Findings Of Fact Ruth Rogers is a licensed medical physician authorized to practice medicine in this state. The Complaint allegations centered around testimony of the Respondent, Ruth Rogers, during a custody proceeding in which the Child Protective Services (a State Agency) was attempting to gain custody of one Dena (Nikki) Decker based on facts which will be set forth in detail hereinafter. Jack McGowan, a medical doctor engaged primarily in pediatrics in Fort Pierce, Florida, testified that he first treated Dena Decker during August of 1973, at which time Decker was approximately seven weeks old. Dr. McGowan made subsequent treatments of Dena Deckur on a regular basis through December of 1976. During December, Dr. McGowan noted that Decker's lymph glands were enlarged and he ordered that certain lab work be performed, the results of which were returned to him sometime during early January of 1977. Based on the lab results, Dr. McGowan tentatively diagnosed Dena Decker as being a patient suffering from acute leukemia. To confirm this diagnosis, he referred her to the Shands Teaching Medical Center in Gainesville, wherein Dr. McGowan's diagnosis was confirmed. The treating physicians of Patient Decker at Shands Teaching Hospital were Drs. Jerry L. Arbosa and David Pockmore. It was their medical opinion that Dena was in fact suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia and that this disease should be treated by chemotherapy at Shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville. Drs. Barbosa and Rockmore explained to the parents of Dena Decker the benefits and side effects of chemotherapy treatment, and they suggested that this was the best method of treating a patient such as Dena Decker, who was suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia. They noted, however, that there were some side effects, such as loss of hair and the destruction of certain "good" cells as well as "bad" cells. Dema Decker's parents requested time to consider the chemotherapy treatment and Drs. Barbosa and Rockmore stressed to her parents that "time was of the essence". After a few days, the parents of Dena Decker declined the treatment and at that juncture, Drs. Barbosa and Rockmore called in the Child Protective Services of Gainesville wherein a custody proceeding was convened, with the State seeking a custody award of Dena Decker. During that proceeding, Dr. Ruth Rogers, Respondent, testified that she would treat such a patient suffering from acute lymphoblastic leukemia with natural foods, herbs and optimal psychological support. It was Drs. Barbosa and Rockmore's opinion that the method of treatment outlined by the Respondent would be futile and that the patient would die in a short period of time. There was no evidence that the Respondent, Ruth Rogers, counseled with Dena Decker's parents or that she at any time treated Dena Decker by the method to which she testified during the custody proceeding in Gainesville. Following the conclusion of the Petitioner's case, Respondent's counsel moved for a directed verdict, summary judgment, or a judgment based on a failure on the Petitioner's part to establish a prima facie case. After some consideration, the undersigned concluded that, based on the evidence adduced during the Petitioner's case in chief, insufficient evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent had violated Chapter 458.1201(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged. Section 458.1201 is the section of the Medical Practices Act which deals with the power of the Board in the denial, suspension, revocation of license, and other discipline of medical practitioners. It reads, in pertinent part: "458.1201l--Demial, suspension, revocation of license; disciplinary powers-- The board shall have authority to deny an application for a license or to discipline a physician licensed under this chapter or any antecedent law who, after hearing, has been adjudged unqualified or guilty of the follow- ing: (Here is set forth several categories of disqualification or misconduct included in which is subsection (m))." Subsection (m) sets forth as grounds for. . . discipline of a physician, the following facets of misconduct: "(m) Being guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct, incompetence, negligence or will- ful misconduct. Unprofessional conduct shall be any departure from, or the failure to conform to, the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice in his area of expertise as determined by the board, in which proceeding actual injury to a patient need not be established; when the same is committed in the course of his practice whether committed within or without this state." (Emphasis supplied) The administrative charge herein claimed to be proscribed by the above- quoted section of the statutes deals only with the testimony of the Respondent as to a method of treatment that she would use for treating acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Based on my examination of this record and an analysis of the reported case law, I conclude that the giving of such testimony is not proscribed unprofessional conduct as that term is included within this particular subsection of Chapter 485.1201(m). As the Court of Appeals stated in Lester v. Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Fla.App., 348 So.2d 923 (1977), the Court stated: "In construing the language and import of this statute we must bear in mind that it is, in effect, a penal statute since it imposes sanctions and penalties in the nature of denial of license, suspension from practice, revocation of license to practice, private or public reprimand, or probation, upon those found guilty of violating its prescriptions. This being true the statute must be strictly construed and no conduct is to be regarded as included within it that is not reasonably pro- scribed by it. Furthermore, if there are any ambiguities included such must be construed in favor of the applicant or licensee." This being so, I conclude that the above-cited conduct claimed to be violative of Chapter 458 is not proscribed by Chapter 458.1201(m) and I shall recommend that the Board enter a final administrative order dismissing the instant action against the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, hereby RECOMMEND: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein against the Respondent be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Suite 201 Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Rogers, Esquire 3101 Maguire Boulevard Post Office Box 20065 Orlando, Florida 32814 George S. Palmer, M.D. Execuivo Director State of Florida, Board of Medical Examiners 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 220 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Conclusions Having reviewed the Notice of Intent dated June 10, 2009, attached hereto and incorporated herein (Ex. 1), and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration ("the Agency") has entered into a Settlement Agreement (Ex. 2) with the parties to these proceedings, and being otherwise well-advised in the premises, finds and concludes as follows: ORDERED: The attached Settlement Agreement is approved and adopted as part of this Final Order, and the parties are directed to comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Agency's Notice of Intent to Deem Application Incomplete and Withdrawn from Further Review is rescinded. The Petitioner's request for formal administrative proceedings is 1 Filed July 10, 2009 2:23 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. withdrawn. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney's fees. The above-styled case is hereby closed. DONE and ORDERED this ff_ da of c/a.-J,/ in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. , 2009, Secretary alth Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED B THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE NSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE A ENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY, ALONG WITH FILING FE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTER OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW OF PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE N TICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE RDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Jan Mills Agency for Health Care Admin. 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg #3, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Th mas M. Hoeler, Esquire Ag ncy for Health Care Admin. 27 7 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, MS # 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Interoffice Mail) Karen Rivera, Manager Laboratory Licensure Unit Agency for Health Care Administration James P. Early Apex Laboratory 170 Finn Court Farmingdale, NY 117035 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #32 Tallahassee Florida 32308 (U.S. Mail) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE )3/ , I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of this Final Order was served on the above-named person(s) and entities by U.S. Mail, or the method designated, on this of :C 2009. c Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873 CHARLIE CRIST GOVERNOR June 10, 2009 FLORIOb.N38Cf FOR HEIILTH CARE AOMINISlRAllON JJu1CA Better Health Cara for all Floridians HOLLY BENSON SECRETARY RECl IL /RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED ANTHONY T GAROFALO G \\, :•..,. ,,, .ouNSEL APEX LABORATORY INC 170FINNCT FARMINGDALE, NY 11735 JUN 16 2009 Ag(lm<oY 1 or Health care Administration LICENSE NUMBER: 800022307 CASE #: 2009006594 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DEEM APPLICATION INCOMPLETE AND WITHDRAWN FROM FURTHER REVIEW Your application for license is deemed incomplete and withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to Section 408.806(3)(b), Florida Statutes, which states that "Requested infonnation omitted from an application for licensure, license renewal, or change of ownership, other than an inspection, must be filed with the agency within 21 days after the agency's request for omitted information or the application shall be deemed incomplete and shall be withdrawn from further consideration and the fees shall be forfeited''. You were notified by correspondence dated March 23, 2009 to provide further info1mation addressing identified apparent errors or omissions within twenty-one days from the receipt of the Agency's correspondence. Our records indicate you received this correspondence by certified mail on April 06, 2009. As this requested information was not timely received by the Agency, your application is deemed incomplete and withdrawn from further consideration. The outstanding issues remaining for licensure are: Failure to submit corrections upon request for RENEWAL application: On Page 5 of9 of the Renewal application form 3170-2004, the Owner Name and Federnl Tax ID number do not match current files. Test menu lists panels, not individual tests. Section 2A of the Health Care Licensing Application does not match section 2A of the Health Care Licensing Application Addendum. Affidavit of Compliance with Background Screening Requirements form 3100-0008 for the Laboratory Director. EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS Pursuant to Section 120.569, F.S., you have the right to request an administrative hearing. In order to obtain a formal proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings under Section 120.57(1), F.S., your request for an administrative hearing must confonn to the requirements in Section 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), and must state the material facts you dispute. SEE ATTACHED ELECTION AND EXPLANATION OF RIGHTS FORMS. Certified Article Number 7160 3901 11848 3738 2137 I . SENDERS RECORD · 2727 Mahan Drlve,MS#32 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Visit AHCA onllne at http://ahca. myflorida. co EXHIBIT i l Apex Laboratory Inc Page2 June 10, 2009 Karen Rivera, Manager Laboratory Licensure Unit cc: Agency Clerk, Mail Stop 3 Legal Intake Unit, Mail Stop 3 O:JtJ:IL.l.tJ.L:..10 F,om 8 09210158 Page. 2/8 Dace 6126'20094 2U5PM l"'F-IIOC:.. (.I.I,.; tJ j STATE OF FLORIDA
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to be licensed as a physician assistant.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the physician assistant licensure examination administered by Respondent October 6 - 9, 1995. Petitioner passed all portions of the examination except for the “Clinical Exam” part of the examination. Because he did not pass the Clinical Exam, Petitioner failed the licensure examination. Thereafter, Petitioner requested the opportunity to review the scoring of his examination and the video that was made of the performance. Petitioner was given ninety minutes for that review. The clinical exam required the candidate to physically examine “patients” with stated vital signs and presenting symptoms. The “patients” were healthy models. The candidate's examination of each patient was closely viewed by two examiners who separately graded various components of the candidate’s performance. The performance was video taped. The video tape included audio so that the verbal instructions to the candidate and the candidate's explanation of his examination could be heard. The Petitioner challenged the scoring of 17 components of the examination. Upon review of Petitioner’s challenge, Respondent gave him additional credit for 10 of the challenged components. That additional credit raised his score from 425 to 500, still short of the 600 points needed for a passing grade. Respondent established that Petitioner was given all the credit he deserved for his performance on the clinical examination. Even if Respondent had given additional credit for all 17 components he challenged, the Petitioner would not have achieved a passing score. This test was not arbitrary or capricious. The questions used were consistent with the instructions given the candidates and similar in nature to those used in other clinical examinations. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to additional credit for his performance on the Clinical Exam portion of the physician assistant licensure examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the scoring of his performance on the clinical exam portion of the physician assistant examination administered in October 1995. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1997
The Issue Whether Respondent, a medical doctor, in his treatment of Patient M.A., failed to keep legible medical records in violation of section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2007); prescribed or administered inappropriate or excessive quantities of controlled substances in violation of section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes (2007); committed medical malpractice by practicing below the standard of care in violation of section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007); failed to perform a statutory or legal obligation placed upon a licensed physician in violation of section 458.331(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2007); and violated any provision of chapter 458 or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto in violation of section 458.331(1)(nn), Florida Statutes (2007), as Petitioner alleges in the Third Amended Administrative Complaint; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be imposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: Finding that Paul M. Goldberg, M.D., violated sections 458.331(1)(g) and (nn), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts IV and V of the Complaint; Dismissing Counts I-III of the Complaint; Imposing $20,000 in administrative fines; issuing a reprimand against Dr. Goldberg's medical license; requiring Dr. Goldberg to complete the "Laws and Rules" Course; suspending Dr. Goldberg's medical license until such time as Dr. Goldberg undergoes a "UF CARES" evaluation; and placing Dr. Goldberg's license on probation for three years under indirect supervision with 100 percent chart review of cosmetic surgery patients and 25 percent chart review of all other patients. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S TODD P. RESAVAGE 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 4th day of March, 2015.
