The Issue Whether Respondent failed to timely file its application for the renewal of its abortion clinic license, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, may the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) fine Respondent for failing to timely file its renewal application. If the Agency is authorized to impose such a fine, should it exercise such authority. If so, what is the amount of the fine it should impose.
Findings Of Fact The Agency issued an administrative complaint on June 3, 1996, stating an intent to impose an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand ($1,000.00) Dollars against A Doctor's Office for Women North, Inc., d/b/a A Doctor's Office for Women North (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent"), charging violations of Chapter 390, Florida Statutes, and Rule 59A-9, Florida Administrative Code, as grounds for the imposition of the administrative fine and advising the Respondent of its right to request an administrative hearing. Respondent was served a copy of the administrative complaint on June 4, 1996, by U.S. Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, but failed to respond or request a hearing within twenty one (21) days of receipt of notice of the action of the Agency as required pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10-2.36, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent is licensed to operate at 1100 N.E. 125th Street, North Miami, Florida 33161, as an abortion clinic in compliance with Chapter 390, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-9, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent has operated such that: (a) The Respondent has violated the provisions of Chapter 390, Florida Statutes, in that License Number 685 was issued to the Respondent for the period of 2/28/95 through 2/27/96. Respondent's application for renewal was due to be received by the Agency on 12/29/95, sixty days prior to expiration; however, it was received on 02/26/96, which was (54) days late. This is in violation of Section 390.016(1), Florida Statutes. Notice was provided in writing to the Respondent of the violations set forth above in paragraph 4(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of October, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s claim for medical treatment by Dr. Gutovitz should be paid under the terms of her state health insurance plan.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was, at all times relevant hereto, an employee of the State of Florida, receiving medical benefits under the State Employees’ HMO Plan (the “Health Plan”). In January 2015, Petitioner contacted North Florida OBGYN Associates, P.A. (the “Doctor’s Office”), to schedule a doctor’s appointment. A computer screenshot provided by the Department indicates that the purpose of the appointment was to “discuss infertility/endometriosis.” An appointment was scheduled for March 22, 2015. Upon arrival at the Doctor’s Office, Petitioner filled out an intake sheet. She stated the purpose of her visit was for the problems of “endo & checkup.” She indicated that she was not currently using birth control. As part of her medical history, she indicated: migraine headaches, reflux/IBS/ulcer, endometriosis, and infertility. Upon completion of his examination and treatment of Petitioner, Dr. Gutovitz dictated his “History & Physical Report” notes on the visit. He stated as follows: The patient is a 29 year old female who presents for a preconceptual consultation. LMP date: (2/25/2015) The frequency of cycles is monthly. The duration of menses is less than 3 days. The menstrual flow is moderate. The patient has never been able to conceive. The patient has been unable to conceive after 2 years of unprotected intercourse. Intercourse has been occurring twice per week. There has been associated abdominal pain, pain on intercourse, breast tenderness (only when she is on her period) and cramping (only in the morning and then will go away). Vitamin and mineral intake: currently on prenatal vitamins (taking Women’s one a day, vitamin b-12, vitamin d, calcium). Nutrition: normal /adequate. Unknown. There is a medical history of endometriosis dx at the 20 by Dr. Samuel Christian). Pt. presents to discuss conception. She and her partner have been trying to [get] pregnant for 2 years. She reports at age 21 she had a laparascopy for pain and was diagnosed with severe endometriosis and advised to have a hysterectomy. She had no follow up treatment, was not put on OCP. She continue to pain with menses, with intercourse and sometimes throughout the cycle. She does have regular cycles about 28 days apart. The partner has never had any children. He did have an injury to his scrotum about 7 years ago (fell off a truck onto some sharp object that “ripped open my scrotum in an L shape”), had stitches, significant swelling. Discussed components of conception –- ovulation, pathway and semen. Referral to the FIRM [Florida Institute of Reproductive Management] for SA [sperm analysis], and recommended consultation with Dr. Freeman. Suggest laparascopy. CPT for the pelvic pain. If covered by insurance, encouraged patient to have surgery done with Dr. Freeman. However, if not covered (if considered fertility intervention), would be happy to perform this surgery. Discussed fertile time in cycle, timing and frequency of intercourse. Brief review of fertility interventions. Pt happy with this information, will proceed to AS and schedule consultation with Dr. Freeman. Also discussed patient’s weight. Discussed healthy diet and exercise. Pt considering gastric sleeve procedure. Discussed some of the pros and cons of this being performed before or after fertility intervention. Pt likely to postpone surgery at this point. Dr. Gutovitz listed “Infertility, Female” as the diagnosis. The plan of treatment called for the patient to “Follow up with reproductive endocrinologist.” There is no mention of treatment for endometriosis. It is clear from Dr. Gutovitz’s notes that the purpose of the visit was to discuss infertility. Although endometriosis was mentioned, it was merely in a medical historical context. Following her visit to the Doctor’s Office, Petitioner made an appointment with Dr. Freeman (as advised by Dr. Gutovitz during the March 22 visit). She visited Dr. Freeman’s office on April 15, 2015. Dr. Freeman’s intake sheet on the patient indicates the chief complaint as “Primary infertility, endometriosis/pelvic pain.” Dr. Freeman discussed the infertility issue, but noted “[Petitioner] is interested in further evaluation and treatment but most interested in control of her pelvic pain.” Nonetheless, he noted that Petitioner’s husband would undergo a semen analysis to determine his fertility potential. About a week later, Petitioner presented again to Dr. Freeman for a follow-up visit. The doctor again addressed and discussed her pelvic pain and how it might be treated. He noted, “[Patient] is completely self-pay for fertility treatment and wishes to defer on HSG currently to see if tubal patency exists.” He concludes his notes on that visit with: At this point in time, [Petitioner] will forward results of her primary care physician’s lab work over to our office. Once this occurs, we will meet for reconsultation and likely undergo several cycles of empiric ovulation induction as a first step. If she does not become pregnant with that, then we will likely perform HSG to evaluate for tubal patency and consider the possibility of surgery. At the conclusion of the visit, they were understanding of the above, in agreement with the plan and rationale and had no additional questions or concerns. Empiric ovulation induction is a fertility treatment that induces ovulation. An HSG procedure uses dye to assess whether the fallopian tubes are blocked, i.e., whether there is tubal patency. Again, the doctor’s notes and comments address Petitioner’s endometriosis and pelvic pain, but his primary focus is on the infertility issue. Petitioner contends the two physicians simply misunderstood her needs or made a mistake when coding her office visits. The preponderance of evidence does not support her contention. Petitioner’s testimony concerning her claim was not persuasive. The Health Plan under which Petitioner was insured contains an exclusion of payment for infertility treatments. Section VI, Limitations and Exclusions, of the State Employees’ HMO Plan specifically excludes payment for “infertility treatment and supplies,” including testing, diagnostic procedures, and treatment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Management Services denying Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of payments relating to her medical treatments by Dr. Gutovitz. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 7th day of March, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Nesha Butterfield 2545 Chesterbrook Court Jacksonville, Florida 32224 Gavin D. Burgess, Esquire Department of Management Services Suite 160 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) J. Andrew Atkinson, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida, for committing the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint entered March 26, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Agency for Health Care Administration, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida. Dr. Hardcastle was licensed by the State of Florida at all times relevant to this proceeding. Dr. Hardcastle was issued license number ME 0015980. On or about August 27, 1991, D.C. presented to Dr. Hardcastle with complaints of headaches. D.C. is a female. In August of 1991, D.C. was twenty years of age and was taking birth control pills. Dr. Hardcastle diagnosed D.C. as suffering from rhinitis, with a secondary diagnosis of a deviated nose and septum. Rhinitis is an inflammation of the mucous membrane. There are two major categories of rhinitis: (a) allergic rhinitis; and (b) non-allergic or vasomotor rhinitis. Dr. Hardcastle followed a course of treatment that first ruled out allergic rhinitis. Dr. Hardcastle failed to adequately assess D.C.'s complaint when he failed to take into account the fact that D.C. was taking birth control pills. Dr. Hardcastle failed to consider the possibility that D.C. was suffering from vasomotor rhinitis as a result of taking birth control pills. Dr. Hardcastle concluded that surgery was necessary. A second opinion from a Dr. Walker also recommended surgery. Dr. Walker only recommended that a septoplasty be performed. Septoplasty is a procedure whereby a deviation, thickening or abnormality of the septum, the partition in the middle of the nose, is corrected surgically. Dr. Hardcastle recommended that D.C. undergo a septorhinoplasty: septoplasty and rhinoplasty. Rhinoplasty is cosmetic and involves some reduction, thinning, or narrowing of the outer nose. A separate form describing each surgical procedure was provided to D.C. (see Respondent's exhibits 2 and 3), and a film (not offered into evidence) was provided to D.C. by Dr. Hardcastle. The evidence failed to prove that the description of the types of procedures to be performed on D.C. were not adequate or that D.C. was not adequately informed on the possible results of the rhinoplasty procedure. The evidence also failed to prove that Dr. Hardcastle failed to keep adequate medical records of his explanation of the procedure to D.C. The surgery recommended by Dr. Hardcastle was performed on D.C. by Dr. Hardcastle on December 19, 1991. During the surgery Dr. Hardcastle removed approximately 1 inch x 1/2 inch of cartilage. Dr. Hardcastle also performed an osteotomies or the separation of the nasal bone, which according to Dr. Hardcastle's notes, was to correct a minor tilting of the nose to one side. The procedure performed by Dr. Hardcastle was poorly planned, and did little, if anything, to address the problems for which D.C. had first presented to Dr. Hardcastle. Following surgery, D.C. experienced difficulty breathing. She returned to Dr. Hardcastle from December of 1991 until May of 1992 in an attempt to get the problem corrected. Dr. Hardcastle addressed D.C.'s problem breathing by prescribing antihistamines and suggesting that the problem was allergies, even though Dr. Hardcastle had already concluded that D.C. was not suffering from any significant allergies. A reasonably prudent physician should have recognized that the procedure Dr. Hardcastle had performed on D.C. had not been effective and that she was suffering from a septum that was more deviated, or that had redeviated, or was obstructed. Dr. Hardcastle failed to discover this problem. D.C. ultimately presented to an allergist who determined that her septum was deviated or obstructed. It was subsequently determined that a bone spur on D.C.'s septum had not been removed by Dr. Hardcastle. The bone spur was removed during a second operation performed by another physician, Dr. Groff, in December of 1992. Based upon the foregoing, it is concluded that Dr. Hardcastle failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances in that he failed to consider the possibility that D.C. was suffering from vasomotor rhinitis as a result of taking birth control pills, his treatment of D.C. was poorly planned, and did little, if anything, to address the problems for which D.C. had first presented to him, and he failed to provide adequate postoperative treatment and care. It is also concluded that Dr. Hardcastle failed to keep adequate medical records in that he failed to note that D.C. was taking birth control pills. Dr. Hardcastle has one prior disciplinary action. On August 8, 1992, Dr. Hardcastle received a reprimand, was required to pay an administrative fine and he was prohibited from practicing otolaryngological surgery. See the Final Order in DRP Case Nos. 90-2824 and 90-4978.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent, Brian Hardcastle, M.D., committed acts prohibited by Sections 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine impose the following penalties on Dr. Hardcastle: (1) an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00; (2) a reprimand; (3) probation for a period of two years; and (4) a permanent restriction on Dr. Hardcastle's license prohibiting him from performing surgery. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Peacock, Esquire Joseph S. Garwood, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Brian Hardcastle, M.D. 6604 Southwest 35th Way Gainesville, Florida 32608 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which a medical doctor is charged by administrative complaint with five counts of violations of paragraphs (h), (k), (m), and (t) of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact Findings based on parties' stipulations The Respondent, Vladimir Rosenthal, M.D., (hereinafter "Respondent" or "Dr. Rosenthal") is, and at all material times was, a medical doctor, license number ME 0045574, who practiced at 1320 South Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, Florida. Dr. Rosenthal at all material times owned the business operating as Today's Women Medical Center located at 1320 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1070, Coral Gables, Florida. On or about November 3, 1988, Dr. Rosenthal performed an elective abortion on patient B.F. under general anesthesia. On or about November 3, 1988, Dr. Rosenthal ordered a pathology report of the products of the procedure performed on patient B.F. The pathology report regarding patient B.F. bears the date November 8, 1988. The pathology report revealed no chorionic villi and recommended a "close follow-up" of the patient. Missed abortion and continued pregnancy is a recognized risk of early (first trimester) abortions. Patient B.F. suffered no harm as a result of the November 3, 1988, procedure. On or about December 7, 1988, patient B.F. presented to Dr. Rosenthal. On or about December 7, 1988, patient B.F.'s uterus was examined and found to be enlarged. Subsequently, a repeat pregnancy test was performed on patient B.F., which revealed she was still pregnant. On or about December 10, 1988, Dr. Rosenthal performed a second abortion on patient B.F. with positive results. Patient B.F. suffered no harm as a result of the December 10, 1988, procedure. Findings based on evidence at hearing The Respondent specializes in the area of gynecology, but does not practice obstetrics. In the course of his medical practice he regularly performs first trimester abortions. The Respondent is very experienced in the performance of first trimester abortions. In recent years he has averaged five thousand (5,000) such procedures per year. Patient B.F. normally goes to Dr. Nahid Mansoori for routine treatment of gynecological matters. Patient B.F. was seen by Dr. Mansoori on October 28, 1988, with a history of a missed menstrual period. Dr. Mansoori examined the patient and observed that the patient had an enlarged uterus and appeared to be 5 or 6 weeks pregnant. The patient expressed an interest in having an abortion. Because Dr. Mansoori does not perform abortions, she referred patient B.F. to the Respondent. Dr. Mansoori also referred patient B.F. to Dr. Martin S. Goldstein for an ultrasound examination. Dr. Mansoori referred patients to the Respondent on a regular basis. She did so for several reasons, including the facts that (a) patients she referred to the Respondent uniformly reported back to her that they were pleased or satisfied with the services they received from the Respondent, (b) none of her patients had complained about their treatment by the Respondent, and (c) none of the patients she had referred to the Respondent had experienced any infection or problems. On October 31, 1988, Dr. Martin S. Goldstein performed an ultrasound examination of patient B.F. On the basis of that ultrasound examination, Dr. Goldstein concluded and reported that the "gestational age" of patient B.F.'s pregnancy was 6 weeks, 0 days. Dr. Goldstein also concluded and reported that patient B.F. had an intrauterine pregnancy, thus ruling out an ectopic pregnancy. On November 3, 1988, patient B.F. went to the Respondent's clinic at 1320 South Dixie Highway for the purpose of having an abortion. The Respondent remembers this particular patient because she was a medical professional and her husband was an attorney. Because of their respective professions, the Respondent was extra careful to explain everything involved in the process to both B.F. and her husband. He especially explained to both of them the importance of a post-abortion follow up examination at either the Respondent's clinic or at the office of the patient's regular gynecologist. Patient B.F. said that she would return to Dr. Mansoori, her regular gynecologist, for the follow up examination. When patient B.F. went to the Respondent's clinic on November 3, 1988, she told the Respondent that she had had an ultrasound examination. The Respondent called Dr. Mansoori and Dr. Mansoori told him that the results of the ultrasound examination indicated a "gestational age" 1/ of six weeks and that the ultrasound examination confirmed an intrauterine pregnancy. Dr. Mansoori also mentioned that her clinical examination of patient B.F. indicated a "gestational age" of five or six weeks. Upon manual examination of the patient, the Respondent concluded, and noted in the patient's medical record, that patient B.F.'s uterus was enlarged to a size consistent with a "gestational age" of five weeks. Later that same day, the Respondent performed an abortion procedure on patient B.F. Following the abortion procedure, patient B.F. took antibiotic medication for several days, which medication had been prescribed and/or dispensed by the Respondent. The Respondent ordered a pathology report of the products of the abortion procedure performed on patient B.F. on November 3, 1988. The Respondent does not order pathology reports on all of his patients, but he did so in this case because it was an early pregnancy, and also because he wanted to take extra care in view of the professions of B.F. and her husband. The pathology laboratory is supposed to call Dr. Rosenthal on all "abnormal" reports. Sometimes the laboratory fails to call and sometimes the laboratory fails to send a written report. The Respondent has established office procedures for handling laboratory reports to try to prevent any reports from going astray and to identify those that do go astray so that follow up activity may be taken. Pursuant to the Respondent's established office procedures, all laboratory reports received at the clinic must be seen and signed by the Respondent before being placed in a patient chart. When a patient returns for her follow up visit, the laboratory report is reviewed during the course of that visit. If a laboratory examination has been ordered, but there is no laboratory report in the chart at the time of the follow up visit, the laboratory is called by telephone. The Respondent usually makes these calls himself. Pursuant to the Respondent's established office procedures, missing laboratory reports for patients who do not return for follow up visits or who return to their regular physicians for follow up visits are picked up when monthly reports to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services are compiled and submitted. In order to complete these monthly reports, a log is kept of every patient who has an abortion procedure performed at the Respondent's clinic. The information kept in the log and reported to DHRS includes: the date of surgery, the estimated "gestational age" of the patient, whether a pathology report was ordered, the results of the pathology report, and the date the pathology report was received by the clinic. Such forms were in use at the time B.F. was a patient at the Respondent's clinic. If any pathology reports "fell through the cracks," they were picked up each month when the reports were prepared. The reports are usually prepared on the ninth or tenth of each month. The implementation of these office procedures for the purpose of following up on laboratory reports is sufficient to comply with applicable standards of medical care. The pathology laboratory prepared a report regarding the material removed from patient B.F. during the November 3, 1988, abortion procedure. The written laboratory report was dated November 8, 1988. The most significant finding noted on the laboratory report was "no chorionic villi." Because of this finding, the laboratory report also stated: "close follow up of patient is recommended." The significance of the notation of "no chorionic villi" is that it indicates that the pathology laboratory examination did not reveal evidence of any fetal tissue or other "products of conception." The need for close follow up in this instance is because the absence of chorionic villi can be due to a number of different things. 2/ On November 18, 1988, patient B.F. went to Dr. Mansoori's office for a post-abortion follow up visit. At that time the patient was complaining of a vaginal "yeast" infection, a not uncommon occurrence following a course of antibiotic medication. Dr. Mansoori treated the patient's "yeast" infection with a prescription for Monistat Vaginal Cream. Dr. Mansoori's medical records for that day also include the following notations regarding the patient B.F.: "Had abortion by Today's Woman. Post AB check up O.K." 3/ Dr. Mansoori told patient B.F. to get back in touch with her if the patient missed her next menstrual period. On December 6, 1988, patient B.F. called Dr. Mansoori to report that she had missed her menstrual period. Dr. Mansoori advised her to return to the Respondent and patient B.F. agreed to do so. Dr. Mansoori called the Respondent to advise him that patient B.F. would be returning because she had missed her menstrual period. Dr. Mansoori also arranged for another ultrasound examination to be performed on patient B.F. by Dr. Goldstein. On December 7, 1988, patient B.F. returned to the Respondent's clinic where she was seen and examined by the Respondent. Examination revealed that the patient's uterus was mildly enlarged. A pregnancy test administered that day indicated that the patient was still pregnant. On December 7, 1988, the Respondent realized that he did not have a report from the pathology laboratory, so he called the laboratory and was advised that the most significant finding of the pathology report was "no chorionic villi." The substance of the telephone conversation with the pathology laboratory was noted in the patient's medical record. When he made the telephone call to the pathology laboratory on December 7, 1988, the Respondent had not received the laboratory's written report dated November 8, 1988, 4/ nor had he been otherwise advised of the results of the pathology study of the materials removed during the November 3, 1988, abortion procedure. On December 8, 1988, Dr. Martin S. Goldstein performed a second ultrasound examination of patient B.F. On the basis of the second ultrasound examination, Dr. Goldstein concluded and reported that the "gestational age" of patient B.F.'s pregnancy was 11 weeks, 6 days. This second gestational age was three days older than one would have predicted based on the October 31, 1988, ultrasound examination. In both of the ultrasound examinations of patient B.F., Dr. Goldstein relied upon the "crown rump" measurement as the basis for his estimate of "gestational age." On December 10, 1988, when patient B.F. returned to the Respondent's office for the second abortion procedure, the Respondent conducted a clinical examination of the patient before commencing the procedure. On the basis of his own clinical examination of the patient, the Respondent was of the opinion that patient B.F.'s "gestational age" was 8 or 9 weeks. He reported this on the "Physical Exam" portion of the patient's chart by writing "8-9" beside the entry for uterus. After the patient was anesthetized and the Respondent could examine her while she was more relaxed, the Respondent further examined the patient's uterus and was of the opinion that its size corresponded to a "gestational age" of 8 weeks. He noted this opinion in the "Operative Notes" portion of the patient's chart. It was, and continues to be, the Respondent's opinion that his December 10, 1988, estimates of the patient's "gestational age" were correct. Although he was aware of Dr. Goldstein's ultrasound examination which reported a somewhat older "gestational age," the Respondent had confidence in his own clinical findings and relied on his own clinical findings, which he duly recorded in the patient's medical chart. Relying on his own estimate of "gestational age," the Respondent performed the abortion procedure on December 10, 1988, on patient B.F. with a number eight suction tip. The abortion procedure was accomplished successfully and without any difficulty or complication. A report from a pathology laboratory confirmed that the December 10, 1988, abortion procedure was successful. 5/ The prevailing standards of acceptable care do not require a physician to order a pathology examination of the material removed during the course of a routine first trimester abortion procedure. In an abortion procedure involving a very early pregnancy, a physician may wish to order such a pathology examination in order to be more certain as to the results of the procedure, but it is a matter of physician preference, rather than a requirement. A physician who orders a pathology examination of the material removed during a first trimester abortion procedure has an affirmative duty to follow up on the examination and find out the results of the examination within a reasonable period of time. 6/ The Respondent's follow up on December 7, 1988, on the results of the pathology examination of the material removed from patient B.F. during the November 3, 1988, procedure was reasonable under the circumstances. 7/ The Respondent's delay until December 7, 1988, before following up on that pathology examination was not a departure from applicable standards of medical care. 8/ The Respondent's medical records for patient B.F. justify the course of treatment of the patient. The use of ultrasound examination as a method of estimating "gestational age" is not an exact science and cannot be relied upon to determine an exact "gestational age." As a general rule, "gestational age" estimates derived by means of ultrasound examination are accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus two weeks. 9/ Clinical or manual examination of a patient as a method of estimating "gestational age" is also not an exact science and cannot be relied upon to determine an exact "gestational age." As a general rule, "gestational age" estimates derived by means of clinical or manual examination of a patient are accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus two weeks, if done by an experienced physician. It is not a departure from applicable standards of medical care for an estimate of "gestational age" to vary from the actual "gestational age" by as much as plus or minus two weeks when the estimate is based on the physician's clinical or manual examination of the patient. A reasonably prudent physician who is experienced in clinical or manual examination of patients for the purpose of estimating "gestational age" should rely on his own findings, even if those findings appear to conflict with findings based on ultrasound examination. Such a physician should also note his own findings on the patient's medical records, regardless of what is reported by the ultrasound. There is no great discrepancy between the estimate of "gestational age" reported in Dr. Goldstein's ultrasound report of December 8, 1988, and the Respondent's estimate of "gestational age" on December 10, 1988. The Respondent's notations in patient B.F.'s medical records on December 10, 1988, to the effect that her pregnancy was of a "gestational age" of eight weeks was an honest notation of the Respondent's clinical judgment and was not a statement the Respondent knew to be false. 10/ Similarly, those notations were not deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations. On or about August 3, 1989, the Respondent's clinic, known as Today's Woman Medical Center, located at Suite 1070, 1320 South Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, Florida, was inspected by an employee of the Office of Licensure and Certification of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. 11/ At the time of that inspection the Respondent was not present at the clinic, there were no procedures being performed at the clinic, and there were no patients at the clinic.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case DISMISSING all charges against the Respondent, Vladimir Rosenthal, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 2nd day of October, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 456.072(1)(aa), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of medicine pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 458, Florida Statutes. Dr. Weiner, is and was at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME76902. He has been practicing medicine for 23 years and has not previously been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. Dr. Weiner is board-certified in anesthesiology. S.M. has been a patient of Dr. Weiner since 1999. S.M. sought treatment from Dr. Weiner for his lower back pain that he suffered as a result of a golf cart injury. Over the course of his care under Dr. Weiner up until the date of the incident, S.M. received numerous treatments for his back pain, including radiofrequency ablation and epidural steroids. Radiofrequency ablation uses a specific frequency of radio waves to help put specific pain nerves that go to the joints of the spine to sleep for a period of time. In this procedure a steroid is deposited inside the epidural space outside the spine. The procedure can help to treat back pain as well as pain extending down the legs of the patient. On January 29, 2005, S.M. presented to Dr. Weiner with complaints of lower back pain. After examining S.M., Dr. Weiner recommended that S.M. undergo a radiofrequency ablation procedure. Dr. Weiner ordered the radiofrequency ablation procedure and instructed his office to coordinate with the Center for Digestive Health and Pain Management (Center), to have the procedure scheduled. The Center, which is a separate facility from Dr. Weiner's office, scheduled S.M.'s treatment for February 19, 2004. The Center scheduled S.M. for a Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, rather than the radiofrequency ablation procedure. A Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, involves placing a needle down near the tailbone. A catheter is inserted through the needle into the space around the spine. A steroid medication is injected through the catheter. The purpose of the procedure is to decrease irritation and inflammation of the nerves as well as the discs. S.M. could have derived some benefit from the Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach. Patient charts at the Center are separate from the patient charts at Dr. Weiner's office. The Center's charts are made up by the Center staff and consist of forms for the specific procedure, a template of the procedure for the specific procedure, the nursing notes, billing sheets, and other administrative paperwork. When the Center erroneously scheduled S.M. for a Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, the Center prepared paperwork necessary for the provision of that technique, including consent forms. On February 19, 2004, S.M. went to the Center with the belief that he was going to receive the radiofrequency ablation procedure. During this visit, S.M. was in a lot of pain and was eager to receive treatment for his back. Upon arrival to the Center, S.M. signed a consent form that referenced a Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach procedure. The nurse then confirmed with S.M., the technician, and Dr. Weiner that S.M. understood this procedure. Dr. Weiner also explained the Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, to S.M before administering the treatment and also told S.M. that this was the first time he had undergone this procedure while under Dr. Weiner's care. Subsequent to signing the consent form, S.M. got undressed and was hooked up to an IV. He was then moved to another bed, and Dr. Weiner started to perform the Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, on S.M. Dr. Weiner administered a local anesthesia and began to insert the tip of a needle into S.M.'s back. After partially inserting the needle in S.M.'s back, Dr. Weiner stopped the procedure and reviewed S.M.'s chart. He requested that S.M.'s chart that was in Dr. Weiner's office be brought to the Center. The chart revealed that the Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, was not the procedure that was originally ordered at S.M.'s appointment on January 29, 2004. Once he realized the discrepancy, Dr. Weiner apologized to S.M. and explained that he began to do the wrong procedure. S.M. was then taken to the recovery room, and Dr. Weiner ordered the radiofrequency ablation procedure for a later date. S.M. did not receive the complete Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, procedure on February 19, 2005. In or about March 2004, S.M. returned to the Center and had the radiofrequency ablation procedure completed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that James P. Weiner, M.D., violated Subsection 456.072(1)(aa), Florida Statutes; issuing a reprimand; imposing a $1,000 fine; requiring 25 hours of community service; and requiring five hours of risk management education. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 31st day of March, 2006.
