The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent used fraudulent, false, misleading, or deceptive advertising and whether Respondent willfully submitted a claim to a third-party payor for services not rendered to a patient; and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of optometry pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and chapters 456 and 463, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed optometrist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OPC 1738. Respondent is the owner of One Price Optical in Cape Coral, Florida, where he practices optometry and sells eyeglasses. He opened his business in 2000. For the first 13 years of his business, Respondent advertised in an area newspaper, offering a free eye exam for glasses. The advertisement that he published in newspapers until sometime in 2013 is in evidence. At the top of the ad, the words “FREE EYE EXAM” appeared in large, white, all capital letters, against a solid black background. Immediately below, also on the black background in smaller white, all capital letters, was the following: FOR YOU • FOR GLASSES • PATIENTS 7 YEARS & UP Below the prominent white-on-black section, the ad contained information about the business in black print against a white background. The name of the business was the only print as large as the “FREE EYE EXAM” message at the top of the ad. Looking at the ad as a whole, the eyes are drawn to two messages: “FREE EYE EXAM” and “ONE PRICE OPTICAL.” The smaller black print on the white background identified Respondent as the optometrist, provided the address, telephone number, and hours, and listed names of third-party payors, including Medicare, vision plans, and insurance plans. The bottom of the ad contained one more very small black banner with tiny white print, setting forth a disclaimer required by statute and Board rule, regarding a patient’s right to a refund. N.P. saw the newspaper advertisement, and on October 4, 2012, he went to One Price Optical to obtain his free eye exam for glasses. N.P. already had glasses, but wanted to get an updated prescription. N.P. brought the ad with him. N.P. was greeted by staff member Hope Fior who asked what brought him to One Price Optical that day. N.P told her that he wanted the free eye exam. Patients are asked to complete a two-sided patient information form provided to them on a clipboard. Ms. Fior does not recall whether she was the staff person who gave N.P. the clipboard paperwork to fill out, but her initials, “HF,” appear at the top of the first page in the blank for “staff,” suggesting that it was her. Just as Ms. Fior did not specifically recall that she was the “staff” initialing N.P.’s paperwork--after all, it has been nearly seven years since the encounter--N.P. also did not recall filling out paperwork, although he remembers that he spoke with a female staff member (and Ms. Fior was the only female staff member). Nonetheless, N.P. was able to identify his handwriting on the form, such as his name, address, and telephone number on the first page (the front of the two-sided page). At the bottom of the first page, the form instructs Medicare patients that they “MUST READ & SIGN THE OTHER SIDE.” (Pet. Ex. 2, handwritten p. 29, lower left corner). The second page (the other side of the two-sided form) was referred to by Respondent as the “how are you going to pay” page, requiring patients to select one of several options, initial and/or sign the selection, and sign at the bottom of the page. One section is designated for “If You Have Medicare.” This section states that if a patient has Medicare, “We will bill Medicare for your eye exam according to the Medicare Laws [CPT code] 92004: New Patient, Comprehensive [or CPT code] 92014: Previous Patient, comprehensive. Please provide the staff with your: 1) Medicare card; 2) Medicare Advantage Card; 3) Any supplemental card; 4) Any other non-governmental health insurance card.” Below these provisions, the Medicare section concludes with the following: “If you do not have all of your insurance cards today, we will not be able to exam [sic] you today and will reschedule you.” (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 30). N.P.’s completed “how are you going to pay” page has a handwritten “X” in the box selecting the “If You Have Medicare” section, with N.P.’s initials next to the “X” (because he was a Medicare patient, and, therefore, required to complete this section as written). A check mark also appears next to “Medicare Advantage Card” in the portion requiring the patient to provide staff with insurance cards. Above the “If You Have Medicare” section, a separate section is provided for “Free Exam For Glasses,” with the following description: “The free eye exam for glasses is free. You do not have to buy anything at all. The free exam does not come with any prescription. If you wish, you may pay an exam fee and get a prescription for eye Glasses to take with you.” (emphasis added). At the bottom of this section, two options are provided, with spaces for the patient’s signature. One option is: “I would like the free exam with no RX”; the other option is: “I would like the $48 exam and get my RX.” On N.P.’s completed form, the “Free Exam For Glasses” section has no “X” in the selection box, and neither of the two options was signed by N.P. However, there are hand-drawn circles around the $48 exam option and the signature space to select that option, suggesting that this option was called to N.P.’s attention. There were no circles around the “free exam with no RX” option--the only option that was truly “free.” That option would not have met N.P.’s objective in coming into One Price Optical, which was to get an updated eyeglasses prescription. Another section on the second page is called “Vision Plans.” This section provides: “We will follow all the procedures, rules, and regulations according to the terms of your plan. The free exam for glasses above can not [sic] be combined with any part of your vision plan. You may not mix and match different coupons, promotions, store discounts, etc. with your Vision Plan.” On N.P.’s completed form, there is no “X” in the box provided to select this section, no initials by N.P., and no hand-drawn circles to indicate that this provision was called to N.P.’s attention as potentially applicable. N.P. signed the bottom of the “how are you going to pay” page (with only the Medicare/Medicare Advantage section initialed), next to the handwritten date, October 4, 2012. According to Respondent, his staff would have carefully walked N.P. through the examination and payment options when he came in and asked for the advertised free eye exam. This would have included asking Respondent whether he was covered by Medicare, whether he had “Medicare supplement” insurance coverage, and whether he had any other “vision plan” coverage. If so, he would have been asked to produce his insurance cards and the staff would have investigated what type of coverage was available for eye examinations. According to Respondent, N.P. made the voluntary election to undergo a comprehensive eye examination, which would be paid for under his Medicare Advantage insurance plan, instead of the “free eye exam.” Respondent acknowledged that a comprehensive eye examination must be completed on a patient in order to write a prescription for eyeglasses. One required component of a comprehensive eye examination is an internal examination of the eyes, to the back of the eyes (examination of the fundus). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B13-3.007. Respondent admitted that the so-called free eye exam for glasses offered by the advertisement was actually only a “screening” or a “consultation” with a patient to determine if the patient might need eyeglasses. Respondent admitted that the “free eye exam” (screening/consultation) would not be sufficient to enable Respondent to write a prescription for glasses. The advertisement does not mention this. What is offered for “free” is called an “eye exam for glasses,” not a screening that would be insufficient for Respondent to write a prescription for glasses. Staff person Hope Fior acknowledged that the advertisement caused confusion, not only for N.P., but for others. She blamed their confusion on the failure to read the fine print that she believed was in the ad, which she described as making clear that the offer of a free eye exam for glasses could not be used in combination with vision plans. That language did not appear in the advertisement, in fine print or otherwise. Respondent’s claim that N.P. made the voluntary election to forego the advertised free eye examination is contrary to the credible evidence. What N.P. wanted was a “free eye exam for glasses,” as advertised. N.P. was not offered a free eye exam that would have allowed him to obtain an updated prescription for his glasses. Respondent performed an eye examination on N.P. However, Respondent did not complete all steps required for a comprehensive eye examination. In particular, as the parties stipulated, Respondent did not perform a fundus examination on N.P. A comprehensive eye examination, including fundus examination, can be done with or without dilation. Examination of the fundus, the interior examination to the back of the eyes, is generally done after dilation drops are administered. The fundus examination can be done by other means if the patient does not want dilation, but generally dilation is preferable. In fact, Respondent testified that he “always” administers dilation drops, unless a particular patient asks him not to, in which case he makes them sign a form declining dilation. Respondent administered dilation drops to N.P. There is no persuasive evidence establishing that N.P. was resistant to receiving dilation drops, but there is also no persuasive evidence that N.P. was offered a choice or told that he could decline dilation. More importantly, there is no persuasive credible evidence that N.P. was informed before the drops were administered that he would be charged $39.00 as a dilation fee.3/ Instead, N.P. credibly testified that he was not told he would have to pay any fee until later. After Respondent put dilation drops in N.P.’s eyes, he directed N.P. to go down the hall to the reception/store area where eyeglasses are displayed for purchase, and was told he could wait there and look at glass frames while the drops took effect in 15 to 20 minutes. While N.P. was in the optical area, staff member Todd Dutton spoke with him about whether he might want to purchase glasses. The conversation about glasses did not progress, however, because Mr. Dutton also told N.P. that there was a $39.00 charge for dilation, and asked him to pay. N.P. got very upset with this new information, because up until that point, he was still under the impression that he was getting a free eye exam, as advertised. When Mr. Dutton did not retreat from the position that N.P. would have to pay $39.00 for the dilation drops he had received, N.P. walked out, rather than returning to the examination room for Respondent to complete the comprehensive examination. He did not ever return. Inexplicably, Respondent said he was not aware until much later on October 4, 2012, that N.P. walked out. Respondent did not come back for N.P., or send a staff person to bring N.P. back to the examination room, after the short period of time needed for the dilation drops to have taken effect. No explanation was provided for this lapse. It was not until an hour or two later, when Respondent was going over the patient paperwork for the day, that he realized that he never retrieved N.P. to complete N.P.’s comprehensive examination by performing the fundus examination. Respondent completed the patient record form as best he could, as the form he had created did not have an option to indicate an incomplete comprehensive examination, nor did his form provide the option of recording that an intermediate examination was done (which would not require a fundus examination, but would not be sufficient for writing a prescription for eyeglasses). Respondent selected the option called “No Dilation” and circled “Yes” to indicate that dilation was declined. Then he attempted to clarify in handwriting that there was no internal examination because the patient left the office. Despite not performing a fundus examination, Respondent produced a prescription for N.P. that he said he prepared after the incomplete examination. N.P. testified that he does not recall whether he asked for a prescription before he left the office, but he is sure that no prescription was offered to him. Todd Dutton confirmed that there was no discussion with N.P. about a prescription. The prescription presumably could not have been finalized and actually issued to N.P. before the comprehensive examination was completed, so whatever Respondent prepared must be viewed, at best, as preliminary. Respondent’s advertisement that offered a “free eye exam . . . for glasses” was misleading and deceptive. A reader would have been led to believe, just as N.P. did believe, that there would be no charge to anyone--the patient or the patient’s insurer--for an eye exam that would be sufficient to allow Respondent to prescribe glasses. N.P. was misled and deceived by the advertisement, as were others who were confused by the ad’s offer of a free eye exam for glasses. Respondent testified that he discontinued the advertisement, after 13 years of publishing it in the newspaper, sometime the next year (2013) when it came up for renewal. He said that he discontinued it, in part, in response to N.P.’s complaint to the Department, but also because he did not believe the ad was worth the cost of publication. Respondent did not say that he discontinued the advertisement out of remorse for falsely advertising free eye exams for glasses. He was steadfast in disputing the charge that his advertisement was in any way false, misleading, or deceptive. After N.P.’s incomplete examination, Respondent proceeded to bill N.P.’s vision insurance plan. He submitted a claim under CPT code 92004 in the amount of $139.00, and a claim under CPT code 92019 in the amount of $39.00. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes are used by optometrists to define the services provided to patients in submitting claims to third-party payors for payment. Each CPT code has a definition set forth in a book maintained and distributed by the American Medical Association. The CPT code book has been officially adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services as the standard medical data code set, which must be used by “covered entities” under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, for physician services and other health care services, including vision services. See 45 C.F.R. §§ 162.1000 and 162.1002(a)(5)(vi) and (b)(1). CPT codes have uniform objective definitions that do not change based upon the type of practitioner or setting in which they are used. CPT code 92004 is defined as a comprehensive ophthalmological examination, including fundus examination. CPT code 92019 is defined as an ophthalmological examination and evaluation under general anesthesia. Respondent admits that he did not complete the comprehensive eye examination of N.P. The parties stipulated that Respondent did not perform the fundus examination. Respondent stated that by submitting a claim to N.P.’s vision insurance plan using CPT code 92004, he intended to bill the vision plan for performing a dilated fundus examination on N.P. He admits to having willfully submitted a claim to a third- party payor for services not provided to a patient. Respondent contends he should be excused for submitting the claim because the reason Respondent did not perform the dilated fundus examination on N.P. is that N.P. walked out. While that explains why Respondent did not provide the service to N.P., it does not justify Respondent’s claim seeking insurance reimbursement for a service he admittedly did not provide. Respondent testified that he was left in a quandary as to how to handle the billing, as there was no option for billing the vision plan for three-quarters or some other fraction of CPT code 92004. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Kline, offered a viable alternative that would have solved Respondent’s quandary without submitting a claim for a service that was not provided. Dr. Kline testified that Respondent could have submitted a claim under CPT code 92002, for an intermediate eye examination. CPT code 92002 is appropriate to use by an optometrist who has performed a less extensive examination than a comprehensive examination. In particular, the fundus does not have to be examined in an intermediate exam. While an intermediate eye examination was insufficient to meet N.P.’s objective of securing a legal updated prescription (which requires a comprehensive eye examination), the unrebutted evidence in this record shows that submitting a claim using CPT code 92002 would have been accurate in identifying the service actually provided to N.P. Dr. Kline opined that submitting no claim to N.P.’s third-party payor was also an option that would have solved Respondent’s quandary, and in his opinion, would have been the most reasonable course of action under the circumstances. It would have been what he would have done. In light of Respondent’s advertisement for a “free eye exam,” Dr. Kline’s opinion is credited: the most appropriate option would have been to not submit a claim to N.P.’s third-party payor, thereby providing a “free,” albeit incomplete exam. Respondent defended his claim under CPT code 92004 for a comprehensive eye exam, under the guise of it being acceptable practice to perform a comprehensive eye examination in more than one sitting. According to Respondent, as long as the examination is going to be completed, it is acceptable to bill the third- party payor for the entire examination after only part of it has been done. This may be true when (as Respondent was told in a seminar), the completion of the exam is scheduled for the next day, within the next few days, or perhaps as much as a week later. For example, on occasion a patient might request to not be dilated on the day the examination is initiated and mostly completed, and arrangements are made for the patient to return for the dilation and fundus examination on a day when dilated eyes do not present a problem for the patient. However, that is not what occurred with N.P. N.P. never contacted Respondent to complete the examination, nor did Respondent ever attempt to contact N.P. to schedule his return for the fundus examination. It was obvious that N.P never intended to return. Indeed, Respondent admitted that he would not have attempted to contact N.P. because of N.P.’s anger when he left One Price Optical. Respondent’s justification for billing the vision insurance plan under the CPT code for a comprehensive examination could only be accepted if, at the time Respondent submitted the bill, arrangements had already been set for the examination to be completed, either because N.P. had scheduled a return visit before leaving, or because Respondent had called the patient and succeeded, before submitting the bill, in scheduling N.P.’s return visit to complete the exam. Under the circumstances here, at the time Respondent submitted the claim to N.P.’s vision plan, he knew that he had not completed a comprehensive eye examination of N.P., and he knew that no arrangements had been made to complete the examination. A fundus examination is a service that is a required component of CPT code 92004. Respondent willfully submitted a claim to a third-party payor for a service that was admittedly not provided to N.P. Respondent also admitted that he did not provide an eye examination to N.P. while under general anesthesia, which is the service defined by CPT code 92019, but he submitted a claim to the third-party payor using that CPT code. Respondent contended that he intended to use that CPT code to submit a claim for dilation charges. Respondent attempted to explain that some vision plans do not strictly follow the CPT code definitions, and some of them use CPT code 92019 to mean dilation. He testified that he just does his best using their claim forms and the descriptions they use for the CPT codes. Respondent did offer evidence that a different vision plan, not the one administering N.P.’s Medicare Advantage plan’s vision benefits, described CPT code 92019 as “dilation” in its online claim form. If a claim submitted to that other vision plan were at issue here, Respondent’s explanation might be accepted as evidence that Respondent did not willfully submit a claim for a service not provided. However, the evidence does not support Respondent’s explanation in this instance. In the “Explanation of Payment” printed from N.P.’s vision insurance plan’s website, CPT code 92019 was specifically described (in the available space) as “ophthalmological examination and evaluation under general an” and not as dilation. (Pet. Ex. 2, p.35) (emphasis added). Respondent said that he does all of the billing and coding for One Price Optical, and that he has tried to find out what is required. His claim that so-called “vision plans” are not considered insurance and do not strictly follow the CPT code definitions rings hollow, at least as applied to the facts here, where everything in N.P.’s patient records speaks to Medicare Advantage health care insurance. The “how are you going to pay” form completed by N.P. directed him, as a Medicare patient with Medicare Advantage insurance, to authorize billing under that coverage, which Respondent’s form assured would be done in compliance with Medicare laws and rules. The claim processing paperwork calls N.P.’s plan “Universal Health Care – Medicare,” and the plan’s explanation of denied payment for the claim under CPT code 92019 used the code definition from the CPT code book.4/ Respondent testified that he always very carefully checks to see how a particular vision plan uses and defines the CPT codes, and that he submits his claims using the CPT codes as defined by the particular plan. He therefore admitted that he willfully submitted a claim to N.P.’s vision plan under CPT code 92019, defined as “ophthalmological examination and evaluation under general an[esthesia].” The undersigned is not persuaded by Respondent’s assertion that in billing under CPT Code 92019, he should be found to have not willfully submitted a claim for a service not rendered because he knew that the claim would not be paid. The fact remains that Respondent knowingly, intentionally, and willfully submitted a claim to N.P.’s vision insurance plan, coded under CPT code 92019, claiming to have performed an eye exam under general anesthesia on N.P. on October 4, 2012, as explained in the Explanation of Payment. (Pet. Ex. 2, p. 35). Whether Respondent intended to get paid or expected to get paid is not germane to the question of whether he willfully submitted the claim for a service not provided.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Optometry, issue a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating section 463.016(1)(f) and (1)(j), Florida Statutes (2012); and, as discipline, imposing a fine of $6,000.00 and issuing a 12-month probationary period on such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2019.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether Respondent's license to practice medicine should be subject to sanctions based upon alleged violations of Section 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. Specifically, it must be determined whether he departed from the appropriate standard of medical care and treatment of a patient in the course of his practice of ophthalmology and whether his record keeping with regard to the care and treatment of that patient met appropriate standards.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine, pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is, and at all times material hereto, has been a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0004933. The Respondent's address is 820 Prudential Drive, Suite 712, Jacksonville, Florida. On or about September 13, 1989, patient D.P., a 65-year-old-female, presented to the Respondent for evaluation regarding extremely high intra-ocular pressure and severe pain in both eyes. Patient D.P. had undergone abdominal surgery two days prior to the Respondent's examination, which was her second abdominal surgery in two weeks. The Respondent examined patient D.P. and diagnosed her with acute angle closure glaucoma, which had been present since the time of her second abdominal surgery, two days earlier. The Respondent treated patient D.P. with topical medications to decrease the intra-ocular pressure. Patient D.P.'s left eye responded to treatment with decreased pressure. The intra-ocular pressure in the right eye remained extremely high, in excess of 70 millimeters. On or about September 13, 1989, the Respondent performed a vitreous tap of the patient D.P.'s right eye, which immediately relieved the intra-ocular pressure. The Respondent did not consult patient D.P.'s surgeons or internists prior to performing the vitreous tap, regarding the possible use of intravenous medications. On or about September 14, 1989, the Respondent consulted Dr. James Staman, a retinal specialist, due to the patient's diminished vision in her right eye. Dr. Staman examined patient D.P. and diagnosed her with a vitreous hemorrhage. (End of stipulated facts). The Respondent has been licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida since 1954 and has practiced in the field of ophthalmology since 1966. He has been board certified in the field of ophthalmology since 1969. He has never been investigated or disciplined by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation or any predecessor agency charged with regulating the licensure and practice standards of medical doctors in Florida. The Respondent maintains hospital staff privileges appropriate to his practice and has never had hospital staff privileges denied, revoked, or suspended at any hospital at which he has had privileges. Patient D.P. is a 65-year-old-female, who presented to the Respondent on September 13, 1989 complaining of severe pain in both eyes and with regard to which the Respondent immediately determined the presence of extremely intra- ocular pressure in both eyes. Patient D.P. had recently undergone a gastrectomy, a major abdominal surgical procedure, within 48 hours prior to presenting to the Respondent. This was the second abdominal surgery she had undergone within the past two weeks. When she presented to the Respondent on that date, she was in severe pain from the increased intra-ocular pressure in both eyes and appeared to be weak and in great discomfort. Pursuant to order of her doctors who attended and treated her with regard to the abdominal condition and surgery, the patient was and had been "NPO" for four weeks. This condition or situation means that she was forbidden from taking food or liquids of any type by mouth during this period of time. Upon evaluating the pressure in her eyes, the Respondent determined that the intra-ocular pressure in her left eye was 35 millimeters of mercury and in excess of 70 millimeters of mercury in the right eye. This is because the standard instrument with which her pressure was tested by the Respondent only depicts a maximum pressure of 70 millimeters of mercury. The normal intra- ocular pressure for such a patient would be 17-18 millimeters of mercury. Upon evaluating and examining the patient, the Respondent determined her condition to be bilateral acute angle closure glaucoma. He determined that the condition had been present since her surgery 48 hours earlier. The anesthesia from the surgery had precipitated dilation in both eyes which, in turn, precipitated the acute angle closure glaucoma. This occurred because, upon the dilation of the pupils of both eyes caused by the anesthesia, the iris folded back as the pupil expanded, and the folds of the iris occluded or blocked the drain structure by which fluid can drain from within the eye. The inability of the fluid to drain thus caused the severe increase in intra-ocular pressure and thus the glaucoma condition. The Respondent initially treated the acute angle closure glaucoma in both eyes with glycerin. This is a topical medication designed to reduce the amount of swelling in the cornea and to increase absorption of medication into the eye. The Respondent also initially treated the condition with pilocarpine. This is a topical medication administered to constrict the pupil and thus open the channel in the trabecular meshwork (the drainage structure) in an attempt to break the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma by allowing the eye fluid to drain and thus relieve the pressure. The intent is that by constricting the pupil, the iris will stretch with the pupil's closure so as to remove its folds from the position of blocking the channel in the trabecular meshwork. The Respondent initially administered a "beta blocker" medication in an attempt to open the trabecular meshwork by cutting down on the amount of aqueous fluid produced by the ciliary body. The topical medications, indeed, broke the attack of glaucoma in the left eye and the intra-ocular pressure in that eye returned to normal levels. However, after approximately a four-hour trial of the array of topical medications used by the Respondent, the attack of glaucoma in the right eye had not subsided at all. Prolonged elevated intra-ocular pressure of the magnitude of over 70 millimeters of mercury in the right eye posed a great danger of loss of vision in that eye due to potential occlusion of the ocular artery supplying blood to the eye and concomitant permanent damage to the optic nerve. The artery can be occluded or closed off due to such excessive pressure because the pressure at that level will exceed the blood pressure generated by the heart through the vascular system, including the artery supplying that eye. This results in the ocular pressure overcoming the blood pressure within the artery, thus constricting the artery and, therefore, the blood supply to the eye. The loss of blood supply to the eye in a short time, possibly 90 minutes or less, can cause the eye tissue normally served by the artery to become necrotic (i.e. to die). Necrosis of the internal eye tissue, in turn, can cause complications by weakening the pertinent structures of the eye, such as the tissue by which the retina is attached and held in position. The Respondent observed the patient and performed this clinical treatment for approximately four hours without being able to relieve the elevated intra-ocular pressure in the right eye. The Respondent knew, given the symptoms and history with which the patient presented, that severe pain had been experienced by the patient in her eyes since she awakened from the anesthesia administered for her surgery. Thus, he knew that for approximately two days, the glaucoma condition had been operating on the structures of the eye. Accordingly, he knew that time was of the essence if he was going to be able to relieve the glaucoma and thus save the vision, or some of it, in her eye. After these hours of clinical attempts to cure her condition, and in view of the state of urgency the Respondent recognized in the patient, who had already experienced severely-elevated intra-ocular pressure for two days, the Respondent determined that the emergency nature of the patient's situation precluded use of the time necessary to consult with her surgeon and anesthesiologist, to attempt to hospitalize her, to administer a general anesthetic, and perform an alternative surgical procedure. The Respondent, therefore, elected to perform a "vitreous tap". The vitreous tap involves using a hypodermic needle with a "guarded needle" (meaning that the needle is protected so that only a small portion of the point of the needle projects from the guard structure) to withdraw a small amount of the vitreous fluid. This was done to reduce the pressure, open the angles at the trabecular structure in the eye and thus break the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma and return the eye to normal intra-ocular pressure. The vitreous tap was performed at approximately 4:05 that afternoon and was successful. It immediately broke the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma and the intra-ocular pressure returned to a normal range. However, a vitreous hemorrhage resulted from the vitreous tap caused by the needle striking a small blood vessel in the pars plana area of the eye. This area cannot be visualized when performing the vitreous tap because it is inside the eye. A vitreous hemorrhage is a known and accepted complication or risk of a vitreous procedure. However, it has a low incidence of occurrence of approximately 3-5 percent. Upon determining that the hemorrhage condition was present and on or about September 14, 1989, the Respondent obtained a consultation with Dr. James Staman, a vitreal-retinal surgeon, due to the diminished vision in the patient's right eye. Dr. Staman examined the patient and diagnosed a vitreous hemorrhage in her right eye. The incidence of retinal detachment from a vitrectomy is approximately 5-10 percent. It would have had a higher risk in this patient's case, due to the probability of her already suffering permanent damage to the eye and eye tissue caused by necrosis, which was caused by loss of blood supply to the eye during the extended period of high intra-ocular pressure. This likely damaged the optic nerve and occluded the ocular artery serving that eye or portion of the eye. Dr. Staman performed a vitrectomy and removed the hemorrhage or blood from the patient's eye. Unfortunately, a retinal detachment occurred as a complication of that vitrectomy. This chain of events ultimately resulted in the patient losing the vision in her right eye. This was because of the determination that the retinal detachment could not be repaired without causing the loss of vision itself. Dr. Doyle testified as an expert witness for the Respondent. Dr. Doyle is a board certified ophthalmologist specializing in the field of glaucoma and particularly in the sub-specialty area of glaucoma management, including surgical glaucoma management. Additionally, Dr. Doyle is a holder of a fellowship, involving further specialty training in the field of treatment and management of glaucoma and surgical alleviation and management of glaucoma. He is determined to be the most qualified expert witness by training, education and experience in the particular specialty concerning glaucoma, with which this patient's condition is characterized, as is provided in his testimony depicted in the transcript of this proceeding and in his curriculum vitae in evidence. This depiction of his training, education and experience is adopted, by reference, as fact. According to Dr. Doyle, the loss of vision in the right eye was not caused by the vitreous tap. Rather, the precipitating factor was the retinal detachment which occurred as the result of the direct vitrectomy surgery. A vitreous hemorrhage is a known complication of a vitreous tap and a retinal detachment is a known complication of a vitrectomy. The Respondent and all of the expert witnesses agreed that the patient had probably already suffered permanent damage to the right eye, prior to the performance of the vitreous tap, in the form of corneal decomposition, cataract formation and optic nerve damage. Dr. Doyle's testimony, as corroborated by that of the Respondent, established that, in all likelihood, significant necrosis of the eye tissue involved in the structure by which the retina is attached had occurred due to occlusion of the artery supplying blood to that area of the eye by the 48 hours or more of elevated intra-ocular pressure. The elevated intra-ocular pressure occurred as a result of the anesthesia administered to the patient during her abdominal surgery. The Respondent and all expert witnesses agreed that the Respondent had utilized an appropriate and proper procedure in performing the vitreous tap. However, Drs. Baumann and Berg, testifying for the Petitioner, do not agree that the vitreous tap should have been performed to relieve the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma in the right eye. Standard of Care The Respondent met the standard of care under the circumstances with which this patient presented, in his care and treatment of patient D.P. when he performed the vitreous tap to break the attack of acute angle closure glaucoma in patient D.P.'s right eye. The usual treatment options or alternatives for the treatment of acute angle closure glaucoma were not available to the Respondent due to the extremely unusual set of precipitating circumstances with which the patient presented to him. The patient had already had extreme intra- ocular pressure of approximately 48 hours duration, based upon all of the evidence available to the doctor in performing his diagnosis and examination of treatment options. Dr. Baumann admitted that the situation was "urgent", and Dr. Berg admitted that the situation was an "emergency" and that the Respondent's "back was up against the wall" under the circumstances. Because of this, the treatment, including surgical options preferred by Drs. Baumann and Berg, was not effectively available to the Respondent in an attempt to save the vision in the patient's eye. This is because, in order for a general anesthetic to be administered and the patient prepared, monitored and evaluated for the surgery, she would have had to be hospitalized, with accompanying consultation with her internal medicine physician, her abdominal surgeon, and the anesthesiologist. All of this process would have taken approximately six hours, from the time the decision was made to perform the vitreous tap, which was made when the topical medications failed to alleviate the attack, until the surgery could be performed in the hospital. Even if the patient's eye was not already significantly damaged by the 48 hours of elevated intra-ocular pressure when she presented to the Respondent at his office, substantial damage to her vision would have occurred as a medical certainty if another six hours had elapsed after the unsuccessful conclusion of conservative, clinical treatment between 4:00 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. The first treatment option in an angle closure glaucoma case is topical therapy in an attempt to reduce the production of fluid by the ciliary body in the eye and to cause the iris to constrict and thus open the angle and its drainage structure. The Respondent initially treated the angle closure glaucoma in both eyes with topical medications, including pilocarpine, glycerin and a beta blocker. He repeated this topical therapy for approximately three hours at the appropriate intervals which all testifying physicians, including Dr. Doyle, agree was "normal, appropriate care". Under ordinary circumstances, if the topical medications failed to lower the intra-ocular pressure, the use of diamox or mannitol would be the next treatment alternative to try. However, diamox, a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor, which affects the ciliary body to reduce the production of fluid, would not have produced any greater benefit than the topical medications which had failed already. Mannitol is a hyperosmotic medication. It is ordinarily administered by mouth, which allows the body's stomach and intestines to regulate and gradually accomplish a safe absorption of the medication. However, oral mannitol was not an option to this patient because, under her previous doctor's orders, she was not allowed to take anything by mouth at times pertinent to this proceeding, including the day and times when the Respondent was treating her for the glaucoma. Mannitol reduces vitreous volume by reducing water everywhere in the body, including the eyes. The fluid is drawn into the blood stream, which, however, increases blood volume. Administration of mannitol intravenously would have put the patient at significant risk for an overload of volume in the blood which would have caused readily increased blood pressure with attendant possible medical complications, massive congestive heart failure, or kidney problems. These are life-threatening risks which would have necessitated hospitalization, evaluation and monitoring in the hospital before and during administering of intravenous mannitol. By the time this could have been accomplished, the vision in the eye would have already been lost. Dr. Doyle and the Petitioner's expert, Dr. Baumann, both agreed that administration of intravenous mannitol would have been dangerous for this patient. Intravenous mannitol is only 50 percent effective in such a situation, in any event, and is contra-indicated in patients such as D.P., who are post- gastrectomy surgery. This 65-year-old patient, weakened by her second gastrectomy surgery in a four-week period, involving the use of general anesthetics, was simply not a safe candidate for the administration of mannitol under the risky intravenous method which would have been necessary with the patient. The risk of kidney or heart failure and other complications was simply too great. The Petitioner's expert, Dr. Baumann, admitted that it was reasonable for the Respondent to have these concerns about the use of diamox and intravenous mannitol and further that the Respondent was not negligent in deciding not to use those medications. Under ordinary circumstances, if the topical therapy and the administration of medication failed to relieve an attack of acute angle closure glaucoma, the next course of treatment to be considered would be an argon or YAG laser iridectomy or an irridoplasty in order to place a small hole in the iris to relieve the pressure differential in the eye. A laser is a focused beam of light, at high energy, which can insert the necessary hole in the eye to relieve the intra-ocular pressure. It requires a clear media over the iris in order to penetrate the eye and make the hole in the required position. In this case, due to the extraordinary high intra-ocular pressure over a two-day period, the cornea was very cloudy and hazy. This precluded the laser being effective and created the potential for damage to the cornea had the laser been directed against the eye. Dr. Doyle and the Petitioner's experts, Dr. Berg and Dr. Baumann, all agreed, that in a patient such as D.P., with intra-ocular pressure of over 70 millimeters of mercury extending for 48 hours, the cornea would be very cloudy. The Respondent's testimony confirms this. After the vitreous tap was performed and the intra- ocular pressure relieved, the edema and cloudiness of the cornea resolved itself so that the Respondent was able to perform a successful argon laser iridectomy the following day and a YAG laser irridoplasty in his office five days later, to prevent a recurrence of the problem by providing an additional means of fluid drainage. Under ordinary circumstances where topical therapy, medication therapy, and laser iridectomy had either failed or were not viable options, then surgical treatment would be the next consideration. The surgery would include either surgical iridectomy or a trabeculectomy. A surgical iridectomy creates a small hole in the iris which relieves the pressure. A trabeculectomy creates a secondary drain for the eye. The Respondent was justified in not pursuing a surgical iridectomy or trabeculectomy in that the surgery could not have been done under a local anesthetic and would have required general anesthesia. This is undisputed. This would have required surgery in the hospital operating room, including the necessity for insertion of a tube, which might have caused risk to her recent abdominal surgery. It would have necessitated contacting her surgeon, her internal medicine physician, and her anesthesiologist for pre-surgical evaluation and clearance. This would have taken considerable time, at least six hours, thereby, within reasonable medical certainty causing permanent significant damage or entire loss of vision to the eye. A surgical iridectomy or trabeculectomy are not benign procedures and carry the highest complication rate of any ophthalmic procedure, when used for malignant glaucoma and, indeed, the accepted treatment for malignant glaucoma (albeit a different type of glaucoma condition) is a vitreous tap. Either surgical procedure would have had a risk of complication resulting in loss of vision in the eye of at least 3-5 percent or more, thus, the same or greater level of risk than that attendant to the vitreous tap procedure. Paracentesis, a surgical procedure to make a small hole in the anterior chamber of the eye, was itself not a reasonable treatment alternative under the circumstances. It was simply not feasible because the anterior chamber of the eye had virtually ceased to exist because the iris diaphragm had bulged forward through the space normally occupied by the anterior chamber because of the great pressure behind it. Dr. Doyle established that the Respondent's vitreous tap effected a complete cure of the glaucoma condition in patient D.P. A vitreous tap is a procedure recognized in the medical literature as a treatment for several ophthalmic conditions, including malignant glaucoma, positive pressure during cataract surgery, and for the purpose of obtaining vitreous material for pathological testing (biopsy). The medical literature, indeed, does not address the use of a vitreous tap as treatment for acute angle closure glaucoma because the medical literature and text books tend to deal with more common presentations of all diseases. None of the literature addresses treatment of acute angle closure glaucoma under the unusual set of emergency circumstances presented with this case. The Respondent's expert, Dr. William Doyle, is a board-certified ophthalmologist who has a sub-specialty in glaucoma management and treatment, including surgical management thereof. He is one of only a handful of fellowship-trained glaucoma specialists in the State of Florida and the only one in the North Florida area. He sees patients on referral from other doctors in Florida and South Georgia, who have unusual glaucoma-related problems. Dr. Doyle is an assistant professor of ophthalmology at the University of Florida and is responsible for teaching glaucoma management and treatment. He has authored some twelve article, book chapters, and other publications specifically in the field of glaucoma management and treatment. According to Dr. Doyle, if the vitreous tap procedure had been successful, the Respondent "should have written it out for the literature as a viable, interesting way to cure a disease". The Petitioner's expert, Dr. Berg, in his report attached to his deposition, referenced an article in International Ophthalmology Clinics, by Kevin C. Greenridge, M.D., of the Metropolitan Hospital Center, Department of Ophthalmology, New York, New York, and which Dr. Berg admitted was authoritative in the field of acute angle closure glaucoma. The article specifically states that in cases of acute angle closure glaucoma, for a duration of more than 24 hours, the eyes are more inflamed and have evidence of corneal decomposition, which are relative contra indications to argon laser iridectomy. Since the acute angle closure glaucoma had a duration of 48 hours when the Respondent first saw the patient, corneal decomposition could have been significantly advanced by that point such that the set of conditions requisite to causing the retinal detachment, which ultimately led to the loss of the patient's sight in that eye, were likely already in place. Thus, the vitreous hemorrhage caused by the vitreous tap may not itself have been the cause of the loss of sight. Medical Record Issue The Respondent's office records note "Vitreous tap. 4:30 p.m., immediately patient felt better". The Respondent also made an entry in the patient's hospital chart on the date of the vitreous tap which noted: Acute angle closure glaucoma right eye. Totally unresponsive to treatment. Pressure of 70 unaffected by treatment. Pars plana 1/2 cc vitreous tap done with immediate relief. Both eyes very shallow [referring to anterior chamber]. Started on pilocarpine and both eyes will need argon laser iridectomy soon. A copy of the hospital note was included and contained in the Respondent's records of the patient. In addition, the Respondent obtained a signed, written, informed consent for the procedure. The Respondent's records, including his office records and the note in the hospital chart, adequately document the course of therapy leading up to the vitreous tap and the vitreous tap procedure itself such that the Respondent's medical record keeping would adequately inform the Respondent in the future when reviewing the patient's records with a view toward further follow-up and treatment of the patient's entire status. They would also adequately inform any physician to whom the patient was later referred by the Respondent of her status, the treatment and procedures performed, and the symptoms and diagnosis involved in the patient's care and treatment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be found not guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(m) or (t), Florida Statutes, and that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 7th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5990 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-16. Accepted, but not necessarily for their purported material import. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant, probative evidence. Accepted. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of the material issues presented. Accepted. 21-26. Accepted, but not necessarily for their purported material import and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not probative of the medical records being inadequate as a matter of fact and law. 28-29. Accepted. 30. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 31-41. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not dispositive of the material issues presented. 42-43. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 44-46. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, and for the additional reason that these proposed findings are not dispositive of the material issues presented. 47-50. Accepted, in part, but not as materially dispositive of the issues presented for resolution and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-55. Accepted, to the extent not rejected by or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Those proposed findings of fact not treated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact are rejected as unnecessary or immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Alex D. Barker, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway Suite 230 Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Jeptha F. Barbour, Esquire Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the optometry examination administered to candidates for certification for licensure to practice optometry in the State of Florida in July of 1980. The written portion of the optometry examination consisted of four sections or sub-parts; ocular pathology, theory and practice, pharmacology and laws and rules. The ocular pathology section consisted of 100 written and 20 slide questions. One and one-half hours were allotted for completion of the ocular pathology section. Thirty minutes was permitted for the completion of the slide portions of the ocular pathology sub-part. The written and slide portions of the ocular pathology section were separated by the administration of the theory and practice sub-part of the optometry exam, which consisted of one hundred items with one and one-half hours permitted for completion. The Petitioner completed the ocular pathology section of the exam and received a final grade of 69. A minimum passing grade of 70 was required by the Respondent on that portion of the optometry exam. Ocular pathology was the only portion of the exam which the Petitioner failed. An item analysis of the items on the ocular pathology portion of the examination was undertaken by the Department of Professional Regulation staff subsequent to administration of the examination. The item analysis undertaken was in conformity with standard post-test procedures for determining the validity of test items. Following the item analysis review, members of the Board of Optometry who formulated the exam received the item analysis results and recommended to the Board that credit be given to all candidates, including Petitioner, for each item on the ocular pathology portion of the examination which was determined to be invalid. As a result of the Board's authorization, credit was given to all candidates for 22 percent of the examination. The ocular pathology portion of the examination had a higher error or adjustment rate than the other subparts of the examination which ranged from 2 percent to 15 percent. The points awarded by the Board on the ocular pathology portion of the exam to compensate for invalid test questions were awarded in a manner commensurate with accepted testing techniques for evaluating test questions. Petitioner's score on the ocular pathology portion of the exam was adjusted from 46 to 58 points following the Board's first authorized analysis. Following a second regrading that the Board authorized to compensate for questions eliminated as a result of examinee review, the Petitioner's score on the ocular pathology portion was again adjusted upward from 58 to 69 points. The method utilized by the Department in reviewing examinations authorizes credit for questionable exam items. Such an approach to testing results in scores which are adjusted upward as test items are eliminated. This is a liberal approach to testing philosophy which effectively resolves doubts regarding a correct answer in favor of the examinee. Petitioner completed the ocular pathology portion of the examination but did not have sufficient time to review all his responses before turning in the test. Petitioner did not, however, participate in a review of his examination when given an opportunity to do so by the Department within thirty (30) days after the announcement of test scores.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying the Petitioner's request that his score pathology portion of the July, 1980 optometry examination be adjusted to reflect a passing grade. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of July, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 30th day of July, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert D. Newell, Esquire OERTEL AND LARAMORE, P.A. 646 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert E. McGuire, O.D. 2530 Stern Drive Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233
The Issue Should Respondent Patricia Dee G. Stehpenson's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined based on the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0051453. The patient, a 73 year old female, presented to Respondent on July 11, 1991, with complaints of flashes of light over the past ten years which had increased over the past two years. The patient also complained of seeing halos around street lights at night. During this visit, Respondent diagnosed the patient as having 20/30 corrected vision in her right eye and 20/40 plus 2 corrected vision in her left eye, and that the patient had cataracts. However, Respondent did not recommend cataract surgery at this time. In January, 1992, the patient took the State of Florida driver's license test, including the eye test, and received her driver's license. However, the examiner notice that the patient was having trouble with the eye test and, although the examiner gave the patient her driver's license, the examiner suggested that the patient see an opthalmologist. At the time the patient received her driver's license in January, 1992, the patient was enjoying golf, bowling and driving. Although the patient did not immediately follow the driver's license examiner's advice concerning her eyes, the patient did visit with Respondent on May 8, 1992. At this visit, the patient advised the Respondent that the flashes and floaters had improved but that her vision was interfering with her golfing and driving. Again, Respondent did not recommend removal of the cataract. The patient's vision continued to interfere with her golfing and driving, notwithstanding the patient's testimony to the contrary which I do not find to be credible. The patient's next visit with Respondent was on October 16, 1992. At this visit, the patient advised Respondent that her vision had "lessened a lot" in the left eye. Visual acuity testing indicated corrected vision of 20/30 in the right eye and 20/40 plus 2 in the left eye. However, while the level of vision at which the patient was able to perceive letters (20/40 plus 2) did not change, the refraction (stronger glasses) required to achieve that level indicated more myopia, indicating that the cataract had progressed which supports the patient's complaint that her vision had "lessened a lot". Also at the October 16, 1992, visit, Respondent tested the patient's vision using brightness acuity testing (glare test) and measured the patient's vision as 20/70, with glare in the left eye. The glare test is a method whereby the doctor shines a light in the person's eye to determine the effect of glare on the person's vision. Although some ophthalmologists consider the glare test of no value, other ophthalmologists consider the glare test as another tool to assist the surgeon in making a decision concerning the necessity for cataract surgery. During the October 16, 1992, office visit, Respondent discussed with the patient: (a) the effect the cataract was having on the patient's activities (life-style); (b) the patient's complaint that her vision had lessened; (c) the results of the glare test showing the patient's vision as 20/70 with glare and; (d) other visual acuity testing; and (e)advised the patient that cataract surgery was indicated. Also, Respondent explained the cataract surgery procedures and discussed with the patient the risks and the benefits of the surgery. The patient had no reservations or objections to the surgery and consented to the surgery in hopes of improving her eyesight as well as her life- style. For a person with cataracts, a corrected vision of 20/40 or worse is the vision level where some cataract surgeons will recommend cataract surgery, while other cataract surgeons consider a corrected vision of 20/50 or worse, with or without glare, as the vision level where cataract surgery should be recommended. However, because the vision as determined by visual acuity testing (the ability of the person to perceive letters) does not always accurately reflect the person's quality of vision (the quality of perception on a day to day basis), neither vision level referred to above when considered alone can be used as a hard and fast rule to form a basis for cataract surgery. Since the quality of vision can only be described by the person with the cataract(s), the cataract surgeon must also determine, after consultation with the person, that the cataract(s) are interfering with the person's life-style. Therefore, a person with corrected vision of somewhat better than 20/40 or 20/70 with or without glare, may be a candidate for cataract surgery, provided the cataract is causing a reduction in the person's quality of vision beyond what is indicated by visual acuity testing and thereby interfering with the person's life-style. Furthermore, there are no written standards or guidelines which set a particular vision level for the cataract surgeon to follow when making a decision to recommend cataract surgery. The surgeon must take into consideration all factors and make a decision based on the surgeon's judgment as to what is best for that person. The patient's vision level and the interference the patient was experiencing with her life-style because of the cataracts in her left eye justified Respondent's decision to recommend and perform the cataract surgery on the patient, notwithstanding any of the testimony of Dr. Leslie Monroe to the contrary. On November 3, 1992, Respondent performed phacoemulsification (removal of cataract) with posterior chamber intracular lens implant (implantation of lens) on the patient's left eye. While the patient was in the holding area being prepared for surgery there were complications with the anesthesia. The anesthesiologist, Robert Dienes, M. D., first gave the patient a retrobulbar block which was repeated apparently due to Dr. Dienes' conclusion that the first retrobulbar block was ineffective. Apparently, Dr. Dienes also concluded that the second retrobulbar block was ineffective and gave the patient a superior lid peribulbar block. After giving the peribulbar block, Dr. Dienes noticed a dissecting subconjunctival hemorrhage and notified Respondent. Upon examining the patient's eye, Respondent found the globe (whole eye) to be soft with no active bleeding, indicating the eye was not full of blood and that there was no retina tear or rupture of the globe. Respondent also noticed that "the conjunctiva was real chemotic or it had blood behind it". Respondent also measured the patient's eye pressure with a Schiotz tonameter because there was no slit-lamp in the holding area. The patient's eye pressure was 5, with a 5.5 gram weight, which was normal. The patient's medical records do not reflect an indirect ophthalmoscopy being performed by Respondent on the patient's left eye between Respondent being advised of the dissecting subjunctival hemorrhage by Dr. Diemes and the Respondent performing surgery on the patient's left eye to remove the cataract and implant the lens. Furthermore, Respondent has no independent recollection of performing an indirect ophthalmoscopy during the above period of time before surgery. Respondent's normal practice under conditions and circumstances similar to those in this case has been to perform an indirect ophthalmoscopy during the above period of time before surgery. Therefore, it is assumed that Respondent performed an indirect ophthalmoscopy on the patient after being advised of the subconjunctival hemorrhage but before surgery, notwithstanding the fact that patient's medical records do not reflect such procedure being performed or the fact that Respondent has no independent recollection of performing such procedure during the above period of time. However, assuming arguendo that Respondent did not perform the indirect ophthalmoscopy before surgery, the Agency has failed to establish facts to show that under the conditions and circumstances of this case that such failure amounted to the failure of Respondent to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. After considering the conditions and circumstances surrounding the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized, Respondent made a decision that it was in the best interest of the patient to go forward with the removal of the cataract and implantation of the lens. The operation was completed without any further incident and there was a successful removal of the cataract and lens transplant. Respondent's decision to go forward with the surgery had no adverse effect on the subsequent treatment of the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized. In fact, the result of the treatment subsequent to the cataract surgery would have been the same even if Respondent had not gone forward with the surgery. Respondent, using a ophthalmoscope, was able to see the inside of the eye more clearly and assess the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized. While performing this indirect ophthalmoscopy, Respondent noted undulation of the vitreous with pigmented blood cells present and that the anesthesia needle had penetrated the globe. The patient was seen the next morning, November 3, 1992, by Respondent. After assessing the condition of the patient's left eye, Respondent referred the patient to Keye Wong, M. D., a retina specialist. Upon examining the patient's left eye on November 4, 1992, Dr. Wong noted vitreous hemorrhaging and retinal detachment. Dr. Wong performed an operation on the patient's left eye in an attempt to correct the damage and attach the retina. The patient's vision is not as good as it was before the operation, and still effects the patient's life-style. The patient has difficulty tolerating sunlight, which may or may not be a result of the complication experienced while the patient was being anesthetize. Respondent's action of going forward with the surgery after becoming aware of the complication that arose while the patient was being anesthetized did not cause, complicate, aggravate or result in any of the problems the patient has suffered postoperatively. Respondent did not fail to recognize, identify or treat properly the complications that arose before, during or after the surgery. The Agency has failed to establish facts to show that Respondent failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances at anytime while Respondent was treating the patient, including both preoperative and postoperative treatment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Respondent Patricia Dee G. Stephenson, M. D. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of January, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 23rd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-1560 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner and the Department in this case. Agency's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1-2 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. The first sentence of proposed finding of fact 3 is adopted in Finding of Fact 3. The second and third sentence are not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 4 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 5, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 5 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 7, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 6 is adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 12, 13, and 14, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed findings of fact 7 and 8 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 21 and 22, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact 9 is a restatement of Dr. Monroe's testimony and is not a finding of fact. However, see Findings of Fact 16 and 17. 8, Proposed findings of fact 10, 16, 17 and 19 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 15, 16, 10, 8 and 9. Proposed finding of fact 11 is adopted in substance as modified in Finding of Fact 16, otherwise not supported by evidence in the record. Although proposed findings of fact 12, 13 and 15 are findings of fact, they are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. See Finding of Fact 9. Proposed finding of fact 14 is a restatement of Dr. Grabow's testimony and is not stated as a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 10. Dr. Grabow's testimony was 20/50 vision with or without glare which is different than just 20/50 vision. 11. Proposed findings of Fact 18 and 20 are not supported by evidence in the record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1 through 27 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 25. COPIES FURNISHED: Marm Harris, M. D., Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building Number Three 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Steve Rothenburg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 William E. Partridge, Esquire Lutz, Webb, Partridge, BoBo, and Baitty One Sarasota Tower 2 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 500 Sarasota, Florida 34236
Findings Of Fact David R. Ness, Petitioner, attended Southern College of Optometry in Memphis, Tennessee, and graduated in May 1990. Part of his training included a three-month externship with James C. Lanier, O.D., an optometrist practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Lanier found him a very competent student, thorough in his fact finding and case histories; and satisfactory, if not above average, in his examination of the patients. Dr. Lanier did not participate in the grading of the examination in issue and has no personal knowledge of Petitioner's performance on the examination. Petitioner sat for the September 1990 Optometry licensure examination. He passed the certification portion of the examination and the laws and rules section; he failed the pharm./ocular portion and the clinical portion. After several challenges to the examination, the Board adjusted some scores, but Petitioner's scores in the pharm./ocular section and the clinical sections were still below passing. Written Examination The pharmacology/ocular written portion of the examination consists of a series of case histories, with five questions directed to each. Petitioner explained that he challenged his score on the following specific questions: History #1, question #4; History #5; question #23; History #7, questions #32-35; and History #10, question #48. Case history #1 describes a 19-year old female soft contact lens wearer with symptoms correctly identified by Petitioner as Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis. The patient relies on her contact lenses because she is an actress. The severity of her condition is 3+ on a scale of 1-4, with four being the most severe. Question #4 requires selection from six choices of the initial management course of choice. Petitioner chose "c", Pred Forte suspension, every two hours. Pred Forte is the strongest commercially available steroid and its application every two hours is reserved for very severe cases. While the condition described is moderate to severe, the better answer is "f", "switch to preservative free system, enzyme cleaning 1 time a week". The patient's cleaning solution, described in the case history, is an old solution with a preservative which is known to cause conjunctivitis. While the safest course would be to discontinue contact lens wear, this is a radical option for a patient who must wear the lenses for her work. The preferred course then is to change the solution to see if the condition improves before moving to a less conservative treatment such as Pred Forte. Case history #5 describes symptoms and includes a color photograph of the eye in issue. Petitioner correctly identified the differential diagnosis as "Essential Iris Atrophy" and "Reiger's Anomaly". The next question, #23, states that the fellow eye shows similar findings in a slit lamp examination, and asks which of the differential diagnoses is the final diagnosis. Petitioner selected "Essential Iris Atrophy". The correct answer is "Reiger's anomaly". Essential Iris Atrophy is almost always unilateral and Reiger's is bilateral. The question required the examinee to know this distinction. Case history #7, describes a 37-year old patient with alleged recent vision field loss which occurred after thoracic surgery. The history describes an examination in which the patient remarks that he "isn't going to sue the physician" and where, with coaxing, his vision is much better than he admits. The patient also presented summary results of carotid artery testing and CT studies, which were normal. In his answers to questions 32-35, Petitioner chose diagnoses and treatment based on his conviction that he should try to help anyone who would come to him. He missed the fact that the patient described in the case history is a malingerer who likely is trying to sue his surgeon, and who requires no treatment. Case history #10 describes a 68-year old patient who is being examined for fitting of an extended wear contact lens. The best corrected vision is 20/50 OD, with or without a contact lens. The examination question includes two photographs, one of the fundus examination, the other of a fluorescein angiogram. An angiogram is obtained by injecting dye in the forearm and taking pictures with a special filter as the dye circulates through the blood vessels within the eye. This process is able to reveal abnormalities in the eye. Petitioner missed the question relating to the final diagnosis, which should have been "age-related macular degeneration with secondary choroidal neovascular membrane". Final diagnosis relied, in part, on the fluorescein angiogram. While Petitioner is not arguing that his answer is correct, he contends that the question itself is invalid, because it depends on a process which optometrists are not licensed to perform and it was too technical for recent graduates. People coming out of school have been exposed to live patients and have seen fluorescein angiograms performed and have seen their photographs. Moreover, in Florida, the number of elderly patients makes it necessary that optometrists be proficient in diagnosing age-related macular degeneration. The Practical/Clinical Examination Section 1 of the clinical portion of the practical examination involves the two examiners' review of the examinee's performance of an actual eye examination of a live patient. The two examiners are briefed extensively prior to the examination as to what to look for, but they do not confer during the examination when scoring various functions. For this reason, there may be disagreement between the two examiners. The scores are averaged. On section 1, item #6, with regard to the patient's case history, "follow-up information", the point spread is 0-7, with points being subtracted for failure to follow up on certain information. One examiner gave Petitioner the maximum number of points for the entire case history section. The other examiner gave Petitioner a "no" (0 points) under "personal ocular history", and commented on the examination score sheet that the examinee did not ask ocular history. The same examiner took off 2 points on item #6, "follow-up information" and commented, "did not ask ocular history". At some point during Petitioner's initial challenge, he was given credit for item #3, because it was determined that he did obtain an ocular history. The additional points were not restored to item #6, but should have been; as the failure to obtain that history is the basis for the reduced score. The examiner was not present at hearing to explain any other basis. Section 2 of the clinical portion of the practical examination requires the examinee to perform a series of functions under the scrutiny of two examiners (not the same two as in section 1). Again, the scores are awarded without consultation and there are discrepancies. In each area the examiner marks "yes" or "no" as to whether the procedure is properly performed. A "no" must be supported with the examiner's comment. Two yes marks entitle the examinee to 2 points; a yes/no is worth one point; and two no's are scored zero. For each function, the examinee must demonstrate twice. That is, he says "ready", and the first examinee views the result, then he prepares again and signals, "ready", for the second examiner. For section 2, the candidate is performing techniques or functions on his own patient, a patient whom he brings to the examination and with whom he is familiar. Petitioner is challenging the grading method for Section 2. In 6 out of 16 techniques or functions, the two examinees disagreed; that is, one gave a "yes", and the other, a "no". Petitioner contends that he should get full credit anytime he got one "yes", since that indicates that two people, the examinee and one examiner, agree. There are several reasons why two examiners may disagree on whether the examinee performed a function or technique properly. In some instances one examiner may give the individual the benefit of the doubt; in other cases the patient might move or blink or the examinee might lose his focus. The fact that two examiners independently assess the results gives the examinee two chances to demonstrate his skill. The third section of the clinical examination requires an examination of a live patient where the refractive error of the patient's vision is determined, and a prescription is made. Before being presented to the examinee, the patient is examined independently by three licensed optometrists serving as "monitors". Their examinations give the refraction results against which the examinee's results are compared. Their examinations also determine whether the patient is suitable; that is, the eye must be refracted correctable to 20/20 and the other eye correctable to 20/50. A fourth monitor reviews the results before the patient is presented to the examinee. In this case the patient was examined by the monitors and was found acceptable. Petitioner had problems with the patient; the best he could read was the 20/25 line. Petitioner felt that the patient should have been disqualified and commented in writing on that at the end of his examination, as was appropriate. The comments were reviewed by Dr. Attaway, who considered that the patient had met the criteria when examined by the monitors. Petitioner's refractions varied significantly from the monitors' refractions, which also varied somewhat from each other. Petitioner received a score of 3, out of possible 20, on this portion of the examination. Dr. Attaway did not, himself, examine the patient and the monitors who performed the examinations were not present to testify. The only evidence to rebut Petitioner's findings was the written report of the monitors. Pass Rate for the Examination Out of 130 candidates, approximately 34 percent passed all parts of the September optometry examination. In 1986, 51 percent passed; in 1987, 33.5 percent passed; in 1988, 59.6 percent passed; and in 1989, 52 percent passed. These figures do not, alone, establish that the test is too technical or unfair, nor does the fact that very good students failed. When the examinations are evaluated, when the examinee's performance is rated, there is no established pass rate; the monitors have no idea how close the individual examinee is to passing, either originally or when a challenge is being addressed. Petitioner was a very articulate and candid witness. His two experts were clearly knowledgeable and were sincerely concerned that he should be licensed. None had the experience of Respondent's witnesses, also well-qualified licensed optometrists, in working with the examination. With the exception of the inconsistent score on Section 1, item #6, Petitioner failed to prove that he is entitled to a higher score on any portion of the examination, or that the examination itself was invalid or unfair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, recommended that Petitioner's final score on Section 1 of the clinical examination be adjusted to reflect full credit for Item #6; that he be permitted to retake Section 3 of the clinical examination; and that his remaining challenges to the examination be denied. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 29th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-0700 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1.-2. Adopted in paragraph 2. 3. Adopted in substance in paragraph 20. 4.-6. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in summary in paragraph 2. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Finding of Fact #15 reflects the grades after adjustment. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant. This fact does not make the examination invalid so long as it fairly evaluates the qualification of the applicant. 13.-14. Rejected as statements of statutory language rather than findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings The Hearing Officer is unable to find where in the record the exact final score of Petitioner is reflected. Adopted in paragraph 1. Rejected as restatement of testimony rather than findings of fact. 4.-5. Rejected as unnecessary. 6.-15. Rejected as restatement of testimony; summary statements, or argument, rather than findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Ness 611 Poinsettia Avenue Titusville, FL 32780 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford, Exec. Director Dept. of Professional Regulation Board of Optometry 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed medical doctor holding license number MEOO17343 issued by the Florida Board of Medical Examiners. He has a general family practice but also states that he specializes in neurology as well. He is not board certified in any specialty. He has had many years of practical medical experience in Cuba and later in the United States. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating and enforcing licensure and the licensure standards for medical doctors in Florida, and enforcing the practice standards embodied in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. In October, 1981, the Respondent employed Manuel Farinas to work in his medical office, specifically for the purpose of performing eye examinations and writing prescriptions for eyeglasses. The Respondent had known Manuel Farinas when they were in Cuba and knew that he had experience also in working with contact lenses and fitting contact lenses and eyeglasses. The Respondent was aware that Farinas did not hold a license to practice any of the medical or healing arts in Florida, but was informed by Farinas that he was then studying to take the foreign medical graduate examination which is a prerequisite to licensure. The Respondent set up a separate eye examination room in his medical offices which contained equipment designed specifically to perform eye examinations. Indeed, as established by Petitioner's composite Exhibit 7, Manuel Farinas has not been and is not licensed as a physician or physician's assistant in Florida and holds no license in Florida authorizing practice of medicine in any form. On March 16, 1982, Dorris B. Bruce, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, went to the Respondent's office to obtain an eye examination. Patient Bruce was examined by Mr. Farinas and was diagnosed as having "hypertension retinopathy." The examination of the "patient" consisted of a cornea examination, an examination for conjunctivitis, the patient's lenses were checked, and a fundus examination was performed. The patient was given a prescription for eyeglasses on the Respondent's prescription blank, which bore his printed name. The blank was unsigned and Respondent's testimony itself establishes that the examination of patient Bruce and the rendering of the prescription for eyeglasses was done exclusively by Manuel Farinas, and Respondent did not examine Dorris Bruce nor supervise the medical care provided by Farinas. Robert Wolf, an investigator employed with the Department, made an appointment for an eye examination with the Eyeglass Emporium for June 1, 1982. This is a business establishment and opticinary owned by one Geoffrey Hullman. It is located next door to, and in the same building with, the Respondent's medical office. Upon arriving at the Eyeglass Emporium, Mr. Wolf was directed to the Respondent's adjoining medical office where the "patient" completed a patient information form. Mr. Wolf was then taken by one of Respondent's office assistants to the examining room for the eye examination mentioned above. Shortly thereafter, an office assistant entered the room accompanied by a man who was introduced as the doctor who would perform the eye examination. The "doctor" was actually Manuel Farinas. Notations in the medical record prepared on patient Wolf at the Respondent's office (Exhibit 3 in evidence) establish that the patient had a visual eye examination without glasses and was examined for conjunctivitis and also had cornea, lens and fundus examinations. Farinas examined Mr. Wolf by shining a flashlight type device into his eyes, having him read a wall chart, and by having him look through a lens in a machine that flashed charts on the wall until Farinas got the best subjective reading of visual acuity from the patient. The patient was also given a chart to read. Farinas diagnosed the patient as having a mild case of conjunctivitis and gave him a prescription for eyeglasses and a prescription for Vicollirum. Both prescriptions were written on blanks bearing the Respondent's name and office address. Upon completion of the eye examination, the prescriptions were written by Manuel Farinas for patient Wolf and were placed in a folder and given to the patient. The prescriptions were not signed by either Farinas or the Respondent. At no time during the patient's presence in the Respondent's office, did the Respondent either examine the patient or review and approve the medical prescriptions written for the patient, or supervise the medical examination activities of Farinas. The patient was then directed by Farinas through a door adjoining the Respondent's office to the Eyeglass Emporium to have the prescription for eyeglasses filled. Investigators for the Petitioner then re-entered the Respondent's office at that time and interviewed Farinas who was still in the room where the patient Wolf had been examined. After identifying themselves as investigators for Petitioner, Farinas was asked for identification. He identified himself as Dr. Manuel Farinas and admitted that he had written the prescriptions for patient Wolf. Respondent entered the room at that point and the Petitioner's employees identified themselves as investigators. In the presence of the Respondent, the investigator elicited statements from Farinas that he had examined patient Wolf and that he had written the two prescriptions for that patient as well as eliciting the statement that he was not licensed. The Respondent did not comment on any of those responses by Farinas at that time. Farinas then produced for Petitioner's investigators documents purporting to show that he had received medical training in Cuba. The Petitioner established through expert testimony of Dr. Lawrence T. Reese, who is a board certified opthalmologist, with a sub-specialty in retinal muscular disease, that a medical doctor does not receive the appropriate training in a general M.D. degree course of study to qualify him to either perform a thorough eye examination or to prescribe eye-wear for patients. Dr. Reese practices in Dade County, Florida and is affiliated with Parkway Regional Medical Center and Humana Hospital. He holds a voluntary faculty appointment at the University of Miami School of Medicine in Opthalmology. Dr. Reese is aware of the general standard of instruction in opthalmology in a medical school curriculum for the general M.D. degree granting institutions. This instruction, consists of from three to four hours of instruction, and is basically a laboratory study where the medical students examine each others' eyes. Thus, the general medical student who fails to pursue a specialty in opthalmology, receives only a bare minimum amount of training in patient eyecare and examination. A general or family practitioner would thus only have minimal involvement in the area of eye-care. Dr. Reese is aware of the generally prevailing standard of care of general practitioners in Dade County, Florida. Dr. Reese thus established that the extent of eye-care provided by general practitioners in that medical community is to visually look into the patient's eyes as a part of a general medical examination. This is a cursory eye examination at best. The visual examination consists of looking into the patient's eyes with an opthalomoscope in order to get a view of the optic nerves and surrounding fundus. If such a general practitioner/family practitioner examination shows that the patient's eyes appear to be normal, this is the extent of the visual examination performed. If problems are apparent, the general prevailing standard of practice dictates that the general practitioner or family practitioner refer the patient to a board certified opthalmologist. John Handwerker, M.D., is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida who has practiced medicine in Dade County for 33 years. His testimony corroborates that of Dr. Reese. Dr. Handwerker is not aware of any eye-care training provided by medical schools in M.D. degree granting programs. He is aware of the generally accepted prevailing standards of practice of medicine by general and family practitioners in Dade County and established that a family practitioner would not typically perform a refraction of the eyes for the purpose of prescribing eyeglasses. That standard would be the same for a general practitioner even if he has a sub-specialty in neurology, which is not a relevant sub-specialty to questions of eye-care. This type of practitioner would not have either the training or experience to perform such an examination. As established by both of these expert witnesses, a person who takes a patient's history, makes an examination of the patient's eyes and prescribes either medication or an optical lens or both, is engaged in the practice of medicine. Both medical experts established that if a licensed medical doctor authorizes an unlicensed person to take the medical history of a patient, perform the eye examination and write prescriptions for medication, or for optical lenses for that patient, and the extent of the licensee's participation in the process is either to merely sign the prescription or at most to review the patient's medical records, then that licensed medical doctor is not properly supervising an unlicensed person and is permitting an unlicensed person to practice medicine. As established by Dr. Reese, a thorough eye examination would consist of determining if the patient has a family history of eye disease, determining whether the patient is experiencing any particular visual problem, determining the refractive state of the patient's eyes (that is, visual acuity), and would include a check of various eye systems of the patient, such as the pupils and their reaction to light as well as the ocular motor system for eye movement (musculature). Additionally, a properly examined patient, should be checked for visual defects, have a slit lamp examination to determine the medical condition of the eyes (which consists of examining the upper and lower parts of the pupils under the eyelids), the patient's cornea should be checked for material in the eye fluid and in most instances a dilated examination of the pupil should be done to diagnose its condition. When all of these examinations and checks are performed the doctor can then reach a cogent conclusion concerning the overall health of the patient's eyes and make appropriate recommendations concerning care and treatment. A medical diagnosis that a patient's fundus is normal, cornea is normal and the lens is normal can only be made if the patient's eyes have been dilated. The fundus can be examined without dilating the patient's eyes, although dilation would give increased ability to examine it. Dilation of a patient's eyes is effected by the use of a prescription drug by medical practitioners who are experienced and who practice in the area of eye examinations and eye-care. Both patients Bruce and Wolf were diagnosed by Farinas as having normal fundus, cornea and lenses. But this diagnosis was made without a thorough eye examination because Farinas did not dilate their eyes to adequately check these systems. Although it is true that ready-made eyeglasses can be purchased at commercial department stores with or without a prescription, where a patient has visited a medical doctor's office and had his eyes examined and is given a written prescription for glasses, the patient then believes that he has received a proper, competent medical eye examination and is being prescribed glasses for valid medical reasons. Where an inadequately trained or unlicensed person performs visual examinations and writes medical prescriptions for glasses, a patient is being deceived or at least potentially deceived as to the correct assessment of the condition of his eyes. The testimony of the Respondent himself as well as Mr. Hullman, the operator of the Eyeglass Emporium, establishes that Farinas was known and referred to as "Dr. Farinas" during the time he was employed in Respondent's office. Farinas was introduced to Mr. Wolf as "Dr. Farinas" at a time when he was not (and still is not) licensed in Florida. Both Drs. Reese and Handwerker opined that where a general practitioner with a specialty in neurology permits an unlicensed person to conduct medical examinations and write medical prescriptions for eyeglasses or for medicinal drugs, and the extent of the licensee's contact with the patient is to sign prescriptions or review the patient's medical records, the licensee has failed to conform to generally accepted and prevailing standards of care recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians under similar conditions and circumstances. The Respondent is not board certified in opthalmology and has had no residency training or other formal training in opthalmology outside the minimal general training described above, received in the course of preparing for his M.D. degree. The Respondent maintained that he has extensive experience performing medical visual examinations, but this testimony is not deemed credible because, as revealed by Petitioner's Exhibit 8 in evidence, during the informal proceeding before the Board where Respondent was also testifying under oath, he acknowledged that he had not performed medical visual examinations or refractions and had not written a medical prescription for eyeglasses in over 13 years, thus, his testimony that he has had extensive experience in performing medical visual examinations recently and during the period under consideration in the Administrative Complaint is not deemed credible. Although Respondent contends that he supervised the practice of Farinas, his testimony conflicts with competent evidence indicating otherwise. The supervision consisted of the Respondent allegedly reviewing the patient's records and signing prescriptions for eyeglasses or drugs written by Farinas. Although expert testimony has established that this does not constitute adequate supervision by a licensed medical doctor, in the case of both patients involved in this proceeding the eyeglass prescriptions were actually never signed. Although use of unsigned prescriptions is not necessarily illegal, it shows that Farinas was not supervised to any significant extent at all in his examination, care and treatment of patients who presented themselves to the Respondent's office for an eye examination. When patient Wolf was in the Respondent's office he was never examined by Respondent, nor was his prescription given him by Farinas ever reviewed by the Respondent, nor did the Respondent review his medical history, which he had provided in writing on a form provided by Respondent's office. Additionally, as established by witness Hullman, that witness returned unsigned prescriptions to the Respondent's office for the Respondent to sign after the prescriptions had already been filled by the opticianry and after the investigation into this matter had commenced. The Respondent signed the previously unsigned prescriptions and returned them to Hullman and thus it is established that at the time the prescriptions were executed and filled, the Respondent did not supervise the prescribing by Farinas nor the examinations to which the prescriptions related, both as to prescriptions of eyeglasses or drugs. Finally, it should be pointed out that Respondent was aware in April of 1982 that his use of Farinas in performing visual examinations and prescriptions as to eye-care patients was improper because of the visit to his office by Investigator Dorris Bruce. Two months later, however, patient Wolf went to the Respondent's office for an eye examination and was also examined by Farinas and tendered prescriptions by Farinas with no signature, supervision or other review of the procedure performed or prescriptions given by the Respondent. This was some nine months after Farinas first became employed in these capacities at the Respondent's office.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent, Orlando C. Ramos, M.D., guilty, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, of violations of Section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1981); Section 453.331(1)(w), Florida Statutes, (1981), as well as a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1981), and that a fine of $2,000 be imposed and the Respondent's license to practice medicine be suspended for a period of three months. It is further recommended that the Respondent's licensure status be probationary for a one year period commencing at the conclusion of the three month's suspension, during which such probationary period his medical practice should be monitored by the Petitioner to ensure that such violations of the Medical Practice Act do not recur. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, 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 21st day of November, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Norman S. Bateh is the Petitioner in this matter and is an unsuccessful candidate on the optometry (theory and practice) licensing examination administered by the Respondent Board of Optometry on July 23 through 25, 1983. The development of, an examination by this Board reflects careful planning and consideration to ensure it fairly tests an applicant's knowledge of the subject matter. Prior to the preparation of a particular examination, a large pool of questions is developed from numerous professional and academic sources. After the examination is given, an analysis of it is conducted to see how the questions are received by the examinees. Examinees are given the opportunity to contest particular questions after the examination has been administered. Based on the Board's analysis of the test results, any question that was answered correctly by less than 58 percent of the examinees, in addition to those questions contested by the examinees are sent for verification to the Board's consultants, in this case Drs. Pappas and Chrycy. If, upon review by the consultants, it appears a question was incorrectly graded, ambiguous, unclear, or unfair; or if, in the consultant's opinion, there is any sort of problem with the question, all examinees are given credit for it. Passing grade on the 100-question, multiple-choice examination was 70 percent. Petitioner was initially awarded a grade of 66, but on review, at his request, of several of the questions which were graded as wrong, he was awarded two more points, which brings his grade to 68, still two points below passing. He was ranked 98th out of 103 examinees. Petitioner challenges four questions at this hearing as being either improperly graded or invalid because the question is incapable of a correct answer. These questions are numbered 8, 31, 73 and 78 and will be discussed individually, infra. If Petitioner's answer is determined to be correct, he will be awarded one point credit for that question. If any question is determined to be invalid for any reason, Petitioner will be awarded one point credit for that question. Question 8 on the examination read: Intraocular lens placement after cateract extraction results in an image magnification of approximately: 0% 4% 9% D. 25% Petitioner's answer on the examination was "C. 9%." The Board's correct answer was "B. 4%." Petitioner presented the testimony of an ophthalmologist, Dr. Schnauss, who has performed the operation to implant intraocular lenses between 500 and 600 times. As an expert who has used the lenses in his practice frequently and as consultant to one .of the major manufacturers of these lenses, e states unequivocally the degree of magnification is less than 1 percent, but not 0 percent. The further away from the location of the original lens of the eye, the greater the magnification. Since the lens implant is close to the plane of the original eye lens, there would be little magnification. Therefore, notwithstanding the conclusions of the Respondent's experts, Dr. Pappas and Dr. Chrycy, both consultants to the Board of Optometry, who cite Duane, Clinical Ophthalmology, Vol. I, as authority, no answer listed as an option on the examination is clinically correct. However, 52 percent of the candidates who took this particular examination gave the Board's correct answer. Question 31 on the examination read: Which of the following would you consider a positive scotoma: the blind spot Evan's angia-scotomas Seidel's scotoma muscae volitantes Petitioner's answer on the examination was "C. Seidel's scotoma." The Board's correct answer was "D. muscae volitantes." A scotoma is a blind spot in the patient's vision. Positive scotomas are those which are noticeable by the patient as he sees. Negative scotomas are not noticeable to the patient, but show up under test. A Seidel's scotoma, which is an extension of a blind spot, would not be a positive scotoma because the patient would not see it in the visual field. The Board's preferred answer, muscae volitantes, was attacked by Petitioner's experts as being inaccurate since they are bits of floating protein substance in the eye which, .though they are opaque and create a block to vision where they exist, are not true blind spots because they are not a defective area in the eye and they move. They are blind only because they temporarily block vision, not because they are a defect in the eye. Therefore, while muscae volitantes are, technically, positive scotomas where they exist, the question is inartfully drawn, vague and confusing, a conclusion supported by the fact that only 28 percent of the candidates got the correct answer. This low figure, to Mr. Gustafson, Respondent's test statistician, is insignificant. However, a question so confusing that only 29 of 103 examinees get it right and which is capable of such substantial meritorious argument on both sides is truly vague. Question 73 on the examination read: A keratoconus patient with "K" readings of 46.00 x 52.00 can best be fitted with which lens: a spherical firm lens a soft lens with overglasses a bitoric gas permeable lens with light touch on the cone a bitoric gas permeable lens with heavy touch on the cone Though Petitioner testified his answer was "D," and he defended it at the hearing, his answer on the examination was "A." The Board's correct answer was "C." The prime consideration in this question is the touch of the lens, not the issue of hard or soft, or gas permeability. The most current edition of Mandell's textbook and the majority of optometrists today feel that the best choice of lens for fitting a keratoconus patient is the bitoric gas permeable lens with light touch. The opinion of the "majority of optometrists" referred to by Dr. Chrycy was garnered in discussions with a personal friend who, as a Fellow of the American College of Optometry, had recently attended a meeting of that body where this exact subject was, discussed and that opinion rendered. Petitioner cited an earlier edition of Mandell's work to urge the position that a firm lens is required to contain the protrusion of the dark part of the eye that comes along with keratoconus. Later opinion, however, changes that position which is now no longer considered the better treatment. Petitioner also challenged the "K" readings in the question as being unreliable. Unfortunately by doing so, reasonable asthat might be in the practice of optometry, he read into the question a factor that was neither present nor intended by the examiners. The "1(" readings in this question were agiven quantity. Petitioner's treating them as a "trick" was an unfortunate mistake. It is also pertinent to note that 71 of the 103 examinees (69 percent) chose the correct answer to this question. Question 78 on the examination, the fourth and last one challenged by Petitioner at the hearing, reads: The extraocular muscle most frequently involved in extropia is the medial rectus superior rectus lateral rectus superior oblique Petitioner's answer was "C. lateral rectus." The Board's correct answer was "A. medial rectus." The term "extropia" means a turning outward of the eye. The term "extraocular" means outside the eye. The medial rectus muscle is the muscle between the eye and the nose which pulls toward the center of the face. The lateral rectus muscle is that on the outward part of the eye which pulls toward the ear. In a normal individual, the muscles, of equal strength, balance each other and the eye looks forward unless the person involved moves it. Extropia is caused when there is an imbalance of the muscles, either by a weakening of the medial rectus, which allows the normallateral rectus to overpower it, or by an unnatural strengthening of the lateral rectus which then overpowers the normal medial rectus. By far the greater weight of optometric opinion, based on observation and testing, reveals that the most frequent" cause of this condition is the weakening ofthe medial rectus, leaving the lateral rectus normal. Consequently, the correct answer is not lateral rectus as claimed by Petitioner, but the medial rectus as stated by the Board,notwithstanding even the Board's expert, witness testified there is no definitive authority to support the Board's choice. In this case, 64 percent of the examinees chose the correct answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding that Petitioner should be awarded one additional point credit for Question 31 and that he, nonetheless, failed to achieve a passing score on the July, 1982, optometry examination. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Abraham I. Bateh, Esq. 2124 Park Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Rochep Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Mildred Gardner Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner must reimburse the Respondent for Medicaid overpayments as set out in the Final Agency Audit Report dated October 29, 2003, and, if so, the amount to be repaid.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: AHCA is, and was at all times material to this proceeding, the state agency charged with administering Florida's Medicaid Program; with making payments to providers of goods and services on behalf of Medicaid recipients; and with overseeing the Medicaid Program, auditing Medicaid providers, and recovering overpayments made to Medicaid providers. See §§ 409.901, 409.902, and 409.913, Fla. Stat. (2003). During the Audit Period, Ady Optical was an authorized Medicaid provider of opticianry services,3 having been issued Medicaid provider number 2002949-00. To become a Medicaid provider, Ady Optical executed a Medicaid Provider Agreement. The FAAR dated October 29, 2003, was based on a review by Dr. Regina Manes of Ady Optical's records for the 30 randomly-selected Medicaid recipients. At the time of the final hearing, Dr. Manes was no longer under contract with AHCA and, therefore, was not available to testify. AHCA requested that Dr. Walby testify at the final hearing as its expert in optometry. In preparation for the final hearing, Dr. Walby reviewed the records submitted by Ady Optical and made an independent determination of the appropriateness of the 294 claims at issue for the Audit Period. Dr. Walby's conclusions were not always consistent with those of Dr. Manes. Ms. Whaley reconciled the two reviews and allowed a claim if either Dr. Walby or Dr. Manes determined that it was covered by Medicaid. As a result of Dr. Walby's review and Ms. Whaley's reconciliation, AHCA lowered the amount it seeks to recover from Ady Optical to $45,914.17. The purpose of Medicaid visual services, as stated in the Coverage and Limitations Handbook, is "to provide medically necessary eyeglasses, contact lenses, eyeglass repair services, and prosthetic eyes to Medicaid recipients." "Visual services" are described in the Coverage and Limitations Handbook as "the medically necessary provision of eyeglasses, prosthetic eyes, and contact lenses; the fitting, dispensing, and adjusting of eyeglasses; and eyeglass repair services." The Coverage and Limitations Handbook is to be used in conjunction with the Reimbursement Handbook, which provides information and guidance to assist Medicaid providers in filing claims properly. The claims at issue in this case involve the provision of eyeglass lenses to Medicaid recipients by Ady Optical. Medicaid recipients bring their eyeglass prescriptions to Ady Optical, and Mr. Jimenez, as the licensed optician at Ady Optical, helps the recipient select eyeglass frames and orders lenses in the powers required by the prescription. An optician such as Mr. Jimenez has the discretion to order lenses with special features such as tints, plastic or glass lenses, variable asphericity lenses, and lenses with a special base curve, depending on the needs of the individual. The lenses selected by an optician for a Medicaid recipient must be optically necessary, that is, necessary to enhance visual acuity, and information establishing the optical necessity for the selection of non-standard lenses must be contained in the documentation maintained by the optician. Sometimes the need for a non-standard lens is apparent from the prescription, but in most cases, the optical necessity must be noted in the documentation. The claims for which AHCA disallowed full or partial payment to Ady Optical are claims for variable asphericity lenses, claims for lenses with special base curves, one claim for an oversized lens, claims for which Ady Optical provided inadequate documentation to establish that lenses were ordered for Medicaid recipients, and claims involving errors in coding. Claims for variable asphericity lenses Prescriptions for eyeglass lenses are expressed in "plus or minus" diopter units. Variable asphericity lenses were originally designed to ameliorate the magnification and "off-of- the-center" effects of the very thick lenses necessary to correct the vision of persons with extremely high diopter prescriptions, such as the prescriptions of ± 15 diopters or more needed in the past by persons who had had cataract surgery.4 With advances in technology and surgical techniques, there are few patients with prescriptions this high, and variable asphericity lenses are now made for prescriptions with much lower diopters. The curve of a variable asphericity lens is different from that of a regular lens, and variable asphericity lenses are lighter in weight than regular lenses, which can be a factor for persons with high diopter prescriptions. Variable asphericity lenses also provide significantly better peripheral vision for persons with high diopter prescriptions than regular lenses can provide. There is, however, a minimal difference in weight between variable asphericity lenses and regular lenses with low diopter prescriptions, and peripheral vision is usually not affected when regular lenses are used for low diopter prescriptions. The Coverage and Limitations Handbook in effect during the Audit Period provides that both single vision variable asphericity lenses, assigned procedure code V2410, and bifocal variable asphericity lenses, assigned procedure code V2430, may be billed under the same codes for all powers ranging from .25 to over 6.0 diopters.5 In his review of the Medicaid claims submitted by Ady Optical for the 30 randomly-selected Medicaid recipients included in the audit, Dr. Walby disallowed all claims for variable asphericity lenses because the prescriptions were lower than ± 7.00 diopters. Dr. Walby reasoned that any optician should know that variable asphericity lenses should not be prescribed for prescriptions with diopters lower than ± 7 units. Dr. Walby variously described the ± 7 diopter cut-off for variable asphericity lenses as the standard he considered "the industry standard" and as the standard he chooses to use in his practice. Dr. Walby also testified that the ± 7-diopter standard had previously been chosen by Medicaid as the minimum prescription for which contact lenses are covered and that this standard was adopted in the current Coverage and Limitations Handbook "because somebody had to draw a line in the sand, and that's where it got drawn."6 Dr. Walby has failed to establish by persuasive evidence that, in the practice of opticianry, there is an absolute industry standard that dictates that variable asphericity lenses are never optically necessary for a person whose prescription is lower than ± 7.00 diopters.7 Because the Coverage and Limitations Handbook in effect during the Audit Period permitted the use of variable asphericity lenses for prescriptions of ± 0.25 diopters and above, Ady Optical is entitled to reimbursement for variable asphericity lenses provided to Medicaid recipients whose prescriptions are below ± 7.00 diopters as long as Ady Optical documented that variable asphericity lenses were optically necessary to provide adequate visual acuity and reasonable comfort. Ady Optical ordered variable asphericity lenses for Recipients 1 through 3, 5 through 8, and 10 through 30. None of these recipients' prescriptions exceeded ± 5.25 diopters. Most of the prescriptions for these recipients were below ± 3.00 diopters, and several of the prescriptions called for "plano" lenses, that is, lenses with no magnification power. Ady Optical failed to indicate on any of the laboratory order forms any optical necessity for providing variable asphericity lenses to these recipients. The claims submitted by Ady Optical to Medicaid for payment for variable asphericity lenses for these recipients are, therefore, disallowed. Claims for lenses with special base curves Although there is a standard base curve for eyeglass lenses, lenses can be made with different base curves to accommodate the special needs of an individual. The Coverage and Limitations Handbook in effect during the Audit Period provides that special base curves, assigned procedure code V2730, may be billed with no stated limitations. In order to be covered by Medicaid, lenses with special base curves must be optically necessary, and the optical necessity must either be inherent in the prescription or documented in the optician's records. In addition, the optician is responsible for specifying the particular curvature of the lens required to meet the needs of the individual whenever a special base curve lens is ordered. There is optical necessity for lenses with special base curves when a person's prescription for one eye is significantly larger than the prescription for the other eye; the image size in both lenses can be made the same by adjusting the curves of the lenses. There is also optical necessity for a lens with a special base curve when a person's eyelashes scrape the back of the lens in their eyeglasses; the lenses could be made with a steeper base curve than the standard base curve to remedy this problem. Although Dr. Walby testified that there are optical reasons for ordering a lens with a special base curve, he did not explain any reasons except those noted. Ady Optical ordered lenses with special base curves for Recipients 1, 2, 4 through 8, 11 through 14, and 17 through There is nothing on the laboratory order forms for these recipients to indicate that special base curves for the lenses ordered were optically necessary, and there is nothing inherent in the prescriptions that would justify lenses with special base curves. On the laboratory order forms for all of the above recipients except for Recipient 8 and Recipient 23, the special base curve specified was "variable," "special," "thinnest," "flat," "flattest," and "match Rx." These descriptive terms do not provide a specific base curve measurement to the laboratory, and the base curve measurement was determined by the laboratory rather than by an optician. On the laboratory order form for Recipients 8 and 23, base curve measurements of +4.0 and +6.0, respectively, were specified; these base curve measurements are, however, standard for the prescriptions of Recipients 8 and 23. The claims submitted by Ady Optical for payment for lenses with special base curves for these recipients are, therefore, disallowed. The laboratory order forms for Recipients 10, 15, 16, 20, and 30 did not include an order for lenses with special base curves. The claims submitted by Ady Optical to Medicaid for payment for lenses with special base curves for these recipients are disallowed. Oversized lenses Pursuant to the Coverage and Limitations Handbook, Medicaid will pay for oversized lenses, assigned procedure code V2780, for recipients whose eye-size is 56 millimeters or greater. Ady Optical submitted a claim to Medicaid for payment for oversized lenses for Recipient 23. Recipient 23's eye-size was specified on the laboratory order form as 50 millimeters, and the claim for payment for oversized lenses for this recipient is disallowed. Claims not supported by documentation All claims submitted to Medicaid for Recipient 6 for lenses ordered on June 13, 2000, are disallowed because the documentation provided by Ady Optical to AHCA does not include a laboratory order form for that date. All claims submitted to Medicaid for Recipient 9 for August 11, 1999, and for October 28, 1999, are disallowed because the documentation provided by Ady Optical to AHCA does not include laboratory order forms for those dates. All claims submitted to Medicaid for Recipient 10 for lenses ordered on September 29, 1999, are disallowed because the documentation provided by Ady Optical to AHCA does not include a laboratory order form for that date. All claims submitted to Medicaid for Recipient 19 for lenses ordered on May 29, 1999, and June 12, 2000, are disallowed because the documentation provided by Ady Optical to AHCA does not include laboratory order forms for those dates. All claims submitted to Medicaid for Recipient 22 for lenses ordered on April 7, 1999, are disallowed because the documentation provided by Ady Optical to AHCA does not include a laboratory order form for that date. All claims submitted to Medicaid for Recipient 26 for lenses ordered on July 16, 1999, are disallowed because the documentation provided by Ady Optical to AHCA does not include a laboratory order form for that date. All claims submitted to Medicaid for Recipient 27 for lenses ordered on August 23, 1999, are disallowed because the documentation provided by Ady Optical to AHCA does not include a laboratory order form for that date. Claims containing billing errors Mr. Jimenez does not challenge the disallowance of claims billed in error, specifically the claims for bifocal seg widths of over 28 millimeters for Recipients 20, 23, 26, and 27. Summary The evidence presented by AHCA is sufficient to support its determination that Ady Optical received Medicaid overpayments in the amount of $45,914.17.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Ady Optical, Inc., received overpayments from the Medicaid program in the amount of $45,914.17 during the period extending from January 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000, and requiring Ady Optical, Inc., to repay the overpayment amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 27th day of May, 2004.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent violated Chapter 463, Florida Statutes, by committing the acts alleged in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed optometrist in the state, holding license number OP 1513. Background Respondent performed optometry examinations on patient S.R. on September 12, 1988, and on September 22, 1988. The examinations were performed at Linsey Eyecare, 2021 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida. Respondent is a subcontractor for Dr. Steven Venokour who manages Linsey Eyecare. Linsey Eyecare advertises that it is a ". . . department store that . . . " fills ". . . 90% of most prescriptions . . . in about one hour. . ." and offers ". . . a complete and comprehensive visual diagnosis . . ." in which ". . . your eyes are screened for glaucoma." S.R. went to Linsey Eyecare because she saw its advertisement in the local newspaper. Respondent knew that S.R. had a family history of glaucoma. S.R. informed Respondent when she gave her ocular history to Respondent at the outset of her eye examination on September 12, 1988, that her father had lost his eyesight due to glaucoma. A patient with a family history of glaucoma may be at a greater risk of having glaucoma than a patient without such a history if the family history of glaucoma is hereditary rather than the result of an accident or disease. Respondent knew that his assistant had not performed a non-contact tonometer on S.R. Respondent did not perform a non-contact tonometry test (a "tonometry test") on S.R. during eye examination given to S.R. on September 12, 1988. A tonometry test is one of the tests used to screen for glaucoma. It is used to take a pressure reading using a machine that blows a puff of air in the patient's eye. The puff of air creates a startling sensation in the patient's eye that the patient does not easily forget. The machine used to give the tonometry in Linsey Eyecare was malfunctioning on September 12, 1988, and that particular test was not given to S.R. However, S.R. was given additional tests for glaucoma. S.R. discovered through conversations with a third party that a tonometry test is one of the tests customarily used to screen for glaucoma. S.R. recalled that she had not received a test using a puff of air in her eye. S.R. called Linsey Eyecare and scheduled another eye examination for September 22, 1988. A tonometry test was given to S.R. during her second eye examination on September 22, 1988. 3/ Negligence The minimum standard of medical care requires that a patient with a family history of glaucoma receive a complete glaucoma screening. The examination of such a patient should be more extensive than the examination given to a patient without a family history of glaucoma. A patient with a family history of glaucoma, at a minimum, should receive a tonometry test. If a tonometry test cannot be performed, intraocular pressure should be measured using the Goldman applanation tonometry. 4/ Irrespective of the method used to measure intraocular pressure, the cup to disc ratio should be measured to determine if cupping has occurred. Cupping is another clinical sign that increases the risk of glaucoma. The anterior angle should also be examined under a biomicroscope to determine if the angle is opened or closed. If a narrow angle is detected, fluid may not be draining properly and a gonioscopy should be performed to more accurately determine if the anterior angle is opened or closed. If all of the findings from the foregoing tests are positive, the patient should be given a visual field evaluation. Respondent failed to conform to the minimum standard of care when he did not measure S.R.'s intraocular pressure by either a non-contact tonometry or an applanation tonometry during his patient's initial visit to Linsey Eyecare. Some type of tonometry test is the minimum requirement for glaucoma screening. For a patient with a family history of glaucoma, it is essential that the tonometry test be performed during the initial examination and not during a follow-up examination. Respondent did not dilate S.R.'s eyes for further examination during her initial visit because S.R. had no other person available to drive her home. Respondent dismissed S.R. without performing any tonometry test, knowing that his patient had a family history of glaucoma. Respondent did not reschedule S.R. for a follow-up examination nor advise S.R. to arrange such an examination with Respondent's office or any other optometrist. The patient returned to Linsey Eyecare for a follow-up examination at her own insistence and not at the direction of Respondent. Respondent conformed to the minimum standard of care for S.R. during her follow-up examination on September 22, 1988. Respondent performed both a non-contact tonometry and an applanation tonometry. Respondent measured the cup to disc ratio, the depth and angle of the anterior chamber, and performed a visual field screening using confrontation fields. All of the test results were within normal ranges. Based upon the absence of positive findings, a gonioscopy was not appropriate and was not done. The only act of negligence committed by Respondent was the failure to perform some type of tonometry during S.R.'s initial eye examination on September 12, 1988. Medical Records Respondent failed to keep adequate written optometric records (the "records") for the initial eye examination given to S.R. on September 12, 1988. Respondent failed to document the reasons for omitting a tonometry from S.R.'s eye examination. In all other respects, the records maintained for the initial eye examination were adequate. The only notation in the family history is glaucoma. While the family history documented in the records was incomplete, the patient was unresponsive or uncooperative in providing such information. The reason for the incomplete family history was sufficiently documented with the notation "N". 5/ Respondent kept adequate records for the second eye examination given to S.R. on September 22, 1988. The notations in the records were difficult to read and the copies used by Petitioner's expert witness were of poor quality. Upon cross examination by Respondent, however, it was uncontroverted that proper and adequate records were maintained by Respondent for S.R.'s second eye examination. The records of the second examination reveal that the cup to disc ratio was sufficiently documented by the notations "CD" for clear and distinct and ".3N" in both eyes. Color of the optic nerve head was adequately described by the notation "WNL". The depth and angle of the anterior chamber was adequately documented by the notation of "3/3+" (three over three plus). The confrontation fields were adequately documented by the notation of "full OU". Adequate records were maintained by Respondent even though they contained sloppy penmanship and the copies reviewed by Petitioner's expert were poor in quality. Advertisement Respondent did not advertise goods or services in a manner that was fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading in form and content ("misleading"). The advertisement in question was not misleading. Even if it was misleading, the advertisement was placed by Linsey Eyecare under the direction of Dr. Venokour. Respondent was a subcontractor for Linsey Eyecare and had no control over the placement and content of advertising for that entity. 6/ Repeated Violations Respondent is guilty of repeated violations of applicable provisions of Florida law. In a Final Order entered on November 10, 1982, pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, Respondent was found guilty of having failed to remove all of the metal fragments found in a patient's eye during repeated attempts at removal on December 24, 25, and 28, 1981, in violation of Section 463.016(1)(g). Respondent was fined $500 and placed on probation for one year.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of failing to provide a tonometry during the patient's initial presentation and failing to document the patient's records as the omission and the reason for such an omission in violation of Sections 463.016(1)(g) and 463.016(1)(k), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Final Order should impose an administrative fine in the aggregate amount of $4,000 and place Respondent on probation for one year subject to reasonable terms of probation to be determined by Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 24th day of September, 1991.
