Findings Of Fact Respondent Anila Poonai began her medical education in her native land, India, and, in 1960, she received a medical degree from Bombay University. After an internship in Bombay, she spent three months in training in the United Kingdom, before travelling to Georgetown, Guyana, to become a resident medical officer at the public hospital there. After two years in Guyana, she returned to England where, in 1964, she passed a post-graduate examination. As a result of a residency in obstetrics and gynecology and a satisfactory showing on the requisite examinations, she became a member, in 1969, of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. All told, respondent has spent six years as a resident in obstetrics and gynecology. From England, she travelled to the University of the West Indies in Kingston, Jamaica. At the University of the West Indies, she was senior registrar in obstetrics and gynecology and, for six months, acting lecturer in obstetrics and gynecology. In 1973, she and her husband, who is a general surgeon, moved to Cleveland, Ohio. Respondent has not sought certification by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. She testified that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology recognized her membership in the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as an equivalent certification. Until moving to Port St. Joe, she worked as a house physician in St. Alexis and Hillcrest hospitals in Cleveland. Respondent and her husband moved to Florida at the invitation of the Board of Trustees of the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe. The Board wanted to upgrade the Hospital. Almost from the time of their arrival, respondent and her husband found themselves at the center of controversy. Respondent's husband testified that, when he and respondent began work at the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe, in August of 1976, norms of practice at the Hospital were "miles below standard" and that the medicine practiced by other physicians in the community was "about 25 years" out of date. Whether true or false, this view, and its blunt articulation, may account for the friction respondent and her husband experienced in their relationships with some of the nurses and physicians with whom they came into contact. Being the only such specialist on the staff, respondent was named chief of obstetrics and gynecology at the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe. In this capacity, she ordered drugs and other obstetric and gynecologic supplies for the Hospital. Chief of staff at the Hospital, from 1961, until the spring of 1977, was John Wayne Hendrix, who has practiced medicine in Port St. Joe for some three decades. During Dr. Hendrix' tenure as chief of staff, Dr. Orr of Wewahitchka, a general practitioner, was granted "courtesy privileges" at the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe. At all pertinent times, Hospital bylaws forbade a physician to whom only courtesy privileges had been granted, to attend a delivery, except under the supervision of the chief of obstetrics and gynecology. On March 27, 1977, in violation of the Hospital's bylaws, Dr. Orr attempted, for the first and only time, to deliver a baby in the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe. When Gloria Pippin, R.N., arrived to begin the 3 to 11 shift, Dr. Orr's patient was already in labor. At 9:30 that night, the patient's cervix was fully dilated; at 9:45 she was taken to the delivery room. At 11:00 Dr. Orr "did a saddle block," i.e., he administered a spinal anesthetic. Five minutes later he had finished an episiotomy. At quarter past eleven, he used Tucker-McClain forceps in an effort to extract the baby. That failing, he tried long Simpson forcens at 11:25 and Kielland forceps at ten minutes before midnight, March 27, 1977. The baby's head was too big for the mother's pelvis. Five minutes later, Ms. Pippin telephoned respondent, at Dr. Orr's request. Respondent expressed dismay that Dr. Orr had been permitted to begin, and asked Ms. Pippin to notify Dr. Hendrix of the situation. She herself telephoned Gerald Sullivan, the chairman of the Hospital's Board of Trustees. Afterwards, she and her husband, Dr. Parmanand Vijay Poonai, went to the Hospital. They arrived at approximately 12:40. Dr. Hendrix, who had considerable experience in performing Ceasarean sections, preceded them to the Hospital. By the time the Drs. Poonai reached the hospital, arrangements had been made for Dr. Orr's patient to be transferred to Panama City's Bay Memorial Hospital. At quarter past midnight, when Dr. Hendrix arrived at the hospital, the mother's blood pressure was 134/78. Ten minutes before she left in the ambulance, her blood pressure was 137/98 and her pulse was 112. At that time, the fetal pulse was 156. At 1:20 a.m., an ambulance left the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe for Panama City. When they reached Bay Memorial Hospital, the mother's vital signs and the infant's heart beat were within normal limits. Dr. Stephen Smith, the obstetrician who performed a Caesarean section upon the patient's arrival in Panama City, was the man of the hour. Mother and baby did well. For many years, it has been common to send women in labor to Panama City from Port St. Joe, and hundreds have made the trip. It takes a half hour to an hour to drive from the Port St. Joe hospital to the Panama City hospital. The longer a woman in the condition Dr. Orr's patient was in continues in labor, the greater are the chances of injury or death to the fetus and even to the mother. At no time did Dr. Hendrix telephone respondent on the night of the 27th or morning of the 28th. Neither Dr. Hendrix nor Dr. Orr ever asked respondent for assistance with Dr. Orr's patient. When respondent and her husband arrived at the Hospital early on the morning of March 28, 1977, neither Dr. Hendrix nor Dr. Orr spoke to either of them. Dr. Hendrix refused to speak to them, even though respondent addressed him and asked him specifically about Dr. Orr's patient. Both respondent and her husband remained at the Hospital until after the ambulance left for Panama City. It is unethical for one physician to intervene in the care of a patient whose treatment is being actively managed by another physician, unless requested. It may also be dangerous. On January 16, 1978, Dr. P. V. Poonai saw Beverly R. Bass in his office. Ms. Bass, who was born on December 15, 1951, told Dr. P. V. Poonai that a Dr. Vasquez of Port St. Joe (of whose wife Ms. Bass was a cousin) and other physicians had recommended a hysterectomy; that she had been passing blood clots for the preceding four months; that she had epigastric pain; that her most recent menstrual period was December 19, 1977; that she had two daughters and a son by three different men; that she wanted no more children; and that she wanted a hysterectomy both to prevent conception and to stop her bleeding. After examining her and finding an ovarian cyst and a slightly bulky uterus, Dr. P. V. Poonai prescribed hospitalization for a series of gastrointestinal X-rays to investigate the possibility of an ulcer, and for an obstetric and gynecologic consultation with respondent. On January 18, 1978, Ms. Bass entered the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe. An electrocardiogram was done. Dr. J. B. Harbison prepared a report of the X-rays taken as prescribed by Dr. P. V. Poonai. Respondent met Ms. Bass for the first time, in the Hospital, on January 19, 1978. She took Ms. Bass' history and examined her under general anesthesia, finding a left ovarian cyst, a normal cervix and a bulky anteverted uterus. Respondent recommended a dilatation and curettage (d & c) for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, and, on the same day, Ms. Bass signed a form consent to diagnostic and treatment procedures authorizing respondent to perform a d & c. The following day, January 20, 1978, respondent did perform a routine d & c. Afterwards, the curettings resulting from the procedure were transmitted to a pathologist. After examining this material, the pathologist prepared a tissue report, and stated, as the pathological diagnosis: SECRETORY PHASE, DYSFUNCTIONAL BLEEDING. NO EVIDENCE OF POLYPS, PREGNANCY OR MALIGNANCY OBSERVED IN THE SPECIMEN SUBMITTED. FRAGMENT OF ENDOCERVIX WITH SQUAMOUS METAPLASIA, ACUTE AND CHRONIC INFLAMATION. Petitioner's exhibit No. 2. On January 21, 1978, Ms. Bass left the hospital, with a final diagnosis of dysfunctional bleeding. Before discharging Ms. Bass, respondent instructed her to refrain from sexual intercourse and from douches for four to six weeks. Eight to ten days after her discharge, Ms. Bass resumed sexual intercourse. On February 2, 1978, respondent saw Ms. Bass at her office and discussed the pathologist's tissue report with her. She related to Ms. Bass her clinical impression of uterine fibroids and prescribed Orthonovum, a birth control pill, as an additional means of forestalling dysfunctional bleeding. On February 2, Ms. Bass reported no bleeding subsequent to the d & c. Respondent did not ask and Ms. Bass did not volunteer that she had failed to follow instructions to abstain from sexual intercourse. Although the birth control pills respondent prescribed were to be taken daily, Ms. Bass did not take one every day. Respondent next saw Ms. Bass on February 13, 1978, when her only complaint was of an upper respiratory tract infection. On March 4, 1978, Ms. Bass returned to respondent's office complaining of heavy breakthrough bleeding, and reported that she was passing blood clots. Respondent examined her and suggested a hysterectomy. Ms. Bass asked if she could enter the hospital on March 12, 1978, saying she could make arrangements for her children by then. Respondent administered no pregnancy test to Ms. Bass on March 4, 1978, or at any time thereafter. She thought none was necessary because she believed that Ms. Bass had followed her instructions. Respondent does not knowingly perform abortions, even for therapeutic purposes, on account of religious scruples. A d & c elicits inflamatory responses hostile to fertilization. Even when a pregnancy has begun, no pregnancy test will be positive before 41 days have elapsed since the last menstrual period. Some hospitals, like Jackson Memorial in Miami, require pregnancy tests before surgery as a matter of routine, but the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe had no such policy. On March 12, 1978, Ms. Bass was admitted to the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe. The following day respondent performed a hysterectomy and an incidental appendectomy. An appendectomy ordinarily accompanies this procedure. Respondent's pre-operative diagnosis was "menorrhagia and fibroid uterus," and her postoperative diagnosis, on March 13, 1978, was unchanged. This was the same condition specified on the form consent to diagnostic and treatment procedures which Ms. Bass signed on March 12, 1978, authorizing respondent to perform a hysterectomy. Ordinarily, a surgeon performing a hysterectomy removes the uterus intact, as respondent did in the case of Beverly Bass. After its removal but while still intact, Ms. Bass' uterus yielded no additional information pertinent to the diagnosis of her condition. The uterus was sent to a pathologist. After examining the uterus, the pathologist prepared a tissue report and stated, as the pathological diagnosis: APPENDIX WITH FIBROUS OBLITERATION (DISTAL) AND FOCAL FIBROUS ADHESIONS. LUTEAL CYST OF LEFT OVARY, BENIGN. PARATUBAL CYST, BENIGN, RIGHT. ENLARGED UTERUS (205 GMS) WITH: ENDOMETRIUM: CHANGES RELATED TO PREGNANCY (HYPERSECRETORY GLANDS AND DECIDUAL REACTION). ACUTE ENDOMETRITIS. ANGULAR IMPLANT OF PLACENTA ASSOCIATED WITH UNDERLYING NECROSIS AND ACUTE INFLAMMATION OF DECIDUA, ACCOMPANIED BY HEMATOMAS. CHORION-AMNIONITIS, ACUTE, NECROTISING ASSOCIATED WITH NECROSIS OF GROUPS OF CHORION VILLI. EMBRYO, APPROXIMATELY 4-6 WEEKS OLD. FLUID BLOOD PRESENT IN UTERINE CAVITY. MYOMETRIUM: HYPERTROPHY (FUNCTIONAL). CERVIX: ACUTE AND CHRONIC CERVICITIS ASSOCIATED WITH SQUAMOUS METAPLASIA OF THE ENDOCERVICAL LINING, FOCAL. SQUAMOUS CELL HYPERPLASIA OF ECTOCERVIX, BENIGN. MUCUS CYSTS. When the pathologist opened the uterus, he found an enlarged cavity partly occupied by a ruptured ovisac. Extruded through the perforation, hanging outside of the ovisac from the umbilical cord, was an embryo 1.8 centimeters long. The placenta, which was acutely inflamed, adhered to the fundus at a right angle. Uterine rupture is inevitable if an angular pregnancy continues, but it is possible for an angular pregnancy to go to term, just as it is possible for a fetus to live after the ovisac has burst. In Ms. Bass' case, however, the embryo was probably non-viable at the time of the hysterectomy. The pathologist's report arrived while Ms. Bass was still in the hospital. Because respondent was upset on reading it, she asked Dr. P. V. Poonai to tell Ms. Bass what the pathologist had learned. Dr. P. V. Poonai did tell Ms. Bass, at which time she confirmed that she had engaged in sexual intercourse shortly after the d & c. Confusing an incipient pregnancy with a fibroid uterus is an occasional mistake any physician could make. An isolated mistake of this kind does not constitute a deviation from acceptable medical practice. The most conservative approach is to wait for two months after the patient has stopped taking birth control pills, before performing a "semi-elective" procedure, and to administer a pregnancy test beforehand. Several physicians testified, however, that they would not have ordered a pregnancy test before performing a hysterectomy in the circumstances of Ms. Bass' case. Respondent did not prepare the summary sheet at the end of Ms. Bass' stay after her March 12, 1978, admission, Chart No. 23622. Petitioner's exhibit No. 2A. The summary sheet that was prepared is not signed by anybody. When respondent asked for the chart in order to prepare a summary sheet, the Hospital's records custodian advised her that it was not with the other charts. When Beverly D. Stover was about three and a half months pregnant, she began seeing respondent. She saw her every month until November, when she began seeing her every two weeks. On her first visit, she told respondent she wanted to be sterilized after the birth of the child she was carrying, her second. At respondent's request, Mrs. Stover brought her husband to respondent's office, about six weeks before the baby was born. The three of them discussed Mrs. Stover's planned sterilization. On November 22, 1977, both Mr. and Mrs. Stover signed a form request for sterilization witnessed by two persons who were not called to testify at the hearing. On November 30, 1977, Mrs. Stover was admitted to the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe. On the day of her admission, she signed a form consent to diagnostic and treatment procedures authorizing respondent to perform a bilateral tubal transection and ligation, and both she and her husband signed another form request for sterilization. At the time of the signing of the last two documents, Mrs. Stover told Sarah Maddux, the nurse who gave her the forms to sign, that she did not want to be sterilized unless her baby was normal. Ms. Maddux never relayed this oral reservation to respondent. It is impossible to tell, at the time of birth, whether an infant has a sense of smell, whether it is intellectually impaired, or whether it can see or hear. At 1:50 on the afternoon of November 30, 1977, Mrs. Stover was delivered of a daughter, Katrina. Respondent examined the eight pound two ounce infant for two minutes. She put her fingers in the infant's mouth, cleared a passage for air, and checked for a cleft palate. The child started crying. Respondent observed good muscle tone. Respondent clamped, then cut the umbilical cord. She inspected the baby all over, noticed puffiness on the child's back, which she attributed to the trauma of birth, and noticed that the baby's anal opening was smaller than normal, but was not alarmed. She thought she had seen even smaller such openings which had not affected function. Respondent placed Katrina on her mother's stomach, and asked Mrs. Stover whether she was ready for surgery. When Mrs. Stover answered affirmatively, at 1:55, anesthesia was administered, at respondent's direction. A nurse took the baby from respondent for cleaning. In contemporaneous notes, the nurse described the baby as apparently normal. In fact, Katrina had an imperforate anus or anoperitoneal fistula, and a lipoma on the sacral area of her back. These conditions were discovered a few hours later by a nurse in the Hospital nursery. The nurse brought both problems to the attention of Dr. Shirley R. Simpson, a physician who had been on the staff of the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe for approximately ten years and who happened to be in the Hospital at the time. Respondent had left Port St. Joe to meet her husband at the airport in Panama City. Examining Katrina at the nurse's request, Dr. Simpson mistook the lipoma for a meningomyocele. Dr. Simpson took no further action in the case, other than leaving word with the nurse for respondent to call her, until she furnished the Board of Medical Examiners Katrina's hospital chart. By that time, somebody had forged an entry in the nurse's notes for 1:50 P.M. on November 30, 1977, viz., "Appears to have NO rectal orifice-Dr. A. Poonai notified." Petitioner's exhibit No. 4. After her return from Panama City, on December 1, 1977, respondent correctly diagnosed the lipoma. At respondent's request, Dr. P. V. Poonai examined Katrina. After obtaining consent, Dr. P. V. Poonai, used surgical implements, when the baby was 16 hours old, to remove the obstruction which had prevented the expulsion of all but the merest drop of meconium during the first 16 hours of the baby's life. Although this emergency procedure solved the immediate problem and allowed the baby to defecate, further surgery has been necessary to move the anal opening to its norman site posterior of the dimple where Dr. P. V. Poonai made his incision. An imperforate anus occurs once in 5,000 births. The imperforation may or may not be visible, depending on its location. In the past five years, three infants with this problem have been born in Panama City. In each instance, the examining pediatrician did not discover the imperforation, which came to light some hours after birth, on account of the baby's failure to expel its first stool. In Katrina's case, however, the abnormality could be seen and its existence could be confirmed by an attempt to probe. The lipoma on Katrina's back measured less than four by five centimeters in area. It was a soft, skin-colored mass of benign, fatty tissue, which a pediatric surgeon has since removed. The trauma of birth sometimes causes edemas that resemble lipomas. No harm befell Katrina as a result of respondent's failure to diagnose either her lipoma or her anal abnormality at birth. Beverly Stover continued as a patient of respondent for some time after Katrina's birth. Respondent first saw a certain patient on September 19, 1977. This patient, who was born on June 1, 1907, suffered from diabetes mellitus and congestive heart failure, among other things. Two months earlier she had had a second pacemaker inserted. On her first visit to respondent, the patient complained of pain in her chest and of dysuria. She said she had difficulty retaining urine, but that she was unable to empty her bladder completely. In examining her, respondent discovered a moderate cystocele, which is a herniation of the bladder into the vagina. Respondent admitted her into the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe for treatment of her congestive heart failure, the cause of the chest pain. Congestive heart failure is not a disease of which people are cured, but it is a condition that may grow better or worse. When this patient's condition improved, respondent sent her home. Respondent saw her again in her office on October 3, 1977, when she complained of paroxysmal dyspnea and swollen feet. Respondent diagnosed superimposed congestive cardiac failure and prescribed a diuretic. On November 18, 1977, respondent admitted her to the hospital because symptoms like those she had complained of during the office visit persisted. On November 22, 1977, she was discharged. A similar episode resulted in rehospitalization from January 10, 1978, through January 19, 1978. The patient entered the hospital again, on February 12, 1978, with congestive cardiac failure. She complained about nocturnal incontinence and asked respondent to correct her bladder problem. At this time, respondent described the cystocele as large. After medical care which petitioner's own witness described as excellent, the patient's condition stabilized. Respondent testified that, in her judgment, the patient's general condition just before surgery was as good as it was likely ever to be. Nine days after she admitted the patient, respondent effected a repair of the cystocele by performing an anterior colporrhapy under local anesthetic. This procedure requires unusual surgical skill, and most surgeons do not attempt it. The repair of a cystocele is a therapeutic measure. In the absence of treatment, urine is likely to stagnate in the herniated portion of the bladder, and become a source of possibly serious infections. All surgical techniques for repairing cystoceles, other than the one employed by respondent, require general anesthesia. The risk from anesthesia to which respondent's patient was subjected was very moderate compared to the risk from general anesthesia. It was the same risk a person faces whose mouth is numbed by local anesthesia before a tooth is filled. Respondent had performed this operation 20 or 30 times before, and had performed it on her own mother, who was 75 years old and suffered from myocardial ischemia at the time. Sometimes, although decreasingly in recent years, a physician may employ a pessary as treatment for a cystocele. A pessary is a rubber or plastic solid that can be inserted in the vagina as a support for the intruding bladder. This is only a temporary measure, however, and involves a high risk of infection, which is the principal danger the cystocele itself poses. Respondent testified that her prescription for temporary relief was bed rest, since lying flat relieves the pressure that forces part of the bladder into the vagina. Respondent first saw another patient, the 29 year old mother of three children, on December 23, 1976. This patient was in the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe at the time, for a hemorrhoidectomy, and respondent was called in because the patient had complained of profuse, irregular and painful vaginal bleeding over a period of several years, and particularly during the preceding nine months to a year. The patient was anemic, according to tests run two days earlier. In July of 1976, the patient had been hospitalized on account of pelvic sepsis and bleeding. At that time, Dr. Simpson told her she would need a hysterectomy in the near future. She had been hospitalized for the same reasons in 1975. Respondent ordered a pap smear and an X-ray to locate a coil that had been inserted into the patient's uterus, as a contraceptive measure. When she recovered from the hemorrhoidectomy, the patient was discharged. After three weeks of severe menorrhagia, including two final days of heavy clotting, the patient was readmitted, on January 24, 1977, to the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe. Respondent had earlier prescribed iron pills. Perhaps as a result, the patient was no longer anemic. Respondent observed the patient's uterus "enlarged to about 10 weeks size with [what she thought was] fibroids. Petitioner's exhibit No. 6. Respondent ordered no pregnancy test. When an intrauterine device is in place, excessive vaginal bleeding is inconsistent with a viable pregnancy. An intrauterine device not only irritates the wall of the uterus, making conception unlikely, but also operates to abort incipient pregnancies, in the event of conception. With the intrauterine device still in place, on January 26, 1977, respondent performed a total abdominal hysterectomy and an incidental appendectomy, with conservation of both ovaries. Afterwards, the appendix, part of the cervix, and the uterus were sent to a pathologist. The pathologist examined these materials, and, on January 31, 1977, prepared a tissue report, in which he stated as the pathological diagnosis: APPENDIX WITH SEROSAL FIBROSIS, FOCAL (INCIDENTAL). ENDOMETRIUM: DECIDUA WITH EXTENSIVE NECROSIS ASSOCIATED WITH CHORIONIC VILLI (PREGNANCY) WHICH ARE LARGELY NON-VIABLE. SECRETORY ENDOMETRIUM WITH ACUTE AND CHRONIC ENDOMETRITIS. MYOMETRIUM: HYPERTROPHY, POSTERIOR. CERVIX: CHRONIC ENDOCERVICITIS AND MUCUS CYSTS. SLIGHTLY HYPERTROPHIC UTERUS (95 GRAMS). The pathologist found no evidence of fibroids. This demonstrates that respordent's clinical diagnosis of fibroids was inaccurate. One of the pathologists who routinely examined tissue removed by surgeons in the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe, Dr. Garcia-Rios, also routinely examined tissue removed by surgeons in other hospitals. Whenever a tissue report indicated disagreement between a clinical diagnosis and the pathological diagnosis, Dr. Garcia-Rios designated the tissue report "Code 3." The frequency of Code 3 tissue reports did not differ as between specimens removed by respondent and specimens Dr. Garcia-Rios examined which had been removed by other surgeons, taken as a group. From the presence of morphologically viable chorionic villi, the pathologist concluded that the patient had been pregnant. From pathological findings alone, he was unable to determine whether the pregnancy had terminated weeks or months earlier; or whether an ongoing microscopic pregnancy was interrupted by the hysterectomy. (Clinical evidence-excessive bleeding-ruled out the possibility of a viable pregnancy.) The pathologist's findings were consistent with, but did not conclusively establish the existence of, a placental polyp. Placental polyps may cause prolonged bleeding. Before surgery, respondent discussed three options with this patient: removal of the intrauterine device, removal of the intrauterine device followed by a d & c, and hysterectomy. The patient said that the presence or absence of an intrauterine device had made no difference in her bleeding problem in the past. She also told respondent that she wanted no more children, and that she wanted prompt, definitive treatment for her bleeding. After listening to explanations from respondent about the available options, the patient chose a hysterectomy. Respondent did not tell her that a hysterectomy was the only way to correct her problem. The patient testified that she has had no problems since her surgery; and that, knowing what the pathologist's tissue report subsequently revealed, she would make the same choice again, at least if it would not involve her as a witness in legal proceedings. Respondent initialled a summary sheet in the patient's chart, which stated the patient's final diagnosis as, inter alia, "FIBROID UTERUS [and] MENORRHAGIA." This final diagnosis fails to take the pathologist's tissue report into account, even though the tissue report routinely becomes part of the chart and presumably was available to respondent at the time she initialled the summary sheet. Respondent testified that she initialled this summary sheet as one of a group of documents, and that she did not read it beforehand. Any discrepancy between the tissue report and the final diagnosis would have been apparent to a knowledgeable reader. Without the tissue report, respondent would not necessarily have known that the pathologist's findings had demonstrated the error of her diagnosis of fibroid uterus. After controversy about this case arose, respondent caused an addendum to be prepared and incorporated into the chart, on August 16, 1978, and amended the discharge diagnosis to state, inter alia: "Menorrhagia, Chronic endometritis [and] Hypertrophy of the myometrium." This diagnosis is consistent both with respondent's clinical findings and with the pathologist's tissue report. In stating her amended discharge diagnosis, respondent took the tissue report, which had been incorporated into the chart, into account. This amended discharge diagnosis was not shown to be erroneous. On August 11, 1976, respondent saw Linda Whitfield for the first time. She came as a patient to respondent's office and related that her last menstrual period had taken place on June 26, 1976. Respondent examined her, observed a uterus of six weeks' size, and diagnosed early pregnancy. Respondent next saw Mrs. Whitfield in the emergency room of the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe on August 27, 1976, when her uterus looked to be of eight weeks' size. There Mrs. Whitfield told respondent that, while driving a tractor earlier in the day, she had experienced abdominal cramps and fairly heavy bleeding. Mrs. Whitfield did not report and respondent did not observe the passage of a fetus. Respondent diagnosed a threatened abortion (miscarriage) admitted Mrs. Whitfield to the Hospital, ordered bed rest, ordered that Mrs. Whitfield's urine be tested for the presence of chorionic gonadotropin, and prescribed an intramuscular injection of two cubic centimeters (cc.) of Depo-Provera (Upjohn's registered trademark for sterile medroxyprogesterone acetate suspension, U.S.P.). Although respondent did not specify the strength, she had ordered the Hospital's entire supply of Depo-Provera, and knew that the only strength on hand was 100 milligrams per milliliter. Depo-Provera is a synthetic progestational agent in an oily base. It has been commercially available for approximately 15 years. The 1971 Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR) reported that daily doses were indicated in the event of a threatened miscarriage. The 1972 PDR reported pregnancy as a contraindication for the use of Depo-Provera. (In 1972, respondent lived in Jamacia.) The 1976 PDR and the 1977 PDR, however, contain neither indications nor contraindications for Depo-Provera, in the event of pregnancy. The 1979 PDR reports pregnancy as a contraindication for the use of Depo-Provera. The phrase "missed abortion" describes the situation where a non- viable fetus remains in its mother's uterus. "Missed abortion" was named as a contraindication for Depo-Provera in the literature that accompanied each vial of Depo-Provera, at the time respondent prescribed it for Mrs. Whitfield. The contraindication of Depo-Provera for missed abortion reflected the view, generally shared in the medical community for many years but now rejected, that Depo-Provera acts to prevent uterine contractions and so make fetal expulsion less likely. The only indication stated in the literature that accompanied each vial of Depo-Provera, at the time respondent prescribed it for Mrs. Whitfield, was "[a]djunctive therapy and palliative treatment of inoperable, recurrent, and metastatic endometrial carcinoma." Petitioner's exhibit No. 12B. Also on petitioner's exhibit No. 12B, under the heading "ADVERSE REACTIONS," is the statement: There is inferential evidence supporting the existence of an association between the administration of progestins early in pregnancy and the occurence of congenital malformations (see also WARNINGS). The referenced warning stated that "[u]sage in pregnancy is not recommended because of data indicating a possible association between administration of progestins early in pregnancy and congenital heart defects in the offspring." Petitioner's exhibit No. 12B. Mrs. Whitfield bled, off and on, during her first stay in the Hospital under respondent's care, until two or three days before her discharge. Because Mrs. Whitfield was bleeding on August 28, 1976, respondent prescribed an intra- muscular injection of one cc. of Depo-Provera. Altogether, respondent prescribed 1100 milligrams of Depo-Provera for Mrs. Whitfield over a 16 day period. She ordered administrations of two cc. doses of Depo-Provera on September 2, 1976, on September 4, 1976, on September 7, 1976, and on September 11, 1976, the day Mrs. Whitfield was discharged. At that time, respondent was hopeful that the pregnancy had been saved. At the time respondent prescribed Depo-Provera for Mrs. Whitfield, she believed she was aware of the inferential evidence referred to in the adverse reaction portion of petitioner's exhibit No. 12B. The evidence of which respondent was aware was the result of a retrospective study involving 10,000 mothers who took various hormonal substances during pregnancy and 10,000 mothers who did not. The number of deformed children born to mothers who had taken the hormonal substances exceeded by two percent the number of deformed children born to the mothers who had not. At the time she prescribed Depo-Provera for Mrs. Whitfield, respondent was one of a considerable number of physicians who believed that this drug could supply a hormonal deficiency that a woman faced with a threatened abortion (miscarriage) might lack, and which might be causing premature uterine contractions. Respondent weighed Depo-Provera's possibly teratogenic effect against its possibly ameliorative effect and made a conscientious professional judgment to prescribe Depo-Provera for Mrs. Whitfield. The 1971 PDR specifies a dosage of 50 milligrams day for threatened abortion, as long as symptoms persist. No dosages for threatened abortion are specified in the 1976 PDR, the 1977 PDR or on petitioner's exhibit No. 12B, the literature that accompanied each vial of Depo-Provera. When used to treat "inoperable, recurrent and metastatic endometrial carcinoma," Depo-Provera is prescribed in doses of 100 to 1000 milligrams at intervals of one week to one month. No evidence adduced at the hearing suggested that Depo-Provera has any known or suspected toxic effect on the mother, regardless of the dosage. Nor was it shown to have been scientifically established that Depo-Provera has had an adverse effect on any fetus, when administered to the mother, regardless of the dosage. It is no longer used in the case of threatened miscarriages because recent evidence suggests that it is inefficacious for this purpose. Outside of the United States, Depo-Provera is used as a contraceptive. While Mrs. Whitfield was in the Hospital, on August 29, 1976, respondent ordered a blood serum test to determine the level of chorionic gonadotropin. The results of this test, which respondent saw for the first time on September 16, 1976, were 6,554 milliunits of chorionic gonadotropine per milligram of test fluid. On September 16, 1976, Mrs. Whitfield came to respondent's office and complained of additional bleeding. At that time, a two minute slide test for pregnancy was performed, with negative results. Respondent examined Mrs. Whitfield and concluded that her pregnancy had miscarried despite the efforts to preserve it. She was admitted to the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe on September 17, 1976, with the diagnosis of "incomplete abortion," which was changed to "missed abortion," as the pre-operative diagnosis. On the day of her admission, additional pregnancy tests were ordered. A two minute test was negative, but a two hour test was positive. Every pregnancy test is fallible to some extent. These test results did not alter respondent's clinical judgment that the pregnancy had miscarried. A pregnancy test of a urine specimen can yield positive results from four days to two weeks after a pregnancy ends, and sometimes even later. It was undisputed that a result on a blood serum test for chorionic gonadotropin of 6,554 milliunits per milliliter virtually rules out a viable pregnancy of two or three months' duration, although the level may fall that low after the fifth month of a normal pregnancy. At eight to ten weeks, normal levels range from 46,000 to 60,000 milliunits per milliliter. Respondent performed a routine d & c on September 18, 1976. Fifteen grams of the resultant curettings were transmitted to a pathologist who reported "products of conception," but no embryo. Port St. Joe is not a prosperous town. At the time of the hearing, respondent and her husband were the only physicians in Port St. Joe who accepted patients on medicaid. Respondent has admitted patients approximately 500 times to the Municipal Hospital of Port St. Joe. During her time in Port St. Joe, respondent has treated numerous medicaid patients, and has delivered 249 babies. In one instance there was a neonatal fatality. This record compares favorably with a national average on the order of 12 neonatal fatalities per 1,000 births. Respondent has three articles in respectable technical journals to her credit, including two in "Obstetrics and Gynecology." On one she collaborated with her husband. They received 168 requests for reprints from interested persons in some 15 countries. The other article in "Obstetrics and Gynecology" she co-authored describes the first documented full-term pregnancy of a woman with diabetes mellitus, Addison's disease, and hyperthyroidism. The patient described in the article was under respondent's care for the duration of her pregnancy, which eventuated in a normal delivery.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss counts one, two, four, five and six of the administrative complaint. That petitioner reprimand respondent for her failure to diagnose the imperforation at the time of birth, in violation of Section 458.1201(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1978 Supp.), as alleged in count three of the administrative complaint. That, in all other respects, petitioner dismiss count three of the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Clifford L. Davis, Esquire 197 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. Ben Watkins, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1814 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS IN RE: The License to Practice Medicine as a Physician of: CASE NO. 79-1144 ANILA POONAI, M.D. License No. 27070 /
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0017602. He graduated from St. Louis University School of Medicine in 1966. He taught obstetrics and gynecology at the Portsmouth Naval Hospital in 1970-1972. He was board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology in 1972 and retired from the active practice of medicine in 1996. Licensed in Missouri, Virginia, and Florida, Respondent has never been disciplined by Petitioner or any other licensing authority. During his active practice of obstetrics and gynecology, Respondent specialized in high-risk obstetrics, i.e., the treatment of patients whose lives and pregnancies are at risk during the course of their pregnancy. He treated patients with diabetes, with heart disease, with blood disease, and with abnormal pregnancies such as ectopic pregnancies. He is well respected in the medical community, including by others who practice high-risk obstetrics. He enjoys a reputation for being a caring, concerned, intelligent, and capable physician. On November 30, 1993, R. C. was a 35-year-old patient who had been seen previously by Respondent's associate but not by Respondent. She had a long history of infertility and had been treated with fertility drugs. She had had one ruptured ectopic pregnancy that resulted in the removal of her right ovary. She had three failed attempts at in vitro fertilization. She reported to Respondent that she felt pregnant. She had taken three home pregnancy tests, which were positive. Her HMO primary care physician, following laboratory confirmation of her pregnancy, had referred her to Respondent. She advised Respondent that her last menstrual period was October 16, 1993. Respondent conducted a physical examination and agreed that she was pregnant. Her breasts were tender, and her uterus may have been a little soft but it was not enlarged. The presence of a normal-sized uterus at six weeks gestation, while not unusual, is one possible indication that a woman might have an abnormal pregnancy or be in the process of having a miscarriage. It raised the suspicion that the nature of her pregnancy, intra-uterine versus abnormal, must be considered by Respondent. However, enlargement of the uterus during pregnancy is different for each patient. Significantly, R. C. did not have any bleeding. She had no abdominal pain, and no adnexal masses were palpated. Essentially, she was asymptomatic for an abnormal pregnancy. Because of her history, Respondent considered R. C. to be at a higher risk for an abnormal or ectopic pregnancy than that expected for a normal female from the general population. It is generally understood that the risk of a repeat ectopic pregnancy is between 10 and 15 percent. Respondent was aware that even with an ectopic pregnancy, the uterus undergoes many of the changes associated with an early normal intra-uterine pregnancy, including an increase in uterine size and softening of the cervix. These changes occur as a result of the hormones circulating through the body during the early stages of pregnancy. Concerned since R. C. was at risk although asymptomatic, Respondent decided that the prudent course would be to evaluate R. C.'s pregnancy to rule out an ectopic or other abnormal pregnancy. Consequently, he took steps different from those that would be taken during a normal routine pregnancy. Respondent obtained an immediate quantitative human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) value that day. The quantitative hCG is a diagnostic test available to physicians to evaluate the progress of a pregnancy when there is concern as to its nature. It is not a test that is ordered when there is no concern as to the nature of the pregnancy. The test measures the secretions of the placenta. It confirmed R. C.'s pregnant state and was an indicator of the presence of a placenta somewhere in her body. The hCG value was reported as 7,371. By itself, the hCG value told Respondent little about R. C.'s pregnancy. It did, however, provide some comfort that R. C. might have an intra-uterine pregnancy, particularly given her lack of symptoms for an ectopic pregnancy. It is generally understood that less than 25 percent of ectopic pregnancies have hCG values greater than 6,000. With an hCG value greater than 7,000, R. C. was in the group more likely to have an intra-uterine pregnancy. Her lack of symptoms also indicated that she had an intra-uterine pregnancy. It is generally understood that bleeding is present in over 85 percent of cases where there is an ectopic pregnancy. Pain is present in over 90 percent of the cases where there is an ectopic pregnancy, and over half of such women have palpable adnexal masses or lumps. R. C. was not experiencing any of what are known as the classic triad of symptoms for an ectopic pregnancy. Respondent obtained the hCG to be used as a baseline. The quantitative hCG is best used serially, and a single value has no real meaning in evaluating the nature of a pregnancy. By repeating the test at certain intervals, a physician can observe where the pregnancy might be going from a hormonal point of view. The initial value is a starting point from which other tests can be used to determine if the pregnancy is likely normal or abnormal. In an early normal intra-uterine pregnancy, the hCG values generally double approximately every 48 hours. Then, the rise begins to plateau, and the doubling time lengthens. To determine the course of a pregnancy, repeat tests of the hCG at set intervals can be an aid in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancies. The possibility of an ectopic or other pathologic pregnancy exists when the hCG value fails to rise in accordance with the expectations of a normal intra-uterine pregnancy or does not rise at all. Although R. C. was asymptomatic, given her history, Respondent determined that he should obtain a repeat hCG and an ultrasound examination to confirm the presence of an intra- uterine pregnancy. He scheduled the repeat hCG and the ultrasound to be performed 7 to 10 days from that visit, or December 9, 1993. Respondent's plan of treatment was reasonable under the circumstances. If R. C. had had any of the classic symptoms consistent with an ectopic pregnancy, the standard of care would have required an immediate ultrasound. However, R. C. did not have any symptoms. It is a matter of physician judgment as to when an ultrasound examination and repeat hCG should be obtained for an asymptomatic patient. When there is no urgent need for the tests, the standard of care does not define the time frame in which the tests should be performed. Respondent wanted to wait another 7 to 10 days to allow for better visualization of the fetus on the ultrasound and to avoid a misinterpretation of the result of the repeat hCG test. By waiting, Respondent would likely obtain more useful information from the ultrasound than if the ultrasound were performed that day or during the next few days. He wanted to combine the findings of the ultrasound with the results of the repeat hCG test. Reasonably-prudent, similarly-trained physicians support Respondent's conclusions. The possibility of a misinterpretation of the hCG results is lessened by the passage of a reasonable period of time between tests. Before she left the office on November 30, 1993, R. C. was asked to contact Respondent in two days to obtain the results of her initial hCG test and to follow-up on her condition. On December 2, 1993, R. C. contacted Respondent. During their telephone conversation, R. C. expressed concern that her pregnancy might be in the fallopian tube rather than the uterus. Respondent wanted to calm her fears. He inquired as to how she was doing, and she reported that she was doing fine, no bleeding or pain. Generally, an ultrasound is not performed until at least the fifteenth or sixteenth week. After speaking with R. C. on December 2, 1993, Respondent continued with his plan to obtain an ultrasound evaluation of R. C. in her 7th or 8th week of gestation. Her history indicated that Respondent should confirm the nature of her pregnancy, and Respondent took those steps necessary to monitor and confirm R. C.'s condition. At approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 6, 1993, R. C. contacted Respondent's office and spoke with his midwife. R. C. complained that she was having some cramping that began after she had eaten a very heavy meal. This is not an unusual complaint during a pregnancy. R. C. reported that the cramping was resolving, but she just wanted to touch base with someone. The midwife advised her to go to the emergency room if the cramping worsened during that evening or if she was concerned. The midwife also advised R. C. that if she felt better by morning but not completely better, she should come in to the office. If she felt fine, she should keep her scheduled appointment for the ultrasound. The advice given to R. C. by the midwife was appropriate and consistent with the standard of care. R. C. began to experience severe lower abdominal pain on the morning of December 7, 1993, and was taken to the emergency room of Bethesda Memorial Hospital. She did not have any vaginal bleeding. Respondent was present in the hospital when R. C. arrived at the emergency room, and he came immediately upon being called. An ultrasound was performed and confirmed that the uterus was empty except for a pseudo-gestational sac. A viable ectopic pregnancy was seen in the left adnexal area with an estimated gestational age of 6 weeks. Respondent assessed R. C. as having a leaking tubal pregnancy, and he had her taken to surgery immediately following the ultrasound. Respondent removed her left tube and ovary and provided blood transfusions due to free blood found in the abdomen. R. C. experienced a fever following the surgery, but she recovered and was discharged from the hospital. Respondent's plan and action in evaluating R. C. on her November 30, 1993, visit to his office were in accordance with the standard of care, and were reasonable and appropriate. The patient's telephone report of doing well on December 2, 1993, strengthened Respondent's judgment that there was no immediate need to obtain an ultrasound and repeat hCG and that he could wait until those tests were likely to be reliable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 23rd day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Britt Thomas, Esquire M. Rosena Hitson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Jon M. Pellett, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's license to practice medicine for violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Petitioner is the state department charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to Chapter 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is Michael D. Fox, M.D. Respondent is board certified in obstetrics and gynecology. Respondent is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida having been issued license ME 66312. Respondent's address is 3627 University Boulevard, South, Suite 200, Jacksonville, Florida 32216-4211. At all times material to this complaint, Respondent provided professional services as an employee of North Florida Gynecologic Specialists in Jacksonville, Florida. On or about September 26, 2003, Patient T.D. presented to Respondent with a history of worsening pelvic pain and abnormal menstrual bleeding. On or about October 6, 2003, Respondent and Patient T.D. agreed that Patient T.D. would undergo a hysterectomy. On or about October 22, 2003, during a pre-operative examination, Respondent ordered pre-operative lab studies, including a urine pregnancy test, for Patient T.D. On or about October 27, 2003, Respondent performed a total abdominal hysterectomy on Patient T.D. During Patient T.D.'s hysterectomy, Respondent took a specimen from Patient T.D., which was sent to pathology for evaluation. On or about October 29, 2003, a microscopic examination of the surgical specimen was performed that revealed Patient T.D. was pregnant at the time Respondent performed the hysterectomy on Patient T.D. Respondent did not ascertain the correct results of Patient T.D.'s pre-operative pregnancy test prior to performing the October 27, 2003, hysterectomy on Patient T.D. Respondent's Care of Patient T.D. Respondent attended medical school at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama. He did a four-year residency in obstetrics and gynecology (ob/gyn) in Jackson, Mississippi, and a two-year sub-specialty fellowship in reproductive endochrinology in Lexington, Kentucky. He is board-certified in reproductive endochrinology and ob/gyn. At present his specialty is reproductive endochrinology. Respondent has experience in performing hysterectomies and the pre-operative evaluations associated with those surgeries. Respondent does 30 to 40 hysterectomies a year. That number represented his experience in 2003. The principal reason for performing hysterectomies in his practice, is associated with sub-specialty interests, surgery for endometriosis and adenomyosis, a co-disease with endometriosis. Respondent has privileges to practice in hospitals in the Jacksonville, Florida area. In particular, he has privileges at St. Vincent's, St. Luke's, Baptist, Baptist Beaches, Memorial and Shands hospitals. He performs surgeries in all those hospitals. The hospitals where Respondent practices have computer systems that allow access to laboratory records and other forms of information associated with patient care. Although he has access to the computer systems in the facilities, his routine is to obtain laboratory information in the hospital setting from other persons involved in the patient care. He asks those persons to find out the information for him and report the finding(s). Respondent would have access to the patient hospital record, as well as a source for obtaining laboratory information. Respondent routinely looks at the patient hospital record in preparing for surgery. Concerning Patient T.D., the subject of this proceeding, when seen by Respondent she was described as a young female, of child-bearing age who presented with chronic pain. She had pain with periods which Respondent found to be characteristic of adenomyosis. She had pre-cycle pain approximately a week prior to her menses, another characteristic of adenomyosis. The patient had irregular bleeding that is an indication of adenomyosis. The patient was found to have an enlarged uterus, the primary source of her pain on the examination. This visit with Respondent, that formed the basis for his impression, took place on September 26, 2003. On the initial visit Respondent also obtained a history consistent with endochrine disorder causing irregular cycles. In the patient's case, the cycles extended as much as 60 days in relation to her periods. Based upon his initial impression, Respondent did not find evidence that Patient T.D. was pregnant. The patient told Respondent that she had no desire for fertility. At that time, she did not report having a partner, nor did she indicate that she was sexually active. To further evaluate the Patient T.D.'s condition and complaints, Respondent ordered an ultrasound test. That study was performed on October 2, 2003, and a gynecological ultrasound report rendered. Based upon the report, Respondent held to the view that the report showed evidence of adenomyosis. There was a mild and moderate enlargement of the uterus, which Respondent found to be consistent with adenomyosis. The patient had had a prior pregnancy and delivery and Respondent found the depiction on the ultrasound of a mild enlargement of the uterus consistent with the prior pregnancy and delivery. On their next visit, Respondent discussed the choice of a hysterectomy or some other form of surgery that did not involve a hysterectomy, to treat the endometriosis and relieve her symptoms. That visit took place on October 6, 2003. On October 22, 2003, Respondent met the patient again. He reviewed the details of what he believed was the underlying disease and potential treatments in discussion with the patient. The patient indicated that she wanted to proceed with the hysterectomy. That choice having been made, the surgery was discussed between the patient and Respondent and the necessary paperwork was started to arrange for the surgery in the hospital. When preparing for surgery Respondent ordered a pregnancy test to verify whether the patient was pregnant or not. The nature of the test was a urine pregnancy test under Respondent's preoperative orders given October 22, 2003. The specimen was collected on October 22, 2003, and received by Memorial Hospital (Memorial), Jacksonville, Florida, where the hysterectomy was to be performed. The test result was positive for pregnancy. The point in time that the result was revealed to Respondent will be discussed beyond this reference to the result. On October 27, 2003, Respondent began his surgery cases at Memorial at 7:30 a.m. On that date there was no indication in the patient record or chart maintained in his office practice that reflected information concerning the pregnancy test result, nor was that information found in the hospital chart related to Patient T.D. Absent the information, Respondent testified that he asked the circulating nurse at Memorial about the result of the pregnancy test. That was Tracy Lloyd, R.N. According to Respondent, the nurse went away to check the result and as Respondent describes "subsequently told me it was negative." No further effort was made by Respondent to confirm the oral report that Respondent says was made by the nurse. Respondent did not document the results of Patient T.D.'s pre-operative pregnancy test in the medical record. It was not his habit to write that type of a pre-operative note. Respondent testified that Ms. Lloyd told him about the pregnancy test results while in the holding area in the presence of the patient. Respondent commented that his question to the nurse would have been "What are the results of the pregnancy test?"1/ Aside from the results of the pregnancy test, nothing in the patient's condition, known to Respondent, led him to believe that the patient was pregnant. When the laparoscopic surgery commenced, Respondent did not perform an examination of the patient under anesthesia, given his recent examination of the patient in his office and the results of the ultrasound. Moreover, Respondent does not believe that such an examination under anesthesia would reveal anything other than the adenomyosis and the endometriosis which conformed to his preoperative diagnosis. On that subject, the later examination of the specimen on October 29, 2003, revealed that Patient T.D. had an early pregnancy, estimated as 4 to 5 weeks. In Respondent's opinion, in a 4-to 5-week pregnancy, the uterus would not normally achieve the size of a uterus that was reported on the ultrasound as mildly enlarged, not pregnant. Mildly enlarged refers to a 6 to 8 weeks' pregnancy. Respondent expected to see an enlarged uterus because of the adenomyosis which could be anticipated to cause an inflammatory response in the wall of the uterus, softening the uterus and giving it an appearance that would be similar to an early pregnancy. The rounded globular description of the findings during surgery were consistent with the expectations in addressing cases involving adenomyosis, according to Respondent. Returning to the surgical specimen obtained in Patient T.D.'s case, it was examined through surgical pathology conducted by Robert E. Barnes, M.D. A report was rendered. The report explains that in the examination of the specimen, the endometrium, "gestational endometrium with products of conception" were present. This was the finding related to Patient T.D.'s pregnancy. Dr. Barnes, is a board-certified pathologist in anatomic and clinical pathology. He describes his findings pertaining to Patient T.D., the gestational endometrium with products of conception, as referring to an early embryo, the endometrium showing changes associated with pregnancy. In his opinion the pregnancy was between 10 and 16 days following conception. When Dr. Barnes contacted Respondent on October 29, 2003, to advise of his findings in the pathology. It was a brief conversation and he does not recall the details. After the revelation concerning the pathology, Respondent's office staff found the information concerning the results of the urine pregnancy test in the hospital chart retained in the computer at Memorial. This finding was made around November 4, 2003. In a section within the report on the pregnancy test it refers to the "Result" and underneath that, the word "POSITIVE" is entered referring to pregnancy. When it was discovered that the hysterectomy had been performed while the Patient T.D. was pregnant, at her post- surgery scheduled office visit, a discussion was held with the patient concerning the "checks and balances" in place to avoid the problem. That refers to the surgery at a time the patient was pregnant. Respondent talked to the patient about counseling, or something similar, given the outcome in the case. As a result of the error, steps were taken within Memorial to address this circumstance. The Respondent and the Memorial Department of OB/GYN made changes, by requiring a pre- operative pregnancy test as protocol, that established a urine pregnancy test within 72 hours of surgery. That test would be performed by the nurses in the holding area. Respondent now orders a blood pregnancy test which is a more sensitive test to determine pregnancy. Expert Opinion Jose Cortes, M.D., is board-certified in ob/gyn, licensed to practice in Florida. He was recognized as a expert in ob/gyn for purposes of expressing his opinion about the care Respondent provided Patient T.D. Dr. Cortes has done hysterectomies in his practice, as recent as June 2006. He was called upon to render an opinion concerning the care Respondent provided Patient T.D. involving her hysterectomy. He had access to material concerning her care involved with this case. Dr. Cortes' impression of Respondent's medical treatment of the patient in the beginning, was that it was adequate and correct, with the proper evaluation performed and an appropriate decision made for surgery. Dr. Cortes expressed the opinion that in performing a hysterectomy on a woman who is of child-bearing age, which Patient T.D. was, a physician should order a pre-operative pregnancy test. In reviewing Patient T.D.'s records Dr. Cortes did not find a record documenting that the pregnancy test was ascertained by Respondent, referring to the test results. In his experience the results of the preoperative tests would be reflected in the patient's medical records as a matter of custom. Respondent, according to Dr. Cortes, could have obtained the results of the pre-operative pregnancy test for Patient T.D. by a fax to his office, a copy obtained through a computer, laboratory printouts sent to Respondent's office, and a copy of the pre-operative laboratory results obtained by the hospital placed in its medical record. Dr. Cortes stated the position that an experienced ob/gyn, and Respondent fits that category, could reasonably be expected to rely upon an oral report from a nurse as to the results of the pregnancy test, before entering the operating room, in the area of the pre-operative alcove as the patient is being interviewed by the physician. Dr. Cortes goes on to explain that if the conversation with the nurse in the presence of the patient was in the operating room holding area, then the pregnancy test results would have to have been documented in the patient chart to find the oral report acceptable. Those test results as reported would have had to be entered by the physician in the patient chart to meet the standard of care upon the oral report.2/ Later on, Dr. Cortes in his testimony seems to subscribe to the view that an oral report by the nurse as to the pregnancy test results would meet the standard of care, assuming that the Respondent in this case was provided an oral report. In the testimony at hearing, Dr. Cortes also said that obtaining an oral report or verbal report on test results, in an emergency situation, would meet the standard of care. By contrast, in elective surgery, such as that being performed on Patient T.D., it would be such that there was ample time to review a chart and laboratory studies before the patient was brought into the surgical suite. Generally stated, Dr. Cortes accepts that physicians frequently rely upon oral information imparted by nurses in performing surgeries, be they elective or emergent, but without an oral report this concession is not important. Regardless of the pre-conditions for Respondent to receive and rely on an oral report of the results of the pregnancy test, without an oral report, there being no other basis for Respondent's knowledge of the pregnancy test results, it was below standards to proceed with the hysterectomy. This view is taken from Dr. Cortes' testimony. Dr. Cortes expressed the opinion that it was below the standard of care to not ascertain the results of the patient's pre-operative pregnancy test prior to performing a non-emergent hysterectomy, that is an elective hysterectomy. Dr. Cortes expressed the opinion that it was below the standard of care for Respondent to perform a hysterectomy on Patient T.D. while she was pregnant in an elective setting. In addition to the results of the pregnancy test, Dr. Cortes believes that Respondent had other opportunities to detect the pregnancy, including an examination of the patient while she was under anesthesia during the surgery, and would have allowed a comparison of the results at the time of surgery against previous examinations that Respondent had performed on the patient. In referring to the previous examinations compared to an examination under anesthesia, this included the results of the ultrasound performed on October 2, 2003. Dr. Cortes does agree that the underlying condition visualized under anesthesia could be associated with prior pregnancy or the pre-operative diagnosis of adenomyosis. Dr. Cortes believes that Respondent's medical records, in the context of what could have been found upon an examination under anesthesia during the surgery, could be consistent with a possible pregnancy. A change seen in the pelvic examination at surgery would create an opportunity to evaluate and raise in the Respondent's mind any doubt concerning pregnancy. A slight increase in the size of the uterus between September 26, 2003, and October 27, 2003, is what is being referred to, promoting clinical judgment about possible pregnancy. Bryan Cowen, M.D. specializes in ob/gyn and reproductive endochrinology. He practices at the University of Mississippi in Jackson, Mississippi. He is a professor and chair in the Department of OB/GYN and has been for five years. He has been affiliated with the University of Mississippi for 24 years. He did his undergraduate work at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado, and attended medical school in Denver, Colorado. Dr. Cowen is licensed to practice medicine in Mississippi and is board-certified. Dr. Cowen has performed a number of hysterectomies during his career. Dr. Cowen is familiar with the standard of care applicable for physicians such as Respondent, in the evaluation of patients suspected of endometriosis and adenomyosis and the considerations for treatment by hysterectomy. He is also familiar with the standard of care in relation to pre-operative testing and the associated duties of physicians when ordering such tests. In preparing to testify in this case, Dr. Cowen examined the Memorial medical records, Respondent's office records, and the depositions of Respondent, Dr. Freeman, Dr. Widrich, Dr. Barnes, and Dr. Cortes. With this information in mind, Dr. Cowen was able to provide an opinion concerning the standard of care in relation to the treatment provided by Respondent to Patient T.D. That opinion was that Respondent did not breach the standard of care in that he met due diligence in the process by the pre-operative laboratory-ordered, and pre- operative evaluation and assessment. Speaking to the September 26, 2003, office visit, Dr. Cowen saw nothing on the physical examination to indicate to him that Patient T.D. was pregnant. Concerning the ultrasound that was conducted on October 2, 2003, Dr. Cowen's opinion is that Respondent's assessment that Patient T.D. had adenomyosis based upon presentation, was confirmed by the ultrasound, the overall impression being that the Patient T.D. was not pregnant at that time. The further visit by the patient prior to the hysterectomy did not reveal anything in the history or physical examination that would suggest that Patient T.D. was pregnant, according to Dr. Cowen. On October 22, 2003, the pregnancy test was ordered by Respondent. The arrangement of ordering the test, sending the patient for pre-operative evaluation and laboratory tests is a common practice in Dr. Cowen's experience. In the instance where Respondent did not get a call from the pre-admission testing as to any abnormal results in the pregnancy test, and no report reflecting in the patient chart that the results were normal, Dr. Cowen commented on the need to check the laboratory results before taking the patient into the operating room. Based on Dr. Cowen's experience, there was no necessity to personally lay eyes on the test results to ascertain those results. He recognizes that his hospital may be different from Memorial in its expectations but he believes that Respondent followed Memorial's policy in accepting the report of a nurse as to the results of the pregnancy test. Dr. Cowen's opinion relies upon the factual predicate that Respondent was told by a nurse that the pregnancy test was negative, to the extent that is not true, and it has not been found as a fact, his opinion is without foundation. Further, Dr. Cowen believes that in the setting where surgery is being performed in other than an emergency, it is a sufficient practice to rely upon an oral report of a nurse concerning laboratory results, such as the outcome in the pregnancy test for Patient T.D. In his experience he has relied upon nurses to report both in an emergent and non-emergent settings. He goes on to describe how those reports come back to the medical records and the physician signs off, which did not occur in this case. Dr. Cowen was asked to express his opinion about the value of an examination under anesthesia as an assist to understanding the underlying condition of the Patient T.D. Dr. Cowen does not believe that this would provide additional information. In his experience most physicians have abandoned examinations under anesthesia. If a better insight is needed an ultrasound is the best choice. To Dr. Cowen, an examination under anesthesia does not relate to standard of care, it is in relation to an individual practitioner's protocol. An ultrasound used in this case, a transvaginal ultrasound, may have shown the gestational sack at the time of the hysterectomy but proceeding on the basis that a negative pregnancy test had been established and other findings during the course of the operation, as well as the preoperative record, would not indicate the necessity for an ultrasound in this case, at that time, the place in time where the hysterectomy was being performed. Dr. Cowen did not find anything in the intra-operative findings that would suggest to Respondent that the Patient T.D. was pregnant. Overall Dr. Cowen believes that Respondent met the standard of care in addressing the case of Patient T.D., who probably had polycystic ovarian disease, irregular cycles, was without a sexual partner by history, used condoms for contraception, had an ultrasound that confirmed a slightly enlarged uterus and had symptoms compatible with adenomyosis or endometriosis. Respondent discussed the treatment options, made an appropriate pre-operative evaluation, learned that the lab results for pregnancy were negative (an erroneous assumption), and therefore, he met the standard of care, according to Dr. Cowen. Ultimately, Dr. Cowen believes that it is essential to determine whether a patient is pregnant prior to performing a non-emergent/elective hysterectomy, which was not done here. Wyatt McNeill, M.D., testified. He is an ob/gyn practicing in Jacksonville, Florida, who in the past has had privileges at Memorial. He has performed hysterectomies at that facility. Dr. McNeill graduated from Florida State University. He graduated from the University of Miami Medical School. He is licensed in the state of Florida and is board-certified in ob/gyn. Dr. McNeill is familiar with the standard of care in relation to preoperative laboratory work done before a hysterectomy. Dr. McNeill is familiar with the standard of care applicable to Respondent in the evaluation of Patient T.D. for hysterectomy, knowing after the fact that the patient was found to be pregnant. To familiarize himself with the facts of this case, Dr. McNeill examined the hospital records of Memorial, Respondent's office records, various depositions, to include that of Dr. Cortes and the anesthesiologist and pathologist, before providing testimony. He also examined the testimony of the nurses involved in the care before offering his opinions. Concerning the patient history, objective and subjective evidence available, Dr. McNeill did not believe that there was anything to suggest that Patient T.D. was pregnant. In particular, Dr. McNeill comments on the history and physical done by Respondent, counseling, laboratory evaluation, and the decision beyond that to proceed with the surgery. Dr. McNeill found the ultrasound results consistent with a patient, who by history had a previous child and had the complaints expressed in the report concerning the September 26, 2003, visit with Respondent. Nothing in the ultrasound results compared to the findings in the operative report indicated to Dr. McNeill that the patient needed to be examined under anesthesia. The use of the examination under anesthesia is a training regimne for residents and students, in his experience. It has no utility beyond that application, in Dr. McNeill's opinion. Dr. McNeill believes that an oral report of the results of the pregnancy test meets the standard of care. As with others, Dr. McNeill assumes that Respondent was told the test results, which is not found. There was no further duty by Respondent to investigate those results having been told. In Dr. McNeill's opinion, the test results are either positive or negative, they are highly accurate. A negative test result means that the patient is not pregnant. No further duty is established beyond that realization, according to Dr. McNeill. In summary, there is no disagreement among the experts that Respondent is expected to ascertain the results of the preoperative pregnancy test before performing the hysterectomy and it would be inappropriate to perform the hysterectomy without those results. Respondent does not disagree with that perception. Conceptually, having considered the testimony of Respondent and the experts, it would be acceptable to proceed on an oral report, if one had been made, a report that the pregnancy test was negative.3/ Otherwise, the physical examination of the patient prior to surgery, the results of the ultrasound, and the observations intra-operatively made by Respondent did not indicate that the patient was pregnant. There was no necessity to make an examination under anesthesia. Even if made, it would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the patient was pregnant, taking into account other information known by Respondent. Mitigation/Aggravation The outcome here was that the patient underwent a hysterectomy when she was pregnant, an adverse result. There is no indication that Respondent has ever been disciplined in Florida or other jurisdictions while practicing medicine.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts found and the conclusions, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), and imposing an administrative fine of $10,000.00, requiring Respondent to take a course on Risk Management for physicians, and issuing a letter of reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 22nd day of June, 2007.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), in DOAH Case No. 09-4678PL; Subsections 456.072(1)(l), 458.331(1)(m), and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), in DOAH Case No. 09-4679PL; and Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), in DOAH Case No. 09-4680PL, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relating to the three Administrative Complaints at issue, Dr. Kachinas was a licensed medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 65595. He is board-certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. DOAH CASE NO. 09-4678PL In 2002, Dr. Kachinas was working at several clinics that were owned by the same individual. He received payment from Sarasota Women’s Health Center and Tampa Women’s Health Center. His primary office was located in Sarasota, but he rotated through the offices located in Clearwater and Tampa. He was advised that he would be attending a patient in the Tampa office. One of the medications that he used in his method of sedating patients, Propofol, was not available in the Tampa office. He took a vial of the Propofol and took it to the Tampa office, holding the vial in his hand. While at the Tampa office, Dr. Kachinas drew the Propofol into a syringe. He did not have to use the Propofol for the patient. He placed the syringe filled with Propofol inside the sock that he was wearing. Dr. Kachinas transported the syringe back to the Tampa office. He used this method of transport so that the office manager in the Tampa office would not know that he was transporting the drug. When he got back to the Tampa office, he placed the filled syringe in a secure place. Propofol must be used within 24 hours after being drawn into a syringe. The next day it was decided that the drug would not be used on another patient, and Dr. Kachinas wasted the syringe filled with Propofol. At the clinics where Dr. Kachinas worked, there were no logs to keep track of the drugs, except for the drug Fentanyl. Dr. Kachinas acknowledged in a letter dated January 30, 2007, to the Department of Health that his method of transporting Propofol was “unorthodox.” In the same letter, Dr. Kachinas acknowledged that “a reasonable and prudent doctor would not generally transport medication in that manner, but foolishness seemed reasonable in that aberrant environment.” DOAH CASE NO. 09-4679PL On March 26, 2004, B.S. presented to Premier Institute for Women’s Health (Premier) for an elective termination of pregnancy. Dr. Kachinas was the physician who handled the procedure. Dr. Kachinas maintained records relating to B.S. at Premier. In 2004, Petitioner subpoenaed B.S.’s records from Dr. Kachinas’ office. Petitioner received a packet of documents, which purported to be B.S.’s medical records. In July 2006, Lori Jacobs, an employee of Premier, sent Petitioner another copy of the documents sent in 2004. Neither the records provided in 2004 nor the records provided in 2006 contain progress notes for B.S.’s treatment on March 26, 2004, and March 27, 2004. For the first time on November 5, 2009, Dr. Kachinas produced a three-page document, which he claimed was part of B.S.’s medical records that had been misplaced in B.S.’s insurance file. Two of the pages purported to be progress notes for March 26 and 27, 2004. The third page, which is also labeled as a progress note, is dated June 29, 2004, and appears to relate to insurance claims. The two pages relating to March 26 and 27 are on paper which is a different color from the progress note relating to insurance claims and the progress notes which were previously furnished in 2004 and 2006.1 Additionally, the progress notes for March 26 and 27, 2004, contain a break in each of the ruled lines on the sheets on both the right and left sides of the sheets. The insurance progress note and the progress notes furnished in 2004 and 2006 do not have such breaks in the ruled lines. Dr. Kachinas completed a Laminaria Insertion report documenting procedures done on March 26, 2004, and March 27, 2004. The March 26, 2004, report documents the insertion of Laminaria and administration of medications. The comment section of the report documents the removal of the Laminaria and administration of medications on March 27, 2004. The comment section continues to document the administration of medications and the taking of vital signs after the removal of the Laminaria and also the transfer of the patient to Doctors Hospital. The detail on the comment sections suggests that Dr. Kachinas was making his progress notes in the Laminaria Insertion report. The failure to produce the purported progress notes for March 26 and 27, 2004, until November 5, 2009; the difference in the color of the paper of the March 26 and 27, 2004, purported progress notes and the other progress notes in Dr. Kachinas’ records; the presence of breaks in the ruled lines on the March 26 and 27, 2004, purported progress reports, which do not appear on the other progress notes; and the detail of the comments on the Laminaria Insertion report support the conclusion that the progress notes submitted as Respondent’s Exhibit 1 were not done contemporaneously with the treatment given to B.S. on March 26 and 27, 2004, but were prepared for this proceeding. Thus, the progress notes for March 26 and 27, 2004, are not credited. Dr. Kachinas determined B.S.’s pregnancy to be at approximately 23½-to-24 weeks’ gestation, the last week of the second trimester. He confirmed by sonogram that the gestation period was 24 weeks. On March 26, 2004, Dr. Kachinas began the induction of labor ordering the insertion of ten Laminaria, which are osomotic cervical dilators which cause the cervix to open and allow easier emptying of the uterus. Dr. Kachinas’ records do not show that B.S.’s medical history was taken prior to the insertion of the Laminaria. However, Dr. Kachinas did take a medical history of B.S. at the time of her admission to Doctors Hospital, and the history is recorded in the medical records. Prior to the insertion of the Laminaria, Dr. Kachinas’ records do show that a limited physical examination of B.S. was done. The Laminaria Insertion report shows that B.S.’s baseline blood pressure, temperature, and pulse were taken and recorded. There was no expert testimony of what other physical examination should have been done. Dr. Kachinas injected the fetus with Digoxin, which is injected directly into the fetus to stop the fetal heartbeat, causing an Intrauterine Fetal Demise (IUFD). The injection of the Digoxin was not documented in B.S.’s medical records. B.S. was then released from Premier. On March 27, 2004, B.S. returned to Premier. Prior to removing the Laminaria, Dr. Kachinas did an ultrasound and determined that there was still fetal heart activity and fetal movements. Dr. Kachinas continued the labor induction procedure by removing the Laminaria and administering Cytotec and high dosages of Pitocin. When the Laminaria were removed, there was a rupture of membranes with a loss of essentially all the amniotic fluid. Sometime during the afternoon of March 27, 2004, Dr. Kachinas did another ultrasound and determined that there was no fetal heart activity. Based on the length of time from the Digoxin injection to the ultrasound showing no fetal heart activity, the loss of amniotic fluid, and the administering of medication to cause contractions, Dr. Kachinas determined that the Digoxin injection was not the cause of death. On March 27, 2004, at approximately 6:30 p.m., Dr. Kachinas transferred B.S. to Doctors Hospital and had her admitted to the hospital for failure to progress with the induction of labor procedure. While at the hospital, B.S. continued to experience pain. On March 28, 2004, Dr. Kachinas performed the following procedures on B.S.: mini-laparotomy, hysterotomy, removal of products of conception, and a modified Pomeroy bilateral tubal ligation. In his description of the procedures, he stated that the fetal demise was at least of 48 hours duration. However, Dr. Kachinas’ records do not reflect the time of the fetal demise. Jorge Gomez, M.D., Petitioner’s expert witness, credibly testified that a physician is required to document the time of the fetal demise. In the hospital records following B.S.’s surgery, Dr. Kachinas listed the post-operative diagnosis as a failure to induce labor, an intrauterine fetal demise, a thin umbilical cord, and asymmetric intrauterine growth retardation, a condition in which the fetus is smaller than expected for the number of weeks of pregnancy. An autopsy was performed on the fetus. A surgical pathology report was also issued. The pathology report showed mild infarcts on the maternal side. On the fetal death certificate, Dr. Kachinas listed the immediate causes for the IUFD as a possible cord incident and multiple placental infarctions. Dr. Kachinas did not document the elective termination or the Digoxin injection on the fetal death certificate. Dr. Gomez disagrees with the reasons for IUFD given on the death certificate. His credible reading of the pathology report does not indicate that the infarcts were severe enough to have contributed to the fetal demise. His credible reading of the pathology report does not indicate that there was any evidence of a cord incident. Dr. Gomez is of the opinion that the cause of death should have been listed as elective termination. Dr. Gomez’ opinion is credited. However, Dr. Gomez did not give an opinion on whether the fetal demise was caused by the injection of Digoxin. DOAH CASE NO. 09-4680PL On December 13, 2005, K.M. was seen by Walter J. Morales, M.D., at Florida Perinatal Associates, which specializes in internal fetal medicine. Dr. Morales performed an ultrasound on K.M., who was pregnant with twins as a result of in vitro fertilization. The ultrasound revealed that the twins were fraternal, meaning that each twin had a separate placenta and a separate sac. One of the twins, Twin A, had an anomaly called a cystic hygroma, which results from an obstruction, causing the lymphatic fluid, which normally drains into the juglar vein, to accumulate in the neck area. Approximately 50 percent of the fetuses which have this anomaly in the first trimester also have a chromosomal anomaly, such as Down syndrome. The decision was made to have K.M. return to Florida Perinatal Associates in three weeks for further evaluation. On January 3, 2006, Edgard Ramos-Santos, M.D., a partner of Dr. Morales, performed another ultrasound on K.M. Dr. Ramos-Santos found that Twin A, a male, had a cystic hydroma, a thickening of the nuchal fold2, and shortened femur and humerus. These findings are soft markers for abnormal chromosomes. The ultrasound also revealed a possible heart defect. At the time of the ultrasound, Twin A was cephalic bottom, meaning that Twin A was positioned lowest in the uterus. Dr. Ramos-Santos also performed an amniocentesis on Twin A on the same date as the ultrasound. The amniocentesis showed that Twin A had an abnormal chromosome pattern compatible with trisomy 21 or Down syndrome. Both ultrasounds showed that Twin B, a female, appeared to be normal. At the request of K.M., no amniocentesis was performed on Twin B on January 3, 2006. At the time of the ultrasound performed on January 3, 2006, the presentation of Twin B was cephalic right. The findings of the January 3, 2006, ultrasound were discussed with K.M. and her husband. On January 9, 2006, Dr. Ramos-Santos discussed the results of the amniocentesis with K.M.’s husband. It was decided that a selective feticide would be performed on Twin A. Selective feticide is a procedure in which a solution of potassium hydroxide is injected into the fetus’ heart to make the heart stop beating. K.M. was referred to Dr. Kachinas at Premier for the selective feticide. On January 10, 2006, Roberta Bruce, a nurse at Florida Perinatal Associates, sent to Premier by facsimile transmission the January 3, 2006, ultrasound report for K.M. and K.M.’s insurance information. The cover page for the facsimile transmission included a note from Ms. Bruce, which stated: “* FYI Fetus have different gender. The male is the affected one.” The standard of care as specified in Section 766.102, Florida Statutes (2005), requires a physician performing a selective feticide to correctly identify the affected fetus. Dr. Kachinas did not correctly identify Twin A prior to performing the selective feticide and performed the procedure on Twin B, the normal fetus. Dr. Kachinas performed an ultrasound on K.M., but failed to identify the correct position of Twin A in relation to K.M. The ultrasound done on January 3, 2006, by Dr. Ramos-Santos showed that Twin A was located at the bottom and Twin B was located to the right of K.M. In his progress notes, Dr. Kachinas placed Twin A on the right and Twin B on the left. Although it is possible for twins to shift positions, it is not probable that the twins shifted from left to right. Dr. Kachinas performed an ultrasound, but failed to identify that Twin A was the fetus with multiple anomalies. Although the standard of care required Dr. Kachinas to do a Level 2 ultrasound evaluation, a Level 1 ultrasound evaluation would have identified the cystic hygroma, the shortened long bones, and the sex of Twin A. Dr. Kachinas failed to perform an adequate ultrasound evaluation by failing to identify the anomalies and the gender of Twin A. Dr. Kachinas’ notes do not show whether Twin A or Twin B had anomalies. His notes did not identify the sex of each of the twins. His notes did not document the attempts that Dr. Kachinas made to identify the anomalies such as a recording of the length of the long bones or any examination made to identify the sex of each of the twins. On January 24, 2006, K.M. returned to Florida Perinatal Associates for another consultation. Dr. Morales performed another ultrasound, which revealed that Twin A, who had the anomalies, was still viable. The ultrasound revealed the continued presence of a cystic hygroma, the thickening of the nuchal fold, shortened extremities, and a congenital heart defect. The ultrasound also showed that the viable twin was male. The presentation of Twin A was shown by the ultrasound as cephalic bottom.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as to DOAH Case No. 09-4678PL that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Kachinas violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2002), by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; finding that Dr. Kachinas did not violate Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2002); imposing an administrative fine of $2,500; and placing Dr. Kachinas on probation for one year. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as to DOAH Case No. 09-4679PL that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Kachinas did not violate Subsections 456.072(1)(l) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003); finding that Dr. Kachinas violated Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2003); imposing an administrative fine of $1,000; and placing Dr. Kachinas on probation for one year. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED as to DOAH Case No. 09-4680PL that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Kachinas violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005), by committing gross medical malpractice; finding that Dr. Kachinas violated Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2005); imposing an administrative fine of $2,000 and placing him on probation for one year for the violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2005); and revoking his license for the violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2005). DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 26th day of January, 2010.
The Issue Did Mary Moshier violate Section 464.21(1)(b) , Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Recommendation It is noted as a fact in mitigation that Moshier was suspended for 21 days by the hospital where she worked for the incidents that gave rise to this Administrative Complaint. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and considering the facts in mitigation, the Hearing Officer recommends that Mary Moshier be placed on probation for a period of six months for the violation of Section 464.10(1)(f) , Florida Statutes, by using profane language regarding a patient in the vicinity of the patient. DONE and ORDERED this day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Joseph S. Farley, Jr., Esquire 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Beard of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed as a medical doctor by the Florida Board of Medicine. He holds License No. ME 0019700. Respondent received his medical degree overseas and did his residence in obstetrics and gynecology at Bayfront Medical Center in St. Petersburg, Florida. He is neither board certified nor board eligible. For the past eight plus years Respondent's practice has been limited to terminating pregnancies at All Women's Health Clinic at Tampa, Florida. He has performed in excess of 15,000 abortions. One reason given by Respondent for so limiting his practice is the cost of medical malpractice insurance. Since he has no private practice, Respondent gave up admitting privileges at hospitals in the area. Without malpractice insurance, he would not be given staff privileges. On August 23, 1986, A. L., a pregnant 16 year old, entered All Women's Health Center, Tampa, to have her pregnancy terminated. A. L. had noted on her history statement that her last menstrual period started some eight weeks ago. Respondent first saw A. L. when he entered the procedures room at All Women's Health Center and commenced his examination prior to instituting abortion procedures. With respect to the examination the testimony varied widely. Diane Roberts, LPN, who was performing the duties of physician's assistant during the procedure, initially told the investigators that the examination lasted only a couple of seconds and consisted of a vaginal examination with two fingers of the right hand in the vagina while the abdomen was palpated with the left hand. At the hearing, Roberts testified that she wasn't paying much attention to the patient during the examination, didn't recall telling investigator the examination only took a couple of seconds, and recalled Respondent telling A. L. several times to relax. Respondent testified he performed a normal vaginal examination. The examination was longer than usual because A. L. wasn't relaxed and tensed her stomach muscles which made the uterus more difficult to palpate; and that following his examination he determined the gestational age of the fetus to be 12 weeks. Respondent testified he also checked the patient's heart and lungs before commencing the pelvic examination. A. L. testified that Respondent palpated her abdomen with two hands, but did not check heart and lungs or do a pelvic examination. A. L. had an earlier pregnancy terminated the previous year when the doctor did a pelvic examination with two fingers in the vagina while the abdomen was palpated with his other hand. The patient was ultimately determined to be 28 to 30 weeks pregnant. Largely because of the large error in gestational age, it is concluded that Respondent performed only a perfunctory examination on A. L. Had he conducted the proper examination, it is inconceivable that he, an experienced gynecologist, could underestimate the gestational age of the fetus by some four months. The magnitude of this error is illustrated by Respondent's testimony that a 12 week fetus is approximately 3 inches long and weighs 30 grams, while a 28 week fetus is approximately 14 inches long and weighs 1100 grams. Respondent started the procedure thinking he was aborting a 12 week fetus with the patient on the table and feet in the stirrups. After the instruments were inserted and the procedure started, Respondent concluded the fetus was 16 weeks, obtained a larger curette, then determined the fetus was more likely 20 weeks, again changed curette, and after removing fluid and part of an arm Respondent concluded that the gestational age of the fetus was some 28 weeks and required hospitalization to complete the procedure. Mistakes in determining gestational age can be made by a prudent physician if: (1) the patient is obese; (2) if the uterus is very soft and the extremities difficult to locate; (3) if the baby has a low fluid volume; (4) if the patient is very tense; or, (5) if the head of the fetus is felt and not the uterus. Here A. L. was more thin than obese which should have greatly facilitated palpation of the abdomen to determine the size of the uterus. Accepting the testimony that she was tense during the examination, and the earlier pregnancy would cause the uterus to be soft, no experienced gynecologist should conduct an examination of a patient such as A. L. and err on the magnitude here involved. Further, if the examination was difficult, the procedure should not have commenced until Respondent was reasonably positive of the gestational age of the fetus. One indication Respondent received that the fetus was older than 12 weeks was the quantity of fluid drawn. Further, no experienced gynecologist should mistake the head of the fetus as the extremity of the uterus on a patient such as A. L. Once Respondent determined the fetus was more than 16 weeks along, he called Dr. Barile, a gynecologist with admitting privileges at Humana Women's Hospital, Tampa, to request he remain available in case Respondent needed to send A. L. to a hospital. When Respondent determined the gestational age of the fetus' was more than 26 weeks, he again called Barile who suggested it would be better to refer the patient to an obstetrician. Respondent then telephoned his backup obstetrician and found she was on vacation, and a doctor with whom Respondent was not acquainted was taking her calls. Since A. L. was stable and in no apparent distress, Respondent called Dr. Klein, a pediatrician with admitting privileges at Bayfront Memorial Hospital in St. Petersburg. Dr. Klein agreed to take care of the patient by having his associate, who had the duty that day, meet the patient at Bayfront. A. L. had been brought to the clinic by her brother, and Respondent concluded A. L. could be safely transported to Bayfront by automobile and suggested her brother drive her. The brother demurred on the ground that his car overheated and might not make the 40-odd mile trip to Bayfront safely, but another brother had a more reliable car. The other brother was called and agreed to take his sister to Bayfront and stated that he would be at the clinic in about 10 minutes. Approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes later this brother arrived, and A. L. was started to the brother's car. At this time she appeared unsteady, and Respondent concluded she should go to Bayfront by ambulance. When a Hillsborough ambulance service was called, they told Respondent of the policy whereby they could not transport a patient out of Hillsborough County and that he should contact a Pinellas County ambulance service to perform the desired transportation. Respondent then called a Pinellas County ambulance service who arrived about an hour later to take A. L. to Bayfront where she was met by Dr. Yeshnick, the associate of Dr. Klein, who admitted the patient. Between the time Respondent determined the abortion could not be performed at the clinic until A. L.'s arrival at Bayfront Hospital, some 6 hours had elapsed. Of the approximately 15,000 abortions that Respondent has performed, less than 5 became emergencies that required removal from the clinic to a hospital. Respondent's backup procedures for emergencies were adequate. On August 23, 1986, A. L. was in the third trimester of her pregnancy, and the abortion was not necessary to save the life or preserve the health of A. L.
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of provisions of law relating to the practice of medicine and, if so, what disciplinary measures are appropriate. Petitioner contends that the Respondent committed acts of gross malpractice and failed to practice medicine with the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized as being acceptable under similar conditions in violation of the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, in connection with his treatment of a patient, Dawn Rae Johannsen. Respondent contends that his treatment of the patient was proper under the circumstances.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed medical doctor, having been issued License No. 0038405 by the Petitioner. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed as a physician in Florida and has maintained a private medical practice in Miami, Florida. The Respondent specializes in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology. After graduating from medical school and completing an internship program, the Respondent completed a four-year residency program at Brookdale Medical Center, New York City, in June, 1981. The Respondent has completed the first part of examinations that could lead to his being classified as "board certified" in his specialty. When he has adequate experience, he will be eligible to take the remaining portion of the examination. While at Brookdale, the Respondent was specifically trained in termination of pregnancy, or abortion, procedures. A significant portion of the Respondent's practice is the performance of abortions. He is in good standing on the active staff of seven hospitals. He performs abortion procedures at a facility known as the Dadeland Family Planning Center. During his residency program and in private practice, the Respondent has performed approximately 3,000 abortion procedures. These procedures involved patients who were in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. During March, 1982, Dawn Rae Johannsen was a fifteen-year-old tenth grade student. On March 11, 1982, she visited the "Women's Referral Center" in Miami to be tested for pregnancy. The results of the test were positive. On March 17, 1982, she visited the Dadeland Family Planning Center to arrange for an abortion. On Saturday, March 20, she went to the center at approximately 10 a.m. to have the abortion procedure performed. In her visits to the Women's Referral Center and to the Dadeland Family Planning Center, Johannsen used a fictitious name, Terri Marks. She also gave a fictitious telephone number and a fictitious address. It was Johannsen's desire to handle her situation on her own and to keep it secret from her parents. The Respondent was working at the Dadeland Family Planning Center on March 20, 1982; and he performed the abortion procedure on Johannsen. He identified himself to Johannsen and checked her file to see that the consent forms had been signed. He talked with Johannsen to assure himself that she understood the nature of the procedure. The Respondent then examined Johannsen. He checked the size of her uterus and estimated that she was approximately thirteen weeks' pregnant. This would place her in the second trimester of pregnancy. This conflicted somewhat with Johannsen's patient history, which reflected that she had had her last period on approximately December 31, 1981. In performing abortions, the Respondent utilizes a technique known as a "suction termination." He first inserts a speculum into the vaginal canal. A speculum is a gynecological instrument that is used to visualize the vaginal area and contents. He then cleanses the area, using Betadine on a sponge. He then places a tenaculum on the anterior cervical lip. A tenaculum is a sharp- toothed instrument which provides traction. He then utilizes a local anesthesia. Once the anesthesia takes effect, Respondent utilizes "Pratt dilators" to dilate the cervix. Once the cervix is dilated, Respondent performs a "suction curettage" which serves to evacuate most, if not all, of the contents of the pregnant uterus. At that point, the Respondent utilizes a "sharp curettage." This is a sharp surgical instrument approximately 10 inches long. It serves as an extension of Respondent's hand and is used to remove any possible products of conception which were not removed by the suction technique. With this technique, the Respondent is able to determine if any debris remains in the uterus and if the side walls are firm, smooth, and clean. At that point, the Respondent reinserts the "cannula tube" that was used to do the suction curettage. This technique is used to rid the uterus of any possible cellular debris. It is an extra step that is not performed by all physicians, but which Respondent was taught in his residency program helps assure that all debris have been removed. In performing an abortion upon Dawn Johannsen, Respondent followed his usual techniques. The suction curettage and sharp curettage procedures proceeded normally. It appeared to Respondent that eight to ten weeks of fetal material were removed by the suction curettage. The sharp curettage did not reveal additional debris. Johannsen's uterine wall was smooth and clean. When the Respondent reinserted the cannula tube, he noticed that it entered a bit farther than he had remembered it entering initially. At that time, he stopped the procedure because of the possibility of a perforation in the posterior midline uterine wall. He removed the instrument. At this point, he examined the tissue that had been removed by the first suction curettage. He examined the material in a sink in the room where abortions are performed at the center. He estimated that there were eight to ten weeks' worth of tissue. He observed the tissue and saw no evidence of any bone formation or anything other than pregnancy tissue. Respondent advised Johannsen of the possibility of a perforation. He told her that he wanted to have her wait in the recovery room for a period of at least an hour and to monitor her vital signs to make sure that she was stable. He administered Pitosin to help shrink the uterus and control bleeding. Based upon the date of the patient's last period and the amount and nature of material that had been removed, Respondent concluded that she was ten weeks' pregnant rather than the thirteen weeks that he had originally estimated based upon the size of her uterus. This was a logical conclusion, since the size of a uterus provides only a guess as to the length of a pregnancy. A two-weeks' margin of error is commonly accepted, and errors in excess of that are possible. If a patient is nervous, for example, muscle contraction is likely to cause a uterus to appear larger than its actual size. The Respondent also concluded that all material had been removed from the uterus based upon his examination of the material, the sharp curettage technique, the probable length of the pregnancy, and the fact that Johannsen's uterus immediately shrunk to a size compatible with an eight-to ten-week pregnancy. There are two dangers that follow from the perforation of a uterus during an abortion. The first of these is the danger of hemorrhaging. The second is the possibility of infection. The Respondent administered the Pitosin and observed the patient for an hour after the proceeding because of the danger of hemorrhaging. Her vital signs were monitored. After the hour passed, it appeared that she was not hemorrhaging. This is usually the case with perforations that occur in the location of the possible perforation that Respondent observed. The Respondent properly concluded that she was not hemorrhaging. He also reexamined her and found her uterus to be firm. This was consistent with his conclusion that there was no bleeding and that all of the material had been removed from her uterus. To guard against infection, he prescribed an antibiotic and told the patient to take her temperature twice a day. He also told her to observe herself for any signs or symptoms of any kind of bleeding, pain, signs of infection, nausea, vomiting, or anything out of the ordinary in terms of her daily routine. He specifically instructed her to return to the center within a week for examination. He told her that he would be there on Monday and that she should return on that date. He also said that if anything out of the ordinary occurred, she should immediately contact the center and that a doctor was on call on a 24-hour basis. The danger of infection resulting from a perforation is increased if any debris remain in the uterus. The Respondent had good medical reasons to believe that there was no such debris and that the possibility of infection with the patient Johannsen was minimal. He correctly felt that by reexamining the patient within a week and by having her monitor for signs of infection, danger from infection was minimal and remote. On the afternoon of Monday, March 22, 1982, Dawn Johannsen called the Dadeland Family Planning Center. She reported that her temperature was above 100 degrees and that she was experiencing abdominal pain. She was instructed to come to the clinic at 5:30 that afternoon, when the Respondent would be available to examine her. Johannsen did not appear at the clinic that afternoon. The Respondent was concerned that the symptoms she had reported over the telephone indicated the possibility of infection. He instructed his staff to contact her. An attempt was made by the center staff to contact Johannsen. That was impossible, however, because of the fact that Johannsen had used a fictitious name and given a fictitious phone number and address. Johannsen did not return to the clinic. Johannsen apparently continued to experience abdominal pain during ensuing days. Eventually, she told her parents what had occurred, and she was taken to her family physician. She first visited her family physician on approximately March 31. Her family physician referred her to a gynecologist. She was admitted to Baptist Hospital of Miami, Inc., on April 1, 1982. By that time, the infection was severe. The gynecologist observed fetal material, including some bone, in the patient's uterus and two perforations. He was not able to control the infection through antibiotic techniques, and a complete hysterectomy was performed on April 4, 1982. Her gynecologist felt that the bone had "quickened" and estimated that she was sixteen weeks' pregnant at the time that the abortion was performed. As a result of the hysterectomy, Dawn Johannsen will not be able to bear children. If the patient had been reexamined by the Respondent during the week subsequent to the abortion, it is very likely that material could have been removed from her uterus and the infection controlled with less dramatic techniques. The hysterectomy would in all probability have been unnecessary. There is a difference in medical opinion as to what steps the Respondent should have taken when he suspected a perforation of the patient's uterus following the abortion. Two physicians testified at the hearing that they would have immediately hospitalized the patient based upon the possibility of a perforation, alone. They would have employed observational techniques to determine the existence and the extent of any perforation. These techniques are known as a "laparoscopy" and a "laparotomy." The laparoscopy is the less severe of these procedures. It carries with it the same basic possible complications as an abortion procedure. The laparotomy is more dramatic and carries with it more severe possible complications. The doctors who testified that they would have immediately hospitalized the patient, while highly qualified in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, had limited experience in performing abortions. Neither had performed more than 200 abortions, neither had performed any second trimester abortions, and neither had performed any abortion in which a perforation resulted. They agreed that a perforation is a risk that attends abortion procedures and that the fact that one occurs does not call into question the physician's skill. Three physicians testified that they would not have hospitalized the patient based upon the mere suspicion of a perforation. These physicians testified that most perforations are self-healing and that subjecting patients to the additional risk of the observational techniques would not be justifiable. They testified that they would have hospitalized the patient only if they were persuaded that there was a perforation and that all material had not been removed from the uterus. In those cases, the witnesses concluded that the dangers were such that steps to remove additional materials should be undertaken. Both of these lines of medical opinion are viable. It does not appear that following one or the other line of opinion would constitute gross malpractice or would depart from the level of care recognized within the medical community. When the Respondent released the patient Dawn Johannsen, he had good reason to believe that the risk of a possible perforation was minimal. She was not hemorrhaging. He properly examined her, and his observations were compatible with a conclusion that all materials had been removed from her uterus. The patient was properly instructed to observe herself for signs of infection. If she had done that and returned to the center, the sad ending of this case would likely have been different. It does not appear that the Respondent's treatment of Dawn Johannsen constituted gross malpractice or that it departed from the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a physician licensed to practice in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0020248. Respondent is a board- certified pathologist who completed a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in Venezuela and practiced in the field of obstetrics and gynecology in South America for almost five years before coming to the United States. On April 20, 1991, patient J. B., a 27-year-old female, came to A Woman's Care, where Respondent was then employed, for the purpose of terminating her pregnancy. She indicated on a patient history form that the date of her last menstrual period was January 30, 199l. According to the medical records from A Woman's Care, she did not express any uncertainty or equivocation with respect to that date. One method of determining gestational age is based on calculating from the last menstrual period, assuming that the patient's history is reasonably reliable. With a history of a last menstrual period on January 30, 1991, the gestational age of the fetus on April 20, 1991, based upon a calculation by dates, was seven weeks. After obtaining a history from the patient with respect to the date of the last menstrual period, the physician needs to perform a bi-manual examination of the patient in order to assess the size of the uterus and to confirm the history given by the patient. Although the bi-manual examination is a reasonably reliable method of assessing the stage of pregnancy, it is a subjective examination and can sometimes be difficult. There is an acknowledged inaccuracy with respect to that clinical evaluation. The most accurate method of determining the gestational age of a fetus is through ultrasound examination. An ultrasound is performed when there is uncertainty as to the gestational age, such as when the patient does not know the date of her last menstrual period or when there is inconsistency between the patient's disclosed date and the physician's bi-manual examination. There is a general correlation between the size of the uterus in centimeters on bi-manual examination and gestational age in weeks. It is important to determine the gestational age of the fetus before performing a termination of pregnancy because the gestational age is the determining factor in deciding the size of the instruments to be used in the procedure and the amount of tissue to be removed. Respondent performed a bi-manual examination of the patient and recorded that his examination revealed a uterus consistent with an approximately seven-week gestation. Because the gestational age by dates and the results of the bi-manual examination both indicated a seven-week pregnancy and were consistent, Respondent did not order an ultrasound examination for the purpose of determining gestational age. On April 20, 1991, Respondent performed a termination of pregnancy on patient J. B. after the patient was informed of the possible risks of the procedure and after the patient signed a Patient Informed Consent Form. That Form detailed the possible risks, including infection and incomplete termination. Based upon the patient's history and the bi-manual examination and his conclusion that the patient was approximately seven-weeks pregnant, Respondent used an 8 mm Vacurette to terminate patient J. B.'s pregnancy. An 8 mm Vacurette is an appropriately-sized device to terminate a seven-week pregnancy. After completing the procedure, Respondent submitted the tissue obtained to a pathologist who determined that three grams of tissue had been submitted, consisting of products of conception and chorionic villi. The pathology report revealed what would reasonably be expected as a result of the termination of a seven-week pregnancy. After the procedure, the patient was given written instructions for her care and was discharged from A Woman's Care at 10:35 a.m. On April 21, 1991, at approximately 6:30 a.m., the patient's grandmother telephoned A Woman's Care to advise that the patient was complaining of dizziness and pain. The patient was advised to take Tylenol and call back if she continued to feel sick. At approximately 7:30 a.m., the patient's grandmother called again to advise that the patient was going to go to the hospital. On April 21, 1991, at 1:25 p.m., patient J. B. arrived at the Emergency Room at North Shore Medical Center with a temperature of 104.3 degrees, an elevated white blood cell count, chills, lower abdominal pain, and spotting. The patient was seen during her North Shore admission by Dr. Ramon Hechavarria, a physician certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and by Dr. Tomas Lopez, a general surgeon. Dr. Lopez noted in his consultation report that a pelvic bi-manual examination that he performed on April 21 showed an enlarged uterus corresponding to approximately 11-12 weeks' gestation. An ultrasound examination done on April 21 revealed a uterus measuring 11.0 x 7.8 x 7.8 centimeters and a viable intra- uterine pregnancy which was estimated by the radiologist to be 13-14 weeks' gestational age. On April 22, the patient underwent termination of her pregnancy by Dr. Hechavarria who noted in his operative report that both the pelvic ultrasound and a bi-manual examination revealed an intra-uterine pregnancy of about 11 weeks with a live fetus. An ultrasound performed intra-operatively confirmed that all fetal tissue had been removed and that there were no perforations. Infection and an incomplete termination are two of the recognized complications resulting from terminations of pregnancy. The fact that a patient suffers an infection or an incomplete termination does not, per se, indicate any negligence on the part of the physician. Respondent did not fall below the recognized standard of care by failing to perform an ultrasound on patient J. B. His examination revealed a gestational age consistent with the date identified by the patient as the date of her last menstrual period. Accordingly, there was no need to perform an ultrasound. Respondent did not fall below the recognized standard of care by misjudging the gestational age of the fetus. It is not uncommon for a physician to misjudge the length of gestation by several weeks. For example, Drs. Lopez and Hechavarria concluded the fetus had a gestational age of 11 weeks; yet, the ultrasound reported 13-14 weeks. Respondent did not fall below the recognized standard of care by using the wrong size of equipment to perform the termination of pregnancy. He used the proper equipment consistent with his judgment as to the length of gestation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jonathon P. Lynn, Esquire Stephens, Lynn, Klein & McNicholas, P.A. Two Datran Center, Penthouse II 9130 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
