The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner is liable for overpayment of Medicaid claims for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, as stated in Respondent's Final Agency Audit Report dated May 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Agency for Health Care Administration (Respondent) was the state agency charged with administration of the Medicaid program in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 409.907, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Henry M. Rubinstein, D.C., (Petitioner) was a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida and was providing chiropractic services to Medicaid recipients. Petitioner provided the services pursuant to a contract with Respondent under the Medicaid provider number 0503517-00. His Medicaid patients for years have included children and multi-handicapped children. Petitioner has published in peer review journals and is a board certified chiropractor. Dennis L. Jones, D.C., is a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida. 1/ He was involved in the creation of Florida's Medicaid program and monitors the Florida Chiropractic Medicaid Program. Dr. Jones also serves as a Medicaid chiropractic consultant, including the issuance of prior authorizations for treatment. Prior authorizations are required for a chiropractor to provide and bill for visits by Medicaid recipients in excess of the set limited number. The maximum number of visits allowed per year prior to July 1, 1994, was 12, and after July 1, 1994, was 24. After July 1, 1994, prior authorization was required for visits beyond 24 for Medicaid recipients under the age of Prior authorization was granted for requests that demonstrated medical necessity. Dr. Jones denied many of Petitioner's requests for prior authorization. He denied the requests on the basis that the treatments were extending for periods of up to two years without detailed explanation of medical necessity to substantiate such extended periods of care. Dr. Jones observed that Petitioner's requests for such extended care routinely lacked substantiation and documentation for such extended care, such as x-rays, orthopedic and neurological findings, and subjective/objective descriptions. However, Dr. Jones granted some of Petitioner's requests for prior authorization to exceed the maximum number of visits. Dr. Jones had concerns as to the sufficiency of the documentation of Petitioner's requests for prior authorizations. As a result, when such requests were granted, Dr. Jones noted on the request forms that supplemental medical necessity needed to be documented more completely in the future. In 1996, Dr. Jones related his concerns about Petitioner in a letter to Respondent and included with the letter prior authorizations for primarily special needs children covering the years 1994 through 1996. Twenty-nine prior authorizations were included, with 25 of them for special needs children. His concerns related primarily to Petitioner's Medicaid patients who were special needs children and for whom Dr. Jones had reviewed only prior authorizations submitted by Petitioner. Further, in his letter, Dr. Jones requested an investigation into possible patient brokering, a criminal act. However, a request from a complainant for an investigation into a particular area of alleged violation does not prevent Respondent from identifying and investigating other areas of possible violation revealed by the documents provided. Dr. Jones' letter was referred to one of Respondent's employees, Judith M. Jensen. At that time, Ms. Jensen was also in the process of reviewing another complaint lodged against Petitioner by Dr. Jones, regarding prior authorizations for children, but covering a different time period--from 1993 through 1995. Ms. Jensen was, and is, employed by Respondent as a Human Services Program Specialist. Her duties include monitoring Medicaid claims and investigating Medicaid complaints and aberrant billings for Respondent's Medicaid Program Integrity Office. In investigating all billing irregularities or specific complaints, a review is typically made of the Medicaid provider's medical records. Substantiation of Medicaid claims that are submitted and paid is by adequate and proper medical record documentation. An audit, based upon a billing irregularity or complaint, is usually begun with the selection of a provider or a group of providers. Next, a sample of the chosen provider's Medicaid claims is chosen for a particular time period, which is the audit period. An analyst for Respondent then requests from the provider the medical records for the Medicaid recipients sampled for the audit period. The medical records are provided to and analyzed by a medical peer reviewer. If the medical peer reviewer recommends denial of payment for any of the claims, resulting in overpayment, Respondent forwards a preliminary audit letter to the Medicaid provider, describing the audit findings and requesting any supplemental medical records. A review of any submitted supplemental medical records is conducted, and the audit findings are adjusted in accordance with the results of the review. If an overpayment continues to be indicated after the review, Respondent forwards a final audit letter to the Medicaid provider. Respondent has a limited number of analysts and medical peer reviewers. Due to such constraints on Respondent, sampling is utilized due to its reliability, cost-effectiveness, and commonly accepted method for review of high volumes of Medicaid claims. Ms. Jensen initiated Respondent's review of Petitioner's Medicaid claims. She began the audit by requesting an ad hoc computer report on Petitioner's billing history for all Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the time period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. Ms. Jensen's request concentrated only on Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 because Dr. Jones alerted Respondent primarily to prior authorizations for children. Ms. Jensen received the ad hoc computer report, which was a detail of all of Petitioner's Medicaid billings for Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. The report provided that for the time period indicated, Petitioner billed and was paid for 4,499 claims for 85 recipients, for a total amount of $71,731.30. Having received this information, Ms. Jensen requested a computer-generated selection of a random sample of 20 recipients from the total population of the 85 recipients. Twenty recipients were randomly selected from the total population of the 85 recipients, which showed, among other things, claims totaling 1,307 and payment for the claims totaling $20,710.69. Afterwards, Ms. Jensen requested Petitioner to provide all the medical records for the 20 sampled recipients for the time period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96. Petitioner complied with Ms. Jensen's request. Having received the medical records, Ms. Jensen engaged a peer review consultant, Dr. Ronald J. Hoffman, D.C., to evaluate the records submitted by Petitioner. She provided the medical records to Dr. Hoffman.. 2/ He was provided with the medical records of only 10 Medicaid recipients on two separate occasions, instead of all 20 at the same time. The Medicaid recipients' medical records were not "sanitized" when they were submitted to Dr. Hoffman, meaning that the names of the Medicaid recipients and provider, Petitioner, were not redacted. Dr. Hoffman, as a peer reviewer, rarely reviews files which have been sanitized. The failure to sanitize the medical records found to be of no consequence to Dr. Hoffman's determinations. Dr. Hoffman is a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida and has been practicing for over 30 years. His practice includes patients who are pediatric and multi-handicapped, but these patients comprise a very small number of his patients. He performs chiropractic Medicaid utilization review for Respondent and is a Medicaid provider. He has performed chiropractic utilization review for more than 15 years. For the Medicaid program, Dr. Hoffman has been a consultant since 1997, but Petitioner's review was the first peer review performed by Dr. Hoffman for the Medicaid program. When Dr. Hoffman performs peer reviews for Respondent, he relies upon State statutes and Respondent's guidelines, specifically, The Chiropractic Coverage and Limitation Handbook, and his years of experience Dr. Hoffman is knowledgeable about what a medical record should contain in order for the medical record to demonstrate medical necessity for Medicaid reimbursement purposes. The medical record should contain the complete medical history; an examination showing the condition of the patient and why the patient is being treated; symptoms; standardized testing, including orthopedic and neurological tests; treatment notes; a treatment program; objective findings; special procedures; and an evaluation of the patient's progress. 3/ Petitioner agrees that, according to the Medicaid provider reimbursement handbook, the following are requirements for medical records: patient history; chief complaint for each visit; diagnostic tests and results; diagnosis; treatment plan, including prescriptions; medications, supplies, scheduling frequency for follow-up or other services; progress reports, treatment rendered; original signatures and dates; dates of service; and referrals to others. Dr. Hoffman was aware from review of the medical records provided by Petitioner that the Medicaid recipients were special needs children. However, he was unaware of Florida's special needs statutes (Subsections 409.803(1)(c) and 409.9126(1)(b), and Section 409.9121, Florida Statutes), which address, among other things, health care needs for special needs children, and he did not use the statutes in his determination. The failure to use the special needs statutes had little or no effect on Dr. Hoffman's review. The undersigned is persuaded and a finding of fact is made that Dr. Hoffman's failure to use the special needs statutes in his review did not invalidate his determinations. Dr. Hoffman was tendered and is accepted as an expert in chiropractic medicine. He is also found to be an appropriate peer reviewer for Petitioner's situation. Dr. Hoffman's testimony is found to be credible. After having reviewed the medical records, regarding the 20 randomly sampled Medicaid recipients, pursuant to Respondent's Medicaid peer review, Dr. Hoffman produced two reports of his findings. 4/ During his review, Dr. Hoffman considered all of the Medicaid recipients' visits, including those that had been granted prior authorization. Patient 1 was recipient K.K., with a date of birth of 5/18/86. 5/ Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 1's medical records did not support a finding of medical necessity. The medical records failed to support justification for Patient 1's 198 visits from 11/10/94 through 9/10/96. X-rays contained in the medical records were of such poor quality that they were of no diagnostic value; however, the x-rays were not a factor in the determination of medical necessity. Petitioner's medical notes were practically the same for each visit, with Petitioner noting practically the same comment(s); and there was no recorded orthopedic or neurological testing and no standard chiropractic evaluation forms justifying the number of treatments billed. Patient 1's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 1, 198 claims were paid in the amount of $3,081.30. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,964. 6/ Patient 2 was recipient N.M., with a date of birth of 8/11/83. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 2's medical records lacked documentation demonstrating that the treatments were a medical necessity for Medicaid reimbursement purposes for the 175 visits from 7/12/94 through 6/27/96. The medical records contained no standard medical notes or examination forms and no orthopedic, neurological or chiropractic examination forms to justify treatments; and were redundant and repetitive. X-rays contained in the medical records were of such poor quality that they were of no diagnostic value; but, the x-rays have no impact on the determination of medical necessity. Patient 2's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 2, 175 claims were paid in the amount of $2,726.50. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,964. Patient 3 was recipient D.A., with a date of birth of 4/6/89. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 3's medical records lacked justification for the 173 visits from 8/23/94 through 7/30/96. The medical records contained no standard procedures performed by an acceptable chiropractic physician licensed in the State of Florida. The medical records also indicated that a medical radiologist, Dr. Robert S. Elias, M.D., read the recipient's x-rays for the purpose of a medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in the determination of medical necessity. Patient 3's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 3, 173 claims were paid in the amount of $2,693.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $2,604. Patient 6 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 2/5/90. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 6's medical records lacked justification for the 160 visits from 1/3/95 through 9/3/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no specified diagnosis, and no routine re- examinations. Furthermore, the medical records failed to show why Petitioner was treating Patient 6. X-rays contained in the medical records were not of diagnostic quality and were, therefore, of no diagnostic value; however, the x-rays had no impact on the determination of medical necessity. Patient 6's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 6, 160 claims were paid in the amount of $2,502.20. Prior authorizations granted totaled $1,882.90. Patient 24 was recipient G.H., with a date of birth of 7/20/95. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 24's medical records failed to justify the approximately 73 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no objective findings, and no standardized testing, including range of motion, muscle spasms, and orthopedic or neurological tests. For many of the visits, the only documentation contained in the medical records consisted of the same notation or statement: "Patient doing well." Patient 24's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 24, 72 claims were paid in the amount of $1,158.09. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 25 was recipient O.M., with a date of birth of 4/25/83. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 25's medical records failed to justify the 87 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no justification of diagnosis, and no standard medical tests. The notes that were recorded were quite sparse and repetitive and typically recorded as "Doing well." Patient 25's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 25, 71 claims were paid in the amount of $1,131.69. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 27 was recipient C.F., with a date of birth of 2/12/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 27's medical records failed to justify the 67 visits from 10/11/95 through 3/25/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no standardized examination forms, and no documentation of Patient 27's progress. Patient 27's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 27, 67 claims were paid in the amount of $1,079.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 28 was recipient K.H., with a date of birth of 8/22/94. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 28's medical records failed to justify the 69 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes and no standardized testing, and showed no specific treatment provided based upon the requirements of the Medicaid laws. Patient 28's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 28, 66 claims were paid in the amount of $1,031.79. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 33 was recipient K.D., with a date of birth of 2/15/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 33's medical records failed to justify the 73 visits. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes and no standardized testing. Patient 33's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 33, 51 claims were paid in the amount of $800.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 35 was recipient T.M., with a date of birth of 10/15/91. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 35's medical records failed to justify the 51 visits from 2/15/95 through 6/10/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. The medical records also stated that Dr. Elias read Patient 35's x- rays for the purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in determining medical necessity. Patient 35's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 35, 51 claims were paid in the amount of $828.39. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 39 was recipient B.T., with a date of birth of 8/8/95. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 39's medical records failed to justify the 47 visits from 2/9/95 through 10/19/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 39's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 39, 47 claims were paid in the amount of $765.59. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 40 was recipient T.H., with a date of birth of 7/11/84. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 40's medical records failed to justify the 46 visits from 11/15/94 through 2/28/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. The medical records also indicated that Dr. Elias read the recipient's x-rays for the purposes of medical diagnosis of treatment and that Dr. Elias' diagnosis directly conflicted with Petitioner's diagnosis; however, the x-rays were not a factor in determining medical necessity. Patient 40's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 40, 46 claims were paid in the amount of $731.70. Prior authorizations granted totaled $753.60. Patient 45 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 9/26/90. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 45's medical records failed to justify the 22 visits from 4/24/95 through 11/15/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 45's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 45, 26 claims were paid in the amount of $408.20. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 48 was recipient S.L., with a date of birth of 1/31/91. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 48's medical records failed to justify the 23 visits from 3/25/96 through 9/11/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 48's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 48, 23 claims were paid in the amount of $388.79. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 54 was recipient H.A., with a date of birth of 1/31/88. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 54's medical records failed to justify the 7 visits from 9/6/95 through 10/2/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 54's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 54, 19 claims were paid in the amount of $298.30. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 58 was recipient T.W., with a date of birth of 11/19/81. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 58's medical records failed to justify the 23 visits from 3/25/96 through 9/30/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 58's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 58, 17 claims were paid in the amount of $294.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 59 was recipient C.P., with a date of birth of 4/11/93. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 59's medical records failed to justify the 22 visits from 4/10/96 through 10/9/96. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no documentation of standardized testing of the spine, no documentation of standard tests, including orthopedic and neurological tests, and no medical justification for ongoing care and treatment. Patient 59's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 59, 16 claims were paid in the amount of $278.89. Prior authorizations granted totaled $376.80. Patient 64 was recipient M.L., with a date of birth of 8/20/89. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 64's medical records failed to justify the 8 visits from 8/30/95 through 10/2/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, no documentation of standardized testing, and no description of Patient 64's pain or physical condition. Patient 64's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 64, 13 claims were paid in the amount of $204.10. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 69 was recipient A.L., with a date of birth of 1/14/92. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 69's medical records failed to justify the 9 visits from 2/27/95 through 3/20/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes, and the documentation contained in the records was minimal and repetitious. Patient 69's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 64, 13 claims were paid in the amount of $204.10. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Patient 77 was recipient N.J., with a date of birth of 4/16/80. Dr. Hoffman's opinion was that Patient 77's medical records failed to justify the 7 visits from 3/6/95 through 3/29/95. The medical records contained no standardized chiropractic notes justifying the treatment provided. Patient 77's medical records failed to demonstrate medical necessity for the visits. For Patient 77, 7 claims were paid in the amount of $137.59. The medical records do reflect that any prior authorizations were granted. Dr. Hoffman recommended denial of all claims for the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96 due to Petitioner's failure to adequately document medical necessity in the recipients' medical records. For the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, the total of the Medicaid payments was $20,710.69. As a result, the denial amount, the overpayment, for the 20 sampled recipients was the same, $20,710.69. The overpayment for the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients was extrapolated to the entire universe or total population of the 85 Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, which resulted in a total projected overpayment of $70,518.26. The actual total amount of Medicaid payments for the 85 Medicaid recipients for the covered time period was $71,731.30. Considering the actual total payment of $71,731.30, the projected overpayment of $70,518.26 is very close to the actual total payment and is inherently reasonable. There is an expectation that, because all the claims of the 20 sampled Medicaid recipients were denied, the projected denial for all the claims in the universe of 85 recipients would be very close to the actual total payment. The difference between the projected overpayment of $70,518.26 and the actual amount paid of $71,731.30 is $1,213.04. This difference is negligible and such negligible difference reflects the inherent accuracy and reliability of the statistical methodology utilized. The maximum error range is 5 percent. The difference between the projected overpayment total and the actual payment total is also well within the maximum error range of 5 percent, or $3,587, for a 95 percent statistical confidence interval. To illustrate Respondent's statistical methodology, first, begin with sampled Medicaid recipient Patient 1. As indicated previously, the total number of actual claims for the total population of 85 Medicaid recipients, who were under the age of 21, was 4,499, and the total amount paid for the claims was $71,731.30; the data being taken from Respondent's Medicaid claims database. For Patient 1, 198 claims were audited and $3,081.30 was the total amount paid for the claims. All of the $3,081.30 was denied and determined to be an overpayment. Second, the same process was used with all 20 Medicaid recipients sampled, which produced a total of 1,307 claims, which were all denied, and produced a total of $20,710.69 in overpayment. The total sampled overpayment of $20,710.69 was divided by the total number of sampled claims (1,307) to obtain a mean overpayment per sampled claim of $15.85. The overpayment per sampled claim of $15.85 was multiplied by the number of claims in the total population (4,499) to obtain a point estimate of the total population overpayment, which was $71,291.04. Third, adjusting the point estimate of $71,291.04 for any potential statistical error, Respondent's model reduces the point estimate by 1.73 standard deviations, yielding an error- adjusted total overpayment of $70,518.26. Respondent has a level of confidence that there is 95 percent chance that actual overpayment is a minimum of $70,518.26. The point estimate of $71,291.04 is very close to the actual payment of $70,731.30 for the claims of the total population of the 85 Medicaid recipients; therefore, the overpayment of $70,518.26 is relatively conservative. Respondent's audit was conducted in conformity with Respondent's standards and conformed to Respondent's manner in conducting audits. The audit also had no known deviations or irregularities or deficiencies in the technical processes utilized, except the failure to take into account the prior authorizations granted. As to the statistical aspect of Respondent's audit, Respondent presented the testimony of a statistical expert, Dr. James T. McClave, Ph.D. 7/ Dr. McClave's testimony is considered credible. Using statistical methods in Medicaid overpayment determinations is a common and well-accepted standard of practice. Statistical modeling in Medicaid auditing scientifically and accurately determines the extent of overpayments in a population of payments from a small sample of overpayments drawn from the population of payments. Statistical modeling is capable of providing reliable estimates of the integrity, or lack thereof, of a Medicaid provider's billings, within reasonable time and resource constraints. In the statistical formula, a sample of claims is used to obtain a valid statistical estimate of the overpayment, if any, associated with the entire population of claims from which the sample of claims was drawn. A point estimate, being the best estimate the sample has to offer of the overpayment, is taken; and then a factor, allowing for the uncertainty associated with the sample, is subtracted such that there is a specified level of confidence that what is obtained is the conservative estimate of what the total population overpayment would be. The point estimate is referred to as "the lower 95 percent confidence bound," 8/ and the number obtained is a number which one "can be 95 percent confident that it is an underestimate of what the total overpayment would be" 9/ if the entire population was sampled. Respondent complied with the statistical methodology. The random selection process and the ad hoc computer report were valid and reliable. The results of the sampling and extrapolation were valid and reliable on the basis of the total population of Petitioner's Medicaid patients was pediatric patients and the results were limited to Petitioner's Medicaid patients under the age of 21. Further, the sample size of 20 Medicaid recipients from the total population of 85 was adequate. However, the results of the sampling and extrapolation are not reliable as they pertain to the failure of Respondent to take into consideration the granted prior authorizations. Respondent is compelled and should be provided an opportunity to re-apply its statistical methodology in light of granted prior authorizations not being considered. Uncertainty now exists as to what effect the granted prior authorizations would have on the outcome of the total overpayments. The denial of all of Petitioner's claims was a situation of first impression for Respondent. Prior to the instant case, Respondent had had no chiropractor's Medicaid claims go through peer review and denial recommended. By letter dated February 4, 1998, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner a Preliminary Agency Audit Report (Preliminary Audit Report). The Preliminary Audit Report informed Petitioner, among other things, that Respondent's preliminary determination was that Petitioner had received an overpayment of $70,518.26 due to the claims being determined not medically necessary, and requested, among other things, that Petitioner submit any additional information or documentation which may reduce the overpayment. The Preliminary Audit Report also informed Petitioner of the overpayment calculation and statistical formula used by Respondent. In response to the request for additional information or documentation, Petitioner forwarded to Ms. Jensen a videotape and testimonials. Ms. Jensen did not send the testimonials and videotape to Dr. Hoffman, the peer reviewer, for his review because these items (1) were determined by her to have been created prior to recording of the medical records at issue, and, therefore, did not constitute a medical record for review; and (2) were, consequently, not relevant. The undersigned is persuaded and a finding of fact is made that the testimonials and videotape were not relevant and need not have been submitted to Dr. Hoffman for his review. By letter dated May 5, 1998, Respondent forwarded to Petitioner its Final Agency Audit Report (Final Audit Report). The Final Audit Report, based upon the recommendations of Dr. Hoffman, notified Petitioner, among other things, that the final determination was that he had received an overpayment of $70,518.26, due to the Medicaid claims not being medically necessary. The Final Audit Report also notified Petitioner, among other things, of the overpayment calculation and statistical formula used by Respondent. Moreover, Petitioner was notified that his type of violation warranted termination from the Medicaid program and a $2,000 fine, but that, in lieu of termination from the Medicaid program, he could continue as a provider by paying a $5,000 fine. In a subsequent letter to Petitioner, regarding clarification of continued participation in the Medicaid program, Ms. Jensen explained that, as a requirement for continued participation in the Medicaid program, in addition to the $5,000 fine, Petitioner must comply with Medicaid policy and Florida Statutes and rules. Petitioner was placed on notice that to continue as a Medicaid provider he must abide by Medicaid billing requirements. Respondent's Final Audit Report did not contain any notice of mediation being available. Section 120.573, Florida Statutes, requires notice of whether mediation (settlement) is available in agency action that affects substantial interests. There is no dispute that Respondent's Final Audit Report affects Petitioner's substantial interests. No evidence was presented that either Petitioner inquired about mediation or that Petitioner or Respondent sought or desired mediation. Moreover, no evidence was presented that Petitioner was harmed or suffered as a result of not receiving the notice. No evidence was presented to support a finding that the basis of the audit findings involved a conspiracy. A finding of fact is made that the basis of the audit findings does not involve a conspiracy between Respondent and its employees and Dr. Jones and Dr. Hoffman and Dr. McClave or anyone else. Respondent did not initiate any disciplinary action against Petitioner's license as a chiropractor and, therefore, Subsections 455.225(1) and 455.621(1), Florida Statutes, are not applicable. No evidence was presented that any criminal action was referred or taken against Petitioner as a result of Respondent's audit. No evidence was presented that Respondent suspected Petitioner of having committed a criminal violation, that a criminal act had been committed by Petitioner, or that Respondent had determined that Petitioner had committed a criminal act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order against Henry M. Rubinstein, D.C. and therein: Sustaining the failure of Dr. Rubinstein's medical records, except as to granted prior authorizations, for Medicaid recipients under the age of 21 for the period from 9/1/94 through 9/30/96, to demonstrate medical necessity. Sustaining the Final Agency Audit Report, except as indicated and consistent with this Recommended Order. Requiring Dr. Rubinstein to repay overpayments, without interest, in an amount subsequently determined in a proceeding by the Agency for Health Care Administration and within a time period under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. Imposing a fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 11th day of April, 2000.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physicians such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Medicine has found probable cause exists to suspect that the physician has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. At all times pertinent to this cause, Respondent was a medical doctor licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 92135. Although not the subject of the instant proceeding, Respondent has also been licensed by the State of Florida as a chiropractic physician. Background / Arrangement with Dr. Wagner In or around 1975, Respondent completed his education at the National University of Health Sciences and began to practice chiropractic medicine shortly thereafter. Some fifteen years later, Respondent and an acquaintance——Dr. Joseph Wagner, also a licensed chiropractor in the State of Florida——matriculated at a medical school in the Dominican Republic. Although both Respondent and Dr. Wagner ultimately earned Doctor of Medicine ("MD") degrees in the mid 1990s, Respondent was not licensed in Florida to practice as an MD until early 2006. Significantly, however, Dr. Wagner never obtained licensure as a medical doctor. Consequently, Dr. Wagner is prohibited by statute (with two exceptions, neither of which is applicable in this case6/) from prescribing any medicinal drug. In 2007, Respondent and Dr. Wagner entered into a joint venture designed, in the words of Respondent, to "expand" Dr. Wagner's chiropractic practice. At that time, and for the duration of their business agreement, Respondent's principal place of business was located in Palm Beach County, while Dr. Wagner practiced chiropractic medicine in Daytona Beach. Under the joint venture (which continued until August 2011, when both their offices were raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation), Respondent traveled to Daytona Beach several times each month and interacted with Dr. Wagner concerning some, but not all, of Dr. Wagner's chiropractic clients (hereinafter "joint-venture clients" or "JVCs"). From what can be gleaned of the credible portions of Respondent's deposition and final hearing testimony, it appears that Respondent's activity with respect to JVCs included a review of client files, and, in some cases, a determination that one or more medications——including narcotics——should be prescribed. Indeed, Respondent's level of participation was so minimal that his face-to-face interaction with JVCs consisted, at most, of an initial introduction, and on no occasion did Respondent personally examine——or perform treatments upon——any JVC. As a consequence of Respondent's phantom-like presence at Dr. Wagner's clinic, it was common for a JVC who presented for routine follow-up appointments, which for some clients occurred as frequently as once time per week, to be seen only by Dr. Wagner or Dr. Wagner's son, John Wagner, who was also a chiropractor. Troublingly, these visits frequently ended (without Respondent having seen or spoken with the JVC on that day) with Dr. Wagner phoning in a prescription refill.7/ At the conclusion of a JVC's office visit, Dr. Wagner—— and possibly Respondent, if the JVC was seen on a day when Respondent was actually present in the Daytona office——dictated medical notes that Dr. Wagner usually transcribed at a later time. Subsequently, and with Respondent's blanket authorization, Dr. Wagner would create a claim form (if the JVC had insurance coverage) to submit to the insurance carrier for reimbursement. Incredibly, Respondent also granted Dr. Wagner complete authority to affix his signature to reimbursement claims and submit them——without Respondent looking at the forms beforehand——to insurance carriers. This was accomplished not by the use of a stamp, which medical professionals often provide to their subordinates to expedite business affairs, but by Dr. Wagner manually signing, in cursive, "John P. Christensen" inside the box of the claim form labeled "signature of the physician or supplier. Another unusual aspect of the joint venture was the manner in which Respondent and Dr. Wagner dealt with reimbursement checks from insurance carriers. By agreement, reimbursement checks for claims that related to JVCs were received by mail at Dr. Wagner's place of business in Daytona Beach. Upon their receipt, Dr. Wagner deposited the checks into a SunTrust checking account for which Respondent had sole signatory authority. At the end of each month, Respondent transferred the entire balance of the SunTrust account into his business account at PNC Bank. Respondent would subsequently draft a check on the PNC account to Dr. Wagner in an amount equal to 50 percent of the monthly proceeds. As Respondent readily admits, his joint venture with Dr. Wagner yielded substantial financial remuneration. Over a four-year period, reimbursement from insurance carriers totaling $800,000——a tidy sum in light of Respondent's nominal participation——was deposited into Respondent's SunTrust account, the proceeds of which were split 50/50 with Dr. Wagner. Against the foregoing backdrop, the undersigned will address, on a client-by-client basis, the specific wrongdoing alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Client K.R. On or about August 25, 2010, K.R. presented to Dr. Wagner's clinic for treatment of a back injury she sustained in an automobile accident approximately eight months earlier. K.R. continued to be seen at Dr. Wagner's clinic, on a weekly basis and as a JVC,8/ until November 11, 2010. During K.R.'s initial office visit, no examination was conducted, nor did Dr. Wagner order that any diagnostic scans (such as x-rays) be taken. Instead, Dr. Wagner simply asked K.R. about her injuries and "cracked" her back for several minutes. While the evidence does not foreclose the possibility that K.R. was introduced briefly to Respondent during the first appointment, it is clear that no further interaction——of any kind——occurred between them. Although Respondent had no contact whatsoever with K.R., the evidence demonstrates that Respondent permitted Dr. Wagner——on the date of K.R.'s first visit and on every follow-up visit, which generally lasted no more than a few minutes——to telephone a local pharmacy on his behalf and direct that certain prescriptions be filled. Specifically, each week from August 25, 2010, through November 10, 2010, K.R. was prescribed seven-day supplies of the following medications: 40 tablets of Lortab9/ (the brand name for the formulation of hydrocodone10/ and acetaminophen); 21 tables of Soma11/ (the brand name for carisoprodol,12/ a muscle relaxant); and 21 tablets of Xanax13/ (a brand name for alprazolam,14/ which is designed to treat anxiety). Petitioner's expert witness in this proceeding, Dr. Orlando Florete, credibly testified that the dosages of Lortab, Xanax, and Soma prescribed to K.R. were excessive, and that the combination of the three medications was inappropriate due to an unacceptably heightened risk of respiratory depression and death. Client M.R. In late July or early August 2009, M.R. presented to Dr. Wagner's clinic for treatment of leg, back, and neck pain. M.R. returned for follow-up appointments at least one time per week for the next several months. At no time did M.R. undergo a medical examination during his visits, which consisted of having his back cracked by either Dr. Wagner or his son (and, on occasion, the use of a bed with heat). Notwithstanding that Respondent and M.R. neither met nor had contact of any kind, Respondent considered M.R. to be a JVC.15/ As a consequence, Respondent allowed Dr. Wagner to phone-in the following medications——with Respondent listed on the prescription bottles as the prescribing physician——for M.R., on a weekly basis, from August 7, 2009, through October 16, 2009: 40 tablets of hydrocodone, with each pill containing 10 milligrams of hydrocodone and 500 milligrams of acetaminophen; and 24 tablets of Xanax, each in two milligram doses Clients L.J., S.J., and J.J. In or around August 2009, S.J., J.J. (S.J's cousin), and L.J. (S.J's mother) were involved in an automobile accident. Thereafter, in late 2009 and early 2010, S.J., J.J., and L.J. presented themselves on multiple occasions for chiropractic treatment at Dr. Wagner's office in Daytona Beach. Although there is insufficient evidence as to what occurred during J.J.'s office visits (no testimony of J.J. has been introduced), S.J. and L.J. were seen initially by Dr. Wagner's son, and later by Dr. Wagner himself during follow-up appointments. As with patient M.R., both S.J. and L.J. neither met nor had any contact whatsoever with Respondent. Nevertheless, as clients that were within the ambit of Respondent and Dr. Wagner's joint venture,16/ Respondent allowed Dr. Wagner to phone-in prescriptions for S.J. and L.J. as follows: Lortab (40 tablets) and Soma (20 tablets) for L.J. on January 30, 2010; and Lortab and Soma (40 and 20 tablets, respectively) for S.J. on November 7, 2009, January 2, 2010, and February 27, 2010. As with the JVCs discussed previously, Respondent was listed in the pharmacy records and on the medication bottles as the prescribing physician. Consistent with the terms of the joint venture, Dr. Wagner submitted reimbursement claims to Direct General Insurance Company ("DGIC," a personal injury protection carrier) for services purportedly rendered to S.J., L.J., and J.J during their office visits. In particular, clear and convincing evidence exists that Dr. Wagner, with Respondent's knowledge and authorization, submitted reimbursement claims to DGIC in connection with S.J., J.J., and L.J. that bear the following dates: January 30, 2010 (S.J.); January 30, 2010, and March 13 and 27, 2010 (L.J.); and April 10 and 24, 2010 (J.J.).17/ While the exact services billed to DGIC varied by patient and date, the content of each of these claim forms represented unambiguously that the examinations and/or treatments were performed by Respondent and no other. This was unquestionably deceptive in light of Respondent's consistent testimony that he never physically conducted medical examinations or treatments in connection with any JVC. Client C.H. In or around December 2008, C.H. was referred to Dr. Wagner's clinic by her personal injury attorney. Over the next four months, C.H. was treated by Dr. Wagner and/or Dr. Wagner's son during multiple office visits. In stark contrast to Respondent's position with respect to patients discussed above (Respondent admitted during his deposition that K.R., M.R., S.J., L.J., and J.J. were JVCs, yet attempted——unsuccessfully——during the final hearing to retract such testimony), Respondent has consistently maintained that C.H. was not a JVC, that he had no knowledge of C.H., and that any prescription phoned in by Dr. Wagner in connection with C.H. was without his knowledge or authorization. As the undersigned credits this portion of Respondent's testimony, any events that occurred at the clinic with respect to C.H. cannot serve as a basis to discipline Respondent. Findings of Ultimate Fact The undersigned finds, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, by prescribing controlled substances to K.R., M.R. S.J., and L.J. outside the course of his professional practice as a medical doctor. It is further determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent engaged in deceptive conduct related to the practice of medicine, contrary to section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Finally, the undersigned finds, as matters of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of violating subsections 458.331(1)(m), (1)(t), and (1)(nn), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine: Finding that Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(k), as charged in Count V of the Complaint; Dismissing Counts I, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; Revoking Respondent's license to practice medicine; and Imposing a total administrative fine of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 16th day of March, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Dong Hack Koo, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0027494. Koo was so licensed at all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint. At all times material to this cause, Koo maintained an office at 121 East 8th Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206. On July 10, 1985, Diane Rabideau, an Investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, inspected Koo's offices and found them to be unclean, with evidence of roach eggs present under a sink. Rabideau also found a rectal speculum and two vaginal speculums lying on a sink. Koo told Rabideau that the rectal speculum and the two vaginal speculums had been used. No evidence was presented to indicate how long the speculums had been on the sink. If such instruments are not cleaned quickly and properly following use, there is a high chance of spreading infection to the next patient to use the instrument. Such instruments should be placed in a cleansing solution and scrubbed, then wrapped and sterilized. It is the community practice to clean such instruments as soon as possible after use. According to Dr. Rosin, any physician who performs abortions in an unclean office with instruments lying around that have not been properly cleaned, has practiced below the community standard of care. However, no evidence was presented to show that Koo performed abortions under such circumstances. Koo does perform first trimester abortions in his office. It was not disputed that abortions are a medical and surgical procedure which can be dangerous. Emergency situations can arise during abortions and these emergencies require the presence of emergency equipment such as suction and the ability to start an intravenous medication. Koo does maintain suction equipment and intravenous solutions in his office. However, when possible he immediately transfers emergency patients to another facility. Koo does perform abortions in his office without the presence of an assistant to aid in emergency situations. According to Dr. Rosin, the standard of care in the community requires that an assistant be present during an abortion to assist the physician should an emergency situation arise. Additionally, according to Dr. Rosin, a physician who performs abortions without emergency equipment or without an assistant has failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. When Rabideau visited Koo's office on July 10, 1985, she obtained a sampling of drugs kept by Koo for dispensing to patients. The sampling revealed that a majority of the drugs had expired. However, no evidence was presented that this is a violation of Florida Statutes. Rabideau also found that Koo maintained a number of Schedule III, IV, and V, controlled substances in his office which he dispensed to patients. In dispensing these controlled substances, Koo used the instructions for use which are printed on the packaging. He also, at times, taped a small piece of paper to the packaging with his telephone number and the name of the patient. Koo did not completely label these controlled substances, which he dispensed, with his name and address, the date of delivery, directions for use, the name of the patient, and a warning concerning the transfer of the substance. Koo maintains no inventory of the scheduled controlled substances which are kept in his offices and dispensed to his patients. On August 6, 1985, Diane Rabideau again visited Koo's office. While Rabideau waited, a female patient by the name of Mary Green was seen by Koo and left with a prescription. Rabideau then asked Respondent to present the medical records on the patient, Mary Green. Koo was unable to present any medical records for the patient which he had just seen and to whom he had just dispensed medication. Koo's office procedure regarding patient medical records is to record histories and examination results on the patient medical records during the patient's visit. These medical records are kept in individual folders under the name of each patient. When a patient presents for treatment, the medical records for that patient are pulled and given to the doctor. After each visit, the patient's medical records are refiled. On or about March 16, 1986, pursuant to a subpoena from the Department of Professional Regulation, Koo provided the original medical records on ten (10) abortion patients. These original medical records were examined by John F. McCarthy, a questioned documents expert for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. McCarthy's examination by electrostatic detection apparatus revealed that numerous indentations on the records superimposed with information from other records. For example, Exhibit 6 contained indentations from the writing on the face of Exhibit 10. Further, McCarthy found indentations on Exhibit 6 resulting from the writing on Exhibit 8. Thus, Exhibit 8 was on top of Exhibit 6 when it was prepared. Exhibit 8, however, is dated July 24, 1985, and Exhibit 6 is dated May 29, 1985. McCarthy's expert opinion is that at the time the various documents were prepared, they were on top of each other. It is therefore found that Exhibits 1-10, the original medical records on the ten named abortion patients, were not prepared at the time Koo saw the patients, but were instead all prepared at the same time, in response to the subpoena. It therefore must be found that the records were fabricated by Koo in response to the Department's subpoena. Prior to performing an abortion, a physician needs to verify whether the patient has Rh positive or negative blood type. The physician cannot rely on patients' representations that the Rh factor is positive or negative, but most obtain independent verification. This is because patients know that if they have Rh negative blood, they must receive a shot which is expensive. Koo relied on the patients' statements in ascertaining the Rh factor and did not obtain independent verification. In Dr. Rosin's expert opinion, the failure of a physician to obtain independent verification of the Rh factor poses a potential for harm to the patient and such failure is a failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized in the medical community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding Dong Hack Koo, M.D., GUILTY of violating Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therein SUSPEND his license to practice medicine for a period of six (6) months during which he be required to successfully complete continuing education courses in maintaining, controlling, dispensing, labeling, and inventorying controlled substance, and in maintaining adequate patient records to justify the course of treatment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 26th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1066 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (1) ; 2 (2); 3 (3); 4 (4); 5 (4); 6 (4); 7 (4); 8 (5); 9 (6); 10 (6); 11 (9); 12 (7); 13 (8); 14 (9); 15 (10); 16 (11); 17 (11); 18 (12); 19 (13); 20 (13); 21 (15); 22 (14); 23 (14); 24 (16); 25 (16); 26 (16); 27 (16); 28 (17); 29 (18); and 30 (19) That portion of proposed finding of fact 12 which concludes that Respondent does not maintain emergency equipment in his office is rejected as unsupported by the competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dong Hack Koo, M.D. 121 East 8th Street, Suite 7 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive DIRECTOR Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
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 =================================================================
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license to practice as a medical doctor based on allegations that he violated sections 458.331(1)(t), (m), and (q), Florida Statutes (2008-2010), as alleged in Petitioner’s Amended Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the testimony presented at the final hearing, exhibits accepted into evidence, admitted facts set forth in the pre-hearing stipulation, and matters officially recognized. The Parties and the Origin of This Litigation The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to chapter 456, Florida Statutes (2006-2017). At all times relevant to the instant case, Dr. McKenzie was a Florida-licensed physician having been issued license ME 93485. Dr. McKenzie is also licensed to practice medicine in Alabama. Dr. McKenzie is board-certified in internal medicine with sub-specialties in pulmonary disease and sleep medicine. Dr. McKenzie earned his medical degree at the University of South Alabama (“USA”) in May of 2000. Over the next three years, Dr. McKenzie completed an internship and a residency in Internal Medicine at USA. By June of 2005, Dr. McKenzie had left USA after completing a fellowship in “Pulmonary & Sleep Medicine, Critical Care.” Dr. Victor Ortega has a medical practice in Panama City, Florida, known as Pulmonary Associates, and Dr. McKenzie began working for Dr. Ortega on approximately July 1, 2005. Dr. McKenzie had no ownership interest in Pulmonary Associates. He was an employee of Dr. Ortega. Therefore, Dr. Ortega owned the medical records for the patients Dr. McKenzie treated at Pulmonary Associates. Dr. McKenzie worked at Pulmonary Associates until July of 2006, and the separation was acrimonious. Dr. McKenzie elected to leave Pulmonary Associates after learning that the compensation system instituted by Dr. Ortega unfairly enriched him at the expense of his associates.1/ Dr. McKenzie began practicing at Bay Clinic, Inc. (“Bay Clinic”), in Panama City in July 2006, and continued there through May 2009. At Bay Clinic, Dr. McKenzie shared office space and administrative expenses with Dr. Jesus Ramirez. Dr. McKenzie had no ownership interest in Bay Clinic. The record is unclear as to whether Dr. McKenzie had an employment contract with Bay Clinic. In May of 2009, Dr. McKenzie opened his own practice at The Lung and Sleep Center in Panama City. Dr. McKenzie owns The Lung and Sleep Center, and he owns the medical records for the patients he treats there. In addition to his practice at The Lung and Sleep Center, Dr. McKenzie is a staff physician at Bay Medical Center, Select Specialty Hospital, and Health South in Panama City. Since August of 2015, Dr. McKenzie has been a clinical instructor for the nurse practitioner program at USA. Because Dr. McKenzie has been practicing in close proximity to Pulmonary Associates, Dr. Ortega sued Dr. McKenzie in 2011 in order to enforce a non-compete agreement.2/ During the course of that litigation, Dr. Ortega’s attorney asked Dr. McKenzie during a deposition whether he had ever treated a current or former employee with narcotic medications at Pulmonary Associates. Because Dr. McKenzie had rendered such treatment to K.D., he responded affirmatively. On January 28, 2011, Dr. Ortega wrote the following letter to the Board of Medicine: A deposition with Dr. McKenzie took place and is enclosed. Dr. McKenzie acknowledged under sworn statement that he had prescribed controlled substances for employees at Pulmonary Associates of Bay County. That person, of course, was [K.D.]. Dr. McKenzie’s attorney opposed any further questioning alleging privacy violations, etc. Since [K.D.] was our employee and he was under contract and under the privacy and umbrella of our corporation, that record keeping was by contract to be kept under our protection. As I understand it, this is a criminal occurrence and violation of the prescription of controlled substances. I am forwarding all this to the law enforcement agency and to the state with the hope that you will proceed accordingly with prosecution and stop this practice as soon as possible. I recognize that the problem of illegal use, abuse, and prescription of controlled substances is a significant issue throughout the United States. This represents one more way in which drugs are being diverted from their legal and appropriate use. To this day I am certain that this illegal prescription practice continues with different individuals. The rapid check of prescriptions at the local pharmacies for controlled substances, particularly Lortab, Dilaudid, etc., by this physician will reveal a number of individuals which I am sure will not have corresponding medical record entries to justify the use of pain control medication by appropriate evaluation, diagnosis, and treatments as required by law. (emphasis added). Dr. Ortega ultimately identified A.W., R.W., and K.D. to the Department as patients who received inappropriate prescriptions from Dr. McKenzie. However, the Department and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s (“FDLE”) investigation began due to a confidential informant observing Dr. McKenzie disposing of pill bottles at a car wash. FDLE investigated the matter, but limited resources led to FDLE referring the case to the Department for administrative action. The Department’s allegations pertaining to A.W., R.W., and K.D. will be separately addressed below. Was Dr. McKenzie’s Treatment of A.W. Below the Standard of Care? A.W. has been a Florida-licensed nurse since April of 2007 and has worked at Bay Medical Center since 2005. She was in nursing school when her employment at Bay Medical Center began. A.W. and Dr. McKenzie were co-workers at Bay Medical Center. While Dr. McKenzie was married and A.W. was engaged, they began a romantic relationship in 2005 that continued until 2006 or 2007. When A.W. learned that Dr. McKenzie’s wife was pregnant, their relationship ended, and A.W. did not have any meaningful communication with Dr. McKenzie for the next year. Even though she was already treating with a general medicine practitioner who she considered to be her primary care physician, A.W. began treating with Dr. McKenzie in approximately April of 2009 because she was experiencing “really severe headaches,” anxiety, and abdominal pain. Dr. McKenzie prescribed Lortab, the brand name for an opioid pain medication consisting of acetaminophen and hydrocodone. Under section 893.03(3), Florida Statutes (2008-2017), hydrocodone, in the dosages found in Lortab, is a Schedule III controlled substance. From April of 2009 through October of 2010, Dr. McKenzie prescribed 90 Lortab pills a month to A.W. A.W. was to take one pill every six hours as needed for pain. When A.W. began treating with Dr. McKenzie, they resumed having a personal relationship. While A.W. describes their relationship at that time as being friendly rather than romantic, A.W. and Dr. McKenzie were having sex while Dr. McKenzie was writing prescriptions for her. A.W.’s first documented treatment with Dr. McKenzie at The Lung and Sleep Center occurred on July 22, 2009, and she presented with several issues. For instance, A.W. was experiencing anxiety, and Dr. McKenzie noted on the medical record that A.W. needed to see a psychiatrist. A.W. was also experiencing pain from multiple sources. Migraines were one source of pain, and Dr. McKenzie recommended continuing with Lortab and discussed obtaining a neurology consult. A.W. also had abdominal pain, and Dr. McKenzie discussed obtaining a colonoscopy and consulting with a gastroenterologist. In addition to migraines and abdominal pain, A.W. was experiencing pain from pleurisy. Pleurisy is inflammation of the lining of the lungs, and its symptoms include chest and back pain. It is characterized by a sharp pain that worsens with deep breaths. Pleurisy is treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (“NSAIDs”) such as Motrin, Aleve, and ibuprofen. If NSAIDs have no effect, then, narcotics can be used. A.W.’s next documented treatment at The Lung and Sleep Center occurred on December 9, 2009. Dr. McKenzie noted in the medical record associated with that office visit that A.W. had gastroesophageal reflux disease, i.e., GERD. In order to treat that condition, Dr. McKenzie prescribed over-the-counter Prilosec and advised A.W. to avoid NSAIDs because they can aggravate heartburn. If a patient cannot take NSAIDs, then Lortab is a reasonable alternative. By the time of her next documented office visit at The Lung and Sleep Center on July 22, 2009, A.W. was still suffering from anxiety, abdominal pain, and pleurisy. A.W. had neglected to obtain any of the consultations recommended by Dr. McKenzie. Dr. McKenzie testified that it can be difficult to get patients to obtain consultations: So a lot of times, it’s hard to get people to be compliant. Nobody wants to go and have scopes in both ends, but especially when something flares up and goes away, because every time you see – it’s like taking your car to the mechanic, when you take it to the mechanic, it quits knocking. So a lot of these people come in, well, it’s not that bad. And they they go home and it will be bad. So a lot of times it’s hard to get them to be compliant with these. Because the [esophagogastroduodenoscopy] and the colonoscopy, I don’t know if anybody has had one, but they can be unpleasant, at best. Because A.W. is a nurse, Dr. McKenzie assumed that she would eventually obtain the consultations: [O]ne thing about A.W. is she’s a nurse. And so you kind of put more weight, because a normal patient, when they say, well, I’m going to call psychiatry, or I’m going to get this down or this done, you know, then you may push them a little harder. But if you have a medical professional, when they tell you that, well, I’ll call this and I’ll do that, you kind of put more weight to that. And so, you know, she did – you know, and she was told, and she said, well, I’ll call psychiatry. And then she would call – was going to call GI and she was going to call neurology. And she eventually did, of course. When asked about prescribing narcotics for a year to a patient who was not obtaining the recommended consultations, Dr. McKenzie testified as follows: So you give people the benefit of the doubt. And her symptoms would come and go. And then she said – like I said, she kept saying, well, I’m going to go see this person, see this person. She worked nights. She had a lot of compounding issues that would make it harder for her to follow up and be compliant. Dr. McKenzie did not have an office visit with A.W. every time that he wrote a prescription for her. The next documented visit by A.W. to The Lung and Sleep Center occurred on December 9, 2009. The medical record notes that A.W. continued to have stomach pain. As a result, she was to continue avoiding NSAIDs, and she was supposed to consult with a gastroenterologist. A.W. was still suffering from pleurisy, anxiety, and migraines. A.W.’s next documented treatment at The Lung and Sleep Center occurred on May 5, 2010. A.W. still had not obtained the consultations mentioned above, and Dr. McKenzie recognized that doing so would be difficult because A.W. was working nights. A.W.’s last documented treatment at The Lung and Sleep Center occurred on October 11, 2010. She still had not obtained the consultations previously recommended by Dr. McKenzie. Dr. McKenzie notified A.W. during this office visit that he would not prescribe any more pain medication until she obtained the psychiatry, neurology, and gastroenterology consultations they had discussed. A.W. then treated with Dr. Mariusz J. Klin, a gastroenterologist, on November 24, 2010. Dr. Klin performed an endoscopy on A.W. and discovered that she was suffering from “severe gastritis from NSAIDs and a 2 centimeter hernia.” Dr. McKenzie testified that severe gastritis is painful. A lot of people call the ambulance, you know, they get all kinds of heart workup and all kinds of pulmonary workup and they did a lot of workup because of the severe pain. And it’s episodic. You can have episodes where you won’t have any issues and then you’ll have flare-ups and have issues. Dr. McKenzie testified that a hiatal hernia can be painful: It can be. A lot of times your – what causes a hiatal hernia is your stomach and your esophagus are above the diaphragm. And your esophagus fits into your diaphragm like a lock and key. And so if your esophagus is in the right place, it helps close off the stomach so the acid can’t come out. Well, when you have a hernia, it pulls the lock and key in the wrong direction to be optimal, so now the stomach acid can leak out and cause more of a problem. Dr. Francisco Calimano, the Department’s expert witness, reviewed A.W.’s medical records and provided expert testimony on the Department’s behalf. Dr. Calimano is licensed to practice medicine in Florida and is board-certified in internal medicine, pulmonary medicine, and critical care medicine. Dr. Calimano testified that the amount of Lortab prescribed to A.W. by Dr. McKenzie was “excessive.” However, Dr. Calimano’s objection was directed more toward the length of time that Dr. McKenzie prescribed 90 Lortab pills a month, rather than the monthly amount of Lortab prescribed. Specifically, Dr. Calimano testified that he would do no more than a two to three month Lortab prescription for a patient with migraines, anxiety, and abdominal pain: In my opinion, you know, in my professional opinion, you know, at least in the scope of practice that I have, which I am not a pain specialist, I wouldn’t go for this length of time prescribing this amount of narcotics. I will feel uncomfortable doing that. So I think that I would refer to the pain management specialist. I would have been, you know, up to the point I said, you know, usually what I tell my patients is I give you a prescription, because you are having acute pain. I might give a second prescription if the pain is not resolved or so with the understanding that he needs to get that addressed. Before I give him that second prescription, I tell him I no longer will prescribe you these medications. And so before she runs out of that prescription, she knows in advance that it’s a no, the answer is no. That she needs to get some help, professional help. Because I think if not I would be doing a disfavor. Dr. David Hart Goldstein provided expert testimony on Dr. McKenzie’s behalf. Dr. Goldstein is licensed to practice medicine in Florida, and he practices internal, pulmonary, and hospital medicine at Sarasota Memorial Hospital. In addition, Dr. Goldstein currently works as an Assistant Clinical Professor of Internal, Pulmonary, and Hospitalist Medicine at Florida State University’s School of Medicine. Dr. Goldstein rendered a different opinion regarding Dr. McKenzie’s treatment of A.W. and the Lortab prescriptions: Q: Does anything appear remarkable to you in terms of the dosage? A: The dosages are on the high side. But when a patient has severe pain sometimes you need a higher dose. It seems that Dr. McKenzie was managing this patient for a long period of time. There was no pain specialist involved at that time. Q: From your review of the record, did it appear that patient A.W. had significant gastric distress? A: Yes. In fact, it appears from the record and the note by Dr. Klin that she tried other methods to relieve the pain. The reasons I say that is his diagnosis was severe gastritis related to the use of NSAIDs. Meaning that she tried using things like Advil. So that caused the issue. So NSAIDs would be prohibited. And this would be consistent with a person who has, according to the record, significant headaches, abdominal pain, which was [caused] by gastritis and pleurisy. Q: So from your review of the records, particularly Dr. Klin’s clinical records, would it be appropriate if NSAIDs were not effective to step up to a Lortab prescription? A: If that was the only way the patient’s pain could be managed, yes. * * * Q: So taking all of these records together, did you see anything clinically inappropriate as to either the medical care or the prescribing that Dr. McKenzie offered to patient A.W. during this timeframe? A: The only thing is as I mentioned – I think I mentioned it in my deposition also. There are a lot of prescriptions for Lortab. The medical record documents that she has a lot of pain. I think there might have been better documentation of the fact that this was failing or this was working. So I am not that impressed with the documentation, but the record is consistent with symptoms that can be treated and are often treated with narcotics such as Percocet or Lortab. Q: Dr. Goldstein, did you see anything that appeared to you to be a practice beneath the standard of care? A: Just as I mentioned, I don’t think the records were great, but I don’t believe that’s a deviation of the standard of care. I just think that’s poor recordkeeping. As for the length of time that Dr. McKenzie prescribed Lortab to A.W., Dr. Goldstein testified that, “I would not prescribe it for a year unless I was comfortable that this patient had made attempts to see a neurologist and had migraines and was not abusing this medication.” Because A.W.’s gastric issues prevented her from taking NSAIDs, Dr. Goldstein opined that it was appropriate to treat A.W.’s headache pain, abdominal pain, and pleurisy with Lortab. With regard to the fact that Dr. McKenzie wrote prescriptions for A.W. without a corresponding office visit, Dr. Calimano acknowledged that “you don’t absolutely need a face-to-face contact with the patient if you have established a diagnosis and you are sure of what you are treating and so on.” Nevertheless, Dr. Calimano objected to Dr. McKenzie not doing more to treat the sources of A.W.’s pain, and the Department takes Dr. McKenzie to task because A.W.’s medical records do not set forth a treatment plan, objectives, etc. However, A.W. was a difficult patient because she did not obtain the consultations requested by Dr. McKenzie until he threatened to discharge her as a patient. Such consultations would be an essential prerequisite to formulating an effective treatment plan for A.W. If A.W. had obtained those consultations when she had been directed to do so, then her illnesses might have resolved much sooner. While Dr. McKenzie probably should have threatened to discharge A.W. sooner, he believed that A.W., as a medical professional, would eventually obtain the consultations, and he recognized that A.W.’s night shift work made it difficult for her to obtain those consultations. In sum, even Dr. Goldstein acknowledged that Dr. McKenzie’s recordkeeping for A.W. could have been better. However, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Dr. McKenzie’s treatment of A.W., under these particular circumstances, fell below the standard of care.3/ Did Dr. McKenzie Falsify A.W.’s Medical Records and Use Her to Illegally Obtain Lortab? Contrary to the medical records described above, A.W. asserts that she has never sought treatment at The Lung and Sleep Center. While she acknowledges visiting The Lung and Sleep Center, she asserts that she was only there as a friend of Dr. McKenzie and to assist her father with obtaining treatment.4/ A.W. testified that Dr. McKenzie never determined the cause of her headaches, her anxiety, or her abdominal pain. A.W. testified that Dr. McKenzie never performed a physical exam on her or discussed a treatment plan with her. A.W. also denies that she received any treatment from Dr. McKenzie at Bay Clinic, but she acknowledges visiting him there as a friend. As noted above, A.W.’s Lortab prescriptions enabled her to obtain 90 Lortab pills a month. As a result, she could take one pill every six hours. A.W. testified that she could not tolerate taking that amount of Lortab. The medicine made her drowsy and upset her stomach. A.W. also testified that she never had to take four Lortab pills in a single day in order to control her pain. After the first month of her treatment with Dr. McKenzie, A.W. testified that she continued to fill the Lortab prescriptions but gave a large majority of the pills to Dr. McKenzie. A.W. testified that she kept a few pills for those times when she would experience severe headaches or abdominal pain, and one pill a day was enough to keep her pain under control. As for why she gave large portions of her Lortab prescriptions to Dr. McKenzie, A.W. testified that she did so “[b]ecause he was my friend, and he had told me he was going through a lot, and he was embarrassed to go see a physician in town. He asked me if he wrote me a script could I give him some back or give it back to him.” During the time in question, Dr. McKenzie was experiencing marital difficulties and opening his own practice. A.W. testified that she would fill the Lortab prescriptions at a CVS Pharmacy in Panama City and then meet Dr. McKenzie in a parking lot so that she could give him the medication. A.W. and Dr. McKenzie’s personal relationship ended again in 2011 when A.W. became pregnant. At some point in 2011, A.W. was contacted by investigators from the Department and the Drug Enforcement Agency. A.W. then alerted Dr. McKenzie to the aforementioned agencies’ investigation. A.W. testified that she assisted Dr. McKenzie with fabricating medical records demonstrating that she had treated at The Lung and Sleep Center and that the Lortab prescriptions were medically necessary. She testified that she did so because Dr. McKenzie was her friend and she wanted the investigation to “go away.” Moreover, A.W. testified that she was worried that she could be charged with impaired nursing. When asked why she fabricated medical records, A.W. testified as follows: Because he was my friend and I didn’t want him to get in trouble for all of this, and I wanted it to be done with. I was worried about being a nurse and being a part of this. And I had been – the whole impaired nursing thing had been brought up, and I figured if I did this everything would just go away. A.W. learned of the Administrative Complaint when Dr. McKenzie showed it to her during a 2014 visit to his apartment. A.W. visited Dr. McKenzie’s apartment “quite a few times” and their last sexual encounter probably occurred in 2015. Despite testifying that she and Dr. McKenzie had been friends, A.W. testified against Dr. McKenzie at the final hearing and claimed that she was doing so because she felt it was the right thing to do and did not “want this over [her] head anymore.” Medical records from Dr. Klin and a Dr. Elzawahry memorialize treatment rendered to A.W. in October and November of 2010. However, those records, which were in the possession of The Lung and Sleep Center, bear a facsimile timestamp of March 1, 2011, and March 2, 2011. Those dates are four months after A.W.’s treatment dates. Also, the facsimile timestamps are seven days after the Department served Dr. McKenzie with a subpoena for A.W.’s medical records. While concerning, the facsimile timestamps do not conclusively demonstrate that Dr. McKenzie fabricated the records pertaining to A.W.’s treatment at The Lung and Sleep Center. While the undersigned has doubts about Dr. McKenzie’s credibility, there are reasons to question A.W.’s credibility. A.W. and Dr. McKenzie had a complicated relationship, and Dr. McKenzie is currently seeing another nurse employed at Bay Medical Center. The undersigned cannot ignore the possibility that A.W. and Dr. McKenzie’s prior relationship did not end on good terms. As noted above, Dr. Ortega brought A.W., R.W., and K.D. to the Department’s attention. The January 28, 2011, letter from Dr. Ortega to the Board of Medicine is suspicious because Dr. Ortega confidently states (without stating the basis for his assertions) that there are other patients who have received illegal prescriptions from Dr. McKenzie. Given the January 28, 2011, letter and the acrimony between them, one of Dr. McKenzie’s defenses to the Amended Administrative Complaint is that Dr. Ortega persuaded or coerced A.W., R.W., and K.D. to provide false testimony against him. It is possible that Dr. Ortega could be in a position to exercise some sort of leverage over A.W. due to the fact that Dr. Ortega works as a pulmonary doctor at Bay Medical Center and A.W. is a pulmonary nurse. During the hearing, A.W. acknowledged that she is taking 14 medications such as Latuda for psychosis; Ativan for anxiety; Prozac for depression; Nuvigil for Attention Deficit Disorder (“ADD”) and narcolepsy; Adderall for ADD; Fioricet for migraines; Metoprobol for hypertension; Lamictal for bipolar disorder; Carafate to coat her stomach; Prilosec for indigestion, gastric reflux, and gastritis; and Rispedal, a mood stabilizer associated with bipolar disorder. The fact that A.W. is currently receiving treatment for psychosis and bipolar disorder does not cause the undersigned to discredit her testimony. However, the undersigned cannot ignore the fact that there was no testimony as to what extent (if any) the aforementioned conditions affected her during the time period relevant to the instant case. In sum, there is evidence indicating that Dr. McKenzie used A.W. to obtain Lortab. Nevertheless, the evidence taken as a whole does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Dr. McKenzie prescribed Lortab to A.W. outside the course of his professional practice. Was Dr. McKenzie’s Treatment of R.W. Below the Standard of Care? R.W. was a Florida-licensed respiratory therapist from approximately 2000 to 2012. R.W. met Dr. McKenzie sometime between 2005 and 2006 when both of them were employed at Gulf Coast Medical Center. Dr. McKenzie and R.W. often worked together. While R.W. considered Dr. McKenzie to be a friend, they did not spend time together outside the hospital. Since his first marriage ended in 1993, R.W. had been taking Ativan in order to alleviate anxiety resulting from his divorce. Ativan is the brand name for Lorazepam and is prescribed for anxiety. According to section 893.03(4), Lorazepam is a Schedule IV controlled substance. Approximately one year after meeting Dr. McKenzie, R.W. inquired about becoming Dr. McKenzie’s patient. R.W. had become heavily dependent on Ativan and admits that he was engaging in “doctor shopping” in order to obtain more Ativan prescriptions. Other doctors had declined to treat R.W. because they believed he was taking too much Ativan: Q: So my question was about Dr. McKenzie and how did you begin treating as a patient with Dr. McKenzie. A: I was taking large amounts of Ativan. After that many years, you build up a tolerance to it. I [did] what was called doctor shopping. I had asked a couple of other physicians if they would follow me for my Ativan. Because generally I am healthy. And I had become dependent on it and was taking pretty large amounts of it and approached him about that, if he would prescribe it for me. Q: Did the other physicians you had asked to follow you begin following you and providing you with Ativan? A: No. Q: Why not? A: They said I was taking an incredibly large dose of it. They didn’t think I should be on that much. Q: Did they offer to take you as a patient and prescribe you alternatives? A: No. Q: They wouldn’t follow you altogether? A: They wouldn’t follow me altogether. They wanted to know who had been prescribing me that much. I guess it was because I wasn’t getting the answer I was wanting, I just didn’t pursue it any further. Q: So what did you do to get it after that? A: I approached Dr. McKenzie. Q: Was Dr. McKenzie aware that any other practitioners wouldn’t give it to you? A: I don’t know. I don’t believe I made that – I don’t know. Q: Do you recall how you approached Dr. McKenzie about the Ativan? A: Yeah. We were at the hospital. I approached him. I said, look, I am on Ativan. Explained the reason I was on it. I am on large doses of it. I need someone to follow me for this, is that something you could do. The first documented treatment occurred on November 2, 2007, when R.W. presented at Bay Clinic. A patient intake form indicates that R.W. placed notations on the form indicating that he was suffering from “anxiety/stress” and “problems with sleep.” A follow-up note dated November 20, 2007, lists Ativan as R.W.’s current medication and states that he will continue with Ativan. The note records the following: The patient follows up today. He is complaining of chest pain. He states that he has had chest pain in the center of his chest which radiated into both arms for about 15 minutes. He has had no further episodes of this. The patient had a normal stress test last year. We will try to obtain the results. The patient does have a smoking history. Today we did an EKG which showed no significant abnormalities. The patient states that he has been under a lot of stress. He continues to take his Ativan. The patient is an avid kick boxer[5/] and exercises often. Lab work was obtained. The patient knows to seek immediate medical attention for any worsening of his condition. The next documented treatment occurred on August 29, 2008, at Bay Clinic. The medical record reports the following: The patient follows up today. States that he has had no further chest pain. The patient does have significant anxiety. The patient has been on Ativan for several years. Risks, benefits, and alternatives [to] Ativan were explained to patient and patient voiced understanding. The patient does not want to decrease the Ativan. Does not want to change the Ativan. The patient denies suicidal or homicidal ideation. The patient jogs several miles each day. The patient exercises. The patient is a respiratory therapist, and I have contact with [the] patient every day. The patient is compliant with his medications. Does use it at the same pharmacy. The patient is under a narcotic contract here. If the patient violates his contract[6/], the patient knows that he will be discharged immediately. The patient knows to seek immediate medical attention for any worsening condition. The medical record notes that Dr. McKenzie will continue R.W. on Ativan. On January 24, 2009, R.W. was injured in an automobile accident. Another vehicle traveling 40 mph rammed into the back of R.W.’s Corvette. According to R.W., the other vehicle was traveling [f]ast enough to knock me from a red light. I was at a red light. I was in a Corvette. Fast enough to fold the tail end of my Corvette under and knock me across the intersection to the railroad tracks. Pretty hard. When asked if the accident was “significant,” R.W. responded by testifying that his car had been “totaled.” On February 9, 2009, R.W. received a prescription from Bay Clinic for Lortab, but no refills were authorized. On April 3, 2009, R.W. received a second prescription from Bay Clinic for Lortab. Again, no refills were authorized. The next documented treatment occurred at Bay Clinic on May 1, 2009. R.W. presented with anxiety and some depression. Dr. McKenzie discussed R.W. treating with a psychiatrist and prescribing Luvox, an antidepressant. This record notes that R.W. was still experiencing pain from the motor vehicle accident and that Dr. McKenzie “will try NSAIDs.” The next documented treatment occurred on July 23, 2009. With regard to R.W.’s anxiety, Dr. McKenzie wanted R.W. to see a psychiatrist, but R.W. refused. Dr. McKenzie noted in the medical record that he was going to begin decreasing R.W.’s Ativan dosage and replacing it with a short-acting benzodiazepine. Dr. McKenzie explained that he wanted to wean R.W. off of Ativan because: He had been on Ativan, as he testified, for 25 years before I met him. And the goal was to try to get him off the Ativan. And so, we were going to change him from a long- acting benzodiazepine Ativan to a short- acting one, Xanax. And so what you try to do is wean his Ativan down and then wean him to the short-acting, and it’s easier for people to get off the short-acting. But, somebody that’s been on benzodiazepines or like Ativan for 25 years, it does the same thing to your brain that alcohol does. And so abruptly withdrawing benzodiazepines can put people in DT’s, delirium tremens and with a 25 percent mortality, being that one in four people could die if you just took somebody off those medications. Given R.W.’s 25-year use of Ativan, slowly weaning R.W. from Ativan and to a less harmful anxiety drug was certainly a reasonable goal. The medical record indicates that R.W. was still experiencing back pain from the motor vehicle accident and had “failed NSAIDs.” The record notes that Dr. McKenzie and R.W. discussed obtaining x-rays. At that time, Dr. McKenzie began prescribing at least 90 Lortab pills per month to R.W. The next documented treatment occurred on November 20, 2009. R.W. was continuing to take Lortab for chronic back pain, and Dr. McKenzie was still in the process of weaning R.W. from Ativan. This record notes that R.W. refused a psychiatric consult. In February of 2010, Dr. McKenzie increased the Lortab prescription from 90 to 120 pills a month. The next documented treatment occurred on March 10, 2010. R.W. was still experiencing chronic back pain and anxiety. Dr. McKenzie noted that R.W. needed an MRI and consultations with an orthopedist and a pain management specialist. There is a notation in the record indicating that R.W. needed x-rays. However, R.W. reported that he needed to “check his funds” before obtaining the x-rays. In addition, there is a notation that Dr. McKenzie “will stop Lortab soon.” The next documented treatment occurred on August 12, 2010. R.W. was still experiencing chronic back pain, and Dr. McKenzie wanted R.W. to consult with an orthopedist and a pain management specialist. R.W. was aware that Dr. McKenzie wanted MRIs taken. R.W. was still experiencing anxiety, but the medical record notes that Dr. McKenzie was only going to prescribe one more refill of his medication. Dr. McKenzie noted on the record that R.W. stated, “I will get you. This is bullshit.” R.W. testified that his faith has enabled him to stop taking any medication other than BC headache powder. There is no dispute that Dr. McKenzie did not require an office visit from R.W. each time he wrote a prescription. With regard to whether that practice was appropriate, Dr. McKenzie testified as follows: Ideally we did but, like I said, sometimes patients would come in and pick up a prescription. And it’s kind of the rule that they have one each time but, like I said, that’s sometimes rules can’t be ideal. I mean, if you know the patient, and you know what the issues are, I don’t think there was any law or statute that said they need to be seen every single time. With regard to whether Dr. McKenzie’s treatment of R.W. fell below the standard of care, Dr. Calimano explained that a physician should begin treating a patient complaining of back pain by taking the patient’s history and performing a physical exam. The physical exam would be followed by imaging studies such as an MRI. If there is nothing pressuring the patient’s spine, then treatment options include physical therapy and NSAIDs. If the patient’s pain is very severe, then the physician could prescribe narcotics for a short period of time. If the patient’s condition does not improve, then the physician would refer the patient to the appropriate specialists, such as ones dealing with the spine and pain management. With regard to R.W.’s anxiety, Dr. Calimano stated that he would have attempted to refer R.W. to a psychiatrist. Dr. Calimano was of the opinion that Dr. McKenzie’s medical records do not justify the amount of Lortab and Ativan prescribed to R.W. However, his testimony did not sufficiently address the notations regarding R.W.’s pain from the violent motor vehicle accident. His opinion appeared to focus on the notations regarding chest pain. With regard to the Xanax and Lortab Dr. McKenzie prescribed to R.W. between November 20, 2009, and August 12, 2010, Dr. Goldstein testified as follows: Q: Anything about the dosing or the frequency for the Xanax prescriptions that looks remarkable to you? A: Xanax, one milligram. You know, it can be given up to four milligrams a day. So one milligram [four times a day] is on the higher end, but it’s not above the prescribing recommendations. Lortab is being given continuously. Patient has continuous pain. And it’s documented that the doctor wanted to send this patient to a pain specialist, to an ortho doctor and to rehab. So there is a lot of documented pain medicine there. Again, the only thing I mention is there might have been better documentation as to why he needed to continue it. But there is nothing remarkable about the dosages. Q: So, Dr. Goldstein, based upon all the medical records that we’ve been through regarding R.W. and the medication administration record on page 39, could you offer an opinion to the Court as to whether or not you perceive that Dr. McKenzie’s treatment or prescribing of R.W. during the time period at issue to be beneath the acceptable standard of care? A: The fact that the patient was referred to a psychiatrist. The fact that Xanax was given and it was documented on that last note we mentioned, that the patient was not suicidal, which is important if you are prescribing that. The fact that the patient was referred to an orthopedic doctor, a rehab doctor and a pain specialist, I believe it was within the standard of care. I don’t think the documentation is great, but I can’t see anything that says this is beneath the standard of care. The Department takes Dr. McKenzie to task for not doing more to address R.W.’s anxiety, such as recommending behavior modifications and/or psychotherapy. The Department also takes issue with Dr. McKenzie’s not doing more to treat R.W.’s chronic back pain. However, the medical records indicate that Dr. McKenzie attempted several times to have R.W. treat with a psychiatrist, but R.W. refused. It appears from the medical records that R.W. was not compliant with Dr. McKenzie’s request for x-rays. Dr. McKenzie did not offer a reason why he maintained R.W. as a patient when R.W. would not obtain the recommended consultations and tests. But, Dr. McKenzie noted during his testimony regarding A.W. that he gives more leeway to medical professionals when it comes to obtaining recommended consultations. Given R.W.’s refusal to pursue the recommended consultations and tests, it probably would have been appropriate for Dr. McKenzie to have ended the prescriptions much sooner. Nevertheless, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that R.W. was a difficult patient who was resistant to obtaining the consultations desired by Dr. McKenzie. If he had been more compliant in obtaining those consultations, then Dr. McKenzie may have been more successful in treating R.W.’s anxiety and chronic pain. In sum, the evidence does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Dr. McKenzie’s treatment of R.W. fell below the standard of care given the circumstances associated with R.W. Did Dr. McKenzie Falsify R.W.’s Medical Records and Use Him to Illegally Obtain Lortab? R.W. testified that any pain from his motor vehicle accident only lasted two days, and he denies experiencing any chronic/long-term pain following the accident. R.W. testified that Dr. McKenzie prescribed Lortab and asked him to transfer the medicine to him. R.W. testified that he returned pain medication to Dr. McKenzie on a monthly basis over the course of approximately one year. The transactions would occur at the hospital or in parking lots at a Wal-Mart or a service station. R.W. testified that he would typically give 90 to 100 pills to Dr. McKenzie and retain 10 to 20 for his own use. R.W. denies being addicted to Lortab but acknowledges that he was a recreational user and that he “abused” Lortab and Percocet. As for why Dr. McKenzie engaged in this practice, R.W. testified that: As in my deposition, Dr. McKenzie had a corneal abrasion. And I understand, maybe I don’t understand, that physicians, I guess, it’s looked down upon if they are taking medications. So he had a corneal abrasion and asked if I would get him a prescription filled for the pain for his corneal abrasion. When asked why he agreed to divert drugs to Dr. McKenzie, R.W. stated that, “I don’t have a good answer for that. Stupidity I would assume.” As for why he stopped diverting drugs to Dr. McKenzie, R.W. stated that, “Again, when it stopped, my life, it was falling apart. It was a mess.” When asked why he stopped treating with Dr. McKenzie, R.W. testified as follows. A: I don’t even recall. My life was blowing up there. It was a total mess there near the end of my tenure with Gulf Coast. I mean, it was a train wreck. Q: What does that mean? A: I was taking a lot of Ativan. I was taking Lortab. I was drinking heavily. It was a wreck. Q: So the question is why did you stop treating with Dr. McKenzie? A: I left employ – you know, I don’t recall other than we just parted ways and I went my way and that is that. I don’t recall. Q: Did Dr. McKenzie ever have any discussion with you about terminating you as a patient of his? A: He may have. I don’t recall. I am not going to say he didn’t. The Department argues that Dr. McKenzie fabricated the medical records discussed in the previous section because R.W. claims that he only received treatment from Dr. McKenzie at The Lung and Sleep Center on two occasions. Moreover, R.W. claims that he never received treatment from Dr. McKenzie at Bay Clinic.7/ As for why he testified against Dr. McKenzie, R.W. stated the following: A: Well, first of all, I was subpoenaed here. You answer a subpoena. This has been going on for many, many years. Too many for me. I don’t want to be here today. And that is just a fact. Several years ago, I think it was during a – I don’t think, I know. During a fit of anger, withdrawals, all the above, I contacted your department and asked that this be investigated. And I believe the lady’s name was [] Ms. McBride, [and she] came to my residence in Mexico Beach and said that she was going to follow- up and I never heard back. When I heard from you, I was floored that it had taken that long. I figured, well, maybe my – it was a – maybe my suspicions were unfounded when I didn’t hear anything back from her. Q: What do you mean maybe your suspicions were unfounded? A: Maybe I was [the] one off. He was – maybe he was helping me out. Maybe we were helping each other out. I don’t really know. All I know is that I had brought it to your office’s attention a long time ago and nothing was ever done about it. Q: Did anyone ever offer you anything for your testimony today? A: No. Other than the $8.42 check I got from the State for gas I believe. It was delivered to me with my subpoena. Q: Are you referring to [the] witness fee? A: Yes. That I tore up. As was the case with A.W., Dr. McKenzie argues that Dr. Ortega somehow influenced or coerced R.W. into falsely testifying that Dr. McKenzie received Lortab from R.W. Dr. McKenzie testified that Dr. Ortega supervised R.W. at Bay Clinic when R.W. was employed as a respiratory therapist. Therefore, if R.W. held a grudge against Dr. McKenzie for cutting off his Ativan supply as indicated in the August 12, 2010, medical record, it is certainly possible that Dr. Ortega could have learned of that circumstance and sought to take advantage of it. As noted above, the undersigned has doubts about Dr. McKenzie’s credibility. However, R.W.’s statements about engaging in “doctor shopping” for years in order to obtain Ativan, abusing Lortab, and being a “train wreck” when he stopped treating with Dr. McKenzie cast substantial doubt on R.W.’s credibility. Indeed, it appears that R.W.’s difficulties may be the reason why he is no longer a respiratory therapist. Moreover, given R.W.’s own description of the severity of his car accident, it is surprising that he would testify that he experienced little or no pain afterwards. That is especially true given the fact that his car was struck from behind and totaled. Finally, given R.W.’s longstanding dependency on Ativan, R.W. certainly had a motive for filing a false report with the Department after Dr. McKenzie cut off his Ativan supply. In sum, the evidence taken as a whole does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Dr. McKenzie prescribed Lortab to R.W. outside the course of his professional practice. Was Dr. McKenzie’s Treatment of K.D. Below the Standard of Care? K.D. began working at Pulmonary Associates in 2007 and was employed there at the same time that Dr. McKenzie worked there. K.D. considered Dr. McKenzie to be her primary care physician, and she treated with him from some point in 2006 at least until August of 2009. K.D. treated with Dr. McKenzie at Gulf Coast Medical Center, Bay Medical Center, Pulmonary Associates, and Bay Clinic. However, K.D. usually treated with Dr. McKenzie at Gulf Coast Medical Center. As her primary care physician, Dr. McKenzie was typically K.D.’s attending physician when she was admitted to either Bay Medical Center or Gulf Coast Medical Center. K.D. primary health problem was intractable pain originating from her hips and one of her knees. K.D.’s knee pain resulted from two knee surgeries and appears to have been aggravated by a car accident. During the course of her treatment with Dr. McKenzie, K.D. was often admitted into hospitals for treatment of her pain. A medical record from Bay Medical Center dated January 22, 2008, describes K.D.’s general condition during the treatment with Dr. McKenzie: This patient is a 37-year-old female who has had long standing problems with chronic pain, particularly involving the right lower extremity. Her history is extensive in that she has been previously diagnosed with torn meniscus in the right knee. She has undergone 2 previous orthoscopic procedures. Also, she has been treated for chronic pes anserinus bursitis. She has had a plethora of complaints over recent years including chronic pain syndrome, migraine headaches, asthma, fibromyalgia, anxiety, depression, and recurrent pain in the right knee and occasionally in the right hip. She was in a motor vehicle accident about a year or so ago, which resulted in no significant abnormalities on workup, but aggravated her chronic pain. She also had a fall and an MRI of the right hip was carried out at the end of 2006, and a partial tear of the gluteus medius was noted. All of her MRIs of the knee demonstrate minimal degenerative change, and previous meniscal pathology. * * * She has been diagnosed previously with chronic pain syndrome and has been utilizing up to 12 mg a day of oral Dilaudid for quite a few months. This is on the basis of chronic migraine headaches and fibromyalgia. From January 2007 through July 22, 2009, Dr. McKenzie prescribed Lortab and Dilaudid on a monthly basis for K.D.’s pain. Dilaudid is a brand name for hydromorphone. Dilaudid is an opioid pain medication that is four times stronger than Lortab. Under section 893.03(2), hydromorphone is a Schedule II controlled substance. For several months in 2008, K.D. was receiving a 120-pill supply of Lortab intended to last 15 days and a 120-pill supply of Dilaudid intended to last 10 days. He also prescribed Xanax for anxiety and Ambien for sleep. The Department takes issue with Dr. McKenzie prescribing two short-acting narcotics, Lortab and Dilaudid, to K.D. between January 2007 and July 22, 2009, without medical records supporting those prescriptions. According to the Department, there is no justified medical purpose for prescribing Lortab and Dilaudid together. Dr. Calimano testified as follows: I’m a pulmonologist, so anything that depress[es] or repress[es] your respiratory drive is always a concern with me. Plus they are all habit forming, so I will be concerned. Going back to the use of narcotics, sometimes you can use a combination of narcotics. But when you are using narcotics on a chronic basis for, like, terminally ill patients and so on, the combination will be you do a long-term or long acting narcotic. You know, there are some preparations, Morphine, and so on and so forth that will last 12 hours. And then you use preparations for breakthrough pain, like short acting ones and so on. But if you have two narcotics that are both, like, will give you the hit quickly, but will disappear three or four hours later, I am not sure, you know, what the advantage would be. In contrast, Dr. Goldstein testified that prescribing two short-acting narcotics is appropriate in order to treat “breakthrough pain:” Q: Is Dilaudid a short acting narcotic? A: Yes. It’s considered an immediate release with a half life of two to three hours. Q: Is Lortab a short acting narcotic? A: Yes. Two to three hours. The answer is yes. Q: In your practice, have you ever prescribed a combination of both Lortab and Dilaudid? A: Yes. But never to be used, as I said in my deposition, at the exact same time. You could use one and another for breakthrough. In other words, you wouldn’t say to the patient take a Dilaudid and a Lortab at the same time for pain. You would say take a Dilaudid on the scheduled basis. And then you may use Lortab for breakthrough. Lortab is not as strong as Dilaudid. And it would be better to use Lortab for breakthrough than Dilaudid for breakthrough. Q: Why would you prescribe a patient two short acting narcotics as opposed to one long acting narcotic such as Fentanyl or Morphine with a short acting narcotic for breakthrough pain? A: Yes. As a matter of fact, the recommendations for pain control, and you can check it [is] up-to-date, are to reserve the long acting pain medications like Oxycontin and Fentanyl for people who have severe chronic pain like cancer. And that should not be the first thing. That should be the last thing you should do. In other words, we try to get away with short acting and try to stay away from the long acting ones. In other words, the long acting one is progression. That’s something you go to next, not before. If the long acting pain medications, for patients, for example, who have cancer and are on hospice, those are the ones we give Fentanyl patches to or Oxycontin. And that’s currently what a lot of the pain management doctors are doing with severe pain. The short acting ones are not as effective. Dr. McKenzie explained why he prescribed two short- acting narcotics as follows: Well, I mean, that your – the goal for the patient is to get them off narcotics. And just like Dr. Goldstein testified that, you know, once you put people on long-acting narcotics, they’re kind of stuck there. And so, you know, what you – cancer patients and terminally ill patients, you put them on long-acting, you know, morphine, long-acting Oxycontin and then for the breakthrough pain, you add a short-acting [narcotic]. Well, that’s not the goal with [K.D.]. The goal is to get her off these medications. And so the medications that I had her on were two short-acting and, yes, you have to use caution with two short acting medications but, again, the goal was to get her off the medication, not advance her to a higher level where she’s – it’s a lot harder to get her off. Once you get somebody on a long-acting narcotic, pain medications to wean them off and that’s the perpetual state that she was in, trying to get her off the narcotics, not keep going up. The Department also takes issue with the lack of medical records supporting the prescriptions written between February 26, 2008, and July 22, 2009. According to the Department, Dr. McKenzie should have had a treatment plan with objectives to assess the success of K.D.’s treatment. In addition, the Department asserts that Dr. McKenzie should have documented recommendations for referrals to other physicians. For the vast majority of the time between February 26, 2008, and July 22, 2009, Dr. McKenzie’s non- hospital practice was based at Bay Clinic, and Dr. McKenzie testified that K.D. had office visits with him in 2008 at Bay Clinic. Therefore, it is possible that Dr. McKenzie treated K.D. at Bay Clinic between February 26, 2008, and July 22, 2009, and that the lack of medical records is attributable to him retaining no ownership over the corresponding records. The Department has presented no persuasive evidence conclusively establishing that Dr. McKenzie owned or should have owned the medical records associated with the patients he treated at Bay Clinic. While K.D. testified that she only visited Bay Clinic on two occasions, Christen Tubbs, a former medical assistant at Bay Clinic, testified that K.D. visited Bay Clinic frequently and that there were many medical records pertaining to K.D. at Bay Clinic.8/ For reasons discussed in detail below, Ms. Tubbs’ testimony on this point was more credible than K.D.’s. As a result, medical records pertaining to K.D.’s treatment at Bay Clinic were created but unavailable for the final hearing. Without those medical records, it is impossible to evaluate whether Dr. McKenzie practiced below the standard of care with regard to not having a treatment plan with objectives to assess the success of K.D.’s treatment. The lack of medical records makes it extremely difficult to evaluate whether Dr. McKenzie practiced below the standard of care by prescribing Lortab and Dilaudid to K.D. in the quantities at issue. The Department presented no sufficiently persuasive evidence demonstrating that the quantities of Lortab and Dilaudid prescribed to K.D. were per se below the standard of care given the circumstances associated with K.D.’s treatment.9/ In sum, the Department has not presented clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McKenzie’s treatment of K.D. fell below the standard of care. Did Dr. McKenzie Use K.D. to Illegally Obtain Lortab? Rather than ingesting the Lortab prescribed for her, K.D. testified that she would fill the Lortab prescriptions and give the pills to Dr. McKenzie in a mall parking lot or her home. According to K.D., Dr. McKenzie would usually give her $40 to $100 for the Lortab. K.D. testified that she would not have taken Lortab because she is allergic to it. K.D. explained that she had her tonsils removed at 16 and was given hydrocodone, an ingredient in Lortab. The hydrocodone caused her to have an itchy, swollen throat. Medical records from Bay Medical Center and Gulf Coast Medical Center note that K.D. was allergic to Lortab. Dr. McKenzie pointed out that he authored a July 16, 2007, medical record, which stated K.D. was allergic to Lortab. However, that same record notes that K.D. “states it makes her nose itch, but has no significant abnormal affect.” Dr. McKenzie testified as follows: And so that, as far as I’m concerned, that she was not, you know, she was not allergic to Lortab. Plus, she had over 80 different independent medical exams because she had been in the hospital 20, 30 different times where she didn’t tell physicians, at that time, or nurses, that she was allergic to Lortab. So that’s not on there. So she would pick and choose who she would tell she was allergic to Lortab and who she wasn’t. And you would say, well, is that a red flag, well, I didn’t know that. And so I don’t go back and look. She was my patient. She told me she wasn’t allergic to Lortab. That’s what I document. And so I would prescribe Lortab for her. Even in the hospital, they did a – and it’s in the records, we can find the Bates number, they got tired of her saying Lortab or not, and there’s a whole section where they went through and viewed every single allergy she had, and they deemed her not to be allergic to Lortab. So, I don’t see how her telling one physician that she’s allergic to Lortab and one physician that she’s not, that that’s – that’s a red flag or that’s anything that I would even notice if I was to go back and look at these medical records. There are aspects of K.D.’s testimony that cause the undersigned to consider Dr. McKenzie’s testimony to be more credible. Rather than testifying during the final hearing, K.D. was deposed on August 9, 2017, at the Gadsden Correctional Facility where she was serving a 36-month sentence for recruiting patients to obtain prescriptions by fraud. K.D. agreed that the aforementioned offense was a “felony conviction.” K.D.’s own testimony suggested that she had a motive to provide false testimony against Dr. McKenzie. Specifically, K.D. testified that she became addicted to pain medication and asserts Dr. McKenzie knew of her addiction. K.D. stated that pain medication “destroyed” her life and was the reason why she was in prison. While K.D. did not directly state that she blamed Dr. McKenzie for her difficulties, one could easily infer from her testimony that she holds a grudge against him. As is the case with A.W. and R.W., there is a connection between K.D. and Dr. Ortega. K.D. testified that she was forced to resign from Pulmonary Associates because she was suspected of embezzlement. Dr. Ortega brought charges against her, but those charges were dismissed after K.D.’s father paid restitution. While K.D. denies that Dr. Ortega offered to drop the charges against her if she gave testimony against Dr. McKenzie, this circumstance must be taken into account when evaluating K.D.’s credibility. The Department has failed to present clear and convincing evidence that Dr. McKenzie prescribed Lortab to K.D. outside the course of his professional practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 1st day of May, 2018.
The Issue The issues in these three consolidated cases are whether Respondent, Jerome F. Waters, M.D., committed the violations alleged in three Administrative Complaints filed by Petitioner, the Department of Health, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner” or “Department”), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. Respondent, Jerome F. Waters, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”) is, and has been at all times material to these consolidated cases, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 7236. Respondent graduated from New York University Medical school 48 years ago and did four years of a general surgical residency. He is not board-certified although he is board eligible in general surgery. Respondent had only one medical malpractice lawsuit against him and that was in 1964. The Administrative Complaints in these consolidated cases are the first license discipline cases against Respondent. Respondent has had a long and distinguished medical career. He has been in private practice in Miami, Florida, since 1961 and he has been at the same location for the last 23 years. He currently has a general medical practice, although he also still practices surgery. Twenty-five percent of his practice comprises Medicaid patients and 30 percent comprises Medicare patients. Respondent had about 125 AIDS patients at the time of the emergency restriction of his practice. Respondent became interested in treating patients with pain as a result of his surgical practice. Approximately twenty-five percent of his practice is devoted to pain management. Respondent's pain practice grew as a result of a few patients from Broward County in 1996 who recommended other "pain patients" to Respondent. Respondent admits that because of his “compassion for his patients” he was probably more indulgent than he should have been with his pain patients. Respondent acknowledges that his medical record documentation was poor. He concedes that he relied too much on his memory and had a tendency to write down only special negatives or positives in his findings. Respondent also often omitted information in his medical records that he thought might be stigmatizing or embarrassing to the patient. He tried to rely on his memory regarding such matters. Respondent often has been reluctant to refer his patients to consultants because of their economic constraints. Applicable rules The Board of Medicine has adopted rules that contain standards for the use of controlled substances for the treatment of pain. Those standards include Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3), which read as follows at all times material to these consolidated cases: Guidelines. The Board has adopted the following guidelines when evaluating the use of controlled substances for pain control: Evaluation of the Patient. A complete medical history and physical examination must be conducted and documented in the medical record. The medical record should document the nature and intensity of the pain, current and past treatments for pain, underlying or coexisting diseases or conditions, the effect of the pain on physical and psychological function, and history of substance abuse. The medical record also should document the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of a controlled substance. Treatment Plan. The written treatment plan should state objectives that will be used to determine treatment success, such as pain relief and improved physical and psychosocial function, and should indicate if any further diagnostic evaluations or other treatments are planned. After treatment begins, the physician should adjust drug therapy to the individual medical needs of each patient. Other treatment modalities or a rehabilitation program may be necessary depending on the etiology of the pain and the extent to which the pain is associated with physical and psychosocial impairment. Informed Consent and Agreement for Treatment. The physician should discuss the risks and benefits of the use of controlled substances with the patient, persons designated by the patient, or with the patient’s surrogate or guardian if the patient is incompetent. The patient should receive prescriptions from one physician and one pharmacy where possible. If the patient is determined to be at high risk for medication abuse or have a history of substance abuse, the physician may employ the use of a written agreement between physician and patient outlining patient responsibilities, including, but not limited to: Urine/serum medication levels screening when requested; Number and frequency of all prescription refills; and Reasons for which drug therapy may be discontinued (i.e., violation of agreement). Periodic Review. At reasonable intervals based on the individual circumstances of the patient, the physician should review the course of treatment and any new information about the etiology of the pain. Continuation or modification of therapy should depend on the physician’s evaluation of progress toward stated treatment objectives such as improvement in patient’s pain intensity and improved physical and/or psychosocial function, i.e., ability to work, need of health care resources, activities of daily living, and quality of social life. If treatment goals are not being achieved, despite medication adjustments, the physician should reevaluate the appropriateness of continued treatment. The physician should monitor patient compliance in medication usage and related treatment plans. Consultation. The physician should be willing to refer the patient as necessary for additional evaluation and treatment in order to achieve treatment objectives. Special attention should be given to those pain patients who are at risk for misusing their medications and those whose living arrangements pose a risk for medication misuse or diversion. The management of pain in patients with a history of substance abuse or with a comorbid psychiatric disorder may require extra care, monitoring, documentation, and consultation with or referral to an expert in the management of such patients. Medical Records. The physician is required to keep accurate and complete records to include, but not be limited to: The medical history and physical examination; Diagnostic, therapeutic, and laboratory results; Evaluations and consultations; Treatment objectives; Discussion of risks and benefits; Treatments; Medications (including date, type, dosage, and quantity prescribed); Instructions and agreements; and Periodic reviews. Records must remain current and be maintained in an accessible manner and readily available for review. Compliance with Controlled Substances Laws and Regulations. To prescribe, dispense, or administer controlled substances, the physician must be licensed in the state and comply with applicable federal and state regulations. Physicians are referred to the Physicians Manual: An Informational Outline of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, published by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, for specific rules governing controlled substances as well as applicable state regulations. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.003, on the subject of the adequacy of medical records, read, in pertinent part, as follows at all times material to these consolidated cases: Medical records are maintained for the following purposes: To serve as a basis for planning patient care and for continuity in the evaluation of the patient’s condition and treatment. To furnish documentary evidence of the course of the patient’s medical evaluation, treatment, and change in condition. To document communication between the practitioner responsible for the patient and any other health care professional who contributes to the patient’s care. To assist in protecting the legal interest of the patient, the hospital, and the practitioner responsible for the patient. A licensed physician shall maintain patient medical records in a legible manner and with sufficient detail to clearly demonstrate why the course of treatment was undertaken or why an apparently indicated course of treatment was not undertaken. The medical record shall contain sufficient information to identify the patient, support the diagnosis, justify the treatment and document the course and results of treatment accurately, by including, at a minimum, patient histories; examination results; test results; records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered; reports of consultations and hospitalizations; and copies of records or reports or other documentation obtained from other health care practitioners at the request of the physician and relied upon by the physician in determining the appropriate treatment of the patient. All entries made into the medical records shall be accurately dated and timed. Late entries are permitted, but must be clearly and accurately noted as late entries and dated and timed accurately when they are entered into the record. However, office records do not need to be timed, just dated. Relevant Drugs Methadone is a legend drug and is a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.1 Methadone is indicated for the relief of severe pain, for detoxification treatment in cases of narcotic addiction, and for the temporary maintenance treatment of narcotic addiction. Methadone can produce drug dependence of the morphine type. Psychological dependence, physical dependence, and tolerance may develop upon repeated administration of methadone. Xanax is a legend drug and it contains Alprazolam, a Schedule IV controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Alprazolam is a Benzodiazepine Anxiolytic, and the abuse of Alprazolam can lead to physical and psychological dependence. Xanax is indicated for the short-term relief of symptoms of anxiety. It produces additive CNS (Central Nervous System) depressant effects when co-administered with other CNS depressants. Oxycontin is a legend drug and it contains Oxycodone, a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Oxycodone is a narcotic analgesic indicated for the relief of moderate to moderately severe pain, and carries a high potential for abuse which may lead to severe physical and psychological dependence. Dilaudid is a legend drug and it contains Hydromorphone, a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Hydromorphone is a powerful narcotic analgesic indicated for the relief of moderate to severe pain, and carries a high potential for abuse and dependence. Abuse of hydromorphone may lead to severe physical and psychological dependence. Soma (Carisoprodol) is a legend drug and it is a muscle relaxant used as an adjunct to rest, physical therapy, and other measures for the relief of discomfort associated with acute, painful musculoskeletal conditions. The effects of Carisoprodol and other drugs that depress the CNS may be additive, and Soma should be prescribed with caution to patients taking other CNS depressant medications, such as narcotics, benzodiazepine anxiolytics and tranquilizers, and barbiturates. Fiorinal with Codeine is a legend drug and it contains Codeine and Butalbital, both Schedule III controlled substances listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Codeine is a narcotic analgesic indicated for the relief of moderate to severe pain, and carries a significant potential for abuse and dependence. Butalbital is a barbiturate sedative which also carries a significant potential for abuse and dependence. Fiorinal with Codeine is indicated for the treatment of tension headaches. Keflex (Cephalexin) is a semi-synthetic cephalosporin antibiotic intended for oral administration. MS Contin is a legend drug and it contains Morphine Sulfate USP, a Schedule II controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, which is indicated for the relief of moderate to severe pain. Morphine has a high potential for abuse and has a currently accepted but severely restricted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of Morphine may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. Restoril contains Temazepam, a schedule IV controlled substance indicated for the relief of insomnia. The abuse of Temazepam can lead to physical or psychological dependence. Vicodin is a legend drug and it contains Hydrocodone Bitartrate, a Schedule III controlled substance listed in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Hydrocodone is a narcotic analgesic indicated for the relief of moderate to severe pain, and is also used as an antitussive (cough suppressant). Hydrocodone carries a high potential for abuse and dependence. General facts about Respondent's medical records Respondent's medical records for each of the patients whose treatment forms the basis for the administrative complaints in these consolidated cases included an office cover sheet with a patient name. However, the individual records following the cover sheet contained no patient names. The patient's name should be on each page of medical records for that patient. Physicians are taught in medical school to use a variation of the S.O.A.P. method for creating medical records. S.O.A.P. is an acronym standing for Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan. The basic elements of the S.O.A.P. method should be present in the records of each patient visit. In the medical records prepared by Respondent during the course of his treatment of the six patients at issue in these consolidated cases, more often than not some elements of the S.O.A.P. method were omitted. Many of Respondent's entries in these records are insufficient because they omit information required by the S.O.A.P. method. Admitted Facts regarding Patient S.T. (Case No. 2002-26343) On or about December 5, 2000, Patient S.T., a 46-year- old female, first presented to Respondent with complaints of back and neck pain, bronchitis, chronic hepatitis B, bipolar illness, lupus discoid and seizure disorder. According to Patient S.T.’s medical records, Patient S.T. had a history of being treated with controlled substances, including Dilaudid. Based on his impression that Patient S.T. was suffering from severe asthmatic bronchitis, seizures, and lupus and needed immediate care, Respondent directed Patient S.T. to the local emergency room, where she remained in the hospital until December 9, 2000. Various tests were performed on Patient S.T. including a complete blood count (CBC) and an electrocardiogram (EKG). On or about December 11, 2000, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent and Respondent prescribed Albuterol and a Nebulizer for her bronchitis. On or about January 15, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent’s’ office. During the course of that visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg 180 Fiorinal #3 On or about February 13, 2001, Respondent saw Patient S.T. Patient S.T.’s records, for the February 13, 2001 visit, do not indicate the reason for the Keflex. During the course of that visit, Respondent prescribed Soma and Fiorinal #3 to Patient S.T. without documenting the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of controlled substances, and without documenting a treatment plan for Patient S.T. On or about February 26, 2001, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent. On or about March 13, 2001, Patient S.T. visited Respondent and complained of urinary incontinence and heartburn. During the course of that visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 90 Soma, 350 mg Dilantin Fiorinal #3 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg On or about April 12, 2001, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 90 Soma, 350 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg 120 Fiorinal #3 120 Methadone, 10 mg On or about April 12, 2001, Respondent initially prescribed 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg, but then crossed this prescription out and substituted Methadone instead. On or about May 10, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent’ office. During the course of that visit Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 60 Soma, 350 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg 100 Firoinal #3 120 Methadone, 10 mg On or about May 10, 2001, Respondent also prescribed Cipro and Prednisone, 10 mg, for an apparent skin condition affecting Patient S.T.’s legs. On or about June 7, 2001, Respondent saw Patient S.T. again. During this visit, Respondent noted that Patient S.T. suffered from edema (excess fluid in cells and tissues). Respondent failed to document any other physical examination of Patient S.T. during the course of the June 7, 2001, visit. On or about June 7, 2001, Respondent treated Patient S.T.’s edema. On or about June 7, 2001, Respondent failed to document any explanation or adequate medical justification for prescribing 60 Xanax, 2 mg, 100 Fiorinal #3 and 120 Methadone, 10 mg to Patient S.T. On or about July 6, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent at which time he prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 60 Xanax, 2 mg 100 Firoinal #3 150 Dilantin, 100 mg 120 Methadone, 10 mg On or about August 3, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent. Respondent's medical records regarding S.T.'s August 3, 2001, visit do not reflect that there was a discussion of risks and benefits of using controlled substances. During the course of that visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 60 Xanax, 2 mg 100 Fiorinal #3 180 Dilantin, 100 mg 120 Methadone 10 mg On or about September 12, 2001, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient S.T.: 60 Xanax, 2 mg 100 Fiorinal #3 120 Methadone 10 mg On or about September 17, 2001, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent for a final time. During the September 17, 2001, visit, Patient S.T. complained of cellulitis (inflammation of tissue) to her abdomen. During the September 17, 2001 visit, Respondent treated Patient S.T.’s cellulitis with ointment and Tequin (an antibacterial agent). Additional Facts regarding Patient S.T. (Case No. 2002-26343) During her hospitalization, Patient S.T.'s treatment included Atrovent with Ventolin. Patient S.T. remained in the hospital until December 9, 2000, when she was discharged with directions to follow up with Respondent. Contained within the medical file for Respondent are copies of magnetic resonance imaging (MRIs) for the lumbar spine (dated January 17, 2000), the brain (dated January 12, 2000) and the neck (dated January 17, 2000). The MRI of the brain was normal but the MRIs of the neck and low back showed disc herniations, among other changes. An echocardiogram was also performed on January 12, 2000 that stated “if a significant valvular lesion is still being considered, correlation with a cardiac Doppler examination is recommended.” There is no medical record concerning Patient S.T.'s visit to Respondent's office on December 11, 2000. There is only a copy of the prescription written that day with some notes written on the bottom of the prescription. Respondent's record for the January 15, 2001, visit with Patient S.T. consists basically of a list of prescription drugs. There is no documented subjective complaint, objective result, assessment, or treatment plan. There are also no notes concerning the treatment in the hospital or concerning the test results from January 2000. On January 15, 2001, Respondent prescribed 90 Dilaudid 4 mg, 60 Xanax 2 mg, 180 Fiorinal #3, Dilantin, Soma and Phenergen to Patient S.T. Respondent failed to document why any of these medications were prescribed. On February 13, 2001, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent. Respondent noted that the patient was getting Keflex (an antibiotic) on her own. Respondent’s records do not indicate any inquiry concerning how she was obtaining Keflex on her own or the reason for the Keflex. On the February 13, 2001 visit, Respondent noted pharynx infected and no evidence of thrush. Respondent then prescribed Soma 350 (now three times per day), Cipro 500, an inhaler and Fiorinal #3 to Patient S.T. Presumably, the Cipro (an antibiotic) was prescribed for some infection, but there are no notes indicating this. On February 13, 2001, Respondent prescribed Soma, Cipro, and Fiorinal #3 to Patient S.T. without documenting an assessment or treatment plan for Patient S.T. Respondent prescribed Soma and Fiorinal #3 to Patient S.T. without documenting the presence of one or more recognized medical indications for the use of controlled substances. Respondent does not indicate why he increased the Soma. On February 13, 2001, Respondent noted that he wrote a prescription for Neurontin 400 but then put a note over that that says “hold.” There is no explanation in the record for this change in treatment nor is there a reason why the Neurontin was prescribed initially. On February 26, 2001, Patient S.T. presented to Respondent. Respondent noted that Patient S.T.’s Dilantin level was low, noted a recent seizure, and noted that there were extreme sores with two arrows pointing downward. Respondent then switched the patient to Tequinn (another antibiotic) without any explanation for the switch. There were no other subjective or objective complaints listed. Respondent failed to record an assessment or treatment plan other than to “do Dilantin level.” Respondent failed to document any medical reasons for doing a Dilantin level check if Respondent already knew the Dilantin level was low. On March 13, 2001, Respondent prescribed #90 Soma 350 mg, Dilantin, Paxil, Xanax 2.0 mg, 90 Dilaudid 4 mg, Fiorinal #3, Phenergen, a Nebulizer and Neurontin to Patient S.T. There are no explanations for the prescribing of these drugs. There is no assessment, other than of the skin condition, and no written plan concerning the prescriptions given. On March 13, 2001, Respondent also prescribed a trial of Lithium 450. There were no subjective or objective complaints concerning the reason Respondent prescribed this drug. There is no assessment or plan concerning the prescription of this drug. Lithium can be prescribed for psychiatric diagnoses but there are no notes indicating why Respondent is prescribing this drug. On April 12, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent. Respondent noted in Patient S.T.’s records that the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) “confiscated some of her meds” which were in a friend’s house. Respondent did not note any follow-up, plan, or inquiry concerning the note that the DEA confiscated Patient S.T.’s medications. Respondent noted that Patient S.T. should try to take the Lithium and that she needed a right ankle brace. There are no subjective or objective complaints in this note. There is also no assessment or plan, other than to try to take Lithium. The medical records for the visit on April 12, 2001, do not contain any explanation as to why Respondent prescribed any of the controlled substances he prescribed during that visit. It is clearly a “red flag” when a patient informs a doctor that the DEA has confiscated her medications. When this type of event occurs, it is inappropriate and egregious for the physician to prescribe controlled substances like the ones Respondent prescribed on April 12, 2001, without inquiry and investigation into the circumstances. On May 10, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent’s office. Respondent noted that Patient S.T. was non-diabetic. Respondent then prescribed Cipro and Prednisone 10 mg for the sores on the lower limbs. There is no explanation why Respondent switched the patient back to Cipro. There are no documented subjective or objective complaints concerning the legs other than that there were sores. There was no adequate assessment of the legs. The rest of Respondent’s medical record for May 10, 2001, is basically a list of prescriptions. There is no written explanation for the prescriptions, no assessment, and no plan concerning their use. On July 6, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent. Respondent listed Patient S.T.’s conditions on the side of his record. These conditions were: lupus, hepatitis, bronchitis, herpes simplex, proven non-diabetic, edema and seizure disorder. Respondent notes a plan to do a complete blood count (CBC) and Dilantin level. The rest of the record is a list of prescriptions. During the visit on July 6, 2001, Respondent prescribed controlled substances without documenting any medical complaints by the patient. There are no subjective or objective complaints. There is no assessment or plan concerning the drugs prescribed. Respondent prescribed controlled substances to Patient S.T. without documenting that he discussed the patient’s chronic pain with her (if she had any). Respondent's medical records for Patient S.T.'s visit on August 3, 2001, do not contain any subjective or objective complaints. Also there is no assessment or plan concerning the drugs prescribed that day. On September 12, 2001, Patient S.T. returned to Respondent. Respondent wrote in Patient S.T.’s record abbreviations for Glucosamine and Chondroitin. There is no other note other than a weight recorded for this visit. However, contained within Respondent’s medical file are copies of some of his prescriptions. These copies indicate that Respondent prescribed 60 Xanax 2 mg, 100 Fiorinal #3, Methadone 10 mg on this visit. On the prescription form itself, Respondent indicated that the Fiorinal was for headaches and the Methadone for pain. There are no notes at all in the medical record about these prescriptions or why they were prescribed. Further, Respondent’s medical records for September 12, 2001, fail to indicate why the Xanax was prescribed. The medical records do not contain any subjective or objective complaints. There is no assessment or plan. It is not sufficient to write instructions and the rationale for prescribing a drug on the prescription form only. A physician should document in the medical record the prescription, the dosing, and the reason why the drug is being prescribed. Respondent failed to do this on September 12, 2001. On September 20, 2001, Patient S.T. died. An autopsy was performed and the cause of death was determined to be acute polydrug toxicity (Fentanyl, Codeine, Methadone, Oxycodone, Butalbital, and Alprazolam or Xanax). Butalbital is a component of Fiorinal. The Miami-Dade County medical examiner’s report indicated that Patient S.T. had a history of drug abuse since aged 20. The toxicology report indicated that Patient S.T. had fatal doses of Fentanyl, Oxycodone and Codeine in her system. Respondent violated the statutory standard of care2 by failing to adequately address the etiology of Patient S.T.’s pain, by prescribing controlled substances without adequate medical justification, and by failing to set up a treatment plan concerning the prescribing of controlled substances. Respondent’s actions were particularly egregious following the DEA seizure of the patient’s medication. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control.3 Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course of treatment by failing to document an appropriate plan concerning the controlled substances and by failing to document the justification for the controlled substances he prescribed. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records documenting the source of any alleged pain and failed to document adequate progress notes. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances to Patient S.T. Respondent inappropriately increased the Soma without noting any reason or discussion concerning this increase. Respondent also inappropriately prescribed medications by discontinuing the Dilaudid and prescribing the Methadone without justification or explanation. Finally, Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances to Patient S.T. after learning that the DEA had seized her medications.4 Admitted Facts regarding Patient C.C. (Case No. 2002-26342) On or about August 2, 2001, Patient C.C., a 45-year- old male, first presented to Respondent with a history of several injuries including a left and right hip replacement, a left ankle fusion, and a right ankle compound break. According to Patient C.C.’s medical records for this visit, Respondent verified the injuries reported by Patient C.C. by only examining the surgical scars on Patient C.C.’s body. At the conclusion of this visit, Respondent instructed Patient C.C. to return with copies of his X-rays and to undergo “blood work”. During the course of this visit, Respondent prescribed 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg, and 60 Oxycontin, 80 mg, to Patient C.C. On or about August 6, 2001, Respondent prescribed 15 Xanax, 2 mg, to Patient C.C. Patient C.C.’s medical records for the August 6, 2001, visit do not contain examination results or subjective or objective complaints. On or about August 23, 2001, Patient C.C. returned to Respondent’s office, whereupon, Respondent prescribed 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg, and 30 MS Contin, 100 mg, to Patient C.C. Patient C.C.’s records for the August 23, 2001, visit reflect that the only physical examination results recorded are weight and blood pressure. Patient C.C.’s records for the August 23, 2001, visit reflect that Patient C.C. did not provide Respondent with copies of his X-rays. Patient C.C.’s records for the August 23, 2001, visit also reflect that Patient C.C. did not provide Respondent with verification of completion of the “blood work” that Respondent requested during Patient C.C.’s visit of August 2, 2001. On or about September 19, 2001, Patient C.C. returned to Respondent’s office complaining of an upper respiratory infection. Respondent renewed Patient C.C.’s prescriptions for 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg, and 30 MS Contin, 100 mg. On or about September 20, 2001, Respondent prescribed 30 Xanax, 2 mg, to Patient C.C. by telephonic order. On September 26, 2001, Patient C.C. presented to Respondent. Patient C.C.’s medical records for the September 26, 2001, visit indicate that Patient C.C. complained of a gastrointestinal disorder. Patient C.C.’s medical records for the September 26, 2001 visit indicate that Respondent again noted: “must do lab work.” Patient C.C.’s medical records contain what appears to be an entry for September 29, 2001, which simply states “Restoril 30 — trial.” On or about October 11, 2001, Respondent prescribed 30 Vicodin ES by telephonic order for Patient C.C. Patient C.C.’s final visit to Respondent occurred on or about October 19, 2001. During the course of that visit, Patient C.C. complained of a contusion that resulted from a fall. Patient C.C.’s medical records for the October 19, 2001, visit fail to document which part of Patient C.C.’s body was contused. Patient C.C.’s records for the October 19, 2001, visit do not contain any documentation that Respondent performed a physical examination of Patient C.C. During the course of the October 19, 2001, visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient C.C.: 90 Dilaudid, 4 mg 90 Soma, 350 mg 60 MS Contin, 100 mg Additional Facts regarding Patient C.C. (Case No. 2002-26342) In the medical record of the August 2, 2001, visit there are no notations as to when the injuries occurred or which injury was causing a complaint that day, if any. Respondent noted that the patient was disabled and on Medicare. On August 2, 2001, in addition to the Dilaudid and Oxycontin, Respondent also prescribed Fiorinal with Codeine and Tuinal (a short-acting barbiturate). Respondent’s medical records for Patient C.C.’s August 2, 2001, visit do not contain examination results or subjective or objective complaints. The record has no assessment of Patient C.C.’s hips or ankles. Respondent requested copies of the X-rays from the patient, presumably to confirm the prior injuries to the hips and ankles. There is no indication in the record that Respondent ever tried to obtain the X-rays himself. In the medical record for the August 23, 2001, visit, Respondent did not document any indication why he switched Patient C.C. from Oxycontin to MS Contin. The Dilaudid was prescribed apparently for “breakthrough pain.” However, there are no notes concerning the severity of any pain or the source of any pain. Respondent also noted on this visit that the patient had GERD (gastroesophogeal reflux disease) or irritable bowel syndrome. No subjective complaints or symptoms are recorded. He questioned whether it was due to diet and thought he might be a candidate for Librax (a medication used for irritable bowel disease). Respondent then gave Patient C.C. a sample of Prevacid (a medication that can treat GERD). In the medical record for the September 19, 2001, visit there are no notations concerning the patient's respiration or whether he was wheezing. No other symptoms are recorded. Respondent did not record any objective results, failed to record any assessment and did not record an adequate plan. Respondent gave the patient a Zithromax sample for the respiratory infection. Respondent then renewed Patient C.C.’s prescriptions for #90 Dilaudid 4 mg and #30 MS Contin 100 mg. There are no records indicating why these medications were prescribed. The medical record for Patient C.C. does not document why Respondent prescribed Xanax to the patient by telephone on September 20, 2001. The medical records for the October 11, 2001, visit contains no notations as to why Respondent prescribed Vicodin ES, nor are there any subjective or objective complaints noted. In the medical record for the October 19, 2001, visit, there is no chief complaint recorded, other than the contusion. There is no assessment and no plan other than prescribing narcotics. There are no indications in the record as to why prescriptions for Dilaudid, Soma, and MS Contin were written, or what chief complaint required these medications. On October 29, 2001, Patient C.C. died. The medical examiner’s report stated that the cause of death was acute morphine toxicity. The toxicology report indicated the following drugs were detected in Patient C.C.’s body: Alprazolam or Xanax, Benzodiazepines, Meprobamate, Corisoprodol or Soma and Morphine. The medical examiner's report also detailed a history of a motor vehicle accident at aged 17 (approximately 28 years before Respondent first saw the patient). The medical history indicated that Patient C.C. broke his legs during this accident and that the legs never healed properly. The medical examiner’s report also indicated a social history of drug abuse, both illegal and prescription, as well as prior suicidal attempts years ago by cutting his wrists. There were also the typical track or needle marks on the arms that would have been visible a month or longer before death. Respondent did not record the detailed medical history from the motor vehicle accident nor the past suicide attempts. Even if the patient was not candid with Respondent, an examination of Patient C.C.’s arms would have revealed the prior track or needle marks as well as the prior marks from the suicide attempts. However, Respondent’s records do not contain any such details. Respondent failed to practice medicine within the statutory standard of care by failing to adequately assess Patient C.C.’s pain, failing to create an adequate treatment plan and by failing to obtain prior medical records to review past drug use. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by inappropriately prescribing controlled substances without adequate medical justification and by refilling controlled substances without identifying a chief complaint, without performing a review of systems, without performing adequate physical exams and assessments, and without preparing adequate plans. Respondent also failed to meet the statutory standard of care by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records that justify the course of treatment by failing to document a complete medical history as well as a history of Patient C.C.’s present complaint, and by failing to document adequate physical exams, adequate treatment plans and assessments of the etiology of Patient C.C.’s pain. Respondent also failed to keep medical records that justify the course of treatment by failing to document a discussion of risks and benefits of using controlled substances, and the medical justification for the continued treatment with controlled substances. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances to Patient C.C. Respondent continued to inappropriately prescribe controlled substances to this patient without a definitive diagnosis and without verifying the patient’s medical history and past drug use. Admitted Facts regarding Patient B.F. (Case No. 2002-26340) On or about October 15, 2001, Patient B.F., a 55-year- old female, presented to Respondent with complaints of lower back pain, polyneuropathy, bronchitis, a history of HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), AIDS (acquired immunodeficiency syndrome), heroin addiction, and hepatitis C. No other physical exam results are documented. During the course of this visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient B.F.: 90 Oxycontin, 80 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg On or about November 15, 2001, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent’s office. Patient B.F.’s medical records for the November 15, 2001, visit do not document that Respondent performed a review of systems. Patient B.F.’s medical records for the November 15, 2001, visit do not document that Respondent performed an adequate physical examination of Patient B.F. during this visit. Respondent then noted that “Pt to bring in all her HIV meds for renewal.” During the course of the November 15, 2001, visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient B.F.: 90 Oxycontin, 80 mg 60 Xanax, 2 mg There is no documentation in Patient B.F.’s medical record for the December 17, 2001, visit that Respondent received the prior HIV medical records. There is no documentation in Patient B.F.’s medical record for the December 17, 2001, visit that Respondent addressed the nature or intensity of Patient B.F.’s pain. On or about January 14, 2002, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent with complaints of severe asthmatic bronchitis. Patient B.F.’s records for the January 14, 2002, visit reflect that Respondent treated Patient B.F.’s bronchitis with medication. Patient B.F.’s records for the January 14, 2002, visit reflect that Respondent renewed Patient B.F.’s prescription for 90 Oxycontin, 80 mg, and for 60 Xanax, 2 mg. Patient B.F.’s medical records of February 12, 2002, indicate that Respondent needs lab work at the next visit. On or about March 15, 2002, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent’s office. Patient B.F.’s medical records for the March 15, 2002, visit reflect that Patient B.F.’s pain was fluctuating and that her anxiety was high. On the March 15, 2002, visit Respondent briefly listened to Patient B.F.’s lungs and noted her blood pressure and pulse. On the March 15, 2002, visit, Respondent renewed Patient B.F.’s prescriptions for 90 Oxycontin, 80 mg, and for 60 Xanax, 2 mg. Additional Facts regarding Patient B.F. (Case No. 2002-26340) During the visit on October 15, 2001, Respondent documented a painful lumbar region. However, Respondent did not document results of other physical exams, including the level of pain for the lower back, the location of the polyneuropathy in the body, and the rate of respiration. Lab tests were ordered. There is no clear indication from the medical records of the first visit what Respondent’s treatment plan was for this patient. At Patient B.F.'s visit on November 15, 2001, Respondent wanted to see if the patient qualified for Neupogen. He also recommended Glucosomine and Chondroitin with water exercises. He also noted that the liver studies reflected hepatitis C. Respondent’s recommendation to try Neupogen is unexplained. Because Neupogen stimulates white blood cells and Patient B.F.’s white blood count was normal, there was no justification for Respondent’s consideration of Neupogen. Respondent’s medical record for his December 17, 2001, visit with Patient B.F. is very brief. He wrote a blood pressure reading and the word “pulse” but with no reading next to it. He also drew an arrow pointing up next to the words “bronchitis; smoking !!”. There are no subjective complaints documented, no assessment, and no treatment plan documented. During the December 17, 2001, visit, Respondent prescribed #60 Xanax 2.0 mg and #90 Oxycontin 80 mg for Patient B.F. Respondent failed to document a reason for prescribing these two controlled substances. There is also no documented plan concerning treatment for the notation about the increased bronchitis or smoking. Regarding the January 14, 2002, visit, there are no subjective complaints listed other than the one about severe asthmatic bronchitis. There is no documented physical exam or review of systems for this visit. The record does not contain any details of the patient’s respirations or diagnosis as to whether this was an acute bronchial attack or chronic bronchitis. In the medical records for the January 14, 2002, visit, Respondent noted that he had a discussion about Oxycontin with Patient B.F. However the record does not reflect why the drug was prescribed. On February 5, 2002, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent. Respondent’s note on this date is also brief. It contains a blood pressure, a pulse and a weight. Respondent also notes “GERD - ? to meds or anx.?” and gives the patient a sample of Prevacid for this problem. GERD means gastro- esophageal reflux disease. Respondent once again prescribed #90 Oxycontin 80 mg and #60 Xanax 2.0 mg. Respondent also prescribed some drugs for Patient B.F.’s HIV condition. However, there are no notes explaining why the Oxycontin and Xanax were prescribed. There is no assessment of the prior bronchial problems, the prior back problems, or any new complaints. On February 12, 2002, Patient B.F. returned to Respondent’s office. Respondent’s medical record indicated that Patient B.F. needs lab work at the next visit and contained a list of prescriptions. Respondent provides no indication why the various drugs were prescribed, no assessment of the patient, no subjective complaints detailed and no plan for treating the patient. Respondent saw Patient B.F. again on March 15, 2002. At that time he noted decreased breath signs, and at some later time he recorded the lab results. On the March 15, 2002 visit, Respondent also questioned the patient’s “compliance.” There was no explanation given as to what type of compliance issues were of concern to Respondent. Respondent then renewed Patient B.F.’s prescription for #90 Oxycontin 80 mg and #60 Xanax 20 mg. On March 25, 2002, Patient B.F. died. According to the initial Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner’s report, the cause of Patient B.F.’s death was accidental heroin and Xanax intoxication. The contributing causes were AIDS and Hepatitis C. A toxicology report was issued on October 1, 2004, by the Miami Dade County Medical Examiner’s office. This report was positive for Oxycodone, Methadone, Morphine, Codeine, and Alprazolam or Xanax. The Miami-Dade County Medical Examiner’s office issued an amended report on November 2, 2004, indicating that Patient B.F.’s cause of death was polydrug intoxication (Heroin, Oxycodone, Methadone, and Alprazolam or Xanax). The contributing causes were AIDS and Hepatitis C. The report added Oxycodone and Methadone as contributing to the death. Both the original and the amended Medical Examiner reports contain a social history indicating that Patient B.F. was a known IV drug abuser and had received treatment at a local Methadone clinic. None of Respondent’s medical records for Patient B.F. contain a past or current history of treatment at a Methadone clinic. The records also fail to identify whether Respondent inquired about any current drug abuse. Respondent should have inquired about, and should have documented, any Methadone treatment Patient B.F. was involved in before Respondent instituted his own treatment in order to prescribe narcotics properly. This patient was a complicated case and would have benefited from a multi-disciplinary team approach.5 In his treatment of Patient B.F., Respondent failed to practice medicine within the statutory standard of care by inappropriately prescribing controlled substances without adequate medical justification and by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by failing to sufficiently assess the bronchial asthmatic condition by noting the patient’s respiratory rate and degree of wheezing. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records that justify the course of treatment by failing to document adequate physical exams, by failing to document an adequate review of systems, by failing to document a treatment plan, and by failing to document the respiratory rate and degree of wheezing related to B.F.’s bronchial asthmatic condition. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records to justify the course of treatment by failing to document adequate justification for prescribing Oxycontin on the first visit and for continuing to prescribe Oxycontin and Xanax in a patient with a history of heroin abuse. Respondent inappropriately prescribed Oxycontin to Patient B.F. on the first visit and inappropriately prescribed Oxycontin and Xanax to her on subsequent visits without adequate medical justification. Many of Respondent’s medical records are merely a list of the drugs prescribed without any rationale or reason stated for the prescriptions. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances without documenting a physical exam, a review of systems, assessments, or any plans for the patient and without inquiring about the patient's Methadone clinic treatment. Admitted Facts regarding Patient D.P. (Case No. 2002-12858) On or about February 2, 2002, Patient D.P., a 25-year old male, presented to Respondent’s office with complaints of severe lower lumbar pain with radiation into both thighs, left greater than right. The medical record for this visit contains a brief family history, social history, and notation of no allergies in the medical records. The medical record for this visit has no adequate review of symptoms. Respondent documented that the patient is to furnish the X-rays of his lumbar spine, and pending this review, Respondent elected to hold off on ordering an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging). Blood work was deferred to the next visit. Further instructions included glucosamine and chondroitin and water exercises. During the course of the February 2, 2002, visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient D.P.: 240 Methadone, 10 mg 120 Dilaudid, 4 mg 90 Xanax, 2 mg On or about March 1, 2002, Patient D.P. returned to Respondent with a complaint of an area of baldness in the upper right occipital area, secondary to striking his head. Patient D.P. also had complaints concerning his left great toe. Respondent again requested that Patient D.P. supply him with his lumbar X-rays. During the course of this visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient D.P.: 60 Soma, 350 mg 90 Xanax, 2 mg 120 Dilaudid, 4 mg Respondent’s medical records indicate that on or about March 30, 2002, a Saturday, Patient D.P. appeared for an office visit. The medical records indicate that some type of final warning was given. The record indicates that on or about March 30, 2002, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient D.P.: 60 Soma, 350 mg 90 Xanax, 2 mg 105 Dilaudid, 4 mg On the record of the March 30, 2002, visit, after the Dilaudid, Respondent wrote, “start to lower.” There is also an entry that Patient D.P. paid $75.00 for this visit. Respondent did not see Patient D.P. on the March 30, 2002, visit because the patient was late. Respondent sent Petitioner a letter on or about August 29, 2002, indicating that Respondent did not see Patient D.P. on the March 30, 2002, visit because the patient was late. Respondent’s secretary waited for the patient in order to give him the prescriptions written by Respondent. Additional Facts regarding Patient D.P. (Case No. 2002-12858) Patient D.P. presented to Respondent with a history of prescriptions for Methadone, Dilaudid, Xanax, and Oxycontin. Although Respondent wrote refill prescriptions for Methadone, Dilaudid, and Xanax, he did not write a refill prescription for Oxycontin. There is no explanation in the medical record for the Respondent's decision not to refill the Oxycontin. Respondent failed to document an explanation for continuing some of the pain medications and discontinuing the Oxycontin. It is not safe to discontinue Oxycontin abruptly. Respondent also failed to document the name of the physician who previously prescribed the above-described pain medications and failed to document any need to obtain the medical records from the prior physician. Patient D.P. presented to Respondent with several “red flags.” Among the “red flags” were: a young man with a list of previously used pain medications, no X-rays, and a request to refill the pain medications based on unverified back pain. The medical record for Patient D.P.'s visit on March 1, 2002, does not indicate what medical conditions the pain medications that were prescribed on that date were supposed to treat. Two body parts (the head and large toe) were identified with subjective complaints. An appropriate objective note was not made. The medications prescribed on March 1, 2002, were essentially the same as those prescribed during the February 2, 2002, visit but with no mention of back problems in the record of the March 1, 2002 visit. In a patient such as D.P., pain is a vital sign and should be documented. Pain is usually documented on a scale of one to ten. There is no record of pain for any of the three body parts (head, back or great toe). Soma was also prescribed on this visit. There is no documented justification for the prescription of Soma. On April 1, 2002, Patient D.P. died of a combined drug overdose (Methadone, Xanax, Alprazolam, Soma, Carisoprodol, and Meprobamate). A toxicology exam was done, with a follow-up confirming report. The report was positive for Xanax, Soma, Methadone, and the metabolites for Cocaine. The report showed fatal or lethal levels of Methadone and Xanax in Patient D.P.’s body. Respondent violated the statutory standard of care by prescribing controlled substances to Patient D.P. without even seeing or examining him. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by prescribing the controlled substances inappropriately without adequate justification. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by his inadequate physical exams, especially on the visits after February 2, 2002. Respondent’s medical records for this patient fail to justify the course of treatment for all of the visits. There is an inadequate history of any prior back problem or drug abuse problem. The records concerning any physical exam are inadequate. Respondent’s records for this patient fail to contain an adequate history documenting any prior diagnostic testing or diagnosis that would have been the basis for his previously prescribed drugs. The medical record of March 30, 2002, fails to accurately describe what actually happened that day. Further, the medical record for that date is written in such a way as to suggest that Respondent had seen and treated the patient on that date, when, in fact, Respondent did not see Patient D.P. on March 30, 2002. Respondent inappropriately prescribed Soma, Methadone, Xanax, and Dilaudid to Patient D.P. In addition, he inappropriately prescribed the Soma, Xanax, Methadone and Dilaudid when he left them with his secretary for Patient D.P. to pick up without examining Patient D.P. or discerning a need for these drugs. Respondent left the prescriptions "out of compassion" for D.P. In hindsight, Respondent admits that it was a mistake to do so. He had never done such before and has not done it since. During the course of his treatment of Patient D.P., Respondent failed to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control. Admitted Facts regarding Patient F.K. (Case No. 2002-26339) On or about January 31, 2002, Patient F.K., a 46- year-old male, first presented to Respondent with complaints of back pain, with pain radiating to both sides, insomnia, and depression. According to Patient F.K.’s medical records, Patient F.K., had a history of heroin addiction in the past. According to Patient F.K.’s medical records, Patient F.K. has a documented history of hepatitis 30 years ago, most likely from a needle. According to Patient F.K.’s medical records, Patient F.K.’s current medications included Methadone, 80 mg/day, Oxycontin, 80 mg qid (4 times daily), and Xanax, 2.0 mg, “3, 4, or 5”. On or about January 31, 2002, Respondent ordered lab work for Patient F.K. On or about January 31, 2002, Respondent noted in Patient F.K.’s medical records that the X-ray reports were “on the way.” On or about January 31, 2002, Respondent also recommended Glucosamine and Chondroitin for Patient F.K., both to be taken twice daily. During the course of the visit on January 31, 2002, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 120 Xanax, qid 240 Methadone (8 pills/day) 180 Dilaudid (6 per day) On or about March 4, 2002, Patient F.K. returned to Respondent’s office. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent noted that Patient F.K. was stabilizing. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent noted that Patient F.K.’s X-ray reports were pending at the prison. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent did not record an adequate examination or a range of system review for Patient F.K. On or about March 4, 2002, the lab data was reviewed and a notation that Patient F.K. was a non-diabetic was made. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent recommended water exercises and Glucosamine/Chondroitin for Patient F.K. On or about March 4, 2002, Respondent failed to document in Patient F.K.’s medical record that he had performed a physical examination. On or about March 4, 2002, there is an entry in Patient F.K.’s medical record that states the pain is a combination of pathology and depression. On or about March 4, 2002, the Respondent failed to document in Patient F.K.’s medical records that he discussed the risks and benefits of the use of controlled substances with Patient F.K. During the course of the visit on March 4, 2002, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 180 Dilaudid, 4 mg 240 Methadone 120 Xanax, 2 mg On or about April 1, 2002, it was noted that Patient F.K. was doing water exercises. On or about April 1, 2002, Respondent failed to document in his medical records a physical examination or review of Patient F.K.’s systems. During the course of the April 1, 2002 visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 90 Xanax, 2 mg 240 Methadone, 10 mg, 2 q6h (every six hours) 180 Dilaudid, $ mg, 2 q8h (every eight hours) On or about April 1, 2002, there is also an entry in Patient F.K.’s medical records that a pharmacist called to discuss and confirm the medications prescribed. On or about April 29, 2002, Patient F.K. presented to Respondent’s office. On or about April 29, 2002, an entry in Patient F.K.’s medical record indicates that the patient will try to get his X-ray report that was done while in prison, apparently in early 2000. On or about April 29, 2002, Respondent did not document in Patient F.K.’s medical record that he performed a physical examination of Patient F.K. during this visit or that he identified the nature and intensity of Patient F.K.’s pain. During the course of the April 29, 2002, visit, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 90 Xanax, 2 mg 240 Methadone, 10 mg 180 Dilaudid, 4 mg On or about May 25, 2002 (a Saturday), Patient F.K. returned to Respondent’s office. On or about May 25, 2002, Respondent noted that the patient was recently incarcerated and could not persist in his efforts to get the X-rays from prison. On or about May 25, 2002, there is no documented physical examination or review of systems in Patient F.K.’s medical records. On or about May 25, 2002, Respondent recommended that Patient F.K. continue water exercises with Glucosomine and Chrondroiton. During the course of the visit on May 25, 2002, Respondent prescribed the following drugs to Patient F.K.: 90 Xanax, 2 mg 240 Methadone, 10 mg 180 Dilaudid, 4 mg On or about May 25, 2002, Respondent ordered X-rays for Patient F.K.’s right knee and back ASAP. On or about May 26, 2002, Patient F.K. died. According to the Broward County Medical Examiner’s report, the cause of Patient F.K.’s death was acute bronchopneumonia due to combined drug toxicity (cocaine and methadone). Additional Facts regarding Patient F.K. (Case No. 2002-26339) In his medical records for the visit on January 31, 2002, Respondent indicates “severe low back syndrome,” but does not indicate how he reached this diagnosis. On April 1, 2002, Patient F.K. presented to Respondent’s office for polyarthritis. There is no other note concerning the polyarthritis such as its location, duration or severity. On April 1, 2002, Respondent also failed to document an assessment of any problems or a treatment plan, other than prescribing Xanax, Methadone, and Dilaudid. A telephone call from a pharmacist about prescriptions for narcotic drugs is often perceived as a “red flag.” This phone call, combined with the patient’s heroin history, should have alerted Respondent that Patient F.K. was a drug seeker or drug user with a history of abuse. Respondent's records for the April 29, 2002, visit do not indicate why Respondent prescribed Xanax, Methadone, and Dilaudid to Patient F.K. Patient F.K.’s history of incarceration is another “red flag” which should have been taken into account before prescribing controlled substances to this patient. Respondent's records for the May 25, 2002, visit do not indicate why Respondent prescribed Xanax, Methadone, and Dilaudid to Patient F.K. Prior to May 25, 2002, Respondent should have himself either obtained Patient F.K.'s X-rays from the prison or he should have ordered X-rays for the back and right knee sooner and before prescribing controlled substances over an extended period of time. At the time of his death, Patient F.K.’s level of Methadone recorded from the toxicology screen was in the toxic or lethal range. The level of Cocaine was at a low level. Patient F.K. would have benefited from a multi- disciplinary team approach. The multi-disciplinary approach could have dealt with his addiction problems, as well as his physical ailments.6 Respondent violated the statutory standard of care by failing to perform adequate physical exams, failing to identify or recommend a treatment plan, and by failing to adequately assess any pain the patient had. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by prescribing controlled substances to this patient without adequate medical justification, and prescribing controlled substances for pain before ordering or obtaining X-rays. Respondent also violated the statutory standard of care by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control. Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course and scope of treatment for Patient F.K. Respondent failed to adequately document justification for the controlled medications, failed to document adequate physical examinations, and failed to document an appropriate treatment plan for this patient. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances without adequate medical justification to Patient F.K. Admitted Facts regarding Patient A.C. (Case No. 2002-26341) On or about March 13, 2001, Patient A.C., a 43-year- old male, first presented to Respondent. The medical record for that visit notes that Respondent questioned a loss of Patient A.C.’s medications and that the patient is to return with X- rays. On or about March 19, 2001, Patient A.C. returned to Respondent’s office with his X-rays. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent noted that the X-rays were indicative of significant advanced lumbar disc disease. On or about March 19, 2001, the recorded history also noted that Patient A.C. was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 3, 2000. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent noted a complaint of pain in the lumbar region radiating to both of Patient A.C.’s thighs, left greater than right. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent ordered laboratory studies for Patient A.C. Respondent’s medical record of March 19, 2001, also contains a note that a pharmacy advised Respondent that Patient A.C. was “on Oxycontin 40 mg before.” Respondent notes in Patient A.C.’s record of March 19, 2001, the names of two doctors. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent gave Patient A.C. samples of HCTZ (hydrochlorothiazide), an anti- hypertensive. On or about March 19, 2001, Respondent started Patient A.C. on Tevetan, an anti-hypertensive, 600 mg daily. During the course of the visit on March 19, 2001, Respondent also prescribed the following drugs to Patient A.C.: 60 Oxycontin, 80 mg Xanax, 2 mg, bid (twice daily) On or about March 21, 2001, Patient A.C. returned to Respondent’s office. On or about March 21, 2001, there are no notes in Patient A.C.’s medical records concerning a physical examination or review of systems. On or about March 21, 2001, there is also a note in Patient A.C.'s medical records about a pending evaluation with no details concerning the proposed evaluation. On or about March 21, 2001, Patient A.C.’s record also contains a note that his next appointment was April 4, 2001. On or about March 21, 2001, Respondent’s medical records also contain a dated entry of March 19, 2001, that lists Patient A.C.’s medications on this date as HCTZ 25 mg daily; Tevetan 600 mg daily; Norvasc 5 mg, 2 daily; Xanax 2 mg bid; and Oxycontin 80 mg bid. On or about March 21, 2001, Patient A.C.’s record does not reflect that the Respondent attempted to obtain Patient A.C.’s past medical records in order to verify Patient A.C.’s reported injuries and medical history. On or about March 21, 2001, Respondent did not document a treatment plan for Patient A.C. other than to order or request lab work. On or about April 1, 2001, Patient A.C. was transported to Broward General Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 9:06 a.m. The medical examiner ruled that the cause of Patient A.C.’s death was accidental Cocaine excited delirium and Oxycodone toxicity. The toxicology report indicated that the following drugs were detected in Patient A.C.'s body: Benzoylecgonine, Cocaine, Ecgonine, Methylester, and Oxycodone. Additional Facts regarding Patient A.C. (Case No. 2002-26341) Respondent also noted in the medical record for March 19, 2001, two doctors’ names (“Roonig” and”Washman”). Next to these names Respondent noted “ pt. given Oxycontin 160 #116 on 3/14” and under that “Oxycontin 40 + 20 Sig T.I.D. on 2/17.” There is no indication in the medical record that Respondent attempted to contact either of the doctors mentioned in his note or to obtain any of the medical records from either doctor. There are no notes about counseling the patient about the consequences of taking controlled substances. There is no indication in the medical records as to why Respondent prescribed Xanax and Oxycontin to this patient on March 19, 2001. Although the medical records for March 19, 2001, contain some subjective and objective results, there is no assessment or treatment plan for this patient. Respondent failed to document how he was managing the pain medication prescribed for this patient, particularly since the patient was obtaining Oxycontin from two other doctors. Respondent knew or should have known that Patient A.C. was a doctor shopper (an individual going to numerous doctors in order to obtain a number of controlled medications). Patient A.C. would have benefited from a multi-disciplinary team approach.7 Patient A.C. obviously had an addiction problem and that should have been apparent to Respondent. Respondent violated the statutory standard of care by failing to perform adequate physical exams, by failing to identify or recommend a treatment plan, and by failing to obtain past medical records. Respondent also violated the standard of care by prescribing controlled substances to this patient without adequate medical justification and by failing to follow the guidelines in Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.013(3) for the use of controlled substances for pain control.8 Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records justifying the course and scope of treatment for Patient A.C. Respondent failed to adequately document justification for the controlled medications, failed to document adequate physical examinations, failed to document a complete history and failed to document an appropriate treatment plan for this patient. Respondent also failed to keep adequate progress notes. Respondent inappropriately prescribed controlled substances to Patient A.C. without adequate medical justification.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order in these cases to the following effect: Adopting all of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law; Dismissing the six counts in the Administrative Complaints alleging violations of Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes; Finding Respondent guilty of the six counts of violations of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaints; Finding Respondent guilty of the six counts of violations of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, alleged in the Administrative Complaints; and Imposing a penalty consisting of the revocation of Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30th day of August, 2005.
