Findings Of Fact Answers on the Application Amer Alanbari, M.D., applied to the Board of Medicine for licensure as a physician by endorsement on February 19, 1992. The application form he filled out and submitted asks two questions on page 4 under no. 8: "Are you now or have you ever been emotionally/mentally ill?" and "Have you ever received psychotherapy?" To both questions, Dr. Alanbari answered "No." Under "POSTGRADUATE TRAINING," Dr. Alanbari listed "[f]rom 7/1/88 to 6/30/89: No training." The application form also asked, "Have you ever had to discontinue practice for any reason for a period of one month or longer?" To this question, Dr. Alanbari answered "No." Events Prior to the Application Amer Alanbari, M.D., naturalized in Newark, New Jersey, as a citizen of the United States on August 29, 1989, was born in Damascus, Syria in 1958. He received his medical degree in the same city on September 7, 1982, from the University of Damascus. Within a month he began specialty training in pulmonary diseases at the University of Nancy, Centre Hospitalier Regional de Nancy, in Nancy, France. His attendance in the program in France was from October 1, 1982 until July 30, 1984, From August 1984 until November 1986 he resided in Prospect Park, New Jersey, where he has family, a time during which he received no medical training. For the next year and one-half, approximately, from December 1, 1986, until June 30, 1988, Dr. Alanbari enjoyed an Internship in Internal Medicine at The University of Toronto, The Toronto Western Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He completed training in Core Internal Medicine on June 30, 1988, and left the program in good standing. Sometime shortly before completing the training in Internal Medicine in Toronto, Dr. Alanbari suffered a crisis brought on by serious family and financial problems following the death of his father. The chief resident at The Toronto Western Hospital arranged for Dr. Alanbari to see a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist's diagnosis of Dr. Alanbari's condition was "depression"; an anti-depressant medication was prescribed. Dr. Alanbari took the medication for three weeks. After the three weeks, not convinced that he was suffering from depression and having received some training in psychiatry, himself, Dr. Alanbari ceased the medication. He has not seen a psychiatrist since. Upon leaving Toronto, Dr. Alanbari returned to Prospect Park, New Jersey. On November 18, 1989, Dr. Alanbari entered the Internal Medicine Program at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. He entered the program as a first year medical resident even though he had completed a first year residency earlier because, for whatever reason, he was unable to obtain a second year residency. Dr. Alanbari was not given an official letter from the VA facility informing him of the status of his training because it was an unusual time of the year to begin training. He was told by the VA Medical Center that he could remain until June and then his status would be determined. Dr. Alanbari, however, did not remain at the facility until June. He left the Medical Center on April 18, 1989, under the affectation that his ulcer had begun bleeding. Although Dr. Alanbari had an ulcer at the time, it was, in fact, not bleeding. In truth, Dr. Alanbari left the program because of difficulties in an engagement to be married. Dr. Alanbari did not reveal the true nature of the basis of his departure from the Wilkes-Barre VA facility because the issue of difficulties in his personal relationship with his fiancee was sensitive to him at least, in part, because of the Syrian culture in which he was raised. Moreover, he did not want to suffer a suggestion from supervisory medical personnel at the VA facility, as had been made earlier at the Toronto facility, that he see a psychiatrist again. He resisted such a suggestion because he felt he was capable of solving the problem himself. Dr. Alanbari's fiancee, a Syrian woman residing in New York, wanted to return to Syria while Dr. Alanbari was intent on conducting the practice of medicine in the United States. Forced to choose between his fiancee and his career, a decision with at least the potential for affecting the remainder of his life, Dr. Alanbari returned to Prospect Park, New Jersey, in order to make a decision free of the pressures of residency and the practice of medicine. For several months, Dr. Alanbari lived with family in New Jersey. In July of 1989, less than three months after leaving the Wilkes-Barre VA facility, Dr. Alanbari moved to New York and entered a first-year residency for the third time, again in Internal Medicine, but this time at the Methodist Hospital at 506 Sixth Street in Brooklyn, New York. At the time Dr. Alanbari submitted his application in February of 1992, he had completed the first two years of his residency at the Methodist Hospital in Brooklyn and was in the second half of his third year of residency in internal medicine. Events after the application's submission During the processing of Dr. Alanbari's application, the Board received a profile from the American Medical Association revealing the training Petitioner received at the Wilkes-Barre VA hospital. The contradiction between the profile and Dr. Alanbari's application led the Board to inquire further. On May 24, 1992, two months after the filing of the application, Dr. Alanbari appeared in the office of the Board to discuss problems with his application. The visit was followed by letters from Dr. Alanbari to the Board less than one month later. Although copies of the letters were stricken from the record, Dr. Alanbari testified at hearing that he informed the board by letter of the crisis he had suffered following his father's death shortly before leaving Toronto, the single visit to a psychiatrist at the suggestion of the Chief Resident, the psychiatrist's diagnosis of depression and the prescription of the anti-depressant. Dr. Alanbari answered "No," to the question on the application as to whether he had ever been emotionally or mentally ill because he was not convinced that he suffered from depression, was hesitant to reveal matters that were private and was not sure he could obtain a report from the psychiatrist because of his limited treatment. Dr. Alanbari also related to the Board in the same letter that he had started training at the Wilkes-Barre VA facility in December of 1988 but left in April of 1989 because of serious problems in his marital engagement. In November of 1992, Dr. Alanbari appeared before the Board's Credentials Committee. The meeting's minutes relate: After receiving testimony, it was determined that Dr. Alanbari has been less than truthful not only during the application process, but during his medical training and the independent psychiatric evaluation which was arranged through PRN. Dr. Alanbari stated that he was very hesitant to give details about his personal problems because he feels it is a matter of privacy. The minutes go on to reflect that Dr. Goetz of the Physicians Recovery Network recommended that Dr. Alanbari undergo a five-day inpatient evaluation through the Physicians Recovery Network. After a discussion with Dr. Goetz outside the Committee's meeting room, the minutes report, "Dr. Alanbari stated that he is agreeable to undergoing the five-day evaluation through PRN as suggested by Dr. Goetz." Motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously to retain jurisdiction until no later than the March, 1993, meeting to allow Dr. Alanbari to undergo evaluation through PRN and to complete a new, complete and accurate application. The Credentials Committee reconvened on March 19, 1993. Minutes of this second meeting show that, On March 10, 1993, a letter was received from Dr. Alanbari stating that he could not afford the cost of the PRN evaluation. Motion was made, seconded and carried unanimously to recommend denial of application based on his testimony at the November, 1992 Committee meeting, attempting to obtain a license by fraud and misrepresentation, failure to comply with the Board's request that he undergo five-day inpatient evaluation through PRN and failure to submit a new, complete and accurate application. The minutes also show, apparently, that an inde- pendent evaluation, an evaluation other than the five-day inpatient evaluation the board had requested Dr. Alanbari to undergo, had been conducted of Dr. Alanbari. Dr. Goetz of the Physicians Recovery Network opined to the board that "he felt Dr. Alanbari had not been forthright during the independent evaluation . . ." Dr. Goetz did not testify at the hearing. There was, therefore, no foundation laid for the opinion; nor, was it elaborated upon or explained by Dr. Goetz. No evidence was introduced as to who conducted the evaluation, of what it consisted or anything else about it. On November 4, 1993 the Order of the Board denying Dr. Alanbari's application was rendered. There is nothing of record to indicate what, if anything, relevant to this case transpired during the eight month period between the March meeting of the Credentials Committee and the Board's order. In the order's statement of grounds for the denial is the following, "Your mental condition interferes with your ability to practice medicine with skill and safety." Although nothing was produced by the Board at hearing to show what happened between March of 1993 and November of 1993, the minutes of the Credentials Committee contain the grounds found by the committee in support of a recommendation to the Board that the application be denied. Dr. Alanbari's "mental condition" as "interference with his ability to practice medicine" was not among the Credential Committee's grounds supporting the recommendation to the Board formulated in March of 1993. The hearing. Following Dr. Alanbari's explanation at hearing of the reasons for filling out his application as he had, the Board presented no witnesses to support its action in entering the denial order. The remainder of the Board's case was comprised of four exhibits: (1) Dr. Alanbari's application; (2) A letter from Robert A. Bear, M.D., stating that Dr. Alanbari left the program at the University of Toronto "in good standing. He did not break a contract. He was not offered a contract to continue training"; (3) the Credential Committee's minutes from its November 1992 meeting, and; (4) the Credential Committee's minutes from its March 1993 meeting. Aside from the four exhibits, the Board's case for denial rests on the "admission" under oath by Dr. Alanbari that his replies on the application were false, an "admission" made by an unrepresented applicant under withering cross- examination by substitute counsel for the board: Q . . . First of all, I want to establish, is it not true that you stated on your application to the Board of Medicine that you have never had any mental illness or been treated with any psychotherapy? A Yes, it was true, and that's why -- Q Doctor, however, isn't it also true that, in fact, you were seen by a psychiatrist and given medication? A Only once and I gave all the details, that's why I made my trip from New Jersey to meet with higher authorities to explain that special situation. It's my privacey [sic]. Q Doctor, that was after you said no, isn't that correct? A Yes. Q You keep talking about privacy here. Do you believe that you have a right to give a false answer on your application because you believe it to be a private matter. A It was delicate situation, I tried to deal with it with honesty, that's why I made my trip to Florida. I wanted to speak to someone. Q Doctor, was your answer on the application honest? A Yes. Q When you said no on the application, was that an honest answer? A If you asked me if any question on the application was honest, yes. Q No, I asked you if your answer on the application was honest, your answer to the question about psychotherapy and you said no. A The honest question, I don't know. Not yes, not no. Q But you answered no, didn't you, Doctor? A It was a very delicate situation and I presented the events as they happened and I left it to you to appreciate -- Q Doctor, did you submit such an explanation with your application when you said no? A No. Q You didn't, did you? A No. Q Now, did you honestly answer that question as to whether or not you had psychotherapy? A Initially, I said no, but -- Q Is that an honest answer, Doctor? A No, its not. Q Thank you. Do you believe, Doctor, that you have a right to tell a lie about something just because you consider it to be private? A I don't believe in telling lies. Q But you did, Doctor, didn't you? A I initially wrote down this, but again, the issue was very delicate, there was no good answer to this. Not a yes, not a no. Q Doctor, the truthful answer to that question was yes, wasn't it? A No. Q Doctor, did you receive psychotherapy? A No, sir. (Tr. 40-43, emphasis supplied). At hearing, Dr. Alanbari was also asked in light of the fact that he had discontinued the practice of medicine for more than a month on several questions why he had answered "no," to the question on the application, "Have you ever had to discontinue practice for any reason for a period of one month or longer?" (emphasis supplied). From his testimony, it was apparent that Dr. Alanbari believed "no" to be a correct answer because although he had ceased to practice medicine for more than a month on several occasions after graduation, he had never been forced by a licensing authority or anyone else to cease practicing medicine. Whenever he had lapses in practice of more than a month they were always by choice. He, therefore, had never had to discontinue practice, the precise question posed by the application. Dr. Alanbari's testimony on this subject squares with the remainder of his application from which it is obvious that he informed the board from the moment he first applied that he had not practiced for several periods of more than one month's duration subsequent to his graduation from medical school. This included a period from August of 1984 until November of 1986 and the time that he did not practice between July of 1988 and June of 1989 that preceded and followed his practice at the VA Medical Center.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That Dr. Alanbari be requested to submit additional information to the Board; and, That Dr. Alanbari's application be denied if he does not submit such additional information within 30 days of the request. If the Board does not choose to request additional information to clarify Dr. Alanbari's application then Dr. Alanbari should be certified by the Board to the Department for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 21st day of September, 1994. APPENDIX Petitioner did not submit a proposed recommended order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 4, it was the Board which framed the issues of the hearing in its denial order. Dr. Alanbari adopted those issues. In all other respects the finding is accepted. With respect to Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 6, Petitioner's representation was not fraudulent. With respect to Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 9, the representation was not fraudulent. With respect to Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 10, the first sentence of the finding is accepted. The remainder of the finding is rejected. Although counsel stated at hearing that correspondence had been sent to Petitioner inquiring about the Wilkes-Barre program, there was no evidence presented of such correspondence. Nor was there evidence that Petitioner's participation in the program was anything other than temporary. His assertion, therefore, was not false. With respect to Respondent's finding of fact No. 11, the finding is accepted. The finding is relevant only to Petitioner's credibility. As explained in the body of the Recommended Order, under Petitioner's legitimate interpretation of the question, his answer was not false. COPIES FURNISHED: Amer Alanbari, M.D. 51 Layton Road Sussex, NJ 07461 Gregory A. Chaires, Esquire Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Assistant Attorneys General PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Margie V. Gray Denomme worked the 3- to-11 shift as a licensed practical nurse on the orthopedic floor, 3 North, of West Florida Hospital, in Pensacola. On or about September 9, 1980, respondent was counseled for failing to record the administration of Stadol and Demerol, controlled substances, "on MAR." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. CHART NO. 670613 On December 19, 1980, Dr. Hooper ordered, inter alia, 10 to 12 milligrams of morphine sulfate for a patient (Chart No. 670613) "q 3-4 hrs prn pain." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. According to a Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, respondent administered 10 milligrams of a 15-milligram tubex of morphine (sulfate) to the patient at five o'clock on the afternoon of December 26, 1980, and wasted the other five milligrams, the wastage being witnessed by another licensed practical nurse, Ms. Grant. The December 26, 1980, patient progress notes for the patient, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, contain an entry reflecting administration of medication at five o'clock in the afternoon: [complaining] o[f] pain, medicated [with] M[orphine] S[ulfate] 10 mg IM . . . as stated by M. Denomme LPN." The entry is signed, "G. Grant LPN." The PRN medication administration record for this patient was signed by "G. Grant LPN" for the 3-to-11 shift on December 26, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. CHART NO. 667312 On December 17, 1980, Dr. Batson ordered morphine sulfate for this patient "1/4 to 1/6 IM q 34 PRN Pain." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At quarter of seven on the evening of December 17, 1980, respondent administered 15 milligrams of morphine sulfate to the patient, using one 10-milligram tubex and half of another, the wastage being witnessed by another licensed practical nurse, Ms. Grant, all according to the Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. "v. Robertson, GPN" signed the patient's PRN medication administration record for the 3-to-11 shift on December 17, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The nurses' notes contain this entry for 6:45 (pm.): "c/o pain-Medicated E MS 15 mg IM as stated by V. Robertson GPN-G. Grant GPN." CHART NO. 67194-3 For this patient, Dr. Batson ordered, among other things, "Morphine gr 1/6-gr 1/4 IM q 3-4 h prn pain. or Demerol 50-75-100 mg q 3-4 h IM prn pain. Tylenol #3 po T-TT q 3-4 h prn pain" on December 17, 1980, the date of his admission to West Florida Hospital's orthopedic ward. At half past six on the evening of December 17, 1980, the patient was given two tablets of Tylenol #3. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. He got another two tablets of Tylenol #3 about noon the following day. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. On December 19, 1980, Randy Godwin, a licensed practical nurse at West Florida Hospital, signed a Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record indicating he had administered 15 milligrams of morphine to the patient at 6:20 p.m. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Attached to this Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record is an interoffice memorandum to the hospital pharmacy from Cynthia Ayres, R.N., Assistant Director of Nursing. Ms. Ayres wrote, "I have met with Randy Godwin, LPN and discussed his specific narcotic errors. He was terminated from employment at WFH. I did not allow him to correct these errors." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. There is no indication on this patient's PRN medication administration record that he was given any morphine on December 19, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. No administration of morphine on December 19, 1980, was charted in the patient's progress notes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent administered 75 milligrams of Demerol, the entire contents of a tubex, to this patient at half past seven on the evening of December 19, 1980, according to a Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. (Count II) At nine o'clock that night, the patient was watching television, and had no complaint of pain. JANUARY 24, 1981 As she administered narcotics to patients during the 3-to-11 shift on January 24, 1981, respondent dropped waste paper and other debris in the narcotics drawer of the medication cart she had charge of. Toward the end of the shift, she was in the process of cleaning out the narcotics drawer when she felt something wet. Exclaiming something like, "Oh God, look at this," (T. 156; Testimony of Peat), she retrieved a cardboard container soaked to the point of disintegration with a solution of morphine sulfate, in the presence of Sandra Jean Peat, Randy Godwin, and other nurses who were in the medical room on the orthopedic floor at the time. Respondent recorded these events in an incident report and took the five-tubex plastic sleeve to the hospital pharmacy, about quarter of eleven. She asked the hospital pharmacist, James Thomas Allred, "to swap them out for five good ones." (T. 88.) At Mr. Allred's request, respondent prepared a second incident report in which she stated: When I was cleaning the Narcotics drawer, I picked up some of the packages and felt moisture on my hands. I then took the cartridges out of the PCK & found solution in bottom of Plastic Jacket. Two cartridges had the stopper out & 1 cartridge was broken. The tabs were intact as wit- nessed by R. Godwin LPN. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. After the wet plastic sleeve had been exchanged for a new one, respondent returned to the floor to catch up on charting. By this time, Randy Godwin had left the hospital. Mr. Allred jotted down his own contemporaneous account on the Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record: Replaced a packet of five morphine sulfate 15 mgs. for a packet of five returned by M. Denomme LPN. The packet returned had two syringes with their rubber plungers out. One of these two syringes was broken. All tabs were intact except for the broken syringe. The cart count will remain the same. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. When respondent noticed broken glass in the five-tubex plastic sleeve, after another nurse had seen the sleeve with all tabs intact but before respondent took it to the pharmacy, she opened a tab to fish out syringe shards. The evidence clearly and convincingly established that somebody tampered with more than one of the disposable syringes or tubexes inside the plastic sleeve. Although factory defects . . . do occur, this was not a case of defective manufacture; a needle had punctured the sleeve. As the medication nurse for the 3-to-11 shift, respondent had signed for the narcotics and controlled drugs in the medication cart and taken the keys at three o'clock on the afternoon of January 24, 1981. Petitioner's Exhibit No. When she counted narcotics, before assuming responsibility for them, respondent did not pick up each item. Looking down into the narcotics drawer, she would not necessarily have known whether the bottom of the cardboard container holding two plastic sleeves, each of which contained five 15-milligram tubexes of morphine sulfate, was wet. Respondent was the third person to sign the Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record as "oncoming nurse." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. She had the keys to the medication cart during the entire 3-to-11 shift except when she went to supper or took a break. No patient on the orthopedic floor received any morphine sulfate during the whole 24-hour-period. CHART NO. 682231 Also on January 24, 1981, respondent administered two tablets of Tylenol #3 to this patient at 5:30 and another two tablets of Tylenol #3 at 9:35, according to a Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. This "patient had been medicated with Tylenol #3 since January 20th, and this medication had held her . . . for a period of at least four hours." (T. 55.) Respondent signed out for 75 milligrams of Demerol for this patient but wasted it, in the presence of Randy Godwin. Randy Godwin did not sign the Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record as a witness, however. OTHER MATTERS There was absolutely no evidence that respondent acted strangely or as if under the influence of a controlled substance at any time between September, 1980, and February, 1981. No evidence was adduced regarding anything that happened on or about February 8, 1981. On or about January 30, 1981, Altha Steen Chandler, then a ward clerk on the 3-to-11 shift for the orthopedic floor, told Gail Price that, two weeks earlier, while cleaning in the conference room, she had knocked respondent's purse off a table; that the purse opened when it fell; and that she saw containers of codeine, Demerol, and Benadryl. On hearing this, Ms. Price promptly relayed it to Bonnie Ellen Ripstein, then departmental nursing supervisor over surgical floors. The truth of this allegation, repeated under oath at the hearing (T. 5), was not clearly and convincingly established, considering all the evidence. There was no proof that any codeine was ever missing or unaccounted for at West Florida Hospital at any time between September of 1980 and February of 1981. The only record keeping irregularity with which respondent has been charged regarding Demerol has to do with records kept on January 24, 1981, after the ward clerk claims to have seen a vial of Demerol in her purse. The substances themselves were not in evidence. Ms. Chandler's testimony about their packaging was contradictory: "The demerol and the codeine was in a plastic like container and had red writing on it. The benadryl was in a brown container, and it had yellow writing on it . . . . The benadryl was a glass vial, but the other two vials, seemed like they were plastic to me." (T. 16.) Respondent admits that she regularly carries a vial of Benadryl in her purse; she testified that she is allergic to bee stings. She denied that there was codeine or Demerol in her purse on or about January 16, 1981, and claimed to be allergic both to codeine and to Demerol. At some point,, Ms. Ripstein was given the assignment of auditing narcotics records with which respondent, Randy Godwin, Nancy Torch, and Debra Mann, now Rezzarday, had been involved. None of the four is now employed at West Florida Hospital. This audit turned up most of the charges made against respondent in these proceedings. STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS The nurses at West Florida Hospital were strongly encouraged to finish their duties before shift's end to avoid their employer's having to pay overtime wages. Once, when respondent stayed late to finish her charting, she was reprimanded even though she had clocked out. On the orthopedic floor, a nurse who was "caught up" with her work would chart for other nurses who were busy, indicating on the records that she was relying on oral representations of another nurse. This practice was against hospital policy and does not conform to minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. It is also a departure from minimal standards to waste a controlled substance like Demerol without a witness's signing the control sheet at the time the drug is wasted. It was not shown that any patient suffered any injury at respondent's hands or on her account. The written closing argument of respondent and petitioner's proposed recommended order have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, except where unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for thirty days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary 119 North Monroe Street Department of Professional Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Allen W. Lindsay, Jr., Esquire Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Post Office Box 586 Milton, Florida 32570 Helen P. Keefe Executive Director Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered nurse holding License No. 0936792 issued by the Florida State Board of Nursing. The Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville, Florida, from August of 1978, until April, 1979. Her duties were as a nursing team leader and medication nurse on the fourth floor. The fourth floor unit to which the Respondent was assigned was a 52-to-56- bed unit. Staff on this floor consisted of a charge nurse in charge of the floor and two to four registered nurses. Patient census on this unit ran from 40 to 56 patients. This was a general medical ward whose patients included the chronically ill. (a) Regarding the allegations of Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint related to the patient Gussie Sims Gardner, the hospital records reveal the patient was not admitted to the hospital until 2225 hours on March 24, 1979. The individual responsible for initial preparation of the medication administration record (MAR) did not cross through the times prior to the administration of the patient's first medications as required by the hospital's protocols. See Exhibit 1, Medication Record (Form No. 15-02-41-2), page 2, paragraph 5. Because of this failure, the initial entries for medication administered to the patient on March 25 were transposed to the date of March 24, and the entries for March 26 were placed in the column far March 25. After two days this error was apparently discovered, and no entries were made in the column for March 26. The Respondent cannot be held responsible for this error, because she was not on duty when the patient was admitted. Under the hospital's standard operating procedures (SOP), the first individual administering medication should have crossed out the dates and times in such a manner that this error could not occur. (b) Regarding Counts 1 and 2 of the Administrative Complaint, the Control Substance Form (CSF) does reflect that the Respondent withdrew two Darvon 65, a Class IV controlled substance, on March 25, 1979. The Respondent recorded the administration of the Darvon at the appropriate time but under the date of March 24, 1979. Only the administration of this medication at 0830 hours on March 25 was noted by the Respondent in the nurses' notes. (c) Regarding the allegations of Count 4, recording of the entries for March 25 and 26 under the dates of March 24 and 25 resulted in no entries being made on the MAR on March 26 by any of the nursing staff. (d) Regarding the allegations of Counts 6 and 8 that the physician's order entered March 24 for Oarvom 65 was no longer effective on March 28, Exhibit 1, the Formulary, page VIII, provides that stop orders occur automatically at the end of 48 hours for narcotics and at the end of seven days for all other drugs unless renewed. The Formulary differentiates on page IX between narcotics and other controlled substances. Darvon, while a controlled substance, is not a narcotic and therefore would not be terminated at the end of 48 hours, but at the end of seven days. The administration of this drug by the Respondent on March 28 was not precluded by the hospital's regulations. (e) Regarding the allegations contained in Counts 3, 5, 7 and 9, there is no substantial evidence that the Respondent possessed any controlled substance for any purpose other than the administration of the substance to the patient. No substantial and competent evidence was presented that the medications were not administered to the patient as recorded in the written records of the hospital. (a) Regarding the allegations concerning the patient Mary Lee Love Graham contained in Count 10 of the administrative Complaint, the CSF reflects two doses of Codeine were signed out by the Respondent for this patient on March 25, 1979. The appropriate entries were made on the MAR by the Respondent. Although the 1200 hour administration of medication was charted in the nurses' notes, the administration of the medication at 0830 hours was not charted by the Respondent. Similarly, the administration of Codeine 60 to this patient at 2200 hours was not charted by Nurse Wigginton on March 24, 1979. (b) Regarding Count 12 of the Administrative Complaint, the MAR reflects that Graham received Codeine 60 at 0400 hours from Wigginton and at 0800 hours from the Respondent on march 26, 1979. The nursing notes do not reflect the administration of Codeine 60 at either time. On March 27, 1979, the Respondent apparently administered no medications to this patient; however, the administration of Codeine 60 to this patient at 1600 hours on March 27, 1979, was not charted in the nursing notes. (c) Regarding the allegations of Count 14 in the Administrative Complaint, the MAR and CSF agree regarding the administration of Codeine 60 to Graham on March 26, 1979, at 0800 and 1400 hours by the Respondent. The administration of the medication at 0800 hours was not charted in the nursing notes, as was the administration of the same medication at 2300 hours on the same date by another nurse. Although the physician's orders were not renewed and therefore terminated at the end of 48 hours as discussed above, the MAR was not changed to reflect discontinuation of this medication, and all staff nurses, to include the Respondent, continued to administer Codeine 60 to this patient after the physician's orders ceased. (d) Regarding the allegations contained in Counts 11, 13 and 15, there is no substantial and competent evidence that the Respondent possessed any controlled substance for any purpose other than its administration to a patient. There is no substantial and competent evidence that the medications were not administered as charted. (a) Regarding the allegations contained in Count 16 concerning the patient Marshal Rex Burk, the MAR and CSF records reflect administration of Darvon 65 by the Respondent to this patient at 1000 hours on March 24, 1979. This was not charted by the Respondent in the nursing notes. As stated above, the drug Darvon 65 is not a narcotic drug and not subject to automatic termination at the end of 48 hours. Thee administration of Darvon 65 on March 24, 1979, was pursuant to a physician's order entered on March 19, 1979. (b) Regarding the allegations of Count 18, the CSF and MAR reflect administration of Darvon 65 to Burk at 1000 hours on March 25, 1979, by the Respondent. The Respondent did not chart this in the nurses notes. The physician's order for Darvon remained valid on March 25, 1979. (c) Regarding the patient Burk, the MAR reflects that Dalmane, a Class IV controlled substance, was administered March 21, 22, 23 arid 25 by a staff nurse. The administration of this medication was not charted in the nursing notes, and a review of the physician's orders for this patient does not reflect an order for Dalmane being entered until March 29, 1979. A review of the nursing notes for this patient reveals no charting for March 27, 1979. The SOP for charting provides a minimum of one charting for each patient per shift. (d) The allegations contained in Counts 17 and 19 are not proven. The records reflect the Respondent signed out for Darvon 65 and administered it to the patient. (a) Regarding the allegations contained in Count 20 of the Administrative Complaint concerning the patient Willie Mae Bender Tison, the CSF shows the Respondent signed out for two doses of Darvon 65 on March 24, 1979, for this patient. The MAR reflects administration at 0330 hours on March 24, 1979. The nursing notes do not reflect administration of Darvon 65 to his patient on March 24, 1979. One Darvon 65 was not accounted for in the records. (b) Regarding this patient, his MAR indicates the patient started receiving drugs on March 17, 1979; however, the admitting data and nursing notes reflect that this patient was not admitted until 1450 hours on March 21, 1979. The data contained in the MAR from March 17 until March 24 is clearly in error. (c) Regarding Count 21, although the facts indicate the Respondent did not chart the administration of one Darvon 65 to the patient Tison, no evidence was introduced that the Respondent took the medication herself or retained the medication for sale or distribution. (a) Regarding the allegations in the Administrative Complaint contained in Count 22 relating to the patient Frances Louise Blocker Medina, the MAR reveals that Percodan was administered to this patient on March 24, 1979, at 0530 hours, 0930 hours by the Respondent, 1300 hours by the Respondent and 2200 hours. The CSF reflects that the Respondent withdrew two doses of Percodan for the Respondent on March 24, 1979. The Respondent recorded the administration of the medication to this patient at 1300 hours in the nursing notes. No entries were made in the nursing notes for March 24, 1979, reflecting the administration of Percodan at 0530 hours, 0930 hours and 2200 hours by the Respondent and others. (b) Regarding the allegations of Count 24, the MAR reflects that the Respondent administered Percodan to this patient at 0700 hours and 1100 hours on March 25, 1979. The Respondent charted the administration of this medication to this patient in the nursing notes at 0730 hours and 1030 hours. The CSF shows the Respondent signed out for two Percodan for this patient on March 25, 1979. The MAR also reveals that this patient received Percodan at 1830 hours on March 25, 1979, from another nurse. The nursing notes do not reflect charting of this medication. (c) Regarding the allegations in Count 26, the CSF reflects that the Respondent signed out for two doses of Percodan for this patient on March 26, 1979. The MAR reflects administration of Percodan to this patient at 0200 hours, 0800 hours by the Respondent, 1400 hours by the Respondent and 2000 hours on March 26, 1979. The nursing notes reflect only the administration of this medication for 2000 hours. (d) Regarding the allegations of Count 28, the medical records of this patient reflect that staff nurses, to include the Respondent, continued to give the patient Percodan, a narcotic, although the physician's order for this medication automatically terminated. (e) Regarding the allegations of Count 30, the MAR and CSF reflect that the Respondent administered one Percodan to this patient on March 28, 1979. The Respondent failed to chart the administration of this medication to this patient in the nursing notes. (f) Regarding Counts 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31, no substantial and competent evidence was presented that the Respondent maintained possession of any drug. The records reflect that all drugs signed out by the Respondent were administered to the patient. (a) Regarding allegations contained in Count 32 of the Administrative Complaint concerning the patient Ruby Lee Denson Standback Woodburne, the times on the exhibit copies of the CSF are illegible. However, the MAR and CSF do reflect that the Darvon 65 checked out for this patient by the Respondent on Marcy 24, 1979, was administered to the patient. The nursing notes reflect administration of the medication to the patient. (b) Regarding the allegations in Count 34, the CSF shows the Respondent signed out for Darvon 65 two times on March 25, 1979, for this patient. The MAR reflects the Respondent administered Darvon 65 to the patient at 0830 hours and 1200 hours. The nursing notes reflect that Darvon 65 was administered at 1200 hours but not at 0830 hours. (c) Regarding the allegations of Count 36, the MAR and CSF records show the Respondent medicated the patient at 0800 hours and 1200 hours on March 26, 1979, with Darvon 65. The Respondent charted the administration at 1200 hours in the nursing notes but failed to chart the administration at 0800 hours. (d) Regarding the allegations of Count 38, the CSF reflects the Respondent withdraw one Darvon 65 for this patient on March 27, 1979. The MAR does not reflect administration of this medication; however, the nursing notes reflect the administration of Darvon at 0830 hours on March 27, 1979. (e) The medical service orders for this patient were renewed March 22, 1979, after Use patient's surgery. Presumably, this would have renewed the Darvon 65 order of March 17, 1979, and it would have been effective through March 29, 1970. (f) Regarding Counts 33, 35, 37 and 39, there is no evidence that any medication was net administered to the patient as reflected in the records. Although the MAR entry was not made on March 27, 1979, a nursing note does reflect administration of Darvon 65 on that date by the Respondent. (a) Regarding the allegation contained In Count 40 of the Administrative Complaint concerning the patient Willie Mae Hair, the CSF and MAR records reflect the Respondent administered Darvon 65 to this patient at 0830 hours on March 24, 1979. No entry was made in the nursing notes by the Respondent for this date. Although the patient was discharged on March 24, she was medicated for pain in the evening of March 23, and the nursing note for 0145 hours of March 24 reflects that the nursing staff apparently expected her to experience pain. (b) There is no substantial and competent evidence to support the allegation of Count 41. All medications checked out by the Respondent for this patient were administered according to the records. Regarding Count 42 of the Administrative Complaint, Exhibit 11 reveals that on several occasions the Respondent wasted medications without the required countersignatures of another staff member. There was no substantial and competent evidence presented that the Respondent converted any of the drugs wasted to her own use. To the contrary, although improperly witnessed, the records reflect that the medications were wasted. Review of Exhibit 1, containing extracts of the hospital's SOP's for controlled substances and charting, does not reveal any requirement that the specific time of withdrawal of a controlled substance be entered on the CSF. Exhibit 1 does reflect that medication may be prepared and placed upon a lockable medicine cart. The nature of the entries on the MAR reflect that medications were drawn at one time from the controlled substance container for administration to patients during a shift. The SOP for charting nursing notes does not require that the administration of medication be noted. However, the SOP for administration of medication would require noting the patient's complaint and the patient's response to medication in the nursing notes if a prn medication were administered. Gross departures from the hospital's SOP's regarding controlled substances and charting of nursing notes occurred among staff nurses employed on the fourth floor at the time in question due to staffing shortages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that no action be taken against the Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Irving J. Whitman, Esquire 9595 North Kendall Drive, Suite 103 Miami, Florida 33176 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. State Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to maintain an accurate medication record relating to narcotic medications in violation of Section 400.419(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A-5.0185(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has authority to license assisted living facilities (ALFs) and the duty to enforce all statutes and rules governing such facilities. Respondent is a licensed ALF with a total capacity for 35 residents. Respondent's License No. AL5888 is effective March 20, 2002, through March 19, 2004. On January 31, 2002, Petitioner completed a biennial survey of Respondent's facility. During the survey, Petitioner's staff observed Respondent's staff administering medication to six residents who needed medication assistance. Resident No. 6 received a narcotic medication, in tablet form, that she was supposed to take by mouth three times daily, as needed, for pain. The medication is addictive and may be obtained only by prescription. The prescription bottle at issue here indicated that it was filled on January 21, 2002, with 100 tablets. There is no other evidence regarding the number of tablets in the bottle when it arrived at Respondent's facility. Respondent did not count the tablets in the bottle upon receiving it from the pharmacy. Resident 6's MOR showed that she received the narcotic tablet three times daily, everyday, with no missed doses during the time period at issue here. According to the MOR, Resident 6 received a total of 32 doses of the medication beginning January 21, 2002, at 7:00 a.m. through January 31, 2002, at 12:25 p.m. However, the bottle contained only 54 tablets as of January 31, 2002, at 12.25 p.m. Respondent's staff could not explain or account for the 14 missing narcotic tablets. Under cover of a letter dated February 12, 2002, Petitioner advised Respondent that the biennial survey had identified a Class II deficiency relative to Resident 6's medication administration. The letter requested Respondent to file a plan of correction within ten days. Resident 6's narcotic medication was refilled on February 19, 2002, with 100 tablets. As of March 8, 2002, Resident 6 had 51 pills remaining in the new prescription bottle. On March 8, 2002, Petitioner's staff conducted a follow-up visit to Respondent's facility. The count of tablets in Resident 6's narcotic medication prescription bottle, when compared to the MOR, was correct at that time. Under cover of a letter dated March 15, 2002, Petitioner advised Respondent that the previously cited deficiency had been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 10th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Alvin L. Peters, Esquire 25 East Eighth Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care, failed to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment, improperly delegated professional responsibilities, or prescribed, dispensed or administered controlled substances other than in the course of his professional practice; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed physician in Florida, holding license number 59702. He has been licensed in Florida since 1991. Respondent is Board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. His last certification was in November 2009. Respondent received his bachelor of science degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1978. He received his doctor of medicine degree from Meharry Medical College in Nashville in 1982. He performed a surgical internship from 1982-83 with the Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, an obstetrics and gynecology residency from 1987-91 at the Harbor Hospital Center in Baltimore, and a maternal fetal medicine fellowship from 1991-93 at the University of South Florida. During the residency, Respondent completed a six-week rotation in the mental evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of transgendered patients. The training took place on the campus of Johns Hopkins University, which was one of the first medical schools to offer training in the diagnosis and treatment of transgendered patients. During this rotation, Respondent assumed responsibility for the care of about 30 patients, a little over half transitioning from female to male. From 1991-93, Respondent performed obstetrics and gynecology at several medical facilities in Florida, Maine, and Missouri. From 1993-96, Respondent was the Chief of Perinatology, Healthy Start Program, at the D.C. General Hospital/Howard University in Washington. In 1996, Respondent started the Orlando Women's Center (OWC) in Orlando, which he still owns and operates. He opened a second women's clinic in Orlando the following year. Respondent also participated in the starting of women's clinics in Ocala in 1998, Fort Lauderdale in April 1999, and Tampa in October 1999. In October 1996, about six months after opening, OWC hired M. W. as a medical assistant. She had nearly completed the coursework to become a licensed practical nurse, but at no time material to this case was she ever a licensed health care provider. M. W. was employed by OWC until 1999. M. W. was a diligent employee. Her initial duties were answering the telephone and working in the lab. However, her enthusiasm, intelligence, dedication, and discretion earned M. W. a promotion. In January 1997, Respondent promoted M. W. to a trusted position in which she would care for patients undergoing abortions during the second trimester of pregnancy. Working conditions required M. W. to be on-call nearly all of the time, as certain patients demanded to be admitted during nights or weekends to preserve confidentiality. The work was stressful because some patients bore fetuses with abnormalities, and protestors regularly demonstrated outside the clinic. M. W.'s new duties allowed Respondent himself to observe her work and determine that M. W. had the psychological stability to perform her job well. M. W. demonstrated her trustworthiness by dealing with patients' valuables, opening and closing the clinic, ordering supplies and stocking five surgical rooms, and drawing controlled substances for administration by Respondent. At the end of 1997, Respondent promoted M. W. to ordering and stocking the clinic's medical supplies, which include controlled substances. For Schedule II drugs, which includes narcotics, and Schedule III drugs, which includes steroids, M. W. had to fill out a DEA Form 222, using Respondent's DEA number to place the order. When OWC received Schedule III drugs, M. W. matched the order with the shipment. She then recorded the information in the OWC drug log. M. W. would place the drugs in a locked cabinet, if they were not needed for immediate use in the clinic. After nearly one year of ordering supplies, toward the end of 1998, M. W. approached Respondent to discuss a personal matter. At this point, the material disputes between the parties emerge. Respondent testified that M. W. discussed with him the possibility of undergoing transgender therapy, as well as treatment for an injured shoulder. According to Petitioner, M. W. discussed with Respondent the possibility of using anabolic steroids to improve her bodybuilding and weightlifting. The parties do not dispute that M. W. had participated in bodybuilding and weightlifting for several years prior to her employment with OWC. The Administrative Law Judge credits Petitioner's version of the purpose of treatment. Respondent testified that M. W. told him that she had thought about changing genders for several years. She did not like or want her breasts. She did not like the shape of her hips and thighs. She had decided that she did not want children and did not want to undergo menstruation. Although M. W. may have told Respondent that she did not like her body shape, she did not tell him that she wanted to change into a man. As discussed below, M. W. is not available to confirm or deny Respondent's version of events, and Respondent does not have any medical records documenting his care and treatment of M. W. Assigning a secondary reason for the treatment--healing a long-injured shoulder--is an awkward fit with Respondent's version of events, given the unlikelihood that someone considering a decision as major as changing genders would bother assigning a secondary reason for the decision. This secondary reason for the treatment is a better fit with Petitioner's version of events, although treatment of an injured shoulder was, at most, a very minor factor in the steroid treatment because the reconstructed medical records, discussed below, mention strength and bodybuilding, not recovery from a shoulder injury. The most important reason to credit Petitioner's version of the purpose of the steroid treatment over Respondent's version is that Petitioner's version conforms to Respondent's initial description of the purpose of the treatment. In other words, this is not a case of Respondent's word against contrary inferences drawn by Petitioner; this is a case of Respondent's later word against Respondent's earlier word. The parties do not dispute that, after the initial meeting to discuss the personal matter, Respondent agreed to allow M. W. to order anabolic steroids using his DEA number and at the discounted price charged to OWC. The drugs that Respondent expressly allowed M. W. to order--and which he prescribed for her--were Winstrol and, a short while later, depo-testosterone. Respondent prescribed for M. W. Winstrol orally at the rate of 2 mg per day, increasing to 10 mg per day at the end of six weeks, and depo-testosterone by intramuscular injection, which Respondent administered initially at the rate of 50 mg every two weeks, increasing to 200 mg every two weeks. The parties do not contest that, in early summer 2009, M. W. ordered through OWC sufficient Winstrol and Deca-Durabolin for her weightlifting father and brother, with whom she lived, to complete one six-week bodybuilding cycle each with these two anabolic steroids. For her brother, the evidence establishes that M. W. ordered through OWC additional Winstrol and sufficient depo-testosterone for him to complete a second six- week cycle. The evidence is undisputed that M. W. administered the injections of Deca-Durabolin and depo-testosterone to her brother, Deca-Durabolin to her father, and Deca-Durabolin to herself. M. W. probably took additional Winstrol at home. The evidence is also clear that, in addition to ordering the Winstrol and depo-testosterone in quantities in excess of the amount that she was authorized to order and Deca-Durabolin without any authority whatsoever, M. W. also ordered--without authorization--Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, and Soma, a muscle relaxant, possibly for her own use. Petitioner contends that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known of these unauthorized orders, but the evidence that Respondent knew is nonexistent, and the evidence that he should have known is insubstantial. There is little, if any, dispute that, unknown to Respondent, M. W. was using cocaine and heroin--by her own admission since early 1998. In late July 1999, Respondent was informed that M. W. had passed out at work. When Respondent spoke with her about this incident, M. W. admitted to the use of cocaine and heroin, most recently a couple of weeks earlier. Respondent immediately withdrew his authorization of M. W. to order supplies and medications for OWC and immediately discontinued further steroid treatment. Acting as M. W.'s employer, not physician, Respondent ordered M. W. to submit to a drug screen for Demerol, which had been missing from OWC,2 Valium, and cocaine. Three weeks later, he received the results, which were positive for cocaine. After giving M. W. an opportunity to discontinue illegal drug use, Respondent ordered M. W. to submit to another drug screen for Demerol, Valium, fentanyl, cocaine, and heroin, and the report, received in late August, was positive for cocaine and Valium. On September 22, 1999, M. W. was found dead in her home by her father. The first law enforcement officers responding to the 911 call reported that they had found a lifeless male dressed in woman's panties; this mistaken observation was based on M. W.'s muscularization and shadowy presence of facial hair. A homicide detective conducting an initial investigation found large quantities of syringes and prescription drugs, mostly steroids, in M. W.'s bedroom. He also found shipping labels and receipts with the names of OWC and Respondent. The parties have stipulated that the death was unrelated to steroid use. M. W.'s death was classified as a natural death. She was 30 years old. In resolving the major factual dispute--i.e., the purpose of the treatment--the Administrative Law Judge has assigned considerable weight to Respondent's earlier responses to law enforcement and regulatory inquiries. In these responses, Respondent never mentioned transgender treatment or gender identity disorder, but instead admitted that the treatment was to enhance athletic performance and to facilitate bodybuilding. In a written reconstruction of the medical records done prior to the commencement of this case, Respondent stated that he was "unable to locate [M. W.'s] chart so I will reconstruct her chart from memory. Last time chart was seen was June [19]99 which was given to [her]." The reconstructed chart shows three office visits: November 7, 1998, March 20, 1999, and June 26, 1999. None of the reconstructed notes mentions anything about lab work being ordered, the results of any lab work, or anything about an injured shoulder and whether it was healing. The entry for November 7 starts: "[Patient] request being placed on testosterone for body building. States she . . . is considering Pro-Wrestling." The notes indicate blood pressure of 118 over 64, pulse of 72, and nothing remarkable from a basic physical examination. The notes state: "Wants to body build; requests steroids." The notes report that Respondent prescribed Winstrol in 2 mg doses and explained the side effects, and Respondent was going to allow M. W. to order her steroid medication from the clinic's vendors. This entry concludes with a note for a followup visit in three months. The entry for March 20, 1999, states that M. W. had no complaints, reported getting stronger, and was happy with "bench," meaning bench-pressing, a form of weightlifting. This note states that M. W. denied experiencing any side-effects and wanted to add a second steroid: "Request to add Depo- Testosterone." The entry for June 26, 1999, notes that M. W. "feels good about herself and her outlook on life is much improved" and is "continuing to [increase] strength [with] weights." This note contains findings of a physical exam, including blood pressure of 124 over 78 and pulse of 72, and the note concludes that M. W. was doing well and Respondent planned to continue the same steroid regime. The other time that Respondent discussed the purpose of the treatment was when he was interviewed by a law enforcement officer on March 10, 2000, in the presence of Respondent's attorney. Respondent did not say anything about transgender treatment or gender identity disorder, and he was evasive when asked if he were M. W.'s physician. When asked if M. W. were ever a patient or just an employee, Respondent responded by referring to the incident when she passed out at work: "She now when you say she would ah the only time when she and I were upstairs that day. . . . And when she had the overdose." The law enforcement officer asked, "And that's like in August [1999]?" Respondent replied, "Yeah. The question was and I and I still haven't been able to define that because she asked me not to tell anybody about her problem with her drug habits and this type of scenario. So the question is whether or not she was a, whether or not honestly she was a patient of mine at that particular point in time."3 Shortly after this exchange, the law enforcement officer asked Respondent if the steroids that Respondent allowed M. W. to order through the OWC were for competitive purposes, such as weightlifting. Respondent replied, "we had a discussion about her wanting to . . . make it so that her, that she could work out harder because she was having some problems with her shoulders and these type of things "4 These reconstructed records and statements to a law enforcement officer were not casual statements uttered in an informal setting. This was information that Respondent provided to assist in the investigation of the circumstances surrounding the death of this 30-year-old woman. Except for mention of a shoulder injury in the last-cited statement--an effort by Respondent to convert the treatment objective from pure enhancement of athletic performance to a mix of enhancement of athletic performance and therapy for some undiagnosed shoulder injury--the information consistently implies that the treatment objective was to improve M. W.'s efforts in bodybuilding and weightlifting. And the mention of the shoulder injury suggests only that its healing was subordinate to the weightlifting and bodybuilding. The failure of the reconstructed records to contain any diagnostic information or progress reports on the injured shoulder precludes a finding that the treatment objective was to heal a shoulder injury. Respondent testified about the importance of confidentiality for his patients, especially M. W., as she was undergoing "gender transformation." But patient confidentiality is not an end in itself; it is a means to assuring that the patient will trust the physician with all relevant information necessary for diagnosis and treatment. Respondent implied that the requirement of patient confidentiality somehow trumped the duty not to affirmatively frustrate investigations into the death of his employee and patient. This makes no sense. Respondent's strained "explanation" for creating a misleading set of medical records yields to the simpler explanation that Respondent told the truth in these reconstructed records and in the police interview: Respondent was treating M. W. with steroids for bodybuilding and wrestling, not for gender transformation and not for an injured shoulder. These findings are supported by the fact that the first drug that Respondent prescribed M. W. was Winstrol. The anabolic effect of a steroid promotes muscularization, and the androgenic effect of a steroid promotes masculinization. Because Winstrol produces more anabolic than androgenic effect, it was long favored by females who wanted to produce muscle mass, such as for bodybuilding, without masculinization. Initiating treatment with Winstrol and following with depo- testosterone is a conventional example of the cyclical use of steroids for muscularization, not masculinization. One of Respondent's expert witnesses made an interesting observation based on the misidentification of the gender of the body of M. W. by the first responders. He testified that, if Respondent had been ordering the anabolic steroids for weightlifting and bodybuilding, M. W. must have been seriously dissatisfied with the masculinization that she had undergone. However, this observation overlooks the fact that M. W., without Respondent's knowledge, had administered to herself unknown quantities of the prescribed anabolic steroids and Deca-Durabolin. Like Winstrol, Deca-Durabolin is more anabolic, or muscle-making, than androgenic, or masculinizing-- which is consistent with M. W.'s intent to enhance her athletic performance and bodybuilding, not change her gender. Although the first responders observed some facial hair, in addition to muscularization, nothing in the record suggests that M. W. could take all of these anabolic steroids in unknown quantities without experiencing some masculinization, or that she expected no such masculinization side effects. Under these circumstances, M. W. could not legitimately have confronted Respondent over the incidental masculinization that she had experienced, while self-administered steroids whose main effect was muscularization, without running the risk that he would detect her unauthorized ordering of steroids. As noted above, there are no available medical records. Respondent testified that he gave M. W.'s medical chart and drug log "VIP" treatment to preserve confidentiality: Respondent allowed M. W. to keep her medical records and the drug log pertaining to her medications. Each time M. W. presented to Respondent, such as for an injection, she brought with her these files, according to Respondent. Petitioner contends that these records never existed, and, therefore, Respondent failed to document that he monitored the effects of the anabolic steroids that he ordered for M. W. The Administrative Law Judge credits Petitioner's version of the situation regarding medical records. At the hearing, Respondent characterized as a mere "sampling" the medical records that he had initially called a reconstruction. He implied that the reconstructed medical records were illustrative of what the records originally contained. This probably explains how he could reconstruct blood pressure readings of 118 over 64 and 126 over 78 taken six and nearly twelve months prior to the reconstruction of the records. Likely, he recalled that the values were normal and inserted these readings merely to illustrate his recollection. However, as noted above, these reconstructed records are significant for their omission of any similar illustrative reconstructions of an SBC for blood chemistry, SMAC 18 for electrolytes and kidney and liver function, and lipids for cholesterol and triglycerides. This lab work is essential, at the start of a course of treatment with anabolic steroids and periodically during treatment, to ensure the safety of any patient, especially when orally ingested anabolics--here, Winstrol--are administered, due to the possibility of liver damage. Respondent testified at the hearing that the lab results were normal, but, unlike his addition of illustrative, normal values for blood pressure and pulse, Respondent never added illustrative, normal values for this lab work. This is because he never ordered such lab work. These lab tests are common in a variety of circumstances, so they did not require the "VIP treatment" that Respondent claimed was required for the transgender treatment plan. However, Respondent never produced medical records or even lab paperwork, such as test results or invoices, documenting that these tests had been done. Also, if such records had existed and Respondent had allowed M. W. to keep them, one obvious place for them would have been in M. W.'s room at her home, but Respondent never sent anyone there to look for them after her death. As to the Standard of Care allegations, Petitioner has thus proved first, that Respondent prescribed steroids for M. W. both for muscle building (not to treat an injured muscle) and for enhancement of athletic performance; and, second, that Respondent did not order lab work to monitor the effects of the steroids that he prescribed for M. W. The evidence fails to establish that Respondent ever undertook the treatment of M. W.'s drug addiction (despite his statement to the contrary, which has been discredited). The evidence fails to establish the circumstances out of which a duty to treat could have arisen, especially within the brief time frame between Respondent's discovery of her drug problems and her death. Any evidence relevant to the remaining allegations within Count One involves the employer-employee relationship, not the physician-patient relationship, between Respondent and M. W. As to the medical records violation, Petitioner has proved that Respondent's medical records failed to adequately document the monitoring of the effects of anabolic steroids that Respondent prescribed for M. W. The evidence establishes the necessity of lab work, at the start and during steroid treatment, to ensure the safety of the patient. Without this lab work, documented in the medical records, the course of steroid treatment is not justified. The evidence fails to establish that Respondent delegated responsibilities to a person whom Respondent knew or reasonably should have known was not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to administered controlled substances to patients. Drug addiction is not a deficit in training, experience, or licensure. Even if drug addiction fell within one of these statutory categories, the evidence fails to establish any improprieties in M. W.'s administration of controlled substances to patients, and, even if the evidence proved such improprieties, the evidence fails to establish that Respondent knew of M. W.'s drug addiction at a point to have timely relieved her of her duties, or that Respondent reasonably should have known of M. W.'s drug addiction in time to do anything about it. To the contrary, Respondent's termination of these responsibilities of M. W. appears to have been timely. Petitioner has proved that Respondent prescribed and administered controlled substances--i.e., anabolic steroids--for muscle building, not the treatment of an injured muscle, and for enhanced athletic performance. Respondent has previously been disciplined. By Final Order entered on December 18, 2007, in DOAH Case No. 06-4288PL, the Board of Medicine imposed one year's suspension, a $10,000 fine, and three years' probation for failing to perform a third- trimester abortion in a hospital and failing to obtain the written certifications of two physicians of the necessity for the procedure; committing an associated medical-records violation; and committing a Standard of Care violation for failing to perform a third-trimester abortion in a hospital. Respondent's acts and omissions occurred in 2005. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Final Order in Pendergraft v. Department of Health, Board of Medicine, 19 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). By Final Order entered on January 28, 2010, in DOAH Case No. 08-4197PL, the Board of Medicine imposed two years' suspension, a $20,000 fine, and three years' probation for committing a Standard of Care violation for failing to a advise subsequent treating physicians that he had removed a portion of a patient's fetus and an associated medical-records violation. Respondent's acts and omissions occurred in 2006. Although Respondent has been disciplined prior to this recommended order, the acts and omissions in this case took place several years prior to the acts and omissions in the two cases described immediately above.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Section 458.331(1)(m), (t), and (q), Florida Statutes (1998), and suspending his license for one year followed by three years' probation, imposing a fine of $10,000, and assessing costs as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2010, 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 8th day of June, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of assisted living facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Northpointe was licensed as an assisted living facility with a capacity of 100 beds. Northpointe is located in Pensacola, Florida. Count I As the result of a complaint received by AHCA, Norma Endress, a registered nurse and agency surveyor employed by AHCA, conducted a survey inspection of Northpointe on March 1 and 2, 2002. According to Nurse Endress, the nature of the complaint was an allegation regarding failure to prevent falls. Upon arriving at Northpointe, Ms. Endress spoke with Rochelle Pitt, a Licensed Practical Nurse who is Director of Nursing at Northpointe, made a quick tour of the facility and then asked for the records of five residents. These records included those of Resident 1 and four others chosen randomly. Included within Resident 1's records was an Outcome Planning Discharge Sheet (discharge sheet) from Sacred Heart Hospital dated January 31, 2002. The discharge sheet noted that Resident 1 had a wound on his left heel. The discharge sheet included a section entitled "Post Discharge Medical Appointments" which included the following hand written notation: "Dr Matthew Ethridge (Podiatrist) (illegible telephone number). Date + time to be arranged within the week by daughter." The discharge sheet also included a section entitled "Medications Dose Frequency" which contained the following hand written notation: "Resume pre-hospital meds. Clean and dress left heel (illegible) everyday with antibiotic ointment and dress with gauze." Also included within Resident 1's records was another document from Sacred Heart Hospital which indicates that Resident 1 subsequently was treated in the Emergency Room on February 2, 2002. This document includes a section entitled "Triage," which indicates that Resident 1 was seen in the Emergency Room because of a fall and that Resident 1's chest hurt. The section of the February 2, 2002, Emergency Room document entitled "Physical Exam" indicates that Resident 1 was awake and alert and was accompanied by his daughter. This section also includes the following: "EXTREMITIES: no clubbing, cyanosis, WITH2+ edema, perpipheral pulses intact, motor and sensation intact. BANDAGE ON FOOT NOT CHANGED AS HOME HEALTH NURSING CHANGING REGULARLY." (emphasis in original) During the survey inspection, Nurse Endress also reviewed Resident 1's medication record. According to Nurse Endress, the medication record did not reference the discharge instructions of the physician from the January 31, 2002, discharge from the hospital.1/ Also included in Resident 1's records was a fax cover sheet dated February 1, 2002, from Rochelle Pitt of Northpointe to Dr. Retzloff. The fax cover sheet contained the following hand written notation: "Returned from hospital 1-31-02, needs new health assessment (with) orders for home health to open area L heel. (see discharge instructions) Thanks, Rochelle Pitt." According to Nurse Endress, there was nothing in Resident 1's medication administration record or medical chart to reflect the physician's discharge instructions of January 31, 2002 nor to indicate that Resident 1 received any treatment to his left foot after his discharge from the hospital on January 31, 2002. Mr. M. H. Mikhchi is the administrator of Northpointe. According to Mr. Mikhchi, the type of license held by Respondent does not permit it to do the dressing changes on Resident 1's foot referenced in the doctor's hospital discharge instructions. That is, Respondent asserts that it holds a standard license, not a mental health license or a limited nursing license. According to Mr. Mikhchi, Respondent received a call from the hospital prior to Resident 1's discharge on Thursday, January 31, 2002, informing them that Resident 1 was being discharged. The following day, Friday, February 1, 2002, Nurse Pitt sent a fax to Dr. Retzloff, requesting a new health assessment with orders for home health care to treat Resident 1's heel. The time of day that this request was faxed is not reflected on the fax cover sheet, although Mr. Mikhchi indicated that it was Friday afternoon. The request was necessary because Resident 1's insurance required a physician's order for home health services. According to Mr. Mikhchi, Respondent did not hear back from Dr. Retzloff's office on Friday, February 1, 2002. As a result, the weekend passed without Resident 1 receiving home health care for his heel wound. Mr. Mikhchi acknowledges that Nurse Pitt viewed the heel wound over the weekend although the record is unclear as to whether or not she changed the dressing or applied ointment. Nurse Pitt's actions in this regard were not recorded in Resident 1's record because of the limitation of Respondent's license. Upon Resident 1's return to the facility, Nurse Pitt noted that Resident 1's discharge order stated that Resident 1's daughter would set up an appointment with Dr. Ethridge. As far as Nurse Pitt or Respondent knew, Resident 1's daughter had not set up an appointment with the doctor as of Monday, February 4, 2002. Accordingly, Nurse Pitt called the office of Dr. Ethridge, a podiatrist, on Monday, February 4, 2002, to set up an appointment which was then scheduled for the following day. Count II Shawn Bolander is a registered nurse and a surveyor for AHCA. According to Nurse Bolander, she went to Respondent's facility on April 5, 2002, to conduct a survey visit as a follow-up to a complaint investigation. However, the record contains no evidence as to the nature or subject matter of the complaint investigation to which this was a follow-up survey visit. There is nothing in Nurse Bolander's testimony to indicate that her visit of April 5, 2002, was related in any way to the events discussed above regarding Count 1 or Resident 1. Upon arriving, Nurse Bolander took a tour of the facility and requested a list of residents to select a sample of records for chart review. She reviewed the records of Resident 22/ and found that there was a missing page to Resident 2's medication administration record. She determined that there was a missing page by comparing the physician's orders to the medication administration record for the month of April. That is, Resident 2's resident health assessment mentioned two medications that were not found on Resident 2's medication administration record. Upon discovering that some medications were not listed on the medication administration record, Nurse Bolander spoke to Nurse Pitt. Nurse Bolander requested that Nurse Pitt recopy the second page of Resident 2's medication administration record and provide her with a copy of it prior to Nurse Bolander's departure from Respondent's facility. Nurse Pitt did provide Nurse Bolander with a second page to Resident 2's medication administration record prior to Nurse Bolander's departure from the facility on April 5, 2002. At the top of the second page of the medication administration record appears the following hand written notations: "Re-written 4-5-02 2:15pm RP." This was followed by a notation made by Nurse Bolander which read, "Received 4/5/02 SB @2:35." Page two of Resident 2's medication administration record listed six medications, three of which were designated "PRN." Based upon her review of the medication administration record, Nurse Bolander determined that there was no evidence that Resident 2 actually received any of the medications listed on page two from April 1, 2002 to April 5, 2002. There is nothing in the record to support the allegation in Count II that Respondent's alleged failure to maintain an up to date medication observation record is a repeat violation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint issued against Respondent, Northpointe Retirement Community. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 8th day of November, 2002.
