The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against her, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed respiratory care practitioner, having been issued license number TT 0006767 by the State of Florida. The National Board for Respiratory Care (hereinafter "NBRC") is a voluntary certification board for respiratory therapists and pulmonary technologists. The NBRC administers examinations including the Certified Respiratory Therapy Technician (hereinafter "CRTT") Examination. The CRTT is an entry-level examination for respiratory care practitioners. Obtaining a passing score on that examination and receiving a CRTT certificate is a requirement for licensure in many states. On July 19, 1992, Respondent took the CRTT examination. She obtained a passing score and received a CRTT certificate from the NBRC in July, 1992. Based upon Respondent's obtaining her CRTT certificate, Respondent was licensed as a respiratory therapist in the State of New Jersey. Subsequent to the July 19, 1992, CRTT examination, the NBRC received information that persons sitting for that examination possessed a copy of the examination in advance of the test date along with a purported "answer key." Based upon an investigation and on statistical analyses performed on the examination answers of every candidate sitting for that examination, the NBRC determined that Respondent was one of the individuals who had received a copy of the examination in advance of the test date. On November 24, 1992, the NBRC wrote to Respondent advising her of its investigation and determination. The letter specifically advised Respondent that the NBRC had invalidated the results of her CRTT examination and had so informed the State of New Jersey. That letter specifically instructed Respondent to return her CRTT certificate immediately and that the NBRC no longer recognized her as a Certified Respiratory Therapy Technician. The letter further notified Respondent that the NBRC's Judicial and Ethics Committee would be conducting a parallel investigation. The letter was sent to Respondent by certified mail, and she received it on December 8, 1992. On June 26, 1993, the Judicial and Ethics Committee of the NBRC held a hearing regarding the action to be taken against Respondent. By letter dated October 14, 1993, that Committee advised Respondent, by certified mail, that she was suspended from admission to all NBRC credentialing examinations for an indefinite period of time and that that decision would be reconsidered only if she returned her CRTT certificate as had been repeatedly requested of her by the NBRC. That letter further advised her that if requested by the State of New Jersey, the NBRC would re-test her for licensure purposes only but that under no circumstances would she be re-tested for national certification unless she returned her CRTT certificate to which she was not entitled and the Committee reconsidered her case. Respondent refused to return her invalidated certificate to the NBRC. She continues to refuse to return her invalid certificate, thereby precluding herself from any opportunity to retake the CRTT examination for national certification purposes. On July 28, 1993, the New Jersey State Board of Respiratory Care filed an administrative complaint against Respondent and others, seeking revocation of Respondent's New Jersey license to practice respiratory care for her failure to successfully complete the NBRC examination due to the invalidation of her examination results by the NBRC. By Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment entered December 22, 1993, the New Jersey State Board of Respiratory Care determined that Respondent lacked valid test scores from the NBRC, a prerequisite to licensure in the State of New Jersey. In a Supplemental Order entered on February 1, 1994, the New Jersey State Board of Respiratory Care determined that although Respondent's license to practice respiratory care in New Jersey was revoked, Respondent would be permitted to sit for the CRTT examination to be administered in July 1994, in order to meet licensure requirements in New Jersey. Pursuant to New Jersey's request, the NBRC scheduled Respondent to retake the July 1994 CRTT examination. Respondent failed to appear. Respondent has never retaken that examination. On February 24, 1993, Respondent submitted to the Florida Board of Medicine a licensure application seeking licensure by endorsement. In her licensure application, Respondent represented that she was certified as a respiratory care practitioner by the NBRC and that she was certified on July 19, 1992. As part of her application, Respondent submitted a copy of her CRTT certificate. She did not disclose that her CRTT certificate had been invalidated. Question numbered 5 of that application asked Respondent if she had ever been notified to appear before any licensing authority for a hearing on a complaint of any nature. Respondent answered that she had not. Although Respondent had been notified in September or October 1992 that the State of New Jersey was proceeding against her license, she did not disclose that fact on her licensure application. Respondent's answers to the questions contained in her February 1993 Florida licensure application were made under oath and bear her notarized signature, attesting that her answers are true, correct, and complete. On July 26, 1993, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a respiratory care practitioner based, in part, on her invalidated CRTT certificate. Honesty is an important trait for a practicing respiratory care practitioner, and dishonesty in the practice of respiratory care is potentially dangerous to patients. Respondent was previously licensed by the State of Florida as a respiratory therapist, non-critical care status. That license was revoked on February 6, 1990, due to Respondent's submission of fraudulent information in her application for licensure. Specifically, when Respondent applied for that license, she did not possess either a high school diploma or a graduate equivalency diploma, a requirement for licensure. Respondent, therefore, submitted a copy of her husband's graduate equivalency diploma, which she had xeroxed and altered to reflect her name instead.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking her respiratory care practitioner license number TT 0006767. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 30th day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-5183 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-21 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 3-5, 7, 9-11, and 13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a recitation of the charges against her. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2 and 15 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 6 and 8 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 12 and 14 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible, competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Herbert B. Dell, P.A. 4801 South University Drive Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33328
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent has been convicted or found guilty of a crime directly relating to the practice of respiratory care or his ability to practice respiratory care and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensed respiratory therapist, holding license number RT 0000039. He has not been previously disciplined. Following his completion of a training program in respiratory care at the University of Central Florida in June, 1979, Respondent began his full-time employment at the Orlando Regional Medical Center as a neonatal ICU therapist became a supervisor three years later. Almost three years after becoming a supervisor, in April, 1985, Respondent became an educational coordinator. He was employed in this capacity at the time of the events in question. During his employment at the Orlando Regional Medical Center, Respondent met a nurse, whom he began to date. The relationship endured for about six years. At first, they got along well, but, after about four years, the relationship deteriorated. Seeking marital counselling, Respondent and his female companion were told that each was manipulating the other and their relationship involved unhealthy, obsessive aspects. On the evening of June 12, 1990, Respondent confronted his female companion about another man whom she was dating later that evening. In a jealous rage when she did not return to her home when she had said she would, Respondent drove to her house and entered without permission, using a key that he had obtained without her consent. Respondent found the woman, who had since returned home, and initiated an angry, violent altercation. Respondent grabbed the woman, inflicting four or five bruises and scratches. The marks were mostly on the woman's arms with one small scratch on her neck. Ripping the woman's clothing, Respondent forcibly removed a tampon from her vagina. He lied to her that he had already killed her new male friend and threatened to kill her. When he finally calmed down, he and the woman spoke for sometime before he left the house. Once he left, the woman called the police and reported what Respondent had done. She was very frightened by the incident and was crying when the police arrived. After being arrested on various charges, Respondent eventually pleaded guilty to the felonies of aggravated battery and burglary of a dwelling. The sentencing section of the final order states that "adjudication of guilt was withheld, a finding of guilt entered." The judge sentenced Respondent on November 5, 1990, to 24 months' community control followed by 10 years' supervised probation. To date, Respondent has completed his sentence satisfactorily, including counselling to enable him to control his anger. He has since married a woman other than the woman who was the subject of the incident described above, and they have recently had a child. Numerous coworkers, supervisors, friends, and family testified in support of Respondent. His professional colleagues uniformly described Respondent as a highly competent practitioner, whose practice was never affected by the above-described incident or other acts of ill-temper. Respondent has above-average skills as a respiratory therapist and has ably trained other persons in the profession. All of the witnesses described Respondent as a supportive, patient, and caring person for whom the subject incident was out of character. The loss of his license would have a severe effect upon Respondent's ability to support is family. If allowed to continue to practice as a respiratory therapist, Respondent would not represent any risk to the public or his patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $1000 and placing Respondent on probation for a period of five years, during which time Respondent shall undergo such supervision and monitoring as the Board deems suitable. ENTERED this 8th day of November, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McCray, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Francesca Plendl, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Mark S. Blechman Lubet & Blechman 209 East Ridgewood St. Orlando, FL 32801
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined. At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Eileen F. Rowan, was a licensed respiratory therapist having been issued license number RT 0001346 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine (Board). She has been licensed by the Board since September 1987 and has been a practicing member of the profession since 1981. When the events herein occurred, respondent was using her license in the State of Florida. She now resides in Gilbertville, Pennsylvania. On July 17, 1990, respondent plead nolo contendere to the charges of unlawfully purchasing a controlled substance, crack cocaine, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Based upon those charges, on February 12, 1991, the Board suspended her license until such time as she established her ability to practice respiratory care with skill and safety. In March 1991, respondent agreed to participate in a recovery program sponsored by the Physicians Recovery Network (PRN), a program for impaired health care professionals. Her physician monitor was Dr. Kenneth W. Thompson, the clinical director of an addictive disease unit at Charter Springs Hospital in Ocala, Florida. She also executed an advocacy contract with PRN wherein she agreed to participate in a twelve-step recovery program, including attending various meetings and submitting to random drug testing. Based on a recommendation by Dr. Thompson in September 1991 that respondent had made "dramatic progress" while participating in the rehabilitation plan, the Board reinstated respondent's license and concurrently placed it on five years' probation with PRN involvement and the implementation of a practice plan. The probation order provided that "respondent shall not consume, inject, or ingest any controlled substances unless prescribed or administered by another practictioner authorized by law to prescribe or dispense controlled substances." The order also provided that respondent "attend AA or NA meetings on a frequency of at least one meeting per week" and "attend Cadeucus meetings on a frequency of not less than one meeting per week." This action was formalized in a Board order entered on October 19, 1991. Shortly thereafter, respondent began employment as a respiratory therapist with Citrus Memorial Hospital (hospital) in Inverness, Florida. Under the terms of her employment, she was required to submit to random drug screening. On March 12, 1992, Dr. Thompson reported to PRN that respondent had been taking prescribed narcotics due to surgery on her hand and had missed several scheduled meetings. He accordingly recommended a PRN reevaluation. A few weeks later, respondent executed an updated PRN advocacy contract containing essentially the same conditions and requirements as were in the original contract. On May 13, 1992, and in compliance with her employment agreement, respondent provided two urinalysis samples for testing. One was collected by her employer, placed in a tamper-evident bag and sent to SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories in Tampa, Florida, for testing. Using a 50 nanogram per milliliter cutoff level, the urine sample tested positive for the presence of marijuana. A subsequent confirmatory test on the same sample yielded positive results for the presence of marijuana. The second urine sample was tested by Doctors & Physicians Laboratory in Leesburg, Florida, and used a higher cutoff level of 100 nanograms per milliliter. It tested negative. Even so, because the first sample tested positive, respondent was dismissed from her position with the hospital. This positive finding also constituted a violation of a condition of the Board's order of October 19, 1991, regarding the prohibition against consumption of controlled substances. Except for the one positive result on May 13, 1992, however, there is no evidence that respondent tested positive on any of the other numerous drug screens during her probationary period. Respondent has challenged the results of the first sample on the grounds the testing may have been in error and an appeals referee for the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security accepted that argument in favorably ruling on her unemployment compensation claim. However, that ruling is not binding here, and testimony by Dr. Amos for the testing laboratory established the validity and reliability of the test results. On May 20, 1992, respondent telephoned Dr. Thompson and advised him that she had been terminated from her position at the hospital because she had tested positive for marijuana on a drug screen. Although later denied by respondent, she also admitted to him at that time that she had "occasionally" been using marijuana. Armed with this information, the Board suspended respondent's license on an emergency basis on June 8, 1992, pending the outcome of this proceeding. Expert testimony by Dr. Thompson and Dr. Roger A. Goetz established that as of May 1992, respondent was suffering from chemical dependency and required treatment for that addiction. Therefore, it may be inferred from the evidence that respondent is unable to practice respiratory therapy with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of her use of chemicals. There is no evidence of record that respondent's one-time confirmed use of marijuana during the spring of 1992 caused any danger to the public or injury to a patient. Except for the disciplinary order entered in 1991, there has been no other disciplinary action against her license since 1987. Also, there are no complaints from former employers or patients regarding her quality of work during the last eleven years. At the same time, it should be noted that respondent depends upon her license for her livelihood. Indeed, since the emergency suspension of her license, respondent has been unable to secure meaningful work in Florida or Pennsylvania. She now desires to return to Florida and resume her profession. Finally, respondent states that she is now "clean" of drugs and in essense wants a second chance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding respondent in violation of Subsections 468.365(1)(i) and (x), Florida Statutes, and that her existing probation terms and conditions be extended for an additional year. Subject to such terms and conditions as the Board may deem appropriate, the emergency suspension of respondent's license should be lifted and she be allowed to resume her profession. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4897 Petitioner: 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 5-9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 10. Rejected as being unnecessary. 11-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 13. Rejected as being unnecessary. 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 22-23. Rejected as being unnecessary. 24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 25-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 37-38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Note - Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordinate, or not supported by the more persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy J. Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Randolph P. Collette, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ms. Eileen F. Rowan 2821 Leidy Road Gilbertville, Pennsylvania 19525
Findings Of Fact Petitioner and Respondent operate two of the four medical equipment suppliers located on Fowler Avenue in Fort Myers. The other two companies are Fort Myers Surgical Company and American Medical Oxygen Supply Company. Petitioner received an erroneous statement from Summit Medical Supplies, Inc., containing two invoice numbers for which Petitioner had no record. When asked for a copy of these invoices, Summit Medical Supplies, Inc., provided Petitioner with copies of invoices made out to Respondent, both of which had been marked paid on the face of the invoices. These two invoices were addressed to Home Oxygen Services and Medical Equipment, Inc., 4536 Fowler Avenue, Fort Myers, Florida (Exhibit 1). Petitioner's address is 3559 Fowler Avenue and the erroneous statement addressed to Home Medical Supplies, Inc., was sent to this address. On one occasion Petitioner received a call from Smalley Transportation regarding delivery of hospital beds to Petitioner which, it was soon discovered, were addressed to Respondent. In his testimony Shawn Bayes referred to several incidents involving customers and several incidents involving businesses which had contacted his company regarding equipment belonging to Respondent. None of these incidents had been observed by the witness but had been told to him by other employees. Timely objection to this testimony was made. On one occasion a suction pump had been delivered to a patient who later requested Petitioner to pick up equipment. Upon arrival it was learned Respondent had inadvertently picked up Petitioner's pump with the other equipment provided by Respondent. The suction pump was returned to the premises from which it had been picked up by Respondent. Respondent acknowledged there has been some confusion by customers regarding whose equipment they were using but that confusion was not limited to Petitioner and Respondent but also involved the other medical supply companies. Once explained to a customer, the confusion did not recur. All of the equipment supplied by the parties is clearly identified by tags on the property containing the name and address of the supply company. All of the medical equipment suppliers with businesses in Fort Myers supply similar equipment to predominantly elderly patients, approximately 50 percent of which are covered by Medicare. These patients are referred to the supplier by doctors, hospitals, and home health agencies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Petition of Home Medical Equipment Company be dismissed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 12th day of April, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Shawn D. Bayes, President Home Medical Equipment Company 11899 90th Avenue North Seminole, Florida 33542 Vincent D. Sapp, Esquire Post Office Box J Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Honorable George Firestone Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as a physician, license number ME 67443, based on a two-count violation, Sections 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented in this proceeding, the following facts are found: Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician, having been issued license number ME 67443 by the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent practiced as an emergency room physician. When treating a patient, an emergency room physician has a duty to rule out the most serious life- threatening conditions. Pulmonary embolism is a blood clot, which forms in or travels to the lungs. It is a life-threatening condition. A thrombus is a blood clot that forms at a particular site, while an embolus is a piece of a thrombus that breaks off and wedges itself in another artery. The most common type of thrombus that causes pulmonary embolism is a deep vein thrombus, which originates in the lower extremities (legs). Once a thrombus forms in the leg, an emboli can break off from the thrombus, travel through the bloodstream and wedge itself in the lungs, creating a pulmonary embolism. On June 13, 1995, Patient R.D. presented to the emergency room of the Daytona Beach Medical Center in Daytona Beach, Florida, at approximately 7:35 p.m. Patient R.D. was a 41 year-old obese male who weighed 305 pounds. Patient R.D. presented to the emergency room complaining of chest pain (rated 3-4 on a scale of 10) and shortness of breath beginning at 8:30 a.m. that day. The patient was seen by a nurse who prepared a "triage nursing assessment." The nurse documented the following about Patient R.D.: Chief complaint of nausea and diaphoresis (cold sweat) earlier in the day; pulse rate of 112, which indicated tachycardia; elevated respiratory rate of 28; labored breathing; clear breath sounds; and trace pedal edema. The "Implementation: Nursing Action" noted that Patient R.D. had marked dyspnea (labored breathing). He was immediately placed on oxygen. At 7:40 p.m., Respondent, the emergency room physician on duty, examined Patient R.D. During Respondent's subjective examination of Patient R.D., Respondent documented: Chest pain all day, heaviness in the center of the chest with some nausea, negative vomiting; negative numbness and sweating; negative history of this [sic]; positive shortness of breath all day with chest pain, but can work; negative history of asthma; negative history of heart disease; family history positive for cardiac disease (mother in her 60's); social history (smoked a joint 24 hours ago). The patient reported that despite his complaints, he was still able to work. Patient R.D. was obese and had recently smoked marijuana, two of the secondary risk factors associated with pulmonary embolism. Patient R.D. did not present to Respondent with the classic signs and symptoms of pulmonary embolism. While taking Patient R.D.'s history, Respondent did not document any history of cholesterol levels, cigarette smoking, recent leg injury, prior blood clots, or sedentary time periods. Respondent failed to document important aspects of Patient R.D.'s family and social history. Respondent failed to adequately document the history taken. Respondent performed a complete physical examination of the patient, including an examination of his legs. During Respondent's objective examination of Patient R.D., Respondent documented: lungs clear to auscultation (no rattles or wheezing) with good alveolar BS bilaterally; cardiac S1S2 and distant; abdomen obese and negative tender; legs with 1+ pedal edema; negative CVA tender (no tenderness over kidneys); no nuchal rigidity (no neck stiffness). The patient had no diaphoresis in the emergency room. Respondent then ordered a chest X-ray, an electrocardiogram (EKG), blood work (CBC), and electrolyte panel and cardiac enzymes. Respondent also had a pulse oximetry performed. Major risk factors of pulmonary embolism include: history of malignancy, recent leg injury, prior blood clots including deep vein thrombosis, and sedentary time periods. Secondary risk factors include: obesity and smoking, including marijuana smoking, and elevated cholesterol levels. The signs and symptoms of pulmonary embolism include, but are not limited to, shortness of breath, chest pain or pressure, diaphoresis (sweating), increased respiratory rate, and tachycardia (abnormal rapid heart rate). Although Respondent testified that he considered pulmonary embolism as one of his top five differential diagnoses, the patient's clinical signs and symptoms were insufficient for Respondent to have to rule out a pulmonary embolism. As the signs and symptoms of a pulmonary embolism can wax and wane, it is not an easy diagnosis to make. When examining the legs of a patient suspected of having a pulmonary embolism, the standard of care requires a physician to look for swelling, edema, tenderness and a cord, which would be a clotted vein. In order to determine tenderness, a physician must palpate the legs of the patient. Also, when examining the legs, a physician should perform an examination by stretching the calf to look for tenderness (called Homan's sign). Respondent performed a palpation of the patient's legs, but did not perform an examination for Homan's sign. Respondent's physical examination of Patient R.D. was adequate under the circumstances. The standard of care requires that a physician document pertinent positives and negatives in the medical records. Swelling, edema, tenderness and results of palpation are pertinent positives and negatives. Although Respondent performed an adequate physical examination of Patient R.D., Respondent failed to adequately document the physical examination. In this case, the pertinent positives or negatives should have included the results of the leg examination including, but not limited to, swelling, tenderness, palpation for cords and tenderness, and motion of the foot. Specifically, Respondent did not document whether he palpated the legs of Patient R.D., or whether the examination revealed any swelling or tenderness in the legs. Moreover, Respondent did not document Patient R.D.'s respiratory status. Also, Respondent did not document any history of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), which is a pertinent positive or negative. An EKG reveals the rhythm of the heart. Respondent ordered an EKG and reviewed the computer printout of the EKG results, which revealed non-specific ST changes. Respondent noted the non-specific ST changes in his notes. The EKG also revealed sinus tachycardia and S1-Q3-T3 changes. Tachycardia on an EKG is abnormal, unless the cause is determined. In order to treat tachycardia, a physician must determine the underlying cause, which directs the physician to the appropriate treatment plan. Respondent did not determine the underlying cause of Patient R.D.'s tachycardiac condition. S1-Q3-T3 reveals a strain on the right side of the heart. Respondent did not document the tachycardia or S1-Q3-T3 changes, or determine their underlying cause. Respondent did not recommend admission for Patient R.D. even though Patient R.D. had an abnormal EKG. Respondent also ordered blood work, a chest X-ray, and a pulse oximeter test. Respondent and the Radiologist interpreted the chest X-ray as negative. The patient's pulse oximeter initially revealed a 91 percent rating, a subsequent pulse oximeter revealed a 92 percent. A 91-92 percent pulse oximeter is low in a 41 year-old male, unless the patient has a long standing history of chronic lung disease. Respondent did not order arterial blood gases or a lung scan for Patient R.D. An arterial blood gas test is more accurate than a pulse oximeter. Respondent should have ordered an arterial blood gas only if the pulse oximeter did not improve. After the breathing treatment, Patient R.D.'s pulse oxmeter was 96 percent, which is a significant improvement. A physician must order a lung scan after looking at a constellation of all factors put together, including increased heart rate, low pulse oximeter, increased respiratory rate, abnormal EKG and symptoms of chest pain and shortness of breath. Respondent did not order a lung scan for Patient R.D., even though it could have been ordered. A lung scan is the standard regimen for diagnosing a pulmonary embolism. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Patient R.D. was nauseated and vomited light green bile. Respondent treated Patient R.D. with Proventil, a nebulizer, which is used to treat and relieve bronchospasms. Patient R.D. felt better after the Proventil treatment. Respondent diagnosed Patient R.D. with Hyperactive Airway Disease and Diabetes. Although an emergency room physician does not admit patients, an emergency room physician can recommend to the private physician that a patient be admitted for further evaluation. A private physician relies heavily on the information presented by the emergency room physician. If the private physician disagrees with the emergency room physician recommendation, then the private physician must come to the hospital to personally examine and discharge the patient. Respondent contacted the patient's family physician, advised him of the patient's condition, but did not recommend Patient R.D. be admitted. In the early morning hours of June 14, 1999, Patient R.D. died as a result of a bilateral pulmonary embolism. Respondent's care and treatment of this patient was supported by the testimony of two experts. They indicated that the major risk factors for pulmonary embolism are malignancy, surgery or any trauma to the long bones; none of which were present in this case. The secondary risk factors are pregnancy, cigarette smoking and obesity. Pulmonary embolism is seen most often in orthopaedic surgery patients and, secondarily, in patients with fractured long bones or multiple trauma including the lower extremities. The only sign and symptom that is seen with any regularity in the presentation of pulmonary embolism patients is shortness of breath. Other signs and symptoms occur with such infrequent regularity as to be non-specific and can occur in a plethora of other illnesses. Patient R.D. did not have any of the primary risk factors for pulmonary embolism and any reasonable physician would not think of pulmonary embolism as a primary diagnosis or even as a conceivable diagnosis in a patient with these present symptoms. The experts agree that Patient R.D.'s relatively minor complaints of shortness of breath would have even given Respondent a clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism. When examined, Patient R.D. was not diaphoretic or apprehensive, had normal color, with skin warm to the touch. The patient simply did not present as one in acute distress secondary to sudden pulmonary embolism as the Petitioner contends. At discharge the patient had improved so significantly that his oxygen saturation rate was near normal and respiration rate near normal. Dr. R. Latanae Parker had reviewed the autopsy and drew several conclusions from it. He interpreted the medical examiner's microscopic examination of the clot to indicate that they were "fresh" and mobilized within minutes of death. Dr. Parker testified that this patient died of a sudden death by a sudden pulmonary embolism that was massive enough to occlude blood flow such as there was not adequate profusion to the coronary system and to the cerebral system. Based on Patient R.D.'s condition before discharge from the emergency department, Dr. Parker testified it was not necessary for Respondent to have pulmonary embolism as one of his differential diagnoses or to have otherwise ruled out that condition. Petitioner has presented no credible testimony which would establish that the deep vein thrombosis (DVT) seen on autopsy was diagnosable in the emergency room by gross exam, palpation or otherwise. The DVT seen on autopsy was silent and, therefore, undiagnosable in the emergency room as Patient R.D. did not have a history of trauma, swelling, inflammation or discoloration of his lower extremities. The autopsy supports Dr. Parker's testimony because the leg circumferences were found to be equal and there was no indication of swelling, discoloration or evidence of trauma. Petitioner's standard of care expert, Dr. Jay Edelberg, provided testimony which actually refutes several allegations in Petitioner's complaint. Specifically, Dr. Edelberg agreed that Respondent's initial assessment of Patient R.D.'s heart was adequate and that Respondent did not ignore Patient R.D.'s cardiac status. Dr. Edelberg also agreed that it was not inappropriate for Respondent to have provided this patient with the Proventil breathing treatment and that a diagnosis of a chronic airway condition was unnecessary in order to treat with such nebulizer. Dr. Edelberg also agreed that Respondent accurately interpreted the EKG and chest X-ray and his findings were properly recorded in the chart. Respondent appropriately diagnosed Patient R.D.'s condition and pursued the appropriate plan of treatment of the patient's condition. Respondent appropriately evaluated the patient's history and complaints which the patient had provided to the triage nursing staff. Respondent performed an appropriate assessment of the patient in the emergency room including obtaining a history of his subjective complaints; his pertinent medical history; and an objective physical evaluation of the patient while in the emergency room. Respondent appropriately ordered the necessary tests to evaluate the patient's condition, based on his examination including an EKG, portable chest X-ray, blood chemical profile, complete blood count, cardiac enzymes and pulse oximeter test. Respondent appropriately interpreted the aforementioned diagnostic studies and tests in establishing his diagnosis and treatment of the patient. Respondent appropriately diagnosed the patient with hyperactive airway disease (i.e., bronchospasm) and properly treated that condition with Proventil while in the emergency room. Respondent appropriately diagnosed the patient with diabetes based on his elevated blood sugars and appropriately coordinated the treatment of that condition with the patient's family practitioner on the following day. Respondent appropriately assessed the patient's risk factors for pulmonary embolism, including his examination of the patient's legs to determine the presence of any signs of deep vein thrombosis. Respondent did consider the patient's report to the triage nurses that he had been diaphoretic earlier in the day. Respondent did consider the patient's complaints of chest pain and appropriately treated him for that condition. Respondent appropriately considered the patient's cardiac status and fully assessed the possibility that the patient's condition was of cardiac origin. Respondent appropriately interpreted and considered the non-specific changes in the patient's EKG in the course of his diagnosis and treatment of Patient R.D. Respondent did not violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by not referring the patient to a cardiology or pulmonary specialist. Respondent appropriately discharged the patient from the emergency room, as admission to the hospital was not indicated under the circumstances based on the patient's significant improvement. Respondent's treatment plan for Patient R.D. was appropriate for his presenting complaints. Respondent did not violate Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill or treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances in the case of Patient R.D. Respondent did not adequately maintain medical records which justified his plan of treatment for Patient R.D. to include the history; examination results; test results; drug prescribed, dispensed and administered; and documentation of his having conferred with Patient R.D.'s reported primary care physician.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order, in which: Respondent is found not guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. Respondent is found guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes. Respondent be disciplined, as follows: Administrative Fine of $500.00. Reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol A. Lanfri, Esquire Kristy Johnson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Art C. Young, Esquire Rissman, Wiesberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A. 201 East Pine Street, 15th Floor Orlando, Florida 32801 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating entry into the profession of licensed respiratory therapists. It is also responsible for regulating the practice standards of such professionals, including enforcing the disciplinary provisions embodied in Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, at all times pertinent hereto, has been a licensed respiratory therapist. He holds License No. TT0003956 issued by the State of Florida. He was employed as a technician in the Respiratory Therapy Department of Citrus Memorial Hospital (CMH) in Inverness, Florida, during an 18-month period ending on or about January 23, 1996. A respiratory therapy technician, such as the Respondent, is frequently called upon to make independent decisions and exercise a great deal of discretion and autonomy with regard to the clinical support provided to patients to whom they are assigned. Therapists working an evening shift, as the Respondent did, at times critical hereto, generally exercise a greater degree of autonomy and discretion than the technicians working on day shifts. The Respondent, in his capacity as a respiratory therapy technician (RTT), with CMH, frequently cared for critically-ill patients. In his capacity as an RTT, the Respondent makes decisions which affect the health, safety and welfare of patients to whom he is assigned. The Respondent was first terminated from CMH for an unexcused absence of more than five days during the month of August, 1995. He maintained that he had a personal emergency which called him out of state at that time. The time period, however, corresponds to his own assertions concerning the period when he was "binging" on crack cocaine. He was re-hired by CMH on the condition that any further problems with absenteeism would result in his immediate termination. On or about January 22, 1996, he reported to work at CMH and advised his supervisor, Clarence Davis, that he would return to work after going to cash his paycheck. He left CMH during his shift on that occasion, ostensibly for that purpose, but did not return to work at all that evening. He did not return several calls made to his pager. He never offered his employer any explanation for his absence. His employment was, therefore, terminated on or about January 23, 1996. The Respondent was aware of the fact that his failure to return to work, based upon the previous warning, would result in his termination from CMH. On or about January 26, 1996, the Respondent acknowledged that he had a drug-dependency problem and voluntarily admitted himself to Charter Springs Hospital (CSH) in Ocala, Florida. This followed a five-day binge on crack cocaine, which was the reason for the January, 1996 absence from work. Upon admission to CSH, the Respondent's urine drug screen was positive for cocaine and cannabinoids, or marijuana. Upon his admission to CSH, the Respondent reported a previous history of treatment for drug abuse in 1987 at the KOALA facility in Bushnell, Florida. Kenneth Thompson, M.D., a physician and addiction specialist, who practices at CSH, is certified in addiction medicine and practices almost exclusively in that area. The doctor evaluated the Respondent upon his admission to CSH on or about January 26, 1996. The evaluation consisted of a diagnostic interview by Dr. Thompson and a physical examination performed by Larry Rick, a physician's assistant. The Respondent advised Dr. Thompson that he had recently been on a five-day binge on crack cocaine and had been unable to return to his work with CMH as a respiratory therapist. The Respondent further revealed that he had spent approximately $1,200.00 buying the drug on his recent binge on crack cocaine. He also acknowledged that he smoked marijuana on a daily basis. The Respondent appeared agitated and distraught during the evaluation by Dr. Thompson and advised the doctor that he had had suicidal thoughts and was depressed. He explained that he felt out of control with his cocaine use and revealed that at times, he thought he might smoke crack cocaine "until my heart blew out." During his stay at CSH, he was also psychologically tested by William Benet, Ph.D. The Respondent advised Dr. Benet, as he had Dr. Thompson, that he had used crack cocaine in the past and that he had recently been on a five-day binge using crack cocaine. He also advised Dr. Benet that he had the habit of smoking marijuana on a daily basis. The Respondent was thus admitted to the Chemical Dependency Unit at CSH with a diagnosis of cocaine and marijuana dependence. After that admission, he experienced withdrawal symptoms associated with his use of crack cocaine. After completing a five-day detoxification and evaluation regimen at CSH, the Respondent began an outpatient program, including entering an "advocacy contract" with the Physicians Recovery Network (PRN). Roger A. Goetz, M.D. is the Director of PRN. He directs PRN's efforts and, among other things, accepts referrals regarding individuals who are unable to practice their health-related professions with reasonable skill and safety due to substance abuse, mental illness or physical disability. He refers individuals to treatment and reports to the Petitioner whenever the continued practice by a health-care professional presents an immediate and serious danger to the health, safety and welfare of the patient public. The PRN devised a treatment regimen for the Respondent, to include unannounced bodily fluid examinations, abstention from all medications, participation in group therapy, and an agreement that he would not work as a respiratory therapist pending successful completion of the treatment. The Respondent, however, failed to comply with the PRN contract by failing to attend required outpatient therapy meetings and by returning to work as a respiratory therapist, without PRN approval. Dr. Goetz determined that the Respondent's continued practice as a respiratory therapist, under these circumstances, presented an immediate, serious danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public. An emergency suspension of the Respondent's license to practice as a respiratory therapist was recommended by Dr. Goetz. Crack cocaine is known to be the most highly-addictive form of cocaine. Users may mistakenly feel that use can be controlled. The Respondent has an admitted history of drug dependence and treatment regarding the use of crack cocaine, as early as 1987. He himself has reported a history of recent crack cocaine binges in August, 1995 and January, 1996. He himself has admitted that he was unable to control his use of crack cocaine. The potential for recovery from cocaine addiction is poor. Use of crack cocaine changes the user's perception of himself and is associated with paranoia and sometimes a tendency toward violence. The Respondent has admitted having a chemical dependency problem and has admitted to using both crack cocaine, powdered cocaine, and marijuana. He sought treatment for his chemical dependency and was diagnosed as chemically dependent. Thereafter, he failed to complete the prescribed treatment. He was provided alternatives by PRN to obtain the necessary treatment to overcome the dependency and, in turn, allow him to again practice respiratory therapy. He rejected their alternatives and chose not to complete the necessary treatment program. A respiratory therapist has increased access to drugs in the workplace. The Respondent's return to practice of respiratory therapy, where he will have increased access to drugs, prior to completing his prescribed treatment program for chemical dependency, made his continued practice of his profession an immediate danger to the public. His assertions that he refused to continue treatment for his dependency, because of Dr. Thompson's unethical practice, were not borne out by the evidence. The Respondent essentially admitted that he made the decision not to continue treatment because of disagreement with Dr. Thompson and because he felt that the treatment program was too costly. He further admitted that, although he favored obtaining treatment from Petra Rosenzweig, a therapist in whom he had previously expressed confidence, he had actually stopped seeking treatment from her. This is additional confirmation that his purported ethical conflict with Dr. Thompson was not really the reason he discontinued treatment. In summary, it has been established that the Respondent is chemically dependent and has not yet successfully completed the treatment program. At the present time, he is unable to practice respiratory therapy with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of this impairment due to chemical dependency. The Respondent's supervisors established that he has an exemplary practice record, in terms of the competency and skills with which he cares for patients. The Respondent's attitude and testimony at the hearing, coupled with the strong support of his wife, who testified at hearing, leads the judge to believe that there is a substantial opportunity for him to overcome his chemical dependency and be able, in the future, to return to unfettered practice of respiratory therapy, provided he continues his cooperative spirit and agrees, once and for all, to objectively and wholeheartedly submit himself to a treatment program and successfully complete it.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 468.365(1)(x), Florida Statutes, in the particulars delineated in this Recommended Order, and that, in that Final Order, the Respondent's license to practice respiratory therapy be suspended for a minimum of one year or until such time as he receives treatment from a board-approved physician or physicians for his chemical dependency and is pronounced safe to resume the practice of respiratory therapy by a board-approved physician and on the condition that he thereafter comply with any and all terms of a PRN advocacy contract with regard to his chemical dependency. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Keith A. Klausner 1725 Springlake Road Fruitland Park, Florida 34731 Marm Harris, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license to practice medicine of Respondent, Howard E. Gross, M.D., based on allegations that he violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been licensed in 1971 and issued license number ME 0017039. Respondent has never been disciplined previously. Respondent is board-certified in internal medicine (1970) and cardiovascular diseases (1973). He is an interventional cardiologist. He has practiced medicine in Orlando since 1971. For the past 10 years, he has done a high-volume catheterization practice. In the most recent one-year period, he did approximately 500 interventional procedures and 400 diagnostic procedure, and in almost all instances, the catheterization involved a ventriculogram. On or about February 18, 1997, patient L. D. L., an 84-year-old male with a history of coronary artery disease, presented to Orlando Regional Medical Center, for catheterization and possible rescue angioplasty to be performed by Respondent. Respondent performed a cardiac catheterization on the patient. During the catheterization procedure, Respondent advanced a 6-French pigtail catheter into the patient's left ventricle and performed a ventriculogram by injecting what he thought was approximately 20cc of ionic dye, utilizing a MEDRAD injector. During the catheterization procedure, Respondent noted that he did not obtain opacification of the left ventricle and noted that free air was in the left ventricle. In fact, Respondent injected the patient with approximately 15cc to 20cc of free air rather than dye. As a result, the patient suffered cardiac arrest, and his blood pressure fell to zero. Respondent initiated various life-saving measures to counter the effects of the injection of free air, which were unsuccessful, and the patient was pronounced dead at approximately 1:55 p.m., as a result of cardiac arrest brought on by an air embolus. At the time, Orlando Regional Medical Center (hereinafter "ORMC") had a policy/procedure (No. 3233-MEDRAD- 0001) for Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory (hereinafter "Cardiac Cath Lab") personnel (Respondent's Exhibit 1). It delineated specific procedures to ensure "the use and safe applications of the power injector." In particular, it states the procedure to be employed by Cardiac Cath Lab staff in loading the MEDRAD injector. At ORMC and other hospitals, Cardiac Cath Lab personnel load the MEDRAD injectors without physician supervision. As explained by both expert witnesses, loading the syringe with dye is a very simple task for a nurse or scrub tech to perform. In the instant case, the nurse loading the MEDRAD injector interrupted the loading procedure because she was concerned about the patient's lab values (kidney function) and was uncertain about what type of dye Respondent would order. Respondent was not yet in the Cardiac Cath Lab. The nurse anticipated asking Respondent which type of dye he wanted and then loading that type dye into the MEDRAD injector. When she interrupted the loading procedure, the nurse left the plunger positioned in the syringe where it appeared that the syringe had been loaded with 20 to 25cc of dye and the injector arm pointing upward. The nurse then left the Cardiac Cath lab to get her lead apron anticipating only a monetary absence from the lab. Unknown to her, Respondent entered the Cardiac Cath Lab within seconds after her departure. Respondent was not in the Cardiac Cath Lab at any time while the nurse was manipulating the MEDRAD injector. As the nurse secured her lead jacket, she was called to another patient to administer medication which required the presence of a registered nurse per hospital procedures. In the nurse's absence, the catheterization and ventriculogram of the patient proceeded. The Registered Cardiovascular Technician (hereinafter "RCT"), observing the MEDRAD injector in what appeared to be a prepared state, wheeled it to the patient's side and lowered the injector arm into a position to receive the catheter. The RCT testified that a MEDRAD injector would never be left as she found it, plunger at the 20 to 25cc mark and arm elevated, if the machine was not loaded with dye. The ionic dye used in the procedure is clear and, due to the nature of the MEDRAD plunger and casing, it is extremely difficult to tell if dye is in the syringe. Further compounding the difficulty in observing dye in the syringe is the fact that the lights in the Cardiac Cath Lab are lowered during the procedure to allow better visualization of the video monitor. While the RCT positioned the MEDRAD injector at the patient's side, Respondent was in the process of entering the catheter into the patient, manipulating the catheter in the patient, visualizing its position in the patient's heart on the video monitor and monitoring hemodynamics. Petitioner's expert witness testified that Respondent did justifiably rely on the Cardiac Cath Lab personnel to follow the procedure outlined in Respondent's Exhibit 1. The nurse and cardiovascular technician did not follow the policy/procedure and, as a result, allowed the presence of air in the MEDRAD injector. After the catheter is properly located in the patient's heart, the external end of the catheter is attached to the MEDRAD injector. Petitioner's expert witness opined the Respondent should have used extension tubing to effect the connection between the catheter and MEDRAD injector. Testimony revealed that extension tubing is used by many physicians who perform cardiac catheterization. Respondent's practice was not to use extension tubing. Both Petitioner's and Respondent's expert witnesses agreed that Respondent's choice not to use extension tubing was a "technique" choice and did not fall below the "standard of care." Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent should have been present in the Cardiac Cath Lab to observe the loading of the MEDRAD injector. Testimony revealed that at ORMC and other hospitals it was the Cardiac Cath Lab staff's responsibility to load the MEDRAD injector without the direct supervision of physicians and that physicians are rarely in the lab when the MEDRAD injector is loaded. The "standard of care" does not require the physician to watch the loading of dye or the expulsion of air from the syringe in the loading process. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent should have performed a test injection (a process where a small amount of dye is injected into the heart prior to the main injection). Respondent's expert testified that under certain circumstances (none of which is applicable to the instant case) test injections were appropriate; those circumstances occur less than 5 percent of the time. Electing not to perform a test injection in the instant case does not fall below the "standard of care." Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent should have observed a "wet to wet" connection between the catheter and the MEDRAD injector to ensure that no air is in the system. This is accomplished by withdrawing a small amount of blood from the catheter into the MEDRAD injector. Small air bubbles may appear between the blood and dye and are then "tapped" to rise to the top of the syringe. However, Respondent performed the "wet to wet" connection and did not observe anything unusual. He has historically performed some "wet to wet" connections where no air bubbles were present between the blood and dye as it appeared in this case. The RCT confirmed that Respondent performed the "wet to wet" connection, looked for air in the syringe, and tapped on the syringe to loosen and expel air bubbles. Respondent's expert witness testified that he performed an experiment creating a "wet to wet" connection with air in the MEDRAD injector syringe instead of dye. He found that the miniscus formed by blood and air in the syringe has an identical appearance to blood contacting dye in the syringe. The "wet to wet" connection between blood and air in the syringe has the same appearance as a "perfectly clean", "wet to wet" connection between blood and dye in the syringe. Respondent's expert witness testified that from five to ten percent of the time a "perfectly clean", "wet to wet" connection occurs in which no air bubbles appear between the blood and dye. Petitioner's expert witness testified that the physician must make absolutely certain that no gross amount of air is injected into the patient, and, relying on his view that the Respondent as the physician was the "captain of the ship," he testified that "the injection of this volume of air during the ventriculogram fell below the cardiology "standard of care." Petitioner's expert rendered his opinion based upon his examination of the hospital records. Respondent's expert rendered his opinion based upon his examination of the following: Administrative complaint with supporting documents. Dr. Allen Seals' (Petitioner's expert) report and deposition. Agency for Health Card Administration investigative report. ORMC's Code 15 report. Respondent's February 21, 1997 memo for peer review purposes. Hospital records. Death résumé. ORMC's MEDRAD policy/procedure. Experimentation with a catheter and MEDRAD injector. Respondent's expert testified that Respondent met the standard of care in the instant case because he practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar circumstances. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, the undersigned rejects the expert opinion of Dr. Allen Seals, M.D., Petitioner's expert witness, and accepts as being more credible the testimony of David P. Browne, Jr., M.D., Respondent's expert witness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is not guilty of violating Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Robert D. Henry, Esquire Martin D. Buckley, Esquire Ringer, Henry & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 4922 Orlando, Florida 32801-4229 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Department of Health Board of Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
