Oct 5 2009 11:50 OCT-@5-2089 11:18 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, ve CASE NO. 2006-15950 and 2007-13706 ‘CHARLES C. HANKINS JR,, 0.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 Optometry against Respondent, Charles C. Hankins, Jr., O.D., and in support thereof alleges: 1. Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of Optometry. pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 463, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this complaint, a licensed Optometrist, licensed in the State of Florida, having Deen issued license number OP 1282. 3. Respondent's last known address of record is 1327 West Broadway Street, Oviedo, Florida 33467, DOH V. Hankins, 0.D. Case numbers 2006-15950 and 2007-13706 J;\PSU\Medical\Khal\ACs\2009 Hankins.doc P.@S Oct 5 2009 11:50 OCT-@5-2089 11:18 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 PATIENT AV 4, On or about May 4, 2006, AV presented to Respondent's office for an eye examination, 5. On or about May 4, 2006, during the examination, Respondent had inappropriate sexual discussions with Patient AV including one or more of the following: (a) Discussing the television show “Sex in the City;” asking AV if she watched the program, and stating that people should not follow the examples presented on that show; (b) Discussing AV's occupation as a cardiac nurse and stating that nurses were notorious for drinking and having sex; (¢) Questioning AV as to whether she was ‘seeing anyone at the time” and indicating that he would not “make fun” of her because she was not seeing anyone at the time; (d) Talking about his own private/personal matters, including that his fiancé loves him because of his good looks and because he kegps himself in shape. 6. On or about May 4, 2006, during the examination, Respondent had inappropriate discussion with Patient AV inclucing one or more of the following: (a) Calling himself a “bastard” and “bashing” all men in general; and (b) Stating that AV's teeth weren't perfect; and (c) stating to AV “you are not the princess you think you are.” 7. Prior to May 4, 2006, AV had never been to Respondent's office. 8. On or about May 4, 2006, prior to arriving at Respondent's office, AV called Respondent's office for directions to Respondent's office. During the phone ‘call with Respondent's staff person, AV was inadvertently given directions which caused her DOK v. Hankins, O.D. 1 2 Case number 2006-15950 & 2007-13706 J\PSU\Medical\Khal\ACs\2009 Hankins.doc P.@6 Oct 5 2009 11:51 OCT-@5-2089 11:18 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 to drive in the opposite direction from Respondent's office. Subsequently, AV was late for her appointment with Respondent. 9, On or about May 4, 2006, Respondent berated Patient AV for being late and stated that AV must be “stupid” if she could not follow directions, and indicated that AV offered a “bullshit excuse” for being late. 10. On or about May 4, 2006, during Respondent's initial examination of AV, . Respondent failed to assess or failed to record AV's unaided visual acuities. 12, On or about May 4, 2006, during Respondent's initial examination of AV, Respondent failed to note in AV’s medical records the time of measurement of AV’s intraocular pressure. | PATIENT GS 12. On or about April 30, 2007, Patient GS presented to Respondent because she had something embedded in her upper eyelid. 13. At the time GS presented to Respondent, she was then 53 years old, unmarried, and did not wear a wedding ring on her finger. 14, At the time GS presented to Respondent her occupation was 4 “housekeeper,” which was indicated in the medical records held by Respondent. 15. On or about April 30, 2007, during Respondent's examination of GS, Respondent had inappropriate discussions with Patient GS, including one or more of the following: (a) Stating to GS that doctors had placed “53 year old women” on hormone _ treatments which are now causing cancer; (b) Stating that he noticed GS was not married because she was not wearing a wedding ring; (c) Discussing another patient he DOH v. Hankins, 0.D. 3 Case fumber 2006-15950 & 2007-13706 J\PSU\Madical\Khal\ACs\2008 Hankins.doc Oct 5 2009 11:51 OCT-@5-2089 11:18 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 had as a client who was “é4 years of age” and in “great shape” because of her occupation as a “housekeeper;” (d) Stating that most women did not trust men because men were “all asshales:” (e) Showing GS 2 picture of himself and a woman he identified ag his “girlfriend” or “Jennifer;” (*) Indicating that “Jennifer” was not pretty and had been abused until she reached the age of seventeen; (g) Stating that people think he has an abusive personality. 16. On or about April 30, 2007, during Respondent's examination of GS, Respondent asked GS if She knew how fo ‘roll her eyelid,” to which, GS stated she could not because she had always bean afraid to try rolling her eyelid. 17, In response to Gs indicating her fear of rolling her eyelid, Respondent stated to GS that GS was “probably scared to try anything new.” 18. At the completion of GS’ examination, on or about April 30, 2007, Respondent stated to GS that he enjoyed his conversation with GS, 19. Respondent stated that he anjoyed the conversation with GS so much that he would discount her fee if GS would give Respondent a “passionate kiss.” >0. When GS indicated that she would not give him a kiss, Respondent asked “why Not, nobody will ever know?” . 21. GS then indicated to Respondent that she was in a loving relationship;” to which Respondent stated “you are not in love, you know what you are in... 2” 22. Respondent then asked GS if she was a “Christian,” and picked up the phone and called his “girlfriend” or “Jennifer.” During the phone call, Respondent asked “Jennifer” if she was okay. DOH v, Hankins, O.D. 4 Case number 2006-15950'& 2007-13706 J\PSU\Medical\Khal\acs\2009 Hankins.dac Oct 5 2009 11:51 OCT-@5-2689 11:19 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 23. Upon completing the phone call with “Jennifer,” Respondent asked GS for a kiss for the second time. COUNT 1 24. The Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through eleven (11), as if fully set forth in this count. 25. Section 463.016(1)( t) Florida Statutes, (2005) provides that violating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto Constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. 26. Section 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes, (2005) provides that engaging or attempting to engage in sexual misconduct, as defined and prohibited in Section 456.063(1), Florica Statutes, constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. 27, Section 456.063(1) (2005) provides: 456.063(1) Sexual misconduct in the practice of a health care profession means violation of the professional relationship through which the health care practitioner uses such relationship to engage or attempt to engage the patient or client, or an immediate family member, guardian,. or representative of the patient or client in, or to induce or attempt to induce such person to engage in, verbal or physical sexual activity outside the scope of the professional practice of such health care profession. Sexual misconduct in the practice of a health care profession is prohibited. 28, On or about May 4, 2006, during the examination, Respondent had inappropriate sexual discussions with Patient AV including one or more of the following: (a) Discussing the television show “Sex in the City;” asking AV if she watched the program, and stating that people should not follow the examples presented on that show; (b) Discussing AV's position as a cardiac nurse and stating that nurses were DOH v. Hankins, 0.D. 5 Case number 2006-15951) & 2007-13706 > J\BSU\Medical\Khai\Acs\2009 Aankins.doc P.@9 Oct 5 2009 11:52 OCT-@5-2089 11:19 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 notorious for drinking and having sex; (d) Questioning AV as to whether she was “seeing anyone at the time” and indicating that he would not “make fun” of her because she was not seeing anyone at the time; (d) Talking about nis own private/personal matters, including that his fiancé loves him because of his good looks and because he keeps himself in shape. 29. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes (2005), by engaging or attempting to engage in sexual misconduct, as defined and prohibited in Section 456.063(1), Florida Statutes. Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes, (2005) provides that violating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. COUNT 2 30. The Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through eleven (11), as if fully set forth in this count. 31. Section 463.016(1)(g), Florida Statutes, (2005) provides that misconduct in the practice of optometry constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. 32. On or about May 4, 2006, during the examination, Respondent had inappropriate discussion with Patient AV including one or more of the following: (a) Calling himself a “bastard” and “bashing” all men in general; (b) Stating that AV’s teeth weren't perfect; and (c) stating to AV “you are not the princess you think you are,” 33. On or about May 4, 2006, Respondent berated Patient AV for being late DOH v. Hankins, 0.D. 6 Case number 2006-15950 B 2007-13706 J\PSU\Madical\Knai\ACs\2009 Hankins.doc P.1a OCT-a5-2009 11:19 Oct 5 2003 11:52 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 and stated that AV must be “stupid” if she could not follow directions, and indicated that AV offered a “bullshit excuse” for being late. 34, Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 456,072(1)(9), Florida Statutes, (2005), by committing misconduct in the practice of optometry by doing one or more of the following: (2) berating Patient AV for being late; or (b) calling AV “stupid;” or (¢) indicating that AV gave a “bull shit” excuse for being late; or (dq) having an inappropriate discussion with Patient AV which included calling himself a- “pastard:” or “bashing” all men in general; or stating to AV that her teeth weren't perfect; or stating to AV “you are not the princess you think you are.” | COUNT 3 35, The Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through three (3), and twelve (12) through twenty-three (23), 35 if fully set forth in this count. 36. Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), provides that violating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken, 37. Rule 64613-3.007(b), Florida Administrative Code provides in pertinent part as follows: (2) A comprehensive eye examination shall include the following minimum procedures, which shall be recorded on the patient's case record: ek (b) Visual acuity (unaided and with present correction at initial presentation; thereafter, unaided or with present correction); DOH v, Hankins, 0.D, 7 Case number 2006-25950 8 2007-15706 J\PSU\Mecical\Khal\aCa\2009 Hankins.doc Oct 5 2009 11:52 OCT-@5-2089 11:28 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 856 488 1855 sk 38. Respondent failed to assess and/or record AV’s visual acuities in his initial examination as required. 39, Based on the foregoing, Respondent vioiated Section 456.072(1)(4, Florida Statutes, (2005), by failing to assess and/or record AV's visual acuities in his initial examination as required by Rule 64B13-3,007(2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. COUNT 4 40." The Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through three (3), and twelve (12) through twenty-three (23), as if fully set forth in this count. 41, Section 463.016(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), provides that violating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, of any rules adopted pursuant thereto constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. 42. Rule 64B13-3.007(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part as follows: RAE (2) A comprehensive eye examination shall include the following minimum procedures, which shall be recorded on the patient's case record: hak (h) Tonometry (with time of measurement). 43, On or about May 4, 2006, during Respondent's initial examination of AV, Respondent failed to note in AV's medical records the time of measurement of AV’s intraocular pressure. DOH v. Hankins, O-D. 8 Case number 2006-15950 & 2007-13706 J\PSU\Medical\Knal\Acs\2009 Hankins.doc. Oct 5 2009 11:52 856 488 1855 OCT-@5-2089 11:28 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 44. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 456.072(1)(0), Florida Statutes, (2005), as required by Rule 64B13-3,007(2)(h), Florida Administrative Code, by failing to note in AV's medical records the time of measurement of AV's intraocular pressure. COUNT 5 45. The Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through three (3), and twelve (12) through twenty-three (23), as if fully set forth in this count. 46. Section 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes, (2006) provides that engaging or attempting to engage in sexual misconduct, as defined and prohibited in Section 456.063(1), Florida Statutes, constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. 47, Section 456.063(1) reads: Sexual misconduct in the practice of a health care profession means violation of the professional relationship through which the health care practitioner uses such relationship to engage or attempt to engage the patient or client, or an immediate family member, guardian, oF representative of the, patient or client in, or to induce or attempt to induce such person to engage in, verbal or physical sexual activity outside the scope of the professional practice of such health care profession. Sexual misconduct in the practice of a health care profession is prohibited. 48. On or about April 30, 2007, during Respondent's examination of G5, Respondent had inappropriate sexual discussions with Patient GS, including one or more of the following: (a) Stating that he noticed GS was not married because she was not wearing a wedding ring; (b) Discussing another patient he had as a client who was “64 years of age” and in “great shape” because of her occupation as a “housekeeper.” DOH v. Hankins, O.D, 9 Case number 2006-15950 & 2007-13706 \PSU\Madical\Knal\aCs\2009 Hankings.dac Oct 5 2009 11:53 856 488 1855 OCT-@5-2089 11:28 FL DEPT OF HEALTH 49, On or about April 30, 2007, during Respondent's examination of GS, Respondent offered. 10 discount GS’ fee if GS would give Respondent 4 “passionate kiss.” 50. When GS_ indicated that she would not give Respondent a kiss, Respondent stated “why not, nobody will ever know?” 51, | When GS indicated to Respondent that she was in a “Joving relationship,” Respondent stated “you are not in love, you know what you are in... 52. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 456.072(1)(¥), Florida Statutes, (2006), by engaging or attempting to engage in sexual misconduct, a5 defined and prohibited in Section 456.063(1), Florida Statutes. COUNT 6 53, The Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through three (3), and twelve (12) through twenty-three (23), as if fully set forth in this count. 54, Section 463.016(1)(g) Florida Statutes, (2006) provides that misconduct in the practice of optometry constitutes an act for which disciplinary action may be taken. 55, On or about April 30, 2007, during Respondent's examination of GS, Respondent had inappropriate discussions with Patient GS, including one or more of the following: (a) Stating that he noticed GS was not married because she was not wearing @ wedding ring; (b) Discussing another patient he had as 4 client who was “64 years of age” and in “great shape” because of her occupation as a “housekeeper,” (c) Stating that most women did not trust men because men were “all assholes;” (d) Showing GSa DOH v. Hankins, O.D, 10 Case number 2006-15950 & 2007-13706 J\PSU\Medical\Khal\ace\2008 Hankins.dac _ Oct 5 2009 : OCT-G5-2089 14:21 FL DEPT OF HEALTH ‘poo 460 1855 picture of himself and B woman he identified as his “girlfriend” or “Jennifer,” and (2) Indicating that “Jennifer” was not pretty and had been abused until she reached the age of seventeen. _ 56. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 456.072(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2006), by committing misconduct in the practice of optometry by engaging in inappropriate discussions with Patient GS. | WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board of Optometry 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 SP day of JON FILED aE CLERK: Ung be PaestsbEa paTe__ “Tiel Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (850) 922-2268 (B50) 922-2382 FAX PCP: July 22, 2009 PCP Members: Presnell, Underhill, McClane BOH v. Hankins, 0.0, ti Case number 2006-15950 & 2007-13706 - T\PSU\Medical\Knai\ACs \2009 Hankins.dac Oct 5 2009 11:53 856 488 1855 OCT-@5-2089 11:21 FL DEPT OF HEALTH NOTICE OF RIGHTS Respondent has the right to request a hearing to be conducted in accordance with Section 120.569 and 420.57, Florida Statutes, to be represented by counsel or other qualified representative, to preserit 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. DOH v. Hankins, 0.0. , . 12 Case number 2006-15950 & 2007-13705 J\PSU\Medieal\Khai\ACs\2008 Hankins.doc P.16

Docket for Case No: 09-005395PL