STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

KAREN JACKSON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 99-5245

) DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD ) OF OPTOMETRY )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case on March 23, 2000, at Miami, Florida, before Susan B. Kirkland, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Karen Jackson, pro se

Post Office Box 7157

West Palm Beach, Florida 33405

For Respondent: Angela T. Hall, Esquire

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Petitioner should be given a passing grade for the pharmacology portion of the Optometry Licensure Examination given on August 1999.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By examination grade report mailed on September 13, 1999, Petitioner, Karen Jackson (Jackson), received notice from Respondent, Department of Health, Board of Optometry (Department), that she received a failing grade of 65.70 on the pharmacology portion of the Optometry Licensure Examination given in August 1999. By letter dated November 20, 1999, Jackson filed a request for an administrative hearing, challenging the scores she received for several questions.

On December 13, 1999, the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment to an Administrative Law Judge. The case was originally assigned to Administrative Law Judge Errol H. Powell, but was transferred to Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Kirkland to conduct the final hearing. The final hearing was scheduled for February 8, 2000. On February 1, 2000, Petitioner filed a Motion for Continuance, which was granted. The final hearing was rescheduled for March 23, 2000.

At the final hearing, Petitioner testified in her own behalf. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-7 were introduced in evidence. Respondent called Lee Skinner and Dr. Marguerite Ball as its witnesses. Respondent's Exhibits A-Z were admitted in evidence. Respondent's Exhibits E and F were admitted under seal pursuant to Section 455.647, Florida Statutes. Official recognition was

taken of Sections 455.564, 455.647, and 463.006, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 64B13-4 and 64B-1, Florida Administrative Code.

At the final hearing, the parties agreed to file their proposed recommended orders ten days after the transcript was filed. On April 21, 2000, Petitioner filed a request to extend the time for filing proposed recommended orders until 20 days after the Transcript was filed. The request was granted. The Transcript was filed on June 28, 2000. Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order. On July 18, 2000, Respondent filed its Proposed Recommended Order, which has been considered in rendering this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Jackson took the optometry licensure examination given on August 5-8, 1999. The examination consisted of three parts: clinical, laws and rules, and pharmacology. Jackson failed the pharmacology portion of the examination with a score of 65.70. The minimum passing score for the pharmacology portion is 70.

2. The pharmacology portion is a practical examination that tests the candidate's competency in diagnosing and treating ocular diseases. The pharmacology examination consists of a series of case studies followed by questions of varying point values. Each case study is worth seven points. The questions for each case study require the candidate to correctly identify a differential diagnosis, a second differential diagnosis, and a

   final diagnosis and to answer two follow-up questions, giving the best answer.

3. Jackson challenged the scores that she received for the answers to questions 86, 31, 33, 85, 7, 9, 80, 111, 113, 66, and 69.

4. Question 86 dealt with a differential diagnosis for a patient who was complaining of tenderness in one eye. An initial scraping and cytology showed some organisms but no hyphae or gram negative cocci. Jackson listed a homograft rejection as the first differential diagnosis. Her answer was incorrect because the case study did not present the characteristics of a homograft rejection and did give indicators of a bacterial infection. The correct answer was "F," and Jackson gave "C" as the answer.

5. Questions 31 and 33 dealt with a case study of a patient who was complaining of some tearing, feeling like something was in her eye when nothing was there, light sensitivity, and redness in her right eye. For question 31, Jackson answered that a differential diagnosis was gonococcal conjunctivitis, which is incorrect because the patient did not have a severe purulent discharge, which is characteristic of gonococcal conjunctivitis. The correct answer for question 31 was "G," and Jackson gave "L" as the answer.

6. Question 33 was for the final diagnosis, and Jackson again answered gonococcal conjunctivitis. The answer was incorrect because of the absence of a severe purulent discharge.

   The correct answer to question 33 was "A," and Jackson answered "L."

7. Question 85 dealt with a patient who was complaining of decreased vision in one eye. The applicant was asked to pick the next step in the management of care to be taken if the appropriate medical care had been unsuccessful. Jackson incorrectly indicated that the answer was retinal focal laser therapy. Such treatment would be appropriate for a patient who had diabetic macular edema but not for the diagnosis of the patient in question. The correct answer to question 85 was "A," and Jackson answered "H."

8. Questions 7 and 9 dealt with a patient complaining of floaters and decreased vision. Question 7 called for a second differential diagnosis. Jackson answered rheumatoid arthritis, which is incorrect because the patient was experiencing chronic granulomatous uveitis. The correct answer to question 7 is "I," and Jackson answered "E."

9. Question 9 asked the candidate to identify the testing which would be appropriate for the correct final diagnosis. Jackson correctly identified the final diagnosis, but did not correctly identify the appropriate treatment. Jackson's answer gave the appropriate test for rheumatoid arthritis, which was not the final diagnosis. The correct answer was "B," and Jackson answered "G."

10. For question 80, Jackson stated that she bubbled in the wrong answer. She bubbled in "F," and the correct answer was "E." The responsibility for bubbling in the correct answer rests with the candidate; thus, "F" is considered an incorrect answer even if it was bubbled in by mistake.

11. Questions 111 and 113 dealt with a patient complaining of intermittent haloes and blurred vision. Question 111 asked for a differential diagnosis. Jackson answered acute angle closure glaucoma, which is incorrect because the patient did not present the characteristics of acute angle disclosure glaucoma, particularly with an intraocular pressure of 27. The correct answer was "C," and Jackson answered "A."

12. Question 113 asked for the final diagnosis. Again Jackson answered acute angle closure glaucoma, which is incorrect.

13. Questions 66 and 69 dealt with a patient who had a dark shadow which obscured the vision in his right eye six hours before his visit to the doctor. Question 66 asked for a differential diagnosis. Jackson answered traumatic vitreous hemorrhage, which is incorrect because there was no evidence of trauma given in the case study. The correct answer was "F," and Jackson answered "K."

14. Question 69 asked for the immediate treatment or management which would be indicated for the right eye. Jackson answered vitrectomy, which is incorrect because a vitrectomy

    would not be performed on a hemorrhage which had been present for only six hours. The correct answer is "D," and Jackson answered "F."

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

15. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

16. The Department is authorized to develop, administer, and score examinations for optometrists pursuant to Section 455.574, Florida Statutes. Any person desiring to practice optometry in Florida must pass the licensure examination developed by the Department to test the applicant's competency as an optometrist. Section 463.006, Florida Statutes.

17. The Petitioner has the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that her examination scoring was flawed and that the Department acted arbitrarily or capriciously or with an abuse of discretion. See Harac v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 484 So. 2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. d DCA 1986). Petitioner has failed to establish that her answers were correct and failed to establish that the Department's decision to give her no credit for the challenged questions was arbitrary or capricious or constituted an abuse of discretion.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Karen Jackson failed to earn a passing score of 70 on the pharmacology portion of the optometrist licensure examination given in August 1999.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

SUSAN B. KIRKLAND

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2000.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Karen Jackson

Post Office Box 7157

West Palm Beach, Florida 33405

Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703

Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703

Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Optometry

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703

William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 99-005245

Orders for Case No: 99-005245