Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joseph A. Buttacavoli, is a licensed chiropractor, having been issued license number 00335. The Respondent practices chiropractic at 7162 Beneva Road, Sarasota, Florida 33583. (See Prehearing Stipulation.) On July 6, 1981, Jeffrey Goldman responded to the Respondent's newspaper advertisement offering a free examination. (See Prehearing Stipulation; Tr. 15.) On July 6, 1981, Goldman was complaining of pain in the neck radiating into the left shoulder. The pain was recent in origin, having started a few weeks prior to July 6, 1981. Goldman had suffered similar problems during the past 10 or 12 years on an intermittent basis, but this instance was more intense than previously experienced. (Tr. 12, 13.) The Respondent performed a free examination consisting of certain orthopedic and neurological tests. (Tr. 73, 77.) The Respondent did not record in writing the results of this examination. (Tr. 117.) Two of the tests were positive on Goldman's left side. (Tr. 73-77.) After completion of the examination, the Respondent tentatively diagnosed a pinched nerve in the neck and recommended to Goldman that x-rays be taken. (Tr. 78.) Goldman consented to the x-rays and was charged $80 for four x-rays which were taken. (See Prehearing Stipulation.) After the x-ray examination, the Respondent concluded that Goldman had a straightening of the normal cervical spine, some arthritic spurring and disc degeneration at the C4/C5 and C5/C6 level, and several vertebral misalignments. (See Prehearing Stipulation; Tr. 87.) The Respondent advised Goldman that his condition was serious and recommended treatment for 90 days. (See Prehearing Stipulation.) The Respondent told Goldman what the 90 days' treatment would cost and advised Goldman that the cost would be less if paid in advance. The Respondent practices a chiropractic technique known as Grostic or orthospinology. (Tr. 53, 55.) A diagnosis cannot be reached without x-rays using the Grostic technique, and the Respondent takes x-rays in every case except those in which the problem is muscular or x-rays are refused by the patient. (Tr. 115, 116.) The preliminary or free examination is the basis for the Respondent's recommending that x-rays be taken. (Tr. 117.) In the Grostic technique, a complex analysis of x-rays is the basis for a final diagnosis. This requires that x-rays be taken of the patient to apply the technique. (Tr. 59-63, 117-118.) In addition to the x-rays, which were kept by the Respondent as part of the record, Goldman's history/interview form was also maintained. (Tr. 48.) The x-rays on file and the medical history form constitute sufficient justification for the recommendation made by the Respondent to Goldman. The diagnosis of Goldman's problem was based upon his history, a physical examination and x-ray findings. These findings were reviewed by Dr. George Stanford Pierce, who verified the Respondent's suggested course of treatment based upon the records the Respondent maintained. (Tr. 150.) Goldman refused further treatment by the Respondent. (Tr. 26.) No evidence was received that the Respondent practiced chiropractic with less than the required level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent chiropractic physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent, Joseph A. Buttacavoli, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael R. N. McDonnell, Esquire 600 Fifth Avenue, South, Suite 301 Post Office Box 8659 Naples, Florida 33941 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner, Michael Selinsky, was a candidate for the chiropractic examination given in November of 1987. The practical examination is composed of three portions, X-ray interpretation, technique and physical diagnosis, and a score of 75% must be achieved on all three subject areas in order to pass. The petitioner received a score of 77.1 on the X-ray interpretation area, a score of 77.5 on the technique area and a score of 72.5 on the physical diagnosis area. In this proceeding, petitioner challenges two of the scores he received on the examination in the area of physical diagnosis. The physical diagnosis portion of the examination consists of oral questions posed to the candidate by two examiners. The answers are graded on a scale of 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest grade. Petitioner challenges the grade of 3 one of the examiners gave him for the "neurological" portion of the exam and the grade of 2 another examiner gave him for the "X-ray technique & diagnosis" portion of the examination. On these two areas of the examination, Examiner number 14 awarded petitioner a grade of 3 on both areas. Examiner number 23 awarded petitioner a grade of 4 on the "neurological" portion anal a grade of 2 on the "x-ray technique & diagnosis" portion. During the neurological section of the oral examination, petitioner was requested to demonstrate upon a live model how he would test the extensor hallicus longus muscle for the L-5 mytome. In response, he extended the great toe in the wrong direction. In responding to a question concerning an upper motor neuron lesion and a lower motor lesion, petitioner's answers were very incomplete. During the X-ray technique portion of the oral examination, petitioner was requested to demonstrate with a live model how he would position a patient for a lateral shoulder x-ray. The petitioner responded that he had never heard of such a position, but then attempted to position the patient. In fact, there is no way to take an x-ray of the lateral shoulder view because two bones would be superimposed. While this might be viewed as a "trick" question, petitioner should have been aware that no such x-ray could be taken. During another x-ray positioning question, petitioner failed to turn the patient's head. Also, during the X-ray technique portion of the oral examination, petitioner was asked to identify three factors that affected his exposure to radiation as an operator. The petitioner's answer included such things as lead- lined booths, lead-lined walls in the x-ray room and proper film developing to decrease the number of retakes. Several times, the examiners asked him questions regarding his answers, and the petitioner responded that he was not sure. When considering an operator's safety with regard to radiation exposure, there are three fundamental and established factors to take into account: time of exposure, distance and shielding. The petitioner's answers had relevance to patient safety, but not to the safety of the operator. In spite of prodding and grilling by the examiners with regard to operator safety, petitioner was unable to elucidate the three fundamental factors of radiation safety.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Copies furnished: William A. Leffler, III, Esquire Bruce D. Lamb, General Counsel Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Michael Selinsky Pat Guilford, Executive 5259 Wayside Court Director Spring Hill, Florida 34606 Board of Chiropractic Examiners Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Should Respondent Patricia Dee G. Stehpenson's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0051453. The patient, a 73 year old female, presented to Respondent on July 11, 1991, with complaints of flashes of light over the past ten years which had increased over the past two years. The patient also complained of seeing halos around street lights at night. During this visit, Respondent diagnosed the patient as having 20/30 corrected vision in her right eye and 20/40 plus 2 corrected vision in her left eye, and that the patient had cataracts. However, Respondent did not recommend cataract surgery at this time. In January, 1992, the patient took the State of Florida driver's license test, including the eye test, and received her driver's license. However, the examiner notice that the patient was having trouble with the eye test and, although the examiner gave the patient her driver's license, the examiner suggested that the patient see an opthalmologist. At the time the patient received her driver's license in January, 1992, the patient was enjoying golf, bowling and driving. Although the patient did not immediately follow the driver's license examiner's advice concerning her eyes, the patient did visit with Respondent on May 8, 1992. At this visit, the patient advised the Respondent that the flashes and floaters had improved but that her vision was interfering with her golfing and driving. Again, Respondent did not recommend removal of the cataract. The patient's vision continued to interfere with her golfing and driving, notwithstanding the patient's testimony to the contrary which I do not find to be credible. The patient's next visit with Respondent was on October 16, 1992. At this visit, the patient advised Respondent that her vision had "lessened a lot" in the left eye. Visual acuity testing indicated corrected vision of 20/30 in the right eye and 20/40 plus 2 in the left eye. However, while the level of vision at which the patient was able to perceive letters (20/40 plus 2) did not change, the refraction (stronger glasses) required to achieve that level indicated more myopia, indicating that the cataract had progressed which supports the patient's complaint that her vision had "lessened a lot". Also at the October 16, 1992, visit, Respondent tested the patient's vision using brightness acuity testing (glare test) and measured the patient's vision as 20/70, with glare in the left eye. The glare test is a method whereby the doctor shines a light in the person's eye to determine the effect of glare on the person's vision. Although some ophthalmologists consider the glare test of no value, other ophthalmologists consider the glare test as another tool to assist the surgeon in making a decision concerning the necessity for cataract surgery. During the October 16, 1992, office visit, Respondent discussed with the patient: (a) the effect the cataract was having on the patient's activities (life-style); (b) the patient's complaint that her vision had lessened; (c) the results of the glare test showing the patient's vision as 20/70 with glare and; (d) other visual acuity testing; and (e)advised the patient that cataract surgery was indicated. Also, Respondent explained the cataract surgery procedures and discussed with the patient the risks and the benefits of the surgery. The patient had no reservations or objections to the surgery and consented to the surgery in hopes of improving her eyesight as well as her life- style. For a person with cataracts, a corrected vision of 20/40 or worse is the vision level where some cataract surgeons will recommend cataract surgery, while other cataract surgeons consider a corrected vision of 20/50 or worse, with or without glare, as the vision level where cataract surgery should be recommended. However, because the vision as determined by visual acuity testing (the ability of the person to perceive letters) does not always accurately reflect the person's quality of vision (the quality of perception on a day to day basis), neither vision level referred to above when considered alone can be used as a hard and fast rule to form a basis for cataract surgery. Since the quality of vision can only be described by the person with the cataract(s), the cataract surgeon must also determine, after consultation with the person, that the cataract(s) are interfering with the person's life-style. Therefore, a person with corrected vision of somewhat better than 20/40 or 20/70 with or without glare, may be a candidate for cataract surgery, provided the cataract is causing a reduction in the person's quality of vision beyond what is indicated by visual acuity testing and thereby interfering with the person's life-style. Furthermore, there are no written standards or guidelines which set a particular vision level for the cataract surgeon to follow when making a decision to recommend cataract surgery. The surgeon must take into consideration all factors and make a decision based on the surgeon's judgment as to what is best for that person. The patient's vision level and the interference the patient was experiencing with her life-style because of the cataracts in her left eye justified Respondent's decision to recommend and perform the cataract surgery on the patient, notwithstanding any of the testimony of Dr. Leslie Monroe to the contrary. On November 3, 1992, Respondent performed phacoemulsification (removal of cataract) with posterior chamber intracular lens implant (implantation of lens) on the patient's left eye. While the patient was in the holding area being prepared for surgery there were complications with the anesthesia. The anesthesiologist, Robert Dienes, M. D., first gave the patient a retrobulbar block which was repeated apparently due to Dr. Dienes' conclusion that the first retrobulbar block was ineffective. Apparently, Dr. Dienes also concluded that the second retrobulbar block was ineffective and gave the patient a superior lid peribulbar block. After giving the peribulbar block, Dr. Dienes noticed a dissecting subconjunctival hemorrhage and notified Respondent. Upon examining the patient's eye, Respondent found the globe (whole eye) to be soft with no active bleeding, indicating the eye was not full of blood and that there was no retina tear or rupture of the globe. Respondent also noticed that "the conjunctiva was real chemotic or it had blood behind it". Respondent also measured the patient's eye pressure with a Schiotz tonameter because there was no slit-lamp in the holding area. The patient's eye pressure was 5, with a 5.5 gram weight, which was normal. The patient's medical records do not reflect an indirect ophthalmoscopy being performed by Respondent on the patient's left eye between Respondent being advised of the dissecting subjunctival hemorrhage by Dr. Diemes and the Respondent performing surgery on the patient's left eye to remove the cataract and implant the lens. Furthermore, Respondent has no independent recollection of performing an indirect ophthalmoscopy during the above period of time before surgery. Respondent's normal practice under conditions and circumstances similar to those in this case has been to perform an indirect ophthalmoscopy during the above period of time before surgery. Therefore, it is assumed that Respondent performed an indirect ophthalmoscopy on the patient after being advised of the subconjunctival hemorrhage but before surgery, notwithstanding the fact that patient's medical records do not reflect such procedure being performed or the fact that Respondent has no independent recollection of performing such procedure during the above period of time. However, assuming arguendo that Respondent did not perform the indirect ophthalmoscopy before surgery, the Agency has failed to establish facts to show that under the conditions and circumstances of this case that such failure amounted to the failure of Respondent to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. After considering the conditions and circumstances surrounding the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized, Respondent made a decision that it was in the best interest of the patient to go forward with the removal of the cataract and implantation of the lens. The operation was completed without any further incident and there was a successful removal of the cataract and lens transplant. Respondent's decision to go forward with the surgery had no adverse effect on the subsequent treatment of the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized. In fact, the result of the treatment subsequent to the cataract surgery would have been the same even if Respondent had not gone forward with the surgery. Respondent, using a ophthalmoscope, was able to see the inside of the eye more clearly and assess the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized. While performing this indirect ophthalmoscopy, Respondent noted undulation of the vitreous with pigmented blood cells present and that the anesthesia needle had penetrated the globe. The patient was seen the next morning, November 3, 1992, by Respondent. After assessing the condition of the patient's left eye, Respondent referred the patient to Keye Wong, M. D., a retina specialist. Upon examining the patient's left eye on November 4, 1992, Dr. Wong noted vitreous hemorrhaging and retinal detachment. Dr. Wong performed an operation on the patient's left eye in an attempt to correct the damage and attach the retina. The patient's vision is not as good as it was before the operation, and still effects the patient's life-style. The patient has difficulty tolerating sunlight, which may or may not be a result of the complication experienced while the patient was being anesthetize. Respondent's action of going forward with the surgery after becoming aware of the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized did not cause, complicate, aggravate or result in any of the problems the patient has suffered postoperatively. Respondent did not fail to recognize, identify or treat properly the complications that arose before, during or after the surgery. The Agency has failed to establish facts to show that Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances at anytime while Respondent was treating the patient, including both preoperative and postoperative treatment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Respondent Patricia Dee G. Stephenson, M. D. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1560 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Department in this case. Agency's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1-2 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 3 is adopted in Finding of Fact 3. The second and third sentence are not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 4 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 5, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 5 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 7, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 12, 13, and 14, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed findings of fact 7 and 8 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 21 and 22, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 9 is a restatement of Dr. Monroe's testimony and is not a finding of fact. However, see Findings of Fact 16 and 17. 8, Proposed findings of fact 10, 16, 17 and 19 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 15, 16, 10, 8 and 9. Proposed finding of fact 11 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 16, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Although proposed findings of fact 12, 13 and 15 are findings of fact, they are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. See Finding of Fact 9. Proposed finding of fact 14 is a restatement of Dr. Grabow's testimony and is not stated as a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 10. Dr. Grabow's testimony was 20/50 vision with or without glare which is different than just 20/50 vision. 11. Proposed findings of Fact 18 and 20 are not supported by evidence in the record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 27 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Marm Harris, M. D., Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building Number Three 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Steve Rothenburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 William E. Partridge, Esquire Lutz, Webb, Partridge, BoBo, and Baitty One Sarasota Tower 2 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 500 Sarasota, Florida 34236
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for certification by examination as a basic X-ray machine operator should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact In February 2009, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Respondent for certification by examination as a basic X-ray machine operator. The application was submitted by “Ultimate Medical Academy” (UMA), where the Petitioner obtained his basic X-ray training, but the Petitioner provided the information contained therein and was responsible for the accuracy of the application. On the Petitioner’s application, he stated that he was employed in “basic x-ray” at Palm Harbor MRI, and indicated that “100%” of his time at Palm Harbor MRI was related to duties other than radiography, nuclear medicine, or radiation therapy. On February 19, 2009, the Respondent notified the Petitioner that the application was incomplete because it lacked a criminal history record from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. On April 14, 2009, the Respondent received the Petitioner’s criminal history record, which revealed convictions between the years 1993 and 2002, and related periods of incarceration, for retail theft, felony grand theft, felony uttering of forged checks, other forgeries, and failure to appear. The Petitioner was also convicted of federal crimes, including possession of counterfeited checks in 2000 and felony uttering a forged check in 2002. The Petitioner spent three years in federal prison and, in December of 2003, was transferred to a halfway house after his release. His most recent sentence included a probationary period that expired at the end of May of 2007. As part of the application process, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that his civil rights had been restored on January 31, 2008. The Petitioner provided documentation to the Respondent that spelled his first name as “Erin.” For purposes of this Recommended Order, the restoration of civil rights has been deemed applicable to the Petitioner. The Respondent reviewed the Petitioner’s application, including the criminal history and the restoration of civil rights, and denied the application because of the Petitioner’s criminal history. The specific basis for the denial was the Respondent’s concern with the access an X-ray operator has to the personal belongings and medications of a patient while X-ray images are obtained, as well as to the personal and medical information contained within patient records. After receiving the Respondent’s decision, the Petitioner requested an administrative hearing to challenge the denial. After issuing the initial Notice of Intent to Deny, the Respondent became aware of potential issues related to the Petitioner’s employment during and after his training at UMA. As part of his educational training, UMA placed the Petitioner into an externship at Palm Harbor MRI for a six-week period of clinical practice. The externship ended on April 4, 2008, when he graduated from the UMA. The quality of the Petitioner’s job performance at Palm Harbor MRI is not at issue in this proceeding. There is no evidence that he was not competent to perform the tasks assigned to him during the externship. On April 9, 2008, the Petitioner began working as a full-time employee at Palm Harbor MRI. He performed some customer contact duties, greeting patients and gathering information. His duties also included placing and positioning patients on the X-ray table, imputing the machine settings (“technique”) and operating the X-ray machine, including the administration of radiation to obtain the desired images. Positioning patients for X-rays, machine technique, and operating the radiation equipment constitutes the practice of radiologic technology. The Petitioner was supervised by a licensed technician at all times during his positioning of patients and operation of the machine. The Petitioner performed these duties without being properly licensed. After the Respondent learned of the Petitioner’s job responsibilities at Palm Harbor MRI, the Respondent issued an Amended Notice of Intent to Deny that identified the alleged unlicensed activity as an additional basis for denial of the application. The Respondent also initiated a review of the Palm Harbor MRI facility’s operating procedures that was continuing at the time of the hearing. The application information originally disclosed by the Petitioner was inaccurate because it failed to reveal that he was involved in performing radiography at Palm Harbor MRI. In May 2009, the office manager at Palm Harbor MRI requested that the Petitioner provide a copy of his certificate, apparently unaware that the Petitioner had no license at that time. When he was unable to provide the certificate, his employment was terminated on May 18, 2009. The Petitioner has asserted that he was exempt from licensure because he was a student attending St. Petersburg College (SPC) with the intention of being admitted to the SPC radiologic technology program, and ultimately to become licensed as a radiography technologist. Students attending a medical school or “enrolled in and attending” a radiologic technology educational program are statutorily exempt from licensure during their educational period; however, there is no evidence that UMA students are entitled to the exemption. Although SPC has a radiologic technology educational program, the Petitioner has neither been admitted to the program nor attended any classes within the program’s curriculum. Additionally, Palm Harbor MRI is not an approved clinical training site for students enrolled in and attending the SPC radiography program. The Petitioner had not applied to the SPC radiography program prior to termination of his employment from Palm Harbor MRI, and the applications subsequently submitted by the Petitioner for application to the SPC radiography program were denied. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner was a medical student or was enrolled in and attending a radiologic technology educational program at any time relevant to this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's application for certification by examination as a basic X-ray machine operator. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 29th day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna Erlich, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 C. Erica White, Esquire Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 510 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the December 2001 dental license examination.
Findings Of Fact In December 2001, Petitioner took the dental licensure examination and failed to pass the clinical portion of the exam. The examination is a three-day process involving two days of clinical examination. Those two days of clinical examination consist of nine procedures. Four of the nine procedures were challenged by Petitioner. The clinical portion is where the candidate is required to perform certain patient procedures. The work product of the student, or candidate, is evaluated following the performance of those procedures by three examiners. Each examiner grades the candidate independently of whatever score the other examiners may award on a particular procedure. Then the average grade for each procedure is weighted in accordance with requirements of Rule 64B5-2.013, Florida Administrative Code. This produces the overall score for the entire clinical exam. The Department uses three examiners' scores because this provides a more reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true score. Further, each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years and have no complaints or disciplinary actions against their license. Examiners have no contact with the candidate taking the examination and, accordingly, have no idea of who they are grading. To further ensure fairness, each examiner must attend and successfully complete a standardization session. The purpose of these sessions is to ensure that each examiner is trained to use the same internal grading criteria. In standardization, each examiner is thoroughly taught specific grading criteria with the result that examiners are instructed on how to evaluate the work of the candidates. The examiners who graded Petitioner’s examination had successfully completed the foregoing standardization session. Also, the Department’s post-exam check found these examiners’ grading to be reliable. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 4, the Endodontic procedure, a root canal. The Endodontic procedure required removal of infected nerve tissue and blood vessels pulp from the tooth. Petitioner was required to access the canal and pulp tissue from the outside. Then, Petitioner was required to remove the bad nerve and cleanse the canal. Finally, Petitioner was required to seal the canal to prevent recurring bacteria. Petitioner failed to observe a fracture in the tooth. He claimed that a fracture to the root of the tooth was caused by the Department after he reviewed his examination and that no one advised him the root was fractured. Petitioner requested a score of 3.00 for this procedure. However, the Department's witness, Dr. William F. Robinson, a licensed dentist for 32 years who examined the tooth and X-ray prepared by Petitioner, testified that the fracture to the root was noticed in both the X-ray and on the tooth when he examined the same. Additionally, two of the three re-graders also noted the fracture of the root. With regard to Petitioner's preparation of the X-ray at the conclusion of the examination, Dr. Robinson opined that Petitioner caused the fracture to the root during the examination and not the Department, as alleged by Petitioner. Dr. Robinson further opined that even without a fracture to the root of the tooth, Petitioner failed the procedure and the failing grade he received was fair. Dr. Robinson would not recommend that Petitioner receive a passing score of 3.00 on the procedure. The examiners' comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson establish that Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure. The grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner challenged the grade he received on Procedure 5, the Class IV Composite Restoration of the front tooth, but did not offer any testimony at the hearing as to why the score was not correct for the procedure. Petitioner requested that the score of 1.00 given by one of the examiners be thrown out, thus giving him a passing grade on this procedure. Procedure 5 of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to replace the edge of the front tooth with a composite resin material, which is a tooth-colored filling. As established by the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. William F. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Specifically, the examiners found that the tooth was abraded and the re-grader noted, as did the examiners, the excessive “flash” on the tooth. Dr. Robinson also noted both deficiencies in the procedure. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 6, the Class II Composite Restoration procedure in his original petition, but offered no testimony at the hearing concerning this procedure. Dr. Robinson reviewed the examiners' grades and the tooth prepared by Petitioner and opined that Petitioner’s grade of 2.66 for this procedure is fair. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. Petitioner contested the score he received on Procedure 7, the preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture, claiming that on the re-grade one of the examiners reviewed the wrong procedure. The Preparation for a 3-unit Fixed Partial Denture procedure of the dental licensure examination is a procedure that involves the candidate’s ability to provide preparations of two (2) teeth in order to replace a missing tooth with a fixed bridge. Dr. Robinson established that Petitioner’s work on this procedure resulted in one tooth, No. 29, being grossly over reduced and tooth No. 31 was insufficiently reduced. The result of such work is that it is impossible to place a bridge on such an improper preparation. As established by testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner's problem with this procedure resulted from Petitioner’s undercut. This undercut indicated that Petitioner’s preparations were not properly aligned to accept a bridge. Based on the examiners’ comments and grades, and the testimony of Dr. Robinson, Petitioner failed to properly perform this procedure and the grade Petitioner received was fair. The Department's “re-grade” process was utilized in this case. Used to give all candidates who timely request a hearing another chance at passing, the re-grade process allows the Department to go back and determine whether any grades rendered were inconsistent. The Department selects the top three examiners who had the highest reliability from that examination to participate in the re-grade process. The Department maintains post-standardization statistics of the examiners’ performance. In this case, those statistics indicated that Petitioner’s examiners graded reliably. In addition, the Department calculates post- examination statistics for the examiners, which are as follows for the examiners who graded Petitioner’s challenged procedures: Examiner Accuracy Index & Rating #206 95.8-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent #380 92.1-Good #334 97.8-Excellent #298 95.9-Excellent #375 98.8-Excellent-was an original and a re-grader. All of Petitioner's examiners exhibited a reliability significantly above the minimum acceptable accuracy index of 85.0.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the grade assigned him for the December 2001 dental licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 9th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Jason S. Baker, D.M.D. Westchester Medical Center 95 Grasslands Road, Box 572 Valhalla, New York 10595 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceedings concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing score on the December 1999 dental licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Carlo Coiana, was an unsuccessful candidate for the December 1999 dental licensure examination. He failed to pass several procedures of that licensure examination, according to the Department's graders and grading method. The December 1999 dental licensure examination consisted of two parts: (1) The clinical, and (2) The laws and rules section. The clinical portion consists of nine different procedures of which the Petitioner challenged six. The Department, in is scoring method, selects three examiners to grade each candidate's performance. The average of the three scores from each examiner, produces the overall grade for that procedure. Rather than having only one examiner score, the Department allows for three examiner scores because this provides a more fair, reliable indication of the candidate's competency and true score. Each examiner must be a licensed dentist for a minimum of five years and have no complaints or negative actions on his or her licensure record. Each examiner must also attend and successfully complete a standardization session which trains each examiner to use the same internal grading criteria. The examiners who graded the Petitioner's examination successfully completed the standardization session and training. During the administration of the dental examination the Department requires the use of monitors who are also licensed dentists. The monitor's role is to preserve and secure the integrity of the examination. The monitor also gives instructions to each candidate as to what to expect. The monitor has no part in the grading of the candidate's performance on the examination but acts as a messenger between the candidate and the examiner since there is a "double-blind" grading of the examination. The Petitioner contested the score he received on the Class II Composite Restoration on a model. The Class II Composite Restoration Portion of the examination is a procedure involving restoring a cavity (Class II) preparation with a tooth-colored filling. The procedure was done by the Petitioner with a comment by the examiners that there was a discrepancy in the resulting shape of the tooth and proper contact to the adjacent tooth. There was also a marginal discrepancy and a "gingival overhang." The margin is where the tooth and filling meet and there was a discrepancy felt there, a bump or a catch when the junction of the two surfaces should be smooth. A gingival overhang is in the area between the tooth where a non- smooth transition between the filling and the tooth is detected. This can be a damning area which will collect plaque and lead to re-current decay. The Respondent's expert, Dr. John Joffre, concurred with the overall findings of the examiners and felt that this procedure should not be accorded a passing score but rather the score accorded by the examiners. The Petitioner also contested the score for procedure number four of the examination, the Endodontic procedure. The Endodontic procedure of the examination is referred to as a "root canal." This procedure involves removal of the nerve and blood vessels inside a tooth in order to clean out that area. It then requires the shaping of the canal and, finally, filling it with an inert material to rid the body of the infected area in question. This procedure is performed on an extracted tooth. The minimum of the working length the Department required in order to receive a passing score for the filled material in the tooth in question was two millimeters. The Petitioner's expert had the working length of the filled area in the root canal or Endodontic procedure done by the Petitioner measured. It measured closer to three millimeters which is totally unacceptable according to Dr. Joffre. Even in accordance with the literature that the Petitioner relied upon in this case it is not provided that three millimeters short of the working length is an accepted working length, which is why the Petitioner received less than a passing score. All three examiners and the expert witness Dr. John Joffre were in agreement about this scoring. Three millimeters short of the required working length will cause the procedure to definitely fail sometime in the future and renders the procedure useless. An Endodontically treated tooth that is three millimeters short will fail clinically, and that justifies a failing grade on this procedure. The next procedure contested by the Petitioner as to score was the Amalgam Restoration done with a model. This procedure is similar to the Class II Composite Restoration. However, the difference between the two procedures is that the Amalgam is referred to as a silver filling containing mercury, silver, etc., as opposed to the Composite material in the above- referenced procedure which is a "tooth-colored" restoration. Although the Composite and the Amalgam serve the same function, they require different tasks and different procedures on how they are to be handled in their installation in the mouth. The major problem found with the Petitioner's performance on this procedure concerned an overhang. As referenced above, a gingival overhang at the margin of where the filling and the tooth meet results in a less than smooth transition and can be an area where food accumulates and decay can start anew. All three examiners also noted a problem with the proximal contour of the Amalgam restoration which has to do with the shape of the filling in terms of how it meets the tooth next to it. The testimony of Dr. Joffre, which is accepted, shows that the examiners comments and grades and Dr. Joffre's opinion itself justifies the scoring on this procedure. Dr. Joffre agrees with the examiners' scoring. The last procedures in question are called the "Patient Amalgam." These procedures, two and three, involve cutting of the tooth before the filling is actually placed into it ("cutting the box"). Procedure three is the actual filling, involving scoring what the filling is like after the filling procedure is completed. The criticism found by both examiner 304 and 346, as to the first part of the procedure, the cutting part, was ". . .did not break the gingival contact, subject to recurrent decay." The gingival contact down in the box cut for the filling must be cut deep enough to reach the point where there is a separation between the edge of the box and the adjacent tooth. Halfway down the tooth, towards the gum, the teeth are still touching. As one progresses further down toward the gum, the teeth separate because they naturally get narrower toward the gum line. A dentist needs to cut the box that the filling should be placed in down far enough toward the gum line so that he gets to the point where the teeth are no longer touching. Both dentists 306 and 346, examiners, found that he did not cut the box low enough so that he "didn't break gingival floor contact with the molar" (meaning the adjacent tooth). Thus, these examiners gave the Petitioner the lowest grade of "one" on that part of the procedure. The filling or restoration portion of the procedure failed. The filling was not adequately carved or shaped so that it was protruding too high above the adjacent tooth surfaces. This caused the patient to break the filling very shortly after it was finished and he was biting downward and putting pressure on it. Indeed it broke while the third examiner was examining the procedure. The reason why the fracture in the filling occurred was because it protruded too high. The Petitioner did not adequately reduce the size or height of the filling, so when the teeth came together the tooth below it or above it was hitting too hard against that one spot and caused the metal to break before the patient, on whom the procedure was done, ever left the building. The Respondent's expert, Dr. Joffre, who agreed with examiners comments and score, found that the Petitioner had failed to properly perform these procedures and that his score had been appropriately arrived at by the examiners. The Petitioner contested the score he received on the Fixed Partial Denture Procedure. The Department ultimately conceded that he should be awarded additional points on that procedure, however, even with the additional points awarded the Petitioner still failed to score adequately on the overall examination for passage, although he came close, with a score of 2.92 out of a minimal score of 3.00 required for passage of the examination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition challenging to the grades assigned the Petitioner for the December 1999 Dental Licensure Examination and finding that the Petitioner failed to pass that examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 9th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlo Coiana N1 Via Delle Coccinelle Cagliari, Italy 09134 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health Office of the General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Esquire Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Health is the state agency responsible for certifying and regulating basic X-ray machine operators in Florida. Sections 468.3001-.312, Florida Statutes. On March 30, 1993, Paul Butler was issued Basic X-ray Machine Operator Certificate Number 7729. The certificate expired December 31, 1994, and Mr. Butler requested renewal by submitting a renewal form and the required fee to the Department on December 20, 1996. Mr. Butler admitted that he knew his certificate expired December 31, 1994, but that he nonetheless took numerous X-rays subsequent to that date. On January 4, 1996, Mr. Butler prepared and submitted an application for employment to Kristie Green, office manager for South Dade Orthopedic Associates. In that application, Mr. Butler signed his name and appended to his name the designation "RMA, CRT." Ms. Green interviewed Mr. Butler, and he provided her with a copy of his certificate that showed an expiration date of December 31, 1995. Ms. Green noted that his certificate had expired four days previously, and Mr. Butler told her he was short of funds and would send in his renewal application when he received his first paycheck. Ms. Green hired Mr. Butler as an X- ray technician and medical assistant. After Mr. Butler repeatedly assured her that he had sent his renewal application to the Department, Ms. Green fired Mr. Butler on June 20, 1996, because he had not obtained a current Basic X-ray Machine Operator certificate. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Mr. Butler took X-rays without having an active certificate, and that he identified himself in his employment application to South Dade Orthopedic Associates as a Certified Radiologic Technologist by using the letters "CRT" after his signature. The evidence presented is also sufficient to permit the inference that Mr. Butler altered his basic X-ray Machine Operator certificate by changing the expiration date from December 31, 1994, to December 31, 1995.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health issue a final order finding that Paul Butler violated Section 468.3101(h), Florida Statutes, by violating Section 468.302(1) and (2) and that he violated Section 468.3101(f). Based on the violations, the Department of Health should impose the following penalties: Suspend Mr. Butler's Basic X-ray Machine Operator certificate for a period of six (6) months; Impose an administrative fine in the amount of Six hundred twenty-five dollars ($625.00); and Condition the reinstatement of Mr. Butler's certificate on his having completed thirty (30) hours of continuing education. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Morton Laitner, Esquire Department of Health 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Suite N-1014 Miami, Florida 33128 Paul Butler, pro se 30525 Southwest 149th Court Leisure City, Florida 33033 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The allegations against Petitioner in the underlying proceeding were all connected with his use of Grenz Ray therapy, a safe, rapid, and painless procedure for the patient. It has been used for the treatment of benign skin diseases for more than sixty years. The National Academy of Sciences in 1980 affirmed the safety factor inherent in the use of Grenz Rays and strongly endorsed the concept that it remained the prerogative of the physician to use any form of therapy in which the benefits accruing to the patient from its use are considered to outweigh the risks inherent in its use. The American Academy of Dermatology at its 1991 annual meeting offered lectures and a symposium on the beneficial use of Grenz Ray therapy. Medical schools have taught dermatologists the beneficial use of Grenz Ray therapy for many decades. Many doctors use Grenz Ray therapy as a modality of treatment. Until the underlying proceeding arose, Dr. Altman's use of Grenz Ray therapy had never been questioned by any federal or state regulatory agency. Until the underlying proceeding arose, no claim for Grenz Ray therapy rendered by Dr. Altman had ever been declined by any third-party payor, and all claims submitted by him to the Department for Grenz Ray therapy had been paid for the two years that Dr. Altman had been participating as a provider in the Florida Medicaid Program prior to the Department's Emergency Termination Order. There is no statute or rule on either the federal or the state level which prohibits the use of Grenz Ray therapy. Moreover, the Department has no policy against the use of Grenz Ray therapy. Grenz Ray therapy as utilized by Dr. Altman is conservative. The Department offered no evidence in the underlying proceeding that Grenz Ray therapy as utilized by Dr. Altman is similar to utilizing the drug Thalidomide or causing exposure to asbestos, as alleged in the Department's Administrative Complaint. No patient has complained regarding the treatment provided to that patient by Dr. Altman. The investigation into Dr. Altman's use of Grenz Ray therapy was triggered by a computer search. The matter was then assigned to an investigator who had been employed by the Department for approximately one year who held herself out to have special training in radiation therapy as a certified oncology nurse. She based her investigation upon experts that began with the use of an expert personally known to her--her own dermatologist who also uses Grenz Ray therapy. Thereafter, one expert recommended another. At about the same time, she was investigating the use of Grenz Ray therapy by another dermatologist in the Broward County area, the same area in which Petitioner practices. Related to that investigation, the investigator was presented with articles strongly advocating the use of Grenz Ray therapy authored by yet another dermatologist utilizing Grenz Ray therapy in the Broward County area. At the same time, the investigator was also provided with information showing that training in Grenz Ray therapy was a requirement for completing a medical residency in dermatology. The investigator ignored those articles presented to her and failed to even speak to the author of the articles. On the other hand, the scientific studies, medical textbook chapters, and other medical articles relied upon by the investigator to show that Dr. Altman's use of Grenz Ray therapy was excessive, inferior, or inappropriate did not support that conclusion, but rather supported the opposite conclusion. The investigator did not understand that some of the articles she was reading related to higher levels of ionizing radiation than the ultra-soft Grenz Rays. Prior to initiating the Emergency Termination Order and the Administrative Complaint, the investigator never spoke to Dr. Altman concerning the services that he was providing. Instead, she went to Dr. Altman's office, advised him that Grenz Ray therapy was an outdated and antiquated modality, and picked up his medical records for the patients in question so that she could make copies of them to have them reviewed by her experts. Although she had no preconceived list of experts when she started her investigation, the investigator spoke to no practitioner who used Grenz Ray therapy on children and contacted no professional dermatologist associations regarding the use of Grenz Ray therapy by their members. Similarly, although her own dermatologist uses Grenz Ray therapy, the investigator "built a case" which alleged, essentially, that when Dr. Altman utilized Grenz Ray therapy, it was inappropriate. The investigator specifically made no attempt to contact any expert who would be favorable to Petitioner's use of Grenz Ray therapy. The investigator formed a mental impression that Petitioner's use of Grenz Ray therapy was inappropriate for children and excessive for adults when she reviewed the computer report of Dr. Altman's claims which had, up to that moment, been paid by the Department without question. Her investigation was thereafter dictated by her personal beliefs, and she ignored all evidence to the contrary. Based upon her investigation, the Department determined that it would take action. Although it could have simply terminated its contract with Petitioner without cause, it did not do so. Similarly, the Department did not request that Petitioner reimburse the Department for claims already paid by the Department. Rather, the Department issued an Emergency Termination Order followed by an Administrative Complaint seeking to terminate Dr. Altman from the Medicaid Program for five years and seeking to fine him the amount of $20,000. Although the Department was justified in conducting its investigation, it was not substantially justified at the time that the underlying action was initiated by the issuance of its Emergency Termination Order and Administrative Complaint.
