The Issue The basic issue in this case concerns the validity of the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination. The Petitioners contend that the examination was invalid for several reasons, and that because of such invalidity, they should be licensed as podiatrists even though they both failed the exam. The Respondent contends that the examination was valid, and that even if invalid, the Petitioners are not entitled to licensure unless and until they receive a passing grade on a licensure examination. Subsequent to the hearing a transcript of the proceedings was filed with the Hearing Officer on July 12, 1985. Pursuant to agreement of counsel, the parties were allowed three weeks from the filing of the transcript within which to file their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, which time period was later extended at the request of counsel for the Petitioners. On August 9, 1985, the Petitioners filed a proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the Respondent filed proposed findings of fact and a memorandum of law. The posthearing submissions filed by the parties have been given careful consideration in the preparation of this Recommended Order. Specific rulings on each proposed finding of fact in the posthearing submissions are set forth in the appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. At all times relevant to these proceedings the licensure examination administered by the Board of Podiatry has tested the following nine subject matter areas: anatomy, biochemistry, orthopedic podiatry, surgery; clinical podiatry and differential diagnosis, physiology, materia medica and pharmacology, pathology, and dermatology. At all relevant times the licensure examination has consisted of a total of 360 questions: forty questions on each of the nine subject matter areas covered by the examination. At all relevant times an overall average of seventy-five per cent (75 percent) has been required to achieve a passing score for the examination. An additional proviso at all relevant times is that a passing grade will not be given to any person who fails to achieve a minimum grade of fifty per cent (50 percent) in any one of the nine subject areas. The Petitioners Dr. Pascual Estevez and Dr. Victor Verjano, took the Board of Podiatry licensure examination in each of the following years: 1982, 1983, 1984. Both Petitioners failed all three exams. 1/ Dr. Estevez' scores on the 1982 and 1983 examinations were as follows: SUBJECT 1982 SCORE 1983 SCORE anatomy 30.0 percent 42.5 percent biochemistry 50.0 percent 60.0 percent orthopedic podiatry 45.0 percent 27.5 percent surgery 47.5 percent 50.0 percent clinical podiatry and differential diagnosis 32.5 percent 35.0 percent physiology 37.5 percent 40.0 percent materia medica and pharmacology 25.0 percent 45.0 percent pathology 40.0 percent 52.5 percent dermatology 45.0 percent 60.0 percent OVERALL AVERAGE 39.17 percent 45.8 percent Dr. Verjano's scores on the 1982 and 1983 examinations were as follows: SUBJECT 1982 SCORE 1983 SCORE anatomy 17.5 percent 37.5 percent biochemistry 40.0 percent 57.5 percent orthopedic podiatry 30.0 percent 30.0 percent surgery 27.5 percent 47.5 percent clinical podiatry and differential diagnosis 35.0 percent 27.5 percent physiology 22.5 percent 37.5 percent materia medica and pharmacology 20.0 percent 35.0 percent pathology 30.0 percent 55.0 percent dermatology 37.5 percent 57.5 percent OVERALL AVERAGE 28.89 percent 42.7 percent The 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination was the first podiatry examination that used questions solicited from professors of podiatry at several colleges of podiatry outside the state of Florida. The Board could not obtain questions from professors of podiatry within the state of Florida because there are no colleges of podiatry in this state. The Board preferred to avoid soliciting questions from podiatrists practicing in this state so that there would not be any local knowledge of the examination content readily available within the state. The decision to obtain a new pool of questions from professors of podiatry was a result of the opinion of the Board of Podiatry that the level of difficulty of previous examinations probably tested less than minimum competency. The Board felt that questions should be of a higher difficulty level than had been used on previous examinations because they were concerned that incompetent people were managing to "sneak through." When the Office of Examination Services wrote to the college professors to request that they prepare questions to be used on the examination, the letters to the professors included the following information with respect to the level of difficulty the Board preferred: For our purposes, the content tested by an item should be clearly pertinent to the mainstream practice of podiatry and ideally of a difficulty level such that you would expect most of the upper third of a graduating class to answer correctly while the majority of the lower third would find the item to be quite difficult. As regards to the difficulty level, the Board would prefer that in departing from the ideal you tend to favor higher difficulty levels. The college professors who prepared questions for the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination did not all follow the guidelines quoted immediately above. Some of them wrote questions which in the opinion of the Board were too easy. The questions for the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination were derived from three sources: those submitted under contract by selected professional faculty members at colleges of podiatry in California, Iowa, and Pennsylvania (approximately 50 percent of the questions), those prepared by the five professional members of the Podiatry Board (about 25 percent), and items selected by the developer from the item bank (about 25 percent). The latter were specifically selected for high discrimination between passing and failing candidates on a previous exam. This group of 89 test items was used to estimate the relative capability of the 1983 candidates. The remaining test items were selected by the professional members of the Board from the 337 items submitted by consultants and those contributed by the Board members themselves. Each question that was used on the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination was submitted to the Board for review before being included on the examination. The Board reviewed and considered every question submitted and selected only those they felt were adequate to test the candidates' competency. They rejected questions which were too hard as well as those which were too easy. Following the administration of the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination, each answer sheet was scored and a complete item analysis was generated for review by the examination development team. All items which were passed by 50 per cent or fewer of the candidates were scrutinized. Additional scrutiny was also given to items which displayed negative discrimination indices, i.e., those items passed by a greater proportion of low scoring examinees than high scoring examinees. A total of 109 items were identified for review by the Board. At its meeting on August 6, 1983, the Board determined that three items had been mis-keyed and that 39 items merited credit for all responses because of various defects. There remained a large number of questions which were of questionable validity because of the low percentage of upper half candidates who answered them correctly. A second review was conducted following submission of objections filed by candidates. Five additional examination items were credited for all responses and two were double keyed. Following the foregoing actions, a final psychometric review was conducted by the Office of Examination Services and 15 additional items were credited for all responses on statistical grounds. As originally administered and scored, the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination was of a difficulty level that tested for greater than minimum competency and was substantially more difficult than the examination that had been given in 1982. However, with the adjustments described above in paragraph 11 of these findings of fact, the difficulty level of the 1983 examination was substantially the same as the difficulty level of the 1982 examination. As adjusted, the difficulty level of the 1983 examination was such that it tested for minimum competency or perhaps less than minimum competency. As adjusted, the difficulty level of the 1983 Board of Podiatry examination was such that it did not test for greater than minimum competency. The effect of the adjustments described above was to delete from the examination the initial bias of the examination toward the more difficult items. As adjusted, the percentage of candidates who passed the 1983 examination was 50.4 percent, which compares favorably with the 51.1 percent pass rate for 1982. Following the final Board review which credited all of the items described above in paragraph 11 of these findings of fact, several members of the Board of Podiatry, including its chairman, Dr. Owen P. Macken felt that although the examination was a valid measurement of minimal competency as initially given, once it was "watered down" by the removal of so many items it became an invalid measurement because the Department had given credit for too many questions. A total of 117 candidates took the 1983 Board of Podiatry licensure examination. As finally scored, fifty-nine of those candidates passed the examination. Expressed as a percentage, 50.4 percent of those who took the 1983 examination received a passing grade. Out of the total of 117 candidates who took the 1983 examination; the score of Dr. Verjano was; at best, 113th from the top, and perhaps as low as 116th from the top. The 1983 score of Dr. Estevez was, at best 110th from the top, and perhaps as low as 112th from the top. Compared from the other end of the scale, Dr. Verjano had perhaps the second worst grade of all 117 who took the 1983 examination and had no better than the fifth worst grade of all who took the examination. Dr. Estevez had perhaps the sixth worst grade of all 117 who took the 1983 examination and had no better than the eighth worst grade. 2/ As demonstrated by the "anchor questions," the candidates for examination who took the 1983 Board of Podiatry Licensure examination had characteristics very similar to the characteristics of the candidates who took the 1982 examination. In view of this similarity of the two groups of candidates who took the 1983 and the 1982 examinations, the fact that their success rate was very similar indicates that the difficulty level of the two examinations (as finally adjusted) was very similar. Accordingly, a candidate who passed one examination would probably have passed the other examination, and a candidate who made a very poor grade on one examination would probably have made a very poor grade on the other examination. The Board of Podiatry is composed of two lay members and five professional members. Each of the professional members is a licensed Florida podiatrist currently engaged in the active practice of podiatry in the state of Florida. The function of the Board differs from that of the Department of Professional Regulation. The Board is charged with determining the content of the examination questions so as to ensure that every podiatrist practicing in the state meets minimum requirements of safe practice and that podiatrists who fall below such minimum competency or who otherwise present a danger to the public health would be prohibited from practicing in the state. The Board also determines the general areas to be tested and the score that shall be necessary evidence of passing the examination. The Department's function through its examination development specialists is to ensure that the test items or questions are functioning as they were intended and to advise the Board as to the worth of the individual items. Although a national podiatry examination is available, the Board of Podiatry has chosen not to use it. This appears to be due in part to the differences from state to state in the lawful scope of the practice of podiatry, some states limiting the practice to the foot while in Florida the scope of practice extends up to the knee.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing it is recommended that the Board of Podiatry enter a Final Order concluding that the Petitioners have failed the 1983 examination and denying the Petitioners' applications for licensure on the basis of their having failed the 1983 examination. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of November, 1985, at Tallahassee Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 1st day of November, 1985.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the optometry examination administered to candidates for certification for licensure to practice optometry in the State of Florida in July of 1980. The written portion of the optometry examination consisted of four sections or sub-parts; ocular pathology, theory and practice, pharmacology and laws and rules. The ocular pathology section consisted of 100 written and 20 slide questions. One and one-half hours were allotted for completion of the ocular pathology section. Thirty minutes was permitted for the completion of the slide portions of the ocular pathology sub-part. The written and slide portions of the ocular pathology section were separated by the administration of the theory and practice sub-part of the optometry exam, which consisted of one hundred items with one and one-half hours permitted for completion. The Petitioner completed the ocular pathology section of the exam and received a final grade of 69. A minimum passing grade of 70 was required by the Respondent on that portion of the optometry exam. Ocular pathology was the only portion of the exam which the Petitioner failed. An item analysis of the items on the ocular pathology portion of the examination was undertaken by the Department of Professional Regulation staff subsequent to administration of the examination. The item analysis undertaken was in conformity with standard post-test procedures for determining the validity of test items. Following the item analysis review, members of the Board of Optometry who formulated the exam received the item analysis results and recommended to the Board that credit be given to all candidates, including Petitioner, for each item on the ocular pathology portion of the examination which was determined to be invalid. As a result of the Board's authorization, credit was given to all candidates for 22 percent of the examination. The ocular pathology portion of the examination had a higher error or adjustment rate than the other subparts of the examination which ranged from 2 percent to 15 percent. The points awarded by the Board on the ocular pathology portion of the exam to compensate for invalid test questions were awarded in a manner commensurate with accepted testing techniques for evaluating test questions. Petitioner's score on the ocular pathology portion of the exam was adjusted from 46 to 58 points following the Board's first authorized analysis. Following a second regrading that the Board authorized to compensate for questions eliminated as a result of examinee review, the Petitioner's score on the ocular pathology portion was again adjusted upward from 58 to 69 points. The method utilized by the Department in reviewing examinations authorizes credit for questionable exam items. Such an approach to testing results in scores which are adjusted upward as test items are eliminated. This is a liberal approach to testing philosophy which effectively resolves doubts regarding a correct answer in favor of the examinee. Petitioner completed the ocular pathology portion of the examination but did not have sufficient time to review all his responses before turning in the test. Petitioner did not, however, participate in a review of his examination when given an opportunity to do so by the Department within thirty (30) days after the announcement of test scores.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying the Petitioner's request that his score pathology portion of the July, 1980 optometry examination be adjusted to reflect a passing grade. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 30th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Esquire OERTEL AND LARAMORE, P.A. 646 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert E. McGuire, O.D. 2530 Stern Drive Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner received the proper grades on the November 1997 chiropractic examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner graduated in 1994 from a chiropractic university. He was licensed to practice in Michigan and saw 100-200 patients daily while in practice there. In November 1997, Petitioner took the Florida chiropractic licensure examination. The November examination consisted of three parts: technique, physical diagnosis, and x-ray interpretation. (A fourth part on Florida law is irrelevant in this case.) A passing grade is 75 on each of the parts, which are graded separately, not cumulatively. Petitioner earned a passing grade of 85.5 on the physical diagnosis part of the November examination. However, he earned failing grades of 60 and 67.6 on the technique and x-ray interpretation parts, respectively. Petitioner suffers from diabetic retinopathy, which resulted in neovascularization of both eyes with a rupture in the left eye. Petitioner was totally blind in this eye for several months until the blood drained out of it. The residual scar tissue formed a macula, or traction, that created a black spot in the center of Petitioner's vision with the left eye. This condition has not been corrected by surgery, and Petitioner has been left with a permanent blind spot in the field of vision of his left eye. When Petitioner first received his application for the Florida examination, he did not inform Respondent of his visual disability because it does not affect his ability to read x-rays in viewboxes, which, based on past experience, was how Petitioner assumed that the x-rays would be presented. Later, Petitioner learned that the x-rays were presented on slides projected on large screens for all of the candidates taking the examination. At the November 1997 examination, there were three screens for approximately 160 candidates. Two to three months prior to the test date, Petitioner contacted a regulatory specialist for the Board of Chiropractic to obtain the necessary accommodation, which would consist merely of assigning Petitioner a seat in the first row from the screen. When this person did not return Petitioner's calls, he contacted another person who was employed at the Division of Medical Quality Assurance. Trying to help Petitioner, she suggested that he bring a physician's note to the examination, and the test administrator would seat him up front. Petitioner did as he was told, but when he appeared at the test site, about 30-45 minutes early, he was told at the door that he could not even bring the note inside with him to show the test administrator. Petitioner entered the test room and found that he had been assigned a seat three rows from the back. He tried to explain his situation to a proctor, but was unable to get his seat moved or permission to approach the screen to see the x-rays better, so he proceeded to take the examination. When the x-rays appeared on the screen, Petitioner tried closing his left eye and squinting, but could not see the x-rays sufficiently to interpret them in this timed section of the examination. Respondent's mishandling of Petitioner's timely and reasonable request for an accommodation for this visual disability rendered the scoring of the x-ray interpretation part of the November examination arbitrary and capricious and devoid of logic and reason. Respondent's solution is to offer a free retest for this part of the examination. If there were no basis in the record to imply an accurate score for the x-ray interpretation part of the November examination, then a free retest would be Petitioner's sole remedy. However, if there is a basis in the record to imply an accurate score for the x-ray interpretation part of the November examination, then this is the preferred remedy because, for the reasons set forth in the conclusions of law, this remedy better restores Petitioner to the position in which he should have found himself after taking the November 1997 examination. In this case, it is possible to imply a correct score for the x-ray interpretation part of the November examination due to: 1) the clear nature of Petitioner's disability; 2) the clear results obtained six months later when Petitioner retook the x-ray interpretation part of the examination with no other accommodation besides being seated in the front row; and 3) the absence of any indication in the record that Petitioner enlarged his knowledge of x-ray interpretation between November 1997 and May 1998. In May 1998, Petitioner passed the x-ray interpretation part with a score of 82.3. It is found that Petitioner would have passed the x-ray interpretation part of the November 1997 examination if Respondent had made reasonable accommodation for his disability. It is further found that, eliminating the unreasonably adverse testing conditions at the November examination, Petitioner's proper test score for the x-ray interpretation in the November 1997 examination is 82.3. Petitioner's performance on the May 1998 examination does not inspire as much confidence on the technique part of the examination. Although he raised his score on the latter examination, he still scored only a 70, which is five points below passing. At this latter examination, Petitioner also failed the physical diagnosis part with a score of 73.7, even though he had passed it with an 85.5 six months earlier. This matter is discussed in the conclusions of law. Petitioner's strongest challenge to the technique part of the November examination is confusion concerning an instruction describing the patient as suffering from an "old compression fracture." Petitioner did not perform the manipulative technique, for which he would have received credit, because he was concerned that the fracture might not have healed; he thus performed only a soft tissue massage. There is insufficient ambiguity in the description of an "old compression fracture" to justify Petitioner's caution, especially considering that he did not avail himself of the opportunity to ask questions of his examiners. Petitioner's other challenges to the technique part of the November 1997 examination are without merit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order awarding Petitioner a passing grade of 82.3 for the x-ray interpretation part of the November 1997 examination, in place of his invalid score of 67.6, so that he will be deemed to have passed the physical diagnosis and x-ray interpretation parts of the chiropractic licensure examination at the November 1997 administration. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip Andrew Cobb 18508 Orlando Road Fort Myers, Florida 33912 Anne Marie Williamson, Attorney Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Eric G. Walker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue An amended administrative complaint, dated July 31, 1989, alleges various violations of Chapter 459, F.S., by Respondent. Counts V, VI and VII, relating to Respondent's treatment of patient, R.C., were voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner at the commencement of the hearing. The following allegations are left at issue: That Respondent violated Section 459.015(1)(u), and (y), F.S., by prescribing Percodan and Ritalin, controlled substances, to his wife, G.I., inappropriately or in excessive quantities. That in the treatment of his wife, Respondent failed to practice osteopathic medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar osteopathic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, in violation of Section 459.015(1)(y), F.S. That Respondent violated Section 459.015(1)(p), F.S., by failing to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment of G.I.; and that of his mother, M.I., for whom he prescribed Demerol.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Donald Iafornaro, D.O., is and has been at all times material to the allegations of the amended administrative complaint, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, with license number OS 0001794. Dr. Iafornaro has a limited osteopathic practice which he conducts from his home at 1802 North Lakemont, Winter Park, Florida. He has about fifty patients, and also treats his large family, including his wife, mother, eleven children and grandchildren. G.I. has been a patient of Dr. Iafornaro for approximately 25 years -- since 1973, as his wife, and prior to that, from 1964, along with the rest of her family in Cleveland, Ohio. Mrs. Iafornaro has had a demanding job caring for the Iafornaro children, her mother-in-law, the house and pets, and has recently been her husband's only staff in his practice. Between May 1985, and April 1987, her husband treated her for a variety of medical problems, including severe allergies, sleep apnea (a mechanical difficulty in breathing during deep sleep), depression, fatigue, a chronic fracture of the foot bone (a fracture which failed to heal), spinal stenosis, an unstable hip, ulcers, angina and various gynecological complaints Between May 1, 1985, and April 11, 1987, Dr. Iafornaro prescribed the following drugs, among others, to his wife: 2,720 tablets of Percodan 900 tablets of Ritalin Percodan is the product name for oxycodone hydrochloride, and Ritalin is the product name for methylphenidate hydrochloride. Both are Schedule II controlled substances and are legend drugs as defined in Section 465.003(7), F.S. With the concurrence of the parties, official recognition was taken of the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) for the years 1984-1987. Petitioner also presented the testimony of two osteopathic physicians practicing in Dr. Iafornaro's community. The evidence from these authorities established that the prescriptions of Percodan and Ritalin for G.I. were inappropriate or in excessive quantities. Dr. Iafornaro felt that Ritalin was necessary to counteract the sedative effect of the antihistamines his wife had to take for her many allergies. He also prescribed the Ritalin for her depression. Ritalin is a mild central nervous system stimulant. It is indicated for attention deficit disorders (primarily in children) and narcolepsy. It should not be used for severe depression or for the prevention or treatment of normal fatigue. The PDR warns of drug dependence. Ritalin is also contraindicated in patients, such as G.I., who have exhibited anxiety, tension, depression and agitation. Ritalin may cause reactions such as skin rashes, a common complaint of this patient, but a problem which Dr. Iafornaro attributed to her multiple allergies. The Percodan was prescribed by Dr. Iafornaro for his wife's pain in her foot and for other pain in her low back and in her wrist. The PDR warns that Percodan may be habit forming. It contains aspirin, which can aggravate ulcers. It is indicated for relief of moderate to moderately severe pain; it is a depressant; it can cause apnea and respiratory depression in an overdose. Mrs. Iafornaro's statement that she used only about a half a tablet a day is inconsistent with the volume of the drugs prescribed for her over the relevant period. Dr. Iafornaro produced all of his medical records for G.I. for the relevant period. He claims they are incomplete because he also makes notes on odds and ends, writes on the back of a medical journal and keeps a lot of records in his head. (Iafornaro Deposition, p.15) The medical records produced by Dr. Iafornaro do not justify his course of treatment,for this patient, and particularly fail to explain the long-term volume of drugs that he was prescribing. Dr. Iafornaro claims that the probable cause panel previously reviewed his records and found them acceptable. The records were produced in response to charges that he had violated certain terms of an earlier disciplinary action. The issue was resolved with a "no probable cause" finding. That finding, in 1983, was for a different time period than the period at issue in this proceeding. Dr. Iafornaro provided records to the panel covering a limited period in 1983 when he was treating his wife for her foot fracture, a slip and fall accident and other acute conditions. The 1983 records, in contrast to those at issue here, describe the condition and his treatment. The later records provide copious listings of a variety of prescriptions, including the Percodan and Ritalin, with scant examination results, explanation of the condition being treated, or diagnoses of the complaints. Complete written medical records are an essential element of prudent osteopathic practice, particularly when, as here, the physician is treating his family and his objectivity may be questioned. Between January 5, 1987, and March 1, 1987, Dr. Iafornaro prescribed 200 50 mg Demerol tablets to his 84 year old mother, M.I. Demerol is a product name for meperidine hydrocloride, a Schedule II controlled substance, and a legend drug as defined in Section 465.003(7), F.S. The basis for the prescriptions was an episode of right upper quadrant pain felt to be of gallbladder origin. It is cheaper to purchase Demerol tablets by the 100. After M.I. took a few of the first prescription of 100, she lost the bottle and Dr. Iafornaro replaced it with another prescription. The medical records make no mention of the lost prescription, but they marginally justify the use of this drug for the limited period in issue and for the purpose intended. A previous disciplinary case involving allegations of Dr. Iafornaro's improper prescriptions and record-keeping practices was resolved with a stipulation for his one-year probation with conditions. The stipulation was approved by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners in a Final Order entered on December 28, 1982. (DPR Cases #0010979, 0014467, and 0015303)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners enter a Final Order which finds Donald Iafornaro, D.O., guilty of having violated the provision of Subsection 459.015(i)(p), (u) and (y), F.S. and imposing the following penalties: Suspension of license for 90 days and until such time as he appears before the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners and establishes that he has taken and passed the examination conducted by the National Board of Examiners for Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons or the Special Purpose Examination (SPEX) of the Federation of State Medical Boards, as designated by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners in its final order; Upon reinstatement that his license be placed on probation for two years subject to such terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Board, including, but not limited to, restriction of practice, direct or indirect supervision of practice or prescribing of controlled substances and required additional continuing education; That he be permanently restricted from prescribing controlled substances to family members, unless under direct supervision of another osteopathic physician; That a reprimand be imposed; That a fine of $2,000. be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5277 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. 3.-5. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraphs 6, 8 and 10. Some blood pressure monitoring is found in the records however. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted as a conclusion of law and in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Respondent's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph l. Adopted in part in paragraphs 7-10, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 4.-6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 7.&8. Adopted in paragraphs 15, 17 and 18. 9. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 730 S. Sterling Street Tampa, FL 33609 Sam Murrell, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 1749 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rod Presnell Executive Director Osteopathic Medical Examiners Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be given a passing grade for the pharmacology portion of the Optometry Licensure Examination given on August 1999.
Findings Of Fact Jackson took the optometry licensure examination given on August 5-8, 1999. The examination consisted of three parts: clinical, laws and rules, and pharmacology. Jackson failed the pharmacology portion of the examination with a score of 65.70. The minimum passing score for the pharmacology portion is 70. The pharmacology portion is a practical examination that tests the candidate's competency in diagnosing and treating ocular diseases. The pharmacology examination consists of a series of case studies followed by questions of varying point values. Each case study is worth seven points. The questions for each case study require the candidate to correctly identify a differential diagnosis, a second differential diagnosis, and a final diagnosis and to answer two follow-up questions, giving the best answer. Jackson challenged the scores that she received for the answers to questions 86, 31, 33, 85, 7, 9, 80, 111, 113, 66, and 69. Question 86 dealt with a differential diagnosis for a patient who was complaining of tenderness in one eye. An initial scraping and cytology showed some organisms but no hyphae or gram negative cocci. Jackson listed a homograft rejection as the first differential diagnosis. Her answer was incorrect because the case study did not present the characteristics of a homograft rejection and did give indicators of a bacterial infection. The correct answer was "F," and Jackson gave "C" as the answer. Questions 31 and 33 dealt with a case study of a patient who was complaining of some tearing, feeling like something was in her eye when nothing was there, light sensitivity, and redness in her right eye. For question 31, Jackson answered that a differential diagnosis was gonococcal conjunctivitis, which is incorrect because the patient did not have a severe purulent discharge, which is characteristic of gonococcal conjunctivitis. The correct answer for question 31 was "G," and Jackson gave "L" as the answer. Question 33 was for the final diagnosis, and Jackson again answered gonococcal conjunctivitis. The answer was incorrect because of the absence of a severe purulent discharge. The correct answer to question 33 was "A," and Jackson answered "L." Question 85 dealt with a patient who was complaining of decreased vision in one eye. The applicant was asked to pick the next step in the management of care to be taken if the appropriate medical care had been unsuccessful. Jackson incorrectly indicated that the answer was retinal focal laser therapy. Such treatment would be appropriate for a patient who had diabetic macular edema but not for the diagnosis of the patient in question. The correct answer to question 85 was "A," and Jackson answered "H." Questions 7 and 9 dealt with a patient complaining of floaters and decreased vision. Question 7 called for a second differential diagnosis. Jackson answered rheumatoid arthritis, which is incorrect because the patient was experiencing chronic granulomatous uveitis. The correct answer to question 7 is "I," and Jackson answered "E." Question 9 asked the candidate to identify the testing which would be appropriate for the correct final diagnosis. Jackson correctly identified the final diagnosis, but did not correctly identify the appropriate treatment. Jackson's answer gave the appropriate test for rheumatoid arthritis, which was not the final diagnosis. The correct answer was "B," and Jackson answered "G." For question 80, Jackson stated that she bubbled in the wrong answer. She bubbled in "F," and the correct answer was "E." The responsibility for bubbling in the correct answer rests with the candidate; thus, "F" is considered an incorrect answer even if it was bubbled in by mistake. Questions 111 and 113 dealt with a patient complaining of intermittent haloes and blurred vision. Question 111 asked for a differential diagnosis. Jackson answered acute angle closure glaucoma, which is incorrect because the patient did not present the characteristics of acute angle disclosure glaucoma, particularly with an intraocular pressure of 27. The correct answer was "C," and Jackson answered "A." Question 113 asked for the final diagnosis. Again Jackson answered acute angle closure glaucoma, which is incorrect. Questions 66 and 69 dealt with a patient who had a dark shadow which obscured the vision in his right eye six hours before his visit to the doctor. Question 66 asked for a differential diagnosis. Jackson answered traumatic vitreous hemorrhage, which is incorrect because there was no evidence of trauma given in the case study. The correct answer was "F," and Jackson answered "K." Question 69 asked for the immediate treatment or management which would be indicated for the right eye. Jackson answered vitrectomy, which is incorrect because a vitrectomy would not be performed on a hemorrhage which had been present for only six hours. The correct answer is "D," and Jackson answered "F."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Karen Jackson failed to earn a passing score of 70 on the pharmacology portion of the optometrist licensure examination given in August 1999. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 31st day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen Jackson Post Office Box 7157 West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Respondent's license to practice medicine should be subject to sanctions based upon alleged violations of Section 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. Specifically, it must be determined whether he departed from the appropriate standard of medical care and treatment of a patient in the course of his practice of ophthalmology and whether his record keeping with regard to the care and treatment of that patient met appropriate standards.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is, and at all times material hereto, has been a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0004933. The Respondent's address is 820 Prudential Drive, Suite 712, Jacksonville, Florida. On or about September 13, 1989, patient D.P., a 65-year-old-female, presented to the Respondent for evaluation regarding extremely high intra-ocular pressure and severe pain in both eyes. Patient D.P. had undergone abdominal surgery two days prior to the Respondent's examination, which was her second abdominal surgery in two weeks. The Respondent examined patient D.P. and diagnosed her with acute angle closure glaucoma, which had been present since the time of her second abdominal surgery, two days earlier. The Respondent treated patient D.P. with topical medications to decrease the intra-ocular pressure. Patient D.P.'s left eye responded to treatment with decreased pressure. The intra-ocular pressure in the right eye remained extremely high, in excess of 70 millimeters. On or about September 13, 1989, the Respondent performed a vitreous tap of the patient D.P.'s right eye, which immediately relieved the intra-ocular pressure. The Respondent did not consult patient D.P.'s surgeons or internists prior to performing the vitreous tap, regarding the possible use of intravenous medications. On or about September 14, 1989, the Respondent consulted Dr. James Staman, a retinal specialist, due to the patient's diminished vision in her right eye. Dr. Staman examined patient D.P. and diagnosed her with a vitreous hemorrhage. (End of stipulated facts). The Respondent has been licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida since 1954 and has practiced in the field of ophthalmology since 1966. He has been board certified in the field of ophthalmology since 1969. He has never been investigated or disciplined by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation or any predecessor agency charged with regulating the licensure and practice standards of medical doctors in Florida. The Respondent maintains hospital staff privileges appropriate to his practice and has never had hospital staff privileges denied, revoked, or suspended at any hospital at which he has had privileges. Patient D.P. is a 65-year-old-female, who presented to the Respondent on September 13, 1989 complaining of severe pain in both eyes and with regard to which the Respondent immediately determined the presence of extremely intra- ocular pressure in both eyes. Patient D.P. had recently undergone a gastrectomy, a major abdominal surgical procedure, within 48 hours prior to presenting to the Respondent. This was the second abdominal surgery she had undergone within the past two weeks. When she presented to the Respondent on that date, she was in severe pain from the increased intra-ocular pressure in both eyes and appeared to be weak and in great discomfort. Pursuant to order of her doctors who attended and treated her with regard to the abdominal condition and surgery, the patient was and had been "NPO" for four weeks. This condition or situation means that she was forbidden from taking food or liquids of any type by mouth during this period of time. Upon evaluating the pressure in her eyes, the Respondent determined that the intra-ocular pressure in her left eye was 35 millimeters of mercury and in excess of 70 millimeters of mercury in the right eye. This is because the standard instrument with which her pressure was tested by the Respondent only depicts a maximum pressure of 70 millimeters of mercury. The normal intra- ocular pressure for such a patient would be 17-18 millimeters of mercury. Upon evaluating and examining the patient, the Respondent determined her condition to be bilateral acute angle closure glaucoma. He determined that the condition had been present since her surgery 48 hours earlier. The anesthesia from the surgery had precipitated dilation in both eyes which, in turn, precipitated the acute angle closure glaucoma. This occurred because, upon the dilation of the pupils of both eyes caused by the anesthesia, the iris folded back as the pupil expanded, and the folds of the iris occluded or blocked the drain structure by which fluid can drain from within the eye. The inability of the fluid to drain thus caused the severe increase in intra-ocular pressure and thus the glaucoma condition. The Respondent initially treated the acute angle closure glaucoma in both eyes with glycerin. This is a topical medication designed to reduce the amount of swelling in the cornea and to increase absorption of medication into the eye. The Respondent also initially treated the condition with pilocarpine. This is a topical medication administered to constrict the pupil and thus open the channel in the trabecular meshwork (the drainage structure) in an attempt to break the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma by allowing the eye fluid to drain and thus relieve the pressure. The intent is that by constricting the pupil, the iris will stretch with the pupil's closure so as to remove its folds from the position of blocking the channel in the trabecular meshwork. The Respondent initially administered a "beta blocker" medication in an attempt to open the trabecular meshwork by cutting down on the amount of aqueous fluid produced by the ciliary body. The topical medications, indeed, broke the attack of glaucoma in the left eye and the intra-ocular pressure in that eye returned to normal levels. However, after approximately a four-hour trial of the array of topical medications used by the Respondent, the attack of glaucoma in the right eye had not subsided at all. Prolonged elevated intra-ocular pressure of the magnitude of over 70 millimeters of mercury in the right eye posed a great danger of loss of vision in that eye due to potential occlusion of the ocular artery supplying blood to the eye and concomitant permanent damage to the optic nerve. The artery can be occluded or closed off due to such excessive pressure because the pressure at that level will exceed the blood pressure generated by the heart through the vascular system, including the artery supplying that eye. This results in the ocular pressure overcoming the blood pressure within the artery, thus constricting the artery and, therefore, the blood supply to the eye. The loss of blood supply to the eye in a short time, possibly 90 minutes or less, can cause the eye tissue normally served by the artery to become necrotic (i.e. to die). Necrosis of the internal eye tissue, in turn, can cause complications by weakening the pertinent structures of the eye, such as the tissue by which the retina is attached and held in position. The Respondent observed the patient and performed this clinical treatment for approximately four hours without being able to relieve the elevated intra-ocular pressure in the right eye. The Respondent knew, given the symptoms and history with which the patient presented, that severe pain had been experienced by the patient in her eyes since she awakened from the anesthesia administered for her surgery. Thus, he knew that for approximately two days, the glaucoma condition had been operating on the structures of the eye. Accordingly, he knew that time was of the essence if he was going to be able to relieve the glaucoma and thus save the vision, or some of it, in her eye. After these hours of clinical attempts to cure her condition, and in view of the state of urgency the Respondent recognized in the patient, who had already experienced severely-elevated intra-ocular pressure for two days, the Respondent determined that the emergency nature of the patient's situation precluded use of the time necessary to consult with her surgeon and anesthesiologist, to attempt to hospitalize her, to administer a general anesthetic, and perform an alternative surgical procedure. The Respondent, therefore, elected to perform a "vitreous tap". The vitreous tap involves using a hypodermic needle with a "guarded needle" (meaning that the needle is protected so that only a small portion of the point of the needle projects from the guard structure) to withdraw a small amount of the vitreous fluid. This was done to reduce the pressure, open the angles at the trabecular structure in the eye and thus break the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma and return the eye to normal intra-ocular pressure. The vitreous tap was performed at approximately 4:05 that afternoon and was successful. It immediately broke the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma and the intra-ocular pressure returned to a normal range. However, a vitreous hemorrhage resulted from the vitreous tap caused by the needle striking a small blood vessel in the pars plana area of the eye. This area cannot be visualized when performing the vitreous tap because it is inside the eye. A vitreous hemorrhage is a known and accepted complication or risk of a vitreous procedure. However, it has a low incidence of occurrence of approximately 3-5 percent. Upon determining that the hemorrhage condition was present and on or about September 14, 1989, the Respondent obtained a consultation with Dr. James Staman, a vitreal-retinal surgeon, due to the diminished vision in the patient's right eye. Dr. Staman examined the patient and diagnosed a vitreous hemorrhage in her right eye. The incidence of retinal detachment from a vitrectomy is approximately 5-10 percent. It would have had a higher risk in this patient's case, due to the probability of her already suffering permanent damage to the eye and eye tissue caused by necrosis, which was caused by loss of blood supply to the eye during the extended period of high intra-ocular pressure. This likely damaged the optic nerve and occluded the ocular artery serving that eye or portion of the eye. Dr. Staman performed a vitrectomy and removed the hemorrhage or blood from the patient's eye. Unfortunately, a retinal detachment occurred as a complication of that vitrectomy. This chain of events ultimately resulted in the patient losing the vision in her right eye. This was because of the determination that the retinal detachment could not be repaired without causing the loss of vision itself. Dr. Doyle testified as an expert witness for the Respondent. Dr. Doyle is a board certified ophthalmologist specializing in the field of glaucoma and particularly in the sub-specialty area of glaucoma management, including surgical glaucoma management. Additionally, Dr. Doyle is a holder of a fellowship, involving further specialty training in the field of treatment and management of glaucoma and surgical alleviation and management of glaucoma. He is determined to be the most qualified expert witness by training, education and experience in the particular specialty concerning glaucoma, with which this patient's condition is characterized, as is provided in his testimony depicted in the transcript of this proceeding and in his curriculum vitae in evidence. This depiction of his training, education and experience is adopted, by reference, as fact. According to Dr. Doyle, the loss of vision in the right eye was not caused by the vitreous tap. Rather, the precipitating factor was the retinal detachment which occurred as the result of the direct vitrectomy surgery. A vitreous hemorrhage is a known complication of a vitreous tap and a retinal detachment is a known complication of a vitrectomy. The Respondent and all of the expert witnesses agreed that the patient had probably already suffered permanent damage to the right eye, prior to the performance of the vitreous tap, in the form of corneal decomposition, cataract formation and optic nerve damage. Dr. Doyle's testimony, as corroborated by that of the Respondent, established that, in all likelihood, significant necrosis of the eye tissue involved in the structure by which the retina is attached had occurred due to occlusion of the artery supplying blood to that area of the eye by the 48 hours or more of elevated intra-ocular pressure. The elevated intra-ocular pressure occurred as a result of the anesthesia administered to the patient during her abdominal surgery. The Respondent and all expert witnesses agreed that the Respondent had utilized an appropriate and proper procedure in performing the vitreous tap. However, Drs. Baumann and Berg, testifying for the Petitioner, do not agree that the vitreous tap should have been performed to relieve the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma in the right eye. Standard of Care The Respondent met the standard of care under the circumstances with which this patient presented, in his care and treatment of patient D.P. when he performed the vitreous tap to break the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma in patient D.P.'s right eye. The usual treatment options or alternatives for the treatment of acute angle closure glaucoma were not available to the Respondent due to the extremely unusual set of precipitating circumstances with which the patient presented to him. The patient had already had extreme intra- ocular pressure of approximately 48 hours duration, based upon all of the evidence available to the doctor in performing his diagnosis and examination of treatment options. Dr. Baumann admitted that the situation was "urgent", and Dr. Berg admitted that the situation was an "emergency" and that the Respondent's "back was up against the wall" under the circumstances. Because of this, the treatment, including surgical options preferred by Drs. Baumann and Berg, was not effectively available to the Respondent in an attempt to save the vision in the patient's eye. This is because, in order for a general anesthetic to be administered and the patient prepared, monitored and evaluated for the surgery, she would have had to be hospitalized, with accompanying consultation with her internal medicine physician, her abdominal surgeon, and the anesthesiologist. All of this process would have taken approximately six hours, from the time the decision was made to perform the vitreous tap, which was made when the topical medications failed to alleviate the attack, until the surgery could be performed in the hospital. Even if the patient's eye was not already significantly damaged by the 48 hours of elevated intra-ocular pressure when she presented to the Respondent at his office, substantial damage to her vision would have occurred as a medical certainty if another six hours had elapsed after the unsuccessful conclusion of conservative, clinical treatment between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. The first treatment option in an angle closure glaucoma case is topical therapy in an attempt to reduce the production of fluid by the ciliary body in the eye and to cause the iris to constrict and thus open the angle and its drainage structure. The Respondent initially treated the angle closure glaucoma in both eyes with topical medications, including pilocarpine, glycerin and a beta blocker. He repeated this topical therapy for approximately three hours at the appropriate intervals which all testifying physicians, including Dr. Doyle, agree was "normal, appropriate care". Under ordinary circumstances, if the topical medications failed to lower the intra-ocular pressure, the use of diamox or mannitol would be the next treatment alternative to try. However, diamox, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, which affects the ciliary body to reduce the production of fluid, would not have produced any greater benefit than the topical medications which had failed already. Mannitol is a hyperosmotic medication. It is ordinarily administered by mouth, which allows the body's stomach and intestines to regulate and gradually accomplish a safe absorption of the medication. However, oral mannitol was not an option to this patient because, under her previous doctor's orders, she was not allowed to take anything by mouth at times pertinent to this proceeding, including the day and times when the Respondent was treating her for the glaucoma. Mannitol reduces vitreous volume by reducing water everywhere in the body, including the eyes. The fluid is drawn into the blood stream, which, however, increases blood volume. Administration of mannitol intravenously would have put the patient at significant risk for an overload of volume in the blood which would have caused readily increased blood pressure with attendant possible medical complications, massive congestive heart failure, or kidney problems. These are life-threatening risks which would have necessitated hospitalization, evaluation and monitoring in the hospital before and during administering of intravenous mannitol. By the time this could have been accomplished, the vision in the eye would have already been lost. Dr. Doyle and the Petitioner's expert, Dr. Baumann, both agreed that administration of intravenous mannitol would have been dangerous for this patient. Intravenous mannitol is only 50 percent effective in such a situation, in any event, and is contra-indicated in patients such as D.P., who are post- gastrectomy surgery. This 65-year-old patient, weakened by her second gastrectomy surgery in a four-week period, involving the use of general anesthetics, was simply not a safe candidate for the administration of mannitol under the risky intravenous method which would have been necessary with the patient. The risk of kidney or heart failure and other complications was simply too great. The Petitioner's expert, Dr. Baumann, admitted that it was reasonable for the Respondent to have these concerns about the use of diamox and intravenous mannitol and further that the Respondent was not negligent in deciding not to use those medications. Under ordinary circumstances, if the topical therapy and the administration of medication failed to relieve an attack of acute angle closure glaucoma, the next course of treatment to be considered would be an argon or YAG laser iridectomy or an irridoplasty in order to place a small hole in the iris to relieve the pressure differential in the eye. A laser is a focused beam of light, at high energy, which can insert the necessary hole in the eye to relieve the intra-ocular pressure. It requires a clear media over the iris in order to penetrate the eye and make the hole in the required position. In this case, due to the extraordinary high intra-ocular pressure over a two-day period, the cornea was very cloudy and hazy. This precluded the laser being effective and created the potential for damage to the cornea had the laser been directed against the eye. Dr. Doyle and the Petitioner's experts, Dr. Berg and Dr. Baumann, all agreed, that in a patient such as D.P., with intra-ocular pressure of over 70 millimeters of mercury extending for 48 hours, the cornea would be very cloudy. The Respondent's testimony confirms this. After the vitreous tap was performed and the intra- ocular pressure relieved, the edema and cloudiness of the cornea resolved itself so that the Respondent was able to perform a successful argon laser iridectomy the following day and a YAG laser irridoplasty in his office five days later, to prevent a recurrence of the problem by providing an additional means of fluid drainage. Under ordinary circumstances where topical therapy, medication therapy, and laser iridectomy had either failed or were not viable options, then surgical treatment would be the next consideration. The surgery would include either surgical iridectomy or a trabeculectomy. A surgical iridectomy creates a small hole in the iris which relieves the pressure. A trabeculectomy creates a secondary drain for the eye. The Respondent was justified in not pursuing a surgical iridectomy or trabeculectomy in that the surgery could not have been done under a local anesthetic and would have required general anesthesia. This is undisputed. This would have required surgery in the hospital operating room, including the necessity for insertion of a tube, which might have caused risk to her recent abdominal surgery. It would have necessitated contacting her surgeon, her internal medicine physician, and her anesthesiologist for pre-surgical evaluation and clearance. This would have taken considerable time, at least six hours, thereby, within reasonable medical certainty causing permanent significant damage or entire loss of vision to the eye. A surgical iridectomy or trabeculectomy are not benign procedures and carry the highest complication rate of any ophthalmic procedure, when used for malignant glaucoma and, indeed, the accepted treatment for malignant glaucoma (albeit a different type of glaucoma condition) is a vitreous tap. Either surgical procedure would have had a risk of complication resulting in loss of vision in the eye of at least 3-5 percent or more, thus, the same or greater level of risk than that attendant to the vitreous tap procedure. Paracentesis, a surgical procedure to make a small hole in the anterior chamber of the eye, was itself not a reasonable treatment alternative under the circumstances. It was simply not feasible because the anterior chamber of the eye had virtually ceased to exist because the iris diaphragm had bulged forward through the space normally occupied by the anterior chamber because of the great pressure behind it. Dr. Doyle established that the Respondent's vitreous tap effected a complete cure of the glaucoma condition in patient D.P. A vitreous tap is a procedure recognized in the medical literature as a treatment for several ophthalmic conditions, including malignant glaucoma, positive pressure during cataract surgery, and for the purpose of obtaining vitreous material for pathological testing (biopsy). The medical literature, indeed, does not address the use of a vitreous tap as treatment for acute angle closure glaucoma because the medical literature and text books tend to deal with more common presentations of all diseases. None of the literature addresses treatment of acute angle closure glaucoma under the unusual set of emergency circumstances presented with this case. The Respondent's expert, Dr. William Doyle, is a board-certified ophthalmologist who has a sub-specialty in glaucoma management and treatment, including surgical management thereof. He is one of only a handful of fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists in the State of Florida and the only one in the North Florida area. He sees patients on referral from other doctors in Florida and South Georgia, who have unusual glaucoma-related problems. Dr. Doyle is an assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Florida and is responsible for teaching glaucoma management and treatment. He has authored some twelve article, book chapters, and other publications specifically in the field of glaucoma management and treatment. According to Dr. Doyle, if the vitreous tap procedure had been successful, the Respondent "should have written it out for the literature as a viable, interesting way to cure a disease". The Petitioner's expert, Dr. Berg, in his report attached to his deposition, referenced an article in International Ophthalmology Clinics, by Kevin C. Greenridge, M.D., of the Metropolitan Hospital Center, Department of Ophthalmology, New York, New York, and which Dr. Berg admitted was authoritative in the field of acute angle closure glaucoma. The article specifically states that in cases of acute angle closure glaucoma, for a duration of more than 24 hours, the eyes are more inflamed and have evidence of corneal decomposition, which are relative contra indications to argon laser iridectomy. Since the acute angle closure glaucoma had a duration of 48 hours when the Respondent first saw the patient, corneal decomposition could have been significantly advanced by that point such that the set of conditions requisite to causing the retinal detachment, which ultimately led to the loss of the patient's sight in that eye, were likely already in place. Thus, the vitreous hemorrhage caused by the vitreous tap may not itself have been the cause of the loss of sight. Medical Record Issue The Respondent's office records note "Vitreous tap. 4:30 p.m., immediately patient felt better". The Respondent also made an entry in the patient's hospital chart on the date of the vitreous tap which noted: Acute angle closure glaucoma right eye. Totally unresponsive to treatment. Pressure of 70 unaffected by treatment. Pars plana 1/2 cc vitreous tap done with immediate relief. Both eyes very shallow [referring to anterior chamber]. Started on pilocarpine and both eyes will need argon laser iridectomy soon. A copy of the hospital note was included and contained in the Respondent's records of the patient. In addition, the Respondent obtained a signed, written, informed consent for the procedure. The Respondent's records, including his office records and the note in the hospital chart, adequately document the course of therapy leading up to the vitreous tap and the vitreous tap procedure itself such that the Respondent's medical record keeping would adequately inform the Respondent in the future when reviewing the patient's records with a view toward further follow-up and treatment of the patient's entire status. They would also adequately inform any physician to whom the patient was later referred by the Respondent of her status, the treatment and procedures performed, and the symptoms and diagnosis involved in the patient's care and treatment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(m) or (t), Florida Statutes, and that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 7th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5990 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted, but not necessarily for their purported material import. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant, probative evidence. Accepted. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted. 21-26. Accepted, but not necessarily for their purported material import and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not probative of the medical records being inadequate as a matter of fact and law. 28-29. Accepted. 30. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 31-41. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not dispositive of the material issues presented. 42-43. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 44-46. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and for the additional reason that these proposed findings are not dispositive of the material issues presented. 47-50. Accepted, in part, but not as materially dispositive of the issues presented for resolution and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-55. Accepted, to the extent not rejected by or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Those proposed findings of fact not treated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Alex D. Barker, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Jeptha F. Barbour, Esquire Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida having been issued License No. 0020340. Respondent specializes in the practice of ophthalmology, and is board-certified in that specialty. As indicated above, Respondent has been charged in a three-count complaint with various violations concerning his treatment of three patients. For purposes of clarity, the Findings of Fact section of this Recommended Order will, therefore, treat each such patient separately. ETTA ROSE Respondent first saw Etta Rose as a patient on March 17, 1980. At that time Ms. Rose gave a history of having had "floaters" in both eyes, in her left eye for three months and in her right eye for approximately the past three years. She also indicated a history of hypertension of five years duration. On her initial visit, Ms. Rose informed Respondent that she had last had an eye examination in December of 1978, but could not recall the name of the examining doctor. Upon physical examination on the initial visit of March 17, Respondent determined that the patient had intraocular pressures of 25 in her right eye and 26 in her left eye. In this connection, intraocular pressures of from 12 to 21 are considered roughly normal in a general patient population, and any readings above those levels are generally considered to be elevated. In addition to the above-noted intraocular pressures, Respondent also determined-on this initial visit that the patient had asymmetric nerve heads, the nerve heads in her left eye being markedly larger than those in the right. This degree of difference, according to Respondent's determination, could not be attributed to a congenital defect. Since this degree of differential in the size of the optic nerve heads occurs in less than one percent of the population, this fact, taken together with the patient's elevated intraocular pressures, resulted in Respondent's diagnosis of probable glaucoma. As a result of Respondent's physical findings as outlined above, together with the lack of information from prior treating physicians, Respondent determined that in order to avoid potentially irreversible damage to the patient's eyes, he needed to administer as high a dosage of medication to bring down the patient's intraocular pressures as rapidly as possible. Accordingly, on March 17, 1980, Respondent prescribed a one percent solution of pilocarpine to be administered to the patient's eyes every four hours. Pilocarpine is an old conservative glaucoma medication used specifically to reduce intraocular pressures. A one percent pilocarpine solution' is a relatively light dosage. Therefore, on March 20, 1980, Respondent increased the dosage of pilocarpine to two percent every four hours, and on March 24, 1980, again increased the dosage of pilocarpine to four percent every four hours. Additionally, on March 28, 1980, Respondent added the drug timolol to his attempted medical management of the patient's pressures. It is not medically advisable to start a patient directly on a four percent pilocarpine solution because of the distinct danger of side effects, such as headaches and dimness of vision. As a result, Respondent utilized a process known as "titrating," by starting the patient on a lowered dosage of medication, and rapidly bringing the patient to a maximum dosage, watching carefully during this period for evidence of side effects. The patient in this case apparently experienced no such ill side effects. During his second office visit with the patient on March 20, 1980, Respondent performed a gonioscopy to evaluate the angle where the patient's cornea touched near the iris. This procedure showed the patient to have wide open angles and no scarring. Respondent therefore concluded that the patient suffered from chronic open-angle glaucoma, which was consistent with his initial diagnosis on the first visit of March 17, 1980. On March 20, 1980, the patient's intraocular pressures were 21 in the right eye and 23 in the left eye. During the entire course of his treatment of this patient, Respondent saw the patient in his office on the following dates: March 17, 20, 24, and 28, 1980; April 3, 8, and 22, 1980; May 20, 1980; and June 24, 26, and 27, 1980. Because of the asymmetry in the patient's optic nerve heads, her elevated pressures, and her lack of medical history to demonstrate the progress, if any, of glaucoma, Respondent determined it to be necessary to develop as accurate a profile on the patient as quickly as possible. The purpose of these office visits, which occurred at different times during the day, was to approximate a "diurnal curve." A diurnal curve is a method for determining fluctuating intraocular pressures of a patient, and is customarily obtained by admitting the patient to a hospital, and checking pressures in the patient's eyes approximately every two hours over a 24-hour period. The purpose of the procedure is to obtain an accurate 24-hour reading of the patient's pressures, since pressures within the eye can fluctuate markedly during different times of the day. Respondent determined admitting Ms. Rose to the hospital to be impractical, and set upon a course of seeing her in his office on several rather closely spaced days at different times of the day in order to get a more accurate understanding of her condition. By the time Respondent last saw the patient in his office on June 26, 1980, the patient was on a four percent pilocarpine solution four times a day, .5 percent timolol, and diomox b.i.d., and her pressure in her left eye still remained 26. At that time Respondent determined that he had the option of continuing to carry the patient on these dosages of medication, in which case he determined that the patient would probably go on to progressive damage, or, alternatively, surgical intervention. Respondent determined this amount of medication to have maximized medical therapy and, as a result, recommended a trabeculectomy to attempt to lower the patient's pressures. This surgical recommendation was made on June 27, 1980, at which time Respondent invited the patient to seek a second opinion, recommending that she consult ophthalmologists at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami Medical School. The patient sought such an opinion, and elected not to undergo the surgery recommended by Respondent. As a result, the office visit of June 27, 1980, was the last time Respondent saw Etta Rose as a patient. Respondent's diagnosis of the patient at the last visit was chronic open-angle glaucoma that was uncontrollable on medical therapy. The patient was apparently seen by an ophithalmologist on May 15, 1981, and again in January of 1982. The physician who last examined the patient determined that the patient, although she had slightly elevated intraocular pressures, "probably" did not have glaucoma, but should be followed as a "glaucoma suspect" because of the difference in the size of her optic nerves. The record in this cause establishes that there are three parameters generally accepted for diagnosing glaucoma: intraocular pressures; visual fields; and the appearance of the optic nerve. As previously indicated pressures above 21 are generally considered elevated. Throughout Respondent's treatment of Ms. Rose it appears that her intraocular pressures were at all times elevated, and that the optic nerve heads in her left eye were markedly larger than those in her right eye. The record also demonstrates that she evidenced no visual field loss while being treated by Respondent or thereafter. A trabeculectomy is a surgical procedure used in the treatment of glaucoma as a last resort when all other treatment modalities have been exhausted. There is some degree of danger inherent in the procedure, and it is associated with a high failure and complication rate, and can lead to the formation of cataracts. As indicated above, Respondent is charged in the Administrative Complaint with requiring Ms. Rose to come to his office an excessive number of times, with prescribing excessive medication for her condition, and with recommending unnecessary surgery. With respect to the charge of requiring excessive office visits, it is specifically concluded that Respondent exercised that level of care, skill, and treatment which was reasonable under the circumstances given the fact that the patient had elevated intraocular pressures, asymmetric optic nerve heads, and was unable to furnish Respondent with a history that would justify less aggressive treatment than the methods employed by Respondent. Because of these factors, Respondent reasonably determined that the patient should be seen often during the initial stages of therapy particularly in order to evaluate fluctuations in the patient's intraocular pressures. At final hearing, Petitioner adduced credible testimony from two board-certified ophthalmologists that Respondent prescribed excessive medication to Ms. Rose over his period of treatment of that patient. Specifically, these physicians took exception to Respondent's increasing the dosages of pilocarpine from one percent to a four percent solution over an approximately 11-day period. These physicians felt the better practice would have been to proceed more slowly to determine how the patient's pressures were reacting to medication. Equally credible, however, was testimony from the Respondent himself and from another board-certified ophthalmologist that the procedure known as "titrating" whereby the patient is started on a lower dosage and worked to a higher dosage over a short span of time was also reasonable medical treatment under the circumstances. The patient was seen frequently so that any side effects from this increase in medication could be monitored by Respondent. In addition, because of the high degree of difference in the size of the optic nerve heads in the patient's two eyes, Respondent reasonably assumed that glaucoma, if it were present, had progressed to such an extent that it was necessary to get the patient's intraocular pressures under control as rapidly as possible. Respondent reasoned that, should the pressures be brought under control at a higher level of medication, the medication could always be cut back, whereas, if he proceeded more slowly irreversible damage might occur in the interim. This record simply reflects that reasonable ophthalmologists might disagree with respect to the proper administration of medication in this context and, as a result, it cannot be determined from this record that Respondent acted unreasonably in his course of prescribing medications to Etta Rose. Finally, Petitioner adduced credible testimony at final hearing that the trabeculectomy recommended by Respondent was improper because Respondent had not reached maximum medical management of the patients condition in that he had not utilized oral diuretics or epinephrine as treatment modalities. The reasoning here is that until maximum medical management proves unsuccessful in controlling a patient's pressures, a remedy as drastic as a trabeculectomy should not be utilized. Petitioner's witnesses testified that based on the patient's marginally elevated pressures and the fact that she demonstrated no visual field loss, surgical intervention was improper. Again, equally credible testimony from both the Respondent and another board-certified ophthalmologist called as a witness by Respondent establishes that an equally reasonable interpretation of the data available to Respondent was that the patient was, indeed, under maximum medical management, and her intraocular pressures had not responded appropriately to this treatment regime. Further, the record also establishes that it is very unusual to find the degree of difference in the size of the optic nerve heads in this patient without visual field loss. Patients who demonstrate this size differential without visual field loss often do not develop visual field loss until relatively late in the progress of the disease, but when that loss occurs it occurs abruptly and profoundly. Thus, it appears that the risk of performing a trabeculectomy had to be weighed against the danger of irreversible damage from the progress of glaucoma. Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for Respondent to recommend surgery. It should be noted also that at the time Respondent recommended the surgical procedure, he also advised the patient that she was free to seek a second opinion. In addition, Respondent also adduced credible testimony that based on the drugs which he had prescribed medical management of this patient's condition would not have been furthered by adding epinephrine to his course of treatment. Accordingly, the facts of record in this cause do not establish that Respondent caused Etta Rose to visit his office an excessive number of times, that he prescribed excessive medication for his treatment of that patient, or that unnecessary surgery was recommended by Respondent. ALBERT MILLER Respondent first saw Albert Miller as a patient on September 29, 1976. Upon physical examination of the patient, Respondent had no reason to suspect the presence of glaucoma. The patient was next seen on March 16, 1977, for a check of his retina because of his history of diabetes. In addition to diabetes, the patient also had a history of hypertension. There were no changes in the patient's condition on the March 16, 1977, visit, and Respondent instituted no treatment. The patient was next seen for an annual check on May 22, 1978. The patient's vision with his glasses had worsened in both eyes at that time. The patient's history indicates that the patient's diabetes had been high just two months prior to this examination. The diabetes had apparently also affected the patient's intraocular pressures because they were found to be 20 in both eyes on this examination, whereas they had been 17 in the right eye and 16 in the left eye on September 29, 1976, when the patient was first seen by Respondent. Respondent chose not to institute active treatment of the patient after the May 22, 1978, visit. The patient was next seen on July 17, 1979. At that time his pressures were still 20 in both eyes and Respondent noted some slight increase in cataract formation and the presence of retinal hemorrhages in the patient's right eye, indicating some diabetic retinal changes that could make the patient's eyes more susceptible to disease. The patient was next seen on July 15, 1980, at which time his intraocular pressures were measured to be 26 in the right eye and 24 in the left eye. Although there is a notation in Respondent's record that the patient was "squeezing," which can artificially elevate pressures, the Respondent testified without contradiction that the "squeezing" noted in his records did not affect the accuracy of these recorded pressures. As of the July 15, 1980, office visit, Respondent diagnosed the patient as a "glaucoma suspect," which is someone who, because of existing physical factors, runs a substantial chance of developing future glaucoma. As a result of this diagnosis, the Respondent scheduled the patient for visual fields on July 17, 1980, and a gonioscopy on July 18, 1980. Visual fields performed by Respondent showed visual field defects which were suggestive of actual visual field loss on threshold stimulus testing. As a result the Respondent concluded that the patient might already have had early visual field loss, and started the patient on a one percent pilocarpine solution in both eyes, every four hours. The patient was next seen on July 22, 1980, at which time his pressures were measured to be 22 in the right eye and 20 in the left eye at 1:35 p.m. The patient was next seen on July 25, 1980, at which time his pressures were 24 in the right eye and 18 in the left eye. Respondent did not feel that a pressure of 24 in the right eye was adequate medical control, so he increased the patient's medication to two percent pilocarpine solution, and scheduled the patient to return on July 29, 1980. The July 25, 1980, pressure readings were conducted at 8:55 a.m., so the patient was scheduled to return in the early afternoon on July 29, 1980, in order to obtain pressure readings at a different time of day. On that occasion, the patient's pressures were 20 in the right eye and 22 in the left eye, which Respondent still determined not to be adequate medical management. Accordingly, Respondent increased the dosage of pilocarpine to a four percent solution. The patient was next seen on August 1, 1980, at which time his pressures were 21 in the right eye and 22 in the left eye. Respondent concluded the reading of 22 in the left eye, in light of possible visual field defects, was not adequate medical management, so he added 0.25 percent timolol to the four percent pilocarpine prescription. The effect of timolol is usually observable within 48 hours. The patient was next seen on August 5, 1980, at which time his pressures were 17 in the right eye and 18 in the left eye. Respondent was pleased with the lowering of the patient's pressures, and scheduled the patient to return on August 11, 1980. At that time the patient's pressure was 20 in both eyes. Respondent was pleased with these results, and felt that he did not need to see the patient again for a two-week period. The patient never returned. The last time the patient was seen by Respondent on August 11, 1980, the Respondent's diagnosis was "glaucoma suspect," although Respondent felt that he needed to follow the patient longer to monitor his visual fields and optic nerve heads. However, with the patient's history of diabetes, myopia, hypertension, and Respondent's determination that he showed early visual field changes, Respondent felt confident with his final diagnosis of "glaucoma suspect." The patient was subsequently examined by another ophthalmologist in the Fort Lauderdale area on August 28, 1980. At that time the patient's pressures were 19 in the right eye and 20 in the left eye. The patient was given a complete examination, which showed presence of dot and blot hemorrhages throughout the entire retina of both eyes, which was to be expected of a patient who was diabetic for the past 15 years, and had been taking insulin for that condition for the past eight years. The patient's optic nerves were normal, and the patient's cup to disc ratio was also normal. Because the patient's optic nerves were normal, he was taken off the pilocarpine which had been prescribed for him by the Respondent. A visual field test was also administered to the patient to determine the presence of any visual field loss secondary to glaucoma, but that test indicated normal vision. The normal cup to disc ratio found by the subsequent treating physician in examining the patient has remained stable throughout his entire course of treating the patient. The patient was last seen by the subsequent treating physician on May 25, 1982, at which time he had intraocular pressures of 16 in the right eye and 18 in the left eye without medication. Another visual field test was performed on that date, which again disclosed normal vision. The subsequent treating physician, like Respondent, diagnosed the patient to be a potential "glaucoma suspect." In the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with requiring Mr. Miller to make an excessive and unnecessary number of office visits. The Respondent is also charged with failing to maintain records revealing the frequency of use of the pilocarpine prescribed for Mr. Miller, and further with failing to maintain records indicating the percentage dosage of timolol and the date of beginning of use of that drug. With respect to the latter charge, the record contains no facts to substantiate those allegations and, in fact, contains evidence that Respondent clearly noted in his records the information charged as lacking in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with having required the patient to visit his office a total of ten times between July 17, 1980, and August 11, 1980, which is alleged to be ". . . an excessive an[sic] unnecessary number of office visits." The record in this cause establishes that the patient visited Respondent's office a total of eight times during that period. As indicated above, the patient had been seen by Respondent over a period of approximately four years before there was ever any indication of even marginally elevated pressures. Given the patient's history of diabetes and hypertension Respondent, in the exercise of his clinical judgment, determined to treat the condition with medication. Although the record in this cause contains credible testimony that some physicians would not have treated the condition at all, or would have seen the patient at most once a week, equally credible evidence contained in this record establishes that once the decision to treat was made and the patient was started on medication, it was entirely proper to monitor the patient closely to determine the effect that the medication was having on the patient's pressures. It should be noted that the Respondent is not charged in the Administrative Complaint with prescribing excessive or unnecessary medication. Based upon the foregoing, it is therefore concluded that there is an insufficient factual basis in the record in this proceeding to establish that, under the conditions present here, the Respondent departed from reasonable medical practice in seeing the' patient on eight occasions during approximately a one-month period. ELEANOR DRAGER This patient was first seen by Respondent on January 7, 1980. At that time the patient gave a history of having had her vision go blurry for 15 to 20 minutes on two occasions since the beginning of the year. An examination of the patient's eyes showed her vision to be 20/29 in her right eye and 20/100 in her left eye. Intraocular pressures were 30 in her right eye and 28 in the left eye, both of which are considered to be quite high. The patient's last eye examination had been in October of 1978. The patient was next seen on January 9, 1980, at which time Respondent determined it necessary to perform cataract surgery and to implant an intraocular lens. The surgery was performed on January 30, 1980, and, in addition to removing a cataract and implanting a lens, Respondent performed a posterior sclerotomy, a procedure performed by making a tiny hole in the eye wall and inserting a needle to aspirate vitreous fluid, thereby allowing the remaining vitreous to resume a normal position. The patient was seen postoperatively on February 1, 1980, and again on February 7, 1900. Respondent's practice is to visit frequently with postoperative patients in order to closely monitor the patient's condition. On the February 7, 1980, examination, the patient's vision was 20/70 in her left eye, which Respondent considered excellent for one week postsurgery. The pressure in the eye was 20 and there were no other changes of note. The patient was next seen on February 13, 1980, at which time her vision was only 20/200 in her left eye. The only other finding of note on this date was that the lens implant had shifted to a position closer to the cornea. The patient was next seen on March 13, 1980, at which time her vision was still 20/290 in the left eye, and her pressures were 22 in the right eye and 44 in the left eye. Respondent improved the patient's vision to 20/60 in her left eye with a lens change in her glasses. The patient was next seen on March 25, 1980, in response to a call from the patient indicating that on the previous day she had experienced foggy vision in her left eye, and within an hour could see nothing at all out of the eye., The patient had treated the problem herself with eye drops and, within a couple of hours, her vision had improved. Upon examination, Respondent discovered the patient's vision to be 20/200 in the left eye, with a pressure of Respondent restored the patient's vision to 20/25 with a glasses change, leading him to suspect, in view of the patient's recent surgery, that there was a possibility of retinal detachment or retinal tear with possible vitreous hemorrhage. Respondent was unable to see the entirety of the back of the Patient's eye in order to determine the presence of a retinal tear because a view of certain portions of the eye was blocked by the intraocular lens implant. The patient was next seen on March 31, 1980, complaining of "haze" over her left eye. The patient's vision has worsened to 20/40 in her left eye, and her intraocular pressures were 26 in both eyes. The Respondent again changed the lenses in the patient's glasses, restoring her vision to 20/25 in the left eye. The patient was next seen on April 14, 1980, still complaining of the "haze" over her left eye and an additional complaint of many black dots in the left eye since her last visit. Respondent dilated the eye, and found a large number of vitreous floaters present. Respondent concluded from the presence of these floaters that the patient had probably suffered a vitreous hemorrhage. The most common reason for floaters to be present in a postsurgical cataract patient with a vitreous hemorrhage is retinal tear. Respondent could not, however, actually see the retinal tear upon visual examination. The patient was seen again on April 16 and on April 18, 1980, complaining of an increase of black soots in her left eye. Upon examination, Respondent noted the presence of vitreous traction in the left eye, and determined that the patient should be scheduled for cryo-pexy surgery to be performed in his office on April 21, 1980. Cryo-pexy surgery is an operation that involves the application of cold, in this case a local drop of opthane, to the eyeball in order to produce a tissue destruction to release adhesions thereby avoiding potential retinal tear or detachment. The procedure can be performed in a physician's office, as opposed to a hospital, and requires only 10 to 15 minutes to perform. At the time cryo-pexy surgery was to be performed, Respondent had been unable to actually observe a retinal tear, although he had noted the presence of retinal traction. Respondent felt, however, that a retinal tear could have been caused by the placement of the needle through the pars plana during the course of performing the posterior sclerotomy on January 30, 1980. In fact, many ophthalmalogists perform cryo- pexy at the same time as a posterior schlerotomy in order to prevent a retinal tear from developing as a result of that procedure. Respondent chose to recommend cryo-pexy surgery for a variety of reasons. Among them were the recent cataract surgery, the implantation of an intraocular lens, the performance of the posterior sclerotomy, and the' patient's history of heart disease which would have made it more complicated to perform cutting surgery as opposed to cryo-pexy should an actual retinal detachment occur. The patient had a history of recent phlebitis which had hospitalized her, so that the possibility of placing her under general anesthesia in order to perform major surgery for a retinal detachment thereby leaving her inactive in a hospital bed for a period of days could have resulted in a complication of her phlebitis. The decision to perform cryo-pexy surgery involved the exercise of clinical judgment. Respondent, by necessity, had to weigh the dangers of performing the surgery against problems that might be associated with failure to perform the procedure. The three principal reasons advanced in this record for not performing this procedure were that Respondent's records indicated only the presence of "floaters" and not an actual vitreous hemorrhage; Respondent could not actually visualize the retinal tear prior to recommending surgery; and, the performance of cryo-pexy could have further traumatized an eye which had already been subjected to considerable surgical manipulation. In response to these considerations, Respondent testified, without contradiction, that he considered the presence of "floaters" to be synonymous with vitreous hemorrhage and, therefore, saw no reason to actually note the presence of hemorrhage in his notes. Further, although Respondent could not actually see a retinal tear in the patient's eye, based on his course of treatment of the patient he was aware of the site through which he had placed the needle in performing the posterior sclerotomy, and reasonably concluded that the performance of that procedure, in the presence of so great a quantity of floaters in the patient's eye, could have resulted in a retinal tear. In short, the patient's symptoms were consistent with development of a vitreous hemorrhage following cataract extraction. In light of the fact that the cataract extraction included the performance of a posterior sclerotomy through the pars plana, there was every reason to believe that the patient might have had a hole somewhere in the region of the sclerotomy site. Under these conditions cryo-pexy is an acceptable means of treating this condition despite being unable to see an actual retinal tear. The risk in delaying the performance of the cryo-pexy was that the retina could detach and the problem thereby become more difficult to manage. In making the decision to perform cryo-pexy, the Respondent weighed the risk of performing the procedure against the risk of not performing it, and reasonably determined that the best course of treatment was to perform the procedure.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to receive a passing grade on her optometry examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the optometry licensure examination on September 22-24, 1991. Following review of her initial scores, Respondent informed her by notice dated February 22, 1991, that she earned 100 points on Florida law and rules, which was a passing grade; 52.5 points on pharmacology and ocular diseases, which was below the minimum passing grade of 70; and 77 points on clinical, which was below the minimum passing grade of 80. Petitioner challenged her grades on the pharmacology and ocular diseases and clinical portions of the examination. However, at the beginning of the hearing, shedropped her challenge to the pharmacology and ocular diseases portion of the examination. The clinical portion of the examination is divided into two sections. In the first section, the applicant sees a "patient." Two examiners watch and listen as the applicant examines the "patient," who is unknown to the applicant and has been prepared with certain information. The applicant is graded under various areas within the broad categories of case history, visual acuity, pupillary exam, confrontation visual fields, and extra-ocular muscle balance assessment. In the second section, the applicant brings with him to the test site his own "patient." Two examiners, who are different from the examiners for section one, evaluate the applicant's ability to use various types of clinical equipment on his "patient." In the first section, Petitioner challenged the grades that she received for Questions 6, 8-10, and 11, which are all worth two points except for Question 10. Question 10 is worth four points. In the second section, Petitioner challenged the grades that she received for Questions 1-4, which are all worth five points, except for Question 4. Question 4 is worth four points. Any combination of additional points adding up to two or more would give Petitioner a passing grade on the pharmacology and ocular disease portion of the examination. As noted below, Petitioner received partial credit for certainanswers. Each of the four examiners completed a scoresheet while grading Petitioner. When no or partial credit was awarded, the examiner would write comments explaining what the problem was. Testifying for Respondent at the hearing, a licensed optometrist, who was one of the examiners of Petitioner for section two, explained adequately each of the scores awarded Petitioner for each of the challenged questions. He established that the equipment was carefully calibrated prior to each test session and for each individual applicant. A psychometrician employed by Respondent also testified that she had analyzed the variance of the scores among the examiners, in terms of overall scores for all applicants, and found no variances tending to discredit the grades. The challenged questions and clinical procedures provided a reliable measure of an applicant's relevant ability, knowledge, and skill. Petitioner's grades were a fair evaluation of her performance on the challenged questions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that the Board of Optometry enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to her scores in pharmacology and ocular diseases and clinical portions of the September, 1990, optometry licensure examination. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 19th day of June, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McCray, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford, Executive Director Board of Optometry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Chidiebere Ekenna-Kalu P.O. Box 621507 Orlando, FL 32862-1507 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
