Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed as a medical doctor by the Florida Board of Medicine. He holds License No. ME 0019700. Respondent received his medical degree overseas and did his residence in obstetrics and gynecology at Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg, Florida. He is neither board certified nor board eligible. For the past eight plus years Respondent's practice has been limited to terminating pregnancies at All Women's Health Clinic at Tampa, Florida. He has performed in excess of 15,000 abortions. One reason given by Respondent for so limiting his practice is the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Since he has no private practice, Respondent gave up admitting privileges at hospitals in the area. Without malpractice insurance, he would not be given staff privileges. On August 23, 1986, A. L., a pregnant 16 year old, entered All Women's Health Center, Tampa, to have her pregnancy terminated. A. L. had noted on her history statement that her last menstrual period started some eight weeks ago. Respondent first saw A. L. when he entered the procedures room at All Women's Health Center and commenced his examination prior to instituting abortion procedures. With respect to the examination the testimony varied widely. Diane Roberts, LPN, who was performing the duties of physician's assistant during the procedure, initially told the investigators that the examination lasted only a couple of seconds and consisted of a vaginal examination with two fingers of the right hand in the vagina while the abdomen was palpated with the left hand. At the hearing, Roberts testified that she wasn't paying much attention to the patient during the examination, didn't recall telling investigator the examination only took a couple of seconds, and recalled Respondent telling A. L. several times to relax. Respondent testified he performed a normal vaginal examination. The examination was longer than usual because A. L. wasn't relaxed and tensed her stomach muscles which made the uterus more difficult to palpate; and that following his examination he determined the gestational age of the fetus to be 12 weeks. Respondent testified he also checked the patient's heart and lungs before commencing the pelvic examination. A. L. testified that Respondent palpated her abdomen with two hands, but did not check heart and lungs or do a pelvic examination. A. L. had an earlier pregnancy terminated the previous year when the doctor did a pelvic examination with two fingers in the vagina while the abdomen was palpated with his other hand. The patient was ultimately determined to be 28 to 30 weeks pregnant. Largely because of the large error in gestational age, it is concluded that Respondent performed only a perfunctory examination on A. L. Had he conducted the proper examination, it is inconceivable that he, an experienced gynecologist, could underestimate the gestational age of the fetus by some four months. The magnitude of this error is illustrated by Respondent's testimony that a 12 week fetus is approximately 3 inches long and weighs 30 grams, while a 28 week fetus is approximately 14 inches long and weighs 1100 grams. Respondent started the procedure thinking he was aborting a 12 week fetus with the patient on the table and feet in the stirrups. After the instruments were inserted and the procedure started, Respondent concluded the fetus was 16 weeks, obtained a larger curette, then determined the fetus was more likely 20 weeks, again changed curette, and after removing fluid and part of an arm Respondent concluded that the gestational age of the fetus was some 28 weeks and required hospitalization to complete the procedure. Mistakes in determining gestational age can be made by a prudent physician if: (1) the patient is obese; (2) if the uterus is very soft and the extremities difficult to locate; (3) if the baby has a low fluid volume; (4) if the patient is very tense; or, (5) if the head of the fetus is felt and not the uterus. Here A. L. was more thin than obese which should have greatly facilitated palpation of the abdomen to determine the size of the uterus. Accepting the testimony that she was tense during the examination, and the earlier pregnancy would cause the uterus to be soft, no experienced gynecologist should conduct an examination of a patient such as A. L. and err on the magnitude here involved. Further, if the examination was difficult, the procedure should not have commenced until Respondent was reasonably positive of the gestational age of the fetus. One indication Respondent received that the fetus was older than 12 weeks was the quantity of fluid drawn. Further, no experienced gynecologist should mistake the head of the fetus as the extremity of the uterus on a patient such as A. L. Once Respondent determined the fetus was more than 16 weeks along, he called Dr. Barile, a gynecologist with admitting privileges at Humana Women's Hospital, Tampa, to request he remain available in case Respondent needed to send A. L. to a hospital. When Respondent determined the gestational age of the fetus' was more than 26 weeks, he again called Barile who suggested it would be better to refer the patient to an obstetrician. Respondent then telephoned his backup obstetrician and found she was on vacation, and a doctor with whom Respondent was not acquainted was taking her calls. Since A. L. was stable and in no apparent distress, Respondent called Dr. Klein, a pediatrician with admitting privileges at Bayfront Memorial Hospital in St. Petersburg. Dr. Klein agreed to take care of the patient by having his associate, who had the duty that day, meet the patient at Bayfront. A. L. had been brought to the clinic by her brother, and Respondent concluded A. L. could be safely transported to Bayfront by automobile and suggested her brother drive her. The brother demurred on the ground that his car overheated and might not make the 40-odd mile trip to Bayfront safely, but another brother had a more reliable car. The other brother was called and agreed to take his sister to Bayfront and stated that he would be at the clinic in about 10 minutes. Approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes later this brother arrived, and A. L. was started to the brother's car. At this time she appeared unsteady, and Respondent concluded she should go to Bayfront by ambulance. When a Hillsborough ambulance service was called, they told Respondent of the policy whereby they could not transport a patient out of Hillsborough County and that he should contact a Pinellas County ambulance service to perform the desired transportation. Respondent then called a Pinellas County ambulance service who arrived about an hour later to take A. L. to Bayfront where she was met by Dr. Yeshnick, the associate of Dr. Klein, who admitted the patient. Between the time Respondent determined the abortion could not be performed at the clinic until A. L.'s arrival at Bayfront Hospital, some 6 hours had elapsed. Of the approximately 15,000 abortions that Respondent has performed, less than 5 became emergencies that required removal from the clinic to a hospital. Respondent's backup procedures for emergencies were adequate. On August 23, 1986, A. L. was in the third trimester of her pregnancy, and the abortion was not necessary to save the life or preserve the health of A. L.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jayaprakash Kamath, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having license ME 0036704. He is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology. He has had no prior complaints of any kind against him since he began practicing medicine in Florida in 1980, and he has a reputation for being a competent and caring physician. On the morning of August 1, 1988, while making rounds at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Florida, the Respondent was paged by one of his partners, Belur Sreenath, M.D. The Respondent returned the call and was asked to see a patient whom Sreenath had just accepted and admitted on a 23-hour basis at Morton Plant. Sreenath reported that the patient was a referral from the Morton Plant emergency room. The patient's regular physician was on vacation, and the regular physician's on-call cover had recommended to the emergency room physician that the patient be referred to the Respondent and Sreenath to treat the patient for diagnosed fecal impaction. It was reported to the Respondent, through Sreenath, that the patient had come into the emergency room at about five in the morning complaining of abdominal pain and constipation. The emergency room physician, Jerry Julius Chase, M.D., had three X-rays done and had done his own "wet reads" of the X-rays before sending them to the radiology department for a definitive interpretation. According to Chase, the X-rays showed "much fecal matter, no obstruction." Chase did not mention any other significant findings. Chase's preliminary diagnosis was "fecal impaction." Sreenath also reported that he (Sreenath) had ordered enemas for the patient. Soon after the Respondent received the call from his partner, the Respondent called Chase, who was still in the emergency room and still had the X-rays. Chase confirmed what Sreenath had told the Respondent, again not mentioning any other significant findings. After talking to Chase, the Respondent visited the patient in his hospital room. By this time it was about 10:00 a.m. The Respondent took a history from the patient, examined the patient, and read the patient's chart. The chart included the results of lab work and the "ER sheet," which included the emergency room physician's diagnosis of abdominal pain and impaction and the results of his "wet-read" of the X-rays, but it did not yet include a report from the radiology department or the X-rays themselves. The Respondent did not contact the radiology department for a definitive interpretation of the X-rays or obtain the X-rays for his own review. By the time the Respondent saw the patient, the patient already had one enema and seemed to be responding to the treatment. Based on the information he had, the Respondent made a diagnosis of fecal impaction, confirmed his partner's orders for enemas for the patient, and added a stool softener. The nursing staff was ordered to monitor the patient's progress. The patient continued to respond satisfactorily to treatment during the day. Between ten and eleven in the evening of August 1, 1988, the patient complained of some abdominal pain or cramping (symptoms that are consistent with a diagnosis of fecal impaction and enema treatments) and the nurses on duty contacted the Respondent's partner, who was on call. Sreenath ordered a combination of demerol and vistaril as an analgesic. One small dose was enough to relieve the patient's pain, and the patient slept through most of the night. He ate 80% of his breakfast the next morning and was not complaining of pain or asking to see a doctor. At approximately 9:15 a.m. on August 2, 1988, a nurse telephoned the Respondent for a decision whether the patient was being discharged or was being admitted as an inpatient. The Respondent still had not seen the patient's X- rays, seen or had reported to him the radiology report on them, or spoken to the radiologist. On questioning, the nurse reported the patient's status to the Respondent. The nurse's report satisfied the Respondent that the patient was responding to the treatment for fecal impaction and could be discharged. The nurse was given orders to have arrangements made for the patient to see his regular physician within a week and to instruct the patient on symptoms to report if they occurred between discharge and seeing his regular physician. In accordance with the Respondent's telephone instructions, the patient was discharged at approximately 9:30 a.m. on August 2, 1988. Although there were no clinical signs or symptoms of it during the patient's stay at Morton Plant, the patient had a large aortic aneurysm, approximately eight centimeters in diameter, in his abdomen just below the renal arteries. The aneurysm was readily apparent on the X-rays, yet Chase did not report it to either the Respondent or to his partner, Sreenath. The radiologist either did not contact Dr. Chase to point out to him that the report of Chases's "wet read" of the X-rays omitted the aneurysm or, if he did, Chase did not relay this information to the Respondent or his partner. The radiologist's written report, stating that the X-rays revealed the large aneurysm, was sent to Chase, not to the Respondent, and Chase did not relay the information in it to the Respondent or his partner. If the Respondent had known about the aneurysm, he would have considered the aneurysm to be the patient's most serious medical concern. He might not have accepted the patient or, if he did, he probably would have brought a vascular surgeon into the case and had the vascular surgeon, or perhaps a cardiologist, closely monitor the patient for possible leaking or dissecting or rupture of the aneurysm. The Respondent also would have had to give consideration to whether the aneurysm was a cause of the patient's abdominal pain. In addition to treating the aneurysm as the patient's most serious medical concern, giving consideration to whether the aneurysm was a cause of the patient's abdominal pain, the Respondent would have had to give consideration to altering his diagnosis for the patient had he reviewed the X-rays or the radiologist report, or had spoken with the radiologist. In addition to showing the existence of the aneurysm, the X-rays indicated that the patient technically may not have been impacted. (The gas pattern was non-specific.) With respect to this patient, the Respondent practiced medicine below that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances (below the standard of care) in that he did not either personally review the X-rays on the patient, read or have reported to him the contents of the radiologist's report, or talk to the radiologist. Instead, he relied totally on the emergency room physician's "wet read." As a result, the Respondent's diagnosis of "fecal impaction" may not have been correct, and he did not give proper consideration to the aneurysm. However, except for the failure regarding the X-rays, the DPR otherwise did not prove that it was below the standard of care for the Respondent, who was treating the patient for fecal impaction, to discharge the patient without seeing him on the morning of August 2, 1988, based on the nurse's report to the Respondent. Although it was below the standard of care for the Respondent not to either read the X-rays himself or obtain the radiologist's definitive interpretation, it was reasonable for the Respondent to expect that the emergency room physician would have told him, and noted in the "ER sheet," that the patient he was being referred had an aneurysm of the kind and size of the one the patient had in this case. Even if the emergency doctor had not initially communicated to the Respondent the existence of the aneurysm, either directly or through the "ER sheet," it was reasonable for the Respondent to expect that, in the normal course, the radiologist reviewing the X-rays would have noted that, according to the "ER sheet," the ER doctor "missed" the aneurysm and would have contacted the ER physician to bring this to his attention, and that the ER doctor then would have contacted the Respondent to advise him of the omission. The patient did not experience abdominal pain after his discharge from Morton Plant, but he began to experience back and groin pain. The aneurysm was becoming symptomatic. The patient's symptoms markedly worsened in the early morning hours of August 4, 1988. The patient's wife had him taken to the emergency room at HCA New Port Richey Hospital at approximately half past midnight. The patient was confused, and was complaining of pain in the back and groin area. His blood sugars were three times normal. He was diagnosed preliminarily in the emergency room as having out-of-control diabetes and confusion and as being near sycope. No X-rays were taken in the emergency room at New Port Richey Hospital, and no information was obtained from Morton Plant Hospital. Because the patient and his wife did not know about the aneurysm, they were unable to report it when the emergency room physician took the patient's history. The patient was admitted to New Port Richey Hospital at approximately 2:30 a.m. on August 4, 1988. However, the admitting physician did not see the patient or order diagnostic medical imaging at that time. The admitting physician saw the patient at approximately 9:00 a.m., and ordered X-rays and a CAT scan. Before the X-rays or CT scan were taken, at approximately ten o'clock, the patient suffered an acute hypotensive event while in his hospital room. An emergency abdominal sonogram was ordered, and it was determined that the patient was suffering from the rupture of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (the same one that was evident on the X-rays taken at Morton Plant). Surgery was attempted to resect the ruptured aneurysm. The patient was a poor candidate for surgery of that kind due to his age and other health factors. The patient died on August 6, 1988. If the patient knew of the aneurysm, it is likely that his treatment on August 4, 1988, would have been far different. First, when the aneurysm became symptomatic, they probably would have contacted the vascular surgeon, who would have been on the case already, either immediately or on arrival at the emergency room. The aneurysm would have been closely monitored from the time of arrival at the hospital, and the vascular surgeon would have been prepared for surgery when indicated. 2/ At the very least, the patient and his wife probably would have reported the aneurysm during the taking of a history in the emergency room at HCA New Port Richey Hospital, and the emergency room surgeon could have immediately taken appropriate steps, such as contacting a vascular surgeon and immediately ordering appropriate diagnostic medical imaging. 3/ The Respondent did not dictate admission notes for the patient until August 17, 1988. The Respondent did not dictate discharge notes. The DPR did not prove that it was below the standard of care for the Respondent to delay the dictation of admission notes or for him not to prepare a discharge summary for a patient in the hospital on a 23-hour basis. The DPR also did not prove that the Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Jayaprakash Kamath, M.D., guilty of one count of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), but dismissing the other count of the Administrative Complaint; reprimanding him; and (3) fining him $2,000. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1992.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, under Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the defense of a disciplinary proceeding.
Findings Of Fact On September 2, 1988, an 83-year-old female was admitted to West Orange Memorial Hospital with recurrent rectal bleeding and complaints of pain in the low back and left hip. The patient also reported pain while sitting or lying due to a subcutaneous nodule in the left buttock. As noted in the patient's history dictated by Petitioner on September 12, 1988, the patient had numerous admissions to the hospital for rectal bleeding and previously had been diagnosed as suffering from angiodysplasia. These notes also reflect that the patient had recently undergone a colonoscopy and upper endoscopy, which were negative. The notes of N. Alar, M.D., which were dictated on September 3, 1988, indicate that he had seen the patient in consultation for evaluation of lower gastrointestinal bleeding. The notes disclose that the patient had complained of bloody bowel movements. The notes record a history of diverticulosis and angiodysplasia of the colon. Following a colonoscopy and polypectomy, Petitioner excised the nodule on September 11. The procedure took place at the hospital bed of the patient where her left buttock was prepped and draped in sterile fashion prior to the making of a two-inch incision. Following the removal of the nodule, the area was cleaned, the wound was closed, and sterile dressing was applied. There was no break in technique during the procedureand sterility was maintained. The nodule was later determined to be an area of fat necrosis that had undergone dystrophic calcification. The following day, the patient developed severe respiratory distress and expired. Her final principal diagnoses were anemia secondary to gastrointestinal bleeding, arteriosclerotic heart disease, hypertension, and clostridium with septicemia. A Serious Incident Report was filed on November 29, 1988, and Respondent commenced an investigation on January 11, 1989, to determine if Petitioner's practice was below applicable standards. The first time that Petitioner's case appeared at a Probable Cause Panel Meeting of the Board of Medicine was on May 11, 1990. The following Panel members were present: Chair Robert Katims, M.D.; Marilyn Wells, M.D., and Gilbert Rodriguez. Also present were Assistant Attorney General M. Catherine Lannon and Respondent's attorneys, Carlos Ramos and Stephanie Daniel. At the commencement of the meeting, Ms. Lannon explained the respective roles of herself and Respondent's attorneys. In general, she was present to advise the Panel as to its legal duties under applicable statutes and rules. Respondent's attorneys were available to respond to questions involving specific investigations. In response to a question posed by Ms. Lannon, each Panel member indicated that he or she had received the written materials concerning matters to be considered at the meeting insufficient time to review them. Mr. Ramos identified the materials that had been provided to each Panel member prior to the meeting. The materials included the entire investigative file and Respondent's recommendation in the form of a draft administrative complaint or closing order, as appropriate. When Petitioner's case was announced, Mr. Ramos stated that Respondent recommended the Panel find probable cause and direct the filing of an Administrative Complaint. Mr. Ramos explained that the proposed Administrative Complaint alleged that Petitioner practiced medicine below the acceptable level of care when he excised a nodule from a patient's left buttock while the patient was lying on a hospital bed. Also, Mr. Ramos stated, medical records failed to reflect a rectal examination upon admission. Terming it a "terrible case," Panel member Wells moved to find probable cause and issue the Administrative Complaint. Mr. Ramos stated that Petitioner "wasn't sterile." Transcript of May 11 meeting, page 5. Chair Katims asked if Petitioner had surgical privileges. Ms. Lannon responded by restating Dr. Katims' question whether Petitioner may have performed the procedure in a hospital bed because he lacked surgical privileges. Dr. Wells expressed interest in this point. The motion was then passed without further discussion. The materials available to the Probable Cause Panel on May 11, 1990, included a letter dated March 15, 1989,from Joseph R. Goggin, M.D., who is a board certified surgeon. Retained by Respondent to opine as to the standard of care, Dr. Goggin reviewed the file materials and stated in part: I find it hard to believe that the patient's hospital bed in a usual hospital room would be considered sterile. [Petitioner's] statements throughout both the Discharge Summary and in the chart itself state that the wound infection clostridium perfringens and staph coagulase negative was self-inflicted by the patient following the surgical procedure. I cannot believe that this is true. Clostridium perfringens is not a normal flora found in the human colon. Neither is staph coagulase negative. I would suspect that if the patient had contaminated the wound with her own stool, we would have seen mixed cultures with numerous other bacteria involved. One must assume that because of the pure cultures of clostridium perfringens and staph coagulase negative that a break in sterile technique occurred. I think this occurred because the patient underwent the procedure in her hospital bed and not in a sterile operating environment. Dr. Goggin's letter concludes that the hospital changed its policy so that all procedures involving excision be performed in a "completely sterile environment." The letter adds: If this policy was not in place prior to the procedure, I don't believe that the licensee violated the standard of care as it applied to this hospital. However, most of us would believe that any invasive procedure of this nature should probably be performed in a sterile environment. The letter from Dr. Goggin also faults Petitioner for his failure to obtain a rectal examination upon admission of the patient, even though she had been complaining of rectalbleeding. In terms of the timeliness of Petitioner's diagnosis of clostridium, Dr. Goggin concedes, "I don't think that an earlier diagnosis would have changed this patient's final outcome." The records available to the Probable Cause Panel on May 11, 1990, also included a letter from Respondent to Petitioner advising him that he is the subject of a complaint and inviting him to provide a written explanation. In response, and included in the records available on May 11, were a letter dated April 25, 1989, from Petitioner; a statement dated April 25, 1989, from the attending nurse corroborating that sterility was maintained during the excision of the nodule; and a letter dated July 3, 1989, from James J. McClelland, M.D., whose letterhead indicates that he is a member of a group of infectious disease control consultants. Petitioner's letter states that invasive procedures, such as subclavian insertions, chest tube placements, and lumbar punctures for spinal taps, are commonly performed in the hospital bed. The letter restates the procedures followed to maintain sterility and asserts that the contamination had to take place subsequent to the dressing of the wound, such as by the patient inadvertently loosening the dressing through normal movement in the bed. Dr. McClelland's letter states that, following review of the medical records, he finds that Petitioner "followed the normal standard of care in performing this procedure . . .." The letter explains: [C]lostridial infections in sepsis are well reported in the literature to have occurred after many sterile procedures, using standard medical care and that the presence of the clostridial infection does not imply substandard care. It should be noted that clostridial organisms can colonize the skin, often times in higher numbers below the waist, and that this organism entered the wound in the postoperative period. The record showed that [Petitioner] followed the standard care to prevent contamination of the wound by his prep and subsequent dressing of the wound. In regard to the question con- cerning a break in sterile technique and the findings of pure cultures of Clostridium perfringens and staph coagulase negative, it could also [be] assumed that a break in sterile technique would result in multiple other organisms being present in the wound. It should also be noted that the Clostridium perfringens organism can colonize the gastrointestinal tract, as well as the skin, and in itself does not exclude this as a potential pathophysiologic mechanism for her subsequent sepsis. The potential for the woman to have developed this overwhelming infection, whether the surgical procedure was performed in the office, a hospital bed, or the operating room, all exist and cases have been reported associated with all settings. There is no evidence I can see that [Petitioner] deviated from what would be considered normal procedure in removing this nodule from the patient's buttocks. As a result of the deliberations of the Probable Cause Panel on May 11, 1990, Chair Katims executed a Memorandum of Finding of Probable Cause. In the memorandum, the Panel finds that probable cause was found of a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t) and (m). By Administrative Complaint filed August 24, 1990, commencing DOAH Case No. 90-5298, Respondent alleged that thesurgical wound on the left buttock developed pure cultures of clostridium perfringens and staph coagulase negative, "indicating a break in sterile technique." The Administrative Complaint alleges that the patient was admitted with rectal bleeding, but the records fail to disclose that a rectal examination was performed upon admission. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the hospital involved has since changed its policy to require all procedures involving excision to be performed in a "completely sterile environment." Based on the foregoing allegations, Count One of the Administrative Complaint alleges that Petitioner violated Section 458.331(1)(t) by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician when Petitioner excised the nodule in the "environment of [the] patient's hospital bed, which is not a sterile operating environment." Count Two alleges that Petitioner violated Section 458.331(1)(m) by failing to keep medical records--namely a rectal examination upon admission-- justifying the course of treatment of the patient. On September 26, 1990, Respondent filed a motion to amend the Administrative Complaint to delete the allegation about the change in the hospital procedure as irrelevant. The motion was granted. On October 9, 1990, Respondent also filed responses to interrogatories. In support of the assertion that the hospital bed is not a sterile operating environment,Respondent stated that it would rely upon the following witnesses: Petitioner, the attending nurse, Dr. Goggin, and the medical records custodian. In their entirety, the responses disclose that Respondent had not obtained expert advice other than that set forth above. In response to a letter dated December 28, 1990, requesting an opinion and providing all file materials, Respondent's attorney Randolph Collette received a seven-page letter dated January 3, 1991, from E. Rawson Griffin, III, M.D. Dr. Griffin is Board-certified in family practice. After an extensive recitation of the patient history taken by Petitioner, Dr. Griffin traces the subsequent actions of Petitioner, noting that pathological examination of the biopsied tissue detected "no particular serious abnormalities." Dr. Griffin opines: . . . my first opinion is that overall I find that [Petitioner] followed the basic standard of care in doing a history and physical examination, writing progress notes which justified the treatment, provided a surgical procedure in which he documented proper sterilization, surgical technique and postoperative wound care and that he obtained proper informed consent and signed this informed consent. Based on this review, I feel that the standard of care which is outlined in DeGowan and DeGowan's as well as what any reasonable physician would follow, was pretty much followed. The only criticism that I can find is again that there are no progress notes which may have been made by the covering physician. I also found that it was interesting that [Petitioner] did do progress notes on days that other physicians did not and I felt that this indicated that he was following the patient properly. It should also be emphasized that he did a three page dictation which was a discharge summary which basically outlined the facts of the case and I found this discharge summary to adequately summarize the events as they had occurred. In answering specific questions posed to him by Respondent, Dr. Griffin responds affirmatively to the question whether Petitioner met the applicable standard of care in his examination, diagnosis, and treatment of the patient. Dr. Griffin opines that the bedside location of the procedure did not violate the applicable standard of care. In this regard, Dr. Griffin notes the cost-effectiveness of method of treatment, as well as the documentation of proper anaesthesia, preparation of tissue, proper technique, and proper sterile dressings. As to Petitioner's failure to perform a rectal examination, Dr. Griffin notes that a colonoscopy polypectomy was performed. Again referring to the DeGowan and DeGowan treatise, Dr. Griffin observes that, in some cases, a routine or basic examination is inappropriate. One of the primary purposes of a rectal examination is to detect rectal bleeding, but the patient presented with obvious signs of rectal bleeding. Dr. Griffin concludes that a rectal examination by Petitioner might not have produced any more information, so the trauma associated with repeated rectal examinations was unnecessary. Under the circumstances, Dr. Griffin opines that the records justify Petitioner's failure to perform a rectal examination upon admission of the patient. Dr. Griffin also discredits the findings of a Dr.Khouzan who, based upon what he described as a "very careful review of the chart," found "very severe purulent material." Dr. Griffin notes that this finding was contradictory to multiple other chart entries and concludes that Dr. Khouzan did not in fact examine the patient. Respondent's attorney Randolph Collette received a four-page letter dated January 8, 1991, from Stephen J. Nelson, M.A., M.D., whom Respondent had also retained for an opinion by letter dated December 28, 1990. Dr. Nelson is an Assistant Clinical Professor of Pathology at the University of Miami. He is also an Associate Medical Examiner for Broward County and Attending Neuropathologist. Acknowledging the receipt of relevant file materials, Dr. Nelson states: [The patient's] terminal hospital course is an example of anaerobic Clostridium perfrin- gens cellulitis, and probable myonecrosis, following surgery. The onset is sudden, dramatic, and often fatal with an incubation period of 6-72 hours. There are five types of Clostridium perfringens, A-E, separated according to their production of four major lethal exotoxins. The most important exotoxin is . . . (alpha) toxin, or lecithinase-C, because of its lethal, dermonecrotic, and hemolytic activity. Such wounds classically display no pus because the enzyme lecithinase attacks cell membranes and literally dissolves any and all cells (including inflammatory cells) that are in its path. Other Clostridial exotoxins include collagenase, protease, deoxyribonuclease, hyaluronidase, and a hemolysin. Bacteremia is present in about 15 percent of cases. [The patient's] wound is described in multiple places throughout her medical recordas having a serosanguinous drainage. A "thin blood-stained exudate" is the usual classic textbook description. I'm not sure what Dr. N. Khouzan was referring to . . . when he says that his "careful review of the chart revealed a very severe purulent material . . .." His review couldn't have been that awfully careful as there is no mention of "a very severe purulent material," and he incorrectly identified the species of Clostridium he was hoping to treat as being Clostridium tetany (sic) which causes tetanus, rather than Clostridium perfringens which was one of the organisms cultured from [the patient's] excisional wound (along with coagulase-negative Staphylococcal spp.). I can only hope that Dr. Khouzan is not an infectious disease specialist. . . . Dr. Nelson opines that the presence of Clostridium perfringens was not necessarily evidence of substandard care. To the contrary, Dr. Nelson finds that Petitioner, trained as an orthopedic surgeon, "adequately assessed and documented [the patient's] signs and symptoms." Additionally, Dr. Nelson states that Petitioner properly performed the excisional biopsy himself; although devoting his practice to family/general medicine, Petitioner was trained as a surgeon in orthopedics. The bedside site of the excisional procedure did not bother Dr. Nelson, who states that the operating room is "justifiably reserved for more complex procedures." Dr. Nelson questions whether the procedure was performed at bedside or in a nearby "procedure room," where it was scheduled to be performed according to one of the records provided to Dr. Nelson. Dr. Nelson explains that the procedure rooms can easily be prepared for sterile procedures like excisional biopsies. Dr. Nelson's letter concludes: Clostridial spp. are ubiquitous to the human body. They most often become disease-producing and self-perpetuating when the oxygen tension in tissues is lowered, as with an abscess, decubital ulcers, or other cause of tissue necrosis and/or devitaliza- tion. Debilitated patients are at a higher risk of developing Clostridial infections. Intestinal disorders, most commonly malig- nancies, permit Clostridium perfringens invasion and replication, resulting in severe local or, rarely, septicemic Clostridial disease. The most likely source of Clostridium perfringens in [the patient's] excisional biopsy wound is local fecal contamination, though systemic invasion cannot be absolutely ruled out. [The patient] could have developed the infection from an iatrogenic injury during the colonoscopy on 9/4/88 . . . from which the adenomatous polyp was snared. Or from [the patient's] long-standing diverticulosis with the infection spreading from the abdomen to the wound. These are unlikely scenario, given her medical history and hospital course, but it would have been an easy task to have ruled these out by the performance of an autopsy. On January 11, 1991, Respondent requested that the final hearing set for January 29, 1991, be cancelled and the case abated to allow Respondent to return the case to the Probable Cause Panel for reconsideration. In the absence of objection from Petitioner, the motion was granted and the case was abated until March 10, 1991. At the Probable Cause Panel Meeting of the Board of Medicine conducted on February 22, 1991, the following members of the Panel were present: Chair George P. Vitale; Fuad Ashkar, M.D.; and Margaret Skinner, M.D. Ms. Lannon was present, aswere Mr. Ramos, and Respondent's attorneys Larry McPherson, and Susan Londgard. In response to a question posed by Ms. Lannon, each Panel member indicated that he or she had received the written materials concerning matters to be considered at the meeting in sufficient time to review them. Ms. Lannon then invited the Panel members to ask questions or request material if they encountered a case for which they had not read the materials or were otherwise unfamiliar with. Mr. Ramos identified the materials that had been provided to each Panel member prior to the meeting. The materials included the entire investigative file. When Petitioner's case was announced, Mr. Ramos stated that the case was before the Panel for reconsideration after a previous Panel finding of probable cause and the subsequent filing of an administrative complaint. Mr. Ramos explained: We have brought this case back for your consideration, because discovery revealed that two expert opinions state that the Respondent's excision of the nodule in the bedside of the patient was not below the acceptable standard of care. Furthermore, the information related by the patients--by our expert as to the source of the patient's infection is contradicted by recognized medical treatises and the opinion of an infections disease control specialist, and that has been included in the packet. That came after discovery. And, therefore, the Department has recommended that we close this case without further prosecu- tion. Transcript of February 22 meeting, page 7. Panel member Skinner then indicated that she had noticed that the two expert opinions were from a Broward County assistant medical examiner and a family practitioner. She said that she would like to see an opinion from someone who is "Board certified in internal medicine with a subspecialty of infectious diseases, and I would like to see that . . . before we move to do away with this case. This case is heinous . . .." Id. at page 8. Panel member Skinner complained that the experts did not have any medical records and that her records were incomplete. For instance, she said that she did not know the size of the incision or if a nurse documented erythema or "crud" in the wound. She thus moved that the case be brought back with the medical records with an opinion specifically from somebody Board-certified in internal medicine with a sub-specialty in infectious diseases and be brought back to the Panel, because one of the things that is not in the [Administrative Complaint] is failure to recognize [Clostridium perfringens]. Id. at pages 8-9. Ms. Lannon responded that the standard of care would be a reasonably prudent similar physician, "so unless [Petitioner] was Board-certified in infectious diseases, he wouldn't be held to that standard of care. He would be held to the standard of care of a similar physician." Id. at page 9. Panel member Skinner answered that Petitioner is an "orthopedist practicing family practice." Id. Dr. Skinner then asked if Petitioner had surgical privileges at the hospital at which the incident took place. She suggested that the status of Petitioner's surgical privileges could be an "attributing cause." Id. Panel member Ashkar stated that he agreed with Dr. Skinner. Dr. Ashkar noted that one of the materials in the file indicated that the hospital had since changed its policies, or possibly had done so, in terms of excision procedures being performed in a completely sterile environment. In response to a question posed by Ms. Lannon, Panel members Skinner and Ashkar stated that they would proceed with an administrative complaint if they find "it's a standard-of-care violation." Id. at page 11. Dr. Ashkar added that a previous probable cause panel had good cause when it caused the filing of the Administrative Complaint, and the new panel should proceed with it. Dr. Skinner requested that the Administrative Complaint be expanded to include an allegation that Petitioner failed to recognize the presence or possible presence of a staph infection. Dr. Skinner conceded that she did not have the medical records, so she did not know if Petitioner did a wound culture. She also did not have the nurses' notes, so she did not know if they made if obvious that something was wrong with the wound. At this point, Mr. McPherson reminded the Panel that the case had been before a probable cause panel previously. He added that three expert opinions determined that there was "no standard-of-care violation." Id. at page 12. Ms. Lannon disagreed with Mr. McPherson, and Panel members Skinner and Ashkar agreed with Ms. Lannon. Dr. Ashkar stated that Dr. Goggin opined that there was a standard-of-care violation and that the incident forced the hospital to change their policies. Ms. Lannon cautioned that a change in policy would not establish a violation in the first place. Dr. Ashkar responded by referring to the standard-of-care issue and quoting Dr. Goggin as follows: ". . . the patient probably should have had the surgical procedure performed in a sterile environment under the usual conditions found in an operating room suite where there are sterile instruments, and that the wound infection here is probably due to doing it outside that kind of a setting." Id. at page 13. Ms. Lannon asked the Panel what they thought about Dr. Nelson's opinion that Petitioner could be regarded as overutilizing the operating room by performing the excision procedure there. Dr. Skinner admitted that the Panel's problem was that they did not know the size of the excision. She added that the experts differed as to the appearance of the wound, which went toward the failure to recognize a serious problem. Mr. Ramos suggested that the Panel table the case so that Respondent could provide the Panel with the medical records, which everyone agreed had not been included in thepackage supplied to the Board members prior to the meeting. Concluding their discussion of the case at the February 22 meeting, Panel member Ashkar rejected Dr. Nelson's opinion because, absent an emergency, Dr. Ashkar had "never heard of [performing the subject excision procedure in a hospital bed] recently ywayay." Id. at page 16. Dr. Skinner restated her concern about Petitioner's failure to recognize the complication. Ms. Lannon suggested that an orthopedic specialist who had examined the specialist possibly could provide needed information as to the size and nature of the nodule on the patient's hip. The motion was clarified to include consideration of amending the Administrative Complaint to include an allegation that Petitioner failed to recognize timely the patient's clostridium infection and to investigate whether Petitioner had surgical privileges. The Panel voted unanimously in favor of the motion and tabled the case. By Status Report filed March 5, 1991, Respondent advised that the Probable Cause Panel had tabled the case at its February, 1991, meeting in order to obtain additional information. At the Probable Cause Panel Meeting of the Board of Medicine conducted on May 4, 1991, Panel members present were Chair Vitale, Dr. Skinner, and Dr. Ashkar. Mr. Ramos and two of Respondent's investigators were present, as was Assistant Attorney General Edwin Bayo substituting for Ms. Lannon. Each of the Panel members indicated that he or she had read the file materials. When Petitioner's case came up, Mr. Ramos noted that the case had been in front of the Panel "a couple of times," most recently February 22, 1991. Transcript of May 4 meeting, page 4. Mr. Ramos added that one of Respondent's attorneys had pursued all the issues identified by the Panel at the last meeting. Mr. Ramos stated: Discovery reveals that the [Respondent's] expert's opinion was incorrect. That was the initial expert on which we depended on to file an Administrative Complaint. Dr. Nelson and Dr. Griffin have opined since then that the procedure performed in this case does not constitute the practice of medicine below the acceptable level of care. And at our last meeting, the Panel was informed on the foregoing, and it requested that an expert on infectious disease be obtained, and to obtain information as to the respondent's hospital privileges. There's two letters that are part of your packet from the hospital that says the subject did have hospital privileges. And as to the infectious disease person, the only person we have is the one on record, which is on the subject side of this case and [Respondent's attorney] tried to find someone. If you guys know someone for future reference, we need to know about it, because . . . Id. at pages 4-5. Panel members Ashkar and Skinner offered to provide Mr. Ramos with some names. Then Dr. Skinner confessed that she was still troubled about several things involving the case. She again raised the question why Petitioner failed to recognize the serious infection, clostridium perfringens. Sherestated the other issue concerning whether Petitioner was wrong to remove the cyst in the hospital bed. Addressing the first issue, Mr. Ramos said that Respondent could not obtain an expert opinion on whether Petitioner was culpable in his failure to recognize the infection. Dr. Skinner again offered to give Respondent the names of possible experts. Mr. Ramos responded that the process would take time, and, in the meantime, "we have this doctor in this position." Id. at page 6. Dr. Ashkar offered to contact the proposed expert and expedite the process, so the Panel could accept the expert's credentials at the next Board meeting at the end of May. Mr. Ramos said they could move fast on the case, so Dr. Skinner moved to table the case again. Dr. Skinner noted that they needed to consider the issue whether Petitioner improperly incised the abscess at the hospital bed. She asked that Respondent's attorneys pose to the expert two questions: was it below the standard of care to incise the abscess in the bed and was there a failure to recognize a potential danger. Dr. Ashkar distinguished between the removal of a nodule that is a simple ganglion, an ingrown hair, or a sebaceous cyst, on the one hand, and the draining of an abscess with a "very deadly bacteria in it in a general ward," on the other hand. Id. at page 8. Mr. Ramos answered that the case would depend entirely on the expert. The first expert was dated andcontradicted by treatises. Dr. Ashkar responded that it would have been more acceptable if a surgeon without access to an operating room performed the excision in a sterile setting other than an operating room. In any event, it was, in Dr. Ashkar's opinion, improper to perform the procedure in a general ward where infectious diseases are a recurring problem. Id. at pages 8-9. Dr. Skinner agreed that the situation was worse because Petitioner had operating privileges. Dr. Skinner then moved to table the case pending acquisition of expert witness, and again, . . . I would ask him all the ques- tions you asked the other expert witness. Noting that he did have operating room privileges. The second corner of the question that wasn't asked, is, is if it was failure to recognize an additional problem with this wound below the standard of care. Id. at page 10. The Panel then voted unanimously to table the case. Respondent filed a second Status Report on May 20, 1991, and advised that the Probable Cause Panel again tabled the case at its April, 1991, meeting in order to obtain an additional expert opinion. Petitioner objected to further abatement and requested that the case be dismissed. At the same time, Petitioner requested attorneys' fees and costs. By Order Setting Case for Hearing entered June 12, 1991, the request to dismiss was denied, the request for attorneys' fees and costs was denied, and the final hearing resetfor July 15, 1991. By Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed June 18, 1991, Respondent dismissed the DOAH Case No. 90-5298 and the Division closed its file by Order entered the following day. On July 10, 1991, Respondent received the opinion of another expert, Stephen M. Kreitzer, M.D., who had been retained by letter dated June 26, 1991. In relevant part, Dr. Kreitzer's letter states: The bacteria [to which the patient succumbed] are present in the skin and certainly the elderly with diminished circulation to the skin are more prone to these types of infec- tions. These types of infections can certainly occur under the sterile conditions surgery or they can occur with any break of the skin on their own. It certainly is within the standard of care to remove the type of nodule removed by [Petitioner] in an outpatient center, hospital in-patient bedside, or in a physician's office. There is no evidence to suggest [Petitioner] violated Surgical Infectious Disease Guidelines. . . . Sepsis was recognized by the Emergency Room physician and the care of the septic patient was begun by the Emergency Room physician. [Petitioner] continued that care in the Intensive Care Unit. Appropriate cultures and the broadened spectrum antibiotics were prescribed. In my opinion, the patient contracted the Clostridium and Staph bacteria from unfortu- nate skin entry. Skin entry can occur from an intravenous site, or wound such as that involved with the nodule removal, joint injection by an Orthopedist which occurred during this hospitalization and finally, colonoscopy and polypectomy with mucosal contamination and septicemia. Bacteria induced septicemia have been documented in all of the above instances and is well recognized. . . . Because of the timing of this patient's sepsis, it is unlikely that the trigger point injection or colonoscopy had anything to do with the patient's subse- quent septicemia and demise. Regardless, there is no evidence in the chart that the patient contracted the infection because of the procedure or treatment falling below the standard of care. [Emphasis added.] The applicable standard of care comes into question with this case because of both record keeping and the admitting orders. The patient did not have a history and physical dictated at the time of admission, but rather that was delayed until the 12th of September. Although rectal exam was not included, since the admitting orders included the consultation with the Gastroenterologist who obviously would per- form the rectal exam and colonoscopy, the patient need not have undergone a rectal exami- nation necessarily upon admission. . . . Petitioner subsequently commenced the present case by filing a Petition for Costs and Attorneys Fees on July 29, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Gonzalez The Respondent Maria B. Gonzalez is a medical doctor holding Florida license number ME 0028019. She has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida since 1975. Prior to the instant proceeding, her license to practice medicine has never been suspended or revoked. The Respondent has taken and passed the written test for board certification as a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, but was refused permission to complete the exam because her privileges had by then been suspended by Hollywood Memorial Hospital. During the course of her practice in Cuba and Florida, the Respondent has delivered approximately 2,000 babies. To her knowledge, she has never had a maternal or infant death occur during her practice. The Respondent's practice at Memorial Hospital was highly unusual in that almost half of her patients were Medicaid. As a result, Respondent encountered difficulties in dealing with some of the members of the medical staff at Memorial since she believed that her patients medical interests should take precedence over their ability to pay for services. 1/ The Respondent's provisional staff privileges at Memorial were suspended on July 28, 1982, based upon a review by an ad hoc committee of the hospital's obstetrics and gynecology staff, of six cases, five of which form the basis of the instant proceeding. In deciding to terminate the Respondent, the ad hoc committee considered pertinent medical records and statements from witnesses but did not hear the direct testimony of the Respondent. When the decision was made by Memorial to terminate the Respondent, the hospital informed the Petitioner of this fact pursuant to Section 458.337, Florida Statutes, which requires that the Department be notified when any physician has been disciplined by a licensed hospital for any act that constitutes a violation of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Count One Aida M. Astiazarian On December 25, 1981, the Respondent performed a bilateral tubal ligation on Aida M. Astiazarian, a patient who had vaginally delivered an infant several hours prior to the operation. During the procedure, the Respondent was assisted by Dr. Purificacion D. Catini, a surgical assistant. The patient was anesthetized by Dr. Gary Karch. The tubal ligation on Astiazarian began with the opening of the abdominal cavity. Several adhesions from prior surgery and two small bleeders were noticeable, specifically a bleeder on the anterior abdominal wall and on the anterior surface of the uterus. The Respondent ligated the bleeder on the anterior abdominal wall and controlled the oozing from that source. The Respondent elected not to suture or ligate the oozing on the anterior surface of the uterus as recommended by Dr. Catini and instead used a four-by-four inch section of Gelfoam to control the bleed. The Gelfoam was applied with a laparotomy paid and removed after a few minutes. Believing that hemostasis had been achieved, the Respondent closed the abdominal cavity. Unlike the Respondent, Dr. Catini believed that hemostasis had not been achieved since she noticed some oozing still occurring after the Gelfoam was applied. Following the operation the patient's hemoglobin, hematocrit and blood pressure began to fall. The likely cause of these symptoms was an intra- abdominal bleed or ooze. The patient was transfused with several units of blood and discharged from the hospital. Although a reasonably prudent physician would not close a patient with an active ooze or bleed, the record fails to establish that the Gelfoam was ineffective and the Respondent knew or should have known that hemostasis had not been achieved. 2/ Uterine oozing in a postpartum patient can occur without any negligence by a treating physician. The loss of blood which occurred following this operation is not inconsistent with the Respondent's assertion that hemostasis had occurred and that sometime later the clot had become dislodged, thereby causing the bleed which resulted in the administration of two units of blood. Count Two Jaclyn R. Osier On December 28, 1981, the Respondent performed a postpartum tubal ligation on Jaclyn R. Osier. She was assisted during the procedure by Dr. David Gordon. During the operation, a tear in the broad ligament occurred and the patient began to hemorrhage profusely. The tear of the broad ligament which occurred during the procedure was an inherent risk of surgery and does not, by itself, demonstrate negligence by the Respondent. The Respondent extended the incision and located one of the bleeders; however, due to the nature of the tear and the physical condition of the patient, she was unable to locate and control other bleeders which were deeper in the abdomen. Due to the blood loss experienced by the patient, Dr. Gordon determined that additional help was needed. He left the operating room and sought assistance from Dr. Raymond Nolan. When Dr. Nolan arrived, he made an additional extension of the incision and with assistance from the Respondent and Dr. Gordon, he was successful in locating the deep bleeders and achieving hemostasis. Under the circumstances, it was appropriate medical practice for either the Respondent or Dr. Gordon to seek additional help when the patient's bleeding was not under control. As noted by Dr. Nolan "...Just as two heads are better than one, four hands are better than two." (Tr. at 369.) Significantly, Dr. Nolan, a surgeon who had operated with the Respondent on this case as well as others, did not believe that the Respondent's license should be revoked based on his actual experiences with the Respondent. Following this incident, Dr. Nolan did not have any immediate concern that the Respondent had acted improperly. Although Dr. Nolan later voted to suspend the Respondent's hospital privileges at Memorial, his vote was based on the recommendation of the hospital's ad hoc committee rather than his own personal experiences with the Respondent or his own independent review of pertinent medical records. The intra-operative complication which occurred in this particular case was not the result of the Respondent's negligence. When the Respondent was unable to control the bleeding with Dr. Gordon after the incision had been extended, another surgeon was called to assist. The Respondent's inability to control the bleed prior to Dr. Nolan being called, does not constitute negligence under the circumstances of this case. Count Three Linda Jones On May 28, 1982, at 9:45 p.m., Linda Jones, a high risk and postdate patient was admitted to Memorial. The Respondent examined the patient on the morning of May 29, 1982, and found her to be in labor. The practice at Memorial was that provisional staff physicians, such as the Respondent, handle all service or indigent patients. Linda Jones had been handled by Dr. Kast, another provisional staff physician. On the day the Respondent examined the patient, she was covering for Dr. Kast, who had asked as a courtesy to be relieved until 1:30 p.m. The labor and delivery of pregnant service patients at Memorial are handled by nurse/widwives, unless a complication arises which requires a surgical procedure. The patient was scheduled for a normal vaginal delivery. She was doing well and was placed on a fetal monitor. At approximately 12:25 p.m., the patient started having episodes of decelerations. Nurse/Midwife Jean Tease, R.N., turned off the Pitocin which had been administered and turned the patient to relieve the decelerations. The patient continued to progress until approximately 1:22 p.m., when rapid decelerations on the fetal monitor were observed. At approximately 12:00 p.m. the Respondent left Memorial to attend a wedding in Fort Lauderdale which was a twenty minute drive from the hospital. She notified the nursing staff where she was going so that she could respond if needed. 3/ Nurse Tease contacted both Dr. Kast and Respondent when the patient's symptoms began to worsen. The Respondent returned the call and when informed of the problem, advised Tease that she would return to the hospital. The Respondent was returning to the hospital via Interstate 95 when it began to rain very heavily. Her front brakes froze and her car was immobile. While it continued to rain, Respondent pulled over on the side of the Interstate and attempted to flag down help. A wrecker operator stopped and towed her car to a service station where it was repaired. Meanwhile, since the Respondent had not arrived at Memorial as she had stated, Nurse Tease placed a page for any obstetrician in the hospital, and Dr. David Lessin responded. Dr. Lessin performed an emergency cesarean section and produced a living baby. The Amended Administrative Complaint does not allege that the Respondent was negligent in leaving the hospital; rather it charges that the Respondent breached a duty owed to this patient by failing to come to the hospital until approximately four hours after advising hospital personnel that she was in route. Due to mechanical problems with her car and the weather, it was impossible for the Respondent to return to the hospital to attend this patient. The Respondent believed that Dr. Kast was on duty after 1:30 p.m., and she knew she could not arrive at the hospital before that time. Under the circumstances, her actions regarding this patient were not negligent. Count Four Ramona Cardullo Ramona Cardullo was admitted to Memorial on the morning of May 28, 1982. Mrs. Cardullo was pregnant with her third child who was ultimately successfully delivered by cesarean section. Prior to this pregnancy, Mrs. Cardullo had experienced significant difficulties during the delivery of her two other children. Her first child, who was born following induced labor in Texas, was a month post-mature. Her second child was delivered at Memorial by another obstetrician following induced labor. The second child was delivered through the use of forceps. The problems which Mrs. Cardullo encountered in her two previous pregnancies resulted from a uterine dysfunction in which her cervix failed to dilate sufficiently to permit a normal delivery. When Mrs. Cardullo came to the Respondent during her third pregnancy, she related her previous obstetrical history and its attendant difficulties to the Respondent. In addition to her historical problems, Mrs. Cardullo had also gained 80 pounds during her third pregnancy. When Mrs. Cardullo began her prenatal care, she was living in Hollywood, Florida, with her husband. During her pregnancy, the couple moved to Wauchula, Florida. Since Mrs. Cardullo did not believe that Wauchula had appropriate hospital facilities, she commuted to Fort Lauderdale from Wauchula during the last three months of her pregnancy. The Respondent, however, was unaware that Mrs. Cardullo had moved from Hollywood. On May 28, 1982, Mrs. Cardullo, while home in Wauchula, began passing membranes and started to go into labor. She informed her husband that she was in labor, and called the Respondent. After driving from Wauchula, the couple met the Respondent at Memorial where the patient was examined. The examination revealed that Mrs. Cardullo was not dilating and the Respondent told her to begin walking. She walked around the hospital until later that afternoon, when tests were performed by the Respondent to ensure that the baby was okay. The Respondent put the patient in the labor room and began Pitocin to augment her labor. A nurse in the labor room told Mrs. Cardullo that other patients needed the room more than she did and contacted another physician who ordered the Pitocin to be turned off and the patient sent home. Mrs. Cardullo and her husband returned to Wauchula while she was still in labor. Approximately three hours after arriving home, Mrs. Cardullo began passing "... a lot of stuff." (Tr. at 900.) Mr. Cardullo called the Respondent, informed her of his wife's condition, and stated that they were coming back to the hospital. The couple arrived at Memorial on May 30, 1982, and Mrs. Cardullo was readmitted. Although Mrs. Cardullo's labor had continued throughout this period, her cervix had not dilated. The Respondent discussed a cesarean with the patient, who had requested the procedure be done based on her vaginal experiences in two prior pregnancies, and decided to attempt to dilate the cervix before performing surgery. Approximately ten hours after Mrs. Cardullo's readmission and five hours after her water had broken, the Respondent came to the conclusion that the Pitocin was not working since the patient's cervix still had not dilated properly and that a cesarean would be necessary. Mrs. Cardullo had no problems with the cesarean delivery and was pleased with the quality of care she received from the Respondent. Mrs. Cardullo stated that the Respondent was different from other doctors she had encountered in that she believed the Respondent cared about her and her problems. The Respondent's care and treatment of Mrs. Cardullo was appropriate considering the patient's prior medical history. The only criticism that could be directed toward the Respondent in her handling of the Cardullo case is that she waited too long to perform the cesarean by not giving sufficient consideration to the input from her patient. Count Five Elina Carrasco On December 17, 1982, the Respondent performed an abdominal hysterectomy on Elina Carrasco at International Hospital in Miami, Florida. During the procedure the Respondent was assisted by Dr. Francisco Sarmiento. The patient had a large amount of fibrous tissue and adhesions from prior abdominal surgery which made it difficult for the Respondent to visualize the operative site. The adhesions which surrounded the uterus, bladder, omentum, intestines, the right ovary, a segment of the left fallopian tube, and the abdominal wall, had formed a mass which required dissection to reach the pelvic cavity. While dissecting the mass of adhesions, the Respondent cut the patient's illiac vein which was located underneath the adhesions, thus causing the operative field to fill with blood. While Dr. Sarmiento placed his finger on the vein to stop the bleed, Respondent requested and placed a hemostatic clamp on the vein and requested a cardiovascular team to assist. At the time of the surgery, the practice at International was to place regular surgical clamps on a surgical tray rather than non-crushing clamps, when a standard gynecological procedure was performed. Accordingly, the sterile surgical tray which was prepared for this patient did not contain non-crushing clamps, although such clamps were available at the hospital. The surgical clamp was left on the patient only until the cardiovascular team arrived. Because a crushing clamp had been used, Dr. Junco, the surgeon who repaired the severed vessel, felt that a crush type injury to the underlying artery which was immediately adjacent to the severed vein, had occurred. The pathology report does not indicate that any clots or sections of artery were removed from the patient, although the operative records indicated two small clots were removed from the artery. The crush injury was not severe in that after the insertion of a fogarty catheter, proximal and distal blood flow was restored without requiring the removal of the crushed portion of the artery. Dr. Junco closed the vein and repaired the artery. After surgery, the patient improved and was discharged from the hospital on December 30, 1982, in stable condition. The basis of the charge against the Respondent in her care and treatment of Ms. Carrasco involves essentially one issue; whether it was below the standard of care for the Respondent to clamp the patient's vein with a device which could and did cause a crush injury to an underlying artery, 4/ in order to control bleeding from the illiac vein. In retrospect, the wiser course in this case would have been to take the time to obtain a non-crushing clamp from the rotating nurse while Dr. Sarmiento controlled the bleed through use of finger pressure. The unfortunate event which occurred in this case did not result from any lack of surgical or other skills by the Respondent. The Petitioner has characterized the Respondent's reaction to the transected artery and use of a hemostatic clamp as panic, while the Respondent has characterized it as a desire to use the first clamp available to control the bleeding as quickly as possible. Additionally, the Respondent needed Dr. Sarmiento to assist and while he was holding the artery, he was obviously unable to offer any other form of help. Under these circumstances, the Respondent's use of a hemostatic clamp does not demonstrate that she "panicked" in the operating room or that her decision to use the clamp fell below an acceptable standard of care. Count Seven Deborah J. Cox On June 6, 1982, the Respondent examined Deborah J. Cox and was present with her in the labor room throughout the patient's labor. The fetus was first on an external and then an internal monitor throughout labor. The Respondent requested that Dr. Antonio Mata, a neonatologist, be present for the delivery. When Dr. Mata came into the labor room, he checked the fetal monitor and noticed signs of moderate fetal distress. The combination of Pitocin, which was administered to the patient, and distressive labor, placed stress on the fetus as indicated by the fetal monitoring strips. The patient was transferred from the labor room to the delivery suite. In an effort to deliver the baby which was exceptionally large, it was necessary for the Respondent to use forceps because the baby's head was high and the mother's uterine surface remained thick even though she was well dilated. When the forceps were applied, the baby went into severe distress. The Respondent called for an emergency cesarean section, but the operating assistant was not available. Since it was necessary to deliver the baby as quickly as possible to avoid a stillbirth or permanent damage, the Respondent reapplied the forceps and attempted delivery. The baby was a very difficult delivery due to its size. It became stuck in the birth canal which required that the Respondent rotate its shoulders to effectuate delivery. While manipulating the baby, shoulder dystocia occurred. The Respondent elected not to perform the cesarean when it was first indicated, because of a hospital rule which prohibited the performance of a cesarean section without the presence of a surgical assistant. Due to the continuing difficulties she had encountered at Memorial, she was understandably reluctant to violate a hospital rule which would have subjected her to additional problems at Memorial. However, notwithstanding the legitimacy of the Respondent's personal concerns, the best interests of this patient required that a cesarean section be performed as soon as it became evident that the baby was not tolerating labor and that a vaginal delivery would place added and unnecessary stress on both the mother and child. The decision not to perform a cesarean, and instead deliver the baby vaginally through the use of forceps, created a situation which resulted in the fetus being born with an Apgar rating of 0 and possible permanent injury. By failing to perform a cesarean section when it was medically indicated, the Respondent's care and treatment of Deborah J. Cox fell below acceptable standards of obstetrical practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medical Examiners issue a Final Order finding the Respondent (1) guilty of violating Count Seven of the Amended Administrative Complaint; (2) dismissing Counts One, Two, Three, Four and Five of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and (3) placing her on probation for six months subject to the condition that during this period she be required to practice obstetrics and/or gynecology under the general supervision of a board certified physician. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Manatee Eye Clinic owns land adjacent to its existing offices and in close proximity to Manatee Memorial Hospital, on which it proposes to construct a freestanding ambulatory surgery center for ophthalmic surgery. On December 13, 1983, Manatee Eye Clinic filed an application for a certificate of need with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for approval of a capital expenditure in the amount of $627,640 for construction of a freestanding ambulatory surgery center for ophthalmic surgery. On April 27, 1984, Petitioner received written notice that the Department had denied the application. Manatee Eye Clinic consists of five practicing ophthalmologists in Manatee County, each of whom are [sic] duly licensed and provide quality ophthalmic care in the area. Manatee Eye Clinic, and the members thereof, have available sufficient resources, including health manpower, management personnel, as well as funds for the capital and operating expenditures for the project. Petitioner's proposed medical facility would be constructed in a sufficiently cost-effective manner and makes adequate provision for conservation of energy resources and incorporates efficient and effective methods of construction. Should this certificate of need be granted, Manatee Eye Clinic will accept Medicaid, Medicare, third-party pay, private pay, and charity care. The relevant service area for the proposed facility is Manatee County. The five ophthalmologists at MEC perform approximately 1,200 eye surgeries per year involving cataract removal and lens implant. At present all of these surgeries are performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital. The founder of MEC, Dr. Robert E. King, has twice served as chief of surgery at Manatee Memorial. He is presently a director on the board of directors of the company that recently purchased Manatee Memorial Hospital and removed it from its former status of a not-for-profit hospital to its current status as a for-profit hospital. If this application is granted, Manatee Memorial Hospital will lose all of these patients. Cataract eye surgery, as it is performed today, is ideally performed in an outpatient surgery setting. The five ophthalmologists currently perform an additional 600 outpatient surgical procedures per year in the existing clinic. These procedures would be performed in the freestanding surgery facility if this application is approved. Manatee Memorial Hospital is located one city block from MEC. L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital, some seven miles from MEC, has five operating rooms available for outpatient surgery but is not currently used by any of the doctors at MEC. Additionally, Ambulatory Surgical Center/Bradenton was licensed in December, 1982. This facility has not been used by MEC doctors. During the latest reporting period, 1983/1984, Manatee County and the Ambulatory Surgery Center performed the following procedures; Hospital Inpatient Outpatient Total L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital 8,800 2,752 11,552 Manatee Memorial Hospital 6,766 1,654 8,420 Ambulatory Surgery Center -- 1,525 1,525 TOTALS 15,566 5,931 21,497 (Exhibit 19) There is no shortage of operating rooms in Manatee County available for outpatient surgery. Petitioner's primary argument against using the operating rooms at Manatee Memorial Hospital are: operating room nurses are rotated and this results in nurses not being as well qualified as they would be if their duties were limited to ophthalmic surgery; eye surgery is generally elective and such surgery may be bumped from a scheduled operation by emergency general surgery; the patients are generally older than 65 and are less comfortable in hospital surroundings than they would be at an outpatient surgical facility; access to the ambulatory surgical center would be easier for these elderly patients than is access to the existing hospitals for the same outpatient surgery; the hospital charges for the outpatient surgery are approximately twice the charges proposed by Petitioner; and Medicare will pay 100 percent of the charges in a freestanding surgical facility (up to a maximum) but only pays 80 percent in a hospital setting, thereby making the use of a freestanding facility cheaper for the patient and for Medicare. MEC doctors currently use their own scrub nurses during eye surgeries performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital leaving only the circulating nurse to be provided by the hospital. No incident was cited wherein one of Petitioner's patients was "bumped" from a scheduled operation. The complication rate for cataract surgery has dropped from 10 percent to 0.1 percent in recent years as surgical procedures have improved. As proposed, the partnership owning MEC will erect and own the surgery center, will lease the equipment, most of which is presently owned by MEC, to the Petitioner; and the rent for the building will be a fixed amount per month plus 50 percent of the net operating profits of Petitioner. Proposed charges by the freestanding surgery center will be $904 per patient (for cataract removal and lens implant) This does not include the surgeon's fee. There are no methodology rules to determine need for a freestanding outpatient surgery facility. DHRS has consistently determined need for ambulatory surgery centers by taking the most recent number of surgical procedures performed in all inpatient and outpatient facilities in the county and dividing it by the county's base population for the latest year, here 1983. This gives the rate of surgeries per 1,000 population for the latest year for which statistics are available and is projected forward to the second year of operation (here 1987). The same is done for outpatient surgeries. DHRS uses the figure of 29 as the percentage of surgeries that can be performed in an outpatient setting to determine the need for outpatient surgery facilities in 1987. From this is subtracted the number expected to be performed in existing hospital and freestanding outpatient facilities to determine net need through 1987 for freestanding outpatient facilities. Applying this procedure, to which Petitioner generally concurs, except for the 29 percent factor, the following need is shown. The 1983 population of Manatee County is 162,997. 21,497 surgeries performed in 1983 x 1000 4 162,997 131.9 surgeries per 1000 population. The 1987 projected population of Manatee County is 182, 120. Multiplying this population by 131.9 per 1000 equals 24,061 surgeries expected to be performed in Manatee County in 1987. HRS estimates that 29 percent of these surgeries could be performed in an outpatient setting in 1987. Multiplying 24,051 by .29 equals 6,978 outpatient procedures possible. In 1983 there were 4,406 outpatient surgeries performed in a hospital setting in Manatee for a rate per thousand of 27. Multiplying this rate by the projected population for 1987 yields 4,931 outpatient surgeries that can be performed in a hospital setting in 1987. Subtracting from this number the projected outpatient surgeries to be performed in a hospital setting in 1987 (6,978 - 4,931) shows 2,047 to be performed in a freestanding facility. Ambulatory Surgery Center performed 1,525 procedures from June, 1983, to May, 1984. When this is projected to 1987, Ambulatory Surgery Center is expected to perform 1,715 surgical procedures. Substracting this from 2,047 leaves 332 procedures as a net need through 1987. This is below the pro forma break-even point of Petitioner and indicates the project is not financially possible. The 29 percent factor was obtained from American Hospital Association report of 1981. In 1981, 18 percent of the total surgeries were done on an outpatient basis while it was estimated that 20 to 40 percent of all surgeries could be performed on an outpatient basis. DHRS averaged the 18 percent and the maximum of 40 percent to arrive a mean of 29 percent to project need for outpatient surgery facilities. The latest figures from the American Hospital Association report is for 1982 and this shows the latest percentage of surgeries performed on an outpatient basis to be 20.8 percent. If this figure is averaged with 40 percent, the mean would rise to 30.4 percent. This is the percentage Petitioner contends should be used. Using this figure, the outpatient surgeries possible in 1987 would rise to 7,315 and a need for 669 procedures would exist in 1987. This would meet the higher break-even number presented by Respondent of 556 procedures for the second year of operation. It is noted that the experts' estimated surgical procedures that could be performed in an outpatient setting varied from 20 to 40 percent. In arriving at the 29 percent used DHRS averaged the latest actual percentages available in 1981 with 40 percent to obtain an arbitrary figure of 29 percent to use in calculating need for outpatient facilities. It is further noted that between June of 1983 and May Of 1984 Manatee Memorial Hospital performed 1,654 outpatient surgery procedures and 6,766 inpatient surgery procedures (Exhibit 14) and Blake Memorial Hospital performed 2,752 outpatient surgery procedures and 8,800 inpatient surgery procedures (Exhibit 15). Accordingly, 23.8 percent of Blake's surgery procedures are done as outpatient surgery and 19.6 percent of the surgeries performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital are done as outpatient surgeries. If the 1,200 outpatient surgeries per year performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital by MEC had been removed during this period, the percentage of outpatient surgery would have been reduced to 6.3 percent for Manatee Memorial Hospital. No evidence was presented regarding the number of ophthalmic surgeries that were performed at Blake Memorial Hospital during this period. Regardless of the potential loss of outpatient surgery cases at Blake if this application is granted, the percentage of outpatient surgeries performed in a hospital setting in Manatee County is, according to the latest data available, 22.1 percent (combining Blake and Manatee Memorial). Using 29 percent of the total surgeries projected for 1987 in Manatee County to obtain an estimate of the outpatient surgery that can be expected to be performed in a hospital setting in 1987 results in a much higher figure than the current growth rate in outpatient surgeries would suggest. Accordingly, I find a 29 percent factor more credible than a higher percentage would be in forecasting need for outpatient surgical facilities in 1987. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that most ophthalmic surgery today is performed in an outpatient setting. This was not true only a few years ago. Accordingly, there can be little additional growth resulting from ophthalmic surgery procedures going from inpatient to outpatient procedures. As a consequence, future growth in outpatient surgery must come from other surgical procedures.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Jose Rosado, M.D., (Respondent), violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Florida law. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0068035. Respondent is board-certified in internal medicine and cardiovascular diseases. On March 10, 1997, Patient W.B.C., a 72-year-old man, arrived at the Leesburg Regional Medical Center (LRMC) emergency room. He complained of a sudden onset of weakness in his left hand and arm with numbness and tingling. Respondent was Patient W.B.C.'s primary care physician. Respondent admitted Patient W.B.C. with a diagnosis of cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome and a history of myocardial infarction. Respondent ordered that Patient W.B.C. undergo a head CT scan, carotid Doppler, 2-D echocardiogram, an electroencephalogram, and a neurological consultation. Based on the test results and the consultation, Respondent diagnosed Patient W.B.C. with right cerebrovascular accident, mitral regurgitation, sick sinus syndrome, and history of myocardial infarction. Respondent then discharged the patient with Ticlid, a medication to prevent further cerebrovascular accidents and aspirin. On March 16, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was admitted to LRMC complaining of weakness, dizziness and a fever. His vital signs revealed a temperature of 103.0 F, a pulse of 118, and a blood pressure of 139/75. The emergency room physician ordered a chest x-ray, EKG, and urine and blood cultures. The chest x-ray revealed no acute cardiopulmonary abnormality. Urine tests revealed features consistent with the possibility of urosepsis. Blood work showed a white blood count of 9.15, elevated but within the normal range. Also on March 16, Respondent ordered that antibiotics be given prophylactically until the blood cultures came back from the laboratory. The cultures came back positive for staphylococcus aureus (staph). Staph is a notoriously “bad bug” and Staphylococci aureus bacteremia has a high mortality rate. Staph aureus can originate from several possible sources including infections through the urinary tract system, IV sites, aspiration into the lungs, and pneumonia (although not very common). Staphylococci in the bloodstream is known as bacteremia. Bacteremia can lead to endocarditis which is an infection of the inner lining of the heart and the heart valves. Endocarditis is a life-threatening condition that can quickly damage the heart valves and lead to heart failure or even death. Patients with certain cardiac conditions such as mitral valve regurgitation have a higher risk of developing endocarditis. Patient W.B.C. had such a history. On March 17, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was started on intravenous antibiotics by Respondent. Patient W.B.C. continued to receive the intravenous antibiotics for four days from March 17, 1997, through March 20, 1997. Respondent then switched Patient W.B.C. to oral antibiotics and kept the patient in the hospital one more day prior to discharging him with instruction to continue on the oral antibiotics for another ten days. Patient W.B.C. was discharged on March 21, 1997. He was not referred to an infectious disease specialist nor had Respondent obtained a consultation with any specialist to determine the length of time that the patient's infection should be treated. Respondent felt that he was adequately qualified to treat this patient, and the treatment appeared to work. Respondent thought the bacteria growing in the patient's blood "likely" originated from a lung infection. An infectious disease specialist should have been consulted to give guidance as to how long to treat the infection. The standard of care for treating a staph aureus infection where there is a known source of infection requires 14 days of intravenous antibiotics. Where the source is not known, then four to six weeks of antibiotics is recommended. In this case, the infection, a resistant staph infection found in the patient's blood, could have originated from several sources. While such staph could have sprung from a source in the lung, this is by no means likely and the infection could have originated from another source. The standard of care required that Respondent contact an infectious disease specialist for an evaluation and/or that he treat Patient W.B.C.’s staphylococcus with a minimum of 10 to days of intravenous antibiotics. On or about April 11, 1997, Patient W.B.C., presented to the emergency room at LRMC complaining of congestion, shortness of breath, fever of 100.3° F, and a cough. The emergency room physician performed a physical exam which revealed vital signs of a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104, and a blood pressure of 90/54. A chest x-ray, blood work and a urine culture were ordered. Patient W.B.C. was then admitted on April 11, 1997, with a diagnosis of pneumonia, an old cerebrovascular accident and coronary artery disease. The ER physician started Patient W.B.C. on a plan of treatment which included intravenous antibiotics, Vancomycin, IV fluids, and blood cultures. A physical examination on the patient revealed a temperature of 101.3° F, a pulse of 104 and blood pressure of 91/53. The attending physician diagnosed him with probable sepsis with pneumonia. On April 12, 1997, the blood cultures came back positive for Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia. On April 15, 1997, Patient W.B.C. was afebrile (without fever) and his white blood cell count was 10.23, which is within the normal range of 4.0 to 11.0. The patient continued in this condition through April 18, 1997, despite suffering from sepsis. On April 18, 1997, Respondent approved Patient W.B.C. for transfer to another institution for consideration for urgent mitral valve replacement. On April 19, 1997, Patient W.B.C. arrested and was pronounced dead at 5:53 a.m. Petitioner’s expert, Carlos Sotolongo, M.D., is board- certified in internal medicine, cardiovascular disease and nuclear cardiology. As established by Dr. Sotolongo's testimony, Respondent practiced below the standard of care by failing to treat Patient W.B.C. with a sufficient number of days of intravenous antibiotics and by failing to consult an infectious disease specialist. According to Dr. Sotolongo, there is a difference in the way that an uncomplicated pneumonia is treated as opposed to a pneumonia complicated by bacteremia. The latter must be treated more aggressively. Based on the foregoing, Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), 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.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), and imposing a penalty which includes a formal reprimand, payment of an Administrative Fine in the amount of $5,000.00 within 180 days, and eight hours of Continuing Medical Education (CME) to be completed within the next 12 months dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of infections and/or risk management. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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 1st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Katz, Kutter, Alderman, Bryant & Yon, P.A. Post Office Box 1877 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1877 Kim M. Kluck, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Should the Board of Medicine (the Board) discipline Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida, based upon allegations that he violated Sections 456.072(1)(bb), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in the care and treatment of Patient H.J.?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME: 65565. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes. On or about July 21, 2003, the Respondent performed peritoneal dialysis catheter removal on Patient H.J. at Bay Medical Center (Bay Medical). Peritoneal dialysis is a technique that uses the patient's own body tissues inside of the abdominal cavity to act as a filter. On or about August 25, 2003, Patient H.J. presented with erythema (a redness of the skin resulting from inflammation) and induration (localized hardening of soft tissue of the body) in the area where the peritoneal dialysis catheter had been removed. On or about December 3, 2003, the Respondent performed exploratory surgery of Patient H.J.'s wound. Additional Facts Patient H.J. suffers from end-stage kidney failure, diabetes and heart disease. Dr. Ahmad Oussama Refai treated Patient H.J. for his kidney failure. Dr. Refai is a board- certified Nephrologist. Dr. Refai referred Patient H.J. for placement of a peritoneal dialysis catheter (catheter) to address the end-stage kidney failure. The catheter, as Dr. Refai describes it, was intended to remove the poisonous material in the blood of Patient H.J. By using the catheter clean fluid is introduced into the abdomen where it remains for a period of about four hours. The fluid introduced contains electrolytes put in the patient's blood stream. After the residence time for the fluid expires, the fluid is withdrawn through the catheter removing the harmful material. The patient, once instructed, is capable of performing the procedures described. The other option in performing this method of dialysis is to use a device that is employed at nighttime called a cycler, used while the patient is asleep and without the need for the patient to conduct the process. The patient's use of the catheter for dialysis is referred to as "home dialysis." Before Dr. Refai referred the patient to Respondent to place the catheter, the patient had been treated for his end- stage renal disease through a forearm AV graph to provide hemodialysis. That technique allows access to the patient's blood through a shunt, with the blood being run through a machine and cleansed and returned back to the patient. This procedure is done several times a week at out-patient centers, whereas the peritoneal dialysis is done daily by the patient or at night. On June 30, 2000, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and determined that the patient was a good candidate for the surgery necessary to place the catheter to perform peritoneal dialysis. On July 19, 2000, Respondent placed the catheter and peritoneal dialysis treatment was commenced. Following the placement the catheter was used by the patient as overseen by the Dr. Refai. As Dr. Refai describes it, the catheter is a silestic tube that has two cuffs. The cuff at the lower level sits on the fascia where it is secured and the other cuff is just under the skin or in the subcutaneous tissue. Dr. Refai describes the cuffs as fuzzy. The cuffs are expected to induce an inflammatory process promoting scarring so that the body forms tissue to hold the catheter in place. Dr. Refai calls this a bond. Dr. Refai explains that the other parts of the catheter are "slippery." It is the fuzzy part that holds the catheter in place. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 is an unused catheter similar in design to that placed in Patient H.J. On July 7, 2003, Respondent, Dr. Refai, and a Dr. Dean discussed Patient H.J. and the plan to remove the catheter that was no longer adequately performing the dialysis. On July 21, 2003, Respondent did surgery to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. On July 17, 2003, before Respondent did the surgery to remove the catheter, an explanation was made to Patient H.J. of the risks associated with the surgery as to bleeding, infection, MI stroke, death, and allergic reaction following removal of the catheter. Following the surgery Dr. Refai as the treating physician was aware that the wound associated with the surgery was not healing well and Dr. Refai sent Patient H.J. back to Respondent. Dr. Refai is familiar with the course of antibiotics prescribed for Patient H.J. to respond to the condition and the surgical exploration done by Respondent where a piece of cuff, as Dr. Refai describes it, was removed and the wound healed. December 3, 2003, was the date of the exploratory surgery. At that time, Patient H.J. was on hemo-dialysis and was being seen by Dr. Refai once a week. In Dr. Refai's opinion Patient H.J. was doing remarkably well, making allowances for his underlying condition (illnesses). At present Dr. Refai is aware that the patient is on the list to receive a kidney transplant. On August 1, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. In his notes Respondent stated: His wounds look good. There is no evidence of infection. No fever or chills. He looks well. He is not taking any pain medicine. I am going to see him back in a month for a final visit. On August 25, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again. The Respondent's notes stated: His p.d. catheter removal site which was removed 4 weeks ago has some erythema and induration around it. I ultrasounded it here in the office and it looked like there was a little fluid. I anesthetized the area and opened it. There was no gross pus. I am going ahead and treat [sic] him with some Keflex and have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday as I am going to be out of town. This may come to a head and become an abscess. It may just be some cellulitis. I am not real sure why he would have cellulites as it certainly did not look like a hernia. I am going to have him see Dr. Beaver on Friday and make sure it is improving. On August 29, 2003, a note was made by Dr. Beaver concerning his visit with Patient H.J. In that note Dr. Beaver said: Patient of Dr. Kinsey. He was seen back for re-check. Apparently he was having some questionable cellulites around his p.d. cath today. He states that he is feeling much better. On examination, I see no redness at all and per the office assistance it has much improved. There is really not tender [sic]. It looks to me like it is improving. We will plan for him to see Dr. Kinsey back next week. On September 12, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and in the office note stated: The area in his left lower quadrant is completely healed. He is doing well. I am going to see him back in one month for a final visit. On September 16, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note stated: He had some drainage from his previous p.d. catheter site. It does not appear to be infected. I am going to follow this area and see him in the office in a month. On September 30, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. again and in the office note it states: He still has some drainage from the p.d. catheter exit site [sic] it was done about eight weeks ago. I told him that I would like to leave that along [sic] for at least three months and follow that. If it does not improve after three to four months then we may need to explore the wound but it may be a piece of suture that it [sic] trying to spit. We will see him back in the office in about 6 to 8 weeks. On November 11, 2003, Respondent saw Patient H.J. and noted: He is still draining from his p.d. catheter exit site. This has been 5 months. It is time to explore the wound. We will proceed to the operating room for exploration in the sinus tract. I suspect that there will be a piece of the catheter in the bottom of the wound. On December 1, 2003 Respondent saw Patient H.J. for the pre-operative visit. At that time he noted: He is here for a pre-op for a wound exploration for his p.d. catheter removal site. He still has some granulation tissue there. I am going to plan to probe the area and evaluate where the sinus goes. On December 3, 2003, the surgery was conducted on Patient H.J. and Respondent noted: He underwent a left lower quadrant wound exploration. The p.d. catheter cuff was within the subcutaneous tissue and that is why his wound [sic] not close. This was removed and then the would [sic] was closed. He tolerated the procedure well. The various surgeries that have been discussed which were performed by Respondent took place at Bay Medical in Panama City, Florida. In the operative procedure report at the hospital related to the December 3, 2003 exploratory operation Respondent described a pre-operative diagnosis as: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. The post-operative diagnosis stated: Non-healing wound, left lower quadrant of the abdomen. Foreign body (peritoneal dialysis catheter cuff), left lower quadrant abdominal wound. The procedure performed was described as: Wound exploration and foreign body removal. The intra-operative findings related to the operation were: He was found to have a cuff of the catheter within the tissue. He had a small piece of p.d. catheter attached to it. The cuff had obviously broken. The catheter was broken with a cuff remaining in the subcu tissue. There was no intra-abdominal portion. In comparison, on July 21, 2003, in the operative/procedure report at Bay Medical through the description of the procedure to remove the catheter Respondent stated: . . . The previous incision in the left hypogastric area was anesthetized with local anesthetic and sharply incised. This was carried into the subcutaneous tissue and p.d.-catheter dissected and divided. The catheter was then pulled from the subcutaneous tissue at the exit site. The catheter was then delivered into the wound and abdominal wall cuff sharply incised and the catheter removed. The fascial edges were then reapproximated with 2 figure-of-eight0- vicryl sutures. On July 21, 2003, when Respondent removed the catheter from Patient H.J. no pathology was ordered. On December 3, 2003, following the exploratory surgery and retrieval of the catheter pathology was ordered. Daniel G. Dena was the pathologist at Bay Medical who addressed the specimen which was described by the pathologist as: "Tissue-p.d. catheter cuff" The anatomic diagnosis referred stated: "p.d. catheter cuff: plastic catheter, with attached fibro-fatty tissue at one end, showing acute and chronic inflammation." The macroscopic examination in the pathology report stated: "The specimen is labeled 'pd catheter cuff'. Received is a portion of plastic tubing measuring approximately 5 cm in length and up to 0.5 cm in diameter, with a cuff of soft tissue at one end measuring 2.5 cm in length and 1.2 cm in diameter." On July 26, 2004, in responding to the investigation that led to this prosecution Respondent stated in writing in relation to Patient H.J.: The original peritoneal dialysis catheter removal had gone uneventfully and I felt that both cuffs of the catheter had been removed in their entirety. But this was found not to be the case. I have placed a number of these catheters and removed a number as well and have not had this type of problem before. Visual inspection of the catheter on removal is routinely undertaken to ensure that the cuffs are removed and I felt that this had been completely removed but I was obviously mistaken. I am not sure if this was a defect in the catheter. Evaluation of the catheter and assurance of complete cuff removal would have probably prevented this process. I am certainly more cognizant of this being a problem in subsequent catheters that I have removed. At the original time of catheter removal the operative site appeared appropriate. At hearing Respondent offered additional explanation concerning the July 21, 2003 operation to remove the catheter from Patient H.J. and the exploratory surgery on December 3, 2003. As Respondent explained, in the July 21, 2003 surgery Respondent made a 3-to-4 cm incision about the belly button towards the middle of the abdomen through the skin, subcutaneous tissue, the fascial layer and muscle and peritoneal layer. The peritoneal layer is a semi-permeable membrane that waste products removed in the dialysis will cross. The catheter is placed into the abdomen. The catheter is 12 to 14 inches in length with a curlicue tail and holes in the end of the catheter that allows the fluids to be introduced and withdrawn from the abdomen. As Respondent explained the catheter has two cuffs, the smaller of which is designed for placement in the rectus muscle located along the inset part of the abdomen. The smaller cuff sits inside that muscle. Tissue attaches to that cuff to keep fluid from leaking out, to keep the catheter in place and to prevent bacteria from going down the outside of the catheter. There is a segment of the catheter between that cuff and a larger cuff which sits underneath the skin in the subcutaneous tissue. The tissue in that area attaches to the cuff and serves to hold the catheter in place. When removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, Respondent used an incision of about 3 cm and encountered the mid-portion of the catheter located between the two cuffs which was dissected down through the fascia and taken out with the portion in the abdomen being removed first. Before making the incision to remove the catheter, Respondent cut the portion of the catheter outside the body of Patient H.J. off, including the metal and plastic valves and other paraphernalia hanging out of the patient. The purpose of removing the catheter outside the patient's body was in the interest of protecting the surgical field from contamination to avoid wound infection. The part removed inside the patient initially was the intra-abdominal portion. The intra-abdominal portion of the catheter, including the cuff in that area was sharply removed. The cuff was 2 or 3 times the size that it would have been when first placed and the part around the cuff was cut to allow the catheter to be extracted. The area of the fascia was closed. Next Respondent addressed the subcutaneous portion of the catheter by following it out and sharply cutting the tissue around the catheter and the subcutaneous cuff with scissors to remove that portion which also had an ingrowth of scar and fibroblastic tissue. Once the portions of the catheter with the cuffs, had been removed Respondent looked to determine if he had both cuffs which appeared at that time as a wad of scar and tissue. Respondent then closed the wound. Respondent believed that he had removed the whole catheter, to include the cuffs. In fact the subcutaneous cuff was not entirely removed and another portion of the catheter remained in the patient following the July 21, 2003 surgery. Respondent's estimate of what had been left in the patient and removed on December 3, 2003, was about 2 cm of the subcutaneous cuff and then a portion of the balance of the catheter. In commenting on the difference between the pathology report and his visual assessment on December 3, 2003, Respondent remarked about "all the stuff" grown onto the cuff and catheter. He also said it had a lot of specimen, taken to mean the "stuff" attached to the cuff and catheter. Although in the operative notes from December 3, 2003, Respondent says the catheter broke, at hearing he stated that he did not know whether the catheter had been cut or broke during the July 21, 2003 procedure to remove the catheter. No independent tests were conducted to determine whether the catheter broke during the July 21, 2003 surgery or was cut by Respondent. Respondent does not precisely remember the appearance of the catheter, to include the cuffs, when examining it on July 21, 2003. But he believed that he had successfully removed the entire catheter. In his testimony Respondent describes the office visits subsequent to the July 21, 2003 surgery. When he saw Patient H.J. he observed cellulitis around the area of the incision which was treated with oral antibiotics and resolved. Respondent used ultrasound to determine whether fluid had collected in the area where he observed the cellulitis. No fluid collection was seen. Drainage was noticed around the exit site where the catheter came out of the skin, which ordinarily takes a month to six weeks to heal. Concerning the drainage around this exit site, Respondent expected the drainage to resolve within around five weeks unless there were a piece of suture or other kind of event keeping the site opened and draining. The wound site where the incision was made healed without incident. The exit site continued to drain. After a time Respondent concluded that the reason for the drainage was either an epithelilized sinus tract, a piece of suture, a piece of catheter, a piece of cuff, or a piece of dressing for the wound. Respondent waited a time before doing the exploratory surgery in view of the use of an absorbable suture in the July 21, 2003 surgery which would have dissolved over time, precluding the need to do the exploration. Respondent, given the problem with the drainage from Patient H.J. following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter, does not believe that the failure to remove this fragment would have killed the patient or have caused a lot of problems, but it was bothersome enough that it was worth the effort to try and find it and get the patient healed. Respondent in dictating his post-operative note on December 3, 2003, thinks that the catheter had broken and continues to hold to that belief, although he recognizes that it may have been cut in the prior surgery. Concerning his practice at Bay Medical, Respondent did not routinely have an X-ray done for patients undergoing surgery without a more specific reason for ordering it. Nor did he order a pathology examination following surgery absent the need for specific information. Patient H.J. in his testimony described the level of pain following the July 21, 2003 surgery to remove the catheter as "a little pain." Expert Opinion Dr. Stanley P. Kococki is a general surgeon licensed in Florida. He is board-certified in general surgery. He has had experience placing and removing peritoneal dialysis catheters. He was qualified to offer expert opinion testimony concerning Respondent's treatment of Patient H.J., in particular, the surgery performed July 21, 2003. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that the Respondent fell below the standard of care in treating Patient H.J., in that Respondent failed to recognize that he had left a portion of the catheter in the patient, which Dr. Kococki describes as a retained foreign body and that this caused the patient to undergo a second unnecessary procedure, meaning that the second procedure would not have been necessary if the catheter had been removed completely in the first surgery. The failure to remove could possibly have caused serious problems for the patient, to include septicemia and death, according to Dr. Kococki. Dr. Kococki refers to the Respondent's obligation in removing the catheter, to make certain that the whole catheter was removed and that the wound properly healed beyond that point so that the patient would not experience problems. While recognizing that there are different techniques for removing the catheter from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki took issue with the method employed by the Respondent. Dr. Kococki believes that there are other methods for avoiding the problem with infection than to cut the catheter outside the body. There was no description of the use of a hemostat or clamps to hold the retained part of the catheter once the outside segment had been cut, so that the remaining portion of the catheter would not be lost under the skin. In addition, by cutting the catheter in two places there was a chance of leaving a piece of the catheter in the patient. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that when you cut the catheter in several places you have to remember where the pieces of the catheter are left in the patient. Given other circumstances during the surgery that occupy the surgeon's mind, it can lead to leaving a piece of catheter behind. Dr. Kococki expressed the opinion that leaving the catheter behind was not in the best interest of the patient because it led to subsequent surgery and had the sinus tract closed over the foreign body would have caused a localized infection and abscess formation around that area and possibly allowed for the bacteria from the abscess to enter the patient's bloodstream causing sepsis, and abscess formation in other organs, possibly the abdominal cavity, with a possible rupture intra-abdominally causing the patient to have generalized peritonitis. That can be life threatening and ultimately lethal. It is more of a problem with the person that has end-stage renal failure, in that the patient has a weakened immune system and lessened prospects to fight off infection. Dr. Kococki relied upon the pathology report made after the December 3, 2003 surgery to accurately describe the size of the segment that was left in the patient. In order to ascertain what actually happened with the catheter Dr. Kococki believes that the company or an independent examining body would have to determine if the catheter was defective. Even in the instance where the catheter may have broken in the initial surgery to remove it on July 21, 2003, the onus is still on the surgeon removing the catheter to examine it to make certain it was removed intact. Dr. Kococki characterizes the catheter as commonly present and utilized in surgical procedures to place and remove peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Kococki describes the catheter as a medical device, unlike a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle. Dr. Kococki recognizes that the purpose of the catheter is to perform dialysis but the retained portion left after the initial surgery to remove the catheter does not have a medical purpose, in his judgment. Dr. Kococki describes the cuff in the field related to the abdominal wall as providing a seal to avoid bacteria. The cuff as he understands it has an antibiotic coating that will help fight off infection. The cuff reacts with the patient's body tissue to act as a sealant. To have avoided the problem of failing to account for a portion of the catheter during the initial surgery to remove it from Patient H.J., Dr. Kococki believes that the easiest thing to have done was while the patient was in the operating room send the catheter to a pathologist and have it measured for comparison against the known size of the catheter when first placed. A second safe-guard would be to use a portable X-ray of the abdominal cavity to make sure that there was no radiopaque material in the abdomen or subcutaneous tissue. The catheter has radiopaque material allowing this identification in Dr. Kococki's understanding. Dr. Kococki was not familiar with the procedures at Bay Medical where the catheter removal from Patient H.J. was performed. The bylaws of the institution do not require that the catheter be sent to pathology following removal. Dr. Thomas A. Gadacz testified in the interest of Respondent. He is licensed in several states. He is not licensed in Florida. He is an expert in the field of general surgery. He has placed and removed peritoneal dialysis catheters. Dr. Gadacz describes the catheter as a medical device. It has nothing in common with a sponge, forceps, clamp or surgical needle, in his opinion. As a surgeon Dr. Gadacz refers to sponges, forceps, clamps and surgical needles as items whose sole purpose is to assist during an operation, not intended to be left in the body. They are to facilitate an operation to provide exposure, to conduct the operation but they are not a therapeutic modality. By contrast the peritoneal dialysis catheter is used primarily for therapy by remaining in the patient for specified periods of time to treat the patient. Other aids in performing an operation are cotton balls called kitners, metal retractors and cannulas. Dr. Gadacz explains that the purpose of the cuffs related to the catheter is to react to the body so that tissue grows around them. The other part of the catheter made of Teflon is designed to be non-reactive. Dr. Gadacz is aware that catheters of the type under discussion have fractured or broken. Dr. Gadacz explained that the fracture of a cuff is not common. In his experience, in the instance where a segment broke in a catheter, Dr. Gadacz removed it. On the other hand the failure to remove the piece is not necessarily below the standard of care as Dr. Gadacz explains, "because some times this happens, and its, you don't know that that has happened." The possibility of knowing that the segment broke off is difficult. As Dr. Gadacz describes, it was impossible given the tract involved with the surgery here. The gross inspection of the catheter once removed from the patient is a process in which it is difficult to make certain that both cuffs are there because of the encrusting fibrous tissue found after removing the cuffs, causing the cuffs to no longer have the same appearance as when first placed. The visual inspection made of the catheter after removal would not necessarily reveal whether it was removed in its entirety, according to Dr. Gadacz. Dr. Gadacz is unfamiliar with surgeons who would use an X-ray after removal of the catheter to confirm that the entire catheter had been removed. Instead he defers to Respondent's operative note on December 3, 2003, where the Respondent says that the catheter had obviously broken to explain the failure to retrieve the catheter. Dr. Gadacz does not believe sending the catheter to pathology after it was removed on July 21, 2003, would necessarily have been useful because it would take familiarity on the part of the pathologist with that form of catheter to recognize that a part was missing. Dr. Gadacz recognizes that the fragment from the catheter left in Patient H.J. at the end of the initial surgery to remove the catheter is medically considered a foreign body because it was not part of the human body. Dr. Gadacz found nothing in the care provided by Respondent by to Patient H.J. after the July 21, 2003 surgery that was questionable. Dr. Gadacz did not find the technique Respondent used in removing the catheter on July 21, 2003, from the Patient H.J. to be below the standard of care. Generally Dr. Gadacz did not express the opinion that Respondent practiced below the standard of care. Dr. Gadacz explained that had the segment continued to be present in the patient there would have been a major risk of continuing infection and ultimately the patient could have developed a serious abscess in the subcutaneous tissue that could become life-threatening or nothing may have happened, and the segment may have been walled off by the patient's body. In determining the comparability of what is described in Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003), as "other paraphernalia," to those items listed within that section, "such as a sponge, clamp, forceps, surgical needle," that are "used in surgical examination, or other diagnostic procedures," reliance is made upon testimony from Dr. Gadacz. As a surgeon, the opinion by Dr. Kococki is rejected for reasons that will be explained in the conclusions of law. When considering whether Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, as envisioned by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), with the specificity called for in that provision, Dr. Kococki is more compelling in his opinion that the fragment left in Patient H.J. should have been removed in the earlier operation whether it broke or was cut by Respondent. The notion that there are times when some portion of the catheter may have been left in the patient, as was the case here, with no consequences to the practitioner, as expressed by Dr. Gadacz is not persuasive. Disciplinary History The Respondent has no prior disciplinary history.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact, and conclusions of law, and the guidance set forth in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8- 8.001, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Respondent did not violate Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2003); that Respondent did violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003); placing Respondent on probation for two years; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00; requiring Respondent to perform 50 hours of community service; requiring the completion of 5 hours of continuing medical education on "risk management" and requiring him to present a one-hour lecture to a group of peers discussing retention of foreign bodies in surgeries and techniques to avoid the retention. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 14th day of February, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: William F. Miller Ephraim D. Livingston Assistants General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Albert Peacock, Esquire 8554 Congressional Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The applicants, MediVision of Miami, Inc., and MediVision of Northern Dade County, Inc., are wholly owned subsidiaries of MediVision Inc., which maintains its corporate offices in Boston, Massachusetts. MediVision, Inc., was incorporated in January, 1984, to promote the development of outpatient eye surgery, in part through the development and operation of outpatient eye surgery centers. MediVision of Miami, Inc., and MediVision of Northern Dade County, Inc., will each be responsible for the development and operation of the projects proposed in their respective applications. MediVision, Inc., was organized by several individuals in response to a study conducted by Bain and Company, a strategic consulting firms as part of a consulting engagement in which those persons were involved. The study disclosed several demographic and health care delivery trends which prompted MediVision management to pursue the development of outpatient eye surgery centers. Those trends are: an overall movement of all types of surgery from an impatient to an outpatient setting; the increase in the nation's elderly population, and the fact that the likelihood of a person developing cataracts increases dramatically with age; the technological improvements in the provision of cataract surgery; the growth in the number of cataract surgeries performed nationally; and, a change in the manner in which Medicare reimburses a facility for outpatient surgery performed upon Medicare recipients. Medicare, since 1982, has reimbursed licensed freestanding ambulatory surgical facilities at a flat rate for the provision of such surgery, with no cost to the patient. For the same surgical procedures performed in a hospital outpatient setting, Medicare will reimburse the facility its costs of providing the surgery; the patient is responsible to pay the Medicare deductible and 20 percent co-insurance. Various subsidiaries of MediVision Inc., presently operate eight outpatient eye surgery centers nationwide; two are located in Florida. Other MediVision subsidiaries are developing three additional centers in Florida, pursuant to certificates of need issued by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Both parties employed the same quantitative need methodology. The methodology employs the following steps: acquire data regarding number of impatient and outpatient surgical procedures performed by existing providers; using this data, calculate current overall surgical use rate and outpatient surgical use rate for county; using the projected population for the year in question and the current use rate, calculate projected number of surgeries; multiply total projected surgeries by 40 percent to establish total outpatient surgery pool for year in question; subtract from result of step 4, all outpatient surgical procedures projected to be performed in hospitals and operating freestanding ambulatory surgery centers; subtract financial break-evens of all certificate of need approved freestanding outpatient surgery centers from this pool; and, after subtractions the number of surgical procedures remaining are compared to the break-evens of certificate of need applicant at issue. If the pool is larger than break-evens the condition is satisfied. If the pool is smaller than break-evens the condition is not satisfied. The quantitative methodology provides a reasonable approach to the evaluation of need for ambulatory surgical facilities. The basic methodology has been employed by the Department since 1982; in December, 1985, the Department began to employ a "40 percent outpatient factor" in implementing the policy. Accordingly, looking toward the planning horizon of 1988, the methodology projects that 40 percent of all surgeries in Dade County will be performed on an outpatient basis. The 40 percent outpatient factor is reasonable for use in these proceedings. The prevailing literature suggests that 40 percent of all surgeries can be expected to be performed on an outpatient basis. Within Florida, many counties are already performing in excess of 30 percent of all surgeries on an outpatient basis. Trends in health care delivery and reimbursements including the growth in pre-paid health care organizations, such as health maintenance organizations; professional review organizations, which monitor the appropriateness of hospital admissions; and Medicare reimbursement incentives will contribute to an increase in the percentage of surgeries performed in an outpatient setting. While employing the same quantitative need methodology, the parties' health planning experts arrived at different conclusions as to whether the methodology projects need for the facilities at issue in these proceedings. The differences in outcome are attributable to two issues: (1) the calculation of a base-year use rate; and (2) the calculation of "break-evens" for previously approved, but non-operational, ambulatory surgical facilities. Each expert relied upon the same basic data source in calculating a base-year surgical use rate, employing data collected by HRS and reported in the most current State Agency Action Report prepared by the Department relative to Dade County. Such Action Report (CON Action No. 4095) lacked complete data regarding the total number of surgeries performed in Dade County during the base-year (1984-5), in that six of the thirty-three acute care hospitals in Dade County failed to report. Because it is necessary to have complete data in order to establish an accurate base-year surgical use rate, Mark Druash who was engaged to undertake a need analysis by the applicants, referred to earlier State Agency Action Reports to acquire surgical procedure data for the six hospitals which had failed to report. Such documents are reliable data sources upon which to base a need analysis. In calculating a county's surgical use rate, health planners take into consideration the total population within the county. Accordingly, the total number of surgeries provided within the county must also be considered. In that six Dade County hospitals failed to report data and HRS' health planner did not acquire data relative to those facilities, the surgeries performed at those hospitals were not included in his calculation of a surgical use rate. If the total population of a county is considered in calculating a surgical use rate, but something less than the total number of surgeries is considered, the calculation results in an artificially deflated use rate. As the base-year use rate drives all of the remaining calculations in the quantitative methodology, an error in the calculation of the use rate will be carried through the entire methodology. The ultimate effect of a deflated use rate is to project a smaller number of surgical procedures, as compared to a use rate calculated upon complete data. HRS calculated a base-year surgical use rate for Dade County of 78.2 surgeries/1000 population. MediVision calculated a base-year surgical use rate of 92.8/1000 population. The variance in the use rates is attributable solely to the fact that Druash acquired and employed in his calculations surgical procedure data from all Dade County hospitals previously relied upon by HRS; while HRS relied upon incomplete data. In that Druash's calculations are based on a complete data based the surgical use rate of 92.8/1000 population is found to be more accurate and reliable than the rate of 78.2/1000 population calculated by HRS from incomplete data. The parties differ in their calculation of "break- evens for previously approved, but not yet operational, ambulatory surgical facilities. The break-even calculation is an integral part of the quantitative need methodology. The purpose of subtracting from the available outpatient surgical pool the "break-evens" of approved, but not yet operational ambulatory surgical facilities is to assure that there exists need for the project proposed adequate to allow both such project and previously approved facilities to operate in a financially viable manner. The "break-even" approach is also intended to promote competition; rather than assuming that all of the procedures projected by a facility will be performed in such facility; the approach allocates to the facility only that number of procedures it needs to generate sufficient revenues to cover its expenses. Druash who participated in the development of the quantitative methodology during his tenure with HRS, testified that the "break-even" approach was selected because it would promote competition among providers by approving enough applicants so that they would be "hungry" for the residual surgeries projected by the methodology. The purpose of calculating a financial break-even is to ascertain at what point a project's cash flow will equal its expenditures. The generally accepted method for calculating a financial break-even requires that fixed costs be separated from variable costs. The concept of variable costs is the basis for the computation of a break-even. Fixed costs are those which remain constant regardless of the volume of business conducted by an entity; variable costs are those that change directly with volume. In the operation of an ambulatory surgical facility, virtually all expenses related to medical supplies are variable. If no patients are treated, no medical supplies are needed, and no expenses are incurred. If 100 patients are treated, 100 units of medical supplies are needed, with resultant expense. Certain expenses involved in the operation of an ambulatory surgical center are totally fixed, such as debt service and property taxes. All other expenses are variable to some degree e.g. salaries, utilities, and maintenance. Depreciation and amortization of property and equipment are not considered as expenses in a break-even analysis, as those items do not represent cash expenditures. As mere accounting recognitions of prior investment, depreciation and amortization should not be included in a calculation of a cash flow break-even. HRS' methodology for calculating financial break-evens for ambulatory surgical procedures treats all expenses as fixed, and includes amortization and depreciation among those expenses. By HRS' admissions the Department, "in lieu of attempting to determine what is fixed and what is variable . . . will use a somewhat more crude method". Where a financial break-even is calculated treating all costs as fixed, the resulting break-even number is artificially inflated. By the Department's reckoning, the effect of treating all expenses as fixed is to "add a cushion" to its approvals of prior applications. HRS' expert acknowledged, however, that differentiating between fixed and variable costs in performing a financial break-even analysis is the "preferred methods no question". Lovell Jones, a certified public accountant and expert in health care finance, performed revised break-even analyses for previously approved, but not yet operational, ambulatory surgical facilities. Jones first acquired expense and revenue data from the certificate of need applications submitted by previously approved applicants. Then, treating only medical supplies as variable expenses, and excluding amortization and depreciation from the list of fixed expenses, he calculated the actual financial break-even of each approved, but not yet operational, facility. Jones' analysis finds the collective break- even of all previously approved, but not yet operational, facilities to be 17,996 procedures, whereas the Department's "crude" analysis results in a collective break-even of 25,736. Jones' method of calculating break-even, which was agreed to be technically correct by both parties, is more accurate and reliable than the method employed by the Department. Using the agreed-upon quantitative methodology, the surgical use rate calculated by Druash, and the break-even numbers calculated by Jones, there is projected to exist in 1988 a pool of 5006 outpatient surgical procedures that could be provided by the applicants in these proceedings. Subtracting the break-even numbers of the two proposed facilities, there will exist a residual pool of greater than 3600 procedures. Accordingly, there exists a quantitative need for the two proposed facilities. Furthers the residual pool of greater than 3600 procedures represents an adequate "cushion" to satisfy the concerns of HRS that previously approved facilities be given the opportunity to operate in a financially viable manner. The proposed facilities will improve access to services for both Medicare and indigent patients. Medicare patients receiving surgery at the facilities will be treated free of cost, with the Medicare program having full responsibility for payment. All other patients will be treated at the facilities regardless of ability to pay. The proposed facilities will promote competition in that management intends the charges to commercial patients to be less than the prevailing charges in the community. Where an ambulatory surgical facility enters a market, hospital charges for similar services tend to decrease. The proposed facilities will promote cost containment, as it is more costly to render care in a hospital outpatient department than in a freestanding ambulatory surgical facility. Hospital outpatient departments, which are reimbursed by Medicare for their costs of providing services, do not have the same incentive to reduce costs as do freestanding ambulatory surgery facilities, which are reimbursed at a predetermined flat rate for the provision of services. Accordingly, Medicare has encouraged the use of freestanding ambulatory surgical facilities by incurring all responsibility for payments at no cost to Medicare recipients. The Department's sole concern regarding the financial feasibility of the proposed facilities arises out of its position that there exists no need for the facilities. Accordingly, the Department questions whether the facilities will enjoy utilization sufficient to generate the revenues necessary to their viable operation. In that need for the facilities has been found to exist, it follows that the facilities will be able to generate adequate numbers of surgeries to achieve break-even in their second years of operation. Several other factors indicate that the facilities will experience utilization sufficient to achieve break-even in their second years of operation: The marketing and community education activities proposed by the applicants will encourage utilization. In its existing surgical facility in Orlando, MediVision, Inc., has undertaken similar activities, which have resulted in substantial surgical referrals to the facility; There exists a residual pool of approximately 5,000,000 untreated cataracts nationally; Medicare reimbursement policies which allow Medicare recipients to receive treatment at licensed freestanding ambulatory surgical centers at no cost to the recipient will encourage utilization of the proposed facilities; The applicants' pricing structure, for both Medicare and commercial patients, will encourage utilization of the proposed facilities; and Two local ophthalmology group practices have expressed strong interest in performing surgery at the proposed facilities. Each group presently performs in excess of 1000 surgeries annually, which volume is greater than the break-even volume necessary to be achieved at each facility.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Lawn it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the applications of Petitioners to establish and operate freestanding ophthalmic ambulatory surgical centers in Dade County, Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of June, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: William Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Weiss, Esquire The Perkins House, Suite 101 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard A. Patterson, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care in the practice of medicine by inserting the wrong intraocular lens during cataract surgery, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, or failed to maintain adequate medical records, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0030598. Respondent graduated from medical school in 1976 and completed a three-year residency in ophthalmology in 1980. Board-certified in ophthalmology since 1981, Respondent is the medical director of the Treasure Coast Center for Surgery in Stuart (Surgery Center). The Surgery Center is an ambulatory surgery center licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Since 1980, Respondent has performed over 20,000 surgeries, including over 10,000 cataract surgeries. In that time, he has never previously misidentified a patient, operated on the wrong site, or inserted the wrong lens. This case involves a wrong lens that Respondent inserted into an 80-year-old patient on October 17, 2000. A local optometrist had referred the patient to Respondent for evaluation of cataracts in both eyes. Respondent performed successful cataract surgery on the patient's right eye on August 22, 2000. A cataract is a partial or complete opacification, or clouding, of a natural lens or its capsule. Typically associated with aging, the cataract is a major cause of a slow loss of vision, making it more difficult for the patient to read or drive, especially at night with the glare of lights. Twenty years ago, conventional cataract surgery comprised an intracapsular cataract extraction with the lens implant placed in the front of the eye. In the last 20 years, the predominant mode of cataract surgery comprises an extracapsular cataract surgery or phacoemulsification with the lens implant placed behind the iris of the eye. In the phacoemulsification process, the surgeon, using a smaller incision than that used in the older procedure, dissolves the cataract-involved natural lens using ultrasound and removes the cataract in smaller pieces than the single-piece removal characteristic of the intracapsular extraction process. The patient was scheduled for phacoemulsification of the cataract-involved lens in her left eye at the Surgery Center as the first patient of the day on October 17, 2000. Respondent handled her case as he handles all of the other cases. Prior to the surgery, Respondent reviews the patient's office chart and brings it, together with the office charts of the other patients scheduled for surgery that day, from his office to the Surgery Center. At the Surgery Center, Respondent delivers the office charts to circulating nurses, who remove each chart, read it to determine the lens to be implanted, find the lens specified in the chart for implantation, and insert the packaged lens into the chart. A nurse then stacks the office charts in a stand in the order of the patients' surgeries scheduled for the day. From the patient's perspective, she is greeted by a receptionist upon arrival. The receptionist pulls the already- prepared materials, including an identification bracelet or armband, and has the patient sign the necessary paperwork. At this point, an admission nurse takes the patient to the preoperative area where the patient lies down on a gurney. The nurse identifies the patient and confirms the eye to be operated on and the procedure to be performed. After verifying this information, the nurse places the identification bracelet on the patient's wrist. In cases such as this, in which an anaesthesiologist administers the anaesthesia, the anaesthesiologist meets with the patient to confirm the identity of the patient, the eye to be operated on, and the procedure to be performed. The Surgery Center's policy requires: "the attending physician and/or anesthesiologist, along with the responsible nurse, will review the patient's medical record, the armband and the Surgery Schedule to confirm the correct operative site. The operative site will also be confirmed by the patient or parent/guardian." The cited language, as well as the surrounding context, reveals a policy to ensure that the correct site--here, left eye--is the subject of the actual surgical procedure; nothing in the policy explicitly requires anyone to match the correct lens with the patient. After completion of the preoperative procedure, the circulating nurse takes the patient from pre-op. Among the nurse's other duties is to check the patient's bracelet against the office chart and to ask the patient if she is the person named on the office chart and bracelet. Accompanying the patient into the operating room are the office chart and Surgery Center chart. Once in the operating room, the circulating nurse places the office chart on a side table used by the scrub nurse and the Surgery Center chart with the anaesthesia equipment. Transferred into the operating room, the patient is scrubbed by a scrub nurse, who drapes the patient from just below her knees to above her head with a gown that opens only at the site of the eye to be operated on. The purpose of the gown is to maintain a sterile field, so no one can lift the gown in the operating room, such as to identify the patient by face or bracelet with the name on the chart, without exposing the patient to a risk of infection. When Respondent enters the operating room, he is already scrubbed and wearing gloves. A stand holds the patient's office chart with the packaged lens implant at the side table. Respondent checks the power of the lens, as disclosed on the package, against the power specified on the office chart. In this case, the two powers matched, as the office chart and the lens implant were for another patient. To maintain sterility, Respondent cannot touch a chart while he is in the operating room; if the necessity arises, a nurse may touch the chart. Before proceeding with surgery, Respondent reads the name of the patient on the office chart. Respondent does not verify that the names on the bracelet and either of the charts are the same. Nor does Respondent confirm with the circulating nurse that she has done so. To check the identity of the patient, Respondent says, "Good morning, Ms. . I'd like you to put your chin up for me." However, patients often have fallen asleep from the three preoperative sedatives that they have already received. Respondent conceded that the patient in this case may not have been alert when he addressed her by name. For whatever reason-- reduced consciousness, unconsciousness, nervousness, or inability of the patient to hear Respondent or Respondent (or others) to hear the patient--the patient in this case did not effectively communicate to Respondent that she was not the patient whose name he stated. Respondent proceeded with the surgery and implanted the wrong lens into the patient's left eye. Respondent had specified a lens with a 21.5 diopter refractive power and implanted a lens with a 20.5 diopter refractive power. The circulating nurse discovered the error when she went to get the next patient and found the office chart of the patient on whom Respondent had just completed surgery. The next day, when the patient visited Respondent at his office for a routine post-operative examination, Respondent informed her that he had placed the wrong lens in her eye and recommended that he recheck her vision in a few days and then decide whether to perform a corrective procedure. Three days after the initial surgery, Respondent found an increased degree of anisometropia, which is the difference in refraction between the two eyes. At this time, the patient complained to Respondent about imbalance. Respondent advised corrective surgery, and, on October 26, Respondent performed surgery to replace the implanted lens with another lens. Although the initial surgery was sutureless, the corrective surgery required sutures. The corrective surgery was generally successful, although two and one-half months later, the patient was complaining that her left eye was sore to the touch--a complaint that she had not made following the initial surgery to the left eye. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's medical records are deficient in two respects: inaccurately describing the treatment and failing to justify the corrective surgery. Respondent dictates his operative reports prior to surgery, even though they bear the date of the surgery--here, October 17, 2000. To accommodate contingencies, Respondent dictates three conditional notes, one of which itself contains two alternatives. As found in the patient's operative report, these conditional notes state: The corneoscleral wound was enlarged, if necessary. * * * If necessary, an interrupted suture was placed for pre-existing against-the-rule astigmatism or to help maintain the water- tightness of the wound. If a suture was placed, the wound was retested to be water- tight. Although Respondent's pre-dictated operative notes for the patient are detailed, they omit a salient element of her surgery--that Respondent inserted a lens of the wrong power. Respondent did not try to conceal this fact. To the contrary, as soon as the nurse informed him of her error, he directed her to attach the sticky label on the lens package, which records the power of the lens, to the patient's chart. He also directed her to prepare an incident report, which prompted Petitioner's investigation. The expert testimony in this case was conflicting. Respondent's expert witness was originally contacted by Petitioner and asked for an opinion on the standard-of-care and medical-records issues described above. The witness opined that Respondent met the applicable standard of care and the medical records justified the course of treatment. Respondent then retained this physician as his expert witness. Respondent's expert witness opined that an ophthalmologic surgeon necessarily must rely to a "large extent" on staff for a "certain amount of identification" before the patient is transferred into the operating room. Respondent's expert witness did not explain in detail the qualifications inherent in these statements. Finding an error by the Surgery Center in the insertion of the wrong lens, Respondent's expert witness admitted that Respondent had some control over the circulating nurse, but stated that the nurse administrator basically directs the nurses. Expressing no problem with the conditional notes, Respondent's expert witness testified that it is not unusual for a surgeon to predictate an operative report and then change it if something unusual happens. Petitioner retained another expert witness to replace the expert witness who became Respondent's witness. Petitioner's expert witness opined that Respondent failed to meet the applicable standard of care and the medical records did not justify the course of treatment. Petitioner's expert witness opined that it was never within the applicable standard of care to insert the wrong lens and admitted that he was unaware of the procedures of the Surgery Center and Respondent to avoid this occurrence. Petitioner's expert witness explained that the surgeon is the captain of the ship and ultimately bears the responsibility for the insertion of the wrong lens. Petitioner's expert witness also opined that all pre- dictated operative notes were not "the standard of care" and likewise criticized the conditional notes. Petitioner's expert witness admitted that nothing included in or omitted from the operative notes would adversely affect the future management of the patient's medical care. Respondent's proposed recommended order identifies various deficiencies in the testimony of Petitioner's expert witness, although Respondent's assertion that the expert relied on a not-yet-effective strict-liability statute is not accurate. Most of these deficiencies pertain to the earlier allegations that Respondent failed to meet the applicable standard of care in performing cataract surgery on an 80-year-old patient and in performing the corrective surgery. Citing the recent case of Gross v. Department of Health, 819 So. 2d 997 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)(Orfinger, J., concurring), Petitioner's proposed recommended order invites the Administrative Law Judge to be guided by common sense in assessing the standard-of-care issue. This invitation may arise from a well-placed concern with the means by which Petitioner's expert reached his conclusion that Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care. Petitioner's expert witness has opined that the insertion of the wrong lens violates the applicable standard of care, without regard to the safeguards or precautions that a physician may employ to avoid this mishap. In finding a deviation from the applicable standard of care, the Administrative Law Judge relies on inferences and logic not explicitly identified by Petitioner's expert witness. In addressing the standard-of-care issue, Respondent's expert witness adopted the proper approach, which features a close analysis of the facts to determine the reasonableness of the surgeon's acts and omissions. Under that approach, however, the record establishes that Respondent failed to take all reasonable precautions necessary to prevent this mistake. Although the likelihood of the insertion of the wrong lens seems low, based on Respondent's experience, the burden of additional, effective safeguards would be minor. Both parties focused on the location of the bracelet relative to the length of the protective gown. However, an anklet would be in plain view in the operating room because the gown would not extend that far below the patient's knees. Even if the patient identification remains on a wrist bracelet, the surgeon himself could check the patient's name on the bracelet with the name on the office chart just prior to the surgeon and patient entering the operating room. Either practice would add a few seconds to the overall process and would prevent this type of error. On the other hand, the categoric rejection of Respondent's records by Petitioner's expert witness is correct. The date of the operative record is incorrect; it was not dictated on October 17, 2000, but on an earlier date. The three conditions and one alternative present a confused operative history. The operative record fails to indicate if there was a corneoscleral wound; if there was an interrupted suture; if so, if the suture was for a pre-existing astigmatism or for wound protection; and if there was a suture placed at all. With these conditions and alternative, the operative report fails to memorialize accurately material elements of the surgery. Additionally, the operative report omits an indisputably material element of the surgery--the insertion of the wrong lens. Respondent recorded this fact in an office note a few days later, but never amended his predictated operative report to reflect this important fact. Lastly, the justification for the corrective surgery ultimately was the patient's complaint of imbalance, not the difference in refractive power between the lens implanted and the lens specified. Respondent nowhere recorded any such complaint in any records. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care in inserting the wrong lens and failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of treatment with respect to the deficiencies noted in the operative record and post-operative records preceding the corrective surgery.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, imposing an administrative fine of $10,000, and remanding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for findings concerning costs, pursuant to Section 456.072(4), Florida Statutes, if the parties cannot agree as to an amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 18th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Bruce A. Campbell Assistant General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Brian A. Newman Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell, & Dunbar, P. A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095
