Findings Of Fact § 57.111(3)(f) Fla. Stat. (2005) "state agency" The Department of Health meets the definition found within Section 120.52(1)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2005), as an "agency." § 57.111(3)(b)2. and 3., Fla. Stat. (2005) "initiated by a state agency." On June 21, 2005, an Administrative Complaint in Department of Health, Petitioner, v. Donna M. Cameron Connolly, R.N., C.R.N.A, Respondent, DOH Case No. 2004-34970 was signed and served on Nurse Connolly. It accused the Respondent of violating Section 464.018(1)(n), Florida Statutes (2002), in the treatment and care of Patient M.M. Nurse Connolly elected to contest material facts within the Administrative Complaint. On September 9, 2005, the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) to conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2005). It became DOAH Case No. 05-3268PL. The hearing was held, and, on December 8, 2005, a Recommended Order was entered with a recommendation that the case be dismissed. § 57.111(3)(c)1., Fla. Stat. (2005) "prevailing small business party" On February 27, 2006, the Department of Health entered a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Nurse Connolly. § 57.111(3)(d)1a., Fla. Stat. (2005) "small business party" The incident involving Patient M.M. that related to the Administrative Complaint took place on March 13, 2003. On the date Nurse Connolly cared for Patient M.M. She did so at Endosurg Outpatient Center (Endosurg) in Lady Lake, Florida, a gastroenterologist practice. She was providing anesthesia to the patient during a colonoscopy. She was acting as an independent contractor for a limited period of time in her engagement with Endosurg. It is her routine to take temporary positions in providing her services. Nurse Connolly works through placement agencies who serve clients who have the need for anesthesia coverage by a C.R.N.A. The placement agency, Nature Coast Anesthesia Providers (Nature Coast), had contacted Respondent to determine her interest in working for two weeks at Endosurg. For the services provided at Endosurg, Nurse Connolly had a verbal agreement with Nature Coast that formed the basis for her pay. The equipment and materials necessary to perform her duties at Endosurg were to be provided by that entity. In addition to the equipment provided by Endosurg, Petitioner Connolly had certain equipment of her own, including a stethoscope and an ambu-bag. At the time that the incident involving Patient M.M. occurred, Nurse Connolly had worked for Endosurg in two separate facilities for seven days. After the incident involving Patient M.M., Petitioner worked for Endosurg for an additional three days. For the year 2003, Petitioner Connolly and Joseph F. Connolly filed a Joint Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, with a Schedule C, representing profit or loss from a business naming Donna C. Connolly as a proprietor, "anesthesia provider," reflecting income and expenses with a net profit of $34,506.00. In 2003, Nurse Connolly's proprietorship carried business insurance through Bloom Insurance Services with a policy written by Evanston Insurance Company. Nature Coast paid Nurse Connolly for services provided at Endosurg. No insurance coverage was provided to Nurse Connolly from Nature Coast for the work done at Endosurg, nor was she entitled to any form of benefits from Nature Coast for that work. Nurse Connolly gave Nature Coast an invoice reflecting the services provided at Endosurg for which she requested payment and was paid. Nurse Connolly had other arrangements with agencies in 2003 to place her. Those agencies were Nation Wide Anesthesia Services and MDA Associates. Arrangements with the latter two agencies were under terms set forth in written contacts. At all times relevant Nurse Connolly did not advertise her services as a sole proprietor. She did provide business cards that set forth her address, telephone number, and e-mail. When performing her duties as an anesthesia provider in outlying locations, Nurse Connolly deducts meals, hotel expenses and her malpractice insurance for purposes of her income tax return. During the relevant period in time, Nurse Connolly had no other employees working for her. Her net worth was not more than two million dollars. § 57.111(4)(b)1., Fla. Stat. 2005 "itemized affidavit" To support Nurse Connolly's application for attorney's fees and costs, an affidavit has been provided by her counsel setting forth a claim for 105.1 hours of work performed by the law firm at a charge of $350.00 per hour for legal services, with an additional $45.08 in costs for federal express expenses in relation to her defense against the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 05-3268PL/DOH Case No. 2004-34970. The affidavit was prepared on May 23, 2006. Counsel for Petitioner Connolly also provided an itemized statement of work done between June 7, 2005, and February 5, 2006, as to the dates and nature of the services and time necessary to perform the incremental services totaling 105.2 hours, a discrepancy compared to the affidavit of .1 hours. In further support of the request for attorney's fees and costs, the application is accompanied by an affidavit provided by Paul C. Perkins, Jr., Esquire, as to the reasonableness of the fees requested for 105.1 hours of time expended. He comments, that recognizing the complexity and novelty of the issues in the case, an hourly rate for attorney work performed would range from $250 to $400 an hour. Attorney Perkins, like Petitioner Connolly's counsel, practices law in Florida. The affidavit by attorney Perkins refers to his admission to the Florida Bar and license to practice in the State of Florida for a period of 14 years. The affidavit was executed before a notary in Seminole County, Florida. In particular, he speaks to the complexity of the underlying case involving the administrative prosecution of Nurse Connolly, as a matter where expert testimony in the areas of pharmacology, anesthesiology, and cardio-pulmonary health were considered. In addition, the underlying case involved medical ethics and extensive research, according to attorney Perkins. On September 20, 2006, Nurse Connolly's attorney in this case, Damon A. Chase, Esquire, filed a supplemental affidavit as to attorney's fees and costs in the matter, asking that he be reimbursed for his fees at a rate of $350.00 per hour. Attached to the affidavit was a rendition of the services provided in the present case from July 12, 2006, through September 5, 2006, totaling 24.4 hours. A second affidavit by attorney Perkins has not been filed to support the additional 24.4 hours. § 57.111(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005) "opposition affidavit" Respondent in this cause filed a counter-affidavit in opposition to Petitioner's attorney's affidavit for fees and costs. The counter-affidavit was provided by Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire, who practices in Leon County, Florida, where he has practiced for the last 22 years. The majority of his practice was in the Office of the Attorney General, State of Florida. Attorney Bayo served as Board counsel for professional regulatory boards to include the Boards of Pharmacy, Dentistry, Osteopathic medicine, Chiropractic medicine, Veterinary medicine and Professional Engineers. His law practice has involved significant administrative law litigation. In response to the original request for reimbursement of attorney's fees in relation to the 105.1 hours, his opinion is that the appropriate hourly rate for the type of work performed in the case, as reviewed by Attorney Bayo, would be from $200 to $325 an hour, with the higher rate of charge being associated with counsel who has had more experience in administrative litigation, that is to say in excess of 15 years. Attorney Bayo contrasts that number of years with the amount of time that counsel for Nurse Connolly has been in practice in Florida, which attorney Bayo represents as being three years. Ultimately attorney Bayo offers the opinion that the rate of reimbursement for Attorney Chase should not exceed $225 per hour. § 57.111(4)(d)1., Fla. Stat. (2005) "nominal party" When the Department of Health undertook its prosecution directed to Donna M. Cameron Connolly, R.N., C.R.N.A., it was not acting as a nominal party. § 57.11(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2005) "substantially justified" Exhibit "B" to Respondent's Notice of Filing of Additional Documents in the present case, as filed August 25, 2006, is constituted of the investigative report by the Department of Health, with exhibits. It includes patient records and expert opinions in DOH Case No. 2004-34970, all the material being mailed to the Probable Cause Panel which decided in favor of Probable Cause to bring the Administrative Complaint in the case. Exhibit "B" also contains the written response to the investigation provided by Nurse Connolly. The information available to the Probable Cause Panel continues in this discussion. On April 8, 2003, a confidential code 15 report was received by the Health Facility Regulation Hospital and Outpatient Services, within the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration. In content, it pertained to Patient M.M. The report was made in compliance with Section 395.0197(8), Florida Statutes (2002). The report concerned the incident on March 13, 2003, which forms the basis of the administrative prosecution that underlies the present case. The Code 15 report was acknowledged by an Investigation Specialist with the Department of Health in a letter to the reporter dated July 1, 2003. Beyond that date, the Department of Health undertook its investigation into the matter concerning Patient M.M. and her treatment on March 13, 2003. After the investigation commenced, a Uniform Complaint Form was executed by the Investigation Specialist for the Department of Health, in a setting were Donna Connolly was named as the Respondent in relation to the March 13, 2003, incident. Generally, it summarized the events of that day and the withdrawal of life support from Patient M.M. on March 16, 2003, followed by the patient's death on March 17, 2003. The focus of the investigation was on a possible violation of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-8.005(2)(i). In pursuing the investigation, the Department of Health made contact through its investigator with an official at Endosurg in Lady Lake, Florida. The investigation was facilitated by a subpoena issued October 8, 2003, calling for the release from Endosurg of medical information about Patient M.M. and the care received at Endosurg. The subpoena duces tecum that was sent to Endosurg on October 8, 2003, asked for the outpatient center to provide a copy of the medical records for the March 13, 2003, admission in relation to Patient M.M. Among the items that Endosurg gave the Department of Health concerning the care received by Patient M.M. on March 13, 2003, were the nursing assessments, pre-op and post-op information, the endoscopy report for the procedure being performed on the patient, the anesthesia record, the endoscopy procedure record, the past medical history of the patient, information concerning the provision of anesthesia in advance of its provision, a pre-operative evaluation questionnaire including the history of present illnesses, physical examination and a cardio-pulmonary resuscitation report form in relation to the CPR team who responded to the patient's arrest, which the report form refers to as occurring around 7:45 a.m. on March 13, 2003. It describes the CPR team responding to the incident as Nurse Connolly; Nurse Mayhew, who was a registered nurse; and the attending physician, who performed the colonoscopy. The Department of Health also issued a subpoena duces tecum to Lake Sumter Emergency Medical Services of Mt. Dora, Florida, who responded to the incident, providing care and transport for Patient M.M. on March 13, 2003. In response the Medical Services Agency provided transport information in relation to Patient M.M., who had suffered the cardiac arrest and was taken to the Villages Regional Hospital (Villages Hospital). A copy of a report reflecting the intubation and treatment provided by the agency to the patient was also given to the Department of Health, with a code summary critical event record. The patient was taken to the Villages Hospital for emergency treatment. The Department of Health issued a subpoena duces tecum to the hospital. The response to the subpoena included a written record of the diagnosis, including cardiac arrest, anoxic brain damage. Information from the Villages Hospital included physicians' orders, history and physical, laboratory studies, diagnostic studies, etc. The clinical indication at the time the patient was cared for in the Villages Regional Hospital was that the status was post-cardiac arrest, altered mental status. On that same date, March 13, 2003, the patient was transferred from the Villages Hospital to Lake Regional Medical Center (LRMC) in Leesburg, Florida. LRMC also provided records related to Patient M.M. The information received from LRMC was pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum. The death summary provided by LRMC, where Patient M.M. expired on March 17, 2003, referred to a discharge diagnosis as, severe anoxic encephalopathy following cardio- respiratory seizure, and cardiac arrest secondary to ventricular fibrillation. The patient expired when life support was withdrawn. LRMC patient information included physician's orders, patient progress notes, medication administration record, etc. On March 21, 2003, an associate medical examiner for the District Five Medical Examiner's office located in Leesburg, Florida, determined that the cause of Patient M.M.'s death was hypertensive and arteriosclerotic heart disease. On October 20, 2004, a medical malpractice investigator for the Department of Health wrote to Donna Connolly, A.R.N.P., advising her of Complaint No. 2004-3490. That correspondence referred to an enclosed document that had been determined sufficient for investigation pursuant to Section 456.073, Florida Statutes (2004), and extended an invitation to Nurse Connolly to file a written response or to call in and schedule an interview within 20 days of receiving the letter. Nurse Connolly was reminded that any response "will be made a part of the file and will be considered by the Department and the Probable Cause Panel in determining whether a formal Administrative Complaint should be filed in the matter." Nurse Connolly was also advised that she was not required to answer any questions or give statements and that she could be represented by counsel. On November 12, 2004, as received by the Department of Health on November 15, 2004, Nurse Connolly responded in writing to the ongoing investigation addressing the documents involved in the investigation. She provided an explanation of her recollection of the events on March 13, 2003, related to the care she provided Patient M.M., disavowing any unprofessional conduct on her part. On June 1, 2005, an Order of Emergency Restriction of the license of Donna M. Cameron Connolly, A.R.N.P., C.R.N.A, was entered by the Secretary of the Department of Health. The significance here, is that C. Erwin Velbis, C.R.N.A., A.R.N.P., performed a review of what was referred to at that time as Case No. 2004-3490. On February 4, 2005, utilizing an outline provided by the Department of Health, he performed the medical review related to the overview of the March 13, 2003, case involving Patient M.M., the colonoscopy and the eventual death of the patient on March 17, 2003. In response to the question in the form, Question 3, which says: The applicable standard of care, step by step in this case is He replied: Preanesthesia Care, Basic Standards for Basic Anesthetic Monitoring, Standards for Safe use of Propofol Appropriate level of sedation (Monitored Anesthesia Care vs. Conscious Sedation vs. Deep Sedation/Analgesia vs. General Anesthesia Postanesthesia Care, Basic Standards for Documentation of Anesthesia Care Nurse Velbis indicated that Nurse Connolly, in providing care to Patient M.M. on March 13, 2003, failed to meet the standard of care set out in the questionnaire by: Subject's PACU arrival vital signs do not reflect what was first documented by nursing staff which revealed hypotension and bradycardia that was treated with romazicon and trendelenburg positioning. Subject left an unstable patient upon arrival to PACU no documented ECG rhythm strips support what dysrhythmia patient was having that required ACLS. Under the response to question number 6 in the form, Nurse Velbis opines that Nurse Connolly should have done the following: Stayed with patient upon arrival in the PACU after a bp 74/42 and p40 was assessed Initiated defibrillation more quickly once the airway was secured (10 minutes had expired before the Fire and Rescue Paramedics defibrillated the patient). Provided clear ECG documentation. In this review, Nurse Velbis indicated items that might increase or lessen Nurse Connolly's culpability to the effect: gastroenterologist assumed "captain of the ship" regarding responsibility and accountability in the anesthesia care team model no supplemental oxygen was applied to the patient at PACU nor were [sic] there documentation of the SpO2 dose of Romazicon given by PACU nursing staff is unknown from the records. Was the dosage appropriate for the level of sedation? Nursing staff should have called the subject if Ramazicon was necessary to awaken a previously conversant patient What is the patient to staff ratio in the combined holding area in PACU? Depositions illustrate providers physically too far away from the patient in this case (this is an obese patient with a BMI of 35, no supplemental oxygen, and in trendelenburg position). Patients can resedate and become apneic without continual stimulation. Nurse Velbis was also asked to comment on the Emergency Restriction Order in draft form, which took into account his expert opinion that had been rendered in his written review as a means to make certain that the Emergency Restriction Order accurately reflected his expert opinion. There was also a reference in April 4, 2005, correspondence to Nurse Velbis concerning the addition of a paragraph 19 to the Emergency Restriction Order describing Nurse Connolly's failure to utilize the bag-valve mask immediately as a failure to meet applicable standards of care. This correspondence also describes some discrepancy between the author and Nurse Velbis concerning information that he had reflected in his written review about vital signs associated with Patient M.M. when the patient first arrived at the PACU at Endosurg. On April 21, 2005, Nurse Velbis responded in writing to the April 4, 2005, correspondence, giving advice to omit paragraph 19c to the Emergency Restriction Order for reasons stated in the written response noting in the end that Nurse Connolly "remains justfully [sic] culpable for the underlying cause, primarily hypoxia, of M.M.'s PEA rhythm." Nurse Velbis, who had been called upon to review materials associated with the investigation into Nurse Connolly's conduct on March 13, 2003, in treating Patient M.M., had access to the Department of Health's investigative report that included medical records. Nurse Velbis' assessment of the circumstances in relation to care of Patient M.M. received on March 13, 2003, at Endosurg, contrasts with the January 11, 2005, memorandum from Kay Frank, R.N., B.S.N., a nurse consultant whose recommendation was "close complaint against D.C. (Donna Connolly) no violation. Consider further investigation of recovery and resuscitation of this client." The investigative report form by the Department of Health that addressed the complaint that was made October 15, 2004, was completed when approved on December 30, 2004. By its table of contents, it refers to written records received from the various sources under subpoena duces tecum to Endosurg, Lake Sumter Emergency Medical Services, Villages Hospital, and LRMC, with a summary of the impression gained from a review of these materials. The investigative report also includes summaries of interviews conducted with the Endosurg Risk Manager Consultant; the Nurse Administrator at Endosurg; the Risk Manager of the Villages Hospital; Maureen Mayhew, R.N. at Endosurg, who was in the PACU when Patient M.M. was transferred to that unit from the procedure room; and the Risk Manager for LRMC, as well as a summary of Nurse Connolly's response to the investigation. On June 20, 2005, a Probable Cause meeting was convened in which panel members Maria Seitz and Jeanne Stark participated. As the transcript of that meeting establishes, the panel members confirmed that they had had sufficient time to review the materials that have been described in aid of their deliberations. Among the cases on the agenda was the subject case involving Donna Connelly. Attorney Judy Law from the Department of Health, who participated in the panel discussion, noted that the panel members had been provided with complete case files including the investigative reports, attached exhibits, all patient medical records, and any expert opinion, as well as any material provided by a licensee to respond to the Department investigation. It was indicated that the panel members had been provided a draft of the Recommended Administrative Complaint in the Connolly case. Attorney LeeAnn Gustafson for the Board of Nursing, who participated in the meeting for probable cause, explained to the Probable Cause Panel members, that if they had questions concerning interpretation or the application of any provision within Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes, they should direct them to her, as well as any of the specifics concerning the cases that were on the agenda at that time, to include the case involving Nurse Connolly. There is a reference in the probable cause transcript to a scrivener's error that needed clarification in the Administrative Complaint related to Nurse Connolly and a need to correct numbers in the paragraphs to the Administrative Complaint without changing the underlying facts. The panel members agreed to these corrections. During the Probable Cause Panel meeting, a Mr. Monte gave a case overview involving the March 13, 2003, incident related to Patient M.M. and commented that the basis for the case was a failure to meet minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice: by leaving an unstable patient; by failing to verify the patient's vital signs upon admission; by failing to stay with the patient long enough to ensure that the patient was stable; by disregarding the patient's unstable vital signs; by failing to provide oxygen via bag, valve or mask, or through incubation (intubation) immediately; by failing to ensure the proper equipment for incubation (intubation) was readily available; by failing to utilize incubation (intubation) equipment in a timely fashion, as necessary to restore breathing in an emergency; and by choosing to use mouth to mouth resuscitation as a first intervention. With this explanation, Ms. Sietz moved to find probable cause, which was seconded by Ms. Starke. There ensued subsequent discussion about the case between the panel members and a possible disposition of the case by way of discipline imposed on Nurse Connolly. § 57.111(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005) "special circumstances" No evidence was presented by Respondent in this case to show that special circumstances exist which would make the award of attorney's fees and costs unjust.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in May 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Petitioner, Jerrylene Barr, who is an African-American, contends that in May 1994, Respondent, Columbia Ocala Regional Medical Center (Respondent), unlawfully terminated her from employment as a registered nurse on account of her race. Respondent has denied the charges and contends instead that Petitioner was terminated after she negligently overmedicated a patient, in addition to her prior performance of medication errors over a two-year period. After a preliminary investigation was conducted by the Commission on Human Relations (Commission), which took some three years to complete, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on April 27, 1998. Although not specifically established at hearing, it can be reasonably inferred from the evidence that Respondent employed at least fifteen employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding year and thus is an employer within the meaning of the law. Petitioner began working for Respondent as a nurse in January 1992. Between September 1992 and May 1994, a period of seventeen months, Petitioner had twelve documented errors in giving medications to patients under her supervision. This was more than any other employee at Respondent's facility. During Petitioner's tenure at Respondent's facility, Respondent had a Medication Error Policy in effect. This policy outlined the procedures and penalties for medication errors. For each error, points were assigned according to the severity and frequency of errors. The policy provided, however, that management had the right to terminate an employee at any time for a serious medication error regardless of whether the employee had accumulated any points under the policy. Petitioner was aware of, and understood, this policy. On May 2, 1994, Petitioner was working the night shift at Respondent's facility and was in charge of six patients on the third floor. One of her patients was a 78-year-old male who was scheduled to have surgery for a life-threatening abdominal aortic aneurysm. The attending physician had written on his orders that day that the patient was to be given "Halcion 0.125 milligrams PO noon." This meant that he was to receive one-half of a .25 milligrams tablet of Halcion, a narcotic-type drug, by mouth at noon on May 3, the following day. The order was attached to the patient's chart. Around 6:30 p.m. on May 2, 1994, Petitioner mistakenly gave the patient five Halcion 0.25 milligrams tablets by mouth, or ten times the prescribed dosage. Although Petitioner did not initially disclose this fact to other personnel, she eventually conceded that she had made an error. When the patient was found in a comatose state a few hours later, three physicians were called to check on his condition, including his primary physician, a critical care physician, and a neurologist. Not knowing that Petitioner had overmedicated the patient, the primary physician initially believed the patient had suffered a stroke. The patient was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), a catheter was inserted, and he was placed on a respirator. After reading the medication record, the ICU nurses discovered that the patient had been overmedicated. The patient eventually recovered, but his surgery had to be postponed, which might have resulted in a burst aorta. His family later sued the hospital for Petitioner's negligence. Because of the serious nature of the error, and given Petitioner's past history of medication errors, Respondent terminated Petitioner on May 3, 1994. The employment decision was not based on Petitioner's race, but rather was based on "her poor work performance overall." There is no evidence as to whom, if anyone, was hired to replace Petitioner. The termination was wholly consistent with Respondent's Medication Error Policy. At hearing, Petitioner contended that the hospital did not terminate other nurses for similar offenses. However, during the same period of time that Petitioner was employed by Respondent, another nurse, M. C., a Caucasian female, was also terminated for making a serious medication error with a narcotic- type drug. Although M. C. had an otherwise "very good" record at the hospital, and did not have a history of medication errors, Respondent nonetheless terminated her since her conduct, like that of Petitioner, constituted a "life-threatening nurse practice error." Petitioner also contended that another nurse on duty that evening assisted her in calculating the Halcion dosage and this should relieve her of any responsibility. Although there was no independent testimony to corroborate this claim, even if true, the patient was under the direct supervision of Petitioner, and it would not diminish Petitioner's responsibility for placing the patient in a life-threatening situation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing, with prejudice, the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 14th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerrylene Barr Post Office Box 289 Reddick, Florida 32686 Kip P. Roth, Esquire 2501 Park Plaza Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of the isolated Class III deficiency alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed, skilled nursing home facility located in North Miami, Florida. Respondent was at all times pertinent hereto licensed by Petitioner pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 400 Part II, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate skilled nursing homes in Florida. Petitioner surveys nursing home facilities to evaluate their compliance with applicable rules. Petitioner classifies any deficiency noted by a survey according to the nature and scope of the deficiency. The severity of the deficiency determines the amount of any administrative fine and whether the licensure status of the facility should be "standard" or "conditional." A licensee’s failure to comply with an applicable statute or rule is a deficiency. A survey results in a report that lists each deficiency that is found, identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyor believes has been violated, provides a factual basis for the alleged violation, and indicates the scope and severity of the deficiency. A facility is given a deadline to correct each alleged deficiency found during the initial survey. Disciplinary action is typically initiated if a facility has not corrected a deficiency as determined by a follow-up survey. Petitioner conducted a survey of Respondent during the period February 28 - March 3, 2005 (the initial survey). Barbara Catinella, who is a registered nurse and an experienced surveyor, participated in the initial survey on behalf of Petitioner. On March 1, 2005, Ms. Catinella observed perineal care being administered to two female residents (identified as Resident 26 and Resident 27). Each resident was being attended to following an episode of urinary incontinence. The first observation began at approximately 2:00 p.m. and the second began approximately thirty minutes later. Two certified nurses assistants (CNAs) administered the perineal care to Resident 26 and two different CNAs administered the perineal care to Resident 27. In both instances, the CNAs failed to properly perform the perineal care. In each instant, the CNAs performing the perineal care failed to open and clean the labia. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had a policy as to perineal care for female residents that conformed to accepted perineal care standards. Paragraph 15 of the policy required Respondent's staff to do the following in sequence for a female resident who had suffered an episode of incontinence, whether the episode was of bowel, bladder, or both: For a female resident: Wet washcloth and apply soap or skin cleansing agent. Wash perineal area, wiping from front to back. Separate labia and was area downward from front to back. Continue to wash the perineum moving outward to and including thighs, alternating from side to side, and using downward strokes. Rinse perineum thoroughly in same direction, using fresh water and a washcloth. Gently dry perineum. Instruct the resident to turn on her side. Rinse wash cloth and apply soap or skin cleansing agent. Wash the rectal area thoroughly, wiping from the base of the labia and extending over the buttocks. Rinse. Dry area. 8. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent had a policy as to perineal care for male residents that conformed to accepted perineal care standards. Paragraph 16 of the policy required Respondent's staff to do the following in sequence for a male resident who had suffered an episode of incontinence, whether the episode was of bowel, bladder, or both: For a male resident: Wet washcloth and apply soap or skin cleansing agent. Wash perineal area starting with the urethra and working outward. Retract foreskin of the uncircumcised male. Wash and rinse urethral area using a circular motion. Continue to was the perineal area, including the penis, scrotum and inner thighs. Thoroughly rinse perineal area in [the] same order using fresh water and clean washcloth. Gently dry perineum following [the] same sequence. Reposition foreskin of uncircumcised male. Instruct or assist the resident to turn on his side. Rinse washcloth and apply soap or cleansing agent. Wash and rinse the rectal area thoroughly, including the area under the scrotum, the anus, and the buttocks. i. Dry area. The perineal care policy was adopted ". . . to provide cleanliness and comfort to the resident, to prevent infections and skin irritation, and to observe the resident's skin condition." Respondent's staff is trained to adhere to the perineal care policy. The perineal care provided Resident 26 and Resident 27 as observed by Ms. Catinella failed to adhere to Respondent's policy and constituted a failure to provide care and services to prevent potential urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent argued that the failure to adhere to its policy by failing to spread and cleanse the labia would not cause a urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent correctly argues that urine, in the body, is sterile and would not by itself cause a urinary tract infection. Most, but not all, urinary tract infections are caused by the e-coli bacteria found in feces. Respondent established that incontinent residents typically receive perineal care from Respondent's staff 10 times during a 24-hour period. Respondent also established that the facility uses only anti-bacterial soap for perineal care. Based on those considerations, Respondent argued that the perineal care observed by the surveyors may have led to a skin irritation, but that it would not have resulted in a urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The greater weight of the credible evidence established clearly and convincingly that the failure to spread and cleanse the labia has the potential for various adverse consequences for the resident, including urinary tract infection.3 If staff does not spread and cleanse the labia, the fact that anti-bacterial soap is being used is irrelevant. If the soap does not reach the labia, that area will not be cleansed, regardless of the number of times perineal care is administered during a typical day. Petitioner established the Class III violations pertaining to perineal care as to the initial survey by the requisite evidentiary standard. Petitioner also established that the violations should be considered "isolated" since there were some 55 incontinent residents in Respondent's facility at the time of the initial survey and only two episodes of improper perineal care were observed. Respondent was provided with a correction date thirty days from the conclusion of the initial survey to correct the noted deficiencies by coming into substantial compliance with accepted perineal care standards. The first follow-up survey occurred April 19-20, 2005. Eleanor Kennedy participated in that follow-up survey and testified, in her deposition, as to three incidents of perineal care that she observed. During the course of the follow-up survey, Ms. Kennedy observed two CNAs administering inappropriate perineal care to a female resident referred to as Resident 15. Ms. Kennedy observed that this resident had suffered an episode of incontinence involving both bowel and bladder. In the course of administering the perineal care, the CNAs failed to open and clean the labia. In addition to observing perineal care to Resident 15, Ms. Kennedy observed perineal care administered to a female resident referred to as Resident 16 and a male resident referred to as Resident and to a male resident referred to as Resident The perineal care administered to Resident 16 and to Resident 17 were inconsistent with Respondent's perineal care policy. The CNAs performing the perineal care for Resident 16 did not follow the proper sequence for cleaning. They first washed the resident's abdominal folds and thigh creases and then opened and washed the labia with the same disposable cloth. Ms. Kennedy testified that the sequence of the cleaning is significant because it risked the transfer of bacteria from the areas first washed to an area that could result in a urinary tract infection. The CNAs who performed the perineal care for Resident 17 first washed the resident's face, underarms, and back. Then, without changing water, the CNAs took a clean cloth and washed the resident's groin area, his retracted foreskin area, and the urinary urethral meatus. The CNAs then dried the resident, but failed to follow the required sequence. As with Resident 16, Ms. Kennedy testified that the incorrect sequence followed by the CNAs risked the transfer of bacteria to an area that could result in a urinary tract infection. Although this sequence clearly violated Respondent's perineal care policy, Respondent established that the potential for urinary tract infection as a result of the sequence was reduced because anti-bacterial soap was used. Ms. Kennedy was uncertain as to whether the use of anti-bacterial soap would alleviate the concerns she had as to the care given these two residents. Because of that uncertainty, it is found that Petitioner did not prove that the perineal care provided Resident 16 and Resident 17 constituted a failure to provide care and services to prevent potential urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The perineal care provided Resident 15 as observed by Ms. Kennedy failed to adhere to Respondent's policy and constituted a failure to provide care and services to prevent potential urinary tract infection as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. On May 26, 2005, Petitioner conducted a second follow- up survey and determined that Respondent was in substantial compliance with applicable regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is recommended that Count I of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner find Respondent guilty of an isolated, Class III deficiency based on Count II of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner assess an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 for the Class III deficiency found in Count II of the Administrative Complaint and that Petitioner's records reflect that Respondent's licensure was classified "conditional" for the period April 20 - May 19, 2005, and that Respondent's licensure was classified as "standard" before and after those dates. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 6th day of February, 2006.
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 At issue in this proceeding is "[w]hether obstetrical services were delivered by a participating physician in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in a hospital," as required for coverage to be accorded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact At or about 7:50 p.m., June 12, 1995, Ms. Fluet presented to Morton Plant Hospital in active labor. At the time, history revealed Ms. Fluet's estimated date of delivery as June 6, 1995, the fetus at 40 6/7 weeks gestation, spontaneous rupture of the membrane at 6:15 p.m., and the onset of regular contractions at 6:45 p.m. A physical examination by Cheryl Ewing, a certified nurse midwife (CNM) associated with the hospital's Nurse Midwifery Service, revealed the cervix to be 4 to 5 centimeters, effacement complete, and the fetus at station -1. Fetal heart tone (FHT) was noted in the 140-beat per minute range, reactive and contractions were noted at 1 1/2 to 2-minute intervals. Nurse Ewing's impression was "IUP [intrauterine pregnancy] term, active labor." Nurse Ewing admitted Ms. Fluet to labor and delivery under the hospital's nurse midwifery service protocol for an anticipated normal vaginal delivery, and managed her progress until approximately 8:00 p.m., when she was replaced by Carol Kitchen, CNM. At the time, John Brady, M.D., an obstetrician/gynecologist (OB/GYN), was on call, as supervising physician for the Nurse Midwifery Service to provide direct medical care (management) for any medical or obstetrical complication beyond the capabilities of the CNM (such as cesarean sections and forceps or vacuum extractions) and to consult with the CNMs by telephone, as needed. 1/ At the time of Ms. Fluet's labor and delivery, Dr. Brady was a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the "Plan"); however, neither Cheryl Ewing nor Carol Kitchen were "participating physicians" since they had not paid the assessment required for participation in the Plan. Sections 766.302(7) and 766.314(4)(c), Florida Statutes. Moreover, Morton Plant Hospital was not a "teaching hospital," as that term is used in the Plan. Section 766.309(1)(b), Florida Statutes. 2/ The Morton Plant Hospital Nurse Midwifery Service Protocol (the "Protocol") provides the following definition of Nurse Midwifery Service: Nurse Midwives are employed by Morton Plant Hospital and function under the supervision of the attending OB/GYN physician. They are never independent practitioners and accept responsibilities delegated to them by the attending OB/GYN physician. As team members, the Nurse Midwives work in cooperation with the Medical Staff of the Hospital, Nursing Staff and community health personnel in planning for and providing comprehensive obstetrical care for the patient and her family throughout the maternity cycle. The Nurse Midwife, under the supervision of the attending OB/GYN consultant, will be responsible for the care of mothers and neonates (while in the Delivery Room) throughout the maternity cycle, obtaining consultation when indicated. The Nurse Midwife is prepared to make obstetrical value judgements within her role and to accept responsibility for managing obstetric care throughout the maternity cycle in association with the attending OB/GYN and Pediatric Physicians. She offers as well her special contributions of support and health education. The protocol includes the following labor and delivery policies: II. Admission Policies . . . Labor Room Policies The Nurse Midwife is responsible for managing patients during labor and delivery, and will document same on patient's medical record The Nurse Midwife: Will request a pelvic evaluation by physician whenever necessary during labor; Will request medical consultation and/or management for any medical or obstetrical complication; Will turn the patient over to medical management if she feels the condition of the patient is beyond her capabilities of managing . . . . * * * Pitocin Augmentation or Induction CNM will order IV Pitocin when indicated and consult with physician when necessary; Pitocin will be administrated according to OB/GYN Department Section Protocol; CNM will be present when Pitocin is begun and will be in the department after 4 cm of dilatation or active labor has been established. * * * B. [Sic] Second Stage Management . . . Delivery Management Physician will be called in to apply forceps or vacuum extraction if the need arises; Physician will be called to manage all breech deliveries; Physician will be called to manage all twin deliveries; CNM/physician will manage shoulder dystocia; CNM may manually remove placenta in the presence of hemorrhage. For retained placenta longer than 30 minutes without hemorrhage, the backup physician will be consulted. Under the protocol, the CNM may augment or induce labor with Pitocin with the approval of the supervising physician. Accord, Section 467.015(3), Florida Statutes. At 9:50 p.m., vaginal examination revealed no progress in labor (with the cervix still anterior lip occiput posterior, effacement complete, and the fetus at station +1) despite pushing for one hour. Lack of progress was attributed to hypotonic contractions (contractions of only 30 seconds duration, which were inadequate to expel the fetus), a condition frequently remedied by augmentation with Pitocin (to strengthen the contractions and rotate the head). Consequently, Nurse Kitchen telephoned Dr. Brady for consultation, explained the circumstances, and received authorization to augment labor with Pitocin. Such was the limit of Dr. Brady's participation in Nurse Kitchen's management of Ms. Fluet's labor and delivery. Labor was successfully augmented with Pitocin, and at 11:07 p.m., Tano Niles Jokela (Tano) was delivered. At delivery, meconium stained fluid was noted and cord pH was 6.73 (acidotic). Apgars of 1, 3, and 3 were assigned a one, five and ten minutes respectively. Tano was pale, nonresponsive with a heart rate of 80 beats per minute. Cords were viewed, and a small amount of meconium was observed below the cords, with thick meconium in the oropharynx and nares. Tano responded to positive pressure ventilation (PPV), with increased heart rate to 120 to 180 beats per minute, but continued without respiratory effort or tone. Resuscitation included stimulation, PPV via mask, intubation with PPV, suctioning, and Narcan without response. Tano was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for further management and at 3:10 a.m., June 13, 1995, he was transferred to All Children's Hospital. At All Children's Hospital, neurological evaluation revealed evidence of severe hypoxic and anoxic insult, metabolic screening demonstrated results compatible with metabolic acidosis, and sequential daily EEG's showed no spontaneous activity. Consequently, with family consent, artificial support was withdrawn and Tano expired at 11:25 a.m., June 16, 1995. Autopsy findings disclosed: . . . the presence of massive meconium aspiration that led to acute perinatal hypoxia, hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy including white matter infarcts (periventricular leukomalacia) and thrombotic episodes observed in the adrenal glands, diaphragm, and lungs. No source of embolism is present. The possibility of an acute chorioamnionitis is not ruled out, as a proximate cause of perinatal difficulties; the placenta was not available at the time of autopsy. The death certificate described the cause of death as respiratory failure, due to apnea, as a consequence of hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy.
