Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a state agency which initiated a proceeding with the filing of an Administrative Complaint against Marc Richman, D.O. The said complaint was assigned to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to a request for Administrative Hearing pursuant to Chapter 120 and was assigned Division of Administrative Hearing Case Number 88-5258. On June 24, 1989, the Department of Professional Regulations issued a notice of voluntary dismissal in the above captioned proceeding and dismissed all charges against Marc Richman, D.O., in that case. Marc Richman, D.O. is a prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(c) and (d). The amount of attorney's fees and cost sought by the Petitioner in the Petition for Attorney's Fees is reasonable for the Representation of Marc Richman, D.O., in the defense of the Administrative Complaint through the date of issuance of the Notice of Dismissal. The Department of Professional Regulation maintains that the proceeds (sic) above-captioned were substantially justified at the time the Administrative Complaint was initiated by the state agency in that it maintains that there existed a reasonable basis in law and fact at the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint. This position is disputed by the Petitioner, Marc Richman, D.O. The request for attorney's fees in the amount of $8,572.00 and costs of $563.96 for a total of $9,225.96 is reasonable for the representation of Petitioner throughout the instant proceeding. These proceedings were initiated by the filing of a complaint on September 16, 1986 with the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), Petitioner in Case 88-5258, by the parents of G.H. who died October 18, 1984. G.H. was a long time patient of Dr. Jaffee, D.O. who called in Dr. Richman, an orthopedic surgeon to consult and perform an arthodesis on the left ankle of G.H. to relieve constant pain. G.H. was a 34 year old male accountant who had suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis since the age of 4. Although badly crippled he was able to lead a relatively independent life. As a result of his malady G.H. had for years taken steroid and corticosteroid medications. These medications depress the body's immune system and the ability to fight off infections. Accordingly, G.H. was at more than normal risk anytime he was exposed to infectious diseases. After Petitioner explained the procedure and the risks to G.H., the latter elected to have Petitioner perform the arthodesis. This operation consists of grafting bone into the ankle to stabilize that joint. The donor site chosen for the bone to graft to the ankle was the crest of the left ilium of the patient. This operation was successfully performed on August 2, 1984 at Metropolitan General Hospital, Pinellas Park, Florida. In the hospital on August 9, 1984, while G.H. was being adjusted in his bed, he felt a pop in his left hip and a large hematoma developed over the wound at the donor site. It is not unusual for hematomas to develop over surgical wounds but it is important that such conditions be closely watched because hematomas are a fertile field for an infection. The hematoma on G.H.'s hip showed no evidence of infection and G.H. was discharged from the hospital August 12, 1984 and sent home. Arrangements were made by Petitioner for Robert's Home Health Services, Inc. of Pinellas Park to send a nurse 3 times per week to check on G.H., take his vital signs, dress his wounds and attend to any other medical needs he may have. Verbal reports were made by the nurse to Richman reporting the condition of G.H. While being helped from his wheel chair into bed by his parents on or about August 15, 1984, G.H. apparently fell and caused additional bleeding of the wound on the left hip. On August 16, 1984 the nurse reported to Richman the additional bleeding and she was directed to have G.H. taken to the hospital to be seen by Richman. On August 16, 1984, Petitioner examined the wound, noted the reports that the hematoma was neither inflamed nor more tender, and that G.H.'s temperature had remained normal since the hematoma developed. He sent G.H. back home without further tests. The classic signs and symptoms of infection are redness, swelling, heat and pain. Redness of the skin due to intense hyperemia, is seen only in infections of the skin itself. Swelling accompanies infection unless the infection is confined to the bone which cannot swell. Heat results from hyperemia and may be detected even in the absence of redness. Pain is the most universal sign of infection. Along with pain goes tenderness, or pain to the touch, which is greatest over the area of maximal involvement. (Exhibit 12, Principals of Surgery, Fourth Edition). The hematoma on G.H.'s left hip between its inception and September 13, 1984 never exhibited any sign of infection. On September 6, 1984, G.H. reported to the visiting nurse that he had a pain in his stomach and didn't feel well. The nurse described this as having flu-like symptoms. This was reported to Petitioner and the nurse received no additional orders. On the nurse's next visit on September 10, 1984, G.H. reported his abdomen was still hurting and he didn't feel good. At this time his temperature was elevated at 101. The nurse called Dr. Jaffee's office and was told to have the patient admitted to Metropolitan Hospital. Upon admission to the hospital on September 10, 1984, G.H. was nauseous, vomiting, and had a high fever (103). He had no complaints regarding his ankle or iliac crest and the hematoma had decreased greatly. On September 13, 1984, while G.H. continued showing signs of infection (high fever) Petitioner operated on G.H. to remove the hematoma. At this time aerobic and anaerobic cultures were obtained. Forty-eight and seventy-two hours later these cultures had grown no infectious substance. Further studies and tests revealed that G.H. had bleeding ulcers and surgery was required to patch the ulcers. At this time the spleen was also removed. Following this surgery G.H. was more debilitated and with the precarious condition of his immune system he continued to go down hill until he expired on September 18, 1984. Cause of death was cardiac pulmonary arrest caused by candida septicemia. During the initial stage of the investigation, which was initiated some two years after the death of G.H., the investigator interviewed the parents of G.H., who had filed the complaint, and assembled the medical records including those kept by the home health agency. The parents contended that when the hematoma was removed by Dr. Richman he told the parents that he had found infection at that site. Dr. Richman denies making any such statement to the parents of G.H. and the medical records support the conclusion that there was no infection in the hematoma on September 13, when the hematoma was excised. The parents complained of the treatment that G.H. received from Drs. Jaffee and Richman as well as Roberts Home Health Services. Accordingly the investigation started with both Jaffee and Richman charged with malpractice by the parents of G.H. The investigator selected an orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Richard M. Couch, D.O., from DPR's consulting list and forwarded to him on January 7, 1987, the patient records of G.H. and requested he review those records and give his opinion on whether Drs. Jaffee and Richman diagnoses and treatment of G.H. was appropriate. In this letter (Exhibit 1) the investigator advised Dr. Couch that following surgery a hematoma developed, that after G.H.'s discharge from the hospital the hematoma ruptured and that G.H. was taken back to the emergency room where Dr. Richman saw the patient but found nothing significant about the hematoma. He also told Dr. Couch that when Richman cleaned out the hematoma he advised the family (of G.H.) that infection was found, and that, after this G.H. started internal bleeding which ultimately resulted in the patient's death. Dr. Couch responded to this request with two letters, the first of February 16, 1987 and a second on March 6, 1987. In his first letter Dr. Couch concluded that the iliac wound began draining on or about August 14, 1984 and cultures of this wound were not secured until after G.H.'s hospitalization on September 10, 1984. Since the hematoma was a post-operative complication he opined that Richman failed to adhere to certain tenets regarding wound care in this situation. However, Dr. Couch suggested the records be referred to an internist who reviewed the treatment provided by Dr. Jaffee. In his second letter Dr. Couch opined that Richman was at fault for not incising, debriding and draining the hematoma when it developed and for not taking cultures when Richman saw G.H. in the emergency room on later dates. He also found Richman at fault for not referring G.H. to a consultant in infectious diseases. A letter similar to the letter sent to Dr. Couch was sent by the investigator to Neal B. Tytler, Jr., D.O., an internist. Although the investigator contends he submitted the records maintained by Roberts Home Health Services in this case to Dr. Tytler it is obvious that before he submitted his report on June 5, 1987, Dr. Tytler had not read those records and was concerned regarding the absence of medical records during the period between G.H.'s discharge from the hospital on August 12, 1984, and his readmission on September 10, 1984. In his report Dr. Tytler carefully noted G.H.'s long term medication for juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and the serious side effects, viz depression of the immune system, which results from long-term steroid therapy. Recognizing the risk to G.H. from any surgery Dr. Tytler questioned the wisdom of the arthodesis but recognized that this was more of an orthopedic problem than an internal medicine problem. From the records received, Dr. Tytler concluded that G.H. developed a hematoma after his departure from the hospital and before September 6, 1984. Significantly, Dr. Tytler reported "Of concern to me is the apparent lack of records to document the events which transpired between August 12, 1984 and September 10, 1984. In this one month period an abscess formed at the surgical site and led to disastrous consequences. Unfortunately it can only be inferred that the first recognition of any problem occurred on September 6, 1984, when the patient developed `flu-like symptoms'. He was not examined and no one perceived that his problems were serious." When the probable cause panel met on June 25, 1988 to consider the charges against Drs. Jaffee and Richman, no probable cause was found as to Jaffee. One of the two members of the probable cause panel disclosed at the opening of the panel meeting that he knew Dr. Richman socially and that Richman had been his treating physician for a finger injury. He was excused from further participation and the hearing was tabled regarding Dr. Richman. At a subsequent panel meeting by telephone conference call, after a substitute lay panel member was selected and had been furnished the medical records, a vote was taken to find probable cause. The excerpt from those proceedings (Exhibit 8) shows that the DPR attorney opened the conference call by stating that Richman was charged with medical conduct falling below acceptable minimal standards and "at the last probable cause panel meeting you voted to find probable cause, and asked that administrative complaint be issued. At this time the Department recommends that you do find probable cause to believe that this violation exists." Following receipt of this erroneous information regarding the previous probable cause panel meeting, the Chairman, Mr. Wheeler, stated that after reviewing the entire file he believes probable cause exists to file an Administrative Complaint. Dr. Barker concurred. The case against Dr. Richman began to unravel when the deposition of Dr. Tytler was taken on February 24, 1989. Prior to taking this deposition Dr. Tytler had been provided records from Metropolitan General Hospital, records from Roberts Home Health Services and a copy of the Administrative Complaint. In response to questions regarding the treatment of G.H. as afforded by Dr. Richman, Dr. Tytler stated that a review of all medical records clearly demonstrated that after the hematoma developed at the donor site for the transplant no indication of infection ever appeared; that considering the medical history of G.H. and his high susceptibility to infection it would be more dangerous to the patient to evacuate the hematoma and risk additional infection than it would to continue to observe the hematoma and let it cure itself; that the cultures taken on September 13, 1984, when the hematoma was evacuated clearly and unequivocally demonstrated that the hip wound was not the source of the infection that ultimately led to the demise of G.H.; and that the treatment rendered by Petitioner was in all respects in conformance with required medical standards and procedures. Dr. Tytler further opined that treating an immune compromised patient with antibiotics without a specific infection in mind "could lead to the very scenario that caused his (G.H.) death", namely secondary infection. Further, with respect to the contention of Dr. Couch regarding the failure of Petitioner to take cultures at the hematoma site before September 10, 1984, Dr. Tytler opined that indiscriminate taking of cultures when no evidence of infection is present could result in a positive culture unrelated to the wound but which the doctor would be called upon to treat. This could invite a major change in therapy and an inappropriate prescribing of an antibiotic. Following the deposition of Dr. Tytler, DPR referred the medical records to another orthopedic physician and this doctor concurred with the opinion of Dr. Tytler that Dr. Richman's treatment of G.H. was not below minimally acceptable standards, that no malpractice was involved and that the treatment was in accordance with acceptable medical standards. The Department then dismissed the Administrative Complaint. In his deposition the physician member of the probable cause panel, James H. Barker, D.O., emphasized that his conclusion that probable cause existed to go forward with the Administrative Complaint was significantly influenced by the fact that no culture was done at the hematoma site. From his subsequent testimony it is clear that Dr. Barker was unaware, when he voted to find probable cause, that the culture taken from the hematoma site on September 13, 1984 was negative. The record clearly shows this to be a fact. As stated by Dr. Tytler in his testimony "hematoma yes; infection no." Dr. Barker was also concerned, and perhaps rightly so, that any time that someone goes in for an elective procedure and he dies "that alone makes you think there may be probable cause here." However, there must be factual evidence to support a finding of probable cause and here there was no such evidence.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Kenneth D. Stahl, M.D. ("Dr. Stahl" or "Petitioner"), is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and costs to be paid by the Department of Health, Board of Medicine ("Department" or "Respondent"), pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2014).1/
Findings Of Fact Review of the record indicates that, at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed at DOAH, the following facts were known by Respondent, as later stated in the Findings of Fact of the Final Order of the underlying case: In February 2011, Patient C.C., a 52-year-old female, was admitted to Jackson Memorial Hospital ("JMH") with a diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. She also had a perirectal abscess. Her records indicate that she was treated with percutaneous drainage and a course of intravenous antibiotics. She was discharged on March 4, 2011. On June 22, 2011, Patient C.C. presented to the JMH Emergency Department complaining of 12 hours of abdominal pain in her right lower quadrant with associated nausea and vomiting. Shortly after her arrival, she described her pain to a nurse as "10" on a scale of one to ten. A computed tomography ("CT") scan of Patient C.C.'s abdomen was conducted. The CT report noted that the "the uterus is surgically absent," and "the ovaries are not identified." It noted that "the perirectal abscess that was drained previously is no longer visualized" and that the "appendix appears inflamed and dilated." No other inflamed organs were noted. The radiologist's impression was that the findings of the CT scan were consistent with non-perforated appendicitis. Patient C.C.'s pre-operative history listed a "total abdominal hysterectomy" on May 4, 2005. Patient C.C.'s prior surgeries and earlier infections had resulted in extensive scar tissue in her abdomen. Patient C.C. was scheduled for an emergency appendectomy and signed a "Consent to Operations or Procedures" form for performance of a laparoscopic appendectomy, possible open appendectomy, and other indicated procedures. Patient C.C. was taken to surgery at approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 23, 2011. Dr. Stahl was the attending physician, and notes indicate that he was present throughout the critical steps of the procedure. The Operative Report was dictated by Dr. Eddie Manning after the surgery and electronically signed by Dr. Stahl on June 23, 2011. The report documents the post-operative diagnosis as "acute on chronic appendicitis" and describes the dissected and removed organ as the appendix. Progress notes completed by the nursing staff record that, on June 23, 2011, at 8:00 a.m., Patient C.C. "denies pain" and that the laparoscopic incision is intact. Similar notes indicate that at 5:00 p.m. on June 23, 2011, Patient C.C. "tolerated well reg diet" and was waiting for approval for discharge. Patient C.C. was discharged on June 24, 2011, a little after noon, in stable condition. On June 24, 2011, the Surgical Pathology Report indicated that the specimen removed from Patient C.C. was not an appendix, but instead was an ovary and a portion of a fallopian tube. The report noted that inflammatory cells were seen. Surgery to remove an ovary is an oophorectomy and surgery to remove a fallopian tube is a salpingectomy. On Friday, June 24, 2011, Dr. Nicholas Namias, chief of the Division of Acute Care Surgery, Trauma, and Critical Care, was notified by the pathologist of the results of the pathology report, because Dr. Stahl had left on vacation. Dr. Namias arranged a meeting with Patient C.C. in the clinic the following Monday. At the meeting, Patient C.C. made statements to Dr. Namias regarding her then-existing physical condition, including that she was not in pain, was tolerating her diet, and had no complaints. Dr. Namias explained to Patient C.C. that her pain may have been caused by the inflamed ovary and fallopian tube or may have been caused by appendicitis that resolved medically, and she might have appendicitis again. He explained that her options were to undergo a second operation at that time and search for the appendix or wait and see if appendicitis recurred. He advised against the immediate surgery option because she was "asymptomatic." The Second Amended Administrative Complaint alleged that Dr. Stahl performed a wrong procedure when he performed an appendectomy which resulted in the removal of Patient C.C.'s ovary and a portion of her fallopian tube instead. The Final Order concluded that the evidence did not clearly show that the wrong procedure was performed. It concluded that it was more likely that exactly the right procedure was performed on Patient C.C. That is, it was likely that an oophorectomy and salpingectomy were the right procedures to remove the inflamed organs and address the abdominal pain that caused Patient C.C. to present at the JMH emergency room, but that the right procedure was initially denominated incorrectly as an "appendectomy," as a result of patient history and erroneous interpretation of the CT scan.
Findings Of Fact Robert L. Sample, M.D., is registered as a physician and medical practitioner with respondent and holds License Number 29928. At all times here relevant he was so registered. Between approximately April 13, 1978 and August 1, 1978 Mrs. Idalene Orr was a patient of Respondent. Between May 1, 1978 and August 1, 1978 Respondent authorized 106 prescriptions for injectable Demerol for Mrs. Orr. These prescriptions were filled by Oliver Bradley, the pharmacist-owner of Sharp's Pharmacy in Bradenton, Florida. During this period Mrs. Orr resided at a nursing home in Bradenton operated by Betty McKee. At this time, Mrs. Orr was a 70-year old retired school teacher suffering from senility and requiring nursing home care. Some of the prescriptions for Mrs. Orr were called in by Mrs. McKee and others were called in by Respondent. When Bradley received a call form Mrs. McKee for Demerol he called respondent, who would give telephone authorization to Bradley to fill the prescription. Bradley would then mail the prescription form to Respondent, who signed and returned these prescriptions to Sharp's Pharmacy. About one-half of those prescriptions were delivered to Mrs. McKee's nursing home, the remainder were picked up by Mrs. McKee or a messenger bearing authorization form Mrs. McKee to pick up the prescriptions. In an informal conference with an attorney representing Petitioner, Respondent stated that he had diagnosed Mrs. Orr as suffering from cancer of the colon and he considered the prescription proper. He also stated that in June or July, 1978, while at Sharp's Pharmacy looking over the prescriptions he had signed for Mrs. Orr, Respondent became alarmed at the quantity of Demerol prescribed by him for Mrs. Orr. Demerol is a Class II controlled substance. If all Demerol prescribed by Respondent had been administered to Mrs. Orr during the period covered by the prescriptions she would have received 150 mgs each hour twenty-four hours per day. This quantity of Demerol would have rendered Mrs. Orr comatose and could have been fatal. Respondent stated he based his diagnosis of Mrs. Orr's cancer of the colon on blood in patient's stool, earlier medical records, an abdominal scar and statements of Mrs. McKee that patient had terminal cancer. Mrs. Orr was hospitalized in G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital, Arcadia, Florida, in 1972 and 1973. Her voluntary discharge summary (Exhibit 5) from this hospital indicates that patient's primary problem was Involutional Melancholia with visits to medical and surgical services for several bouts of constipation. While still a geriatric chair patient, Mrs. Orr was released in 1973 to the Bradenton Convalescent Center in Bradenton with her condition "Improved non-psychotic" but "prognosis guarded". Apparently she was first seen by Respondent in December, 1977 (Exhibit 6). Relatives of Mrs. Orr, who had been told by Respondent that patient suffered from terminal cancer of the kidney, became concerned by the quantity of Demerol prescribed for Mrs. Orr and requested Dr. Polis, a urologist with surgical training, to examine Mrs. Orr. Pursuant to this request Mrs. Orr was admitted to Manatee Memorial Hospital August 1, 1978 for urological observation and discharged August 11, 1978. During his examination of Mrs. Orr, Dr. Polis found no evidence of carcinoma, no abdominal scars but multiple sites of induration on on each buttock apparently caused by injections. Testifying as an expert, Dr. Polis opined that before a diagnosis of cancer of the colon could be made, a physical exam, including a proctoscopic examination and X-rays, should be made and that it was below prevailing medical standards in the community to make a diagnosis upon the insufficient data Respondent stated he used to diagnose Mrs. Orr. During her hospitalization at Manatee Memorial Hospital, Mrs. Orr received no Demerol, exhibited no withdrawal symptoms, and exhibited no need for Demerol.
The Issue The question presented is whether Respondent violated Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (2006), or Section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2006), by means of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.007(2)(b), and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of medical doctors pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a medical doctor licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 70981. Respondent is also certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine with a subspecialty in interventional cardiology. No evidence was presented to indicate that Respondent has ever been disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine. On March 12, 2007, Dr. Elsakr was caring for two patients at Halifax Medical Center (Halifax). Patient M.D. was an 84-year-old Caucasian female born on March 22, 1922. F.E. was an 82-year-old Caucasian female born on February 5, 1925. Both women were scheduled for cardiac procedures to be performed on March 12, 2007, but only F.E. was scheduled for a cardiac catheterization. M.D. and F.E. shared the same semi-private room at Halifax. During the night before the scheduled procedures, one of the patients asked to be moved away from the window, and as a result, the two patients' bed locations were reversed. Halifax had procedures in place related to the transport of patients from one area of the hospital to another. The policy required that a staff member referred to as a transporter was required to check at least two patient identifiers on the patient's arm band to confirm a patient's identity. The arm band contains four identifiers: the patient's name, date of birth, a medical record number and a visit number. While any of the four may be used, the patient's name and date of birth are preferred. Patient M.D. was supposed to be transported for a heart catheterization the morning of March 12. However, the hospital policy regarding patient identification was not followed, and the wrong patient, M.D. as opposed to F.E., was transported to the catheterization lab (cath lab). Apparently, the transporter relied on the room and bed placement of the patient as opposed to following the protocol for affirmatively checking the patient identifiers. Once a patient was transported to the cath lab for a procedure, Halifax had a separate "pause" or "time out" protocol designed to ensure that the correct patient was present and the correct procedure was performed. The procedure was designed to be consistent with standards provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospitals, and the practices used by other hospitals. After transport and before a sterile field was created, the patient would be prepared for the procedure. As part of that preparation, a nurse was supposed to verify the patient's identity and confirm with another staff member that the patient's chart was the appropriate chart. The chart would then be provided to the person referred to as the recorder located in the adjacent control room outside the sterile field. The control room is separated from the sterile field by a plexi-glass wall, through which the recorder can observe everything taking place in the cath lab. The recorder would create a chronological log of the procedure, documenting the exact time when events took place. The physician performing the procedure would not necessarily be in the cath lab at the time the nurse verified the patient's identity. The chronological log for M.D. does not indicate that the patient's identity was confirmed or if it was confirmed, who confirmed it. Once a patient was prepped and draped, and the sterile field created, the recorder would call out the patient's name, procedure, procedure equipment, site and side of the procedure to be performed. The accuracy of the information was to be confirmed by a staff member saying "yes" or nodding his or her head. This procedure was considered by the hospital to be its "time out" procedure. The physician would be present but not actually participate in the time out, and would observe the time- out taking place. In this case, although the recorder called out F.E.'s name and the procedure she was scheduled to have, M.D. was actually present. Notwithstanding this error, an unidentified staff member either nodded or verbally confirmed that the information recited by the recorder was correct. Dr. Elsakr arrived at the cath lab after the patient was prepped but before the time out called by the recorder. He was present, but did not verbally participate, in the time out process. Before it took place, he met with the recorder in the control room to review the medical chart prior to the procedure. The medical chart reviewed was for F.E. After the time out, Dr. Elsakr approached the patient and stood near her head. By this time, the patient was fully draped, with blankets and surgical drapes covering all of her body except the surgical entry area (in this case her groin) and a portion of her face. Dr. Elsakr spoke to the patient, calling her by the first name of the patient F.E., and telling her, "[F.], this is Dr. Elsakr. I'm going to get started with your heart cath. Okay?" This interaction was consistent with his standard practice before he began a procedure, in order to give patients a level of comfort. M.D. did not initially respond to the name F., but said "yes" in response to Dr. Elsakr's question. He then moved down to the groin area, again called her by name (F.E.'s first name), and told her what she would feel as he started the procedure. She nodded her head and the procedure was begun. A catheterization was completed on the right side of the heart and begun on the left side. At that point, staff reported to Dr. Elsakr that the patient was the wrong patient. The procedure was immediately stopped. Dr. Elsakr immediately informed the patient, the patient's daughter, and the patient's primary care physician. He also noted the mistake on M.D.'s medical chart. Halifax Hospital undertook an investigation of the events leading to the procedure. The purpose of its investigation was to determine whether there was a breach in hospital safety protocols and to prevent any recurrence of the error. Dr. Donald Stoner, Halifax's Chief Medical Officer, testified that the fault lay with hospital staff, and not with Dr. Elsakr, and that if he had been the doctor involved, he likely would have done the same things as Dr. Elsakr. Halifax accepted full responsibility for the incident and independently compensated the patient for the incident. The hospital also determined that it would be inappropriate for Dr. Elsakr to be subject to any discipline for the incident by Halifax with respect to his privileges. Immediately after discovering that the wrong patient had the heart cath, Dr. Elsakr instructed that the patient should not be charged in any way for the procedure. While patient M.D. clearly could have been harmed by having to undergo the procedure, information about her condition was obtained that was actually a benefit to her.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent, Ashraf Elsakr, M.D., violated Section 456.072(1)(bb), Florida Statutes, and Section 458.331(nn), Florida Statutes by means of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B8-9.007(2)(b). As a penalty, it is recommended that the Board issue a letter of concern, and impose a $5,000 fine. In addition, Respondent should be required to obtain five hours in continuing medical education in the area of risk management, perform 25 hours of community service, and give a one-hour lecture on performing procedures on the wrong patient. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jayaprakash Kamath, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having license ME 0036704. He is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology. He has had no prior complaints of any kind against him since he began practicing medicine in Florida in 1980, and he has a reputation for being a competent and caring physician. On the morning of August 1, 1988, while making rounds at Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater, Florida, the Respondent was paged by one of his partners, Belur Sreenath, M.D. The Respondent returned the call and was asked to see a patient whom Sreenath had just accepted and admitted on a 23-hour basis at Morton Plant. Sreenath reported that the patient was a referral from the Morton Plant emergency room. The patient's regular physician was on vacation, and the regular physician's on-call cover had recommended to the emergency room physician that the patient be referred to the Respondent and Sreenath to treat the patient for diagnosed fecal impaction. It was reported to the Respondent, through Sreenath, that the patient had come into the emergency room at about five in the morning complaining of abdominal pain and constipation. The emergency room physician, Jerry Julius Chase, M.D., had three X-rays done and had done his own "wet reads" of the X-rays before sending them to the radiology department for a definitive interpretation. According to Chase, the X-rays showed "much fecal matter, no obstruction." Chase did not mention any other significant findings. Chase's preliminary diagnosis was "fecal impaction." Sreenath also reported that he (Sreenath) had ordered enemas for the patient. Soon after the Respondent received the call from his partner, the Respondent called Chase, who was still in the emergency room and still had the X-rays. Chase confirmed what Sreenath had told the Respondent, again not mentioning any other significant findings. After talking to Chase, the Respondent visited the patient in his hospital room. By this time it was about 10:00 a.m. The Respondent took a history from the patient, examined the patient, and read the patient's chart. The chart included the results of lab work and the "ER sheet," which included the emergency room physician's diagnosis of abdominal pain and impaction and the results of his "wet-read" of the X-rays, but it did not yet include a report from the radiology department or the X-rays themselves. The Respondent did not contact the radiology department for a definitive interpretation of the X-rays or obtain the X-rays for his own review. By the time the Respondent saw the patient, the patient already had one enema and seemed to be responding to the treatment. Based on the information he had, the Respondent made a diagnosis of fecal impaction, confirmed his partner's orders for enemas for the patient, and added a stool softener. The nursing staff was ordered to monitor the patient's progress. The patient continued to respond satisfactorily to treatment during the day. Between ten and eleven in the evening of August 1, 1988, the patient complained of some abdominal pain or cramping (symptoms that are consistent with a diagnosis of fecal impaction and enema treatments) and the nurses on duty contacted the Respondent's partner, who was on call. Sreenath ordered a combination of demerol and vistaril as an analgesic. One small dose was enough to relieve the patient's pain, and the patient slept through most of the night. He ate 80% of his breakfast the next morning and was not complaining of pain or asking to see a doctor. At approximately 9:15 a.m. on August 2, 1988, a nurse telephoned the Respondent for a decision whether the patient was being discharged or was being admitted as an inpatient. The Respondent still had not seen the patient's X- rays, seen or had reported to him the radiology report on them, or spoken to the radiologist. On questioning, the nurse reported the patient's status to the Respondent. The nurse's report satisfied the Respondent that the patient was responding to the treatment for fecal impaction and could be discharged. The nurse was given orders to have arrangements made for the patient to see his regular physician within a week and to instruct the patient on symptoms to report if they occurred between discharge and seeing his regular physician. In accordance with the Respondent's telephone instructions, the patient was discharged at approximately 9:30 a.m. on August 2, 1988. Although there were no clinical signs or symptoms of it during the patient's stay at Morton Plant, the patient had a large aortic aneurysm, approximately eight centimeters in diameter, in his abdomen just below the renal arteries. The aneurysm was readily apparent on the X-rays, yet Chase did not report it to either the Respondent or to his partner, Sreenath. The radiologist either did not contact Dr. Chase to point out to him that the report of Chases's "wet read" of the X-rays omitted the aneurysm or, if he did, Chase did not relay this information to the Respondent or his partner. The radiologist's written report, stating that the X-rays revealed the large aneurysm, was sent to Chase, not to the Respondent, and Chase did not relay the information in it to the Respondent or his partner. If the Respondent had known about the aneurysm, he would have considered the aneurysm to be the patient's most serious medical concern. He might not have accepted the patient or, if he did, he probably would have brought a vascular surgeon into the case and had the vascular surgeon, or perhaps a cardiologist, closely monitor the patient for possible leaking or dissecting or rupture of the aneurysm. The Respondent also would have had to give consideration to whether the aneurysm was a cause of the patient's abdominal pain. In addition to treating the aneurysm as the patient's most serious medical concern, giving consideration to whether the aneurysm was a cause of the patient's abdominal pain, the Respondent would have had to give consideration to altering his diagnosis for the patient had he reviewed the X-rays or the radiologist report, or had spoken with the radiologist. In addition to showing the existence of the aneurysm, the X-rays indicated that the patient technically may not have been impacted. (The gas pattern was non-specific.) With respect to this patient, the Respondent practiced medicine below that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances (below the standard of care) in that he did not either personally review the X-rays on the patient, read or have reported to him the contents of the radiologist's report, or talk to the radiologist. Instead, he relied totally on the emergency room physician's "wet read." As a result, the Respondent's diagnosis of "fecal impaction" may not have been correct, and he did not give proper consideration to the aneurysm. However, except for the failure regarding the X-rays, the DPR otherwise did not prove that it was below the standard of care for the Respondent, who was treating the patient for fecal impaction, to discharge the patient without seeing him on the morning of August 2, 1988, based on the nurse's report to the Respondent. Although it was below the standard of care for the Respondent not to either read the X-rays himself or obtain the radiologist's definitive interpretation, it was reasonable for the Respondent to expect that the emergency room physician would have told him, and noted in the "ER sheet," that the patient he was being referred had an aneurysm of the kind and size of the one the patient had in this case. Even if the emergency doctor had not initially communicated to the Respondent the existence of the aneurysm, either directly or through the "ER sheet," it was reasonable for the Respondent to expect that, in the normal course, the radiologist reviewing the X-rays would have noted that, according to the "ER sheet," the ER doctor "missed" the aneurysm and would have contacted the ER physician to bring this to his attention, and that the ER doctor then would have contacted the Respondent to advise him of the omission. The patient did not experience abdominal pain after his discharge from Morton Plant, but he began to experience back and groin pain. The aneurysm was becoming symptomatic. The patient's symptoms markedly worsened in the early morning hours of August 4, 1988. The patient's wife had him taken to the emergency room at HCA New Port Richey Hospital at approximately half past midnight. The patient was confused, and was complaining of pain in the back and groin area. His blood sugars were three times normal. He was diagnosed preliminarily in the emergency room as having out-of-control diabetes and confusion and as being near sycope. No X-rays were taken in the emergency room at New Port Richey Hospital, and no information was obtained from Morton Plant Hospital. Because the patient and his wife did not know about the aneurysm, they were unable to report it when the emergency room physician took the patient's history. The patient was admitted to New Port Richey Hospital at approximately 2:30 a.m. on August 4, 1988. However, the admitting physician did not see the patient or order diagnostic medical imaging at that time. The admitting physician saw the patient at approximately 9:00 a.m., and ordered X-rays and a CAT scan. Before the X-rays or CT scan were taken, at approximately ten o'clock, the patient suffered an acute hypotensive event while in his hospital room. An emergency abdominal sonogram was ordered, and it was determined that the patient was suffering from the rupture of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (the same one that was evident on the X-rays taken at Morton Plant). Surgery was attempted to resect the ruptured aneurysm. The patient was a poor candidate for surgery of that kind due to his age and other health factors. The patient died on August 6, 1988. If the patient knew of the aneurysm, it is likely that his treatment on August 4, 1988, would have been far different. First, when the aneurysm became symptomatic, they probably would have contacted the vascular surgeon, who would have been on the case already, either immediately or on arrival at the emergency room. The aneurysm would have been closely monitored from the time of arrival at the hospital, and the vascular surgeon would have been prepared for surgery when indicated. 2/ At the very least, the patient and his wife probably would have reported the aneurysm during the taking of a history in the emergency room at HCA New Port Richey Hospital, and the emergency room surgeon could have immediately taken appropriate steps, such as contacting a vascular surgeon and immediately ordering appropriate diagnostic medical imaging. 3/ The Respondent did not dictate admission notes for the patient until August 17, 1988. The Respondent did not dictate discharge notes. The DPR did not prove that it was below the standard of care for the Respondent to delay the dictation of admission notes or for him not to prepare a discharge summary for a patient in the hospital on a 23-hour basis. The DPR also did not prove that the Respondent failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: (1) finding the Respondent, Jayaprakash Kamath, M.D., guilty of one count of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), but dismissing the other count of the Administrative Complaint; reprimanding him; and (3) fining him $2,000. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 27th day of July, 1992.
The Issue Whether osteochondral autograft transplant surgery should be authorized for Petitioner pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law.
Findings Of Fact In 1998, Jackson fell at work and sustained an injury to her left knee. Jackson made a workers' compensation claim for the treatment of the injuries. She underwent treatment for her injuries, and her treating physician requested authorization from Jackson's Employer/Carrier to perform a surgical procedure commonly referred to by the trade name of OATS, but also known as mosaicplasty. The Employer/Carrier denied the authorization on the ground that OATS was investigative or experimental within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.002, Florida Administrative Code, and referred the request to the Agency for a determination under Section 440.13(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59B-11.002(4), Florida Administrative Code. The Agency requested Dr. B. Hudson Berrey, the Chair of the Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation at Shands Hospital and Clinic at the University of Florida, to review Jackson's case to determine whether the procedure was investigative and whether the procedure would provide significant benefits to the recovery and well-being of Jackson. Dr. Berrey has been board certified in orthopedic surgery since 1982. After three years of practice, he took a fellowship in orthopedic oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. He then served as Chief of Orthopedic Oncology and, later, as Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D. C. After his retirement in 1993, he served on the faculty of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. He has been the Chair of the Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation at the University of Florida College of Medicine since 1996. In addition to his teaching duties, he continues to see patients weekly and to perform orthopedic surgery twice a week. His duties require him to keep abreast of developments in the field of orthopedic surgery. In preparation for rendering his opinion for the Agency, Dr. Berrey reviewed the medical literature, seeking articles discussing clinical trials of OATS. A clinical trial is an investigation in which patients with a certain condition may receive a treatment under study if they meet certain objective standards for inclusion. The treatment parameters are defined and outcomes are assessed according to objective criteria. Dr. Berrey found very little in peer-reviewed literature discussing clinical trials of OATS or mosiacplasty. Instead he found retrospective reviews and case reports. Based on his review of the medical literature, Dr. Berrey formed the opinion that mosaicplasty may be safe and efficacious; however, because the procedure has not been subjected to clinical trials, the procedure remains investigative. OATS involves the transfer of a patient's cartilage from one portion of the knee that is not considered weight- bearing or that is considered as having a minimal weight-bearing load to an area that receives greater force or is more weight- bearing. Dr. Berrey is of the opinion that OATS may be effective to treat isolated chondral defects on the weight- bearing surface of the knee. He describes the type of injury for which the procedure is effective as a focal lesion in an otherwise normal knee. Three components comprise the knee: the patella, the femoral articulating surface, or femoral condyle, and the tibial articulating surface or tibial plateau. The femoral condyle and tibial plateau are bony structures lined with articular cartilage that provide the gliding surface of the knee. The patella articulates with the femur at the patellar femoral joint, and the tibia articulates with the femur at the tibial femoral joint. The tibial femoral joint is made up of medial and lateral components. Other structures present in and about the knee include the menisici, the cruciate ligaments, and the collateral ligaments. Jackson's medical records, including the MRI report, show that there is a subchondral cyst and/or osteochondral defect on the anterior articular margin of the mid-media femoral condyle. There are subchondral cysts along the posterior portion of the mid-tibial plateau. In addition, there is a prominent osteochondral defect involving the patella. Jackson has articular damage to all three compartments of the knee: the femoral condyle, the patella, and the tibial plateau. Based on the degenerative changes in all three compartments of the knee, Jackson's changes are probably generalized. She does not have a focal defect of the articular cartilage of the knee. Her symptoms relate primarily to the patellar femoral joint. Her medical records describe her injuries as including chondromalacia of the patella. The term "chondromalacia" applies to a continuum of deterioration of the articular cartilage of the patella, from softening to frank fraying to fibrillation where the cartilage may be worn down to the bare bone. OATS or mosiacplasty is designed to address a localized, focal lesion. Because of the generalized nature of the diseased condition of Jackson's knee and the probability that her symptoms are related to the deterioration of her patellar femoral joint, the proposed procedure is not likely to improve her condition or to enable her to return to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying authorization for the OATS or mosaicplasty to be performed on Virginia Jackson. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 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 14th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Michelle L. Oxman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Building 3, Suite 3421 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Virginia Jackson 5555 Northwest 17th Avenue Apartment 2 Miami, Florida 33142 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice chiropractic should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 460, F.S., as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, dated May 11, 1984. This case arises as a result of charges filed by Petitioner in an Amended Administrative Complaint alleging that Respondent violated various provisions of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, in performing procedures intended to terminate the pregnancy of a female patient in 1984, which resulted in a criminal conviction. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Alfred Clum, a Department investigator, Charles E. Robinson, Chief Investigator, Bay County Sheriff's Office, Dr. March A. Wolf, obstetrician and gynecologist, Patty Smith, Deputy Clerk, Bay County Circuit Court, David W. Morrison and Barbara Morrison. Respondent testified in his own behalf. Petitioner submitted 6 exhibits in evidence and Respondent submitted a late-filed exhibit. Although the parties were provided time to file an agreed transcription of tape recordings as a late- filed exhibit, such exhibit has not been filed as of this date. At the commencement of the hearing, Petitioner amended paragraphs 11 and 17 of the Amended Administrative Complaint to correct scrivener's errors, thus changing the alleged violations of Section 460.413(1)(g) to 460.413(1)(q). Similarly, paragraph 15 was corrected from Section 460.1413(1)(u) to 460.413(1)(u). Although the parties were accorded a specified period in which to file post-hearing proposed findings of fact, they failed to do so.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Thomas F. Yancey was licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida in 1966 and was so licensed at all times material to the administrative complaint herein. On May 15, 1984, an Order of Emergency Suspension was issued against Respondent's license by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation which is still in effect. Respondent has never been licensed by the Florida State Board of Medical Examiners or Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-4, Testimony of Respondent) In August 1983, Barbara D. Morrison visited Respondent's office in Panama City, Florida, for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. She paid him $150.00, but obtained a refund because, according to her, "it didn't work." Respondent testified that Morrison had come to him at that time for an abortion, but that he had told her "I don't do that," but that he could arrange it for her if she needed it. He admitted that he gave her an examination and told her that he suspected she was pregnant. He further testified that since Morrison had given his receptionist some money, he wrote her a check for $150.00. (Testimony of B. Morrison, Respondent, Respondent's Exhibit 1) During the latter part of March 1984, Morrison again went to Respondent's office and told him she wanted an abortion. He told her it would cost $150.00. She then went into a room in the office where she put on a gown, laid on a table and placed her feet in stirrups. Respondent "mashed" on her stomach to see if she was pregnant and then "gave me some kind of shot in my uterus." Respondent told her that he had used a saline solution. Morrison's ex-husband, David W. Morrison, went to Respondent's office while Barbara Morrison was there to loan her $60.00 for the abortion. He gave the money to Respondent's receptionist. He observed Barbara in a back room of Respondent's office, but no one else was there at the time. He later took her home. (Testimony of B. Morrison, D. Morrison) The injection that Barbara Morrison received from Respondent in March 1984 did not produce any results so she returned to his office about a week later on April 2, 1984. At that time, Respondent followed the same procedures as on the previous occasion and injected a solution into her again. According to Barbara Morrison, "it felt like it went to my heart. It hurt real bad. I asked him what he did and he said nothing. He said to lay down and I would be all right, but my body was swelling up." She was thereafter taken by a companion to the Bay County Medical Center where she received emergency treatment. On the same day, she was transferred to the Gulf Coast Hospital and treated by Dr. Mark A. Wolf, an obstetrician/gynecologist who had treated her for a "spontaneous" abortion in 1983. Upon examination, Dr. Wolf found that Morrison was experiencing lower abdominal pain and was also having some reaction to medication. There was no evidence of infection at the time. Ultrasound studies showed a viable pregnancy in the uterus with some fluid or swelling around the gestational sack. Morrison told him at the time that she had had an abortion attempted to be performed on her and that she believed that is what caused some of her problems. Dr. Wolf believed there was a significant risk of infection and admitted her to the hospital. She thereafter started to develop signs of infection and to spontaneously abort her pregnancy. He therefore completed the abortion by a dilation and evacuation of the uterus. (Testimony of B. Morrison, Wolf) On April 10, 1984, pursuant to an investigation conducted by the Bay County Sheriff's Office, Barbara Morrison returned to Respondent's office with an electronic transmitter concealed on her person that could be monitored by the law enforcement personnel in a nearby vehicle. She told Respondent that she needed another "shot" because the other one hadn't worked. They made an arrangement for her to return on the next day, April 11, for another abortion attempt. Morrison asked Respondent for a receipt for the money that she had paid and he wrote her one. On the following day, she returned, again equipped with a listening device, and went to Respondent's back room, put on a gown, and got on the table. She asked Respondent if he was going to give her a shot like the one he gave her the last time and he said yes. At this point, law enforcement personnel entered the room, observed Morrison sitting on the table with a gown on, and Respondent standing near the foot of the examination table with an instrument tray in his hand. The office was searched pursuant to a search warrant, but no medical records concerning Morrison were found. Respondent was placed under arrest at the time. On April 23, 1984, a departmental investigator, Dwayne Clum, talked to Respondent outside his office and provided him with a release of medical records which had been signed by Barbara Morrison. Respondent informed Clum that he had no medical records on Morrison. Investigator Clum accompanied the Sheriff's personnel when they entered Respondent's office on April 11, and took photographs of the examination table and tray containing various items including a metallic syringe, a vaginal speculum, and a metal cannula. However, there was no fluid in the syringe and the cannula, which can be used as an attachment to a syringe, did not fit the syringe on the tray. (Testimony of B. Morrison, Clum, Robinson, Wolf, Petitioner's Exhibit 5) On October 29, 1984, Respondent was found guilty of criminal abortion, performing an abortion in an unlawful place, and two counts of practicing medicine without a medical license. Imposition of sentence was withheld and he was placed on probation for a period of five years. The conviction was based on Respondent's activities in connection with Barbara Morrison on April 2 and 11, 1984. He was found not guilty of practicing medicine without a license in connection with his alleged performing of an internal examination of and injecting a solution into the reproductive organs of Morrison on or about March 15, 1984. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7) Respondent denied at the hearing that he had seen Morrison in March of 1984. He claimed that she had left numerous calls at his house during the latter part of March, but that he had been at a seminar. He admitted that he saw her either on April 1 or 2, 1984, and performed a pelvic examination. He claimed that he had to wash her vagina prior to the examination and that there was pus oozing therefrom with a strong odor, and that he therefore took a large ear syringe and washed out the area with a saline solution. He told her at this time that he was not sure that she was pregnant. He further testified that she came back about a week later demanding to see him and that he told her that he could see her the next day. However, prior to any action on his part on that day, the police entered his office. He denied ever agreeing with her to perform an abortion or injecting anything into her uterus. He explained that the reason he had no medical records on Morrison was because the exams were strictly of an emergency nature. Respondent denied receiving any money from Morrison on April 2, 1984, but said that she "threw a five dollar bill" on his desk on April 11. Respondent's testimony in the above respects is not deemed credible and is accordingly rejected. (Testimony of Respondent) Although the term "obstetrics" normally deals with the outcome of a live birth, the aborting of a fetus or termination of pregnancy can also be included in the definition. Such an invasive procedure involving the injection of a substance into the uterus also might be encompassed within the term "surgery." Termination of a pregnancy constitutes the practice of medicine that only may be performed by a licensed physician or osteopath. (Testimony of Wolf)
Recommendation That the Board of Chiropractic issue a final order which suspends the license of Thomas F. Yancey to practice chiropractic for a period of two years, as a result of established violations of subsections 460.413(1)(n), (q) and (u), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 14th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Varn Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward C. Hill, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Roger D. Patterson, Esquire 17208 W. Hutchinson Road Panama City Beach, Florida 32407
