The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting complaints against persons holding licenses in the health professions and occupations, including chiropractic physicians. See § 456.073, Fla. Stat. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine ("Board") is the entity charged with the responsible for imposing penalties against chiropractic physicians for violations of Section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes. See § 460.413(2), Fla. Stat. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Whitney was a chiropractic physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been issued license number CH 4840. Dr. Whitney's address of record is 1011 North Federal Highway, Unit 106, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009. Dr. Whitney has been a licensed chiropractic physician in Florida since January 1985 and has never had disciplinary action taken against his license. On or about September 7, 2001, Williston Orthopedic Rehab, Inc. ("Clinic"), opened in Williston, Florida. Dr. Whitney was the medical director of the Clinic; Robert Andrews was the owner of the Clinic. Mr. Andrews had worked with Dr. Whitney in his chiropractic practice for more than 10 years. A sign was erected in front of the Clinic identifying the facility and the services provided. Dr. Whitney's name, "Dr. Robert Whitney," was prominently shown on the sign, and he was identified as "Medical Director." The services provided by the Clinic, as shown on the sign, were as follows: Automobile Accidents - Injuries Work Related Injuries Physical Therapy Alternative Medicine Chiropractic Care Massage On or about September 7, 2001, several photographs were taken of Dr. Whitney and others standing in front of the sign. The photographs appeared in the September 13, 2001, edition of both The Williston Pioneer newspaper and of the Williston Sun Suwannee Valley News newspaper, together with articles about the new Clinic, its staff, and the services offered. Dr. Whitney was identified in one article as a "Doctor of Chiropractic," and Mr. Andrews was identified in the same article as the "practice administrator." Dr. Whitney had no ownership interest in the Clinic and had no role in the administration of the Clinic. His primary duty as medical director was to review charts, and he worked at the Clinic part-time. Mr. Andrews ordered the sign that was placed in front of the Clinic, and Dr. Whitney was not consulted about the information that was to be placed on the sign or asked to approve the contents of the completed sign. Dr. Whitney did not see the sign prior to arriving at the Clinic on or about September 7, 2001, to have his photograph taken for the newspaper stories. As soon as Dr. Whitney saw the sign, he notified Mr. Andrews that it failed to identify him as a chiropractic physician. Dr. Whitney immediately told Mr. Andrews to have the sign modified to include the designation "D.C." after his name. Mr. Andrews agreed to modify the sign, but he failed to have the sign corrected. The sign remained in front of the Clinic for several weeks before it was removed. Dr. Whitney left his position at the Clinic several weeks after he asked Mr. Andrews to correct the sign. The sign in front of the Clinic was misleading in that it did not, in any manner, identify Dr. Whitney as a chiropractic physician. He was identified only as "Dr. Robert Whitney," the "Medical Director" of the Clinic. The inclusion of "chiropractic care" among the services provided at the Clinic is not sufficient, standing alone, to provide notice to the public that Dr. Whitney is a chiropractic physician. Although Dr. Whitney did not disseminate or cause the dissemination of the misleading information in the sign, the sign remained outside the Clinic for several weeks with his apparent acquiescence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order finding Robert Whitney, D.C., guilty of having violated Section 460.413(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a $500.00 administrative fine and a letter of concern. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 31st day of July, 2007.
Findings Of Fact The allegations against Petitioner in the underlying proceeding were all connected with his use of Grenz Ray therapy, a safe, rapid, and painless procedure for the patient. It has been used for the treatment of benign skin diseases for more than sixty years. The National Academy of Sciences in 1980 affirmed the safety factor inherent in the use of Grenz Rays and strongly endorsed the concept that it remained the prerogative of the physician to use any form of therapy in which the benefits accruing to the patient from its use are considered to outweigh the risks inherent in its use. The American Academy of Dermatology at its 1991 annual meeting offered lectures and a symposium on the beneficial use of Grenz Ray therapy. Medical schools have taught dermatologists the beneficial use of Grenz Ray therapy for many decades. Many doctors use Grenz Ray therapy as a modality of treatment. Until the underlying proceeding arose, Dr. Altman's use of Grenz Ray therapy had never been questioned by any federal or state regulatory agency. Until the underlying proceeding arose, no claim for Grenz Ray therapy rendered by Dr. Altman had ever been declined by any third-party payor, and all claims submitted by him to the Department for Grenz Ray therapy had been paid for the two years that Dr. Altman had been participating as a provider in the Florida Medicaid Program prior to the Department's Emergency Termination Order. There is no statute or rule on either the federal or the state level which prohibits the use of Grenz Ray therapy. Moreover, the Department has no policy against the use of Grenz Ray therapy. Grenz Ray therapy as utilized by Dr. Altman is conservative. The Department offered no evidence in the underlying proceeding that Grenz Ray therapy as utilized by Dr. Altman is similar to utilizing the drug Thalidomide or causing exposure to asbestos, as alleged in the Department's Administrative Complaint. No patient has complained regarding the treatment provided to that patient by Dr. Altman. The investigation into Dr. Altman's use of Grenz Ray therapy was triggered by a computer search. The matter was then assigned to an investigator who had been employed by the Department for approximately one year who held herself out to have special training in radiation therapy as a certified oncology nurse. She based her investigation upon experts that began with the use of an expert personally known to her--her own dermatologist who also uses Grenz Ray therapy. Thereafter, one expert recommended another. At about the same time, she was investigating the use of Grenz Ray therapy by another dermatologist in the Broward County area, the same area in which Petitioner practices. Related to that investigation, the investigator was presented with articles strongly advocating the use of Grenz Ray therapy authored by yet another dermatologist utilizing Grenz Ray therapy in the Broward County area. At the same time, the investigator was also provided with information showing that training in Grenz Ray therapy was a requirement for completing a medical residency in dermatology. The investigator ignored those articles presented to her and failed to even speak to the author of the articles. On the other hand, the scientific studies, medical textbook chapters, and other medical articles relied upon by the investigator to show that Dr. Altman's use of Grenz Ray therapy was excessive, inferior, or inappropriate did not support that conclusion, but rather supported the opposite conclusion. The investigator did not understand that some of the articles she was reading related to higher levels of ionizing radiation than the ultra-soft Grenz Rays. Prior to initiating the Emergency Termination Order and the Administrative Complaint, the investigator never spoke to Dr. Altman concerning the services that he was providing. Instead, she went to Dr. Altman's office, advised him that Grenz Ray therapy was an outdated and antiquated modality, and picked up his medical records for the patients in question so that she could make copies of them to have them reviewed by her experts. Although she had no preconceived list of experts when she started her investigation, the investigator spoke to no practitioner who used Grenz Ray therapy on children and contacted no professional dermatologist associations regarding the use of Grenz Ray therapy by their members. Similarly, although her own dermatologist uses Grenz Ray therapy, the investigator "built a case" which alleged, essentially, that when Dr. Altman utilized Grenz Ray therapy, it was inappropriate. The investigator specifically made no attempt to contact any expert who would be favorable to Petitioner's use of Grenz Ray therapy. The investigator formed a mental impression that Petitioner's use of Grenz Ray therapy was inappropriate for children and excessive for adults when she reviewed the computer report of Dr. Altman's claims which had, up to that moment, been paid by the Department without question. Her investigation was thereafter dictated by her personal beliefs, and she ignored all evidence to the contrary. Based upon her investigation, the Department determined that it would take action. Although it could have simply terminated its contract with Petitioner without cause, it did not do so. Similarly, the Department did not request that Petitioner reimburse the Department for claims already paid by the Department. Rather, the Department issued an Emergency Termination Order followed by an Administrative Complaint seeking to terminate Dr. Altman from the Medicaid Program for five years and seeking to fine him the amount of $20,000. Although the Department was justified in conducting its investigation, it was not substantially justified at the time that the underlying action was initiated by the issuance of its Emergency Termination Order and Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Anthony S. Coco, held chiropractic license number 0001508 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners. He is authorized to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida and presently maintains an office at 65 Royal Palm Beach Boulevard, Vero Beach, Florida. In response to a newspaper advertisement, Thomas A. Murphy visited the office of Respondent on May 13, 1980, regarding treatment of low back pain, impotence, nervousness, headaches and general aches and pains. Murphy had a 100 percent service-connected disability and was already being treated by a medical physician for other undisclosed ailments. Murphy was given a complete examination by Coco, including neurological and orthopedic tests. Additionally, eight x-rays were taken of the patient. As a general practice, Coco does not record negative (or normal) results on the patient's records. Because all tests except the x-rays were negative, the results of the examination were not reflected on Murphy's patient records. However, a detailed record of his findings were prepared in a request for authorization to provide chiropractic treatment forwarded to the Veteran's Administration (VA) on May 15, 1980. The request was later denied by the VA, and Murphy terminated his relationship with Respondent. Murphy became involved in a dispute with a secretary in Coco's office and filed a complaint against him with Petitioner. Petitioner then retained the services of an outside consultant, Dr. Fred C. Blumenfeld, to examine Murphy's patient file. Blumenfeld was initially given an incomplete file to examine, and based upon his initial review of the incomplete file, concluded that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care in his treatment of Murphy. That precipitated the instant proceeding. Prior to the final hearing, Blumenfeld gained access to the entire file, and upon examining the same, reached an opinion that no "malpractice" had occurred. Although he testified that he would have marked the x-rays differently, and would have noted all negative findings on Murphy's patient chart, he did not otherwise criticize Coco's treatment of Murphy, and saw no basis for the issuance of an administrative complaint. Three other experts, including a nationally recognized professor of chiropractic and a former member of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, each concluded that Coco's treatment of Murphy was proper and consistent with generally recognized standards of skill and care of chiropractors in the community. They also concluded that Coco's diagnosis of Murphy's ailments, as reflected on his patient notes and letter of May 15, were consistent with the x- rays taken of Murphy. Although Mr. Murphy appeared at the final hearing, he did so reluctantly and had no complaint regarding his examination and the diagnosis rendered by Coco.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Respondent be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 21st day of March, 1983.
Findings Of Fact On February 4, 1980, the Office of Medicaid Quality Control advised Respondent that a review of his Medicaid claims revealed that he billed the Medicaid Program for psychiatric services and further advised him that only Board-certified or Board-eligible psychiatrists were entitled to bill the Program for such services. The letter further requested that Respondent provide Petitioner with a copy of his Board certification. (Although the letter admitted in evidence bears the date of February 4, 1979, it is obvious that the date contains a typographical error, since the letter pertains to services previously rendered in April of 1979, and refers to a rule which became effective January 1, 1980.) By letter dated February 8, 1980, Respondent replied, by advising Petitioner that he was neither Board-certified nor Board-eligible. Respondent included in his letter a recitation of his extensive experience and qualifications as a psychiatrist. In spite of Petitioner's failure to reply to his letter or to authorize him to do so, Respondent continued to bill Petitioner for psychiatric services rendered to Medicaid recipients, and Petitioner continued to pay Respondent's claims. During the summer of 1981, Petitioner determined that ineligible psychiatrists were billing the Medicaid Program for psychiatric services rendered to Medicaid recipients. In order to ascertain those qualified to bill the Program, form letters were sent to all providers of psychiatric services requesting documentation of Board eligibility or Board certification and further advising that only Board-certified or Board-eligible psychiatrists were entitled to bill the Program. On August 5, 1981, that form letter was sent to Respondent. On August 11, 1981, Respondent replied to the August 5 form letter by again advising Petitioner that he was not Board-certified or Board-eligible and his extensive background and qualifications as a psychiatrist. Although no reply was made to his August 1981 letter to Petitioner, Respondent continued to bill the Medicaid Program for psychiatric services, and Petitioner continued to pay Respondent's claims. Respondent is not presently, and has never been, a Board-certified psychiatrist or a candidate for Board certification. During the period from January 1, 1980, through February, 1982, Respondent billed for and was paid $38,252.75 by the Medicaid Program for providing psychiatric services to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner never advised Respondent that he was entitled to bill the Medicaid Program for providing psychiatric services to Medicaid recipients notwithstanding the fact that he was not a Board-certified psychiatrist or a candidate for Board certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered directing Respondent to reimburse to Petitioner the sum of $38,252.75 for payments received by him for psychiatric services rendered from January 1, 1980, through February, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Weiss, Esquire Medicaid Program Office Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard, Suite 233 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bruce M. Boiko, Esquire 1000 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 212 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(d), 458.331(1)(n), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Hammesfahr is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued Florida License ME 52212 on February 8, 1988. He is board-certified in neurology and pain management. Hammesfahr's office is located in Clearwater, Florida, where he maintains a practice treating patients who have had strokes. A stroke is a blockage of an artery in the brain that causes damage to the brain. As a result of the stroke certain cells within the brain will die, and the victim will develop a multitude of deficits, including paralysis, loss of vision, sensory loss, and memory problems. Between 1998 and 2000, Hammesfahr advertised his treatment for stroke patients and included the following statements in some of his advertisements: Using advanced technology, Dr. Hammesfahr has developed a sophisticated method to help restore blood flow to the damaged areas of the brain after a stroke. With increased blood flow to these areas, the brain can heal. Dr. Hammesfahr is the first physician to treat and successfully reverse the effects of stroke using vasodilators. These advertisements have appeared in Florida and in airline magazines, which travel throughout the country. In some of his advertisements, Hammesfahr indicated that based on an evaluation of the first 67 patients who went through the therapy 82 percent had major improvement, 11.9 percent had minor improvement, and 6 percent had no improvement. He further indicated that the study showing these results was peer-reviewed. Generally, Hammesfahr's treatment protocol is based on the concept of dilating blood vessels in the brain to optimize neurological function and neurological recovery. He uses vasodilator medications to dilate blood vessels in the brain and to increase blood flow into the brain. Various methods are used to monitor the therapy and improvement, including ultrasound, physical examinations, neuropsychological and physical therapy testing, EEG, transcranial Doppler, and blood pressure monitoring. Medications used to dilate the blood vessels include ACE inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, nitrates, alpha and beta blockers, and sympatholytics. After a stroke has occurred, brain cells in the center of the stroke are destroyed and cannot be revived. The area next to the stroke center is called the penumbra and consists of brain cells that are damaged and might recover. Hammesfahr does not claim that his treatment protocol can restore the brain cells that have been destroyed. He does claim that by using his protocol there may be some recovery in the damaged areas, where the blood vessels have restricted and narrowed. The medications dilate the vessels and increase the blood flow to the damaged areas. The recovery of a stroke patient consists of three phases: acute, subacute, and chronic. The acute phase occurs from the onset of the stroke to the next few days or weeks thereafter. The subacute phase starts at the end of the acute phase and lasts for approximately six weeks to three months. However, in certain cases it might last as long as 18 months. The chronic phase is the last phase, which commences at the end of the subacute phase and lasts for an indefinite period. Hammesfahr usually treats stroke patients who are in the chronic phase, but has also treated patients in the other phases of stroke recovery. When a patient contacts Hammesfahr concerning his stroke treatment, the patient will be sent a new patient package, which describes the phases of treatment, contains articles written by Hammesfahr concerning his treatment, and includes a fee schedule. Hammesfahr has different treatment plans from which the patient may choose to participate. The costs for the treatment vary according to the plan; the longer the patient is seen in Clearwater by Hammesfahr, the more costly the treatment. The average patient seen by Hammesfahr opts for the three-week plan. If a patient decides that he wants to be treated by Hammesfahr, the patient is required to see his primary care physician, provide the physician with the articles contained in the new patient package, and obtain his medical records from the physician. The primary care physician is to perform certain tests on the patient and give a medical clearance for the patient to travel to Clearwater, Florida, for treatment by Hammesfahr. The patient is also sent a package of materials, which includes a medical history form to be filled out by the patient and brought to Hammesfahr when the patient comes to Clearwater for treatment. When the patient initially presents for treatment at Clearwater, the patient is given an explanation of the treatment by Hammesfahr and his staff. Patients are advised that there are no guarantees that the treatment will be successful. An intake is performed to make sure that the needed forms are properly completed, including a history of the patient to determine that the patient's primary care physician has given the patient a clearance to come to Hammesfahr for treatment, and to review the medical records of the patient. A physical examination is performed on the patient. The patient is given a schedule for the time that the patient will be in treatment in Clearwater, and Hammesfahr's staff reviews the schedule with the patient. Tests are performed on the patient in Hammesfahr's office such as the transcranial Doppler ultrasound to generally determine the blood velocity. The patient is sent to Diane Hartley, a physical therapist, for testing of gross motor function, and to Dr. Alexander Gimon for neuropsychological testing. The tests given by Ms. Hartley and Dr. Gimon are standardized tests, for which the patient normally pays additional fees. The initial tests by Ms. Hartley and Dr. Gimon are given to form a baseline for a comparison with later test results. Those patients who are three-week patients will also have examinations by Ms. Hartley and Dr. Gimon at the end of their treatment period. The test results are compared with the test results taken at the beginning of the treatment period. The patient receives an orientation session in which the patient is informed of the responsibilities that the patient has during the course of treatment. Such responsibilities include taking blood pressure measurements at prescribed times of the day, charting the results of the blood pressure test, and seeing and providing the patient's primary care physician with the blood pressure readings. The patient must drink eight glasses of water a day, unless the patient has a heart disease, and must avoid certain types of foods that are vasoconstrictors. Once the patient completes the treatment at Hammesfahr's office, the primary care physician will take over the medical management of the patient's treatment. Hammesfahr's office will confer with the patient's primary care physician after the patient leaves Hammesfahr's office to discuss the monitoring of the patient and the altering of the patient's medication. One week after returning from treatment in Clearwater with Hammesfahr, the patient must see his primary care physician. In October 1999, a friend of M.T. mailed M.T. one of Hammesfahr's advertisements. As result of receiving the advertisement, M.T. contacted Hammesfahr's clinic and sought treatment from him for a stroke which she suffered in May 1999. Hammesfahr sent M.T. an information package and a videotape. The package contained articles written by Hammesfahr, a description of the different programs available, and a price list for the programs. M.T. decided that she would try a three-day program for $3,000. There was a dispute as to exactly which program M.T. received when she went to Clearwater. The only two programs which Hammesfahr listed as costing $3,000 were the Executive Stroke Prevention Program and the One-Week Evaluation and Treatment Program. The Executive Stroke Prevention Program was described as follows: This is a three (3) day program in which patients will undergo CAT scan and MRI at our facility, state of the art computerized EEG, and transcranial ultrasound to look at the blood vessels of the brain. They will undergo a comprehensive medical review and family review, as well as recommendations for lowering one's chances of a stroke or to treat if there has been a stroke in the past. This program is not covered by insurance. The One-Week Evaluation and Treatment Program was described as follows: This program is designed for those who want to start the stroke program and have the program advanced to a level which makes it significantly easier for the family physicians at home and neurologists to continue the program safely and rapidly. The first days [sic] involved in the initial evaluation, as well as any testing such as EEG and ultrasound testing, if necessary, and CT scans and MRIs as well as blood tests, followed by days two through five being involved in the initiation of medical treatment in that either treating the previous stroke or preventing future strokes. Recommendations are then made to the family physician or neurologists for caring through on this program. There was an additional three-day program, Initial Evaluation and Treatment, which listed for $2,000 and provided the following: This is a three (3) day consultation and evaluation with recommendations for treatment. This program is designed for patients who are interested in treatment of their stroke by their family physicians at home. A comprehensive evaluation will be made by our physicians as well as treatment recommendations. This evaluation will include review of CAT scans or MRIs and blood tests, and when appropriate, computerized EEG testing, neuropsychological testing, and ultrasound evaluations. The program is approximately three days. Prior to traveling to Hammesfahr's clinic, M.T. was directed by Hammesfahr to obtain medical tests from her primary care physician, which she did. The tests included a CT scan of the brain, a CMP, liver profile, CBC with different platelets, Westergren's sed rate, EEG, CVA, and EKG. She was also required to take and write down her blood pressure two times a day for a week before going to Hammesfahr's clinic. M.T. also filled out a medical history form and a system review checklist prior to her visit to Hammesfahr. In a letter dated February 12, 2000, to M.T. on Hammesfahr's letterhead, his office staff described the treatment that M.T. would receive as follows: Your first visits with us will be quite long. So, plan accordingly. On your first day, you will have a consultation with the doctor. The second day you will have diagnostic testing in our office, and an appointment with Dr. Gimon for a neuro- psychological evaluation and Diane Hartley for a physical therapy evaluation. Both of these doctors will be calling you to set up these appointments. The neuro-psychological testing will help us to evaluate any memory changes. You will probably see Dr. Gimon again towards the end of your treatment. On Tuesdays and Thursdays there is an orientation session outlining what we will be doing here in the office and [sic] explaining our treatment program will be given out. Each new patient must attend one of these sessions. Every day thereafter, your visit will be at least two (2) hours long. As you know, our treatment consists of sessions in this office each day Monday through Friday for the duration of your therapy. Please note: No warranties or guarantees can be made regarding the time, the degree, or the duration of improvement with this therapy. On February 20, 2000, M.T. signed a Waiver for Use of Medications, which stated: I am, or my caregiver is, aware that I have had a neurological disease and have failed to respond to other types of medications used in the conservative management of my condition. . . . Options available to me at this time are those now used at the Florida Neurological Institute. I am aware that the medications used in this therapy are medications that have FDA approval. However, I am also aware that the FDA has not approved these medications in the doses and number of medications used here at the Institute. I am aware that Dr. Hammesfahr has published many articles on his therapy. I am aware of the fact that, during the past two years, the Institute has treated many patients with similar conditions and that most have had at least some improvement in the symptoms associated with their problem. I have, and my caregiver has, been counseled regarding this theory under which this therapy is being promulgated. Upon arrival at the Florida Neurological Institute, I and my caregiver, will see and listen to the videotapes available regarding this therapy. I have, or my caregiver has, read this waiver and understands its contents. I am, and my caregiver is, aware that there is no indicated use for this therapy now. I have had all questions I may have concerning the use of these medications answered, I agree to undergo the use of these medications as outlined in the material presented to me. As stated above, I am fully aware of the fact that this therapy probably will not be covered by my insurance, but I wish to continue with this therapy as outlined to me in my training and information sessions. I also understand that no physician, or any other person in this office, can make any guarantees of success from this therapy. (Emphasis in the original) On February 28, 2000, M.T., accompanied by her husband, presented to Hammesfahr's clinic in Clearwater, Florida, for treatment. On her first day at the clinic, she received an orientation. She was required to pay $3,000 for her treatment. A staff member at Hammesfahr's clinic took M.T.'s blood pressure and directed M.T. to take her own blood pressure readings thereafter. On the second day of treatment, February 29, 2000, M.T. was sent to Dr. Alexander Gimon, a neuropsychologist, for a 30-minute evaluation. A staff member of Hammesfahr's clinic gave M.T. a transcranial Doppler, a carotid artery ultrasound, and an electrocardiogram. A Physician's Office Visit History and Physical Examination Form was filled out with a date of "2-28-00" struck through at the top of the form and the date of "2-29-00" placed next to it. At the end of the form appeared a physician's statement signed by Hammesfahr and dated February 22, 2000, a week before M.T. presented for treatment, stating that he had "examined this patient, reviewed his/her history, and consulted with him/her and the caregiver regarding the treatment planned here at Florida Neurological Institute." An Objective (Physical Examination) form was filled out, again with the date of "2-28-00" struck through at the top of the form and the date "2-29-00" placed next to it. The form does not indicate who performed the physical examination. The form does indicate that M.T.'s blood pressure and pulse readings were taken. M.T. met with Hammesfahr, who observed her gait and told her that he would send her back home and would work with her physicians. He did not prescribe any medications at that time and did not give M.T. any medications during her treatment at his clinic. On March 1, 2000, M.T. was supposed to meet with the physical therapist, Diane Hartley, for evaluation at 8:00 a.m. When she arrived at Ms. Hartley's facility, no one was there to let M.T. in the building. When M.T. went into the facility, she did not like the looks of the building, describing it as "shoddy looking." She decided that she did not want to stay for an evaluation and left. The fee Hammesfahr charged M.T. included the fees for Dr. Gimon and Ms. Hartley. On March 1, 2000, M.T. and her husband returned home with the understanding that Hammesfahr would be contacting her doctors in Alabama to arrange for the administering of the medications. M.T. was told to make an appointment with her primary care physician for the week after she returned from Clearwater. Hammesfahr first communicated with M.T.'s physicians by letter, dated April 5, 2000, asking them to administer the vasodilators and magnesium sulfate I.V.'s. M.T.'s physicians in Alabama refused to administer the medications. M.T. did not take the vasodilators, which Hammesfahr wanted her physicians to administer; nevertheless, M.T. improved. Based on the rate schedule presented to M.T. for Hammesfahr's various treatment programs, she should have received either the Executive Stroke Prevention Program or the One-Week Evaluation and Treatment Program. Hammesfahr was adamant that M.T. did not sign up for the Executive Stroke Prevention Program, and the evidence established that she did not receive this program. M.T. was given an itinerary that indicated that she would be treated by Hammesfahr for a week; however the evidence established that she did not receive the treatment that was supposed to be given in the One-Week Evaluation and Treatment Program, which promised that the initiation of medical treatment would be done on days two through five. Hammesfahr did not administer any medications or prescribe any medications for M.T. during her stay in Clearwater. The evidence does show that M.T. received the three-day Initial Evaluation and Treatment Program, for which she should have been charged only $2,000. Hammesfahr presented the expert testimony of Dr. Jacob Green, who is a board-certified neurologist, practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. He has been practicing for over 35 years. Dr. Green has written papers on the use of transcranial Doppler, and he is experienced in the treatment of acute and chronic stroke patients. Dr. Green is familiar with the protocol and procedure utilized by Hammesfahr in treating stroke patients. He has read articles written by Hammesfahr, reviewed patients' records, and spent a day in Hammesfahr's office observing Hammesfahr's practice and treatment protocol which is at issue in this case. While he was at Hammesfahr's clinic, Dr. Green observed Hammesfahr treat patients, reviewed medical records of patients when they first came to Hammesfahr for treatment, and compared the findings in those records to his observations of the patients' abilities. Dr. Green discussed the treatment and protocol with Hammesfahr. Based on his deposition testimony, Dr. Green had a good understanding of the treatment and protocol used by Hammesfahr for stroke patients. Dr. Green described the standard of care for a stroke patient as "to do good by the patient, do no harm." According to Dr. Green, Hammesfahr's care and treatment and protocol complied with the standard of care. Hammesfahr presented the expert testimony of Dr. William Scott Russell, Jr., a retired neurologist with 33 years of experience. In his practice, he had treated thousands of stroke patients. Dr. Russell retired in October 1998. Dr. Russell had first-hand knowledge of the protocol used by Hammesfahr when he treated Dr. Russell for an acute stroke. Prior to Dr. Russell's being treated by Hammesfahr, Dr. Russell had reviewed a paper written by Hammesfahr concerning Hammesfahr's treatment protocol for stroke victims using vasodilators. Dr. Russell considered the treatment protocol espoused by Hammesfahr to not be below the standard of care as of 1998. In 1996, Dr. Russell experienced a stroke. When he awoke one morning, he was confused. He went to work and had difficulty with his abilities to speak and write. Dr. Russell realized that he was experiencing a stroke and had a technician in his office run an EEG. He had peer-reviewed some of Hammesfahr's papers prior to his stroke and was impressed with Hammesfahr's work. So, he contacted Hammesfahr and presented at Hammesfahr's clinic for treatment the day he experienced the stroke. Hammesfahr performed a transcranial Doppler on Dr. Russell and administered nitroglycerine to dilate Dr. Russell's blood vessels. Ten minutes after the nitroglycerine was administered, Dr. Russell's symptoms disappeared. Within a reasonable degree of medical probability, the cause of his recovery was the use of the nitroglycerine. Nitrates are used for acute stroke patients when the patient has an extremely high blood pressure. The nitrates lower the blood pressure and are given intravenously so that the medication can be discontinued immediately if the blood pressure should fall too low. There was no evidence presented to determine whether at the time that Hammesfahr administered nitroglycerine to Dr. Russell that Dr. Russell's blood pressure was high. At the time of the final hearing, Dr. Russell felt that he had total recovery from the stroke deficits. He has reduced his intake of medications prescribed by Hammesfahr and has not had a return of the deficits. The Department presented the testimony of four expert witnesses concerning the standard of care for treatment of stroke victims: Dr. Harold Charles Friend, Dr. Steven Novella, Dr. David F. Scales, and Dr. Thomas Hoffman. Dr. Hoffman has been practicing neurology in Melbourne, Florida, since 1982. Approximately five to ten percent of his patients have had a stroke or a cerebral vascular disease. He has read some of Hammesfahr's advertisements and viewed Hammesfahr's article on Hammesfahr's Internet web site. Dr. Hoffman understands Hammesfahr's protocol to be the use of medications to increase the cerebral blood flow and the use of the transcranial Doppler to direct the medication treatment by measuring the cerebral blood flow. Dr. Hoffman does not agree that the use of vasodilators increases the blood flow to the brain. There is a loss of cerebral autoregulation when a stroke occurs. According to Dr. Hoffman, the use of vasodilators can decrease the blood flow to the brain and worsen neurological functioning in acute stroke patients. It is the opinion of Dr. Hoffman that Hammesfahr's treatment of stroke patients falls below the standard of care for acute, subacute, and chronic stroke patients. Dr. Steven Novella is a neurologist and an assistant professor at Yale University. He received his medical license in Connecticut in 1993 and obtained his board certification in neurology in 1998. He treats stroke patients and is familiar with the appropriate treatment for stroke patients. Dr. Novella understands that the treatment for stroke patients which Hammesfahr advocates is the administration of vasodilators to expand blood vessels which have an insufficient blood supply due to constriction. He disagrees with Hammesfahr's theory, espousing that the blood vessels in the area of the brain that is not receiving enough blood flow will dilate as far as they can go and that the blood vessels will not respond to the vasodilators because the blood vessels are already maximally dilated. Dr. Novella is of the opinion that vasodilators may be used for stroke patients to reduce the risk of another stroke when the patient is hypertensive, but that the vasodilators should not be used as a method of reversing deficits caused by stroke. Dr. Harold Charles Friend is a board-certified neurologist, who has been practicing neurology for 26 years. He practices in Boca Raton, Florida. Approximately five to eight percent of his practice is dedicated to treating stroke patients. He is currently treating in excess of 500 stroke patients. Dr. Friend has reviewed the charts of two patients of Hammesfahr, an article written by Hammesfahr, some of Hammesfahr's advertisements, some newspaper articles, and an article authored by Hammesfahr, which appeared on an Internet site. Dr. Friend also saw a patient in his office that had previously been treated by Hammesfahr. Based on the information from these sources, Dr. Friend incorrectly understood that Hammesfahr's methodology was to basically lower the blood pressure of his patients in an attempt to restore dead cells. He also concluded that the patients seen by Hammesfahr were also receiving physical therapy at the time of treatment. Dr. Friend opined that Hammesfahr's treatment of chronic stroke victims did not comport with the standard of care recognized in the medical community. He further concluded that given the medications that Hammesfahr administers to his patients, that one would expect some adverse effects or no effect on the patients. The only mention in the record of a patient's being harmed by Hammesfahr's treatment was by Dr. Friend. Dr. Friend reviewed a medical chart of a patient who had worsened after treatment by Hammesfahr and had to go to another physician, Dr. Nassar Elmansoury, to correct the problem. The patient had been prescribed Accupril, ten milligrams four times a day, and nitroglycerine cream. Both medications are vasodilators. When the patient presented to Dr. Elmansoury, the patient was feeling worse and experiencing chest pain, dizziness, and disequilibrium. Dr. Elmansoury eliminated the nitroglycerine cream and reduced the amount of Accupril. Within two weeks, the patient was improved. Dr. David F. Scales is a board-certified neurologist, who has been practicing for 34 years. He currently practices in the Jacksonville, Florida, area at the Jacksonville Neurological Clinic. About 50 percent of his in-patient practice consists of stroke patients. Stroke patients comprise about 20 to 25 percent of the entire practice. Dr. Scales has reviewed the medical records of two of Hammesfahr's patients, articles written by Hammesfahr, literature provided by Hammesfahr to his patients, and Hammesfahr's Internet web site. Dr. Scales understands Hammesfahr's theory to be that vasodilators are administered to dilate the blood vessels in the brain so that more blood flows through the penumbra, reactivating neurons that were in a suspended state of activation. He does not agree with Hammesfahr's theory because the blood vessels in the penumbra would be dilated to the maximum and the medications would dilate blood vessels in other parts of the body, which would in turn take away or steal the blood flow from the blood vessels in the penumbra. After reviewing the medical records of two of Hammesfahr's patients, M.T. and M.S., Dr. Scales was of the opinion that the treatment provided by Hammesfahr did not meet the standard of care for the treatment of stroke patients. Having considered the testimony of the experts presented by the parties, it is determined that the standard of care for the treatment of stroke patients varies according to the stage, type, and severity of the stroke. In the acute stage, the patient is admitted to the hospital. A medical history is taken and a physical exam is given, followed by appropriate laboratory and imaging studies to determine the site and cause of the stroke. For patients seen within three hours of the onset of the stroke, certain intravenous medications may be given in an attempt to break up the blood clot. For patients seen beyond the three-hour point, the treatment is maintenance of their blood pressure, monitoring of their vital signs, and treating any complications that may occur such as pneumonia and urinary tract infections. Patients may be given blood thinners to improve the flow of the blood, and medication to increase the blood pressure in the event the blood pressure is too low. Patients with severe hypertension, generally a blood pressure over 220 systolic or 120 diastolic, are given medications to lower their blood pressure. Patients with asymptomatic hypertension are treated judiciously during their hospital stay with anti-hypertensive medications, and the blood pressure is gradually lowered. The standard of care for subacute stroke patients is a continuation of the treatment given in the acute phase. Patients will be started on rehabilitation therapy, which may include speech, occupational, and physical therapy. The standard of care for chronic stroke patients, whom the physician is seeing for the first time, would be to take a history to determine what happened, review the medical records and any imaging studies that may have been done, and review the treatment they have had. The physician should assess the patients' risk factors for stroke such as hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and smoking and manage those factors aggressively. Treatment with antiplatelets such as aspirin or an anticoagulation medication might be indicated. An assessment of their neurological functional abilities should be done to determine whether aids, braces, further therapy, or home care could be beneficial. Based upon the evidence presented, the treatment advocated by Hammesfahr is not within the generally accepted standard of care. However, the evidence is not clear and convincing that the treatment used by Hammesfahr is harmful to his patients. There is literature in the medical community that vasodilators can be used in the treatment of stroke as a measure to prevent future strokes. There is evidence that in over 200 patients seen by Hammesfahr that a large percentage improved after being treated by Hammesfahr. Dr. Gimon tested a group of 168 stroke patients seen at Hammesfahr's clinic during the period of November 1999 to May 2000 and another group of 163 stroke patients seen during October 2000 through February 2001. The same battery of tests was administered to both groups. Dr. Gimon evaluated these patients on nine separate neurological evaluations that are standard instruments recognized in neuropsychology. The tests measured identified areas of brain function, including verbal, visual, visual motor, and conceptual thinking. Both groups of patients were tested prior to the treatment by Hammesfahr. The patients were tested again approximately 18 to 21 days after they began treatment at Hammesfahr's clinic. The test results showed that many patients showed improvements in the areas tested. The improvements noted were measured as to a statistical difference so that the findings could not be attributable to testing error. Some patients showed no improvement in all areas. The test results revealed that there was no neuropsychological deterioration of the patients tested. Diane Hartley tested two groups of Hammesfahr's patients, who were treated at his clinic during the period of January to December 2000. Her tests were designed to measure functional motor improvement from a gross motor standpoint. She performed tests on the patients prior to their beginning treatment with Hammesfahr and again approximately two and one half to three weeks after the patients had begun treatment. Of the 242 patients tested by Ms. Hartley, 221 patients demonstrated improvement in one or more of the areas tested and 21 patients showed no improvement. Of the patients tested, ten received physical therapy from Ms. Hartley while they were being treated by Hammesfahr. These ten patients demonstrated a significant amount of improvement, which Ms. Hartley could not attribute solely to the physical therapy they received. The evidence establishes that Hammesfahr informed his patients by the use of videos, orientation sessions, literature, and a web site on the Internet of the nature of the therapy and did not guarantee that the patients would improve as a result of the treatment. Patients were able to make an informed decision on whether to try Hammesfahr' treatment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Hammesfahr did not violate Subsections 458.331(1)(d) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes; finding that Hammesfahr did violate Subsection 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes; placing Hammesfahr on probation for six months; and imposing a $2,000 administrative fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _____ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 20th day of November, 2002.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine, in violation of section 458.331(1)(j), Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department and Board of Medicine are charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Dr. Pena-Sanchez is licensed to practice medicine in areas of critical need within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ACN 232. Dr. Pena-Sanchez went to medical school in Colombia, was first licensed in Puerto Rico, and has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida in areas of critical need since 2006. Dr. Pena-Sanchez is subject to the jurisdiction of the Board of Medicine. He worked for the Florida Department of Corrections in a St. Lucie Health Clinic from 2008 to 2010, and in a clinic in Okeechobee until June of 2012, when he joined FoundCare, a federally qualified health center, in West Palm Beach. In August of 2013, FoundCare instituted a Medical Provider Chaperone Policy. The policy provided, among other things, that any clinical provider conducting a physical examination of a patient of the opposite sex had to have a chaperone present during the exam and that the medical assistant had to be present until the physical examination was complete. Dr. Bonaparte, Dr. Pena-Sanchez's supervising physician, counseled him on the policy. Over a period of approximately five years, Patient H.P.-B., a 47-year-old female, saw Dr. Pena-Sanchez for treatment at FoundCare. In early 2017, FoundCare issued a standing order to staff requiring routine testing for HIV and hepatitis C under Center for Disease Control guidelines in order to comply with the terms of a focus grant FoundCare had received through the Gilead Foundation. On April 24, 2017, Patient H.P.-B. presented at FoundCare for a well-woman examination, including a PAP smear and other routine testing for laboratory analysis. Patient H.P.-B. had specifically requested that Dr. Pena-Sanchez conduct these tests, even though usual FoundCare practice was to have a female doctor conduct them. She testified that she requested him because he had been her doctor for several years, she believed he was a good doctor, and she trusted him. Dr. Pena-Sanchez conducted the tests in the presence of Ms. Yvette Ortiz, his medical assistant. Patient H.P.-B. was scheduled for a follow-up appointment a few weeks later. On or about May 15, 2017, Patient H.P.-B. presented to Dr. Pena-Sanchez at a scheduled appointment to discuss the blood work and procedure results. Ms. Ortiz checked H.P.-B.'s vital signs and then left the room. Then Dr. Pena-Sanchez came in and informed Patient H.P.-B. of the test results, telling her first that she was not HIV positive. This upset her, because she had not specifically authorized that test and believed Dr. Pena- Sanchez had no authority to conduct it. No one had informed Patient H.P.-B. that FoundCare had implemented the new policy requiring AIDS/HIV testing as part of a well-woman examination. During the appointment, Patient H.P.-B. informed Dr. Pena-Sanchez that she had pain in her side and requested that he examine the area. Patient H.P.-B. testified that at first, Dr. Pena-Sanchez did not respond and she had to ask him several times what he was going to do about her pain. Dr. Pena-Sanchez, sitting on a stool, then asked Patient H.P.-B. to stand in front of him and indicate the location of the pain. Patient H.P.-B. stood in front of Dr. Pena-Sanchez and indicated her side. Patient H.P.-B. testified that she was facing away from Dr. Pena-Sanchez, as he had directed, when he reached up and grabbed her above the hips on each side and pulled her down to sit on his lap. She testified that he began rubbing her back and that she tried to get up, but he pulled her back down. She said he then moved his hands around and started to rub her breasts, so she spanked his hands, jumped up, and asked him where the nurse was. She said that she then went back to sit in her chair. She testified that he came over to her, unzipped his pants, pulled out his penis, and told her that she was going to have sex with him or give him oral sex. She said that she told him no, but that Dr. Pena-Sanchez took her hand, made her touch his penis, and asked her if his penis was big enough, or something similar. She said she clearly saw the color of his boxers, which were navy blue with white, black, and red or maroon colored designs. She testified that she asked for his phone number twice, wanting to later call his wife, but he would not give it to her. She testified he then suddenly stopped his behavior, went back to his chair, and acted as if nothing had happened, saying he was going to order refills on her prescriptions. Patient H.P.-B. testified that she left without reporting the incident to anyone at FoundCare, but called her sister and told her what had happened as soon as she got to her car. She said she went to her job as a home health care aide, where the wife of her patient told her she needed to report the incident to the Palm Beach County Division of Victim Services hotline, which she did the next morning. She reported the incident to Detective Carpentier at the Palm Springs Police Department that same day, but did not write a statement, preferring to be recorded. About a week later, she returned to the police station to provide a sworn taped statement to Detectives Milow and Hudson. She was referred by the police for counseling and began talking with Ms. Gonzalez, a therapist at the Palm Beach County Division of Victim Services, on June 15, 2017. After the Palm Springs Police Department found no probable cause for criminal charges, Patient H.P.-B. contacted a civil attorney, who later sent a letter to FoundCare asking them to preserve evidence. She filed a written statement with the Department on September 1, 2017, and was interviewed later that month by Investigator Cox. When Patient H.P.-B. told her story to these various people, she was not always consistent.1/ It is not easy to communicate with Patient H.P.-B. Even during the final hearing, questions addressed to her needed to be repeated and answers she gave were sometimes unclear. Some inconsistencies involved minor details, others more substantial points. Patient H.P.-B. was clearly confused as to some of the details about which she was absolutely adamant at hearing, including the date of her examination prior to the lab tests. Detective Milow recorded that she told him that the appointment was the week of May 8. She repeatedly insisted at hearing that the date was May 2. FoundCare records indicate that it was in fact on April 24. While a mistake as to the date something occurred is not in itself either unusual or significant, her unshakeable conviction on the point detracts from the weight that her own confidence might otherwise have given to other portions of her testimony about which she was equally certain. After Patient H.P.-B.'s initial telephone call to the hotline and counseling service a day after the examination, Ms. Earlene Boone wrote that Patient H.P.-B. reported that she had asked Dr. Pena-Sanchez to examine her left side. Detective Milow's report also said she had experienced pain on her left side. Investigator Cox wrote in his report that she told Dr. Pena-Sanchez that the pain was on her right side. In her testimony at hearing, she was absolutely sure that the pain was on her right side and that she never told Ms. Boone or anyone else otherwise. In her initial intake assessment for counseling, Patient H.P.-B. told Ms. Gonzalez that Dr. Pena-Sanchez "pulled down his pants" and then pulled out his penis. At hearing, she testified that he unzipped his pants to pull out his penis. Patient H.P.-B. told Detective Milow that she could not get the incident out of her mind and kept seeing his boxers and his penis, and told Ms. Gonzalez that she kept having "visions" of his penis and boxers. Later, however, she could not tell Investigator Cox if Dr. Pena-Sanchez was circumcised or not, saying, "I didn't see it [his penis] that good." Patient H.P.-B. told Ms. Gonzalez that when the incident was over, Dr. Pena-Sanchez said, "I'm done with you," and that a nurse walked in and that is when Dr. Pena-Sanchez suddenly acted like nothing had happened. But Patient H.P.-B. never again said that anyone came into the room in her report to Detective Milow or at hearing. Ms. Ortiz testified that she did not go back into the room. Patient H.P.-B. told Investigator Cox that after the assault, "I ran out of the room." However, she testified at hearing that she stayed in the room after the assault because she wanted to make sure Dr. Pena-Sanchez was going to send her prescriptions. Patient H.P.-B. testified that she did not see anyone when she left the room and that she was crying. She reiterated later in her testimony that "tears was rolling." Ms. Ortiz testified that when Patient H.P.-B. left, she saw her in the hallway, that they made eye contact, and that Patient H.P.-B. was not crying and did not seem upset. Patient H.P.-B. told Detective Milow on May 25, 2017, ten days after the appointment, "When I left there I went to the pharmacy" to pick up her medications, including the pain pills, but the pharmacy informed her that no pain pills had been prescribed. Later, at hearing, Patient H.P.-B. testified that when she left FoundCare, she immediately called her sister. She testified that after that, she went to work and picked up the prescriptions the following day or the day after. Although Patient H.P.-B. was consistent in her allegations that Dr. Pena-Sanchez groped her, exposed himself, and demanded sex from her, these many discrepancies in Patient H.P.-B.'s testimony as to the details and timing of the surrounding events raise troublesome questions as to her testimony. While it may be only that Patient H.P.-B. was confused or no longer remembered the exact course of events, the lack of precision in her accounts significantly detracts from the weight of the evidence. Dr. Pena-Sanchez testified that before the date of the incident, Patient H.P.-B. had flirted with him and made him uncomfortable. He said that he told his assistant, Ms. Ortiz, about this and asked her to always be present when he was seeing Patient H.P.-B. He stated that Patient H.P.-B. had specifically requested he perform the PAP smear. He testified that on May 15, 2017, he gave Patient H.P.-B. the test results and that she complained of pain. He testified he did rub her back through her clothing for diagnostic purposes, but never touched her breasts. He said that she was standing the entire time and he never pulled her onto his lap. He said she asked for his cell phone number, but he would not give it to her. He denied ever exposing himself, asking her for sex, or making her touch his penis. He testified that he did not own any boxer shorts that were navy blue with black and white and red or maroon colored designs. He completely denied that he ever acted unprofessionally. The testimony of Dr. Pena-Sanchez was difficult to understand at times because he is not fluent in English. His testimony did not hold together well, and he was not completely credible. There were inconsistencies between the records of his interview by Detective Milow, his deposition testimony, and his testimony at hearing. One thread in the testimony of Dr. Pena-Sanchez involved flirtatious behavior on the part of Patient H.P.-B. In his interview with Detective Milow, and at hearing, Dr. Pena- Sanchez said that Patient H.P.-B. had been acting "in a sexual attitude" towards him prior to the laboratory tests appointment and that this made him uncomfortable. He testified that he told Ms. Ortiz about this and directed her always to be present whenever he was with Patient H.P.-B. Yet Ms. Ortiz had only the vaguest recollection of anything like this, and it is undisputed that Ms. Ortiz was not in the room during the results appointment. It seems curious, if Dr. Pena-Sanchez was concerned enough about this flirtation to identify Patient H.P.-B. to Ms. Ortiz and direct that she not leave them alone together, that when later asked by Detective Hudson, he initially claimed he did not even recognize Patient H.P.-B.'s name. After seeing Patient H.P.-B.'s picture, he described the results appointment in detail. He told Detective Milow that she was laughing and flirting with him when she asked for his phone number at the results appointment. Yet at hearing, he testified that she was not flirting with him at that time. While Dr. Pena-Sanchez maintained that he was completely professional throughout the results appointment, his testimony as to certain details varied. He indicated at one point that he was sitting on the stool during the examination, and, at another point, that he was standing when he examined Patient H.P.-B. At hearing (perhaps, as Petitioner suggests, aware of his prior statements), he testified he was both sitting and standing during the examination. At one point during the hearing, he testified that Patient H.P.-B. never lifted her shirt during the appointment, and said that if she had done so, he would have had to bring in a medical assistant, while later he indicated she did lift up her shirt, but that he palpated the area only through her clothing: "She lift, but I didn't – when – look -- and then go down and I touch over her -– the clothes." He testified consistently that he owned no paisley underwear, but indicated at one point that he had only gray and black, while at another point that he owned only gray and blue. Ms. Vasquez also testified that her husband owned only black and gray boxers. However, she fails to provide the impartial, independent perspective that sometimes serves to corroborate one side or the other between two completely irreconcilable versions of events. In the end, the color of the underwear simply becomes another parallel, but peripheral, dispute of fact between the parties, and provides no basis for resolution. There is no evidence that Dr. Pena-Sanchez has ever had discipline imposed on him in connection with his professional license in Florida or any other state. Revocation or suspension of Dr. Pena-Sanchez's professional license would have a great effect upon his livelihood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Medicine, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Dr. Orly Pena-Sanchez. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2018.
