The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on February 6, 2003, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving chiropractic physicians licensed to practice in Florida. Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been licensed in Florida since 1985. Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice has not been previously disciplined. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Practice. At the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld operated Foundation Chiropractic (hereinafter referred to as "Foundation"), a chiropractic clinic located in West Palm Beach, Florida. Foundation employees three individuals, in addition to Dr. Mitzelfeld's wife, daughter, father, and mother.2 It is, and was at the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld's practice to open the offices of Foundation between 5:15 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day the clinic was open.3 Dr. Mitzelfeld opened the clinic early in order to see patients who needed adjustments prior to reporting to their jobs. Once Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door at Foundation, the door remained unlocked and open to the public. After Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door and before staff arrived, whenever anyone arrived at Foundation and opened the front door, a buzzer or bell sounded to announce their arrival. Dr. Mitzelfeld established and maintained an "open- door" policy at Foundation. Pursuant to this policy, the doors to all of the treatment rooms at Foundation remained open at all times and staff were allowed to enter a treatment room at any time. Dr. Mitzelfeld did not as a matter of course, however, have a staff member present whenever he was seeing a female patient. The evidence failed to prove that, even though the front door of Foundation was unlocked at all times relevant to this matter and Dr. Mitzelfeld maintained an open-door policy, Dr. Mitzelfeld could not have from engaged in the conduct described in this Recommended Order. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Treatment of Patient C.H. On or about September 6, 2001 Dr. Mitzelfeld began treating patient C.H. C.H., a female, earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1992, and was, therefore, in all likelihood in her 30's during the times relevant to this matter. During the period of time that Dr. Mitzelfeld was treating C.H., he was also treating C.H.'s husband.4 From the time that C.H. began coming to Foundation until approximately January of 2002, C.H. was seen by Dr. Mitzelfeld during the afternoon, when staff and other patients were present. Most often, her appointments were at approximately 3:00 p.m. In approximately January 2002 C.H.'s appointment time was moved, at her request, to the early morning, before staff arrived. C.H. began arriving at approximately 6:30 a.m. for treatments and, although on occasion there were one or two individuals in the waiting room, she usually saw no one else at Foundation other than Dr. Mitzelfeld during her appointments. After C.H. began seeing Dr. Mitzelfeld in the early morning, their relationship began to change from that of a purely doctor-patient relationship to a more personal one. Their conversations started to become more personal and, gradually, they became verbally flirtatious. For example, Dr. Mitzelfeld began to tell C.H. that she was pretty and that she looked good in whatever she was wearing. Dr. Mitzelfeld's personal comments were welcomed by C.H. She responded by telling him personal things about her life, telling him that her marriage was "terrible," that her husband no longer slept in the same room with her, and that they no longer had sexual relations. Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments to C.H. continued to become more flirtatious and suggestive. Among other things, he told her that he found her attractive and that he could not understand why her husband did not find her attractive and desirable. He also told her that, if her were married to her, "I would treat you so good and I would definitely be sleeping in the same bed with you and I'd be making love to you every night." Lines 11-14, Page 69, Transcript of June 19, 2003. As C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld became verbally flirtatious, C.H. began to perceive that the manner that Dr. Mitzelfeld touched her was no longer just professional, but more personal and intimate, a change she welcomed. The change in their relationship was not unwelcome to C.H. C.H. believed, without having discussed the matter directly with Dr. Mitzelfeld, that they "had a relationship" and that she "was in love with him and [she] thought he was in love with [her]." Lines 22-24, Page 67, Transcript of June 19, 2003. C.H. naively believed that the physical lust they were experiencing, amounted to something more emotionally meaningful. In approximately February 2002 Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that he wanted to give her a hug after her treatment. They hugged and he kissed her on the cheek. After that, they hugged after each visit. Over time, their hugs became more lasting and intimate, with Dr. Mitzelfeld eventually becoming aroused to the point where he had an erection and "he would rub it all over [C.H.]." Lines 11-12, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. Dr. Mitzelfeld began performing a new treatment on C.H. for her upper back where she held her arms out to the side, he lifted her up from behind, and her body rested against his. Dr. Mitzelfeld would become aroused during these treatments; his penis would become erect.5 The increased intimacy between C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld, was not unwelcome to C.H., because". . . it was very obvious we were very attracted to each other and there was chemistry." C.H. was "happy about it. I mean, I was attracted to him so it didn't bother me at all." Lines 14-15, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. On May 9, 2002, during a prolonged hug, C.H. kissed Dr. Mitzelfeld on the cheek, then quickly on the mouth, and then passionately on the mouth, a kiss which Dr. Mitzelfeld returned. C.H. continued to naively believe that she was in love with Dr. Mitzelfeld and, although he had not said so, that he was in love with her. She took time prior to each visit to look as good as she could, doing her hair, nails, and make-up, and carefully selecting what she would wear, all in an effort to please Dr. Mitzelfeld and further the relationship she believed they had. On May 13, 2002, C.H. saw Dr. Mitzelfeld for the first time after the May 9th kiss. During this visit, Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that they should not let anything like the kiss happen again "because if it does, [my] hands are going to start traveling and [your] clothes are going to come off." C.H.'s next visit was the morning of May 16, 2002. After receiving her adjustment, C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld began hugging and kissing passionately. Dr. Mitzelfeld put his hand down C.H.'s jeans and she began to rub his penis through his clothes with her hand. After a while, C.H. told Dr. Mitzelfeld that she "wanted to do something to him" although she did not specify what. Dr. Mitzelfeld took her by the hand and led her into a bathroom, locking the door behind them. Given the circumstances, Dr. Mitzelfeld correctly assumed that what C.H. wanted to do to him was sexual. Once in the bathroom, they continued to hug and kiss while she attempted to pull down his pants so that she could perform fellatio on him. He eventually pulled his pants down for her and C.H. began to fellate him. While she did, Dr. Mitzelfeld told her to "take it deep, baby." C.H. caused Dr. Mitzelfeld to have an orgasm, after which he told her repeatedly how much he had enjoyed it. She told him that next time she would bring whipped cream. Eventually, Dr. Mitzelfeld, having been sexually satisfied, realized the possible consequences of what had happened and told C.H. that what had just happened should not have; and that he had a great marriage and that he loved his wife. Dr. Mitzelfeld became cold and distant. Dr. Mitzelfeld knew that what had happened was unethical. C.H. left Foundation upset and, because of Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments and cold treatment of her, she spoke with a neighbor and her mental health counselor and told both what had happened. Her mental health counselor told her that what had happened was unethical and that she should report it. C.H., however, was not yet realized that Dr. Mitzelfeld did not have deep emotional feelings for her. By the next morning, May 17, 2002, C.H. had recovered from her concern over Dr. Mitzelfeld's reaction the day before and convinced herself that they indeed had a relationship. C.H. naively believed that Dr. Mitzelfeld had to have feelings for her because they had engaged in a sexual act. She decided to surprise him with an unscheduled visit to his office. C.H. dressed in a black negligee which she covered with a denim dress. She entered Foundation at approximately 6:30 a.m. She did not sign in upon arrival,6 which she normally did when she arrived for a scheduled appointment. She had not come to Foundation that morning for any medical treatment. Dr. Mitzelfeld, who was upstairs in his loft-like office, came downstairs to see who had come in and met C.H.. When he asked what she was doing there that morning, she told him she had something to show him, walked up the stairs to his office, taking off her dress as she went and leaving it on the stairs, and waited for him wearing only the negligee and black high- heeled shoes. She intended to engage in sexual intercourse with him. When Dr. Mitzelfeld came into his office and saw C.H. standing there, he told her that they could not do anything like they had done the day before. Dr. Mitzelfeld had realized that what he had done was unethical and he told C.H. so. He also told her that he could be in trouble for the incident, a prophetic comment. Dr. Mitzelfeld also told her that they could not kiss, hug, or have any other sexual contact again. Dismayed and confused, C.H. dressed, as Dr. Mitzelfeld instructed her, and left the Foundation, never to return. Later the same day, Dr. Mitzelfeld discussed C.H. with a colleague, Dr. Robert McLaughlin. Dr. Mitzelfeld asked Dr. McLaughlin for advice about what he should do about a patient, C.H., who had become agitated when he rejected her sexual advances. Dr. McLaughlin correctly advised Dr. Mitzelfeld that he should discontinue any doctor-patient relationship with C.H., an act which Dr. Mitzelfeld should have taken earlier when his relationship with C.H. started to become more than just a doctor-patient relationship.7 Dr. Mitzelfeld did not admit the events found is this Recommended Order to Dr. McLaughlin. Upset, disappointed, and angry about her May 17, 2002, visit with Dr. Mitzelfeld, C.H. reported the foregoing incidents to the Department on May 22, 2002, after finally realizing that her relationship with Dr. Mitzelfeld was based upon lust and not some deeper emotional feeling. The Department's Administrative Complaint and Dr. Mitzelfeld's Request for Hearing. On February 6, 2003, after investigating C.H.'s allegations, the Department filed a one-count Administrative Complaint against Dr. Mitzelfeld before the Board alleging that he had committed "sexual misconduct" in the chiropractic physician-patient relationship, which is prohibited by Section 460.412 and, therefore, that he had violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), which provides that "[v]iolating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto" constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. On or about March 18, 2003, Dr. Mitzelfeld, through counsel, filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings, indicating that he disputed the allegations of fact contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(a). On March 19, 2003, the matter was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, with a request that an administrative law judge be assigned the case. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 03-0946PL and was assigned to the undersigned. C.H.'s Legal Name. At the times relevant to this proceeding and up until May 21, 2003, C.H.'s legal name was S.C.H.H. The "C" in her legal name and the last "H" are the same names in "C.H.," the name that she has gone by during the times material to this case and throughout this proceeding. When sworn in during her deposition in this matter on May 13, 2003, rather than stating that her name was S.C.H.H. she stated that her name was C.H. She did so simply because she has always gone by the name C.H. The evidence failed to prove that, because of her technical error, her testimony in this matter was not believable. On May 21, 2003, C.H.'s name was changed to C.S.L. as a result of her divorce. Throughout this proceeding, including when she was sworn in on June 19, 2003, to testify at the final hearing of this matter, she indicated that her name was C.H. Again, it is concluded that her technical error was insufficient to conclude that her testimony in this matter was not believable. C.H.'s Use of Prescription Medicines. At all times material to this matter, C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. The evidence failed to prove why C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. C.H. was prescribed and has taken Wellbutrin, Adderall, and Serzone. She also was prescribed and took Zolof for a period of two months. While these drugs, taken singly or in combination may have serious side effects,8 including hallucinations, the evidence failed to prove that C.H. had any such side effects. While C.H. admitted taking the drugs in question, the evidence failed to prove that she took them during the times at issue in this matter or, if she did, what dosage she took them in. Finally, while the evidence proved that C.H. has suffered from a number of maladies, the evidence failed to prove whether she was suffering from those maladies between September 6, 2001, and the date of C.H.'s testimony at final hearing or that any of her medical problems affected in any way her memory or truthfulness in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine finding that Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., has violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), by violating Section 460.412, as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint; suspending Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice chiropractic medicine for a period of three months from the date the final order becomes final; requiring the payment of a $1,000.00 administrative fine within a reasonable time after the final order is issued; placing Dr. Mitzelfeld's license on probation for a period of two years; requiring that Dr. Mitzelfeld attend ethics courses relating to the practice of chiropractic medicine as it relates to sexual misconduct, as directed by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine; and requiring the presence of a third person during any examination and treatment by Dr. Mitzelfeld of any female patient during his probation and for a period of not less than ten years thereafter. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 28th day of August, 2003.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Patrick Dennis (Petitioner) should be granted additional credit for any physical diagnosis practical examination questions which he answered on the May, 1990, chiropractic examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (Respondent), or whether, in the alternative, he should be permitted to retake the chiropractic practical examination at no additional charge.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a graduate of the New York Chiropractic College, is licensed to practice chiropractic in New York and New Jersey, and is seeking licensure as a chiropractor in the State of Florida. He took the chiropractic practical examination administered by the Respondent in May, 1990, receiving grades of 96.6% in X-ray interpretation, 95.3% in technique, and 63.75% in physical diagnosis. A grade of 75% on each portion of the practical examination is required to pass. After receiving notification that he had failed the examination, Petitioner timely requested a hearing to determine if he should be granted additional credit on this practical exam. It was established that the practical exam was properly administered, appropriate standardization procedures were followed, and each examiner independently graded Petitioner's exam, and was qualified to serve as an examiner. At hearing, the Petitioner solely disputed the score he received in the content areas of general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. A four point scoring system is used on the practical examination. A score of 4 means that the candidate demonstrated an exceptional knowledge and understanding of the subject area; a score of 3 represents an adequate understanding; a score of 2 indicates an inadequate knowledge of the subject area; and a score of 1 indicates that the candidate would be a danger to the public if allowed to practice in that particular subject area. If a grader feels that the candidate's answer demonstrates a degree of knowledge that is between two of these scores, a .5 credit can be given. This is a subjective, rather than an objective, scoring system that requires each examiner to use his own judgment in evaluating the completeness of a candidate's response; generally, there are no simple right or wrong answers to practical exam questions. In arriving at a candidate's overall percentage score, a score of 4 equals 100 points, a score of 3 equals 75 points, 2 equals 50 points, and 1 equals 25 points. A .5 score equals 12.5 points. For example, a score of 3.5 would equal 87.5 points. Each content area of the practical exam is weighted equally, and there were 5 content areas in the May, 1990, chiropractic practical exam. Two examiners are used to score each candidate's practical examination, and the scores given by each examiner are then averaged to give the candidate's overall grade. In this instance, out of a possible 4 credits, the Petitioner received a grade of 1 and 1.5 from his two examiners in general physical examination, and grades of 1.5 and 2 from the examiners in laboratory diagnosis. In this case, the Petitioner has presented challenges to the grades he received on these two content areas of the practical exam, general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. Since there are five portions of the physical diagnosis exam, and an average of 75%, or an average score of 3, is required to pass the examination, a cumulative average score of 15 (3 points times the 5 exam areas) is required. The Petitioner's cumulative average score was 12.75, or 2.25 points short of passage. Thus, he would have to receive an increase of 2.25 points in the average of the grades he received from the two examiners on the general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis portions of the exam, in order to receive an overall passing score. Regarding the general physical examination content area, the Petitioner was asked to describe how a prostate examination should be conducted. Petitioner understood that this was a rectal exam, but he testified that he was not trained to perform such examinations at New York Chiropractic College, and he had not seen one performed. Therefore, he could not, and did not, describe how to perform a prostate exam. The evidence is conflicting concerning whether New York Chiropractic College offered instruction in prostate examinations. The Petitioner testified that such instruction was not offered, but Dr. Todd Zazulia, who graduated from that college in 1978 and who is a licensed Florida chiropractor, testified that such instruction was offered at New York Chiropractic College. Documentary evidence received from the Dean of Academic Affairs at New York Chiropractic College, Dr. Anthony Onorato, confirms Dr. Zazulia's testimony. Dr. Salvatore D. LaRusso graduated from this same college in 1984, after Petitioner and Dr. Zazulia, and he testified that instruction in the examination of the prostate was not offered at that time. The Petitioner testified that he was taught to recognize signs and symptoms associated with prostate problems since they cause lower back pains, and that he was taught laboratory tests that would signify prostatic problems. He admitted that he felt an obligation to recognize potential problems from signs and symptoms associated with the prostate. The greater weight of the evidence supports the Respondent's position that the Petitioner was offered instruction in signs and symptoms of prostate problems, as well as rectal prostatic examinations, at New York Chiropractic College. Therefore, the Petitioner has failed to establish that he should not have been asked a question about prostate examinations on his practical examination. The Respondent introduced competent substantial evidence to establish that some chiropractors in Florida do perform prostate examinations, and that this practice is within the recognized scope of practice of chiropractic in Florida. Although a substantial number of chiropractors in Florida do not perform this examination, and although there is evidence that it is a violation of chiropractic licensing statutes and rules in a majority of states for chiropractors to perform prostate examinations, nevertheless there is no evidence that the Florida Board of Chirporactic has adopted any rule or taken any action against any chiropractor in Florida for performing such examinations. In fact, Dr. Phil Leon, a licensed Florida chiropractor and licensure examiner, testified that he has asked a question about prostatic examinations of almost every applicant he has examined over the past five years. Documentary evidence submitted by the Respondent from other examiners confirms Dr. Leon's testimony that such questions are a regular part of the chiropractic practical examination in Florida, and also indicates that prostatic examinations are covered on the exam given by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Even Dr. Thomas P. Toia, who was called on behalf of the Petitioner, testified that the ability to recognize prostate problems is within the scope of the practice of chiropractic, and that prostate examinations are an authorized chiropractic procedure. Based on the evidence in the record, it is found that the Petitioner has not established that the grades he received on the general physical exam content area of the practical examination were arbitrary or capricious. Dr. Leon testified that he gave the Petitioner a grade of 1.5 because he did not know where the prostate was, could not describe how to perform a prostate examination, and did not evidence an awareness or understanding of the fact that pain in the low back area could be related to the prostate. Dr. Zazulia testified that he also would have given the Petitioner a grade of 1.5. Dr. Toia testified that when a candidate has no knowledge about a particular question, a grade of 1 is appropriate. Regarding the exam content area of laboratory diagnosis, the Petitioner was asked to identify the tests that should be given to diagnose gonorrhea and lupus. For gonorrhea, the Petitioner identified the chocolate agar test, and for lupus, the Petitioner identified the antinuclear antibody test (ANA). While these are correct answers, the Petitioner's grades in this content area were lowered to 1.5 and 2 by the two examiners because he failed to mention an additional test which can also detect systemic lupus, the LE prep test, and he failed to describe how the lab samples are taken and how these tests are performed in the laboratory. Based upon the evidence in the record, it is found that Petitioner has not established that the grades he received on the laboratory diagnosis content area were arbitrary or capricious. While Dr. Toia testified that he would have given the Petitioner higher grades on this content area, Dr. Zazulia supported the grades given. Dr. Zazulia testified that the Petitioner's failure to inform the patient about what they were likely to expect at the lab when they had the tests performed, and his inability to differentiate the test for gonorrhea as a smear, swab or blood test would result in a grade of 1.5. Because systemic lupus affects almost every system of the body, the Petitioner's failure to identify the LE prep test for complete screening was significant and would result in a grade of 2. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the grades which the Petitioner received on the laboratory diagnosis content area of the practical exam.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grades he received on the May, 1990, chiropractic practical examination in the content areas of general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. This is a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. 2-4. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 1 and 5. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 3, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as simply an excerpt of testimony and not a proposed finding. Rejected as citations to statutes and rules and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 9, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 15-16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected in Findings 8-10. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 8. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Adopted in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 21-23. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Findings 11 and 12. Copies furnished: Lawrence J. Langer, Esquire 400 Executive Center Drive Suite 210 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material here to, Respondent has been a chiropractic physician licensed under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent placed the following ad, which appeared in the Miami Herald newspaper on Sunday, November 8, 1981, only: DRUGS? (note: A picture of Dr. is on the original document on file HEART PROBLEMS with the Clerk's Office.) HEADACHES Dr. Bob Bacher DIABETES Director HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE SKIN PROBLEMS 15.27 billion dollars spent in drug storeslast year. This does not include other sources, such as hospitals, clinics, etc; How can your lives be normal depending on drugs? To take a pill each day is dependency. Dependency is addiction. Pushed or prescribed you are an addict. Chiropractic can free you from drug dependency. Chiropractic finds the cause of sickness, corrects it, and allows the life within to heal the body. Come talk to us. We will tell you what you can do to get well and then it's up to you. \ALL CASES ACCEPTED REGARDLESS OF ABILITY TO PAY/ \ / We Accept: FREE X-RAYS Workers Compensation FOR MEDICARE PATIENTS Auto Accident Insurance $50-$100 Value When Necessary! Group Health Insurance Individual Health Insurance- Family Plan BACHER CHIROPRACTIC LIFE CENTER 9001 N.E. 2nd AVE. 756-LIFE CALL TODAY (5433) Some persons who have undergone chiropractic treatment and who have also suffered from the conditions listed in Respondent's advertisement have experienced, during the course of that treatment, some improvement in those conditions to the extent that some could reduce the medication taken for those conditions. The conditions listed in the ad encompass broad categories of diseases and include subcategories of those diseases for which a person must take medication in order to live. In a number of the diseased states listed, the medications being taken are not optional but rather are life-saving. The ad fails to distinguish among persons taking a daily multi-vitamin pill, persons requiring medication to remain alive due to some genetic defect, and persons addicted to illegal drugs for recreational purposes. The words "pill," "medication," and "drugs" are interchangeable only sometimes. A person can take a pill each day without being dependent or addicted. The words "dependency" and "addiction" mean the same thing to some medical professionals only. Many kinds of heart problems, headaches, diabetes, high blood pressure, and skin problems have never shown a response to chiropractic care alone, and there is no scientific or medical data showing that chiropractic treatment can curtail or eliminate the use of prescribed medication in all of the listed conditions. The implication of the ad, read in its entirety, is that every person who has the listed conditions can be helped by chiropractic and can be taken off pills/drugs/medication. Chiropractic does not have a high success rate of freeing people from drug dependency. Respondent's advertisement has the ability to endanger the health of the public for two reasons. First, persons may cease taking life-sustaining medication simply because they have gone to a chiropractor. Second, in situations involving true addiction to certain drugs, it is necessary that any attempts by the person addicted to withdraw from use of that drug be made only under the supervision of a medical doctor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of each and every allegation contained within the Administrative Complaint and assessing against him an administrative fine of $1,000 to be paid by a date certain. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 25th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Frances Carter, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence M. Malman, Esquire Biscayne Building, Suite 412 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for the answer he gave in response to Question 21 on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1999 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure examination administered in November of 1999. The practical examination consisted of three parts: "technique," "physical diagnosis," and "x-ray interpretation." The minimum passing score for each part was 75. Petitioner passed the "technique" and "x-ray interpretation" portions of the examination; however, he failed the "physical diagnosis" portion of the examination (PD Test), with a score of 68. On this portion of the examination, candidates demonstrated their knowledge of "physical diagnosis" by responding to test questions, in the presence of two examiners, verbally and/or, where appropriate, by demonstrating on a "patient." Their responses were independently evaluated and graded by the two examiners. A candidate's final score was the average of the two examiners' scores. Prior to the administration of the PD Test, all examiners were provided with instructions regarding their role in the examination process and the standards they should follow in grading the candidates' performance. Candidates were provided with a Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) in advance of the licensure examination. Among other things, the CIB listed, by category ("acupuncture," "physical diagnosis," "technique," and "x-ray") reference materials that could "be used to prepare for the examination." The list was preceded by the following advisement: The list is not to be considered all- inclusive. Thus, other comparable texts may be used to prepare for the examination. Under the category of "x-ray" the following "references" were listed: Eisenburg, Gastrointestinal Radiology- A Pattern Approach, Hagerstown, MD: Lippencott, Second Edition, 1989. Paul & Juhl, Essentials of Radiologic Imaging, Hagerstown, MD, Lippencott, Sixth edition, 1993. Taveras & Ferrucci, Radiology: Diagnosis- Imaging-Intervention, Hagerstown, MD: Lippencott, 1986. Five-volume set, loose- leaf renewed in July 1994. Yocum, T. R., & Rowe, L. J., Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, First Edition 1986. Not on the list under "x-ray" or under any other category was Dr. Robert Percuoco's Radiographic Positioning for the Chiropractor (Dr. Percuoco's Publication), the text book used by Dr. Percuoco in the radiology classes he teaches at the Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa (Palmer). Palmer was the nation's first college of chiropractic, and is accredited by the Council of Chiropractic Education. Petitioner graduated from Palmer and was taught radiology by Dr. Percuoco. Question 21 on the PD Test was an eight-point "diagnostic imaging" question (with no provision for partial credit) that asked the candidates to "demonstrate a Lateral Thoracic view." Among the six items the candidates had to address in answering the question was the central ray. Page 54 of the Dr. Percuoco's Publication describes what, according to the author, needs to be done to obtain a view of the lateral thoracic spine. It provides, in pertinent part, as follows (Dr. Percuoco's Approach): Center the central ray to the film. The vertical portion of the central ray should pass posterior to the head of the humeri. In responding to Question 21 on the PD Test, Petitioner relied on the foregoing excerpt from Dr. Percuoco's Publication. He told the examiners that the central ray should be centered to the film and that the vertical portion of the central ray should pass one inch posterior to the head of the humerus. The two examiners evaluating his performance both gave Petitioner an "A" (or no points) for his response to Question 21. In so doing, they acted reasonably and in accordance with the grading instructions they had received prior to the administration of the PD Test. Dr. Percuoco's Approach (upon which Petitioner relied) is not generally accepted in the chiropractic community. A reasonably prudent chiropractor, in taking an x-ray of the lateral thoracic spine, would do what was necessary to have the central ray pass, not "posterior to the head of the humeri," but "approximately 3 inches inferior to [the] sternal angle," as Drs. Yocum and Rowe, two of the most respected radiologists in the country today, instruct in their text, Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, which was one of the reference materials listed in the CIB (Dr. Yocum's and Dr. Rowe's Approach). Dr. Yocum's and Dr. Rowe's Approach yields a more exact and complete view of the lateral thoracic spine than does Dr. Percuoco's Approach. Because Petitioner failed to incorporate Dr. Yocum's and Dr. Rowe's Approach in his response to Question 21, the examiners were justified in determining that Petitioner did not answer all six parts of the question correctly and that he therefore should be awarded an "A" (or no points) for his response.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1999 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 7th day of November, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Lawrence A. Johnson, D.C., is duly qualified and licensed to practice as a Chiropractor in the State of Florida. Dr. Johnson holds a license issued by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. From on or about July 18, 1975 until August 18, 1975, Dr. Johnson treated Mabel-Ann Miller. Ms. Miller had been having pain in her back and legs and was seeking chiropractic treatment in the hope of alleviating the pain. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on approximately twenty occasions during the one month that she was under his care. The testimony from several of the witnesses was understandably somewhat vague with respect to what was said or done on any given visit. It is apparent, however, that during the early consultations with her, Dr. Johnson told her that he could help her, and that more than a year of treatment would be necessary. Dr. Johnson initially represented to her that the cost of treatment would be approximately $200, and that she would be permitted to pay $5 per week and the remainder when she finished her schooling. Dr. Johnson diagnosed a degenerated or herniated disc, a scoliosis or curvature of the spine, and a pelvic obliquity. Dr. Johnson told Ms. Miller that she was loosing fluid from her spine, and that unless she received immediate chiropractic treatment she would require an operation within a year, that the operation would have only a 50/50 chance of success, and that without chiropractic treatment she would stand a very good prospect of spending her life in a wheelchair. Mabel-Ann Miller's boyfriend, Chuck Alexander, had been Dr. Johnson's patient prior to the time that Ms. Miller went to Dr. Johnson. Alexander told Dr. Johnson about Ms. Miller, and prior to Ms. Miller's seeing Dr. Johnson as a patient, Alexander agreed to pay all of her expenses that she could not pay herself. He signed an agreement to this effect (licensee's Exhibit 6). The existence of this side agreement was not revealed to Ms. Miller until her second, third, or fourth visit. Ms. Miller became incensed at the arrangement, and told Dr. Johnson that she would pay her own bills. Dr. Johnson then related to her that the cost of her treatments would exceed $1,000. He told her that he would treat her on a "case fee" basis for $1,060.30. It was agreed that she would pay him a small portion of this case fee until she finished her schooling and was able to pay the entire bill. There after Dr. Johnson endeavored to have Ms. Miller sign a note for the "case fee". He initially requested 7 percent interest on the note, but later changed that amount to 5 percent. A copy of an agreement to pay which Dr. Johnson presented to Ms. Miller was received in evidence as Board Exhibit 6. Ms. Miller never signed the agreement. The testimony respecting Mabel-Ann Miller's condition varied somewhat. Dr. Johnson's diagnosis did not vary to an extraordinary degree, however, from the diagnosis given by other chiropractors, and by Dr. Hobby, a Medical Physician. The most creditable testimony demonstrates that Ms. Miller had a very mild curvature of the spine or scoliosis. She suffered a pelvic obliquity. Her left pelvis was 1.2 centimeters higher than her right pelvis. The pain being suffered by the patient was primarily muscular in nature. Ms. Miller would have benefited from chiropractic treatments, but her condition was not so severe as to require more than a year of intensive chiropractic therapy. Primarily she needed a good exercise program. After leaving Dr. Johnson's care, Ms. Miller submitted to the care of Dr. Hobby, who advised that she use an elevation on her shoe to level the pelvis and engage in an exercise program. She followed Dr. Hobby's advice, and at least up until the time of the hearing her condition improved, and she was no longer suffering pain. As has been said, Dr. Johnson's diagnosis of Ms. Miller's condition was not inaccurate. His statements respecting the severity of the condition were, however, quite exaggerated. Any disc deterioration that Ms. Miller suffered was very slight. Her scoliosis was not so severe as to require intensive chiropractic treatment. Her pelvic obliquity was not a severe problem. Dr. Johnson's statement that she would require surgery if she did not receive immediate chiropractic attention was not true. Neither was it true that she would require more than a year of intense chiropractic treatment. Dr. Johnson frequently utilized the "case fee" system of billing, and he attempted to utilize this system in billing Mabel-Ann Miller. Under the "case fee" system, a patient pays a lump sum for all needed chiropractic treatment rather than a per-visit fee. The testimony revealed that the average per-visit fee for chiropractic services in the St. Petersburg area varied from $8 to $12. Dr. Johnson's quoted "case fee" of more than $1,000 is so out of line with typical fees charged in the St. Petersburg area as to raise suspicions respecting Dr. Johnson's motives. There was no reason to expect that Ms. Miller required so many treatments as to justify such a case fee. Dr. Johnson's exaggerated statements respecting her condition could only have been motivated by his desire to have her contract for a fee far out of line with fees normally charged in the St. Petersburg area, and far out of line with the nature of treatment that Ms. Miller needed whatever fees were charged. Since Ms. Miller never signed a note agreeing to a "case fee" Dr. Johnson rendered her a statement for services on a per-visit or per-service basis. The statement was for $1,411.16. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on fewer than twenty occasions. Although she enjoyed the full range of services available at Dr. Johnson's office during these visits, the treatment and services she received were not remotely worth the amount which Dr. Johnson billed her. Dr. Johnson never had any agreement with the patient which would have justified such a bill which so far exceeds the community standards of the value of chiropractic services. During the time that Ms. Miller was under Dr. Johnson's care she received treatment known as Galvanic treatment in his office. A Galvanic machine renders heat to areas of the patient's body where the pads from the machine are placed. Use of the machine is somewhat risky in that a patient can be burned as a result of errors that are easy to make. Galvanic treatment was rendered to Ms. Miller at Dr. Johnson's office by Barbara Duynslager. Ms. Duynslager was trained in use of the Galvanic machine primarily by Dr. Johnson's wife, who served as Dr. Johnson's office manager. Dr. Johnson witnessed Ms. Duynslager using the machine on two occasions. Generally she was supervised in use of the machine, if at all, by Dr. Johnson's wife. It is normal procedure in the St. Petersburg area for chiropractic assistants to watch from five to ten Galvanic treatments and to be closely supervised on from five to ten more treatments before they are permitted to administer treatments unsupervised. Ms. Duynslager was given less training than that. Given the community standards, and given the risk involved in using the machine, it is apparent that Ms. Duynslager was not adequately trained. During the time that she was being treated, Ms. Miller received a minor burn on her lower back. There was no direct testimony from which it could be concluded that the burn came from the Galvanic machine; however, there is ample circumstantial evidence from which it can be determined that she did receive the burns from the machine. The burns appeared during the time she was receiving Galvanic treatment, the nature of the irritation is consistent with a Galvanic burn, and no other source of such an irritation was known. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that Barbara Duynslager was negligent in using the machine; however, the existence of the burn dramatizes the necessity for careful training on the machine. During late September and early October, 1975, Dr. Johnson consulted Philip W. Settepani, as a patient. Mr. Settepani was experiencing back pains, and he sought chiropractic assistance from Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson showed Settepani x-rays of his back, and described what Dr. Johnson characterized as "spurs" on the x-rays. Mr. Settepani was quite upset at what he saw on the x- rays, and he eventually sought and received chiropractic treatment from a Dr. Tilka rather than Dr. Johnson. Dr. Tilka did not describe Mr. Settepani's condition as "spurs". This led Mr. Settepani to believe that Dr. Johnson either made an erroneous diagnosis or misrepresented the diagnosis in order to scare the patient. Several of the expert witnesses who testified identified Mr. Settepani's condition as spurs . It is apparently the use of that term which caused Mr. Settepani to complain to the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that Dr. Johnson made an erroneous diagnosis of Mr. Settepani, or made any fraudulent or misleading statements to Mr. Settepani. In early February, 1976, Ms. Shirley Sabo visited Dr. Johnson's office as a patient. Dr. Johnson's wife told Ms. Sabo that Dr. Johnson never had a patient he couldn't cure, and that the cure would be quick. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that these statements were authorized by Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson informed the patient that she would require approximately one year of treatment, and that the cost would be $1,000. Ms. Sabo did not continue treatment with Dr. Johnson. She eventually received treatment from another Chiropractor and was billed $160 for x-rays and twelve visits. The fee quoted by Dr. Johnson was far out of line with customary fees in the St. Petersburg area, and is difficult, if not impossible, to justify. Nonetheless, there is no evidence from which it could be determined that Dr. Johnson misrepresented any facts to Ms. Sabo. Dr. Johnson instituted two law suits under the name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. The name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. was recorded in the public records of Pinellas County as a fictitious name for Johnson Chiropractic Clinic. Dr. Johnson performs as a sole practitioner. There was no other evidence respecting any advertising undertaken by Dr. Johnson in the name of a clinic, or any announcements made by Dr. Johnson that his office was a clinic.
