The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent violated Chapter 463, Florida Statutes, by committing the acts alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed optometrist in the state, holding license number OP 1513. Background Respondent performed optometry examinations on patient S.R. on September 12, 1988, and on September 22, 1988. The examinations were performed at Linsey Eyecare, 2021 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent is a subcontractor for Dr. Steven Venokour who manages Linsey Eyecare. Linsey Eyecare advertises that it is a ". . . department store that . . . " fills ". . . 90% of most prescriptions . . . in about one hour. . ." and offers ". . . a complete and comprehensive visual diagnosis . . ." in which ". . . your eyes are screened for glaucoma." S.R. went to Linsey Eyecare because she saw its advertisement in the local newspaper. Respondent knew that S.R. had a family history of glaucoma. S.R. informed Respondent when she gave her ocular history to Respondent at the outset of her eye examination on September 12, 1988, that her father had lost his eyesight due to glaucoma. A patient with a family history of glaucoma may be at a greater risk of having glaucoma than a patient without such a history if the family history of glaucoma is hereditary rather than the result of an accident or disease. Respondent knew that his assistant had not performed a non-contact tonometer on S.R. Respondent did not perform a non-contact tonometry test (a "tonometry test") on S.R. during eye examination given to S.R. on September 12, 1988. A tonometry test is one of the tests used to screen for glaucoma. It is used to take a pressure reading using a machine that blows a puff of air in the patient's eye. The puff of air creates a startling sensation in the patient's eye that the patient does not easily forget. The machine used to give the tonometry in Linsey Eyecare was malfunctioning on September 12, 1988, and that particular test was not given to S.R. However, S.R. was given additional tests for glaucoma. S.R. discovered through conversations with a third party that a tonometry test is one of the tests customarily used to screen for glaucoma. S.R. recalled that she had not received a test using a puff of air in her eye. S.R. called Linsey Eyecare and scheduled another eye examination for September 22, 1988. A tonometry test was given to S.R. during her second eye examination on September 22, 1988. 3/ Negligence The minimum standard of medical care requires that a patient with a family history of glaucoma receive a complete glaucoma screening. The examination of such a patient should be more extensive than the examination given to a patient without a family history of glaucoma. A patient with a family history of glaucoma, at a minimum, should receive a tonometry test. If a tonometry test cannot be performed, intraocular pressure should be measured using the Goldman applanation tonometry. 4/ Irrespective of the method used to measure intraocular pressure, the cup to disc ratio should be measured to determine if cupping has occurred. Cupping is another clinical sign that increases the risk of glaucoma. The anterior angle should also be examined under a biomicroscope to determine if the angle is opened or closed. If a narrow angle is detected, fluid may not be draining properly and a gonioscopy should be performed to more accurately determine if the anterior angle is opened or closed. If all of the findings from the foregoing tests are positive, the patient should be given a visual field evaluation. Respondent failed to conform to the minimum standard of care when he did not measure S.R.'s intraocular pressure by either a non-contact tonometry or an applanation tonometry during his patient's initial visit to Linsey Eyecare. Some type of tonometry test is the minimum requirement for glaucoma screening. For a patient with a family history of glaucoma, it is essential that the tonometry test be performed during the initial examination and not during a follow-up examination. Respondent did not dilate S.R.'s eyes for further examination during her initial visit because S.R. had no other person available to drive her home. Respondent dismissed S.R. without performing any tonometry test, knowing that his patient had a family history of glaucoma. Respondent did not reschedule S.R. for a follow-up examination nor advise S.R. to arrange such an examination with Respondent's office or any other optometrist. The patient returned to Linsey Eyecare for a follow-up examination at her own insistence and not at the direction of Respondent. Respondent conformed to the minimum standard of care for S.R. during her follow-up examination on September 22, 1988. Respondent performed both a non-contact tonometry and an applanation tonometry. Respondent measured the cup to disc ratio, the depth and angle of the anterior chamber, and performed a visual field screening using confrontation fields. All of the test results were within normal ranges. Based upon the absence of positive findings, a gonioscopy was not appropriate and was not done. The only act of negligence committed by Respondent was the failure to perform some type of tonometry during S.R.'s initial eye examination on September 12, 1988. Medical Records Respondent failed to keep adequate written optometric records (the "records") for the initial eye examination given to S.R. on September 12, 1988. Respondent failed to document the reasons for omitting a tonometry from S.R.'s eye examination. In all other respects, the records maintained for the initial eye examination were adequate. The only notation in the family history is glaucoma. While the family history documented in the records was incomplete, the patient was unresponsive or uncooperative in providing such information. The reason for the incomplete family history was sufficiently documented with the notation "N". 5/ Respondent kept adequate records for the second eye examination given to S.R. on September 22, 1988. The notations in the records were difficult to read and the copies used by Petitioner's expert witness were of poor quality. Upon cross examination by Respondent, however, it was uncontroverted that proper and adequate records were maintained by Respondent for S.R.'s second eye examination. The records of the second examination reveal that the cup to disc ratio was sufficiently documented by the notations "CD" for clear and distinct and ".3N" in both eyes. Color of the optic nerve head was adequately described by the notation "WNL". The depth and angle of the anterior chamber was adequately documented by the notation of "3/3+" (three over three plus). The confrontation fields were adequately documented by the notation of "full OU". Adequate records were maintained by Respondent even though they contained sloppy penmanship and the copies reviewed by Petitioner's expert were poor in quality. Advertisement Respondent did not advertise goods or services in a manner that was fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading in form and content ("misleading"). The advertisement in question was not misleading. Even if it was misleading, the advertisement was placed by Linsey Eyecare under the direction of Dr. Venokour. Respondent was a subcontractor for Linsey Eyecare and had no control over the placement and content of advertising for that entity. 6/ Repeated Violations Respondent is guilty of repeated violations of applicable provisions of Florida law. In a Final Order entered on November 10, 1982, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, Respondent was found guilty of having failed to remove all of the metal fragments found in a patient's eye during repeated attempts at removal on December 24, 25, and 28, 1981, in violation of Section 463.016(1)(g). Respondent was fined $500 and placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to provide a tonometry during the patient's initial presentation and failing to document the patient's records as the omission and the reason for such an omission in violation of Sections 463.016(1)(g) and 463.016(1)(k), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Final Order should impose an administrative fine in the aggregate amount of $4,000 and place Respondent on probation for one year subject to reasonable terms of probation to be determined by Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 24th day of September, 1991.
The Issue The issues are whether 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, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact 1. Stipulated Facts Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed physician in Florida holding license number ME 0009772. Respondent's last known address is 9430 Turkey Lake Road, Orlando, Florida 32819-8015. Respondent is Board certified in orthopedic surgery. Respondent provided medical treatment to two male patients between 1990 and 1991. Patient 1 was treated from approximately April 29, 1991, through August 12, 1991. At the time, Patient 1 was approximately 34 years old. Patient 2 was treated from approximately May 14, 1990, through June 20, 1991. Patient 2 was approximately 29 years old. Patient 1 Patient 1 had a history of hip dislocation with aseptic necrosis, chronic back and leg pain, and foot numbness associated with degenerative disc disease and lumbar stenosis. Lumbar stenosis is compression of the spine. Spine compression was particularly significant between the fifth lumbar and first sacral vertebrae. Prior to April 29, 1991, Patient 1's treatment was conservative and nonsurgical. On April 29, 1991, Patient 1 presented to Respondent to explore alternative therapy. Patient 1 complained of pain and numbness in his back, hip, and legs. Respondent diagnosed Patient 1 with lumbar spinal stenosis and possible disc herniation. Respondent recommended a myelogram. A myelogram was performed on May 13, 1991. The myelogram confirmed Respondent's diagnosis of lumbar spinal stenosis and possible disc herniation. The myelogram revealed a disc defect on the right side of L5-S1 as well as severe spinal and lateral recess stenosis. On June 11, 1991, Respondent performed a laminectomy on Patient 1, an L5-S1 disc excision, and an internal spinal stabilization using Harrington rods attached with lamina hooks. Use of lamina hooks resulted in the compression of Patient 1's underlying neural tissue. Compression of the underlying neural tissue caused Patient 1 to suffer perineal numbness. Respondent's medical records of June 17, 1991, show that Respondent knew Patient 1's perineal numbness was a result of compression of the sacral nerve root at L5-S1. On June 17, 1991, Respondent again performed surgery on Patient 1. Respondent replaced the lamina hooks with alar hooks. Respondent also replaced and adjusted the tension of the Harrington rods. On August 1, 1991, Patient 1 was admitted to Sandlake/Orlando Regional Medical Center ("ORMC") for surgical removal of the implanted hooks and Harrington rods. Respondent surgically removed the Harrington rods and attachment hooks. On August 12, 1991, Respondent's medical records showed that Patient 1 suffered from persistent numbness of the sacral nerve root areas. The area of numbness included the perineum, scrotum, and penis. Respondent did not perform an L5-S1 bone fusion during any surgery. Patient 2 On May 14, 1990, Patient 2 presented to the Emergency Room ("ER") at ORMC with primary complaints of back and right leg pain. The ER physician diagnosed Patient 2 with a herniated nucleus pulposus at L4-L5. The nucleus pulposus is the soft central portion of the intervertebral disc. Respondent admitted Patient 2 on May 14, 1990, and treated him with intravenous muscle relaxants. On May 15, 1990, a computerized axial tomography ("CAT") scan revealed a bulging, herniating disc at L4-L5. On May 17, 1990, Respondent discharged Patient 2 with instructions regarding back care and an exercise program. On August 24, 1990, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with recurrent disabling sciatic pain. A magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") scan was performed on August 28, 1990. The MRI revealed a prominent disc bulging at L4-L5 with material intruding into the spinal cord. On September 7, 1990, Respondent performed a lumbar laminectomy and disc excision at L4-L5. Respondent discharged Patient 2 on September 12, 1990. On December 11, 1990, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with recurrent back and right leg pain. Respondent prescribed analgesics including Soma with codeine and Naprosyn. On January 14, 1991, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with back and right leg pain. Patient 2 underwent a CAT scan to determine if recurrent disc herniation was present. The CAT scan failed to indicate any obvious asymmetric changes which would confirm Respondent's diagnosis of recurrent disc herniation. On January 21, 1991, Respondent performed a decompressive laminectomy on Patient 2. Respondent's operative report for January 21, 1991, indicates that Respondent found no evidence of a herniated disc. On February 26, 1991, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with complaints of recurrent leg and back pain. Respondent referred Patient 2 to Dr. William Bradford for treatment utilizing epidural blocks. On April 16, 1991, Patient 2 again presented to Respondent. Respondent placed Patient 2 in a molded, fiberglass body jacket. Back and leg pain subsided while Patient 2 wore the fiberglass jacket. On May 14, 1991, Respondent performed surgical stabilization of the lower lumbar spine utilizing Harrington rods. On June 17, 1991, Patient 2 presented to Respondent with persistent numbness of the perineal area as well as bowel and bladder incontinence. Respondent determined that the numbness and incontinence were caused by sacral nerve root irritation associated with the Harrington rod hooks. Respondent surgically adjusted the Harrington rods on June 20, 1991. Respondent did not perform vertebral bone fusion during any surgery. 2. Standard Of Care Respondent failed to practice medicine in his treatment of Patient 1 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 improperly seated lamina hooks in Patient 1. As a result, Patient 1 suffered compression of underlying neural tissue. Respondent improperly used Harrington rods and hooks to achieve transient spinal decompression without performing essential vertebral bone fusion. Use of Harrington rods in the lumbar spine is an obsolete technology. It is fraught with dangers. Among other things, it eliminates the lordosis, or natural spinal curvature. Respondent failed to practice medicine in his treatment of Patient 2 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 performed numerous surgeries on Patient 2 when CAT scans and other examinations failed to confirm recurrent disc herniation. In addition, Respondent failed to perform essential vertebral bone fusion on Patient 2. 3. Proximate Cause And Severity Of Injury Respondent's 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 conditions and circumstances was the proximate cause for permanent neurological damage to Patient's 1 and 2. Both patients suffered sacral nerve root paralysis. Sacral nerve roots feed functions in the pelvis, bladder bowel, and sphincter. Both patients suffered permanent incontinency, including loss of bladder and bowel function. Each patient requires a colostomy and must wear diapers. Patient 1 has suffered sexual dysfunction in that he has lost the sensation necessary for a natural erection. The neurologic injuries to Patients 1 and 2 are major and permanent. Nothing can restore the functional loss suffered by either patient.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(t) in his treatment of Patients 1 and 2, imposing an administrative fine of $7,500, and restricting Respondent's practice as follows: Respondent shall not perform any spinal surgery on patients unless and until Respondent appears before the Board of Medicine and demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Board that he is able to do so with skill and safety; and The Board of Medicine may place other reasonable conditions on Respondent's practice of orthopedic surgery at such time as the restriction in the preceding paragraph is lifted. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of October, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 6th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3966 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. -39. Accepted as stipulated fact 40.-41. Rejected as recited testimony Accepted in substance Rejected as recited testimony Accepted in substance 45.-51. Rejected as recited testimony Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent stipulated to Petitioner's proposed findings of fact, paragraphs 1- 39. Respondent's only additional proposed finding of fact is unnumbered and is rejected as not supported by persuasive evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303 Kenneth J. Metzger, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack L. Gresham, M. D. 9430 Turkey Lake Road Orlando, Florida 32819-8015
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
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Respondent's license to practice medicine should be subject to sanctions based upon alleged violations of Section 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. Specifically, it must be determined whether he departed from the appropriate standard of medical care and treatment of a patient in the course of his practice of ophthalmology and whether his record keeping with regard to the care and treatment of that patient met appropriate standards.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is, and at all times material hereto, has been a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0004933. The Respondent's address is 820 Prudential Drive, Suite 712, Jacksonville, Florida. On or about September 13, 1989, patient D.P., a 65-year-old-female, presented to the Respondent for evaluation regarding extremely high intra-ocular pressure and severe pain in both eyes. Patient D.P. had undergone abdominal surgery two days prior to the Respondent's examination, which was her second abdominal surgery in two weeks. The Respondent examined patient D.P. and diagnosed her with acute angle closure glaucoma, which had been present since the time of her second abdominal surgery, two days earlier. The Respondent treated patient D.P. with topical medications to decrease the intra-ocular pressure. Patient D.P.'s left eye responded to treatment with decreased pressure. The intra-ocular pressure in the right eye remained extremely high, in excess of 70 millimeters. On or about September 13, 1989, the Respondent performed a vitreous tap of the patient D.P.'s right eye, which immediately relieved the intra-ocular pressure. The Respondent did not consult patient D.P.'s surgeons or internists prior to performing the vitreous tap, regarding the possible use of intravenous medications. On or about September 14, 1989, the Respondent consulted Dr. James Staman, a retinal specialist, due to the patient's diminished vision in her right eye. Dr. Staman examined patient D.P. and diagnosed her with a vitreous hemorrhage. (End of stipulated facts). The Respondent has been licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida since 1954 and has practiced in the field of ophthalmology since 1966. He has been board certified in the field of ophthalmology since 1969. He has never been investigated or disciplined by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation or any predecessor agency charged with regulating the licensure and practice standards of medical doctors in Florida. The Respondent maintains hospital staff privileges appropriate to his practice and has never had hospital staff privileges denied, revoked, or suspended at any hospital at which he has had privileges. Patient D.P. is a 65-year-old-female, who presented to the Respondent on September 13, 1989 complaining of severe pain in both eyes and with regard to which the Respondent immediately determined the presence of extremely intra- ocular pressure in both eyes. Patient D.P. had recently undergone a gastrectomy, a major abdominal surgical procedure, within 48 hours prior to presenting to the Respondent. This was the second abdominal surgery she had undergone within the past two weeks. When she presented to the Respondent on that date, she was in severe pain from the increased intra-ocular pressure in both eyes and appeared to be weak and in great discomfort. Pursuant to order of her doctors who attended and treated her with regard to the abdominal condition and surgery, the patient was and had been "NPO" for four weeks. This condition or situation means that she was forbidden from taking food or liquids of any type by mouth during this period of time. Upon evaluating the pressure in her eyes, the Respondent determined that the intra-ocular pressure in her left eye was 35 millimeters of mercury and in excess of 70 millimeters of mercury in the right eye. This is because the standard instrument with which her pressure was tested by the Respondent only depicts a maximum pressure of 70 millimeters of mercury. The normal intra- ocular pressure for such a patient would be 17-18 millimeters of mercury. Upon evaluating and examining the patient, the Respondent determined her condition to be bilateral acute angle closure glaucoma. He determined that the condition had been present since her surgery 48 hours earlier. The anesthesia from the surgery had precipitated dilation in both eyes which, in turn, precipitated the acute angle closure glaucoma. This occurred because, upon the dilation of the pupils of both eyes caused by the anesthesia, the iris folded back as the pupil expanded, and the folds of the iris occluded or blocked the drain structure by which fluid can drain from within the eye. The inability of the fluid to drain thus caused the severe increase in intra-ocular pressure and thus the glaucoma condition. The Respondent initially treated the acute angle closure glaucoma in both eyes with glycerin. This is a topical medication designed to reduce the amount of swelling in the cornea and to increase absorption of medication into the eye. The Respondent also initially treated the condition with pilocarpine. This is a topical medication administered to constrict the pupil and thus open the channel in the trabecular meshwork (the drainage structure) in an attempt to break the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma by allowing the eye fluid to drain and thus relieve the pressure. The intent is that by constricting the pupil, the iris will stretch with the pupil's closure so as to remove its folds from the position of blocking the channel in the trabecular meshwork. The Respondent initially administered a "beta blocker" medication in an attempt to open the trabecular meshwork by cutting down on the amount of aqueous fluid produced by the ciliary body. The topical medications, indeed, broke the attack of glaucoma in the left eye and the intra-ocular pressure in that eye returned to normal levels. However, after approximately a four-hour trial of the array of topical medications used by the Respondent, the attack of glaucoma in the right eye had not subsided at all. Prolonged elevated intra-ocular pressure of the magnitude of over 70 millimeters of mercury in the right eye posed a great danger of loss of vision in that eye due to potential occlusion of the ocular artery supplying blood to the eye and concomitant permanent damage to the optic nerve. The artery can be occluded or closed off due to such excessive pressure because the pressure at that level will exceed the blood pressure generated by the heart through the vascular system, including the artery supplying that eye. This results in the ocular pressure overcoming the blood pressure within the artery, thus constricting the artery and, therefore, the blood supply to the eye. The loss of blood supply to the eye in a short time, possibly 90 minutes or less, can cause the eye tissue normally served by the artery to become necrotic (i.e. to die). Necrosis of the internal eye tissue, in turn, can cause complications by weakening the pertinent structures of the eye, such as the tissue by which the retina is attached and held in position. The Respondent observed the patient and performed this clinical treatment for approximately four hours without being able to relieve the elevated intra-ocular pressure in the right eye. The Respondent knew, given the symptoms and history with which the patient presented, that severe pain had been experienced by the patient in her eyes since she awakened from the anesthesia administered for her surgery. Thus, he knew that for approximately two days, the glaucoma condition had been operating on the structures of the eye. Accordingly, he knew that time was of the essence if he was going to be able to relieve the glaucoma and thus save the vision, or some of it, in her eye. After these hours of clinical attempts to cure her condition, and in view of the state of urgency the Respondent recognized in the patient, who had already experienced severely-elevated intra-ocular pressure for two days, the Respondent determined that the emergency nature of the patient's situation precluded use of the time necessary to consult with her surgeon and anesthesiologist, to attempt to hospitalize her, to administer a general anesthetic, and perform an alternative surgical procedure. The Respondent, therefore, elected to perform a "vitreous tap". The vitreous tap involves using a hypodermic needle with a "guarded needle" (meaning that the needle is protected so that only a small portion of the point of the needle projects from the guard structure) to withdraw a small amount of the vitreous fluid. This was done to reduce the pressure, open the angles at the trabecular structure in the eye and thus break the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma and return the eye to normal intra-ocular pressure. The vitreous tap was performed at approximately 4:05 that afternoon and was successful. It immediately broke the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma and the intra-ocular pressure returned to a normal range. However, a vitreous hemorrhage resulted from the vitreous tap caused by the needle striking a small blood vessel in the pars plana area of the eye. This area cannot be visualized when performing the vitreous tap because it is inside the eye. A vitreous hemorrhage is a known and accepted complication or risk of a vitreous procedure. However, it has a low incidence of occurrence of approximately 3-5 percent. Upon determining that the hemorrhage condition was present and on or about September 14, 1989, the Respondent obtained a consultation with Dr. James Staman, a vitreal-retinal surgeon, due to the diminished vision in the patient's right eye. Dr. Staman examined the patient and diagnosed a vitreous hemorrhage in her right eye. The incidence of retinal detachment from a vitrectomy is approximately 5-10 percent. It would have had a higher risk in this patient's case, due to the probability of her already suffering permanent damage to the eye and eye tissue caused by necrosis, which was caused by loss of blood supply to the eye during the extended period of high intra-ocular pressure. This likely damaged the optic nerve and occluded the ocular artery serving that eye or portion of the eye. Dr. Staman performed a vitrectomy and removed the hemorrhage or blood from the patient's eye. Unfortunately, a retinal detachment occurred as a complication of that vitrectomy. This chain of events ultimately resulted in the patient losing the vision in her right eye. This was because of the determination that the retinal detachment could not be repaired without causing the loss of vision itself. Dr. Doyle testified as an expert witness for the Respondent. Dr. Doyle is a board certified ophthalmologist specializing in the field of glaucoma and particularly in the sub-specialty area of glaucoma management, including surgical glaucoma management. Additionally, Dr. Doyle is a holder of a fellowship, involving further specialty training in the field of treatment and management of glaucoma and surgical alleviation and management of glaucoma. He is determined to be the most qualified expert witness by training, education and experience in the particular specialty concerning glaucoma, with which this patient's condition is characterized, as is provided in his testimony depicted in the transcript of this proceeding and in his curriculum vitae in evidence. This depiction of his training, education and experience is adopted, by reference, as fact. According to Dr. Doyle, the loss of vision in the right eye was not caused by the vitreous tap. Rather, the precipitating factor was the retinal detachment which occurred as the result of the direct vitrectomy surgery. A vitreous hemorrhage is a known complication of a vitreous tap and a retinal detachment is a known complication of a vitrectomy. The Respondent and all of the expert witnesses agreed that the patient had probably already suffered permanent damage to the right eye, prior to the performance of the vitreous tap, in the form of corneal decomposition, cataract formation and optic nerve damage. Dr. Doyle's testimony, as corroborated by that of the Respondent, established that, in all likelihood, significant necrosis of the eye tissue involved in the structure by which the retina is attached had occurred due to occlusion of the artery supplying blood to that area of the eye by the 48 hours or more of elevated intra-ocular pressure. The elevated intra-ocular pressure occurred as a result of the anesthesia administered to the patient during her abdominal surgery. The Respondent and all expert witnesses agreed that the Respondent had utilized an appropriate and proper procedure in performing the vitreous tap. However, Drs. Baumann and Berg, testifying for the Petitioner, do not agree that the vitreous tap should have been performed to relieve the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma in the right eye. Standard of Care The Respondent met the standard of care under the circumstances with which this patient presented, in his care and treatment of patient D.P. when he performed the vitreous tap to break the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma in patient D.P.'s right eye. The usual treatment options or alternatives for the treatment of acute angle closure glaucoma were not available to the Respondent due to the extremely unusual set of precipitating circumstances with which the patient presented to him. The patient had already had extreme intra- ocular pressure of approximately 48 hours duration, based upon all of the evidence available to the doctor in performing his diagnosis and examination of treatment options. Dr. Baumann admitted that the situation was "urgent", and Dr. Berg admitted that the situation was an "emergency" and that the Respondent's "back was up against the wall" under the circumstances. Because of this, the treatment, including surgical options preferred by Drs. Baumann and Berg, was not effectively available to the Respondent in an attempt to save the vision in the patient's eye. This is because, in order for a general anesthetic to be administered and the patient prepared, monitored and evaluated for the surgery, she would have had to be hospitalized, with accompanying consultation with her internal medicine physician, her abdominal surgeon, and the anesthesiologist. All of this process would have taken approximately six hours, from the time the decision was made to perform the vitreous tap, which was made when the topical medications failed to alleviate the attack, until the surgery could be performed in the hospital. Even if the patient's eye was not already significantly damaged by the 48 hours of elevated intra-ocular pressure when she presented to the Respondent at his office, substantial damage to her vision would have occurred as a medical certainty if another six hours had elapsed after the unsuccessful conclusion of conservative, clinical treatment between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. The first treatment option in an angle closure glaucoma case is topical therapy in an attempt to reduce the production of fluid by the ciliary body in the eye and to cause the iris to constrict and thus open the angle and its drainage structure. The Respondent initially treated the angle closure glaucoma in both eyes with topical medications, including pilocarpine, glycerin and a beta blocker. He repeated this topical therapy for approximately three hours at the appropriate intervals which all testifying physicians, including Dr. Doyle, agree was "normal, appropriate care". Under ordinary circumstances, if the topical medications failed to lower the intra-ocular pressure, the use of diamox or mannitol would be the next treatment alternative to try. However, diamox, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, which affects the ciliary body to reduce the production of fluid, would not have produced any greater benefit than the topical medications which had failed already. Mannitol is a hyperosmotic medication. It is ordinarily administered by mouth, which allows the body's stomach and intestines to regulate and gradually accomplish a safe absorption of the medication. However, oral mannitol was not an option to this patient because, under her previous doctor's orders, she was not allowed to take anything by mouth at times pertinent to this proceeding, including the day and times when the Respondent was treating her for the glaucoma. Mannitol reduces vitreous volume by reducing water everywhere in the body, including the eyes. The fluid is drawn into the blood stream, which, however, increases blood volume. Administration of mannitol intravenously would have put the patient at significant risk for an overload of volume in the blood which would have caused readily increased blood pressure with attendant possible medical complications, massive congestive heart failure, or kidney problems. These are life-threatening risks which would have necessitated hospitalization, evaluation and monitoring in the hospital before and during administering of intravenous mannitol. By the time this could have been accomplished, the vision in the eye would have already been lost. Dr. Doyle and the Petitioner's expert, Dr. Baumann, both agreed that administration of intravenous mannitol would have been dangerous for this patient. Intravenous mannitol is only 50 percent effective in such a situation, in any event, and is contra-indicated in patients such as D.P., who are post- gastrectomy surgery. This 65-year-old patient, weakened by her second gastrectomy surgery in a four-week period, involving the use of general anesthetics, was simply not a safe candidate for the administration of mannitol under the risky intravenous method which would have been necessary with the patient. The risk of kidney or heart failure and other complications was simply too great. The Petitioner's expert, Dr. Baumann, admitted that it was reasonable for the Respondent to have these concerns about the use of diamox and intravenous mannitol and further that the Respondent was not negligent in deciding not to use those medications. Under ordinary circumstances, if the topical therapy and the administration of medication failed to relieve an attack of acute angle closure glaucoma, the next course of treatment to be considered would be an argon or YAG laser iridectomy or an irridoplasty in order to place a small hole in the iris to relieve the pressure differential in the eye. A laser is a focused beam of light, at high energy, which can insert the necessary hole in the eye to relieve the intra-ocular pressure. It requires a clear media over the iris in order to penetrate the eye and make the hole in the required position. In this case, due to the extraordinary high intra-ocular pressure over a two-day period, the cornea was very cloudy and hazy. This precluded the laser being effective and created the potential for damage to the cornea had the laser been directed against the eye. Dr. Doyle and the Petitioner's experts, Dr. Berg and Dr. Baumann, all agreed, that in a patient such as D.P., with intra-ocular pressure of over 70 millimeters of mercury extending for 48 hours, the cornea would be very cloudy. The Respondent's testimony confirms this. After the vitreous tap was performed and the intra- ocular pressure relieved, the edema and cloudiness of the cornea resolved itself so that the Respondent was able to perform a successful argon laser iridectomy the following day and a YAG laser irridoplasty in his office five days later, to prevent a recurrence of the problem by providing an additional means of fluid drainage. Under ordinary circumstances where topical therapy, medication therapy, and laser iridectomy had either failed or were not viable options, then surgical treatment would be the next consideration. The surgery would include either surgical iridectomy or a trabeculectomy. A surgical iridectomy creates a small hole in the iris which relieves the pressure. A trabeculectomy creates a secondary drain for the eye. The Respondent was justified in not pursuing a surgical iridectomy or trabeculectomy in that the surgery could not have been done under a local anesthetic and would have required general anesthesia. This is undisputed. This would have required surgery in the hospital operating room, including the necessity for insertion of a tube, which might have caused risk to her recent abdominal surgery. It would have necessitated contacting her surgeon, her internal medicine physician, and her anesthesiologist for pre-surgical evaluation and clearance. This would have taken considerable time, at least six hours, thereby, within reasonable medical certainty causing permanent significant damage or entire loss of vision to the eye. A surgical iridectomy or trabeculectomy are not benign procedures and carry the highest complication rate of any ophthalmic procedure, when used for malignant glaucoma and, indeed, the accepted treatment for malignant glaucoma (albeit a different type of glaucoma condition) is a vitreous tap. Either surgical procedure would have had a risk of complication resulting in loss of vision in the eye of at least 3-5 percent or more, thus, the same or greater level of risk than that attendant to the vitreous tap procedure. Paracentesis, a surgical procedure to make a small hole in the anterior chamber of the eye, was itself not a reasonable treatment alternative under the circumstances. It was simply not feasible because the anterior chamber of the eye had virtually ceased to exist because the iris diaphragm had bulged forward through the space normally occupied by the anterior chamber because of the great pressure behind it. Dr. Doyle established that the Respondent's vitreous tap effected a complete cure of the glaucoma condition in patient D.P. A vitreous tap is a procedure recognized in the medical literature as a treatment for several ophthalmic conditions, including malignant glaucoma, positive pressure during cataract surgery, and for the purpose of obtaining vitreous material for pathological testing (biopsy). The medical literature, indeed, does not address the use of a vitreous tap as treatment for acute angle closure glaucoma because the medical literature and text books tend to deal with more common presentations of all diseases. None of the literature addresses treatment of acute angle closure glaucoma under the unusual set of emergency circumstances presented with this case. The Respondent's expert, Dr. William Doyle, is a board-certified ophthalmologist who has a sub-specialty in glaucoma management and treatment, including surgical management thereof. He is one of only a handful of fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists in the State of Florida and the only one in the North Florida area. He sees patients on referral from other doctors in Florida and South Georgia, who have unusual glaucoma-related problems. Dr. Doyle is an assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Florida and is responsible for teaching glaucoma management and treatment. He has authored some twelve article, book chapters, and other publications specifically in the field of glaucoma management and treatment. According to Dr. Doyle, if the vitreous tap procedure had been successful, the Respondent "should have written it out for the literature as a viable, interesting way to cure a disease". The Petitioner's expert, Dr. Berg, in his report attached to his deposition, referenced an article in International Ophthalmology Clinics, by Kevin C. Greenridge, M.D., of the Metropolitan Hospital Center, Department of Ophthalmology, New York, New York, and which Dr. Berg admitted was authoritative in the field of acute angle closure glaucoma. The article specifically states that in cases of acute angle closure glaucoma, for a duration of more than 24 hours, the eyes are more inflamed and have evidence of corneal decomposition, which are relative contra indications to argon laser iridectomy. Since the acute angle closure glaucoma had a duration of 48 hours when the Respondent first saw the patient, corneal decomposition could have been significantly advanced by that point such that the set of conditions requisite to causing the retinal detachment, which ultimately led to the loss of the patient's sight in that eye, were likely already in place. Thus, the vitreous hemorrhage caused by the vitreous tap may not itself have been the cause of the loss of sight. Medical Record Issue The Respondent's office records note "Vitreous tap. 4:30 p.m., immediately patient felt better". The Respondent also made an entry in the patient's hospital chart on the date of the vitreous tap which noted: Acute angle closure glaucoma right eye. Totally unresponsive to treatment. Pressure of 70 unaffected by treatment. Pars plana 1/2 cc vitreous tap done with immediate relief. Both eyes very shallow [referring to anterior chamber]. Started on pilocarpine and both eyes will need argon laser iridectomy soon. A copy of the hospital note was included and contained in the Respondent's records of the patient. In addition, the Respondent obtained a signed, written, informed consent for the procedure. The Respondent's records, including his office records and the note in the hospital chart, adequately document the course of therapy leading up to the vitreous tap and the vitreous tap procedure itself such that the Respondent's medical record keeping would adequately inform the Respondent in the future when reviewing the patient's records with a view toward further follow-up and treatment of the patient's entire status. They would also adequately inform any physician to whom the patient was later referred by the Respondent of her status, the treatment and procedures performed, and the symptoms and diagnosis involved in the patient's care and treatment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(m) or (t), Florida Statutes, and that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5990 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted, but not necessarily for their purported material import. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant, probative evidence. Accepted. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted. 21-26. Accepted, but not necessarily for their purported material import and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not probative of the medical records being inadequate as a matter of fact and law. 28-29. Accepted. 30. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 31-41. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not dispositive of the material issues presented. 42-43. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 44-46. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and for the additional reason that these proposed findings are not dispositive of the material issues presented. 47-50. Accepted, in part, but not as materially dispositive of the issues presented for resolution and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-55. Accepted, to the extent not rejected by or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Those proposed findings of fact not treated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Alex D. Barker, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Jeptha F. Barbour, Esquire Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
