STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ii Agha ig ee H OTRAS NYE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ) EA} u Nes . ) PETITIONER, _ 00-0435 v. ) CASE NO. 96-08540 ) DUKE H. SCOTT, M_D., ) ) RESPONDENT. ) __) ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Petitioner, Department of Health, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Medicine against Duke 4. Scott, M.D., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent,” and alleges: 1. Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Pursuant the provisions of Section 20.43(3), Florida t Statutes, the Petitioner has contracted with the do for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance, councils, or boards, ag appropriate. 2. Respondent is and has been at all tmes material hereto a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0013791. Respondent’s last known address is 1205 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 32250-3405. 3. Respondent specializes in family ptactice, and is not board certified. UW UY 4. Respondent treated Patient L.S., a female born 1944, for medical conditions associated with her right breast from on or abaut June 3, 1993 through on or about August 9, 1993. 5. On or about June 8, 1993, Patient L.S. presented to Respondent with complaints of pain in her right-side chest wall. Respondent performed a breast examination and discovered a suspicious lump in Patient L.S.’s right breast. 6. On or about June 15, 1993, Patient L.S. underwent a mammogram, which confirmed a 9mm (or 0.9cm), well-defined mass. 7. On or about June 30, 1993, Respondent surgically removed the lump in Patient L.S.’s right breast, in an outpatient procedure performed in his office and without assistance. Respondent’s medical records indicate he removed two (2) portions of breast tissue measuring 3.5 x 2.5 x 1.0cm, and 6.0 x 3.0 x 2.0cm, totaling several times the size of the mass noted in the preoperative mammogram. The tissue removed was determined to include a lipoma (a benign fatty breast tumor). 8. Patient L.S. suffered excessive bleeding following Respondent’s surgery, and returned to Respondent’s office due to this ble¢ding and an infection which developed at the surgical site. 9. Patient L.S. subsequently sought additional treatment from a breast surgery specialist, who diagnosed Patient L.S. as suffering a surgical site infection, and performed edditional surgery in or about October 1993 to clean out the wound. 10. Respondent’s medical records for Patient L.S. do not justify his course of treatment of the patient, in that they do not justify the removal of breast tissue in the amount an VU Ne removed by Respondent, and do not document Patient L.S.’s follow-up visits where she sought additional treatment due to excessive bleeding. 11. Respondent practiced medicine below the standard of care, in that: Respondent’s surgery on or about June 30, 1993, was too invasive to be safely performed in an office setting; Respondent compromised proper sterile surgical technique, resulting in a postoperative wound infection necessitating additional treatment and surgery; and, Respondent removed an excessive zmount of Patient L.S.’s breast tissue. 12. _ Respondent is a family practice physician who is not qualified by education or experience to perform the breast surgery described herein, particularly in an office setting. In Ferforming this surgery, Respondent performed a professional responsibility he knew or had r2ason to know that he was not competent to perform. COUNT ONE 13. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twelve (12), as if fully set forth herein this Count One. 14. Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, in that Respondent’s medical records do not justify removal of Patient L.S.’s breast tissue in the amount described, and do not accurately document Patient L.S.’s follow-up visits. 15. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida <— Statutes, by failing to keep written