The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on February 6, 2003, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
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 chiropractic physicians licensed to practice in Florida. Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been licensed in Florida since 1985. Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice has not been previously disciplined. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Practice. At the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld operated Foundation Chiropractic (hereinafter referred to as "Foundation"), a chiropractic clinic located in West Palm Beach, Florida. Foundation employees three individuals, in addition to Dr. Mitzelfeld's wife, daughter, father, and mother.2 It is, and was at the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld's practice to open the offices of Foundation between 5:15 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day the clinic was open.3 Dr. Mitzelfeld opened the clinic early in order to see patients who needed adjustments prior to reporting to their jobs. Once Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door at Foundation, the door remained unlocked and open to the public. After Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door and before staff arrived, whenever anyone arrived at Foundation and opened the front door, a buzzer or bell sounded to announce their arrival. Dr. Mitzelfeld established and maintained an "open- door" policy at Foundation. Pursuant to this policy, the doors to all of the treatment rooms at Foundation remained open at all times and staff were allowed to enter a treatment room at any time. Dr. Mitzelfeld did not as a matter of course, however, have a staff member present whenever he was seeing a female patient. The evidence failed to prove that, even though the front door of Foundation was unlocked at all times relevant to this matter and Dr. Mitzelfeld maintained an open-door policy, Dr. Mitzelfeld could not have from engaged in the conduct described in this Recommended Order. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Treatment of Patient C.H. On or about September 6, 2001 Dr. Mitzelfeld began treating patient C.H. C.H., a female, earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1992, and was, therefore, in all likelihood in her 30's during the times relevant to this matter. During the period of time that Dr. Mitzelfeld was treating C.H., he was also treating C.H.'s husband.4 From the time that C.H. began coming to Foundation until approximately January of 2002, C.H. was seen by Dr. Mitzelfeld during the afternoon, when staff and other patients were present. Most often, her appointments were at approximately 3:00 p.m. In approximately January 2002 C.H.'s appointment time was moved, at her request, to the early morning, before staff arrived. C.H. began arriving at approximately 6:30 a.m. for treatments and, although on occasion there were one or two individuals in the waiting room, she usually saw no one else at Foundation other than Dr. Mitzelfeld during her appointments. After C.H. began seeing Dr. Mitzelfeld in the early morning, their relationship began to change from that of a purely doctor-patient relationship to a more personal one. Their conversations started to become more personal and, gradually, they became verbally flirtatious. For example, Dr. Mitzelfeld began to tell C.H. that she was pretty and that she looked good in whatever she was wearing. Dr. Mitzelfeld's personal comments were welcomed by C.H. She responded by telling him personal things about her life, telling him that her marriage was "terrible," that her husband no longer slept in the same room with her, and that they no longer had sexual relations. Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments to C.H. continued to become more flirtatious and suggestive. Among other things, he told her that he found her attractive and that he could not understand why her husband did not find her attractive and desirable. He also told her that, if her were married to her, "I would treat you so good and I would definitely be sleeping in the same bed with you and I'd be making love to you every night." Lines 11-14, Page 69, Transcript of June 19, 2003. As C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld became verbally flirtatious, C.H. began to perceive that the manner that Dr. Mitzelfeld touched her was no longer just professional, but more personal and intimate, a change she welcomed. The change in their relationship was not unwelcome to C.H. C.H. believed, without having discussed the matter directly with Dr. Mitzelfeld, that they "had a relationship" and that she "was in love with him and [she] thought he was in love with [her]." Lines 22-24, Page 67, Transcript of June 19, 2003. C.H. naively believed that the physical lust they were experiencing, amounted to something more emotionally meaningful. In approximately February 2002 Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that he wanted to give her a hug after her treatment. They hugged and he kissed her on the cheek. After that, they hugged after each visit. Over time, their hugs became more lasting and intimate, with Dr. Mitzelfeld eventually becoming aroused to the point where he had an erection and "he would rub it all over [C.H.]." Lines 11-12, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. Dr. Mitzelfeld began performing a new treatment on C.H. for her upper back where she held her arms out to the side, he lifted her up from behind, and her body rested against his. Dr. Mitzelfeld would become aroused during these treatments; his penis would become erect.5 The increased intimacy between C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld, was not unwelcome to C.H., because". . . it was very obvious we were very attracted to each other and there was chemistry." C.H. was "happy about it. I mean, I was attracted to him so it didn't bother me at all." Lines 14-15, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. On May 9, 2002, during a prolonged hug, C.H. kissed Dr. Mitzelfeld on the cheek, then quickly on the mouth, and then passionately on the mouth, a kiss which Dr. Mitzelfeld returned. C.H. continued to naively believe that she was in love with Dr. Mitzelfeld and, although he had not said so, that he was in love with her. She took time prior to each visit to look as good as she could, doing her hair, nails, and make-up, and carefully selecting what she would wear, all in an effort to please Dr. Mitzelfeld and further the relationship she believed they had. On May 13, 2002, C.H. saw Dr. Mitzelfeld for the first time after the May 9th kiss. During this visit, Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that they should not let anything like the kiss happen again "because if it does, [my] hands are going to start traveling and [your] clothes are going to come off." C.H.'s next visit was the morning of May 16, 2002. After receiving her adjustment, C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld began hugging and kissing passionately. Dr. Mitzelfeld put his hand down C.H.'s jeans and she began to rub his penis through his clothes with her hand. After a while, C.H. told Dr. Mitzelfeld that she "wanted to do something to him" although she did not specify what. Dr. Mitzelfeld took her by the hand and led her into a bathroom, locking the door behind them. Given the circumstances, Dr. Mitzelfeld correctly assumed that what C.H. wanted to do to him was sexual. Once in the bathroom, they continued to hug and kiss while she attempted to pull down his pants so that she could perform fellatio on him. He eventually pulled his pants down for her and C.H. began to fellate him. While she did, Dr. Mitzelfeld told her to "take it deep, baby." C.H. caused Dr. Mitzelfeld to have an orgasm, after which he told her repeatedly how much he had enjoyed it. She told him that next time she would bring whipped cream. Eventually, Dr. Mitzelfeld, having been sexually satisfied, realized the possible consequences of what had happened and told C.H. that what had just happened should not have; and that he had a great marriage and that he loved his wife. Dr. Mitzelfeld became cold and distant. Dr. Mitzelfeld knew that what had happened was unethical. C.H. left Foundation upset and, because of Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments and cold treatment of her, she spoke with a neighbor and her mental health counselor and told both what had happened. Her mental health counselor told her that what had happened was unethical and that she should report it. C.H., however, was not yet realized that Dr. Mitzelfeld did not have deep emotional feelings for her. By the next morning, May 17, 2002, C.H. had recovered from her concern over Dr. Mitzelfeld's reaction the day before and convinced herself that they indeed had a relationship. C.H. naively believed that Dr. Mitzelfeld had to have feelings for her because they had engaged in a sexual act. She decided to surprise him with an unscheduled visit to his office. C.H. dressed in a black negligee which she covered with a denim dress. She entered Foundation at approximately 6:30 a.m. She did not sign in upon arrival,6 which she normally did when she arrived for a scheduled appointment. She had not come to Foundation that morning for any medical treatment. Dr. Mitzelfeld, who was upstairs in his loft-like office, came downstairs to see who had come in and met C.H.. When he asked what she was doing there that morning, she told him she had something to show him, walked up the stairs to his office, taking off her dress as she went and leaving it on the stairs, and waited for him wearing only the negligee and black high- heeled shoes. She intended to engage in sexual intercourse with him. When Dr. Mitzelfeld came into his office and saw C.H. standing there, he told her that they could not do anything like they had done the day before. Dr. Mitzelfeld had realized that what he had done was unethical and he told C.H. so. He also told her that he could be in trouble for the incident, a prophetic comment. Dr. Mitzelfeld also told her that they could not kiss, hug, or have any other sexual contact again. Dismayed and confused, C.H. dressed, as Dr. Mitzelfeld instructed her, and left the Foundation, never to return. Later the same day, Dr. Mitzelfeld discussed C.H. with a colleague, Dr. Robert McLaughlin. Dr. Mitzelfeld asked Dr. McLaughlin for advice about what he should do about a patient, C.H., who had become agitated when he rejected her sexual advances. Dr. McLaughlin correctly advised Dr. Mitzelfeld that he should discontinue any doctor-patient relationship with C.H., an act which Dr. Mitzelfeld should have taken earlier when his relationship with C.H. started to become more than just a doctor-patient relationship.7 Dr. Mitzelfeld did not admit the events found is this Recommended Order to Dr. McLaughlin. Upset, disappointed, and angry about her May 17, 2002, visit with Dr. Mitzelfeld, C.H. reported the foregoing incidents to the Department on May 22, 2002, after finally realizing that her relationship with Dr. Mitzelfeld was based upon lust and not some deeper emotional feeling. The Department's Administrative Complaint and Dr. Mitzelfeld's Request for Hearing. On February 6, 2003, after investigating C.H.'s allegations, the Department filed a one-count Administrative Complaint against Dr. Mitzelfeld before the Board alleging that he had committed "sexual misconduct" in the chiropractic physician-patient relationship, which is prohibited by Section 460.412 and, therefore, that he had violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), which provides that "[v]iolating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto" constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. On or about March 18, 2003, Dr. Mitzelfeld, through counsel, filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings, indicating that he disputed the allegations of fact contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(a). On March 19, 2003, the matter was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, with a request that an administrative law judge be assigned the case. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 03-0946PL and was assigned to the undersigned. C.H.'s Legal Name. At the times relevant to this proceeding and up until May 21, 2003, C.H.'s legal name was S.C.H.H. The "C" in her legal name and the last "H" are the same names in "C.H.," the name that she has gone by during the times material to this case and throughout this proceeding. When sworn in during her deposition in this matter on May 13, 2003, rather than stating that her name was S.C.H.H. she stated that her name was C.H. She did so simply because she has always gone by the name C.H. The evidence failed to prove that, because of her technical error, her testimony in this matter was not believable. On May 21, 2003, C.H.'s name was changed to C.S.L. as a result of her divorce. Throughout this proceeding, including when she was sworn in on June 19, 2003, to testify at the final hearing of this matter, she indicated that her name was C.H. Again, it is concluded that her technical error was insufficient to conclude that her testimony in this matter was not believable. C.H.'s Use of Prescription Medicines. At all times material to this matter, C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. The evidence failed to prove why C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. C.H. was prescribed and has taken Wellbutrin, Adderall, and Serzone. She also was prescribed and took Zolof for a period of two months. While these drugs, taken singly or in combination may have serious side effects,8 including hallucinations, the evidence failed to prove that C.H. had any such side effects. While C.H. admitted taking the drugs in question, the evidence failed to prove that she took them during the times at issue in this matter or, if she did, what dosage she took them in. Finally, while the evidence proved that C.H. has suffered from a number of maladies, the evidence failed to prove whether she was suffering from those maladies between September 6, 2001, and the date of C.H.'s testimony at final hearing or that any of her medical problems affected in any way her memory or truthfulness in this proceeding.
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 Chiropractic Medicine finding that Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., has violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), by violating Section 460.412, as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint; suspending Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice chiropractic medicine for a period of three months from the date the final order becomes final; requiring the payment of a $1,000.00 administrative fine within a reasonable time after the final order is issued; placing Dr. Mitzelfeld's license on probation for a period of two years; requiring that Dr. Mitzelfeld attend ethics courses relating to the practice of chiropractic medicine as it relates to sexual misconduct, as directed by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine; and requiring the presence of a third person during any examination and treatment by Dr. Mitzelfeld of any female patient during his probation and for a period of not less than ten years thereafter. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2003, 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 28th day of August, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, the Respondent, Michael F. Petrie, was licensed as a chiropractic physician by the Florida Board of Chiropractic. The Petitioner introduced no evidence relating to Count I of the Administrative Complaint. On or about February 3, 1982, the Respondent placed an advertisement in the Pompano Shopper's Guide, advertising the Petrie Chiropractic Life Center. (See Joint Exhibit 1.) This advertisement states, in pertinent part, ". . . To take a pill or more each day is dependency. Dependency is addiction! Whether these drugs are pushed or prescribed, you are an addict! CHIROPRACTIC can many times free you from drug dependency. . ." The advertisement makes reference to specific medical conditions, such as headaches, diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure and skin problems, which can be helped by chiropractic treatment. The testimony of Kenneth C. Lasseter, M. D., was offered via deposition as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Dr. Lasseter stated his professional opinion that dependency on a drug is not the same as addiction. Drs. Michael Nathanson, Thomas Pasterski and Richard Hodish, all of whom are doctors of chiropractic and were accepted as experts in this field, testified that addiction and dependency are synonymous. (See Transcript, pages 48, 49, 95 and 101.) Their testimony was further substantiated by the definitions of addiction and dependency as found in the Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medical and Nursing. Joyce Quintavalli, R. N., a psychiatric nurse specializing in the treatment of young people for drug problems, stated that from the practical standpoint there was no difference between dependency and addiction. Dependency and addiction are synonymous. Robert S. Butler, Jr., D. C., who was accepted as an expert in chiropractic, testified that the advertisement indicated that the Respondent's treatment could reduce a patient's need for medication for the enumerated conditions or illnesses and therefore opined that the advertisement was misleading. However, Dr. Butler stated that the medical conditions enumerated in the advertisement fall within the scope of practice of chiropractic, that chiropractic can treat patients for these problems with good results, and that treatment can lessen or free the patient from drug dependency. Dr. Butler stated his concern that the advertisement could encourage people to stop their medications, although he admitted that the advertisement does not urge or recommend to people that they cease taking medication. The chiropractic physicians enumerated in Paragraph 5 above testified that the conditions enumerated in the advertisement were within the scope of treatment of chiropractic, that they had treated patients for these diseases or conditions with good results, and that as a result of treatment their patients had reduced or ceased altogether taking medication which had been necessary prior to their treatment for control of their condition. The statements made in the advertisement are accurate and do not mislead the public concerning the scope of chiropractic, the benefits of chiropractic, or the Respondent's qualifications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed against Michael F. Petrie be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Frances Carter, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael F. Petrie, D. C. 410 NE 44th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33334 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed chiropractic physician, holding Florida license number CH 5839. In addition to his chiropractic training, the Respondent has completed a course of study in biomechanics and has received a "Masters of Professional Studies" degree from Lynn University in Human Biomechanical Trauma. He advertised services related to "Human Biomechanical Trauma" to other chiropractic physicians practicing in the same geographic area. On November 29, 2001, a twenty-nine-year-old female (referred to hereinafter as the patient) presented herself to the Respondent's office complaining of back pain of approximately two weeks duration. The patient was a former gymnast with many years of training. Her regular exercise routine included weight lifting, and the onset of her back pain occurred while she was lifting weights. Initially the pain was in the area of her mid-back and during the subsequent weeks had progressed to her lower back, and to her upper back and neck. The patient also had a history of migraine-type headaches unrelated to the weightlifting and for which she had sought previous treatment with limited success from another physician. On November 29, 2001, the Respondent completed a medical history and performed an evaluation of the patient's condition. The Respondent provided treatment and adjustment. During the time the patient received treatment, she removed all clothing but for her underpants, at the Respondent's direction. A robe was provided inside the treatment room for her to wear after undressing and before the treatment was provided. After providing the treatment on November 29, the Respondent referred the patient to another facility for a series of x-rays. On November 30, 2001, the patient returned for additional treatment at which time the Respondent performed an adjustment to the patient's neck and back. After the treatment was completed and the Respondent exited the room, the patient began to dress, at which point the Respondent entered the room holding a digital camera. The patient testified that the Respondent removed her robe, leaving her clad only in her underpants, that the Respondent told her that the photography was a routine office practice, and that he could not continue the treatment unless the photographs were taken. The patient testified that the Respondent was aggressive while the photographs were taken, speaking with a "raised voice" and moving quickly, instructing her on how to pose, and moving her arms and legs into position. The patient testified that during the incident she was scared and in a "dazed state," and that she didn't know how many photos were taken or how much time elapsed during the photo session. She made no attempt to leave the examination room until after the photos were taken. The Respondent denied that he told the patient that the photographic evaluation was a routine office procedure. The Respondent testified that he discussed the photographic evaluation with the patient and that she permitted the photos to be taken. He testified that he both verbally directed and demonstrated by example, the positions in which he sought to photograph the patient. He further testified that some of the positions came from the patient when describing her "activities of daily living." He testified that she participated in the photography willingly and without protest. Other than the Respondent and the patient, no one else was in the room during the time the photographs were taken. The Respondent's offices consisted of a small suite of rooms located in a strip shopping center. Based on the physical structure of the offices described at the hearing, it is unlikely that voices could be raised to the point of "yelling" without others in the office being aware of the situation. There is no evidence that the patient was physically prevented from leaving the office. Although the patient signed a generic release for treatment when she began seeing the Respondent, the patient testified that the release was essentially blank at the time she signed. In addition to the generic consent for treatment form, the Respondent's office had prepared a separate "Consent Agreement Concerning Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation" which provided as follows: Dear Patient: Holistic Healthcare Centers offers Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation for the purpose of specific biomechanic assessment of the patient. The procedure will include some or all of the following: Digital photos of the patient in various positions, movements and activities. These photographs will be taken with the patient partially or completely unclothed, as determined by the physician(s). Processing and analysis of these photographs on computers either on the premises or at another location, to be determined by the physician(s). Reportage to the patient as to the results of the analyses. Restrictions on the use of these photographs include: Photographic data will be kept in password protected locations and will be accessible only by Dr. Scott Baker and Dr. Scott Drizin. Appropriate hard copies of photographs will be kept in the patient's confidential case file, if needed. The photographic data will not be published either in print or electronically without the patient's express written consent. Utilizations of photographs, data and analyses results can be used educationally while protecting the privacy of the patient. I HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND AND CONSENT TO THE ABOVE. Under the conditions indicated, I hereby place myself under your care for those procedures as described above as indicated in your professional judgment. The "Consent Agreement Concerning Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation" provided a space for the signature of the person from whom consent is being sought and for the signature of a witness. The patient did not sign the photographic consent form. At no time did the patient sign any written release specifically allowing the Respondent to take photographs. According to his note handwritten on the "Consent Agreement Concerning Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation," the Respondent became aware at some point that the patient had not signed the photo consent form. A few days after the photos were taken, the patient returned to the Respondent's office and inquired about the photographs. By that time, the digital photo files had been transferred from the camera used to take the photos to a computer located in the Respondent's office. After the patient requested to view the photos, the Respondent went to a computer where the digital photo files were stored. The Respondent and the patient reviewed the photographs for about 45 minutes. During the photo review, the Respondent made comments that could be construed as relating to the patient's posture. According to the patient's testimony, such comments included "you're standing a little to the left on this one and you should be standing more upright on this one" and "see, you're standing crooked, you should be standing straight." During the photo review, the Respondent told the patient that he and his partner, Dr. Scott Baker, were interested in writing a book and pursuing additional medical training. The patient testified that the Respondent may have used the word "biomechanics" during the photo review, but was not certain. After the photos were reviewed, the patient asked for a copy of the digital image files. Initially the Respondent declined to produce the files, but by the end of the appointment, after receiving additional therapeutic treatment and adjustments, the Respondent provided to the patient a disc containing the photo files. According to the patient, the Respondent advised the patient not to show the photographs to anyone. After the patient received a copy of the photo files, she did not again see the Respondent in a therapeutic setting. She cancelled her remaining appointments with the Respondent, obtained her X-rays from the Respondent's practice, and sought treatment elsewhere. After the patient cancelled the appointments, she received at least one call from the Respondent's secretary inquiring as to the reason for the cancellation. During the call, the Respondent spoke to the patient and inquired as to whether there were problems, at which point the patient advised that she would not return to the Respondent for treatment. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Dr. Michael Major, a Florida-licensed chiropractic physician. Although Dr. Major appears to be knowledgeable about biomechanics, he has not undertaken any advanced education in biomechanics. Dr. Major testified one of the reasons to use photography in a chiropractic setting would be to observe structural changes that could occur related to treatment. Dr. Major testified that such photos are generally taken from front, side, or rear perspectives, and utilize spinal or anatomical "landmarks" for purposes of comparing pre-treatment and post-treatment conditions. Dr. Major further testified that he has used digital photography in his practice, generally placing subjects in front of a grid-pattern marked on a wall. Dr. Major's grid system also includes a bilateral scale to identify weight-bearing issues. By using the photo of the subject in front of the grid and on the scale, a chiropractic physician is able to show to a photographic subject various spinal or postural conditions. Dr. Major has used this system in marketing services to prospective clients. Dr. Major termed photos taken from positions other than in front of, to the side of, or from behind a patient as "oblique" angle photos. Dr. Majors testified that such photos had very little analytical value because of the difficulty in accurately reproducing at a subsequent date, the angles from which the original photographs were taken, thus making comparison between the sets of photographs difficult. Dr. Major testified that, when taking a later set of photos, where the angle of camera placement relative to the body is different from the original camera placement by only a few degrees, the later photograph would offer little comparative value because the landmarks would not be located appropriately. A review of the photographs in evidence indicates that the patient was photographed in a routine examination room, posed in various positions, and unclothed but for her underpants. At the hearing, Dr. Major reviewed the photos offered into evidence and opined that although some of the photos taken by the Respondent of the patient provided appropriate diagnostic information, others did not. Dr. Major testified where the photos did not contain appropriate diagnostic information, the Respondent violated the applicable standard of care by not utilizing the best techniques in order to isolate planes of motion sufficiently to provide useful information. Dr. Major also testified that the failure to obtain the patient's consent prior to taking photographs was a violation of the applicable standard of care. Dr. Major opined without elaboration that taking the photographs without the patient's consent also constituted sexual misconduct. According to Dr. Major, the failure to have another female present in the room during an exam was not a violation of the applicable standard of care. The Respondent offered evidence related to his use of photography and the development of a "protocol" that he and his partner were creating to document biomechanical evaluations of certain patients. In addition to the Respondent's testimony, the Respondent presented the testimony of Scott M. Baker, D.C., who was in practice with the Respondent at the time of the events at issue. At some point in the mid-1990's, Dr. Baker and the Respondent became interested in continuing their education in biomechanics, and both completed the additional biomechanics training referenced herein. Part of their interests included conducting research to develop a "protocol" for biomechanical evaluation. Part of the protocol included photographic evaluations of patients. The model apparently being followed referenced radiological studies where multiple X-rays from different angles were taken of a patient during diagnostic testing. However, although the Respondent asserted that the photographs were part of the treatment offered to the patient, Dr. Baker testified that the photos were not actually taken for diagnostic purposes. The alleged purpose of the photos was to educate a patient on existing conditions with the ability to demonstrate at a later date, visible progress though the use of comparative photography. Dr. Baker testified that after the Respondent took the photos of the patient, he and the Respondent reviewed the photos and indexed them by reference to anatomical characteristics. Dr. Baker acknowledged that some of the photos "weren't useful," but that it was preferable to err towards taking too many photos rather than too few, and that the intent was to discard those photos that were not useful. The consent form specific to the photographic study also indicates that the photos may be used for educational purposes with appropriate protection of a patient's privacy. Dr. Baker acknowledged that the protocol was in preliminary stages of development and that greater specificity would be required as development continued. Prior to the patient in this case, only one other chiropractic client had been photographed based on the protocol. When the photographs of the patient were taken, the position from which each photo was taken was not recorded. Dr. Baker testified that when subsequent photos were taken for comparative purposes, the photo subject would have to be repositioned based on the earlier photograph, using an anatomical point of reference. No visible grid pattern was present in the room where the patient's photos were taken and no grid is present in the photos taken of the patient by the Respondent. In order to view the photos, the Respondent planned to use a graphics software program called "Paint Shop Pro" which could allow a grid to be superimposed on a photograph. Whether the computer imposition of a grid pattern on a photo taken subsequently would provide specific anatomical references sufficient to compare the photos is unknown. The asserted reason why the patient wore only underpants in the photos was that wearing a bra would alter the center of gravity being measured. The Respondent further testified that wearing a bra could cause a "cutaneous sensory response" that could lead to a "reflex muscle spasm which would alter the center of gravity." The evidence fails to establish why the same reasoning was not applicable to the underpants that the Respondent directed the patient to leave on.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Chiropractic Medicine, enter a final order finding that Scott Drizin, D.C., is guilty of a failure to practice chiropractic medicine with the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, and imposing a fine of $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 30th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers, Coleman & Barack, P.A. 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a chiropractic physician who practices in Daytona Beach, Florida, and is licensed by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to practice in the State of Florida. The Respondent opened the office where he presently practices in September, 1978. On or about July 10, 1979, Judith M. Matovina telephoned the Respondent's office regarding severe headaches which she had been suffering. She had been referred to the Respondent by a friend, Michael Davis, who was studying to be a chiropractor, and who was also a friend of the Respondent. An appointment was initially made for Thursday, July 12; Ms. Matovina preferred to make an appointment for a time that would not interfere with her job, and an appointment was ultimately made for 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, July 14, 1979. Ms. Matovina arrived at the Respondent's office for her appointment at the scheduled time. She sat in the waiting room for approximately five minutes. Dr. Wagner came out to the waiting room after he treated another patient and introduced himself to Ms. Matovina. He gave her a pamphlet to read regarding the treatment of headaches by chiropractors, and a form to fill out which provided personal background and a description of symptoms. She filled out the form and handed it to the Respondent who escorted her to the examination room. He asked her questions about her headaches and about her personal life. She responded that she did not believe the headaches were tension related. He told her to remove her clothes and put on a gown. He left the examination room. Ms. Matovina removed her bra and blouse, but left her slacks and shoes on. After knocking, the Respondent reentered the examination room. The Respondent thereafter engaged in conduct, a portion of which was legitimate and proper chiropractic examination, treatment and therapy; and a part of which can only be construed as an effort to induce Ms. Matovina to engage in sexual activity with the Respondent. He engaged in conversation about his poor relationship with his wife, his relationships with his girlfriends, and the fact that he had had a vasectomy. Ms. Matovina had not been to a chiropractor before, and she expressed fear as to the nature of some of the manipulations and other treatment which the Respondent performed. He referred to her as "such a baby" in response to her fear. He examined her eyes, and told her that she had pretty blue eyes and that his girlfriends had brown eyes. Ms. Matovina asked him where his receptionist was, and the Respondent responded that he did not have a receptionist on Saturday because that is when he scheduled his pretty patients. During the course of one manipulation in which the Respondent held Ms. Matovina's feet, he told her that she had cute feet. In the course of one manipulation in which the patient stood against the wall with the Respondent's arm around her waist, he told her, "They are playing our song," in response to the music on the office stereo system. He held her hand as if he was going to dance with her. He kissed her twice on the shoulder, moved his hand toward her breast, and brushed his hand across her breast. Several times during the course of the examination, Ms. Matovina said that it would be best for her to leave, but the Respondent kept saying that they should try one more manipulation or therapy treatment. Ms. Matovina protested during the course of much of the treatment, and eventually insisted upon getting dressed and leaving. During the examination, the Respondent on several occasions referred to Ms. Matovina's "pretty blue eyes," to the fact that she was "such a baby," to the fact that he had other girlfriends, and a vasectomy. After she got dressed, the Respondent behaved as though none of these things had happened. Ms. Matovina insisted upon paying for the session at that time rather than the following Monday, when the Respondent wanted to schedule another session. Ms. Matovina then left the office. She was there for approximately two hours. The following week, the Respondent had his office contact Ms. Matovina to schedule further sessions, but she refused to accept or to respond to the phone calls.
The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's license to practice chiropractic medicine for violation of Section 456.072(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003)?
Findings Of Fact Facts Established by Admission Effective July 1, 1997, Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of chiropractic medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of chiropractic medicine pursuant to Chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed chiropractic physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CH 5396 on October 14, 1986. Respondent's last known address is 9471 Baymeadows Road #108, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-0154. JHCS operated as a medical clinic offering and supplying chiropractic and medical services to patients. Respondent caused or allowed claims to be filed with Medicare and other health care benefit programs claiming reimbursement for the professional component of Magnetic Resonance Imaging tests (MRI). The report generated as a result of the outside radiologist was placed onto JHCS' letterhead to give the appearance that the radiologist was an employee of JHCS and Respondent. Respondent pled guilty to crimes that occurred in the course of Respondent's practice of chiropractic medicine (during his hours of operation). For Diagnostic Ultrasound (DU) and Nerve Conduction Velocity (NCV) billing, Respondent submitted claims for the technical portion of DU or NCV test, which is the performance of the test, even though Respondent did not contribute his professional expertise to the performance of the test. Respondent would submit claims to various health care benefit programs for the technical component of the test. Additional Facts In United States of America v. Mark Schoenborn, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division, Case No. 3:03-cr-315-J-25MMH, Respondent pled guilty to Count 1 of the information, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 and 371. The nature of the offense was conspiracy to defraud a health care benefit program. The offense ended September 2002. The judgment in the criminal case held to the following effect: The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 5 of this judgment. This sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, as modified by United States v. Booker. At page 4 of 5 the obligation for restitution is set forth as part of the sentence. A sentence was imposed in the case on February 11, 2005, in which Respondent was placed on probation, for a term of three years. A special condition of supervision was that Respondent participate in the Home Detention Program for a period of six, assumed to be months, and that he perform 100 hours of community service. Respondent was required to pay a $10,000.00 fine and to make $400,000.00 in restitution. The payees in the restitution were: Aetna, Inc., $52,944.00; United Health Group, $38,076.00; DHHS/CMMS, Division of Accounting, $245,609.00; and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Florida, $63,371.00. Respondent would receive credit for all payments previously made toward any criminal monetary penalties imposed on a joint and several basis with Respondent Charles Doll, United States District Court, Case No. 3:03-cr-314-J-25MMH. Respondent has referred patients for MRIs to provide information about soft tissue in relation to the formation of a disc. In particular, the information about the disc would pertain to a herniated or bulging disc. The information imparted in the MRI results assists in diagnosing a patient, according to Respondent. It is not involved with the treatment of the patient. The initial diagnosis is made without the benefit of an MRI. Respondent refers patients for NCV tests, the results of which may show nerve pressure, according to Respondent. The diagnosis will have been formulated before the referral is made usually. This special test assists in further understanding "things going on with a patient." The results of the test could further assist Respondent in rendering care. Respondent has used DU in his practice. The information provided by those tests is a showing of inflammation in an area. The results help Respondent decide what to do with a patient, as far as additional treatment, and whether there may be the need to make a referral outside his practice or some other choice. In making the referrals that have been described, Respondent believes that he is making that choice as a chiropractic physician. Expert Opinion Michael William Mathesie, D.C., is licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida. He is an expert in the field of chiropractic medicine. Petitioner hired Dr. Mathesie as its consultant in the case, to express an opinion concerning Respondent's practice in view of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. In Dr. Mathesie's opinion the practice of chiropractic medicine consists of diagnosis and treatment of nerves, muscles, joints, and conditions of the spine and extremities. Diagnosis of a patient would consist of inspection and palpation, range of motion, orthopedic maneuvers, neurological evaluations, X-rays, CT scans, MRIs, neurological diagnostic testing, and other specialized tests, as well as blood laboratory evaluations. Treatment would consist of adjustments to the spine to correct subluxations, or other lesions of the spine causing nerve irritation or impulses or nerve transmission problems. Physical therapy modalities, nutrition, counseling and other non- pharmaceutical and non-neurological procedures are also involved. Dr. Mathesie explained the use of diagnostic testing in the practice of chiropractic medicine. If a patient has a long- standing condition of the spine or extremities, such as nerve pain shooting down the arm or numbness or tingling, a NCV test might be run, but the test may not be used on a regular basis for reasons other than the evaluation of the patient's condition. To do so would skew the diagnostic abilities of the chiropractic physician, according to Dr. Mathesie. Chiropractors are taught diagnostic testing and evaluation in chiropractic school. In his practice Dr. Mathesie bills for his services rendered to the patient in accordance with Section 460.41, Florida Statutes. Jan Allen Fralicker, D.C., was called as an expert to testify in behalf of Respondent Schoenborn. Dr. Fralicker is licensed in Florida to practice chiropractic medicine. In addressing the allegations in the Administrative Complaint directed to Respondent Schoenborn of a violation of Section 456.072(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and equally applicable to Respondent Doll, Dr. Fralicker does not believe that the allegations pertain to the practice of chiropractic medicine. Dr. Fralicker explains that the practice of chiropractic medicine in Florida is the diagnosis and treatment of human elements without the use of drugs or surgery, to include diagnostic testing. The crime to which Respondent Schoenborn pled and Dr. Doll pled, involves fraud in the criminal aspect, according to Dr. Fralicker, for receiving money for services not performed. The criminal activity did not actually involve Respondent's functioning as a chiropractor related to patients being treated. In Dr. Fralicker's opinion ordering the tests involved in the case, as Dr. Fralicker understands it, was the practice of chiropractic medicine, but defrauding a health care benefit program is not related to the practice of chiropractic medicine. Nothing about Dr. Fralicker's understanding of the criminal law matter involved a standard of care issue. Dr. Fralicker separates the criminal activity from the practice of chiropractic medicine. In summary, while ordering diagnostic tests is part of chiropractic medicine, pleading guilty to defrauding a health care program is not, in the view of Dr. Fralicker. What Respondents were engaged in was practicing chiropractic and then separately involving themselves in criminal activity to defraud, i.e. getting paid for something not being done. Dr. Fralicker is familiar, as a chiropractic physician, with submitting billing to be reimbursed for services as a chiropractic physician. He submits requests for reimbursement. The submission of requests for reimbursement is seen by Dr. Fralicker as part of the practice of chiropractic medicine. Dr. Fralicker believes that chiropractors providing a service must meet the standards of what the general population of chiropractors would do in the area where they practice, involving appropriate diagnosis and referral to another professional, if necessary, for additional treatment. He does not believe that the Respondents violated the professional standards. Neither opinion of the experts is persuasive, beyond its value in establishing the nature of the practice of chiropractic medicine in delivering care and billing for the services provided. Dr. Schoenborn Previous Disciplinary History In the case Agency for Health Care Administration, Petitioner v. Mark E. Schoenborn, D.C., Respondent, before the State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Chiropractic, Case No. 9207885, and related cases, Respondent was charged in Count 1 with a violation of Section 460.413(1)(m), Florida Statutes, formerly Section 460.413(1)(n), Florida Statutes, for failing to maintain written chiropractic patient records that would justify the course of treatment of the patient. In Count II to that Administrative Complaint Respondent was charged with violating Section 460.413(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by failing to perform a statutory or legal obligation of the licensed chiropractic physician in performing, ordering, administering or procuring unnecessary diagnostic testing in violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes. In Count III to the Administrative Complaint Respondent was charged with a violation of Section 460.413(1)(r), Florida Statutes, formerly Section 460.413(1)(s), Florida Statutes, by failing to practice chiropractic at the level of skill, care, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent chiropractic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. In Count IV of the Administrative Complaint Respondent was charged with violating Sections 460.413(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and 460.413(1)(v), Florida Statutes, formerly 460.413(1)(w), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61F2- 5.001(2), formerly Florida Administrative Code Rule 21D-5.0012, by engaging in false deceptive or misleading advertising. The parties entered into a settlement stipulation which was approved by final order, in relation to Case Nos. 9207885 and 9216199, 94- 05484 and 94-11080. Ultimately the stipulation that was approved in a final order entered February 13, 1996, was to the failure to maintain written chiropractic patient records that would justify a course of treatment to the patient, a violation of Section 460.413(1)(m), Florida Statutes, that had been referred to as Section 460.413(1)(n), Florida Statutes. As a consequence Respondent paid $3,000.00 in administrative costs, had to take a course on records keeping, and was required to have his patient records monitored.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law made, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding a violation of Section 456.072(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2003), and revoking Respondent's license as a chiropractic physician. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 16th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire William Miller, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Roy Lewis, Esquire 203 Washington Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Peter P. Alongi, is a licensed chiropractic physician, practicing in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. An administrative complaint was filed by the Petitioner, Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, dated December 7, 1978, alleging that the Respondent engaged in deception, misrepresentation or fraud by publishing a certain advertisement. An administrative hearing was requested by the Respondent. Thereafter, a motion to dismiss was filed by the Respondent prior to the formal hearing, which was denied. Respondent Alongi casued the following advertisement to be published in the Fort Lauderdale News in the month of May 1978: CHIROPRACTORS SEEK RESEARCH VOLUNTEERS The International Pain Control Institute is presently engaged in what is the most expensive research program ever undertaken by the chiropractic profession. This research is directed toward determining the relationship between health problems and spinal misalignment and utilizes a screening process called contour analysis. Volunteers are being sought for screening. Contour analysis enables taking a 3 dimensional picture (called moire photography) of the topography of the surface of the spine to detect spinal stress deviations. This analysis will be correlated with leg deficiency, patient sympto- matically and levels of spinal tenderness. An analysis of this type can reveal such things as normal and abnormal stress patterns, spinal curvature, muscle spasm, muscle imbalance, spinal distortion and scoliosis. This is a Public Service Program for partici- pating volunteers. The doctors are contributing their time, service and facilities for the program. Anyone wishing to be a volunteer may telephone participating doctors directly for information or an appt. Dr. Peter P. Alongi Dr. Larry Burch 2821 E. Commercial Boulevard 200 SE 12 St. Ft. Laud. Ft. Laud. 491-2449 764-0444 Ms. Laura Borys read the foregoing advertisement and, thinking there would be no charge for treatment, made an appointment with Respondent Alongi. Ms. Borys had interpreted the advertisement to mean that if she presented herself as a "research volunteer" there would be no cost to her. Ms. Borys was accompanied to Respondent Alongi's office by Ms. Katherine Leight, a sister-in- law of Ms. Borys. Ms. Leight had told Ms. Borys that she felt the advertisement was soliciting for paying customers, and that she based her view on the reason that she had never seen such an advertisement by any other chiropractor. Ms. Borys would not have made the appointment with Respondent Alongi to participate as a volunteer pursuant to said advertisement if she had know that x-rays and chiropractic treatment would be on a cost basis. Respondent Alongi performed a contour analysis and gave Ms. Borys a photograph of her back. The Respondent analyzed the photograph and advised Ms. Borys that she had a back problem, and that for a fee of $50.00 she could have x-rays taken and would be charged $15.00 per visit for treatment. Upon a close reading of the foregoing advertisement it is not likely that the general public would have been mislead into believing that free treatments or x-rays would be given. Ms. Borys' sister-in-law, Ms. Leight, did not believe the advertisement was inserted for any other reason than to solicit business for the two doctors included in said advertisement. No questions were raised or evidence submitted as to what constituted the "research program" other than the taking of the picture of the back, or whether members of the public were deceived or mislead into thinking that there was in fact a valid program. Both parties submitted proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order they are specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of July, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul W. Lambert, Esquire 1311 Executive Center Drive Suite 201, Ellis Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas F. Panza, Esquire 2803 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3308 DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact "[HRS] has adopted a Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., which makes provision for the review of CON applications in specific time sequences, known as "batching cycles." The purpose of this rule was to implement the statutory mandate of ss. 381.494(5), Florida Statutes, which required that: The Department by rule shall provide for the applications to be submitted on a timetable or cycle basis, provide for review on a timely basis; and provide for all completed applications pertaining to similar types of services, facilities, or equipment affecting the same service district to be considered in relation to each other no less often than four times a year. Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., states that the letter of intent and application schedules were established "[i]n order that applications pertaining to similar types of services, facilities, or equipment affecting the same service district may be considered in relation to each other for purposes of competitive review. "Under Rule 10-5.08, F.A.C., June 15, 1984, was the beginning of a batching cycle for "hospital projects" that included certificate of need requests by hospitals for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery programs. To enter a batching cycle, an applicant must first have filed a letter of intent ("LOI") with [HRS] and the Local Health Council at least thirty (30) days prior to filing an application. The LOI deadline for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle was thus May 16, 1984. There was, however, one exception to this requirement of filing an LOI thirty (30) days in advance. This exception, known as the "grace provision," was found at Rule 10 5.08(e), F.A.C. In cases where a letter of intent was filed within five working days of the letter of intent deadline, a grace period of 10 days from the deadline date for receipt of letters of intent shall be established to provide an opportunity for a competing applicant to file a letter of intent. "On or about May 14, 1984, St. Mary's Hospital in West Palm Beach submitted a letter of intent to file a CON application for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and an open heart surgery program. St. Marys' [sic] LOI was for entry in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. This date of Nay 14, 1984, was within five (5) working days of the LOI deadline for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Boca Raton Community Hospital [also] filed a letter of intent to apply for a CON for cardiac catheterization and open heart surgery. Boca Raton's LOI was filed in April of 1954, a time period greater than five (5) working days prior to the LOI deadline. "On May 29, 1984, Good Samaritan filed with [HRS] and the Local Health Council a letter of intent to establish cardiac catheterization and an open heart surgery program in order to compete for CON approval with the similar services proposed by St. Marys [sic]. Good Samaritan's May 29, 1984, LOI sought entry into the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "May 29, 1984, was within ten (10) days from the deadline date for receipt of letters of intent for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Good Samaritan does not view itself as directly competing with Boca Raton Community Hospital for patients or services due to the distance between these facilities. Good Samaritan does view itself to be in direct competition with St. Marys [sic]. All three hospitals are, however, in the same HRS Service District and [HRS] reviews CON applications for cardiac catheterization laboratories and open heart surgery on the basis of whether there is a need for such laboratories or programs in the service district. "On June 15, 1984, Good Samaritan submitted its [CON] application to [HRS], together with the required Four Thousand Dollar ($4,000.00) application fee. [HRS] refused to accept this application for review in its June 15, 1984, batching cycle and returned the application and the filing fee to Good Samaritan. [HRS] advised Good Samaritan that the next batching cycle it could enter for this application would be the October 15, 1984, batching cycle. "Good Samaritan timely filed a request for formal proceedings pursuant to ss. 120.57, Florida Statutes (1983), regarding [HRS's] refusal to accept its application in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and over the subject matter of this proceeding. "Effective September 6, 1984, and subsequent to the Department's refusal to accept Good Samaritan's application for the June 15, 1984, batching cycle, [HRS] amended Rule 10-5.08(e). The new rule, as amended, reflects the requirements that the Department contends are applicable to Good Samaritan in this case prior to the amendment. "[HRS's] refusal to accept Good Samaritan's application in the June 15, 1984, batching cycle prevents Good Samaritan from having its proposed project reviewed comparatively and competitively with St. Marys' [sic] or Boca Raton's similar proposals, because [HRS] does not review CON applications comparatively and competitively unless they are filed in the same batching cycle. "[HRS] approved in part [sic] both St. Marys' [sic] and Boca Raton's CON applications. CON #3367 was issued to St. Marys [sic] for a cardiac catheterization laboratory and CON #3366 was issued to Boca Raton for a cardiac catheterization laboratory. These actions by [HRS], however, have not yet become final and are subject to formal administrative hearings requested by Good Samaritan. "[HRS] takes the position that the approvals of the cardiac catheterization laboratories at St. Marys [sic] and Boca Raton count against the need for an additional cardiac catheterization laboratory as proposed by Good Samaritan if Good Samaritan's application is considered in a later batching cycle."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That HRS enter a final order requiring that Good Samaritan's CON application be reviewed in the June 15, 1984 batching cycle. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of February, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1985.
