The Issue An Administrative Complaint dated May 22, 1991, and amended at the commencement of the hearing on June 14th, alleges that Respondent violated Section 458.441(1)(t), F.S. by rendering inappropriate treatment to a patient, by failing to ask appropriate follow-up questions as to her pain and condition, and by failing to see her in a timely manner. The issue is whether the violations occurred, and if so what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Mitchell L. Levin, M.D., the Respondent, is, and has been at all relevant times, a physician licensed in Florida with license number ME 0049608. He practices as a board-certified opthalmologist with a principal office in Kissimmee, Florida. The prehearing stipulation filed by the parties at hearing establishes the following: From on or about May 18, 1989 until on or about May 22, 1989, Respondent treated patient #1 for pain in both her eyes and blurred vision. Respondent's initial examination of the patient on May 18, 1989 revealed that the patient had anatomical narrow angles in both of her eyes. Respondent administered Mydriacyl 1% to both of the patient's eyes to dilate them for examination. At the time of Respondent's examination the patient's intraocular pressure was 22, 23 in the right eye and 17, 18 in the left eye. The patient developed acute glaucoma due to the administration of Mydriacyl, on May 18, 1989. At approximately 4:45 p.m. on May 18, 1989 the patient contacted Respondent's office and spoke with a member of Respondent's staff. At approximately 7:30 p.m. on May 18, 1989 the patient contacted Respondent's answering service. At approximately 8:00 p.m. Respondent responded and spoke with the patient. At approximately 7:20 a.m. on May 19, 1989 the patient contacted Respondent's answering service and was advised that Respondent's associate would examine the patient at 9:00 a.m. Respondent's associate, Konrad W. Filutowski, M.D., examined the patient on May 19, 1989 and diagnosed the patient as suffering from acute glaucoma requiring surgery. At the time of Dr. Filutowski's examination of the patient, the patient related to Dr. Filutowski that she had suffered from pain and blurred vision since 3:00 p.m. the prior day. On May 19, 1989, the patient underwent bilateral surgical iredectomies to relieve pressure caused by the acute glaucoma. The administration of Mydriacyl for dilation in this case is not a deviation from the standard of care. However, the patient's narrow angles and slightly elevated pressures alerted the physician that dilation could precipitate acute glaucoma. Dr. Levin was sufficiently concerned about the patient's potential for glaucoma that he had his technician set up a glaucoma movie for the patient to watch after the administration of the drops and while the eyes were dilating before his examination. The patient remembers a movie but none of its details, as her eyes were mostly closed from the effect of the drops. Dr. Levin has a packet of information on glaucoma that he has written and that he routinely hands out to patients. No one specifically remembers giving one of these to Patient #1, and she denies receiving one. When the patient first left Dr. Levin's office on May 18, 1989, her eyes were starting to water and she observed that light was very bright. This is not unusual when eyes are dilated for examination. Later in the afternoon when she was home she felt the watering increase, felt pressure and then could not see at all out of her right eye. She called Dr. Levin's office to let them know in case something was wrong. The receptionist referred her to someone whom she believed was the doctor's technician and who told the patient she could expect some discomfort for up to two days. By approximately 7:00 p.m. the pressure was worse, and the patient could not see out of either eye. She had her daughter call the doctor's answering service to explain that something was terribly wrong. Dr. Levin returned the call within a half hour. The patient gave her name and told him she had called his office earlier but that the watering was worse and that she could not see out of either eye. He tried to figure out who she was and then told her the same thing she had heard earlier, that the discomfort could last up to two days. When she apologized for calling again, he told her it was all right to call. As the evening wore on, the pressure became worse. The patient kept thinking that it was something she had to endure since the doctor said it might last for two days. She kept applying a wet washcloth and could not sleep. In the early morning she tried calling her daughter, was unsuccessful, and attempted to walk across the street to her daughter's house. Her daughter found her disoriented and going the wrong way. Shortly after 7:00 a.m. they called Dr. Levin's office again and were referred to his associate, Dr. Filutowski for a 9:00 a.m. appointment. At Dr. Filutowski's office the patient was nauseous and vomited with the pain. An acute glaucoma attack is accompanied by rapidly progressive symptoms: blurry vision, then loss of vision, discomfort from pressure, then increasing pain to the point of nausea and vomiting. There is no question that the patient was in extreme pain in the afternoon of May 18th and throughout the night. She communicated that pain to Dr. Levin's office staff and to him through terms such as "pressure", "watering", "discomfort", and "blindness". Under the circumstances described above, when a patient reports that she is calling for the second time and that her condition has worsened, a reasonably prudent physician should make a specific inquiry with regard to the symptoms and degree of pain and should make arrangements to see or have the patient seen immediately. Dr. Levin has an office protocol which requires his staff to ask certain questions to determine a patient's condition when the patient calls in. Dr. Levin also has an algorithm, or pathway of questions, which he uses to determine a patient's needs. He believes that he followed that routine with this patient but that her answers did not alert him to a glaucoma attack. He took the May 18th evening call at home and did not have any patients' records with him. He has no recollection of the conversation with this patient. He sees from 15 to 70 patients a day in his office and speaks with as many as 40 or 50 a week on the telephone. Both the patient and her daughter remember the telephone conversation with Dr. Levin the evening of May 18, 1989. The daughter called and spoke with the answering service. When Dr. Levin returned the call the patient spoke directly to him while her daughter was present. While she may not have used the term, "pain", she conveyed her pressure, extreme discomfort, worsening condition and blindness. Dr. Levin did not inquire into specifics and did not make arrangements for the patient to be examined. Those omissions constitute failure 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 circumstances. Respondent's disciplinary history includes a stipulated disposition of a prior Administrative Complaint, adopted by final order on April 6, 1990 and relating to violations other than Section 458.331(1)(t), F.S.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), F.S., and imposing the following penalty: A two year period of probation with terms and conditions to be specified by the Board of Medicine, and a fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2a. Adopted in paragraph 2b. Adopted in paragraph 2c. Adopted in paragraph 2d. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 2e. Adopted in paragraph 2f. Adopted in paragraph 2g. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 2h. Adopted in paragraph 2h. Adopted in paragraph 2i. Adopted in paragraph 2j. Adopted in paragraph 2k. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 15. Respondent's Proposed Findings Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2a. Adopted in paragraph 2b. Adopted in paragraph 2c. Adopted in paragraph 2d. Adopted in paragraph 2e. Adopted in paragraph 2f. Adopted in paragraph 2g. Adopted in paragraph 2h. Adopted in paragraph 2i. Adopted in paragraph 2j. Adopted in paragraph 2k. Adopted in part in paragraph 3, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in summary in paragraph 13. Adopted in summary in paragraph 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. COPIES FURNISHED TO: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 730 S. Sterling St., Suite 201 Tampa, FL 33609 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Suite 1010 The Commons One North Dale Mabry Tampa, FL 32609 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director DPR-Board of Medicine 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent is, and was at all times material to these proceedings, a licensed optometrist in the state of Florida, having been issued license number OP 000773. Respondent has been a practicing optometrist in the state of Florida for 24 years having graduated from the Southern College of Optometry in Memphis, Tennessee in 1964. Respondent has maintained his practice in Orange Park, Florida since 1964. Respondent has been treating patients with orthokeratology for approximately 20 years. Count I: Treatment of Keith Roberson with Orthokeratology and Follow-Up Care Therefor. On or about October 23, 1979, Alan Keith Roberson and his mother visited Respondent for the first time concerning a program of orthokeratology. During that visit, Respondent gave Roberson literature regarding orthokeratology. Roberson expressed a strong desire to obtain a driver's license. Roberson was 21 years of age at the time. Respondent told Roberson that orthokeratology would possibly enhance his vision and possibly enable him to achieve those things that he desired, more specifically, a driver's license. Orthokeratology has been defined as the programmed application of contact lenses to reduce or eliminate refractive anomalies and to sphericalize the cornea in order to reduce myopia, contain myopia, and to bring back a more functional vision. Orthokeratology has also been used for the reduction of astigmatism. The American Academy of Optometry does not recognize diplomacy for orthokeratology. Neither the American Optometric Association nor the Florida Optometric Association recognizes orthokeratology as a separate section. No special license or certification is required to practice orthokeratology in Florida. The initial refraction of Roberson by Respondent showed that the patient's eyes were a minus 21 diopter. Roberson was extremely myopic, which means he was extremely nearsighted. Roberson also had a high degree of nystagmus (constant movement of the eyes from side to side) and very large eyes. Respondent treated Roberson with a modified orthokeratology program in an attempt to improve Roberson's vision so that Roberson could obtain a driver's license. Through this modified orthokeratology program, Respondent hoped to reduce and contain Roberson's myopia, to reduce Roberson's nystagmus, and to improve Roberson's vision. Roberson's aided vision improved from the initial visit of 20/200 in each eye to that of 20/70 in the right eye and 20/100 in the left eye. Although Petitioner contends that Roberson's improved vision was not attributable to the orthokeratology treatment, there is insufficient evidence to show otherwise. From 1979 through September 1982, Roberson's vision did not slip and his myopia did not get any worse, and indeed, his vision had improved. During that period, Roberson was seen approximately eight times by Respondent, of which six visits were for orthokeratology and contact lens treatment. On March 17, 1981, Roberson was issued an operator's license with corrective lens restrictions by the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Prior to the issuance of this driver's license, Roberson had obtained a form entitled "Report of Eye Examination with a Certification of Eye Specialist" which was completed and apparently used to obtain Roberson's driver's license. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent completed and signed that portion of the form entitled "Certification of Eye Specialist". Although Roberson testified that his driver's license was issued the day after this form was dated on October 4, 1980, it is clear from the record that Roberson's driver's license was not issued until March 17, 1981. Respondent did not make any promises to Roberson that treatment with modified orthokeratology would improve his vision, unaided by glasses or contact lenses, so that Roberson could pass the vision requirement of the Florida Driver's Test unaided by glasses or contact lens, notwithstanding that the ultimate goal of orthokeratology may be to allow the patient to go for periods of time without refractive devices and function normally. Although Roberson's condition at the time of his first visit may have contraindicated a "strict" orthokeratology treatment, there were indications that the "modified" orthokeratology treatment suggested and used by the Respondent, after full explanation to Roberson, would produce the results that Roberson was seeking. In fact, it did improve Roberson's vision aided by refractive device sufficiently to allow Roberson to obtain a driver's license. Respondent did not promise Roberson that the "modified" orthokeratology treatment would enhance his vision, unaided by refractive devices, to the point of allowing Roberson to pass the driver's license test or that Roberson would be able to function normally for any period of time without refractive devices to aid his vision. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent could have obtained the same results using a less expensive treatment such as gas permeable contact lens. There was insufficient evidence that Respondent's follow-up care of Roberson was inadequate, particularly considering the use of "modified" orthokeratology treatment. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's treatment of Roberson with "modified" orthokeratology fell below the standard of care in the community or that such treatment was inappropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case. Count II: Whether Respondent charged Patient Roberson an Excessive Fee for Orthokeratology. Because Roberson was the highest myopic (-21 diopter) patient ever seen by Respondent and initially unsure whether orthokeratology would work on this patient, Respondent quoted a fee of $1,000.00 with the understanding that if treatment was not successful then the fee would only be $500.00. The parties stipulated that Respondent ultimately received $1,000.00 in payment from Roberson for orthokeratology. Dr. Carter's normal fee in 1979 for orthokeratology was $2,000.00. There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent prescribed orthokeratology treatment for Roberson to facilitate charging him a higher fee. Count III: Whether Respondent Failed to Properly Treat Patient Roberson and Follow Patient Roberson's Condition. At approximately 7:30 p.m., on September 7, 1982, Roberson visited Respondent's office after accidentally being "poked" in the left eye four days earlier causing a bright blue flash of light resulting in a curtain over Roberson's eye and poor sight vision in the nasal field. Roberson complained about fluctuating vision, seeing light flashes, a veil-like curtain coming over his left eye, watering of the left eye and slipping of contact lens. Respondent spent approximately 20-25 minutes examining Roberson. After examining Roberson's visual acuities, Respondent examined Roberson with a slitlamp or biomicroscope and attempted an optomoscopy in an attempt to view Roberson's retina. Because of Roberson's high degree of myopia and nystagmus and because Respondent did not dilate eyes during this time period, Respondent was unable to determine for certain that Roberson had a detached retina. However, Respondent was aware of the high possibility that Roberson had a detached retina. Although Respondent may have advised Roberson to visit his previous ophthalmologist the next day, Respondent did not call an ophthalmologist on the evening of September 7, 1982 to facilitate referral, nor did Respondent follow- up by calling a ophthalmologist at any other time. After Roberson left Respondent's office he went home. The next day Roberson went to work and while at work he continued to experience the veil like curtain over his eye and a dark spot. Roberson then went home and played drums for about 3 1/2 to 4 hours. When he finished playing the drums he took a shower. While shaking his hair dry he lost the vision in his left eye. Roberson, on the advice of his mother, then went to the University Hospital where he was immobilized and diagnosed as having a probable retinal detachment, and thereafter transported to Shands Hospital, where he was diagnosed as having a giant retinal tear. While at Shands Hospital, Roberson underwent three major operations on his eye and 45 minutes of laser surgery. He was informed that he would probably always be blind in his left eye. Because of Roberson's high degree of myopia, statistically he was at a very high risk of experiencing a detached retina with or without injury. Respondent was aware that patient's eyes were sensitive to a retinal detachment as early as 1979. In 1979, Respondent went to great lengths to inform Respondent that if he ever had the symptoms of a detached retina he should go directly to an ophthalmologist. The classic symptoms of a detached retina are flashes of light with what appears to be a veil or curtain floating over the eye. Roberson experienced the classic symptoms of a retinal detachment and communicated them to Respondent on the evening of September 7, 1982. A detached retina usually occurs secondarily to a retinal tear. A detached retina becomes an ocular emergency once detected or when it should have been detected. The circumstances presented in this case, inter alia, the history of the patient's eyes; a high degree of myopia; difficulty Respondent had with viewing patient's eyes and the symptoms complained of made the situation an ocular emergency. It was of paramount importance to get the patient to an ophthalmic specialist. The failure to promptly refer a patient who has a possible detached retina to the appropriate specialist is a grave departure from the prevailing standard of care for reasonable and prudent optometrists in Respondent's community under similar circumstances. The longer the blood supply is cut off from the retina the less chance there is that the retina will continue to function. The fact that 4 days had elapsed between the time Roberson had been struck in the eye on September 3, 1982, and the time he visited Respondent on September 7, 1982, makes referral that much more important. Merely telling Roberson to see an ophthalmologist the next day is not enough. Respondent should have called the retinal specialist and made the referral. The appropriate referral protocol and standard of care under the circumstances presented in this case would have been for Respondent to call the ophthalmologist himself that evening and, if the ophthalmologist was not in the office, it would have been appropriate to leave a message with the doctor's service explaining the emergency nature of the circumstances. Count IV: Whether Patient Roberson's Records were Altered or Made After the Fact by Respondent. When Roberson first visited Respondent's office in 1979, Respondent recorded Roberson's case history on a 5 x 8 card which was kept with Roberson's patient jacket. The results of Respondent's examination and testing of patients were records on a letter size document. In 1984, after receiving and responding to numerous inquiries regarding Roberson, Respondent transferred information from the 5 x 8 card onto the larger patient record so that all of the information would be contained on one form. The 5 x 8 card was then returned to the patient jacket. Respondent no longer has the patient jacket as all of his original records were subpoenaed from him during the civil litigation. While Dr. Carter candidly admits to transferring part of the patient record from one document onto another document, there was no testimony or evidence presented that Dr. Carter altered or changed any of the patient records or added any information thereto. Count V: Whether Respondent has Engaged in Gross or Repeated Malpractice in the Practice of Optometry Regarding his Treatment and Examination of Keith Roberson. The Respondent was disciplined by the Board of Optometry in its Final Order dated July 17, 1981 in Department of Professional Regulation v. R.T. Carter, O.D., Case No. 81-403, wherein Respondent was assessed an administrative fine of $5,000.00, ordered to make restitution in the total amount of $1,471.00, placed on probation for 18 months and had restrictions placed on his advertising. In General Although the record reveals that Petitioner has not always timely complied with time limits set out in Section 455.225(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, there has been no showing by the Respondent that he was prejudiced by the delays.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of Count III and Count V, in regard to Count III of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and suspending his license to practice optometry in the state of Florida for a period of one year followed by one (1) year of supervised probation with conditions the Board may consider appropriate, and imposing an administrative fine of $5,000.00. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count I, Count II, Count IV and Count V as it relates to Counts I, II and IV be dismissed. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-2032 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. Specific Rulings in Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3, except date which was October 23, 1979. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4. Adopted in substance' in Finding of Fact 5, except last sentence which is rejected as not being supported by the substantial competent evidence in the record. 5.-6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 and 7, respectively. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. The first sentence adopted in Findings of Fact 10. The balance of this findings of rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 9.-12. Subordinate to facts actually found in the Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 15.-22. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23,24,25,27,28,29,30 and 31, respectively. The first sentence is only a restatement of Respondent's testimony rather than a finding of fact. The balance of this finding is subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Findings of Fact 26 and 35. 25.-28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 32, 33, 34 and 40. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent 1.-13. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3, 7, 3, 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16, respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 16. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. -20. Are not findings of fact, but statements as to the weight given certain evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18. Covered in Background. 23.-26. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 19, 20 and 21, respectively. 27.-28. Not a finding of fact, but rather a restatement of testimony. 29.-35. Adopted in Findings of Fact 23, 23, 24, 25, 25, 25 and 25, respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 25 and 26, but modified. The first sentence is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. The balance is adopted in Finding of Fact 27. 39.-41. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Adopted in Finding of Fact 28. Is a restatement of testimony rather than a finding of fact but, if stated as a finding of fact would reject as subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Rejected as being argument rather than a finding of fact. Covered in Background. Rejected as not being material or relevant. 48.-51. Adopted in Findings of Fact 36, 37, 38 and 39. Rejected as argument not a finding of fact. The first, third and fifth sentences are rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. The balance of this finding is subordinate to facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 54.-67. Rejected as not being material or relevant since Respondent produced insufficient evidence to show that he was prejudiced by these acts. 68. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 69.-70. Rejected as not being material or relevant. 71. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Jr., Esquire Newell & Stahl, P.A. 817 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-6313 Gary J. Anton, Esquire Stowell, Anton & Kraemer Post Office Box 11059 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mildred Gardner, Executive Director Board of Optometry 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner earned a passing grade on the X-ray portion of the chiropractic licensure examination given in November 1999.
Findings Of Fact Crivelli took the chiropractic licensure examination in November 1999. The examination consists of three sections: physical diagnosis, technique, and X-ray interpretation. The minimum passing score for each section is 75. Crivelli passed the physical diagnosis and technique portions of the examination, but failed the X-ray interpretation portion with a score of 72. There are 68 questions on the X-ray portion of the examination. Crivelli challenges questions 17 and 30. Question 17 asks for a diagnosis relating to two X-ray slides of the cervical spine and the lumbar spine of a 53-year- old male. Crivelli contends that her answer of rheumatoid arthritis is correct based on the patient's age and the limited history provided in the question. She argues that the answer that the Department contends is correct is not correct because the Department's suggested diagnosis first manifests itself in much younger patients. However, question 17 does not state that this is the first manifestation of the disease. Crivelli admitted that the best X-ray for diagnosing rhuematoid arthritis is an open-mouth frontal view. The X-rays for question 17 did not provide an open-mouth frontal view. Crivelli's answer to question 17 is not correct. The Department's answer to the question is correct. Question 30 called for a diagnosis related to a 12-year- old boy complaining of knee pain. Crivelli contends that the correct answer is enchondroma based the location and shape of the tumor and the indication of pain. Crivelli's answer is incorrect because, although an enchondroma can occur in long bones, the majority occur in the short tublar bones of the hands and feet. In Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, a drawing of the skeletal distribution of solitary enchondroma does not show that it occurs in the tibia, which is the location in the X-ray given for question 30. Enchondroma usually presents itself as a painless tumor. When there is pain with an enchondroma, either it is associated with trauma or it is at the end of the pathology when the patient has had the enchondroma for a long time. The history for the patient did not indicate there had been any trauma. Given the age of the patient, it is not realistic to think that he has had the enchondroma for a long time. Crivelli argues that the Department's answer is not correct because the X-ray shows the tumor as concentric, and the diagnosis claimed by the Department to be correct is usually an eccentric tumor. The Department's diagnosis is usually eccentric; however it can be seen as a "blown-out" appearance of bone. The X-ray for question 30 is very similar to a picture of an X-ray in Essentials of Skeletal Radiology, depicting the Department's diagnosis. Crivelli's answer for question 30 is incorrect. The Department's answer for question 30 is correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Diana Crivelli's answers to questions 17 and 30 of the chiropractic licensure examination were not correct and that she failed to pass the chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Diana Crivelli 900 West 47th Street Miami Beach, Florida 33140 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
Findings Of Fact Dr. Norman S. Bateh is the Petitioner in this matter and is an unsuccessful candidate on the optometry (theory and practice) licensing examination administered by the Respondent Board of Optometry on July 23 through 25, 1983. The development of, an examination by this Board reflects careful planning and consideration to ensure it fairly tests an applicant's knowledge of the subject matter. Prior to the preparation of a particular examination, a large pool of questions is developed from numerous professional and academic sources. After the examination is given, an analysis of it is conducted to see how the questions are received by the examinees. Examinees are given the opportunity to contest particular questions after the examination has been administered. Based on the Board's analysis of the test results, any question that was answered correctly by less than 58 percent of the examinees, in addition to those questions contested by the examinees are sent for verification to the Board's consultants, in this case Drs. Pappas and Chrycy. If, upon review by the consultants, it appears a question was incorrectly graded, ambiguous, unclear, or unfair; or if, in the consultant's opinion, there is any sort of problem with the question, all examinees are given credit for it. Passing grade on the 100-question, multiple-choice examination was 70 percent. Petitioner was initially awarded a grade of 66, but on review, at his request, of several of the questions which were graded as wrong, he was awarded two more points, which brings his grade to 68, still two points below passing. He was ranked 98th out of 103 examinees. Petitioner challenges four questions at this hearing as being either improperly graded or invalid because the question is incapable of a correct answer. These questions are numbered 8, 31, 73 and 78 and will be discussed individually, infra. If Petitioner's answer is determined to be correct, he will be awarded one point credit for that question. If any question is determined to be invalid for any reason, Petitioner will be awarded one point credit for that question. Question 8 on the examination read: Intraocular lens placement after cateract extraction results in an image magnification of approximately: 0% 4% 9% D. 25% Petitioner's answer on the examination was "C. 9%." The Board's correct answer was "B. 4%." Petitioner presented the testimony of an ophthalmologist, Dr. Schnauss, who has performed the operation to implant intraocular lenses between 500 and 600 times. As an expert who has used the lenses in his practice frequently and as consultant to one .of the major manufacturers of these lenses, e states unequivocally the degree of magnification is less than 1 percent, but not 0 percent. The further away from the location of the original lens of the eye, the greater the magnification. Since the lens implant is close to the plane of the original eye lens, there would be little magnification. Therefore, notwithstanding the conclusions of the Respondent's experts, Dr. Pappas and Dr. Chrycy, both consultants to the Board of Optometry, who cite Duane, Clinical Ophthalmology, Vol. I, as authority, no answer listed as an option on the examination is clinically correct. However, 52 percent of the candidates who took this particular examination gave the Board's correct answer. Question 31 on the examination read: Which of the following would you consider a positive scotoma: the blind spot Evan's angia-scotomas Seidel's scotoma muscae volitantes Petitioner's answer on the examination was "C. Seidel's scotoma." The Board's correct answer was "D. muscae volitantes." A scotoma is a blind spot in the patient's vision. Positive scotomas are those which are noticeable by the patient as he sees. Negative scotomas are not noticeable to the patient, but show up under test. A Seidel's scotoma, which is an extension of a blind spot, would not be a positive scotoma because the patient would not see it in the visual field. The Board's preferred answer, muscae volitantes, was attacked by Petitioner's experts as being inaccurate since they are bits of floating protein substance in the eye which, .though they are opaque and create a block to vision where they exist, are not true blind spots because they are not a defective area in the eye and they move. They are blind only because they temporarily block vision, not because they are a defect in the eye. Therefore, while muscae volitantes are, technically, positive scotomas where they exist, the question is inartfully drawn, vague and confusing, a conclusion supported by the fact that only 28 percent of the candidates got the correct answer. This low figure, to Mr. Gustafson, Respondent's test statistician, is insignificant. However, a question so confusing that only 29 of 103 examinees get it right and which is capable of such substantial meritorious argument on both sides is truly vague. Question 73 on the examination read: A keratoconus patient with "K" readings of 46.00 x 52.00 can best be fitted with which lens: a spherical firm lens a soft lens with overglasses a bitoric gas permeable lens with light touch on the cone a bitoric gas permeable lens with heavy touch on the cone Though Petitioner testified his answer was "D," and he defended it at the hearing, his answer on the examination was "A." The Board's correct answer was "C." The prime consideration in this question is the touch of the lens, not the issue of hard or soft, or gas permeability. The most current edition of Mandell's textbook and the majority of optometrists today feel that the best choice of lens for fitting a keratoconus patient is the bitoric gas permeable lens with light touch. The opinion of the "majority of optometrists" referred to by Dr. Chrycy was garnered in discussions with a personal friend who, as a Fellow of the American College of Optometry, had recently attended a meeting of that body where this exact subject was, discussed and that opinion rendered. Petitioner cited an earlier edition of Mandell's work to urge the position that a firm lens is required to contain the protrusion of the dark part of the eye that comes along with keratoconus. Later opinion, however, changes that position which is now no longer considered the better treatment. Petitioner also challenged the "K" readings in the question as being unreliable. Unfortunately by doing so, reasonable asthat might be in the practice of optometry, he read into the question a factor that was neither present nor intended by the examiners. The "1(" readings in this question were agiven quantity. Petitioner's treating them as a "trick" was an unfortunate mistake. It is also pertinent to note that 71 of the 103 examinees (69 percent) chose the correct answer to this question. Question 78 on the examination, the fourth and last one challenged by Petitioner at the hearing, reads: The extraocular muscle most frequently involved in extropia is the medial rectus superior rectus lateral rectus superior oblique Petitioner's answer was "C. lateral rectus." The Board's correct answer was "A. medial rectus." The term "extropia" means a turning outward of the eye. The term "extraocular" means outside the eye. The medial rectus muscle is the muscle between the eye and the nose which pulls toward the center of the face. The lateral rectus muscle is that on the outward part of the eye which pulls toward the ear. In a normal individual, the muscles, of equal strength, balance each other and the eye looks forward unless the person involved moves it. Extropia is caused when there is an imbalance of the muscles, either by a weakening of the medial rectus, which allows the normallateral rectus to overpower it, or by an unnatural strengthening of the lateral rectus which then overpowers the normal medial rectus. By far the greater weight of optometric opinion, based on observation and testing, reveals that the most frequent" cause of this condition is the weakening ofthe medial rectus, leaving the lateral rectus normal. Consequently, the correct answer is not lateral rectus as claimed by Petitioner, but the medial rectus as stated by the Board,notwithstanding even the Board's expert, witness testified there is no definitive authority to support the Board's choice. In this case, 64 percent of the examinees chose the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Petitioner should be awarded one additional point credit for Question 31 and that he, nonetheless, failed to achieve a passing score on the July, 1982, optometry examination. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Abraham I. Bateh, Esq. 2124 Park Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Rochep Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Mildred Gardner Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida having been issued License No. 0020340. Respondent specializes in the practice of ophthalmology, and is board-certified in that specialty. As indicated above, Respondent has been charged in a three-count complaint with various violations concerning his treatment of three patients. For purposes of clarity, the Findings of Fact section of this Recommended Order will, therefore, treat each such patient separately. ETTA ROSE Respondent first saw Etta Rose as a patient on March 17, 1980. At that time Ms. Rose gave a history of having had "floaters" in both eyes, in her left eye for three months and in her right eye for approximately the past three years. She also indicated a history of hypertension of five years duration. On her initial visit, Ms. Rose informed Respondent that she had last had an eye examination in December of 1978, but could not recall the name of the examining doctor. Upon physical examination on the initial visit of March 17, Respondent determined that the patient had intraocular pressures of 25 in her right eye and 26 in her left eye. In this connection, intraocular pressures of from 12 to 21 are considered roughly normal in a general patient population, and any readings above those levels are generally considered to be elevated. In addition to the above-noted intraocular pressures, Respondent also determined-on this initial visit that the patient had asymmetric nerve heads, the nerve heads in her left eye being markedly larger than those in the right. This degree of difference, according to Respondent's determination, could not be attributed to a congenital defect. Since this degree of differential in the size of the optic nerve heads occurs in less than one percent of the population, this fact, taken together with the patient's elevated intraocular pressures, resulted in Respondent's diagnosis of probable glaucoma. As a result of Respondent's physical findings as outlined above, together with the lack of information from prior treating physicians, Respondent determined that in order to avoid potentially irreversible damage to the patient's eyes, he needed to administer as high a dosage of medication to bring down the patient's intraocular pressures as rapidly as possible. Accordingly, on March 17, 1980, Respondent prescribed a one percent solution of pilocarpine to be administered to the patient's eyes every four hours. Pilocarpine is an old conservative glaucoma medication used specifically to reduce intraocular pressures. A one percent pilocarpine solution' is a relatively light dosage. Therefore, on March 20, 1980, Respondent increased the dosage of pilocarpine to two percent every four hours, and on March 24, 1980, again increased the dosage of pilocarpine to four percent every four hours. Additionally, on March 28, 1980, Respondent added the drug timolol to his attempted medical management of the patient's pressures. It is not medically advisable to start a patient directly on a four percent pilocarpine solution because of the distinct danger of side effects, such as headaches and dimness of vision. As a result, Respondent utilized a process known as "titrating," by starting the patient on a lowered dosage of medication, and rapidly bringing the patient to a maximum dosage, watching carefully during this period for evidence of side effects. The patient in this case apparently experienced no such ill side effects. During his second office visit with the patient on March 20, 1980, Respondent performed a gonioscopy to evaluate the angle where the patient's cornea touched near the iris. This procedure showed the patient to have wide open angles and no scarring. Respondent therefore concluded that the patient suffered from chronic open-angle glaucoma, which was consistent with his initial diagnosis on the first visit of March 17, 1980. On March 20, 1980, the patient's intraocular pressures were 21 in the right eye and 23 in the left eye. During the entire course of his treatment of this patient, Respondent saw the patient in his office on the following dates: March 17, 20, 24, and 28, 1980; April 3, 8, and 22, 1980; May 20, 1980; and June 24, 26, and 27, 1980. Because of the asymmetry in the patient's optic nerve heads, her elevated pressures, and her lack of medical history to demonstrate the progress, if any, of glaucoma, Respondent determined it to be necessary to develop as accurate a profile on the patient as quickly as possible. The purpose of these office visits, which occurred at different times during the day, was to approximate a "diurnal curve." A diurnal curve is a method for determining fluctuating intraocular pressures of a patient, and is customarily obtained by admitting the patient to a hospital, and checking pressures in the patient's eyes approximately every two hours over a 24-hour period. The purpose of the procedure is to obtain an accurate 24-hour reading of the patient's pressures, since pressures within the eye can fluctuate markedly during different times of the day. Respondent determined admitting Ms. Rose to the hospital to be impractical, and set upon a course of seeing her in his office on several rather closely spaced days at different times of the day in order to get a more accurate understanding of her condition. By the time Respondent last saw the patient in his office on June 26, 1980, the patient was on a four percent pilocarpine solution four times a day, .5 percent timolol, and diomox b.i.d., and her pressure in her left eye still remained 26. At that time Respondent determined that he had the option of continuing to carry the patient on these dosages of medication, in which case he determined that the patient would probably go on to progressive damage, or, alternatively, surgical intervention. Respondent determined this amount of medication to have maximized medical therapy and, as a result, recommended a trabeculectomy to attempt to lower the patient's pressures. This surgical recommendation was made on June 27, 1980, at which time Respondent invited the patient to seek a second opinion, recommending that she consult ophthalmologists at the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute at the University of Miami Medical School. The patient sought such an opinion, and elected not to undergo the surgery recommended by Respondent. As a result, the office visit of June 27, 1980, was the last time Respondent saw Etta Rose as a patient. Respondent's diagnosis of the patient at the last visit was chronic open-angle glaucoma that was uncontrollable on medical therapy. The patient was apparently seen by an ophithalmologist on May 15, 1981, and again in January of 1982. The physician who last examined the patient determined that the patient, although she had slightly elevated intraocular pressures, "probably" did not have glaucoma, but should be followed as a "glaucoma suspect" because of the difference in the size of her optic nerves. The record in this cause establishes that there are three parameters generally accepted for diagnosing glaucoma: intraocular pressures; visual fields; and the appearance of the optic nerve. As previously indicated pressures above 21 are generally considered elevated. Throughout Respondent's treatment of Ms. Rose it appears that her intraocular pressures were at all times elevated, and that the optic nerve heads in her left eye were markedly larger than those in her right eye. The record also demonstrates that she evidenced no visual field loss while being treated by Respondent or thereafter. A trabeculectomy is a surgical procedure used in the treatment of glaucoma as a last resort when all other treatment modalities have been exhausted. There is some degree of danger inherent in the procedure, and it is associated with a high failure and complication rate, and can lead to the formation of cataracts. As indicated above, Respondent is charged in the Administrative Complaint with requiring Ms. Rose to come to his office an excessive number of times, with prescribing excessive medication for her condition, and with recommending unnecessary surgery. With respect to the charge of requiring excessive office visits, it is specifically concluded that Respondent exercised that level of care, skill, and treatment which was reasonable under the circumstances given the fact that the patient had elevated intraocular pressures, asymmetric optic nerve heads, and was unable to furnish Respondent with a history that would justify less aggressive treatment than the methods employed by Respondent. Because of these factors, Respondent reasonably determined that the patient should be seen often during the initial stages of therapy particularly in order to evaluate fluctuations in the patient's intraocular pressures. At final hearing, Petitioner adduced credible testimony from two board-certified ophthalmologists that Respondent prescribed excessive medication to Ms. Rose over his period of treatment of that patient. Specifically, these physicians took exception to Respondent's increasing the dosages of pilocarpine from one percent to a four percent solution over an approximately 11-day period. These physicians felt the better practice would have been to proceed more slowly to determine how the patient's pressures were reacting to medication. Equally credible, however, was testimony from the Respondent himself and from another board-certified ophthalmologist that the procedure known as "titrating" whereby the patient is started on a lower dosage and worked to a higher dosage over a short span of time was also reasonable medical treatment under the circumstances. The patient was seen frequently so that any side effects from this increase in medication could be monitored by Respondent. In addition, because of the high degree of difference in the size of the optic nerve heads in the patient's two eyes, Respondent reasonably assumed that glaucoma, if it were present, had progressed to such an extent that it was necessary to get the patient's intraocular pressures under control as rapidly as possible. Respondent reasoned that, should the pressures be brought under control at a higher level of medication, the medication could always be cut back, whereas, if he proceeded more slowly irreversible damage might occur in the interim. This record simply reflects that reasonable ophthalmologists might disagree with respect to the proper administration of medication in this context and, as a result, it cannot be determined from this record that Respondent acted unreasonably in his course of prescribing medications to Etta Rose. Finally, Petitioner adduced credible testimony at final hearing that the trabeculectomy recommended by Respondent was improper because Respondent had not reached maximum medical management of the patients condition in that he had not utilized oral diuretics or epinephrine as treatment modalities. The reasoning here is that until maximum medical management proves unsuccessful in controlling a patient's pressures, a remedy as drastic as a trabeculectomy should not be utilized. Petitioner's witnesses testified that based on the patient's marginally elevated pressures and the fact that she demonstrated no visual field loss, surgical intervention was improper. Again, equally credible testimony from both the Respondent and another board-certified ophthalmologist called as a witness by Respondent establishes that an equally reasonable interpretation of the data available to Respondent was that the patient was, indeed, under maximum medical management, and her intraocular pressures had not responded appropriately to this treatment regime. Further, the record also establishes that it is very unusual to find the degree of difference in the size of the optic nerve heads in this patient without visual field loss. Patients who demonstrate this size differential without visual field loss often do not develop visual field loss until relatively late in the progress of the disease, but when that loss occurs it occurs abruptly and profoundly. Thus, it appears that the risk of performing a trabeculectomy had to be weighed against the danger of irreversible damage from the progress of glaucoma. Under these circumstances, it was reasonable for Respondent to recommend surgery. It should be noted also that at the time Respondent recommended the surgical procedure, he also advised the patient that she was free to seek a second opinion. In addition, Respondent also adduced credible testimony that based on the drugs which he had prescribed medical management of this patient's condition would not have been furthered by adding epinephrine to his course of treatment. Accordingly, the facts of record in this cause do not establish that Respondent caused Etta Rose to visit his office an excessive number of times, that he prescribed excessive medication for his treatment of that patient, or that unnecessary surgery was recommended by Respondent. ALBERT MILLER Respondent first saw Albert Miller as a patient on September 29, 1976. Upon physical examination of the patient, Respondent had no reason to suspect the presence of glaucoma. The patient was next seen on March 16, 1977, for a check of his retina because of his history of diabetes. In addition to diabetes, the patient also had a history of hypertension. There were no changes in the patient's condition on the March 16, 1977, visit, and Respondent instituted no treatment. The patient was next seen for an annual check on May 22, 1978. The patient's vision with his glasses had worsened in both eyes at that time. The patient's history indicates that the patient's diabetes had been high just two months prior to this examination. The diabetes had apparently also affected the patient's intraocular pressures because they were found to be 20 in both eyes on this examination, whereas they had been 17 in the right eye and 16 in the left eye on September 29, 1976, when the patient was first seen by Respondent. Respondent chose not to institute active treatment of the patient after the May 22, 1978, visit. The patient was next seen on July 17, 1979. At that time his pressures were still 20 in both eyes and Respondent noted some slight increase in cataract formation and the presence of retinal hemorrhages in the patient's right eye, indicating some diabetic retinal changes that could make the patient's eyes more susceptible to disease. The patient was next seen on July 15, 1980, at which time his intraocular pressures were measured to be 26 in the right eye and 24 in the left eye. Although there is a notation in Respondent's record that the patient was "squeezing," which can artificially elevate pressures, the Respondent testified without contradiction that the "squeezing" noted in his records did not affect the accuracy of these recorded pressures. As of the July 15, 1980, office visit, Respondent diagnosed the patient as a "glaucoma suspect," which is someone who, because of existing physical factors, runs a substantial chance of developing future glaucoma. As a result of this diagnosis, the Respondent scheduled the patient for visual fields on July 17, 1980, and a gonioscopy on July 18, 1980. Visual fields performed by Respondent showed visual field defects which were suggestive of actual visual field loss on threshold stimulus testing. As a result the Respondent concluded that the patient might already have had early visual field loss, and started the patient on a one percent pilocarpine solution in both eyes, every four hours. The patient was next seen on July 22, 1980, at which time his pressures were measured to be 22 in the right eye and 20 in the left eye at 1:35 p.m. The patient was next seen on July 25, 1980, at which time his pressures were 24 in the right eye and 18 in the left eye. Respondent did not feel that a pressure of 24 in the right eye was adequate medical control, so he increased the patient's medication to two percent pilocarpine solution, and scheduled the patient to return on July 29, 1980. The July 25, 1980, pressure readings were conducted at 8:55 a.m., so the patient was scheduled to return in the early afternoon on July 29, 1980, in order to obtain pressure readings at a different time of day. On that occasion, the patient's pressures were 20 in the right eye and 22 in the left eye, which Respondent still determined not to be adequate medical management. Accordingly, Respondent increased the dosage of pilocarpine to a four percent solution. The patient was next seen on August 1, 1980, at which time his pressures were 21 in the right eye and 22 in the left eye. Respondent concluded the reading of 22 in the left eye, in light of possible visual field defects, was not adequate medical management, so he added 0.25 percent timolol to the four percent pilocarpine prescription. The effect of timolol is usually observable within 48 hours. The patient was next seen on August 5, 1980, at which time his pressures were 17 in the right eye and 18 in the left eye. Respondent was pleased with the lowering of the patient's pressures, and scheduled the patient to return on August 11, 1980. At that time the patient's pressure was 20 in both eyes. Respondent was pleased with these results, and felt that he did not need to see the patient again for a two-week period. The patient never returned. The last time the patient was seen by Respondent on August 11, 1980, the Respondent's diagnosis was "glaucoma suspect," although Respondent felt that he needed to follow the patient longer to monitor his visual fields and optic nerve heads. However, with the patient's history of diabetes, myopia, hypertension, and Respondent's determination that he showed early visual field changes, Respondent felt confident with his final diagnosis of "glaucoma suspect." The patient was subsequently examined by another ophthalmologist in the Fort Lauderdale area on August 28, 1980. At that time the patient's pressures were 19 in the right eye and 20 in the left eye. The patient was given a complete examination, which showed presence of dot and blot hemorrhages throughout the entire retina of both eyes, which was to be expected of a patient who was diabetic for the past 15 years, and had been taking insulin for that condition for the past eight years. The patient's optic nerves were normal, and the patient's cup to disc ratio was also normal. Because the patient's optic nerves were normal, he was taken off the pilocarpine which had been prescribed for him by the Respondent. A visual field test was also administered to the patient to determine the presence of any visual field loss secondary to glaucoma, but that test indicated normal vision. The normal cup to disc ratio found by the subsequent treating physician in examining the patient has remained stable throughout his entire course of treating the patient. The patient was last seen by the subsequent treating physician on May 25, 1982, at which time he had intraocular pressures of 16 in the right eye and 18 in the left eye without medication. Another visual field test was performed on that date, which again disclosed normal vision. The subsequent treating physician, like Respondent, diagnosed the patient to be a potential "glaucoma suspect." In the Administrative Complaint, Respondent is charged with requiring Mr. Miller to make an excessive and unnecessary number of office visits. The Respondent is also charged with failing to maintain records revealing the frequency of use of the pilocarpine prescribed for Mr. Miller, and further with failing to maintain records indicating the percentage dosage of timolol and the date of beginning of use of that drug. With respect to the latter charge, the record contains no facts to substantiate those allegations and, in fact, contains evidence that Respondent clearly noted in his records the information charged as lacking in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint also charges Respondent with having required the patient to visit his office a total of ten times between July 17, 1980, and August 11, 1980, which is alleged to be ". . . an excessive an[sic] unnecessary number of office visits." The record in this cause establishes that the patient visited Respondent's office a total of eight times during that period. As indicated above, the patient had been seen by Respondent over a period of approximately four years before there was ever any indication of even marginally elevated pressures. Given the patient's history of diabetes and hypertension Respondent, in the exercise of his clinical judgment, determined to treat the condition with medication. Although the record in this cause contains credible testimony that some physicians would not have treated the condition at all, or would have seen the patient at most once a week, equally credible evidence contained in this record establishes that once the decision to treat was made and the patient was started on medication, it was entirely proper to monitor the patient closely to determine the effect that the medication was having on the patient's pressures. It should be noted that the Respondent is not charged in the Administrative Complaint with prescribing excessive or unnecessary medication. Based upon the foregoing, it is therefore concluded that there is an insufficient factual basis in the record in this proceeding to establish that, under the conditions present here, the Respondent departed from reasonable medical practice in seeing the' patient on eight occasions during approximately a one-month period. ELEANOR DRAGER This patient was first seen by Respondent on January 7, 1980. At that time the patient gave a history of having had her vision go blurry for 15 to 20 minutes on two occasions since the beginning of the year. An examination of the patient's eyes showed her vision to be 20/29 in her right eye and 20/100 in her left eye. Intraocular pressures were 30 in her right eye and 28 in the left eye, both of which are considered to be quite high. The patient's last eye examination had been in October of 1978. The patient was next seen on January 9, 1980, at which time Respondent determined it necessary to perform cataract surgery and to implant an intraocular lens. The surgery was performed on January 30, 1980, and, in addition to removing a cataract and implanting a lens, Respondent performed a posterior sclerotomy, a procedure performed by making a tiny hole in the eye wall and inserting a needle to aspirate vitreous fluid, thereby allowing the remaining vitreous to resume a normal position. The patient was seen postoperatively on February 1, 1980, and again on February 7, 1900. Respondent's practice is to visit frequently with postoperative patients in order to closely monitor the patient's condition. On the February 7, 1980, examination, the patient's vision was 20/70 in her left eye, which Respondent considered excellent for one week postsurgery. The pressure in the eye was 20 and there were no other changes of note. The patient was next seen on February 13, 1980, at which time her vision was only 20/200 in her left eye. The only other finding of note on this date was that the lens implant had shifted to a position closer to the cornea. The patient was next seen on March 13, 1980, at which time her vision was still 20/290 in the left eye, and her pressures were 22 in the right eye and 44 in the left eye. Respondent improved the patient's vision to 20/60 in her left eye with a lens change in her glasses. The patient was next seen on March 25, 1980, in response to a call from the patient indicating that on the previous day she had experienced foggy vision in her left eye, and within an hour could see nothing at all out of the eye., The patient had treated the problem herself with eye drops and, within a couple of hours, her vision had improved. Upon examination, Respondent discovered the patient's vision to be 20/200 in the left eye, with a pressure of Respondent restored the patient's vision to 20/25 with a glasses change, leading him to suspect, in view of the patient's recent surgery, that there was a possibility of retinal detachment or retinal tear with possible vitreous hemorrhage. Respondent was unable to see the entirety of the back of the Patient's eye in order to determine the presence of a retinal tear because a view of certain portions of the eye was blocked by the intraocular lens implant. The patient was next seen on March 31, 1980, complaining of "haze" over her left eye. The patient's vision has worsened to 20/40 in her left eye, and her intraocular pressures were 26 in both eyes. The Respondent again changed the lenses in the patient's glasses, restoring her vision to 20/25 in the left eye. The patient was next seen on April 14, 1980, still complaining of the "haze" over her left eye and an additional complaint of many black dots in the left eye since her last visit. Respondent dilated the eye, and found a large number of vitreous floaters present. Respondent concluded from the presence of these floaters that the patient had probably suffered a vitreous hemorrhage. The most common reason for floaters to be present in a postsurgical cataract patient with a vitreous hemorrhage is retinal tear. Respondent could not, however, actually see the retinal tear upon visual examination. The patient was seen again on April 16 and on April 18, 1980, complaining of an increase of black soots in her left eye. Upon examination, Respondent noted the presence of vitreous traction in the left eye, and determined that the patient should be scheduled for cryo-pexy surgery to be performed in his office on April 21, 1980. Cryo-pexy surgery is an operation that involves the application of cold, in this case a local drop of opthane, to the eyeball in order to produce a tissue destruction to release adhesions thereby avoiding potential retinal tear or detachment. The procedure can be performed in a physician's office, as opposed to a hospital, and requires only 10 to 15 minutes to perform. At the time cryo-pexy surgery was to be performed, Respondent had been unable to actually observe a retinal tear, although he had noted the presence of retinal traction. Respondent felt, however, that a retinal tear could have been caused by the placement of the needle through the pars plana during the course of performing the posterior sclerotomy on January 30, 1980. In fact, many ophthalmalogists perform cryo- pexy at the same time as a posterior schlerotomy in order to prevent a retinal tear from developing as a result of that procedure. Respondent chose to recommend cryo-pexy surgery for a variety of reasons. Among them were the recent cataract surgery, the implantation of an intraocular lens, the performance of the posterior sclerotomy, and the' patient's history of heart disease which would have made it more complicated to perform cutting surgery as opposed to cryo-pexy should an actual retinal detachment occur. The patient had a history of recent phlebitis which had hospitalized her, so that the possibility of placing her under general anesthesia in order to perform major surgery for a retinal detachment thereby leaving her inactive in a hospital bed for a period of days could have resulted in a complication of her phlebitis. The decision to perform cryo-pexy surgery involved the exercise of clinical judgment. Respondent, by necessity, had to weigh the dangers of performing the surgery against problems that might be associated with failure to perform the procedure. The three principal reasons advanced in this record for not performing this procedure were that Respondent's records indicated only the presence of "floaters" and not an actual vitreous hemorrhage; Respondent could not actually visualize the retinal tear prior to recommending surgery; and, the performance of cryo-pexy could have further traumatized an eye which had already been subjected to considerable surgical manipulation. In response to these considerations, Respondent testified, without contradiction, that he considered the presence of "floaters" to be synonymous with vitreous hemorrhage and, therefore, saw no reason to actually note the presence of hemorrhage in his notes. Further, although Respondent could not actually see a retinal tear in the patient's eye, based on his course of treatment of the patient he was aware of the site through which he had placed the needle in performing the posterior sclerotomy, and reasonably concluded that the performance of that procedure, in the presence of so great a quantity of floaters in the patient's eye, could have resulted in a retinal tear. In short, the patient's symptoms were consistent with development of a vitreous hemorrhage following cataract extraction. In light of the fact that the cataract extraction included the performance of a posterior sclerotomy through the pars plana, there was every reason to believe that the patient might have had a hole somewhere in the region of the sclerotomy site. Under these conditions cryo-pexy is an acceptable means of treating this condition despite being unable to see an actual retinal tear. The risk in delaying the performance of the cryo-pexy was that the retina could detach and the problem thereby become more difficult to manage. In making the decision to perform cryo-pexy, the Respondent weighed the risk of performing the procedure against the risk of not performing it, and reasonably determined that the best course of treatment was to perform the procedure.
The Issue The charges against Dr. Morton J. Schomer allege the following factual violations: Failure to display his license at the location of his practice of optometry; Failure to have an entry sign at the location of his practice indicating he was an optometrist practicing optometry; Failure to have all equipment required in the office where he engaged in the practice of optometry; and Failure to perform all tests and record the results as required for two patients, Edward Leswing and Steven Bachen. Dr. Schomer was afforded the opportunity by the Board of Optometry for an informal conference to discuss the allegations. This conference was conducted. Dr. Schomer requested the Board for a formal hearing, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. Prior to the formal hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the proceedings and in support thereof asserted factual matters contrary to those alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Respondent asserted that he was working for Dr. Ortelio Olazabal, was under the doctor's control and supervision, and was not engaged in the practice of optometry. Therefore, Respondent asserted that he was not required to display his license or to have an entry sign, and the Board lacked jurisdiction over because his practice with Dr. Olazabal was governed by Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, Medical Practice Act. This motion presented what were essentially affirmative defenses. The motion was denied by an order dated November 19, 1980. Respondent was afforded the opportunity to present evidence in support of his factual assertions at the formal hearing. Respondent also moved for a continuance. This motion was also denied by the order mentioned above. Respondent moved for an order in aid of discovery. The order cited above provided specific dates for the parties to complete various portions of prehoaring discovery and disclosure. The parties were able to comply with the schedule established, and the formal hearing was begun on December 12, 1980. The hearing could not be completed on that date and was continued on February 25, 1981, after which the parties stipulated to submit proposed findings within 30 days. Motions for Directed Verdict by Respondent were made and denied at the close of Petitioner's case and at the conclusion of the hearing. Proposed findings of fact were filed by Respondent. Petitioner did not file proposed findings. The Hearing Officer has read the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent. To the extent that the following Findings of Fact do not contain the proposed findings, they have been rejected as not being relevant to the issues or not being based upon evidence adduced at the hearing, or as being inconsistent with evidence which the Hearing Officer deems more credible.
Findings Of Fact Counts I, II and V Dr. Morton J. Schomer is an optometrist licensed by the Florida Board of Optometry for approximately the past five years. Until just prior to November, 1979, he was a practicing optometrist in Ohio. At that time he moved to Hallandale, Florida. Dr. Schomer responded to a newspaper advertisement by Dr. Ortelio Olazabal and was hired by Dr. Olazabal to work as an optometrist at 518 NE 167th Street, North Miami, Florida. Dr. Schomer practiced optometry at that address three days per week from late November, 1979, until February, 1980. During that time Dr. Schomer did not have his Florida license displayed and did not have an entry sign at that address indicating he was engaged in optometric practice. (Transcript, Volume II; December 12, 1380 - Page 236.) Count III In January of 1980, Dr. Schomer examined Edward Leswing, a 57-year-old male who is an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation. Dr. Schomer used a keratometer and phoropter to examine Leswing's eyes together with a projector and eye charts. Dr. Schomer asked Leswing about his health and conducted a field test (Transcript, supra - Pages 242 and 254). Dr. Schomer prescribed soft contact lenses and reading glasses for Leswing based on this examination. Dr. Schomer accurately recorded or caused to be recorded the results of the examinations conducted and pertinent personal data. Dr. Schomer did not use a tonometer or retinoscope or perform an unaided visual acuity test on Leswing. (See Leswing's testimony and Dr. Michael Kondell's comments on Leswing's record, Dr. Kondell's Deposition - Pages 39 and 40.) In the opinion of Dr. Michael Kendell (Deposition - Page 59) Dr. Schomer's examination was insufficient to prescribe soft contact lenses for Leswing. Dr. Kondell is a physician specializing in ophthalmology. He is board eligible and is accepted as an expert in diseases of the eye and their treatment, and the examination of the eye for prescribing contact lenses and glasses. Count IV At the time Leswing was examined, Dr. Schomer used a keratemeter, a phoropter, and projector and eye charts, and these items were present in the office (Transcript, Volume II; December 12, 1980 - Pages 238 and 239). Dr. Schomer used his hands to conduct a field test (Transcript, supra - Page 254). At the time Leswing was conducting a covert investigation and did not ask Dr. Schomer to produce or identify any of the equipment present in the office. Dr. Schomer kept his hand-held equipment in a wooden box which he covered with a clipboard. Count VI Steven Bachen, a 14-year-old male, was seen by Dr. Schomer during January, 1980. Dr. Schomer accurately recorded or caused to be recorded the results of his examination of Bachen and his pertinent personal data. Dr. Schomer performed a keratometric and retinoscopic examination of Steven Bachen. (See Petitioner's Exhibit 12 and Deposition of Dr. Michael Kondell - Pages 36 through 38.) Dr. Schomer also used a phoropter to examine Steven Bachen's eyes (Transcript, Volume II; December 12, 1980 - Page 157). Dr. Schomer prescribed soft contact lenses for Bachen as a result of this examination. In the opinion of Dr. Kondell, Dr. Schomer's examination was sufficient to prescribe soft contact lenses for Steven Bachen (see Dr. Michael Kondell's Deposition - Pages 43 and 58). Count VII During the examination of Steven Bachen, Dr. Schomer used a phoropter, keratometer, projector and charts, and retinoscope. These items were present in the office. Count VIII At the time Dr. Schomer examined Steven Bachen he conducted a keratometric examination of Bachen. Bachen's glasses were removed when this examination was performed. Count IX No evidence was introduced concerning prior violations of Chapter 463, Florida Statutes, by Dr. Schomer. The only evidence presented of violations of Chapter 463, supra, was with regard to Counts I through VIII above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law thee Hearing Officer recommends that Dr. Morton J. Schomer receive a letter of reprimand and be placed on probation for a period of one year, during which time his premises and records will be subject to examination by the Board of Optometry to ensure that he is in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael B. Udell, Esquire 2020 NE 163rd Street, Suite 204 North Miami Beach, Florida 33162 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
