Findings Of Fact Carol Petrovey, L.P.N., Respondent, is a Licensed Practical Nurse who holds license No. 39258-1. On February 13, 1977, while employed as a Licensed Practical Nurse at Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, Respondent administered an oral medication to a patient, Israel Schwartz, who was assigned to her care and left the patient's bedside without ensuring that the patient had consumed the medication. The medication involved was 12.5 milligrams of Antivert, which is a medication used to control nausea and vomiting. An incident report was issued to Respondent on February 13, 1977, and she was further counselled respecting this problem on February 18, 1977. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.) In said report, the Respondent was reminded of the importance and policy of medication administration, of not leaving medication at patient's bed side but, instead, of remaining with patients until medications are in fact swallowed by the patient. Approximately two months later, on April 8, 1977, the Respondent admitted that while employed as above she committed a pre-op medication error with respect to a patient in her care. During the following month, on or about May 2, 1977, Respondent, while employed by the Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, signed out for the wrong narcotic which resulted in an inaccurate narcotic inventory balance at the change of her shift. The discrepancy centered around a discrepancy in a 50 milligram and a 25 milligram dosage of Demerol, a controlled substance. According to the Hospital records, the narcotic records and inventory are perpetually maintained. The patient who was involved in this incident was Golda White. An incident and counseling report was issued to the Respondent respecting this incident. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3.) On or about August 28, 1977, R.M. McDonald, R.N., Assistant Director of Nursing, and Mary Oglia, an R.N. at the Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches, jointly determined that there were three Darvoset N-100 tablets missing from the medication drawer of a patient named Madelyn Lynch, to whom the Respondent was assigned to administer medication. After repeated questioning of this incident, the Respondent acknowledged that she had taken the three missing Darvoset N-100 tablets from Lynch's medication drawer, removed them from her purse and handed them over to the Assistant Director of Nursing. It was at this juncture that the Respondent was told by the nursing director that she had the alternative of resigning from the Hospital or being discharged, with a report of the incident being filed simultaneously with the Petitioner. Audrey Renwick, an R.N. employed at the subject hospital since approximately June of 1976 and who is presently a head nurse, witnessed the questioning and the surrender of the three Darvoset tablets by the Respondent. Thereafter, following the surrender of the Darvoset tablets, the Respondent resigned and was employed by the Medicana Medical Center in Lake Worth during September of 1977, where she has been employed to date. As stated above, the Respondent does not dispute the substance of the testimony given by the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Petitioner, Florida State Board of Nursing. She acknowledges that she made a mistake and testified that she has put those incidents behind her. She further testified that since her resignation from the Community Hospital of the Palm Beaches and her re-employment with the Medicana Medical Center at Lake Worth, she has not been involved in any incidents or any drug-related matters. Additionally, it was noted, that the Respondent had not been involved in any incidents prior to or subsequent to the filing of this Administrative Complaint. Several coworkers of the Respondent testified on her behalf and, generally, gave their opinions of the credible job that she is now fulfilling in her present position. Included among such was Lewis Becks, a Registered Pharmacist and a supervisor and consultant for other area hospitals, including several alcoholic and drug abuse centers in the area. He testified that since the Respondent has taken her most recent position at the center in Lake Worth, she is running a model nursing station and that this is a complete turnaround from the situation which existed at the Center when the Respondent began her employment there in Lake Worth. He testified that the narcotic shortages are negligible and that stringent controls are maintained for all narcotics at the center, whether the drugs are Class 2 or Class 5.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. This recommendation is based on the credible testimony which indicates that subsequent to the above incidents, the Respondent is leading a life which is indicative of the type of conduct which is professional in nature and that, in so doing, she is a credit to her profession. Finally, in view of the testimony that no similar incidents have occurred in the more than one year which has passed following these incidents, it is the considered opinion of this Hearing Officer that the placement of the Respondent under probation for a period of two (2) years is more in keeping with the proven offenses. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Mail: 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Building "B" Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Ms. Carol Petrovey 1887 Breezy Lane West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Carolann A. Lubinski Petrovey 1887 Breezy Lane CASE NO. 78-1380 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 As a Licensed Practical Nurse License Number 39258-1 /
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine based on: The allegations of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 97-3363, pertaining to patient R.W., of violations of Sections 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, [failure to appropriately prescribe in the best interest of the patient]; 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, [failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances]; and Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, [failure to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient during his care of the patient]; and The allegations of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 97-3442, pertaining to patient N.W., of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, [failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances].
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida and has been licensed in Florida at all times material under license number ME0041782. Respondent is Board-certified in internal medicine, and his area of specialty is pulmonary medicine. AHCA Case No. 95-5043; DOAH Case No. 97-3442; Patient R.W. On or about November 5, 1990, Patient Mr. R.W. suffered a work-related accident resulting in a very significant injury to his back, including a complete disc herniation. On November 10, 1990, orthopedic surgeon Georges El Bahri, M.D., performed major spinal surgery, including a complete laminectomy of L4, L5, disc excision of L5, S1, and exploratory surgery in the region of S1 on R.W. at Memorial Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida. This surgery was of an emergency nature to prevent paraplegia. Prior to this surgery, R.W. was referred by Dr. El Bahri to Respondent on a pulmonary consult for surgical clearance because R.W. was suffering from chronic pulmonary disease, (CPD). R.W. experienced genitourinary dysfunction (a dysfunction of the genitalia or urinary organs) as a result of his accident, and he saw a urologist, Mohammed N. Mona, M.D., for treatment. On November 22, 1990, a second surgery was required for removal of a previously unidentified disc fragment. Dr. El Bahri recommended a spinal fusion. Evaluation by a second orthopedic surgeon indicated that R.W. had suffered a 30 percent disability of the body as a whole related to his orthopedic injuries. The second orthopedic surgeon also suggested a bone fusion. A spinal fusion operation would have exposed R.W. to a risk of loss of lower body function, and he declined the operation. Dr. El Bahri referred R.W. to Respondent to provide continuing care for R.W.'s pulmonary problem. Without surgery, R.W.'s back pain would continue to be severe and intractable. Dr. El Bahri had tried multiple alternative modalities of pain management with R.W. during the period of time that he participated in R.W.'s care, including use of a cane, weight reduction, corset, body brace, physical therapy, and a transcutaneous epidural nerve stimulator unit (TENS). Dr. El Bahri also had prescribed pain mediation for R.W. An implanted nerve stimulation device had been recommended, but R.W. declined it. Dr. El Bahri and Respondent consulted concerning efforts to control R.W.'s pain. Dr. El Bahri made Respondent aware of the various alternative pain modalities that he had tried. At some point, it was agreed between Dr. El Bahri and Respondent that where there is intractable pain requiring prescription drugs, one physician should assume primary care. Dr. El Bahri, as the orthopedic surgeon who could not get R.W. to agree to further surgery, deferred to Respondent who was treating R.W.'s chronic pulmonary problems. Dr. El Bahri and Respondent agreed that Respondent would prescribe analgesic and other medications for management of R.W.'s intractable pain. R.W.'s first office visit with Respondent was on May 3, 1991, and his last office visit was on June 16, 1993. Petitioner alleged violations by Respondent both as to level of care and the keeping of medical records because he did not perform and record a full physical for R.W. at or about the time of R.W.'s first office visit. However, Dr. Harvey, testifying on behalf of Petitioner, as well as Dr. Corral, testifying on behalf of Respondent, agreed that it would not be necessary for Respondent to repeat a complete history and physical on R.W. between the November 1990 hospital consultation and physical and the May 3, 1991, office visit. Dr. Harvey would have allowed a ten-month delay, and Dr. Corral felt no further complete physical was necessary for treatment of a chronic condition so long as there was evidence of frequent office visit evaluations. All the medical expert witnesses faulted Respondent's office records if they did not physically contain the hospital consultation sheets, and there is reason to believe that Respondent's office records did not include the consultation sheets until after R.W.'s death. Likewise, I do not find the other, later brief notes in Respondent's office records of partial examinations by Respondent or by his Physician's Assistant to constitute sufficient alternative documentation under the circumstances. See, infra. Therefore, to this degree, Respondent's records did not justify his course of treatment of R.W. R.W. presented to Respondent with multiple problems: intractable back pain secondary to his injuries, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (CPD-COPD), a history of smoking a pack and a half of cigarettes every day for 25 years, impotency, back surgery, hyperlipidemia, and labile hypertension. "Hyperlipidemia" means high cholesterol and trigylcerides. "Labile hypertension" refers to erratic high blood pressure. At 205 pounds, R.W. also was overweight, but not "morbidly obese" for his height and age. While under Respondent's care, R.W. continued to suffer from intractable back pain secondary to his injury, anxiety, and situational depression. On April 10, 1992, while under Respondent's care, R.W. underwent a psychiatric evaluation at the University of Florida Health Sciences Center in Jacksonville, Florida. The psychiatrist, Ernest C. Miller, M.D., prepared a report dated June 9, 1992, in which he indicated that R.W. suffered adult situational disorder with chronic depression. He recommended "psychiatric contact." Respondent facilitated the workers' compensation insurance carrier's referral of R.W. to the psychiatrist for evaluation. Respondent's office records are deficient on this matter, but it appears most likely from the evidence as a whole that R.W. did not follow up on the psychiatrist's recommendation for psychiatric counseling because his workers' compensation employer-carrier declined to pay for any further psychiatric care. Although Dr. Harvey testified that Respondent should have tried to talk R.W. into psychiatric counseling, the evidence as a whole falls short of demonstrating that Respondent bore any professional responsibility to force R.W. into psychiatric care or counseling against R.W.'s will and at R.W.'s own expense. The psychiatrist recommended tricyclic anti- depressants. Respondent prescribed tricyclic anti-depressants as well as other drugs described infra. Respondent obtained consultations of specialists, including two orthopedic physicians and a neurosurgeon. Respondent also tried additional alternative modalities of pain management, including Marcaine (analgesic) trigger point injections, and topical anesthetics. Despite Petitioner's charge that Respondent's care of R.W. was substandard due to his failure to refer R.W. to a pain management specialist, I find that between Dr. El Bahri and Respondent, most acceptable pain management modalities were attempted with R.W, and Respondent's failure to refer R.W. to a pain management specialist did not fall below the professional standard of care. In making this finding of fact, I have given weighted consideration to Dr. Harvey's testimony that there was no other pain management besides drugs unless Respondent could talk R.W. into psychiatric counseling or surgery, or retrying a TENS unit, and to Dr. Corral's testimony that it was not necessary for Respondent to consult with a pain specialist because the patient had refused all invasive and some non- invasive pain management and that anything other than invasive pain management could be done for R.W. by the Respondent. During the period of time R.W. was under Respondent's care, Respondent prescribed to him analgesic medications for pain. He also prescribed anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, and muscle relaxant medications. It is with the quantity of these prescriptions, the inter-action of the drugs prescribed, and the failure to record these prescriptions in Respondent's office records for R.W. that the Petitioner finds fault. Between April 21, 1992, and July 6, 1993, Respondent wrote R.W. in excess of 30 prescriptions for pain management and depression. Dispensation of these prescriptions, including approved refills, exceeded 4,000 tablets. However, during this period of time, Respondent also recorded 11 office visits: 4/21/92, 5/15/92, 5/18/92, 5/20/92, 6/18/92, 8/21/92, 11/9/92, 2/1/93, 4/5/93, 5/4/93, and 6/16/93. Based on a "Pharmacy Profile," R.W. received the following medications prescribed by Respondent between April 21, 1992, and July 6, 1993. Drug Prescribed Dosage/Quantity Dates Filled Diazepam 10mg 50 06/16/93 Amitriptyline 50mg 30 07/24/92 50mg 30 08/11/92 50mg 30 09/23/92 50mg 30 10/20/92 50mg 30 11/20/92 50mg 30 12/16/92 100mg 30 02/01/93 100mg 30 03/03/93 100mg 30 04/02/93 100mg 30 05/03/93 150mg 30 05/07/93 100mg 30 06/02/93 100mg 30 06/25/93 Drug Prescribed Dosage/Quantity Dates Filled Lorcet Plus 100 06/18/92 100 07/15/92 100 08/11/92 90 09/11/92 90 10/07/92 90 11/09/92 90 12/07/92 90 12/31/92 90 01/29/93 100 03/01/93 100 04/02/93 100 05/03/93 100 05/07/93 100 06/07/93 100 07/06/93 Roxicet 5/325 40 04/05/93 Clorazepate 100 04/05/93 Xanax 1mg 100 04/22/92 100 05/26/92 100 07/09/92 100 08/11/92 100 10/07/92 100 11/09/92 100 12/07/92 100 12/31/92 100 01/29/93 100 03/01/93 100 04/02/93 100 05/03/93 100 06/07/93 100 07/06/93 Acetaminophen 500mg 100 09/11/92 100 10/20/92 100 11/20/92 100 12/05/92 100 02/10/93 Notriptyline 50mg 120 09/11/92 120 10/20/92 120 01/18/93 Carisoprodol 350mg 100 05/07/93 100 07/06/93 Xanax, Lorcet Plus, Amitriptyline, Clorazepate, Roxicet, Diazepam, and Carisoprodol are Central Nervous System (CNS) depressants and several, including Xanax and Diazepam (Valium), are benzodiazepines. When taken together, CNS depressants can produce additive CNS effects. Benzodiazepines are drugs which are in a class of structurally related compounds. They have sedative, anti- convulsant, and skeletal muscle relaxant properties and are used for the treatment of anxiety and other purposes. Using several benzodiazepines together can also be fatal, because the patient may develop a tolerance to the drug and ultimately consume toxic dosages. Xanax is a Schedule IV legend drug used to treat anxiety disorders. It produces additive CNS depressant effects when administered with other CNS depressants. Lorcet Plus is a Schedule III legend drug which contains Hydrocodone. It is used for treating moderate to moderately severe pain. If used with other CNS depressants, it can produce additive CNS depression. Amitriptyline is a legend drug and a trycyclic anti- depressant. It can enhance the effects of alcohol, barbiturates, and CNS depressants. It can aggravate heart conditions. Clorazepate is a Schedule IV benzodiazepine legend drug indicated for the treatment of anxiety disorders. It has a CNS effect. Clorazepate should not be administered to patients with indications of drug dependencies. Roxicet is a Schedule II legend drug which has a high potential for abuse and has a currently accepted, but severely restricted, medical use. It can produce dependency of the morphine type. Diazepam is a Schedule IV drug indicated for the treatment of anxiety disorder. It is a form of Valium and is a CNS depressant. Nortriptyline is a legend drug that is a tricyclic anti-depressant. Carisoprodol is a legend drug that is indicated as an adjunct to rest, physical therapy, and other measures for the relief of discomfort associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. It is a CNS depressant. R.W. died unexpectedly at his home on July 9, 1993. Petitioner contends that because the prescribed medications were not listed in R.W.'s chart at the material times, the prescriptions and renewals were given by Respondent without any reference to a medical record which would allow Respondent or any physician to provide R.W. with sufficient warnings or information regarding the combined use of these drugs and/or to appropriately monitor or limit R.W.'s simultaneous intake of the CNS depressants, and that, whether one concludes that R.W. died due to multiple drug toxicity or as a result of a myocardial infarction is not critical, but that Respondent's care and treatment was so careless as to create an environment in which R.W. was an "accident waiting to happen." All the testifying medical experts agreed that Respondent should have given R.W. medication overdose and interaction warnings. Respondent claims to have orally warned R.W. and R.W.'s wife concerning R.W.'s prescriptions, but it is not disputed that prior to R.W.'s death, R.W.'s chart/medical records in Respondent's office did not contain adequate notations of oral medication overdose and interaction warnings. Dr. Corral testified that not all such warnings must be recorded. It is also undisputed that prior to R.W.'s death, his chart/records in Respondent's office did not contain adequate notes on the drugs prescribed by Respondent. In his office practice, Respondent had established a system whereby requests for refills of medications previously prescribed to patients would be documented on a separate IO9 drug tally sheet or "day sheet" by Respondent's staff. Sometime during each work day, Respondent would review the list of requested refills, and approve or deny each by making a written notation on the "day sheet." Respondent's staff would then telephonically authorize the pharmacy to refill only those prescriptions that Respondent had authorized in writing. By making a written notation approving requested refills, Respondent was creating a record of drugs he prescribed. Under Respondent's system, his staff members were then supposed to transpose the refill information from the "day sheet" onto each patient's individual medical record chart. The aforementioned system for approval of requested refills and documentation thereof is an acceptable means of documenting refill information on medications for individual patient charts, but it was not followed in this instance. Vickie Browning, as receptionist and "front office" staff member, was primarily responsible for the transfer of the medication information from the day sheets to individual patient charts. Periodically, when she got backed up with telephone calls or otherwise behind in her work, Ms. Browning simply threw away piled-up day sheets without transferring the prescription information to individual patient charts. In making this finding of fact, I have noted the clear testimony of another staff member, Angie McKenzie, who saw Ms. Browning throw away a pile of prescription day sheets, but who admittedly did not advise Respondent of what was going on. I also have considered Linda Eady Turner's testimony that Ms. Turner saw a pile of day sheets in the trash can on a single occasion. I also have carefully scrutinized Ms. Browning's testimony, which by candor and demeanor, internal inconsistencies, and motivation to fabricate, I find to be unreliable and incredible. Despite R.W.'s 11 office visits during the material period of time, during each of which Respondent presumably reviewed R.W.'s chart, Respondent did not become aware that prescription refill information was not being recorded in R.W.'s chart. Likewise, Respondent did not become aware that prescription refill information was not being recorded in any patient charts until he reviewed R.W.'s medical chart after R.W.'s death. As the medical professional ultimately responsible for accuracy of medical records and treatment of his patients, Respondent should have noted the gaps on R.W.'s and other patients' charts before he did. For the same reasons, he should have known, prior to R.W.'s death, that his system was not being followed. After R.W.'s death, the Duval County Medical Examiner confiscated drugs from R.W.'s home and created a Medication Log containing the following drugs: Xanax 1 mg, 1-1/2 pills remaining; Amitriptyline 150 mg, 1 remaining; Amitriptyline 100 mg, 8 remaining; Ketoproten 75 mg, 61 remaining, Zantac 150 mg, 1 remaining; Amoxicillin 500 mg, 1 remaining; Helotestin 10 mg, 9 remaining; Lorcet Plus tablets, 88 remaining; Carisoprodol 350 mg, 54 remaining; Xanax 1 mg, 88-1/2 remaining; Carisoprodol 350 mg, 97 remaining; and Hydrocodone, 27 remaining. All of these drugs were prescribed by Respondent. Laboratory tests performed on R.W. revealed the presence of Amitriptyline, Hydrocodone, Nordiazepam (which is from Diazepam), Carisoprodol, and Xanax. Respondent was quickly embroiled in legal actions arising out of R.W.'s death. Upon discovering that prescription refill information relating to R.W. had not been recorded by his staff on R.W.'s chart, Respondent instructed members of his staff to obtain prescription information from the pharmacy, and recreate a medication list for R.W.'s chart. He further advised his staff to record any recollections they had which related to interactions of any staff members and R.W. or R.W.'s wife. Once his staff had completed the prescription information recreation, Respondent placed a note on the recreated records, identifying them as recreations and not contemporaneous notes. He also advised his attorney and the attorney representing the estate of R.W. of the recreated records. This would logically show no intent to, or conspiracy by, Respondent to fabricate or falsify patient records, but merely an intent and effort to recreate prescription information for his defense at trial. In making this finding of fact, I have again discounted Ms. Browning's testimony for the reasons previously cited. All testifying medical experts agreed that it is professionally acceptable for a medical physician to add notes as an addendum, provided the physician indicates the date of additional notes and clearly shows that they are not contemporaneous. At the request of one of R.W.'s relatives employed in the Sheriff's Office, the Assistant Medical Examiner for Duval County, Dr. Bonafacio Floro, performed an autopsy on R.W.'s corpse. He opined that the immediate cause of R.W.'s death was "multiple drug toxicity," although he noted "arteriosclerotic disease" as a secondary, or contributing, cause of death. He also speculated that one or more prescription drugs could have caused a myocardial infarction. In formulating his opinion on the proximate cause of R.W.'s death, Dr. Floro relied almost exclusively on laboratory tests performed by the Duval County Medical Examiner's Office and by an outside laboratory revealing the presence of several drugs in R.W.'s blood. The results of the drug tests performed by the Duval County Medical Examiner's Office and the outside laboratory are inconsistent, but this is largely a difference without a distinction. By either test, R.W.'s blood level of Hydrocodone would be "lethal" as established by a generally accepted medical text, and his blood level of Xanax would be "toxic" as established by the same generally accepted medical text. This medical text, however, is basically only a catalogue of drug toxicity levels in persons already dead. According to Dr. Venard Adams, however, all of the drugs in R.W.'s blood at the time of his death were at therapeutic levels, except for Hydrocodone, which was at the low end of the generally accepted lethal range, and this level might not be lethal for one who had developed a tolerance for several drugs. Dr. Adams's opinion on this score was shared by Dr. Thomas F. Hegert. Each of these physicians are also Florida Medical Examiners. Dr. Floro's conclusion that multiple drug toxicity was the proximate cause of R.W.'s death also was not shared by the other medical experts, and Dr. Floro conceded that he had no opinion on where the line is crossed between achieving therapeutic levels and toxic or lethal levels in living patients with increased medicinal tolerance. Except for Dr. Floro, all of the other medical experts testified that the Respondent's prescriptions for R.W. continued to be mostly the same types and amount of each drug from R.W.'s first visit to his last; that Respondent's prescriptions did not exceed reasonable amounts of each individual medication; that in some cases the amounts Respondent prescribed were less than the maximum amounts permissible for individual medications; and that the prescriptions, if taken as prescribed, should not have exceeded reasonable amounts for their purpose. Dr. Corral considered Respondent's use of all the drugs together to be common practice. Dr. Hegert considered the combination of drugs selected by Respondent to be appropriate within current chronic pain management therapy and effective, in that because of the combination and amounts Respondent used, Respondent would not have had to prescribe even stronger pain medications which have a greater potential for addiction than those Respondent actually used. Dr. Hegert also found no indication that the drug levels in R.W.'s blood at death, as indicated by the laboratory reports, were any different than the probable levels R.W. had experienced over a considerable period of time. Although Dr. Floro reviewed some cut sections of the deceased's heart, Dr. Floro did not clearly acknowledge evidence of an acute myocardial infarction. Cut sections of R.W.'s heart were prepared with a special stain by Dr. Hegert and microscopically viewed. These sections revealed myocardial injury, "clear evidence" of an acute myocardial infarction. Dr. Hegert concluded that R.W. died of acute myocardial infarction secondary to severe coronary artery disease. There are a few pills from R.W.'s last prescriptions which are unaccounted for, but this is insufficient under the facts of this case to assume that R.W. consumed more pills than the labels prescribed or that excessive use of a single prescription drug or several prescription drugs triggered his myocardial infarction. In light of the testimony of a borderline nature for R.W. of the Hydrocodone level and the probable therapeutic level of the other drugs, there is no clear and convincing evidence that R.W. exceeded the labeled dosage. There is certainly no clear evidence that if R.W. exceeded the labeled dosage, he did so because of Respondent's failure to warn him. Finally, there is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's prescription practice rendered R.W. chemically dependent on prescription drugs. AHCA Case No. 95-01594; DOAH Case No. 97-3363; Patient N.W. Mrs. N.W. had been a patient of Respondent since April 17, 1992. Approximately a year before April 6, 1994, N.W. had required hospitalization due to severe gastroenteritis. At that time, she was hospitalized for re-hydration and attendant care. Thereafter, until April 6, 1994, N.W. enjoyed reasonably good health, except that she suffered from systemic lupus and erythema. On Wednesday, April 6, 1994, N.W. presented to Respondent's office with complaints of having eaten bad ham at a picnic, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea for several days. These were similar symptoms to those at her hospitalization the year before. Long-term nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea can cause severe dehydration. Respondent recommended that N.W. be hospitalized for re-hydration. N.W. and her husband refused, accepting instead a prescription for antibiotics. On Friday, April 8, 1994, N.W. was not improved and either she or her husband contacted Respondent's office. Respondent's office was advised that N.W. had continued to suffer from nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea since her Wednesday office visit. N.W. then accepted Respondent's recommendation, and directions were given for her to be directly admitted to Memorial Medical Center (hospital) in Jacksonville, Florida, without first being seen at Respondent's office. N.W. was admitted to the hospital at approximately 4:30 p.m. Patients suffering from dehydration can develop hypovolemia (low blood volume) and can appear very ill and develop low blood pressure (hypotension); high or low heart rate (tachycardia or bradycardia); and become cold and clammy. These symptoms are also consistent with a myocardial infarction, although high heart rate is more common than bradycardia with a myocardial infarction. Appropriate treatment of hypovolemia is re-hydration through the administration of intravenous (IV) fluids. N.W. ultimately died four days later on April 12, 1994, from congestive heart failure initiated by a myocardial infarction which had most probably occurred sometime around noon on April 8, 1994, prior to her admission to the hospital. All witnesses concur that the only period of time that is material to the charges against Respondent is approximately 4:00 p.m. April 8, 1994 to 8:00 a.m. April 9, 1994. The thrust of the Administrative Complaint is that the information of an abnormal EKG and abnormal cardiac enzymes were repeatedly relayed to Respondent by telephone and that he failed to timely take aggressive action. Sometime subsequent to April 9, 1994, the nursing progress notes covering the period of time from approximately 8:00 p.m. April 8, 1994, until approximately 7:00 a.m. April 9, 1994, were found to be missing. Subsequently, the hospital's Risk Management staff directed that the nursing notes be recreated. The recreated notes were reviewed by the Risk Management staff and the hospital attorney. They were dissatisfied with them as being too subjective. At their instruction, a second set of nursing notes was recreated. However, Risk Management and the hospital attorney ultimately included the first set of recreated notes in N.W.'s hospital chart, believing that the first set of recreated notes would be more accurate because they were closer in time to the events charted. The copy of a 7:32 p.m. April 8, 1994, electrocardiogram (EKG) report currently in the hospital chart, which indicates an acute myocardial infarction, was not the copy of the EKG interpretation that was originally placed in N.W.'s hospital chart during the period of time that N.W. was hospitalized on April 8, 1994. The EKG copy in the hospital chart is a copy that has been interpreted by a cardiologist, Benjamin C. Olive, M.D. The undersigned has had the benefit of considering both sets of recreated notes, the witnesses' testimony, and all other exhibits admitted in evidence. In making the following Findings of Fact, the undersigned has compared, considered credibility, and weighed all elements of the record. After initial evaluation by hospital nursing staff, N.W. was evaluated at approximately 7:30 p.m., by Earl Manion, Respondent's Physician's Assistant. Mr. Manion noted, among other things, that because N.W.'s abdominal pain was very high up into the sternum, cardiac involvement should be investigated. Mr. Manion gave appropriate orders for initial laboratory and radiological evaluation of N.W. A CPK test is part of a standard chemistry panel done for all admittees, but the initial tests ordered by Mr. Manion included the performance of an EKG and blood chemical studies including cardiac enzyme testing (CPK-MB). At Memorial Medical Center, as in many facilities, EKGs are initially interpreted by a computer program, which provides a printed verbal interpretation of the EKG. Hospital nurses are not expected to interpret the line configurations on EKGs. Standard procedure is for them to notify the admitting physician of the computer's printed verbal interpretation. Mr. Manion did not remain on the cardiopulmonary floor to which N.W. was initially assigned (Three South Tower) to read the results of the tests he had ordered. He anticipated that Respondent would shortly be making rounds and would see the test results for himself. He did not relay his cardiac concerns to Respondent or tell Respondent that he had ordered a CPK-MB instead of a CPK test. In fact, Respondent did not make rounds that evening, and there was no requirement that he should do so. Lay persons normally refer to a myocardial infarction as a "heart attack." Persons can suffer from a myocardial infarction and, dependent upon its severity, they may not even be aware it has occurred. A myocardial infarction may be classified as "acute," meaning "recent" or "on-going," or it may be classified as "chronic," meaning "old" or "in the past." If it is an old infarction, no immediate physician response is necessary. The first EKG performed on N.W. printed out the verbal interpretation of "consider inferior infarct, age undetermined." This result is not an acute myocardial infarction alert. This result was reported telephonically to Respondent by Donna Hughes, R.N. Nurse Hughes was the first nurse significantly involved in N.W.'s care, and was the responsible nurse between admission and midnight on April 8, 1994. The CPK-MB test results came in subsequent to Ms. Hughes' first telephone call to Respondent, so she made a second telephone call to Respondent about 10:30 p.m. on April 8, 1994. She subsequently recreated notes to the effect that she related to Respondent that N.W. showed "elevated cardiac enzymes," but in her testimony, Ms. Hughes confirmed that she recalled telling Respondent only that the "CPK" was elevated. Despite reports by N.W.'s husband that his wife's face "was turning colors," neither nurse Hughes nor Physician's Assistant Manion observed such a phenomenon. In fact, to them, N.W. denied any chest pain or chest tightness. Nurse Hughes did not believe that N.W. was having a myocardial infarction during her shift. Chemical tests can be performed on a patient's blood for various enzymes that are released into the bloodstream as a result of stress on muscle systems. Various enzymes and "bands" of enzymes reflect stress or damage to different muscle systems. A CPK is an enzyme test that may indicate damage to muscles in the body generally, or more specifically, damage to skeletal muscles. It may also reflect systems' reactions to injected anti-vomiting medications, which N.W. had received. A CPK-MB (or CK-MB) band is a more specific enzyme test that is indicative of stress or damage to the heart muscle. The CPK-MB (or CK-MB) band is appropriately referred to as a "cardiac enzyme test." The CPK is not appropriately referred to as a "cardiac enzyme test." There is no clear and convincing evidence that Nurse Hughes advised Respondent that the CPK-MB or CK-MB was elevated. It is more likely that she only correctly identified that the test was a "cardiac enzyme test" in her recreated notes. Because Respondent was aware of N.W.'s past history of gastroenteritis and that N.W. had been suffering from vomiting, including retching, and had received intra-muscular injections of anti-nausea medication, and because retching and intra-muscular injections can result in an elevated CPK, it would be reasonable for him to discount the results of a CPK, which he did during the second phone call from Nurse Hughes. He ordered an increase in the potassium IV. Jennifer Stephenson, R.N., was a graduate nurse (G.N.) performing nursing care for N.W. on Three South Tower after midnight on April 8, 1994. She involved the charge nurse and the nurse coordinator due to her G.N. status and due to her concern for N.W.'s condition. She placed a telephone call to Respondent's "service" but did not speak to him. When Respondent returned the telephone call, his call was received by Tess Bunal, R.N. He denied that any clear information about the CPK-MB or about a new EKG was given to him in this phone call. During this phone call, Respondent authorized the transfer of N.W. to the Telemetry Unit (Three Central) for closer monitoring. The Telemetry Unit is a monitored unit with heart pattern displayed at each bedside and at a monitor bank. It provides one staff nurse for every three to four patients. It is only one step down from an intensive care floor. Upon N.W.'s arrival at the Telemetry Unit, Kevin Murphy, R.N. became the nurse involved in her care. Mr. Murphy spoke with Respondent at or about 1:40 a.m. on April 9, 1994, regarding N.W.'s EKG, low blood pressure, and increased heart rate. At that time, Nurse Murphy relied on another nurse's oral report that Respondent had already been informed of the elevated heart enzymes and also had been informed of the results of an abnormal EKG. Nurse Murphy recommended that N.W. be transferred to an intensive care unit, also known as a "cardiac care unit" (CCU). However, Mr. Murphy testified that he did not advise Respondent of the result of the EKG or any specific enzyme results, because he believed Respondent already had that information. The Respondent rejected Nurse Murphy's recommendation to transfer N.W. to CCU. Instead, he gave orders to increase the IV. Nurse Murphy was uncomfortable with Respondent's response to his recommendation. He closely monitored N.W. N.W.'s vital signs did not change markedly, but she continued to complain of nausea and even some chest tightness. Nurse Murphy ordered another EKG, which showed an "acute myocardial infarction." He again spoke with Respondent by telephone at approximately 3:40 a.m. on April 9, 1994, and again requested that N.W. be transferred to the intensive care unit. He did not inform Respondent of an EKG showing "acute myocardial infarction" or that the MB band was elevated. His testimony does not clarify whether he did or did not relay to Respondent any complaint of chest tightness. However, at Nurse Murphy's insistence, Respondent ordered N.W. transferred to CCU. At no time on any of the three units (cardiopulmonary, telemetry, or cardiac care) did any nurse become sufficiently concerned about N.W.'s condition or about Respondent's responses so as to call on the hospital's "fail safe" procedures which included the opportunity to involve an on-call "intensivist." At approximately 7:00 a.m. on April 9, 1994, a new nurse, Nurse Waples, began her shift on CCU. She contacted Respondent by telephone at 7:20 a.m. and advised Respondent clearly that N.W. was complaining of chest tightness, and of the results of the latest EKG. She also clearly stated that N.W. had an elevated CK-MB. Respondent immediately gave appropriate orders for evaluation and treatment of a possible cardiac problem, including EKG, cardiac medication, oxygen, arterial blood gases, pulse oxymeter, and a cardiac consultation, and he proceeded directly to the hospital. The Respondent saw N.W. in the hospital for the first time at 7:55 a.m. on April 9, 1994. At that time, he and a cardiologist correctly diagnosed her as having had an acute myocardial infarction and going into cardiogenic shock. Respondent timely requested the participation of a cardiologist and provided appropriate orders for N.W.'s cardiac condition. He also appropriately monitored her status. Nonetheless, N.W. ultimately went into congestive heart failure. After several unsuccessful treatment attempts, she died on April 12, 1994, at 5:33 p.m. Petitioner's medical physician expert, Dr. Patel, testified that Respondent, in response to the several nurses' telephone calls concerning "elevated cardiac enzymes" and an abnormal EKG, should have either been in immediate personal attendance at N.W.'s bedside, or should have obtained a proper consultation with a cardiologist, and/or should have called on the intensivist provided by the hospital, and that Respondent's failure to take at least one of these courses of action constituted his failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Respondent's experts agreed that if Respondent had received clear notification of an "acute" condition by EKG, of an elevated CPK-MB or CK-MB, or of clear symptomatology such as chest pain, these were "red flags" telling Respondent that he should aggressively address a cardiac problem. However, all experts, even Dr. Patel, concurred that if the EKG had showed only "consider inferior infarct, age undetermined," that, alone, would not be sufficient to trigger an immediate response from Respondent. Based on all he reviewed, which was not all of the evidence in this case, Dr. Patel acknowledged that if the information relayed by Nurse Waples had been given Respondent earlier he could have met the standard of care by merely requesting that the nurse call a cardiologist for a consultation or call the hospital's intensivist to see N.W. Under these circumstances, Respondent would not even have had to come into the hospital, and therefore his failure to respond could not be attributed to "laziness." Because Respondent acted knowledgeably and appropriately when clearly informed of N.W.'s condition by Nurse Waples, Dr. Patel would not attribute Respondent's lack of response to lack of knowledge or ability. Dr. Patel ultimately opined that because the first set of recreated notes showed repeated notifications to Respondent that N.W.'s blood pressure was falling while her heart rate was rising; this, with all the other information, including notification of chest tightness, should have resulted in a more aggressive response from Respondent, but he conceded that these symptoms occasionally are consistent with hypovolemia, and the undersigned notes that in testimony, only Nurse Murphy clearly testified that he notified Respondent of the disparity in blood pressure and heart rate, and did not specifically state that he mentioned chest tightness. No witness clearly suggested that Respondent had an affirmative duty to inquire whether a CPK or CPK-MB had been administered to N.W., or to inquire if a second EKG had been performed after the first one, or to personally order a subsequent EKG based on the several phone calls as related by the testifying nurses. No one testified that repeated phone calls from nursing staff by itself should have alerted Respondent to a myocardial infarction. Respondent's experts concurred that absent clear notification of an elevated CPK-MB, the information that N.W.'s EKG showed an old myocardial infarction did not require any response beyond the responses Respondent made.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order that Finds Respondent not guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t) in DOAH Case No. 97-3363 with regard to Patient N.W. Finds Respondent not guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(q) and (t), in DOAH Case No. 97-3442 with regard to Patient R.W. Finds Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(m) Florida Statutes, in DOAH Case No. 97-3442 with regard to Patient R.W., and imposes a penalty of two months suspension of license followed by probation of Respondent's license for six months upon such terms and conditions as the Board may impose to correct his record-keeping, and imposes a $1,000.00 fine. See Rule 21M-20.001(2)(m), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Lamb, Esquire Shear, Newman, Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A. Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Albert Peacock, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Department of Health Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent Margie V. Gray Denomme worked the 3- to-11 shift as a licensed practical nurse on the orthopedic floor, 3 North, of West Florida Hospital, in Pensacola. On or about September 9, 1980, respondent was counseled for failing to record the administration of Stadol and Demerol, controlled substances, "on MAR." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. CHART NO. 670613 On December 19, 1980, Dr. Hooper ordered, inter alia, 10 to 12 milligrams of morphine sulfate for a patient (Chart No. 670613) "q 3-4 hrs prn pain." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. According to a Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, respondent administered 10 milligrams of a 15-milligram tubex of morphine (sulfate) to the patient at five o'clock on the afternoon of December 26, 1980, and wasted the other five milligrams, the wastage being witnessed by another licensed practical nurse, Ms. Grant. The December 26, 1980, patient progress notes for the patient, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, contain an entry reflecting administration of medication at five o'clock in the afternoon: [complaining] o[f] pain, medicated [with] M[orphine] S[ulfate] 10 mg IM . . . as stated by M. Denomme LPN." The entry is signed, "G. Grant LPN." The PRN medication administration record for this patient was signed by "G. Grant LPN" for the 3-to-11 shift on December 26, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. CHART NO. 667312 On December 17, 1980, Dr. Batson ordered morphine sulfate for this patient "1/4 to 1/6 IM q 34 PRN Pain." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At quarter of seven on the evening of December 17, 1980, respondent administered 15 milligrams of morphine sulfate to the patient, using one 10-milligram tubex and half of another, the wastage being witnessed by another licensed practical nurse, Ms. Grant, all according to the Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. "v. Robertson, GPN" signed the patient's PRN medication administration record for the 3-to-11 shift on December 17, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The nurses' notes contain this entry for 6:45 (pm.): "c/o pain-Medicated E MS 15 mg IM as stated by V. Robertson GPN-G. Grant GPN." CHART NO. 67194-3 For this patient, Dr. Batson ordered, among other things, "Morphine gr 1/6-gr 1/4 IM q 3-4 h prn pain. or Demerol 50-75-100 mg q 3-4 h IM prn pain. Tylenol #3 po T-TT q 3-4 h prn pain" on December 17, 1980, the date of his admission to West Florida Hospital's orthopedic ward. At half past six on the evening of December 17, 1980, the patient was given two tablets of Tylenol #3. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. He got another two tablets of Tylenol #3 about noon the following day. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. On December 19, 1980, Randy Godwin, a licensed practical nurse at West Florida Hospital, signed a Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record indicating he had administered 15 milligrams of morphine to the patient at 6:20 p.m. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Attached to this Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record is an interoffice memorandum to the hospital pharmacy from Cynthia Ayres, R.N., Assistant Director of Nursing. Ms. Ayres wrote, "I have met with Randy Godwin, LPN and discussed his specific narcotic errors. He was terminated from employment at WFH. I did not allow him to correct these errors." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. There is no indication on this patient's PRN medication administration record that he was given any morphine on December 19, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. No administration of morphine on December 19, 1980, was charted in the patient's progress notes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Respondent administered 75 milligrams of Demerol, the entire contents of a tubex, to this patient at half past seven on the evening of December 19, 1980, according to a Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. (Count II) At nine o'clock that night, the patient was watching television, and had no complaint of pain. JANUARY 24, 1981 As she administered narcotics to patients during the 3-to-11 shift on January 24, 1981, respondent dropped waste paper and other debris in the narcotics drawer of the medication cart she had charge of. Toward the end of the shift, she was in the process of cleaning out the narcotics drawer when she felt something wet. Exclaiming something like, "Oh God, look at this," (T. 156; Testimony of Peat), she retrieved a cardboard container soaked to the point of disintegration with a solution of morphine sulfate, in the presence of Sandra Jean Peat, Randy Godwin, and other nurses who were in the medical room on the orthopedic floor at the time. Respondent recorded these events in an incident report and took the five-tubex plastic sleeve to the hospital pharmacy, about quarter of eleven. She asked the hospital pharmacist, James Thomas Allred, "to swap them out for five good ones." (T. 88.) At Mr. Allred's request, respondent prepared a second incident report in which she stated: When I was cleaning the Narcotics drawer, I picked up some of the packages and felt moisture on my hands. I then took the cartridges out of the PCK & found solution in bottom of Plastic Jacket. Two cartridges had the stopper out & 1 cartridge was broken. The tabs were intact as wit- nessed by R. Godwin LPN. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. After the wet plastic sleeve had been exchanged for a new one, respondent returned to the floor to catch up on charting. By this time, Randy Godwin had left the hospital. Mr. Allred jotted down his own contemporaneous account on the Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record: Replaced a packet of five morphine sulfate 15 mgs. for a packet of five returned by M. Denomme LPN. The packet returned had two syringes with their rubber plungers out. One of these two syringes was broken. All tabs were intact except for the broken syringe. The cart count will remain the same. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. When respondent noticed broken glass in the five-tubex plastic sleeve, after another nurse had seen the sleeve with all tabs intact but before respondent took it to the pharmacy, she opened a tab to fish out syringe shards. The evidence clearly and convincingly established that somebody tampered with more than one of the disposable syringes or tubexes inside the plastic sleeve. Although factory defects . . . do occur, this was not a case of defective manufacture; a needle had punctured the sleeve. As the medication nurse for the 3-to-11 shift, respondent had signed for the narcotics and controlled drugs in the medication cart and taken the keys at three o'clock on the afternoon of January 24, 1981. Petitioner's Exhibit No. When she counted narcotics, before assuming responsibility for them, respondent did not pick up each item. Looking down into the narcotics drawer, she would not necessarily have known whether the bottom of the cardboard container holding two plastic sleeves, each of which contained five 15-milligram tubexes of morphine sulfate, was wet. Respondent was the third person to sign the Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record as "oncoming nurse." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. She had the keys to the medication cart during the entire 3-to-11 shift except when she went to supper or took a break. No patient on the orthopedic floor received any morphine sulfate during the whole 24-hour-period. CHART NO. 682231 Also on January 24, 1981, respondent administered two tablets of Tylenol #3 to this patient at 5:30 and another two tablets of Tylenol #3 at 9:35, according to a Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. This "patient had been medicated with Tylenol #3 since January 20th, and this medication had held her . . . for a period of at least four hours." (T. 55.) Respondent signed out for 75 milligrams of Demerol for this patient but wasted it, in the presence of Randy Godwin. Randy Godwin did not sign the Narcotics and Controlled Drug Administration Record as a witness, however. OTHER MATTERS There was absolutely no evidence that respondent acted strangely or as if under the influence of a controlled substance at any time between September, 1980, and February, 1981. No evidence was adduced regarding anything that happened on or about February 8, 1981. On or about January 30, 1981, Altha Steen Chandler, then a ward clerk on the 3-to-11 shift for the orthopedic floor, told Gail Price that, two weeks earlier, while cleaning in the conference room, she had knocked respondent's purse off a table; that the purse opened when it fell; and that she saw containers of codeine, Demerol, and Benadryl. On hearing this, Ms. Price promptly relayed it to Bonnie Ellen Ripstein, then departmental nursing supervisor over surgical floors. The truth of this allegation, repeated under oath at the hearing (T. 5), was not clearly and convincingly established, considering all the evidence. There was no proof that any codeine was ever missing or unaccounted for at West Florida Hospital at any time between September of 1980 and February of 1981. The only record keeping irregularity with which respondent has been charged regarding Demerol has to do with records kept on January 24, 1981, after the ward clerk claims to have seen a vial of Demerol in her purse. The substances themselves were not in evidence. Ms. Chandler's testimony about their packaging was contradictory: "The demerol and the codeine was in a plastic like container and had red writing on it. The benadryl was in a brown container, and it had yellow writing on it . . . . The benadryl was a glass vial, but the other two vials, seemed like they were plastic to me." (T. 16.) Respondent admits that she regularly carries a vial of Benadryl in her purse; she testified that she is allergic to bee stings. She denied that there was codeine or Demerol in her purse on or about January 16, 1981, and claimed to be allergic both to codeine and to Demerol. At some point,, Ms. Ripstein was given the assignment of auditing narcotics records with which respondent, Randy Godwin, Nancy Torch, and Debra Mann, now Rezzarday, had been involved. None of the four is now employed at West Florida Hospital. This audit turned up most of the charges made against respondent in these proceedings. STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS The nurses at West Florida Hospital were strongly encouraged to finish their duties before shift's end to avoid their employer's having to pay overtime wages. Once, when respondent stayed late to finish her charting, she was reprimanded even though she had clocked out. On the orthopedic floor, a nurse who was "caught up" with her work would chart for other nurses who were busy, indicating on the records that she was relying on oral representations of another nurse. This practice was against hospital policy and does not conform to minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. It is also a departure from minimal standards to waste a controlled substance like Demerol without a witness's signing the control sheet at the time the drug is wasted. It was not shown that any patient suffered any injury at respondent's hands or on her account. The written closing argument of respondent and petitioner's proposed recommended order have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact have been adopted in substance, except where unsupported by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for thirty days. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Moody, Jr., Esquire Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary 119 North Monroe Street Department of Professional Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Allen W. Lindsay, Jr., Esquire Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Post Office Box 586 Milton, Florida 32570 Helen P. Keefe Executive Director Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not Respondent's incense to practice medicine should be suspended, revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Chapters 458 and 893, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein signed May 31, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, stipulations of the parties and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is a medical doctor and has been issued license number ME 0017825. Respondent's last known address is 2361 N.W. 24 Terrace, Miami, Florida 33172. (Stipulation of the parties) Respondent has been licensed as a medical doctor in Florida since 1971. Respondent studied at Havana University School of Medicine and graduated in 1957. He practiced in Cuba from 1957 through 1966. During that period, he was engaged in a general practice and was also a psychiatrist at Clinica Dependiente. While at Clinica Dependiente, Respondent served as a medical director for the rehabilitation of minors and as medical director for Santa Clinica Psiquiatria. Respondent relocated from Cuba and came to Miami on or about February 15, 1967. Respondent sat for the Federation of State and Medical Boards of the United States during September of 1968, the standardized test for graduates of foreign medical schools. During 1968 and 1969, Respondent was engaged as a psychiatrist at Halifax District Hospital in Daytona Beach, Florida. During 1969, he served a rotating internship at Mount Sinai Hospital for one year. Thereafter, he served rotating internships at Doctors, Victoria, Parkway and one other hospital in the Dade County area until approximately 1974. During his tenure at Halifax Hospital, Respondent treated some parties who were drug addicts. Respondent admits to having treated the patients referred to in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Additionally, pursuant to Petitioner's Request for Admissions filed herein, Respondent has admitted the allegations set forth in paragraphs 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45, 52 and 59 of the Administrative Complaint, to wit: Between the dates of approximately January 5, 1981 and December 15, 1981, Respondent prescribed 360 Dilaudid 2/ (Hydromorphone), a controlled substance, pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for Patrick Golden. Between the dates of approximately March 26, 1981 and January 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 1425 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ellen Henderson. Between the dates of approximately March 2, 1981 and November 11, 1982, Respondent prescribed 855 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ronald Chica. Between the dates of approximately May 12, 1981 and January 9, 1982, Respondent prescribed 132 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for James Brannigan. Between the dates of approximately February 19, 1981 and February 2, 1982, Respondent prescribed 965 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Gilbert Fernandez. Between the dates of approximately November 21, 1981 and December 12, 1981, Respondent prescribed 180 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Patsy Gamlin. Between the dates of approximately January 7, 1981 and January 14, 1982, Respondent prescribed 820 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Rudolph Ferguson. Between the dates of approximately February 24, 1981 and February 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 2220 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Michael Salle. Between the dates of approximately February 24, 1981 and February 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 2190 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ronald Weatherington. Dale K. Lindberg, M.D., was tendered and received as an expert in these proceedings in the area of Family Practice, Methadone and Drug Addiction. Dr. Lindberg has been instrumental in establishing a methadone detoxification program at Memorial Hospital in Hollywood, Florida. Methadone is the only legally recognized Schedule II controlled substance used in this country for the treatment of drug addiction. Private practitioners, pursuant to specific federal law, cannot legally administer methadone or any other Schedule II controlled substance for the treatment of drug addition. In order to qualify or be certified to treat drug addicts, application must be made simultaneously with the Federal Food and Drug Administration (to their Methadone Monitor Division), to the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and to the Federal Department of Mental Health and Drug Abuse. Upon certification with these governmental departments, only then can a physician prescribe methadone to a drug addict to be ingested in oral form, once a day. (21 C.F.R. 291.505) Dr. Lindberg received and reviewed the nine (9) patients' records listed in the Administrative Complaint as well as the prescriptions written for those patients by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2-19). Dr. Lindberg, after review, concluded that Respondent inappropriately and excessively prescribed Dilaudid to said patients. Dr. Lindberg opined that Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for those patients for "very little indication" and continued over long periods of time prescribing Dilaudid to those patients. He considered that Respondent was maintaining the patients on Dilaudid in violation of the law. (TR 148, 239). Dr. John Handwerker, M.D., testified as an expert herein on behalf of Petitioner. He has served as the first Chairman of the Department of Family Practice at the University of Florida Family and Community Medicine Programs. He is Chairman of the Family Practice Department of Mercy Hospital in Miami and is Assistant Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Miami. Dr. Handwerker is knowledgeable regarding generally prevailing and accepted standards of family practice in Dade County and was accepted, without challenge, as an expert in the field of Family Practice. Dr. Handwerker reviewed the nine (9) patients' records listed in the Administrative Complaint as well as the prescriptions written for each patient. Based upon Dr. Handwerker's review of those records and prescriptions, Respondent committed gross and repeated malpractice. This opinion stems from Respondent's "inappropriately and excessively prescribing Dilaudid to patient for chronic" while the Physicians Desk Reference clearly stated that Dilaudid should not be prescribed for patients with chronic pain. (Testimony of Dr. Handwerker) SPECIFIC PATIENTS A. Patrick Golden first visited Respondent's office on October 7, 1981. Golden complained of chronic pain arising from trauma suffered while he was involved in an industrial accident. His diagnosis was a compression of the fourth and fifth lumbar disk. He was treated for radiculitis. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid to relieve the pain that patient Golden was suffering from and based on the fact that Golden reportedly had been receiving Dilaudid from a former physician. Respondent conducted an examination of patient Golden and prescribed exercises for him. Respondent did not take x-rays although he states that he observed x-rays which had been taken by Golden's former physician. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for Golden because it was the only drug which "killed the pain, unlike motrin and metrobromate." Nearing the end of Respondent's treatment of patient Golden, his wife began stealing Mr. Golden's drugs. Respondent referred her to a methadone program and obtained a notarized statement from Mrs. Golden to substantiate the fact that she was diverting drugs intended for her husband. Respondent observed that patient Golden was becoming addicted to Dilaudid nearing the end of his treatment although throughout the major portion of his treatment of patient Golden, he felt that while he was dependent on Dilaudid, he was not felt that while he was dependent on Dilaudid, he was not "addicted." Respondent tried to reduce the amount of Dilaudid that he was prescribing to patient Golden without success. Respondent believed that Dilaudid was medically necessary to treat patient Golden due to the suffering he was undergoing from the chronic pain. (Respondent's testimony and Petitioner's Exhibit 20). B. Ellen Henderson was treated by Respondent during the dates of approximately March, 1981 through January, 1982. Henderson suffered with her lumbar spine. Patient Henderson took motrin tablets since her preteen years. Patient Henderson has been treated at several methadone centers and is believed to have been taking approximately 25-40 Dilaudid four-milligram tablets per day. Upon Respondent's first treatment of patient Henderson, he advised her that she was "killing herself and that she needed to reduce that terrible dosage of Dilaudid." Patient Henderson was "treated for pain in the back and to reduce the amount of Dilaudid." In this regard, Respondent tried to reduce her intake of Dilaudid to approximately 8 Dilaudid four-milligram tablets per day. When Respondent stopped treating patient Henderson, he had reduced the amount of Dilaudid that he was prescribing for her to approximately 8 four- milligram tablets of Dilaudid per day. C. Respondent treated Ronald Chica from approximately March, 1981 through November, 1982. Chica was treated for spondylolysis--a degeneration of the vertebrae. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for patient Chica because it relieved the pain. Respondent knew that patient Chica was addicted to the drug Dilaudid. D. James Brannigan was treated by Respondent from approximately May of 1981 through January of 1982. Respondent knew that Mr. Brannigan was dependent upon Dilaudid. Despite this knowledge, Respondent continued to prescribe Dilaudid for Mr. Brannigan in an effort to treat Brannigan's addiction with Dilaudid. Respondent was attempting to ease the withdrawal symptoms that patient Brannigan would suffer if he were immediately cut off from his supply of Dilaudid. E. Respondent treated patient Gilbert Fernandez during the dates of approximately February of 1981 through approximately February of 1982. During that period, Mr. Fernandez suffered from compression features of the ribs and the lumbar region. Mr. Fernandez had a physical and psychological dependence on the drug Dilaudid. Respondent treated patient Fernandez by prescribing Dilaudid tablets for him. Patient Fernandez had been treated at methadone centers in the past and presently was receiving methadone treatment while Respondent was treating him. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid to relieve the pain as well as to ease the withdrawal symptoms that patient Fernandez would undergo if he was immediately taken from the administration of Dilaudid. F. Between the dates of approximately February of 1981 through February of 1982, Respondent prescribed approximately 2,190 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for patient Ronald Wetherington. Patient Wetherington was given approximately 60 tablets every 7 days. Patient Wetherington was addicted to the drug Dilaudid and Respondent ultimately referred him to a methadone center to deal with his withdrawal problems. G. During the period of February, 1981 through February, 1982, Respondent prescribed approximately 2,220 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for patient Michael Sallee. Patient Sallee suffered from and was treated by Respondent for a compression fracture of the fifth lumbar. Mr. Sallee was a cabinetmaker and did considerable lifting in the performance of his work. Respondent knew that Mr. Sallee was dependent upon Dilaudid and continued to prescribe the narcotic during the term of his treatment. Respondent attempted to treat Mr. Sallee's addiction with Dilaudid. H. During the period of January of 1981 through January of 1982, Respondent treated patient Rudolph Ferguson and, during that period, prescribed approximately 820 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for him. Patient Ferguson suffered from and was treated for back and rib problems from an auto accident. Respondent knew that patient Ferguson was dependent upon the drug Dilaudid and knew he was addicted to Dilaudid. Despite this knowledge, Respondent continued prescribing the drug Dilaudid to patient Ferguson to reduce the withdrawal symptoms and "to continue to treat the disease." Respondent referred patient Ferguson to a methadone clinic and, in fact, drove him to a nearby clinic for treatment. I. Respondent treated patient Patsy Gamlin during the period of November 21, 1981 through December 12, 1981. During that period, he prescribed 180 tablets or approximately 60 tablets every 10-14. Respondent administered a drug screen during December of 1981 and did not treat patient Gamlin after December. Dilaudid is a narcotic analgesic; its principal therapeutic effect is relief of pain. There is no intrinsic limit to the analgesic effect of Dilaudid; like morphine, adequate doses will relieve even the most severe pain. Clinically however, dosage limitations are imposed by the adverse effect, primarily respiratory, depression, nausea and vomiting which can result from high dosages. (Physicians Desk Reference, page 1038 [1984 Edition]) The Physicians Desk Reference has this to say about drug abuse and dependence: Dilaudid is a schedule II narcotic. Psychic dependence, physical dependence, and tolerance may develop upon repeated administration of narcotics; therefore dilaudid should be prescribed and administered with caution. However, psychic dependence is unlikely to develop when dilaudid is used for a short time for treatment of pain. Physical dependence, the condition in which continued administration of the drug is required to prevent the appearance of a withdrawal syndrome, usually assumes clinically significant proportions only after several weeks of continued narcotic use, although some mild degree of physical dependence may develop after a few days of narcotic therapy. Tolerance, in which increasingly large doses are required in order to produce the same degree of analgesia, is manifested initially by a shortened duration of analgesic effect, and subsequently by decreases in the intensity of analgesia. The rate of development of tolerance varies among patients. Prior to prescribing a drug such as Dilaudid, a physician should take a full history from a patient and perform a thorough physical examination. The history should include, inter alia, the patient's chief complaint, with questions from the physician to the patient involving areas of past problems with the nervous system, ears, eyes, lungs, chest, respiratory system, GI tract and urinary tract. The physical examination should involve all body systems, including blood pressure, examination of the head, neck, chest and back regions. If patient complains of low back pain, there should be a physical examination specifically involving the low back area before prescribing the scheduled controlled substance here at issue. The past history is important to determine the duration of the problem, any previous medical treatment, examinations or tests by other physicians regarding the lumbosacral or low back area. A physical examination should be performed designed to elicit indications of neurological evolvement, including straight-leg raise tests, impairment of sensation in the extremities tests and other neurological inquiries. Such a full history and a physical examination is prior to initiating a course of treatment involving treatment of chronic pain due to the existence of a wide assortment of other treatment modalities which might treat the root of the problem, rather than merely being pain symptoms. An examination of the Respondent's records and the prescribing patterns of Dilaudid for the patients involved indicates that Respondent simply made insufficient findings upon which to base the decision to prescribe the drug Dilaudid. By prescribing Dilaudid, without an adequate physical examination, or the gathering of detailed patient medical history, would constitute a failure to conform to the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians under these conditions and circumstances. By continuing to prescribe these drugs, without any involved discussion or consideration of the effect the previous course of treatment had had on the patient, other than simple inquiry by Respondent concerning, as example, how the patient was feeling, 3/ also constitutes inappropriate prescribing of scheduled controlled substances, and demonstrates a failure to conform to the generally accepted an prevailing standards of medical practice in the Dade County community. (Testimony of Dr. Handwerker) Respondent has never been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the past. His past professional record reveals that he has a sincere concern for his patients. Throughout these investigative proceedings and the final hearing herein, the Respondent was candid, forthright and truthful. His prescribing of the controlled substance Dilaudid was based on his mistaken opinion that it was medically necessary to prescribe Dilaudid for his patients. Throughout these proceedings, it became clear that Respondent had not kept abreast of the proper course of treatment, detection and proper prescribing patterns for scheduled drugs for the patients be treated. To Respondent's credit, he has been studying the proper prescribing of controlled substances since the initiation of the investigation and the administrative proceedings involved herein. Respondent has never "faked" exams and every prescription that he wrote was based on an office visit and an exam, though a very cursory exam. Respondent did not receive any illegal profits from the sale of drugs nor did he divert, or attempt to divert, any drugs for illegal profit. His office fees, which range from $15 to $25 were not based on the amount of the drugs prescribed but, rather, on the patient's ability to pay. Respondent operates a small general practice with his wife serving as his receptionist. He personally completes all prescription forms with his wife/receptionist. Patients receiving treatment from Respondent are free to get their prescriptions filled at any pharmacy of their choice. Respondent was unaware and the evidence does not show that any of his patients had prior criminal records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the entire evidence of record, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered imposing a written reprimand and one year's probation upon the Respondent Carlos de la Fe, and requiring that during the probationary, he enroll and complete, to the satisfaction of the Board of Medical Examiners, a continuing medical education course concerned with the appropriate indications for and prescription of scheduled controlled substances. 4/ RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 25th day of October, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of federal and state Medicaid funds, and is authorized by statute to provide payments for medical services. Respondent, Marvin H. Ledbetter, is a doctor of osteopathy who is enrolled as a general practitioner provider in the Medicaid Program. His professional office is in Ormond Beach, Florida where he is engaged in family practice. Under the Program, Ledbetter is assigned a provider number (48220-0) which is used to bill Medicaid for services rendered to Medicaid recipients. During calendar year 1981, which is the only time period in question, Ledbetter received $42,809 in Medicaid reimbursements from HRS, of which $28,062 related to fees for Medicaid hospital patients. The latter category of fees is at issue. In order to qualify for federal matching Medicaid funds HRS must meet certain federally-imposed requirements, including the establishment of a program integrity section designed to insure that all Medicaid services are medically necessary. If they are not, HRS is obliged to seek recoupment of funds paid to the provider. This proceeding involves an attempt by HRS to recoup certain funds paid to Ledbetter for hospital services. After providing medical services to various hospital patients, Ledbetter completed and sent in the necessary forms to obtain payment. As noted earlier, these payments totaled $28,062 during 1981. Upon receipt of the forms, HRS input the information from the forms into a computer data base, along with similar information from other Medicaid providers throughout the State. This information included, among other things, the number of admissions, number of discharges, amount paid for hospital services and length of stay. The retention of such data is necessary so that possible overpayments may be detected by HRS through the statistical analysis of claims submitted by a group of providers of a given type. Because Ledbetter's total discharges exceeded the average of other family physicians throughout the State, the computer generated a report which flagged Ledbetter for further review and examination. An HRS analyst conducted such a review of Ledbetter's records, and found his average hospital length of stay for patients to be acceptable when compared to the average physician in the State. This report was forwarded to the HRS peer review coordinator who randomly selected thirty of Ledbetter's patients from the computer, and obtained their patient charts (numbering sixty-eight). Such a statistical calculation is authorized by Rule 10C-7.6(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code. A medical consultant employed by HRS then reviewed twelve of the sixty-eight charts and recommended the records be sent to a Peer Review Committee (PRC) for its review and recommendation. This committee is authorized by Rule 7C-7.61(4)(c), Florida Administrative Code serves under contract with HRS, and is composed of eight members of the Florida Osteopathic Medical Association. It is their responsibility to review the files of physicians whose Medicaid payments are questioned by HRS's program integrity section. When Ledbetter's records were forwarded to the PRC by HRS, the transmittal letter stated that a "study" of his records had been made, and that said study revealed "overutilization of inpatient hospital services" and "excessive lengths of stay." After a PRC review was conducted in early 1984, the records were returned to HRS with a notation that "mild overutilization" had occurred. According to informal guidelines used by the PRC, this meant that Ledbetter's overutilization fell within the range of 0 percent to 20 percent. HRS accepted these findings but for some reason initially determined that a 40 percent overutilization had occurred, and that Ledbetter was overpaid in 1981 by 40 percent for his hospital services. Finding this amount to be inconsistent with the mild overutilization guidelines, HRS arbitrarily added back two days to each patient's hospital stay, which decreased overutilization to 33.8 percent, or $9,505.06 in overpayments. By proposed agency action issued on May 18, 1984, it billed Ledbetter this amount, thereby precipitating the instant controversy. All of the patients in question were from the lower income category, and most were black. Their home conditions were generally less than desirable, and the ability of the parents to supply good nursing care to ill or sick children was in doubt. At the same time, in 1981 Ledbetter was working an average of 56 hours per week in the emergency room of a local hospital and devoted only minimal time to his family practice. Because of this Ledbetter's number of hospital admissions greatly exceeded the norm when compared to general practitioners who engaged in an office practice. Consequently, he received most of these patients through the emergency room rather than his office and was dealing with patients whose socioeconomic conditions were an important consideration. These factors must be taken into account in analyzing Ledbetter's patient records. HRS does not contend that Ledbetter failed to perform the services for which he was paid--rather, it questions only whether some of the admissions were medically necessary and whether some of the lengths of stay were too long. In this regard, conflicting expert testimony was offered by the parties concerning the amount of overutilization, if any. Expert testimony by two local doctors of osteopathy support a finding that only mild overutilization of admissions and lengths of stay occurred. This is corroborated by HRS's expert (Dr. Smith) and by the testimony of its "live" expert, Dr. Conn, who conceded that lengths of stay were only "a little bit too long." The more persuasive testimony also establishes that while mild overutilization falls within the range of 0 percent to 20 percent, 10 percent is an appropriate median in this proceeding. Using this yardstick, Ledbetter should reimburse HRS for 10 percent for his billings, or $2,806.20.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent repay petitioner $2,086.20 in excess Medicaid payments received for calendar year 1981 claims. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May, 1985, 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 16th day of May, 1985.
Findings Of Fact In March of 1978, respondent Michael Lane Kelly began as a registered nurse at the Edward H. White II Memorial Hospital in St. Petersburg. Three weeks later, on or about April 13, 1978, respondent resigned his position, after questions about apparent medication errors arose. At all pertinent times, as a matter of hospital routine (required by law), the pharmacy at Edward H. White II Memorial Hospital sent controlled drug administration record forms along with controlled drugs, whenever such drugs were sent to the intensive care unit or other nursing floors. Before administering a controlled drug, a nurse Is supposed to enter, on the corresponding controlled drug administration record form, the date, time, patient's name, room number, dosage, wastage, prescribing physician's name and administering nurse's name. Good nursing practice also requires that the attending nurse note the administration of a drug to a patient in the patient's medication record and in the nurses notes section of the patient's chart. A nurse is supposed to administer medication pursuant to a physician's orders, but not otherwise, except in extraordinary circumstances. While at work In the Intensive care unit of the Edward H. White II Memorial Hospital, on April 5, 1978, respondent made entries on a controlled drug administration record form, No. 2785, reflecting administration of 75 mg. doses of Demerol (meperidine) to the patient Gardiner at 3:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., and later that night at 11:30 p.m. According to the patient's medication record, 75 mg. doses of Demerol were administered at 3:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m. and at midnight, among other times on April 5, 1978. The nurses notes likewise reflect the administration of 75 mg. doses of Demerol to the patient Gardiner at 3:00 a.m., 6:00 a.m., and 11:30 p.m. on April 5, 1978. On April 6, 1978, respondent made entries on a controlled drug administration record form, No. 2667, reflecting administration of a 50 mg. dose of Demerol to the patient Gardiner at 4:45 a.m. The nurses motes contain a corresponding record of the administration of this 50 mg. dose at 4:45 a.m. on April 6, 1978. The patient Gardiner's medication record does not reflect the administration of Demerol on April 6, 1978. At all pertinent times, the physician's orders called for 75 mg. doses of Demerol every four hours, if needed ("p.r.n."), but "divided [i.e., lesser and correspondingly more frequent) doses I.V., p.r.n." were also authorized. According to the entry respondent made in the nurses notes section of the chart of the patient Passarella, on April 4, 1978, he administered three 75 mg. doses of Demerol to Mr. Passarella on that date: the first dose at midnight, and doses at 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. In force at the time were physician's orders for doses of 50 to 75 mg. of Demerol every four to six hours p.r.n., with authorization to administer the Demerol "in divided doses I.V. p.r.n. Entries on controlled drug administration record form No. 630 reflect the administration of 75 mg. doses of Demerol to the patient Passarella at 12:00 o'clock "A.M." (sic), 1:30 and 3:00 a.m. on April 4, 1978. Respondent's name does not appear as the administering nurse for any of these three doses. The medication notes also reflect administration of 75 mg. doses at midnight, 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. On April 12, 1978, Barbara Alison Buchanan worked on the same shift as respondent, in the same ward, at the Edward H. White II Memorial Hospital. During this shift Ms. Buchanan administered a 10 mg. dose of morphine sulphate to the patient Jaeschke, who was in her charge. From two to three o'clock in the morning, Ms. Buchanan was relieved by her supervisor, but she was on hand to attend to Ms. Jaeschke at all other times. Only at the end of the shift did she notice that respondent had signed out Demerol for the patient Jaeschke. Ms. Buchanan had never asked respondent to give any medication to the patient Jaeschke, and had not noticed respondent's giving any medicine to Ms. Jaeschke during the shift. Respondent made entries on a controlled drug administration record form, number 2860, reflecting administration of 75 mg. doses of Demerol to the patient Jaeschke at 2:15 a.m., 5:00 a.m., and 9:00 a.m., on April 12, 1979. According to the medication record for April 12, 1975, Demerol was administered at 2:15 a.m., 5:00 a.m., and 7:00 a.m. On April 12, 1978, while at work at the Edward H. White II Memorial Hospital, respondent made entries on a controlled drug administration record form, No. 2860, reflecting administration of 75 mg. doses of Demerol to the patient Neville at 12:15 a.m., at 4:00 a.m. and at 6:30 a.m. No wastage was reported on controlled drug administration record form No. 2860. The patient Neville's medication record for April 12, 1978, shows administration of 75 mg. doses of Demerol at 12:10 a.m., 4:00 a.m., and 6:00 a.m. According to an entry respondent made in the nurses notes section of the patient Neville's chart, a 75 mg. dose of Demerol was administered at 12:15 a.m., a 100 mg. dose of Demerol was administered at 2:00 a.m., and a 75 mg. dose of Demerol was administered at 4:00 a.m., on April 12, 1978. At all pertinent times, physician's orders authorized administration of 25 to 75 mg. doses of Demerol. Respondent came to work at the Edward H. White II Memorial Hospital at 11:00 p.m., on April 6, 1978, and worked until 7:00 o'clock on the morning of the following day. According to respondent's own entry in the nurses notes section of the patient Raymond's chart, respondent administered 75 mg. of Demerol to Mr. Raymond at 1:00 o'clock on the morning of April 7, 1978. The same entry reports administration of a 75 mg. dose of Demerol at 3:00 a.m. and a 125 mg. dose of Demerol at 5:00 o'clock on the morning of April 7, 1978. Controlled drug administration record form No. 2785 reflects administration by respondent of 75 mg. doses of Demerol to the patient Raymond at 1:00 o'clock and at 3:00 o'clock on the morning of April 7, 1978. Controlled drug administration record form No. 2784 indicates that a 50 mg. vial of Demerol was used by respondent at 5:00 on the morning of April 7, 1978. According to the controlled drug administration record, half of the 50 mg. vial of Demerol was used for the patient Raymond and half was wasted. No explanation for this wastage appears in the space provided on the form nor is there any indication on the form that this wastage was witnessed. Good nursing practice requires that at least two nurses witness the wasting of narcotic drugs whenever wastage is necessary. According to the patient Raymond's medication record, a 125 mg. dose of Demerol and a 75 mg. dose of Demerol were both given at 5:00 o'clock on the morning of April 7, 1978, but no other dose of Demerol was given until 9:00 on the morning of April 7, 1978. At all pertinent times, a physician's order authorized the administration of 75 mg. doses of Demerol as needed. Before working in St. Petersburg, respondent worked at the Venice Hospital in Venice, Florida. On December 11, 1977, a Ms. Fineberg entered the Venice Hospital as a patient of a Dr. Fisher. Entry number 7 for December 22, 1977, on the physician's orders page of Mary Fineberg's hospital chart is "Demerol 75 I.M. q 3 hr." According to an entry in the nurses notes in the Fineberg chart, which respondent himself made, Ms. Fineberg was admitted to the intensive care unit after surgery at 4:45 p.m. on December 22, 1977. These nurses notes reflect administration at 5:00 o'clock pm. on December 22, 1977 of 75 mg. of Demerol intramuscularly by "M. Kelly R.N." According to the same notes, "M. Kelly R.N." administered a second intramuscular injection of 75 mg. of Demerol to Ms. Fineberg at 7:45 p.m. on December 22, 1977. The nurses notes report that this injection had "minimal effect." Additional 75 mg. doses of Demerol were reported by respondent to have been administered at 9:10 and 11:00 p.m. on December 22, 1977. A narcotic and controlled drug administration record form reflects 75 mg. doses of Demerol administered by respondent to the patient Fineberg at 5:00, 7:45, 9:10 and 11:00 p.m. on December 22, 1977. The patient's medication record likewise reflects administration of 75 mg. doses of Demerol at 5:00, 7:45, 9:10 and 11:90 p.m. on December 22, 1977. Respondent worked at Venice Hospital on Christmas Day of 1977, from 3:00 in the afternoon until 11:30 at night. Also on duty at that time was Janet Choukas, a registered nurse. When respondent first came on duty Christmas Day, Ms. Choukas noticed nothing unusual about him. Later on in the shift, after respondent had supposedly given several patients medicines, Ms. Choukas found respondent vague, uncomprehending, and euphoric. She saw him take medicine and a syringe and enter a bathroom. At one time he left the hospital building saying he was going to lock his car.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license, number 85850-2, for two years. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of January, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert W. Pope, Esquire 689 Central Avenue Second Floor St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
