Conclusions This proceeding was initiated by Petitioner's request for an administrative hearing, This matter is before the Department of Health for consideration of a Settlement Agreement pursuant to a Motion for Final Agency Order. On November 20, 2013, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner alleging violations of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6. This Complaint was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a hearing on the matter, DOAH Case No. 14-0028. . An Agreement was reached by the Parties for Settlement on February 19, 2014, for all claims made in the Complaint. The case was remanded back to the Agency Clerk by DOAH on February 26, 2014, for action consistent with the terms of the executed Settlement Agreement. Polk CHD has filed a Motion for Final Agency Order based on the Settlement Agreement on May 5, 2014. Upon consideration of the CHD’s Motion on this matter, and being otherwise fully advised on the premises, the Department hereby finds as follows: 1. The facts as alleged in the Administrative Complaint are sufficient to support a finding of violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(I)1, gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct which causes no monetary or other harm to a customer. 2. Petitioner's actions constitute grounds upon which an administrative fine may be imposed. 3. The Department hereby incorporates the Settlement Agreement by reference and finds Petitioner in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022(1)(I)1, and imposes as administrative fine of $1,500, payable to the Polk County Health Department. DONE and ORDERED this
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the prevailing party in charges of medical malpractice initiated against him by Respondent herein. (Stipulation) Petitioner is a small business party as defined in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. (Stipulation) No special circumstances exist which would make the award of fees and costs unjust. (Stipulation) Reasonable attorney's fees and costs exceed the maximum of $15,000 authorized to be awarded in these proceedings. (Stipulation) The initiation of the proceedings which resulted in an administrative complaint being filed naming Eric Grosch, M.D., as a party respondent followed disciplinary action instituted against Dr. Grosch by the Peer Review Committee at Humana Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida, following the hospital death of a 74-year old female patient of Dr. Grosch. The investigator assigned to this case interviewed numerous witnesses at Humana Hospital, notified Dr. Grosch of his inquiry, and submitted an investigative report to the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) with medical records. On the basis of this investigative report and medical records, an administrative complaint was prepared by DPR, and the investigative report with medical records was forwarded to the members of the Probable Cause Panel (PCP) with a recommendation to obtain an expert opinion on the standard of care issue. This panel met on January 19, 1990. At this meeting of the PCP, the panel members voted to refer the records to an expert who would submit his opinion on whether the evidence supported malpractice on the part of Dr. Grosch. By letter dated January 23, 1990, the hospital records and uniform complaint form were forwarded to Dr. Braunstein, who is board certified in the field of internal medicine, for his review and opinion as to whether Dr. Grosch failed to treat the patient with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. By letter dated April 13, 1990, Dr. Braunstein submitted his opinion that in the treatment of the subject patient, Dr. Grosch failed to adhere to the requisite standard of care. The investigative file, medical records and Dr. Braunstein's opinion were referred to a different PCP on June 2, 1991, for a determination if probable cause existed to file an administrative complaint. After having reviewed the evidence presented, this panel voted to proceed with the charges in the administrative complaint. During the meeting of this PCP, one of the members raised the question as to whether the administrative complaint addressed an issue relative to the alteration of some medical records by Dr. Grosch. DPR staff members at the PCP meeting agreed to look into the altering records issue and, if found warranted, to refer this issue back to the PCP. The administrative complaint and records were forwarded to Bruce Lamb, the DPR attorney assigned to prosecute the case. After reading the investigative report and interrogating the various witnesses named in the investigative report, Mr. Lamb found a conflict in the medical records discharge summary and the observations of witnesses regarding the administration of a sedative to the patient during the intubation process. The witnesses recalled the sedative being proposed after the intubation started, while the Respondent's discharge summary stated the sedation was given before the intubation was started. As a result of this discrepancy in the medical records and witnesses' versions of the sequence of events, Mr. Lamb prepared a proposed Amended Administrative Complaint adding factual paragraphs 20 and 21 and Counts 3 and 4 charging the filing of a report known to be false and making deceptive, untrue or false representations related to the practice of medicine. This Amended Administrative Complaint with investigative report, medical records and expert opinion was presented to a third PCP on October 12, 1990, and the panel voted to amend the original administrative complaint to include the additional counts shown in the proposed Amended Administrative Complaint. At the hearing on November 6, 1990, DOAH Case No. 90-4808, Dr. Grosch, Respondent, admitted factual allegations 20 and 21 in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and witnesses to testify to these facts were not called.
