Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent, Lois E. Anderson Bailey, was a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida under license number 12519-1. During the period between July, 1982 and January, 1983, and for an unknown period both before and after that time, Dr. Allan R. Varraux was a pulmonary specialist who, as a part of his practice, performed bronchoscopies at ORMC. As a routine part of this practice, Dr. Varraux utilized a cocaine solution to spray the back of the throat of his patients as an anesthetic prior to inserting the bronchoscope. Cocaine is also used as an anesthetic after the bronchoscope is inserted because it lasts between one-half an hour to forty-five minutes as opposed to xylocaine which lasts only fifteen minutes or so. Dr. Varraux also prefers to use cocaine over xylocaine because the latter often causes spasms in the patient. During this period, Dr. Varraux knew the Respondent, who was nursing supervisor of the Endoscopy section at the time, and discussed with her the controls for the use of cocaine for this purpose because cocaine is a controlled substance. At no time did Dr. Varraux ever discuss with Respondent the potential for the substitution of xylocaine for cocaine in this procedure nor did he ever approve its substitution. On or about January 18, 1983, Dr. Varraux wrote a letter to Mr. Holton, Director of the hospital pharmacy, asking for a survey of cocaine use at ORMC. He did this because of a survey done at another hospital at which he also practiced with which he was familiar to be sure that the amount of cocaine he was using was reasonable. The audit revealed that at the time in issue here, no cocaine was dispensed by the pharmacy for the Endoscopy section. Dr. Varraux considered this odd because he was ordering cocaine solution for the bronchoscopies he was performing and as a result, some cocaine should have been issued. He subsequently found out that xylocaine was being substituted for cocaine. He had not authorized the substitution and was greatly concerned because of the potentially serious impact the substitution might have on a patient if the patient were allergic to xylocaine and the physician did not know that the substitution had been made. In his opinion, it is not good medical practice to substitute xylocaine for cocaine without the doctor's orders and without informing the physician of the change. In practice, the cocaine is injected with a syringe into the apparatus being utilized during the bronchoscopy. At that point, the order for the use of cocaine is a verbal order which is, thereafter recorded in the nurse's notes and in the doctor's dictated report concerning the procedure. Since there is no standard procedure for this operation, Dr. Varraux established, in discussions with the Respondent, his general procedures which in all cases included the use of cocaine as an anesthetic. Respondent actually assisted in very few of Dr. Varraux procedures. Eighty-five percent of his procedures were done with Ken Rosenau assisting and Mary Ann Hinds assisted in others. However, Respondent was the supervisor of the endoscopy section and if there was a problem, Dr. Varraux would go to her first. Lynn W. Capraun, an instructor of respiratory therapy at Valencia Community College, and an advisor in that area to ORMC, was asked by Mr. Rogers to audit the endoscopy section records for bronchoscopies performed from July, 1982 through January, 1983. His audit was limited to only those on a list of procedures given him by Mr. Rogers and he is not aware of what percentage of the total bronchoscopy load this list consisted of. However, as a part of this audit, he reviewed for each specific case the doctor's clinical resume' and the nurse's notes to see what the doctor called for and what was in fact done. Based on his audit, it appeared that during the period in question, more than 203 ml of cocaine had been ordered by physicians but there was no supporting documentation in the nurse's notes to indicate that the cocaine had been administered even though there was documentation for the use of other drugs. Here, it should be noted that Mr. Capraun is also the partner of Mr. Rogers in a private respiratory therapy business. The records of the pharmacy at ORMC revealed that the last issue of cocaine too the endoscopy section prior to the audit was made in July, 1982. Prior to that time, as far back as 1981, records indicated that the pharmacy had issued 60 ml of cocaine solution every three or four weeks. All issues are reflected as such issues are logged and the name of the individual to whom the drug is issued, who must be licensed, is retained. In addition, pharmacy records reflected no issue of any controlled drug, not only cocaine, to the endoscopy section between late October, 1982 and January 3, 1983. After Respondent was suspended on January 19, 1983, Mr. Holton examined the drug sheets kept in the endoscopy section and the drugs kept on the floor. He found three bottles of cocaine solution, one of which contained 60 ml and the other two contained 40 ml. Analysis of the contents of one bottle reflected the solution at 3.9 percent cocaine which is acceptable. The other two bottles, however, were at a lower strength - one at .5 percent and the other at 1.4 percent cocaine. Though there were three bottles of solution, only two records to support these bottles were found. One was dated May 21, 1982 and the other, June 23, 1982. Cocaine is issued by the pharmacy only upon the presentment of a proof of use sheet which reflects the fact that the previous issue has been used up and it is the practice of the pharmacy, according to Mr. Holton, not to issue new supplies of a controlled substance without a proof of use sheet to show the use of the previous issue. The records of the hospital reflect that the Endoscopy section is a small user of any controlled drug. From the above, an inference can be drawn that cocaine was improperly removed from the Endoscopy section. However, from review of the evidence as a whole, not only that already discussed but that to be discussed as well, it is impossible to determine for certain that there was a loss and if so, who was responsible for it. It certainly cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the Respondent either took it or knew who did. When Mr. Rogers received the letter from Dr. Varraux regarding the use of cocaine in the Endoscopy section of his department, he went to look for the Respondent to discuss the problem with her. He found that she had gone for the day and so he discussed the situation with Mrs. Williams, one of Respondent's assistants, who advised that Respondent had, at times, asked her to substitute xylocaine for cocaine. The following day, he looked into the situation further and after talking with his supervisor, called in Respondent and showed her Dr. Varraux's letter. He says Respondent first indicated she was aware of the situation - then changed her position. She again changed her position, indicating that she was aware of only one incident and that she had discussed with the employees of the section the illegality of the practice advising them not to do it. Mr. Rogers was told by his employers that he could suspend the Respondent if he felt it to be necessary. As a part of his inquiry, he discussed the matter with Mr. Holton and other employees of the department whom he asked to make statements regarding the alleged substitution. His requests were for specifics of the incidents - if they knew of the practice, who had asked them to do it, and things of that nature. When he got the employees' statements back, he reviewed them and took them to the personnel office for advice. Thereafter, he notified Respondent by mail of her termination. Mary Ann Hinds worked at the Endoscopy section as an LPN during the period July, 1982 through September, 1983 assisting physicians, including Dr. Varraux, in bronchoscopy procedures. She contends that at some time during October or November, 1982, Respondent called her into the office and advised that cocaine would no longer be used in bronchoscopy procedures and xylocaine would be substituted. She says she was told to chart the initial 4 percent xylocaine solution but not the 10 percent xylocaine solution she would give to the doctor without telling him of the substitution even though the doctor might ask for cocaine. She says that Ms. Bailey told her this would be done because during a prior procedure when the assistant used xylocaine instead of cocaine, Dr. Varraux did not know the difference and Bailey concluded that they would use the xylocaine instead of cocaine thereafter. Ms. Hinds did not question this because Respondent was the head of the department. Ms. Bailey was, in her opinion, difficult to talk to and as a result of these instructions, she followed this new procedure from the time of the instruction on through January, 1983. During this period, she saw Mr. Rosenau and Mr. Hooper also do the same thing. Although Ms. Hinds was quite definite in her testimony regarding the conversation with Ms. Bailey, she is significantly less sure of her testimony regarding control of drugs on the ward. For example, she cannot recall ever signing any proof of use forms. She contends that the LPNs and technicians did not sign off on the drug book. They would tell the Respondent what was used and she made the entries. When cocaine was to be used, she got it from a bottle in the Respondent's office. Helen Williams also worked under Respondent in the endoscopy section until January, 1983 assisting doctors with bronchoscopy procedures. When she first came to work in this section, she did not know that cocaine was being used. She recalls that in a conversation shortly after she came to work, Respondent told her they were using 4 percent xylocaine solution in place of a cocaine solution because they had done it one time with Dr. Varraux and he did not notice and as a result, they continued to follow this procedure. However, Ms. Williams, though she subsequently heard from Rosenau that substitutions were being made, never saw it done nor did she ever substitute. Though she says she advised Respondent she didn't think this substitution was a good idea, Respondent is supposed to have replied that this is the way it was done. Ms. Williams accepted Ms. Bailey's word when told that there was no cocaine on the unit and that cocaine was not being used even though the drug book at the time showed 27 cc of cocaine solution unused and on the unit. She discussed this with Ms. Bailey and concluded that if her supervisor knew about it, that was sufficient, and she did not report this to anyone else. She also did not report her knowledge of the substitutions being made to anyone else because she did not feel it was her place to do so since Respondent was the section head and knew about it. Ted Hooper, also an endoscopy technician, did bronchoscopies with Dr. Varraux for several years and toward the end, substituted xylocaine for cocaine in these procedures without telling the doctor what he was doing. He had seen Rosenau substitute xylocaine while he was watching procedures to learn how to do them before becoming a technician. When he asked Bailey about this, he says, she responded that it was done, for one reason, because it was cheaper for the patient. She also told him it was all right to do this as it had already been taken care of. She did not tell him, outright, to make the substitution but because she had said it was taken care of, he thought it was permissible. However, he also contends that he observed cocaine being used by Hinds and others in Dr. Varraux' cases after he became a technician in July, 1982. James E. Hardy, in October, 1982, employed as a transporter in the Endoscopy section of ORMC, also assisted in bronchoscopies, working at times with Dr. Varraux and he was aware of the practice of substituting xylocaine for cocaine in these procedures. When he first went to work in the section, he says, he was asked to substitute by Respondent who told him it was being done because it was cheaper for the patient but refused to do so. To his knowledge, however, he does not recall seeing the substitution actually performed. On one bronchoscopy he recalls, which he set up, cocaine was used which he got from Respondent. Mr. Rosenau testified at the March, 1985 hearing. He clearly indicated that xylocaine was substituted for cocaine in the procedures performed by Dr. Varraux and the cocaine they had on hand was rarely taken from the drug locker. He absolutely denies that during all the period of time he was working with Respondent, he ever discussed with her or admitted to her that he had substituted xylocaine for cocaine nor did Respondent ever tell him to do this. In fact, he cannot recall how this practice got started. Here it should be noted that Rosenau, Hardy, and Hooper were all friends of Mr. Rogers and at least Rosenau and Hardy owed their employment at the time to him. Respondent was recognized by Dr. Bone as partially responsible for the growth of the Endoscopy section at ORMC. He recalls her as being an exceptional nurse: reliable, dependable, and proficient - a perfectionist who did an excellent job. He had complete confidence in her ability and in her honesty and integrity. If he asked her to do something, she did it more reliably than others. Because of her perfectionist nature, however, she may have alienated people and turned them away, but he never had any doubts about her nor did he ever have any reports from other doctors that she did not do her job well. He worked with her until she left the hospital. She was a "take charge" person but never exceeded her authority or deviated from prescribed procedures or doctors' orders. This opinion of Respondent is shared by Christina Stephens who worked under Respondent for a period of time. She found the Respondent to be stern, regimented as to order of procedures, and very organized, but she never saw any irregularities by the Respondent in carrying out doctor's orders. As to Mr. Rosenau, however, of whom she also had some knowledge, she found him to be somewhat unprofessional in his patient care and actions and brought this to the attention of the supervisor by written report on several occasions. This was, however, several years prior to the time in issue here and she has not worked with him since 1976 nor does she have any knowledge of his performance since that time. Respondent began work at ORMC after she was a student in the respiratory therapy program there at the request of Mr. Rogers. She started as a pulmonary rehabilitation technician part time. At that time, there were only two employees in the section. When, after a few months, the supervisor left, Respondent took over. Over a period of time, new procedures were introduced including gastroenterology and Respondent was trained in them as she went. She began doing more of the latter than pulmonary rehabilitation even though she remained head of that section. She was then asked to help set up an Endoscopy section and started doing those procedures as well. Rosenau was working on the floor in the respiratory therapy section and was having trouble with his supervisor. As a result he wanted to come to work in the Endoscopy section and Respondent arranged a transfer for him even though he had little experience in endoscopy and none in gastroenterology. When she first started working with gastroenterology, the patient and his medication were brought into the section. When the procedure was finished, the unused medication was sent back with the patient. As the section got bigger however, and more procedures were accomplished, this practice began to hold things up. The physicians requested that medications be kept in the section for their use. Respondent resisted this because she did not feel there were sufficient safeguards available to maintain proper control. Nonetheless, the physicians pushed for it but the change did not happen until Dr. Varraux became insistent that the medications be kept there. He worked through Rogers and Holton to get a narcotics box installed on the section. When this was done Mr. Holton gave two sets of keys to the box to Mr. Rogers who immediately turned one set over to the Respondent and gave one set to Rosenau. When Dr. Varraux decided to use cocaine for anesthesia he discussed it with Rogers and Holton since Respondent did not have the authority to request it. As a result, the pharmacy began dispensing 60 ml bottles of cocaine solution for use in bronchoscopies with a control sheet accompanying it to be kept in the locked portion of the bronchoscopy cart. Again, Respondent and Rosenau both had access to this cart. In fact, Rosenau had access to every key that Respondent had except the one to her desk. According to the Respondent, she had difficulty with Rosenau regarding drugs on several occasions when he would draw narcotics into syringes, a procedure he was neither trained nor authorized to do. In the Spring of 1982, bronchoscopies were done by nurses who would give valium but cocaine was administered by Rosenau only. However, when cocaine was used, Respondent would sign off on the sheets along with others whose names appeared on the form as administers of the drug. In mid-1982 bronchoscopies were transferred to the respiratory therapy section, by then headed by Rosenau, but this did not seem to work out and after a short period, the procedure was returned back to the endoscopy section, with Rosenau still doing them under the overall supervision of Respondent. Respondent contends that she did not train people to do the bronchoscopy procedures. Rosenau had been doing this for months before all of this took place. Ms. Hinds came to work in late July, 1982, and Respondent had no control over bronchoscopies at that point as they were in Rosenau's section. As to Hardy, she characterized him as an errand boy who was never trained to do bronchoscopies and with whom she never discussed them. She did, however, have a discussion with Rosenau on one occasion about cocaine. She relates that on this particular instance, Rosenau advised her in confidence that he had substituted Xylocaine for cocaine by mistake on a bronchoscopy performed by Dr. Varraux and wanted to get it off his chest. He assured her that if she would give him another chance, he would never let it happen again. Here, even though Rosenau had a previous disciplinary record which she had discussed with Rogers, she decided to take no action because she felt it would be fruitless. Rogers had taken no corrective action against Rosenau in the past and she had no reason to believe he would do so now. Rosenau, as was seen above, denies this conversation but no doubt it did occur. Respondent does not know why she was terminated and was shocked by the action. Rogers had mentioned something about cocaine and had given her an opportunity to resign but she refused. She claims to know nothing about the dilution of the cocaine solution. She claims to know nothing of the substitutions of xylocaine for cocaine other than that reported to her by Rosenau. She categorically denies ever telling Hinds, Williams, or anyone else to substitute xylocaine for cocaine. Counsel for Respondent spent considerable time attempting to establish that the charges against her are the result of a plot by Rogers, Rosenau and others at the hospital to remove her from her position. At best, the evidence shows a lack of control within the respiratory therapy section. There does appear to be a decided relationship between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Rosenau but Respondent has failed to establish that this relationship manifested itself in a plan to bring about her unjustified separation. The evidence establishes that xylocaine was substituted for cocaine and there is some substantial evidence to indicate the Respondent had some knowledge or information indicating that this was being done. There is no credible evidence, however, to establish that Respondent herself substituted xylocaine for cocaine or instructed or directed anyone else to do so. At worst hers is a sin of omission rather than commission.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, petitioner, Maurice C. Guest, held license number ME0005036 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners. Said license authorized Guest to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Florida. He has held the license since August 13, 1952. Dr. Guest presently practices medicine at 825 West Linebaugh Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Dorothea Lankford was a patient of Respondent for almost ten years. Among other things, she had suffered from headaches and stomach pains during that period of time. For these ailments, Guest prescribed Nubain and Vistaril, which are used to relieve moderate pain and nausea. A detailed listing of the prescription dates, script, quantity and type of drug, and pharmacy dispensing the drugs is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 17 received into evidence. In 1979 and 1980, Lankford provided midwife services in the Lutz, Florida area. However, she held no licenses from the State to provide any type of medical care. Most of Lankford's clients were members of a local Jehovah's Witness Church. Although the services were to be provided without charge, at least one client paid Lankford a small fee. The prenatal care consisted of weekly meetings at Lankford's mobile home where Lankford discussed all aspects of having a home delivery. The clients were given physical examinations, breathing exercises, suggested diets, and were administered B-12 shots from time to time. On an unknown number of occasions, Lankford administered other drugs, including Nubain and Vistaril, to treat clients suspected of having miscarriages. No doctors were in attendance at these meetings or to supervise the administering of drugs. In May, 1980, Brenda Crall, one of Lankford's clients, visited Dr. Guest for a physical examination. The appointment had been prearranged, although it was not disclosed by whom. There was no discussion between Crall and Guest that Lankford was going to provide a home delivery for Crall, although Guest recommended she not have one. He also made clear that he would provide no care other than the physical examination given that day. In October, 1980, Kathleen Streeter, also a client of Lankford, visited the office of Dr. Guest to have a physical examination. Lankford was in the examination room when the examination was given. However, there was no discussion between them to indicate that Guest was providing oversight care to Lankford's clients to sanction the activities of Lankford. Although the clients were under the impression that medical records of each client had been prepared by Dr. Guest, and that either Guest or some other physician was overseeing the activities of Lankford, there was no competent testimony or documentation to support their belief. Neither was there any evidence to show that Lankford and Guest had entered into some type of agreement whereby she referred patients to Guest on a one-time basis to sanction her unlicensed activities or that Guest delegated professional responsibilities to Lankford. On April 23, 1980, Brenda Crall and Kathleen Montane, another of Lankford's clients, were attending a meeting at Lankford's home when two other women began experiencing premature labor pains. Lankford injected one with Nubain and Vistaril but had nothing to give the other. Crall, Montane and Lankford's son then went to Respondent's office to pick up a prescription for Lankford. They carried an empty vial of Vistaril so that Guest would know the type of drug needed. Guest gave them a new vial of Vistaril which he had in his office and wrote a prescription for Nubain in Lankford's name. The evidence is conflicting as to whether it was explained to Guest that the prescriptions were for two of Lankford's clients. The actual visit took no more than one or two minutes, and both women admitted they were quite excited and in a hurry at the time. They acknowledged that before Guest dispensed the drug and wrote a prescription he asked whether Lankford was suffering from a headache. Accordingly, it is found that Guest believed the drugs were to be used by Lankford, and not to be administered by Lankford to unknown third persons. Crall and Montane then filled the prescription for Nubain and gave both drugs to Lankford. Lankford later used the drugs to treat her client. Mary Ellen Odom was a patient of Dr. Guest between September, 1978 and October, 1980. Among her various ailments were an incarcerated incisional hernia, a previous head injury to the brain which caused recurring pain, hypertensive cardiovascular disease, arthritis and herpes of the vagina. Because Guest wished to alleviate the considerable pain caused by the various ailments, and to keep her in an ambulatory condition, he prescribed a number of drugs while treating her as a patient, including Talwin in an injectable form. An injectable form was used in lieu of a tablet since she had an intolerance to certain oral medications. However, Odom received the drug as an out- patient and was therefore able to inject herself. Between September 27, 1978 and November 21, 1980 Odom obtained approximately 168 prescriptions written or telephoned in by Guest to Boulevard Drugs, located at 227 East Davis Boulevard, Tampa, Florida. A detailed list of the dates, script, drug, quantity and quantity filled is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 16 received into evidence. The druggist at Boulevard Drugs became concerned with Odom's use of Talwin, particularly after Odom administered herself an injection at the drug counter. The druggist talked by telephone with Guest on a number of occasions and told him that he believed Odom was abusing the drug. On May 17, 1980, he made the following notation on the bottom of one of Odom's prescriptions: "Dr. aware of abuse". Despite these warnings Guest continued to give Odom prescriptions for injectable Talwin for at least six more months. He was also aware that Odom had been previously addicted to Demerol, a pain-killing narcotic drug. Dr. Guest "regrets" giving Odom the amount of drugs that he did, but did so because he believed the woman was in constant pain, and because he did not initially believe Talwin to be an addictive drug. He has subsequently changed his opinion on the addictive nature of Talwin based on literature that warns of the addictive characteristics of the drug. A physician-member of the Hillsborough County Utilization Review Committee examined the medical records of Odom, together with the amount of drugs prescribed, and concluded that the amount of injectable Talwin prescribed by Guest to Odom was "excessive", given her medical condition. He also concluded that while her ailments may have justified the use of Talwin in an oral form, there was no basis to prescribe Talwin in an injectable form, particularly on an outpatient basis. In reaching that conclusion, the physician was unaware of any impediment to Odom using Talwin in a tablet form. He acknowledged that Talwin tablets could cause nausea and vomiting while the injectable form does not, and that under certain circumstances the latter form might be preferable, although not in the magnitude prescribed by Guest. Based upon his review of the records, he concluded Guest did not practice medicine with the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances acceptable, nor did he conform with generally prevailing standards of the medical community in his care and treatment of Odom. Respondent also treated Bernetha Cunningham as a patient for approximately twenty-two years. In 1976, Cunningham developed symptoms which were consistent with rheumatoid arthritis. After trying several medications which were unsuccessful, he began prescribing Talwin compound to ease her pain. He instructed her to take two tablets every four hours, or a total of twelve per day, which resulted in a daily dosage of 180 milligrams. At that time, he did not consider Talwin compound to be an addictive drug. He also prescribed Valium to relieve Cunningham's anxiety and to relax her muscles. Petitioner's Exhibit 15 received in evidence reflects that during the period between January 13, 1976, and February 5, 1979, Guest wrote prescriptions for 3,460 Valium tablets with authorization for 2500 tablets on refill, and 2,800 Talwin compound tablets with authorization for 2,200 tablets on refill. However, the last time he treated her as a patient was in December, 1977, at which time he advised her that he would not prescribe any more medicine. The evidence is conflicting as to whether Guest continued to telephone in prescriptions after that date, but it is found that Cunningham continued to refill her prescriptions in Dr. Guest's name after December, 1977, without his knowledge and consent. On February 1, 1979, Cunningham was examined by another Tampa physician (now deceased) whose specialty was psychiatry. In a deposition given prior to his death, he diagnosed her as having reactive depression and arthritis. He also concluded she displayed symptoms of being addicted to Talwin vis a vis Talwin compound, and that the drugs had been prescribed in dosages that would tend to addict the patient. In reaching these conclusions, the physician made no distinction between Talwin and Talwin compound, although the latter is a much less profound form of the drug. His examination was also conducted some fourteen months after Mrs. Cunningham had last been treated by Dr. Guest, and been given a prescription for drugs. In December, 1978, the Cunninghams filed a civil action against Respondent alleging that Respondent had been negligent in his treatment of Cunningham by prescribing an excessive level of central nervous system depressants. After being initially dismissed, the suit was refiled in April, 1979, and was ultimately settled out-of-court when Guest paid the Cunninghams $6,200. Guest represented himself in the initial stages of the suit, and only after a default summary final judgment as to the issue of liability was entered did he obtain counsel. Guest settled the case on advice of counsel since he had no malpractice insurance and would have incurred substantial legal fees had the case gone to trial on damages alone and then been appealed on the issues of liability and damages. A physician-member of the Hillsborough County Utilization Review Committee examined the medical records of Cunningham and concluded that Guest prescribed too great an amount of analgesics, sedatives and tranquilizers, and too little medication to counteract Cunningham's arthritic condition. He also concluded Guest failed to conform to generally prevailing standards of the medical community in his care and treatment of Cunningham, and failed to practice medicine with the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Talwin is a controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. It is prescribed for relief of moderate to severe pain and is commonly referred to as an analgesic. The drug comes in various forms, including tablet, injectable and compound form. The latter form contains the least amount of Talwin in terms of milligrams. Its addictive characteristics were not recognized until approximately 1978 when reference to this was made in the Physicians' Desk Reference (PDR). The PDR provides that the maximum daily dosage should not exceed 600 milligrams, although the tolerance level will differ from individual to individual. Valium is also currently classified as a controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. It is used primarily as a tranquilizer although it has some muscle relaxant qualities. If given in sufficient quantity over time, a user may become addicted to the drug. Respondent was subjected to disciplinary action by the Board of Medical Examiners in 1978. In that action he was placed on probation for three years. Among the conditions of probation was the following: The licensee shall, during this probation period, demonstrate the type of exemplary conduct expected and required of a duly licensed physician in this State. If the licensee fails to meet the moral and professional standards expected of a duly licensed physician, said probationary order will be vacated and the licensee will be subject to further disciplinary action by the Board. In 1981, the probationary period was extended until August, 1982, presumably because of the case at bar. Respondent did not intentionally violate the law. While he wrote or telephoned an unusually large number of prescriptions for Odom and Cunningham, he believed that both patients were experiencing pain, and that the drugs were needed to aid them. However, because the patients were poor, could afford only one Medicaid trip per month to his office, and could not drive, Dr. Guest attempted to authorize a sufficient number of refills between office visits. In this respect, he was lax in failing to control the actual number of drugs obtained by the patients. Nonetheless, there were no monetary rewards or motivation in writing the prescriptions. Dr. Guest was portrayed by character witnesses as a sincere and dedicated practitioner. He has practiced medicine in Tampa, Florida, for almost thirty years. Although he suffered a heart attack in early 1980, he continues to work long hours. He is not motivated by the financial rewards of practicing medicine, for he has frequently accepted patients requiring medical care but who were too poor to pay the bill. There was no evidence that Respondent has any drinking or drug problems.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact, and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts XIV, XV, XVII, XIX, XX and XXII. All other counts should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's probation be extended for an additional seven years during which time he not be allowed to write prescriptions for scheduled controlled substances without such supervision and approval as the Board may require. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of June, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a pharmacist doing business as Dyal's Pharmacy in Daytona Beach, Florida. Petitioner is a Medicaid provider under the rules of the Respondent, operating under Provider No. 1018147. Respondent is a department of the State of Florida, with its principal office in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Respondent is designated as the state agency responsible for the administration of Medicaid funds, and is authorized to provide payments for medical services, pursuant to Section 409.266, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to his responsibilities as a Medicaid provider and a pharmacist, Petitioner has, during the period of March, 1982, through August, 1983, filled 43 prescriptions for nonsteroidal anti-arthritic drugs other than buffered aspirin, which did not have the words "medically necessary" written on the prescription form by the prescribing physician in his own handwriting. Petitioner filed claims with Respondent with regard to the aforementioned prescriptions, and Respondent paid $854.44 to Petitioner as reimbursement. By letter received by Petitioner on December 27, 1983, Respondent has notified Petitioner of its intention to seek repayment of that amount pursuant to Rule 10C- 7.42(4)(b), Florida Administrative Cede. Rule 10C-7.42, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (4) Covered Benefits * * * (b) All prescriptions for buffered or enteric coated aspirin must indicate that an arthritic condition is being treated and dispensed in quantities no less than 200. Any nonsteroidal anti-arthritic drug, other than buffered aspirin, must have `medically necessary' written on the prescription by the practioner in his own handwriting. Noncompliance will warrant recoupment. Petitioner has sought an informal hearing regarding Respondent's attempt to recoup amounts previously paid to Petitioner, but in light of the provisions of the challenged rule it is unlikely that he can prevail. The existence of Rule 10C- 7.42(4)(b) is the only basis upon which repayment could be demanded by Respondent from Petitioner. The Florida Medicaid Program is administered through Respondent. In order to receive federal matching funds, Respondent must implement certain mandatory services for indigent. Other services which may qualify for federal funds are optional, and the state may cheese not to implement those programs. The pharmacy program, which this rule purports to regulate, is one such optional service which the State of Florida has chosen to implement. Funds utilized in the Medicaid Program are controlled by the legislature through funding of Respondent's budget. To regulate its budget, Respondent regularly reviews utilization and implements cost containment in various program. In 1981, Respondent was required to reduce its budget, and approximately $2 million of that reduction was required to be made in the Medicaid Program. In considering various options to reduce the Medicaid budget by this amount, the Department reviewed the pharmacy program budget which is the third largest in the Medicaid Program. Options such as limiting the number of prescriptions and requiring full payment were considered since these options had been implemented in other states. Such restrictions were not initiated, however, because Respondent felt that the large elderly population in Florida would forego taking necessary medication and endanger their health. Specific medications which were being paid for through the prescribed drug program were reviewed and certain drugs were eliminated from reimbursement under the program when prescribed for specified reasons, and other drugs were eliminated completely. These categories eliminated were chosen which would have the least detrimental effect on recipients. Additionally, Respondent, in consultation with physicians and pharmacists, considered the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the treatment of arthritis. While the drug of choice for treatment of arthritis is aspirin, because it is more effective than most nonsteroidal anti-arthritics, these nonsteroidal anti-arthritic drugs may be necessary for some patients who can't take aspirin. The number of persons who require such drugs instead of aspirin is small, however, and would not justify the large percentage of prescriptions for the nonsteroidal anti-arthritics which Respondent had observed through administering the pharmacy program. Because of their relatively high cost, nonsteroidal anti-arthritic drugs were accounting for 9.6 percent of the pharmacy program budget. Instead of eliminating the entire category of nonsteroidal anti- arthritic drugs from reimbursement under the program, which some states have implemented, Respondent opted to add aspirin to the list of covered benefits when prescribed for arthritis, and to require that the term "medically necessary" be written by the physician on the prescription form for nonsteroidal anti- arthritic drugs in order to be eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. This procedure was initiated in an effort to direct physicians' attention to the cost differential between the two types of drugs to ensure that a physician was making a conscious decision when prescribing the more expensive nonsteroidal anti-arthritic medication. The term "medically necessary" was chosen because physicians were familiar with that phrase through its use under the Florida Generic Drug statute. In response to an inquiry from the Florida Medical Association concerning the use of the term "medically necessary, Respondent indicated to that group that the term "drug of choice" would be an acceptable alternative. The challenged rule had not been amended at the time of final hearing in this cause to reflect this alternative term, nor was there any indication of record that any group other than the Florida Medical Association had been notified of Respondent's policy choice in this regard.
Findings Of Fact Alexander G. Toth graduated from medical school in 1943 and migrated to Miami in 1948. He took his three-year residency in general surgery at the V. A. Hospital in Miami starting in 1951 and thereafter practiced general surgery until 1976 when he had a serious accident. This accident plus additional health problems caused him to give up surgery and he has practiced family medicine since 1976. His office hours have been limited from 9 until 12 each week day since 1976. Approximately 10 patients per day were seen by Respondent during the period involved in these charges. At all times here relevant Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a physician. Richard Hatcher was a patient of Respondent in 1975 at which time he complained of headaches and low back pain. Respondent prescribed Percodan, Doriden, Dilaudid and Placidyl during a one-year period Hatcher was a regular patient. At this time Hatcher had a suit pending to recover damages for injuries received in an automobile collision. Hatcher did not see Respondent with any regularity again until 1978. Respondent's patient records of Hatcher (Exhibit 5) show he treated Hatcher on 11-20-78 on complaint of can't sleep, low back pain and spasm of lower back, by prescribing 100 Valium and 100 Percodan. Exhibit 6, which is a copy of prescriptions written by Respondent for Hatcher, shows the following prescriptions were written for Hatcher on dates indicated: 6/2/78 - 30 Valium 10 mg; 8/8/78 - 50 Seconal and 30 Fastin 30 mg; 10/11/78 60 Tuinal 3 grs, 60 Fastin 30 mg, 50 Valium 10 mg and 100 Percodan; and 11/20/78 - Valium 10 mg, 30 Fastin 30 mg and 100 Percodan. Exhibit 5 shows in 1975 Hatcher was 6 feet and 180 pounds. The entry dated 12/18/78 opposite Fastin is (Wt 205). During the period 12/18/78 to 2/27/79 Respondent prescribed for Hatcher on numerous prescriptions the following: 300 Percodan, 250 Valium, 230 Tuinal 3 gr, 60 Fastin, 60 Demerol 100 mg, one 30 cc vial Demerol 100 mg per cc, and 30 syringes (Exhibit 6) . Exhibit 5 contains an entry dated 3/2/79 "(Wants Demerol) Refused - refer to JMH", and a final entry (3-19) Deceased." Hatcher voiced the same or similar complaints of pain on each visit to Respondent. Richard Hatcher was found dead in his apartment on or about 21 March 1979 some 24 to 36 hours after he died. Cause of death was acute intravenous narcotism. The syringe with which the fatal narcotic was injected was still in his arm when his body was found. Due to the rapid clearing of many drugs from the blood the autopsy failed to reveal which of the opiate drugs caused Hatcher's death. About one week later Mrs. Hatcher, the mother of Richard, received from her ex-husband and father of Richard a page from a notebook found in Richard's apartment after his death signed by Richard which indicates some concern by Hatcher that he might overdose on drugs given him by Dr. Toth, the Respondent (Exhibit 12). Richard Hatcher became seriously involved with drugs in 1967 when he was 21 years old. By 1975 his mother noted a personality change where he would quickly go from normal to extremely agitated. In the fall of 1978 Hatcher committed himself to Village South, a drug rehabilitation program in Dade County, for some 4 or 5 months. After release from Village South Hatcher continued to take drugs. To his mother's knowledge he overdosed several times before his death. Three times she found him unconscious on the floor of her apartment and on numerous other occasions he was "spaced out". Respondent testified that Hatcher showed no indication he had abused or misused the medications Respondent prescribed. If so, it is evident that Respondent did not closely observe Hatcher or do more than hear his litany of pain. On the other hand, Exhibit 5 shows that some 2-1/2 weeks before Hatcher's death Respondent refused to prescribe the Demerol wanted by Hatcher. Unless Respondent recognized the seriousness of Hatcher's addiction it is not conceivable that he would suddenly refuse drugs so freely prescribed in the past. Michael Kavney was a patient of Respondent from June 1979 until his death from an overdose of Placidyl on 14 or 15 January 1980. On June 11 1979 Kavney complained of pain in his shoulder and Respondent prescribed 50 Tylenol. Kavney was 6 feet tall, weighed 189 pounds, and told Respondent he wanted to lose weight. Respondent on June 11, 1979 also prescribed 50 Fastin. On 8-16-79 Respondent, at Kavney's request, called in a prescription for 50 Valium. On 9/7/79 he called in a prescription for 50 Tylenol. Both of these prescriptions resulted from a phone call to Respondent. On October 29, 1979 Kavney visited Respondent, told him the shoulder pain persists and he would like some more weight reducers. By this time Kavney's weight was down to 185 pounds from 189 four months earlier. Respondent prescribed 50 Tylenol, 50 Valium (Exhibit 4) and 30 Fastin (Exhibit 3). By script dated 11/21/79 Respondent prescribed 50 Fastin for Kavney and by script dated 11/26/79 he prescribed 50 Tylenol (Exhibit 4). No record of these is contained in Exhibit 3. By entry on Exhibit 3 dated December 17, 1979 Respondent recorded "pain left shoulder, using heat at home, can't take codeine, Percodan 50". The Tylenol, which had been prescribed on four previous occasions, contains 1 grain of codeine per tablet. On January 14, 1980 Kavney visited Respondent, told him of disturbed sleep patterns, that he had taken Placidyl on prior occasions with good results and Respondent prescribed 60 Placidyl (750). Kavney was found dead in his automobile with an empty bottle with Placidyl label on the floor. An autopsy done on January 15, 1980 shows Kavney died from an overdose of Placidyl. Terry McGarey grew up in Miami and played in bands with Kavney as early as high school days. He had also known Hatcher since 1963. McGarey first visited Respondent in 1970 with an arm injury. He next saw Respondent near the end of 1976 and he complained of headache and leg pains from an earlier motorcycle accident. McGarey received a prescription for Percodan. McGarey, who appeared as a witness, testified that he had visited Respondent every three or four weeks in 1976 complaining of headache and during these visits he also received Placidyl, Demerol, Parest and Valium. These visits continued in 1977 with the same frequency and results. Respondent's patient records for Terrance McGarey (Exhibit 1) commence 3/28/78. The first entry is not dated but states "cc severe headaches - nausea - at JMH March `78. Neuological dept. - treated for organic brain syndrome - at JMH 1976 migraine - no allergies - only relief Demerol. Rx demerol 100 mg #5 fiorinal tabs." Thereafter Exhibit 1 shows entries 7-31-78, 8-7-78, 8-28, 9-1, 9-6, 9-11, 9-27, 10-9, 10-20, 10-29, 10-31, 11-16, 11-22, 12-18, 12-22, 12-29, 1-3, 1-8, 3-21 and 4-19-79. Most of these entries resulted from office visits but some entries recorded prescriptions as a result of phone calls. During this period prescriptions were issued to McGarey for Percodan, Emperin, Doriden Parest, Tuinal, Demerol, Placidyl, Dalmane, Darvon, Seconal and Valium (Exhibit 2) On May 7, 1979 McGarey called the Cardella Pharmacy saying he was Dr. Toth, gave the correct DEA number and authorized the delivery of 18 Placidyl 50 mg to patient Jerry McGaret. The pharmacist called the doctor's office, which was closed, and then issued the drugs to McGarey. A subsequent try was unsuccessful when the pharmacist was told by Respondent's office that this man was no longer a patient of Respondent. Respondent testified that he treated McGarey for migraine headaches, insomnia, nervousness, and low back pain. He found no evidence of abnormal conditions in his examination of McGarey. Through mid-October Respondent had no indication McGarey was in a methadone program or addicted and the drugs were continued with each visit or phone call. On December 29 Respondent learned from McGarey that he had been admitted to JMH for seizures and the resident recommended Seconal. On this basis Respondent prescribed Seconal but did not learn the cause of the seizures. On January 8, 1979 McGarey's mother called Respondent to advise that her son was a drug abuser and had been on a methadone program for 18 months. Following this entry is the notation "No more Rx's - back to JMH". Respondent's next entry on Exhibit 1 is "Called records at JMH patient admitted 2-9-79 - overdosed - discharged 2-14 Signed out - mother took him home." Although Respondent testified it never entered his mind that McGarey might be a drug abuser he also testified that the symptoms of narcotic addiction are agitation, nervousness, slurred speech and poor equilibrium. On the witness stand McGarey exhibited traits of nervousness and agitation. He appeared hyperactive rather than calm and sedate. His movements were jerky rather than fluid and he did not give the impression of a normally relaxed person under tension because he was testifying. On 11 January 1980 Kirk Kratz, a 29-year-old male, visited Respondent's office as a patient. He had a cast on his right upper arm and stated it was fractured some two weeks earlier. Also he had received a gunshot wound in the abdomen before Christmas and a laparotomy had been performed. He complained of pain in the right arm. He was given a prescription for 100 Percodan for pain and 60 Tuinal 3 gr for sleep. Kratz returned 12 February with same complaints and was given prescriptions for 100 Percodan, 60 Tuinal and 30 Valium. On 2/29 Kraft appeared without the cast, told Respondent the police had broken the cast, held him in jail for 3 days and confiscated his medication. He was given prescriptions for 100 Percodan and 60 Tuinal. On 4/8/80 Kratz still complained of "pain in the shoulder and arm and can't sleep." Prescriptions for 100 Percodan, 60 Tuinal and 100 Valium were given him. Finally on 6/13, with complaint of pain in hand and shoulder, Kratz was given prescriptions for 100 Percodan and 30 Doriden (Exhibit 9). Hatcher and McGarey were drug addicts before and during the time they were being treated by Respondent. At one time or another both of them had been enrolled in the methadone program at Jackson Memorial Hospital and/or other withdrawal programs for addicts. In addition to getting drugs from Respondent, they were also obtaining drug prescriptions from other doctors. Also from the quantity of drugs prescribed for Kavney and Kratz it is evident that both of these individuals were also addicts. During the period between 1 January 1980 and 14 June 1980 Respondent, with an active practice of some 700 patients prescribed approximately 28,000 Percodan and 2,000 Percocet tablets to various patients. Exhibit 16 shows a breakdown of the 130 patients treated by Respondent during this period. While Exhibit 16 shows Kirk Kratz received 100 Percodan only on 2/29/80, Exhibit 8 indicates he received 500 Percodan between 1 January and 14 June 1980. Assuming all other entries on Exhibit 16 to be accurate, a spot check shows the following patients were given Percodan or Percocet during the period 1 January - 14 June in the following quantities: Steven Arnold - 300; Cathy Blauk - 450; Bill Davis - 500; Kirk Decker - 300; George Fernandez - 300; Sidney Ford - 600; Ron Jangie - 300; Jerome Johnson - 300; Patty La Fortuna - 310; Vincent La Fortuna - 200; William Leonard - 350; Mary Leslie - 300; Gus Melquezo - 400; Michael Pravioski - 225; Debbie Saey - 250; Robert Sandifer - 400; James Setters - 300; Alvin Terrell - 300; Mike Thill - 300; Mark Wolfson - 200; Joe Worth - 300; and Harvey Zemaster - 200. Exhibit 16 also shows that most of these prescriptions were written for quantities of 100. It also lists almost 18,000 Percodan issued to 130 patients during this period, or an average of 140 per patient. Percodan, Tuinal, Parest, Demerol and Seconal are Class II drugs. One hundred Percodan taken in a one-month period will cause addiction in the taker. After 48 hours taking Percodan every 4 to 6 hours the patient will have withdrawal symptoms. Although Placidyl, Valium, Doriden, Empirin and Dalmane are not Class II drugs, they are dangerous and therefore controlled. Fifteen Placidyls taken at one time can be fatal. Many of the drugs prescribed by Respondent, when taken in combination, create a synergistic effect which makes the combination greater than the sum of its parts. Similarly a synergistic effect is created when some of these drugs are taken in conjunction with alcohol. Fastin is used for weight control. Neither Hatcher nor Kavney at 6 feet and 180 - 185 pounds should have been a candidate for weight loss. Further, prescriptions for Fastin and Seconal (for sleep) at the same time are incompatible as one is an upper, the other a downer. Tuinal in combination with Valium will increase depression. When Fastin is added, a pharmacological jungle can result. Respondent acknowledged that he relied more on the statements of his patients than upon an examination to determine when to prescribe medications. If the patient said he hurt, Respondent would prescribe a pain killer. A two- week-old fracture properly set and in a cast should cause little pain. If pain persists two weeks after casting something is wrong that will not likely heal itself. Therefore, painkillers to mask the symptoms are contraindicated. Similarly, a persistent pain in the shoulder is likely to be caused by inflammation and an anti-flammatory agent is indicated. Neither Tylenol nor Percodan are anti-inflammatory agents. Dr. John V. Handwerker, M.D. was accepted as an expert in family practice medicine. After reviewing Respondent's records of Hatcher, Kavney, Kratz and McGarey he expressed the strong opinion that the complaints of the patients did not justify the narcotics prescribed; that much larger quantities of each drug were prescribed at one time than was medically indicated or prudent; that drugs were prescribed in dangerous combinations due to the synergistic effect if taken together, plus some of these drugs such as Fastin and Valium are mutually exclusive; that issuing a prescription to take these drugs "as needed" was improper and dangerous; and that narcotics were frequently prescribed for alleged ailments for which more effective non-narcotic drugs were available. This witness was particularly critical of the prescription for liquid Demerol, as this should be prescribed only when the patient can't take the drug orally. After reviewing Exhibit 7 Dr. Handwerker expressed the opinion that prescribing 28,000 Percodan tablets during a 5-1/2 month period could only be justified with a large practice limited to trauma patients and that the records and prescription schedules show a practice harmful to the public. This opinion was based partially on Dr. Handwerker's practice in which, during the same period, he saw 2,081 patients and wrote 73 prescriptions for 1,996 Percodan tablets. Exhibit 7 contains 291 prescriptions issued by Respondent during this period, and recovered by Petitioner's investigator from pharmacies in the vicinity of Respondent's office. These coupled with Respondent's patient records show some 28,000 Percodan and 2000 Percocet tablets were prescribed. Valium is the most commonly prescribed drug in the United States and one of the most abused drugs. If a patient is emotionally stable 60 Valium is too many to prescribe for a patient at one time. If a patient is emotionally disturbed there is even greater reason for not prescribing 60 Valium. Dr. Roderick Palmer, M.D., testified as an expert in clinical pharmacology. He opined that prescribing 100 Percodan for a patient at one time was not appropriate because if the pain results from a traumatic injury, such injury will normally cease being painful in 4 or 5 days, and 100 Percodan is enough to commit suicide or become addicted. Dr. Palmer described Percodan and Placidyl as widely abused drugs. Sixty Placidyl in one prescription is too many because of suicide potential. Further, if one Placidyl is taken every day for 60 days the patient would probably become addicted. Taking more than one Placidyl per day could impair coordination enough to result in an industrial or automobile accident or other injury. With respect to Exhibit 7, Dr. Palmer cited instructions for Percodan or Percocet that the physician should not prescribe enough to result in addiction (not more than 30) nor prescribe enough for patient to commit suicide. It is necessary for patients to return to the physician before the patient can become addicted to the drugs prescribed. In this way the doctor will not lose control over the patient which could result in the patient becoming addicted. With respect to the 28,000 Percodan prescribed in a 5-1/2 months period Dr. Palmer viewed that quantity as more than he would prescribe in a lifetime. Dr. Murray Sims, M.D., is a Board certified surgeon who testified on behalf of Respondent. He found the prescriptions issued to Hatcher, Kavney, McGarey and Kratz to be proper for the complaints of the patients. Sims has known Respondent for many years, and has worked, studied, and taken examinations with Respondent. Dr. Sims prescribes Percodan in quantities of 100 and even 200. He does not believe 100 Percodan taken in a 30-day period is addictive. He has one 93-year old patient to whom he mails prescriptions for 100 Percodan per month (40 to 60 days) because, as she told him, "It makes my day start off right." (Tr. Vol. II, p. 102). When asked if Percodan and Tuinal taken together would have a synergistic effect Dr. Sims said no (Tr. Vol. II, p. 67) but on p. 119 he testified "I guess it would, you get a relief of both, yes. Don't hold me too much about pharmacy." Dr. Sims practice is 99 percent devoted to surgery patients and if he has a patient with a non-surgical related disorder he usually refers the patient to another doctor. This witness's testimony regarding the various drugs prescribed by Respondent and the appropriateness thereof was not deemed as credible as was the testimony of Drs. Hardwerker and Palmer. This was so because the latter had more expertise in this area of medicine and demonstrated greater credibility on the witness stand.
Findings Of Fact The Home is licensed as an assisted living facility. It is also licensed to provide extended congregate care, limited nursing services, and limited mental health services. The Home accepted Respondent as a resident. In July 1998, Petitioner had to transport Respondent to the hospital due to an overdose of medication. Upon his return from the hospital, Respondent told Petitioner's staff that he had taken the overdose intentionally. Thereafter, the Home required Respondent to sign a mental health contract dated September 9, 1998. This contract states as follows in relevant part: Qualifications for the Home requires [sic] that a member or applicant must not be mentally ill, habitually inebriated, or addicted to the use of a controlled substance. With these requirements, I understand that to be eligible and maintain my membership in the Home, I must agree to the terms of this contract. * * * If I use alcohol or any non-prescribed drugs I understand I may be dismissed from the Home. I understand that I will allow the Veterans' Domiciliary Home of Florida to supervise the self-administering of my medications. I will take my medication as it is prescribed by the primary physician. I will only be given my full prescription at the time of my discharge. I understand upon reasonable suspicion of being under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs, I consent to testing. The Domiciliary Home staff may take a blood, saliva, or supervised urine sample to test for illegal drugs or alcohol. I authorize members of the Domiciliary staff to perform random searches of my person, vehicle, living quarters, or belongings to determine if I am using drugs or alcohol. If I refuse to allow a blood, saliva, or urine test, or search, or if I interfere in any way with the staff's performance of these duties, I may be dismissed. The Home also required Respondent to sign a Dual Diagnosis/Substance Abuse/Psychiatric (dual diagnosis) contract dated September 14, 1998. In addition to terms and conditions similar to the ones set forth above, the dual diagnosis contract provides as follows in relevant part: 10. In order to assist me in gaining freedom from alcohol and drugs, I will not use alcohol, tranquilizers, sleeping medication, over the counter medications, or any other chemical escapes which have not been prescribed by a physician. If I use alcohol or non-prescribed drugs, I understand I will be dismissed from the Home. In November 1998, one of Respondent's doctors wrote him a prescription for Ritalin. Respondent became very upset when a nurse would not administer the Ritalin to him without first checking with Petitioner's staff physician. Eventually, Respondent's primary care physician approved the administration of Ritalin together with Respondent's other medications. In January 1999, Respondent worked for Petitioner as a receptionist. After working overtime on one occasion, Respondent's speech was slurred, his eyes were dull, and his voice was horse. Petitioner's staff became suspicious that Respondent was taking medication in violation of his contracts. Respondent subsequently tested negatively for all substances except his prescribed medicines. In March 1999, Respondent violated his contracts by having a prescription for methadone filled at a drugstore and removing twenty-four of the pills from the bottle before turning the medicine over to Petitioner's staff as required by his contract. Petitioner's staff advised Respondent that he would be dismissed from the Home by letter dated March 23, 1999. Respondent subsequently requested Petitioner's Executive Director to review the decision to discharge him from the Home. By letter dated August 16, 1999, Petitioner rescinded its decision to dismiss Respondent from the Home but warned him that any further infraction would result in his immediate expulsion. On April 14, 2000, Petitioner conducted a routine facility-wide room inspection at the Home. During the course of the inspection, Petitioner found a bottle of Ephedra 250 in Respondent's room. According to the label on the bottle, Ephedra 250 is a dietary supplement that General Nutrition Corporation (GNC) markets. During the hearing, Respondent admitted that he heard about Ephedra 250 on a television show that discussed its benefits as a diet aid as well as its dangerous side effects. The label states as follows in pertinent part: WARNING: Seek advice from a health care practitioner prior to use if you are pregnant or nursing, or if you have high blood pressure, heart or thyroid disease, diabetes, difficulty in urination due to prostate enlargement, or if taking MAO inhibitor or any other prescription drug. Reduce or discontinue use if nervousness, tremor, sleeplessness, loss of appetite or nausea occur. Not intended for use by person under the age of 18. The maximum recommended dosage of Ephedrine for a healthy adult is no more than 100 mg in a 24 hour period for not more than 12 weeks. Improper use of this product may be hazardous to a person's health. Each capsule of Ephedra 250 contains 250 mg of MA Huang Extract (Ephedra sinica) or ( 15 mg of 6 percent Ephedrine). The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Ephedra 250 is an over-the-counter medication despite being labeled as a diet supplement. Ephedrine is a prescription drug in Florida unless an individual dose is less than a specified quantity. Petitioner's staff properly became concerned about Respondent's possession of Ephedra 250 because he takes numerous prescribed medications, which can have serious side effects, if taken with certain other medications. Ephedrine is one of those drugs. For instance, Respondent takes Cozaar for high blood pressure, Methadose to reduce his dependency on Percoset, and Ritalin. Persuasive evidence indicates that large doses of Ephedra can be used as a recreational drug. Respondent knew or should have known that Ephedra 250 was prohibited by his contracts with the Home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing Respondent as a resident of the Robert H. Jenkins Veterans' Domiciliary Home of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: James W. Sloan, Esquire Department of Veterans' Affairs Post Office Box 21003 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-8903 William T. Fisher 1300 Sycamore Lane, Suite 148 Lake City, Florida 32025 Lt. Col. Robin L. Higgins, Executive Director Department of Veterans' Affairs Post Office Box 31003 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-8903
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Paula Kay Spears. She is a licensed registered nurse and holds license number 1435502. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Lakeland Regional Medical Center in Lakeland, Florida. Caren Hicks worked as a unit coordinator in the cardiovascular surgery unit of the hospital where Respondent was also employed as a registered nurse. Hicks and Respondent worked together for approximately five years. In April of 1988, Hicks witnessed Respondent using for the first time what Hicks believed to be a drug commonly called "crank". Hicks also used the substance on that occasion. Hicks purchased the substance from Respondent on only one later occasion; although she and Respondent engaged in joint use of the substance on several subsequent occasions. They ingested the substance by "snorting" it through the nose. Hicks provided crank on some occasions for the joint use of herself and Respondent. The two used the drug while on duty in the cardiovascular unit to which they were assigned. The last occasion of their joint usage of the drug was September 11, 1988. When she nasally inhaled the drug, Hicks observedthat her pulse rate and energy level increased. While she experienced fatigue when the effects of the drug wore off, Hicks never experienced any sense of confusion. She compared the effects of the substance to that of a drug commonly called "speed". Tommy Smith is the head nurse for the cardiovascular unit where Respondent and Hicks were employed in September of 1988. He confronted Respondent with the accusation that she and Hicks had used crank while on duty. Respondent denied the charge. Smith offered Respondent continued employment in her position, provided she submit to drug screening and rehabilitative treatment for drug abuse. Respondent rejected the offer. Subsequently, Respondent's employment with the hospital was terminated. Later, Smith made the same offer to Hicks. Hicks accepted the offer, attended a drug rehabilitation program and is still employed at the hospital. Expert testimony of Martin Zfaz, M.D., establishes that crank is a form of methamphetamine, a central nervous system stimulant which is regulated in accordance with Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, as a controlled substance and a schedule II drug. Crank, over a period of time, can cause confusion in the user's mental acuity. Depression follows use of the drug when its effects wear off. Usage can lead to dependence, with the possibility of resultant acute psychosis. Poor, impaired or confused judgement in the user can result. The substance is highly addictive, with limited medical use. Medical uses for crank include treatment for narcolepsy and hyper- activity in children. The substance is also prescribed as a balance to phenobarbital medication of epileptic patients. Although it depresses appetite, its usage for this purpose has decreased. Use of crank would have a negative effect on a medical nurse's judgement and performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Nursing finding Respondent in violation of Section 464.018(1)(i) and Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such Final Order suspend Respondent's license pending Respondent's completion of a drug dependency evaluation and provision by her of a report of that evaluation to the Board and demonstration to the Board that she is capable of safely practicing the profession of nursing. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such Final Order place Respondent's license on probationary status for a period of three years upon satisfaction of the foregoing requirements for termination of license suspension with specific conditions of such probation to include periodic drug dependency reevaluations and reports as may be determined by the Board and payment of an administrative fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS 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 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Accepted. 3. Weight of the evidence demonstrates that Respondent ingested the drug by "snorting" it. Finding rejected. 4.-14. Accepted 15. Rejected. Not consistent with the weight of the evidence. 16.-17. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mon), Esq. Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Paula Kay Spears 1240 Sarasota Avenue Lakeland, FL 33805 Kenneth Easley, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32201
Findings Of Fact 1. Respondents Janet and Leonard Spivak acquired Hel- Len's Culinary Den II while they were still married, and their joint ownership persisted even after their divorce. Their marriage was dissolved some two or three years before the hearing. 2 During the month of October, 1979, Mr. Spivak was working as an accountant five days a week and helping out at the restaurant on weekends. On October 12, 1979, he was busy at the pizza oven 30 or 40 feet from Janet Spivak when he heard a disturbance and looked up to see Mrs. Spivak being arrested. She had just sold drugs, including 100 tablets of methaqualone, to an undercover deputy sheriff. Leonard Spivak had had no prior knowledge of his former wife's involvement with illicit drugs. At the time of Mrs. Spivak's arrest, Joseph Williams, the Broward County deputy sheriff to whom Mrs. Spivak sold the drugs, also arrested one Goldsmith, who had arranged the transaction at Williams' behest. Before his conversation with Goldsmith on October 12, 1979, Williams had no reason to suspect that drugs were being sold at Hel-Len's Culinary Den II. After her arrest, Mrs. Spivak produced all other pills and medications in her possession, upon instructions to do so. Among the pills were black capsules containing phentermine, a stimulant sometimes prescribed for weight loss, and blue diazapam tablets, which are sold under the trade name of Valium. Both of these drugs Mrs. Spivak kept for personal consumption.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That petitioner revoke respondents' license. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of August, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: James Watson, Jr., Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 George Yochmowitz, Esquire Suite 906, Dupont Plaza Center Miami, Florida 33131 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent Newell Jerome Griffith is a licensed physician and, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, was engaged in the practice of medicine at Winter Haven, Florida. (Testimony of Respondent) During the period 1979-1980, Respondent's investigator, Lawrence E. Dodd, Jr., conducted routine audits of pharmacies in the Winter Haven area. The purpose of his audits was to review prescriptions for controlled substances in order to determine if irregularities had taken place in the prescribing and dispensing of such substances by pharmacists and physicians. During the course of these audits, Dodd found that Respondent had issued a large number of prescriptions in preceding years for various controlled substances which fell into the category of Schedule II under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The prescriptions in questions were prescribed for and obtained by Gerald Cooney, Annette Groover, and Peggy Moore. (Testimony of Dodd, Petitioner's Exhibits 1- 9) The following facts relate to each of the above named individuals: Gerald Cooney Respondent has treated Gerald Cooney as a patient since approximately 1974. Medical records reflect that Respondent treated Cooney for a medullary sponge kidney or similar chronic urinary infection, and acute and chronic recurrent infection of the left knee area which originally had been caused by a bicycle injury and was aggravated by shrapnel wounds in the same area during wartime service in 1970. Since that time, he has had multiple problems with his left leg requiring hospitalizations and has had a chronic recurrent cellulitis. Be has never had full use of the extremity since that time and has had recurrent swelling and extreme pain requiring narcotics. To alleviate the pain, Respondent prescribed both oral and injectable Dilaudid. In 1977, Respondent referred Cooney to the University of Florida College of Medicine regarding his renal difficulty. On April 1, 1977, Respondent wrote the Chief, Division of Urology, at the College that Cooney continues to require, and receive oral Dilaudid in amounts greater than I am comfortable with, but see no alternative to prescribing." On April 7, 1977, the Division Chief wrote Respondent that he had been unable to find any reason for Cooney's protracted pain requiring narcotics. In July 1978, Cooney was admitted to the Veteran's Hospital in Tampa for urinary tract infection and underwent a cystoscopy. The patient was discharged with instructions to return to Respondent for treatment of his "narcotic dependency." Respondent's office notes on February 19, 1979, stated that Cooney had been taking from 14 to 24 Dilaudid tablets daily and was able to make a reduction in dosage for a day or two, but then exacerbation of all illnesses recurred. The medical records further reflect a letter written by Respondent on August 17, 1979, "To Concerned Treating Physician or Physicians" which stated that Respondent had been treating Cooney for Dilaudid abuse which had come about because of symptoms associated with his left knee and urinary problems. In September of 1978, Cooney was again admitted to a Veteran's Hospital for a urinary tract infection, sponge kidney, and Dilaudid addiction. The attending physician noted that since Cooney's dependency had not been treated by his private doctor in Winter Haven, after his last discharge, it was decided that it should be treated at that time by withdrawing Dilaudid. Cooney, however, disagreed and was discharged to be treated at a drug center in Orlando. He did not seek such treatment but obtained further prescriptions for Dilaudid from Respondent. During the period November 1976 to June 1979, Respondent prescribed over 12,500 tablets of Dilaudid 4 mg for Cooney. Additionally, Dilaudid was prescribed in injectable form in the amount of 2 mg./cc. 14 x 20 vials. Between July and December 1979, Respondent prescribed over 2500 tablets of Dilaudid 4 mg, and 24 tablets of Dilaudid 2 mg. Between December 1979 and January 1981, Respondent issued prescriptions to Cooney for almost 7500 tablets of Dilaudid 4 mg, and a prescription for 20 1 cc ampules of injectable Dilaudid. Dilaudid is a Schedule II controlled substance listed under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. It is customarily used for pain and has addictive qualities. Respondent is of the opinion that there was no alternative to the treatment which he gave to Cooney. He recognized that the patient was addicted to Dilaudid and attempted to assist him with detoxification in 1976. At one time, Cooney was taking as many as 20 tablets per day and, although Respondent limited him to between 16 to 20 tablets per day, he acknowledged that this amount was excessive. Respondent had prescribed other drugs for the patient, but he had allergic reactions to them. (Testimony of Dodd, Deatsch, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6, 9, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Annette Groover Annette Groover has been a patient of Respondent's for over 26 years and was once employed by him as a nurse's assistant and receptionist. During this period, Respondent treated her for severe migraine headaches and seizure disorder. During the course of treatment, Respondent referred the patient to neurologist for consultation at various times who placed her on anticonvulsive medication. Respondent had prescribed Talwin for the patient's headaches, but in 1970 he became aware that she had used the drug excessively and for feelings of depression at times rather than for headache relief. In September 1979, Respondent's office notes reflect that Groover had been using a Variety of medications including Talwin, and that she had revealed that if she did not take the drug "her legs start to tremble, nose starts running, and I get jittery." Respondent thereafter counseled the patient regarding drug habituation and she thereafter was successful in withdrawal from Talwin. He then placed her on a regime of injectable Demerol because other drugs did not provide headache relief. In 1977, a consulting neurologist examined the patient and characterized her headaches as a chronic problem which was most likely related to tension. Between November and June 1979, Respondent prescribed for the patient more than 1850 cc. of injectable Demerol, 50 mg./cc. In addition, 12 tablets of 50 mg. Demerol and 100 tablets of Dexedrin Sulphate, 5 mg., were prescribed. Between July 1980, and November 1980, Respondent prescribed 66 2 cc. vials of Demerol, 100 mg./cc. Although Respondent's patient records do not reflect that Respondent examined Mrs. Groover between October 7, 1977 and March 23, 1978, he issued 29 prescriptions for injectable Demerol to her during that period. Respondent maintained at the hearing that his treatment of Mrs. Groover was legitimate and that she has never shown any withdrawal symptoms during periods of several weeks when she has gone without the drug. Mrs. Groover's husband is a medical technician in the Naval Reserve and normally administers her Demerol injections. Although she has tried other drugs, most of them have conflicted with her seizure problem and Demerol does not affect her in that manner. Demerol is a Schedule II controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. It is a central nervous system depressant which relieves pain, but is addictive. (Testimony of Respondent, Groover, Dodd, Deatsch, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2, 7) Mary E. (Peggy) Moore Mrs. Moore is a legal secretary who has been a patient of Respondent for over 20 years. Respondent has treated her primarily for diabetes and pancreatitis. Over a number of years, she was hospitalized several time after referrals by Respondent to gastroenterology specialists. Demerol was prescribed both by Respondent and specialists to control the pancreatitis attacks. Her medical records reflect that she has been subject to episodes of hypoglycemia-- insulin reaction, usually complicated by epigastric pain and vomiting. In December 1979, after Mrs. Moore had been admitted to the Winter Haven Hospital for insulin reaction, the gastroenterologist who treated her stated in his report that the patient takes an appropriate amount of properly monitored narcotics in the form of Demerol at intervals of one to three months when experiencing pain from pancreatitis. Respondent also prescribed Quaaludes for Mrs. Groover in order that she could sleep because she had been under extreme pressure and stress. She took two tablets at night off and on for two to three years. She needed Demerol in the past at particular times when she had pancreatitis attacks. In 1980, Respondent referred her to Emory University Diagnostic Clinic and it was discovered that diabetic neuropathy was causing pain rather than pancreatitis. She is not taking Demerol at the present time and no longer suffers from her former attacks. During the period when she took Demerol, her daughter who was a registered nurse administered the injections and later her husband performed this task. On one occasion in 1978, her Demerol supply was stolen when she was on a trip. During the period when she was using Demerol, her husband destroyed any that she did not use between attacks. Respondent testified at the hearing that Demerol did become a problem with her before she went to Emory University Clinic, but she has not used it since that time. Demerol is a Schedule II controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Quaaludes are a sedative and also a Schedule II controlled substance which is suitable periodically for sleep, but the patient is subject to rapid tolerance of the drug. One-half tablet of 300 mg Quaalude is usually sufficient for infrequent users. Mrs. Moore terminated the use of Quaaludes in the summer of 1980. Respondent's medical records concerning Mrs. Moore reflect that he did not examine her during the period May 9, 1979 and October 1, 1979, but continued to issue prescriptions to her for Demerol and Quaalude. Between December 1976 to June 1979, Respondent prescribed for Mrs. Moore in excess of 1400 cc. of injectable Demerol, 50 mm./cc., and 1900 tablets of 300 mg. Qualudes. Between July 1979 through December 1979, he prescribed 400 tablets of Quaalude,300 mg., 277 cc. of Demerol 50 mg./cc., and 230 cc. of Demerol, 100 mg./cc. Between July and November 1980, Respondent prescribed 101 cc. of Demerol, 50 mg./cc., 46 cc of Demerol 100 mg./cc., and 172 cc. of Demerol, 75 mg./cc. (Testimony of Dodd, Deatsch, Respondent, Moore, Petitioner's Exhibits 3-4, 8, Respondent's Exhibit 2) In the opinion of physicians who are experts in the field of drug treatment and internal medicine who reviewed the medical records of Gerald Cooney, Annette Groover, and Peggy Moore, Respondent exercised poor judgment in prescribing known addictive medicine in excessive amounts for prolonged periods to those patients, without properly monitoring their course of treatment. They therefore are of the opinion that Respondent failed to treat those patients in conformity with recognized acceptable standards of medical practice. Specifically, they based their opinions in the case of Cooney upon the fact that Respondent was aware of the patient's addiction to Dilaudid, yet prescribed inordinate amounts of the drug over an extended period of time without taking definitive action to either cut off the patient's supply or to change the medication. A normal dose of Dilaudid would be from four to six 4 mg. tablets a day and never should exceed 12 or 14 during limited time periods for acute pain. Respondent's dosage of 16 to 20 tablets per day on a continuing basis resulted in perpetuation of the patient's addiction. As to Annette Groover's case, the expert testimony reflects the opinion that since the Respondent was aware of the patient's former dependency upon Talwin, he should have prescribed other addictive drugs, such as Demerol, in limited amounts and attempt to use non-addictive medication for the patient's migraine headaches, particularly where, as here, they result from periods of tension. They also are of the opinion that the use of Demerol by the patient reflects a pattern of abuse, but not necessarily addiction. Further, a patient with a history of drug abuse should not have been permitted to administer Demerol by injection at her home, but should have been required to have such treatment administered by a nurse or at a hospital emergency room. The basis of the expert opinion in the case of Peggy Moore is that Respondent prescribed excessive amounts of Demerol and Quaalude for the patient without adequate monitoring of the need for such drugs, and that he permitted home administration rather than at his office, or a hospital site in spite of his expressed concern over the possibility that the patient may have been abusing the use of such drugs. The above opinions are confirmed by the evidence and accepted as a basis for this finding of fact. Other opinions expressed by the expert witnesses during the course of their testimony are not considered to be supported by the evidence. (Testimony of Deatsch, Davenport) Dr. John Smythe, a Winter Haven physician who has known the Respondent for a period of 27 years, is of the opinion that although Respondent's treatment of the patients in question was perhaps "unorthodox," he was dealing with severe chronic patients and perhaps showed too much compassion in prescribing greater drug amounts than he (Smythe) might have prescribed under similar circumstances. Respondent's reputation in the Winter Haven medical community is that of an intelligent, sincere, and conscientious physician who does not hesitate to refer patients to specialists as necessary. (Testimony of Smythe) Dr. William T. Steele, a Winter Haven physician who has known Respondent since the latter has practiced in Winter Haven, is of the opinion that he is an outstanding physician with high moral character who conducts his practice as well as any physician in the community. (Testimony of Steele)
Recommendation That Petitioner suspend Respondent's privilege to prescribe Schedule II controlled substances as defined by Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for a period of one year, but that the suspension be stayed and Respondent be placed on probation for a like period under appropriate terms and supervision established by the Board to protect the public against inappropriate prescribing of controlled substances. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 13th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah J. Miller, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Pyle, Esquire Post Office Box 557 Lake Alfred, Florida 33850
