The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed osteopathic physicians such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Osteopathic Medicine has found probable cause to suspect that the licensee has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS 10658. Background On February 3, 2012, T.S., a 26-year-old single mother, presented to Respondent's medical office as a new obstetrical patient. At that time, T.S. was carrying her third child. For the next five months, T.S. and Respondent enjoyed what was, by all appearances, a productive and appropriate physician-patient relationship. However, as discussed below, Respondent would transgress the bounds of that relationship during an office visit on the evening of July 11, 2012. First, though, it is necessary to sketch the relevant background. On the morning of July 11, 2012, T.S.——who was then nine months pregnant——appeared at Respondent's office for a routine examination. During the visit, T.S. advised Respondent that she was experiencing substantial cramping and discomfort. In response to these complaints, Respondent performed a pelvic examination and a sonogram, both of which yielded normal results. Later that day, at approximately 4:00 or 4:30 p.m., T.S. telephoned Respondent's office and informed his staff of a new symptom: namely, that significant pain was making it difficult to lift her right arm. Although a member of the staff advised T.S. that she could be seen immediately, logistical constraints made it impossible for her to report to Respondent's office prior to the close of business. Over the course of the next several hours, T.S. communicated with Respondent by phone and text (his cell number was available to all patients) concerning the new symptom and her preference to be seen that evening. Ultimately, Respondent informed T.S., via a text message sent at approximately 6:15 p.m., that she could meet him at his office for an examination. The Misconduct T.S. arrived at the office at 6:30 p.m., whereupon Respondent unlocked the front door and invited T.S. inside. Upon entering the lobby area, which was only partially illuminated, T.S. saw no sign of Respondent's office staff. At that point, Respondent asked T.S. to sign a form that read as follows: I give consent to be seen at Dr. Miller's office, by Dr. Miller, without an assistant present, at my request, in order to have a medically urgent need addressed. The foregoing document, although signed by T.S., is of dubious propriety, as obstetrical treatment without a chaperone present is rarely, if ever, appropriate.3/ This issue is of no moment, however, for most of what occurred next——as established by the credible testimony of T.S. and Petitioner's expert witness——was not a legitimate medical examination but, rather, nonconsensual sexual contact perpetrated under the guise of an examination. Upon the execution of the "consent" document, Respondent directed T.S. to an examination room and informed her that the likely cause of her arm pain was either a clogged milk duct or the positioning of the fetus. Respondent then requested that T.S. disrobe her upper body, at which point he left the room for a few moments. Upon his return, Respondent asked T.S. to recline on the examination table, purportedly so he could examine her right breast to rule out the possibility of a clogged duct. T.S. complied and, for the next 30 to 45 seconds, Respondent squeezed her breast in a manner quite dissimilar to examinations she had undergone in the past. In particular, T.S. thought it peculiar that Respondent "cupped" her entire breast with his hand——as opposed to examining the breast from the outside in with the pads of his fingers.4/ Even more troublingly, Respondent asked T.S., while his hand was still in contact with her breast, whether "it felt good."5/ After removing his hand from T.S.'s breast, Respondent remarked to T.S. that her arm pain was not the result of a clogged milk duct. Respondent further stated that her symptoms would be assuaged upon the baby's delivery, an event which, according to him, could be facilitated by sexual activity. Before proceeding further, it is important to note that T.S.'s symptoms of arm pain arguably warranted, at most, a legitimate breast examination. In other words, there were no symptoms or aspects of T.S.'s history that justified a pelvic examination at that time,6/ particularly since Respondent had performed such a procedure (along with a sonogram) earlier in the day. Nevertheless, Respondent informed T.S. that he "needed" to measure the dilation of her cervix; then, in a disturbing and conspicuous departure from accepted obstetrical practice,7/ Respondent applied lubricant to one of his ungloved hands. Moments later, Respondent inserted two fingers into T.S.'s vagina and, for the next 30 seconds or so, positioned his penetrating hand in such a manner that his thumb was in continuous contact with T.S.'s clitoris——something that would never occur during a proper examination.8/ Tellingly, this was not the only physical contact incongruous with a legitimate pelvic examination, for at one point Respondent used his free hand to pull on one of T.S.'s nipples.9/ By now suspicious of Respondent's conduct, T.S. attempted to maneuver her body toward the head of the examination table. As she did so, Respondent began to remove his fingers from T.S.'s vagina while stating that she "needed to have sex" in order to induce labor. This could be accomplished, Respondent further suggested, by having sex with him, an invitation T.S. sensibly declined.10/ On the heels of this rejection, Respondent told T.S. that the only other means of inducing labor would be to "strip her membranes." Owing perhaps to an urgent desire to give birth——the reader should recall that she was nine months pregnant and in significant discomfort——T.S. acceded to Respondent's suggestion. Respondent then penetrated T.S.'s vagina with his (ungloved) hand for a second time and, prior to the removal of his fingers, repeatedly implored T.S. to engage in sexual intercourse with him.11/ When T.S. refused and tried to move to the other end of the table, Respondent grabbed her by the hips and pulled his midsection into her exposed vaginal area. By virtue of this aggression, T.S. could feel that Respondent's penis, albeit clothed, was erect.12/ Wishing to extricate herself from this situation, T.S. pushed Respondent away, at which point he attempted to "laugh off" his abhorrent behavior. T.S. dressed herself and, a short time later, drove to the home of an acquaintance to seek advice. Later that evening, T.S. made a report of the incident to the appropriate authorities,13/ which ultimately resulted in the filing of the Complaint at issue in this proceeding. Ultimate Factual Determinations It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of violating section 459.015(1)(l), as charged in Count I of the Complaint. It is further determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of violating section 456.072(1)(v) and, in turn, section 459.015(1)(pp), as alleged in Count II of the complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Osteopathic Medicine finding Respondent guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint; revoking Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine; and imposing a fine of $10,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Theodore S. Brandwein, D.O., held License No. 3259 issued by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. During the calendar year 1977 and for some period subsequent thereto Respondent maintained his office and practice at 18055 Franjo Road, Perrine, Florida under the name of Brandwein Medical Practice, P.A. The sign marking Respondent's office in 1977, when these charges were preferred, is the same sign depicted in Exhibit 6 which is a photograph taken in 1979. It is the sign for which Respondent registered with the Florida Secretary of State as a service mark. In his application (Exhibit 11) for this registration Respondent described this mark as "a stethoscope, binaural in design, lying horizontally on the paper, sign, building, item, or object on which it is emblazoned, the earpieces and connecting piece forming in script the letter 'D' and the tubing and chest piece convoluted to form the 'O'. Taken together, the stethoscope forms the letters 'D. O.'" The application further provided "applicant is the owner of the mark and no other person except a related company has the right to use such mark in Florida, whether in identical form thereof, or in such resemblance thereto as might be, calculated to deceive or confuse". The sign on Respondent's office in 1977 consisted of this mark depicting a convoluted stethoscope which forms the letters "D.O." only after the exercise of a vivid imagination and an appreciation of surrealistic art. In the yellow pages of the 1977 Miami telephone directory Respondent is listed under Physicians and Surgeons MD. (Exhibit 9). He is not listed under Physicians and "Surgeons - DO. (Exhibit 10). Brandwein Medical Practice, P.A., is the Theodore S. Brandwein who is Respondent in these proceedings. Respondent's Florida license is presently inactive.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the licensure examination taken by the Petitioner qualifies him under Section 459.007(3), Florida Statutes, for licensure as an osteopathic physician in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lawrence Edward Suess, is an osteopathic physician licensed by the Boards of Medical Examiners in Texas, Alabama, and Kentucky. He seeks licensure in Florida, pursuant to Section 459.007(3), Florida Statutes. He is also licensed in Arizona and Texas as a registered nurse, holds BS and MS degrees in child development and nursing and a Ph.D. in nursing. The Respondent, the Board of Osteopathic Medicine (Board), is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with regulating the admission to practice and the practice and licensure standards of osteopathic physicians licensed or seeking to be licensed in the State of Florida. The Board issued an order, as corrected, on November 9, 1995, granting application of licensure to the Petitioner upon the condition that within one year, he successfully complete Part III of the NBOME examination for purposes of licensure in the State of Florida, and not for diplomate status. The Board found in that order that the Petitioner had not passed all three parts of the NBOME examination and had submitted certification of passage of only Parts I and II. The Board found that the “FLEX” examination was not a substantially-similar examination to the required NBOME examination since the FLEX examination did not contain an osteopathic medicine component. The Board also found that the completion by the Petitioner of a Board certification examination was not substantially similar to the NBOME examination because it tested only a single subject matter and not the broad principles contained in Part III of the NBOME examination. On November 13, 1995, a Petition for Formal Hearing was filed by the Petitioner disputing the decision of the Board which precluded him from obtaining licensure to practice medicine in the State of Florida because of failure to complete Part III of the NBOME examination. He contended that he was outside the time period in which he would be allowed to take Part III. He further contended that the FLEX examination was a substantially-similar examination to the NBOME examination. The Petitioner contends that taking the FLEX examination should be sufficient to justify licensure, although he also acknowledged that Part III of the NBOME examination tests osteopathic philosophy and principle; and he acknowledged that the FLEX examination does not, although he was attempting to testify and argue that the FLEX examination was substantially similar to the NBOME examination. He provided no testimony or evidence, however, to establish that the FLEX examination tests osteopathic philosophy and principle. The Respondent presented the testimony of Joseph Smoley, Ph.D. by deposition. Dr. Smoley holds a Ph.D. in educational measurement and has served for ten of the last eleven years as Executive Director of the NBOME. The NBOME is an organization that develops an examination that is independent of the osteopathic medical schools to evaluate osteopathic physicians who are either currently in undergraduate or in graduate medical programs. The NBOME’s main mission is to provide state licensing examinations with an independent assessment of the knowledge base of candidate osteopathic physicians. Dr. Smoley oversees NBOME policy and supervises educational measurement within the osteopathic profession. His oversight responsibilities include the examination section of the NBOME. He provides a constant review of the process of testing for the Board of Directors. The NBOME developed its examination by having questions drafted by faculty members and osteopathic physicians in independent practice. Faculty members may be D.O.’s or Ph.D.’s in the various basic sciences, and there is a multi-tiered process for preparing and reviewing questions. A copy of the bulletin of information concerning the NBOME examinations was attached to and made part of the deposition. Dr. Smoley testified that typically the candidates take Part I as a sophomore during medical school, Part II as a senior, and Part III as an intern in their first post-graduate year. He established that the purpose behind that examination is “the integration of osteopathic principles and practices as well as the philosophy of osteopathic medicine.” No allopathic physicians are involved in the grading process of that examination. Some allopathic physicians associated with osteopathic colleges may submit questions that, after the review process, may be used on the examination. The purpose of the NBOME examination, as shown by Dr. Smoley, is to make sure that each question integrates osteopathic principles and practices in some way and that the entire examination is reflective of the practice of osteopathic medicine. Dr. Smoley is also familiar with the FLEX examination, as well as the current licensure examination for allopathic physicians, the USMLE. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) does not prepare any complete examination or any additional components for its regular examination concerning manipulation or osteopathic practice and principles. According to Dr. Smoley, there has never been an official comparison or analysis between the NBOME examination and the FLEX examination. Based upon his experience and educational measurement, he has determined that if one examination, the NBOME, contains osteopathic principles and practice and the other examination, the FLEX, does not incorporate those principles and practices, then the two examinations could not be considered equivalent. The NBOME examination is more extensive because it integrates osteopathic principles and practice throughout its content. This osteopathic examination is not simply one that tests manipulation. Therefore, it is not asserted to be appropriate for chiropractors or M.D.’s who have been trained in manipulation but only for persons who have received an osteopathic medical education. The Respondent also presented the testimony by deposition of James R. Winn, M.D. He is Executive Vice President of the FSMB. The FSMB assists state medical boards in conducting their evaluation of physicians regarding their fitness to practice medicine. The FSMB developed examinations which are administered by state boards. Dr. Winn serves as the supervisor for the examination services section of the FSMB. Those examinations are developed in cooperation with the National Board of Medical Examiners. The current examination available from the FSMB is the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) used since 1992. Prior to that time, the FSMB administered the FLEX examination, which was for the evaluation of all physicians requesting licensure. The FLEX examination did not have a section on osteopathic practice, as shown by Dr. Winn. The FSMB allows all physicians seeking licensure in the United States to take that examination, including graduates of osteopathic medical schools and graduates of foreign medical schools. With the FLEX examination, unlike the NBOME examination, medical students are not eligible, only graduates of medical schools are eligible to take the examination. Dr. Winn is familiar with the examination of the NBOME and its purpose. He is not aware of any side-by-side comparison between the two examinations to determine equivalency. In his expert opinion, there would have to be such an evaluation in order to determine whether the examinations are equivalent. The testimony of Drs. Smoley and Winn was elaborated upon and corroborated by Dr. Morton Morris. Dr. Morris is a licensed osteopathic physician in the State of Florida and is board certified in osteopathic surgery by the American Osteopathic Board of Orthopedic Surgery. He is also certified by the American Board of Quality Medical Assurance and is a fellow of the American College of Legal Medicine. He is Vice-Chancellor for academic affairs in the health professions division at Nova Southeastern University, a Florida osteopathic medical school. Additionally, Dr. Morris is a licensed, practicing attorney in the State of Florida. He practices in the areas of medical malpractice, general health law and administrative law. Dr. Morris is familiar with the NBOME examination, having served as a test item writer for the NBOME. He recognizes Dr. Smoley as one who helps develop the philosophy of the examinations in question. The philosophy of the NBOME is that content concerning osteopathic practice and principles permeates the entire examination. Even when certain questions on their face are not osteopathically oriented, the evaluation and the grading of the responses is carried out from an osteopathic viewpoint and philosophy. The test item writers are directed to draft test questions which include osteopathic philosophy. In the past, the NBOME has agreed to allow a candidate to take only Part III or an equivalent examination and receive the score from the NBOME. In fact, Dr. Morris represented that person in his capacity as an attorney. He worked out the arrangements whereby that candidate could take and pass Part III of the NBOME examination in order to obtain a Florida osteopathic medical license, as the Petitioner seeks herein, even though, since he would not have taken Part III within the required seven years, he could not receive diplomate status with the NBOME. The Board’s order in this case specifically requires passage of Part III of that examination, but it does not require diplomate status. Such an arrangement would thus seem to provide a means to alleviate the Petitioner’s predicament in the instant situation. The Petitioner, in questioning Dr. Morris upon cross- examination, inquired about the possibility of a person taking all three parts of the NBOME examination, even if he had already taken Parts I and II. Dr. Morris stated that that was possible. Page 7 of the Bulletin of Information, in evidence in Respondent’s Exhibit 1, although stating that the candidate cannot take the examination “to attempt to improve his score”, states nothing to indicate preclusion of a candidate taking the entire examination for any other purpose. Dr. Morris stated that the Petitioner could take Part III of the examination and that the NBOME would make arrangements to allow him to do that, with the understanding that if he passed Part III, he would not be able to receive diplomate status from the NBOME (because of passage of time before taking Part III). In making comparisons between osteopathic medical education and allopathic medical education, Dr. Morris acknowledged that in some cases, osteopathic medical colleges use the same textbooks as used by allopathic medical schools. That does not, however, make them similar professions. Although anatomy and physiology may not be different, the philosophy of treating the whole patient is different. Responding to the Petitioner’s contention that having obtained board certification in his specialty area should count as equivalency to the entry level examination, Dr. Morris pointed out that all that the board certification accomplishes is to show that an osteopathic physician is recognized by his or her peers as competent to practice a specialty. It does not mean that the person is osteopathically oriented enough to be eligible for licensure and to be able to pass a minimum competency examination. The Petitioner contends that having passed Parts I and II of the NBOME examination, FLEX should quality him for osteopathic licensure in the State of Florida, in lieu of taking Part III of the NBOME examination, because anything of an osteopathic nature would have already been tested on Parts I and II. Dr. Morris established to the contrary, however, that Part III is the clinical testing, the testing of how the individual puts to use his clinical evaluation in treatment of patients. It is the ultimate test of whether an individual has developed and is able to apply a philosophy of practice sufficient to show that he is competent to be an osteopathic physician. Parts I and II of the NBOME examination do not test clinical skills. The FLEX does test clinical skills, but it does not test for osteopathic practices as to clinical skills. The NBOME requires that a person take Part III within seven years of having taken Part I, if that person wishes to be a diplomate of the NBOME. There is no apparent preclusion, however, in a person arranging to take only Part III, simply for purposes of state licensure. The record is not clear whether a person could take Parts I, II and III within the period of one year. It does seem apparent, however, that the Petitioner could take Part III within a one-year time period, which is all that is required in the Board’s order. Further, the statute requires that a person take all parts of the NBOME examination or a substantially-equivalent examination. What the Petitioner attempts to do is to take two parts of the NBOME examination and then substitute a different examination (FLEX) for Part III. This does not constitute a substantially-equivalent examination for the above reasons. A substantially-equivalent examination would have to be equivalent to all three parts of the NBOME examination. During discussion of the difference between osteopathic and allopathic schools of medicine, Dr. Morris pointed out that many osteopathic physicians use the same modalities that allopathic physicians use. It is just that they also use osteopathic modalities. He gave the example of a cardiac patient whom an osteopathic physician would treat just as a medical doctor would treat the basic condition with appropriate drugs but then would incorporate osteopathic philosophy, such as the “lymphatic pump”, meaning that the osteopathic physician would incorporate muscle techniques of stretching and passive manipulation in order to help the patient. The osteopathic physician would possibly use manipulative techniques on the lymphatic system and not just use drugs or other allopathic techniques. In the context of the NBOME examination, a question might reference a cardiac patient. Although the question would not mention the lymphatic pump, a proper answer might entail a clinical response that would consider that modality of treatment. In orthopedics, Dr. Morris’ specialty, an osteopathic physician can make significant use of manipulative techniques, as well as general surgery, casting and other modalities normally used by allopathic physicians. Use of the FLEX examination, rather than the NBOME examination, would not lower standards for osteopathic physicians. Rather, the FLEX examination simply embodies a different standard than the one used to test for competency in osteopathic principles and medicine. The Petitioner acknowledged that he could have taken Part III of the NBOME examination but chose not to because it was then more convenient for him to take the FLEX examination to continue his training in the State of Texas which required passage of the FLEX examination for osteopathic licensure. The Petitioner contended that if he applied for a Florida osteopathic medical faculty certificate (MFC), the FLEX examination would be acceptable and he would be eligible. That fact, he contends, by analogy, establishes that he is qualified to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida. He has never applied for such a certificate nor has he been offered an osteopathic medical faculty position in the State of Florida. Thus, determination of that issue is not before this tribunal. Even if it were, there are significant differences between a full license to practice osteopathic medicine indefinitely and a medical faculty certificate. With the MFC, the Petitioner would not be allowed to be engaged in private practice of osteopathic medicine and the MFC would only allow him to practice in the academic realm for only two years. Finally, the statutory requirements for an MFC do not require the passage of any licensure examination. Accordingly, to the extent that the Petitioner’s argument and testimony implies some analogy or equivalency between eligibility for the MFC and eligibility for full licensure, such equivalency is not borne out by the greater weight of the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of the Petitioner, Lawrence Edward Suess, D.O., for licensure as an osteopathic physician, without conditions, is denied on the basis that the FLEX examination has not been shown to be substantially similar to the NBOME examination.DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1997, 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 28th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence E. Suess, D.O., Ph.D. Owensboro Psychiatric Institute 1700 Frederica Street, Suite 106 Owensboro, Kentucky 42301 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0757 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent has engaged in conduct, more particularly set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein, signed April 10, 1986, violative of Chapter 459, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, Donald J. Weiss, D.O., during times material herein, was licensed as an osteopathic physician in Florida and has been issued license number OS 0003459. The investigative report of Petitioner's investigator Mel Waxman, medical records and a consultant's report of Dr. Ralph Birzon, D.O., were received into evidence without objection except for certain unspecified prescriptions (by Respondent). During the time period 1980 through 1985, Respondent admitted to having treated patients R.N., H.M. and C.B. or C.P. Respondent admitted to the treatment of the above- referred patients with specific dates relating to prescriptions of Schedule II drugs for patients R.N. and H.M. (Request for Admissions dated June 2, 1986). A review of the medical records for patients R.N., H.M. and C.B. or C.P. reveals that Respondent failed to maintain appropriate medical records justifying his course of medical treatment for such patients. As example, during the period January 1984 and June 19, 1985, Respondent prescribed 1,970 4 mg. Dilaudid and 380 Seconal 100 mg. capsules for patient R.N. Also, during the same time period, Respondent prescribed 2,665 4 mg. tablets of Dilaudid for patient H.M. (Responses to Request for Admissions dated June 2, 1986). Respondent failed to take adequate physical exams, laboratory reports or other medical histories to justify the quantity of controlled substances prescribed for patients R.N and H.M. In his treatment of patient R.N., H.M. and C.B., each patient was addicted to the medication Dilaudid and Seconal, both Schedule II controlled substances as defined in Sections 893.03(2)(a) and (c), Florida Statutes. Respondent's treatment of patients R.N., H.M. and C.B. by prescribing Dilaudid, Seconal and Valium (also a Schedule II controlled substance) was not in their best interest as addicts. Based upon a review of the medical records for patients R.N., H.M. and C.B. or C.P., Respondent's prescriptions for Dilaudid, Seconal and Valium were excessive, inappropriate and unacceptable for an osteopathic physician. Respondent's treatment for patients R.N., H.M and C.B. or C.P. fell below the level of care, skill and treatment as recognized by a reasonable prudent similar osteopathic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. (Testimony of Ralph Birzon, D.O., TR 41-46). An examination of the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) reveals that Respondent, by prescribing Dilaudid and Seconal to patients R.N. and H.M. was inappropriate, and when taken together, exacerbated those patient's medical problems. Additionally, a review of the PDR indicates that Dilaudid cannot be safely prescribed for long periods of time. A long period of time is, based on the reference, a period in excess of three months. Respondent admits that he made a mistake in his treatment of the above-referred patients by prescribing Schedule II controlled substances. Respondent considered that he was "duped" and offered that this was his first contact with drug addicts. Respondent prays that his license not be revoked or suspended and offered to accept any lesser ordered penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED THAT: Respondent's license be suspended for a period of six (6) months; Following the period of suspension, Respondent be placed on probation for a similar period of six (6) months; During the probationary period, Respondent be required to successfully complete eighty (80) hours of continuing education related to the physician and proper substance abuse prescribing procedures. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Preston T. Everett, Jr., Esquire Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald J. Weiss, D.O. Wings Benton, Esquire 145 River North Circle General Counsel Atlanta, Georgia 30328 Department of Professional Regulation Rod Presnell, Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent, Jules Jonas Dossick, D.O. violated statutes governing the practice of osteopathic medicine on the grounds alleged in the administrative complaint and if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate. Background and Procedural Matters This proceeding commenced when Petitioner filed its administrative complaint and Respondent timely requested a formal hearing. At the hearing Petitioner verbally amended its complaint by deleting all factual and legal allegations relating to sexual misconduct and violations of Section 459.015(1)(k) Florida Statutes. Petitioner presented evidence through three witnesses and four exhibits. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented one exhibit. All exhibits were admitted without objection. Petitioner has submitted a proposed recommended order, which proposal has been considered and, in part, included in this order. A specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact is found in the appendix attached hereto. By pleadings dated May 23, 1986, Respondent has moved for a re- hearing and has objected to the Petitioner's proposed recommended order, both on the grounds that he has now retained counsel and should have the opportunity to have the case re-heard with the benefit of an attorney. Respondent had an attorney in an earlier part of this proceeding and discharged him by letter dated February 22, 1986. (see letter attached to motion to withdraw filed March 3, 1986). Approximately two months later the final hearing was held. Respondent had ample time to retain new counsel or ask for a continuance. He proceeded to hearing, aware of his rights and without protest. The record is void of any basis to consider such extraordinary relief.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dr. Dossick, is now and at all times relevant has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in Florida under license number OS 0000874. He practices at his clinic, North Miami Medical Center, located at 4805 East 4th Avenue in Hialeah, Florida. (T-10,11). The clinic is comprised of a reception room, a kitchen that is also used as an office, a bathroom near the reception area, a supply room, two examining rooms, and two additional rooms with a bathroom and shower at the rear of the clinic. Dr. Dossick lives at the clinic and keeps the additional rooms for his bedroom, for storage and for personal use. One of the additional rooms was used several years ago as a third examining room. (T-43, 44, 114-116). In January 1985, two investigators from the Department of Professional Regulation went to Respondent's Clinic for an inspection. They took pictures and spoke to Dr. Dossick. Three other individuals were at the clinic the day of the inspection: a man and woman in one examining room, and a woman in what the inspectors thought was an examining room, but was identified by Dr. Dossick as his personal use and storage room. (T-41, 49, 57, 64, 116). The investigators found the clinic in varying stages of filth and disarray. The reception room was old and worn, unclean, but with little sign of current use. The kitchen had dirty dishes and exposed garbage. The examining rooms were fairly neat but the medications on the countertops were old, dirty and, in some cases, expired. There was no garbage in the two examining rooms, but they did not appear clean. The third room, the former examining room (now used for storage and Dr. Dossick's personal living quarters) was a mess: clothing, mail and fast food containers were strewn about, cotton swabs were exposed and piled on a counter; syringes and medications were also exposed on the countertops. In this room the narcotics supply was stored in a locked cabinet. Two dogs were present in the clinic, one of which had patches of hair missing as if diseased. (T-46, 49, Petitioner's Exhibits #3 and #4) There was no evidence that patients had access to the kitchen, supply room or Dr. Dossick's bedroom. Patients occasionally go to the former examining room and wait there prior to seeing the doctor. Dr. Dossick keeps his own dog at the clinic and, even though he does not encourage them, his patients sometimes bring their animals to the clinic with them. Dr. Dossick admitted that he had trouble for a while keeping the place clean. The woman who worked for him injured her knee in a karate tournament and had surgery. While the admission of problems was candid, the excuse regarding the former cleaning worker was confused: the handwritten statement Dr. Dossick presented from Barbara O'Rourke suggested that her accident and subsequent surgery occurred in April and July 1 85, respectively; that is, several months after the DPR inspectors' visit. (T-64, 87-89, 105-106, 112-113). Linda Joyce Godfrey is a patient of Dr. Dossick. She is thirty-nine years old, was born with cerebral palsy, and around 1981 was diagnosed with multiple-sclerosis. She is crippled and walks unaided with considerable difficulty. She has undergone several operations and lengthy periods of hospitalization. She has been under the care of various physicians, including an orthopedist, several neurosurgeons, and another osteopathic physician. (T-66, 69) Ms. Godfrey began seeing Dr. Dossick after an extended hospitalization period. She picked him at random and asked for percodan, a controlled narcotic substance, generally prescribed for pain relief. He refused to give her the percodan and prescribed a non-narcotic medication instead. She continued seeing him and later he prescribed placidyl, percocet and percodan at various times to help her sleep and for the severe pain in her muscles and bones. He did not give her these medications until he obtained her hospital reports and talked with her regular physicians. (T-66,69,81) Ms. Godfrey admits that she was an addict. She claims that Dr. Dossick was initially unaware of this but later helped her get off the habit. On one occasion she went to his office in the state of apparent overdose. He called Hialeah Fire and Rescue and got her out of there. He told her not to come around anymore because he didn't go for drugs. She later went back and asked for help. The evidence is inconclusive as to whether Ms. Godfrey's episode was an overdose or a grand mal seizure. (T-69, 73-76, 80, 90-91). According to Ms. Godfrey, Dr. Dossick injected her with Demerol on only one occasion, around six weeks prior to the hearing, after her apartment was broken into and she was raped. (T-71, 72). The practice of osteopathic medicine encompasses all aspects of medicine commonly referred to as allopathic medicine, but also includes physiotherapy, manipulative therapy, nutrition: a holistic approach. (T-13,14). This characterization of the distinction between the professions is borne out in the statutory definitions of "practice of medicine" and "practice of osteopathic medicine": "Practice of osteopathic medicine" means the diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition, which practice is based in part upon educational standards and requirements which emphasize the importance of the musculoskeletal structure and manipulative therapy in the maintenance and restoration of health. 1l. Except for the underlined verbiage the two definitions are the same. See Section 458.305(3) Florida Statutes, and Section 459.003(3) Florida Statutes. One of the rudiments of osteopathic medicine values the "laying of hands" as part of caring for a patient in a very kind and personal manner. Cleanliness of the person and the physical area surrounding the practitioner is essential to avoid transferring disease from one patient to another. (T-18,19) Animals should not be present in the clinic because of the potential for communicating disease to humans through fleas, flies or the animals. (T-18) Old, dirty drugs and syringes should be disposed of in such a manner as to avoid access and use. (T-19,20) The above standards were described in the competent, uncontroverted testimony of Petitioner's expert, Ralph Birzon, D.O. Those standards were violated by Dr. Dossick when he allowed dogs in the clinic, when he failed to properly dispose of old drugs and syringes, and when he failed to keep his clinic clean. Dr. Dossick does, however, treat his patients in a very kind and personal manner. Ms. Godfrey was called as Petitioner's witness. Her testimony was credible and touchingly candid, as also was Dr. Dossick's. Ms. Godfrey said Dr. Dossick helped her; he took pity on her; he is good to his patients and is a good man. She does not have the money to pay for his treatment or the prescriptions, so she sometimes files and answers the phone at the clinic. Dr. Dossick is the oldest physician in the area; he spends a lot of time with his patients and they depend on him. He regularly treats his patients without charge, or for a token fee. He also loans them money for prescriptions. He has treated some patients for 25-30 years. (T-81, 83, 93, 95-96, 103) Dr. Dossick has previously been suspended by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners for six months because of allegations that he prescribed medication without performing an examination. He volunteered this fact. (T-97, 107-109) The violations occurred approximately ten years ago. See Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners v Dossick DOAH #76-1814; Dossick v Florida State Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, 359 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1978). The clinic has been cleaned up since the investigators' visit and the dirty and outdated drugs have been discarded. (T- 88,104)
Findings Of Fact Carl Sylvester Roberts, Jr. is an osteopathic physician registered with the Florida State Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners and holds license number 0001470. Roberts first treated J. C. Duncan on March 31, 1975. Thereafter Duncan visited Roberts for treatment periodically. In the latter part of 1976 Roberts advised Duncan that he was strapped for cash and Duncan suggested he could make some extra money by prescribing drugs which Duncan could sell and split the profit. Duncan proposed to provide Roberts with patients who had a bona fide need for drugs, have them visit Roberts for examination and thereafter Roberts could legitimately prescribe drugs for them. This agreement resulted in Duncan producing at least 4 patients in early December, 1976 whom Roberts examined. The modus operandi for these patients was for Duncan to bring the patients to Roberts' office where they were examined and, after finding medical evidence of a valid need for pain killers, Roberts would prescribe Dilaudid for these patients. Duncan then accompanied these patients to a pharmacy where the prescriptions were filled. Thereafter the patients gave the pills to Duncan who paid them $250 each. Duncan normally took the pills to Tampa where they were given to a contact who peddled same and reimbursed Duncan $1200 for 100 Dilaudid tablets. Duncan thereafter reimbursed Roberts at the rate of $7 per tablet. Prior to taking the patients to Roberts, Duncan explained the procedure to be followed and, in effect offered these patients a physical examination plus $250 for their participation. The charts for the four patients presented into evidence as Exhibits 2, 7, 9 and 11 showed they paid $30 for this visit (except Parker who was charged $20). Other patients were normally charged $10, $12 or $14 for a first visit. Narcotics agents in Ocala received street information that Roberts was illegally dispensing drugs and approximately one year before this hearing, started an investigation. In December, 1976 the Ocala police arrested Roberts but apparently had insufficient evidence to prosecute. However, while Roberts was accompanying the police back to his office to pick up some tapes, he told them that he had been prescribing drugs for J. C. Duncan to sell to repay a gambling debt he owed Duncan. Duncan was subpoenaed by the State Attorney for a deposition and given immunity from prosecution for his testimony and assistance in obtaining evidence against Roberts. Duncan advised the police of the plan that he and Roberts had been using. On January 27, 1977 Duncan was wired for sound by having a small transmitter placed under his clothes and sent by the police to Roberts' office while police monitored the conversation on the street below. When Duncan left Roberts' office the narcotics investigators met him outside and received from Duncan Exhibits 1, 3, and 4. Exhibit 1 is the prescription made out to Mabel Butler for 50 Dilaudid tablets with the patient's name scratched out. Exhibits 3 and 4 were prescriptions made out to J. C. Duncan for 35 Dexedrene capsules and 50 Dilaudid tablets respectively. Duncan was overweight and the Dexedrene was prescribed to help him lose weight. He has a long history of pains stemming from back problems for which the Dilaudid was prescribed. However, Duncan testified that he could get relief from a handfull of Aspirin, Bufferin or Excedrin as well as from Dilaudid. With respect to the prescription on Exhibit 1, when the name of Mabel Butler was scratched out, the prescription became void and unfillable at any pharmacy. On the night of February 1, 1977 Roberts visited Duncan at the latter's home and gave him 120 Dilaudid tablets to sell. These tablets were turned over to the narcotics investigator the following morning and a laboratory examination of these tablets (Exhibit 19) showed them to be a derivative of Morphine, viz. Dilaudid. On February 2, 1977 Duncan was again wired for sound and given $450 in marked bills and sent to Roberts office. The conversation between Roberts and Duncan was taped and the tape of that conversation was received into evidence as Exhibit 17. A transcript of that tape was offered as Exhibit 18. Having listened to the tape while following the transcript I find that the transcript is reasonably close to being an exact transcription of the conversation recorded on Exhibit 17. While in Roberts' office Duncan discussed with Roberts payment for the pills received the previous evening as well as those received on previous prescriptions for which he, Roberts, had not been paid. During this visit Roberts prepared prescriptions for Dilaudid in the names of the 4 patients previously brought in by Duncan, namely John Stewart, 16 tablets (Exhibit 6), Eddie Parker, 30 tablets (Exhibit 8), Marcia Marshall, 50 tablets, (Exhibit 10) and Robert Pennington 50 tablets (Exhibit 12). The latter two prescriptions were dated February 3, 1977. The charts for these patients all indicated the patients were seen by Roberts on the dates shown on the prescriptions, that is, on February 2 and February 3. During this visit Duncan advised Roberts that he, Duncan, owed Roberts additional money but had only $450 to give him at the time. Just as Duncan completed counting out the $450 on Roberts' desk the narcotics investigator knocked on the door, was let in, arrested Roberts and took the money and the prescriptions that had been prepared. In addition, other papers on Roberts' desk were taken. One, Exhibit 14, shows what appears to be a column of numbers of the tablets prescribed that evening with an abbreviation of the patient's name along side the number. Thus 16 St, 30 Pa, 50 Pe, and Marcia 50 correspond to the number of Dilaudid tablets on Exhibits 6, 8, 10 and 12 prescribed for Stewart, Parker, Pennington and Marcia Marshall for a total of 146. Testifying in his own behalf Respondent denied any wrong doing or that he had ever had any Dilaudid pills in his possession. He accounted for the $450 on his desk by claiming it to be the result of a $120 investment (or loan he made to Duncan) to participate in a lumber operation proposed by Duncan. When read quotes from his taped conversation with Duncan Roberts testified he had no recollection of the conversation. On the other hand, during his taped conversation with Duncan on February 2, 1977 Roberts acknowledged receipt of the tablets he had given Duncan from a "woman" who delivered them to his residence. Roberts' explanation of the prescriptions and chart entries dated February 3, 1977 which were seized February 2, 1977 was that he had prepared these prescriptions for the following day to save time. His explanation for the chart entry was that the patients must have called in and described their symptoms. Neither explanation is credible. His explanation for the February 2 prescriptions was that these patients had also called in, however, the police witness contacted three of the four and each advised he had not communicated with Roberts on February 2. Duncan's testimony that none of the pills prescribed for him by Roberts was ever sold by Duncan was unrebutted. Exhibit 20, a certified copy of the Judgment of Circuit Court dated June 27, 1977 recorded in Minutes Book 61, Page 33, shows that Carl Sylvester Roberts, Jr. pleaded nolo contendere to Count I pursuant to plea bargaining, was adjudicated guilty by the court of sale of a derivative of opium and was placed on probation for two years. Counts II and III were nolle prossed.
