The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of chiropractic medicine, in violation of section 460.412, Florida Statutes; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Board is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of chiropractic medicine in the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Dr. Rodriguez was a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 9812 on September 17, 2009. Dr. Rodriguez's address of record with the Department is 1840 Northwest 122nd Terrace, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026. Patient D.H. was a 22-year-old patient of Dr. Rodriguez. She had been referred to Dr. Rodriguez by her mother, also a patient. Patient D.H. was the one who suggested initial treatment with Dr. Rodriguez. She had seen him about six times over a period of two months. On or about June 6, 2012, Patient D.H. presented to Dr. Rodriguez for chiropractic treatment. Dr. Rodriguez began treating Patient D.H. in one of the treatment rooms in his practice. As she was turning over on the examination table, Patient D.H.'s left breast was exposed. Dr. Rodriguez commented on her breast being exposed. Patient D.H. replaced her breast under her tank top. As Dr. Rodriguez continued with his treatment, her breast was again exposed, prompting Dr. Rodriguez to say that Patient D.H. was getting him excited, or words to that effect. Dr. Rodriguez touched both of her breasts with his hands. He then kissed her breasts. Patient D.H. testified that she was in shock because his actions were sudden and caught her off guard. Dr. Rodriguez left the room. Dr. Rodriguez's staff placed Patient D.H. in a massage chair in a common area of the office. After Patient D.H. stated that she still had pain, she was taken into another room for an additional treatment on her shoulder. In the new room, Patient D.H. lay down on the treatment table. After placing some patches on her shoulder, Dr. Rodriguez again touched her breasts. He placed his hand inside her pants and inserted two fingers into her vagina. She testified that she told him to stop. Dr. Rodriguez again told her how she excited him. Patient D.H. later testified that she was in shock and unable to react. Dr. Rodriguez and Patient D.H. made a "pinky promise" not to say anything, and then Dr. Rodriguez washed and dried his hands. He placed a Chinese herbal remedy above her left breast, told her to sleep, and left the room. When he returned, Patient D.H. began crying. Dr. Rodriguez gave her a hug and kissed her on the cheek. While Patient D.H. was in a treatment room with Dr. Rodriguez, he engaged in sexual contact with her which was outside the scope of her medical treatment. Other than as described, Patient D.H. made no complaint to Dr. Rodriguez, nor did she complain to an office staff member. Patient D.H. left Dr. Rodriguez's office and started driving to her cousin's house. She then pulled over and called the police and her mother to tell what had happened. Patient D.H.'s mother testified that she received a phone call from her daughter about 5:00 p.m., saying that Dr. Rodriguez had molested her, and immediately went to meet her. Patient D.H.'s parents took her to the Cooper City district office of the BCSO to report the crime. On June 11, 2012, in conjunction with a criminal investigation by the BCSO, Patient D.H. made a controlled telephone call to Dr. Rodriguez while in the presence of a detective. During the conversation, Dr. Rodriguez said that he did not want to discuss things on the telephone because he could not be sure he was not being recorded, and asked Patient D.H. to come see him at the office. Patient D.H. said she would be uncomfortable seeing him and that is why she had called on the telephone. Their conversation included words to the following effect: Patient D.H.: Do you . . . do you really do this to your other patients? Dr. R.: I don't. That's why I'm . . . I couldn't sleep this weekend. I . . . I . . . I'm exhausted. I'm physically and mentally exhausted. Patient D.H.: But why me? Dr. R.: I don't know. It just happened, hon. That's what I'm telling you, it just, it just happened. Patient D.H.: I just want to know why me? Dr. R.: I don't . . . I don't know . . . I, I just don't know. Um . . . you know, and I wasn't sure because you know, um . . . you know you, you um, when you came about, you showed me your breasts, um . . . . Patient D.H.: It wasn't . . . you know, it was an accident, I wasn't trying to personally . . . . Dr. R.: No, but you know, but when you did the other part, you know, then I thought that that was um. Patient D.H.: What other part are you talking about? Dr. R.: No dear, no, your breasts, and that was an invitation . . . or an open, you know, "here" and for some reason we were talking about stuff, it's a blank to me. I do not remember . . . if you asked me . . . it was just, I do not remember, um, how exactly everything happened, but it just happened. Patient D.H.: Don't you remember . . . don't you remember putting your hand on my breasts and putting your two fingers in my vagina? Do you remember that? Dr. R.: Yes. Patient D.H.: Yes, you do remember that, right? Dr. R.: Hon, I don't even want to, I don't even want to go there. I don't even want to be going there, because I didn't feel comfortable with that at all. Patient D.H.: How, how do you think I feel? I'm not comfortable at all myself. Dr. Rodriguez later engaged the services of a forensic audio engineer who generated an enhanced audio version of the above-described controlled telephone call. During this call, Detective Wernath's voice can be heard in the background, coaching Patient D.H. through portions of the conversation. The criminal investigation also found that a DNA sample from a buccal swab taken from Dr. Rodriguez matched DNA collected from Patient D.H.'s breast. As Mr. Rhodes testified, the chance of a false positive was less than one in 30 billion. Dr. Rodriguez has admitted the sexual activity, while maintaining that his conduct was invited by Patient D.H.'s actions. Specifically, Dr. Rodriguez testified that he believed that Patient D.H. intentionally made her breast "slip out" of her tank top several times, that it was not an accident. He testified that when he told her that he could see her exposed breast, she responded, "Oh, I don't mind." He testified that Patient D.H. was being flirtatious and, by her provocative actions, was encouraging his behavior. Dr. Rodriguez's testimony that he believed Patient D.H. encouraged his sexual misconduct is supported by his statements directly to Patient D.H. on the recorded call, when he thought no one else was listening, and is credible. But regardless of what Dr. Rodriguez may have perceived, or the degree, if any, to which Patient D.H. was complicit in Dr. Rodriguez's sexual misconduct, her involvement would not excuse his actions. A chiropractor is not free to engage in sexual activity with his patient even if the patient encourages or consents to it. There was scant evidence in the record to suggest that Dr. Rodriguez accepts or understands this professional responsibility. Patient D.H.'s testimony as to Dr. Rodriguez's actions was clear and convincing. Her testimony as to his actions is credited and is confirmed by his own statements in the controlled telephone call and at hearing. Respondent's touching of Patient D.H.'s breasts with his hand and mouth and insertion of his fingers into her vagina constituted engaging in sexual activity with a patient and was sexual misconduct in the practice of chiropractic medicine. Patient D.H. engaged in a civil lawsuit against Dr. Rodriguez. She has since executed a release in that case. Dr. Rodriguez has not previously been subject to disciplinary action by the Board. Dr. Rodriguez credibly testified that he has installed video cameras in the treatment rooms to ensure that there will be no further incidents. He noted that the purpose of these cameras was to protect him. Dr. Rodriguez demonstrated little or no remorse, the focus of his spirited testimony being directed towards the provocative conduct of Patient D.H., not his own inappropriate actions. Revocation or suspension of Dr. Rodriguez's professional license would have a great effect upon his livelihood.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Health, Board of Chiropractic Medicine, enter a final order finding Dr. Enrique Rodriguez in violation of section 460.412, Florida Statutes; revoking his license to practice chiropractic medicine; and imposing costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice medicine should be revoked, or otherwise disciplined, on the ground that he, as alleged, violated the Medical Practice Act, Section 458.1201(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1978), and Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1979), by engaging in immoral, unprofessional con duct, incompetence, negligence, or willful misconduct, including failure to conform to the prevailing medical practice in the field of psychiatry.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at hearing, the following facts are determined: I. The Doctor Respondent, Michael L. Solloway, M.D. ("SOLLOWAY") is licensed to practice medicine in Florida under License No. 11845, issued by the Board of Medical Examiners. He obtained his medical degree from the University of Miami, interned in the United States Air Force, was honorably discharged, and returned to Miami in 1968 to begin a three-year residency training program at Jackson Memorial Hospital. In 1971, he opened a private office at Suite 720, Dupont Plaza Center, Miami, Florida, and has continuously engaged in the practice of psychiatry at that location since that time. (P.E. 4.) II. The Patient On May 9, 1973, SOLLOWAY began treating, Sandra A. Lerner, a 19-year- old female. She continued receiving long-term dynamic psychotherapy from SOLLOWAY for over three (3) years--until May 16, 1977--the date when the complained-of sexual misconduct allegedly occurred. The only significant interruption of psychotherapy treatment occurred between September 30, 1974, and July 11, 1975, for reasons which are immaterial here. (Testimony of Lerner; P.E. 1, 4.) In 1973, Sandra Lerner was diagnosed by SOLLOWAY as suffering from a personality disorder--known as borderline personality. Her disorder manifested itself in poor impulse control, somatic symptoms (such as severe headaches), difficulty in relating to others and forming personal relationships, occasional hystrionic behavior, including severe rage reactions and depression when thwarted by others, and no-addictive dependence on drugs. Prior to her referral to SOLLOWAY, she had been hospitalized after an overdose of Quaaludes and received psychological testing from Gloria O. Greenberg, Ph.D., a psychologist. These tests indicated that Miss Lerner was an infantile, egocentric, hostile individual--one who had been lonely, withdrawn, and alienated for a long period of time. She had a conflicting relationship with her father which caused her serious sexual problems and an intense fear of male sexuality. Dr. Greenberg predicted that, in psychotheraphy, Miss Lerner could be expected to be childish, demanding, and manipulative. (Testimony of Lerner; P.E. 1, 2, 4.) III. The Psychiatrist-Patient Relationship During the course of her psychotherapy, Miss Lerner was a sick and troubled woman, erratic, unpredictable in behavior, and desperately needing to form and maintain a personal relationship. Her therapy sessions with SOLLOWAY, held once or twice a weak, allowed her to experience complex psychological phenomenon known as "transference". She began to feel sexual fantasies and form a personal attachment toward SOLLOWAY; she idealized him and saw him as a nurturing father figure. "Transference" is frequently experienced in psychotherapy; it can be a valuable therapeutic tool to help patients understand and overcome their illness. In this case, SOLLOWAY was aware that "transference" was taking place during his extended therapy sessions with Miss Lerner. However, instead of maintaining a professional detachment, SOLLOWAY began to experience personal and subjective feelings toward Miss Lerner, a form of "counter-transference". Prior to May 16, 1977--the date of his alleged sexual misconduct with Miss Lerner--SOLLOWAY had twice discussed with Miss Lerner that, if they engaged in dating and a social relationship, their psychotherapeutic, doctor-patient relationship must end. 2/ (Testimony of Lerner, Hamilton, Holzberg; P.E. 4, 9.) IV. Sexual Activity During Therapy On May 16, 1977, at 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., Miss Lerner arrived at SOLLOWAY's office for her regular psychotherapy appointment. She was "high", having just taken one-half a Quaalude capsule. After entering his office, their conversation turned to the nature of their relationship. SOLLOWAY told her that he could be her boyfriend if she understood that he could never again be her doctor. 3/ After acknowledging such, she went to the door and locked it, as instructed by SOLLOWAY. At the time, she sensed what he was going to do, and felt he was testing her; she feared his rejection. He then told her to take her clothes off; after she complied, he did likewise, and both engaged in sexual intercourse. (Testimony of Lerner; P.E. 4, 9.) After that day, Miss Lerner no longer received psychotherapy treatment from SOLLOWAY. They began a stormy social relationship and briefly cohabited from June, 1978, to January, 1979, when SOLLOWAY moved out. His rejection made her hostile, angry, and vindictive. She began a campaign to harass and annoy SOLLOWAY at his home--resulting in the issuance of a temporary injunction to restrain her. Her harassment of SOLLOWAY was consistent with her personality disorder--a disorder with which she continued to be afflicted. (Testimony of Lerner, Hamilton, Holzberg; P.E. 4, R.E. 1, 2.) V. Prescription of Drugs to Sandra Lerner: Inappropriate Medical Practice SOLLOWAY prescribed the following mood altering drugs for Sandra Lerner on the dates and in the amounts indicated: DATE DRUGS NO. OF PILLS 7/5/78 Sopor 7 7/12/78 Sopor 7 9/22/78 Quaalude or 15 Sopor 9/30/78 Quaalude or 7 Sopor 10/17/78 Quaalude or 7 Sopor 11/27/78 Quaalude or 7 Sopor 11/30/78 Quaalude or 3 Sopor 12/23/78 Quaalude or 14 Sopor 12/27/78 Percodan 30 1/2/79 Quaalude or 14 Sopor (Prehearing Stipulation of Respondent, Paragraph V, Testimony of Lerner.) Miss Lerner had a drug abuse history well known to SOLLOWAY, including Seconal and Quaalude overdoses in 1973 and a Quaalude overdose in January, 1977. By prescribing the drugs indicated in paragraph 7, supra, to Miss Lerner, a person known by him to abuse Quaaludes, SOLLOWAY engaged in an inappropriate medical practice; furthermore, the prescriptions of tranquilizers and mood altering drugs on December 27, 1978, and January 2, 1979, were excessive in quantity, irrespective of the patient's ailment which they were intended to remedy. (Testimony of Shellow.) SOLLOWAY prescribed the above drugs to Miss Lerner at a time when she was his close friend, not his patient. Such prescription of drugs to a non- patient does not constitute a deviation from an acceptable standard of medical practice, as long as the prescription is for the benefit of the individual. (Testimony of Lerner, Rose; P.E. 4.) Evidence was offered to show that SOLLOWAY used certain drugs for recreational purposes and that he prescribed drugs to others for such purposes. Such evidence, except insofar as it applies to prescriptions to Miss Lerner, is outside the scope of the DEPARTMENT's charges against him. To the extent the DEPARTMENT asserts that the prescription of drugs to Miss Lerner, as indicated above, was contrary to acceptable medical practice because she subsequently used them for recreational purposes, such assertion is unsupported by persuasive evidence. The only testimony offered to establish such a preposition was that of Miss Lerner; her credibility was impeached by her subjective demeanor, bias, evasiveness, and expressed hostility toward SOLLOWAY. (Testimony of Lerner.) VI. Medical Ethics: Sexual Activity Between Psychiatrist and Patient Prohibited Sexual activity between a psychiatrist and patient is unethical, and proscribed by the Principles of Medical Ethics, with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry (1978 Edition Revised) . The Annotations, supra, stress the paramount importance of the psychiatrist's duty to avoid gratifying of his own needs by exploiting a patient: This becomes particularly important because of the essentially private, highly personal, and sometimes intensely emotional nature of the relationship established with the psy- chiatrist. Further, the necessary intensity of the therapeutic relationship may tend to acti- vate sexual and other needs and fantasies on the part of both patient and therapist, while weakening the objectivity necessary for control . . . Section I, Paragraph 1 and 2, Principles with Annotations. VII. Investigation and Hearing by South Florida Psychiatric Society At all times material hereto, SOLLOWAY was a member of the South Florida Psychiatric Society, Inc., a district branch of the American Psychiatric Association. Membership in the Society is limited to psychiatrists practicing in the south Florida area. Miss Lerner filed with the Society a complaint charging SOLLOWAY with unethical conduct. On August 14, 1979, the Ethics Committee of the Society met to investigate the complaint and formulate a recommendation. (testimony of Holzberg; P.E. 10.) At the Ethics Committee hearing, SOLLOWAY was charged with violating Section 1, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry by (1) exploiting his patient and gratifying his own needs by engaging in sexual activity with Miss Lerner; and (2) prescribing drugs (Quaalude and Dexedrine) to Miss Lerner for non- therapeutic purposes. Miss Lerner testified, and was aided by Norma Hamilton, M.D., a psychiatrist assigned to assist in presenting her complaint. SOLLOWAY was accorded the right to confront his accuser, was represented by counsel, and was present throughout the hearing. He testified in his own behalf, and answered questions of the Committee members. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Committee unanimously sustained the charge that SOLLOWAY engaged in sexual intercourse with Miss Lerner, his patient, and exploited her to gratify his own needs, it unanimously concluded, therefore, that he was guilty of unethical conduct in violation of Section I, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry and recommended (by 4-1 vote) that he be suspended from the Society for a period of 12 months. As to the other charge, the Committee concluded that insufficient evidence was presented to support the allegation that SOLLOWAY prescribed drugs for non-therapeutic purposes, and recommended that no action be taken. On August 14, 1979, the Executive Council of the Society considered, and adopted the Committee's recommendations; by letter dated August 24, 1979, the Council recommended to the American Psychiatric Association that SOLLOWAY be suspended from membership for 12 months. That suspension recommendation is still pending, and no final action by the Association has been taken. (Testimony of Holzberg, Hamilton; P.E. 9, 10.) VIII. Termination and Sexual Activity: Breach of Accepted Standard of Care The medical ethic which prohibits sexual activity between a psychiatrist and patient applies only if a psychiatrist-patient relationship exists. The essence of SOLLOWAY's defense is that the psychiatrist-patient relationship between he and Miss Lerner ended, by mutual agreement, during the beginning of the May 16, 1977, therapy session, and prior to any sexual activity: Q. (By Mr. Glass) Dr. Solloway, you indi- cated that, in your opinion, your pro- fessional relationship as a psychiatrist to Sandra Lerner as a patient was ter- minated on May 16 of 1977. In what fashion was it terminated, how was it terminated? A. (Dr. Solloway) I suggested that it be terminated, and she agreed. Q. (Mr. Glass) And in your opinion it was terminated on that date? A. (Dr. Solloway) Absolutely. (Deposition of Michael L. Solloway; Pg. 54, P.E. 4.) Under acceptable psychiatric practice, termination of the psychiatrist-patient relationship--the ending of the psychotherapeutic bond-- requires more than the consent or acquiescence of the patient, or the stopping of formal therapy sessions. In psychotherapy, termination refers to a psychological process which takes place between the doctor and patient. 4/ They work through this transitional process together. It does not occur at any particular moment of time; the manner and length of time required will depend on the circumstances of the case--such as the condition of the patient, and nature of the doctor-patient relationship. When a patient suggests ending the psychotherapeutic relationship, the psychiatrist's task is to be supportive and allow the patient to work through the process. Not infrequently, the desire to end psychotherapy is influenced by the patient's mental or emotional illness. (Testimony of Hamilton, Holzberg, Shellow.) Under the circumstances of this case, the manner in which SOLLOWAY attempted to abruptly terminate his psychiatrist- patient relationship with Miss Lerner deviated from and breached the prevailing and accepted psychiatric standard of care and practice in his community. SOLLOWAY recognized, prior to May 16, that he was losing his objectivity toward Miss Lerner and that he was experiencing subjective feelings toward her. He was reciprocating her "transference" with his own "counter-transference"; nonetheless, instead of working through with his patient an acceptable termination of their relationship, he used her consent to termination as an opportunity to act out his "counter-transference" --by engaging in sexual activity with her. SOLLOWAY has admitted that his attempt to terminate the relationship was ineffective: Dr. Nixon: "I can understand that at the time your judgement was clouded by the counter-trans- ference. As you look back on it do you believe now that treatment can--that a doctor-patient relationship can be terminated where there is such a transference and counter-transference in that fashion?" Dr. Solloway: "No, obviously not. " (Pg. 62, P.E. 9.) (Testimony of Hamilton, Shellow, Holzberg; P.E. 4, 9.) SOLLOWAY's attempted termination of his psychiatrist- patient relationship with Miss Lerner on May 16, 1977, deviated from the accepted standard, and was not effective. By his subsequent acting out of his own counter-transference toward Miss Lerner, he sexually exploited his patient to gratify his own needs. Such conduct by SOLLOWAY was unethical, unprofessional, and deviated from the prevailing and acceptable practice in the field of psychiatry. His actions caused Miss Lerner a lengthy period of anxiety, and it will be difficult for her to reestablish a relationship with another psychiatrist which is necessary for effective treatment. (Testimony of Hamilton, Holzberg, Shellow, Lerner; P.E. 4, 9.)
Conclusions Conclusions: Respondent violated Sections 458.1201 (1)(m), Florida Statutes (1978), 458.331(1) Florida Statutes (1979), by attempting to terminate the psychiatrist-patient re- lationship with a female patient, and then sexually exploiting her for the purpose of gratifying his own needs. Insufficient evidence was presented to establish that his subsequent prescription of drugs to that patient violated the Medical Practice Act. Recommendation: Suspend Respondent's license to practice medicine for a period of one (1) year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the DEPARTMENT suspend Respondent Michael L. Solloway's license to practice medicine, License No. 11845, for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of November, 1980.
Findings Of Fact On March 7, 1977, Smith completed and forwarded to the Board his application for licensure as a licensed practical nurse pursuant to the provisions of Section 464.21(1), Florida Statutes. Question eleven of that application asks whether the applicant has ever been arrested and convicted for an offense other than a minor traffic violation. Smith answered the question yes and in the space provided for an answer in the application detailed his arrest and conviction for driving while indoxicated in the State of Florida. No other notation is made on the application form regarding any other arrests and convictions. However, Smith did in fact have another arrest and conviction occurring in January, 1964, in the State of Michigan. At that time, Smith was found guilty of the crime of taking indecent and improper liberties with a female child under the age of sixteen, that being a violation of Section 750.336, Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated. The trial court found that Smith took his eleven year old niece to bed with him and "placed his penis between the girl's thighs and started to masturbate over her." Had Smith committed the same act in Florida for which he was convicted in Michigan in 1964, he could have been charged under Section 800.04, Florida Statutes, proscribing lewd, lascivious or indecent assault or acts upon or in the presence of a child under the age of fourteen. Smith argued that his conviction of a felony in Michigan should not automatically be equated to the commission of a felony offense in Florida because the acts which he committed in Michigan may not have been viewed in Florida at that time as "lewd, lascivious or indecent" as defined by Florida case law. Such definition is found in Boles v. State, 27 So.2d 293 (Fla. 1946), wherein the Court stated that the words lewd, lascivious and indecent are synonyms and connote wicked, lustful, unchaste, licentious, or sensual design on the part of the perpetrator. And the Court in Buchanon v. State, 111 So.2d 51 (Fla. 1959), defined these terms as meaning an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence. Smith argues that in the area of sexual attitudes and mores universal agreement is impossible and that local community standards must be applied to determine the nature and quality of any given act. This argument is specifically rejected. While such an argument may have application to the expression of ideas, it is inapposite to Smith's conduct in Michigan which had the potential of causing severe emotional damage to another person. Smith's conduct was without doubt lewd, lascivious and indecent. In defense of the charge of fraud or deceit in the procuring of his license, Smith introduced into evidence what purports to be a rough draft of a supplement to his application in which the details of his Michigan conviction are set forth. Smith and members of his family testified to events which, if true, would establish that Smith had intended to include the supplement to his application and that it had been inadvertently lost. While it is not concluded as a matter of fact that Smith actually intended to file a supplement to his application, the evidence introduced by Smith is sufficient to raise doubt and to cause the Hearing Officer to conclude that evidence of Smith's fraudulent intent, when viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, is insufficient to establish fraud or deceit.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, a licensed physician, committed violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, sufficient to justify the imposition of disciplinary sanctions against his license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Grayson C. Snyder, a licensed physician at all times pertinent to these proceedings, holding medical license number ME 0004035. Respondent's last known address is 635 West Central Avenue, Blountstown, Florida 32424-1909. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was the director of the Calhoun County Public Health Department and the Liberty County Public Health Department. He split his time equally between the two health departments, working at each for two and a half days per week. Respondent saw approximately 16 patients per week in the family planning clinics in the two health departments. Patient S.M. S.M. was unsure of the date of her examination by Respondent. As conceded by Respondent's proposed finding of fact and corroborated by S.M.'s medical records, S.M. was seen by Respondent at the Blountstown or Calhoun County health department on October 11, 1989. Following a full physical examination by Respondent, inclusive of a pap smear, the nurse left the examination room with the pap smear specimen. Respondent and S.M. were left alone. S.M. was sitting on the examination table with the sheet wrapped around her. Respondent asked S.M. if she "watched dirty movies where people done it like dogs and ate one another." S.M. was discomfited and shocked by the question. Later, after leaving the examination room, she told a nurse at the facility that she did not like Respondent. S.M. felt that the nurse did not want S.M. to be heard by any other persons nearby. Patient E.B. Patient E.B. was seen by Respondent on August 17, 1990, at the Calhoun County Health Department. Following performance of a pap smear procedure, the nurse left the room with the specimen. Respondent touched E.B. between her legs and asked her if she liked sex, how many times a night did she have sex and how many orgasms she had. E.B. was "throwed for a loop" and gave no answer. She had not asked any questions of Respondent to precipitate such sexual inquiries. Patient M.H.A. On December 13, 1990, Patient M.H.A. was seen by Respondent for a gynecological examination. M.H.A. was 14 years of age at the time. Following departure of the nurse from the examining room with the pap smear specimen, Respondent was left alone with the patient. Respondent asked M.H.A. if her boyfriend had a big penis and if her boyfriend liked her because she had big breasts. Shocked and surprised at these questions, but unsure of their propriety since this was her first gynecological examination, M.H.A. gave Respondent no answer to his questions. Upon the nurse's return to the examination room a short time later, M.H.A. dressed and left the room. Patient R.H.P. On August 23, 1989, R.H.P. was examined by Respondent. Again, when the nurse left the examination room with the pap smear specimen leaving Respondent alone with the undressed patient, Respondent began asking questions. He asked the female patient if she ever had an orgasm. Being 14 years old, she replied that she didn't know what that was. Respondent asked R.H.P. if she went with her boyfriend for the size of his penis. R.H.P. said no. Respondent left the room, the nurse returned and R.H.P. dressed and left the facility. L.H. is the mother of Patient R.H.P and Patient M.H.A. At final hearing, L.H. related that M.H.A. told her the questions asked by Respondent during the child's examination. Patient R.H.P. confirmed to her mother that she had been asked similar questions. L.H.'s testimony is credible and corroborative of her daughters' testimony with regard to Respondent's conduct. Respondent Respondent is 74 years of age and has dedicated his professional career to the practice of medicine in the Blountstown area. As a matter of routine, Nurses Pratt and Johnson left Respondent alone with his female gynecological patients at the times in question in these proceedings when they left the examination room with specimens destined for laboratory analysis. While she never heard Respondent ask inappropriate questions, Nurse Pratt admits that some patients informed her that they were uncomfortable with examination by Respondent and never wanted to be examined by him again. Respondent's denial that he asked the questions about which his patients testified, is not credited. As established by the testimony of Elga White, M.D. and Harvey Gardy, M.D., experts testifying on behalf of Respondent and Petitioner, respectively, the questions posed by Respondent to the four patients which form the subject of this proceeding were inappropriate in the absence of initiation of such sexual inquiries by the patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing and in accordance with Petitioner's penalty guidelines set forth in Rule 61F6-20.001, Florida Administrative Code, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in counts one and two of the Administrative Complaint and imposing discipline upon Respondent's license as follows: Imposition of an administrative fine of $5,000. Suspension of Respondent's license to practice medicine for a period of not less than six months with reinstatement upon satisfaction of conditions to be imposed by the Board of Medicine. Imposition of a probationary period of two years following reinstatement with probationary conditions to be determined by the Board of Medicine, inclusive of a condition that Respondent have a female attendant present at all times when he is with a disrobed female patient in an examining room. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-13. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. Respondent's Proposed Findings. 1.-6. Adopted. 7.-16. Rejected, unnecessary. 17. Incorporated by reference. 18.-20. Rejected, unnecessary, with exception of last sentence of proposed finding #20, which is not supported by weight of the evidence. Pratt did receive complaints from patients about inappropriate questions. See, Tr.153. 21. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 22.-27 Rejected, unnecessary and subordinate to HO findings. 28.-29. Adopted. 30.-38. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 39. Adopted. 40.-47. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. Adopted. Rejected, unnecessary. 50.-54. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. 55.-64. Rejected, argumentative, credibility with regard to the comments made to R.H.P. clearly sides with R.H.P. Proposed findings are subordinate to HO findings. 65.-72. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings, argument. 73.-74. Rejected, unnecessary. 75.-77. Rejected, argument. 78.-82. Rejected, subordinate to HO findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael P. Spellman, Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1674 Tallahassee, FL 32302-1674 Francesca Plendl, Senior Attorney D B P R 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing was whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more of questions number 41, 44, 70, or 72 of the National Council for the Certification of Acupuncture, (NCCA), multiple choice examination administered on May 18, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Aaron Benjamin sat for the May 18, 1991 NCCA acupuncture certification examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation and achieved a passing score on the clean needle technique portion of the examination. However, he received a score of 69 on the written portion of the examination for which a score of no less than 70 was passing. Thereafter, Petitioner challenged four of the written questions on the exam; questions number 41, 44, 70 and 72, alleging that in each case, the question was worded in such a manner as to allow for more than one correct response and that his response, different from the accepted response, was also correct. This allegation was made notwithstanding the written examination instruction that there was "one and only one correct choice for each question." In his challenge, Petitioner also asserted that the examination instructions provided by the NCCA did not limit the textbooks which might be used for preparation for the examination. He claimed that many of these texts encompassed different philosophies of traditional Chinese acupuncture. By the same token, he alleged, the NCCA also did not specify which school of acupuncture should be referenced when answering the challenged questions. There are numerous different acupuncture texts available for reference which are written through different schools of acupuncture and which represent the differing philosophies of acupuncture practitioners. Utilization of differing schools and differing philosophies could affect an examinee's answer choice. Petitioner also asserted as a defect in the examination process the fact that he received his copy of the examination preparation booklet only two weeks prior to the examination rather than the 30 days which should have been provided. He raised these complaints to officials of both the Board of Acupuncture and the NCCA without success. Question 41 in issue reads: If a patient comes to you with a swollen puffy face and complains of scanty urination, which of the Zang-Fu would you first suspect to be disordered? Lung Kidney Spleen Urinary Bladder Petitioner answered this question with "3 - Spleen" while the Department's answer was "1 - Lung." He claims the question does not specify whether the diagnosis of the patient's condition should be from the beginning of the condition or at the time of examination. He asserts, however, that the spleen is an organ with which this condition may be associated since the accumulation of fluid in the interiors causing edema (swelling) is a syndrome of the spleen and incontinence of the urine also relate to that organ. On the other hand, as indicated by the Department's expert, the lung dominates the vital functions of the entire body and greatly influences all its functional activities. It controls and disperses all fluid in the system. The accumulation of water in a patient with a puffy face and scanty urination, therefore, comes from the lung which is responsible for dispersion of water which might, originate from the spleen. Consequently, "Lung" is the correct answer. Question 44 in issue reads: Bouts of dizziness that continue when a patient lies down are attributed to: deficiency excess heat cold Petitioner answered this question with "1 - deficiency", claiming that either excess or deficiency could result in a patient remaining dizzy after lying down. He asserts the wording on the examination question does not provide sufficient information regarding the syndrome to allow the examinee to differentiate whether an excess or deficiency syndrome resulted in the patient's condition. He claims that if an individual suffered from a deficiency syndrome, and the body energy did not stabilize after the patient reclined, the dizziness would continue. The Department's expert notes that the correct answer is "2 - excess" because in a deficiency syndrome, the vital energy, when one lays down, will come back. With an excess, however, even if one lays down, the excess will not go away. Dr. Celpa admits, however, that in western medicine, Petitioner's answer would be correct. However, in traditional Chinese medicine, which deals in philosophy (theory), one has to accept the specifics given by the Chinese. The correct answer, for the purposes of this examination is, therefore, "2 - excess." Question 70 in issue reads: A tight and forceful pulse could indicate: Damp of the Spleen and Stomach. hyperactivity of the Yang of the Heart. penetration of Cold into Liver Channel. Yin deficiency of the Heart. Petitioner answered "1 - Damp of the Spleen and Stomach, while the Department's correct answer was "3 - penetration of Cold into the Liver Channel." He notes that cold is indicated by a slow pulse and penetration of cold into the liver channel is indicated by a deep, wiry and slow pulse. A forceful pulse, he claims, can sometimes mean an accumulation of dampness in the spleen and stomach not allowing the body to metabolize food for distribution to other organs. If one has damp one has an accumulation. Petitioner answered as he did because of the study guide definitions. The study guide directs the examinees to use its definitions and there was no word for forceful included therein. Dr. Celpa, on the other hand, contends "a penetration of cold in the lower channel" is the correct answer as asserted by the NCCA. Most written authorities on the subject indicate that a tight and forceful pulse relates to the liver. Included in these authorities are The Web That has No Weaver; Fundamentals of Chinese Medicine; Acumoxa; and Pulse Diagnosis. Therefore, he concludes that cold in the liver is the closest answer. He asserts, contrary to claims of the Petitioner, that the definition page contained in the examination packet contains all one needs to take the examination. The packet is put together by the Board of Acupuncture and directs definitions outlined in The Web That has No Weaver be used. This gives little room for error. Nonetheless, he admits this question should have more information available in it to assist the examinee and is a poor question. Question 72 in issue reads: Which of the following will cause a foul or offensive smell of the discharge or excretion? Damp disorder combined with Cold. Damp disorder without Cold. Heat disorder of the Xu (deficiency) type. Heat disorder of the Shi (excess) type. Petitioner's answer to this question was "1 - Damp disorder combined with Cold", and the correct answer, as indicated by the Respondent was "4 - Heat disorder of the Shi (excess) type." Petitioner's answer was based on the statement in Traditional Chinese Medicine to the effect that where there is damp there is odor. There is no reference therein to damp heat, so, looking at the remainder of the authoritative statement, he concluded that dampness is associated with odor. On the other hand, Dr. Celpa indicated Petitioner's answer is wrong because damp is not necessary for odor. The heat disorder is the primary one giving an offensive odor. The Shi type adds to it. While damp could have a foul odor, the heat (Shi (excess)) is the only one which gives the discharge. All of the possible answers show something wrong, but the association of heat and excess best meets the test. Consequently, Petitioner's answer could not be correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Acupuncture denying Petitioner's request for additional credit. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-926 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as an accurate description of the thrust of Petitioner's complaint. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as Petitioner's justification for his answer but rejected as appropriate authority. Accepted as an accurate description of Petitioner's answer and the correct answer, and as Petitioner's justification for his answer, but rejected as appropriate authority. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as an accurate description of Petitioner's justification for his answer and as a restatement of Respondent's position, but rejected as appropriate authority. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted as Petitioner's justification for his answer but rejected as appropriate authority. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur J. Springer, Esquire 215 Verne Street, Suite A Tampa, Florida 33601 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Acupuncture 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
