Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to take the acupuncture examination given October 30 - November 3, 1984, but his application was not approved until he provided additional verification of his experience. By the time his approval was granted it was too late for the 1984 examination and he was advised to apply for the July 1955 examination which he did. In 1984 Petitioner was sent Applicant Information for Acupuncture Examination document (Exhibit 5) which indicates copies of Florida Statutes Chapters 389 and 457 and the rules applicable to each chapter are attached. Petitioner acknowledges receiving certain information but does not recall exactly what he received. When Petitioner re-applied to take the 1955 examination he received certain material from Respondent containing the statutes and rules from which the examination questions on Laws and Rules would be taken. Petitioner contends he received only the information contained in Exhibit 3 which consists of Chapter 457 Florida Statutes (1983) and Chapter 21AA Florida Administrative Code. After taking the examination and finding unfamiliar questions in Part I of the examination, Petitioner discovered the documents from which he studied did not have applicable provisions of Chapter 389 and rules pertaining thereto in Chapter 10D-81 Florida Administrative Code. When he subsequently learned he had failed Part I of the examination Petitioner, on October 10, 1985, went to Tallahassee to check on his examination grade and to complain that he did not receive the two pages containing Chapter 389 Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-81 Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 389 Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-81 Florida Administrative Code, which Wang did not study for the examination, consist of two pages with both sides of each page containing information and are pages 643 and 644, Florida Statutes (1981) and pages 525 and 526 Florida Administrative Code. On Part I of the examination Wang missed three of five questions taken from page 643, three out of eight questions from page 644, five out of eight questions from page 525 and four out of ten questions from page 526. Part I consisted of fifty questions and of those fifty questions Wang missed fifteen from the statutes and rules he did not study for the examination. Clearly his failure to study those pages was the primary cause of Wang receiving a failing grade of 66 on Part I of the examination. Ann Mayne is Administrative Assistant to The Board of Acupuncture and two other boards. She is the only one who mails out material to applicants and in her absence requests for such material are held pending her return. In October 1985 when Petitioner went to Tallahassee Ms. Mayne was on vacation. Petitioner first went to the Department of Professional Regulation and was referred to the acupuncture office in an adjacent building. There he contacted a clerk who attempted to help him and gave him the two pages (Exhibit 4) he alleged he did not have. Ms. Mayne sends out all information to applicants for acupuncture license. She prepared the Application Information Sheet (Exhibit 5) and the copies of statutes and rules pertaining to acupuncture. Ms. Mayne keeps this information in a file cabinet with the pages separated so all of the same page are together. When she prepares an information package she goes through the file drawer and takes out one sheet from each of the divisions and thereby compiles a complete package. These sheets are not stapled together but are put in an envelope and mailed to the applicants. In 1985 Wang was not sent a copy of the information sheet (Exhibit 5) but Ms. Mayne put a note in his file that he had been sent the 1985 packet of laws and rules. Because there had been a change in Chapter 457 between the 1984 and 1985 examination she wanted to be sure a copy of these new provisions was sent to Wang. The copy Wang acknowledges he received (Exhibit 3) contains Chapter 457 Florida Statutes and Chapter 21AA Florida Administrative Code. If, as contended by Wang, the packet he received for the 1985 examination did not contain relevant portions of Chapter 359 Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-81, Florida Administrative Code, the packet he received in 1984 did contain those sections and there was no change in those laws and rules between the 1984 and 1985 examinations.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Jens Emilio Valle, is entitled to licensure by virtue of a passing grade on the May 1988 Chiropractic examination, specifically on the technique portion of the examination.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Valle was an unsuccessful candidate for the May 1988 Chiropractic examination. As part of the practical examination, Dr. Valle took the technique portion and received a score of 73.9. A score of 75 is required for certification for licensure. The technique portion is part of an oral practical examination and is subjectively graded by two independent graders. All graders have been licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida for at least five years and have received several hours of standardization training prior to serving as graders on the practical examination. The grade range on each section is one to four. A score of three is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimal competency and a score of four is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge. These scores are then added with other factors and scores to produce a total. Dr. Valle claims that he was underscored on the technique portion of the examination. His scores were as follows: Grader 27--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (3.5). Grader 37--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (3), rib (3), and soft tissue (3). Dr. Valle presented the expert testimony of Jim Terrell, D.C., who has been licensed in Florida for less than five years. Dr. Terrell has received no training in grading practical examinations. He has never participated in the administration and grading of a chiropractic examination for licensure. Dr. Terrell based his testimony solely on his observation of the videotape. His opinion was that Dr. Valle's performance in the pelvic technique was "essentially" correct. Dr. Terrell's opinion related solely to the mechanical performance. Steven M. Ordet, D.C., is a chiropractic physician licensed in Florida since 1974. He is the past Chairman of the Peer Review Committee of the Florida Chiropractic Association, a Director of the Florida Chiropractic Association, and has been an examiner for the chiropractic examination for the last seven years. He was not an examiner on the May 1988 examination. Dr. Ordet also reviewed the videotape. In his opinion as a trained grader, he would have awarded the following scores based on Dr. Valle's performance: Cervical (3), thoracic (2.5), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (2.5). Dr. Ordet would have given these scores in part because Dr. Valle failed to describe the technique he was demonstrating. The preliminary instructions given for the examination and shown on the videotape require, in part, that the candidate describe the technique as it is demonstrated. The opinion of Dr. Ordet is persuasive based on his experience as a grader and on his explanation for the grades he would give.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, enter a Final Order denying the request for relief filed by Jens Emilio Valle and dismissing the petition for relief. DONE and ENTERED this 17th of August 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 August, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0886 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4 (1-7). COPIES FURNISHED: E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jens Emilio Valle, D.C. 901 Cedar Canyon Square Marietta, GA 33067 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for and took the 1982 acupuncture examination consisting of four Parts. He failed Part I dealing with the laws and rules of the state of Florida as well as Part IV the clinical practical, or hands-on, part of the examination. He passed Parts II and III of the examination. In 1983 the Florida legislature created the Board of Acupuncture within the Department of Professional Regulation and empowered the Board with the authority to adopt rules. Perhaps in conjunction with that transfer of authority, the 1983 acupuncture examination was cancelled, and no examination was given during 1983. Effective August 13, 1984, the Board enacted rules regulating the examination and re-examination of acupuncturists. In October, 1984, a restructured three-part acupuncture examination was administered. The practical Part of that examination, Part III, was divided into two sections: the written practical section and the clinical practical section. Petitioner retook Part I covering the laws and rules of the state of Florida and passed that Part of the examination. He also took the clinical practical section of Part III but was not required to take the written practical section of Part III. Petitioner again failed the clinical practical section of the examination. In July, 1985, Petitioner retook Part III of the acupuncture examination. This time he was required to take both the written practical section and the clinical practical section of Part III. This time he passed the clinical practical section but failed the written practical section. Respondent notified Petitioner that he had failed the practical Part of the 1985 acupuncture examination by failing the written practical section.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for certification to practice acupuncture in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Sheldon L. Gottlieb, Esquire 10700 Caribbean Boulevard Suite 207 Miami, Florida 33189 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marcelle Flanagan, Executive Director Board of Acupuncture 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was an applicant for licensure to practice acupuncture in the State of Florida and took the acupuncture licensing examination in August, 1982. Information was provided to the candidate prior to the administration of the examination which identified refer- ence books to study for the written part of the examination. This included an outline of Chinese acupuncture which explained the technique of opening and closing the hole. There were no texts specified for the practical examination. The acupuncture technique of opening or closing the hole for sedation or tonification was graded as part of the removal portion of the examination. However, Petitioner did not utilize the acupuncture technique of opening or closing the hole as part of his removal technique and was penalized for this omission. The acupuncture examiners were professional examiners from California who are familiar with the different schools of acupuncture thought. Grading procedures were standardized in advance of examination administration and examiners were requested to utilize their professional judgment in assigning grades on each criteria in the performance of three needle insertions. Petitioner contends that he should not have been penalized for failing to close or leave open the acupuncture hole upon needle removal. In the view of Respondent's experts and as stated in the reference material (outline of Chinese acupuncture) this is an essential procedure relative to sedation and tonification. Therefore, Petitioner was correctly graded as to needle removal. Petitioner contends that he would have passed the examination had the practical portion scores been averaged. Under the grading procedures followed by Respondent, Part III (diagnostic written portion) and Section A, Part IV (technique) of the practical examination are graded separately, and the candidate must obtain a satisfactory score on each section. Respondent's separate grading procedures are consistent with Section 468.323, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1982). This provision requires the candidate to cass an examination which tests his knowledge and competency in specified areas including needle removal. This could not be accomplished if an unacceptable score in needle removal were permitted merely because Petitioner did well on other portions of the practical examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 29th day of September, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William S. Huang 697 E. Altamonte Drive Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ann Mayne, Executive Director Board of Acupunture Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Flori4a 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for authorization for the autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) procedure should be approved pursuant to worker's compensation laws and rules.
Findings Of Fact Witherspoon is a 41-year-old police officer. He has worked in law enforcement for 20 years and is currently employed as a police officer for the City of Fort Lauderdale. Witherspoon was injured in an employment-related accident on September 14, 1999. The accident significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury to his left knee. At the time of the accident, Witherspoon had already had two arthroscopic surgical procedures to treat his pre- existing knee injury. He underwent a third arthroscopic surgery following the accident, and returned to work in the Spring of 2000. In addition to surgery and physical therapy, Witherspoon has been treated continuously with injections and medications in an effort to alleviate his symptoms, to no avail. At all times relevant to this case, Witherspoon has two separate injuries to the articular cartilage of his knee: one in the trochlea and one in the medial femoral condyle. Because of these injuries, Witherspoon's articular cartilage, which is necessary for proper functioning of the knee joint, has been degrading and flaking off and will continue to do so. The injuries cause him to walk with a significant limp. He is in constant pain and constant danger of his knee buckling. Witherspoon's situation is complicated by a defect in the articular cartilage of his patella. ACI was not recommended for this defect, and it is unknown how debilitating the patella injury would continue to be, if and when ACI treatment is successfully completed. Because of his injuries, Witherspoon is unable to perform the duties of a uniformed police officer. He is presently assigned to desk work, at a significantly reduced salary. Witherspoon is on an accelerated course to advanced degenerative arthritis, for which a complete knee replacement is the standard recommended treatment. Because Witherspoon is relatively young and knee replacements do not last indefinitely, the unanimous weight of medical opinion is that knee replacement should be postponed as long as possible. Witherspoon's treating physician, having exhausted all viable treatment options, referred Witherspoon to Dr. Douglas Stringham (Stringham), a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. After reviewing Witherspoon's arthroscopic photographs and medical records, Stringham recommended that he undergo ACI. Witherspoon requested authorization for the ACI procedure, which was denied by his Employer/Carrier City of Fort Lauderdale (Employer). The dispute was referred to AHCA for review in accordance with Subsection 440.13(1)(m), Florida Statutes. AHCA consulted with Dr. Peter Indelicato (Indelicato), a Board-certified orthopedic surgeon. Indelicato rendered an opinion that the procedure is investigative within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. He further opined that there was not reliable evidence that ACI would provide significant benefit to Witherspoon's recovery and well being within the meaning of Rule 59B- 11.004(3), Florida Administrative Code. Relying exclusively upon Indelicato’s opinion, AHCA declined to order the Employer to provide ACI to the Petitioner. Upon the filing of this petition, Witherspoon was advised by the Employer that neither ACI nor any other form of intervention would be offered to him. AHCA has not promulgated, endorsed, or approved any particular treatment for injuries to the articular cartilage of the knee in accordance with Subsection 440.13, Florida Statutes. The ACI procedure which has been recommended to Witherspoon was initially developed in Sweden. Over the course of two separate surgical procedures, a sample of cartilage is first harvested arthroscopically from another area of the patient's knee joint. The sample is sent to the Boston Laboratory of Genzyme Tissue Repair, Inc. (“Genzyme”), which owns the rights to the process. Genzyme uses its proprietary process to culture the cells into an estimated five million chondrocytes over a period of approximately five weeks. Genzyme returns the cultured chondrocytes to the surgeon. The surgeon then performs an open surgical operation. The surgeon creates a periosteal flap. In addition, the injury is debrided and the chondrocytes are implanted in the wounded cartilage and covered with the periosteal flap. The claimed benefit of ACI is that the cartilage that is generated and implanted into the knee will approximate natural human cartilage to an extent significant enough to provide substantial benefit to the patient. Because ACI is in its infancy, questions remain about the long-term efficacy of the procedure. Other available treatments for a defect in articular cartilage of the knee include, abrasion chondroplasty, arthroscopic microfracture or drilling, osteochondral autograft surgery or “plugs”, and an osteochondral allograft using transplanted tissue from a cadaver (collectively, "conventional interventions"). Each of these procedures is, standing alone, less expensive than ACI. Each of these procedures, whether used singly or in combination, is not appropriate for Witherspoon at this time. Individually and collectively, conventional interventions afford no realistic hope of providing any noticeable relief for his symptoms, nor will they forestall the deterioration of his knee. The evidence establishes that there are no viable alternatives to ACI in the facts and circumstances of this case. Witherspoon is either not a candidate for conventional interventions, or has had such treatments and they have failed. Of the three Board-certified orthopedic surgeons who testified, AHCA's expert, who has never performed ACI, opined that Witherspoon could be treated by conventional interventions and Witherspoon's experts, who do perform ACI, testified that conventional interventions have failed and will continue to fail. There is no evidence to suggest that the testimony of any of the doctors was tainted by personal financial considerations of any kind. The ACI procedure, if successful, would be less expensive than a continuing course of short-term "housekeeping" treatments. Conventional interventions would, at most, stave off the inevitable knee replacement. They would not alleviate Witherspoon's disability in any way. Reliable evidence establishes that the ACI procedure presents the only possibility of providing Witherspoon with significant benefits toward recovery and well being. AHCA stipulates and the evidence establishes that ACI has been established to be safe. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the benefits of the ACI procedure outweigh the risks to Witherspoon.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order approving the proposed ACI for the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 24th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry A. Pemsler, Esquire 307 Ros Centre 770 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Michelle L. Oxman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Florida Medical Association and Florida Association of Physicians Assistants have standing to initiate this challenge to the proposed rules. (See Section 120.56(3) Florida Statutes.) Whether proposed Rules 64B1-4.010 and 64B1-4.011, Florida Administrative Code, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority because they exceed the Board of Acupuncture's rulemaking authority contained in Section 457.104, Florida Statutes. (See Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes.) Whether proposed Rules 64B1-4.010 and 64B1-4.011, Florida Administrative Code, constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority because they enlarge, modify, or contravene the provisions of Section 457.102, Florida Statutes. (See Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes.)
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that Petitioner FMA is organized and maintained for the benefit of approximately 16,000 licensed allopathic and osteopathic Florida physicians. FMA's standing in this proceeding has always been at issue. The foregoing stipulation encompasses all of the factual allegations about Petitioner contained in the Petition. Dr. Steven West, an allopathic physician licensed in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and a member of FMA, testified as follows: Well, we have two interests. Certainly one interest is that we want to make certain that only qualified individuals and practitioners treat patients and diagnose patients because we have an interest in the health and welfare of the people of the State of Florida. Secondly, we have an interest in making certain that all of the hard work and time that we have spent in our training remains valuable and is considered unique and important. And so we have a concern about the devaluation of the practice of medicine. (TR-17) It was stipulated that there is only one Respondent, the Board of Acupuncture, created by the Florida Legislature and placed within the Florida Department of Health. It is axiomatic that Respondent has standing herein. There were no stipulations as to the standing of either intervenor, and both the Board and FSOMA have asserted in their respective Proposed Final Orders that FAPA, as well as FMA, is without standing to bring this rule challenge. However, no party has contested the veracity of the factual statements concerning standing in either Petition to Intervene, and no party opposed intervention. The Petitions to Intervene of FAPA and FSOMA were granted, subject to proving-up standing at hearing. Even stipulations as to standing do not preclude consideration of standing as a matter of law. Florida Medical Ass'n., Inc., et al. v. Dept. of Health, Florida Bd. of Nursing, et al., DOAH Case No. 99-5337RP (Final Order March 13, 2000), per curiam affirmed Bd. of Nursing, et al. v. Florida Medical Ass'n., Inc., et al, So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Therefore, under these circumstances, and applying that case, the intervenors' factual allegations for purposes of standing may be taken as true for findings of fact, but each intervenor's status still depends upon that of the respective party upon whose behalf each intervenor entered this case. Therefore, with regard to the status of FAPA, it is found that: FAPA is organized and maintained for the benefit of the licensed Florida physicians assistants who compromise [sic] its membership and has as one of its primary functions to represent the interests of its members before various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its boards. (FAPA Petition to Intervene) Therefore, with regard to the status of FSOMA, it is found that: FSOMA is a Florida nonprofit corporation comprised of over one-third of the doctors of oriental medicine and licensed acupuncturists under the regulatory aegis of the Board of Acupuncture, State of Florida Department of Health, Chapter 457, F.S., with a mission to represent the acupuncture and oriental medicine practitioner interests of its members in judicial, administrative, legislative and other proceedings. (FSOMA Petition to Intervene) The text of proposed Rule 64B1-4.010, set forth in the petition is no longer correct, because it has been altered by Notices of Change, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Rule 64B1-4.010, as currently proposed, would provide: Traditional Chinese Medical Concepts, Modern Oriental Medical Techniques. Traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques shall include acupuncture diagnosis and treatment to prevent or correct malady, illness, injury, pain, addictions, other conditions, disorders, and dysfunction of the human body; to harmonize the flow of Qi or vital force; to balance the energy and functions of a patient; and to promote, maintain, and restore health; for pain management and palliative care; for acupuncture anesthesia; and to prevent disease by the use or administration of: stimulation to acupuncture points, ah-shi points, auricular points, channels, collaterals, meridians, and microsystems which shall include the use of: akabane; allergy elimination techniques; breathing; cold; color; correspondence; cupping; dietary guidelines; electricity; electroacupuncture; electrodermal screening (EDS); exercise; eight principles; five elements; four levels; hara; heat; herbal therapy consisting of plant, animal, and/or mineral substances; infrared and other forms of light; inquiring of history; jing-luo; listening; moxibustion; needles; NAET; observation; oriental massage -- manual and mechanical methods; palpation; physiognomy; point micro-bleeding therapy; pulses; qi; xue and jin-ye; ryodoraku; san-jiao; six stages; smelling; tongue; tai qi; qi gong; wulun- baguo; yin-yang; zang-fu; Ayurvedic, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Manchurian, Mongolian, Tibetan, Uighurian, Vietnamese, and other east Asian acupuncture and oriental medical concepts and treatment techniques; French acupuncture; German acupuncture including electroacupuncture and diagnosis; and, the use of laboratory test and imaging findings. (Emphasis supplied). The "authority" cited by the Board for proposed Rule 64B1-4.010 is Sections 457.102 and 457.104, Florida Statutes. The Board cites the "law implemented" for Rule 64B1- 4.010 as Section 457.102, Florida Statutes. The text of Rule 64B1-4.011, as set forth in the petition also is no longer correct, because it has been changed by Notices of Change, pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Rule 64B1-4.011, as currently proposed, would provide: Diagnostic techniques which assist in acupuncture diagnosis, corroboration and monitoring of an acupuncture treatment plan or in making a determination to refer a patient to other health care providers shall include: traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques, recommendation of home diagnostic screening; physical examination; use of laboratory test findings; use of imaging films, reports, or test findings; office screening of hair, saliva and urine; muscle response testing; palpation; reflex; range of motion, sensory testing; thermography; trigger points; vital signs; first-aid; hygiene; and sanitation. (Emphasis supplied). The "authority" cited by the Board for proposed Rule 64B1-4.011 is Sections 457.102(1) and 457.104, Florida Statutes. The Board cites the "law implemented" for proposed Rule 64B1-4.011 as Section 457.102 (1), Florida Statutes. Section 457.104, Florida Statutes, currently provides: The board has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement provisions of this chapter conferring duties upon it. Section 457.102, Florida Statutes, currently provides: "Acupuncture" means a form of primary health care, based on traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques, that employs acupuncture diagnosis and treatment, as well as adjunctive therapies and diagnostic techniques, for the promotion, maintenance, and restoration of health and the prevention of disease. Acupuncture shall include, but not be limited to, the insertion of acupuncture needles and the application of moxibustion to specific areas of the human body and the use of electroacupuncture, Qi Gong, oriental massage, herbal therapy, dietary guidelines, and other adjunctive therapies, as defined by board rule. "Acupuncturist" means any person licensed as provided in this chapter to practice acupuncture as a primary health care provider. "Board" means the Board of Acupuncture. "License" means the document of authorization issued by the department for a person to engage in the practice of acupuncture. "Department" means the Department of Health. "Oriental medicine" means the use of acupuncture, electroacupuncture, Qi Gong, oriental massage, herbal therapy, dietary guidelines, and other adjunctive therapies. "Prescriptive rights" means the prescription, administration, and use of needles and devices, restricted devices, and prescription devices that are used in the practice of acupuncture and oriental medicine. (Emphasis supplied) The Board asserts that the use of a comma between "other adjunctive therapies" and "as defined by board rule" in the second sentence of Section 457.102(1), Florida Statutes, establishes that the clause "as defined by board rule" applies to "the insertion of acupuncture needles and the application of moxibustion to specific areas of the human body and the use of electroacupuncture, Qi Gong, oriental massage, herbal therapy, dietary guidelines, and other adjunctive therapies," and those practices "included but not listed." Rule 64B1-3.001, Florida Administrative Code, most recently amended February 27, 1992, addresses "adjunctive therapies" of acupuncturists as follows: Acupuncture diagnostic techniques shall include but not be limited to the use of observation, listening, smelling, inquiring, palpation, pulses, tongues, physiognomy, five element correspondence, ryordoraku, akabani, German electro acupuncture, Kirlian photography, and thermography. (Emphasis supplied). * * * Adjunctive therapies shall include but not be limited to: Nutritional counseling and the recommendation of nonprescription substances which meet the Food and Drug Administration labeling requirements, as dietary supplements to promote health; Recommendation of breathing techniques and therapeutic exercises; and Lifestyle and stress counseling; The recommendation of all homeopathic preparations approved by the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Homeopathic Pharmacopeia Committee; and Herbology. This rule has not been challenged.1 Likewise, Rule 64B1-4.008, Florida Administrative Code, promulgated December 24, 2000, has not been challenged,2 and defines "adjunctive therapies," of acupuncturists as follows: Adjunctive therapies shall include the stimulation of acupuncture points, ah-shi points, auricular points, channels, collaterals, meridians, and microsystems with the use of: air; aromatherapy; color; cryotherapy; electric moxibustion; homeopathy; hyperthermia; ion pumping cords; iridology; kirlian photography; laser acupuncture; lifestyle counseling; magnet therapy; paraffin; photonic stimulation; recommendation of breathing techniques; therapeutic exercises and daily activities; sound including sonopuncture; traction; water; thermal therapy; and other adjunctive therapies and diagnostic techniques of traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques as set forth in Rule 64B1-4.010. (Emphasis supplied). Acupuncturists are, by law, "primary health providers." Subsections 457.102(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. (See Finding of Fact 14). A primary health care provider is a professional to whom patients can go without a referring physician and who, by diagnosis and treatment, assumes responsibility for patients' appropriate care. Allopaths and osteopaths are also primary health care providers. FSOMA asserted that the challenged rules are supported by Section 457.1085, Florida Statutes, which provides, 457.1085 Infection control--Prior to November 1, 1986, the board shall adopt rules relating to the prevention of infection, the safe disposal of any potentially infectious materials, and other requirements to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Beginning October 1, 1997, all acupuncture needles that are to be used on a patient must be sterile and disposable, and each needle may be used only once. The traditional course of education, training, and experience for allopathic physicians and osteopathic physicians involves four years of undergraduate college education, four years of medical school, one-year internship, and one to two years of residency, but is more specifically set out for licensing purposes in Sections 458.311-458.318, Florida Statutes, for allopaths, and Sections 459.0055-459.008, Florida Statutes, for osteopaths. All of these courses/periods of learning involve, to a greater or lesser degree, learning to use and interpret modern laboratory and imaging tests. The traditional course of education for acupuncturists involves only two years of college and four years of acupuncture schooling, but is more specifically set out for licensing purposes by Section 457.105, Florida Statutes. Four hours per week for one year is about the extent of training in the use and interpretation of modern laboratory tests and imaging films afforded acupuncture students. There clearly are more stringent requirements for licensure of allopaths and osteopaths than for acupuncturists. Allopaths and osteopaths clearly spend more time training in the ordering, use, and interpretation of modern laboratory tests and film imaging. As previously stated (see Finding of Fact 14), an acupuncturist, as defined by law, . . . employs acupuncture diagnosis and treatment, as well as adjunctive therapies and diagnostic techniques for the promotion, maintenance, and restoration of health and the prevention of disease . . .(Emphasis supplied). Section 458.305(3), Florida Statutes, defines the "practice of medicine" as "Practice of medicine" means the diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or physical or mental condition. (Emphasis supplied). Section 459.003(3), Florida Statutes, defines the "practice of osteopathic medicine" as "Practice of osteopathic medicine means the diagnosis, treatment, operation, or prescription for any human disease, pain, injury, deformity, or other physical or mental condition, which practice is based in part upon educational standards and requirements which emphasize the importance of the musculoskeletal structure and manipulative therapy in the maintenance and restoration of health. (Emphasis supplied). The following statutes express the Legislature's intent with regard to regulation of acupuncturists, allopaths, and osteopaths: 457.101 Legislative Intent - The Legislature finds that the interests of the public health require the regulation of the practice of acupuncture in this state for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens while making this healing art available to those who seek it. 458.301 Purpose - The Legislature recognizes that the practice of medicine is potentially dangerous to the public if conducted by unsafe and incompetent practitioners. The Legislature finds further that it is difficult for the public to make an informed choice when selecting a physician and that the consequences of a wrong decision could seriously harm the public health and safety. The primary legislative purpose in enacting this chapter is to ensure that every physician practicing in this state meets minimum requirements for safe practice. It is the legislative intent that physicians who fall below minimum competency or who otherwise present a danger to the public shall be prohibited from practicing in this state. 459.001 Purpose - The Legislature recognizes that the practice of osteopathic medicine is potentially dangerous to the public if conducted by unsafe and incompetent practitioners. The Legislature finds further that it is difficult for the public to make an informed choice when selecting an osteopathic physician and that the consequences of a wrong decision could seriously harm the public health and safety. The primary legislative purpose in enacting this chapter is to ensure that every osteopathic physician practicing in this state meets minimum requirements for safe and effective practice. It is the legislative intent that osteopathic physicians who fall below minimum competency or who otherwise present a danger to the public shall be prohibited from practicing in this state. There was competent testimony that allopathic and osteopathic physicians may utilize acupuncture in the practice of their professions, as defined respectively at Sections 458.305(3) and 459.003(3), Florida Statutes. They are permitted to perform acupuncture, although their traditional course of professional education and training involves fewer (or no) hours of acupuncture education and training than are required under Chapter 457, Florida Statutes, the acupuncture practice Act. Presumably, that is because their respective professions and the Legislature have recognized that the training of allopaths and osteopaths encompasses the appropriate skills for acupuncture. However, if they perform acupuncture, they can only be disciplined under their respective practice Acts, Chapters 458 and 459, Florida Statutes. The Board of Acupuncture has no authority to discipline them. The record is silent as to whether or not Physicians Assistants, whether FAPA members or not, may legitimately perform acupuncture. To "practice medicine" or to "practice osteopathic medicine," as those terms have been respectively defined by Sections 458.305(3) and 459.003(3), Florida Statutes, do not render modern laboratory tests and imaging films unique to medical or osteopathic diagnosis. However, Harvey Kaltsas, a Florida-licensed acupuncturist and a member of the Board of Acupuncture, testified that "traditional Chinese medical concepts," and "modern oriental medical techniques" include gynecological and obstetric services, abortions, and cut-and-stitch surgery and that these services are performed by acupuncturists in China today. He further testified that the Board of Acupuncture believed that these tasks are "better handled" by allopathic physicians, and therefore the Board of Acupuncture has promulgated rules (most particularly the unchallenged rules addressing adjunctive therapies) which do not list these services. The Board believed that by not listing these services, it was prohibiting its licensees from performing them. The Board further asserts that its challenged rules only define "traditional Chinese medical concepts" and "modern oriental medical techniques" as used in Chapter 457, Florida Statutes, to include the use of laboratory tests and imaging findings and to clearly specify that "diagnostic techniques" for acupuncturists also include the use of modern laboratory test findings, and use of imaging films, reports, and test findings. There was competent testimony that modern laboratory Chinese medical tests on urine and feces evolved from ancient and traditional concepts and are regularly used in China and the orient by acupuncturists today. There was competent testimony that comparison of x-rays, at least for gross chest problems or for placement of acupuncture needles, is taught in an acupuncture college in Florida as part of its usual and required curriculum today. Allopaths and osteopaths use laboratory tests, imaging films, and reports thereon to reach an initial diagnosis and to test and revise that diagnosis through a course of treatment. Dr. West testified that he relies on his own "reading" of x-rays for his specialty of cardiology, while other allopaths may rely on a radiologist to read x-rays for them or may rely on a radiology report. Diagnosis is also a part of acupuncture. Acupuncturists want to use modern laboratory tests and imaging films to reach an initial diagnosis and to test that diagnosis through a course of treatment. They want to use laboratory tests and film imaging to properly direct their own initial treatment efforts, such as using urinalysis to eliminate a urinary tract infection before treating muscles and bones for a backache. They want to determine blood clotting speeds via an INR test on persons presenting with a prescriptive history of blood-thinner use, such as Coumadin, before using acupuncture needles. They want to be able to eliminate conditions they do not feel competent to treat, i.e. cancer, and to properly refer those patients for treatment by allopaths and osteopaths. Modern laboratory test results are variously formatted, sometimes as a report or value and result. X-rays are frequently the subject of a narrative report from a radiologist. Some modern imaging results are available directly to the public, like mobile TB screenings.
The Issue Whether the Florida Medical Association, Inc. and Florida Association of Physicians Assistants have standing to initiate this challenge to an existing rule. (See Section 120.56(3), Florida Statutes.) Whether Rule 64B1-3.001(6), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it exceeds the Board of Acupuncture's rulemaking authority contained in Section 457.104, Florida Statutes. (See Section 120.52(8)(b), Florida Statutes). Whether Rule 64B1-3.001(6), Florida Administrative Code, constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the provisions of Section 457.102, Florida Statutes. (See Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes).
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that Petitioner FMA is organized and maintained for the benefit of approximately 16,000 licensed allopathic and osteopathic Florida physicians. FMA's standing in this proceeding has always been at issue. The foregoing stipulation encompasses all of the factual allegations about the Petitioner contained in the Petition. It was stipulated that there is only one Respondent, the Board of Acupuncture, created by the Florida Legislature and placed within the Florida Department of Health. It is axiomatic that the Respondent has standing herein. There were no stipulations as to the standing of either Intervenor, and both the Board and FSOMA have asserted in their respective Proposed Final Orders that FAPA, as well as FMA, is without standing to bring this rule challenge. However, no party has contested the veracity of the factual statements concerning standing in either Petition to Intervene, and no party opposed intervention. The Petitions to Intervene of FAPA and FSOMA were granted, subject to proving-up standing at hearing. Even stipulations as to standing do not preclude consideration of standing as a matter of law. Florida Medical Ass'n., Inc., et al. v. Dept. of Health, Florida Bd. of Nursing, et al., DOAH Case No. 99-5337RP (Final Order March 13, 2000), per curiam affirmed Bd. of Nursing, et al. v. Florida Medical Ass'n. Inc., So. 2d (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Therefore, under these circumstances, and applying that case, the Intervenors' factual allegations for purposes of standing may be taken as true for findings of fact, but each Intervenor's status still depends upon that of the respective party upon whose behalf each Intervenor entered this case. Therefore, with regard to the status of FAPA, it is found that: FAPA is organized and maintained for the benefit of the licensed Florida physicians assistants who compromise [sic] its membership and has as one of its primary functions to represent the interests of its members before various governmental entities of the State of Florida, including the Department of Health and its boards. (FAPA Petition to Intervene) Therefore, with regard to the status of FSOMA, it is found that: FSOMA is a Florida nonprofit corporation comprised of over one-third of the doctors of oriental medicine and licensed acupuncturists under the regulatory aegis of the Board of Acupuncture, State of Florida Department of Health, Chapter 457, F.S., with a mission to represent the acupuncture and oriental medicine practitioner interests of its members in judicial administrative, legislative and other proceedings. (FSOMA Petition to Intervene) Existing Rule 64B1-3.001(6), Florida Administrative Code, was promulgated by the Board of Acupuncture. The challenged rule provides: (6) Acupuncture physician means any person certified as provided in this Chapter to practice acupuncture as a primary health care provider. The rule was adopted on August 13, 1984. It was most recently amended on February 27, 1992. The "authority" cited by the Board for the challenged rule is Section 457.104, Florida Statutes. The Board cites the "law implemented" for the challenged rule as Section 457.102, Florida Statutes. Section 457.104, Florida Statutes, currently provides: The board has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement provisions of this chapter conferring duties upon it. Section 457.102, Florida Statutes, currently provides: "Acupuncture" means a form of primary health care, based on traditional Chinese medical concepts and modern oriental medical techniques, that employs acupuncture diagnosis and treatment, as well as adjunctive therapies and diagnostic techniques, for the promotion, maintenance, and restoration of health and the prevention of disease. Acupuncture shall include, but not be limited to, the insertion of acupuncture needles and the application of moxibustion to specific areas of the human body and the use of electroacupuncture, Qi Gong, oriental massage, herbal therapy, dietary guidelines, and other adjunctive therapies, as defined by board rule. "Acupuncturist" means any person licensed as provided in this chapter to practice acupuncture as a primary health care provider. "Board" means the Board of Acupuncture. "License" means the document of authorization issued by the department for a person to engage in the practice of acupuncture. "Department" means the Department of Health. "Oriental medicine" means the use of acupuncture, electroacupuncture, Qi Gong, oriental massage, herbal therapy, dietary guidelines, and other adjunctive therapies. "Prescriptive rights" means the prescription, administration, and use of needles and devices, restricted devices, and prescription devices that are used in the practice of acupuncture and oriental medicine. (Emphasis supplied) Section 457.116(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides: A person may not: (b) Use, in connection with his or her name or place of business, any title or description of services which incorporates the words "acupuncture," "acupuncturist," "certified acupuncturist," "licensed acupuncturist," "oriental medical practitioner"; the letters "L.Ac.," "R.Ac.," "A.P.," or "D.O.M."; or any other words, letters, abbreviations, or insignia indicating or implying that he or she practices acupuncture unless he or she is a holder of a valid license issued pursuant to ss. 457.101-457.118; (Emphasis supplied) It was stipulated that witnesses for the Respondent Board of Acupuncture would testify that "A.P." as employed in Section 457.116 (1) (b), Florida Statutes, means "acupuncture physician."1
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing score on the Physical Diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that develops, administers, scores, and reports scores for licensure examinations, such as the examination at issue in this proceeding. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine is created as a part of Respondent by Section 460.404(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 456.013(4), Florida Statutes, this Recommended Order is to be forwarded to the Board of Chiropractic Medicine, which will enter a final order. Section 460.406(1), Florida Statutes, provides that anyone seeking licensure as a chiropractic physician must pass a licensure examination. The Florida Chiropractic Medicine Licensure Examination consists of two portions: (a) a practical examination and (b) a Florida Laws and Rules examination. The practical examination is further subdivided into three areas: (a) interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films (the X-ray portion), (b) physical diagnosis, and (c) technique. A candidate cannot be licensed as a chiropractic physician until he or she has passed all portions of the licensure examination, including the physical diagnosis portion. In May 2001, Petitioner sat only for the physical diagnosis portion, having passed all other portions in a prior examination. The physical diagnosis section is a practical examination that tests a candidate's competency to choose, name, demonstrate, and interpret diagnostic imaging and laboratory reports based on a hypothetical case history. The examination generally presents a case history, including the patient's complaint and vital signs, then asks a series of questions designed to lead to a diagnosis. The examination also asks some separate, stand-alone questions designed to elicit knowledge of specific techniques, such as how to obtain particular diagnostic imaging views. The physical diagnosis section of the May 2001 examination consisted of 26 tasks, for which varying numbers of points were awarded for correct answers. Two examiners evaluated the candidate's performance and independently awarded scores for each task. Petitioner's overall score was the average of the two examiners' scores. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section met the criteria for selection as examiners. An examiner must have been licensed in Florida as a chiropractor for at least five years, must not have had a chiropractic or other health care license suspended, revoked, or otherwise acted against, and must not be currently under investigation by the Department or any other state or federal agency. Rule 64B2-11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department requires each examiner to attend a training session prior to administration of the examination. The training is designed to ensure that scoring standards are uniform and objective among the various examiners. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section had successfully completed the training session. The first series of questions on the physical diagnosis section dealt with a female patient in her early thirties whose main complaint was constant, severe pain in her left calf. The patient's temperature was slightly elevated at 99.8ºF, and she had swelling in her left ankle. Ultimately, the candidate was expected to arrive at a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis, inflammation of a vein in the left calf. Tasks 1 and 2, for which Petitioner received full credit, required the candidate to obtain a case history from the patient and to discuss the physical examination the candidate would perform on the patient. Task 3 asked the candidate to identify what laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, if any, should be used to assist in arriving at a diagnosis. Task 4 asked the candidate to state his reasoning for choosing these tests. The correct answer to Task 3 was that the candidate should order either an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test or a C-reactive protein (CRP) test. The correct answer to Task 4 was that the ESR and CRP assess the inflammatory processes that the candidate should suspect in the patient's left calf. On Task 3, Petitioner responded that he would order a complete blood count (CBC) and a urinalysis. On Task 4, Petitioner responded that he chose these tests because the patient's increased temperature indicated that there might be an infection present, and that a CBC and urinalysis are useful tests for infection. Task 3 was worth a maximum of four points. Task 4 was worth a maximum of three points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 3 and for Task 4. The results of the physical examination, particularly "Homan's sign," or pain in the calf with dorsiflexion of the foot, caused Petitioner to suspect thrombophlebitis. Petitioner knew of no laboratory test that returns a specific positive result for thrombophlebitis. He introduced textbook references to establish that the ESR and CRP tests are not specific to diagnosing thrombophlebitis. Petitioner did not believe that Tasks 3 and 4 gave him the option of ordering no laboratory tests at all, so he chose the most common tests that would at least confirm that no infection was present. Dr. Densmore, Respondent's expert, agreed with Petitioner that a positive Homan's sign is specific for diagnosing thrombophlebitis. However, he disagreed with Petitioner's choice of ordering a CBC and urinalysis. Dr. Densmore admitted that many doctors order these tests as a general standard for all patients, but stated that in this case they would do nothing to narrow the diagnosis. The CBC and urinalysis are useful for identifying infections; thrombophlebitis is an inflammatory disease, not an infectious disease. Dr. Densmore conceded that ESR and CRP are not specific to thrombophlebitis. However, Dr. Densmore believed that Petitioner should have chosen ESR or CRP because inflammation is present in 90 percent of thrombophlebitis cases and therefore those tests would assist the practitioner in arriving at a diagnosis. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for his answer to Tasks 3 and 4 because his answers were not the best answers to those questions. The correct answers set forth by the Department were supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Task 5 dealt with the same patient discussed above, and asked the candidate to indicate which, if any, diagnostic imaging procedures should be performed. The correct answer, worth four points, was "none" or "A-P & lateral leg." "A-P" stands for anteroposterior, or from the front to the back. On the videotape of the examination, Petitioner appeared confused by the question. He said that he would x-ray the "lower leg." One of the examiners asked him to be more specific as to which views he would take. Petitioner stated that he would x-ray the ankle because of the swelling there. Petitioner then mentioned the swelling in the calf, and stated that he would x-ray the "femur." The femur is the thigh bone, extending from the pelvis to the knee. An x-ray of the femur obviously would reveal nothing about the condition of the patient's calf. The examiner, likely sensing Petitioner's confusion, advised Petitioner to read the question again. Petitioner read the question aloud, then reiterated that he would take x-rays of the patient's ankle and femur. Task 5 was worth a maximum of four points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 5. Petitioner contended that he should have received partial credit for his initial response that he would x-ray the lower leg. However, Task 5 required the candidate to identify the specific views of the x-rays he would take. When the examiner asked him to name the specific views, Petitioner identified the femur. The context of the discussion makes it evident that Petitioner must have been thinking of the fibula or the tibia, i.e., the bones of the lower leg, when he repeatedly named the femur in connection with the patient's calf pain. However, the examiners had no choice but to grade Petitioner on the answer he actually gave. Petitioner should not be awarded any points for his answer to Task 5. Task 18 was a stand-alone question dealing with x- rays. The challenged portion of Task 18, worth two points, asked the candidate what he would do to obtain a quality lumbar spine x-ray of a severely obese patient if his office was equipped with a 300/125 x-ray machine. One of the examiners specified that this patient weighs around 500 pounds. The correct answer was that the candidate would use a higher capacity x-ray machine or refer the patient to a facility that has one. Petitioner's answer was that he would collimate close to the area of injury, decrease milliampere seconds (mAs), increase kilovolt peak (kVp) to increase penetration, and use a rare earth screen. Again, Petitioner appeared to be confused by the question. At the hearing, he testified that Task 18 did not ask what specific view he would take of the obese patient, whether of the arm, the chest, or the skull. Petitioner misread the question. Task 18 clearly states that the required view is of the patient's lumbar spine. Petitioner's misreading of the question led him to treat Task 18 as an x-ray physics question, hence his response, intended to demonstrate how he would maximize the clarity of an x-ray using the equipment at hand. Dr. Densmore stated that an x-ray of a patient this size taken on this equipment would simply be a white picture because of the amount of fatty tissue involved. With a patient of this size, the kVp would have to be increased so much that the practitioner would over-radiate the patient. The practitioner would have no choice but to send the patient out for an x-ray on a higher capacity machine. The examiners independently awarded Petitioner zero points for his response to this portion of Task 18. Their scoring was correct, supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Petitioner alleged that the Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) provided him by the Department did not adequately prepare him for format changes that occurred since his first sitting for the examination. Petitioner compared the CIB for the May 2001 examination to that for the November 2001 examination. He found that the detailed sample questions in the November 2001 CIB more closely reflected the examination he took in May 2001, and contended that the May 2001 CIB was outdated at the time it was distributed. All candidates for the May 2001 examination received the same Candidate Information Booklet that Petitioner received. Respondent's psychometrician, Dr. Linda Dean, testified that the passing rate for the May 2001 examination was in the range of 70 percent, consistent with other administrations of the examination. Petitioner's allegation concerning the adequacy of the CIB is not supported by the evidence. Petitioner also alleged that he was placed at a disadvantage by the fact that the examiners appeared to know that he was not taking the examination for the first time. Both Dr. Dean, the psychometrician assigned to the chiropractic licensure examination, and Dr. Densmore, who has served as an examiner many times, testified that examiners are not told the names or the status of the candidates. Dr. Dean testified that nothing is done to segregate first-time candidates from those who are retaking the examination, though an examiner may suspect that a candidate who is sitting for only one section of the examination is retaking that section. Even if Petitioner's allegation were credited, it would not change the result. Petitioner's responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 were incorrect. The examiners properly awarded him zero points for those tasks. Their knowledge that he was retaking the physical diagnosis section had no bearing on Petitioner's incorrect responses to the challenged tasks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order denying Petitioner additional credit for his responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination administered in May 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Allan Niebrugge 4785 Barkley Circle No. 22 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Should Petitioner receive a passing grade for the technique portion for the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination (the examination) administered by Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner practices chiropractic in Massachusetts. In November 1997, Petitioner took the Florida chiropractic licensure examination. To pass that examination it was necessary for Petitioner to score 75 points on the technique portion of the examination. Petitioner received a score of 70 points. Petitioner disputes the scores received on several questions, described as questions 1, 4, and 7. Each contested question is worth five points. As a candidate for licensure, Petitioner received an information booklet which contained a reading list informing the candidates of writings of experts in various subjects covered by the examination, upon whom the candidates should rely. This included a list of experts in the technique portion of the examination. Respondent intended to defer to the opinions of those experts in grading the candidates. Additionally, Petitioner and other candidates in the November 1997 examination, were provided written instructions concerning the technique portion of the examination. Those instructions stated: TECHNIQUE EXAMINATION FORM 1 Demonstrate the following chiropractic techniques on the patient. For each technique, indicate the patient and doctor position. location of the segment. patient and doctor contact point. line of drive. Do not actually perform the techniques, but set them up and indicate how you would perform them. If the technique is grossly inadequate and/or clinically inappropriate, no credit will be given for that technique. Technique 1: Bilateral Anterior-Superior Ilia Technique 2: Posterior Radial Head on Left Technique 3: Plantar Cuboid Technique 4: Posterior Superior Occiput on Right Technique 5: L-2, Left Posterior Spinous Yes or No for position, location, contact, and line of drive/correction CHIROPRACTIC PRACTICAL EXAMINATION 11/97 TECHNIQUE (EXAMINER) The expectation was that each candidate in the examination would set up and indicate the manner in which the candidate would perform the five techniques and the four specific positions, locations, contact points, and lines of drive related to the five techniques, without actually performing to conclusion. Petitioner and other candidates were graded by two examiners. The examiners, in scoring the candidates, used a grading sheet which described the activities by referring to the five techniques as cases. The various positions, locations, contact points, and lines of drive were numbered 1 through 20, with the first four numbers referring to case 1, numbers 5 through 8 referring to case 2, et cetera. Before performing as examiners in the November 1997 session, the examiners who graded Petitioner underwent training to ensure that they followed the same criteria for scoring the Petitioner. Petitioner contests the scores that he received in relation to technique 1 position a./case 1 position 1; technique 1 line of drive d./case 1 line of drive 4; and technique 2 patient and contact point c./case 2 contact point 7. Those items respectively correspond to questions 1, 4, and 7, referred to by the parties. After the two examiners entered the individual scores for the various items within a technique, the scores by the individual examiners were added to arrive at an aggregate score. The aggregate score was then divided by two to reach the final results on the technique portion of the examination. By that arrangement Petitioner received a score of 70 points, insufficient to pass the technique portion of the examination. Although examiner 07, in the score sheet reference case 1 position 1, marked "Y" to point out that the Petitioner had achieved compliance with the expectations of that technique, the examiner did not assign five points to the Petitioner indicating credit for that item. Instead the score sheet reflects zero points for the item. Examiner 15 in relation to that item, wrote "N" on the score sheet signifying non-compliance and provided zero points for non-compliance. In all other respects the scores of the two examiners in relation to the technique portion of the examination, to include the disputed items, were in accord. Notwithstanding the determination by the initial examiners that Petitioner had failed the technique portion, Respondent instituted a non-rule policy to have three additional examiners review Petitioner's performance on the technique portion, by resort to the audio-video tape that had been made during the pendency of the technique portion of the examination. Apparently, Respondent in view of the reference by examiner 07 to "Y," indicating compliance with case 1 position 1, treated the item in a manner which signified compliance. Thus Petitioner was entitled to 5 points on the score sheet of examiner 07. The activities of the discrepancy reviewers were designed to determine whether that view finding compliance should be upheld in a setting where examiner 15 had entered "N" for that item signifying non-compliance. The review was expected to break the impasse. The three reviewers determined that Petitioner had not complied with the requirements of case 1 position 1. As a result, the score of 70 points, the average arrived at by adding and then dividing the two 70-point scores assigned by the original examiners was upheld. When Petitioner was given notice of the examination results, the 70-point score for the technique portion was reflected in those results. By inference it is found that the original examiners and discrepancy reviewers practiced chiropractic in Florida. In reference to case 1 position 1, examiner 15 commented about "contact P.S.I.S. should be ischium." P.S.I.S. stands for Postier Superior Iliac Spine. Examiner 07 made no comment concerning that item. In reference to case 1 line of drive 4, both examiners felt that Petitioner had not complied with that requirement. Examiner 07, in commenting, stated "not on ischium." Examiner 15 commented "wrong line of drive." In reference to case 2 contact point 7, examiner 07 commented, "Not thumb-thenar." Examiner 15 commented, "No thumb contact." At the hearing to contest the preliminary determination finding Petitioner to have failed the technique portion of the examination, Petitioner offered his testimony as an expert in chiropractic concerning the several items at issue. To rebut that testimony, Respondent presented Dr. Darryl Thomas Mathis, an expert who practices chiropractic in Florida. Dr. Mathis also served as an examiner in the licensure examination, but did not test Petitioner. In his opinion Petitioner feels that he is entitled to additional points on each of the several questions at issue. In his opinion, Dr. Mathis disagrees. In explaining his performance related to case 1 position 1, Petitioner opined that his placement of the patient in the side posture position was correct. Petitioner also opined that his position for the case was correct. By contrast to the Petitioner's opinion concerning case 1 position 1, Dr. Mathis expressed the opinion that Petitioner's position in addressing the patient was incorrect. According to Dr. Mathis, Petitioner had his hand pointing upward parallel to the spine of the patient and not 90 degrees to the spine when contacting the ischium as required. In Dr. Mathis' opinion the table height for the examination area Petitioner was working in did not prohibit Petitioner from positioning himself appropriately to demonstrate his position reference to the patient. Dr. Mathis' opinion is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for case 1 position 1. In reference to case 1 line of drive 4, Petitioner offered his explanation in the examination that he would use the opposite of the actual listing. He opined that given the way that the inter-joint subluxates, one would go in the opposite direction to get a more neutral setting. Therefore when dealing with anterior-superior, one would go postier and inferior to accomplish the opposite of the listing. In contrast, Dr. Mathis, in offering his opinion about this item, referred to the anterior-superior listing as one in which the pelvis, in the circumstance that is bilateral, makes it such that both hip bones, or the pelvis in its entirety, has tipped forward and up over the femur heads or leg bones. Noting that Petitioner stated in his examination that he would thrust in the opposite manner, postier to anterior, meaning back to front, and superior to inferior, from top to bottom, Dr. Mathis opined that Petitioner was partially correct. However, Dr. Mathis was persuaded that additional information was required as to the actual angle or direction of thrust determined by the shaft of the femur or leg bone, and this additional information was not addressed by Petitioner. Dr. Mathis criticizes Petitioner's explanation of the technique to be employed on this item by leaving out the shaft of the femur as constituting the determinate of the angle employed. Moreover, Dr. Mathis did not believe that Petitioner could, in the attempt to demonstrate the technique at issue, perform adequately. The Petitioner was on the upper portion of the pelvis or ilium as opposed to being on the ischium, or lower portion of the pelvis. Consequently, according to Dr. Mathis, if Petitioner was going to thrust in the direction that Petitioner stated he would, he could not get the correction that he was attempting to obtain because Petitioner was on the wrong segment or portion of the pelvis. As Dr. Mathis perceives it, Petitioner could not physically accomplish by demonstration, what he claimed he could do because Petitioner was in the wrong location to make that correction. Dr. Mathis' opinion about case 1 line of drive 4 is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for this item. Case 2 contact point 7 is what Petitioner refers as to tennis elbow. Petitioner concedes that normally he would use the thumb as the contact point; however, he offers his opinion that during the time of his practice, he has learned other techniques. According to Petitioner, those other techniques are especially useful to address an acute patient with a lot of swelling, where a thumb contact can be painful. Therefore, Petitioner believes that the thenar, the soft part of the palm of the hand below the thumb, is appropriate as a contact point in an acute situation. Given this alternative, Petitioner did not believe that his use of the thenar in the examination was harmful. By contrast Dr. Mathis believes that the thumb is the only acceptable answer. Further, Dr. Mathis stated that the reference list provided to Petitioner and other candidates prior to the examination, in association with A.Z. States' description of the appropriate technique, upon which the Respondent relied in determining the appropriate answer for this item, concludes that the thumb is to be employed in this technique. Dr. Mathis' opinion is accepted. Petitioner is not entitled to receive points for case 2 contact point 7.
Recommendation It is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued finding that Petitioner did not pass the technique portion of the 1997 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John Bisanti 150 Sumner Avenue Springfield, Massachusetts 01108 Ann Marie Frazee, Esquire Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Eric G. Walker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0752
