The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Schlein was properly graded on the November 1986 practical examination for chiropractic. Preliminary matters At the opening of the hearing, the petitioner, Dr. Stuart Schlein, inquired whether a former member of the Florida Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Dr. Posner, could represent him in this proceeding. After inquiring about Dr. Posner's credentials, Dr. Posner was not accepted as a qualified representative, but Dr. Schlein was permitted to consult with Dr. Posner throughout the proceeding to assist in the presentation of Dr. Schlein's evidence. At the hearing, David Paulson, Ph.D., and Robert Samuel Butler, Jr., D.C., testified on behalf of both parties. Petitioner introduced exhibits 1-14, and respondent introduced exhibits 1 and 2.
Findings Of Fact Stuart Schlein, the petitioner, was a candidate during the November 1986 chiropractic examination. He was exempt from Part I (Basic Sciences Examination) and Part II (Clinical Sciences Examination) because he had already passed the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners' examination. The practical examination consists of three portions, one on x-ray interpretation, one on chiropractic technique, and one on physical diagnosis. There was no dispute with respect to the scoring of Dr. Schlein on the x-ray interpretation portion of the exam, on which he received a grade of 74.2 percent. Dr. Schlein's grade on technique was 75.0 and on physical diagnosis was 72.5, for an overall score on the three portions of practical examination of 73.9 percent. Dr. Schlein would have been eligible for registration for licensure as a chiropractor if his overall grade was 75 percent or better on the practical examination. Rule 21D- 11.003(4), (5), Florida Administrative Code. To conduct the technique and physical diagnosis portions of the practical examination, the Department of Professional Regulation hires examiners who have five or more years experience as licensed chiropractors in Florida who have not been disciplined or investigated by the Board. Rule 21D- 11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. Pairs of examiners question each candidate. There is a standardization training session for examiners which lasts 2-3 hours the morning of the examination. During that training, the examiners learn the scoring scale to be used; candidates are scored on a scale from 1-4, with scores of four being the maximum. Examiners are told to independently evaluate the candidate's performance and are told how to record their answers on a sheet which can be scanned by computer, and are told the different content areas from which they may ask questions of candidates. For example, in the technique examination, there are four sub-areas to be covered, cervical, thoracic, occipital, and soft tissue. The examiner, individually, determines what he wishes to ask candidates from those subject areas. Both examiners' scores on each test are averaged to produce a candidate's final score for each test. The examiners change partners from the morning to afternoon examination sessions. For approximately 30 minutes before the morning or afternoon sessions, the examiners paired for that session may discuss with each other the questions which they intend to ask. To use a legal analogy, this method of testing candidate's practical knowledge is not much different than placing two examining lawyers in a room to question and evaluate a bar applicant, after merely instructing the lawyers to "ask something about evidence, about constitutional law, and about criminal law." (Transcript 137). There is no assurance that the questions posed by the examiners are at a proper level of difficulty to assess minimum qualifications for practice. There is no requirement that a given pair of examiners ask the same questions of their examinees during a morning or afternoon examination session. There is no assurance that the other examiner in the room even knows the answer to a question posed, yet both examiners are required to assign a grade for the candidate's performance on each sub-area. The Department makes a tape recording of the examination of each candidate for review. Dr. Schlein's grades on the technique and diagnosis portions of the practical examination were as follows: TECHNIQUE Examiner I Examiner 4 1. Cervical 3 4 2. Thoracic 3 3 3. Occipital 4 3 4. Soft Tissue 2 2 12 12 16 16 = 75 percent = 75 percent Average score 75 percent DIAGNOSIS Examiner 1 Examiner 4 Case History 3 3 Chiro. Exam. 2 2 Orthopedic 4 4 Neurological 4 3 Laboratory Diagnosis 3 2 Nutrition 2 [examiner failed to assign a grade] 18 14 24 20 = 75 percent = 70 percent Average score 72.5 percent Technique 75 percent Diagnosis 72.5 percent X-Ray 74.2 percent Final Average 73.9 percent Dr. Schlein objects to the grades he received for cervical and occipital on the technique exam and for neurological and nutrition in the diagnosis exam. With respect to the grade for nutrition, the Department of Professional Regulation could not explain why Examiner 4 failed to assign any grade for the candidate's answer with respect to the questions he was asked on nutrition. Dr. Schlein attempted to impeach the explanation given by Examiner 1, Dr. Butler, for the grades assigned on the four portions of the examination Dr. Schlein challenged by introducing portions of text books used in chiropractic schools which tend to support Dr. Schlein's oral answers. While the matter is not free from doubt, Dr. Schlein's text book excerpts have not convinced the Hearing Officer that the grades given are erroneous. Dr. Schlein was not properly graded, however, with respect to the area of nutrition since examiner 4 (who was not called as a witness) failed to assign any grade and the reason for his failure to do so was unexplained.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Schlein be granted the opportunity to be reexamined on the practical portion of the chiropractic examination, at no cost to him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact proposed by the petitioner. Rejected as introduction. Covered in paragraph 1. Covered in paragraph 2. Covered in paragraph 5. Covered in paragraph 6. Covered in paragraphs 1 and 5. Rejected because it is not possible to tell what the effect of the failure of Examiner 4 to give a grade on nutrition was, other than to draw the conclusion expressed in paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law that the examiner did not completely understand the grading instructions. Rejected for the reasons stated in paragraph 8. The finding that the testimony establishes there is no uniform method for grading examinees is implicitly accepted in paragraph 3, the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The following are my rulings of findings of fact proposed by the respondent. The Department filed no proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 STUART SCHLEIN, D. C. 1035 FRANKLING ROAD APARTMENT N-208 MARIETTA, GEORGIA 30667 PAT GUILFORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, Petitioner (all references to "Petitioner" are to Dr. Reich, even though in the preceding case he was the respondent) is entitled to attorneys' fees and costs in defending a case against him in which Respondent alleged that he was guilty of deviating from the applicable standard of care and failing to keep appropriate medical records.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a licensed physician in Florida, holding license number ME 0051631. He is Board-certified in ophthalmology. At all material times, Petitioner has been a "small business party," within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes. From 1996-98, Petitioner worked part-time at The Metabolic Treatment Center in Ft. Myers. Twice weekly, Petitioner visited the center and saw patients, who generally complained of symptoms consistent with metabolic conditions. Toward the end of Petitioner's term of employment at The Metabolic Treatment Center, its owners, one or more natural persons, sold the facility to a publicly traded corporation. Petitioner's relationship with the new chief operating officer was poor. One day, Petitioner reported to work and found the facility had been closed, leaving Petitioner without access to the records kept by the center. Petitioner commenced litigation with the corporate owner of The Metabolic Center to obtain copies of medical records. Petitioner obtained a court order compelling the corporation to turn over medical records, but the corporation did not do so, and the case was closed in February 1999 without Petitioner's ever obtaining the records that he had sought. The corporate owner was administratively dissolved by the Department of State in September 1999. On November 21, 2000, Respondent filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner concerning one patient whom he treated in 1997 at The Metabolic Treatment Center. In 2001, Respondent prepared a 50-count Administrative Complaint against Petitioner concerning 10 patients whom he had treated at The Metabolic Treatment Center. In 2001, Petitioner was represented by attorney William Furlow. Mr. Furlow and a representative of Respondent negotiated a settlement, but Petitioner claimed that he had lacked the authority to enter into the settlement. The Board of Medicine declined to reopen the settlement and issued a Final Order to this effect. Petitioner appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which issued an opinion on March 26, 2004, requiring the Board of Medicine to give Petitioner an evidentiary hearing on the factual issue of whether he had authorized Mr. Furlow to settle the case on the conditions set forth in the settlement agreement. Rather than litigate the authorization question, the Board of Medicine filed an amended Administrative Complaint on August 20, 2004, concerning the lone patient who had been the subject of the earlier-filed Administrative Complaint, and filed a second Administrative Complaint on October 27, 2004, concerning the 10 patients who had been the subject of the never-filed, 50-count Administrative Complaint. After transmittal to the Division of Administrative Hearings, these cases, which were consolidated, became DOAH Case Nos. 04-3222PL and 04-4111PL, respectively. By the time of the filing of the 2004 Administrative Complaints, Petitioner was represented by his present counsel. However, this representation has not been continuous. Shortly before the final hearing in the consolidated cases, Petitioner's counsel moved for leave to withdraw because Petitioner had fired them. The motion was granted, an accompanying request for continuance was denied, and Petitioner represented himself at the hearing, which took place on December 6 and 7, 2005. The undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Order on May 5, 2006. The Recommended Order excluded all of Respondent's evidence consisting of purported medical records, except for the records that Petitioner had identified in a prehearing deposition. These evidentiary rulings left evidence concerning only four patients. The recommendation was for the Board of Medicine to enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Petitioner concerning all but the four patients mentioned above. For these patients, the recommendation was for the Board to enter a Final Order finding Petitioner guilty of the financial exploitation of four patients, failure to perform a statutory obligation as to three patients, failure to maintain adequate medical records on three patients, preparation of inappropriate prescriptions for two patients, and violation of the applicable standard of care as to one patient. The Recommended Order recommended an administrative fine of $29,000 and five years' probation. In Final Orders issued September 7 and October 9, 2006, the Board of Medicine substantially adopted the Recommended Order with revisions to the penalty. Petitioner appealed the Final Orders and, on January 23, 2008, the Fourth District Court of Appeal vacated the Final Orders. The reasoning of the court was that Petitioner had been denied access to medical records at The Metabolic Treatment Center, and, thus, there was no competent substantial evidence, given the clear and convincing standard, to support the findings of violations. On March 17 and 21, 2008, pursuant to the mandate, the Board of Medicine entered Final Orders dismissing all charges against Petitioner and taxing appellate costs of $610. On March 21, 2008, Petitioner filed his Petition Pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. The attorneys whom Petitioner had discharged immediately prior to the final hearing were re-engaged immediately after the issuance of the Recommended Order. These attorneys, who are presently representing Petitioner, prepared the briefs and argued the appeal. Petitioner seeks attorneys' fees for three phases of this litigation: 1) litigation over the purported consent agreement, concluding with the filing of the two Administrative Complaints that were transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings; 2) litigation in the two Division of Administrative Hearings cases through the appellate court's mandate; and 3) litigation with the Board of Medicine in obtaining the Final Order vacating the earlier Final Orders. To the extent that the first claim concerns the consent agreement, it is untimely for the reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law. To the extent that the first claim concerns the same allegations covered in the second claim, it is part of the second claim. The second claim is really two claims: one concerns the proceeding at the Division of Administrative Hearings and culminating with the Final Orders issued by the Board of Medicine, and the second is for the appellate proceeding. The third claim really is part of the second claim, as the Board of Medicine never filed anything to initiate this phase of the overall proceeding. The question underlying the claim for attorneys' fees for the second phase of litigation is whether the Board of Medicine was substantially justified in filing the two Administrative Complaints in August and October 2004. Respondent has submitted as Respondent Exhibit A a voluminous stack of investigative reports prepared by the Agency for Heath Care Administration (AHCA) in connection with the disciplinary cases prosecuted against Petitioner. The periods of investigation run from July 9, 1998, through August 28, 2001, although the whole period is not covered and the periods covered by some reports overlap the periods covered by other reports. The investigative reports contain opinion letters from five physicians. The investigative report for the period of July 9, 1998, through September 9, 1998, contains an undated letter from Kevin M. Holthaus, M.D. Dr. Holthaus's letter addresses three patients, including one for whom AHCA had obtained medical records. Dr. Holthaus opined that Petitioner fell below the standard of care in the diagnosis and management of endocrine disorders like hypothyroidism and diabetes. Dr. Holthaus added that Petitioner failed to perform an appropriate history and physical examination prior to ordering extensive diagnostic studies. Dr. Holthaus noted that Petitioner's prescription of thyroid hormone, despite laboratory studies obviating the need for this treatment, posed a threat to the wellbeing of the patient. Dr. Holthaus's letter also states that Petitioner stood to gain from his actions, which included inadequate assessments of patient complaints and symptoms and inappropriate or inadequate diagnoses. The investigative report for October 14, 1998, through February 4, 1999, contains the notes of a telephone interview with Craig R. Sweet, M.D., who said that he had contacted The Metabolic Treatment Center about Petitioner's treatment of one patient. An unidentified person said that Petitioner no longer worked at the center, but had treated patients for nonexistent thyroid problems. Dr. Sweet stated that he had seen nothing justifying Petitioner's administration of thyroid medication or human growth hormone to the patient. This investigative report also contained a letter dated April 18, 1999, from E. Timothy Shapiro, M.D., who treats patients for a wide variety of endocrine problems. Dr. Shapiro, who was also an assistant clinical professor at the University of Miami, addressed one patient and found excessive and unjustified lab work, inappropriate treatment with thyroid hormone despite normal thyroid functions, inappropriate treatment with testosterone despite normal testosterone levels, and inappropriate treatment with growth hormone despite inadequate growth hormone testing and no clinical features of growth hormone deficiency. Dr. Shapiro concluded that the evidence "points to a scheme to extract money." The investigative report for May 2, 2000, to July 19, 2000, includes an undated letter from H. Curtis Benson, M.D. Dr. Benson found that Petitioner ordered unnecessary lab tests, treated a patient for hypothyroidism despite normal thyroid function studies, and kept "cursory" medical records containing no mention of a complete physical examination. The investigative report for September 21, 2000, through November 8, 2000, notes that one patient reported that Petitioner had told her that she had a fatal blood disease, but, when she was seen by her regular physician, he found no problems with her blood. Interestingly, this complainant was the insurance investigator who had submitted the other complaints, which were the bases of the insurance company's concern of excessive and unnecessary testing. A principal of The Metabolic Treatment Center had invited the insurance investigator to visit The Metabolic Treatment Center as a patient and see the operation for herself. Also in this report is a letter from Mr. Furlow, dated November 20, 2000, stating that many of Petitioner's records were out of his possession when he was forced out by the center. The investigative report for March 22, 2001, through June 8, 2001, contains a letter dated January 2, 2001, from Dr. Shapiro. Stating that he had reviewed four more cases, Dr. Shapiro stated that Petitioner was performing excessive lab testing, usually of tests that carry high reimbursement levels. Dr. Shapiro questioned the accuracy of the numerous diagnoses of peripheral neuropathy, noting that Petitioner routinely ordered nerve conduction tests, which were performed by a radiologist, rather than, as was common in Dr. Shapiro's experience, a neurologist. Dr. Shapiro also stated that Petitioner treated patients with thyroid hormone despite their normal thyroid function. He concluded that this pattern of medical practice was fraudulent and below the applicable standard of care. This investigative report also contains a letter dated January 18, 2001, from Hamilton R. Fish, M.D., who had examined the records of three patients. Dr. Fish summarized his concerns as: 1) many unnecessary lab tests, including reported abnormalities in the nerve conduction studies with no follow-up or referral; 2) no follow-up or referral on a patient diagnosed with hyerinsulinemia and insulin resistance; 3) lab tests and an EKG done on one patient prior to an evaluation by a physician; and 4) inaccurate medical advice contained in The Metabolic Treatment Center handbook given to patients, such as a warning that exercise makes insulin levels rise. The investigative reports for January 12, 2001, through February 7, 2001, and March 22, 2001, through June 8, 2001, contain letters from Dr. Shapiro dated December 27, 2000, and March 19, 2001. In each of these letters, Dr. Shapiro analyzes another patient and finds excessive and inappropriate lab testing, inappropriate diagnoses and treatment, a failure to refer a patient with neuropathy to a neurologist, and a failure to meet the applicable standard of care. The transcript of the probable cause meeting held on October 22, 2004, reveals that the probable cause panel had all of the above-described investigative materials, which included extensive medical records. Counsel summarized to the panel the important portions of the Administrative Complaint concerning the 10 patients who were the subject thereof. In authorizing the filing of the Administrative Complaint, the chair noted that he had never seen such unanimity of opinion among the consultants and suggested an emergency suspension. Although the transcript of the probable cause meeting on the Administrative Complaint involving only one patient has been lost, it must be inferred, based on the memorandum of action, that a probable cause panel similarly considered the file materials and similarly authorized the filing of that Administrative Complaint a couple of months earlier. Respondent contends that Petitioner never claimed the existence of additional medical records until the final hearing. This is not exactly true, as the records contain representations that Petitioner was unable to obtain all of the records from The Metabolic Treatment Center. On the other hand, Petitioner did not provide the probable cause panels with any expert opinion in his favor, except for Petitioner's medical claims for his treatment methods, which are detailed in the Recommended Order. The first Administrative Complaint filed in this case was on November 21, 2000; it was the complaint concerning one patient, so it was the precursor to the Administrative Complaint filed on August 20, 2004, in DOAH Case No. 04-3222PL. The next Administrative Complaint was filed in 2001, and it was the precursor to the Administrative Complaint filed on October 27, 2004, in DOAH Case No. 04-4111PL. From the earliest of these dates to the latest, Respondent had a reasonable basis in fact to proceed. Viewing the investigative materials in the manner most favorable to Petitioner, they presented a conflict between mainstream medical opinions concerning the proper diagnosis and treatment of endocrinal disorders and Petitioner's opinion, unsupported by other authorities (at least, in the investigative file), that conventional, acceptable ranges for various items, such as T-3 or TSH, are wrong or that holistic approaches are medically necessary to treat certain metabolic syndromes. At best, from Petitioner's point of view, this was a conflict in opinions between five practitioners, on the one hand, and Petitioner, on the other, and the informed, well-reasoned opinions of the five experts with whom Respondent consulted provided a reasonable basis in fact for the filing of all the Administrative Complaints and all of the charges contained within them.
The Issue The issues concern the Petitioner's candidacy for licensure as a chiropractic practitioner in Florida. In particular, Petitioner stood examination for licensure in November, 1987, and was not successful in that attempt. Consequently, he has challenged the examination results in the portion of the examination related to physical diagnosis. His examination results have otherwise been sufficient to gain licensure. The Petitioner's claims in this challenge to the examination results relate to his assertions that the examination questions in dispute were not reasonable, alternatively that the answers given were sufficient and that contrary to Rule 21-11.009(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code the examiners in the oral examination phase of his testing conferred in assigning a score to his performance instead of arriving at a score independently.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John G. Bahrs, is a graduate of Life Chiropractic College in Atlanta, Georgia, having graduated in June, 1987. He currently resides in Gainesville, Florida, at the address previously identified. In November, 1987, Petitioner took the Florida license examination to gain a license to practice chiropractic in Florida. The summarizing results of the various phases of that examination may be found in Respondent's exhibit no. 1 which is a copy of the examination results. It notes the requirement that the candidate receive a score of seventy-five (75) percent to pass the physical diagnosis portion of the examination. The score received by the Petitioner was sixty (60) percent. Having been unsuccessful in attempts to gain an adjustment of that score through an informal process, Petitioner requested a formal hearing in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. That request was honored by the submission of this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a Hearing Officer and a subsequent hearing which was held on October 3, 1988. Under the general category of physical diagnosis there are various sub- elements to that examination process. In each of those areas, Petitioner received the minimum passing score of seventy-five (75) percent by the examiners, who are referred to as examiners numbers 23 and 25, with exception of scores related to laboratory diagnosis, nutrition and x-ray technique and diagnosis. The score assigned by examiner number 25 on laboratory diagnosis equates to fifty (SO) percent and the nutrition score likewise. Examiner number 23 assigned a laboratory diagnosis score of fifty (50) percent and nutrition, twenty-five (25) percent. He also gave the Petitioner a score of fifty (50) percent on x-ray technique and diagnosis. This analysis of the scores received in the sub-elements to the examination may be found in Respondent's exhibit no. 2, a copy of that compilation which has been admitted as evidence in this case. In addition to the break out of the scores, there is a comment section prepared by each of the graders; this, together with an analysis of the written recap of these phases of the examination process and the testimony of the Petitioner and the Respondent's chiropractic expert, focuses the dispute and allows a factual analysis to be made. The expert who testified for the Respondent Agency is Dr. Steven M. Ordet. He is a graduate of the National College of Chiropractic in Lombard, Illinois. He achieved that degree in 1974. At present, he is a consultant, lecturer and author. He practiced chiropractic in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, between the years 1974 and 1985. He is a member of the American Chiropractic Association and Florida Chiropractic Association. He has been associated with the 1icensure of candidates in Florida for approximately seven (7) years as an examiner and consultant. In the subsection of the examination for which Petitioner received substandard scores on nutrition, examiner 23 noted that the Petitioner had received no training in that field. Examiner 25 made notations concerning the Petitioner's lack of understanding of the effects of use of iron and the implications of a vitamins B 6 deficiency. In his oral examination phase on nutrition, one of the questions posed related to a patient who was experiencing swelling in her hands in the morning and problems with her rings being too tight and burning in the soles of her feet. Petitioner was asked if there was some supplementation that might be provided to that patient that would assist the patient in her condition. In response, the Petitioner indicated that he had not had the type of training in his education that would lead to any specific clinical decision and that this, nutrition, was not one of his strong points. Petitioner made the suggestion by way of a query that this might sound like an edema problem to which the retort by an examiner was to the effect that you tell the examiners what you think should be done, meaning by supplementation. At hearing, the Petitioner indicated that his training in school in nutrition had related to what the food groups consist of, what vitamins are about, what minerals are and carbohydrates, proteins, again, basic information not sufficient to respond to some particular condition that a patient was experiencing. As identified by Dr. Ordet, the supplement for the problem described in the previous paragraph is pyridoxine, vitamin B 6, which is a natural diuretic that would help to reduce edema. The Petitioner did not respond sufficiently to the question under examination. Furthermore, his references provided at hearing on the topic of pyridoxine do not disturb the opinion of Dr. Ordet. Another question under the category of nutrition was to the effect that this patient, the hypothetical patient, a woman, takes vitamins and minerals regularly and is experiencing constipation and the Petitioner was asked what would cause this problem of those substances being utilized. Petitioner responded from a supplementation standpoint that he couldn't answer specifically but knows that generally you can overload a patient with supplements and can cause diarrhea or constipation. The proper answer as identified by Dr. Ordet would be that iron could cause the problem of constipation. Iron is a mineral. This is another instance in which the reference sources that the Petitioner presented did not dispel the conclusions reached by Dr. Ordet. Under the heading of x-ray technique and diagnosis, the examiners asked the Petitioner about the x-ray of a lower back involvement. He described an anterior to posterior examination in which a bucky was employed in a lateral cervical setting. He went on to describe that a non-bucky was used in x-ray of extremities measuring less than ten (10) centimeters. A further question concerned whether you would use more or less exposure going from 8 to 1 to 12 to 1 ratios and employing a bucky, to which the Petitioner indicated you would use less exposure. It is that portion of the questions which related to the ratio being increased and the belief expressed by the Petitioner that would cause less exposure that made examiner 23 grade the Petitioner down to a fifty (50) percent rating. Dr. Ordet, whose opinion is accepted on this matter, felt that the cervical view was a non-bucky projection, which contrary to the Petitioner's assertion is a matter which should be evident as a standard applied to all training in x-ray techniques. Therefore, Petitioner's claim that his schooling would allow the bucky to be employed in this form of projection is out of keeping with acceptable standards. Moreover, Dr. Ordet pointed out that the ratio increase would promote further exposure to the patient, not less exposure as answered by the Petitioner causing him to be downgraded by examiner 23. Petitioner's contention that the questions that preceded the matter of the increase in ratio were related to film exposure and not patient exposure misstates the context of those questions in this portion of the examination. It is clear that what was being referred to was the effect on the patient, not the effect on the film. The reference material which Petitioner has provided tends to confirm that the increase in ratio will increase the amount of exposure to the patient. Under the heading of laboratory diagnosis, the question was posed to the Petitioner that a female patient presents with tenderness above the pubic bone with difficulty urinating, burning sensation and pain, and he was asked to provide a statement of what laboratory tests would be ordered by the Petitioner and what would one look for through that analyses. The Petitioner responded that there is an indicated bladder infection and stated he would do an urinalysis. He was then asked what he might expect to see under that analysis and he said that he would expect to see cells, red blood cells and increased white blood cells and infection. He was asked what kind of white blood cells he would find in the urine and he said that he would see neutrophils in a microscopic examination. He again mentioned red blood cells and squamous epithelial cells in the bladder infection. In describing what he might see up in the area of the kidney, he said that he would see renal cells which are smaller and rounder compared to the epithelial cells in the area of the bladder which are larger and irregular in shape. As to a question about what he would expect to see in the way of a Ph in this case as presented compared to the normal condition, he said that he expected to see acidic values in that patient compared to the normal values which were in a range of 4.6 to 6.8 Ph. Then he stated between 4 and 6 Ph. According to Petitioner the Ph in the patient's condition would be a shift toward 4 and closer to 4 than the other end of the Ph scale. Examiner 25 had :noted that the Petitioner had insufficient knowledge of the situation in the test and Examiner 23 referenced the remarks about acidic Ph and the round kidney cells. By way of interpretation of the concerns which the examiners had In the area of laboratory diagnosis Dr. Ordet, whose opinion is accepted, noted that white cells in the urine any level show an abnormal condition. It is not the increase in those white cells that is significant. He also observed that the white cells would not be identified as neutrophils. The laboratory process, urinalysis, does not further describe the nature of the cells or than that they are white cells. Dr. Ordet identified that the nature of the cells in the kidney area were those associated with casts. Their relative size and shape are not the important factors. Consequently, the remarks by the Petitioner about size and shape of the cells in the bladder and the kidney are not significant. What is significant is to look for bonding between some foreign material and the cell forming casts in the kidney. One of the products in a cast might be calcium oxalate. Dr. Ordet noted that the Ph in the urine with the infection in this patient's case would be more alkaline, as opposed to acidic. Petitioner's reference sources concerning the urinary condition do not overturn the impressions which Dr. Ordet had of this condition in the hypothetical. Dr. Ordet has stated the opinion that the questions which were challenged were fair questions in examining a candidate for licensure as a chiropractic physician. His opinion is accepted and the opinion of the Petitioner that the questions were not fair is rejected. Petitioner, at hearing, suggested that the tape cassette of his examination which is exhibit 3 by the Respondent pointed out that contrary to Rule 21-11.009 (2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code, examiners 2 and 25 conferred in reaching conclusions about scores to be assigned to Petitioner's examination. A thorough review of that cassette does not reveal any arrangements of that sort. Their remarks indicate that the examiners were checking to see what sub-categories were involved in the examination as depicted in Respondent's exhibit number 2, and to verify that each examiner acknowledged what those sub-categories were.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive credit for her answers to certain specified questions on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge portion of the Florida Medical Licensure Examination administered November 19 and 20, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Health is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating physicians practicing medicine in Florida, including foreign-licensed physicians. Sections 458.311 and 458.3115, Florida Statutes (1999); Rule 64B8-5.002, Florida Administrative Code. In order to be issued a restricted license to practice medicine in Florida, a foreign-licensed physician must pass the FMLE, an examination that is developed by the Department and that consists of two parts; Part I tests a candidate's knowledge of Basic Science and Disease Processes, and Part II tests a candidate's knowledge of Clinical Applications of Medical Knowledge. Ms. Jimenez was accepted as a candidate for the FMLE and sat for the examination on November 19 and 20, 1999. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Jimenez had attained a scaled score of 348 on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge portion of the FMLE; a scaled score of 350 is required to pass Part II of the examination. The questions that comprise the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge portion of the FMLE are objective, multiple- choice questions drawn from a bank of questions written by physicians, field-tested, reviewed, and edited. A psychometrician employed by the Department oversees the development of the examination questions. The questions for the November 1999 FMLE were drawn from the bank of questions in accordance with a test blueprint developed by a committee of physicians, and the questions were compiled into an examination. A committee of physicians then reviewed the examination to determine whether it would adequately and reliably test the candidate's ability to practice medicine with reasonable care and safety. A psychometrician employed by the Department oversaw the process of compiling the examination. The Department sends each candidate registering to take the FMLE a Candidate Information Booklet which contains, among other things, information about the test, the material to be covered on the test, sample questions, and a list of reference books that the candidates should consult in preparing for the examination. Ms. Jimenez disputes the Department's determination that the answers she gave to questions 3, 11, 81, and 183 of Part IIA and to question 113 of Part IIB of the FMLE administered November 19 and 20, 1999, were incorrect. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 3 of Part IIA of the examination is "C"; Ms. Jimenez chose answer "D." Question 3 is clear and unambiguous, the question contains sufficient information to answer the question correctly, and the question has only one correct answer, which is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in the reference book entitled Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 14th Edition, 1998, which is included in the list of reference books provided to candidates for the examination. In this treatise, medical therapy is identified as the preferred treatment for distal dissection, that is, for a Type B or descending aortic dissection. "C" is, therefore, the correct answer to question 3 of Part IIA of the FMLE, and Ms. Jimenez should not receive credit for her answer because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 11 of Part IIA of the examination is "A"; Ms. Jimenez chose answer "D." Question 11 is clear and unambiguous, the question contains sufficient information to answer the question correctly, and the question has only one correct answer, which is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in the reference book entitled Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 14th Edition, 1998, which is included in the list of reference books provided to candidates for the examination. In this treatise, it is observed that significant changes in the QRS complexes are consistent with acute myocardial infarction; all other answer choices are consistent with a diagnosis of acute pericarditis. "A" is, therefore, the correct answer to question 11 of Part IIA of the FMLE, and Ms. Jimenez should not receive credit for her answer because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 81 of Part IIA of the examination is "B"; Ms. Jimenez chose answer "A." Question 81 is clear and unambiguous, the question contains sufficient information to answer the question correctly, and the question has only one correct answer, which is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in the reference book entitled Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 14th Edition, 1998, which is considered an authoritative text by physicians and which is included in the list of reference books provided to candidates for the examination. In this treatise, it is observed that the prevalence of MS varies significantly among different ethnic groups. "B" is, therefore, the correct answer to question 81 of Part IIA of the FMLE, and Ms. Jimenez should not receive credit for her answer because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 183 of Part IIA of the examination is "A"; Ms. Jimenez chose answer "D." Question 183 is clear and unambiguous, the question contains sufficient information to answer the question correctly, and the question has only one correct answer, which is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be found in the reference book entitled Novak's Gynecology, 12th Edition, 1998, which is considered an authoritative text by physicians and which is included in the list of reference books provided to candidates for the examination. The question elicits the answer identifying the treatment that is most appropriate for the described patient, and, in the treatise, it is observed that hormone replacement therapy is indicated for women who are menopausal and have no contraindications. "A" is, therefore, the correct answer to question 183 of Part IIA of the FMLE, and Ms. Jimenez should not receive credit for her answer because the answer she gave is not the correct answer. According to the Department, the correct answer to question 113 of Part IIB of the examination is "A"; Ms. Jimenez chose answer "D." Question 113 is clear and unambiguous, the question contains sufficient information to answer the question correctly, and the question has only one correct answer, which is included among the choices provided. The correct answer can be derived from information found in the reference books entitled Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 14th Edition, 1998, and Robert B. Taylor's Family Medicine: Principles and Practice, 5th Edition, 1997, which are considered authoritative texts by physicians and which are included in the list of reference books provided to candidates for the examination. The question elicits the answer identifying the intervention that is most appropriate for the described patient. It can be determined from the information contained in the treatises that the patient described in the question should not be treated with drugs but, rather, should be treated with diet and exercise. "A" is, therefore, the correct answer to question 113 of Part IIB of the FMLE, and Ms. Jimenez should not receive credit for her answer because the answer she gave is not the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the petition of Gloria Patricia Jimenez challenging questions 3, 11, 81, and 183 of Part IIA and question 113 of Part IIB of the Florida Medical Licensure Examination administered November 19 and 20, 1999.. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (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 18th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gloria Patricia Jimenez 7765 Southwest 86 Street Unit F2, Apartment 209 Miami, Florida 33143 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for license to practice medicine by endorsement pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, should be approved. Petitioner appeared at the hearing unaccompanied by legal counsel and was advised of her rights and applicable procedures in administrative proceedings under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. She elected to represent herself in this matter. This case arises from the provisional denial of Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement to practice medicine, pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. By Respondent's Order, dated January 29, 1982, the application was denied pursuant to subsection 458.313(1)(d), Florida Statutes, on the ground that Petitioner had not been certified by licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., and is not certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners as having completed its examination within the ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for licensure by endorsement. In its Order, Respondent advised Petitioner-of her right to petition for a hearing. Petitioner so requested a hearing under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, by letter to Respondent, dated May 2, 1982.
Findings Of Fact On October 1, 1981, Petitioner Elda Giannantonio filed an endorsement application with Respondent on a standard form provided by the agency, together with supporting documents and the standard application fee. (Exhibit 1) By "Final Order" of the Board of Medical Examiners, dated January 29, 1982,which recited action taken by the Board on December 4, 1981, it was found that Petitioner had not been certified by licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., and is not certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners as having completed its examination within the ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for licensure by endorsement. It was therefore concluded by the Board that Petitioner had not met the statutory requirements for licensure by endorsement pursuant to Section 458.313(d), Florida Statutes. In all other respects, Petitioner has met the necessary requirements for licensure by endorsement. (Testimony of Faircloth, Exhibit 1, Stipulation) Petitioner was born and educated in Italy where she received her Medical degree in 1953. To be licensed by endorsement in Florida, a foreign graduate must have received a standard certificate after passing an examination given by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates. Petitioner received such a certificate on March 28, 1962. (Testimony of Faircloth, Petitioner, Exhibit 1) A statutory requirement of all applicants for licensure by endorsement is that the applicant must have been certified by licensure examination of the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc. (FLEX) or certified by the National Board of Medical Examiners as having completed its examination; provided that said examination required shall have been so certified within the ten years immediately preceding the filing of the application for licensure. The National Board of Medical Examiners examination is administered only to students at Medical schools in the United States. Petitioner has not been certified by either licensure examination. All states, including Florida, recognize the FLEX examination as the standard test for licensure. (Testimony of Petitioner, Faircloth, Exhibit 1) Petitioner was of the mistaken opinion that the fact she had Practiced medicine in New York and had been certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates was sufficient to qualify her for licensure by endorsement, without the need for either National Board or FLEX certification. However, the instructions provided applicants by Respondent clearly showed that both requirements must be met by foreign graduates. (Testimony of Petitioner, Faircloth, Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That the application of Petitioner Elda Giannantonio for licensure by endorsement pursuant to Section 458.313, Florida Statutes, be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 24th day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Elda Giannantonio, M.D. 27 Kohr Road Kings Park, NY 11754 Chris D. Rolle, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy J. Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was given a score of 74 percent on the Division B-Site Design I portion of the written examination administered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, on or about June 14, 1993. 75 percent was passing. He challenged two of the questions on the exam. First Challenge On the first multiple-choice question the Petitioner challenged (the first question on Petitioner's Exhibit 1), the correct answer was required to depict both a "defined entrance facing south" and "a sense of mystery and surprise defined by the buildings." The Petitioner's answer clearly was incorrect. The entrance it depicted was not "defined," and there was little "sense of mystery and surprise defined by the buildings." The correct choice depicted both. (So did another choice, but it is not necessary to attempt to distinguish between the two--on the basis of whether the correct answer also was required to depict a small plaza--since the Petitioner chose neither.) 1224 of the 1430 examinees chose the answer for which credit was given. Only 30 chose the Petitioner's answer. These results validate the Petitioner's score on this question. The Petitioner did not prove either that the answer he chose was correct, that he should have been given credit for his answer or that the question should have been discarded. Second Challenge On the second multiple-choice question challenged (the second question on Petitioner's Exhibit 1), the Petitioner's choice did not describe the plan he had in mind. It omitted one element of the plan--a building in the center. Without the missing element, the plan chosen by the Petitioner clearly was incorrect. Even with the missing element, the the plan chosen by the Petitioner was impractical and would not be found in actual practice. The examination was designed to be taken by persons having practical as well as academic experience, and the examinees were expected to draw on both aspects of their experience. 949 of the 1430 examinees chose the answer for which credit was given. 341 chose the Petitioner's answer. These results do not invalidate the Petitioner's score on this question. The Petitioner did not prove either that the answer he chose was correct, that he should have been given credit for his answer or that the question should have been discarded.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Respondent, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order denying the Petitioner's exam challenge. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 8th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6511 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the Department's proposed findings of fact (the Petitioner not having filed any: 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Third sentences, rejected as contrary to the facts found and as contrary to the evidence. Fourth sentence, rejected as to "B," as contrary to the facts found and as contrary to the evidence; as to "C," accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Fifth sentence, accepted but irrelevant, subordinate and unnecessary. Sixth sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Middle sentences, accepted but largely subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected in part as not proven (the reasons why other candidates chose the answer for which credit was given is speculation); otherwise, accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Alcides Santiesteban 1224 East Palifox Tampa, Florida 33603 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0751 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for the responses given during his practical examination for licensure which was conducted during November, 1991, and for which Petitioner entered this challenge.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, David Sanders, is a candidate for chiropractic licensure. His candidate for licensure number is 200142, and he took the November, 1991, practical examination administered by the Department. Petitioner received a score of 64.0 on the practical examination. Petitioner's score fell below the minimum score for passing, 75.0. Petitioner timely challenged the examination results and claimed that the Department had incorrectly graded Petitioner's responses and performance during the examination. In this case, the practical examination was administered by two examiners who, independently of one another, scored the responses given by Petitioner when presented with two case studies. For Case 1, the scoring was divided into fourteen sections or subsections where the candidate was evaluated and given points based upon the responses given. For the orthopedics section of Case 1, the Petitioner was given a scenario of facts from which he was to determine the appropriate tests to be administered to the patient. Following selection of the tests to be given, Petitioner was required to perform the test. For an inappropriate test, no points were awarded, even if the candidate performed the test correctly. Of the nine tests listed, four were to be chosen and performed. One point was awarded for each appropriate test correctly performed. In response to the orthopedics section, Petitioner selected three appropriate tests to perform. Consequently, the maximum grade, per examiner, he could have received was a score of three. Petitioner received a score of two from one examiner, and a three from the other. The first examiner commented that the Yeomans test was wrong. Since Yeomans was an appropriate test to perform, and Petitioner correctly performed the test, Petitioner should have received a three on that section from that examiner. Under the neurological subsections of Case 1, Petitioner was required to identify, based upon the fact scenario given, four muscles which should be examined and tested. Petitioner only identified three relevant muscles. Consequently, he received a score of three from each examiner. The scoring on this subsection was correct. Under subsection 8 of the neurological portion Petitioner received no credit as he failed to select three appropriate tests and correctly interpret the responses. Accordingly, the scoring on this subsection was correct. The final subsection of the neurological portion was the diagnosis rendered based upon all the findings of the scenario and test results. Since Petitioner rendered an inappropriate diagnosis, no points were awarded. The scoring on this subsection was correct. Case 2 of the physical examination contained nine sections or subsections for which Petitioner could have received credit. The first section of Case 2 required Petitioner to obtain a history from the patient. To achieve a perfect score on this section, the candidate had to inquire into seven or more areas of relevant history. If so, the score for the section would be a four. In this case, Petitioner should have received a four from both examiners regarding the history taken. As it was, Petitioner only received a three from the examiners. In order to receive credit on the physical-selection portion of the test, Petitioner was required to auscultate the heart and lungs, and purcuss the chest. Since he failed to do so, the scoring on this subsection was correct. In connection with subsections 18 and 19 of Case 2, Petitioner failed to receive full credit because he did not indicate an appropriate laboratory test. Had Petitioner requested a SMAC test, full credit would have been given for both subsections. As it was, because Petitioner failed to request a SMAC test, he could not receive credit on either subsection. The scoring on these subsections was correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a final order changing Petitioner's score on the November, 1991, physical examination as noted above in order to recalculate and determine whether or not Petitioner failed the examination through no fault of his own. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 92-2709 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: 1. None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: With regard to paragraph 1, with the deletion of the words "on physical diagnosis" in sentence 1, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 2 is accepted. Paragraph 3 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraphs 5 through 9 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: David Sanders 359 Glenwood Avenue Satellite Beach, Florida 32937 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be issued a license to practice dentistry pursuant to Chapter 466, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Dr. Lester Altman is a licensed dentist in the State of New York who practices dentistry in Brooklyn , New York. He has been in the private practice of dentistry since 1948. (Testimony of Petitioner) Petitioner applied for licensure as a dentist in Florida on two occasions in 1976 and took the necessary examinations for such licenses. On both occasions, he failed to achieve a satisfactory grade of 75 on the clinical examinations. He applied again in March, 1978, and was examined in June, 1978. He was informed by Respondent on July 5, 1978, that he had not achieved a final grade of 75 on the clinical examination and therefore did not qualify for licensure. Petitioner thereafter filed a petition for an administrative hearing which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 27, 1979. (Testimony of Petitioner, Case pleadings, Exhibit 13) The June, 1978, clinical examination was conducted in Gainesville, Florida, by a group of examining dentists which consisted of certain members of the Board of Dentistry and other selected Florida dentists. Approximately 75 percent of the group had served previously as examiners. The clinical examination extends for a period of two days and applicants are tested in the areas of cast gold restoration, amalgam restoration, laboratory, denture setup, periodontal evaluation, and professional evaluation. Two separate grades are given for the cast gold restoration, amalgam restoration, and laboratory portions of the examination. Each of the six major parts of the examination is weighted for grading purposes and all scores are considered in arriving at a total score for the test. Each scored portion of the examination receives a grade ranging from 0 to 5, with 5 representing 100 percent and 3 being an average grade of 75 percent. The subject matter of the examination is determined by the Board of Dentistry and the individual grades for each portion of the examination are entered by two examiners on a grading form designed by a professional testing organization in conjunction with the Board for computer scoring. In order to ensure the validity and fairness of the examination, it is necessary that grading procedures be standardized by the examiners. This process is to preclude to the extent possible widely divergent scores being assigned to a particular portion of the examination by individual examiners. Such a standardization process takes place a short time prior to the administration of the examination at which all examiners are in attendance. At that time various criteria are established and the examiners practice grading various parts of the examination using models of teeth, slides, and the like. Grades are compared among the examiners and guidelines are established so that all examiners will be grading on the same criteria. During these sessions, Department Heads and other faculty personnel of the University of Florida Dental School participate and lecture to the examiners. The "professional evaluation" portion of the examination includes grading criteria for clinical judgment, professional judgment, instruments, patient management, clinical examination, and operatory arrangement. "Clinical judgment" deals primarily with the applicant's competence in diagnosing and performing the necessary dental work required in the examination. "Professional judgment" includes considerations of the applicant's concern for and demeanor toward patients as to prevention of pain, courtesy in avoiding appointment delays, and other matters reflecting his interest in the patient. Similarly, the applicant's treatment of his dental assistants is considered in this category. The other areas of patient management, instruments, clinical examination, and operatory arrangement deals with the cleanliness and appropriateness of instruments, extent of dental knowledge and decision making, and treatment of patients. In particular, the areas of clinical judgment, professional judgment, and patient management overlap one another in varying degrees. The professional evaluation segment of the examination is standardized at the early meetings of the examiners by full discussion of the grading criteria among the participants and arrival at a consensus as to uniformity. The examiners are instructed to make notations or check marks on the grading form in cases where a below average grade is entered. The standardization procedures were employed for the June 1978 clinical examination. (Testimony of Hite, Bliss, Santin, (Deposition - Exhibit 2), Dannahower (Deposition- Exhibit 3), Mullens (Deposition - Exhibit 1), Exhibits 4, 8, 12) At the time an applicant reports for the examination, he is assigned a random number which is placed on the various examination forms to provide anonymity. He is assigned his own operatory or treatment area to work in and his own laboratory desk. Various periods of the two-day examination session are spent in the laboratory and clinic areas. Two examiners grade the laboratory work. In the clinic there is an examiner in charge and normally two other examiners who view the candidates's work after each step of the examination and independently enter a grade on the scoring form. After the second examiner has entered the grade, he notes the grade given by the first examiner and, in rare instances where there is more than one grade difference between the two, a third examiner is called in to enter an independent grade of his own. Such an instance did not occur with respect to Petitioner's examination. The "professional evaluation" grade is entered during the last clinic session based on the examiners' observations of the applicants during the cast gold and amalgam restoration and periodontal parts of the examination. The two examiners who grade professional evaluation will have graded the applicant for at least 50 percent of the clinical subjects from which the professional evaluation grade is derived. These examiners also may observe notes or deficiencies entered by other examiners for other clinical portions of the examination and may take these into consideration when entering the professional evaluation grade. Each applicant retains a check sheet throughout the examination on which each step is initialed by the examiner contemporaneously with entry of the grade on the grade sheet to ensure that the applicant has completed each successive step of the examination. The check sheets are monitored by examination assistants to verify that each section of the examination has been completed and graded. There is no place on the check sheet concerning the "professional evaluation" segment of the examination because the grade is entered by the examiners without any prior request from the applicant to be graded in that area. The examiner in charge of the clinic at the time the professional evaluation grade is entered always is one of the graders for that part because he is an experienced Board member. In the case of Petitioner, two Board members graded the professional evaluation part of the examination. (Testimony of Hite, Bliss, Santin (Deposition) Dannahower (Deposition) , Mullens (Deposition), Exhibit 11) After completion of the examination, the scores on the grade sheets are tabulated and weighted to arrive at a final grade. Various statistical studies are made concerning the grading by new examiners to determine if their grading practices produce valid results. The two Board members who graded Petitioner's "professional evaluation" portion of the examination are experienced and considered to be valid graders by Respondent's testing consultant. Each examiner is assigned a number which is entered on the grading form by him at the time he grades a segment of the examination. As a matter of Board policy, the grade for "professional evaluation" is considered by the examiners to be a "3" which is a passing score unless the examiner determines that the grade should be raised or lowered based on the applicant's performance during the examination. Although a computer error was made on a December 1978 examination, none was made on Petitioner's grade sheet for the June 1978 examination. The 1978 computer error was corrected and the applicant was eventually permitted to retake a portion of his examination based on a separate erroneous grading procedure and thereafter obtained a license. The grading form includes blocks at the top of each segment of the examination which the examiner may use to enter his number and a grade for the second time. Although the entry of such items would be helpful in the event there is a conflict in the computer grade marked below the block, such entry is not required of the examiner and would not be "read" by the computer. One of Petitioner's examiners who was examiner Number 5 incorrectly entered the number "4" on the grade sheet portion of the examination. In the opinion of the Board testing consultant, such an entry by an examiner of an incorrect examiner number on the grade sheet would not affect the validity of any grade entered at that time. (Testimony of Hite, Bliss, Santin (Deposition), Dannahower (Deposition, Exhibits 8-9, 11) Petitioner's scores for the June 1978 practical examination were as follows: Amalgam Restoration 81.25; Cast Gold Restoration 70.87; Periodontal Evaluation 79.12; Professional Evaluation 62.50; Laboratory Evaluation 68.75; Denture Set-up 56.25. His overall average for the examination was 72.61. (Exhibit 12) Petitioner was unsatisfactory in four parts of the six-part clinical examination. These were denture setup, laboratory, professional evaluation, and cast gold restoration. Notations or check marks were entered on the grading form by examiners as to the deficiencies which prompted the unsatisfactory grades. As to cast gold restoration, one examiner noted "watch calculus" on the cavity preparation segment, and both examiners checked "margins" and reflected "open contact." Although the latter deficiency obviously existed at the time of the examination, a subsequent check of the patient after the examination revealed that the lack of contact was cured by the passage of time. In the laboratory portion both examiners observed "no contact" in the wax pattern portion, but only one examiner noted bubbles, pits, and sprueing in the casting part of the laboratory work. One examiner entered seven check marks on the denture setup portion of the examination and the other examiner entered four check marks for that part. In professional evaluation, one examiner checked "clinical judgment" and the other examiner checked both "clinical judgment" and "professional judgment." The one who entered a deficiency for clinical judgment did so due to the fact that calculus was present during the cavity preparation portion of the cast gold restoration procedure. The second examiner did not recall why he had entered the professional evaluation deficiencies on the grade sheet. Six different examiners participated in the grading of Petitioner's examination. In four of the nine areas which were graded by two examiners, the same grade was entered by both examiners. In the remaining five portions, the two examiners did not deviate by more than one grade score. Three examiners graded the Petitioner in the three areas of work upon which the professional evaluation grade was based. Two of these three examiners graded the professional evaluation portion of the examination. The patients upon whom Petitioner performed dental work during the examination experienced no pain or discomfort during the examination and are of the opinion that Petitioner treated them in an exemplary and professional manner at that time. (Testimony of Hite, Bliss, Dannahower (Deposition) Santin (Deposition), Weissman, Solomon, Exhibits 8-9, supplemented by Exhibits 5-7) Petitioner's scores for the December 1976 clinical examination were higher that those on the June 1978 examination for laboratory and professional evaluation. They were the same for periodontal evaluation and amalgam restoration. The cast gold restoration score was lower in the December 1976 examination. (Exhibits 12-13) Petitioner has had an active practice for many years in Brooklyn, New York, with an average of 15 to 20 patients per day and an annual gross income of over $100,000. The former owner of a large dental laboratory in New York City which produced dental appliances for Petitioner over many years found him to be extremely competent in the work provided to the laboratory. Several of his patients attested to Petitioner's excellent dental work and professional demeanor, and expressed the desire to have him serve as their dentist in Florida. (Testimony of Tauman, Karlin, Cohen, Solomon, supplemented by Exhibit 5)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for a license to practice dentistry be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Hixson, Esquire Room 1501 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John P. Fuller, Esquire Fuller, Feingold, Weil and Scheer No. 802 Flagship Bank Building 1111 Lincoln Road Mall Miami, Florida 33139 Florida State Board of Dentistry Attn: Leah Hickel Administrative Assistant 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DR. LESTER ALTMAN, Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS vs. CASE NO. 79-1639 BOARD OF DENTISTRY, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue presented is whether the Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a physician in the State of Florida by endorsement, as provided in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner should be given a passing grade on the April, 1987, professional engineering examination. At the hearing the specific issues in dispute were narrowed to whether the Petitioner should be given a higher grade on each of three questions on the examination. At the hearing the Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of two other witnesses. He also offered several documentary exhibits into evidence. The Respondent offered the testimony of one witness and also offered several exhibits. Subsequent to the hearing a transcript of the hearing was filed with the Hearing Officer and the parties were given a reasonable time thereafter within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed post-hearing submissions containing proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations. The parties' proposals have been given careful consideration in the preparation of this recommended order. All findings of fact proposed by all parties are addressed in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations and admissions of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The April, 1987, professional engineering examination required an applicant to work four problems in the morning session and four problems in the afternoon session, for a total of eight problems. In order to pass the examination, the applicant had to achieve an average score of six points for all eight problems, or a raw score of forty-eight points. Mr. Schmidt's examination was given a total score of forty points, comprised of scores as follows: 10, 8, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, and 1. Mr. Schmidt, therefore, needs eight additional raw points in order to receive a passing grade on the examination. An additional requirement is that in order to receive a passing grade on the examination, the applicant must score six points or more on at least five of the eight questions. Mr. Schmidt is challenging three questions on the exam, questions 114, 411 and 418. On question 114, Mr. Schmidt was given a score of four. On question 411, Mr. Schmidt was given a score of five. On question 418, Mr. Schmidt was given a score of three. At the commencement of the hearing, the Respondent stipulated that Mr. Schmidt's score of question 418 should be increased to five. The Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) is a device utilized to standardize graders so that a person grading a specific problem for various different candidates would consistently apply the same score to the same type of deficiency throughout the scoring process. There was an individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for each problem given on the subject examination. Each of the Item Specific Scoring Plans contains objective criteria for assigning from 0 to 10 points to a candidate's answer to each question. There is no evidence that the Item Specific Scoring Plans are defective or arbitrary and capricious. The percentage of successful candidates on the chemical engineering examination has been rather low on recent examinations. Approximately 15% passed the April, 1986, exam. Only 2.9% passed the October, 1986, exam, and 25% passed the April, 1987, exam. During that same period of time the success rate was generally (but not always) higher for candidates for licensure in other fields of engineering. The grade of four given to Mr. Schmidt's response to question number 114 is consistent with the individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for that question. The grade of five given to Mr. Schmidt's response to question number 411 is consistent with the individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for that question. The grade of three given to Mr. Schmidt's response to question number 418 is not consistent with the individualized Item Specific Scoring Plan for that question. The parties have stipulated that Mr. Schmidt's grade on question number 418 should be at least five. The evidence is insufficient to show that Mr. Schmidt is entitled to a higher grade than five on question number 418.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, I recommend that the Board of Professional Engineers issue a final order to the following effect: Increasing Petitioner's score on question 418 from three to five, leaving Petitioner's other scores unchanged, and assigning to Petitioner a final grade of forty-two. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4175 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Petitioner's proposed findings regarding problem number 114 are essentially correct summaries of the testimony as far as they go. Nevertheless, most of them have been omitted as unnecessary subordinate details, particularly in view of the further testimony of Dr. O'Connell to the effect that he had no quarrel with the ISSP for this question and to the testimony of both Dr. O'Connell and Dr. Hanley to the effect that the grade given to Petitioner on this question is consistent with the ISSP. Petitioner's proposed findings regarding problem number 411 have for the most part been rejected as irrelevant on the basis of testimony by both Dr. O'Connell and Dr. Hanley to the effect that the ISSP required evidence of a trial and error solution and that such a solution is not shown in the Petitioner's answer. Petitioner's proposed findings regarding problem number 418 are essentially correct summaries of the testimony as far as they go. Nevertheless, most of them have been omitted as unnecessary subordinate details, in view of additional evidence to the effect that the Petitioner's boxed answer to this question was not a reasonable answer. With regard to the penultimate paragraph of the Petitioner's proposed findings, the first two sentences are essentially correct, but also irrelevant, because the burden of proof is on the Petitioner rather than on `the Respondent. With regard to the remainder of the penultimate paragraph, I have made findings regarding the success rate of chemical engineers, but find that evidence, standing along, insufficient to establish any impropriety in the examination. The final paragraph of the Petitioner's proposed findings is more in the nature of argument than proposed facts. It may well be that the Petitioner received less prehearing information from the Respondent than he was entitled to receive, but those are matters which should be raised before rather than after the hearing, and are matters which are waived if not timely asserted. Findings proposed by Respondent: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. Paragraph 4: Omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. Paragraph 5: The essence of this paragraph has been accepted, but most details have been omitted an unnecessary. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Omitted as unnecessary subordinate details. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Daniel B. Schmidt 2209 Northeast 15th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32601 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
