STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, PETITIONER, Vv. CASE NO. 2008-12423 JORGE OSCAR WEKSLER, MD 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, Jorge Oscar Weksler, MD 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 55145. Filed November 14, 2012 1:14 PM Division of Administrative Hearings 3. Respondent's address of record is 7315 Hudson Avenue, Hudson, Florida 34667. 4. On or about April 8, 2004, Patient MT, a fifty-five year old male, presented to the Bonati Institute, Gulf Coast Orthopedic Center, 7315 Hudson Avenue, Hudson, FI to undergo microsurgical debridement (medical removal of a patient's dead, damaged, or infected tissue) of the facets with rhizolysis (facet denervation) at the L4/L5 and L5/S1 facets bilaterally. 5. On or about April 9, 2004, Patient MT was seen by Respondent one day post surgery. Patient MT’s medical records indicate Patient MT stated the pain affecting his back and buttock was totally resolved following the surgical procedure. Patient MT reported the strength of the involved extremity as improved; Patient MT also reported moderate surgical pain. 6. On or about April 9, 2004, according to the medical record Respondent discussed his recommendation for Patient MT to undergo arthroscopic surgery consisting of a L5/S1 right laminotomy (removal of lamina) in order to decompress the corresponding spinal cord and/or spinal nerve root with foraminotomy with discectomy with possible arthodesis (surgical fusion of a joint) A foraminotomy is the removal of bone or tissue obstructing and compressing the spinal nerve root. A discectomy is the removal of central portion of intervertebral disc. 7. On or about April 13, 2004, Patient MT presented to the Bonati Institute and underwent a lumbar laminotomy with foraminotomy and discectomy with laminectomy scar debridement at the L5/S1 level on the right side with posterior fusion at the L5/S1 vertebrae. 8. On or about April 14, 2004, Patient MT presented to the Bonati Institute one day post surgery. The medical records demonstrate Patient MT indicated the pain he felt affecting the S1 nerve root on the right side was partially resolved following the surgical procedure. According to the medical records Patient MT indicated the burning sensation previously experienced was partially resolved, Patient MT also indicated the strength of the involved extremity was much improved. 9. On or about April 20, 2004, Patient MT presented to the Bonati Institute and underwent cervical laminotomy with foraminotomy and discectomy at the C6/C7 level on the left side. 10. On or about April 21, 2004, Patient MT presented to the Bonati Institute one day after C6/C7 left laminotmy with foraminotmy and discectomy. 11. On or about April 21, 2004, Patient MT according to the medical records stated that the pain felt affecting the C7 nerve root on the left side was totally resolved following the surgical procedure. Patient MT reported the numbness felt prior to the surgery was resolved. Patient MT also reported the burning sensation was resolved, but Patient MT reported moderate to severe surgical pain. 12. On or about April 21, 2004, Respondent recommended Patient MT undergo arthroscopic surgery consisting of a C5/C6 left posterior for amnioplasty with possible arthrodesis. 13. On or about May 3, 2004, Patient MT presented to the Boanti Institute and underwent cervical laminotomy with foraminotmy and discectomy at the C5/C6 level on the left side. 14. On or about May 4, 2004, Patient MT presented to the Bonati Institute one day post surgery; according to the medical records Patient MT stated the pain felt at the C6 area was totally resolved, Patient MT also reported no numbness or burning post surgery. 15. On or about May 4, 2004, Patient MT was referred to pain management for consultation for possible epidural steroid injection. 16. On or about May 4, 2004, Respondent discharged Patient MT to home with a scheduled follow-up call in six weeks. 17. On or about June 18, 2004, Patient MT was contacted by telephone; according to the medical records Patient MT indicated his pain was much better, but complained of a little stiffness in his neck,.but was not taking any pain medication. 18. Respondent fell below the acceptable standard of care by inappropriately recommending surgery for Patient MT. 19. Respondent fell below the acceptable standard of care when he recommended surgery when Patient MT indicated his symptoms had resolved. 20. Respondent fell below the acceptable standard of care when he recommended pain management when Patient MT indicated his: symptoms had resolved. 21. Respondent failed to adequately document the justification for recommending surgery for Patient MT, when Patient MT indicated his symptoms had resolved. 22. Respondent failed to adequately document the justification for recommending pain management for Patient MT: when Patient MT indicated his symptoms had resolved. 23. Respondent failed to adequately document the basis for his diagnosis for Patient MT. COUNT ONE 24. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twenty-three (23) as if fully set forth in this count. 25. Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2004), sets forth grounds for disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine for 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. 26. Respondent failed 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 in one or more of the following ways: a) Respondent inappropriately recommended surgery for Patient MT; and/or b) Respondent recommended surgery when Patient MT indicated his symptoms had resolved; and/or c) Respondent recommended pain management when Patient MT indicated his symptoms had resolved. 27. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2004), by failing 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. COUNT TWO 28. Petitioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twenty-three (23) and paragraph twenty-six (26) as if fully set forth in this count. 29. Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes provides that failure 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 is grounds for discipline by the Board of Medicine. 30. Respondent failed to keep medical records that justified the course of Patient MT’s treatment in one or more of the following ways: a) Respondent failed to adequately document the justification for recommending surgery when Patient MT indicated his symptoms had resolved. b) Respondent failed to adequately document the justification for recommending pain management when Patient MT indicated his symptoms had resolved. c) Respondent failed to adequately document the basis for his diagnosis. 31. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep legible 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. 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’ FILE! H PARTMENT OF HEALT CEPA EPUTY CLERK CLERK Angela Barton pare 03/29/2010 PCP: Mareh 2le, 2010 Morel 2010. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, M.D., M.P.H. State Surgeon General Ephr Calabi D. a Assistant General Counsel DOH-Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way-Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Florida Bar No.: 121347 (850) 245-4640 (850) 245-4681 Fax PCP Members: A Dares | i, Resenbery, Mullins Jorge Oscar Weksier 2008-12423 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.

Docket for Case No: 12-003662PL