Petitioner: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE
Respondent: MATTHEW J. KACHINAS, M.D.
Judges: SUSAN BELYEU KIRKLAND
Agency: Department of Health
Locations: Sarasota, Florida
Filed: Aug. 26, 2009
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 26, 2010.
Latest Update: May 07, 2010
Summary: The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), in DOAH Case No. 09-4678PL; Subsections 456.072(1)(l), 458.331(1)(m), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in DOAH Case No. 09-4679PL; and Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), in DOAH Case No. 09-4680PL, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Respondent committed gross malpractice when he failed to identify the twin with an
Summary: The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), in DOAH Case No. 09-4678PL; Subsections 456.072(1)(l), 458.331(1)(m), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in DOAH Case No. 09-4679PL; and Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), in DOAH Case No. 09-4680PL, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Respondent committed gross malpractice when he failed to identify the twin with anomalies in a selected feticide and performed the procedure on the normal twin.
More
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Petitioner,
v. . DOH Case No. 2007-30311
MATTHEW J. KACHINAS, M.D.,
Respondent.
/
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, Petitioner, Department of Health, by and through its
undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint before the
Board of Medicine against Respondent, Matthew J. Kachinas, M.D., and in
support thereof alleges:
, 1. Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the
practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter
456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.
2. At all times material to this Complaint, Respondent was a
licensed medical doctor within the state of Florida, having been issued
license number ME 65595.
3. Respondent's address of record is 6122 S. Tamiami Trail,
Sarasota, Florida 34231.
8002 T 0 AWW
4. Patient Ms. K.M. was evaluated at Florida Perinatal Associates
on or about December 13, 2005, and was found to be pregnant with a
dichorionic (separate placenta) diamniotic (separate sac) twin gestation of
twelve weeks four days.
5. A non-septated cystic hygroma (internal cyst containing fluid
without separate compartments) was noted for twin A. .
6. Amniocentesis was performed and the result for twin A was
47,XY,+21 and consistent with a male fetus with Down Syndrome. At the
time of the amniocentesis, several fetal anomalies were noted for twin A,
including a non-septated cystic hygroma, a short femur, an absent nasal
bone, and a cardiac anomaly.
7. The fetal anatomy survey for twin B was normal.
8. Ms. K.M. decided that she would seek a selective fetal reduction
and was evaluated by Respondent at Premier Institute for Women’s Health.
A selective feticide was done on or about January 13, 2006.
9. When Ms. K.M. returned to Florida Perinatal Associates, on or
about January 24, 2006, an ultrasound revealed that the remaining live
fetus was the one with the congenital anomalies and Down Syndrome.
Respondent had performed the feticide on the normal twin B.
J:\PSU\Medical\DIANE\kachinas\Kachinas AC 2007-3031 1.doc 2
10. On or about January 27, 2006, Ms. K.M. returned to the
Respondent for termination of pregnancy of the fetus with the congenital
anomalies.
11. The standard of care for selective termination of pregnancy
requires that the correct fetus be identified prior to the feticide. Several
ways exist to correctly identify the correct fetus, including the position of
the fetus in relationship to the mother, differentiation by gender, and use of
ultrasound findings. |
12. Respondent failed to identify the position of twin A in
relationship to the mother, even though the ultrasound from Florida
Perinatal Associates states that twin B is located toward the maternal right.
13. Respondent failed to clearly differentiate the sex of the fetuses
by ultrasound even though twin A (the affected one) was a male and twin
B was a female.
~~-~44, -Respondent failed to identify the affected twin by ultrasound
even though the affected twin had multiple anomalies including a cystic
“hygroma, shortened long bones, and possible A-F canal, whereas twin B’s
ultrasound was normal.
3:\PSU\Medical\DIANE\kachinas\Kachinas AC 2007-3031 1.doc 3
15. Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by failing to
perform a thorough ultrasound examination in order to identify the correct
fetus.
16. Respondent did not document his attempts to identify the sex
or multiple anomalies previously reported for twin A.
COUNT ONE
17. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (4)
through sixteen (16) as if fully set forth herein.
18. Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), subjects a
doctor to discipline for committing medical malpractice as defined in
Section 456.50. Section 456.50, Florida Statutes (2005), defines medical
malpractice as the failure to practice medicine in accordance with the level
~ of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law related to health
care licensure.
19. Level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law
related to health care licensure means the standard of care specified in
Section 766.102. Section 766.102(1), Florida Statutes (2005), defines the
standard of care to mean“. . . The prevailing professional standard of care
for a given health care provider shall be that level of care, skill, and
treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is
J:\PSU\Medical\DIANE\kachinas\Kachinas AC 2007-30311.doc 4
recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar
health care providers. wee
20. Respondent failed to meet the prevailing standard of care in
regard to patient Ms. K.M. in one or more of the following ways:
a. By failing to identify the position of twin A in relationship
to the mother, even though the ultrasound from Florida Perinatal
Associates states that twin B is located toward the maternal right;
b. By failing to clearly differentiate the sex of the fetuses by
ultrasound even though twin A (the affected one) was a male and
twin B was a female;
c. By failing to identify the affected twin by ultrasound even
though the affected twin had multiple anomalies including a cystic
hygroma, shortened long bones, and possible A-F canal, whereas
twin B’s ultrasound was normal;
--d:--~ By failing-to perform-a thorough ultrasound examination
_ in order to identify the correct fetus; .
“e. =By failing to document his attempts to identify the Sex or
multiple anomalies previously reported for twin A;
f. By performing a feticide in the non-affected fetus.
J:\PSU\Medical\DIANE\kachinas\Kachinas AC 2007-30311.doc . 5
21. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section
458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), by committing medical malpractice.
COUNT TWO
22. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1)
through sixteen (16) as if fully set forth herein. .
23. Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2005), provides that
failing to keep legible, as defined by department rule in consultation with
the board, medical records . . . that justify the course of treatment of the
patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories; examination results;
test results; records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered; and
reports of consultations and hospitalizations constitutes grounds - for
disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine.
24. Respondent failed to document his attempts to identify the sex
or multiple anomalies previously reported for twin A.
25. Based on ‘the ~foregoing, ‘Respondent: -has -violated--Section
458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2005), by failing to keep legible, as
defined by department rule in-consultation with the board, medical records
. .. that justify the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not
limited to, patient histories; examination results; test results; records of
J:\PSU\Medical\DIANE\kachinas\Kachinas AC 2007-30311.doc 6
drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered; and reports of consultations
and hospitalizations.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of
Medicine enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties:
permanent revocation or suspension of Respondent's license, restriction of
practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand,
placement of the Respondent on probation, corrective action, refund of
fees billed or collected, remedial education and/or any other relief that the
Board deems appropriate.
SIGNED this _2¢% day of aa , 2008.
Ana M. Viamonte Ros, M.D., M.P.H.
Secretary of Health -
tex Diane K. Kiefline
DEPARTMENT OF Er Dian Assistant Géneral Counsel
ty CLERK 0 PS DOH-Prosecution Services Unit
CLERK: os 4052 Bald Cypress Way-Bin C-65
mT STS Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
Florida Bar # 233285
(850) 245-4640
(850) 245-4681 fax
per: 4-45.08
PCP Members: g-{. Bahai, Beakison, Aone
Matthew J. Kachinas, M.D. DOH Case No. 2007-30311
J:\PSU\Medical\DIANE\kachinas\Kachinas AC 2007-30311.doc 7
Matthew J. Kachinas, M.D. DOH Case No. 2007-30311
NOTICE OF RIGHTS
Respondent has the right to request a hearing to be
conducted in accordance with Section 120.569 and 120.57,
Florida Statutes, to be represented by counsel or other qualified
representative, to present evidence and argument, to. call and
cross-examine witnesses and to have subpoena and subpoena
duces tecum issued on his or her behalf if a hearing is requested.
NOTICE REGARDING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
Respondent is placed on notice that Petitioner has incurred
costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this matter.
Pursuant to Section 456.072(4), Florida Statutes, the Board shall
assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of a
disciplinary matter, which may include attorney hours and costs,
on the Respondent in addition to any other discipline imposed.
3:\PSU\Medical\DIANE\kachinas\Kachinas AC 2007-3031 1.doc 8
Docket for Case No: 09-004680PL
Issue Date |
Proceedings |
May 07, 2010 |
Petition for Stay of Final Order filed.
|
May 07, 2010 |
Order Denying Stay of Final Order filed.
|
May 07, 2010 |
Department's Response Opposing Respondent's Motion to Stay Execution of Final Order filed.
|
Apr. 20, 2010 |
Agency Final Order filed.
|
Jan. 26, 2010 |
Recommended Order (hearing held November 18 and 19, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
|
Jan. 26, 2010 |
Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
|
Dec. 28, 2009 |
Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
|
Dec. 28, 2009 |
Petitioner's Filing of Respondent's Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing) filed. |
Dec. 28, 2009 |
Respondent's Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing) filed. |
Dec. 28, 2009 |
(Petitioner's) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
|
Dec. 15, 2009 |
Transcript (Volumes I-III) filed. |
Nov. 18, 2009 |
CASE STATUS: Hearing Held. |
Nov. 13, 2009 |
Petitioner's Unilateral Pre-trial Statement filed.
|
Nov. 13, 2009 |
Notice of Filing Petitioner's Amended Exhibit and Witness Lists filed.
|
Nov. 13, 2009 |
Order on Renewed Motion to Compel and for Sanctions.
|
Nov. 13, 2009 |
CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held. |
Nov. 12, 2009 |
CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held. |
Nov. 12, 2009 |
Petitioner's First Request for Admissions (Case No. 09-4680PL) filed.
|
Nov. 12, 2009 |
Petitioner's First Request for Admissions (Case No. 09-4679PL) filed.
|
Nov. 12, 2009 |
Petitioner's First Request for Admissions (Case No. 09-4678PL) filed.
|
Nov. 10, 2009 |
Petitioner's Renewed Motion to Compel and for Sanctions filed.
|
Nov. 06, 2009 |
Exhibit List (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
|
Nov. 06, 2009 |
Witness List filed.
|
Nov. 06, 2009 |
Notice of Filing Petitioner's Exhibits and Witness List filed.
|
Nov. 02, 2009 |
Order Granting Extension of Time (responses to Petitioner`s First Set of Interrogatories, First Requests for Production, and First Requests for Admissions to be filed by November 4, 2009).
|
Oct. 30, 2009 |
Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Request for Extension filed.
|
Oct. 30, 2009 |
Notice of Ex-parte Communication.
|
Oct. 30, 2009 |
Letter to Judge Harrell from M. Kachinas requesting extension to file required information filed.
|
Oct. 26, 2009 |
Order Granting Motion to Compel.
|
Oct. 26, 2009 |
CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held. |
Oct. 22, 2009 |
Notice of Telephonic Motion Hearing (motion hearing set for October 26, 2009; 10:45 a.m.).
|
Oct. 21, 2009 |
Amended Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition of Witness in Lieu of Live Testimony (as to time only) filed.
|
Oct. 21, 2009 |
Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition of Witness in Lieu of Live Testimony filed.
|
Oct. 21, 2009 |
Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of W. Morales) filed.
|
Oct. 21, 2009 |
Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of D. Boucher) filed.
|
Oct. 07, 2009 |
Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
|
Oct. 07, 2009 |
Petitioner's Motion to Compel filed.
|
Sep. 22, 2009 |
Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
|
Sep. 22, 2009 |
Notice of Hearing (hearing set for November 18 and 19, 2009; 9:00 a.m.; Sarasota, FL).
|
Sep. 22, 2009 |
Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 09-4678PL, 09-4679PL and 09-4680PL).
|
Sep. 08, 2009 |
Unilateral Response to Initial Order filed.
|
Sep. 02, 2009 |
Order Granting Extension of Time (response to the Initial Order to be filed by September 8, 2009).
|
Sep. 01, 2009 |
Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Initial Order filed.
|
Aug. 31, 2009 |
Notice of Serving Petitioner's First Request for Production, First Request for Interrogatories and First Request for Admissions to Respondent filed.
|
Aug. 26, 2009 |
Notice of Appearance of Co-counsel (of G. Kim) filed.
|
Aug. 26, 2009 |
Notice of Appearance (filed by D. Kiesling).
|
Aug. 26, 2009 |
Initial Order.
|
Aug. 26, 2009 |
Agency referral filed.
|
Aug. 26, 2009 |
Election of Rights filed.
|
Aug. 26, 2009 |
Administrative Complaint filed.
|
Orders for Case No: 09-004680PL
Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
Apr. 20, 2010 |
Agency Final Order
|
|
Jan. 26, 2010 |
Recommended Order
|
Respondent committed gross malpractice when he failed to identify the twin with anomalies in a selected feticide and performed the procedure on the normal twin.
|