The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Corrected Amended Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed chiropractic physicians such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Chiropractic Medicine has found probable cause to suspect that the chiropractic physician has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a chiropractic physician licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 2363. Background / Arrangement with Dr. Wagner In or around 1975, Respondent completed his training at the National University of Health Sciences and began to practice chiropractic medicine shortly thereafter. Some 15 years later, Respondent and an acquaintance—— Dr. Joseph Wagner, also a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida——matriculated at a medical school in the Dominican Republic. Although both Respondent and Dr. Wagner ultimately earned Doctor of Medicine ("MD") degrees in the mid 1990s, Respondent was not licensed in Florida to practice as an MD until early 2006. Significantly, Dr. Wagner never obtained licensure as a medical doctor. In 2007, Respondent and Dr. Wagner entered into a joint venture designed, in the words of Respondent, to "expand" Dr. Wagner's chiropractic practice. At that time, and for the duration of their business agreement, Respondent's principal place of business was located in Palm Beach County, while Dr. Wagner practiced chiropractic medicine in Daytona Beach. Under the joint venture (which continued until August 2011, when both their offices were raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation), Respondent traveled to Daytona Beach several times each month and interacted with Dr. Wagner concerning some, but not all, of Dr. Wagner's chiropractic clients (hereinafter "joint-venture clients" or "JVCs"). From what can be gleaned of the credible portions of Respondent's deposition and final hearing testimony, it appears that Respondent's activity with respect to JVCs included a review of client files, and, in some cases, a determination that one or more medications——including narcotics——should be prescribed. Indeed, Respondent's level of participation was so minimal that his face-to-face interaction with JVCs consisted, at most, of an initial introduction, and on no occasion did Respondent personally examine——or perform treatments upon——any JVC. At the conclusion of an office visit, Dr. Wagner——and Respondent, if the JVC was seen on a day when Respondent was present in the Daytona office——dictated medical notes that Dr. Wagner usually transcribed at a later time. Respondent has acknowledged, both at the final hearing and during his deposition, that he provided Dr. Wagner with blanket authority to create claim forms and medical notes in connection with each JVC. Incredibly, Respondent also granted Dr. Wagner complete authority to affix his (Respondent's) signature to claim forms and submit them——without Respondent looking at the forms beforehand——to insurance carriers for reimbursement. This was accomplished not by the use of a stamp, which medical professionals often provide to their subordinates to expedite business affairs, but by Dr. Wagner manually signing, in cursive, "John P. Christensen" inside the box of the claim form labeled "signature of the physician or supplier." Another unusual aspect of the business arrangement between Respondent and Dr. Wagner was the manner in which they dealt with reimbursement checks from insurance carriers. By agreement, reimbursement checks for claims that related to JVCs were received by mail at Dr. Wagner's place of business in Daytona Beach. Upon their receipt, Dr. Wagner deposited the checks into a SunTrust checking account for which Respondent had sole signatory authority. At the end of each month, Respondent would transfer the entire balance of the SunTrust account into his business account at PNC Bank. Shortly thereafter, Respondent would draft a check on the PNC account to Dr. Wagner in an amount equal to 50 percent of the monthly proceeds.2/ Against the foregoing backdrop, the undersigned will turn to the specific allegations enumerated in the Complaint, namely: that Dr. Wagner, in connection with JVCs, submitted claims to an insurance carrier for services that were never provided——i.e., he overbilled——and that Respondent approved, authorized, and/or knew or should have known of the misconduct (as charged in Counts One and Three); and that the Respondent and Dr. Wagner's billing practices with respect to the four JVCs constituted fraudulent, deceptive, or untrue representations related to the practice of a profession (Count Two). The undersigned will begin with a discussion of the facts relating to Count Two. Deceptive Billing Practices In or around August 2009, three individuals——S.J., J.J. (S.J's cousin), and L.J. (S.J's mother)——were involved in an automobile accident. Thereafter, in late 2009 and early 2010, S.J., J.J., and L.J. presented themselves on a number of occasions for chiropractic services at Dr. Wagner's office in Daytona Beach. Roughly one year earlier, patient C.H. was likewise involved in a car accident. C.H. was subsequently referred to Dr. Wagner for chiropractic treatment by her personal injury attorney, Joshua Wagner, who happens to be the son of Dr. Joseph Wagner. It appears from the record that C.H. was treated at Dr. Wagner's clinic on multiple dates. Pursuant to the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation, it is undisputed that S.J., J.J., L.J., and C.H. each had personal injury protection (PIP) insurance from Direct General Insurance Company ("DGIC"). PIP insurance coverage allows a medical or chiropractic provider to treat insured persons and then submit a reimbursement claim to the insurance company for the service(s) provided. Beginning with the claims associated with C.H., Respondent has consistently maintained that C.H. was not a joint-venture client, that he had no knowledge of C.H., and that any claim submitted by Dr. Wagner in connection with C.H. was without his knowledge or authorization. The undersigned credits this portion of Respondent's testimony; thus, any bills that relate to C.H. cannot sustain a finding of a deceptive or fraudulent practice. However, the cases of S.J., J.J., and L.J. are another matter. Based upon Respondent's deposition testimony, the undersigned is persuaded that Dr. Wagner, with Respondent's knowledge and authorization, submitted reimbursement claims to DGIC in connection with S.J., J.J., and L.J. that bear the following dates: January 30, 2010 (S.J.); January 30, 2010, and March 13 and 27, 2010 (L.J.); and April 10 and 24, 2010 (J.J.).3/ While the exact services billed to DGIC varied by JVC and date, the content of each of these claim forms represented unambiguously that the examinations and/or treatments——e.g., a trigger point injection for L.J. on March 27, 2010——were performed by Respondent and no other. This was unquestionably deceptive in light of Respondent's consistent testimony that he never physically conducted medical examinations or treatments in connection with any joint-venture client. Alleged Overbilling In contrast to Count Two, the charges that relate to overbilling (Counts One and Three) cannot be sustained merely by proof that claims for reimbursement——i.e., the claims identified in paragraph 16 above, which Respondent authorized——were submitted for services that Respondent did not perform. Rather, it is incumbent upon Petitioner to demonstrate that the services billed were not performed at all. In this regard, the deposition transcripts of L.J. and S.J., which consist entirely of hearsay, are the only evidence that the billed services were not performed by anyone. While the deposition testimony of L.J. and S.J. is credible, there is a complete absence of non-hearsay evidence as to what procedures or services were never provided to these specific patients during their office visits. All that was proven——based upon Respondent's admissions and supplemented by the hearsay testimony of the JVCs——is that Respondent did not perform the billed services, which, as explained in greater detail in the Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order, is insufficient to satisfy Petitioner's burden. Ultimate Findings of Fact It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of his profession. It is further determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Respondent submitted to a third-party payor a claim for a service or treatment that was not actually provided to a patient. Finally, as a matter of ultimate fact, it is determined that that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent, in connection with a personal injury protection claim, intentionally submitted a bill or claim for reimbursement for services that were not rendered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine: Dismissing Counts One and Three of the Corrected Amended Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent violated section 456.072(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count Two; Suspending Respondent's license to practice chiropractic medicine for a period of one year; Placing Respondent on probation for a period of two years, with conditions deemed appropriate by the Board; and Imposing a fine of $10,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 16th day of March, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent Calabro has been licensed as a chiropractic physician in Florida, having been issued licensed number 1755. In March of 1978, Diana Avery, then a sixteen (16) year old junior in high school, went to respondent for the treatment of recurrent pain in her kidney area, headaches, dizziness and swelling in her feet, ankles and hands. She had been referred to the respondent by her stepfather who was also one of the respondent's patients. At the time of her initial visit, Miss Avery had never been to a chiropractor and had never had a breast examination or a pelvic examination. She continued to go to respondent for treatment until early June, 1978, far a total of approximately fourteen (14) visits. During her treatments, only respondent and Miss Avery were in the treatment room. During her treatment sessions, Miss Avery wore a patient gown which was open in the back, but tied at the neck, and underpants. On her initial visit, respondent untied the patient gown and, while she was sitting up on the examination table, respondent instructed her to hold her arms out to the side and he then placed both his hands on her two breasts. He made a comment to her about the large size of her breasts. On several subsequent appointments, respondent untied Miss Avery's gown and placed both hands on her breasts. On one occasion respondent stood behind her and, with both his hands, fondled her breasts. On several occasions, respondent would instruct Miss Avery to remove her underpants and lie with her back on the examination table, with her knees up and her feet positioned on the table. Respondent would then insert, without the benefit of gloves, or other protective covering or lubrication, one or more of his fingers into her vagina and manipulate his fingers in and out of her vagina, while resting his other hand on her abdomen. On one occasion, the same procedure was followed except that Miss Avery was lying face dawn on her stomach. The insertion of respondent's fingers into Miss Avery's vagina occurred on from four to six occasions. During at least one of the treatment sessions, Miss Avery was positioned face dawn on the examination table and respondent, while adjusting her neck, moved her hair aside and began kissing the back of her neck. On another occasion, he took her hand and placed it on his genital area. After her last appointment with respondent, Miss Avery needed to pick up some insurance forms. Respondent told her to come into his office after the treatment. When she went into his office, the lights were out, respondent pinned her against the wall and attempted to kiss her. He also was lifting her skirt and attempting to put his hand into her underwear. He advised her that a sexual relationship with him would be good for her. The patient records for Miss Avery do not reflect that either a breast examination or a pelvic examination were performed by the respondent. During the period of time between March and June of 1978, Miss Avery was taking birth control pills to regulate her menstrual cycle. While a breast examination by a chiropractor may be proper for a patient taking birth control medication, the appropriate method of performing such an exam is to palpate each breast with the fingertips of both hands to determine if there are any masses or growths. When a pelvic or gynecological examination is necessary, it is proper to have a nurse in the room, to inform the patient of the procedure and to utilize surgical gloves or other protective covering and a lubricating agent. Such examinations should be recorded on the patient's medical records. Gail Henke went to respondent from May to October of 1980 for treatment for injuries she received in an automobile accident. She was experiencing numbness in her hips and legs, back pain and problems with her left knee. Mrs. Henke was then 26 years old, was married and had one child. During the treatment sessions with respondent, she would wear only a gown which tied in the back, with nothing underneath, and lie on the examination table on her stomach. On many occasions, particularly near the end of her treatment period, respondent would insert the fingers of one of his hands, without protective covering or lubrication, into Mrs. Henke's vagina while placing his other hand on her buttocks or lower back. Several days prior to her last visit for treatment by the respondent, Mrs. Henke called his office and spoke to Rose Oppenheimer, respondent's receptionist, about a problem she was having with a difficult bowel movement or hemorrhoids. On her October 15, 1980, appointment, respondent adjusted her back, left the treatment room and returned with an ointment which he rubbed on her from her shoulders down into her vaginal area. He then placed a plastic- covered pillow under her abdomen and a towel between the upper thigh portion of her legs. Without saying anything to her, respondent straddled the table, placed one hand on her buttocks or lower back area and inserted the fingers of his other hand into her vagina. Then, both respondent's hands were removed from Mrs. Henke's body and she heard the sound of a metal zipper. She then felt one of respondent's hands back on her hip or lower back, felt fingers go back into her vagina, then pull out, and then felt something else go into her vagina and two hands on her back. Believing that respondent had placed his penis into her vagina, Mrs. Henke raised up on her elbows and asked respondent what had happened. Respondent said nothing. Respondent then withdrew all parts of his body from Mrs. Henke, but remained at the foot of the table. Some two to three minutes later, respondent came around to the head of the examination table, crouched or knelt down, and told Mrs. Henke that nothing had happened. She repeatedly asked respondent what he had done and told him what she thought had happened. He explained that she could have experienced such a sensation from the towel which was placed between her thighs or from hemorrhoids. Mrs. Henke immediately told her husband about the October 15, 1980, incident with respondent and he urged her to report the matter to the sheriff's office. At the request of the Sheriff's office, Mrs. Henke went to respondent's office on October 31, 1980 equipped with a body bug or transmitter and attempted to elicit from him information as to what transpired during her October 15th appointment. Respondent repeatedly denied that anything had happened and attempted to explain to her that the sensation she felt could have resulted from the relaxation of distended blood vessels in the area of her hemorrhoids. During the hearing, respondent testified that he conducted a visual inspection for hemorrhoids on Mrs. Henke on October 15, 1980, but found no evidence of hemorrhoids. The vaginal manipulations performed by the respondent on both patients Avery and Henke are not acceptable chiropractic manipulations, techniques or modalities. There is no recognized chiropractic treatment or technique which includes the insertion of fingers into the patient's vagina. There is a form of treatment performed by chiropractors known as the Logan Basic Technique. Respondent states that he used this technique on both Miss Avery and Mrs. Henke. This form of treatment requires the patient to lie on her stomach and involves the placement of the chiropractor's thumb at a point between the anus and the vagina and the application of pressure at that point, with the chiropractor's other hand being placed on the patient's lower back. While it is possible that the chiropractor's hand or fingers may come in contact with the patient's vaginal area during the administration of the Logan Basic Technique, it would not be appropriate for the chiropractor's fingers to actually enter or penetrate the vagina.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED THAT respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 460.412, 460.413(1)(u) and 460.413(1)(w), Florida Statutes, and that his license to practice as a chiropractic physician in Florida be revoked. Respectfully submitted and entered this 18th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 18 day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Tina Hipple, Esquire Department of Professional Ms. Jane Raker Regulation - Legal Services Executive Director Post Office Box 1900 Board of Chiropractic Orlando, Florida 32802 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph G. Donahey, Jr., Esquire 13584 49th Street North Suite A Clearwater, Florida 33520 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent's license as a chiropractic physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Joseph S. Maddox was licensed by the Board of Chiropractic to practice chiropractic in Florida. His Florida license number is CH0003204 (Exhibit 10). C.G. was a patient of Respondent during the period 1984-1988. In 1984, she presented to Respondent with pain in the coccyx. When external manipulation was unsuccessful in restoring the alignment in the tail bone, Respondent performed the adjustment through the vagina. Six months later, another internal coccyx adjustment was made, this time rectally. Both of these internal adjustments are accepted chiropractic techniques for coccyx realignment, but the rectal procedure is preferred because of fewer layers of tissue between inserted finger and coccyx and proximity to the coccyx. With respect to C.G., it is alleged that, for the purpose of attempting to engage the patient in sexual activity outside the scope of practice or examination, Respondent manually penetrated C.G.'s vagina, penetrated C.G.'s vagina with a vibrator device, manipulated C.G.'s breasts, asked the patient questions regarding her sex life and activities, and these activities occurred when Respondent was in a closed room with C.G. In 1986, C.G. had mammo-plasty reduction surgery. Before this surgery, she asked Respondent if the operation would alleviate her back pain. Respondent then examined her breasts and manipulated them. No evidence was presented that Respondent ever suggested having sex with C.B. Following this surgery there was some seepage from the wound, and while undergoing chiropractic treatment by Respondent, C.G. asked him to look at the wound. This is the occasion Respondent is alleged to have manipulated C.G.'s breasts. On several occasions, Respondent used a vibrator when giving chiropractic treatment to C.G. The vibrator was described by all witnesses as a portable machine with two handles and a rectangular vibrator pad approximately 10 inches by 4 inches. Although the Administrative Complaint alleges Respondent used the vibrator inside the patient's vagina, C.G. testified that during the course of the vibrator treatment Respondent allowed the vibrator to rest on her vaginal area, and he moved the vibrator over the vaginal area. C.G. also testified that Respondent used the vibrator for too long a period which was painful at the time and left her sore after the treatment was over. Between August 1987 and April 1988, C.G. leased space in Respondent's office facility in which she conducted her mental health counseling. During this period, she became close friends with Sara Chasse' who worked in Respondent's office for some three years before she was dismissed by Respondent. While occupying space at Respondent's office, C.G. used Respondent's staff to make appointments, answer the phone and perform other clerical services. C.G. is also an accredited professional astrologer (Exhibit 2) and prepared natal charts for Ms. Chasse' and Respondent's wife. K.T. first came to Respondent for an adjustment in late 1984. She has gone to chiropractors for thoracic problems dating back to childhood. In fact, K.T. has worked in a chiropractic setting for some 17 years and had formed her own company, Chiro Girls, to provide trained personnel to be employed by chiropractic clinics. At her first visit to Respondent's clinic, K.T. discussed with Respondent her ideas of how a chiropractic clinic should be run. K.T. was then employed to conduct a time motion study of the clinic operations and thereafter was employed under contract with Respondent as clinic director. K.T. considered her function at the clinic was to educate and motivate the clinic's staff. Friction developed between K.T. other employees and patients; and the contract was mutually dissolved some eight months later and well short of the year for which the contract was entered into. K.T. related a long history of menstrual cramps to Respondent which he treated with a vibrator. Respondent also queried K.T. regarding her sex life. Although K.T. deemed such questions inappropriate, a sexual history is appropriate to ascertain when treating female patients presenting symptoms of low back pain and dysmenorrhea (Exhibit 12). Further, use of a vibrator is appropriate when treating trigger points that can greatly intensify dysmenorrhea (Exhibit 13). Although K.T. testified that Respondent used a small, hand-held vibrator which he moved over her vaginal area and inserted in her vagina to induce her to climax, Respondent emphatically denies this; and nearly all other witnesses testified that the only vibrator used in the clinic was the large vibrator described in Exhibit 6. K.T.'s testimony that the vibrator treatment was very painful is more consistent with the use of the standard vibrator than with a smaller vibrator that could be inserted in a vagina. Accordingly, I find Respondent did not insert a vibrator into K.T.'s vagina. A.M.T. was treated by Respondent in 1980 when she was 15 years old. Initially she had back problems which were treated by adjustment and spine realignment. Between June and September 1980, A.M.T. worked in Respondent's clinic part-time. During this period A.M.T. developed coccygeal pain, and realignment of the coccyx was accomplished internally through the rectum. A.M.T. testified that Respondent rubbed her clitoris to relax her and discussed sexual techniques with her. She also testified Respondent's wife was in the treatment room while she was receiving therapy. A.M.T. thought the treatment she received was normal until she came in contact with a social services counselor in 1986 and then decided she had been abused by Respondent. When school started in September 1980, A.M.T. was unable to work at Respondent's clinic and get to school on time. Her need for treatment ended when she stopped working at the clinic. Respondent denies he rubbed A.M.T.'s clitoris or engaged in any unethical treatment of A.M.T; however, Respondent testified that he discussed sex with A.M.T. and her boyfriend at the request of A.M.T.'s mother. The mother denies asking for such a consultation with her daughter, and the boyfriend (now husband of A.M.T.) denies ever attending such a meeting. Since this alleged incident occurred approximately 10 years ago it is likely that none of the participants precisely recall what happened, but is more likely that Respondent's version of the sexual conversation with A.M.T. is inaccurate. However, Respondent's and his wife's attempts to justify sexual discussion with A.M.T. on the totally discredited basis that such discussion was requested by A.M.T.'s mother, leads to the conclusion that these discussions and treatments failed to comply with generally accepted standards of chiropractic treatment. Respondent treated M.W. with usual Chiropractic techniques for approximately one year for pain associated with muscular skeletal chassis stemming from a work-related back injury. At this time, Respondent's wife, Marty, was enrolled in massage school. After a discussion among the involved parties, it was agreed that Marty would practice massage on M.W. with Respondent present to point out the muscular skeletal anatomy. These treatments took place in Respondent's clinic in the evening well after the clinic had closed and were given at no cost to M.W. M.W. told Respondent that she experienced pain while having sex with her husband. He suggested vibrator treatment would help in this regard, and M.W. purchased a vibrator. M.W. testified that the massage therapy started on her neck and moved down her back and legs while she lay nude on the table. It is undisputed that the last evening M.W. received a massage she was alone in the clinic with Respondent. Marty was delayed and did not get to the clinic, so the massage was started by Respondent. During this massage a hand-held vibrator was used. M.W. testified Respondent moved it over her vaginal area and inserted the vibrator in her vagina. Respondent contends that M.W. requested he so use the vibrator on her. Both indicate that the other was the aggressor. Respondent acknowledged that he became sexually excited and testified M.W. put her hand on his penis. M.W. testified that Respondent put her hand on the front of his pants, and when he did so she got off the table, dressed and departed, never to return. Respondent testified that when M.W. grabbed him he realized the situation was getting out of hand and he left the room. When he returned, M.W. was dressed and was leaving. Even if Respondent's version of the incident is accepted as true, he voluntarily (if not intentionally) placed himself in an indefensible position and a factual situation that can lead only to the conclusion that he attempted to engage M.W. in sexual activity outside the scope of the practice of chiropractic. T.P. worked in Respondent's clinic for three months some five years ago and received chiropractic treatment from him. While undergoing activator adjustment the vibrator treatment approached the vaginal area, but T.P. inferred no sexual overtones in the procedure. When treated by Respondent she wore undergarments and considered his treatment similar to the other four or five chiropractors with whom she has worked. Sara Chasse' was a patient of Respondent for two years before being employed by him in 1984-1985 and again in 1986 until discharged in 1989. During her employment, she also received chiropractic treatment from Respondent. Chasse' was the back office assistant and was supposed to be in the room with Respondent when he was treating female patients. As the back office assistant she overheard the Respondent ask female patients questions about their sex life. No allegations were made in the Administrative Complaint regarding unprofessional or unethical treatment of Chasse' by Respondent; accordingly, most of her testimony regarding such treatment is irrelevant. Chasse' was a close friend of C.G. and M.W. and knew K.T. and T.P. She discussed with them the treatment they received from Respondent. Chasse' filed a complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation against Respondent and provided a list of patients treated by Respondent which included those who testified in these proceedings. All of the complaining witnesses testified that Respondent had them stand in front of a full length mirror clad only in bra and panties so he could demonstrate to them the results of the adjustments made during their treatment. They also testified that while they were in the room alone with Respondent the door was closed and sometimes locked. Other witnesses denied the door leading into an examination room was ever locked. Petitioner's expert witness opined that menstrual cycle problems are best left for treatment by an obstetrician/gynecologist; the use of a vibrator is not appropriate to relieve menstrual cramps; that it is not relevant to chiropractic when female patients last had intercourse; and that using a vibrator over and in the vagina, rubbing patient's clitoris, discussing your own sexual activities with patients, and having patients stand nude before a full length mirror constitutes a failure to practice chiropractic at a level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable prudent chiropractic physician as being acceptable under similar circumstances and/or constitutes an attempt to engage the patient in sexual activity outside the scope or practice or the scope of generally accepted examination or treatment of the patient. Respondent's expert witness opined that when a female patient presents with low back pain, a reasonable inquiry by the chiropractic physician would be the sexual practices of the patient; that the questions shown in Exhibit 12 are appropriate; and it is appropriate for a chiropractor to treat dysmenorrhea pain, and Exhibit 13 accurately depicts the trigger points; that use of vibrator is appropriate to treat the lower abdominal area of the patient; that there is no fixed standard in the practice of chiropractic whether the door to the examining room is open or closed (but not locked), nor is there a fixed standard of practice regarding the chiropractor having some staff member present when a patient is being examined. Both expert witnesses agreed that prudence demands the chiropractic physician have a staff member present in the examining room when sensitive area's of the patient are being manipulated and that neither intervaginal massage nor clitoral stimulation is an appropriate chiropractic procedure.
Recommendation It is recommended that Joseph S. Maddox be found guilty of Counts II, III and V, and not guilty of all other charges. It is further recommended that his license be suspended for a period of six (6) months, that he pay an administrative fine of $5000 and, upon completion of the suspension, be placed on probation under such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate, for a period of two years. ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by the parties are generally accepted. Those not included in H.O.'s findings or not rejected as noted below, were deemed immaterial or unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected 10. Rejected. 12. Proposed finding that door was locked is rejected. 15. First sentence rejected as irrelevant to the charges. 21-24. Accepted as the testimony of K.T. insofar as inconsistent with H.O.'s 12, those findings are rejected. 27. Same as 15. 30. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #17. Same as 15. Rejected as irrelevant. 40-41. Accepted only insofar as consistent with H.O. #20. 58. Rejected as irrelevant. 59-73. Are generally rejected as irrelevant and hearsay, insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #21 and not merely corroborating testimony of other witnesses whose treatments by Respondent were alleged to violate prescribed chiropractic standards. Respondent's Proposed Findings Rejected 6. Last sentence rejected. Other witnesses testified to use of small hand held vibrators. First sentence rejected. See H.O. #9. Rejected. K.T. testified that a small hand held vibrator was used on her the one time she was treated with a vibrator. She also testified that the treatment was very painful which would lead one to believe the large (10"x4") vibrator was used on pressure points. Rejected insofar as the improper touching of A.M.T.'s vaginal area is concerned. Rejected insofar as inconsistent with H.O. #16. Rejected. Rejected only insofar as it concludes that the uncalled for discussion of sexual techniques with a 15-year old female patient does not constiti1ite an attempt to engage the patient in sexual activity or malpractice. Last sentence is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Grover Freeman, Esquire Suite 500, 4600 Cypress Street Tampa, FL 33607 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 456.072(1)(gg), 456.072(1)(y), and 460.413(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2005),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of chiropractic medicine pursuant to Chapters 20, 256 and 460, Florida Statutes. Dr. Guerriero is a licensed chiropractic physician with the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 6373 on or about August 21, 1991. The Professional Resource Network (PRN) is the impaired practitioners program for the Board of Chiropractic Medicine pursuant to Section 456.076, Florida Statutes. PRN is an independent program that monitors the evaluation, care, and treatment of impaired healthcare professionals. PRN oversees random drug screens and provides for the exchange of information between treatment providers and the Department for the protection of the public. On or about October 26, 2005, Dr. Guerriero was admitted to the Center for Drug Free Living, Inc., for detoxification related to opiate and benzodiazepine use. On October 31, 2005, he self-reported to PRN that he was discontinuing the use of benzodiazepines and opiates prescribed by his doctor and that he had entered the Center for Drug Free Living, Inc., to be weaned from these prescription medications. PRN arranged for Dr. Guerriero to be evaluated by Chowallur Dev Chacko, M.D. (Dr. Chacko), who is a psychiatrist. The evaluation was made to determine whether Dr. Guerriero's addiction problems prevented him from practicing chiropractic medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients. Dr. Chacko saw Dr. Guerriero on November 7, 2005. Dr. Guerriero admitted to continuing the use of prescription medications containing opioids and benzodiazepines after his recent detoxification. Dr. Chacko diagnosed Dr. Guerriero as having opioid and benzodiazepine dependence, as well as suffering from alcohol abuse. It was Dr. Chacko's opinion that Dr. Guerriero was not able to practice chiropractic medicine with reasonable skill and safety. He recommended that Dr. Guerriero receive inpatient substance abuse treatment. After PRN received the evaluation performed by Dr. Chacko, there were several unsuccessful attempts to contact Dr. Guerriero. However, Dr. Guerriero did talk with his case manager on December 16, 2005, to discuss options for treatment. Dr. Guerriero maintained that he could not afford the inpatient treatment. His case manager informed him that one option would be an intensive outpatient program with no less than nine hours a week of therapy. During the therapy, Dr. Guerriero would not be allowed to practice chiropractic medicine. After the treatment was completed, Dr. Guerriero would be required to be evaluated to determine if he could practice chiropractic medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients. Dr. Guerriero did not provide PRN with any evidence that he had completed any treatment program. PRN received no further contact from Dr. Guerriero until May 2, 2006. Dr. Guerriero indicated that he wanted to get a second opinion. On July 31, 2006, Martha E. Brown, M.D. (Dr. Brown), who is board-certified in psychiatry and addiction psychiatry, saw Dr. Guerriero for an evaluation. During the evaluation, Dr. Guerriero indicated that he was taking Dalmante, which had been prescribed for him as a sleep-aid. He admitted to drinking from one-to-two glasses of wine three times a week. Dr. Guerriero was given a drug test during the evaluation, and he tested positive for alcohol, opioid, and benzodiazepine use. Dr. Brown's diagnosis of Dr. Guerriero was that he was alcohol dependent, opiate dependent, and sedative hypnotic dependent. It is Dr. Brown's opinion that Dr. Guerriero cannot practice chiropractic medicine with reasonable skill and safety. She recommended that he enter a detoxification program and then a residential long-term treatment program, that he see a pain management specialist to look at his pain issues, that he see a psychiatrist acceptable to PRN to help him with his sleep difficulties, that he abstain from all mood altering substances including alcohol, and that he be in PRN for long-term monitoring. Dr. Guerriero did not provide PRN with proof that he had completed an inpatient program. He did not execute a contract with PRN. PRN sent Dr. Guerriero contracts to sign, but the contracts were returned as unclaimed. The last contact that Dr. Guerriero had with PRN was on August 31, 2006. Jerome M. Gropper, D.D.S. (Dr. Gropper), is a clinical network coordinator at PRN. He is a practicing dentist and has a master's degree in counseling. Based on his review of the PRN file of Dr. Guerriero, he is of the opinion that Dr. Guerriero could not practice chiropractic medicine with reasonable skill and safety and that Dr. Guerriero will need long-term residential treatment before he could safely return to practice. Based on the opinions of Drs. Chacko, Brown, and Gropper, Dr. Guerriero cannot practice chiropractic medicine with reasonable skill and safety to his patients due to his dependence on drugs and alcohol. In order to be able to return to practice chiropractic medicine, Dr. Guerriero will need long- term residential treatment and will need to enter into a monitoring contract with PRN.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Guerriero violated Subsections 456.072(1)(y), 456.072(1)(gg), and 460.413(1)(q), Florida Statutes; imposing a $1,000 administrative fine; and suspending his license until such time the following conditions are satisfied: Dr. Guerriero executes a PRN advocacy contract, Dr. Guerriero successfully completes a six-month period in which he complies with all of PRN's treatment recommendations, PRN appears before the Board and advocates for Dr. Guerriero's return to active practice during a Board meeting in which Dr. Guerriero is present, and (4) the Board determines that Dr. Guerriero is able to practice with reasonable skill and safety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 7th day of May, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Lawrence A. Johnson, D.C., is duly qualified and licensed to practice as a Chiropractor in the State of Florida. Dr. Johnson holds a license issued by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. From on or about July 18, 1975 until August 18, 1975, Dr. Johnson treated Mabel-Ann Miller. Ms. Miller had been having pain in her back and legs and was seeking chiropractic treatment in the hope of alleviating the pain. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on approximately twenty occasions during the one month that she was under his care. The testimony from several of the witnesses was understandably somewhat vague with respect to what was said or done on any given visit. It is apparent, however, that during the early consultations with her, Dr. Johnson told her that he could help her, and that more than a year of treatment would be necessary. Dr. Johnson initially represented to her that the cost of treatment would be approximately $200, and that she would be permitted to pay $5 per week and the remainder when she finished her schooling. Dr. Johnson diagnosed a degenerated or herniated disc, a scoliosis or curvature of the spine, and a pelvic obliquity. Dr. Johnson told Ms. Miller that she was loosing fluid from her spine, and that unless she received immediate chiropractic treatment she would require an operation within a year, that the operation would have only a 50/50 chance of success, and that without chiropractic treatment she would stand a very good prospect of spending her life in a wheelchair. Mabel-Ann Miller's boyfriend, Chuck Alexander, had been Dr. Johnson's patient prior to the time that Ms. Miller went to Dr. Johnson. Alexander told Dr. Johnson about Ms. Miller, and prior to Ms. Miller's seeing Dr. Johnson as a patient, Alexander agreed to pay all of her expenses that she could not pay herself. He signed an agreement to this effect (licensee's Exhibit 6). The existence of this side agreement was not revealed to Ms. Miller until her second, third, or fourth visit. Ms. Miller became incensed at the arrangement, and told Dr. Johnson that she would pay her own bills. Dr. Johnson then related to her that the cost of her treatments would exceed $1,000. He told her that he would treat her on a "case fee" basis for $1,060.30. It was agreed that she would pay him a small portion of this case fee until she finished her schooling and was able to pay the entire bill. There after Dr. Johnson endeavored to have Ms. Miller sign a note for the "case fee". He initially requested 7 percent interest on the note, but later changed that amount to 5 percent. A copy of an agreement to pay which Dr. Johnson presented to Ms. Miller was received in evidence as Board Exhibit 6. Ms. Miller never signed the agreement. The testimony respecting Mabel-Ann Miller's condition varied somewhat. Dr. Johnson's diagnosis did not vary to an extraordinary degree, however, from the diagnosis given by other chiropractors, and by Dr. Hobby, a Medical Physician. The most creditable testimony demonstrates that Ms. Miller had a very mild curvature of the spine or scoliosis. She suffered a pelvic obliquity. Her left pelvis was 1.2 centimeters higher than her right pelvis. The pain being suffered by the patient was primarily muscular in nature. Ms. Miller would have benefited from chiropractic treatments, but her condition was not so severe as to require more than a year of intensive chiropractic therapy. Primarily she needed a good exercise program. After leaving Dr. Johnson's care, Ms. Miller submitted to the care of Dr. Hobby, who advised that she use an elevation on her shoe to level the pelvis and engage in an exercise program. She followed Dr. Hobby's advice, and at least up until the time of the hearing her condition improved, and she was no longer suffering pain. As has been said, Dr. Johnson's diagnosis of Ms. Miller's condition was not inaccurate. His statements respecting the severity of the condition were, however, quite exaggerated. Any disc deterioration that Ms. Miller suffered was very slight. Her scoliosis was not so severe as to require intensive chiropractic treatment. Her pelvic obliquity was not a severe problem. Dr. Johnson's statement that she would require surgery if she did not receive immediate chiropractic attention was not true. Neither was it true that she would require more than a year of intense chiropractic treatment. Dr. Johnson frequently utilized the "case fee" system of billing, and he attempted to utilize this system in billing Mabel-Ann Miller. Under the "case fee" system, a patient pays a lump sum for all needed chiropractic treatment rather than a per-visit fee. The testimony revealed that the average per-visit fee for chiropractic services in the St. Petersburg area varied from $8 to $12. Dr. Johnson's quoted "case fee" of more than $1,000 is so out of line with typical fees charged in the St. Petersburg area as to raise suspicions respecting Dr. Johnson's motives. There was no reason to expect that Ms. Miller required so many treatments as to justify such a case fee. Dr. Johnson's exaggerated statements respecting her condition could only have been motivated by his desire to have her contract for a fee far out of line with fees normally charged in the St. Petersburg area, and far out of line with the nature of treatment that Ms. Miller needed whatever fees were charged. Since Ms. Miller never signed a note agreeing to a "case fee" Dr. Johnson rendered her a statement for services on a per-visit or per-service basis. The statement was for $1,411.16. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on fewer than twenty occasions. Although she enjoyed the full range of services available at Dr. Johnson's office during these visits, the treatment and services she received were not remotely worth the amount which Dr. Johnson billed her. Dr. Johnson never had any agreement with the patient which would have justified such a bill which so far exceeds the community standards of the value of chiropractic services. During the time that Ms. Miller was under Dr. Johnson's care she received treatment known as Galvanic treatment in his office. A Galvanic machine renders heat to areas of the patient's body where the pads from the machine are placed. Use of the machine is somewhat risky in that a patient can be burned as a result of errors that are easy to make. Galvanic treatment was rendered to Ms. Miller at Dr. Johnson's office by Barbara Duynslager. Ms. Duynslager was trained in use of the Galvanic machine primarily by Dr. Johnson's wife, who served as Dr. Johnson's office manager. Dr. Johnson witnessed Ms. Duynslager using the machine on two occasions. Generally she was supervised in use of the machine, if at all, by Dr. Johnson's wife. It is normal procedure in the St. Petersburg area for chiropractic assistants to watch from five to ten Galvanic treatments and to be closely supervised on from five to ten more treatments before they are permitted to administer treatments unsupervised. Ms. Duynslager was given less training than that. Given the community standards, and given the risk involved in using the machine, it is apparent that Ms. Duynslager was not adequately trained. During the time that she was being treated, Ms. Miller received a minor burn on her lower back. There was no direct testimony from which it could be concluded that the burn came from the Galvanic machine; however, there is ample circumstantial evidence from which it can be determined that she did receive the burns from the machine. The burns appeared during the time she was receiving Galvanic treatment, the nature of the irritation is consistent with a Galvanic burn, and no other source of such an irritation was known. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that Barbara Duynslager was negligent in using the machine; however, the existence of the burn dramatizes the necessity for careful training on the machine. During late September and early October, 1975, Dr. Johnson consulted Philip W. Settepani, as a patient. Mr. Settepani was experiencing back pains, and he sought chiropractic assistance from Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson showed Settepani x-rays of his back, and described what Dr. Johnson characterized as "spurs" on the x-rays. Mr. Settepani was quite upset at what he saw on the x- rays, and he eventually sought and received chiropractic treatment from a Dr. Tilka rather than Dr. Johnson. Dr. Tilka did not describe Mr. Settepani's condition as "spurs". This led Mr. Settepani to believe that Dr. Johnson either made an erroneous diagnosis or misrepresented the diagnosis in order to scare the patient. Several of the expert witnesses who testified identified Mr. Settepani's condition as spurs . It is apparently the use of that term which caused Mr. Settepani to complain to the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that Dr. Johnson made an erroneous diagnosis of Mr. Settepani, or made any fraudulent or misleading statements to Mr. Settepani. In early February, 1976, Ms. Shirley Sabo visited Dr. Johnson's office as a patient. Dr. Johnson's wife told Ms. Sabo that Dr. Johnson never had a patient he couldn't cure, and that the cure would be quick. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that these statements were authorized by Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson informed the patient that she would require approximately one year of treatment, and that the cost would be $1,000. Ms. Sabo did not continue treatment with Dr. Johnson. She eventually received treatment from another Chiropractor and was billed $160 for x-rays and twelve visits. The fee quoted by Dr. Johnson was far out of line with customary fees in the St. Petersburg area, and is difficult, if not impossible, to justify. Nonetheless, there is no evidence from which it could be determined that Dr. Johnson misrepresented any facts to Ms. Sabo. Dr. Johnson instituted two law suits under the name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. The name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. was recorded in the public records of Pinellas County as a fictitious name for Johnson Chiropractic Clinic. Dr. Johnson performs as a sole practitioner. There was no other evidence respecting any advertising undertaken by Dr. Johnson in the name of a clinic, or any announcements made by Dr. Johnson that his office was a clinic.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive a passing grade on the chiropractic licensure examination administered November 13 through 16, 1996.
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: At the time the examination at issue herein was administered, the Agency for Health Care Administration was responsible for administering examinations to certain professionals, including chiropractic physicians, seeking to be licensed to practice in Florida. Sections 20.42(2)(a)2, 455.2141, and 455.2173, Florida Statutes. Dr. Foss sat for the chiropractic licensure examination administered in November, 1996. Part of that examination tested a candidate's competency in physical diagnosis and consisted of an oral practical examination administered to each candidate by a panel of two examiners. A standardization system was used with the examination to create consistency in the questioning and grading of the various examiners. Each examiner was given a manual which identified the procedures which were to be followed in particular situations and the questions which could be asked if, for example, the response of a candidate was not sufficiently specific. In addition, all of the examiners attended meetings each morning of the examination which were designed to standardize the criteria and grading guidelines which were to be applied. The examiners were specifically told to grade independently the responses given by the candidates and not to look at the grades given by the other examiner. The physical diagnosis portion of the November, 1996, examination consisted of twenty-seven questions which the examiners asked the candidates. These questions were derived from two cases involving hypothetical patients whose symptoms were presented to the candidate by the examiners. A series of questions was asked about each patient, and the examiners separately assigned points for the answers given. The total points were then averaged to arrive at the final grade. In Question 8, Dr. Foss was asked to state the specific diagnosis he would derive from the symptoms which had been presented to him and the case history he had developed in response to previous questions regarding one of the hypothetical patients. The question was clear and unambiguous, and Dr. Foss had all of the information needed to make the correct diagnosis. Although Dr. Foss responded to the question with a diagnosis which correctly categorized the disease, his answer did not include the specific diagnosis which he could have derived from the information available to him. Dr. Foss was asked by one of the examiners to be more specific as to the cause of the disease he had diagnosed. After several minutes, Dr. Foss responded with an answer which he has admitted was incorrect. Question 8 was worth eight points on the examination, and neither examiner gave Dr. Foss any points for his answer. The decision of the examiners to award no points to Dr. Foss for his answer to Question 8 was not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. Question 15 was clear, unambiguous, and specifically identified the source to be used in formulating the answer. Dr. Foss did not use the methodology recommended in the source specified in the question; rather, he used a different methodology based on information contained in another source. Question 15 was worth two points on the examination, and one examiner gave him no points for his answer, while the other examiner gave him one point. The number of points awarded to Dr. Foss for his answer to Question 15 was not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion. In Question 27, Dr. Foss was directed to state his clinical judgment in response to a question asked by the examiners. The question asked was clear and unambiguous. Dr. Foss's response that he would not treat the patient but would refer her to a physician other than a chiropractor was contrary to the results of clinical studies reviewed in a widely- disseminated chiropractic research journal which suggest that chiropractic treatment would be appropriate. Question 27 was worth four points on the examination, and neither examiner gave Dr. Foss any points for his answer. The decision of the examiners to award no points to Dr. Foss for his answer to Question 27 was not arbitrary or capricious or an abuse of discretion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration issue a final order dismissing the challenge of Bryan L. Foss, D.C., to the grade assigned him for the physical diagnosis portion of the November, 1996, chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Kim A. Kellum, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox, Building No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Dr. Bryan L. Foss, pro se 867 Tivoli Circle, No. 205 Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox, Building No. 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 460.413(1)(ff) and 456.072(1)(u), and Section 460.412, Florida Statutes (2002),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Dr. Hether was a licensed chiropractic physician within the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 2601 on or about April 16, 1977. Other than the instant Administrative Complaint, Dr. Hether has had no disciplinary action taken against his license. In April 2003, Dr. Hether had two chiropractic offices, one in Port Orange, Florida, and one in Deland, Florida. On or about April 8, 2003, C.B., a 29-year-old female, presented herself to Dr. Hether's office in Port Orange, Florida, in order to receive chiropractic treatment for injuries she sustained in an automobile accident. C.B. began receiving treatments in the Port Orange Office, but switched her appointments to the Deland office on or about May 8, 2003. The remainder of her treatments was given at the Deland office. Her treatments included chiropractic adjustments and massages. The chiropractic adjustments were performed by Dr. Hether and other physicians who worked for Dr. Hether; however, the majority of the chiropractic adjustments were performed by Dr. Hether. Until C.B.'s visit on June 11, 2003, all the massages had been performed by licensed massage therapists who worked for Dr. Hether. From on or about April 8, 2003, up to June 11, 2003, C.B. received various chiropractic treatments at Dr. Hether's offices without incident. On June 11, 2003, C.B. presented herself to Dr. Hether's office to receive her usual chiropractic treatment, including a massage. Dr. Hether, his son, and another male were in the office. Dr. Hether offered to perform the massage on C.B. because the regular massage therapist was not present, and C.B. accepted. C.B. went into the massage room, undressed to her underwear, and lay face down on the table with a sheet draped over her. Dr. Hether came into the massage room and began to massage C.B. Dr. Hether and C.B. were the only persons in the room during the massage. While C.B. was lying face down, Dr. Hether slipped his hands under C.B.'s underwear on the left side of her buttocks and then placed his hand under her underwear on the right side of her buttocks. At Dr. Hether's instruction, C.B. turned over onto her back. Dr. Hether placed his hands under C.B.'s breast area and rubbed upward towards her cleavage. Dr. Hether then slid his hand down C.B.'s body toward her vaginal area, grabbed a part of C.B.'s vaginal area, and began to make grunting noises as if he were getting sexual pleasure from the touching. While Dr. Hether was touching C.B.'s vaginal area, Chase Hether, Dr. Hether's son and office manager, knocked on the door to the massage room. Dr. Hether briefly stopped the massage to speak to his son. The door was partially open, but Chase Hether could not see inside the massage room. After speaking to his son, Dr. Hether closed the door and walked back to the massage table, where he again placed his hand in C.B.'s vaginal area and slid his fingers back and forth. Dr. Hether then shoved his hand further down C.B.'s panties and repeatedly thumped C.B.'s vaginal area. While Dr. Hether was thumping her vaginal area with one hand, he grabbed C.B.'s ankle with the other hand, while using the full pressure of his body weight on her body. Dr. Hether resumed making the grunting sounds and continued to make the sounds for a while. C.B. had approximately 27 massages at Dr. Hether's offices from the time she began treatment in April 2003 until June 11, 2003. The massage therapists who gave her those massages did not touch C.B.'s pubic area or touch the areas around C.B. breasts. After the massage, C.B. got dressed and went into another room to receive a chiropractic adjustment from Dr. Hether. Dr. Hether gave the chiropractic adjustment without any further inappropriate touching. After he concluded the chiropractic treatment, he asked C.B. personal questions about her living arrangements and occupation. C.B. went into the reception area of the office to leave the building. She saw Chase Hether and another man in the reception area. C.B. did not tell either man what had happened nor did she tell them that she would not be back to Dr. Hether's office for treatment. While Dr. Hether was touching C.B. inappropriately, she did not cry out, tell him to stop, or attempt to leave. When Chase Hether came to the door of the massage room, C.B. did not tell him what Dr. Hether was doing. C.B. did not try to stop the massage, leave Dr. Hether's offices, or tell others at Dr. Hether's office about the inappropriate touching because she was afraid of Dr. Hether and did not know what else Dr. Hether might do to her. She felt like she was a "visitor in her own body" and had no control over what was being done to her. She did not report the incident to the police department because she felt that the police were ineffective. C.B. did not go back to Dr. Hether's offices for treatment after the incident on June 11, 2003. She sought treatment from another chiropractic physician, Dr. Kimberly Watson, whom C.B. saw on June 23, 2003. C.B. told Dr. Watson what had happened to her at Dr. Hether's office. Dr. Watson advised C.B. that she could file a complaint with the Department of Health. C.B. did send a complaint to the Department of Health in June 2003, but she sent it to the wrong address. She got the correct address from Dr. Watson and filed a complaint with the Department of Health in September 2003. A year passed, and she contacted the Department of Health, wanting to know the status of her complaint. C.B. was told to file another complaint, which she did. Dr. Hether's wife, Kathe Hether, testified that she was at Dr. Hether's office the day of the incident and that as C.B. was leaving the office she spoke to C.B. for several minutes concerning her publishing business and that C.B. told her that she was going to another chiropractor that was nearer to her home. Mrs. Hether's testimony is not credible. Her husband of 36 years did not advise her until two months before the final hearing, that an administrative complaint had been filed against him. It is inconceivable that two and one-half years after their conversation, Ms. Hether vividly remembers talking to C.B. when there had been no reason to remember the conversation. Additionally, Ms. Hether's explanation for C.B.'s failure to return to Dr. Hether for treatment because C.B. wanted to go to a chiropractor closer to her home is also not credible. C.B. chose to seek treatment from Dr. Watson, whose office was about the same distance from C.B.'s home as Dr. Hether's office. C.B. also told Dr. Watson about the incident with Dr. Hether, explaining the reason that she discontinued treatment with Dr. Hether. C.B. has not brought a civil action against Dr. Hether for the incident on June 11, 2003. She filed the complaint with the Department so that Dr. Hether would not touch other patients inappropriately.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that James Hether, D.C., violated Subsection 460.413(1)(ff), Florida Statutes, by violating Subsection 456.072(1)(u) and Section 460.412, Florida Statutes; issuing a reprimand; imposing a $2,500 administrative fine; requiring a psychological evaluation by the professional resource network; and placing him on probation for two years, the terms of which would include a practice restriction prohibiting him from treating female patients without another certified health care professional in the room. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 28th day of July, 2006.
