The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a medical doctor should be disciplined for the reasons given in the Administrative Complaints filed on October 17, 1997, and February 2, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times material hereto, Respondent, Duke H. Scott, was a licensed medical doctor having been issued license number ME 0013791 by the Board of Medicine (Board). Until 1998, Respondent practiced as a family physician at 1205 Beach Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida. Except for the charges raised in this proceeding, there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been involved in a prior disciplinary action. Based on complaints filed by three former female patients, J. P., B. N., and S. C., Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), prosecuting this matter on behalf of the Board, issued an Administrative Complaint on October 17, 1997, alleging that while treating those patients between the years 1992 and 1994, Respondent improperly exercised influence in the patient-physician relationship for the purpose of engaging those patients in a sexual activity, and he engaged in sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine. Those three complaints are found in Case No. 98-0985. On February 2, 1998, the Department issued a second Administrative Complaint alleging that during the years 1992 through 1995 Respondent engaged in similar activity with two other female patients, C. A. and A. G. Those two complaints are found in Case No. 98-0785. Respondent has denied all allegations of misconduct and requested a hearing for the purpose of contesting the charges. Because the parties presented sharply conflicting versions of events, the undersigned has accepted the most credible testimony and resolved those conflicts in the following manner. Respondent's Practice Respondent has worked as a family practitioner in Jacksonville, Florida, since the 1960's and has treated thousands of patients over the years. When the events herein occurred, he was employed as a physician by Health South, Inc. (HSI), a large medical organization, until HSI was bought out by another entity. In 1992 through 1994, when the alleged misconduct occurred, Respondent's typical day would begin around 5:30 a.m. or 6:00 a.m. when he made "morning rounds" at two local hospitals visiting patients. He then met with his office personnel at 7:30 a.m., and he began seeing patients shortly thereafter. His work day did not end until the last patient was seen, generally between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m., depending on the case load. In an average day, Respondent saw no fewer than twenty-five, and as many as sixty, patients. The regular staff, which numbered five or six, reported to work each morning by 7:30 a.m. Besides the regular staff, Respondent also hired temporary or part-time workers, often former or current patients, to staff the office after 4:00 p.m. so that some of his regular staff could be relieved. Respondent encouraged these part-timers to complete their education, he paid for their books and tuition while they worked in his office, and he arranged their work schedules around their classes. Because of his full work day, it was not unusual for Respondent to meet with potential part-timers at the end of the work day in his office to discuss possible employment and what their duties would entail. The staff was divided into "front" and "back" staff, which meant they either worked in the front reception area answering the telephone, making appointments, receiving payments, and processing insurance claims, or they worked in the back assisting the doctor when he was seeing patients. As a rule, part-timers worked with the front staff and not with patients. During the early 1990's, Respondent had a fairly large contingent of patients who were on a weight loss program. After an initial comprehensive examination, these patients would return on a periodic basis at 7:30 a.m. for weight and blood pressure checks and a quick visit with Respondent to check on their progress. They remained fully clothed during follow-up visits. Unless they had a specific problem, the patients rarely saw the doctor for longer than a minute or two, and an assistant was always present to keep the patients moving. Beginning around 1985 or so, Respondent had a policy of always having a female assistant in the examination room whenever he conducted a pelvic or breast examination on a female patient. Whenever patients were required to disrobe, they were given a paper gown to wear. It was established that a female assistant would remain in the room until the examination was completed. During a pelvic examination, Respondent always wore a rubber glove on the hand that was being used for the examination. Finally, Respondent kept detailed patient records, and he would never do a breast examination without documenting this in the patient's chart. Unlike most modern era doctors, Respondent occasionally made house calls to family members of his patients when unusual circumstances arose. He followed up on concerns personally, and he treated whole families. In terms of his practicing style, Respondent would sometimes hug his patients, male and female, or even give the females a peck on the forehead before they left his office. This conduct was grounded on his care and concern for the patient, and not for sexual gratification. His style of personally caring for patients has become so rare in today's society that some patients might misinterpret this behavior. The Charges Each of the five patients who filed charges with the Department was either represented in a civil action, or signed an affidavit prepared, by the same Jacksonville attorney. Their claims will be discussed separately below. Patient C. A. In September 1997, C. A. read an article in a local newspaper regarding a civil lawsuit filed against Respondent and certain other defendants by J. P., S. C., and B. N. Motivated by the fact that she could "help out getting [Respondent's] license taken away," she contacted the attorney who was representing the plaintiffs and agreed to sign an affidavit prepared by him. The attorney then mailed it to the Department. She offered no plausible explanation as to why she had waited five years after the alleged misconduct occurred before making a complaint. Respondent's initial contact with C. A. occurred on November 16, 1992, or five years earlier, when she was eighteen years old, after she fell out of a jeep, broke her ankle, and suffered multiple bruises and contusions. Using her parents' health insurance policy, she visited Respondent's office on seven occasions for treatment of her ankle between November 16 and December 30, 1992. She had no complaints regarding his conduct while visiting him for treatment on those occasions. At hearing, C. A. contended that on an undisclosed date in late 1992, at Respondent's invitation, she rode with him to his condominium where they ate a take-out dinner and he mixed her one drink, ostensibly for the purpose of discussing a part-time job at his office. Respondent denied that this occurred. She also claimed that they met several times at his office "after dark," when the office was empty, for "training" sessions. While she felt "uncomfortable" and "weird" in those settings, she conceded that Respondent never raised the subject of sex, never asked her to engage in sexual relations, and never tried to inappropriately touch her. C. A.'s recollection of the alleged events was somewhat hazy. For example, she claimed that Respondent showed her around the condominium, but her description of the condominium was inaccurate. She could not recall the specific dates or times that she visited his office, except that it was after 5:30 p.m., when it became dark. She agreed that it was probably between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m., but if this were true, there would still have been patients or staff in the office at that time, as well as the cleaning crew. She also says that on one occasion, she got some basic training on how to take blood pressure; that training, however, was always given by an assistant, rather than Respondent, and in any event, she would have been hired as "front" staff to meet patients rather than assisting the doctor in treating them. C. A. says that she related Respondent's alleged misconduct to her "mom, stepmother, grandmother, and roommate," and to her present husband, whom she met a few months after last seeing Respondent in December 1992. Except for her husband, no one appeared at hearing to corroborate this assertion. As to the husband, his testimony has been discredited as being biased since he was evicted as a tenant from a rental property owned by Respondent. This occurred after he made an unannounced visit to Respondent's home one Sunday afternoon seeking reimbursement for some painting expenses. During that visit, he banged on the door and windows of Respondent's home until Respondent threatened to call the police and have him arrested. Because of his animosity towards Respondent, it is fair to suspect that he may have motivated his wife to bring these charges or color her testimony. For the foregoing reasons, the testimony of C. A. has not been credited. Even assuming arguendo that the events described by C. A. occurred, there is less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent exercised influence within this relationship for the purpose of engaging C. A. in sexual activity, as alleged in the complaint. Patient A. G. Like C. A., A. G. read a local newspaper story which detailed the fact that three other patients had filed a lawsuit against Respondent and certain other defendants. She also read that one or more of the actions had been settled for money by the other defendants. After contacting the plaintiffs' attorney, she learned that the statute of limitations barred her from filing a claim. She agreed, however, to sign an affidavit executed by the attorney, who then filed it with the Department. A. G. first visited Respondent in September 1992 to seek assistance in controlling her weight. She was referred to Respondent by her mother, who was also a weight loss patient and a "long time" friend. A. G. continued in the weight loss program for around nine months. In her complaint, A. G. contended that Respondent always asked her to remove her bra, without any attendant being present, while he conducted her follow-up weight loss examinations. Although he never touched her breasts, she complained that she was "uncomfortable" without a top, and that he sometimes positioned himself much closer to her than was necessary. Once, she says he brushed his body against her while examining her eyes and ears. Besides these office visits, A. G. also contended that Respondent approached her to discuss the possibility of her appearing in a scuba diving instruction video he wished to produce. A meeting at his office, however, never materialized. A. G.'s testimony contained many inconsistencies. For example, at one point, she contended that she was asked by Respondent to take off her bra on "every" office visit; she later testified that he asked her to do so on some occasions; she finally testified that this occurred only once. Even then, she conceded that Respondent had never touched her breasts during any office visit. A. G. also recalled Respondent wearing an old fashioned doctor's band with a little silver "thing" on the top of his head. His office staff established, however, that he does not use such a device. The testimony regarding weight checks by Respondent's former office staff was unequivocal that weight patients are fully clothed; that evidence has been accepted as being the most credible on this issue. Visits by weight program patients took no more than a minute or two at most, and an assistant was always in and out of the room to ensure that Respondent moved on to the next waiting patient. In 1995, after having not seen him for over two years, A. G. returned to Respondent's office and requested that he give her a medical excuse to cover an unauthorized leave of absence from her job. Although A. G. denied that this occurred, it was established that she had in fact returned to his office in 1995 and was very angry when she left because Respondent refused to give her the work excuse note that she requested. A. G. also testified that she told her confidant and godmother, Margaret Hightower, about Respondent's alleged behavior. Hightower denied, however, that A. G. ever relayed these alleged incidents to her, and testified that A. G. has a reputation for untruthfulness. For the foregoing reasons, the testimony of A. G. has not been credited. Even one of Petitioner's own experts did not find her testimony to be credible. Accordingly, there is insufficient clear and convincing evidence that Respondent improperly exercised influence in his relationship with A. G. for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity, as alleged in the complaint. Patient J. P. J. P.'s allegations are rather lengthy and involve a number of office visits beginning in late April 1993 and ending in early May 1994. However, she did not have specific recall of which allegations arose from a particular office visit. During her testimony, she relied on notes she had made over two years later in contemplation of civil litigation. In some cases, her testimony was in conflict with contemporaneous medical and insurance records, or with the testimony of other witnesses. In addition, her testimony was seriously impeached as a result of other matters found in the record. For these reasons, her testimony has not been accepted. J. P. initially saw Respondent for hormone and thyroid problems, and emotional distress. She was also treated for a knee injury occuring in May 1993. She was a very large woman weighing approximately 272 pounds. The patient had no complaint regarding her first visit. On her second visit on May 18, 1993, however, she claimed that Respondent examined her without an assistant in the room and attempted to undress her by unbuttoning her blouse and unhooking her bra. She also contended that he examined her breasts unlike any other doctor she had ever visited, including doing so while she sat upright on an examination table and rubbing her nipples until they became hard. Although J. P. contended that the purpose of the second visit was for treatment of an injured knee, the record shows that the original purpose of the visit was to review lab tests and to receive a refill for her thyroid medication. There was no indication in the medical records that a breast examination was performed, and the documentary evidence has been accepted on this issue. Even if one was performed, Petitioner's own expert agreed that it was appropriate to examine her breasts while she was sitting up on the examination table and that it was appropriate and necessary to examine and rub her nipples. J. P. also contended that Respondent performed breast examinations on other occasions even though she was being treated for a knee injury. The medical records do not support this assertion. She also contended that on two occasions, she felt an erection when Respondent brushed up against her during an examination. Like many other doctors, however, Respondent routinely carried an otoscope in his pocket, and it is more likely that the patient felt this instrument if in fact Respondent may have accidentally brushed against her. During a pelvic examination conducted on December 15, 1993, J. P. recalled that Respondent insisted that the female assistant, Frances McLaurin, leave the room. McLaurin disputed that this occurred, and her testimony has been accepted on this issue. When asked why she continued to see Respondent despite the foregoing conduct, J. P. stated that she believed that her insurance company would not allow her to change doctors. The record belies this contention in several respects. For the foregoing reasons, it is found that Respondent did not improperly influence his relationship with J. P. for sexual purposes, or engage in sexual misconduct with the patient, as alleged in the complaint. Patient B. N. B. N. first saw Respondent in March 1979 when she was eighteen years of age. She continued to see him on approximately thirty-five occasions prior to May 1992. She expressed no complaints regarding his conduct during those visits. In April 1992, B. N. began working as an assistant in Respondent's office. She was terminated in October 1992. A few months later, she was rehired on a part-time basis in the late afternoon. This employment ended on August 19, 1993, when she found a full-time job elsewhere. When she left Respondent's employ, B. N. had a disagreement with Respondent regarding her insurance benefits. This was confirmed by a representative of HSI, who was in charge of health insurance benefits. B. N. was under the impression that Respondent had maliciously and intentionally cut her work hours so that she would not be eligible for insurance. As it turned out, though, Respondent had no control over the provision of health insurance to a part-time employee. This bias on the part of B. N. casts doubt on the credibility of her testimony. On May 15, 1992, B. N. claimed that she was disrobed above the waist while no one other than she and Respondent were in the room. She further complained that Respondent touched her forehead while breathing in her ear. She also contended that Respondent stared into her eyes while doing a breast examination, and that he kissed her on the forehead after the examination was completed. Assuming arguendo that the foregoing events occurred, they do not rise to the level of constituting sexual activity or misconduct, as charged in the complaint. For example, Petitioner's expert conceded that it was not inappropriate to stare into a patient's eyes while performing a breast examination. Moreover, the fact that the patient may have felt Respondent's breath while he looked into her ears is not per se an inappropriate activity. Finally, when Respondent gave a female patient a peck on the forehead before she left his office, it was established that this was done out of care and concern for the patient, and not for sexual gratification. On August 10, 1993, Respondent performed a pelvic examination on B. N. after she presented complaints of pain in her lower left quadrant which was enhanced during sexual relations. She was diagnosed with inflammation of the cervix and a bacterial infection of the uterus and vagina. B. N. complained, however, that she felt pressure to her clitoris during the pelvic examination, and she was asked inappropriate questions of a sexual nature by the doctor. As to the first contention, Petitioner's own expert established that given the complaints presented by the patient, it was appropriate for a doctor to touch the clitoris during a pelvic examination, particularly if the patient had complained of pain during sex. As to the inappropriate questions, the same expert testified as to the legitimate medical reasons for the inquiries made by Respondent. B. N. further contended that Respondent performed the vaginal examination without a glove. In light of the more credible evidence presented by his medical assistants on this issue, and Respondent's own testimony to the contrary, this assertion has been rejected. In summary, there is insufficient clear and convincing evidence that Respondent exercised influence within his relationship with B. N. for the purpose of engaging in sexual activity, or that he engaged in sexual misconduct with the patient. Patient S. C. S. C. was a twenty-year-old female when she first saw Respondent as a patient in August 1993. She was taken to see Respondent on August 18, 1993, by her mother, who was also a patient. At that time, she complained of shortness of breath and anxiety. During the comprehensive initial examination, S. C. was asked by a member of the staff to remove her blouse, but not her bra, and she was given a paper gown to wear. During the comprehensive examination, Respondent checked the patient's groin areas for nodes, and he felt the femoral pulses. Although S. C. felt uncomfortable when this occurred, she did not think it was inappropriate. According to Petitioner's expert, this was acceptable conduct on the part of Respondent since there were medical reasons for checking a femoral pulse. S. C. also noted that Respondent cupped her breast while listening to her heart with a stethoscope. However, he never rubbed, caressed, or otherwise fondled her breast, and S. C. never indicated this made her feel uncomfortable or was inappropriate. S. C. was unemployed during this period of time and was looking for a job. At the same time, Respondent needed someone to replace a part-timer (B. N.) who was leaving the next day. Accordingly, he asked her to return later that day to discuss possible employment. When S. C. returned, the office floors were being buffed by the clean-up crew, and it was too noisy to discuss a job. Respondent suggested that they go to his nearby condominum, sometimes used as a rental or loaned to friends, where his wife was cleaning and restocking the unit. This was confirmed by his wife, who was waiting for him at the condominium. On the way to the condominium, S. C. suggested they stop to eat dinner. Since Respondent had already eaten with his wife, he suggested they return to his office on the assumption that the cleaning of the floors was completed. When they returned, one member of the clean-up crew was still present. While in the office, S. C. mentioned that she was having trouble breathing through her nose. Respondent gave her a medication for allergic rhinitis. S. C. recalled that he also performed a quick nasal inspection, and while doing so, Respondent's groin area came into contact with her hands and that he had an erection. She later amended her testimony to state that his groin area came into contact with her knee. At no time, however, did Respondent ever say a word about engaging in sex. Assuming that the above scenario occurred, an accidental brushing up against the patient does not constitute sexual misconduct. Even if S. C. may have felt something brush up against her knee, it is more likely that she felt his otoscope, which he routinely carried in his pocket. S. C. accepted the offer of employment, but she left for Miami shortly thereafter, where her father lived, and she never returned to work for Respondent. In light of the foregoing, it is found that there is less than clear and convincing evidence to indicate that Respondent exercised influence within the patient-physician relationship for the purpose of engaging S. C. in sexual activity, or that he engaged in sexual misconduct with her, as alleged in the complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the two complaints, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire The Cambridge Center 355 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kelly B. Mathis, Esquire Michael A. Wasylik, Esquire DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of May, 1999. Suite 1700, SunTrust Building 200 West Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202-4359 Joseph P. Milton, Esquire 1660 Prudential Drive, Suite 200 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8185 Robert M. Ervin, Jr., Esquire Melissa F. Allaman, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1170 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 J. Harding Peterson, III, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The matters presented for consideration in this action are related to an Administrative Complaint brought by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against Dr. Lee, accusing him of having violated various provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, pertaining to his practice of medicine. The complaint accuses the Respondent of violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, related to the treatment of several patients. Respondent is also accused of having failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment for those patients in violation of Section 458.331(1)(n) , Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact William J. Lee, M.D., is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida through a license issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, License No. MEO12345. He has held that license at all times relevant to this case and in that time sequence has practiced general medicine and general surgery in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, in his office and at Jacksonville Beach's Hospital in that same community. Dr. Lee is 51 years old and is a graduate of Emory University in 1958, receiving his M.D. from Emory in 1964. He did an internship at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, followed by a residency in general surgery at the University of Florida from 1965 through 1968 and completed his residency at Duval Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida, in 1969. The Administrative Complaint, which is the subject of this hearing was filed on February 22, 1983. Proper service of the Administrative Complaint was effected upon the Respondent and Dr. Lee made a timely request for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. THELMA A. PARKER From August 9 through 13, 1974, Thelma Parker was treated medically at Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, for acute diverticulitis. This treatment was provided by Dr. C. Cooksey. In particular, Dr. Cooksey's medical regime was NOP, IV fluids, and large doses of Fibramycin. A barium enema was done on the patient on August 10, 1974, and revealed diverticulosis of the sigmoid colon and one large acutely inflamed diverticulum of the mid-sigmoid level. This diverticulum was unusually long and Dr. Cooksey was of the impression that the diverticulum produced some edema of the bowel wall with low grade obstruction. Finally, Dr. Cooksey felt that at some point the diverticulum should be resected because of its size. In late August 1978, Ms. Parker, who had become a patient of the Respondent's, began to experience cramping, and diarrhea pain for which she took lomotil to slow down the bowel activity. This relieved her symptoms temporarily. Nevertheless, the symptoms persisted and on September 2, 1978, Ms. Parker went to the emergency room at Jacksonville Beach's Hospital, displaying the same type of pain and showing a mild distention. This pain was a generalized to and fro type of pain of cramping nature across the area of the abdomen. It was not localized. Dr. Lee admitted the patient to that hospital on that date. At that time, Dr. Lee was aware of the prior 1974 bout which the patient had with diverticulitis. Lee obtained an x-ray obstruction series and based upon this information felt that possible explanation was adynamic ileus versus early obstruction. He did not feel that the patient was suffering from diverticulitis in that there was no indication of lower left quadrant abdominal pain, bowel dysfunction such as constipation or obstipation and no indication of temperature elevation, indicators of diverticulitis. The symptoms she did display were not inconsistent with diverticulitis. At admission, the Respondent did note the past history of diverticulitis and the emergency room admission and hospital records indicated chronic lower quadrant abdominal pain and change in bowel habits and diarrhea, which are consistent with diverticulitis. Based upon examination of the patient, x-rays and associated materials, Respondent performed an exploratory laparotomy on September 4, 1978, for the purpose of relieving a small bowel obstruction. In the surgery, he found grossly dilated loops of the small bowel with obvious obstruction of the terminal ileum approximately 15 cm's proximal to the ibocacal valve. He found that area to be "firmly adherent to a mass of scar tissue in the sigmoid colon area of the pelvis with chronic low grade inflammatory reaction present in the region." The portion of the ileum that was involved in this was wound severely upon itself with the massive scar tissue in the area. Given the condition, he determined to resect that portion of the small bowel and effected a repair by anastomosis. No evidence was revealed in the course of the operation of any blockage of the large bowel, based upon his observations and manipulations. Gross examination was also made of the sigmoid colon and this revealed no dilation. No contrast studies were done to examine the lumen of the sigmoid colon, such as barium enema or colonscopy. Those studies would have ruled out diverticulitis in the area of the sigmoid colon. The post operative diagnosis by Dr. Lee was small bowel obstruction, secondary to diverticular disease and upon the discharge date of September 14, 1978, the diagnosis was 1) small bowel obstruction and 2) diverticular disease. The patient was seen in Dr. Lee's office on September 18, 1978 and had a fever and abdominal symptoms. She was told to see the doctor again on the next day and lacking improvement on that date was admitted to the hospital on September 19, 1978. At the time of admission on September 19, 1978, initial impression by Dr. Lee was that the patient was suffering intra-abdominal abcesses, secondary to anastomostic break or leakage in the area of the resection of the small bowel. The patient demonstrated a tenderness in the lower abdomen and had some nausea and vomiting. On rectal examination, the patient demonstrated a fluctuant area in the rectum, at the pelvic basin formed by the peritoneum. This area was determined to be an abscess and on September 26, 1978, Dr. Lee performed a procedure by going through the anus into this area of abscess and making an incision in the wall of the rectum to allow drainage of the abscess through the rectum. There was some improvement but the patient continued to have temperature elevation and abdominal pain and on October 2, 1978, further laparotocy was done and an anastonimotic break was discovered. Reanastomosis was achieved following a second resection in the area of the initial small bowel obstruction. Gross examination during the course of this surgery did not reveal any evident blockage of the large intestine or active diverticulitis. Again, no specific diagnostic work was done to determine the condition of the sigmoid colon related to diverticulitis. During the surgery, in addition to the revision of the ileostomy, abdominal abscesses were also evacuated. The patient was discharged on October 21, 1978. After her release in October 1978, the patient was seen on a number of occasions by the Respondent and indicated occasional episodes of cramping, diarrheal type stool but no localized pain in the left, lower quadrant, constipation or obstipation. The patient developed a ventral hernia in the area of the incision related to the abdominal surgery performed by the Respondent and on June 21, 1979, was admitted to the hospital to attend that condition. Exploratory laparotomy was dome on June 22, 1979 and the Respondent did further resectioning and reanastomosis in the area of the small bowel repair together with repair to the ventral incisional hernia. The large intestine in the area of the previous diverticular disease was examined and no indication, on gross examination, was given as to obstruction of the large bowel or any showing of acute inflammation in the area of the sigmoid colon suggesting diverticulitis. As was the case before, no specific examination of the sigmoid colon by a process of barium enema or otherwise was made at the time of this hospitalization. The patient was seen in the Respondent's office on July 3, 1979, and it was noted that her wound from the most recent operation was healing and that her appetite was good and bowel movements normal. A further visit of July 6, 1979, revealed a pink, serous drainage from the portion of the most recent incision and the abdomen was tender. Eventually, the patient had to be readmitted on July 23, 1979. Upon admission, it was believed that the patient was suffering intra-abdominal abscesses. She demonstrated temperature elevation and abdominal pain. The serous drainage from the incision had subsided. On this admission, particularly July 27, 1979, Dr. Lee did obtain a barium enema for purposes of examining the sigmoid colon and it showed a narrowed portion within the sigmoid colon with a communication to an abscess in the pelvis and from there a fistula to the small bowel at the site of the anastomosis. The abscess described was an abscess that had been addressed by Dr. Lee on September 26, 1978. This narrowing in the sigmoid colon was a partial obstruction, leaving an approximate functional capability of 10 percent. No dilation was observed in the bowel proximal to the area of partial obstruction and there was no distention. The narrowing was caused by the diverticular disease process. No evidence was found of an active condition of diverticulitis in the sigmoid colon. On July 30, 1979, a further surgical course was pursued by Dr. Lee and a segment of the small bowel in the area of the previous attempts at anastomosis was removed and a reanastomosis was done with a cleaning up of the previously described fistula tract and associated repairs. No attention was given to the narrowing of the sigmoid colon. On August 6, 1979, Dr. Lee opened and drained large abscesses in the abdominal wall and this was followed on August 9, 1979, with his notation of a small bowel fistula. On August 10, 1979, the patient requested consultation with another surgeon, Dr. James Corwin and was transferred to his care on August 12, 1979. Corwin advised the patient to have a loop colostomy to try and address continuing problems as described by prohibiting the sigmoid colon from contributing to those difficulties. This procedure was carried out by Dr. Corwin on August 17, 1979. Resection of the sigmoid colon was done by Dr. Corwin on September 17, 1979. (Pathology related to the sigmoid colon showed diverticulosis, indication of diverticular disease. It did not show active diverticulitis.) The patient accepted Dr. Corwin's suggestion that the colostomy and resection of the sigmoid colon were necessary, without hesitation. Respondent's suggestion by testimony or record that he had discussed with Ms. Parker the need to address her diverticular condition and possible resection of the sigmoid colon and her rejection of such diagnosis and treatment is not accepted. These discussions allegedly occurred between her release from the hospital in October 1978, and her hospitalization in June 1979. When examined in light of the facts found, specifically her willingness to submit to all other operations and procedures by Dr. Lee and to accept Corwin's treatment of the colon when suggested, Respondent is not to be believed on this subject. Ms. Parker failed to recover from the series of problems as discussed and died on October 28, 1979. The diverticular disease in the colon contributed to her demise and Dr. Lee failed to diagnose and treat that condition. Notwithstanding the fact that Ms. Parker did not take care of herself in terms of her physical condition, related to her drinking habits, Respondent was not relieved from the necessity to diagnosis and address the problem with the sigmoid colon. Dr. E. R. Woodward testified on behalf of the Petitioner, after being accepted as an expert in medicine with particular emphasis on general surgery. Dr. Woodward is a professor of surgery and former chairman of the Department of Surgery at the University of Florida, College of Medicine, and is a member of various boards, colleges and associations related to the practice of surgery and has written approximately 250 publications and authored two books in the field of general surgery. His testimony was based upon the review of hospital records related to Parker's various hospitalizations under the care of Dr. Lee that have been addressed. Dr. Woodward is of the opinion that the patient suffered diverticulitis in the sigmoid colon at times relevant to the inquiry and finds fault with Dr. Lee's failure to diagnose and treat this condition which Dr. Woodward felt was the underlying cause of the patient's problems pertaining to obstruction in the small bowel and associated anastomotic failures. Even without such diagnoistic procedures as barium enema or otherwise, Dr. Woodward feels that Dr. Lee recognized the diverticulitis of the colon in describing the chronic inflammatory reaction in the area of the sigmoid colon in his September 4, 1978, post operative report. Dr. Woodward revealed that in the September 19, 1978, admission that one of the x-rays showed air fluid levels in the right colon which is indirect evidence of a possible problem of an obstruction in the sigmoid colon. Moreover, given the fact that the intestines heal extremely well, according to Dr. Woodward, the problem with the anastomosis was possibly due to the fact that the lining of the intestine beyond the anastomosis was not open sufficiently and that there was some degree of obstruction as was revealed in the area of the sigmoid colon, which had been caused by chronic diverticulitis. By the time of the June 21, 1979, hospitalization, Dr. Woodward felt that the patient's condition was such that her recovery was not promising. Even in the face of information found after the July 27, 1979, barium enema, Dr. Lee did not address the difficulty with the narrowing in the colon by some process of diverting colostomy or other surgery of the colon. In Dr. Woodward's mind, this was necessary at the time of the September 4, 1978, surgery and continued to be a need at the time of the July 30, 1979, surgery. Risk of mortality increased from 2 percent to as high as 10 percent at the July 30, 1979, operation. Subsequent to that operation, the patient was so ill and the infection so severe that the mortality risk related to surgery was prohibitive, per Woodward. In summary, Woodward felt that the Respondent's failure to diagnose and treat the diverticular condition in the sigmoid colon led to her eventual demise and was such quality of treatment as to constitute gross or repeated malpractice and the failure to practice medicine with a level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions or circumstances. Dr. Corwin, gave his expert opinion, as a general surgeon, after being accepted in that field. This is the same Dr. Corwin who treated Thelma Parker. Dr. Corwin feels that given a past history of diverticulitis, which the Respondent knew about and the condition which he found upon the original surgery performed in the abdomen, Respondent should have searched for the cause of that condition which most likely was the patient's diverticulitis. This opinion refers to the need for an examination by barium enema or some other form of contrast study to determine the condition of the sigmoid colon. The narrowing or obstruction in the area of the distal colon, as described, was felt by Dr. Corwin to be almost total in that the colon was reduced to an approximate 10 percent function. Corwin felt that the Respondent had made a major mistake in his treatment of the patient in not attempting to ascertain the cause of the abscesses and obstruction and to deal with the problem in the colon which he considered to be the underlying cause of her difficulties. According to Corwin, the quality of that mistake was so severe as to constitute gross mistreatment of the patient. He feels there was malpractice in that the problem in the colon was at least partially responsible for the anastomotic breaks. At minimum, Dr. Corwin felt that a diverting colostomy was necessary to address the problem with the colon and probably a resection of the sigmoid colon, which procedures were done by Corwin subsequent to assuming the case. Dr. Wiley Douglas Fowler, Jr., who is a board certified, general surgeon, practicing in the community where Respondent practices, gave testimony. He too felt that the Respondent had failed to deal with the condition in the sigmoid colon which he considered to be diverticulitis. There was a need to do a diverting colostomy and to do further definitive treatment as necessary to address the diverticular condition, per Fowler. He felt that there was a breakdown in surgical judgment to the point that the doctor was unable to perform the responsibilities of care in the case. Dr. Samuel Stephenson, who is a board certified general surgeon practicing in Jacksonville, Florida, testified. He did not find the quality of Dr. Lee's care to be-substandard related to the patient Parker. He placed emphasis on the fact that in his opinion gross signs such as dilation in the colon or large bowel were not observable and no active condition of diverticulitis was ever discovered during Parker's treatment course from the time of the Respondent's involvement to her demise. He did indicate that the barium enema results of July 27, 1983, might make one wonder if the narrowing in the sigmoid colon had caused some of the other recurring problems associated with anastomotic breaks in the small intestine. He indicated that by July 30, 1979, there might be a need for a colon resection. Stephenson was impressed with the fact that the patient died even after attempts to address the problems with the colon, i.e., the temporary colostomy and resection of the colon done by Dr. Corwin, leading him to wonder if the cause of continuing failure in the area of repair at the small bowel was due to some circumstance other than problems in the sigmoid colon. He believed that in the initial admission of September 1978, that there was a possibility of a problem with diverticulitis as well as the small bowel obstruction but no gross signs indicated an active condition of diverticulitis in the area of the colon, such as dilation. The mass that was discovered at the point of the initial laparotomy in September 1978, might have been from the colon or might not have been in the mind of Dr. Stephenson. The thrust of Dr. Stephenson's testimony seems to be that absent a clear indication that diverticulitis in the colon or the narrowing in the colon was the proximate cause of the anastomotic breaks and attendant processes of infection, there was no duty on Dr. Lee's part to rule out the possible involvement of the sigmoid colon as an explanation for the problems with the healing process in this patient. Upon reflection, the impressions gained by Drs. Woodward, Corwin and Fowler, witnesses for the Petitioner, are more compelling than those of Dr. Stephenson, on the subject of culpability by the Respondent related to the patient's care. Evidence reported establishes that the Respondent should have examined the colon by barium enema or some similar process at the point of the initial surgery and certainly before her final admission in July 1979, and when finally so examined the colon was not treated. This failure is excerbated by the fact that the Respondent knew that the patient had a history of diverticulitis. The diverticular condition in the colon, to include the partial obstruction by narrowing, based upon the opinions of the third party experts, is found to have been a contributor to the continuing problems of anastomotic leakages, abscesses and other conditions which would not allow a successful treatment course for the patient. Even if diverticulitis in the colon or the diverticular condition in that organ did not cause failure in her treatment results, per the physicians, whose opinion is accepted, the circumstance in the colon should have been examined and ruled out at a minimum. The idea expressed by Dr. Stephenson, that in the absence of being able to clearly establish that the colon's condition caused the patient's demise, the Respondent may not be held accountable, is unacceptable. Having determined that the diagnosis should have been made, Respondent should have performed the diverting colostomy to be followed by a resection of the colon if necessary, again in keeping with the opinions of Petitioner's experts. Finally, the opinion related to Respondent's malpractice and failure to perform at an acceptable standard for same or similar physicians, as attributed to Dr. Woodward and supported in concept by Dr. Corwin, is accepted. Respondent is accused of having failed to keep adequate medical records pertaining to the patient Parker. Although there was some demonstrated ambiguity in his record keeping, that ambiguity does not rise to the level of finding facts showing a violation related to record keeping on this patient. JOHN WILLIAM PHILLIPS On July 2, 1979, John William Phillips had an accident in which he fell off of a ladder and came to the emergency room at Beach's Hospital for treatment. An admission was made on July 3, 1979, and Dr. Lee undertook the care of the patient. The patient suffered multiple fractures of the ribs, had a contusion of the left shoulder, was demonstrating slight tenderness in the left flank and evidenced a large swollen and contused area in the left chest wall posterior with tenderness. He showed a normal abdomen with bowel signs present but hypo-active. The patient suffered nausea, abdominal distention and tachycardia. From admission through July 12, 1979, the patient waxed and waned. He received fluids and pain medication and a series of x-rays were taken to better understand his condition. On July 12, 1979, a liver scan was made which demonstrated a cold area in the left lobe of the liver, leaving Dr. Lee in the position of ruling out hemotoma versus tumor versus cyst, though he believed the condition to be benign and unrelated to the accident. The cold spot on the x- ray appeared as a smooth contoured defect. The patient continued to show distention following the liver scan and continued to evidence tachycardia and vomiting for the next several days. Respondent did not choose to verify his preliminary clinical impression of the condition of the liver related to the defect, by use of sonogram or angiogram, electing instead to wait for the patient's condition to change for better or worse. On July 15, the patient showed marked increase in temperature. On that date, a chest x-ray demonstrated plate-like atelectasis in the right lung and an elevated diaphragm. With the advent of the temperature elevation on July 15, the patient was transferred to the CCU unit of the hospital and among other matters prescribed, a broad spectrum antibiotic was ordered. The patient was showing an elevated blood count at that time. Following the liver scan, the patient had also developed rapid pulse and shown mental confusion. By the morning of July 15, the patient's condition was one approaching septic shock if not in that condition. Clinically, there was indication of sepsis or septicemia. The family of the patient requested a second opinion and the patient was subsequently transferred to Dr. Corwin. Dr. Woodward gave his opinion about the treatment of Phillips, expressing the belief that the problems evidenced related to this patient were too long and severe and too related to an abdominal condition to be associated solely with the injury in the chest. Given the location of the injury, Dr. Woodward felt like the defect in the liver, seen on the scan, may have been related to the injury. Dr. Woodward felt that the Respondent should have established whether or not the lesion in the liver was caused by the accident, either by exploratory laparotomy or selective arteriogram. To do otherwise would be less than expected of a prudent general surgeon, according to Dr. Woodward. In essence, Dr. Woodward felt that something should have been done to verify the character of the defect shown on the liver scan and whether that defect was associated with injury suffered by the patient. Dr. Corwin testified about the treatment afforded Phillips. He felt that at the time that he took over the case on July 15, that the quality of the septicemia suffered by the patient was such that he was in septic shock and that an operation was necessary to address the defect in the liver. An operation was undertaken to remove that defect and when first visualized, Dr. Corwin was not sure whether the defect was a cystic hemangioma or not, although it gave an appearance of being that condition. (At the time of the liver scan, given the location of the liver defect, Corwin felt that most probable explanation was hematoma or tear in the left lobe of liver, cystic hemangioma being a rare occurrence in liver.) After removal of this cyst, the patient began to improve and Dr. Corwin believes that the removal of the cyst contributed to that improvement. He thinks that the area of the cyst became a seed bed for the septicemia in the sense of aiding in the circulation of bacteria in the patient's system. Dr. Corwin had criticism of Dr. Lee in the treatment of Mr. Phillips in the sense that once the patient's condition began to decline, approaching the place and time at which Corwin was substituted as the physician, Dr. Lee should have done more to determine the true nature of the patient's problem. He does not feel that the Respondent's treatment can be described as malpractice. He is simply of the opinion that the case was not handled very well and showed poor judgment by the treating physician. Dr. Fowler testified about the care of the patient Phillips after examining the records of hospitalization. He indicated that given the deteriorating condition of the patient, that there was an indecisive action pattern on the part of Dr. Lee but it was not of such proportions as to constitute a breakdown in the care of the patient. He had no specific opinion as to whether this conduct by Dr. Lee constituted gross or repeated malpractice. Stephenson's opinion of the Respondent's treatment of Phillips was to the effect that it was not substandard. Given the appearance of the cold spot on the liver scan, he felt certain that this was a cyst or hemangioma and not a hematoma. He indicated that uncertainty in this regard could have been confirmed by a sonogram. He did not find the necessity to conduct surgery to discover the condition of the liver. Having considered the facts of the treatment of Phillips and the opinions of the experts, while the Respondent's reactions to Mr. Phillips' condition were less than sterling, they did not reach the level of constituting gross or repeated malpractice or care unworthy of a same or similar physician. Again, the records kept by the Respondent related to the care of Mr. Phillips were sufficient. CLIFTON WORCESTER On January 31, 1977, Respondent conducted surgery on Clifton Worcester to patch a perforated duodenal ulcer. Worcester had further hospital admissions on June 21, 1978 and August 1, 1978, for recurrent ulcer symptoms. On these occasions he was treated medically. On December 27, 1978 through January 4, 1979, the patient was admitted for the treatment of pneumonia. On September 6, 1979, Worcester was admitted to the hospital under the Respondent's care for conditions which preliminarily seemed to be related to respiratory and cardiac problems. At that time, the patient was 74 years old and was in a deteriorated condition suffering from a variety of maladies to include cardiac and respiratory conditions as well as the peptic ulcer disease. On September 9, 1979, Respondent after diagnosis determined that the patient was suffering from ulcer disease and an operation was done to repair the perforated pyloric ulcer. A Graham closure was used with omental patch and permanent silk sutures were employed. This ulcer was the same ulcer as had caused problems for the patient in 1977. On the morning of September 12, 1979, blood was visualized from the nasogastric tube which had been placed in the patient and when the patient was later irrigated, a large amount of blood appeared. The initial impression by Dr. Lee was that this blood was either due to the active peptic ulcer or possibly gastritis. To ascertain the source of bleeding, Dr. Corwin was called in to do a gastroscopy. That procedure was done around 7:00 pm. on September 12, 1979. Although the entire area of the stomach could not be visualized, Dr. Corwin was of the impression that the cause of the bleeding was not gastritis, leaving the most probable explanation to be that the patient had a problem of a bleeding ulcer. Dr. Corwin made it known to the Respondent that the bleeding was probably due to an ulcer as explanation for the lesion and Dr. Lee acknowledged that the probable source of bleeding was an ulcer condition. In the early morning hours of September 13, 1979, Dr. Lee again operated on the patient, envisualized the prior pyloric ulcer and was satisfied that the sutures in that ulcer were holding fast. He also discovered a gastric ulcer. The gastric ulcer measured approximately 8 centimeters in diameter. The gastric ulcer was shallow in its depth. There was present in the patient 1200-1500 cc's of old blood and a clot in the duodenum. No active bleeding was seen at that time and no major vessels were present in the ulcer beds. Dr. Lee waited 15 to 20 minutes to see if any active bleeding would occur and failing such appearance, he placed a tube gastrostomy. After cleaning out the blood and placing the gastrostomy tube, the patient was closed. No direct attention was given to the ulcers either in the oversewing of the ulcers or by more definitive surgery addressing both ulcer beds. The reason given for not conducting some form of definitive surgery was to the effect, according to Dr. Lee, that he was worried that the patient would not survive the time it would take to conclude such surgery. The surgery that was done took two hours and twenty minutes to achieve. On reflection, Dr. Lee believes that he should have at least sutured the gastric ulcer by oversewing it like a baseball, being unable to identify a bleeding point. This is in opposition to what he did which was to hope that the patient would not rebleed after the operation of September 13, 1979. That hope was not realized because on September 15, 1979, the patient again experienced massive bleeding between 2:00 and 4:00 p.m. Dr. Lee had tried to treat the ulcers with Tagamet and irrigation through the gastrostomy tube. On September 16, 1979, Respondent operated and performed a vagotomy and antrectomy related to the pyloric and gastric ulcers. At that time, the patient was not better able to tolerate that operation than he would have been on September 13, 1979. In fact, between those two operations, he lost a considerable amount of blood, further weakening his resistance. In view of the relative condition of the patient, that is to say, generally poor health, the effects of the bleeding ulcers and associated insult caused by the surgeries, the patient died on September 27, 1979. Among the problems experienced by the patient, in the waning days of his life, were an anastomotic leak and peritonitis. Dr. Woodward, after review of the patient's hospital records, was of the opinion that the bleeding experienced by the patient on September 13, 1979, was from one of the ulcers and not because of gastritis. This belief is held notwithstanding the failure of the ulcers to bleed in the course of the operation on September 13, 1979. Bleeding sometimes subsides during surgery. Given the patient's circumstance related to bleeding ulcers, the least acceptable approach by the treating physician would have been to oversew and/or excise the ulcer craters. The excision would relate to the gastric ulcer. In addition, if possible, Respondent should have done a vagotomy and antrectomy or vagotomy and pyloroplasty during the September 13, 1979, surgery. Alternatively, the ulcers could have been treated medically after oversewing or excision. Use of Tagamet and irrigation would not stop the ulcers from bleeding, in Woodward's opinion. Woodward felt that a patient such as Worcester, who was in distress during the course of the operation, and had lost a great volume of blood, was a patient in greater need of the aforementioned procedures than the average patient, based upon the patient's inability to tolerate additional blood loss if the ulcer started to rebleed after he had been sewn up. At the time of the September 13, 1979, operation, there was evidence that the patient was in shock, which might cause the surgeon to stabilize the patient before conducting the minimum procedures identified, according to Dr. Woodward, but this would not cause the closure of the patient without addressing the bleeding ulcer or ulcers. The shock in Woodward's opinion was due to blood loss. In summary, in Dr. Woodward's mind, to visualize the ulcers on September 13, 1979, having recognized that they were the source of bleeding and to do nothing to stem that bleeding, was unacceptable Performance by the surgeon. Per Woodward, the procedures of September 16, 1979, a vagotomy and antrectomy, were correct but too late. The risk of mortality on September 13, 1979, as opposed to September 16, 1979, was 10 to 20 percent versus a prohibitive chance for recovery. Dr. Woodward found the treatment of Clifton Worcester to be clearly substandard in the face of the requirement to practice medicine with the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physician as being unacceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. Dr. Woodward's opinions as stated herein are accepted with the exception that pyloroplasty was not an appropriate choice given the location of the pyloric ulcer. Antrectomy would have been the substitute choice. Dr. Corwin, with the knowledge that Dr. Lee had been informed of the results of the gastroscope indicating that the source of bleeding on September 13, 1979, was probably an ulcer, felt that the Respondent, when he opened the patient on September 13, 1979, even though the ulcers were not bleeding, should have dealt with those ulcers to prohibit rebleeding, as opposed to cleaning out the ulcer beds and closing the patient. The minimum response would have been oversewing the ulcers with nonabsorbable sutures, and the aging condition of the patient should not have deterred Dr. Lee in that task. When asked if Dr. Woodward had performed the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, Corwin was of the opinion that the patient had received very poor treatment and that most any physician practicing as a surgeon would have done differently. Corwin did not think there was any value to the irrigation of blood within the stomach and the treatment of the ulcers by Tagamet through the gastrostomy tube. The treatment of the patient in failing to correct the bleeding constituted gross malpractice according to Dr. Corwin. The opinions of Corwin are accepted. Dr. Fowler also believed that to simply open the patient on September 13, 1979, and close without treating the bleeding ulcer in the sense of definitive suturing was unacceptable. While the antrectomy and vagotomy were recognized as appropriate responses, in terms of surgical technique, Dr. Fowler felt that in the sense of appropriate judgment, those procedures came too late, having followed another bleeding episode after. the September 13, 1979, surgery. According to Dr. Fowler, when asked the question about whether this conduct by Dr. Lee in his September 13, 1979, operation in his treatment of Worcester was at the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent, similar health care providers as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, he was of the opinion that the breakdown in surgical judgment was to the point that the doctor was unable to fully perform the full responsibilities of care in the case. Dr. Fowler's opinions are also accepted. Dr. Stephenson felt that the choices made on September 13, 1979, to close the patient and treat with Tagament and to irrigate were appropriate. He felt that the source of the bleeding might have been gastritis but was most likely from the ulcers. To him, conservative treatment of the patient in not further addressing the ulcers was acceptable given the condition of the patient. Had the patient been in better health, Dr. Stephenson said he might have taken a chance in addressing the ulcers. He felt that when you cannot visualize the source of the bleeding oversewing isn't particularly helpful because you don't know whether anything is achieved. Given this patient's condition, he felt that the chances were one in three that the patient would not rebleed. Dr. Stephenson's opinion as to the acceptability of the Respondent's conduct at the time of the surgery of September 13, 1979, is not accepted. Even this physician recognized that the patient's source of bleeding was most likely the ulcer beds and that there was a great likelihood that he would rebleed and this considered together with the fact of the tremendous amount of blood that the patient had already lost prior to the September 13, 1979, surgery causes a rejection of the opinion of this physician about Respondent's performance. The related charge of failure to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of patient Worcester has not been shown. There is ample information to gain an understanding of the patient's condition, as evidenced by the ability of the experts to give opinion testimony.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, the Petitioner, Board of Medicine, was the state agency in Florida charged with the licensing and regulation of physicians in this state. Respondent, Dr. Lewis Sidney Wolf, was at all times pertinent licensed as a physician in Florida. Dr. Wolf took his medical degree at the university of Bologna, in Italy, and thereafter did his internship and residency training at hospitals in New York. He has been in the private practice of obstetrics and gynecology since 1977 and though not Board certified, has limited Board eligibility. Upon completion of the required continuing medical education courses he will be eligible to sit for the Board examination. He was employed as a physician at the Aware Woman's Medical Center, (Center), an abortion clinic in Port St. Lucie, Florida, from May, 1987 to October 8, 1990. During that time he had no responsibility for administration or the business affairs of the Center. On January 5, 1990, he saw L. S., (Patient 1), a 19 year old rather tall woman on whom he had done a previous abortion, who had come in for termination of another pregnancy. He recalls her as being normal both mentally and physically. His physical examination of the patient consisted of listening to her heart and lungs and doing a bi-manular pelvic examination. This includes placing one hand in the patient's vagina to feel the cervix and the other hand on the patient's abdomen at the top of the uterus. By doing this, the physician can see how big the uterus is and feel for any abnormality caused by pregnancy or fibroids. Respondent's examination of this patient showed she had a regular, smooth and symmetrical, if large, uterus. Since other tests had shown she was pregnant, he decided to terminate it at her request. Respondent's initial examination caused him to estimate the fetus size was larger than 9 weeks. He therefore suggested the patient be given a sonogram to determine with some accuracy how big it was. However, since the patient was so tall, and this can be deceiving as to uterus size, and because his assistant, Candace Dye, the clinic administrator who, incidentally, had no medical training, disagreed with him, and because the procedure was already scheduled and a sonogram, which had to be done outside the office, would be costly to the patient and would interfere with the scheduled procedure, he checked the patient again and concluded the fetus size was only 9 weeks. Since he felt that maybe the untrained layman was correct and since the termination procedure was the same up to 14 weeks as it was at 9 weeks, he assumed responsibility and decided to go ahead with the termination using a dilation and curettage. In this procedure, metal rods of increasing size are inserted into the cervical opening to dilate it after which a plastic tube with a hole on the side, (a cannula) is inserted into the uterus to remove the fetus by means of a vacuum aspirator, (suction). This procedure is not generally used to terminate a pregnancy of longer than 14 weeks. Page 10 of Petitioner's Exhibit 2, the patient records from the Center, reflect that Respondent's initial estimate of fetal size, as recorded by the nurse, was greater than 12 weeks and the Respondent at first ordered a size 12 cannula. However, after the cervix was dilated, Respondent ordered a 14 cannula because during dilation he felt the fetus was larger than anticipated. After the first aspiration, Respondent felt there was still some tissue left in the uterus and inserted the cannula again to get it. At this point, Respondent noticed some yellow fatty material in the aspirator which he believed came from the omentum, the outside of the uterus, and he believed that the cannula head had gone through the side of the uterus at the site of a scar from a previous caesarian section, (the patient had had two previous caesarian sections). This is the place where, according to Respondent, most perforations occur due to the weakening of the uterus as a result of those procedures. In the interim period between the removal of the cannula after the first insertion and the second insertion, because he could not get all the tissue out during that first insertion, Respondent used a placenta forceps to get the bony part of the fetus, (an arm), which would not go through the cannula. He then used the cannula the second time and cannot be sure if it was the forceps or the second application of the cannula that caused the perforation. In any case, when he realized that a perforation had occurred, he packed the uterus with gauze and called 911 to have the patient taken to the hospital. She subsequently recovered but lost one tube. Patient 2, a 41 year old female, reporting two prior deliveries, came to the Respondent for a pregnancy termination on October 28, 1989. At the time, she seemed quite nonchalant about the whole process. She reported having a fibroid uterus and claimed to have had a recent sonogram which showed a "VBD" of 5.1. The term "VBD" is incorrect for use in connection with a sonogram. The appropriate initials are "BPD", bi-parietal diameter, and a BPD of 5.1 correlates to a fetus age of in excess of 21.5 weeks. The patient also indicated that she had only had sexual relations twice in several years, the last of which was consistent with a pregnancy of far less duration that 20 weeks. Respondent did a bi-manular examination and estimated from that a gestational age of the fetus of 20 weeks. However, the patient's forms showed a sonogram had been done on October 21, 1989 and the uterus size given as a result thereof was 9. Respondent claims his estimate of 20 was for the uterus size, not the fetus size, and this is not inconsistent with the diagnosis of fibroid uterus which could, of itself, considerably increase the size of the uterus. In addition, Respondent claims his examination showed the uterus to be firm and in pregnancy, the uterus generally gets soft. Based on all the above, and given the fact that the Patient could not recall where the sonogram had been done, and the fact that she seemed reliable to him, Respondent concluded that the pregnancy was of only 9 weeks duration and agreed to terminate it by dilation and curettage. His description of the patient as reliable is not consistent with his other comments regarding her at the hearing wherein he described her as inconsistent and mixed up. In retrospect, at the hearing, he admitted he now realizes she was lying to him. As Respondent was preparing the patient for the procedure, he noted on her chart that the sonogram showed 5.1. This figure represents the diameter through the head of the fetus. He did not have a chart handy from which to extrapolate the sonogram figure to a fetal age. He asked his assistant, Michelle Trent Wimble to check it. She left the room and when she came back reportedly stated, "It's OK - it's only 11 weeks." In reality, Ms. Wimble did not look at the correct chart and the information she gave to the Respondent was incorrect. He did not verify it. In the termination, Respondent started with a size 12 cannula. Once the vacuum was initiated with that cannula, he shifted to a 14 and then requested a placenta forceps. He changed the size because, he asserts that once the patient was dilated, he realized the fetus was larger than he had anticipated and needed the larger size. Also, when he saw the amniotic sac he knew the pregnancy was further along than 11 weeks but because he was committed and could not let the patient go home like that, he had to continue. He broke the sac and tried to vacuum with a 16 mm cannula, the largest made, but was still unsuccessful. He then tried the forceps. When he saw the umbilical cord had prolapsed, and had removed a hand from the fetus, he knew it was much older than anticipated. Since it was obviously beyond the 14 weeks menstrual limit the Center set for abortions there, he called 911 to have the patient taken to the hospital for completion. Respondent has specialized in abortions not only for his 3 years at the Center, but at other clinics in New York, Tampa and Ft. Myers, where he filled in for another physician whose license was under attack. He has done over 5,000 abortions and claims to have experienced complications in only 4 of them. Each of these involved perforations of the uterus. According to Ms. Dye, who worked with Respondent for the three years he was at the Center, his problem rate was low. A perforation may occur as the result several different factors such as a tilting of the uterus or frequent prior pregnancies which weaken or soften the wall of the uterus. A perforation is also more likely in a woman who has had one or more caesarian sections. It is not necessarily due to negligence on the part of the physician though it may be. According to Respondent, most often it is not negligence but more a complication which occurs because of the anatomical arrangement of the pelvic organs. With regard to Patient 1, Respondent feels he did nothing wrong. Her records show that from her last menstrual period she would be 11 weeks pregnant based on her last period date of November 1, 1989. Also, from her history sheet he notes 2 reasons for her being a higher risk patient. She had had two caesareans sections and one prior abortion. She was 19 years old and had had 5 pregnancies. Therefore, he claims, her uterus had not had time to rest and could easily be perforated. In addition, as a result of his examination, he was quite comfortable with a 9 weeks fetal determination. Though she might have been slightly over that she was still within the limits for a suction abortion. He is also comfortable having done the bi-manual examination which he feels is generally reliable. Factors such as a tall patient can throw it off, however, he claims. With regard to Patient 1, Respondent claims there was nothing about her to alert him to danger. It is not usual to change cannulas in mid- procedure. It is done from time to time, especially in the first pregnancies of young women whose cervix are hard to dilate. He also claims it is not unusual to over or under estimate a pregnancy by 2 weeks. It is impossible to tell exactly how many weeks a patient is pregnant. Respondent admits a patient history sheet is important and it is important that the patient give honest information for it. Erroneous information from any source, if relied on by the physician, can result in injury to the patient. Patient 2 was a 41 year old woman at the time he saw her. This fact makes her a high risk patient for carrying the fetus to term. From the last menstrual period she reported, she would be 12 weeks pregnant. The sonogram results as passed to the Respondent was consistent with 11 weeks of pregnancy and with the menstrual history. Assuming her sexual history were correct, she could be no more than 16 weeks pregnant. Because the patient referred to a "VBD", similar in sound to "BPD", the correct term, Respondent considers it was reasonable for him to believe she had had a sonogram. Here, however, the Respondent stated at one point that at that time he did not believe her and if that is the case, it was improper for him to do the procedure on a patient who he did not believe had given him a correct history. Further, when a patient shows a history of prior pregnancies or caesarian sections, admittedly that patient is at a higher risk of perforation and the doctor should be more cautions and more prepared than otherwise. Respondent's performance in the two cases at issue here was reviewed by Dr. Edward J. Zelnick, himself an expert in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, who has done numerous pregnancy terminations in the past. His review consisted of an examination of the clinic and hospital records of both patients. In order to safely and properly terminate a pregnancy, it is necessary for the physician to know the size of the fetus. This can be determined by the history taken from the patient, by physical examination of the patient, including both palpation and bi-manual manipulation, and by sonogram. In the case of patient 1, Respondent performed a suction curettage. Before doing so, he accomplished a bi-manular examination and determined the fetus was 9 weeks of age. The records reflect that initially an ultrasound, (sonogram), was requested, but that order was rescinded. In the suction curettage the cervix is dilated with metal rods of increasing diameter and the cannula is then inserted to remove the fetus by suction. The size of the fetus determines the size of the suction tube to be used. Here, Respondent selected an 11 cannula which can be used generally with fetuses from 9 to 11 weeks of age. The records reflect that little tissue was obtained through the use of the cannula, so Respondent asked for and used a larger one. After the size of the cannula was increased, a placental forceps was used to remove a fetal extremity and a portion of the oventum, (a portion of fact attached to the intestine not generally found in the uterus). The presence of the oventum indicates that the wall of the uterus was perforated. Dr. Zelnick feels this perforation could have been avoided if more care had been utilized in the determination of the fetal size. There appeared to be a discrepancy between the appearance and the actual size and duration of the fetus. If the size was, as here, underestimated, the larger actual fetus prevented the doctor from getting the amount of tissue he expected. This could lead him to go deeper or in a different direction that she should go to get tissue. In light of this, Dr. Zelnick opined that the level of care rendered to Patient 1 by the Respondent was below standard because the final outcome and the manner of performance is not properly reflected in the records. Also, the wrong size instruments were used. Most important, however, is the failure to properly determine the size of the fetus. If the doctor is unsure of the fetal size, he should take further steps, through ultrasound or otherwise, to be more specific. Here, in Zelnick's opinion, the perforation occurred when the Respondent went into the uterus with the placental forceps. Once the perforation was noted, Respondent properly had the patient taken to the hospital where her abdomen was opened and her right fallopian tube and ovary were removed. In addition, her uterus was repaired. All this resulted in her being exposed to risk due to anesthesia, infection and hemorrhage. In addition, she unnecessarily lost her tube and ovary due to the bleeding caused by the perforation. Since she now has only one tube and ovary, there is a possible diminishment in future fertility, but there is some doubt as to that happening. As to Patient 2, according to Dr. Zelnick, the Respondent established she was 9 weeks pregnant. The records show the result of the bi-manual examination showed 9 weeks, but they also reflect the patient had a sonogram and to Dr. Zelnick, it is unclear because the record of the sonogram showed a 5.1 BPD which is consistent with a 20 - 22 week pregnancy. In addition, the patient gave a history of only 2 sexual relations prior to the visit which is inconsistent with the other findings since the last intercourse would have been to 15 weeks prior to the visit which would not fit with a 9 week fetus finding. The nurse's note on the patient records indicate the only information the patient could give was that the sonogram showed a 5.1 LMP [sic]. In this case, Respondent also did a suction curettage initially using an 11 cannula. He then requested a 12 cannula and almost immediately went to a 14 which he then increased to a 16 which would be used for a 14 - 16 week fetus. When he failed to get an adequate tissue return, he used a placental forceps and saw a fetal extremity and umbilical cord. When he saw this, he realized the pregnancy was further advanced than expected and stopped the procedure and called for emergency services. This patient was also given an injection of Petosin, a drug used to contract the uterus, and an intravenous was attempted. She was taken to the hospital and treated for hemorrhage, hypertension and shock, and failure of her blood to coagulate. Hypertension is consistent with blood loss and it was subsequently noted in surgery that the patient had a uterine perforation. The patient was given an exploratory laparotomy and a total abdominal hysterectomy. The danger of anesthesia, infection, hemorrhage, and the loss of fertility as a result of the removal of her uterus are all negative results of the procedure. Dr. Zelnick is of the opinion that Respondent's treatment of patient 2 was below acceptable standards because the Respondent had an obligation to be certain of the age of the fetus before initiating action and did not do so. His omissions led to an unfortunate series of events which injured his patient. In fact, Dr. Zelnick goes so far as to classify Respondent's actions as gross negligence. The relative sizes of a 9 week and a 22 week fetus is so disparate that such a mistake as here is not reasonable. While a 9 week fetus is about the size of an orange, a 22 week fetus is about the size of a volley ball. While the existence of a uterine fibroid cyst can make the determination of fetal size more difficult, a doctor can make the determination. A fibroid cyst is hard and solid while a fetus is soft. In any case, if there is a question, a sonogram should be done. If the physician cannot be absolutely sure of the length of gestation by examination or history, he should take all necessary other steps to find out. If he does not, his failure constitutes negligence. Here, especially, the inconsistent BPD value, a figure with which any doctor routinely doing abortions should be familiar, should have tipped Respondent off to the need for more information. In addition, according to Dr. Zelnick, the Respondent's record keeping was poor. They do not accurately reflect or justify the procedures done on this patient. Dr. Zelnick admits that a uterine perforation is a complication which can occur without negligence on the part of the physician. Certain conditions, including an abnormality of the uterus can increase the risk, and by itself, a perforation is not necessarily bad care. If a patient has had 2 prior caesarian sections and 3 pregnancies, an attending physician could easily be slightly off in the age of the fetus. However, a doctor, as here, who does many abortions should be better at estimating the length of a pregnancy than one who does fewer. Respondent's expert, Dr. Dresden, also a Board certified obstetrician and gynecologist, who has performed over 10,000 abortions during his medical career, appeared on Respondent's behalf because, inter alia, he believes there is a grey area in the practice of medicine to which, in his opinion, the Department is not sensitive. It does not recognize differing methods of practice. He also contends that the mere fact a complication occurs which must be reported does not justify an indictment of the practitioner. Disciplinary action, in his opinion, should be reserved for cases of misconduct. As to Patient 1, Dr. Dresden feels that bi-manual examinations are quite difficult to do and are quite often inaccurate as to the length of gestation. The mistake made by Respondent here, as to the size of the fetus, is common. As to Patient 2, Dr. Dresden could see no reason for another ultrasound being taken. The government does not normally reimburse for it, and if, as here, he had found the incorrect estimate had been made and the instrument he was employing was too small, he'd go on with the procedure with a larger instrument. The is no relationship between the mis-diagnosis of size of the uterus and the risk of perforation except that there would be a greater weakness in the uterine wall in the case of a 20 week pregnancy. However, even a prudent doctor could end up perforating the wall of a uterus for a myriad of reasons. The position of the uterine cavity may be out of line, and if the instrument is not properly lined up, there is a greater risk of perforation. Also, a pregnant woman has softer uterine walls that are more easily perforated than a non- pregnant woman. Dr. Dresden could see nothing that Respondent could have done to avoid the perforations here nor does he believe Dr. Zelnick could accurately determine, from looking at the records, what instrument caused the perforation. If Patient 2 said she had had an ultrasound, he probably would have believed her. Most patients do not know enough to make up a story like that, he believes, and if he saw a record that the BPD was 5.1, he would ask a nurse or an assistant to look up the meaning of that reading and would rely on it. Here, based on what information he had about Patient 2, the 4 factors he took into consideration being better than the usual 2, he believes Respondent could have reasonably relied on the stated size of the fetus. He cannot say that Respondent used poor judgement in these cases notwithstanding his comment to the contrary in a prior letter to the Department regarding this case. By the same token, he cannot see any errors in Respondent's performance other than the mis-diagnosis of fetal size. The witness' prior professional record and his obvious antipathy toward the enforcement activities of the Department, cast some doubt on the value of his testimony, however. No evidence was presented with regard to the medical records of either patient in issue here to bear on the issue of their adequacy or inadequacy. Dr. Zelnick commented on his opinion that the records were poor, but no specific evidence of inappropriate recordation of the patients' conditions or other relevant matters was submitted to show them to be inadequate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida be suspended for a period of six months and until such time as he has satisfactorily completed the special purpose examination of clinical skills; that upon reinstatement of his license, he be placed on probation for a period of two years under such terms and conditions as is considered appropriate by the Board of Medicine; and that he pay a fine of $1,500.00 within six months of the reinstatement of his license. DONE and ENTERED in Tallahassee, Florida this 17th day of December, 1991. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 17th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-2969 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all the Proposed Findings of Facts submitted by the Petitioner herein. Respondent failed to submit Proposed Findings of Fact. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted. Rejected. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected in that the Respondent's failure to ascertain the results of the sonogram is not evidence of poor record keeping. Rejected in that Respondent's failure to ascertain the gestational age of the fetus when facing conflicting information is not evidence of poor record keeping. & 31. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry McPherson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dr. Harold J. Ticktin 2106 Drew Street, Suite 102 Clearwater, Florida 34625 Jack McRay General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner overpaid Respondent for medical services for 20 patients under the Medicaid Program from February 22, 1997, through February 22, 1999, and, if so, by how much.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent, who is a licensed physician, was authorized to provide medical services to Medicaid recipients, provided medical services to Medicaid recipients, billed Petitioner for these services, and received payment for these services. The Medicaid program provides for periodic audits of each Medicaid provider, after which Petitioner may seek repayment of amounts revealed by audit to have been overpaid to the provider. After conducting such an audit of Respondent for services rendered from February 22, 1997, through February 22, 1998, and exchanging post-audit information, Petitioner informed Respondent, by letter dated March 1, 2002, that it had overpaid him $238,069.09 for claims that were, in whole or in part, not covered by Medicaid, and demanded repayment of this amount. The letter states that the overpayment was extrapolated from the overpayment amount determined from auditing the records of a random sample of 21 patients for whom Respondent had submitted 423 claims. The actual overpayment amount, before extrapolation is $11,248.14. Petitioner later removed one of the patients from the sample due to a billing error. Among the 21 patients covered by the audit, the deleted patient is identified as Patient 20. The age of each patient set forth below is his or her age at the time of the first office visit during the audit period. Where a series of payments are set forth below, they are listed in the order of the procedures discussed immediately above the payments. Patient 1, who was 17 years old first saw Respondent on March 27, 1998. Petitioner allowed payments for Patient 1's first two visits. On March 27, 1998, Respondent performed an abdominal echogram and other services for abdominal pain of three or four months' duration, and, on April 14, 1998, Respondent performed a doppler echocardiograph and other services for chest pain of three or four days' duration. On April 27, 1998, Patient 1 presented at Respondent's office with fever and chills since the previous day. Patient 1 complained of nausea, frequent and painful urination, and pain in the abdomen and lower back. Without first performing a urinalysis or urine culture, Respondent performed a renal echogram April 27, based on his diagnosis of urosepsis and to rule out a urinary tract infection. Renal echography was not medically necessary to rule out a urinary tract infection, at least until Respondent had first performed a urinalysis and urine culture and considered the results from this laboratory work. Respondent's diagnosis of urosepsis lacks any basis in his records. If Patient 1 had suffered from urosepsis, which is a life-threatening condition that requires urgent treatment--not echography--Respondent should have treated the matter as a medical emergency. Petitioner proved that it overpaid $61.57 for this service. Petitioner allowed a payment for medical services, which did not include any echography, on May 4, 1998. On June 1, 1998, Patient 1 presented at Respondent's office complaining of acute abdominal pain for three or four days. Respondent performed a physical examination and detected an enlarged spleen. He then performed an echogram of the spleen and found a normal spleen without inflammation or cyst. Respondent proceeded with the echography without first performing routine blood work, such as a white blood cell count, to detect infection. The echogram of the spleen was not medically necessary, at least until Respondent had performed routine blood work to confirm or rule out infection. However, as noted in the Preliminary Statement, Dr. Hicks has withdrawn his objection to this payment, so Petitioner did not overpay for this service. Petitioner allowed a payment for a medical service on June 5, 1998. On June 19, 1998, Patient 1 presented at Respondent's office complaining of weakness, fainting, dizziness, fatigue, palpitations, shortness of breath, heartburn, rectal discomfort, and skin rash. After performing a physical examination, Respondent suspected hypothyroidism and performed a thyroid echogram, which revealed a normal thyroid. Again, thyroid echography is not medically necessary without first performing routine laboratory tests of thyroid function. Petitioner proved that it overpaid $45.24 for this service. On August 3, 1998, Patient 1 presented at Respondent's office complaining of weakness in his arms and hands of three to four weeks' duration. A physical examination revealed that Patient 1's grip was weak and his wrists painful upon pressure. Suspecting carpal compression, Respondent conducted three types of nerve conduction velocity tests (NCV), including an H-Reflex test, all of which test nerve function. Patient 1 had a psychiatric diagnosis, as Respondent was aware at the time of this office visit. Before conducting the NCV, Respondent contacted Patient 1's psychiatrist and obtained her approval of the test. Also, before conducting the NCVs, Respondent obtained blood work, so as to determine the blood levels of the psychotropic medications that Patient 1 was taking. Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for these services. Patient 1 visited Respondent's office on August 7, August 25, September 16, and October 30, 1998, but Petitioner is not disallowing any of these payments. On November 23, 1998, Patient 1 presented at Respondent's office complaining of pain in his right ankle after tripping and falling the previous day. Respondent conducted a physical examination and found mild swelling, applied an elastic bandage, prescribed Motrin and physical therapy for three weeks, and ordered an X ray. Petitioner claims that Respondent misbilled the procedure. Respondent billed a 73000, which is a procedure under the Current Procedure Terminology manual (CPT), and Petitioner claims that the correct CPT code is 73600, which would generate an overpayment of 59¢. However, as noted in the Preliminary Statement, the evidence fails to support this claim by Petitioner, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for this service. Patient 2, who was a 57 years old, had seen Respondent for three years. Patient 2 visits the office "constantly," according to Respondent. Petitioner has disallowed payments for services rendered on March 2, March 31, April 28, June 1, August 17, August 28, September 24, October 2, November 3, November 9, December 1, and December 21, 1998, and January 8, 1999. However, as noted in the Preliminary Statement, Dr. Hicks has withdrawn his objection to the aerosol treatment on August 17 and the level of service of the office visit on August 28. On March 2, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with acute onset the previous day of left flank pain, now radiating to the left lumbar and genital areas. Patient 2 denied passing any stones in his urine, although he complained of frequency and pain of urination. Respondent found Patient 2's abdomen distended and liver enlarged. He performed a renal echogram to rule out kidney stones or urinary retention. The results were normal. Respondent's testimony failed to establish the medical necessity of this renal echography. The symptoms are too nonspecific to justify this diagnostic procedure at this time, so Petitioner proved that it overpaid $61.57 for this service. On March 31, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of leg pain and cramps at night, which arose after walking a block and alleviated with rest. Diagnosing this obese patient with peripheral vascular disease, Respondent performed doppler procedures of the lower extremity veins and arteries. The results revealed mild atheromatous changes in the lower extremities. Petitioner failed to prove that the two procedures billed by Respondent for the March 31 office visit were medically unnecessary, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for these services. On April 28, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with nausea of three or four days' duration, vomiting associated with indigestion, fatty food intolerance, flatulence, and bitter taste. Patient 2, whom Respondent presumed was alcoholic, had an enlarged liver, as Respondent had noted in previous examinations of Patient 2. Respondent performed a liver echogram, after ordering a laboratory report on January 29, 1998. The results confirmed the presence of liver echogenicity or fatty liver. 26. Petitioner failed to prove that this echography was not medically necessary, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for this service. On June 1, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of pain on urination, increased frequency of urination, the need to urinate at night, and chills. Respondent performed an echogram of the prostate to rule out cancer; however, Respondent's records did not disclose any laboratory test, which is more appropriate for detecting prostate cancer. Respondent's testimony establishes that this echogram was not medically necessary, so Petitioner proved that it overpaid $51.34 for this service. On September 24, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with a complaint of low back pain after slipping and falling down three days earlier. Respondent performed three NCVs, including an H-Reflex test. Respondent's notes state an intention to do X rays, although the records fail to reveal whether X rays were ever done. Petitioner failed to prove that the three NCV tests were not medically necessary. Petitioner also downcoded the office visit on this date, but, as noted in the Preliminary Statement, due to the failure to produce a CPT manual, Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid $10.74 for this service. On October 2, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with a complaint of shortness of breath. Respondent administered an aerosol with Ventolin, which is a drug used to combat asthma. This is the same aerosol that Dr. Hicks decided to allow on August 17 upon further review, and the medical necessity for this aerosol is the same as the earlier aerosol, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid $10.62 for this service. On November 3, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of malaise, fatigue, weakness, and weight gain. Respondent performed a thyroid echogram in connection with a diagnosis of hypothyroidism, and the test results were normal. Patient 2, who suffered from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), had not actually gained weight over 1998. Without the results of other tests of thyroid function, a test to measure the size of the thyroid was not medically necessary, so Petitioner proved that it overpaid $45.24 for this service. On November 9, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of continuing chest pain and palpitations. Respondent had seen Patient 2 three days earlier for the same complaints and performed an electrocardiogram, whose results were abnormal, although not acute. Based on this test, Respondent had referred Patient 2 to a cardiologist. Given the proper referral of Patient 2 to a cardiologist, the ensuing doppler echocardiogram was not medically necessary. The record is devoid of any evidence that Respondent could adequately care for the cardiac condition suffered by Patient 2, so this diagnostic service performed no useful function. Petitioner proved that it overpaid $117.23 and $51.34 for these services. On December 1, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with chest congestion and cough, with some shortness of breath, of three days' duration. Respondent administered an aerosol with medications to treat Patient 2's bronchial asthma and COPD by functioning as a bronchodilator. This treatment was preceded by a spirometry, which tests respiratory function. Petitioner failed to prove that either the diagnostic or therapeutic service provided by Respondent on December 1 was not medically necessary. On December 21, 1998, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office with the same complaints from his visit nearly three weeks earlier. Respondent performed two duplex scans of the lower extremities to check his circulatory state, These scans were not medically necessary. Although Patient 2 was also complaining of a slow progression of leg pain and cramps, Respondent had performed a diagnostic procedure for these identical symptoms nine months earlier. The absence of any recorded treatment plan in the interim strongly suggests that diagnostic echography is displacing actual treatment. Respondent also performed another spirometry, less than three weeks after the prior spirometry. There was no medical necessity for this second procedure because Patient 2's symptoms and complaints had remained unchanged. Petitioner proved that it overpaid $97.96, $72.39, and $15.70 for these services. On January 8, 1999, Patient 2 presented at Respondent's office, again with respiratory complaints. Respondent claims to have administered a maximum breathing test, but he submitted no documentation of such a test to Petitioner, so Petitioner has proved that it overpaid $9.82 for this service. Patient 3, who was 13 years old, saw Respondent only one time--April 28, 1998. On this date, she presented at Respondent's office with menstrual complaints, abdominal pain, anxiety, and urinary disorders in terms of frequency and urgency. After performing a physical examination (limited as to the pelvic area due to the demands and cultural expectations of the patient and her family) and ordering blood work, Respondent performed pelvic and renal echograms, choosing not to subject the patient to X rays due to her young age. When Respondent later received the blood work, he found evidence supporting a diagnosis of a urinary tract infection. Although the menstrual history should have been developed in the records, the pelvic echogram could have uncovered an ovarian cyst, and legitimate reason existed to avoid an X ray and an extensive pelvic examination. However, the renal echogram was not medically necessary. The proper means of diagnosing a urinary tract infection is the blood work that Respondent ordered. The records mention the possibility of kidney stones, but this condition did not require ruling out based on the complaints of the patient, findings of the physical examination, and unlikelihood of this condition in so young a patient. Petitioner proved that it overpaid $61.57 for the renal echogram, but failed to prove that it overpaid for the pelvic echogram. Patient 4, who was eight years old, first saw Respondent on November 11, 1998. Patient 4 presented with a fever of two days' duration, moderate cough, and runny nose. His grandmother suffered from asthma, but nothing suggests that Patient 4 had been diagnosed with asthma. After conducting a physical examination and taking a history, Respondent diagnosed Patient 4 as suffering from acute tonsillitis, allergic rhinitis, bronchitis, and a cough. Apparently, Respondent misbilled Petitioner for an aerosol treatment because Respondent testified, and his records disclose, that no aerosol was administered, so Petitioner proved that it overpaid $10.62 for this service. Respondent administered a spirometry, which he justified on the basis of the grandmother's asthma. Although the results of the spirometry indicated pulmonary impairment, the test was not medically necessary, given the history and results of the physical examination, so Petitioner proved that it overpaid $32.06 for this service. On February 15, 1999, Patient 4 presented at Respondent's office with a fever of two days' duration, moderate cough, and clear nasal discharge. Again, Respondent administered a spirometry, which again revealed pulmonary impairment, and, again, the test was not medically necessary. Again, Respondent displayed a fondness for diagnostic procedures that yielded no plan of treatment. Petitioner proved that it overpaid $16.94 for this service. Patient 5, who was 61 years old, presented at Respondent's office with a history of weekly visits, as well as osteoarthritis and high blood pressure. On March 26, 1998, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with a complaint of left hip pain of three days' duration, but not associated with any trauma. She also reported dizziness and occasional loss of consciousness after faintness. Patient 5 noted that her neck swelled three or four months ago. Respondent billed for two views of the hip, but nothing in his records indicates more than a single view, so Petitioner proved that it overpaid Respondent $6.68 for this aspect of the X-ray service. Respondent also performed a duplex scan of the carotid artery. The scan, which was justified due to Patient 5's dizziness, faintness, and loss of consciousness, revealed atherosclerotic changes of the carotid arteries, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for this service. On April 9, 1998, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of left flank pain, nasal stuffiness, headaches, and urinary incontinence on exertion. Interestingly, the report from the thyroid echogram, which was performed on the March 26 office visit and allowed by Petitioner, revealed an enlargement and solid mass at the right lobe, but Respondent's records contain no conclusions, diagnosis, or treatment plan for this condition, focusing instead on cold and other minor symptoms described above. Respondent performed kidney and bladder echograms, to rule out stones, cysts, or masses, and a sinus X ray. However, he did not first perform a urinalysis--instead ordering it simultaneously--to gain a better focus on Patient 5's condition, but his records contain no indication of the results of this important test. Petitioner proved that it overpaid $61.57 and $39.73 for the renal and bladder echograms, both of which were normal, although the left kidney revealed some fatty tissue. Although the results were normal, the sinus X ray was medically necessary, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for this service. On May 13, 1998, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with a complaint of chest congestion, "chronic" cough (despite no prior indication of a cough in Respondent's records), and shortness of breath of two or three days' duration. Respondent administered a spirometry. Respondent justified this test, in part, on Patient 5's "acute exacerbation of COPD," but Respondent's records reveal no other symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of COPD. Administering spirometry when confronted with common cold symptoms is not medically necessary, so Petitioner proved that it overpaid $30.06 for this service. On June 29, 1998, Patient 5, who was diabetic, presented at Respondent's office with complaints of gradual onset of leg pain on exertion, alleviated by resting, and cramping at night. A physical examination revealed no right posterior pedal pulse, grade 2 edema and dermatitis, and bilateral varicose veins. Previous blood work had revealed high cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Respondent performed a doppler study of the arteries of the lower extremities, which Petitioner allowed. He also performed a doppler study of the veins of the lower extremities and a duplex scan of the veins of the lower extremities, both of which Petitioner disallowed. Petitioner also downcoded the office visit. Given Patient 5's diabetes and the laboratory work, the disallowed study and scan were justified. Petitioner failed to prove that the services were medically unnecessary or, as noted in the Preliminary Statement, due to the absence of the CPT manual, that the office visit should be downcoded, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for these services. On July 20, 1998, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of diffuse abdominal pain and nausea without vomiting. Respondent found that her liver was enlarged and tender and performed a liver echogram. Petitioner's disallowance of this service suggests an unfamiliarity with the subsequent report dated August 28, 1998, that states that a CT scan of the abdomen revealed possible metastatic disease of the liver and suggested correlation with liver echography. The liver echogram was medically necessary, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for this service. On August 13, 1998, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of low back pain of months' duration and related symptoms. Respondent performed three NCVs, including an H-Reflex. The NCVs suggested light peripheral neuropathy. Petitioner failed to prove that these tests were not medically necessary. On August 18 and 28, 1998, Patient 5 visited Respondent's office and received injections of vitamin B12 and iron. However, the medical necessity for these injections is absent from Respondent's records. Respondent testified that the iron was needed to combat anemia, but this diagnosis does not appear in the August 18 records. The August 28 records mention anemia, but provide no clinical basis for this diagnosis. Neither set of records documents the injections. Petitioner proved that it overpaid $94.25 and $37.70 for these services. On October 21, 1998, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of chest congestion, cough, and moderate shortness of breath of one day's onset, although she had visited Respondent one week earlier with the same symptoms. Petitioner allowed an aerosol treatment, but disallowed a maximum breathing procedure. Respondent testified that the service was the administration of oxygen, which is documented in the records and medically necessary. Petitioner's worksheets, which are Petitioner Exhibit 19, contain a handwritten note, "no doc[umentation]," but the shortcomings in Petitioner's evidence, as noted in the Preliminary Statement, prevent Petitioner from proving that it overpaid for this service. On November 11, 1998, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of weakness and fatigue of five or six months' duration. Respondent has previously diagnosed Patient 5 with hypothyroidism, and Respondent believed that she was not responding to her medication for this condition. Without ordering blood work to determine thyroid function, Respondent performed a thyroid echogram. However, this echography was not medically necessary, so Petitioner proved that it overpaid $45.24 for this service. On December 4, 1998, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of left chest and ribs pain and recent faintness. Respondent ordered an X ray of the ribs and conducted a physical examination, which revealed a regular heart rhythm. The following day, Respondent performed an echocardiogram and related doppler study. He had performed these tests seven months earlier, but the results were sufficiently different, especially as to new mitral and aortic valve regurgitation, so as to justify re-testing. Given Patient 5's poor health, these tests were medically necessary, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for these services. On December 17, 1998, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of cervical pain of three or four days' duration and radiating pain into the arms and hands. Noting a decreased grip on both sides and relevant aspects of Patient 5's history, Respondent performed two NCVs, including an H-Reflex, and ordered a cervical X ray. One NCV revealed abnormalities, but the H-Reflex did not. These tests were medically necessary, so Petitioner failed to prove that it overpaid for these services. On January 12, 1999, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of blurred vision, loss of memory, dizziness, and fainting over several months' duration. Respondent performed a carotid echogram, as he had on March 26, 1998. The results of the new carotid echogram were the same as the one performed nine months earlier. The problem is that, again, Respondent betrays his fondness for diagnosis without treatment, as he never addressed the abnormalities detected in the earlier echogram, except to reconfirm their existence nine months later. Petitioner proved that the second carotid echogram was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $99.14 for this service. On February 1, 1999, Patient 5 presented at Respondent's office with continuing complaints of leg pain and cramps. Respondent responded by repeating the doppler study of the veins of the lower extremities and a duplex scan of the veins of the lower extremities that he had performed only seven months earlier and another duplex scan. The main difference in results is that Respondent had suspected from the earlier tests that Patient 5 suffered from "deep venous insufficiency," but he found in the later tests that "mild vein insufficiency is present." Again, though, the tests performed on February 1 lack medical necessity, partly as evidenced by the failure of Respondent to design a treatment plan for Patient 5 after either set of test results. Petitioner proved that it overpaid $99.14, $37.92, and $110.50 for these services. On December 4, 1998, Patient 6 presented at Respondent's office complaining of leg pain, mild shortness of breath, and a cough. Except for the leg pain, the symptoms were of two days' duration. Patient 6 was 35 years old and had a history of schizophrenia and obesity. Respondent performed a physical examination and found decreased breathing with scattered wheezing in both lungs and decreased peripheral pulses, presumably of the lower extremities, although the location is not noted in the medical records. Respondent also found varices on both sides with inflammatory changes and swelling of the ankles. Respondent ordered duplex studies of the vascular system of the lower extremities and a doppler scan of the lower extremities. The results revealed diffuse atheromatous changes in the left lower extremity. Petitioner failed to prove that these services were not medically necessary. On the same date, Respondent performed a spirometry, which was "probably normal." Petitioner proved that this procedure was not medically necessary because of the mildness of the respiratory symptoms and their short duration. Petitioner overpaid $32.06 for this service. Respondent saw Patient 6 on December 9, 12, and 15, 1998, for abdominal pain, but Petitioner has not disallowed any of these services. On December 28, 1998, Patient 6 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of neck pain with gradual onset, now radiating to the upper and middle back, shoulders, and arms, together with tingling and numbness in the hands. Respondent performed three NCVs, including an H-Reflex, even though the physical examination had revealed active deep reflexes and no sensory deficits or focal signs. The results revealed mild abnormalities, which Respondent never discussed in his notes or addressed in a treatment plan. Petitioner proved that these services were not medically necessary, so Petitioner overpaid $195.12, $73.96, and $21.64 for these services. On February 2, 1999, Patient 6 presented at Respondent's office complaining of three days of chills without fever, left flank pain, and urinary frequency. Without first performing a urinalysis, Respondent performed a kidney echogram to rule out kidney stones. The echogram revealed no abnormalities. Petitioner proved that the renal echogram was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $62.37 for this service. On August 25, 1998, Patient 7, who was 58 years old, presented to Respondent's office with complaints of leg pains and cramps of five or six months' duration and some unsteadiness, as well as progressive numbness in her legs and feet. Patient 7 also complained of moderate shortness of breath, anxiety, and depression. The physical examination revealed decreased expansion of the lungs and decreased breath sounds, limited motion of the legs and back, decreased peripheral pulses (presumably of the legs), edema (again, presumably of the lower extremities), varices, and sensorial deficit on the external aspect of the legs. Blood work performed on August 25 was normal for all items, including thyroid function, except that cholesterol was elevated. Respondent ordered a chest X ray and electrocardiogram, which Petitioner allowed, but also ordered doppler studies of the veins and arteries of the lower extremities, an associated duplex scan, a spirometry, three NCVs (including an H-Reflex), and a somatosensory evoked potential test (SSEP), all of which Petitioner denied. Like the NCV, the SSEP is also an electrodiagnostic test that measures nerve function. The NCVs suggested mild peripheral neuropathy, which required clinical correlation, but the SSEP revealed no abnormalities. The doppler studies produced findings that "may represent some early arterial insufficiency" and "may represent some mild venous insufficiency," but were otherwise normal. The spirometry revealed "mild airway obstruction." The results of the tests do not support their medical necessity, nor do the complaints and findings preceding the tests. Petitioner proved that both doppler studies, the duplex scan, all three NCVs, the SSEP, and the spirometry were not medically necessary. Petitioner overpaid $66.48, $38.75, $108.58, $195.12, $73.96, $21.64, $42.68, and $17.70 for these services. Two days later, on August 27, 1998, Patient 7 presented at Respondent's office with swelling of her anterior neck and pain for two weeks. She complained that her eyes were protruding and large and that she had suffered mild shortness of breath for two days. Respondent ordered an echogram of the goiter, which Petitioner denied. Respondent's records contain no acknowledgement of the fact that, two days earlier, blood work revealed normal thyroid function. Even if the laboratory results were not available within two days of the draw, Respondent had to await the results before proceeding to ultrasound. Petitioner proved that the goiter echogram was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $43.24 for this service. On September 21, 1998, Patient 7 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of chest pain, palpitations, and shortness of breath. The physical examination revealed no abnormalities. Respondent performed an echocardiogram and related doppler study, largely, as he testified, to rule out thyrotoxicosis. However, as noted above, the blood work one month earlier revealed no thyroid dysfunction, and the medical records fail to account for this blood work in proceeding with a thyroid rule-out diagnosis. Petitioner proved that these services were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $117.23 and $51.34 for these services. On October 6, 1998, Patient 7 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of gradual loss of memory, fainting, and blurred vision. Respondent performed a carotid ultrasound, which revealed mild to moderate atheromatous change, but no occlusion. Petitioner failed to prove that this test was not medically necessary. Petitioner also downcoded the office visit, but, for reasons set forth above, its proof fails to establish that the billed visit should be reduced. On the next day, October 7, Patient 7 presented at Respondent's office in acute distress from pain of three days' duration in the legs, swelling, heaviness, redness, and fever. The physical examination revealed swelling of the legs and decreased peripheral pulses. Concerned with thrombophlebitis, Respondent ordered a chest X ray to rule out an embolism and a duplex scan of the lower extremities, neither of which revealed any significant abnormalities. Petitioner failed to prove that these tests were not medically necessary. On November 12, 1998, Patient 7 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of abdominal pain and vaginal discharge. One note states that the pain is in the left upper quadrant, and another note states that the pain is in the lower abdomen. The physical examination was unremarkable, but Respondent ordered echograms of the pelvis and spleen, which were essentially normal. Petitioner proved that the echograms were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $46.03 and $51.34 for these services. On November 30, 1998, Patient 7 presented at Respondent's office with complaints with worsening neck pain radiating to the shoulders and arms and decreased muscle strength on both sides. The physical examination uncovered decreased grip, normal pulses, and no focal findings. Respondent ordered three upper-extremity NCVs, including an H-Reflex, and an SSEP. The tests did not produce significantly abnormal results, such as to require any treatment beyond the anti-inflammatory medications typically used to treat the osteoarthritis from which Patient 7 suffered. Petitioner proved that the tests were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $193.12, $73.96, $21.64, and $42.68 for these services. One month later, on December 28, Patient 7 presented at Respondent's office with continuing complaints of neck pain and decreased muscle strength. Although the same three NCVs had revealed nothing significant only one month earlier, Respondent performed the same three tests. Petitioner proved that these tests were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $195.12, $73.96, and $21.64 for these services. On January 8, 1999, Patient 7 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of right upper quadrant abdominal pain of three days' duration with vomiting and urinary disorders. The physical examination suggested tenderness in the right upper quadrant of the abdomen. Respondent performed liver and renal echograms, which were normal. Petitioner allowed the liver echogram, but not the renal echogram. Petitioner proved that the renal echograms were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $62.37 for this service. On April 7, 1998, Patient 8, who was 48 years old and suffered from diabetes, presented at Respondent's office with an ulcer on her right foot with tingling, numbness, and muscle weakness in both legs. Relevant history included the amputation of the right toe. The physical examination revealed an ulcer on the right foot, but no tingling or numbness. Respondent ordered an electrocardiogram and a doppler study of the arteries of the lower extremities, both of which Petitioner allowed. However, Petitioner denied a doppler study of the veins of the lower extremities and a duplex scan of the veins of the lower extremities and three NCVs of the lower extremities, including an H-Reflex. The venous doppler study disclosed a mild degree of venous insufficiency and suggested a mild to moderate peripheral vascula disease without occlusion. The NCVs showed abnormal sensory functions compatible with neuropathy. In place of a report on the H-Reflex test, a report on an SSEP indicated some abnormalities. At the end of the visit, Respondent sent Patient 8 to the hospital for treatment of the infected foot ulcer. Petitioner failed to prove that the NCVs, including the H-Reflex or SSEP, and the venous doppler study were not medically necessary. For reasons already discussed, Petitioner also failed to prove that the office visit should be downcoded. On August 18, 1998, Patient 8 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of neck pain of two or three weeks' duration, dizziness, blurred vision, and black outs. Respondent ordered a carotid ultrasound, which revealed no abnormalities. Given the compromised health of the patient, Petitioner failed to prove that this service lacked medical necessity. On August 26, 1998, Patient 8 presented at Respondent's office with gastric complaints of three days' duration radiating to the upper right quadrant and accompanied by vomiting and occasional diarrhea. Patient 8 continued to complain of neck pain. Since yesterday, Patient 8 reported that she had had a frequent cough and shortness of breath. Her history includes fatty food intolerance, nocturnal regurgitations, and heartburn. The physical examination revealed a soft, nontender abdomen and normal bowel sounds. With "diagnoses" of epigastric pain, abdominal pain, and shortness of breath, Respondent performed, among other things, a spirometry. Given the short duration of Patient 8's respiratory complaints, Petitioner proved that the spirometry was not medically necessary, so Petitioner overpaid $17.70 for this service. On September 29, 1998, Patient 8 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of low back pain, malaise, chills, fever, and urinary disorders, all of three days' duration. The physical examination was unremarkable, but for unrelated findings in the lower extremities. Respondent performed an echogram of the kidneys, which revealed no significant problems. Petitioner proved that this ultrasound procedure was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $61.57 for this service. Respondent also billed for a diabetes test, but the test results are omitted from the medical records. Petitioner proved a lack of documentation for the diabetes, so it overpaid $11.50 for this service. On December 11, 1998, Patient 8 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of moderate neck pain, numbness and weakness of the shoulders and arms, and tingling of the hands, all of three or four months' duration. Diagnosing Patient 8 with cervical disc disease, cervical radiculitis, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy, Respondent ordered three NCVs, including an H-Reflex. The NCVs revealed some abnormalities, but evidently not enough on which Respondent could make a diagnosis and form a treatment plan. Although this Recommended Order finds an earlier set of NCVs of the lower extremities medically necessary, even though Respondent did not act on them, these NCVs are different for a couple of reasons. First, at the time of the lower- extremity NCVs, Respondent was preparing to send Patient 8 to the hospital, where follow-up of any abnormalities could be anticipated. Second, the lower-extremity NCVs were of the part of the body that had suffered most from diabetes, as Patient 8 had lost her toe. The NCVs performed on December 11 were basically in response to persistent or recurrent complaints about neck pain with an inception, for the purpose of this case, in mid-August. The record reveals that Respondent exerted some effort to diagnose the cause of the pain, but apparently never found anything on which he could base a treatment plan, because he never treated the pain, except symptomatically. From this point forward, Respondent could no longer justify, as medically necessary, diagnostic services for Patient 8's recurrent neck pain, but instead should have referred her to someone who could diagnose any actual disease or condition and provide appropriate treatment to relieve or eliminate the symptoms. Petitioner proved that the three NCVs were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $195.12, $73.96, and $21.64 for these services. On January 12, 1999, Patient 8 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of leg pain and heaviness of "years'" duration. She "also" complained of lower abdominal pain, more to the left side, of mild intensity, "but persistent and recurrent," as well as a burning sensation in the vagina. The physical examination is notable because Patient 8 reportedly refused a vaginal examination. Failing to order a urinalysis, Respondent proceeded to perform a pelvic echogram, as well as a doppler study of the veins of the lower extremities and two duplex scans of the arteries and veins of the lower extremities. The omission of a urinalysis and a vaginal examination--or at least a compelling reason to forego a vaginal examination--renders the pelvic ultrasound, whose results were normal, premature and not medically necessary. Except for the duplex scan of the arteries, Respondent had performed these lower-extremity procedures nine months earlier, just prior to Patient 8's hospitalization. Absent a discussion in the notes of why it was necessary to repeat these tests when no treatment plan had ensued earlier in 1998, these procedures were not medically necessary, so Petitioner overpaid $51.78, $99.14, $37.92, and $110.50 for these services. On January 29, 1998, Patient 9, who was 62 years old, presented at Respondent's office with complaints of weakness and numbness in his legs and fear of falling. A physical examination revealed limited range of motion of both knees. The deep reflexes were normal. Respondent performed three NCVs, including an H-Reflex, and an SSEP, all of the lower extremities. The SSEP was normal, but the NCVs produced results compatible with bilateral neuropathy. Petitioner failed to prove that these services were not medically necessary. On January 31, 1998, Patient 9 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of chest congestion and coughs of three days' duration, accompanied by shortness of breath. This record adds COPD to his history. The physical examination revealed normal full expansion of the lungs, but rhonchis and wheezing on expiration. Respondent ordered a spirometry, which revealed a mild chest restriction. Given the chronic pulmonary disease, Petitioner failed to prove that this service was not medically necessary. On April 14, 1998, Patient 9 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of abdominal pain of three days' duration with vomiting and diarrhea. His history included intolerance to fatty foods. The physical examination found the abdomen to be soft, with some tenderness in the right and left upper quadrants, but no masses, and the bowel sounds were normal. Respondent performed a liver echogram, which was normal. Petitioner proved that the liver echogram was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $44.03 for this service. On May 8, 1998, Patient 9 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of chest pain of moderate intensity behind the sternum, together with palpitations that increased on exertion and eliminated on rest. The physical examination revealed regular heartbeats, a pulse of 84, and blood pressure of 150/90. Respondent performed an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, and doppler echocardiogram. The electrocardiogram revealed a cardiac abnormality that justified the other procedures, so Petitioner failed to prove that these services were not medically necessary. On June 4, 1998, Patient 9 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of malaise and fatigue, which had worsened over the past couple of weeks. The physical examination showed the lungs to be clear and the heartbeat regular. Patient 9's pulse was 76 and blood pressure was 130/80. Respondent performed a chest X ray and another electrocardiogram, both of which were normal. Petitioner proved that these services were not medically necessary, as the chest X ray was unjustified by the symptoms and physical examination, and an electrocardiogram had just been performed one month earlier, so Petitioner overpaid $18.88 and $15.74 for these services. On July 1, 1998, Patient 9 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of ongoing knee pain. Patient 9 had been re-scheduled for knee surgery and required another clearance. Respondent performed another electrocardiogram, even though he had performed one only three weeks ago, and the results had been normal, as were the results from the July 1 procedure. Petitioner proved that this service was not medically necessary, and it overpaid $15.74 for this service. On August 14, 1998, Patient 9 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of pain in his hands and wrists of three or four months' duration, accompanied by tingling in the fingers and a loss of strength in the hands. Respondent performed two NCVs, which revealed findings compatible with neuropathy, but the records reveal no action by Respondent in forming a treatment plan or referring the patient to a specialist. Petitioner proved that these services were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $195.12 and $73.96 for these services. On March 9, 1998, Patient 10, who was three years old, presented at Respondent's office with a sore throat with fever and malaise. His history included asthma, and he had suffered from mild shortness of breath and a dry cough of three days' duration. The physical examination was unremarkable, except for congested tonsils and scattered rhonchis, but no wheezes. Respondent administered an aerosol, which was appropriate, given the young age of the patient and his asthmatic condition. Petitioner failed to prove that this service was not medically necessary. On the next day, Patient 10 again presented at Respondent's office in "acute distress." Although his temperature was normal, his pulse was 110. The findings of the physical examination were the same as the prior day, except that the lungs were now clear. Respondent billed for another aerosol treatment, but the medical records omit any reference to such a treatment. Petitioner proved that Respondent failed to maintain documentation for this treatment, so Petitioner overpaid $10.03 for this service. On May 21, 1998, Patient 10 presented at Respondent's office with a cough, chest congestion, and mild shortness of breath, but no fever. A physical examination revealed scattered rhonchis, but no wheezes, and the boy's chest expression was full. Diagnosing the patient with acute bronchitis, Respondent administered a spirometry and an aerosol. Again, due to the age of the patient and his asthma, Petitioner failed to prove that the spirometry or aerosol was not medically necessary. On August 18, 1998, Patient 10 presented at Respondent's office with chest congestion, cough, and moderate shortness of breath, all of three days' duration. The physical examination showed that the lungs were free of wheezes. Respondent administered an aerosol and a chest X ray. The aerosol was appropriate given the age of the patient and his asthma. However, the chest X ray was inappropriate given the clear condition of the lungs. Petitioner proved that the chest X ray was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $18.88 for this service. On August 6, 1998, Patient 11, who was three years old, presented at Respondent's office with a fever and sore throat, both since the prior day, as well as abdominal pain of two or three weeks' duration. The physical examination disclosed that the abdomen was normal, as were the bowel sounds. Respondent performed a kidney echogram, which was normal. Given the age of the patient, his overall health, and the lack of confirming findings, Petitioner proved that the echogram was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $61.57 for this service. On October 1, 1998, Patient 12 presented at Respondent's office. Respondent billed an office visit, which Petitioner allowed. This is the only item billed for Patient 12 during the audit period, so there is no dispute as to Patient 12. On March 9, 1998, Patient 13, who was 30 years old, presented at Respondent's office with complaints of back pain, chills, burning urination, and general malaise, all of three days' duration. She also complained of lower abdominal pain, vaginal discharge, and pain during intercourse, but denied abnormal genital bleeding. The physical examination disclosed pain in the cervix on motion, but a normal temperature. Respondent performed echograms of the kidneys and pelvis to address his diagnoses of an infection of the kidneys and pelvic inflammatory disease. However, he ordered no blood work. The ultrasounds of the kidneys and the pelvis were normal. The symptoms and findings justified a pelvic echogram, but not a kidney echogram. Petitioner proved that the kidney echogram was not medically necessary, so that it overpaid $61.57 for this service. Petitioner failed to prove that the pelvic echogram was not medically necessary. On March 17, 1998, Patient 13 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of moderate chest pain behind the sternum with palpitations and anxiety. Diagnosing chest pain, mitral valve prolapse, and anxiety, Respondent ordered an electrocardiogram, which Petitioner allowed, and an echocardiogram and doppler echocardiogram, which Petitioner denied. The results from the latter procedures were normal. Petitioner failed to prove that these two procedures were not medically necessary. On June 12, 1998, Patient 13 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of leg pain of two to three months' duration with heaviness and discomfort, especially at night. Patient 13 also complained of mild shortness of breath and moderate cough. The history included bronchial asthma. The physical examination found normal full expansion of the lungs, but scattered expiratory wheezes in both lungs, as well as a possible enlarged and tender liver. The ankles displayed moderate inflammatory changes. Respondent diagnosed Patient 13 with varicose veins with inflammation and bronchial asthma. Respondent performed a doppler study of the veins of the lower extremities, a duplex scan of these veins, and a spirometry, which Petitioner denied, and an aerosol, which Petitioner allowed. The doppler study suggested a mild degree of venous insufficiency with bilateral varicose veins and edema. The spirometry revealed a moderate chest restriction and mild airway obstruction. Petitioner failed to prove that any of these services were not medically necessary. On March 10, November 16, and December 18, 1998, Patient 14 presented at Respondent's office. On each occasion, Respondent billed an office visit, which Petitioner allowed. These are the only items billed for Patient 14 during the audit period, so there is no dispute as to Patient 14. On March 18, 1998, Patient 15 presented at Respondent's office. Respondent billed an office visit, which Petitioner allowed. This is the only item billed for Patient 15 during the audit period, so there is no dispute as to Patient 15. On March 16 and 19 and April 8,1998, Patient 16 presented at Respondent's office. On each occasion, Respondent billed an office visit, which Petitioner allowed. These are the only items billed for Patient 16 during the audit period, so there is no dispute as to Patient 16. On September 4, 1998, Patient 17, who was 52 years old, presented at Respondent's office with complaints of leg pain after exertion and cold feet, as well as low back pain of several years' duration that had worsened over the past two to three weeks. Patient 17 also complained of low back pain that had persisted for several years, but had worsened over the past two to three weeks. The history included an heart bypass. The only abnormalities on the physical examination were decreased expansion of the chest, edema of the ankles, decreased peripheral pulses, and cold feet. Respondent performed a duplex scan of the arteries of the lower extremities, a spine X ray, and an injection to relieve back pain, all of which Petitioner allowed. Respondent also performed an electrocardiogram, which Petitioner denied. Even though the electrocardiogram revealed several abnormalities, nothing in the symptoms, history, or examination suggests any medical necessity for this procedure. Petitioner proved that the electrocardiogram was not medically necessary, so Petitioner overpaid $15.74 for this service. Four days later, on September 8, Patient 17 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of continuing low back pain, now radiating to the legs. The history and findings from the physical examination were identical to those of the office visit four days earlier. Respondent performed three NCVs, including an H-Reflex, which revealed a mild neuropathy. However, the symptoms and history did not justify these diagnostic procedures focused on the legs when the back was the longstanding problem area, nor did Respondent have any treatment plan for the back problem. Eventually, according to Respondent's testimony, a month or two later, he sent this patient to the hospital, where he could receive treatment for this painful condition. Petitioner proved that the three NCVs were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $195.12, $73.96, and $21.64 for these services. On October 2, 1998, Patient 17 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of chest pain on exertion of three days' duration. The physical examination disclosed decreased breath sounds in the lungs, but a regular rhythm of the heart. Respondent performed an echocardiogram, doppler echocardiogram, and duplex scan of the extracranial arteries. Given the patient's history of coronary artery disease and heart bypass, Petitioner failed to prove that these services were not medically necessary. On December 10, 1998, Patient 17 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of left flank pain and bilateral back pain of three days' acute duration, as well as urinary disorder and nausea. The physical examination was unremarkable. Respondent performed a kidney echogram, which was negative, to address his working diagnoses of urinary tract infection and kidney stones. However, Respondent performed no urinalysis, and the complaints did not justify elaborate diagnostics to rule out the improbable condition of stones. Petitioner proved that the kidney echogram was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $59.57 for this service. On October 9, 1998, Patient 18, who was 35 years old, presented at Respondent's office with complaints of chest pain and palpitations of gradual onset over nearly one year, unrelated to exertion and accompanied occasionally by moderate shortness of breath. Patient 18 reported that she had smoked heavily for several years and suffered from intermittent smoker's cough and phlegms. Relevant history included asthma and bronchitis. The physical examination revealed that the lungs were clear and the chest expanded fully. Petitioner allowed several cardiac diagnostic procedures, but denied a spirometry and aerosol, the former as medically unnecessary and the latter as lacking documentation. The spirometry revealed severe chest restriction. Given the results of the spirometry and the history of Patient 18 as a heavy smoker, Petitioner failed to prove that the spirometry was not medically necessary, but, given the mild symptoms at the time of the treatment, without regard to whether Respondent provided documentation, Petitioner proved that the aerosol was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $10.62 for this service. On October 16, 1998, Patient 18 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of persistent neck pain, radiating to the arms and hands. The physical examination disclosed a substantial limitation in range of motion of the neck, but no focal signs. Respondent performed three NCVs, including an H-Reflex, and an SSEP of the upper extremities, which revealed some abnormalities. Notwithstanding the positive findings, the absence of any treatment plan undermines the medical necessity of these diagnostic procedures. In response to these findings, Respondent merely changed Patient 18's anti- inflammatory medication, which he obviously could have done with negative NCVs and an SSEP. Petitioner has proved that the three NCVs and SSEP were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $195.12, $73.96, $21.64, and $42.68 for these services. On October 17, 1998, Patient 18 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of pelvic pain and vaginal discharge with left flank pain and urinary disorders. She also complained of leg pain and fatigue after standing. A previously performed urinalysis had revealed blood in the urine. The physical examination found vaginal discharge and pain in cervix motion to the right and left sides. It also found normal peripheral pulses and normal movement in all limbs, although some varicosities and inflammatory changes were present. Respondent performed echograms of the kidneys and pelvis and a doppler study and duplex scan of the veins of the lower extremities. Although both echograms were normal, these procedures were justified due to the symptoms and findings. The procedures performed on the lower extremities, which revealed a mild degree of venous insufficiency, were not justified by the complaints or findings. Petitioner failed to prove that the echograms were not medically necessary, but proved that the doppler and duplex procedures were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $38.75 and $108.58 for these services. On November 18, 1998, Patient 18 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of weakness of two to three months' duration and eating disorders. The physical examination uncovered a palpable, enlarged thyroid, even though, one month earlier, the physical examination found the thyroid to be non- palpable. Although the medical records indicate that Respondent ordered laboratory tests of thyroid function, no such reports are in his medical records, and, more importantly, he performed a thyroid echogram, which was normal, prior to obtaining the results of any laboratory work concerning thyroid function. Petitioner proved that the echogram was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $45.24 for this service. On January 21, 1999, Patient 19, who was four months old, presented at Respondent's office with a cough. Eight days earlier, Patient 19 had presented at Respondent's office with the same condition, and Respondent had recommended that the patient's mother hospitalize him if the symptoms worsened. A physical examination revealed that the lungs were clear and the chest fully expanded. Respondent administered an aerosol. Petitioner proved that the aerosol was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $10.97 for this service. On February 2, 1998, Patient 21, who was 46 years old, presented at Respondent's office with complaints of generalized headache and chest discomfort. For the past two weeks, Patient 21 had also suffered from painful urination. The relevant history included non-insulin-dependent diabetes and paranoid schizophrenia. The physical examination indicated that Patient 21's heart beat in regular rhythm. Patient 21's blood pressure was 190/105, and his cholesterol and triglyceride were high. His femoral and popliteal pulses were decreased. Respondent performed an electrocardiogram, which Petitioner allowed, and, after learning that the results were borderline abnormal, an echocardiogram and doppler echocardiogram, which Petitioner denied. Given the symptoms, Respondent was justified in proceeding with additional diagnostic tests, especially given the difficulty of treating a schizophrenic patient. Petitioner failed to prove that the echocardiogram and doppler echocardiogram were not medically necessary. On March 2, 1998, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office with complaints, of four months' duration, of leg pain when standing or walking a few blocks. The physical examination revealed decreased peripheral pulses. Respondent performed a doppler study and duplex scan of the veins of the lower extremities, which were both normal. Given the diabetes and schizophrenia, these diagnostic procedures were justified. Petitioner failed to prove that these services were not medically necessary. On April 2, 1998, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of worsening leg pain, now accompanied by numbness and tingling in the feet and sensorial deficit on the soles of the feet. The physical examination was substantially the same as the one conducted one month earlier, except that the deep reflexes were hypoactive. Respondent performed three NCVs, including an H-Reflex, on the lower extremities, and they revealed abnormal motor functions. However, the failure of Respondent to prepare a treatment plan or refer Patient 21 to a specialist precludes a finding of medical necessity. Petitioner has proved that these NCVs were not medically necessary, so it overpaid $195.12, $73.96, and $21.64 for these services. On April 30, 1998, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of difficulty urinating for the past three or four days. A physical examination revealed an enlarged, tender prostate. Forming a working diagnosis of prostatitis and chronic renal failure, Respondent performed prostate and kidney echograms, which were both normal, but no laboratory work on the urinary problems. Petitioner failed to prove that the prostate echogram was not medically necessary, but proved that the kidney echogram was not medically necessary, so it overpaid $61.57 for this service. On July 3, 1998, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of visual disorders, dizziness, blacking out, and fainting, all of several months' duration. Respondent performed a carotid echogram, which was normal. Petitioner failed to prove that this service was not medically necessary. On August 4, 1998, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of moderate neck pain of five or six months' duration, radiating to the shoulders and arms and accompanied by tingling and numbness of the hands. The physical examination disclosed decreased femoral and popliteal pulses, limited motion in the neck and shoulders, pain in the shoulders upon manual palpation, pain in the wrists upon passive movements, and decreased grip on both sides. Respondent performed two NCVs, including an H-Reflex, and an SSEP, all of the upper extremities. The NCVs suggested bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, and the SSEP showed some abnormalities of nerve root function. Respondent responded to these data with a prescription for physical therapy three times weekly. Petitioner failed to proved that the two NCVs and SSEP were not medically necessary. On September 1, 1998, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of "chest oppression" and hypertension since the previous day. Patient 21 also complained of moderate neck pain and urinary discomfort of three days' duration. His blood pressure was 160/100, and his heart was in regular rhythm. Respondent performed an electrocardiogram, which Petitioner allowed, and a 24-hour electrocardiogram with a halter monitor, after learning that the results of the initial electrocardiogram were abnormal. Petitioner disallowed the latter procedure, but failed to prove that it was not medically necessary. On October 6, 1998, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of chest pain, dizziness, fainting, excessive hunger and weight gain, and weakness. His blood pressure was 170/100, and his pulse was 88. His heart beat in a regular rhythm, and his thyroid was enlarged, but smooth. Respondent performed an echogram of the thyroid, even though he had not ordered laboratory work of thyroid function. He performed an echocardiogram and a doppler echocardiogram. All echograms were normal, although Patient 21 suffered from some mild to moderate sclerosis of the aorta. Petitioner proved that these echograms were not medically necessary because the thyroid echogram was not preceded or even accompanied by laboratory work of thyroid function, and the other procedures of repeated diagnostic tests that Respondent had performed eight months earlier and were normal at that time. Petitioner thus overpaid $43.24, $61.96, and $29.31 for these services. On November 6, 1998, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office. Petitioner downcoded the office visit, but, as discussed above, the failure of Petitioner to produce the CPT manual prevents a determination that Respondent overbilled the visit. On January 4, 1999, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of flank pain of four months' duration accompanied by several urinary disorders, chills, and occasional fever. The physical examination revealed a distended and soft abdomen and tenderness in the flanks and right upper quadrant. Respondent performed a kidney ultrasound, despite having performed one eight months earlier and obtained normal results, but learned this time that the left kidney had a cyst consistent with chronic renal failure. Petitioner failed to prove that this service was not medically necessary. On January 29, 1999, Patient 21 presented at Respondent's office with complaints of moderate back pain of two weeks' duration, radiating to the legs, and weakness in the legs. The physical examination revealed pain on bending backward or forward and muscle spasm. Respondent performed a lumbar X ray, which Petitioner allowed, and three lumbosacral NCVs, including an H-Reflex, which Petitioner denied. The NCVs revealed mild neuropathy, although an SSEP, evidently billed as an H-Reflex, was normal. Petitioner failed to prove that these services were not medically necessary. The total overpayments, before extrapolation, from Petitioner to Respondent are thus $5952.99.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency of Health Care Administration enter a final order determining that, prior to extrapolation, Respondent owes $5952.99 for overpayments under the Medicaid program. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of May, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Christa Calamas, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jeffries H. Duvall Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig A. Brand Law Offices of Craig A. Brand, P.A. 5201 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 720 Miami, Florida 33126 Oscar Mendez-Turino 2298 Southwest 8th Street Miami, Florida 33135
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as a physician, license number ME 0060427, based on violations of Sections 458.331(1)(j) Florida Statutes, by exercising influence within a patient-physician relationship for purposes of engaging a patient in sexual activity and Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by violating any provision of this Chapter, in that he violated Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, and Rule 59R-9.008, Florida Administrative Code, by committing sexual misconduct in the practice of medicine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(j) and (x), Florida Statutes as to Patients T.S. and A.A. As discipline therefore, it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED: Respondent's license be suspended for a period of one year, commencing December 12, 1994, with his reinstatement upon demonstration that he can practice with skill and safety and upon such conditions as the Board of Medicine shall deem just and proper. Respondent pay an Administrative fine in the amount of $6,000.00. Respondent be placed on probation for a period of three years. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 9th day of May, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 (in part), 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29 (in part), 30, 3, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88. Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs 7, 9 (in part), 17 (in part), 28, 29 (in part), 59, 61, 65. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence: paragraphs 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, (in part), 7, 8, (in part), 9, 10 (in part), 12, 18 (in part), 19 (in part), 20 (in part), 21 (in part), 22 (in part) 27 (in part), 31, 44 (in part), 46 (in part), 47 (in part), 48 (in part), 49 (in part), 53 (in part), 57 (in part), 58 (in part). Rejected as subsumed or irrelevant and immaterial: paragraphs 6 (in part), 8 (in part), 10 (in part), 13, 15, 16, 18 (in part), 20 (in part), 21 (in part), 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30 (in part), 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 43, 44 (in part), 50, 55, 57 (in part), 58 (in part). Rejected as a restatement or commentary on the evidence: paragraphs 11, 14, 17, 22 (in part), 23, 27 (in part), 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 48, 40, 41, 42, 44 (in part), 45, 46 (in part), 47 (in part), 48 (in part), 49 (in part), 50, 51, 52, 53 (in part), 54, 55, 56. Rejected as not supported by the evidence: 19 (in part), 20 (in part), 32 and 33. COPIES FURNISHED: William Frederick Whitson, Esquire Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lee Sims Kniskern, Esquire 2121 Ponce de Leon Blvd. Suite 630 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monore Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tom Wallace Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations contained in a five-count Administrative Complaint. The charges against the Respondent may be summarized as follows: Count One charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1985) , by failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed on a licensed physician. Count Two charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(1), Florida Statutes (1985), by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of medicine when such scheme or trick fails to conform to the generally prevailing standards of treatment in the medical community. Count Three charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1985), by failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. Count Four charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes (1985), by prescribing, dispensing, administering, mixing, or otherwise preparing a legend drug, including any controlled substance, other than in the course of the physician's professional practice. Count Five charges the Respondent with violating Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1985), by gross or repeated malpractice, or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, or treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The Respondent filed an answer to the Administrative Complaint. In his answer, the Respondent admits some of the factual allegations in the Administrative Complaint, but denies all allegations of wrongdoing. Following the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings at hearing was filed on September 16, 1987, and the parties were allowed fifteen days from that date within which to file proposed recommended orders. The Respondent filed a proposed recommended order on October 1, 1987, and the Petitioner filed one on October 2, 1987. Careful consideration has been given to the parties' proposed recommended orders, and specific rulings on all findings of fact proposed by the parties are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0004527. Respondent's last known address is 463 Emerald Road, Ocala, Florida 32672. Ionamine is a brand name for a scheduled controlled substance as defined by Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Respondent's treatment of patients for obesity included B-12 vitamin injections. Approximately two-thirds of the Respondent's practice is devoted to the treatment of obesity. The other third of the Respondent's practice is devoted to a general practice of medicine. The Respondent graduated from Indiana University Medical School in 1945, interned in 1946, and became licensed in the State of Florida in 1951. The Respondent served for two years in the Air Force during the Korean War, and then returned to Florida where he established a practice in Miami. He practiced in Miami until 1970, at which time he moved to Ocala, where he has practiced since 1970. The Respondent is a board certified anesthesiologist and graduated at the top 10 percent of his class from Indiana University. The Respondent subscribes to and reads many medical journals and articles, including those concentrating on bariatrics. The Respondent has purchased and reviewed the American Medical Association video and study guide concerning the treatment of obesity. The Respondent also has continued his post graduate studies. When a new patient comes to the Respondent's office for treatment for obesity, the patient is first given a questionnaire to fill out. Subsequently a medical history is obtained from the patient, and the patient is given a thorough physical examination. Usually, but not always, blood and urine samples are obtained from this patient for testing, and the patient is given an EKG. If this patient appears to be in good health, the Respondent puts the patient on a weight loss program consisting of a reduction of calories, an exercise program consisting of a thirty minute walk each day, and an appetite suppressant, usually Phentermine or Diethylpropion. Phentermine and Diethylpropion are both helpful in the treatment of obesity. The Respondent also encourages each patient to take a vitamin injection on a weekly basis, regardless of whether there is any evidence of vitamin deficiency or pernicious anemia. Thereafter, the patient is instructed to return to the Respondent's office once a week, at which time an R.N. or L.P.N. checks their blood pressure, pulse, respiration, and weight. The nurse questions each patient to find out how they are reacting to the weight loss program. If everything appears to be satisfactory, the patient receives another seven-day supply of diet suppressant medication and a vitamin injection. The Respondent sees the patient every fourth visit (once a month) to determine what progress the patient is making. The Respondent routinely commences treatment of obesity patients, including the prescription of or dispensing of Phentermine or Diethylpropion, before reviewing the results of blood and urine tests. The Respondent continues obesity patients on an appetite suppressant (usually Phentermine or Diethylpropion) at the rate of seven 30 mg. pills per week as long as the patient continues to lose one percent of their body weight per week until their ideal weight is reached. In January of 1986, the Respondent saw a patient by the name of Sandy Wilson who came to his office for the treatment of obesity. The Respondent gave Ms. Wilson a thorough physical examination. The Respondent also questioned Ms. Wilson about her medical history. During the course of relating her medical history, Ms. Wilson complained of swelling of her hands and feet. The Respondent did not obtain blood or urine samples from Ms. Wilson, nor did he do an EKG on Ms. Wilson. Following his examination of Ms. Wilson, the Respondent placed her on a 1000 calorie per day diet, recommended that she exercise by walking 30 minutes each day, and dispensed to her a seven-day supply of Ionamine, which is a form of Phentermine. The Respondent also wrote a prescription for Ms. Wilson for thirty tablets of Furosemide 40 mg. Furosemide is a rather potent diuretic. The Respondent also suggested that Ms. Wilson have a vitamin injection, but she refused the injection. Ms. Wilson also refused to have blood drawn, saying she was afraid of needles. The Respondent told Ms. Wilson if she changed her mind she could have the blood drawn and the vitamin injection on her next visit. The Respondent's records of Ms. Wilson's treatment during January of 1986 do not contain sufficient information to show that Ms. Wilson received a thorough physical examination. The Respondent's records of Ms. Wilson's treatment during January of 1986 do not show that an adequate medical, social, or family history was obtained from Ms. Wilson. The Respondent's records of Ms. Wilson's treatment during January of 1986 do not mention that Ms. Wilson had or complained of edema. The Respondent's records of Ms. Wilson's treatment during January of 1986 do not contain the results of any blood or urine tests or the results of any EKG. Ionamine and Furosemide should not be dispensed or prescribed to a patient for obesity and edema without first giving the patient a thorough physical exam, obtaining an adequate medical history, and obtaining the results of laboratory analysis of blood and urine samples and obtaining an EKG. This is in part because a patient may have the beginnings of some illness, such as diabetes or hypothyroidism, that are not detectable by a physical examination alone. The dispensing of Ionamine and the prescription of Furosemide to Ms. Wilson without first obtaining the results of laboratory analysis of blood and urine samples and obtaining an EKG is a failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. A physician's records must be sufficient to justify the treatment given to the patient. In particular such records should contain complete information regarding examinations, histories, and laboratory tests. Because the Respondent's records regarding Ms. Wilson did not contain complete information in this regard, the Respondent has failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. Vitamin injections do not have any direct therapeutic effect in the treatment of obesity. They do not cause weight loss, nor do they contribute to weight loss. Nevertheless, periodic vitamin injections are commonly given to patients who are being treated for obesity as a form of "behavior modification." The goal of the behavior modification is to have the patient return for follow- up treatment on a regular basis. Vitamin injections do not pose any significant risk to the patient.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged in Counts Three, Four, and Five of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing the following penalty on the Respondent: (1) an administrative fine in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), and (2) placement of Respondent's license on probation for a period of two years under conditions to be prescribed by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-2031 The following are my specific rulings on all of the findings of fact proposed by the parties. As the parties are well aware, there is a large amount of conflict in the testimony in this case, especially in the expert witness testimony. To the extent that the testimony of the expert witnesses on behalf of the Petitioner (Dr. Clark and Dr. Weiss) conflicts with the testimony of the expert witnesses on behalf of the Respondent (Dr. Haimes and Dr. Asher), I have for the most part been persuaded by, and have incorporated into the findings of fact, the version set forth by the Petitioner's witnesses. Among other things, the version set forth by the Petitioner's expert witnesses more often appeared to be more logical, more reasonable and well reasoned, and more consistent with other evidence in the case. Findings proposed by the Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance, with some irrelevant details deleted. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance with some additional findings in the interest of clarity and accuracy. Paragraphs 4 and 5: Accepted. Paragraphs 6 and 7: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 8: Rejected as not fully supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 9 and 10: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 13: Accepted. Paragraphs 14 and 15: Rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. (The failure to include argument in the findings of fact is not a comment upon the merits of the argument.) Paragraphs 16 and 17; Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by the Respondent: By way of clarification of some of the rulings which follow, it is noted that a substantial number of the findings proposed by the Respondent begin with the words "Dr. So-and-so testified" or the words "Dr. So-and-so believes." Such findings are, in most cases, nothing more than summaries of the testimony and might well have been rejected on that basis alone. However, I have chosen to direct attention to the substance of such proposals, overlooking their form, and have treated each such proposal as a proposed finding of the fact testified to or the fact believed by the witness. Accordingly, when such proposals are rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, that is not to say that the witness did not so testify or did not so believe, but that the fact testified to or believed by the witness is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Most of this paragraph has been accepted, but many of the statements have been made subject to additional qualifications to be fully consistent with the evidence. Some details have been omitted as not supported by competent substantial evidence. A major qualification is that the procedures described in this paragraph are performed on many, but not all, of the Respondent's patients. Paragraph 7: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. It has already been found that the Respondent gives thorough physical examinations. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraphs 9 and 10: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 11: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 12: First sentence is accepted in substance. Second sentence is rejected as constituting an opinion which is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 13 and 14: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Also, last clause of first sentence is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 16: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 17: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 18, 19, 20: Rejected as irrelevant and as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph: 21: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Also rejected as inaccurate because there were other reasons for the opinion. Paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 29: First two sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant because it ignores and omits the context of the statement. Paragraph 30: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 31 and 32: Accepted in substance with additional clarifying details. Paragraph 33: Rejected because an important detail of the proposal is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 34: Rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 35 and 36: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 37: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 38: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 39: Rejected as irrelevant and as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 40: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 41: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details, because Dr. Haimes did not witness the examination and treatment of the patient. Paragraph 42: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 43: Rejected because the witness's use of vitamin injection is irrelevant in light of other evidence and because the witness's opinion that vitamin injections are acceptable world wide is rejected as not persuasive. Paragraph 44: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 45: Rejected as irrelevant; the witness's beliefs notwithstanding, the greater weight of the evidence is to the contrary. Paragraph 46: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 47: First three sentences rejected as irrelevant. Last sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 48: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 49: The first, second, and fourth sentences are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The third sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 50: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 51: First two sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Last sentence accepted in substance. Paragraph 52: First sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence is accepted in substance. Third and fourth sentences are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 53: First sentence rejected as irrelevant. Second sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 54: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 55: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 56: First sentence is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 57: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary. Paragraph 58: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 59: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 60: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evident. Paragraph 61: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 62: First two sentences rejected gas contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Third sentence accepted in substance. Last sentence rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 63: First sentence rejected as irrelevant. Second sentence accepted in substance. Third sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 64: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 65: Rejected because the opinions in this paragraph are contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 66: First and third sentences rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Second and fourth sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 67: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 68: Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 69 and 70: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 71: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Francine C. Landau, Esquire Inman and Landau, P.A. 2252 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 H. Edward Dean, Esquire 201 Northeast Eighth Avenue Suite 100 Ocala, Florida 32670 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Dr. Ford was a licensed physician in the State of Florida. His license, numbered ME 0051042, was issued on July 8, 1987. Patient R.A.L, presented to the Emergency Department of Winter Haven Hospital (Hospital) at approximately 1:35 p.m. on October 9, 1997. R.A.L.'s initial chief complaint was right flank pain since 9:00 a.m. that day. He reported a history of vomiting and diarrhea and stated that it felt like a kidney stone, of which R.A.L. had a history. Right flank pain is common with a patient having a kidney stone or kidney problem. R.A.L. was initially examined by Dr. David Siegel about 30 minutes after R.A.L. came to the emergency room. On physical examination palpation, there was no flank pain, but R.A.L. did have moderate pain diffusely throughout all areas of his abdomen. His abdomen was not acutely distended, and there were normal bowel sounds. On Dr. Siegel's order R.A.L. was given Toradol intravenously at 2:22 p.m. to relieve the pain. Toradol is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. R.A.L. was also given fluids intravenously. R.A.L.'s symptoms did not provide Dr. Siegel with a definitive diagnosis. Dr. Siegel ordered the following tests to be performed: a complete blood count, an amylase, a urinalysis, a PTPDT, and X-rays of the abdomen. The complete blood count was done to make sure that the patient was not anemic and to see if there was an elevated white blood count, which would be indicative of some type of infection or acute abdominal process. The complete blood count showed a significantly elevated white blood cell count of 24.3. The test also revealed that there was a left shift of a differential, which means that there was a high differential percentage-wise of segmented and banded white blood cells. The combination of the significantly elevated white blood cell count and the left shift indicated that there was an acute infectious process or an acute illness. The amalyse test measures a serum enzyme that is secreted from the pancreas. If the serum enzyme is elevated, it could be indicative of pancreatitis. The amalyse test was normal. The urinalysis would show whether there was an infection and would show some abnormalities if there were a kidney stone. R.A.L.'s urine checked out normal. At 3:00 p.m. R.A.L. voided. His urine was strained, but there were no kidney stones present. R.A.L. did not have an adequate response to the Toradol. He was given Demerol intravenously at 3:10 p.m. Based on the test results, Dr. Siegel was unable to make a definitive diagnosis. Because of R.A.L.'s clinical condition and his continued pain, Dr. Siegel ordered an abdominal Computed Tomography (CT) scan to see if he could further define what was going on in R.A.L.'s abdomen. Because of the absence of flank pain, the elevated white blood cell count, and the normal urinalysis report, Dr. Siegel did not rule out the possibility of kidney stones, but did feel that some abdominal process of significance was higher on the list of possible diagnoses than kidney stones. Dr. Siegel went off duty at 5:30 p.m. and turned the care of R.A.L. over to Dr. Ronald Barbour. Dr. Siegel gave Dr. Barbour an oral report of his findings and indicated that he was primarily concerned about a serious intra-abdominal process. Before finishing his shift, Dr. Siegel dictated a written report, which was immediately transcribed and placed in R.A.L.'s chart. Dr. Siegel expected Dr. Barbour to get the results of the CT scan and determine whether the results would allow a diagnosis. When Dr. Barbour came on duty, he went to see R.A.L., who told Dr. Barbour that he was still having some pain. R.A.L. asked for something to relieve the pain, and Dr. Barbour ordered Demerol for him. Dr. Barbour received a call from the radiologist, who said that the CT scan was consistent with a small bowel obstruction. Dr. Barbour told R.A.L. that it appeared he had a bowel obstruction and that he would be admitted to the Hospital. It is the Hospital's policy to contact a patient's primary care physician when a patient is being admitted to the Hospital from the Emergency Department. Dr. Ford was R.A.L.'s primary care physician. Dr. Ford was called by an Emergency Department nurse. Dr. Barbour spoke with Dr. Ford and advised him that the CT scan showed a small bowel obstruction. Dr. Ford stated that he would admit R.A.L. No mention was made of a surgical consult during the conversation. Dr. Barbour did not call a surgeon for a consult because normally if the patient has a primary care physician, the primary care physician would choose the surgeon should a surgical consult be necessary. R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital at approximately 8:45 p.m. At that point, the responsibility for the care and treatment of the patient shifted from Dr. Barbour to Dr. Ford. Dr. Ford gave admission orders to Lorina Duncan, a nurse in the Emergency Department. The orders included administering Demerol and Phenergan as needed and giving the patient a saline solution intravenously. Dr. Ford also ordered tests to be done the following morning. The nurse's notes do not indicate that Dr. Ford told her to order a surgical consult for the next morning. R.A.L. was given Demerol and Phenergan in the Emergency Department at 9:55 p.m. At 10:10 p.m. R.A.L. was signed out of the Emergency Department to the medical/surgical floor of the Street Building, which is known as Street One. When R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital, his abdomen was not distended. By the time he was admitted to Street One, his abdomen was distended and firm, and he was complaining of abdominal pain and nausea. When he was placed in his bed, he positioned himself in a fetal position, which is indicative of being in pain. He had no bowel sounds. While the nurse was getting a medical history, R.A.L. was lethargic and would drift off in the middle of the admission questions. His breathing was shallow and rapid. It took the nurse over an hour to complete the admission assessment on R.A.L. after he had come to Street One. At 11:50 p.m., R.A.L. was complaining that his pain had increased throughout his stomach. He indicated that his nausea was better. R.A.L. requested a patient-control anesthetic (PCA), which allows the patient to administer a metered dose of pain medication to himself by pushing a button. Around midnight the nurse had the hospital operator page Dr. Ford. He returned the nurse's call. She told Dr. Ford that R.A.L.'s abdomen was distended and that he was lethargic. R.A.L. had had no pain medication administered since being admitted to Street One, and his next dose of pain medication was to be given at 1:00 a.m. The nurse told Dr. Ford that R.A.L. was complaining of pain and wanted to have a PCA. Dr. Ford gave an order for a Demerol PCA, which would allow a five-milligram dose every five minutes with a maximum of 150 milligrams in four hours. The nurse told Dr. Ford that R.A.L. had been complaining of nausea. Dr. Ford asked whether R.A.L. had vomited, and she advised the doctor that R.A.L. had not. They discussed the possible use of a naso-gastric (NG) tube, which extends from the nose down to the stomach. It is used to aspirate the contents of the stomach, which decreases nausea and distention. Dr. Ford did not order a NG tube. At 12:30 a.m., October 10, 1997, the Demerol PCA was started. At 4:30 a.m., R.A.L. was complaining of shortness of breath. His abdomen was more distended and firm. Dr. Ford was paged, and he gave orders for lab work to be done. At 4:45 a.m. R.A.L. went into distress and died. Dr. Ford arrived at the Hospital about 5:05 a.m. A small bowel obstruction is a condition characterized by the inability of gastrointestinal fluid and material to pass through the small bowel due to some sort of blockage. Symptoms include pain, nausea, vomiting and a change in or cessation of bowel sounds. Small bowel obstructions generally cause the bowels to become inflamed and swollen, which can lead to a cut off of the blood supply to the bowel and result in the rupture of the bowel. If the bowel ruptures, it is a very acute, life-threatening situation which must be treated rapidly. Small bowel obstructions are generally classified as a partial or simple obstruction, and a complete or strangulated obstruction. A strangulated small bowel obstruction means the vascular system has been compromised and the blood supply to a part of the bowel has been cut off. If the blood supply has been cut off, the bowel tissue will become gangrenous, then necrotic, and finally die. Surgery can alleviate the strangulation. Strangulated small bowel obstructions represent 20 to 40 percent of all small bowel obstructions. Post-operative adhesions, bands of scar tissue which form inside the abdomen, are the predominate cause of strangulated bowel obstructions. Severe and constant pain, as opposed to cramping, intermittent pain, can characterize a strangulated small bowel. A strangulated small bowel is a very serious condition. Diagnosis requires obtaining a careful history, recognition of previous operations, a "hands on" physical examination and diagnostic testing. With a small bowel obstruction, a patient’s condition can change rapidly, sometimes in a matter of hours. Because any change in the condition of the patient can indicate a significant problem, serial abdominal examinations are important. Early detection and evaluation of complications from small bowel obstructions are also important. In the case of R.A.L., the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances would have been for Dr. Ford to come to the Hospital and physically examine R.A.L. when the patient was admitted to the Hospital under his care and after Dr. Ford was called by the nurse around midnight, apprising him of R.A.L.’s condition. Dr. Ford did not come to the Hospital to examine from the time R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital under his care to the time R.A.L. died. A strangulated bowel is a surgical emergency. If a physician fails to diagnose and treat a strangulated small bowel, the patient will likely die. The physician will normally consult a surgeon when the patient presents with a small bowel obstruction. In performing a surgical consult, the surgeon will make the determination of whether and when to perform surgery. The sooner the surgeon is involved, the less the chances of compromising the patient’s bowel or general physical condition. Calling a surgeon early in the course of treating a patient with a small bowel obstruction is the prudent thing to do. In the case of R.A.L., the level of care, skill, and treatment, which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, would have been for Dr. Ford to call for a surgical consult when R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital under his care. Dr. Ford did not call for a surgical consult from the time R.A.L. was admitted to the Hospital under his care to the time R.A.L. died.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Ronald A. Ford, M.D. violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, placing him on two years' probation, imposing an administrative fine of $5,000, and requiring him to take five hours of continuing medical education in the area of risk management and 16 hours of continuing medical education in the area of diagnosing and treating abdominal and gastrointestinal disorders. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2002, 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 5th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Byerts, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 William B. Taylor, IV, Esquire McFarland, Ferguson & McMullen 400 North Tampa Street Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33620 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues in this case for determination are whether Respondent Samuel Cox, M.D., committed the violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health on November 18, 2006; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice medicine in Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Samuel Cox, M.D., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 77851 on April 22, 1999. Dr. Cox's mailing address of record at all times relevant to this matter is 2438 East Commercial Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308. Dr. Cox is a board-certified general surgeon who has specialized his practice to bariatric surgery. He has performed bariatric surgery since 1985, performing approximately 3,000 such surgeries since that time. Dr. Cox has performed approximately 214 Roux-en Y procedures in Florida. No evidence that Dr. Cox has previously been the subject of a license disciplinary proceeding was offered. Bariatric Surgery. Bariatric surgery, also known as gastro-bypass surgery, is a type of surgery performed on morbidly obese patients to assist them in losing weight. In order to be found to be morbidly obese and, therefore, to be considered a candidate for the procedure, a patient must be found to have a Body Mass Index greater than 40. Body Mass Index is a measure of body fat based on height and weight (weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters). For example, a six-foot-tall individual weighing 296 pounds would have a Body Mass Index of 40.1. See http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/. A patient with a Body Mass Index of 35 may also be considered a candidate for the surgery if they present with certain comorbidities associated with obesity. Comorbidities are physical problems associated with obesity and include diabetes, lung problems, heart problems, and high blood pressure. The more comorbidities a patient has, the higher the risk is to that patient from bariatric surgery. While there is more than one type of bariatric surgery, at issue in this case is a procedure known as Roux-en-Y gastric- bypass surgery (hereinafter referred to as "RNY Surgery"). RNY Surgery is a surgical method of creating a reduced-sized stomach. This reduced-sized stomach is created by removing a small portion of the stomach, where the esophagus (which brings food from the mouth to the stomach) attaches to the stomach, from the larger remaining portion of the stomach. The small portion of the stomach attached to the esophagus is then formed into a pouch, creating a much smaller stomach. The remaining larger portion of the stomach is completely by-passed. Often a device called a silastic ring is used at the bottom of the newly created stomach to help the pouch maintain the desired size and prevent it from stretching into a larger pouch. A portion of the small intestine is attached to the bottom of the newly created stomach. Approximately 150 centimeters down the small intestine, the excluded or removed portion of the stomach, the liver, and the pancreas are connected back to the intestine. This allows digestion of food to continue, but reduces the amount of digestion that previously occurred in the 150 centimeters of the intestine which are bypassed. RNY Surgery allows a patient to lose weight in two ways: first, by limiting the amount of food the patient can eat; and secondly, by reducing the absorption of nutrients by bypassing part of the intestine. The most common and serious complication of RNY Surgery is a leak at the gastrojejunal anastomosis, or the point where the newly created stomach pouch (the gastro) is connected to the intestine (the jejunal)(a gastrojejunal anastomosis leak will hereinafter be referred to simply as a "Leak"). This complication may be evidenced by several symptoms exhibited by a patient. Surgeons performing bariatric surgery must look for these symptoms. The typical symptoms of a Leak include left shoulder pain (caused by pooling of the leakage under the diaphragm which causes irritation which manifests as left shoulder pain), decreased urine output, fever, shortness of breath, and high heart rate. Some manifestations of a Leak, such as atrial fibrillation, are indirect signs of a Leak in that they are associated with the stress on the body caused by the Leak. Dr. Cox's Treatment of Patient W.T. Patient W.T. presented to Dr. Cox for bariatric surgery. W.T., a male, was 47 years of age at the time and was morbidly obese. W.T. weighed 458 pounds and had a Body Mass Index of Because his Body Mass Index exceeded 50, he was considered "super" morbidly obese. He also had the following comorbidities: high blood pressure, sleep apnea, congestive heart failure, thrombophlebitis, pulmonary eboli, diabetes, and gatroesophageal reflux disease. There is no dispute that W.T. was an appropriate candidate for bariatric surgery. W.T. underwent RNY Surgery on August 31, 2005. During the surgery, Dr. Cox experienced difficulty seeing, due to the size of W.T.'s liver, the staples which he used to connect the intestine to the bottom of the newly formed stomach. Instead of confirming the placement of the staples, he was required to assess the staples with his fingers. This should have made him more sensitive to the possibility of a Leak. Before ending the surgery, Dr. Cox performed a test called a methylene blue test. To perform this test, an anesthesiologist puts medicine down a tube which passes through the patient's nose and into the new stomach. The physician then looks for any sign of a leak where the physician has sewn or stapled the small intestine to the stomach. With W.T., the methylene blue test did not disclose any leaks. The day after W.T.'s bariatric surgery, September 1, 2005, W.T. began to complain of pain in his left shoulder which is an important symptom of a Leak. W.T. also experienced decreased urine output during the night (he had, however, "responded well to fluid increases and diuretics"), and a low- grade fever, which are also indicators of a Leak. Although pain is a normal response to any operation, pain in the shoulder for the type of non-laparoscropic bariatric surgery performed by Dr. Cox should have made Dr. Cox more concerned than he apparently was as to the cause. The normal pain response to the type of operation Dr. Cox performed would be expected where the incision was made, but not in the shoulder. Dr. Cox treated W.T.'s shoulder pain with narcotic analgesia by a patient-controlled analgesia pump. He treated the decreased urine output with increased fluids and a diuretic (Mannitol). The fever was treated with Tylenol. Although the left shoulder pain, decrease in urine output, and low-grade fever could have been indicative of a Leak, Dr. Cox made no note in the patient records that he had considered the possibility that W.T. had a Leak, prematurely ruling out the possibility of a Leak. Dr. Cox suggested that the left shoulder pain was related to a diaphragmatic irritation caused by the use of surgical instruments on the diaphragm and that the urine output decline could have been attributable to the impact on W.T.'s kidneys by his diabetes. While these might have been appropriate considerations at the time, Dr. Cox could have not known for sure what was causing W.T.'s symptoms and, therefore, should have considered all the possible causes of these symptoms, especially the possibility of a Leak. On the second post-operative day, September 2, 2005, W.T. exhibited an abnormal heart rhythm, called atrial fibrillation. With a normal heart rhythm, the atrial (the first two of the four heart chambers) contracts, followed by contraction of the ventricles (the other two heart chambers). Atrial fibrillation is an abnormal heart rhythm characterized by a failure of the atria to completely contract. The fact that W.T., who had no prior history of atrial fibrillation, was evidencing atrial fibrillation on post-operative day two should have raised a concern about what was happening to W.T., including, but not limited to, the possibility of a Leak. W.T. was also experiencing an abnormally high heart rate of 148, which could have also been indicative of a Leak. Dr. Cox continued to treat W.T.'s shoulder pain with narcotic analgesia and the decreased urine output with increased fluids and Mannitol. He treated the elevated heart rate with Cardizem, a medicine used to slow the heart. W.T.'s shoulder pain appeared to decrease, which was to be expected given the course of treatment ordered by Dr. Cox. Dr. Cox had not, however, appropriately determined the cause of the pain. Again, nothing in Dr. Cox's medical records indicates that he considered the possibility that W.T.'s various symptoms might be indicative of a Leak. Nor did he take any action, such as an upper gastrointestinal test, to rule out the possibility of a Leak. To perform a gastrointestinal test, a patient drinks a water-soluble contrast called Gastrografin and a radiologists takes serial pictures of the patient, which show the contrast as it moves down the esophagus and then crosses through the anastomosis of the pouch and intestine. From these pictures, it can be determined whether the anastomosis is open and functioning properly and whether any of the contrast leaks outside of the new stomach-intestine path. The test is not fool-proof, but it is an appropriate diagnostic tool for Leaks. Dr. Cox suggests that the atrial fibrillation and high heart rate could have simply been a recognized complication of any stress W.T., with his borderline cardiac status, was experiencing. Again, while these might have been appropriate considerations at the time, Dr. Cox could have not known for sure what was causing W.T.'s symptoms and, therefore, should have considered all the possible causes of these symptoms, especially the possibility of a Leak. On the third post-operative day, September 3, 2005, air and serosanguinous fluid were observed seeping from W.T.'s abdominal incision. The existence of air may be evidence of a Leak. Although some air gets into the abdominal cavity during surgery, it is usually absorbed by the body very, very quickly. Air coming from an incision on post-operative day three suggests a hole in the intestine. Dr. Cox responded to the finding of air coming from the abdominal incision by ordering a methylene blue swallow, where W.T. swallowed a small amount of blue dye. Blue dye was then seen either coming out of the incision or drains placed in W.T.'s abdomen. Either way, the test was "positive" indicating a leak in W.T.'s intestine. Dr. Cox correctly took W.T. back into surgery. He discovered and corrected a Leak which had been caused by failure of the staples used in W.T.'s surgery. Although much was made as to when the staples failed, that evidence was not conclusive nor is it necessary to resolve the dispute. Whether the staples failed immediately after surgery or at some later time does not excuse Dr. Cox's failure to appropriately react to signs exhibited by W.T. which could have indicated that W.T. had a Leak. This case does not turn on whether a Leak actually existed. It turns on whether Dr. Cox appropriately considered the possibility of a Leak and took the steps medically necessary. With W.T., he did not. Dr. Cox's error was not in failing to find the Leak earlier; it was in failing to properly consider the possibility of a Leak when W.T. exhibited signs that should have prevented Dr. Cox from, with reasonable medical certainty, ruling out the possibility that a Leak was present. For this reason, the fact that a Leak was ultimately found is of little importance in deciding whether the charges leveled against him in the Administrative Complaint are accurate. Even if no Leak had ultimately been found, Dr. Cox's failure to properly respond to the potential of a Leak evidenced by W.T.'s symptoms was inconsistent with the standard of care. Dr. Cox's Treatment of Patient J.L. Patient J.L. presented to Dr. Cox for bariatric surgery. J.L., a male, was 35 years of age at the time and was morbidly obese. J.L. weighed 417 pounds and had a Body Mass Index of Because his Body Mass Index exceeded 50, he was considered "super" morbidly obese. He also had the following comorbidities: high cholesterol, stress incontinence, depression, anxiety, high blood pressure, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and shortness of breath on exertion associated with asthma. There is no dispute that J.L. was an appropriate candidate for bariatric surgery. J.L. underwent RNY Surgery on August 4, 2005. Dr. Cox also removed J.L.'s gallbladder. Before ending the surgery, Dr. Cox performed a methylene blue test. The methylene blue test performed on J.L. did not disclose any leaks. On the first post-operative day, August 4, 2005, J.L.'s heart rate was as high as 155 (anything over 120 is problematic), was experiencing decreased oxygen saturation of 89 percent (95 percent to 98 percent are considered normal saturation levels), had increased BUN and creatinine levels, and his urine output was borderline low. The increased BUN and creatinine, indicative of a problem with the kidneys, were are not being perfused well. J.L. was also complaining of right shoulder pain. Dr. Cox's note concerning the right shoulder pain specifically notes that it was not the "left" shoulder, which suggests that Dr. Cox was aware of the significance of left shoulder pain. J.L.'s high heart rate and low oxygen saturation level were considered significant enough to return him to the intensive care unit. On the second post-operative day, August 5, 2005, J.L.'s BUN and creatinine levels rose higher. That evening J.L. had a high heart rate. His urine output level, which Dr. Cox had treated with a diuretic and increased fluids, had improved. J.L. also became agitated and restless. He began to constantly request water. Dr. Cox eventually ordered, however, that J.L. not be given water. Dr. Cox failed to note in his records that he considered the possibility that J.L. had a Leak. Instead, Dr. Cox focused on the possibility that J.L. was suffering from rhabdomyolysis, a malfunction of the kidneys caused by the breakdown, as a result of surgery, of muscle tissue into cells too large in size for the kidneys to process. Dr. Cox ordered a CK test which found elevated creatine phosphor kinase or CPK, a marker of muscle death. Dr. Cox then consulted with a nephrologists. While the symptoms evidenced by J.L. could have very well been a result of rhadbodmyolysis, they also could have been symptomatic of a Leak. Dr. Cox did not have adequate information on August 5, 2005, to conclusively find that J.L. was suffering from rhadbodmyolysis and, more importantly, not from a Leak. As of the second post-operative day, J.L. was exhibiting a high heart rate, low urine output, pain in his right shoulder, a worsening oxygen saturation level and hunger for air, and a changed mental status (anxiety and combativeness). Due to these symptoms, Dr. Cox should have considered the possibility of a Leak, rather than merely concluding that J.L. was suffering from rhabdomyolysis and treating J.L.'s individual symptoms. On the third post-operative day, August 6, 2005, J.L.'s condition worsened. His agitation and combativeness due to his thirst and air hunger worsened. J.L. was treated with Haldol, a psychiatric medication. Dr. Cox continued to suspect rhadbdomyolysis and to ignore the possibility of a Leak. On the fourth post-operative day, August 7, 2005, at approximately 15:30, pink-tinged fluid was seen draining from J.L.'s incision. A pulmonologist consulting on J.L.'s case was the first to suggest the possibility of a Leak, questioning whether the entire clinical picture pointed to intra-abdominal sepsis due to a Leak. It was not until the drainage from J.L.'s incision that Dr. Cox first considered the possibility of a Leak. Even then, Dr. Cox did not return J.L. to surgery until August 7, 2005, where a Leak was found and repaired. Dr. Cox's error in his treatment of J.L., like his error in his treatment of W.T., was not in failing to find the Leak earlier, but in failing to properly consider the possibility of a Leak when J.L. exhibited signs which should have prevented Dr. Cox from, with reasonable medical certainty, ruling out the possibility that a Leak was present. For this reason, the fact that a Leak was ultimately found is of little importance in deciding whether the charges leveled against him in the Administrative Complaint are accurate. Even if no Leak had ultimately been found, Dr. Cox's failure to properly respond to the potential of a Leak, evidenced by J.L.'s symptoms, was inconsistent with the standard of care. Dr. Cox's explanation at hearing as to why he waited from August 5, 2005, when it was apparent that J.L. had a Leak, until August 7, 2005, to repair the Leak, is not contained in Dr. Cox's medical records. The Standard of Care. The Department's expert, Christian Birkedal, M.D., credibly opined that Dr. Cox failed to practice medicine in accordance with the level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law related to health care licensure in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (hereinafter referred to as the "Standard of Care"), in his treatment of W.T. and J.L. In particular, it was Dr. Birkedal's opinion that Dr. Cox violated the Standard of Care as to W.T. by failing to recognize W.T.'s signs and symptoms of a Leak and by failing to perform a post-operative upper gastrointestinal test on W.T. once he evidenced those signs. Dr. Birkedal's opinion is credited and accepted. As to J.L., Dr. Birkedal's opinion that Dr. Cox violated the Standard of Care by failing to recognize the signs and symptoms of a Leak for two days post-operatively is credited and accepted. The opinions to the contrary offered by Dr. Cox and his witnesses as to W.T. and J.L. are rejected as not convincing and as not addressing the issue precisely enough. The opinions offered by Dr. Cox and his witnesses with regard to both patients were essentially that the various symptoms pointed to by Dr. Birkedal were not "evidence" of a Leak. Those opinions do not specifically address the issue in this case. Dr. Cox and his witnesses based their opinions on whether Dr. Cox should have "known" there was a Leak at the times in issue. That is not the charge of the Administrative Complaint or the basis for Dr. Birkedal's opinion. The question was, not whether Dr. Cox should have known there was a Leak, but whether he should have considered a Leak as a possible cause for the symptoms exhibited by W.T. and J.L. Additionally, and finally, Dr. Birkedal based his opinions, not by looking at the record as a whole, as did Dr. Cox and his experts, but by looking at only those records in existence at the times relevant to this matter. In this way, Dr. Birkedal limited himself to a consideration of what Dr. Cox knew about his patients at the times relevant in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that Samuel Cox, M.D., has violated Section 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint; issuing a reprimand; placing his license on probation for two years, with terms to be established by the Board; and imposing a fine of $15,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 19th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Nelson, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3250 Jonathon P. Lynn, Esquire Marci Strauss, Esquire Stephens, Lynn, Klein 301 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent is guilty of violations of Section 458.331(1)(k), (m), and (t) in the practice of medicine and, if so, what penalty the Board of Medicine should impose.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed physician, holding license number ME 0033129. His license was originally issued on August 2, 1978, and remains current. There is no prior discipline against Respondent. Respondent has been certified for over 15 years by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. His practice has been devoted to obstetrics and gynecology. In 1990, Respondent was a member of a large group practicing obstetrics and gynecology in Cape Coral. Respondent was performing about 100 breast examinations a week. On the evening of April 10, 1990, D.W., who was 30 years old at the time, discovered a mass that felt like a marble in her right breast during a breast self-examination. She was upset and cried most of the night, fearful that she had breast cancer. Early the next morning, she made an appointment with Respondent's group for a breast examination later that day. A regular patient of another member of Respondent's group, who was unavailable on April 11, D. W. had last been seen by a member of Respondent's group on February 6, 1990, when her regular physician gave her an annual examination. Her breast examination at the time was normal. During the visit, the physician or nurse reviewed breast self-examination techniques with her. The physician started D. W. on birth control pills and directed her to return for a follow-up visit in two months. The April 11 office visit was devoted exclusively to addressing D. W.'s complaint of a lump in her breast. Respondent examined D. W.'s breasts with D. W. lying down and then sitting up. He felt nothing. While sitting up, D.W. guided Respondent's hand to the mass in the right breast. Still feeling nothing, Respondent remarked that the breast was somewhat fibrous. Respondent explained to D. W. that fibrocystic disease is something that women sometimes get in their breasts and it is nothing to worry about. In fact, at least 80 percent of all women in their 30s undergo fibrocystic changes in the breast. Respondent did not reach a specific diagnosis as a result of the April 11 office visit. The handwritten entries in Respondent's medical records--the complaint and blood pressure appearing to have been written by a nurse--read in their entirety: 4-11-90 Pt. c/o lump in R breast. BP--100/60 no mass found somewhat fibrous [Respondent's initials] Respondent did not advise D. W. to return to the office for a follow-up visit at a prescribed interval or if she detected the same mass or any changes in the mass. D. W. next visited Respondent's group on April 11, 1991, for her annual visit. She was seen by another physician in the group. D. W. told the physician of the lump in her breast and said that it was getting larger. The physician conducted a breast examination and felt a mass about two centimeters in diameter. Concerned about the mass, the physician scheduled an aspiration for diagnostic purposes. The results of the procedure disclosed severely atypical cells that were suspicious for carcinoma. The physician referred her to a surgeon, who first saw D.W. on May 2, 1991. The surgeon performed a breast biopsy on May 9. The biopsy revealed an infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. Based on the biopsy findings, the surgeon conducted on May 17 a right modified radical mastectomy. The excised tumor measured 2.1 centimeters along its longest diameter. D. W. underwent chemotherapy and has had no recurrence of the cancer in the five years since the surgery. There are two sets of allegations concerning D.W.'s medical records. The first set of allegations is that Respondent fraudulently altered D. W.'s medical records. Someone in Respondent's office later typed the following addition to the records of D. W. immediately beneath the handwritten entry quoted above: D[.] came to the office today having felt a lump in her right breast. I could not feel anything, although her breast was somewhat fibrous. I told her to continue to check her breast and come back if she felt it again. [Respondent's initials/typist's initials-- {both typed}] Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent dictated or typed the note in the preceding paragraph or that he authorized the addition of this note to D.W.'s medical records. The intent in adding the note was fraudulent as to the third sentence, which is the only sentence in the note that is untrue. But Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent was in any way involved in the fraud. The second set of allegations concerning the medical records involves the adequacy of the records. Specifically, Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment and violated the applicable standard of care by failing to keep adequate medical records. These allegations are best considered together with the remaining allegation, which is that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care by failing to recommend follow-up examinations and treatments for D. W.'s complaint of a lump in her breast. A violation of the applicable standard of care is the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The standard of care in this case pertains to the practice in early 1990. Petitioner nowhere alleges that Respondent violated the applicable standard of care by failing to detect the mass of which D.W. complained. Petitioner's expert witness, Dr. Harvey Gardy, conceded that such a failure would not necessarily violate the standard of care. Nor is it clear that the mass of which D.W. complained in April 1990 developed into the tumor removed from her breast a year later. The mass of which D. W. complained in April 1990 was in the three o'clock position, and the excised tumor was in the 12 o'clock position. Breast tumors do not change location, except to the extent that they grow, although patients conducting self- examinations may have difficulty locating the tumor with precision. Also, the excised tumor could have grown from an impalpable size in April 1990 to its size at the time of the mastectomy a year later. The second set of medical records allegations and the lone remaining standard of care allegation focus not on Respondent's alleged failure to detect and diagnose the mass of which D. W. complained, but on Respondent's alleged failure to respond adequately to D. W.'s complaint, even after he could not independently verify the mass. The applicable standard of care did not require Respondent to order further testing at the time to rule out a cancerous growth when he could not feel the mass. D. W. was not in a high-risk category for breast cancer based on her young age, three past pregnancies, and relevant family history. She displayed no physical signs of breast cancer. The physician conducting a breast examination is looking for a dominant or distinct mass--an isolated lump distinct from surrounding breast tissue. Respondent felt only fibrous changes. The applicable standard of care did not require that a physician order further diagnostic testing each time the physician detected a fibrous mass in a breast. Fibrous changes are not indicative of breast cancer. Petitioner has failed to prove that the applicable standard of care was any different when the patient claimed to have felt a distinct mass that the physician is unable to verify. It is more practical to direct a patient to return for a follow-up examination than to order potentially expensive tests. However, Petitioner failed to prove that the applicable standard of care required that a physician, failing to detect a mass in a patient not in a high-risk category for breast cancer, direct her to return to the office at a specified interval, such as two or three months later. Even less onerous than diagnostic testing or return office visits is the physician's direction that the patient return to the office if she feels the mass again or any changes in the mass. However, Petitioner failed to prove that the applicable standard of care required even this sensible precautionary direction from a physician. Testifying unpersuasively that the standard of care required the setting of a follow-up appointment, Dr. Gardy failed to testify at all whether the standard of care required Respondent to tell D. W. to return if she detected the mass again in a self-examination. One of Respondent's expert witnesses, Dr. Pierre Bouis, testified clearly on direct that the applicable standard of care did not require Respondent to direct D. W. to return if she felt the mass again (Tr. p. 125). On cross-examination, Dr. Bouis returned to the same issue and answered affirmatively the following, poorly worded question: Now, isn't it true that you also believe that it's an appropriate standard of care to tell a patient who presents under the same set of fact that she should keep checking herself and return if she feels it again or continue to feel it? Although there are many levels of care, there is a single applicable standard of care, which, if violated, justifies the imposition of discipline. By using "an," Petitioner's counsel suggested multiple standards of care and left open the possibility that the standard to which Dr. Bouis referred in his answer was aspirational, rather than mandatory. Respondent's other expert witness, Dr. J. Kell Williams, testified clearly that Respondent's failure to direct D. W. to return if she felt the lump again did not violate the applicable standard of care (Tr. pp. 43 and 52). Dr. Williams conceded that the better practice would have been to direct the patient to return (TR. pp. 43, 46, and 47), but he did not equate this practice with the applicable standard of care. In the absence of evidence establishing this sensible precaution as the applicable standard of care, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the applicable standard of care required Respondent to advise D. W. that she should return to the office if she felt the mass again or any changes in the mass. The medical records are adequate for the limited purpose of the April 11 visit. They describe the findings and adequately outline Respondent's examination of D. W. They justify the course of treatment--which was effectively no treatment--for the reasons set forth in the preceding paragraphs. For the reasons set forth above, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the material allegations of the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. ENTERED on May 31, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE, 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 on May 31, 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-3: adopted or adopted in substance, except she told him about the lump. Respondent never saw a lump. 4: adopted or adopted in substance, except that Respondent did not feel the marble-like mass that D. W. felt. Respondent felt only fibrocystic changes in the breast. 5-9 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 9 (remainder): rejected as irrelevant and recitation of testimony. 10-11 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 11 (remainder): rejected as irrelevant and recitation of testimony. 12-13 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 13 (remainder)-15: rejected as subordinate. 16 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 16 (second sentence)-17: rejected as recitation of evidence. 18: adopted or adopted in substance, as distinguished from the 2 cm tumor within the larger excised mass. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 21: rejected as irrelevant with respect to applicable standard of care. 22: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. The questions posed Dr. Bouis were ambiguous as to whether he was describing the better practice or the applicable standard of care. 23-24: rejected as irrelevant with respect to applicable standard of care. 25: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 26: rejected as subordinate. 27: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 28: rejected as subordinate. 29-32: adopted or adopted in substance. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 35: rejected as subordinate. 36-38: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 39: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 40: rejected as recitation of testimony. 41-43: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 44-45: rejected as irrelevant. 46: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308-54034 Steven Rothenburg, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 Bruce D. Lamb Shear Newman 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondents performed a wrong procedure on patient C.C., as set forth in the second amended administrative complaints, and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Medicine, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondents were licensed physicians within the state, with Dr. Kenneth D. Stahl having been issued license number ME79521 and Dr. Eddie Ward Manning having been issued license number ME110105. Dr. Stahl has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida since 1999 and in California since 1987. He has never had disciplinary action taken against either license. Dr. Stahl is board certified by the American College of Surgeons in general surgery, cardiac and thoracic surgery, and trauma and critical care surgery. Dr. Stahl's address of record is 3040 Paddock Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33141. Dr. Manning has been licensed to practice medicine in Florida since May 31, 2011. He has never had disciplinary action taken against his license. On June 23, 2011, Dr. Manning was a resident in general surgery. Dr. Manning's address of record is 1900 South Treasure Drive, Apartment 6R, North Bay Village, Florida 33141. 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 (IV) 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. Dr. Stahl later described her anatomy as "very distorted." Patient C.C. was scheduled for an emergency appendectomy, and patient C.C. 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, Dr. Manning was the chief or senior resident, and Dr. Castillo was the junior resident. Notes indicate that Dr. Stahl was present throughout the critical steps of the procedure. Dr. Stahl had little recollection of the procedure, but did testify that he recalled: looking at the video image and seeing a tremendous amount of infection and inflammation and I pulled-–I recall that I myself went into the computer program and pulled up the CT scan and put that on the screen right next to the video screen that's being transmitted from the laparoscope and put them side-to-side and compared what the radiologists were pointing to as the cause of this acute infection and seeing on the laparoscopic video image that that indeed matched what I saw in the CT scan and I said, well, let's dissect this out and get it out of her so we can fix the problem. Dr. Stahl further testified that the infected, hollow organ that was dissected and removed was adherent laterally in the abdomen and was located where the appendix would normally be. He recalled that an abscess cavity was broken into and the infected, "pus-containing" organ that was removed was right in the middle of this abscess cavity. Dr. Stahl also recalled the residents stapling across the base of the infected organ and above the terminal ileum and the cecum and removing it. The Operative Report was dictated by Dr. Manning after the surgery and electronically signed by Dr. Stahl on June 23, 2011. The report documents the postoperative 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. 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 complaints allege that Dr. Stahl and Dr. Manning performed a wrong procedure when they performed an appendectomy which resulted in the removal of her ovary and a portion of her fallopian tube. It is clear that Dr. Stahl and Dr. Manning did not perform an appendectomy on patient C.C. on June 23, 2011. Dr. Stahl and Dr. Manning instead performed an oophorectomy and salpingectomy. It was not clearly shown that an appendectomy was the right procedure to treat patient C.C. on June 23, 2011. The Department did convincingly show that patient C.C. had a history of medical problems and that she had earlier been diagnosed with appendicitis, had been suffering severe pain for 12 hours with associated nausea and vomiting, that she suffered from an infection in her right lower quadrant, that the initial diagnosis was acute appendicitis, and that the treatment that was recommended was an appendectomy. However, substantial evidence after the operation suggests that an appendectomy was not the right procedure. The infected and inflamed organ that was removed from the site of a prior abscess was not an appendix. After the procedure, patient C.C. no longer felt severe pain in her lower right quadrant, with associated nausea and vomiting. She was discharged the following day and was asymptomatic. It is, in short, likely that the original diagnosis on June 22, 2011, was incorrect to the extent that it identified the infected organ as the appendix. The pre-operative diagnosis that patient C.C.'s severe pain and vomiting were caused by a severe infection in an organ in her lower right quadrant was correct. Surgical removal of that infected organ was the right procedure for patient C.C. If that inflamed organ was misidentified as the appendix before and during the operation, that would not fundamentally change the correctness of the surgical procedure that was performed. The evidence did not clearly show that the wrong procedure was performed. It is more likely that exactly the right procedure was performed on patient C.C. That is, it is likely that an oophorectomy and salpingectomy were the right procedures to address the abdominal pain that caused patient C.C. to present at the JMH emergency room, but that the right procedure was incorrectly initially denominated as an "appendectomy," as a result of patient history and interpretation of the CT scan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine, enter a final order dismissing the second amended administrative complaints against the professional licenses of Dr. Kenneth D. Stahl and Dr. Eddie Ward Manning. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 15th day of July, 2015.
