately evaluate the patient's pulmonary function and chronic diarrhea. Nor was it proven that the Respondent failed to meet minimum standards by not examining the patient L.
S. or ordering tests on May 21, 1986. But the evidence did prove a relatively minor breach of minimum standards when the Respondent prescribed the antibiotic Ampicillin on May 21, 1986, without establishing the cause of the infection.
It also was proven by clear and convincing evidence that on May 29, 1986, despite the patient's symptoms, as reported to him by the nurses, the Respondent failed either to promptly see and examine the patient L. S., or to order testing for the patient in order to evaluate the patient's condition. While the Respondent's decisions not to examine or test the patient before May 29, 1986, can be excused, the omissions on May 29 were significant given the patient's history and condition on May 29. By virtue of these deficiencies, the Respondent failed to practice medicine with acceptable levels of care skill and treatment and, therefore, violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes.
The decision in Paddock v. Chacko, M.D., 13 F.L.W. 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), does not shelter the Respondent from discipline in this proceeding for substandard care of the patient L. S. on the evening of May 29, 1986. Under similar (though not identical) circumstances, the plaintiff in Chacko was unable to prove that a psychiatrist's negligence proximately caused the patient's injuries. In this disciplinary proceeding, proximate cause of injury is not a required element of the Petitioner's proof.
Count Two of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1985), by failing to maintain records which were adequate to justify the course of treatment of the patient L.
S. Except to the extent that the Respondent's care and treatment of L. S. violated 458.331(t), it was found, and is concluded, that the medical records justified the course of treatment. The statute, while specifically mentioning patient histories, does not require that the patient history alone be sufficient to justify the course of treatment. Rather, it only is necessary that the patient history, together with all of the other medical records, taken as a whole, including examination and test results, be adequate to justify the course of treatment. The medical records on L. S. were adequate for this purpose.
Rule 21M-20.01, Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part:
The purpose of this rule is to notify applicants and licensees of the ranges of penalties which will routinely be imposed unless the Board finds it necessary to deviate from the guidelines for the stated reasons given within this rule. The ranges of penalties provided below are based upon a single count violation of each provision listed; multiple counts of the violated provisions or a combination of the violations may result in a higher penalty than that for a single, isolated violation. Each range includes the lowest and highest
penalty and all penalties falling between. The purposes of the imposition of discipline are to punish the applicants or licensees for violations and to deter them from future violations; to offer opportunities for rehabilitation, when appropriate; and to deter other applicants or licensees from violations.
* * *
(m) Failure to keep (m) From a reprimand to written medical denial or two (2)
records. years suspension (458.331(1)(m) [formerly followed by probation, (n)], F.S.) and an administrative
fine from $250.00 to
$5,000.00.
* * *
(t) Malpractice. (t) From two (2) years (458.331(1)(t), F.S.) probation to
revocation or denial, and an administrative fine from $250.00 to
$5,000.00.
* * *
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances. Based upon consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors present in an individual case, the Board may deviate from the penalties recommended above. The Board shall consider as aggravating or mitigating factors the following:
Exposure of patient or public to injury or potential injury, physical or otherwise: none, slight, severe, or death;
Legal status at the time of the offense: no restraints, or legal constraints;
The number of counts or separate offenses established;
The number of times the same offense or offenses have previously been committed by the licensee or applicant;
The disciplinary history of the applicant or licensee in any jurisdiction and the length of practice;
Pecuniary benefit or self-gain inuring to the applicant or licensee;
Any other relevant mitigating factors.
Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine: (1) hold the Respondent, Edward C. Hayward, M.D., guilty of violating Section 458.331(t), Florida Statutes (1985)(Count One of the Administrative Complaint); (2) dismiss the charges in
Count Two of the Administrative Complaint (alleged failure to maintain adequate medical records); (3) place the Respondent on probation for two years under such terms as the Board of Medicine deems appropriate; and (4) fine the Respondent
$1,000.00.
RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.
J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1988.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2568
To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:
Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact.
1.-11. Accepted and incorporated.
Proposed findings regarding the milk of magnesia order, rejected. It was part of routine orders. The patient never developed constipation so it never was administered. The proposed finding is irrelevant and unnecessary. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated.
Accepted and incorporated.
14.-17. Rejected as contrary to facts found.
The paragraphs reciting the tests the Respondent had done are accepted and incorporated; the rest is rejected as contrary to facts found.
First three sentences, accepted and incorporated; the rest is rejected as contrary to facts found.
Accepted and incorporated.
Rejected as contrary to facts found.
Nurse's description of the patient as "acutely ill" is subordinate to facts found. It is not a diagnosis. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated.
23.-25. Accepted and incorporated.
26. Except that the use of the word "pus" is rejected as inaccurate, accepted and incorporated.
27.-36. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary and not subordinate.
Accepted but subordinate to facts found.
Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary and not subordinate.
Rejected that the Respondent made no attempt to determine the cause of the patient's illness as contrary to facts found; the rest is accepted and incorporated.
Rejected, as contrary to facts found, that Actifed was "inappropriate." What was inappropriate was the failure to properly evaluate whether the patient had chest congestion.
41.-44. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary and not cumulative.
45. Rejected as contrary to facts found. 46.-57. Accepted and incorporated.
Accepted and, to the extent not subordinate, incorporated.
Accepted and incorporated.
Accepted and, to the extent not subordinate, incorporated. 61.-68. Accepted and incorporated.
Rejected as contrary to facts found.
Accepted but subordinate to facts found.
Rejected as contrary to facts found.
Accepted and incorporated.
Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact.
1.-7. Accepted and, to the extent necessary, incorporated.
Penultimate sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; the rest is accepted and incorporated.
Accepted, as far as it goes, and incorporated. However, the proposed findings ignore the productive cough that was observed throughout the period May 20-29, 1986, and which was reported to the Respondent on May 21 and 29, 1986.
Third sentence, to the extent it implies it states all the symptoms, rejected as contrary to facts found. Fourth sentence rejected as contrary to facts found--temperature was somewhat elevated and both pulse and respirations were up for a patient in bed rest. Sixth sentence rejected as contrary to facts found--the patient was awake at intervals during the night. Rest is accepted and incorporated with some additional facts.
First sentence rejected as contrary to facts found--the patient's condition began to worsen seriously on May 29, 1986, and continued to worsen through the night. The nurses were alarmed at his condition on the morning of May 30, 1986, and began trying to call the Respondent at approximately 7:30 a.m. Third sentence, rejected as not proven when the Respondent received the message that the nursing staff was trying to contact him. The rest is accepted and incorporated.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional
Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Richard W. Payant, Esquire 2349 Sunset Point Road Clearwater, Florida 34625
Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
William O'Neil General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 13, 1988 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jun. 15, 1988 | Agency Final Order | |
| Apr. 13, 1988 | Recommended Order | Breach of standard of care: prescribing antibiotic without knowing cause of infection; delaying exam and tests. Proximate cause not an element. |
