The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine in Florida. At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been a licensed physician, in the State of Florida, license number ME 0027088. Respondent is board certified in three areas of specialty: gastroenterology, radiology, and internal medicine. Respondent is on the staff of several hospitals in the Palm Beach County region. From March 28, 1986, until April 4, 1986, Respondent treated Goldie Marshak. At the time of such treatment, Mrs. Marshak was a seventy-one year old in good health. Mrs. Marshak had been referred to Respondent by Dr. Neil Katz. Dr. Katz was Mrs. Marshak's regular physician who had unsuccessfully treated her for persistent gas and burping. In accordance with Mrs. Marshak's health plan guidelines, Dr. Katz had referred her to Respondent, a specialist in similar disorders, for additional diagnosis. The referral form indicated Mrs. Marshak suffered from persistent stomach pain and gas. Attached to the referral were the results from a prior upper GI series which established there were no abnormalities of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Respondent first met with Mrs. Marshak on March 28, 1986. At the initial visit Mrs. Marshak completed a form which identified her current problem as "burping and rectal gas as soon as I eat. Some pain upper chest that has diminished." In addition, Mrs. Marshak supplied a social history, a past medical history, drug allergy, operations, injury, hospitalizations, family history, immunizations, and a general review of systems. No other records prepared on that date were retained. There are no records from which it can be determined what physical examination, if any, Respondent gave to Mrs. Marshak on March 28, 1986. Apparently, after reviewing the referral form and discussing her symptoms with Mrs. Marshak, Respondent elected to schedule her for a procedure called a flexible sigmoidoscopy. After conferring With Dr. Katz, whose consent was required for health plan purposes, the procedure was set to be performed April 3, 1986. Mrs. Marshak was given instructions regarding preparations required in order for the examination to be performed. When Mrs. Marshak returned to Respondent's office on April 3, 1986, she had successfully followed the instructions and was ready for the proposed procedure. Mrs. Marshak was given an authorization form which she signed in the presence of Marina Harmon. Mrs. Harmon was an unlicensed employee who assisted Respondent by escorting patients to the procedure room, having them sign the authorization form, and by explaining the procedure to be performed. The authorization form signed by Mrs. Marshak authorized Respondent to perform a flexible sigmoidoscopy. The form did not disclose risks or inherent dangers regarding the procedure but did provide the following: The motive and purpose of the diagnostic procedure, possible alternative methods, the risks and possible consequences involved, and the possibility of complications have been fully explained to me. I acknowledge that no guarantee or assurance has been made as the results that may be obtained. I also specifically authorize the physician, or his designee, to perform such additional procedures or render such treatment as he may, in his professional judgement deem necessary in the event any unforeseen condition arise during the course of the consented-to- diagnostic procedure that would put the patient's (my) well-being in jeopardy. A flexible sigmoidoscopy is a procedure whereby an instrument is inserted into the rectum and is then passed up the colon the desired distance. The length the instrument is extended specifies what the procedure is called. A flexible sigmoidoscopy involves looking into the rectum and the sigmoid colon only. A colonoscopy looks into the digestive tract beyond an anatomical portion of the colon called the splenic flexure. A left-sided colonoscopy involves looking into the lower digestive tract beyond the sigmoid colon but not beyond the splenic flexure. In terms of length, the flexible sigmoidoscopy would be the shortest procedure of the three described. On April 3, 1986, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Mrs. Marshak which resulted in a perforation of her colon. This perforation would have occurred regardless of the procedure performed since the tear was located approximately twenty centimeters into the colon. During and following the procedure, Mrs. Marshak complained of extreme pain. Respondent presumed the pain to be that typically experienced during the procedure. The pain which continued after the instrument was removed, Respondent attributed to trapped gas within the colon which would be passed naturally in the hours following the procedure. Respondent sent Mrs. Marshak home for rest and advised her that the procedure had not revealed any abnormal condition in the area examined. Once home, Mrs. Marshak continued to have pain and discomfort. Her husband, Kalman Marshak, telephoned Respondent's office to advise of his wife's continued suffering. Respondent did not speak with either of the Marshaks' but did telephone a prescription for Tylenol with Codeine to their pharmacy. Mr. Marshak picked up the drug and administered it to his wife as directed. Codeine is an improper drug to prescribe for a patient who may be retaining gas since it inhibits parastoltic activity of the bowel. Respondent should have discussed the patient's symptoms with her to ascertain whether or not the pain suffered warranted further examination or emergency treatment. Despite the drug, Mrs. Marshak's pain continued through the night. On the morning of April 4, 1986, Mr. Marshak again telephoned Respondent's office to advise them of his wife's discomfort. The Marshaks were given an appointment for three o'clock that afternoon. The delay in setting the appointment or referring the patient for emergency treatment was inappropriate. At the time of her revisit, Mrs. Marshak had a distended abdomen with some tenderness. Respondent took x-rays of the area and reinserted the colonoscope a very short distance in an effort to expel what Respondent believed to be trapped gas in the colon. The procedure did not relieve Mrs. Marshak's pain and she was advised to go to the hospital for further treatment. Subsequent to Mrs. Marshak leaving the office, Respondent read the x-rays and discovered the perforation. Respondent immediately telephoned the emergency room to advise the physician on duty of Mrs. Marshak's condition and her need for attention. The perforation required surgery which resulted in Mrs. Marshak having to wear a colostomy bag for several months. Afterwards, a second surgery restored her colon to allow normal elimination. At the time of the final hearing, Mrs. Marshak had completely recovered from the perforation. On April 8, 1986, Respondent prepared a letter to Dr. Katz which outlined the treatment given to Mrs. Marshak. Any notes or other records used to prepare the letter were destroyed. The x-rays taken at Respondent's office on April 4, 1986, were lost and were, therefore, unavailable. According to Respondent, the missing x-rays were very similar to the ones taken at the hospital when Mrs. Marshak arrived on April 4, 1986. The Respondent did not obtain a consent form or written authorization for the procedure performed on April 4, 1986. The reinsertion of the instrument into the rectum was inappropriate since the x-rays clearly showed the perforation. Other than the letter written to Dr. Katz, Respondent did not maintain any medical records for the treatment he gave to Mrs. Marshak on March 28, April 3, and April 4, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a Final Order which finds Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I and IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint, dismisses Counts II and III, imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $1000, places Respondent on probation for a period of two years, and requires Respondent to attend such continuing education courses as may be deemed appropriate by the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3397 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are accepted. To the extent paragraph 11 describes a colonoscopy as "more invasive" the paragraph is accepted. However, as to all of the examinations performed (colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy or left-sided colonoscopy) the basic description is similar. Consequently "more extensive explanation "is not required. Thus the balance of paragraph" is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted however it must be noted that such explanations given by Harmon are in supplement to those given by Rothenberg. Paragraph 15 is accepted but is unnecessary. Paragraphs 16 and 17 are accepted, however, see note above re: paragraph 14. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are accepted. Paragraph 20 is rejected as argument, irrelevant and immaterial. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 are accepted. Paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 are accepted with the note that the communications addressed were with Respondent's office. There is no evidence that Respondent personally spoke with Mr. Marshak to determine the patient's condition. Paragraph 29 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. It was inappropriate to delay the revisit until 3 o'clock, but there is no evidence Respondent made that decision. Based upon the testimony, The more appropriate course would have had Respondent discuss the situation directly with the patient (or her husband) and to schedule the revisit as soon as possible or have the patient go to the hospital. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraphs 31, 32, and 33 are accepted. Paragraph 34 is rejected as repetitive and unnecessary. Paragraph 35 is rejected as contrary to the evidence. Paragraph 36 is rejected as irrelevant immaterial and assuming facts not in evidence. Paragraphs 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, and 43 are accepted. Paragraphs 44, 45, 46, and 47, are rejected as argumentative or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 48 and 50 are rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 49 is accepted. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 12 the area of the perforation was between 15- 25 centimeters according to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 13 and 14 are accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence as to "reread." That paragraph with the word "read" for "reread" would be accepted. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18, and 19 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Branson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Charles A. Nugent, Jr., Esquire Cone, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, Roth & Romano Servico Centre-Suite 300/400 1601 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: During times material hereto, and particularly from January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985, Respondent, Eusebio Subias, M.D., was a licensed medical doctor in Florida, board certified in Psychiatry and an eligible Medicaid provider of psychiatric services pursuant to the Medicaid contract he is party to with DHRS dated October, 1982. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Medicaid regulations and guidelines require physicians to meet board certification in psychiatry before they may provide reimbursable psychiatric services to Medicaid eligible recipients. As part of his agreement to participate in the Medicaid Program, Respondent agreed to keep such records as are necessary to fully disclose the extent of services provided to individuals receiving assistance in the state plan. Respondent also agreed to abide by the provisions of pertinent Florida administrative rules, statutes, policies, procedures and directives in the manual of the Florida Medicaid Program. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). During 1986, the Surveillance & Utilization Review System unit of the Medicaid Office indicated that the amount of Respondent's medicaid billing greatly exceeded that of his peers. Based on that indication, the Office of Program Integrity asked Respondent to provide them with copies of certain medical records for the year 1982. Respondent provided the Department with those records as requested. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). Those records were forwarded to the peer review committee for evaluation. The records were reviewed by both the local and state peer review committees. The 1982 records contained inadequate information for the peer review committee to document or otherwise justify the number of office visits per patient. The records did not contain reasons for treatment, reasons for frequency of visits or what specific services were rendered to patients. (Petitioner's Exhibits 16 and 17, Pages 3 and 4 and Composite Exhibit 3). On April 21, 1986, Petitioner notified Respondent that it determined that he overbilled Medicaid in the amount of $17,820.09 for the calendar year 1982. Respondent was then notified that a similar review would be conducted for the period January 1, 1983 through December 31, 1985. That review and the results thereof are the subject of this proceeding. The Department subsequently requested, and Respondent provided medical records for 85 specific recipients which were selected by means of the "Disproportionate Stratified Random Sampling" (DSRS). (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). Respondent's 1983-85 records contain substantially more details than the records he provided Petitioner during the 1982 review period. Petitioner had its medical consultant, Dr. Forsthoefel, review the 1983-85 records. He was a member of the peer committee which made the peer review determination in 1982 which was used as a guide for the degree of overutilization. Forsthoefel denied those office visits that he determined were not supported by documentation in the medical records and concluded that the visits were not medically necessary. As a result, Petitioner sent Respondent a letter advising that he had overbilled medicaid in the amount of $79,093.05 for the years 1983-1985. (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 13). By letter dated September 5, 1986, Respondent requested a meeting to discuss the Department's proposed action and such a meeting was granted on October 31, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. Dr. Forsthoefel, Dr. Conn, Petitioner's Chief Medical Consultant in 1982, Millie Martin, and Respondent attended the October 31 meeting. During the meeting, Respondent attempted to individually review each of the approximately 3200 medical records for patients he treated during the years 1983-85 such that he could explain and document the medical necessity of each of the patient's office visits. He also requested that Petitioner have the records reviewed by a psychiatrist. Neither Dr. Conn nor Dr. Forsthoefel are psychiatrists. Dr. Conn left soon after the meeting began. Dr. Forsthoefel, unable and unwilling to comply with Respondent's request that each medical record be individually reviewed, concluded that continuing the meeting would not be productive and left after approximately 2 hours. The Department again denied those visits which it had early concluded were not medically necessary based on the review by its medical consultants. By letter dated November 10, 1986, Petitioner again advised Respondent that the Department would seek a $79,093.05 overpayment for the years 1983-85 and advised him of his rights to a formal hearing. Drs. Mutter and Tumarkin were commissioned by Petitioner to review the medical records under scrutiny with each doctor reviewing one half of the records. Based on their review, Respondent was denied reimbursement for even more office visits based on their opinion that the records did not contain sufficient documentation or notations that would indicate continued office visits were medically necessary. (Petitioner's Exhibits 17a and 18). Dr. Tumarkin made his comments on Respondent's medical records in green ink. Those records which did not contain green marking were records numbered 3 and 27 resulting in the Department's overstating the overpayment claim by $125.01. Respondent introduced information regarding Medicaid's denial of claims which should have been billed to Medicare. During the period from May 1985 through December 31, 1985, certain denials fall within the 1983-85 review period and since the Department never paid such claims, the Department agreed at hearing to reduce its overpayment amount by $6,421.44. Also at hearing, Petitioner determined that it made an error in its computation of the figures stated in the November 10, 1986 letter and was now seeking $78,661.93 minus $6,421.44 for the amount claimed to be overbilled by Respondent as $72,240.49. Respondent, who is of hispanic origin, treats a substantial number of Spanish speaking patients. Respondent graduated from medical school in Cuba at the age of 22 and participated in a rotating internship at Mercy Hospital in Hampton, Ohio. He came to Florida in 1963 and was licensed in 1964. In April, 1963, Respondent was employed at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. Respondent was the third Spanish speaking doctor to practice in South Florida and was the first to be promoted to a chairmanship at Hollywood Memorial Hospital. Respondent was the first clinical director at Coral Reef's Hospital. He is a member of several medical societies and was involved in the development of several psychotic drugs, including Elavil. Respondent is board certified in psychiatry. Respondent has staff privileges at Hollywood Memorial Hospital and three other area hospital. He has practiced psychiatry for more than 25 years in the United State and is accomplished in the treatment of severe psychotic patients. Respondent was tendered and received as an expert in psychiatry. Southeastern Florida was inundated during the early 1980's with mentally ill refugees during the Mariel Boat Lift. That area has a uniquely high need for psychiatric services due to its characteristic as a metropolitan area with a large homeless population. The Marlowe Study which was commissioned by Petitioner to review the need for psychiatric services in Dade County during the period which coincided with the Respondent's 1983-1985 office practice here under review, concluded that insufficient resources were earmarked for the treatment of mentally ill residents of Dade County, Florida. Respondent prefers to treat severely psychotic patients on an outpatient basis. He has been very successful in utilizing this method of treatment and it has resulted in substantial public benefit in the form of substantial financial savings that would have otherwise been required to hospitalize such patients for treatment. Respondent is paid $35.01 for a 45 minute session for each Medicaid patient whereas the average cost for inpatient treatment at an area hospital is approximately $400.00 per day. Respondent modified his record keeping practice in 1982 so that his medical records for 1983-85 contained the minimum requirements for medical records necessary to support Medicaid billings as specified in Rule 10C- 7.030(1)(m) and 10C-7.062(1(n) Florida Administrative Code. All of the medical experts testified that Respondent's records for the period at issue here met the minimum requirements specified in the required regulations and DHRS's procedure manuals. Those requirements are: dates of services; patients name and date of birth; name and title of person performing the service, when it is someone other than the billing practitioner; chief complaint on each visit; pertinent medical history; pertinent findings on examinations; medications administered or prescribed; description of treatment when applicable; recommendations for additional treatments or consultations; and tests and results. Petitioner presented testimony through Ms. Martin to the effect that Respondent had admitted during his October 1986 meeting with the medicaid consultants that he had, from memory, gone back and recreated his medical records for 1983-85. Respondent denied this at hearing and credibly testified that based on the deficiencies found in the latter part of 1982 concerning his medical records, he commenced to prepare a complete medical record for each patient visit. Respondent's testimony in this regard is credited and none of the medical professionals, save Ms. Martin, presented any evidence which would call into question the accuracy of Respondent's records during the period 1983- Ms. Martin's testimony to the contrary is rejected. Dr. Forsthoefel candidly admitted that he is not qualified to render an opinion with respect to medical necessity and appropriateness of specialized psychiatric services. Respondent is the first psychiatrist reviewed by the Medicaid officials of Petitioner for over-utilization as Petitioner's officials were unaware of any other psychiatrist who had been reviewed prior to Respondent. The peer review process for determination of over-utilization and mis- utilization of Medicaid services is designed so that the physician being reviewed may discuss individual patient records and cases with the Committee, as well as the Medicaid consultants who later apply peer review findings, and such discussion will be considered in arriving at a final determination. (Peer Review SOP, April, 1987, Respondent's Exhibit 12). An integral part of peer review for the physician being reviewed is to be able to discuss individual cases with the reviewer prior to a final determination being made concerning medical necessity and appropriateness. Such interplay and explanations regarding certain aspects of a case can lead to a more detailed determination concerning an overpayment issue. Respondent's October 1986 review should have been a complete new review of individual records affording him an opportunity to discuss specific cases with the physician consultants, provide him an opportunity to substantiate certain treatments based upon his recollection and justify the treatment modality he utilized for the 85 patients which comprised the random sampling. 2/ Respondent was not permitted to meaningfully discuss those individual cases even though he requested an opportunity to do so. This is so despite Petitioner's consultant's admission that such a consultation would have aided them and perhaps changed their opinion with respect to medical necessity and appropriateness of specific treatments rendered by Respondent. (Testimony of Conn, Forsthoefel, Tumarkin and Whiddon). While some experts would treat severely psychotic patients on a less frequent basis than Respondent and hospitalize them sooner, Respondent's method of treatment is well accepted among qualified board certified psychiatrists. Dr. Tumarkin's different treatment philosophy wherein he favored inpatient treatment for severely psychotic patients while Respondent showed a preference for outpatient treatment, is in no way indicative of inappropriateness by Respondent's method of treatment since his method was proven to be successful. Additionally, one expert, Dr. Tumarkin would have allowed more visits as being medically necessary and appropriate had he been advised by Petitioner's representatives that he should apply the community standard for medical necessity and appropriateness of psychiatric services. A Medicaid provider of psychiatric services is required to provide services equivalent to that of their peers. Had Dr. Tumarkin consulted with Respondent, his opinion concerning medical necessity and appropriateness would have been affected and he would have requested such had he known that he was allowed to. This is especially so based on the fact that his treatment preference is more hospital oriented. It is thus concluded that Respondent was not given a fair opportunity to present circumstances relevant to the overpayment amount in question here, despite his request to do so. (Petitioner's Exhibit 14). A review of a Peer Comparison Analysis with Respondent's practice respecting the number of office procedures per patient performed by him in contrast to other medicaid psychiatrists, indicates that Respondent saw his patients, on average, less than the average for other psychiatrists in Dade, Monroe and Broward Counties between the years 1983-85. (Petitioner's Exhibit 22). Dr. Stillman is board certified in psychiatry and has been practicing for more than 30 years. He reviewed, as Respondent's expert witness, all of the 85 patient charts in question. Dr. Mutter rendered a specific report about the even numbered charts that he reviewed. His reports indicates, with respect to many charts, that he was unable to find specific documentation supporting the reasons and medical necessity for treatment. This testimony was sharply contradicted by that of both Dr. Stillman and Respondent who easily located specific record documentation which indicated the medical necessity and reasons for services provided to patients by Respondent. Examples of over-utilization from Dr. Mutter's report were inquired about and on each occasion, Respondent and Dr. Stillman were able to identify documents not referred to by Dr. Mutter that substantiated the medical need and reasons for treatment. Drs. Subias and Stillman's testimony was not contradicted by Petitioner. Without going through each patient's records, a review of the findings concerning several patients is illustrative and will be herein discussed. Patient number 85, S. T., Jr. 3/ was a schizophrenic, suffering from epilepsy with borderline intellectual functioning. He was a very psychotic patient who was, during his early years, treated in an institution. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 5). He was obese, apprehensive, disoriented, suffered from impaired insight and judgment, a depressed mood, flat affect and a constant feeling of rejection. Respondent commenced treating patient number 85 twice weekly as an outpatient and as his condition improved, he was seen once a week and office visits were reduced further as his condition continued to improve. Without this intense continuity of treatment, patient number 85 would have decompensated and would have required an extensive institutionalization. Respondent provided substantial documentation as to the need for each of S. T.'s visits. Patient number 83, C. C., was a schizophrenic who suffered from depression, was delusional with a flat affect, poor reality contact and went through extended periods of depression on a monthly basis. Respondent prescribed benadryl to counteract patient C. C.'s delusional symptoms and otherwise justified his method of treatments, frequency and reason for each visit. Respondent substantiated that it was medically necessary to treat patient C. C. on each occasion where treatment was provided. Respondent's medical records provided the documentation for treatment in each instance. Patient number 81, F. D., was a schizophrenic who suffered severe mental depression. His condition had deteriorated to the point whereby family therapy sessions had to be scheduled by Respondent. Respondent was able to keep F. D. out of the hospital, he remained with his family and his condition improved to the point where the frequency of visits were reduced. Respondent's records justified the medical necessity and reasons for the treatment he provided patient F. D. Respondent testified as to his method of treatment as to patients 88, 78, 77, 52, 56, 48, 46, 38, 40, 60, 68 and as to each of those patients, Respondent's records document that the patients treatment and visits were medically necessary and appropriate. Dr. Stillman demonstrated that on each occasion, there was substantial record documentation which supported the necessity for the treatment as provided by Respondent. Based upon the inconsistent evidence presented by Petitioner respecting its claim that Respondent failed to document the medical necessity for the treatment he provided to the patients during the years 1983-85 and the direct evidence presented by Respondent which established that all of the services rendered by him to Medicaid recipients were medically necessary and appropriate under the circumstances, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that any of the treatments here in dispute were unnecessary, inappropriate or were not otherwise documented by the medical records under review. Moreover, all of the experts agree that the treating psychiatrist is best able to determine the medical necessity and appropriateness of specific treatments to render to a patient as that psychiatrist has direct contact with, and is best able to fully apply his or her training and experience. Respondent amply demonstrated that the services here at issue were medically necessary, appropriate and was of clear benefit to the patient. Petitioner has failed to meet its burden of establishing any basis for an overpayment as claimed. 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of- Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding that there was no overpayment to Respondent during the years 1983- 85. Respondent is entitled to a refund of all monies held pursuant to the overpayment calculation by the Department in this cause together with 10% for annual interest pursuant to Rule 10C-7.060(12), Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 1988.
The Issue Respondent is charged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint with failure to properly examine, diagnose, and treat the patient Lynne McMurry; failure to keep adequate written medical records regarding treatment; providing treatment to the patient which was neither necessary nor justified; and failing to properly inform the patient of Respondent's medical diagnosis and by so doing violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, in that she failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Upon the same factual allegations, Count II alleges violation of Section 458.331(1)(o), exercising influence on a patient or client in such a manner as to exploit the patient or client for financial gain. Upon the same factual allegations, Count III charges violation of Section 458.331(1)(1) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine or by employing a trick or scheme in the practice of medicine when such trick or scheme fails to conform to the generally prevailing standards of treatment in the medical community. Upon the same factual allegations, Count IV charges a violation of Section 458.331(1)(n) by failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of a patient. Upon the same factual allegations, Count IV charges a violation of Section 458.331(1)(i) by making or filing a report the Respondent knows to have been false.
Findings Of Fact No evidence was adduced at formal hearing to prove up the threshold issue of jurisdiction by licensure. No prehearing stipulation of the parties established paragraph 2 of the Administrative Complaint alleging that at all times material hereto Respondent was a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME0037967. No requests for admission within the record establish this essential allegation as fact. No answers to interrogatories to establish this fact were read into evidence at the hearing. Respondent saw Lynne McMurry on four occasions. Respondent saw this 113 pound 39 year old female on April 17, 1984, and took a complete medical history. On April 24, 1984, Respondent's notes reflect that Respondent recorded McMurry's blood pressure and glucose level and did a urinalysis. They also reflect that vitamin B-complex was prescribed. There is no indication within the notes of whether this vitamin was administered orally, intramuscularly, or otherwise. However, it appears from the testimony that both experts assumed the B complex was administered by injection on that date. The notes reveal that on May 8, 1984, Respondent performed a lesion removal (described in testimony as the excision of a mole) and recorded test scores for urine, glucose, hematocrit, and hemoglobin. It may be inferred that the tests were done in Respondent's office on blood and urine samples provided by Ms. McMurry. According to Respondent's notes, she again saw McMurry on May 22, 1984, recorded her weight as reduced to 110 pounds, and again prescribed vitamin B-complex. Attached to these notes are copies of the test results recorded plus a breast thermography done on April 24, 1984, and one testing panoramic dated April 17, 1984. No notes were recorded by Respondent for April 17, 1984, beyond the medical history previously mentioned. Insurance claims for these treatments were made by Respondent based on diagnoses of "fibrocystic breast disease" and "hypotension." Petitioner's witness, Dr. Stanley L. Weiss, an osteopathic physician, has concentrated much of his study, practice, and writing in the Respondent's field of bariatric medicine (weight control and eating disorders) and his deposition (P-1) has been accepted as the opinion of an expert witness in review of medical records and medical matters. Dr. Weiss' background includes the policing of medical insurance claim fraud through the Florida Blue Shield Review Committee. Respondent's witness, Dr. Lionel R. Blackman, medical physician and past Medical Director of Lakes Hospital, Lake Worth, Florida, has many years of reviewing physicians' and hospital records, both in hospital peer reviews and in offices where usually only one physician reviews his or her own notes. He testified orally on behalf of Respondent. Dr. Blackman is also accepted as similarly qualified to render expert testimony on review of medical records and on medical matters. Dr. Weiss' criticism of Respondent's notes was solely related to his perception that they fail to contain sufficient information. He specifically found no malpractice in the treatment given, the records kept, or the claims made, but was concerned with the scarcity of what he felt would be adequate progress notes in the chart if another doctor had to review them. He conceded that a comprehensive history and physical examination form had been filled out on April 17, 1984, but expressed concern due to the appearance of several different handwritings on that physical examination form, as though a nurse, physician's assistant, and/or the Respondent herself had partially completed the form. He objected to lack of documentation for the necessity of multiple diagnostic procedures without additional comment within the notes covering actual physical evaluation, patient response to therapy, what therapy had been, and what the future plan of therapy would be. Reviewing the same notes of Respondent, Dr. Blackman considered them sufficient for office practice. He assumed from the notes that the patient being treated was a basically healthy patient without pathology, since no pathology was noted. Under these conditions, he further assumed that the B-complex prescription was used as a general tonic. He stated that one was required to assume Ms. Murry was generally sound because one could not assume a treatment for vitamin deficiency had been undertaken since B-complex vitamin .deficiency is exceedingly rare. He testified as one experienced in reviewing office notes that for office notes, the proper standard is that negative findings need not always be recorded. In short, Dr. Weiss found the notes less than adequate, unsatisfactory, and below common standards, and Dr. Blackman found them adequate, satisfactory, and meeting common standards for office notes. Without conceding any inadequacy of her records, Respondent explained that at the time the various notes had been made, her standard procedure was to personally do the patient history and physical examination while a physician's assistant transcribed the notes from her dictation during her personal "hands- on" examination. Since the complaint was filed, she has discovered everything she orally dictated was not written down by the single assistant she employed in 1984 and since them she has hired two better-trained assistants and has instituted a personal review of each chart at the close of each day's examinations. Respondent has an excellent reputation in the local medical community of West Palm Beach and has served on a number of community service teaching and writing projects. Last year she obtained 98 continuing medical education credits. Although never specifically stated, the undersigned infers all or most of these hours impinge on improving Respondent's record keeping skills. There is no suggestion from any source that the Respondent's diagnoses were in error or that the B-complex did or even could have produced an undesirable result in the patient, Lynne McMurry. Nothing within this record supports the allegations of violations as charged in Counts I, II, III, or V.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medical Examiners enter a Final Order dismissing with prejudice all Counts against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th day of April, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Florida Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Scott Hecker, Esquire 517 Southwest First Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Deborah J. Miller, Esquire 2100 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Suite 1201 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral testimony and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The Respondent is and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME 0005920. Between July 26, 1982 and June 28, 1985, Clarence Keener was a patient of Respondent. Clarence Keener is approximately eighty-five (85) years old. Clarence Keener was taking Tuinal, a brand name for a drug containing Schedule II Controlled Substance as listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, when Respondent began treating him. Respondent continued to prescribe Tuinal for Clarence Keener's insomnia. Tuinal is an accepted sleeping preparation, although a hypnotic medication. On January 6, 1984, Respondent began prescribing Ritalin, a brand name for a drug containing Schedule II Controlled Substance as listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for Clarence Keener's depression and fatigue. Ritalin is an anti-depressant. Respondent prescribed Tuinal and Ritalin at the same time for Clarence Keener from January, 1984 until June, 1985. Tuinal to be taken at night for sleep and Ritalin to be taken in the morning for depression. In his care and treatment of Clarence Keener, Respondent did not perform: (1) a complete physical examination; (2) any lab work, other than urinalysis; (3) a blood chemistry; (4) a chest x-ray or; (5) an electrocardiogram. Respondent failed to include in Clarence Keener's medical records the results of blood counts performed in the office. Respondent's medical records on Clarence Keener did not justify his course of treatment of Clarence Keener, however, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Respondent had failed to substantially document his treatment of Clarence Keener considering that Respondent had not performed a complete physical examination, blood chemistries, or any lab work (other than a urinalysis none of which could be documented since they had not been performed. During the course of treatment, Clarence Keener, told Respondent he had problems with heart irregularity and premature ventricular contractions. Respondent continued to prescribe Ritalin for Clarence Keener even after the patient exhibited hypertension and irregular heartbeats, which are known side effects to the use of Ritalin. Respondent neither attempted to "wean" Clarence Keener from the use of Tuinal for insomnia nor did he attempt to use any other type anti-depressant that was less dangerous than Ritalin. Respondent failed to adequately evaluate Clarence Keener regarding the side effects of Tuinal and Ritalin. Between March, 1978 and June, 1985, Gladys Hooten was a patient of Respondent. Gladys Hooten is approximately seventy-one (71 years old. In March, 1978, when Respondent first began treating Gladys Hooten for nerves, he took her blood pressure, checked her heart and urine. Without performing a complete physical on Gladys Hooten, Respondent began prescribing Valium and Quaaludes. Prior to treating Gladys Hooten, Respondent failed to appropriately evaluate and diagnose her condition. On October 5, 1981, Respondent began prescribing Ritalin for Gladys Hooten. Respondent continued to prescribe Quaaludes and Ritalin at the same time for Gladys Hooten until May, 1984. Respondent never tried to "wean" Gladys Hooten from Quaaludes to see if it would stop her depression. Respondent failed to try other drugs instead of Ritalin to treat Gladys Hooten's depression. In May, 1984, when Quaaludes were removed from the market, Respondent began prescribing Tuinal for Gladys Hooten for insomnia. Respondent prescribed Ritalin and Tuinal at the same time for Gladys Hooten from May, 1984 until June, 1985, Tuinal to be taken at night for sleep and Ritalin to be taken in the morning for depression. In his care and treatment of Gladys Hooten, Respondent did not perform: (1) a complete physical examination; (2) any lab work, other than urinalysis; (3) blood chemistry; (4) chest x-ray or; (5) electrocardiogram. Respondent's medical records on Gladys Hooten did not justify his course of treatment of Gladys Hooten, however, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Respondent had failed to substantially document his treatment of Gladys Hooten considering that Respondent had not performed a complete physical examination, blood chemistries, or any lab work (other than a urinalysis) none of which could be documented since they had not been performed. Respondent's concomitant use of Tuinal and Ritalin for Clarence Keener and Gladys Hooten was inappropriate. Both Ritalin and Tuinal are addictive drugs. Neither Ritalin nor Tuinal should be used over a long period of time as was the case here. The usual time period recommended is fourteen (14 days.) One of the known side effects of Tuinal is depression. Respondent prescribed Ritalin for Clarence Keener and Gladys Hooten for treatment of depression. Respondent's use of Ritalin for treatment of depression for Clarence Keener and Gladys Hooten was inappropriate. Ritalin can be a dangerous drug for elderly patients such as Clarence Keener and Gladys Hooten because one of the side effects is ventricular tachycardia or increased heart rate. Respondent's use of Ritalin and Tuinal for Clarence Keener and Gladys Hooten was inappropriate because he failed to evaluate them properly regarding the drugs and their potential harm for the elderly. There was credible evidence that drugs less dangerous to elderly person were available for use by Respondent in his treatment of Clarence Keener and Gladys Hooten. In treating Clarence Keener and Gladys Hooten, Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Respondent has been practicing medicine for approximately forty (40 years without any apparent blemish on his record. Respondent did not prescribe either Ritalin or Tuinal in excessive or inappropriate amounts for either Clarence Keener or Gladys Hooten in his treatment of them. Respondent's testimony that because of Clarence Keener's and Gladys Hooten's age and their financial status his treatment of them without a battery of expensive test was reasonable and that their quality of life had improved through his treatment was credible. However, the more credible and persuasive evidence was that Ritalin and Quaaludes or Ritalin and Tuinal in combination as in this situation was contraindicated and could have caused some serious problems notwithstanding that neither Clarence Keener nor Gladys Hooten suffered any bad effects from Respondent's treatment.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of a violation of Section 458.331(1)(h)(q) and (t), Florida Statutes. For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board suspend Respondent's license for a period of one (1) year, stay the suspension and place Respondent on probation subject to terms deemed appropriate by the Board. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count One and Count Five be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 28th day of July, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 Adminisrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 86-0633 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1-8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 through 8 consecutively. 9. Rejected as not comporting with the substantial competent evidence in the record in that the medical records were complete but did not support the course of treatment. 10-24. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10 through 24 consecutively. Rejected as not comporting with the substantial competent evidence in the record in that the medical records were complete but did not support the course of treatment. Adopted in Finding of Fact 26. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. 30-36. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 through 34 consecutively. 37-38. Adopted in Finding of Fact 35 as modified. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Rejected as argument or a statement of what the Administrative Complaint alleged. The first sentence rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The second and third sentences are rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as not supported by substantial evidence in the record or as argument. Rejected as argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie Brookmeyer, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John H. Shackelton, M.D. 6404 Arlington Road Jacksonville, Florida 32211 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Jorge Macedo, M. D., has been licensed as a medical doctor under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent graduated from medical school in Brazil in 1954, and practiced in Brazil for one year thereafter. He then came to the United States, where he has practiced from 1956 until the present date. On February 13, 1976, Maury Braga came to Respondent's office in Hialeah, Florida. Respondent had never before met Braga and had never heard of him. Braga advised Respondent that he was a medical doctor from Brazil, that he had attended and graduated from the Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, Brazil, that he had practiced the profession of medicine in Brazil during the years of 1967 through 1972, that he was in the process of obtaining his medical license in Florida, and that to complete his Florida medical application he needed statements from local doctors acknowledging that Braga was a Brazilian medical doctor. Braga showed to Respondent documentation concerning his education and practice, including his medical diploma. Based upon his interview of Braga and his examination of Braga's documents, Respondent signed a form utilized by Petitioner, which form is entitled "Affidavit" and which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: I, Jorge Macedo, M. D., of 1060 E. 4th Ave., Hialeah, Florida, do hereby swear and affirm by my personal knowledge, that Maury Braga attended and graduated from Falcudade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos and did lawfully practice the pro- fession of medicine, in Brazil during the years of 1967 through 1972, and that I also practiced the same profession in Brazil. When Respondent signed the "affidavit," it was not notarized. Respondent had no personal knowledge regarding whether Braga had ever attended or graduated from medical school or regarding whether Braga had ever practiced medicine in Brazil. Respondent relied totally on the information contained in the documents Braga showed to him and upon what Braga told him. After Braga left Respondent's office, he had the "affidavit" signed by Respondent notarized. He attached the "affidavit" to an Application for Examination and Course in Continuing Medical Education, which application he then submitted to the Florida Board of Medical Examiners. On February 26, 1976, the same day that Braga's application was received, the Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners wrote to Braga advising him that his application was received after the deadline of January 26, 1976, and was therefore rejected. The application was not returned to Braga, but rather was placed in a file opened under Braga's name to be retained in the event that Braga again applied within the next three years to take the course in continuing medical education and the examination for licensure. On January 17, 1977, Braga filed a second application to take the course in continuing medical education which would then qualify him to take the examination for licensure. The second application included "affidavits" from medical doctors other than Respondent. One of Braga's two applications was approved; Braga completed the course in continuing medical education; Braga took and passed the examination for licensure; and Braga was licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida on March 10, 1978. Maury Braga did not attend or graduate from the Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, and did not lawfully practice the profession of medicine in Brazil during the years 1967 through 1972. Braga's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida has been revoked. At least prior to the revocation of his license, Braga's file with the Petitioner contained both the application he filed in 1976 and the application he filed in 1977. No evidence was introduced to show which application was reviewed when Braga's application to take the educational course and examination for licensure was approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint, dismissing Counts One, Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint, and placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of one year, subject to terms and conditions set forth by the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee7 Florida 32301 Jack E. Thompson, Esquire Ingraham Building, Suite 516 25 SE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 82-114 JORGE MACEDO, M.D. License Number: 10095 Respondent. /
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep legible medical records that justify the course of treatment of a patient, as set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43, chapter 456, and chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2015). The Board of Medicine is charged with final agency action with respect to physicians licensed pursuant to chapter 458. Dr. Velilla is a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 98818. Dr. Velilla's address of record is 12709 Miramar Parkway Miramar, Florida 33027. Dr. Velilla has been a medical director at Evolution MD since the summer of 2010. Dr. Velilla was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida during all times relevant to Petitioner's Second Amended Administrative Complaint. Dr. Velilla is Board-certified in internal medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine. On or about December 29, 2010, Patient C.A. consulted with Dr. Velilla regarding possible abdominal liposuction and fat transfer to the gluteal area. These are cosmetic surgery procedures, undertaken with the object of enhancing the patient's appearance, and are purely elective. On or about February 10, 2011, Dr. Velilla performed an evaluation of Patient C.A. and ordered routine pre-operative laboratory studies. The laboratory report prepared by First Quality Laboratory indicated readings within normal limits for blood urea nitrogen (BUN) at 19.8 and creatinine serum at .7, but an abnormally high BUN/creatinine ratio reading of 30.43. It showed an abnormally high globulin reading at 3.40, an abnormally low INR reading of .79, an abnormally low MCH reading of 25.2, and an abnormally low MCHC reading of 30.7. On or about February 15, 2011, Dr. Velilla reviewed Patient C.A.'s pre-operative laboratory report results. He placed a checkmark next to the high BUN/creatinine reading and the low INR reading. He wrote "Rev." with the date and signed his name on each page. Dr. Velilla testified that he performed a glomerular filtration rate test, a calculation used to check on the functioning of the kidneys, and the result indicated normal renal function. He testified that a BUN/creatinine ratio outside of the normal range could be caused by several factors, and that after his assessment, the reading was not of concern to him in proceeding to surgery. Dr. Velilla did not make any notation on Patient C.A.'s medical records to indicate how or why he concluded that the abnormal BUN/creatinine ratio reading was not of concern. On February 24, 2011, Patient C.A. filled out a "General Consent" form. Patient C.A. agreed to disclose her medical history, authorized the release of medical records for certain purposes, agreed to use skin care products as directed, and acknowledged possible side effects from the use of skin care products. The form also stated, "I understand that Cesar Velilla, M.D. P.A. services generally consist of a series of treatment [sic] to achieve maximum benefit, and this consent shall apply to all services rendered to me by Cesar Velilla, M.D., P.A., including ongoing or intermittent treatments." On February 24, 2011, Patient C.A. filled out a "Medical History" form. Patient C.A. indicated she was not under the care of a dermatologist, did not have a history of erythema ab igne, was not on any mood-altering or anti-depression medication, had never used Accutane, had never had laser hair removal, had no recent tanning or sun exposure, had no thick or raised scars from cuts or burns, and had never had local anesthesia with lidocaine. The form did not ask for information about any prior abdominal procedures, previous liposuction treatments, multiple pregnancies, or abdominal hernias. On February 24, 2011, Patient C.A. signed a "Consent for Laser-Assisted Lipolysis Procedure SLIM LIPOSCULPT." The form did not include consent for fat transfer to the gluteal area or describe risks or possible complications of that procedure. Patient C.A. also signed a "Consent for Local Aneshesia [sic]" form. As Dr. Obi testified, the risks from a fat transfer procedure are generally the same as those of the liposuction procedure; although with a fat transfer, you have additional potential for fat embolism. On or about February 24, 2011, Dr. Velilla performed liposuction of the abdomen and thighs with fat transfer to the gluteal area on Patient C.A. at Evolution MD. Patient C.A.'s liposuction was not the "Slim Liposculpt" laser-assisted procedure. The testimony was clear that the "Slim Liposculpt" procedure would use a laser to melt the fat before liposuction, which could not be done on Patient C.A. because the fat was to be transferred. There was testimony that a laser could be used to improve skin retraction, however. As Dr. Velilla testified, Patient C.A. had requested the fat transfer in addition to the liposuction prior to the procedure. Dr. Velilla discussed the risks of both the liposuction and the fat transfer with Patient C.A., and she consented to have the procedure done. As Dr. Velilla testified, this consent was later documented on the operative report prepared sometime after the surgery and dated February 24, 2011, the date of the surgery. Dr. Velilla's testimony was supplemented by the operative report, which stated in pertinent part: The patient requested liposuction with fat transfer and understood and accepted risks including but not exclusive to bleeding, infection, anesthesia, scarring, pain, waves, bumps, ripples, contour deformities, numbness, skin staining, fluid collections, non- retraction of the skin, deep venous thrombosis, fat embolism, pulmonary embolism, death, necrotizing fasciitis, damage to surrounding structures, need for revision surgery, poor aesthetic result and other unexpected occurrences. No guarantees were given or implied and the patient had no further questions prior to the procedure. Other options including not having surgery were discussed and dismissed by the patient. The operative report adequately documented Patient C.A.'s earlier oral informed consent for liposuction with fat transfer. Patient C.A. did not execute a written informed consent for the fat transfer prior to the procedure. Dr. Velilla also noted in the operative report that the "patient physical examination and pre-operative blood work were within normal limits." Neither the operative report nor any other documentation indicated whether a complete physical examination or a focused physical examination was given, or what that examination consisted of. Patient C.A. was scheduled for a second liposuction procedure on her arms on February 26, 2011. It was decided to defer the procedure on her arms to this later date in order to keep the amount of lidocaine at a safe level during the initial procedure. On or about February 26, 2011, Patient C.A. presented to Evolution MD with complaints of nausea and mild pain. Dr. Velilla was not at the Evolution MD office. Mild pain is to be expected on the second day after a fat transfer procedure, and nausea can be anticipated in some patients who are taking opiods, as had been prescribed for Patient C.A. There was insufficient competent evidence in the record to support a finding that Patient C.A.'s symptoms were unusual or that Dr. Velilla was ever informed of more serious symptoms in Patient C.A. that day. Dr. Velilla spoke by telephone with an Evolution MD staff member about Patient C.A.'s symptoms and instructed the staff member to ask Patient C.A. to wait for his arrival at the office. A "Progress Note" signed on February 26, 2011, by Ms. Amanda Santiago, of Dr. Velilla's office, indicated that Patient C.A. said the pain and nausea were "due to the Vicodin." The note indicates that Dr. Velilla was called, that he stated he might stop the Vicodin and start Patient C.A. on Advil or Tylenol for pain, and that he asked that Patient C.A. be prepared for surgery. The note does not indicate that Dr. Velilla directed that Patient C.A.'s vital signs be taken, or that they were taken. The note states that Patient C.A. decided not to have the procedure on her arms done and that Dr. Velilla was again called. The note indicates that he asked the staff to take pictures of Patient C.A. and ask her to wait for him to arrive. Dr. Velilla did not order Evolution MD staff to take Patient C.A.'s vital signs. Her vital signs were not recorded by Evolution MD staff on February 26, 2011. Contrary to Dr. Velilla's request, Patient C.A. left Evolution MD on February 26, 2011, prior to Dr. Velilla's arrival at the office, and Evolution MD staff were unable to contact her. On or about February 27, 2011, Patient C.A. presented to Coral Springs Medical Center where she was admitted with a diagnosis of severe dehydration, intravascular volume depletion, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Subsequently, Patient C.A. was admitted to the intensive care unit. Patient C.A. remained hospitalized until March 31, 2011. Standards and Ultimate Facts Dr. Obi is a surgeon specializing in plastic surgery. He does not conduct laser-assisted liposuction, but performs what is known as "wet" or "super wet" liposuction, as was performed by Dr. Velilla in this case. He has been a Diplomate of the American Board of Plastic Surgery since 1982. Dr. Obi reviewed Patient C.A.'s medical records from Evolution MD, other related records, and the Second Amended Administrative Complaint. Taken as a whole, Dr. Obi's testimony with respect to the medical history documented for Patient C.A. was not clear and convincing. He testified that Patient C.A. was undergoing a significant operative procedure and that it involved multiple anatomic areas. He also noted that the history did not include information as to whether Patient C.A. had prior abdominal surgical procedures, earlier liposuction, multiple pregnancies, or abdominal hernias. He testified that this information could indicate increased risks of injury and that this relevant history must be documented. Dr. Obi stated that in his opinion the patient history did not meet the minimum standards of the medical records rule. On the other hand, Dr. Obi seemed to have only a partial understanding of what the medical records rule required, and he had no opinion on whether the patient history justified the course of treatment of Patient C.A.--the actual statutory standard that Dr. Velilla was charged with violating in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint: Q. What does the rule say? A: What does the rule say? The medical record rule I believe requires – I can't tell you verbatim what it says. It requires adequate documentation so that in the event that the care of a patient has to be transferred to another healthcare professional the documentation is adequate that the patient, that the professional could immediately step in and take over. Q: Okay. You believe that's part of either the statute or the rule enacted by the Board of Medicine? A: If the Board of Medicine is the group responsible for the medical record rule, then I would say yes. Q: Okay. Have you reviewed what has been alleged in the amended administrative complaint, or second amended administrative complaint, as to the statutory provision for medical record adequacy? A: The statutory, I'm not sure that I have. * * * Q: And do you believe that the records fail to justify the course of treatment of the patient with those history findings? A: That's not what I said. I didn't say it failed to justify. What I said is it wasn't complete. Q: Okay, do you have an opinion as to whether the records fail to justify the course of treatment of the patient? A: No. Q: You don't have an opinion. Okay, thank you. In contrast, Dr. Soler testified that in his opinion the patient history that was documented as part of Patient C.A.'s medical records did justify her course of treatment. With respect to the physical examination, Dr. Obi noted that there was only a single line in the operative record stating that the physical examination was within normal limits. He noted that the documentation did not indicate what had been examined and did not record any specific findings or results of any examination that was conducted. However, he never offered an opinion that the record of the physical examination failed to justify the course of treatment of Patient C.A. Dr. Soler testified that in his opinion, the record of the physical examination did justify the course of treatment of the patient. Petitioner did not show by clear and convincing evidence that the documentation of Patient C.A.'s medical history and physical examination failed to justify her course of treatment. Dr. Obi testified that the medical records should have contained more evaluation or explanation of the abnormal laboratory report results: Q: And so was the check mark, when coupled with that note in the pre op, or in the operative report, sufficient documentation of Dr. Velilla's evaluation of the of the patient's pre-operative lab results? A: In my opinion, no. Q: And what do you base that on? A: If you have an abnormal result, I think it is incumbent on you – it – depending on what the abnormality is, and depending on what your interpretation of that abnormality is, it's incumbent to explain it. Sometimes you need to repeat the tests. Sometimes it may be perfectly within normal limits, but on the laboratory sheet, if it says that it's high, or out of the range of normal, I think other than just check mark, I think you just acknowledge what your thoughts are. Q: And do you remember if there was anything abnormal in Patient C.A.'s pre-operative laboratory results? A: There was one area that I commented on. That was the BUN-creatinine ratio. Q: And what is the BUN-creatinine ratio? A: It's just a ratio of some parameters dealing with kidney function. Q: Okay, and what does that lab result tell you about a patient, if anything? A: Well, you know, it can call your attention to the area, I mean, it can tell you, you know, that the patient has some renal issues. It can tell you that the patient is, you know, potentially dehydrated, it can tell you that the patient, you know, is within normal. But if the values are – if one value is high and the other one is low, it may give you a, a high reading. And that's understandable, but all you need to do is document that. It was Dr. Obi's opinion that the medical records failed to contain a sufficient evaluation or explanation of the abnormal BUN/creatinine ratio laboratory result. He acknowledged that the abnormal result was not necessarily indicative of a renal problem. However, Dr. Obi also testified: Q: Okay. Do you have an opinion as to whether those records are adequate to justify the course of treatment of the patient? A: The failure to document the thought process on this ratio would, in and of itself, not prevent or preclude the operative procedure from being done, if that's your question. At best, Dr. Obi's testimony was thus ambiguous as to whether or not failure to include an explanation of the abnormal laboratory result failed to justify the course of treatment of Patient C.A. Dr. Soler testified that no other documentation or chart entry was required to address the lab report value in order to justify proceeding with the surgery. Dr. Sandler testified that the BUN/creatinine ratio was a renal-related test, but does not itself indicate kidney malfunction. Dr. Sandler also testified that in his opinion, no other documentation was needed prior to proceeding with the surgical procedure. The Department did not clearly and convincingly show that the documentation in the medical records relating to abnormal laboratory results failed to justify the course of treatment of Patient C.A. Dr. Obi testified that Dr. Velilla had a duty to order the taking of Patient C.A.'s vital signs since he was not yet in the office when she returned on February 26, 2011, the date the second liposuction had been scheduled. He testified that if the medical records rule "requires doing what's appropriate at each visit," then Patient C.A.'s records did not meet the requirements of that rule. He testified that if Patient C.A. was an "outlier" in that her symptoms were uncommon, the standard of care required that Patient C.A.'s vital signs be taken. Dr. Obi admitted that there was no documentation in the medical records to suggest that Dr. Velilla had ordered the staff at Evolution MD to take Patient C.A.'s vital signs, but he testified that the order should have been given and that it should have been documented. Dr. Obi testified that there was no written documentation of an informed consent for the fat transfer and that the consent for the "Slim Liposculpt" procedure was consent for a procedure that was not done. Again, Dr. Obi seemed unfamiliar with the specific requirements of the medical records rule: Q: And is, is the –is a written documentation of the fat transfer required by the medical record rule in this case? A: In terms of the actual requirement, it would be my opinion that it should be required. Now, I can't say if it says that for every procedure, every surgical procedure, every invasive procedure, that a written consent must be documented; because obviously, you now, the patient consented. It's implied that the patient consented because she showed up for the procedure. Dr. Obi testified that he was aware that the operative report contained statements that Patient C.A. had been informed of the risks of the fat transfer procedure and that she had specifically consented. He admitted he was unsure as to "which board, or organization, or outfit" requires a written informed consent. Aggravating and Mitigating Factors No evidence was introduced to show that Dr. Velilla has had any prior discipline imposed. There was no evidence that Dr. Velilla was under any legal restraints in February 2011. It was not shown that Dr. Velilla received any special pecuniary benefit or self-gain from his actions in February 2011. It was not shown that the actions of Dr. Velilla in this case involved any trade or sale of controlled substances. On May 17, 2014, Dr. Velilla received a certificate showing completion of an FMA educational activity conducted in Jacksonville, Florida, entitled "Quality Medical Record Keeping for Health Care Professionals."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine, enter a final order dismissing the Second Amended Administrative Complaint against the professional license of Dr. Cesar Augusto Velilla. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2016.
