The Issue Whether or not Respondent, Walter Ray Deal, M.D., violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and the testimony of witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Walter Ray Deal, M.D., is and has been, at all times material to the Administrative Complaint filed in this matter, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0056589. At or around 6:25 p.m. on April 6, 2000, Patient E.R. presented at the Emergency Room of Morton Plant Mease Health Care/North Bay Hospital, with pain and swelling in the right lower extremity. The Emergency Triage/Assessment Form, which is completed by nurses in the Emergency Room, reports that Patient E.R., who was first seen at 6:30 p.m., was 73 years old and had a chief complaint of "pain to RLE [right lower extremity] for a very long time, swollen . . ." This form also contains information on Patient E.R.'s current medical status including medications and a medical history. Respondent first examined Patient E.R. at approximately 7:15 p.m.; she reported her chief complaint to be chronic pain in the right knee which had worsened since Dr. Zaidi, a rheumatologist, had drained the knee. During his examination, Respondent checked (placed a checkmark) on the Emergency Physician Record indicating that in his examination he found the patient's heart had regular rate and rhythm and normal heart sounds. At 7:30 p.m., Respondent noted in Patient E.R.'s treatment plan: "Labs, Pain Meds, IV Antibx." This record reflects that Respondent ordered that the patient be administered 50 mg of Demerol and 50 mg Phenergan and 500 mg of Leviquin intramuscularly and the ESR (erythrocytic sedimentation rate), which is a nonspecific test for inflammatory responses. The pain medication appears to have been administered almost immediately (7:35 p.m.); the antibiotic at approximately 8:12 p.m. There is controversy about what "Labs" were ordered by Respondent. His testimony indicates that he ordered the CBC, the comprehensive metabolic, and the urine laboratory chemistries. The hospital records indicate that the following additional diagnostic tests were ordered: Cardiac Enzymes and Troponin chemistries, an E.K.G. and portable chest x-ray. It appears from the hospital records that a different writing instrument (the ink colors are different) and, perhaps, a different hand ordered the diagnostic tests mentioned in this paragraph. The results of the chemistries ordered by Respondent are reported on the Emergency Physician Record; the Emergency Physician Record does not contained results of an E.K.G. or x- ray. In addition, laboratory reports for non-cardiac-related chemistries are on Lab Acn# 54968; laboratory reports for cardiac related chemistries are on Lab Acn# 54984. While the sample collection time for the blood tests is 7:20 p.m., the cardiac-related tests were conducted later in the evening than the non-cardiac related tests. The controversy regarding what tests were ordered by Respondent is further clouded by the testimony of Rajesh Dave, M.D., who in the late evening of July 6, 2000, admitted Patient E.R. to the hospital, and Respondent's narrative letter dated February 1, 2001, directed to the Agency for Health Care Administration, in which he acknowledges ordering all of the diagnostic tests mentioned hereinabove. Prior to hearing, Respondent retracted the admission contained in his letter to the Agency for Health Care Administration to ordering the Cardiac Enzymes and Troponin chemistries, the E.K.G. and chest x-ray. The retraction was based on confusion between Respondent and his attorney which was confirmed by the testimony of Edward Copeland, Esquire, the attorney who prepared the narrative letter signed by Respondent. I find that the testimonies of Respondent and Mr. Copeland are credible and find that someone other than Respondent ordered the diagnostic tests which are in question. Dr. Dave denied ordering the cardiac-related tests; he denies even being in the hospital that evening. His testimony is in conflict with Respondent's and Emergency Room Nurse Don Giffin's nursing notes, which state: "Dr. Dave here to examine patient and wrote orders." Dr. Dave became responsible for Patient E.R.'s care and treatment when she was ordered admitted to the hospital at 9:45 p.m. Respondent testified that he had two conversations with Dr. Dave on July 6, 2002; the first, a telephone conversation, immediately prior to first seeing Patient E.R. and the second, a face-to-face conversation, at approximately 9:30 p.m. at the front desk of the Emergency Room. After the second conversation, Respondent wrote orders to admit Patient E.R. for a "23 hour admission" to the hospital as Dr. Dave's patient and ordered consultations with other physicians. He wrote other admission orders, ordered medications and "ivf d5 1/2 NS 40 meq kcl/l @ 125cc hr" (intravenous fluids one-half normal saline with 40ml equivalents of potassium chloride per liter at 125 cc per hour). North Bay Hospital protocol does not allow an Emergency Room physician to admit a patient to the hospital. Respondent was acting as a scrivener for Dr. Dave when he entered the orders admitting Patient E.R. to the hospital. At 8:17 p.m. the laboratory reported to the Emergency Room that Patient E.R. had a low serum potassium level. Petitioner's expert witness opined that Respondent fell below the standard of care when, after becoming aware of the low serum potassium level (which the expert deemed "critically low"), he did not immediately order an E.K.G. to determine the appropriate speed of potassium supplementation. He further opined that Respondent either did not read the E.K.G. or did not properly evaluate it. He further opined that the rate of potassium supplementation as ordered by Respondent was completely inadequate. The results of the Cardiac Enzymes and Troponin tests were normal. The E.K.G. test was given and the results simultaneously published at 10:04 p.m. The E.K.G. showed a run of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia which is a potentially fatal arrhythmia. After being ordered admitted as a 23-hour admission as Dr. Dave's patient at 9:45 p.m., Patient E.R. arrived at the 23- hour floor at 10:30 p.m. The hospital records reflect that at 10:20 p.m., the floor nurse was advised by the Emergency Room nurse of the low serum potassium, of the physician's orders for potassium supplementation, and that the potassium supplementation ordered was not available in the Emergency Room. The 23-hour floor nurse's notes reflect that she "advised that we have none at this time." Following Patient E.R.'s admission, at approximately 10:45 p.m., Dr. Dave was called and advised of the admitting orders including the rate of potassium supplementation. While he changed some of the orders, he did not change the rate of potassium supplementation. He did change Patient E.R.'s admission from a 23-hour admission to a full admission which necessitated transferring Patient E.R. to the Third Floor of the hospital. At 11:10 p.m. the 23-hour floor nurse received a bed assignment on the Third Floor and gave a report to the Third Floor nurse; the 23-hour floor nurse's notes include the following: "report . . . including low K [potassium] and need for D5 1/2 NS c 40 meq KCL [the ordered potassium supplementation] she said they had on 3rd floor and will be able to start fluids." The 11:55 p.m. Third Floor nurse's notes reflect that the "IVF started." Patient E.R. expired shortly after 3:00 a.m. Respondent's expert witness opined that Respondent did not fall below the standard of care in his treatment of Patient E.R.; that is, that Respondent practiced 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. He opined that Respondent rendered appropriate treatment to Patient E.R., who presented with knee pain and had no cardiac or respiratory complaints. He further opined that, while the serum potassium level was low and needed to be addressed, no symptoms or complaints were demonstrated pertaining to low potassium level and nothing was evident that raised cardiac issues; the low potassium was not critically important in this clinical situation and was a common presentation for an older person. He opined that based on the clinical evaluation and findings by the Emergency Room staff and physician, even with the low potassium, no E.K.G. was warranted. I find the opinion rendered by Respondent's expert witness to be more credible than the opinion offered by Petitioner's expert witness and accept the opinion of Respondent's expert. Respondent's expert's opinion was reinforced, in part, by the continuing treatment afforded Patient E.R. by Dr. Dave after she was admitted to the hospital.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is not guilty of violating Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 2nd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229, Mail Stop 39A Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 William Taylor, Esquire Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue for consideration is whether Respondent, Sarasota County Public Hospital Board's, (Board), Motion To Dismiss HCA of Florida, Inc.'s (Doctors), Petition For Formal Administrative Proceedings should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On June 26, 1990, the Board filed CON application No. 6347, seeking approval to construct a comprehensive outpatient center and medical office complex on the campus of Sarasota Memorial Hospital. The new facility, anticipated to have a cost of slightly in excess of $18,000,000.00, was to house several outpatient functions including: outpatient registration outpatient diagnostic radiology outpatient laboratory services outpatient rehabilitative services outpatient cardiology diagnostic center outpatient dialysis Health resources center, and an office building located adjacent to the existing ambulatory surgical center. On or about July 13, 1990, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (Department), issued its State Agency Action Report, (SAAR), in which it indicated a preliminary decision to approve the subject application in its entirety, designating the project reviewable under Section 381.706(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Notice of this decision was published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on August 3, 1990. On August 14, 1990, Doctors filed a Petition For Formal Administrative Hearing challenging the preliminary approval, claiming that components of the project are reviewable under several subsections of Section 381.706(1), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Doctors claims that the operation of a home health agency from the complex renders it reviewable under subsection (f); that as the project constitutes a substantial change in the provision of inpatient services, or establishes new inpatient services, it is reviewable under subsection (h); and that it is an additional health care facility which is reviewable pursuant to subsection (b). Doctors also claims the new facility will hurt its ability to compete for patient referrals from physicians who will be housed in the new facility and will result in a reduction of Doctors' market share. Doctors is an existing hospital that provides a full range of acute care services to residents of Sarasota County. The Board's application contends that the development of this complex will free up capacity in key ancillary areas to better accommodate patients, and it is so found. The ambulatory diagnostic and treatment space proposed for the new facility represents what would have otherwise been less efficient additions to the existing departments. There will also be a bridge connecting the main hospital to the new center which will provide convenient access to any outpatient who may need to visit the hospital. It will also provide, "... direct linkage between the acute inpatient facility with the physicians' offices thereby enhancing pertinent access to a range of diagnostic and treatment services." Doctors contends in its Petition that it is the Board's clear intention and expectation to increase its service area and market share of Sarasota County patients as a result of this project. It asserts that if the Board's project is implemented, it will be serving different patients, and a different patient mix from a different geographical area than currently served. For the purpose of resolving the limited issues at this motion hearing, these assertions are accepted as fact. Accepting the assertions in paragraph 5 through 7, above, as fact, however, does not necessarily require the conclusions be reached that the accomplishment of the Board's project would result in any significant change to the level of its patient service since what is planned deals only with outpatient services. While Doctors disputes this, its claims that inpatient services would be effected is not supported.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a Final Order dismissing HCA of Florida, Inc.'s Petition in opposition to the grant of CON No. 6347 to the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Weiss, Esq. Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs The Perkins House 118 N. Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John Radey, Esq. Elizabeth McArthur, Esq. Aurell, Radey, Hinkle & Thomas Suite 1000, 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward G. Labrador, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 103 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES Petitioner, Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital (Englewood), is a 100 bed general acute care hospital located in Englewood, Florida. Englewood is owned and operated by Columbia/HCA Health Care (Columbia), a for-profit corporation. Englewood operates an outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory in a mobile unit located in the hospital parking lot. Patients and some physicians have been reluctant to use the mobile unit. Venice Hospital, Inc. (Venice) is a not-for-profit, community owned hospital with 342 beds. Venice operates an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory for invasive cardiac diagnostic procedures. Venice has unsuccessfully applied twice for a certificate of need (CON) to provide open heart surgery. The Sarasota County Public Hospital Board (Sarasota Hospital Board) is a publicly elected, nine member organization, which is responsible for the operation and oversight of Sarasota Memorial Hospital (Memorial). Memorial is a 952 bed hospital with services including inpatient cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Memorial is located in Sarasota, Florida. Englewood, Venice, and Memorial are all located in Sarasota County which is in the Agency for Health Care Administration Planning District 8. There are nine other inpatient cardiac catheterization programs in District 8. The existing inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are distributed as follows: Sarasota County (3); Charlotte County (3); Lee County (4); Collier County (1). Respondent, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency which administers CON laws in Florida. The Agency published on February 4, 1994, a fixed need pool projection for inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures, showing a need for three additional programs in District 8 for the batch in which Englewood's application was reviewed. This calculation counted an earlier application of Englewood as approved. THE PROJECT Englewood proposes to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, placing inside the hospital facility the equipment which is currently located in its mobile cardiac catheterization laboratory. Englewood timely filed the letter of intent, CON application, and response to omissions for CON Number 7663. The Agency originally denied the application because a previous application by Englewood for inpatient cardiac catheterization services had been granted. The previous application proposed to keep the equipment in the mobile unit and build a walkway from the mobile unit to the hospital facility. Englewood withdrew its application for the previous application. The Agency has filed an official notice of changing its position to support Englewood's CON Application Number 7663. NEED FOR THE PROJECT IN RELATION TO THE LOCAL AND STATE HEALTH PLANS The 1993 Florida State Health Plan provides four allocation preferences relevant to the review of the certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs. Preference shall be given to an applicant who proposes the establishment of both cardiac catheterization services and open heart surgical services provided that a need for open heart surgery is indicated. Preference shall be given to an applicant proposing to establish a new cardiac catheterization program if the applicant can demonstrate that patients are currently seeking cardiac catheterization services outside the respective county or HRS district. Preference shall be given to hospitals with a history of providing a disproportionate share of charity care and Medicaid patient days in the respective acute care subdistrict. Qualifying hospitals shall meet Medicaid disproportionate share criteria. Preference shall be given to an applicant who agrees to provide services to all patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has projected that charity and indigent care for cardiac catheterizations at less than 1.0 percent of total revenue. Given Englewood's past history, 1.0 percent of total revenue is a gross overstatement. At the final hearing, Englewood stated that it would not agree to condition the CON on Englewood providing charity and indigent care equal to 1.0 percent of the total revenue. The Agency's 1992 Hospital Financial Data showed that Englewood's reported charity and uncompensated care was approximately .09 percent and .06 percent of total revenues for fiscal years 1992 and 1993, respectively. Englewood has agreed to provide adult cardiac catheterization services to anyone in need without ability to pay; thus, Englewood is entitled to a partial preference for providing services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has not demonstrated that it should receive a preference for the other three factors. The 1993 District 8 Allocation Factors Report addresses the following preferences relevant to the review of certificate of need applications to establish adult inpatient cardiac catheterization services. Preference shall be given to applicat- ions for new or expanded cardiac catheterization services that clearly indicate the impact of the proposed services on other health providers offering similar services in the same area. Preference shall be given to applicants which agree to provide services to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay. Englewood has agreed to provide services to all patients without ability to pay and is entitled to a partial preference for the second factor in the district plan. AVAILABILITY, QUALITY OF CARE, EFFICIENCY, APPROPRIATENESS, ACCESSIBILITY, EXTENT OF UTILIZATION, AND ADEQUACY OF LIKE EXISTING HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN THE SERVICE DISTRICT. Englewood's proposed inpatient cardiac catheterization program would not adversely affect the quality of care provided by the cardiac catheterization programs at Sarasota Memorial Hospital and Venice Hospital. Memorial has a comprehensive cardiac catheterization program. It operates three dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratories. The Memorial laboratories provide diagnostic catheterizations as well as all available therapeutic catheterization techniques. Prior to performing a diagnostic catheterization, cardiologists are able to determine with a high degree of confidence and reliability whether a patient with cardiovascular disease will require, during a particular hospitalization, therapeutic intervention, e.g. angioplasty or open heart surgery. Cardiologists rely on an array of sophisticated non-invasive diagnostic tests in making such determinations. When a cardiologist determines that a patient is not sufficiently ill to require therapeutic intervention, the patient will customarily receive a diagnostic catheterization on an outpatient basis. During the last several years, there has been a shift in Sarasota County from inpatient catheterization to outpatient catheterization. In fact, the Medicare program requires that Medicare patients receive outpatient catheterization, unless a patient's medical condition requires inpatient care. Normally only patients with unstable medical conditions receive inpatient cardiac catheterization. That group of patients is likely to require therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission to resolve their medical problems. Between 80 to 90 percent of patients who receive inpatient cardiac catheterization receive therapeutic intervention during the same hospital admission. If an unstable patient presents at a facility which lacks the capability to perform therapeutic intervention, it is in the best medical practice to stabilize the patient and then transfer the patient to a facility which can perform both the diagnostic catheterization and the therapeutic intervention. If the unstable patient requires intervention in the form of angioplasty, it is in the patient's best interest to receive both the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during a single visit to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. The provision of both procedures in one visit enhances comfort, safety, and efficiency. It is Memorial's practice to provide both types of services in one visit to the catheterization laboratory when possible. Adult inpatient cardiac catheterization programs are available within a maximum automobile travel time of one hour, under average travel conditions, for at least 90 percent of District 8's population. The Sarasota Hospital Board's policy is to provide cardiac catheterization services at Memorial to all residents without regard to their ability to pay. In its most recently completed fiscal year at the time of the final hearing, the Sarasota Hospital Board provided $268,000 of charity care and $720,000 of Medicaid care, related to cardiac catheterization patients. In its application, Englewood stated: "There is no evidence to indicate that the efficiency, appropriateness and adequacy of adult inpatient cardiac catheterizations services in District VIII are less than adequate." Each of the seven hospitals in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties, with the exception of Englewood, operate an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. There is excess capacity at the existing cardiac laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties. A single cardiac catheterization laboratory can safely perform approximately 1500 cases annually. Three of the existing cardiac catheterization laboratories in Sarasota and Charlotte Counties operate a volume between 300-400 cases annually: Fawcett, St. Joseph's, and Doctors'. Fawcett is owned and operated by Columbia. Venice operates the existing laboratory closest to Englewood. Venice's catheterization laboratory has the capacity to perform 1,500 procedures annually. Over the last five years, the number of cases has grown from 500 to approximately 800, where it has leveled off, leaving almost half the laboratory's capacity unused. Venice's catheterization laboratory is available and accessible to Englewood residents. The catheterization laboratory at Venice has been serving Englewood patients and will continue to do so. Venice currently serves a significant share of the market in three of the six zip codes identified by Englewood as its service area. There is adequate capacity at the existing laboratories in Charlotte and Sarasota Counties to treat the existing volume of cardiac catheterization patients, as well as the volume that Englewood proposes to serve. Patients in the Englewood area will not experience serious problems in obtaining inpatient cardiac catheterization services in the absence of Englewood's proposed program. Under these circumstances it is more appropriate and less expensive to the health care system as a whole to fully utilize existing catheterization laboratories. ABILITY OF APPLICANT TO PROVIDE QUALITY CARE AND APPLICANT'S RECORD OF PROVIDING QUALITY OF CARE Englewood has a record of providing appropriate quality of care to its patients. Englewood is fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations. Englewood submitted a written protocol for transfer of emergency patients to a hospital providing open heart surgery within 30 minutes travel time by emergency vehicle under average travel conditions as part of its application. Englewood's cardiac catheterization program policies and procedures manual is appropriate. The equipment which Englewood proposes for its inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory was purchased from Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center in Fort Myers, Florida, where it had been used successfully for approximately one year. The equipment is currently being used in Englewood's outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory. The equipment uses analog imaging, and includes video playback to allow instant review. Digital imaging is newer technology than analog imaging and allows the image of the cardiac areas to be magnified, processed and measured while the physician is performing the catheterization. Regardless whether analog or digital imaging is used the physician will rely on a 35mm film which is made during the catheterization procedure to make the diagnosis. The digital imaging equipment is more expensive than the analog imaging equipment. Although, digital imaging is nice to have, it is not necessary to provide quality cardiac catheterization services. Englewood has plans to move the outpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory from the mobile unit to inside the hospital facilities. As of the date of the final hearing, Englewood had not begun construction of this project to relocate the outpatient laboratory. The cost of renovating space for the cardiac catheterization laboratory and moving the equipment inside is estimated to be $400,000. Two or three people are required to assist the physician perform an inpatient cardiac catheterization. One person circulates, moving outside the sterile area surrounding the procedure table to get medications, log information and generally oversee and monitor the patient's condition. The staff should include cardiovascular technicians, who may be but do not have to be nurses. Englewood proposes the following staffing and salary: FTE'S YEAR 1 HOURLY RATE SALARIES FTE'S YEAR 2 HOURLY RATE SALARIES RNS 3.0 19.92 118,061 5.0 19.68 204,672 Nurse Manager 1.0 0 1.0 0 Cath Lab Tech 2.0 14.43 60,029 2.0 15.01 62,442 Subtotal 6.0 178,090 8.0 267,114 Lab Director 1.0 0 1.0 0 Subtotal 1.0 0 1.0 0 Unit Secretary 0.5 7.96 8,278 1.0 8.28 17,222 Subtotal 0.5 8,278 1.0 TOTAL 7.5 186,368 10.0 284,336 The radiology technician's job is to assist with quality assurance, help maintain and oversee the equipment, and monitor safety. The radiology technician does not have to be present in the laboratory during procedures. Englewood already employs a radiology technician in its radiology department. This technician has had training for cardiac catheterization laboratory duties. Dr. DeGuia currently performs the duties of a medical director and will continue to do so if the inpatient laboratory is established. The nurse manager who is currently employed as the nursing manager for the intensive care, progressive care and outpatient will be utilized in the inpatient laboratory as well. The staff will be cross trained in each position's functions. Englewood will have the assistance of Fawcett Memorial Hospital and Southwest Heart Institute in staffing and training when needed. Englewood's proposed staffing will provide an adequate number of properly trained personnel. The salaries Englewood proposes to pay its staff are reasonable and competitive. UTILIZATION In its application, Englewood projects that the first year of operation of the inpatient laboratory, there will be a total of 236 cardiac catheterizations performed consisting of 132.9 inpatients and 103.1 outpatients. In the second year of operation, Englewood projects the total cardiac catheterizations to be 345 with 194.3 being inpatient and 150.7 being outpatient. Englewood has included six specific zip code in its service area. Based on Englewood's experience with MDC 05 diagnoses1, Englewood's expert witness Scott Hopes opined that Englewood's market share for diagnostic cardiac catheterization services would be as follows: ZIPCODE MARKET SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 33981 43.8 percent 34223 50 percent 34224 65.2 percent 34287 6.4 percent 34293 2.0 percent In order to project inpatient utilization of the Englewood laboratory, it is appropriate to rely upon the historical pool of patients in the Englewood service area who have received inpatient catheterization during a hospital admission, without receiving angioplasty or open heart surgery during that admission. Englewood proposes to serve primarily "low risk" inpatients who are not expected to require intervention during that hospital admission. For the period July 1991 through June 1992, there were 490 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients residing in Englewood's service area. For the period July 1992 through June 1993, there were 479 inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on patients in the same service area. In its application, Englewood applied an aggregate market share to the total number of inpatient cardiac catheterizations performed on the residents of the proposed service area. This method distorts the projected number of inpatient procedures which could be performed by Englewood because of the variability of the market shares in each zip code. Based on the method employed in Englewood's application, Englewood would have performed 145 and 160 inpatient cardiac catheterizations in the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 periods, respectively. When one applies the actual market share by zip code to the actual number of procedures performed on patients from each zip code, a more accurate projection based on historical data can be made as shown in the chart below. ZIP CODE MARKET SHARE 1991-1992 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 1992-1993 CATHS ENGLEWOOD SHARE 33947 53.1 percent 21 11 18 10 33981 43.8 percent 35 15 29 12 34223 50.0 percent 68 34 72 36 34224 65.2 percent 42 27 34 22 34287 6.4 percent 145 9 146 9 34293 2.0 percent 179 4 180 4 100 93 Englewood performed 50 outpatient cardiac catheterizations in 1994. This low utilization is based on the physical location of the outpatient facility in the hospital parking lot and the lack of marketing. Fifty procedures is not a representative number of the outpatient procedures which Englewood could expect if the laboratory was located inside the hospital and the program was marketed effectively. The application states that in 1992 the percentage of inpatient cardiac catheterization procedures of the total cardiac catheterizations performed in hospitals with an inpatient program in District 8 was 56.33 percent.2 Thus based on Englewood's market share by zip code, the total amount of cardiac catheterizations which Englewood could have expected in 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 would have been 177 and 165, respectively. In its application, Englewood uses three different methodologies to project the number of cardiac catheterizations Englewood could expect during its first and second year of operation. Method 1 (pgs. 28 and 32 of the Response to Omissions) subtracts the amount of catheterizations Englewood would have expected in 1991-1992 from the amount it would have expected in 1992-1993 and increases the projection each year by this amount to project the number of catheterizations for the first two years of operation. Using Method 1 would result in a decrease in the number of cardiac catheterizations each year because the number of cardiac catheterizations declined by 12 procedures from 1991-1992 to 1992-1993. Method 2 (pgs. 30 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) employs an annual increase of 8 percent. This increase is the lowest annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 208 procedures for 1996 and 224 procedures for 1997. Method 3 (pgs. 31 & 32 of the Response to Omissions) uses a 12.78 percent annual increase based on the average annual percentage increase of cardiac catheterizations in District 8 from October 1987 to September 1993. Using this method would result in a projection of 237 procedures for 1996 and 267 procedures for 1997. Using any of the three methods to project the number of procedures to be performed in the second year, Englewood will not perform a minimum of 300 catheterization procedures by the end of the second year of operation of the inpatient laboratory. The Intermedic Health Center is a large multi-specialty group with a five cardiologist heart group based in Port Charlotte. Intermedic has offices in Englewood. The heart group was to begin regular office schedules in Englewood in February, 1994. The group plans to recruit one or two additional physicians to staff the office. At the time of final hearing the physicians of Intermedic's heart group performed cardiac catheterizations at hospitals other than Petitioner's because some of the cases were inpatient and some of their outpatients were uncomfortable with a portable laboratory. For 1995, Intermedic projected 90 to 100 cases; thereby resulting in some increase in business with Englewood relating to cardiac catheterizations. The population in the Englewood service area consists of a large number of residents who are 65 or older. This segment of the population is more likely to have a high demand for cardiac catheterization than a younger segment of the population. The 65 or older category is a fast growing part of the population in the Englewood service area. IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROGRAM Englewood has the financial ability to fund the construction of the project. The pro forma statement contained in the CON application is flawed. Englewood has double counted a profit layer that it is already enjoying from inpatients that it transfers to an inpatient catheterization provider. Englewood does not account for the contribution margin attaching to Englewood's inpatient portion of their care before transfer. In projecting its revenues from outpatient utilization, Englewood has included in its figures outpatient catheterizations it would perform whether or not its application is approved rather than basing their pro forma on the incremental difference attributable to approval of an inpatient program. The projected revenues contained in the pro forma are suspect. First, the proposed procedure charges shown on the outpatient service revenues page of Englewood's application are high. It is unusual to find outpatient procedure charges that are higher than the inpatient procedure charges. In Table 7 in the application, Englewood asserts that patient days for Medicaid and private pay will net the highest revenues per patient day. Typically those two payor sources are at the bottom of the list of revenue producers than the top. Englewood's pro forma understates revenue deductions by assuming Medicaid and private pay reimbursement that is unrealistic and by failing to take into account anticipated growth in managed care. Englewood's financial expert agreed that managed care will see significant growth over the next five years. Because the pro forma overstates net revenue, it understates revenue deductions. Englewood has understated expenses. The marginal cost per case is understated, relocation expenses are understated, and the nurse manager's time is not allocated to the expense side of the pro forma. The State Agency Action Report also calls into question the adequacy of the expenses in Englewood's pro forma.3 Based on the flawed pro forma, Englewood has not demonstrated that the project is financially feasible. OTHER STATUTORY CRITERIA The costs and methods of the proposed construction, including consideration of the costs and methods of energy provision and the availability of alternative, less costly, or more effective methods of construction are reasonable. The proposed design of Englewood's inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory is reasonable and appropriate. Englewood submitted the list of capital projects required by Section 408.037(2)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1993); the audited financial statements required by Section 408.037(3), Florida Statutes (1993); and the resolution required by Section 408.037(4), Florida Statutes (1993). I. STANDING OF VENICE AND MEMORIAL If Englewood were to establish an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory, both Venice and Memorial would have patients diverted from their programs to Englewood's. Based on the projections contained in Englewood's application, Venice would lose 82 catheterization procedures in the second year of operation of Englewood's proposed program, resulting in a net profit lose of $234,000. Although Englewood's application projections are inaccurate, the application does contemplate that Venice would lose procedures as a result of the implementation of Englewood's proposed program. In order for Englewood to reach its projected volume of procedures, approximately 40 to 50 procedures would have to be redirected annually from Memorial to Englewood. There is also a strong potential that Memorial would lose angioplasty and open heart surgery cases as well. Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center (SWFRMC), in Fort Myers, is owned by Columbia. It is a tertiary cardiovascular referral center for other Columbia hospitals in Southwest Florida. The development of an inpatient cardiac catheterization laboratory at Englewood would assist in the development of referral patterns from the Englewood area to SWFRMC for angioplasty and open heart surgery. It would be in Columbia's interest to encourage utilization of SWFRMC's cardiovascular services by patients residing in the Southwest Florida area.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the application of Englewood Community Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Englewood Community Hospital's for Certificate of Need 7663 to establish an adult inpatient cardiac catheterization program. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, 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 18th day of December, 1995.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license to practice medicine of Respondent, Howard E. Gross, M.D., based on allegations that he violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been licensed in 1971 and issued license number ME 0017039. Respondent has never been disciplined previously. Respondent is board-certified in internal medicine (1970) and cardiovascular diseases (1973). He is an interventional cardiologist. He has practiced medicine in Orlando since 1971. For the past 10 years, he has done a high-volume catheterization practice. In the most recent one-year period, he did approximately 500 interventional procedures and 400 diagnostic procedure, and in almost all instances, the catheterization involved a ventriculogram. On or about February 18, 1997, patient L. D. L., an 84-year-old male with a history of coronary artery disease, presented to Orlando Regional Medical Center, for catheterization and possible rescue angioplasty to be performed by Respondent. Respondent performed a cardiac catheterization on the patient. During the catheterization procedure, Respondent advanced a 6-French pigtail catheter into the patient's left ventricle and performed a ventriculogram by injecting what he thought was approximately 20cc of ionic dye, utilizing a MEDRAD injector. During the catheterization procedure, Respondent noted that he did not obtain opacification of the left ventricle and noted that free air was in the left ventricle. In fact, Respondent injected the patient with approximately 15cc to 20cc of free air rather than dye. As a result, the patient suffered cardiac arrest, and his blood pressure fell to zero. Respondent initiated various life-saving measures to counter the effects of the injection of free air, which were unsuccessful, and the patient was pronounced dead at approximately 1:55 p.m., as a result of cardiac arrest brought on by an air embolus. At the time, Orlando Regional Medical Center (hereinafter "ORMC") had a policy/procedure (No. 3233-MEDRAD- 0001) for Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory (hereinafter "Cardiac Cath Lab") personnel (Respondent's Exhibit 1). It delineated specific procedures to ensure "the use and safe applications of the power injector." In particular, it states the procedure to be employed by Cardiac Cath Lab staff in loading the MEDRAD injector. At ORMC and other hospitals, Cardiac Cath Lab personnel load the MEDRAD injectors without physician supervision. As explained by both expert witnesses, loading the syringe with dye is a very simple task for a nurse or scrub tech to perform. In the instant case, the nurse loading the MEDRAD injector interrupted the loading procedure because she was concerned about the patient's lab values (kidney function) and was uncertain about what type of dye Respondent would order. Respondent was not yet in the Cardiac Cath Lab. The nurse anticipated asking Respondent which type of dye he wanted and then loading that type dye into the MEDRAD injector. When she interrupted the loading procedure, the nurse left the plunger positioned in the syringe where it appeared that the syringe had been loaded with 20 to 25cc of dye and the injector arm pointing upward. The nurse then left the Cardiac Cath lab to get her lead apron anticipating only a monetary absence from the lab. Unknown to her, Respondent entered the Cardiac Cath Lab within seconds after her departure. Respondent was not in the Cardiac Cath Lab at any time while the nurse was manipulating the MEDRAD injector. As the nurse secured her lead jacket, she was called to another patient to administer medication which required the presence of a registered nurse per hospital procedures. In the nurse's absence, the catheterization and ventriculogram of the patient proceeded. The Registered Cardiovascular Technician (hereinafter "RCT"), observing the MEDRAD injector in what appeared to be a prepared state, wheeled it to the patient's side and lowered the injector arm into a position to receive the catheter. The RCT testified that a MEDRAD injector would never be left as she found it, plunger at the 20 to 25cc mark and arm elevated, if the machine was not loaded with dye. The ionic dye used in the procedure is clear and, due to the nature of the MEDRAD plunger and casing, it is extremely difficult to tell if dye is in the syringe. Further compounding the difficulty in observing dye in the syringe is the fact that the lights in the Cardiac Cath Lab are lowered during the procedure to allow better visualization of the video monitor. While the RCT positioned the MEDRAD injector at the patient's side, Respondent was in the process of entering the catheter into the patient, manipulating the catheter in the patient, visualizing its position in the patient's heart on the video monitor and monitoring hemodynamics. Petitioner's expert witness testified that Respondent did justifiably rely on the Cardiac Cath Lab personnel to follow the procedure outlined in Respondent's Exhibit 1. The nurse and cardiovascular technician did not follow the policy/procedure and, as a result, allowed the presence of air in the MEDRAD injector. After the catheter is properly located in the patient's heart, the external end of the catheter is attached to the MEDRAD injector. Petitioner's expert witness opined the Respondent should have used extension tubing to effect the connection between the catheter and MEDRAD injector. Testimony revealed that extension tubing is used by many physicians who perform cardiac catheterization. Respondent's practice was not to use extension tubing. Both Petitioner's and Respondent's expert witnesses agreed that Respondent's choice not to use extension tubing was a "technique" choice and did not fall below the "standard of care." Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent should have been present in the Cardiac Cath Lab to observe the loading of the MEDRAD injector. Testimony revealed that at ORMC and other hospitals it was the Cardiac Cath Lab staff's responsibility to load the MEDRAD injector without the direct supervision of physicians and that physicians are rarely in the lab when the MEDRAD injector is loaded. The "standard of care" does not require the physician to watch the loading of dye or the expulsion of air from the syringe in the loading process. Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent should have performed a test injection (a process where a small amount of dye is injected into the heart prior to the main injection). Respondent's expert testified that under certain circumstances (none of which is applicable to the instant case) test injections were appropriate; those circumstances occur less than 5 percent of the time. Electing not to perform a test injection in the instant case does not fall below the "standard of care." Petitioner's expert opined that Respondent should have observed a "wet to wet" connection between the catheter and the MEDRAD injector to ensure that no air is in the system. This is accomplished by withdrawing a small amount of blood from the catheter into the MEDRAD injector. Small air bubbles may appear between the blood and dye and are then "tapped" to rise to the top of the syringe. However, Respondent performed the "wet to wet" connection and did not observe anything unusual. He has historically performed some "wet to wet" connections where no air bubbles were present between the blood and dye as it appeared in this case. The RCT confirmed that Respondent performed the "wet to wet" connection, looked for air in the syringe, and tapped on the syringe to loosen and expel air bubbles. Respondent's expert witness testified that he performed an experiment creating a "wet to wet" connection with air in the MEDRAD injector syringe instead of dye. He found that the miniscus formed by blood and air in the syringe has an identical appearance to blood contacting dye in the syringe. The "wet to wet" connection between blood and air in the syringe has the same appearance as a "perfectly clean", "wet to wet" connection between blood and dye in the syringe. Respondent's expert witness testified that from five to ten percent of the time a "perfectly clean", "wet to wet" connection occurs in which no air bubbles appear between the blood and dye. Petitioner's expert witness testified that the physician must make absolutely certain that no gross amount of air is injected into the patient, and, relying on his view that the Respondent as the physician was the "captain of the ship," he testified that "the injection of this volume of air during the ventriculogram fell below the cardiology "standard of care." Petitioner's expert rendered his opinion based upon his examination of the hospital records. Respondent's expert rendered his opinion based upon his examination of the following: Administrative complaint with supporting documents. Dr. Allen Seals' (Petitioner's expert) report and deposition. Agency for Health Card Administration investigative report. ORMC's Code 15 report. Respondent's February 21, 1997 memo for peer review purposes. Hospital records. Death résumé. ORMC's MEDRAD policy/procedure. Experimentation with a catheter and MEDRAD injector. Respondent's expert testified that Respondent met the standard of care in the instant case because he practiced medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar circumstances. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, the undersigned rejects the expert opinion of Dr. Allen Seals, M.D., Petitioner's expert witness, and accepts as being more credible the testimony of David P. Browne, Jr., M.D., Respondent's expert witness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Respondent is not guilty of violating Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 13th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Robert D. Henry, Esquire Martin D. Buckley, Esquire Ringer, Henry & Buckley, P.A. Post Office Box 4922 Orlando, Florida 32801-4229 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Department of Health Board of Medicine 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact Manatee Eye Clinic owns land adjacent to its existing offices and in close proximity to Manatee Memorial Hospital, on which it proposes to construct a freestanding ambulatory surgery center for ophthalmic surgery. On December 13, 1983, Manatee Eye Clinic filed an application for a certificate of need with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for approval of a capital expenditure in the amount of $627,640 for construction of a freestanding ambulatory surgery center for ophthalmic surgery. On April 27, 1984, Petitioner received written notice that the Department had denied the application. Manatee Eye Clinic consists of five practicing ophthalmologists in Manatee County, each of whom are [sic] duly licensed and provide quality ophthalmic care in the area. Manatee Eye Clinic, and the members thereof, have available sufficient resources, including health manpower, management personnel, as well as funds for the capital and operating expenditures for the project. Petitioner's proposed medical facility would be constructed in a sufficiently cost-effective manner and makes adequate provision for conservation of energy resources and incorporates efficient and effective methods of construction. Should this certificate of need be granted, Manatee Eye Clinic will accept Medicaid, Medicare, third-party pay, private pay, and charity care. The relevant service area for the proposed facility is Manatee County. The five ophthalmologists at MEC perform approximately 1,200 eye surgeries per year involving cataract removal and lens implant. At present all of these surgeries are performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital. The founder of MEC, Dr. Robert E. King, has twice served as chief of surgery at Manatee Memorial. He is presently a director on the board of directors of the company that recently purchased Manatee Memorial Hospital and removed it from its former status of a not-for-profit hospital to its current status as a for-profit hospital. If this application is granted, Manatee Memorial Hospital will lose all of these patients. Cataract eye surgery, as it is performed today, is ideally performed in an outpatient surgery setting. The five ophthalmologists currently perform an additional 600 outpatient surgical procedures per year in the existing clinic. These procedures would be performed in the freestanding surgery facility if this application is approved. Manatee Memorial Hospital is located one city block from MEC. L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital, some seven miles from MEC, has five operating rooms available for outpatient surgery but is not currently used by any of the doctors at MEC. Additionally, Ambulatory Surgical Center/Bradenton was licensed in December, 1982. This facility has not been used by MEC doctors. During the latest reporting period, 1983/1984, Manatee County and the Ambulatory Surgery Center performed the following procedures; Hospital Inpatient Outpatient Total L. W. Blake Memorial Hospital 8,800 2,752 11,552 Manatee Memorial Hospital 6,766 1,654 8,420 Ambulatory Surgery Center -- 1,525 1,525 TOTALS 15,566 5,931 21,497 (Exhibit 19) There is no shortage of operating rooms in Manatee County available for outpatient surgery. Petitioner's primary argument against using the operating rooms at Manatee Memorial Hospital are: operating room nurses are rotated and this results in nurses not being as well qualified as they would be if their duties were limited to ophthalmic surgery; eye surgery is generally elective and such surgery may be bumped from a scheduled operation by emergency general surgery; the patients are generally older than 65 and are less comfortable in hospital surroundings than they would be at an outpatient surgical facility; access to the ambulatory surgical center would be easier for these elderly patients than is access to the existing hospitals for the same outpatient surgery; the hospital charges for the outpatient surgery are approximately twice the charges proposed by Petitioner; and Medicare will pay 100 percent of the charges in a freestanding surgical facility (up to a maximum) but only pays 80 percent in a hospital setting, thereby making the use of a freestanding facility cheaper for the patient and for Medicare. MEC doctors currently use their own scrub nurses during eye surgeries performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital leaving only the circulating nurse to be provided by the hospital. No incident was cited wherein one of Petitioner's patients was "bumped" from a scheduled operation. The complication rate for cataract surgery has dropped from 10 percent to 0.1 percent in recent years as surgical procedures have improved. As proposed, the partnership owning MEC will erect and own the surgery center, will lease the equipment, most of which is presently owned by MEC, to the Petitioner; and the rent for the building will be a fixed amount per month plus 50 percent of the net operating profits of Petitioner. Proposed charges by the freestanding surgery center will be $904 per patient (for cataract removal and lens implant) This does not include the surgeon's fee. There are no methodology rules to determine need for a freestanding outpatient surgery facility. DHRS has consistently determined need for ambulatory surgery centers by taking the most recent number of surgical procedures performed in all inpatient and outpatient facilities in the county and dividing it by the county's base population for the latest year, here 1983. This gives the rate of surgeries per 1,000 population for the latest year for which statistics are available and is projected forward to the second year of operation (here 1987). The same is done for outpatient surgeries. DHRS uses the figure of 29 as the percentage of surgeries that can be performed in an outpatient setting to determine the need for outpatient surgery facilities in 1987. From this is subtracted the number expected to be performed in existing hospital and freestanding outpatient facilities to determine net need through 1987 for freestanding outpatient facilities. Applying this procedure, to which Petitioner generally concurs, except for the 29 percent factor, the following need is shown. The 1983 population of Manatee County is 162,997. 21,497 surgeries performed in 1983 x 1000 4 162,997 131.9 surgeries per 1000 population. The 1987 projected population of Manatee County is 182, 120. Multiplying this population by 131.9 per 1000 equals 24,061 surgeries expected to be performed in Manatee County in 1987. HRS estimates that 29 percent of these surgeries could be performed in an outpatient setting in 1987. Multiplying 24,051 by .29 equals 6,978 outpatient procedures possible. In 1983 there were 4,406 outpatient surgeries performed in a hospital setting in Manatee for a rate per thousand of 27. Multiplying this rate by the projected population for 1987 yields 4,931 outpatient surgeries that can be performed in a hospital setting in 1987. Subtracting from this number the projected outpatient surgeries to be performed in a hospital setting in 1987 (6,978 - 4,931) shows 2,047 to be performed in a freestanding facility. Ambulatory Surgery Center performed 1,525 procedures from June, 1983, to May, 1984. When this is projected to 1987, Ambulatory Surgery Center is expected to perform 1,715 surgical procedures. Substracting this from 2,047 leaves 332 procedures as a net need through 1987. This is below the pro forma break-even point of Petitioner and indicates the project is not financially possible. The 29 percent factor was obtained from American Hospital Association report of 1981. In 1981, 18 percent of the total surgeries were done on an outpatient basis while it was estimated that 20 to 40 percent of all surgeries could be performed on an outpatient basis. DHRS averaged the 18 percent and the maximum of 40 percent to arrive a mean of 29 percent to project need for outpatient surgery facilities. The latest figures from the American Hospital Association report is for 1982 and this shows the latest percentage of surgeries performed on an outpatient basis to be 20.8 percent. If this figure is averaged with 40 percent, the mean would rise to 30.4 percent. This is the percentage Petitioner contends should be used. Using this figure, the outpatient surgeries possible in 1987 would rise to 7,315 and a need for 669 procedures would exist in 1987. This would meet the higher break-even number presented by Respondent of 556 procedures for the second year of operation. It is noted that the experts' estimated surgical procedures that could be performed in an outpatient setting varied from 20 to 40 percent. In arriving at the 29 percent used DHRS averaged the latest actual percentages available in 1981 with 40 percent to obtain an arbitrary figure of 29 percent to use in calculating need for outpatient facilities. It is further noted that between June of 1983 and May Of 1984 Manatee Memorial Hospital performed 1,654 outpatient surgery procedures and 6,766 inpatient surgery procedures (Exhibit 14) and Blake Memorial Hospital performed 2,752 outpatient surgery procedures and 8,800 inpatient surgery procedures (Exhibit 15). Accordingly, 23.8 percent of Blake's surgery procedures are done as outpatient surgery and 19.6 percent of the surgeries performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital are done as outpatient surgeries. If the 1,200 outpatient surgeries per year performed at Manatee Memorial Hospital by MEC had been removed during this period, the percentage of outpatient surgery would have been reduced to 6.3 percent for Manatee Memorial Hospital. No evidence was presented regarding the number of ophthalmic surgeries that were performed at Blake Memorial Hospital during this period. Regardless of the potential loss of outpatient surgery cases at Blake if this application is granted, the percentage of outpatient surgeries performed in a hospital setting in Manatee County is, according to the latest data available, 22.1 percent (combining Blake and Manatee Memorial). Using 29 percent of the total surgeries projected for 1987 in Manatee County to obtain an estimate of the outpatient surgery that can be expected to be performed in a hospital setting in 1987 results in a much higher figure than the current growth rate in outpatient surgeries would suggest. Accordingly, I find a 29 percent factor more credible than a higher percentage would be in forecasting need for outpatient surgical facilities in 1987. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that most ophthalmic surgery today is performed in an outpatient setting. This was not true only a few years ago. Accordingly, there can be little additional growth resulting from ophthalmic surgery procedures going from inpatient to outpatient procedures. As a consequence, future growth in outpatient surgery must come from other surgical procedures.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner's facility opened in January of 1976 as the Hubert Rutland Hospital. Its name was subsequently changed to Gateway Community Hospital and, after purchase by petitioner, it became Humana Hospital Northside. Dr. D. K. Mukherjee, Board-certified in internal medicine and cardiology, came to petitioner's facility in 1976 for the prime purpose of developing a cardiac catheterization laboratory, and assisted in preparing a list of equipment necessary to begin operation of such a laboratory. On December 31, 1976, petitioner's predecessor entered into a medical equipment service agreement for cardiac catheterization and monitoring equipment. That equipment, costing less than $100,000.00, was delivered to the hospital on or before June 17, 1977. Since that time, cardiac catheterization procedures, as defined in Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code, have been performed on a continuous and regular basis at petitioner's facility in Special Procedures Room No. 3. Over the past eight to nine years, the longest interval between the performance of such procedures has been approximately one or two weeks. Special Procedures Room No. 3, while also utilized for other purposes, has the equipment, staff and support services necessary for providing the studies and procedures associated with cardiac catheterization. The hospital itself is capable of providing the ancillary diagnostic services, such as hematology studies, electrocardiography, chest x-rays, blood-gas studies, pathology, blood chemistry analysis and nuclear studies pertaining to cardiology. Prior to July 1, 1977, Certificate of Need review was not required for the purchase of cardiac catheterization equipment by a hospital unless it involved a capital expenditure of more than $100,000.00. Commencing on July 1, 1977, Certificate of Need review was required when a health care facility sought to provide a substantial change in service, defined as a service which was not offered on a regular basis within the prior twelve-month period. Section 381.494(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-5.02(19), Florida Administrative Code. Because of technological and scientific advances, petitioner desired to replace and update the equipment purchased in 1976 for the performance of special procedures. Accordingly, in April of 1984, it submitted an application for a Certificate of Need to replace special procedures equipment at a project cost of $1,269,000.00. The application, in Section 3 stating the need and justification for the project, noted that: "Our existing equipment is totally inadequate to perform state-of-the-art cardiac catheter- ization and coronary angioplasty. When we began performing cardiac catheterization in 1977 this equipment was adequate, but today it is totally unacceptable. This proposed equipment will not only provide state-of-the- art equipment for these procedures, but will do so in a cost-effective manner since combined utilization of such high cost equip- ment contributes to the reduction of the cost of medical care." HRS issued petitioner Certificate of Need number 3261 for the replacement of special procedures equipment at a total project cost of $1,269,000.00, as requested. However, in a cover letter transmitting the issued Certificate of Need to the petitioner, HRS noted: "Please be advised that neither this office, the Office of Licensure and Certification nor the Local Health Council has documen- tation to support the performance of cardiac catheterization procedures at this hospital." Local Health Councils are private nonprofit corporations which contract with HRS to conduct local planning activities, including the collection of data, the publication of various utilization reports and the development of Local Health Plans. When HRS reviews proposed health care projects which require a Certificate of Need, it utilizes the data submitted to it by the various Local Health Councils, particularly in those instances where its rules contain a methodology or formula which includes as a factor an accounting of existing facilities or services. Application of the methodology contained in HRS's rule for determining the need for additional cardiac catheterization laboratories requires a knowledge of the number of procedures performed per year by existing and approved laboratories. Rule 10-5.11(15), Florida Administrative Code. The Health Council of Pasco/Pinellas, Inc. collects data from hospitals within Pasco and Pinellas Counties regarding bed utilization and service information. Hospitals in the district are requested to complete and submit certain information on a "Monthly Hospital Utilization Form." Among the items of information requested is the number of cardiac catheterization procedures performed during the reporting period. The Health Council also publishes and distributes annual and semi-annual utilization reports for the district. There is no provision in the statutes or rules which require hospitals to report utilization or service data to the various Local Health Councils, and HRS itself does not require that such information be reported to it. It is not unusual for hospitals to report inaccurate, incomplete or inconsistent data to Local Health Councils. Indeed, it is recognized in the "1984 Annual Hospital Utilization Report for District V Pasco/Pinellas Health Council, Inc." that, while all hospitals in the District submitted monthly hospital utilization information, "One limitation to this report involves those institutions who did not, for various reasons, submit data for beds by service categories and/or data pertaining to specialty services." HRS Exhibit F, p. 1. The form utilized by the Pasco/Pinellas Health Council contains no definition of cardiac catheterization procedures and no directions as to how to complete the form. While it has regularly submitted a monthly utilization form to the Local Health Council, petitioner has never reported the performance of cardiac catheterizations at its facility. The various reports published by the Local Health Council do not list petitioner as performing cardiac catheterization procedures. While a health care facility may obtain a written determination from HRS that a given service is exempt from Certificate of Need review due to its "grandfathered" status, there is no agency rule or policy which requires a facility to obtain such a written exemption. It has generally been the agency policy that equipment and services acquired by a facility prior to the date that such acquisition became reviewable under the Certificate of Need law are not reviewable on a retroactive basis.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, Respondent was licensed as an osteopathic physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number 050004170. Respondent practices in the field of general surgery, and at all times material to this action, Respondent was on staff as Chief of Surgery at the University Hospital, Holly Hill, Florida. The incident which gave rise to the charges herein arose on August 5, 1987 when Respondent inserted a chest tube into patient W.T.'s right chest wall so as to relieve a pneumothorax which had actually occurred in W.T.'s left lung. A pneumothorax is a pocket of air in the cavity surrounding the lung which causes the lung to contract upon itself. At all times material, Patient W.T. had a subcutaneous pacemaker on the left side of her chest. However, the evidence from all credible witnesses is consistent that pacemakers are routinely placed on either the right or left side and that there is no reasonable medical presumption that pacemakers are always placed in someone's left chest area. The subcutaneous pacemaker did not enter significantly into W.T.'s case management at University Hospital. It operated on "automatic" and since it did its job, none of the University Hospital physicians involved in W.T.'s care paid much attention to it. W.T. was admitted to University Hospital for treatment of a drug overdose on July 9, 1987. As a part of her treatment, an Ewald tube was inserted into her stomach by a physician other than the Respondent. Patient W.T. was discharged from the hospital on July 18, 1987 with a portion of the tube inadvertently left in her stomach and her esophagus. On July 21, 1987, W.T. was readmitted to University Hospital. She was suffering from septicemia and bilateral pneumonia. X-rays revealed that a portion of the tubing had not been removed. This tubing was removed by the Respondent via successful gastroesophagoscopy on July 23, 1987. At Respondent's order, W.T. was placed in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) following the removal of the tube. Dr. Desai was called in as a pulmonologist. When W.T. had been admitted to University Hospital on July 21, 1987, she already had been in a "guarded" condition. Despite successful removal of the Ewald tube, W.T.'s overall condition continued to deteriorate. Prior to the night of August 4, 1987, W.T. had developed adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) which involves a breakdown in the capillary barriers within the lung itself, resulting in a diffuse leakage of fluid throughout all of the air space of the patient's lung. Because of the patient's serious lung condition, Dr. Desai placed her on a volume respirator, and the respirator pressure (PEEP) was progressively increased during her admission until it was set at 20 PEEP at the time of the incident. Twenty PEEP is an unusually high level of respirator pressure which was necessary in this case because of the patient's severe lung problem. The volume respirator essentially breathed for the patient and involved a tube being secured in her mouth. Often, between her admission to the ICU and the date of the incident, W.T. had torn the respirator tube out of her mouth, so she had been continuously restrained and sedated to keep this from happening again. Each time W.T. had extubated herself she had been "blue coded," meaning she had suffered either cardiac arrest or shock. Whether or not W.T. weighed between 225 and 250 pounds or weighed 350- plus pounds cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of accuracy since there is equally credible evidence over the entire foregoing range of poundage. It is material, however, that by all accounts of all witnesses, W.T. was markedly and grossly obese to the extent that her size, shape, and weight contributed to her several health problems and rendered her a patient more difficult to diagnose, more difficult to x-ray, more difficult to move, and more difficult to nurse and medically attend than she would have been otherwise. The evidence as to whether W.T.'s obesity impeded medical personnel from correctly interpreting her breath sounds on August 5, 1987, the date of the incident, is divided, as is the evidence as to whether or not on that date W.T.'s pacemaker was visible to the naked eye, but upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole, it is found that on August 5, 1987, W.T.'s obesity, generally deteriorated condition, and left pneumothorax rendered the presence, volume, and location of breath in each lung subject to interpretation and "judgment call," and that unless one were specifically looking and feeling for a pacemaker, one would not necessarily have been able to detect the pacemaker in W.T.'s left chest due to the extraordinarily heavy pad of fat and the absence of scarring in that location. The foregoing finding of fact has been reached because with the exception of the complaining witness, Nurse Counihan, all factual witnesses either testified that they did not notice a pacemaker scar or they specifically noticed there was no scarring on W.T.'s chest. Also, with regard to breath sounds, both Mr. Starr and Respondent listened for W.T.'s breath sounds on the morning of the incident and within a very few minutes of each other. Mr. Starr described W.T.'s breath sounds when he entered her room as decreased on the right and absent on the left. His findings were consistent with a left pneumothorax but he never informed Respondent what he had found. Respondent arrived only a few minutes later and could not get any breath sounds from either side. Dr. O'Leary, accepted as an expert in pulmonology and the insertion of chest tubes, opined persuasively that one could not rely on breath sounds to locate which side the pneumothorax was on in the face of a recent x-ray. Also, the use of the respirator could have been misleading to either or both Mr. Starr or Respondent. X-rays taken of W.T.'s chest at least ten times between July 23, 1987 and July 31, 1987 clearly depict that the pacemaker was on the left side of W.T.'s chest. These x-rays were reviewed by Respondent with a radiologist the day before the events which are the focus of these charges took place. The radiology reports of W.T.'s chest x-rays dated July 25, 1987, July 28, 1987, and July 31, 1987 specifically mention the pacemaker but only the report dated July 28, 1987 states that the pacemaker overlies the left thorax. Respondent did not review any narrative reports when he and the radiologist were reviewing the actual x-rays together. There is no evidence that this procedure was outside the appropriate standard of care. Dr. Dworkin, expert in radiology and quality assurance and review, Dr. O'Leary, and Dr. Rosin, Petitioner's internal medicine expert, all testified that it is not below the professional standard of care for a treating physician to forget within a day after such an x-ray review which side a pacemaker is on unless the pacemaker enters significantly into his treatment of the patient, which in this case it did not. By the early morning hours of August 5, 1987, W.T. had become even more critically ill with multiple system failures, including a failure in the cardiopulmonary systems, a neurological deficit, and failure of her renal functions. The mortality rate of a patient suffering from ARDS, without considering the other conditions from which W.T. was suffering, exceeds 50%, and responsible medical retrospective estimates made at formal hearing of W.T.'s specific survival chances in the early morning hours of August 5, 1987 fall in the 10-50% range. During the early morning hours of August 5, 1987, the nurses on duty in ICU were having trouble maintaining W.T.'s blood pressure. They began telephoning Dr. Desai and Respondent at approximately 4:00 a.m. One of those doctors, most probably Dr. Desai, ordered a portable chest x-ray of W.T., which was accomplished at 6:30 a.m. by Josephine Christnagel, R.T., who is a registered x-ray technologist. At the time this x-ray was performed, W.T. was already in critical condition and could not speak or respond. W.T.'s condition was such that she probably was not salvageable when Respondent arrived on the scene at 7:00 a.m. on August 5, 1987. Unbeknownst to anyone at this point in time, the 6:30 a.m. x-ray had been inadvertently mislabeled by Ms. Christnagel so that the left side of the patient's chest appeared on the x-ray with a lead marker, "R" (for "right") , on it. This chest x-ray revealed that W.T. had a pneumothorax, and because it was mislabeled, the pneumothorax appeared to be on the right side. If a chest tube is properly inserted from the outside chest wall on the side of the pneumothorax, into the chest cavity, the air can be released and the lung can re-expand, delivering oxygen to the patient and raising blood pressure to normal. At all times material on August 4-5, 1987, the ranking ICU nurse on W.T.'s case was Carey Beninger ne' Counihan, R.N. The ICU nurses notified Dr. Desai by phone of the pneumothorax and he, in turn, notified Respondent. Because Respondent was more nearly ready to go to the hospital, Respondent rushed to the hospital to insert a chest tube into W.T., treatment which he and Dr. Desai, the attending pulmonologist, had agreed was the appropriate treatment for W.T.'s pneumothorax. For the reasons given infra with regard to the time the nurses' notes were compiled and Nurse Counihan's confusion over the x-ray itself, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent was ever told by Dr. Desai or by the nurses by phone that the pneumothorax was on W.T.'s left side (the correct side). Even if Respondent had been so informed by Dr. Desai, since Dr. Desai had never seen the x-ray, it still would have been appropriate for Respondent to rely on the x-ray itself once he got to the hospital, unless at the hospital, something or someone clearly alerted him to the fact that the pneumothorax was actually on the left side. At approximately 7:00 a.m., just prior to the arrival of Respondent, Dr. Michael Danzig, D.O., who was the day-shift emergency room doctor, and Wesley Starr, R.P.T., a respiratory therapist, arrived at ICU and entered W.T.'s room. At approximately the time they arrived, the night-shift emergency room doctor, Dr. Haas, left the room. By all accounts, there was a continuing "commotion," a "ruckus," or "an emergency situation" in progress with at least two nurses, including Nurse Counihan, and other personnel providing various therapies to W.T. who had no palpable blood pressure and was in shock. This atmosphere continued after Respondent arrived shortly thereafter, with the nurses' and Mr. Starr's attention directed to care of the patient. When Respondent arrived, Dr. Danzig became, essentially, an observer. Upon arrival at W.T.'s room, Respondent examined the 6:30 a.m. x-ray against a window with daylight showing through. The x-ray, as it was mismarked, showed a massive tension pneumothorax on W.T.'s right side and a pacemaker on the same side, the right. After review of the x-ray, Respondent examined W.T., including listening for breath sounds. He heard nothing significant from either lung. Dr. O'Leary's opinion that such a finding was not unusual and that Respondent could not rely on either his own examination of breath sounds or that of Mr. Starr (had he even known of Mr. Starr's hearing breath sounds on the right but not the left) at that point is persuasive. Under these circumstances, breath sounds would not have alerted Respondent to a mislabeled x-ray. Respondent relied on the mislabeled x-ray and began to prep the right side of the patient for the chest tube. As Respondent began to prep W.T.'s right side, a dispute arose between himself and Nurse Counihan. Having weighed and evaluated all the testimony and the documentary evidence and exhibits, having reconciled that evidence which can be reconciled, and having eliminated that evidence which is not credible, it is found that the most credible version of this dispute is that Nurse Counihan asked Respondent why he was prepping the right side if W.T. had a left pneumothorax, and Respondent replied, "No, it isn't. Look at the x-ray." To this, Nurse Counihan said, "Yes, it is. I'm sure of it," and pointed to the lung on the x-ray which did not show a pneumothorax (the side next to the nameplate and the side without either a pacemaker or a pneumothorax). Respondent said, "No, it isn't. Look at the damn x-ray!" Respondent then proceeded to intubate on the right side while referring frequently to the mislabeled x-ray. In making the foregoing finding, it is noted that there were significant differences between the testimony of Nurse Counihan and all other witnesses, both factual and expert. Nurse Counihan deposed/testified that both she and another nurse had pointed out to Respondent that the patient's pacemaker was on the patient's left side and so was the pneumothorax. The other three factual witnesses, Starr, Danzig, and Respondent, all testified that they have no recollection whatsoever of anyone mentioning a pacemaker. Even Wesley Starr, called by the Petitioner, and who was present in W.T.'s room at the head of the patient's bed throughout the time of these discussions, testified that, to the best of his recollection, no one mentioned a pacemaker and that he did not recall anyone except Nurse Counihan challenging the Respondent's prepping W.T.'s right side. Also, Dr. Danzig, who was present in the room during the argument, and who testified that he had placed over 200 chest tubes during the course of his medical residency training, testified that if Nurse Counihan had, indeed, mentioned a pacemaker, he would have intervened in order to assist Respondent in determining the correct side of the pneumothorax. Although Petitioner asserted that Dr. Danzig is not credible due to his friendship with Respondent, that argument is not persuasive both due to the remoteness and degree of the friendship and Dr. Danzig's insistence that if Respondent should say that Nurse Counihan pointed to the side of the x-ray showing the pacemaker, then Respondent would be wrong. Respondent apparently did not review W.T.'s records either before or after the dispute with Nurse Counihan. These records were either in her room or elsewhere in the ICU unit, but since, at that point, the nurses' notes had not been compiled from their scratch pads to the patient's chart since before 4:00 a.m., there was nothing in W.T.'s chart/records to alert Respondent that the x- ray was mislabeled or that the patient had a pneumothorax on the left side even if he had reviewed the record. Also, he would have had to go back to the July 31 x-ray or the July 28 radiology narrative before he could have discovered that the pacemaker was on the left. This would have been very time consuming. Also, Dr. Danzig, who actually had made a cursory review of the patient's records when he first arrived in the room, was not alerted by Nurse Counihan's words or her pointing to the x-ray to any reason to search the records for information about the pacemaker. In further assessing Nurse Counihan's testimony, the undersigned has weighed in her favor the consistency of her recent deposition testimony with her notes and the incident report which she completed within five hours after the intubation incident on August 5, 1987. However, weighing against her credibility with regard to her statements then and now that she told Respondent that the pacemaker was on W.T.'s left side is the fact that even her August 5, 1987 report and notes were prepared in the glow of a hindsight favorable to her position and that her deposition shows that she is confused about how a pneumothorax appears on an x-ray. Reconciling all the testimony one can, it is remotely possible that Nurse Counihan said, "It is a left pneumothorax," while pointing to the lung shown on the x-ray as not having a pneumothorax and which, due to the "R" marker on the other lung could be inferred to be the left lung. It is even remotely possible (although not probable or persuasive given the three other factual witnesses' testimony that she had never mentioned a pacemaker) that Nurse Counihan could have told the Respondent, "The pneumothorax is on the same side as the pacemaker," which also was consistent with the x-ray as mislabeled. However, upon the credible evidence as a whole, the only reasonable conclusion is that if Nurse Counihan did mention a pacemaker at the time of her dispute with Respondent, she was ineffective in clearly conveying to Respondent or to anyone else in the room that the pacemaker and the pneumothorax were on the patient's left side or that there was any reason to further search the records or the patient's body to resolve the dispute. It is uncontroverted that, prior to the insertion of the chest tube in W.T.'s right side, absolutely no one, including Nurse Counihan, was aware that the x-ray was reversed, and that Ms. Counihan never informed the Respondent that the x-ray was reversed. Respondent's testimony is accepted that upon placement of the chest tube in W.T.'s right side (the side without the pneumothorax) he heard an immediate audible gush of air. That others in the room did not hear this rush of air is understandable due to the noise and confusion in the room, particularly the respirator sounds. Also, it is uncontroverted that upon placement of the chest tube in W.T.'s right side, the patient's blood pressure, which had been zero, immediately rose into normal range. A dramatic and rapid reestablishment of the patient's blood pressure is the expected result of a proper placement of a chest tube with a tension pneumothorax. All health care personnel present seem to have regarded the blood pressure stabilization as proof that the Respondent had placed the chest tube on the correct side of the patient, because no one, including Nurse Counihan, thereafter protested that a misplacement had occurred. Release of pressure and a return in blood pressure is not normally associated with placement of a chest tube in the wrong side of a patient and there is no definitive medical explanation of why it occurred in this instance, despite Dr. O'Leary's speculation that the gush of air could have been a leak of air across the Mediastrum. After placement of the chest tube in the patient's right side, Respondent ordered an immediate repeat chest x-ray to be certain the tube was placed in the correct lung and was placed correctly. After the patient's blood pressure had been reestablished, Dr. Danzig left the intensive care unit because he believed that the pneumothorax had been relieved completely and because the patient was now stable. If W.T. had not been stable, Dr. Danzig would have remained in the room since he was the day- shift emergency room doctor and he did not know if any physicians other than Respondent and himself were even in the hospital yet. After securing the chest tube and dressing the chest, Respondent left the floor and went to the operating room (OR) to notify the OR staff that there would be a delay before he could begin previously scheduled surgery. Thereafter, on his way to check the new x-ray he had just ordered, Respondent met Ms. Christnagel, who was bringing it to him. Ms. Christnagel then informed Respondent that she had mislabeled the 6:30 a.m. preintubation x-ray. Respondent simultaneously reviewed the new, postintubation x-ray and discovered that he had placed the chest tube in the wrong side of W.T.'s chest. At approximately the same time, W.T.'s blood pressure again dropped and a "code blue" was called. Dr. Gloria Mikula, M.D., who happened to be in the ICU at the time W.T. coded, "ran the code" to attempt to reestablish the patient's blood pressure. Throughout the time in which Dr. Mikula was running the code on this patient, no one, including Nurse Counihan, said anything to the effect that W.T. may have had a chest tube placed in the wrong side. In fact, the nursing staff did not even inform Dr. Mikula that this patient had had a pneumothorax and chest tube insertion prior to the code being called. Such information would have been important from a medical standpoint because it would have allowed Dr. Mikula to act immediately to relieve the tension in the patient's chest. Immediately upon reviewing the repeat chest x-ray and upon hearing the announcement of the code blue at the same time, Respondent rushed back to W.T.'s room, placed a chest tube in the patient's left side, and the patient's blood pressure was again reestablished. However, some time later in her hospitalization, W.T. expired. Nurse Counihan's failure to say anything to Dr. Mikula about the pneumothorax is further indicative of her immediate satisfaction that Respondent's intubation on the right side had been acceptable and that it was only after he discovered his error through the new x-ray and correctly intubated W.T. on the left side that Nurse Counihan completed her notes and incident report describing his error for the chart. The notes were transposed from her scratch pad and memory at approximately noon, August 5, 1987. Dr. Rosin, Petitioner's expert in internal medicine, criticized Respondent's performance as below the professional standard of care because he felt that once Respondent was made aware in the patient's room by Nurse Counihan that the pneumothorax could be on the patient's left side, Respondent had an obligation to make further inquiry or investigation before inserting the chest tube in the patient's right side. In Dr. Rosin's opinion, Respondent's investigation could have taken several routes: review of earlier x-rays and the patient's record, further conversation with the nurse, further hands-on examination of the patient for signs of the pacemaker, and/or ordering a new x- ray. Although Dr. Rosin testified that Respondent should have ordered a repeat x-ray so as to resolve the dispute with Nurse Counihan before inserting the chest tube on W.T.'s right side, he also conceded that the only possible adverse effect of the decision Respondent made was the delay in relieving W.T.'s condition. The chest intubation involved is not a benign or casual procedure, but no actual harm occasioned by misplacement of the chest tube was demonstrated in this case, and the maximum amount of time which would have been saved, under Dr. Rosin's approach, would have been that short period of time it took for the Respondent to place the chest tube and dress the wound. Under the circumstances, if Respondent had delayed intubation, W.T. would probably have "coded blue" before the correctly labelled chest x-ray could have been performed anyway. In light of the confused state of the patient's breath sounds, obesity, and lack of scarring, the fact that no nurses' notes had been codified since before 4:00 a.m., Nurse Counihan's own confusion about the mismarked x-ray, and how far back in the patient's chart Respondent would have had to look before he would have been able to locate anything useful about the pacemaker, it is found that Respondent behaved reasonably in an emergency situation, and Dr. O'Leary's and Dr. Dworkin's expert opinions that he did not violate the professional standard of care in the first insertion of the chest tube are accepted. It is also found that the Respondent's procedure in ordering the new chest x-ray and leaving the room after the first intubation without further search of the records or further conversation in the room was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Osteopathic Physicians enter a Final Order dismissing all charges against Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of July, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 25th day of July, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a Certificate of Need ("CON") authorizing establishment of an (ophthalmological) ambulatory surgical center in Palm Beach County, Florida. Subordinate issues are: Whether the proposed facility satisfies the CON criteria of Sections 381.494-499, Florida Statutes, as implemented by Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS) rule and non-rule policy; Whether the proposed facility will result in unnecessary duplication of services, underutilization of existing services and increased health care costs to the community; Whether adequate resources are available for the construction and operation of the proposed facility; and Whether the proposed facility is financially feasible.
Findings Of Fact (Numbering corresponds to numbering used in proposed findings.) Preliminary findings: 1-4. Approved. On issue of compliance with applicable criteria: 1-7. Approved. 8. Approved, with caveat that this is subject to supplying an adequate record basis for the policy at hearing. 9-13 Approved. Approved but no presumption of correctness attaches to HRS earlier or more recent evaluation of the application. See, Boca Raton, supra. Approved. Approved but modified to more accurately reflect that HRS takes HMO's into account, but this factor was not used or relied on (in connection with the non-rule policy or standing alone) as the basis for granting Petitioner's application. Approved. 18-32. Approved, in the sense that an HRS expert witness at hearing offered conclusions as to compliance with each statutory criteria; rejected, in that his conclusions (except for those concerning quality of care, financial feasibility, the inapplicability of some criteria, and the cost advantages of modifying an existing facility instead of constructing a new one) are rejected as unsubstantiated by the facts. On the Issue of Need: 1-8. Approved. Approved. Modified to reflect that this is one estimate among several offered by experts. Rejected as unsupported by the credible evidence of record. Approved. Approved. First sentence, approved, in that this is the stated "attempt" of HRS' challenged non-rule policy. Second sentence, rejected as unsupported by the credible evidence; the profitable performance of outpatient surgery at a physician's office does logically compel a conclusion that his office should be licensed as an ambulatory surgical facility. On the issue of adequate resources: 1-8. Approved. On the issue of financial feasibility: 1-19 Approved. 20. Rejected as argumentative. RULINGS ON INTERVENOR'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1-4. Approved. 5. Approved except for reference to equipment costs, of which there will be none. 9-16 Approved. 17. Such broad-brush incorporation of all facts asserted in argument is not susceptible to explicit rulings. RULINGS ON POST-HEARING MOTIONS. Intervenor's "Motion to Stay Issuance of Recommended Order" is denied. Intervenor's "Request for Hearing Officer to Take Official Recognition" of the Final Order of Hearing Officer Robert T. Benton II, in consolidated DOAH Case Nos. 85-2962R, 85-2963R and 85-3193R (attached to a "Notice of Supplemental Authority" dated November 1, 1985) is granted. The order is made a part of the record of this proceeding. A final order entered by another hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings the authenticity of which is not in question, is an appropriate document to be accorded official recognition. See, Health Quest Realty XII v. HRS, 10 FLW 1729 (Fla. 1st DCA July 16, 1985, pet. for reh. pending). COPIES FURNISHED: Eric B. Tilton, Esquire 104 S. Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Theodore E. Mack, Esquire 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee Florida 32301 William B. Wiley, Esquire Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316
Recommendation Based on the foegoing it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for a CON authorizing establishment of an ambulatory surgical facility at his offices in Palm Beach County, Florida, be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 15th day of January, 1986.
