The Issue The issues presented herein are whether or not Respondent's incense to practice medicine should be suspended, revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Chapters 458 and 893, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint filed herein signed May 31, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received, stipulations of the parties and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent is a medical doctor and has been issued license number ME 0017825. Respondent's last known address is 2361 N.W. 24 Terrace, Miami, Florida 33172. (Stipulation of the parties) Respondent has been licensed as a medical doctor in Florida since 1971. Respondent studied at Havana University School of Medicine and graduated in 1957. He practiced in Cuba from 1957 through 1966. During that period, he was engaged in a general practice and was also a psychiatrist at Clinica Dependiente. While at Clinica Dependiente, Respondent served as a medical director for the rehabilitation of minors and as medical director for Santa Clinica Psiquiatria. Respondent relocated from Cuba and came to Miami on or about February 15, 1967. Respondent sat for the Federation of State and Medical Boards of the United States during September of 1968, the standardized test for graduates of foreign medical schools. During 1968 and 1969, Respondent was engaged as a psychiatrist at Halifax District Hospital in Daytona Beach, Florida. During 1969, he served a rotating internship at Mount Sinai Hospital for one year. Thereafter, he served rotating internships at Doctors, Victoria, Parkway and one other hospital in the Dade County area until approximately 1974. During his tenure at Halifax Hospital, Respondent treated some parties who were drug addicts. Respondent admits to having treated the patients referred to in the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Additionally, pursuant to Petitioner's Request for Admissions filed herein, Respondent has admitted the allegations set forth in paragraphs 3, 10, 17, 24, 31, 38, 45, 52 and 59 of the Administrative Complaint, to wit: Between the dates of approximately January 5, 1981 and December 15, 1981, Respondent prescribed 360 Dilaudid 2/ (Hydromorphone), a controlled substance, pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for Patrick Golden. Between the dates of approximately March 26, 1981 and January 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 1425 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ellen Henderson. Between the dates of approximately March 2, 1981 and November 11, 1982, Respondent prescribed 855 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ronald Chica. Between the dates of approximately May 12, 1981 and January 9, 1982, Respondent prescribed 132 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for James Brannigan. Between the dates of approximately February 19, 1981 and February 2, 1982, Respondent prescribed 965 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Gilbert Fernandez. Between the dates of approximately November 21, 1981 and December 12, 1981, Respondent prescribed 180 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Patsy Gamlin. Between the dates of approximately January 7, 1981 and January 14, 1982, Respondent prescribed 820 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Rudolph Ferguson. Between the dates of approximately February 24, 1981 and February 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 2220 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Michael Salle. Between the dates of approximately February 24, 1981 and February 15, 1982, Respondent prescribed 2190 Dilaudid (Hydromorphone) for Ronald Weatherington. Dale K. Lindberg, M.D., was tendered and received as an expert in these proceedings in the area of Family Practice, Methadone and Drug Addiction. Dr. Lindberg has been instrumental in establishing a methadone detoxification program at Memorial Hospital in Hollywood, Florida. Methadone is the only legally recognized Schedule II controlled substance used in this country for the treatment of drug addiction. Private practitioners, pursuant to specific federal law, cannot legally administer methadone or any other Schedule II controlled substance for the treatment of drug addition. In order to qualify or be certified to treat drug addicts, application must be made simultaneously with the Federal Food and Drug Administration (to their Methadone Monitor Division), to the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and to the Federal Department of Mental Health and Drug Abuse. Upon certification with these governmental departments, only then can a physician prescribe methadone to a drug addict to be ingested in oral form, once a day. (21 C.F.R. 291.505) Dr. Lindberg received and reviewed the nine (9) patients' records listed in the Administrative Complaint as well as the prescriptions written for those patients by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2-19). Dr. Lindberg, after review, concluded that Respondent inappropriately and excessively prescribed Dilaudid to said patients. Dr. Lindberg opined that Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for those patients for "very little indication" and continued over long periods of time prescribing Dilaudid to those patients. He considered that Respondent was maintaining the patients on Dilaudid in violation of the law. (TR 148, 239). Dr. John Handwerker, M.D., testified as an expert herein on behalf of Petitioner. He has served as the first Chairman of the Department of Family Practice at the University of Florida Family and Community Medicine Programs. He is Chairman of the Family Practice Department of Mercy Hospital in Miami and is Assistant Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Miami. Dr. Handwerker is knowledgeable regarding generally prevailing and accepted standards of family practice in Dade County and was accepted, without challenge, as an expert in the field of Family Practice. Dr. Handwerker reviewed the nine (9) patients' records listed in the Administrative Complaint as well as the prescriptions written for each patient. Based upon Dr. Handwerker's review of those records and prescriptions, Respondent committed gross and repeated malpractice. This opinion stems from Respondent's "inappropriately and excessively prescribing Dilaudid to patient for chronic" while the Physicians Desk Reference clearly stated that Dilaudid should not be prescribed for patients with chronic pain. (Testimony of Dr. Handwerker) SPECIFIC PATIENTS A. Patrick Golden first visited Respondent's office on October 7, 1981. Golden complained of chronic pain arising from trauma suffered while he was involved in an industrial accident. His diagnosis was a compression of the fourth and fifth lumbar disk. He was treated for radiculitis. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid to relieve the pain that patient Golden was suffering from and based on the fact that Golden reportedly had been receiving Dilaudid from a former physician. Respondent conducted an examination of patient Golden and prescribed exercises for him. Respondent did not take x-rays although he states that he observed x-rays which had been taken by Golden's former physician. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for Golden because it was the only drug which "killed the pain, unlike motrin and metrobromate." Nearing the end of Respondent's treatment of patient Golden, his wife began stealing Mr. Golden's drugs. Respondent referred her to a methadone program and obtained a notarized statement from Mrs. Golden to substantiate the fact that she was diverting drugs intended for her husband. Respondent observed that patient Golden was becoming addicted to Dilaudid nearing the end of his treatment although throughout the major portion of his treatment of patient Golden, he felt that while he was dependent on Dilaudid, he was not felt that while he was dependent on Dilaudid, he was not "addicted." Respondent tried to reduce the amount of Dilaudid that he was prescribing to patient Golden without success. Respondent believed that Dilaudid was medically necessary to treat patient Golden due to the suffering he was undergoing from the chronic pain. (Respondent's testimony and Petitioner's Exhibit 20). B. Ellen Henderson was treated by Respondent during the dates of approximately March, 1981 through January, 1982. Henderson suffered with her lumbar spine. Patient Henderson took motrin tablets since her preteen years. Patient Henderson has been treated at several methadone centers and is believed to have been taking approximately 25-40 Dilaudid four-milligram tablets per day. Upon Respondent's first treatment of patient Henderson, he advised her that she was "killing herself and that she needed to reduce that terrible dosage of Dilaudid." Patient Henderson was "treated for pain in the back and to reduce the amount of Dilaudid." In this regard, Respondent tried to reduce her intake of Dilaudid to approximately 8 Dilaudid four-milligram tablets per day. When Respondent stopped treating patient Henderson, he had reduced the amount of Dilaudid that he was prescribing for her to approximately 8 four- milligram tablets of Dilaudid per day. C. Respondent treated Ronald Chica from approximately March, 1981 through November, 1982. Chica was treated for spondylolysis--a degeneration of the vertebrae. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid for patient Chica because it relieved the pain. Respondent knew that patient Chica was addicted to the drug Dilaudid. D. James Brannigan was treated by Respondent from approximately May of 1981 through January of 1982. Respondent knew that Mr. Brannigan was dependent upon Dilaudid. Despite this knowledge, Respondent continued to prescribe Dilaudid for Mr. Brannigan in an effort to treat Brannigan's addiction with Dilaudid. Respondent was attempting to ease the withdrawal symptoms that patient Brannigan would suffer if he were immediately cut off from his supply of Dilaudid. E. Respondent treated patient Gilbert Fernandez during the dates of approximately February of 1981 through approximately February of 1982. During that period, Mr. Fernandez suffered from compression features of the ribs and the lumbar region. Mr. Fernandez had a physical and psychological dependence on the drug Dilaudid. Respondent treated patient Fernandez by prescribing Dilaudid tablets for him. Patient Fernandez had been treated at methadone centers in the past and presently was receiving methadone treatment while Respondent was treating him. Respondent prescribed Dilaudid to relieve the pain as well as to ease the withdrawal symptoms that patient Fernandez would undergo if he was immediately taken from the administration of Dilaudid. F. Between the dates of approximately February of 1981 through February of 1982, Respondent prescribed approximately 2,190 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for patient Ronald Wetherington. Patient Wetherington was given approximately 60 tablets every 7 days. Patient Wetherington was addicted to the drug Dilaudid and Respondent ultimately referred him to a methadone center to deal with his withdrawal problems. G. During the period of February, 1981 through February, 1982, Respondent prescribed approximately 2,220 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for patient Michael Sallee. Patient Sallee suffered from and was treated by Respondent for a compression fracture of the fifth lumbar. Mr. Sallee was a cabinetmaker and did considerable lifting in the performance of his work. Respondent knew that Mr. Sallee was dependent upon Dilaudid and continued to prescribe the narcotic during the term of his treatment. Respondent attempted to treat Mr. Sallee's addiction with Dilaudid. H. During the period of January of 1981 through January of 1982, Respondent treated patient Rudolph Ferguson and, during that period, prescribed approximately 820 four-milligram Dilaudid tablets for him. Patient Ferguson suffered from and was treated for back and rib problems from an auto accident. Respondent knew that patient Ferguson was dependent upon the drug Dilaudid and knew he was addicted to Dilaudid. Despite this knowledge, Respondent continued prescribing the drug Dilaudid to patient Ferguson to reduce the withdrawal symptoms and "to continue to treat the disease." Respondent referred patient Ferguson to a methadone clinic and, in fact, drove him to a nearby clinic for treatment. I. Respondent treated patient Patsy Gamlin during the period of November 21, 1981 through December 12, 1981. During that period, he prescribed 180 tablets or approximately 60 tablets every 10-14. Respondent administered a drug screen during December of 1981 and did not treat patient Gamlin after December. Dilaudid is a narcotic analgesic; its principal therapeutic effect is relief of pain. There is no intrinsic limit to the analgesic effect of Dilaudid; like morphine, adequate doses will relieve even the most severe pain. Clinically however, dosage limitations are imposed by the adverse effect, primarily respiratory, depression, nausea and vomiting which can result from high dosages. (Physicians Desk Reference, page 1038 [1984 Edition]) The Physicians Desk Reference has this to say about drug abuse and dependence: Dilaudid is a schedule II narcotic. Psychic dependence, physical dependence, and tolerance may develop upon repeated administration of narcotics; therefore dilaudid should be prescribed and administered with caution. However, psychic dependence is unlikely to develop when dilaudid is used for a short time for treatment of pain. Physical dependence, the condition in which continued administration of the drug is required to prevent the appearance of a withdrawal syndrome, usually assumes clinically significant proportions only after several weeks of continued narcotic use, although some mild degree of physical dependence may develop after a few days of narcotic therapy. Tolerance, in which increasingly large doses are required in order to produce the same degree of analgesia, is manifested initially by a shortened duration of analgesic effect, and subsequently by decreases in the intensity of analgesia. The rate of development of tolerance varies among patients. Prior to prescribing a drug such as Dilaudid, a physician should take a full history from a patient and perform a thorough physical examination. The history should include, inter alia, the patient's chief complaint, with questions from the physician to the patient involving areas of past problems with the nervous system, ears, eyes, lungs, chest, respiratory system, GI tract and urinary tract. The physical examination should involve all body systems, including blood pressure, examination of the head, neck, chest and back regions. If patient complains of low back pain, there should be a physical examination specifically involving the low back area before prescribing the scheduled controlled substance here at issue. The past history is important to determine the duration of the problem, any previous medical treatment, examinations or tests by other physicians regarding the lumbosacral or low back area. A physical examination should be performed designed to elicit indications of neurological evolvement, including straight-leg raise tests, impairment of sensation in the extremities tests and other neurological inquiries. Such a full history and a physical examination is prior to initiating a course of treatment involving treatment of chronic pain due to the existence of a wide assortment of other treatment modalities which might treat the root of the problem, rather than merely being pain symptoms. An examination of the Respondent's records and the prescribing patterns of Dilaudid for the patients involved indicates that Respondent simply made insufficient findings upon which to base the decision to prescribe the drug Dilaudid. By prescribing Dilaudid, without an adequate physical examination, or the gathering of detailed patient medical history, would constitute a failure to conform to the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians under these conditions and circumstances. By continuing to prescribe these drugs, without any involved discussion or consideration of the effect the previous course of treatment had had on the patient, other than simple inquiry by Respondent concerning, as example, how the patient was feeling, 3/ also constitutes inappropriate prescribing of scheduled controlled substances, and demonstrates a failure to conform to the generally accepted an prevailing standards of medical practice in the Dade County community. (Testimony of Dr. Handwerker) Respondent has never been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the past. His past professional record reveals that he has a sincere concern for his patients. Throughout these investigative proceedings and the final hearing herein, the Respondent was candid, forthright and truthful. His prescribing of the controlled substance Dilaudid was based on his mistaken opinion that it was medically necessary to prescribe Dilaudid for his patients. Throughout these proceedings, it became clear that Respondent had not kept abreast of the proper course of treatment, detection and proper prescribing patterns for scheduled drugs for the patients be treated. To Respondent's credit, he has been studying the proper prescribing of controlled substances since the initiation of the investigation and the administrative proceedings involved herein. Respondent has never "faked" exams and every prescription that he wrote was based on an office visit and an exam, though a very cursory exam. Respondent did not receive any illegal profits from the sale of drugs nor did he divert, or attempt to divert, any drugs for illegal profit. His office fees, which range from $15 to $25 were not based on the amount of the drugs prescribed but, rather, on the patient's ability to pay. Respondent operates a small general practice with his wife serving as his receptionist. He personally completes all prescription forms with his wife/receptionist. Patients receiving treatment from Respondent are free to get their prescriptions filled at any pharmacy of their choice. Respondent was unaware and the evidence does not show that any of his patients had prior criminal records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the entire evidence of record, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered imposing a written reprimand and one year's probation upon the Respondent Carlos de la Fe, and requiring that during the probationary, he enroll and complete, to the satisfaction of the Board of Medical Examiners, a continuing medical education course concerned with the appropriate indications for and prescription of scheduled controlled substances. 4/ RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 25th day of October, 1984.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care, failed to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment, improperly delegated professional responsibilities, or prescribed, dispensed or administered controlled substances other than in the course of his professional practice; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed physician in Florida, holding license number 59702. He has been licensed in Florida since 1991. Respondent is Board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. His last certification was in November 2009. Respondent received his bachelor of science degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1978. He received his doctor of medicine degree from Meharry Medical College in Nashville in 1982. He performed a surgical internship from 1982-83 with the Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, an obstetrics and gynecology residency from 1987-91 at the Harbor Hospital Center in Baltimore, and a maternal fetal medicine fellowship from 1991-93 at the University of South Florida. During the residency, Respondent completed a six-week rotation in the mental evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of transgendered patients. The training took place on the campus of Johns Hopkins University, which was one of the first medical schools to offer training in the diagnosis and treatment of transgendered patients. During this rotation, Respondent assumed responsibility for the care of about 30 patients, a little over half transitioning from female to male. From 1991-93, Respondent performed obstetrics and gynecology at several medical facilities in Florida, Maine, and Missouri. From 1993-96, Respondent was the Chief of Perinatology, Healthy Start Program, at the D.C. General Hospital/Howard University in Washington. In 1996, Respondent started the Orlando Women's Center (OWC) in Orlando, which he still owns and operates. He opened a second women's clinic in Orlando the following year. Respondent also participated in the starting of women's clinics in Ocala in 1998, Fort Lauderdale in April 1999, and Tampa in October 1999. In October 1996, about six months after opening, OWC hired M. W. as a medical assistant. She had nearly completed the coursework to become a licensed practical nurse, but at no time material to this case was she ever a licensed health care provider. M. W. was employed by OWC until 1999. M. W. was a diligent employee. Her initial duties were answering the telephone and working in the lab. However, her enthusiasm, intelligence, dedication, and discretion earned M. W. a promotion. In January 1997, Respondent promoted M. W. to a trusted position in which she would care for patients undergoing abortions during the second trimester of pregnancy. Working conditions required M. W. to be on-call nearly all of the time, as certain patients demanded to be admitted during nights or weekends to preserve confidentiality. The work was stressful because some patients bore fetuses with abnormalities, and protestors regularly demonstrated outside the clinic. M. W.'s new duties allowed Respondent himself to observe her work and determine that M. W. had the psychological stability to perform her job well. M. W. demonstrated her trustworthiness by dealing with patients' valuables, opening and closing the clinic, ordering supplies and stocking five surgical rooms, and drawing controlled substances for administration by Respondent. At the end of 1997, Respondent promoted M. W. to ordering and stocking the clinic's medical supplies, which include controlled substances. For Schedule II drugs, which includes narcotics, and Schedule III drugs, which includes steroids, M. W. had to fill out a DEA Form 222, using Respondent's DEA number to place the order. When OWC received Schedule III drugs, M. W. matched the order with the shipment. She then recorded the information in the OWC drug log. M. W. would place the drugs in a locked cabinet, if they were not needed for immediate use in the clinic. After nearly one year of ordering supplies, toward the end of 1998, M. W. approached Respondent to discuss a personal matter. At this point, the material disputes between the parties emerge. Respondent testified that M. W. discussed with him the possibility of undergoing transgender therapy, as well as treatment for an injured shoulder. According to Petitioner, M. W. discussed with Respondent the possibility of using anabolic steroids to improve her bodybuilding and weightlifting. The parties do not dispute that M. W. had participated in bodybuilding and weightlifting for several years prior to her employment with OWC. The Administrative Law Judge credits Petitioner's version of the purpose of treatment. Respondent testified that M. W. told him that she had thought about changing genders for several years. She did not like or want her breasts. She did not like the shape of her hips and thighs. She had decided that she did not want children and did not want to undergo menstruation. Although M. W. may have told Respondent that she did not like her body shape, she did not tell him that she wanted to change into a man. As discussed below, M. W. is not available to confirm or deny Respondent's version of events, and Respondent does not have any medical records documenting his care and treatment of M. W. Assigning a secondary reason for the treatment--healing a long-injured shoulder--is an awkward fit with Respondent's version of events, given the unlikelihood that someone considering a decision as major as changing genders would bother assigning a secondary reason for the decision. This secondary reason for the treatment is a better fit with Petitioner's version of events, although treatment of an injured shoulder was, at most, a very minor factor in the steroid treatment because the reconstructed medical records, discussed below, mention strength and bodybuilding, not recovery from a shoulder injury. The most important reason to credit Petitioner's version of the purpose of the steroid treatment over Respondent's version is that Petitioner's version conforms to Respondent's initial description of the purpose of the treatment. In other words, this is not a case of Respondent's word against contrary inferences drawn by Petitioner; this is a case of Respondent's later word against Respondent's earlier word. The parties do not dispute that, after the initial meeting to discuss the personal matter, Respondent agreed to allow M. W. to order anabolic steroids using his DEA number and at the discounted price charged to OWC. The drugs that Respondent expressly allowed M. W. to order--and which he prescribed for her--were Winstrol and, a short while later, depo-testosterone. Respondent prescribed for M. W. Winstrol orally at the rate of 2 mg per day, increasing to 10 mg per day at the end of six weeks, and depo-testosterone by intramuscular injection, which Respondent administered initially at the rate of 50 mg every two weeks, increasing to 200 mg every two weeks. The parties do not contest that, in early summer 2009, M. W. ordered through OWC sufficient Winstrol and Deca-Durabolin for her weightlifting father and brother, with whom she lived, to complete one six-week bodybuilding cycle each with these two anabolic steroids. For her brother, the evidence establishes that M. W. ordered through OWC additional Winstrol and sufficient depo-testosterone for him to complete a second six- week cycle. The evidence is undisputed that M. W. administered the injections of Deca-Durabolin and depo-testosterone to her brother, Deca-Durabolin to her father, and Deca-Durabolin to herself. M. W. probably took additional Winstrol at home. The evidence is also clear that, in addition to ordering the Winstrol and depo-testosterone in quantities in excess of the amount that she was authorized to order and Deca-Durabolin without any authority whatsoever, M. W. also ordered--without authorization--Xanax, an anti-anxiety drug, and Soma, a muscle relaxant, possibly for her own use. Petitioner contends that Respondent knew or reasonably should have known of these unauthorized orders, but the evidence that Respondent knew is nonexistent, and the evidence that he should have known is insubstantial. There is little, if any, dispute that, unknown to Respondent, M. W. was using cocaine and heroin--by her own admission since early 1998. In late July 1999, Respondent was informed that M. W. had passed out at work. When Respondent spoke with her about this incident, M. W. admitted to the use of cocaine and heroin, most recently a couple of weeks earlier. Respondent immediately withdrew his authorization of M. W. to order supplies and medications for OWC and immediately discontinued further steroid treatment. Acting as M. W.'s employer, not physician, Respondent ordered M. W. to submit to a drug screen for Demerol, which had been missing from OWC,2 Valium, and cocaine. Three weeks later, he received the results, which were positive for cocaine. After giving M. W. an opportunity to discontinue illegal drug use, Respondent ordered M. W. to submit to another drug screen for Demerol, Valium, fentanyl, cocaine, and heroin, and the report, received in late August, was positive for cocaine and Valium. On September 22, 1999, M. W. was found dead in her home by her father. The first law enforcement officers responding to the 911 call reported that they had found a lifeless male dressed in woman's panties; this mistaken observation was based on M. W.'s muscularization and shadowy presence of facial hair. A homicide detective conducting an initial investigation found large quantities of syringes and prescription drugs, mostly steroids, in M. W.'s bedroom. He also found shipping labels and receipts with the names of OWC and Respondent. The parties have stipulated that the death was unrelated to steroid use. M. W.'s death was classified as a natural death. She was 30 years old. In resolving the major factual dispute--i.e., the purpose of the treatment--the Administrative Law Judge has assigned considerable weight to Respondent's earlier responses to law enforcement and regulatory inquiries. In these responses, Respondent never mentioned transgender treatment or gender identity disorder, but instead admitted that the treatment was to enhance athletic performance and to facilitate bodybuilding. In a written reconstruction of the medical records done prior to the commencement of this case, Respondent stated that he was "unable to locate [M. W.'s] chart so I will reconstruct her chart from memory. Last time chart was seen was June [19]99 which was given to [her]." The reconstructed chart shows three office visits: November 7, 1998, March 20, 1999, and June 26, 1999. None of the reconstructed notes mentions anything about lab work being ordered, the results of any lab work, or anything about an injured shoulder and whether it was healing. The entry for November 7 starts: "[Patient] request being placed on testosterone for body building. States she . . . is considering Pro-Wrestling." The notes indicate blood pressure of 118 over 64, pulse of 72, and nothing remarkable from a basic physical examination. The notes state: "Wants to body build; requests steroids." The notes report that Respondent prescribed Winstrol in 2 mg doses and explained the side effects, and Respondent was going to allow M. W. to order her steroid medication from the clinic's vendors. This entry concludes with a note for a followup visit in three months. The entry for March 20, 1999, states that M. W. had no complaints, reported getting stronger, and was happy with "bench," meaning bench-pressing, a form of weightlifting. This note states that M. W. denied experiencing any side-effects and wanted to add a second steroid: "Request to add Depo- Testosterone." The entry for June 26, 1999, notes that M. W. "feels good about herself and her outlook on life is much improved" and is "continuing to [increase] strength [with] weights." This note contains findings of a physical exam, including blood pressure of 124 over 78 and pulse of 72, and the note concludes that M. W. was doing well and Respondent planned to continue the same steroid regime. The other time that Respondent discussed the purpose of the treatment was when he was interviewed by a law enforcement officer on March 10, 2000, in the presence of Respondent's attorney. Respondent did not say anything about transgender treatment or gender identity disorder, and he was evasive when asked if he were M. W.'s physician. When asked if M. W. were ever a patient or just an employee, Respondent responded by referring to the incident when she passed out at work: "She now when you say she would ah the only time when she and I were upstairs that day. . . . And when she had the overdose." The law enforcement officer asked, "And that's like in August [1999]?" Respondent replied, "Yeah. The question was and I and I still haven't been able to define that because she asked me not to tell anybody about her problem with her drug habits and this type of scenario. So the question is whether or not she was a, whether or not honestly she was a patient of mine at that particular point in time."3 Shortly after this exchange, the law enforcement officer asked Respondent if the steroids that Respondent allowed M. W. to order through the OWC were for competitive purposes, such as weightlifting. Respondent replied, "we had a discussion about her wanting to . . . make it so that her, that she could work out harder because she was having some problems with her shoulders and these type of things "4 These reconstructed records and statements to a law enforcement officer were not casual statements uttered in an informal setting. This was information that Respondent provided to assist in the investigation of the circumstances surrounding the death of this 30-year-old woman. Except for mention of a shoulder injury in the last-cited statement--an effort by Respondent to convert the treatment objective from pure enhancement of athletic performance to a mix of enhancement of athletic performance and therapy for some undiagnosed shoulder injury--the information consistently implies that the treatment objective was to improve M. W.'s efforts in bodybuilding and weightlifting. And the mention of the shoulder injury suggests only that its healing was subordinate to the weightlifting and bodybuilding. The failure of the reconstructed records to contain any diagnostic information or progress reports on the injured shoulder precludes a finding that the treatment objective was to heal a shoulder injury. Respondent testified about the importance of confidentiality for his patients, especially M. W., as she was undergoing "gender transformation." But patient confidentiality is not an end in itself; it is a means to assuring that the patient will trust the physician with all relevant information necessary for diagnosis and treatment. Respondent implied that the requirement of patient confidentiality somehow trumped the duty not to affirmatively frustrate investigations into the death of his employee and patient. This makes no sense. Respondent's strained "explanation" for creating a misleading set of medical records yields to the simpler explanation that Respondent told the truth in these reconstructed records and in the police interview: Respondent was treating M. W. with steroids for bodybuilding and wrestling, not for gender transformation and not for an injured shoulder. These findings are supported by the fact that the first drug that Respondent prescribed M. W. was Winstrol. The anabolic effect of a steroid promotes muscularization, and the androgenic effect of a steroid promotes masculinization. Because Winstrol produces more anabolic than androgenic effect, it was long favored by females who wanted to produce muscle mass, such as for bodybuilding, without masculinization. Initiating treatment with Winstrol and following with depo- testosterone is a conventional example of the cyclical use of steroids for muscularization, not masculinization. One of Respondent's expert witnesses made an interesting observation based on the misidentification of the gender of the body of M. W. by the first responders. He testified that, if Respondent had been ordering the anabolic steroids for weightlifting and bodybuilding, M. W. must have been seriously dissatisfied with the masculinization that she had undergone. However, this observation overlooks the fact that M. W., without Respondent's knowledge, had administered to herself unknown quantities of the prescribed anabolic steroids and Deca-Durabolin. Like Winstrol, Deca-Durabolin is more anabolic, or muscle-making, than androgenic, or masculinizing-- which is consistent with M. W.'s intent to enhance her athletic performance and bodybuilding, not change her gender. Although the first responders observed some facial hair, in addition to muscularization, nothing in the record suggests that M. W. could take all of these anabolic steroids in unknown quantities without experiencing some masculinization, or that she expected no such masculinization side effects. Under these circumstances, M. W. could not legitimately have confronted Respondent over the incidental masculinization that she had experienced, while self-administered steroids whose main effect was muscularization, without running the risk that he would detect her unauthorized ordering of steroids. As noted above, there are no available medical records. Respondent testified that he gave M. W.'s medical chart and drug log "VIP" treatment to preserve confidentiality: Respondent allowed M. W. to keep her medical records and the drug log pertaining to her medications. Each time M. W. presented to Respondent, such as for an injection, she brought with her these files, according to Respondent. Petitioner contends that these records never existed, and, therefore, Respondent failed to document that he monitored the effects of the anabolic steroids that he ordered for M. W. The Administrative Law Judge credits Petitioner's version of the situation regarding medical records. At the hearing, Respondent characterized as a mere "sampling" the medical records that he had initially called a reconstruction. He implied that the reconstructed medical records were illustrative of what the records originally contained. This probably explains how he could reconstruct blood pressure readings of 118 over 64 and 126 over 78 taken six and nearly twelve months prior to the reconstruction of the records. Likely, he recalled that the values were normal and inserted these readings merely to illustrate his recollection. However, as noted above, these reconstructed records are significant for their omission of any similar illustrative reconstructions of an SBC for blood chemistry, SMAC 18 for electrolytes and kidney and liver function, and lipids for cholesterol and triglycerides. This lab work is essential, at the start of a course of treatment with anabolic steroids and periodically during treatment, to ensure the safety of any patient, especially when orally ingested anabolics--here, Winstrol--are administered, due to the possibility of liver damage. Respondent testified at the hearing that the lab results were normal, but, unlike his addition of illustrative, normal values for blood pressure and pulse, Respondent never added illustrative, normal values for this lab work. This is because he never ordered such lab work. These lab tests are common in a variety of circumstances, so they did not require the "VIP treatment" that Respondent claimed was required for the transgender treatment plan. However, Respondent never produced medical records or even lab paperwork, such as test results or invoices, documenting that these tests had been done. Also, if such records had existed and Respondent had allowed M. W. to keep them, one obvious place for them would have been in M. W.'s room at her home, but Respondent never sent anyone there to look for them after her death. As to the Standard of Care allegations, Petitioner has thus proved first, that Respondent prescribed steroids for M. W. both for muscle building (not to treat an injured muscle) and for enhancement of athletic performance; and, second, that Respondent did not order lab work to monitor the effects of the steroids that he prescribed for M. W. The evidence fails to establish that Respondent ever undertook the treatment of M. W.'s drug addiction (despite his statement to the contrary, which has been discredited). The evidence fails to establish the circumstances out of which a duty to treat could have arisen, especially within the brief time frame between Respondent's discovery of her drug problems and her death. Any evidence relevant to the remaining allegations within Count One involves the employer-employee relationship, not the physician-patient relationship, between Respondent and M. W. As to the medical records violation, Petitioner has proved that Respondent's medical records failed to adequately document the monitoring of the effects of anabolic steroids that Respondent prescribed for M. W. The evidence establishes the necessity of lab work, at the start and during steroid treatment, to ensure the safety of the patient. Without this lab work, documented in the medical records, the course of steroid treatment is not justified. The evidence fails to establish that Respondent delegated responsibilities to a person whom Respondent knew or reasonably should have known was not qualified by training, experience, or licensure to administered controlled substances to patients. Drug addiction is not a deficit in training, experience, or licensure. Even if drug addiction fell within one of these statutory categories, the evidence fails to establish any improprieties in M. W.'s administration of controlled substances to patients, and, even if the evidence proved such improprieties, the evidence fails to establish that Respondent knew of M. W.'s drug addiction at a point to have timely relieved her of her duties, or that Respondent reasonably should have known of M. W.'s drug addiction in time to do anything about it. To the contrary, Respondent's termination of these responsibilities of M. W. appears to have been timely. Petitioner has proved that Respondent prescribed and administered controlled substances--i.e., anabolic steroids--for muscle building, not the treatment of an injured muscle, and for enhanced athletic performance. Respondent has previously been disciplined. By Final Order entered on December 18, 2007, in DOAH Case No. 06-4288PL, the Board of Medicine imposed one year's suspension, a $10,000 fine, and three years' probation for failing to perform a third- trimester abortion in a hospital and failing to obtain the written certifications of two physicians of the necessity for the procedure; committing an associated medical-records violation; and committing a Standard of Care violation for failing to perform a third-trimester abortion in a hospital. Respondent's acts and omissions occurred in 2005. The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Final Order in Pendergraft v. Department of Health, Board of Medicine, 19 So. 3d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). By Final Order entered on January 28, 2010, in DOAH Case No. 08-4197PL, the Board of Medicine imposed two years' suspension, a $20,000 fine, and three years' probation for committing a Standard of Care violation for failing to a advise subsequent treating physicians that he had removed a portion of a patient's fetus and an associated medical-records violation. Respondent's acts and omissions occurred in 2006. Although Respondent has been disciplined prior to this recommended order, the acts and omissions in this case took place several years prior to the acts and omissions in the two cases described immediately above.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violations of Section 458.331(1)(m), (t), and (q), Florida Statutes (1998), and suspending his license for one year followed by three years' probation, imposing a fine of $10,000, and assessing costs as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2010.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Walter Deryk is a pharmacist licensed in the State of Florida, License No. 12139. On or about July 30, 1980, while in his employment as chief pharmacist at St. Joseph's Hospital in Port Charlotte, Florida, the Respondent took or converted to his own use, without prescription or permission of his employer, the legend drugs described in attachment one to the administrative complaint, and incorporated by reference herein, which were the property of St. Joseph's Hospital. On or about that same date the Respondent packaged the drugs and delivered them to the United Parcel Service in a package marked "souvenirs shells" for shipment to Kenneth J. Moffa in Long Island, New York. Kenneth J. Moffa is a pharmacist licensed in the State of New York. On a number of other occasions prior to July 30, 1980, while in his employment as chief pharmacist at St. Joseph's Hospital and without permission of that employer nor proper prescription, the Respondent similarly converted legend drugs belonging to the hospital to his own use and shipped them to New York. During a routine inspection for proper packaging by the United Parcel Service, it was discovered that the box shipped to New York on July 30, 1980, contained legend drugs which had been taken from St. Joseph's Hospital pharmacy. The Respondent was arrested for theft shortly thereafter and admitted taking the drugs from the pharmacy. Criminal charges were instituted against the Respondent and the Respondent made a motion to suppress the physical evidence based upon allegations of improper search and seizure. The motion was denied in Circuit Court and the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere, but reserving the right to appeal the court's ruling on the suppression issue. That appeal is still pending. The Respondent was convicted in Circuit Court for the theft and this administrative prosecution resulted.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the evidence in the record and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of Walter Deryk authorizing him to practice pharmacy in the State of Florida be REVOKED. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 6th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe St. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John D. Hooker, Esquire Suite 100, The Legal Center 725 E. Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact On June 5, 1985, the Department filed an administrative complaint against the Petitioner. That complaint alleged Petitioner had violated seven subsections of Section 458.331, Florida Statutes. The matter was not referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings until July 10, 1987. The record does not explain the time delay which elapsed between the time of filing the administrative complaint and the time the matter was referred for hearing. On September 7, 1988, a formal hearing was conducted in connection with the matter. On November 16, 1988, a recommended order was entered which recommended the dismissal of all counts of the complaint. The basis for the recommendation was the Department's failure to prove by clear and convincing evidence the facts constituting the alleged violations. A ruling on a preliminary motion had determined that the Department was not entitled to compel the licensee to testify or provide evidence against himself. On February 18, 1989, the Board of Medicine (Board) entered a Final Order, DOAH Case No. 87-2896, which approved and adopted the recommended order, both as to the findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Board rejected all exceptions which had been filed by the Department. Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party" and is entitled to seek attorneys fees pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has not sought fees on another basis. Petitioner filed his petition for fees within 60 days of becoming a prevailing party and has, therefore, timely asserted his claim for fees. The attorney fees and costs which Petitioner seeks are reasonable for the fees and costs incurred for all preparations in these proceedings (prehearing stipulation). The amount claimed to be due Petitioner exceeds $15,000. There are no special circumstances which would make the award of attorney's fees and costs unjust (prehearing stipulation). The administrative complaint which is the subject of this case was filed following a probable cause panel meeting which occurred on May 23, 1985. Present at that meeting were panel members Bass and Feinstein. Information presented to the members included an investigative report. Both members acknowledged that they had thoroughly reviewed the materials related to the allegations against Petitioner. After reviewing the materials, the probable cause panel recommended the filing of the administrative complaint. Included with the investigative report were the following documents: a uniform complaint form, dated October 8, 1984, based upon a letter, dated October 2, 1984, received from the Food and Drug Administration; a copy of a letter dated October 23, 1984, addressed to Petitioner from the investigator informing Petitioner of the pending investigation; a copy of a letter from an attorney on behalf of Petitioner (which letter referenced the Fountain of Life Medical Centers and suggested Petitioner had valid patient/doctor relationships with persons being treated); another letter from the attorney for Petitioner referring to procaine and identifying Petitioner as the staff physician for the clinic under investigation; and an affidavit from an investigator who had attempted to make an appointment to see a doctor at the clinic. The information noted in the investigative report contained alleged admissions made by Petitioner to the investigator. The purported admissions connected Petitioner to the Fountain of Life Medical Centers and the dispensing of the substance, procaine. The investigative file did not contain information as to whether procaine is a legend drug, the identity of any person who had allegedly received the substance from the Petitioner, copies of any medical records related to the dispensing of the substance, or any confirmation that the dispensing of the substance in the manner alleged, if true, would fall below the prevailing standard of practice observed by the medical community. The investigation conducted in this case was inadequate to fully clarify the factual issues prior to the probable cause hearing. The materials submitted to the probable cause panel did, however, create a reasonable basis for the panel's determination for reasons hereinafter discussed in the Conclusion of Law. Counsel for the Department was not present at the probable cause meeting during the discussion of the Petitioner's case. Legal opinions regarding the sufficiency of the factual materials or admissibility of the evidence related to the claims were not sought by the panel nor rendered unsolicited by the counsel for the Board (who was present).
Findings Of Fact Richard Stephan Flatt, M.D., Respondent, is licensed by the Board of Medical Examiners, Department of Professional Regulation (Petitioner) as a medical doctor and was so licensed at all times here relevant. Respondent has been a Board certified Dermatologist since 1957 and has practiced Dermatology in Sarasota for some 20 years. He is 54 years old. Tana Williams was a patient of Respondent in 1971 when he first treated her for warts, and he also treated Ms. Williams' daughter. Afterward she left Sarasota but returned in 1975 or 1976, at which time she was divorced. She visited Respondent's office for treatment of warts on 5 April 1976. Her appointment was near the close of Respondent's office hours. During this visit she told Respondent she was divorced; that she liked older men; and that she would like to see him socially. He suggested she come back to the office after 5:30 p.m. when his nurse normally departed. Upon her return after 5:30, Respondent and Ms. Williams discussed an arrangement whereby he would contribute $250 per month towards her support and spend weekends at the apartment she would occupy. According to Respondent's testimony, at this time he was going through a mid-life crisis and was delighted with the prospects of being desired by a woman 23 years his junior. Some two weeks later the first weekend was shared. Although the situation was very satisfactory to Respondent, the $250 per month was insufficient even to pay the rent, let alone satisfy Ms. Williams' money requirements. Accordingly, Respondent found the liaison was costing more than he could fund from his ready cash. After the 5 April 1976 visit, Ms. Williams did not again visit Respondent's office, or consider herself Respondent' s patient. In addition to cash, Ms. Williams also wanted drugs for her nervous condition and Respondent began supplying her with Quaaludes in the latter part of 1978. By 1979, Ms. Williams was psychologically dependent on Quaaludes and was taking 10 to 12 per day. As Respondent became more financially strapped the Quaaludes were provided for the additional purpose of being converted by Ms. Williams into cash to help maintain her life style. In 1976 Respondent began ordering Quaaludes and Preludin from New York drug houses under his DEA authorization. The Quaaludes started out in quantities of 200 every few months but increased to 1,000 nearly every month by the end of 1979. Most, if not all, of the 11,000 300 mg. Quaaludes Respondent ordered on an Official Order Form for Controlled Substances were given to Ms. Williams. In addition, Respondent ordered Preludin which he also gave to Ms. Williams. Both Preludin and Quaaludes are Class II controlled substances. Due to Ms. Williams' increasing dependence on Quaaludes, nearly half of these drugs given her by Respondent were taken by her. Petitioner presented no evidence that Preludin was wrongfully prescribed or abused. During the nearly four years the relationship continued, several interruptions occurred, due largely to Ms. Williams' living with other men, one of whom she married for a short period of about two months. During the periods Ms. Williams was living with other men, she would contact Respondent to continue or renew their liaison and even threatened suicide and to publicize their relationship to his wife if he did not continue to see her. In the latter months of their association, assignations were arranged at motels at which Respondent gave Ms. Williams money and/or drugs in exchange for sex. In addition to supplying Ms. Williams with drugs obtained on Official Order Forms, Respondent also wrote prescriptions in Ms. Williams' name, in the names of his children, or in the name of a fictitious person. Those prescriptions written in names other than Ms. Williams, Respondent took to Wallpole's Pharmacy personally and picked up the drugs. By this procedure from late 1978 through 1979 Respondent acquired an additional 1,249 300-mg. Quaaludes, 150 Preludin Endurettes, and 100 Preludin tablets which he gave to Ms. Williams. Using a confidential informant, the Sarasota police made two controlled buys of Quaaludes from Ms. Williams and on one of these occasions the informant was wired for sound so his conversations with Ms. Williams could be monitored. With information received from the confidential informant and a surveillance of Ms. Williams' residence, the police became aware that Respondent was Ms. Williams' supplier of drugs. On the morning of 8 February 1980, Ms. Williams was arrested at her home on charges of possession and sale of controlled substances. After being advised of her rights, she was taken down to the State Attorney's office where she was told that she could get up to 10 years in prison for possession and sale of drugs, but that if she cooperated with the police in their case against Respondent, the State Attorney's office would recommend probation rather than jail when she was sentenced. Prior to the arrest of Ms. Williams the Sarasota Police, state and federal drug authorities were aware of Respondent's involvement and were investigating. Respondent, too, was aware of his increasing vulnerability to criminal prosecution and requested a pharmacist to pass the word to the proper authorities that he would like to surrender his DEA certificate, under the authority of which he ordered controlled substances. On February 12, 1980 federal, state and local authorities, armed with information that Respondent had ordered some 11,000 Quaaludes from three New York drug companies during the period from 1976 to the present, visited Respondent's office, told him he was suspected of narcotics violation, read him his rights and asked to see his records. Respondent cooperated fully with the authorities and presented his records which confirmed that Respondent could not account for more than 10,600 Quaaludes during the period from 1976 to the date of the inspection. Respondent made a voluntary statement to the police in which he acknowledged many of the facts noted above. He also voluntarily surrendered his narcotics license. On 22 May 1980, Respondent pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County of two counts of possession of methaqualone and two counts of sale of methaqualone. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, but the Court sentenced Respondent to probation for a period of three years and a $5,000.00 fine on each of the two counts of possession and sale.
The Issue The issue is whether Billy H. Davis, on two occasions, sold to undercover detectives of the Miami Police Department the medicinal drug Ampicillin without prescriptions in contravention of Section 465.015(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1985), and is therefore subject to discipline pursuant to Section 465.016(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985)?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Billy H. Davis ("Mr. Davis"), at all times relevant herein, has been licensed as a pharmacist in the State of Florida, and has been issued license number 0010622. During the period at issue here, Mr. Davis was prescription manager for Service Drugs, Inc. located at 1304 N.W. 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33136 (Exhibits 1 and 2). On March 27, 1985 Detective Carolyn Clarke of the Miami Police Department purchased thirteen red and gray capsules from Mr. Davis for $8.00 (T. 50, 54). She did not present a prescription during the transaction or represent that she had authorization from a physician to obtain any drugs for which a prescription is required (Tr. 52-3). In March of 1985 Officer Jesse J. Williams purchased twelve red and green capsules from Mr. Davis for $8.00 (Tr. 58- 61). He did not present a prescription or indicate that he had authorization from a physician to receive prescription medication during the transaction (Tr. 60). Upon analysis at the Metro Dade Police Department Crime Laboratory, the capsules purchased by Detectives Clarke and Williams proved to be Ampicillin (Tr. 63-77, Department Exhibits 7 and 8). Ampicillin is a prescription or medicinal drug in the United States (Tr. 96). Mr. Davis has sold or dispensed drugs as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes (1985) without first being furnished with a prescription. When the drugs were sold, Mr. Davis had been told by the purchasers that they needed medication either for gonorrhea (Tr. 50) or for an unspecified venereal disease (Tr. 59). Oral antibiotics are not the appropriate treatment for drug-resistant strains of gonorrhea, such as penicillinase- producing neisseria gonorrhea ("PPNG") (Tr. 87). There has recently been a large outbreak of PPNG in Florida, and specifically Dade County and Miami (Tr. 89), with a large portion of the disease occurring in the black community in the Liberty City and Overtown areas (Tr. 90). Self-administration of antibiotics has played a role in the propagation of PPNG, because when there is a drug-resistant strain of venereal disease in a community and patients take antibiotics not appropriate to treat their condition, patients believe that they are getting better when they are still infectious (Tr. 93-94). This may cause those patients, if women, to develop pelvic inflammatory disease which can lead to infertility and occasionally users can develop an infection of the heart valves known as bacterial endocarditis (Tr. 94-95). It is not possible for patients to tell from symptoms or by mere physical examination whether they have been- infected with a drug-resistant strain of PPNG: a patient must have a culture done by a physician to make this determination (Tr. 96).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a final order be entered finding Mr. Davis guilty of violating Sections 465.015(2)(c) and 465.016(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1985). In view of the well-intentioned nature of Mr. Davis' actions, the apparent absence of any profit motive, but keeping in mind the potential public health hazard involved in dispensing of medicinal drugs for the relief of venereal disease without prescription, it is recommended that pursuant to Section 465.016(2)(b), Florida Statutes, his license to practice pharmacy be suspended for a period of thirty days; pursuant to Section 465.016(2)(c), Florida Statutes, that he be fined a total of $250.00; and pursuant to Section 465.016(2)(e), Florida Statutes, within one year he be required to attend continuing education courses pertaining or relating to the appropriate use of medicinal drugs in the treatment of venereal disease. DONE AND ORDERED this 17th day of June 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., 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 17th day of June 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Billy H. Davis 1304 N.W. Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33136 Mr. Rod Presnell Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed, against his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0003174. Respondent, who was first licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida in 1946, retired in 1984 and his license was soon thereafter placed on an inactive status. Respondent is registered with the Drug Enforcement Agency, DEA # AP 0114087, authorizing Respondent to issue controlled substances in Coral Gables, Florida. In June 1987, Respondent resided in or near Franklin, North Carolina. Respondent is not licensed to practice medicine in the State of North Carolina, and he is not authorized to issue controlled substances in the State of North Carolina. On or about June 8, 1987, Respondent authorized Kenneth Leon Murphy, a pharmacist who at that time worked at the Revco Pharmacy in Franklin, North Carolina, to fill a prescription for acetaminophen with codeine and to dispense the same to Respondent. Codeine is a controlled substance as defined by the provisions of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. This prescription was filled on June 8, 1987, by the Revco Pharmacy in Franklin, North Carolina and picked up by Respondent that same day. On June 11, 1987, Respondent wrote a prescription for chloral0 hydrate to be dispensed to himself. Respondent listed his Drug Enforcement Agency number on the prescription. Respondent had the prescription filled by Mr. Murphy at the Revco Pharmacy in Franklin, North Carolina where he personally picked up the prescription. Chloral hydrate is a controlled substance as defined by the provisions of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(q),(r), and (v), Florida Statutes, which reprimands Respondent for these violations, and which places Respondent's licensure on probation for a period of one year. It is recommended that no administrative fine be imposed in consideration of the mitigating factors presented by this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 3670 The proposed finding contained in paragraph ten of the Petitioner's proposed recommended order that Respondent's license is delinquent is rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The remaining proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea Bateman, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William S. Piper, Sr., M.D. 1019 Malaga Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth B. Basley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
