The Issue The issue in this case is whether Patrick Dennis (Petitioner) should be granted additional credit for any physical diagnosis practical examination questions which he answered on the May, 1990, chiropractic examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (Respondent), or whether, in the alternative, he should be permitted to retake the chiropractic practical examination at no additional charge.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a graduate of the New York Chiropractic College, is licensed to practice chiropractic in New York and New Jersey, and is seeking licensure as a chiropractor in the State of Florida. He took the chiropractic practical examination administered by the Respondent in May, 1990, receiving grades of 96.6% in X-ray interpretation, 95.3% in technique, and 63.75% in physical diagnosis. A grade of 75% on each portion of the practical examination is required to pass. After receiving notification that he had failed the examination, Petitioner timely requested a hearing to determine if he should be granted additional credit on this practical exam. It was established that the practical exam was properly administered, appropriate standardization procedures were followed, and each examiner independently graded Petitioner's exam, and was qualified to serve as an examiner. At hearing, the Petitioner solely disputed the score he received in the content areas of general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. A four point scoring system is used on the practical examination. A score of 4 means that the candidate demonstrated an exceptional knowledge and understanding of the subject area; a score of 3 represents an adequate understanding; a score of 2 indicates an inadequate knowledge of the subject area; and a score of 1 indicates that the candidate would be a danger to the public if allowed to practice in that particular subject area. If a grader feels that the candidate's answer demonstrates a degree of knowledge that is between two of these scores, a .5 credit can be given. This is a subjective, rather than an objective, scoring system that requires each examiner to use his own judgment in evaluating the completeness of a candidate's response; generally, there are no simple right or wrong answers to practical exam questions. In arriving at a candidate's overall percentage score, a score of 4 equals 100 points, a score of 3 equals 75 points, 2 equals 50 points, and 1 equals 25 points. A .5 score equals 12.5 points. For example, a score of 3.5 would equal 87.5 points. Each content area of the practical exam is weighted equally, and there were 5 content areas in the May, 1990, chiropractic practical exam. Two examiners are used to score each candidate's practical examination, and the scores given by each examiner are then averaged to give the candidate's overall grade. In this instance, out of a possible 4 credits, the Petitioner received a grade of 1 and 1.5 from his two examiners in general physical examination, and grades of 1.5 and 2 from the examiners in laboratory diagnosis. In this case, the Petitioner has presented challenges to the grades he received on these two content areas of the practical exam, general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. Since there are five portions of the physical diagnosis exam, and an average of 75%, or an average score of 3, is required to pass the examination, a cumulative average score of 15 (3 points times the 5 exam areas) is required. The Petitioner's cumulative average score was 12.75, or 2.25 points short of passage. Thus, he would have to receive an increase of 2.25 points in the average of the grades he received from the two examiners on the general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis portions of the exam, in order to receive an overall passing score. Regarding the general physical examination content area, the Petitioner was asked to describe how a prostate examination should be conducted. Petitioner understood that this was a rectal exam, but he testified that he was not trained to perform such examinations at New York Chiropractic College, and he had not seen one performed. Therefore, he could not, and did not, describe how to perform a prostate exam. The evidence is conflicting concerning whether New York Chiropractic College offered instruction in prostate examinations. The Petitioner testified that such instruction was not offered, but Dr. Todd Zazulia, who graduated from that college in 1978 and who is a licensed Florida chiropractor, testified that such instruction was offered at New York Chiropractic College. Documentary evidence received from the Dean of Academic Affairs at New York Chiropractic College, Dr. Anthony Onorato, confirms Dr. Zazulia's testimony. Dr. Salvatore D. LaRusso graduated from this same college in 1984, after Petitioner and Dr. Zazulia, and he testified that instruction in the examination of the prostate was not offered at that time. The Petitioner testified that he was taught to recognize signs and symptoms associated with prostate problems since they cause lower back pains, and that he was taught laboratory tests that would signify prostatic problems. He admitted that he felt an obligation to recognize potential problems from signs and symptoms associated with the prostate. The greater weight of the evidence supports the Respondent's position that the Petitioner was offered instruction in signs and symptoms of prostate problems, as well as rectal prostatic examinations, at New York Chiropractic College. Therefore, the Petitioner has failed to establish that he should not have been asked a question about prostate examinations on his practical examination. The Respondent introduced competent substantial evidence to establish that some chiropractors in Florida do perform prostate examinations, and that this practice is within the recognized scope of practice of chiropractic in Florida. Although a substantial number of chiropractors in Florida do not perform this examination, and although there is evidence that it is a violation of chiropractic licensing statutes and rules in a majority of states for chiropractors to perform prostate examinations, nevertheless there is no evidence that the Florida Board of Chirporactic has adopted any rule or taken any action against any chiropractor in Florida for performing such examinations. In fact, Dr. Phil Leon, a licensed Florida chiropractor and licensure examiner, testified that he has asked a question about prostatic examinations of almost every applicant he has examined over the past five years. Documentary evidence submitted by the Respondent from other examiners confirms Dr. Leon's testimony that such questions are a regular part of the chiropractic practical examination in Florida, and also indicates that prostatic examinations are covered on the exam given by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Even Dr. Thomas P. Toia, who was called on behalf of the Petitioner, testified that the ability to recognize prostate problems is within the scope of the practice of chiropractic, and that prostate examinations are an authorized chiropractic procedure. Based on the evidence in the record, it is found that the Petitioner has not established that the grades he received on the general physical exam content area of the practical examination were arbitrary or capricious. Dr. Leon testified that he gave the Petitioner a grade of 1.5 because he did not know where the prostate was, could not describe how to perform a prostate examination, and did not evidence an awareness or understanding of the fact that pain in the low back area could be related to the prostate. Dr. Zazulia testified that he also would have given the Petitioner a grade of 1.5. Dr. Toia testified that when a candidate has no knowledge about a particular question, a grade of 1 is appropriate. Regarding the exam content area of laboratory diagnosis, the Petitioner was asked to identify the tests that should be given to diagnose gonorrhea and lupus. For gonorrhea, the Petitioner identified the chocolate agar test, and for lupus, the Petitioner identified the antinuclear antibody test (ANA). While these are correct answers, the Petitioner's grades in this content area were lowered to 1.5 and 2 by the two examiners because he failed to mention an additional test which can also detect systemic lupus, the LE prep test, and he failed to describe how the lab samples are taken and how these tests are performed in the laboratory. Based upon the evidence in the record, it is found that Petitioner has not established that the grades he received on the laboratory diagnosis content area were arbitrary or capricious. While Dr. Toia testified that he would have given the Petitioner higher grades on this content area, Dr. Zazulia supported the grades given. Dr. Zazulia testified that the Petitioner's failure to inform the patient about what they were likely to expect at the lab when they had the tests performed, and his inability to differentiate the test for gonorrhea as a smear, swab or blood test would result in a grade of 1.5. Because systemic lupus affects almost every system of the body, the Petitioner's failure to identify the LE prep test for complete screening was significant and would result in a grade of 2. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the grades which the Petitioner received on the laboratory diagnosis content area of the practical exam.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grades he received on the May, 1990, chiropractic practical examination in the content areas of general physical examination and laboratory diagnosis. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of April, 1991. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. This is a conclusion of law and not a proposed finding of fact. 2-4. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 1 and 5. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 7. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 11, but otherwise Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Adopted in Finding 3, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as simply an excerpt of testimony and not a proposed finding. Rejected as citations to statutes and rules and not a proposed finding of fact. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 9, and otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. 15-16. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected in Findings 8-10. Adopted and Rejected in Finding 8. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Adopted in Finding 2, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and not based on competent substantial evidence. 21-23. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 8. Adopted in Finding 9. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Findings 11 and 12. Copies furnished: Lawrence J. Langer, Esquire 400 Executive Center Drive Suite 210 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Should Petitioner impose an administrative fine against Respondent, based upon the allegation that a person associated with Respondent, knowingly operated a veterinary establishment or premises without a premise permit issued to Respondent? Sections 455.226(1)(q) and (2) and 474.213(1)(k), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Acme Grooming Company conducts business at US Highway 27 and State Road 27, Fort White, Florida 32038. That business is conducted without the benefit of a license/premises permit issued by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation under Section 474.215, Florida Statutes. At a time relevant to the inquiry, Acme Grooming Company through a sign in the front of the business premises at the location described advertised the services of the business as the sale of pets and pet foods, as well as grooming. Acme Grooming Company is the business of Joan Poole. Sometime around June 14, 2000, Michael David Burch took a kitten, approximately two months old, to the Acme Grooming Company to have the kitten de-clawed. The kitten was attended by Ms. Joan Poole at the business premises for Acme Grooming Company in Fort White, Florida. Mr. Burch observed Ms. Poole hold the kitten under her right arm with her hand pressing out the claws of the kitten and once exposed the claws were cut off "at the stub," as opposed to trimming the claws with the clipping device used. A knife was sitting on a gas burner being heated. Ms. Poole took the knife and pressed it against the open wounds where the claws had been removed for purposes of cauterizing the claws. These activities met with Mr. Burch's opposition. Ms. Poole responded that this was the more humane way "to do it." This is taken to mean the way which Ms. Poole had in mind to de- claw the kitten. The de-clawing was allowed to proceed during which no medication was offered for pain or antibiotics provided for the use of the kitten, notwithstanding Mr. Burch's request that these items be provided. Ms. Poole responded that the cat would lick itself clean and would protect itself from any infection. Mr. Burch paid Ms. Poole $35.00 for her efforts in dealing with the kitten. A short time later the kitten was taken to be seen by Douglas Hagler, D.V.M., licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Florida. Dr. Hagler saw the kitten on June 14, 2000. In his testimony Dr. Hagler established that the cutting of the digits (de-clawing) in the manner perceived by Ms. Poole constituted the practice of veterinary medicine, in that it was the amputation of a body part, a procedure involving an incision and removal of a body part. Dr. Hagler was persuasive in his testimony that it was inappropriate to hold the kitten manually while Ms. Poole performed her acts in de-clawing. As Dr. Hagler described, the appropriate way to de-claw the kitten would have been to place the kitten under general anesthesia so that the kitten was not aware of the act of de-clawing. At the time Dr. Hagler saw the kitten on June 14, 2001, the cat was trembling, appeared in distress and traumatized, and did not seem willing to walk or stand on its front feet. Exposed bone was observed in each digit and the hair around the wounds on the feet gave the appearance that the wounds had been cauterized with a hot instrument. The most appropriate method for closing the wounds would have been to use a dissolvable stitch. In some instances veterinarians would use a medical grade tissue adhesive-type glue to seal the wound. Two days after seeing the kitten, Dr. Hagler drove to Fort White where the Acme Grooming Company has its premises. While in the vicinity Dr. Hagler used his cell phone and called the Acme Grooming Company and identified himself as a person who had a kitten. He explained that he understood that the kitten could be de-clawed at the company. The person he spoke to had a voice so distinctive as to be attributable to Ms. Poole, based upon a subsequent opportunity afforded Dr. Hagler to verify who Ms. Poole was through comparing her voice on that latter occasion to the voice while making the telephone call that has been described and being made aware of who she was on the latter date. Ms. Poole when describing the process for de-clawing the fictional kitten that Dr. Hagler referred to in the telephone call he made, said that the kitten would be restrained manually without the use of anesthesia, that the claws would be cut off and that a hot knife blade would be applied to the wounds for cauterization. Ms. Poole referred to the fact that the cat would not voluntarily allow the de-clawing and that was the reason that the cat had to be held down. Ms. Poole volunteered in her remarks that the method for de-clawing that would be done at the Acme Grooming Company was "more humane than a veterinarian doing it under anesthesia." According to Ms. Poole, the reasoning behind that statement was that when cats wake up from anesthesia "that they just bang their head around and sometimes knock themselves out or knock their brains out." The fee Ms. Poole quoted to Dr. Hagler for removing the claws of the imaginary kitten was $35.00, the same fee amount as was charged to Mr. Burch.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine upon Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Hearings 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 this 27th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Tiffany Short, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Acme Grooming Company c/o Joan Poole Post Office Box 133 Fort White, Florida 32303 Sherry Landrum, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the chiropractic examination given by Respondent on November 4-7, 1992. The examination consists of three parts; physical diagnosis, technique, and x-ray interpretation. The minimum passing grade on each part is 75. Petitioner received an 80 on x-ray interpretation and a 36.5 and 67.5, respectively, on the physical diagnosis and technique parts. Here, Petitioner challenges only his score of 67.5 received on the technique part of the examination. If Petitioner passes the technique portion of the examination, he will be required to pass only the physical diagnosis in order to complete the examination requirements for his license. The technique portion of the examination consists of five clinical cases and four follow-up questions on each case. The technique part of the examination is timed. Like all candidates, Petitioner was provided with a timer and informed that no more than 10 minutes was allowed for all five cases, including the 20 follow-up questions. Petitioner neither stated a need for additional time nor requested additional time to complete the technique portion of the examination. Petitioner has only one leg and would have been given additional time if requested. Petitioner's challenge to the technique part of the examination is limited to clinical Case 1. No challenge is made to the follow up questions to Case 1. Case 1 required Petitioner to set up an appropriate technique for a patient who was eight months into pregnancy. The patient had a left anterior superior ilium. The condition of anterior superior ilium is more often associated with trauma to the buttocks or a fall on one's hip than with pregnancy. Pregnancy causes the joints to move easily and requires special consideration when performing adjustments. Special consideration includes different set-up, contact, and line of drive. Petitioner's first form of adjustment for Case 1 was his own adaptation for the facts presented. Petitioner changed the contact points and line of drive from that reasonably considered appropriate under the circumstances. Once the contact points were improperly changed, the line of drive was incorrect.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and therein DENY Petitioner's request for credit on Case 1 and a passing grade on the technique portion of the chiropractic examination given November 4-7, 1992. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of August 1993, in Tallahassee, 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 18th day of August, 1993 APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-0699 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Petitioner submitted no proposed findings Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-8. Accepted in substance COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Dixon 8300 U.S. #1 North Micco, FL 32976 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack Mcray Acting General Counsel Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: On May 13-16, 1992, petitioner, James S. Moore, a chiropractic physician, was a candidate on the chiropractic licensure examination. Doctor Moore is a recent graduate of Life Chiropractic College and was taking the examination for the first time. The test was administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) on behalf of respondent, Board of Chiropractic (Board). On July 2, 1992, DPR issued a written uniform grade notice advising petitioner that while he had received passing grades on the X-ray interpretation and technique portions of the examination, he had received a score of 70.5 on the physical diagnosis portion of the test. A grade of 75.0 is necessary to pass this part of the examination. By letter dated September 23, 1992, petitioner requested a formal hearing to contest his score. In his letter, Dr. Moore generally contended that he had been denied licensure without any reason or explanation, and that during the review process his contentions were not given meaningful consideration. As further clarified at hearing, petitioner contended that he should have received higher scores on procedures 1, 2, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination, and thus he should have received a passing grade. That portion of the test is a practical examination requiring the candidate to give verbal and demonstrative responses to a series of questions designed to test the candidate's diagnostic skills. Among other things, the candidate is required to perform certain tests and procedures on a volunteer patient. To memorialize a candidate's performance, the examination is videotaped, and a copy of petitioner's performance is found in joint exhibit 1 received in evidence. Petitioner generally contends that he should have received a higher grade on the above questions. To support his position, petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his uncle-employer, a chiropractic physician in Jacksonville, Florida, who has seven years experience in the field. Respondent offered the testimony of a Miami chiropractic physician who has been a grader on the examination for the last twelve years and was accepted as an expert in the field of chiropractic. It is noted that both physicians reviewed petitioner's examination prior to giving testimony. However, respondent's expert did not regrade the examination but rather evaluated the questions, petitioner's responses and the grades of the two examiners who graded petitioner to determine if the scores were within acceptable guidelines. As might be expected, the two physicians offered conflicting opinions regarding petitioner's examination scores. In resolving the conflicts in the testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony, and this testimony is embodied in the findings below. There are two independent chiropractors who grade each candidate on the physical diagnosis part of the examination. Each examiner is given one hour of standardization training prior to the examination, there is no discussion by the examiners during the examination itself, and they grade independently of one another. There is no evidence to support a finding that the two examiners who graded petitioner conferred with each other prior to assigning a grade or otherwise acted improperly in the performance of their duties. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the examination, the questions or information given to a candidate will not be repeated verbatim here but rather only a general description will be given. As to question 1, petitioner was penalized one point (or given a grade of three out of four points) because he stated that the normal range for a particular joint was at 100 degrees. He derived this answer from the American Medical Association Guidelines for Impairment, which is the standard used for disability evaluation. Because impairment standards are not synonymous with a normal range of motion, petitioner's response was incorrect and his score of three should not be changed. In procedure 2, the candidate was given a hypothetical case history of a female patient and was required to choose four appropriate orthopedic tests that related to her condition and to then perform each test. The question noted that if an incorrect test was selected, no credit would be given even if the test was performed correctly. Petitioner selected only two correct tests and accordingly received a grade of two out of four possible points. Respondent's expert confirmed that only two correct answers were selected, and thus petitioner's grade should not be changed. Among other things, procedure 7 required the candidate to use and interpret the Wexler scale, a reflex scale used by chiropractic and orthopedic physicians. Petitioner contended that the Wexler scale is considered zero to five, and he used this range to fashion his answer. Although at hearing respondent asserted that the scale is actually zero to four, it now concedes that petitioner's response was correct and that his grade on this question should be adjusted upward by 1.5 points. Procedure 10 related to diagnostic imaging and generally required the candidate to select the appropriate x-rays to be taken for a given set of facts. Because petitioner failed to take a necessary spot hip x-ray, he did not receive full credit on the question. At hearing, petitioner contended that the omitted x-ray would over-radiate the patient and that the large views taken of the patient would give sufficient detail of the primary complaint area. However, these contentions are rejected as not being credible. Therefore, the request to change the grade on this procedure should be denied. In procedure 15, petitioner was given certain information concerning a patient and was required to make a specific diagnosis to be written in the patient's records. The question also provided that if an incorrect diagnosis was selected, the candidate would receive no credit. In this case, petitioner failed to select the proper diagnosis. His response that the patient suffered from a "sprain/strain" of a particular muscle was incorrect since there is no such thing as a sprain of a muscle. Indeed, only joints and ligaments can be sprained. Although respondent's expert conceded that the correct answer was not "easy" to ascertain, all candidates faced the same level of difficulty on the question and thus no change in petitioner's grade is warranted. Petitioner next contends that he was given an incorrect grade on procedure 17, which required him to identify which physical examination procedures (more than one) he would use based upon a hypothetical patient history. The question provided that unless all procedures were identified, no credit would be given. Because petitioner did not state that he would take the patient's vital signs, a necessary procedure for a new patient, he properly received a zero score. Finally, procedure 18 used the same hypothetical patient history given in procedure 17 and required the candidate to demonstrate on a volunteer patient the necessary examination procedures. Of particular significance was the requirement that the candidate not only correctly perform the procedures, but also demonstrate those procedures in the usual and customary order. Unfortunately, petitioner performed the first of four procedures last, which would affect the reliability of the findings, and thus he received no credit. Therefore, petitioner's grade on this question should not be changed. In summary, with the exception of procedure 7, the scores given to petitioner on each of the challenged procedures are supported by logic and reason, and there is no justification in changing the overall score to a passing grade. In addition, the test was fairly administered in every respect to all candidates, including the provision in some questions that unless the entire question was correctly answered, no partial credit would be given. Thus, petitioner's contention that he should have received partial credit instead of no credit on several questions is without merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent enter a final order raising petitioner's grade on the physical diagnosis part of the May 1992 chiropractic licensure examination from 70.5 to 72.0 but denying his petition in all other respects. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of January, 1993. Respondent: APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-6162 1-2. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 3-4. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 9. Partially adopted in finding of fact 10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 11. NOTE: Where a proposed finding has been partially adopted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, cumulative, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dr. James S. Moore P. O. Box 229 Doctor's Inlet, FL 32030 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Diane Orcutt Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0752
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner, Jens Emilio Valle, is entitled to licensure by virtue of a passing grade on the May 1988 Chiropractic examination, specifically on the technique portion of the examination.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Valle was an unsuccessful candidate for the May 1988 Chiropractic examination. As part of the practical examination, Dr. Valle took the technique portion and received a score of 73.9. A score of 75 is required for certification for licensure. The technique portion is part of an oral practical examination and is subjectively graded by two independent graders. All graders have been licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida for at least five years and have received several hours of standardization training prior to serving as graders on the practical examination. The grade range on each section is one to four. A score of three is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimal competency and a score of four is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge. These scores are then added with other factors and scores to produce a total. Dr. Valle claims that he was underscored on the technique portion of the examination. His scores were as follows: Grader 27--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (3.5). Grader 37--Cervical (3), thoracic (3), occipital (3), pelvic (3), rib (3), and soft tissue (3). Dr. Valle presented the expert testimony of Jim Terrell, D.C., who has been licensed in Florida for less than five years. Dr. Terrell has received no training in grading practical examinations. He has never participated in the administration and grading of a chiropractic examination for licensure. Dr. Terrell based his testimony solely on his observation of the videotape. His opinion was that Dr. Valle's performance in the pelvic technique was "essentially" correct. Dr. Terrell's opinion related solely to the mechanical performance. Steven M. Ordet, D.C., is a chiropractic physician licensed in Florida since 1974. He is the past Chairman of the Peer Review Committee of the Florida Chiropractic Association, a Director of the Florida Chiropractic Association, and has been an examiner for the chiropractic examination for the last seven years. He was not an examiner on the May 1988 examination. Dr. Ordet also reviewed the videotape. In his opinion as a trained grader, he would have awarded the following scores based on Dr. Valle's performance: Cervical (3), thoracic (2.5), occipital (3), pelvic (2), rib (3), and soft tissue (2.5). Dr. Ordet would have given these scores in part because Dr. Valle failed to describe the technique he was demonstrating. The preliminary instructions given for the examination and shown on the videotape require, in part, that the candidate describe the technique as it is demonstrated. The opinion of Dr. Ordet is persuasive based on his experience as a grader and on his explanation for the grades he would give.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners, enter a Final Order denying the request for relief filed by Jens Emilio Valle and dismissing the petition for relief. DONE and ENTERED this 17th of August 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0886 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic Examiners 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-4 (1-7). COPIES FURNISHED: E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jens Emilio Valle, D.C. 901 Cedar Canyon Square Marietta, GA 33067 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Examiners Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue As to Case No. 89-5273, whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated December 28, 1989, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed. As to Case No. 89-6492, whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated October 31, 1989, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed. As to Case No. 90-5801, whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated January 18, 1990, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed. As to Case No. 90-5802, whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated March 9, 1990, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent, Michael Albert, was engaged in the general practice of dentistry in the State of Florida. Respondent is the holder of license number DN0009815, which was issued by Petitioner and which authorizes him to engage in the practice of dentistry in the State of Florida. His office, known as "9 to 9 Family Dental Centre" 1/ , was located at 7015 Beracasa Way, Boca Raton, Florida 33433. CASE NO. 89-5273 - PATIENT S.D. Patient S.D. is a female who was born November 6, 1950. S.D. went to Respondent for the first time in May 1987, for a general examination and cleaning. S.D. had her four front upper teeth (teeth 7, 8, 9, and 10) capped when she was between 12 and 14 years of age. The cap on one of those teeth had been chipped and had begun to flake, and S.D. wanted that crown replaced. Respondent recommended to S.D. that she have those four caps replaced to maintain a match- up in color and also recommended that she have three other teeth (teeth 12, 14, and 31) capped because those teeth had open margins. S.D. knew that Respondent's recommendation to have teeth 7, 8, 9, and 10 recapped was based solely on aesthetic considerations. S.D. concurred with the recommendations as to teeth 7, 8, 9, and 10, and S.D. agreed to allow Respondent to perform the work that he had recommended on those teeth as well as the recommendations he made as to teeth 12, 14, and 31. Respondent took x-rays of S.D. and ultimately capped the seven teeth he had identified. S.D. was uncertain as to the order in which Respondent performed this work. Respondent's records reflect that S.D. visited Respondent on May 13, 1987, and on May 21, 1987, and that during those visits the Respondent capped teeth 7, 8, 14, and 31. Respondent's records further reflect that S.D. visited Respondent on May 28, 1987, and on June 15, 1987, and that during those visits the Respondent capped teeth 9, 10, and 12. S.D. had no complaints about the work performed by Respondent until she began to develop pain in a tooth that Respondent had capped. She returned to Respondent who replaced the crown on that tooth. The pain that S.D. had experienced went away after the crown was replaced, but S.D. had lost confidence in Respondent. Consequently, S.D. went to another dentist when it was time for her six month checkup. S.D. visited Dr. Clare Garner on March 28, 1988. Dr. Garner was of the opinion that S.D. needed a root canal and a new crown on tooth 31, that she needed a new post and core on tooth 7, and that she needed a root canal on tooth S.D. did not return to Dr. Garner for follow-up care. S.D. visited Dr. Michael Flax for the first time on April 4, 1988. During subsequent visits in April and May of 1988, Dr. Flax performed root canal therapy on teeth 7 and 31. S.D. later experienced pain in tooth 10. Dr. Flax performed an apicalectomy on tooth 10 and determined that tooth 10 had a fracture at the apex which he believed was caused by an oversized post being placed inside of the tooth. Dr. Flax did not know who placed the post. S.D.'s last visit with Dr. Flax was on September 8, 1988. Dr. Flax recommended a general dentist to "take care of her crowns". 2/ There was no competent, substantial evidence that the initial crowns done by Respondent had any open margins. Respondent used a panorex x-ray together with bite-wing x-rays in performing his work on S.D. There are some areas that one can see on a periapical x-ray that one cannot see on a panorex x-ray. Likewise, there are areas that one can see on a panorex x-ray that one cannot see on a periapical x- ray. There was dispute among the experts as to whether Respondent should have also used a periapical x-ray in performing his work on S.D. Petitioner's experts clearly preferred to use periapical x-rays. The greater weight of the evidence, however, is that a panorex x-ray can provide sufficient detail when used with the bite-wing x-rays. There was no evidence that the original panorex x-ray upon which Respondent based his diagnosis had insufficient detail. The record failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's use of the panorex x-rays and the bite-wing x-rays fell below minimum standards of care. Dr. Flax testified that Tooth #7 should have been pulp tested for vitality before any further prosthetics were placed onto the tooth. However, he did not testify that the failure to pulp test Tooth #7 for vitality fell below minimum standards. Dr. Flax also testified that another tooth (which was not identified by number) should have been retreated with a root canal before a crown was placed on top of it. Dr. Flax did not testify that the failure to perform this root canal prior to placing the crown fell below minimum standards. Dr. Flax also testified that there was a crack in the apex of tooth #10 due to an incorrectly placed or incorrectly sized post within the tooth. He did not testify that the placing of the post fell below minimum standards and he did not know whether Respondent placed the post. Symptomatic periapical abscesses can develop at any time. The record fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that there was a periapical abscess that existed at the time Respondent treated S.D. or that the failure to either treat or diagnosis any abscess was below acceptable standards of care. The record fails to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the root canals performed by Dr. Flax were necessary because of substandard treatment by Respondent. There was no testimony that the records maintained by Respondent were inadequate. CASE NO. 89-6492 - PATIENT E.M. E.M. is a female who 73 years of age when she first visited Respondent on April 14, 1988. The initial visit was prompted by pain from an abscess. Respondent performed root canal therapy on E.M.'s teeth 18 and 26. Between April 14, 1988, and October 5, 1988, Respondent fitted E.M. with a complete denture on her upper arch and with a bridge on her lower. The upper denture placed by Respondent did not fit correctly. On a subsequent visit, Respondent did a chair side reline of E.M.'s upper denture. There was disagreement among the expert witnesses as to whether the chair side reline was appropriate since E.M. was an edentulous patient. This conflict is resolved by finding that the chair side reline performed by Respondent did not fall below minimum standards of care. There was a substantial and significant personality disagreement between E.M. and Respondent and his staff. E.M. was unhappy with the services performed by Respondent and complained that the upper plate did not fit correctly even after the chair reline. As a result of this disagreement, E.M. refused to return to Respondent for follow-up care to adjust her dentures. Although there was testimony that Respondent should have been able to better fit E.M.'s upper denture initially, the greater weight of the evidence and the more persuasive expert testimony is that follow-up care is important for the proper fitting of dentures. Dentures have to be adjusted on the average eight times before the fit is proper and the normal break-in period for dentures is between two and six months. E.M.'s refusal to submit to follow-up treatment contributed in large part to the dissatisfaction she had with the dentures fitted by Respondent. Although E.M. complained of pain, she had not seen any dentist for over two years. At the time she was examined by Dr. Martin Staub, Petitioner's expert, on February 17, 1989, she was still able to wear the dentures that Respondent had prepared for her. Dr. Staub found that the denture adaptation was poor in the post-dam area causing the denture to slip and to have insufficient suction. Dr. Staub found that the denture finish was rough and inconsistent due to excess pieces from the reline adhering to the buccal portion of the denture and being too thick in the palatal area. Despite these findings, Dr. Staub testified that he considered Respondent's performance as a dentist had fallen below minimum standards of care only in that he should have been more patient with E.M. and that he should have been more caring and compassionate. 3/ Dr. Staub's report reflected a finding that there were open margins on teeth 19, 27, and 31. During his cross examination, he admitted that the tooth he reported as being tooth 27 could have been another tooth since Respondent's records reflect that tooth 27 had been extracted. Consequently, there would not have been a margin on tooth 27. Respondent placed the crowns on E.M.'s teeth 19 and 31 with temporary cement because Respondent anticipated that she would require periodontal treatment due to her poor oral hygiene. There was a dispute among the expert witnesses as to whether the margins that Dr. Staub observed were caused by substandard treatment by Respondent. This conflict is resolved by finding that the evidence fails to clearly and convincingly establish that these margins were the result of substandard care by Respondent. These margins could have resulted from causes that should not be attributed to Respondent. For example, there was testimony that the margins could have resulted from the temporary cement washing out or by natural changes in E.M.'s mouth. Petitioner failed to establish that the dental care and treatment rendered E.M. by Respondent fell below minimum standards of care. CASE NO. 90-5801 - PATIENT H.F. H.F. is a female who was born April 6, 1970. H.F. resided in Atlanta, Georgia, at the time of the formal hearing, but she resided in Boca Raton, Florida, with her family when Respondent examined her. H.F. was examined for the first time by Respondent on August 20, 1987. On August 2, 1988, H.F. returned to Respondent for a checkup and cleaning. Respondent diagnosed cavities in H.F.'s teeth numbers 3, 14, 15, 18, 20, 29, and 31, and presented H.F. with a treatment plan requiring all seven teeth to be filled and called for amalgam restorations. In making his diagnosis, Respondent took x-rays of her teeth, visually inspected her mouth, and probed her teeth with the use of an explorer. H.F. did not return to Respondent to have her teeth filled. On August 19, 1988, H.F. went to Dr. Anders K. Finnvold, her mother's dentist, for a second opinion. Dr. Finnvold conducted a thorough examination of H.F. Dr. Finnvold examined a copy of the x-rays that Respondent had taken of H.F., visually inspected her mouth and probed her teeth with the use of an explorer. Dr. Finnvold found no cavities. On October 12, 1989, Dr. Finnvold examined H.F. for the second time and again found no cavities. On August 2 or 3, 1990, Dr. George C. Karr, one of Petitioner's expert witnesses, examined H.F. and found clinical decay on teeth numbers 2, 3, 14, 15, and 18. Dr. Karr did not find any cavity on H.F.'s teeth numbers 20, 29, and Dr. Karr considered H.F. to have poor oral hygiene. Dr. Karr was of the opinion that Respondent had misrepresented H.F.'s condition and that his treatment plan was over-zealous and below minimum standards. A caries is a technical term for a cavity or a hole in the tooth and results from acid dissolution of the enamel and/or dentin structure of a tooth. Poor oral hygiene contributes to the development of caries. H.F. had poor oral hygiene. A caries may be diagnosed by use of an x-ray, by visually inspecting the mouth, by probing the teeth with an explorer, or by a combination of those diagnostic means. In diagnosing caries by use of an explorer, the dentist is making an educated assumption based on the resistance the dentist feels in probing a pit or fissure. In making this educated assumption, the dentist should consider the patient's oral hygiene and the patient's susceptibility to developing cavities. A catch or resistance when using an explorer indicates that either a fissure has become carious or has the probability of becoming carious. If a sharp explorer is used and it hangs on the teeth, that is indicative that there is either decay present or a situation of pre-decay. It is within acceptable standards of care to recommend filling those areas. The evidence was clear that the detection of cavities by use of an explorer is a difficult task, and that legitimate differences of opinion can occur. The disagreements between Respondent, Dr. Finnvold, and Dr. Karr illustrate that difficulty. Respondent used a sharp explorer to examine H.F.'s teeth. The explorer grabbed or stuck on teeth 3, 14, 15, 18, 20, 29, and 31, and he believed that each of those teeth should be treated in the manner he recommended. It is dentally improper to deliberately misrepresent the existence of decay and the need for treatment. However, the fact that Respondent was of the opinion that there existed cavities that Dr. Finnvold and Dr. Karr did not detect does not establish, clearly and convincingly, that Respondent deliberately misrepresented H.F.'s condition or that he failed to practice within acceptable standards of care. CASE NO. 90-5802 - PATIENT L.M. During the summer of 1987, L.M. presented to the Respondent for routine dental care. This was L.M.'s initial visit. Respondent examined L.M., took x-rays, and then advised L.M. that he suspected that she had a little problem with her gums. Respondent directed her to Dr. Rosa, 4/ a periodontist who worked in the same dental office as Respondent. Respondent advised Dr. Rosa that he felt that L.M. had a problem with her gums and asked Dr. Rosa to examine her. Dr. Rosa diagnosed periodontal breakdown and recommended an extensive treatment plan for L.M., which included root planing, dental wedge procedures, and osseous surgery. The estimate for the work to be performed was given to L.M. on a form which reflected that it was from "9 to 9 Dental Centre". Although it was established that "9 to 9 Dental Centre" was the name of the dental office in which Respondent practiced, and that L.M. associated that name with that of Respondent, there was no showing as to how or why Respondent should be held responsible for acts of Dr. Rosa. The evidence clearly establishes that Respondent was not acting below accepted standards merely in recommending that a periodontist with whom he worked examine a patient he thought may have a periodontal problem. The record does not establish that Respondent misrepresented L.M.'s condition when he asked Dr. Rosa to examine her. Petitioner's experts who later examined L.M. established that L.M. did not have periodontal problems that would justify the recommended treatment plan proposed by Dr. Rosa.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered which adopts the findings of fact contained herein and which dismisses all charges brought against Respondent in Case No. 89-5273, which dismisses all charges brought against Respondent in Case No. 89-6492, which dismisses all charges brought against Respondent in Case No. 90-5801, and which dismisses all charges brought against Respondent in Case No. 90-5802. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of November, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 27th day of November, 1991.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure practical examination administered in November of 1989 and received a score of 71.2%. The minimum passing score was 75%. The Petitioner needs 1.5 additional raw score points in order to obtain a minimal passing grade. The Petitioner challenged portions of the practical portion of the chiropractic examination. The practical examination includes the areas of x-ray technique, chiropractic technique, and physical diagnosis. Stephen Ordet, D.C., testified on behalf of the Respondent. He was received as an expert in chiropractic medicine (TR, page 117, line 19). He testified that he has been an examiner for the Florida chiropractic practical examination since approximately 1980 (TR, page 102, line 18). The practical portion of the chiropractic examination was administered to the Petitioner by two of several doctors of chiropractic, who were examiners at this examination. The practical examination questions asked the Petitioner were developed by the two examining doctors. The various areas which can be included on the technique examination include cervical, lumbar, thoracic, occipital, pelvic, rib, soft tissue, and extremities. The examiners' questions to the Petitioner did not address the lumbar, occipital or rib areas. Examiner No. 12 gave the Petitioner a score of 4 on cervical, 3 on thoracic, 3 on pelvic, 2.5 on soft tissue, and 1 on extremities. Examiner No. 13 gave the Petitioner a score of 4 on cervical, 3.5 on thoracic, 3 on pelvic, 2.5 on soft tissue, and 2 on extremities. Each portion of the examination has a possibility of 4 points. A candidate must average 3 points fob each question on the examination or a score of 75%. The school which the Petitioner attended is an accredited school. The Petitioner's responses to various questions from the examiners were scored by the examiners under more than one phase of the examination. The Petitioner received a grade of 4 (excellent) from both examiners on the cervical portion of the examination. The Petitioner's expert witness testified that the Petitioner's responses to the questions on the pelvic and thoracic were complete answers. The grades given the Petitioner by one of the examiners were 3.5 and 3, and the grades given by the other examiner were 3 and 3. The grades given are consistent with the petitioner's expert's characterization of her performance. There is no evidence that these questions or grading were arbitrary or capricious. The Petitioner was given an extremities question, and she began an examination of the patient. Thereafter, she advised the examiners that her school had not taught adjustment of the extremities and had not known she would be examined in this area. Additional evidence presented at the bearing shows that extremities were not taught at the Petitioner's school when she attended based upon the school's philosophy relating to spinal adjustment. The two remaining areas addressed in the practical portion of the examination were soft tissue and extremities. Grader 13 scored the Petitioner 2.5 on soft tissue and 2 on extremities. Grader 12 scored the Petitioner 2.5 on soft tissue and 1 on extremities. Dr. Ordet opined that extremity technique as a necessary part of chiropractic medicine (TR, page 100, line 11). He referred to several technique books in chiropractic to support the necessity of extremity technique. The text books included Anatomical Adjustment Techniques by Dr. Homer Beatty. One of the examiners responded that they would move onto another area and gave her a new question referring back to the patient with torticollis. The responses by the Petitioner regarding manipulative relief of the torticollis were not addressed by the Petitioner's witness. There is no basis for concluding that the examiners were clearly erroneous in their evaluation of the Petitioner's response. The Respondent's expert witness revealed that the examination did not place special emphasis on the technique taught at the candidate's particular college.
Recommendation Having considered 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 therefore, RECOMMENDED that the extremities question be stricken from the techniques attempted; the Petitioner receive the average of her remaining techniques scores; and receive a passing score on the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3398 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted and renumbered. Adopted and renumbered. Rejected. The state of the Petitioner's health when this examination was given is conjectural. The Petitioner was given added credit upon a review of her examination; however, one cannot say the examiners were unfair. The testimony about the amount of time for each examination is conflicting. The Petitioner did not clearly establish this point. True but irrelevant. Contrary to the facts. Contrary to the facts. True but irrelevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted and rewritten. Not a finding. Not a finding. Adopted and rewritten. Adopted. Adopted in part, rewritten in part, and rejected in part. Adopted first sentence. Adopted. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lois Buxbaum 23 Jones Street, #19 New York, NY Vytas J. Urba, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the physical diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure exam should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: Petitioner is a chiropractic doctor who has been licensed to practice in the state of Ohio since 1993. He maintains an active practice in Ohio, and he currently sees approximately 190 patients per week. Petitioner filed an application with the Department for a Florida chiropractic license. Applicants for licensure are required by statute and rule to take the licensure exam developed by the Department. Petitioner took the exam in May 2001. The exam consists of four parts, three practical and one written. The practical parts test the applicant on physical diagnosis, X-ray interpretation, and technique; and the written part tests the applicant on the Florida laws and rules regulating chiropractors. An applicant for licensure must receive a score of 75 on each part to pass the examination. Petitioner passed the written part of the exam as well as the X-ray and technique practical parts; however, on the physical diagnosis part, he received a failing score of 70. As a result, he failed to pass the exam and may not receive a Florida chiropractic license.2 The physical diagnosis part of the exam consisted of 26 tasks which the applicant was required to perform within the allotted time of 70 minutes. The physical diagnosis part of the chiropractic licensure exam is developed by a team of consultants retained by the Department. The team consists of licensed chiropractic doctors with varied practices and at least ten years of experience. The team derives the exam questions from case studies from prior administrations of the exam. The team meets on several occasions to refine the case studies and rework the questions. The team also develops and refines the answers to the questions based upon their research and a consensus reached after debate. After the exam questions are finalized and before the administration of the exam, the Department holds standardization sessions which all of the examiners are required to attend. The purpose of the standardization sessions is to ensure that each examiner knows what is a correct answer and what is an incorrect answer for each question. This, in turn, ensures consistency in the evaluation and grading of all applicants. The examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis exam attended all of the standardization sessions. The applicant's performance of each task in the physical diagnosis part of the exam is independently graded by two examiners. The purpose of the independent grading is to eliminate any potential bias in the grading and to increase reliability in the scoring of the exam. The examiners independently assigned a letter score -- A, B, or C -- to the applicant's performance on each task. A score of "C" represents full credit for the task. A score of "B" represents partial credit for the task. A score of "A" represents no credit for the task. Where the examiner awards less than full credit, he or she provides a notation on the score sheet regarding what the applicant failed to do properly. The letter score was translated into a numerical score based upon the pre-determined point value for the task. Each of the tasks at issue in this proceeding -- numbers 13, 14, 18, 21, and 22 -- were worth 4 points each. A grade of "C" for these tasks translates into a raw score of 4 points; a grade of "B" on these tasks translates into a raw score of 2 points; a grade of "A" on these tasks translates into a raw score of 0 points. The raw scores resulting from each examiner's grades are totaled separately and, then, those totals are averaged. The averaged score is what is reported to the applicant as his or her final score on the physical diagnosis part of the exam. As noted above, Petitioner received a score of 70 on that part. Task 13 (S1 Dermatome) Task 13 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 13, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to demonstrate the S1 dermatome, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 13. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. A "dermatome" is an area of the body surface served by a particular spinal nerve. The S1 dermatome is the area of the body surface served by the S1 nerve. The S1 dermatome encompasses an area which begins on the back of the leg below the calf, runs down the back of the foot over the heel, along a portion of the bottom of the foot to the toes, and then around the outside (lateral) portion of the foot. The expert testimony and the scientific texts introduced in this case vary on the exact portion of the bottom of the foot included in the S1 dermatome. Some indicate that it encompasses only that area from the outside of the foot to the fourth or fifth (little) toe, while others indicate that it extends from the outside of the foot all the way to the midline of the foot at the third (middle) toe. The common element in all of the expert testimony and the scientific texts is that the location of the S1 dermatome on the bottom of the foot is towards the outside of the foot rather than the inside (arch) of the foot. The S1 dermatome is tested by touching the dermatome with an instrument to determine whether the patient exhibits any sensory reaction, i.e., whether and to what degree the patient feels the touch. The dermatome can be tested without tracing its entire area; however, in order to map out the entire dermatome, its entire area would be tested. On the video tape of Petitioner's performance of Task 13, it appears that he is attempting to test the S1 dermatome, rather than demonstrating its area as the task requires. Petitioner can be heard telling the patient that he is going to "test" the dermatome level by touching the patient's foot to see if the patient can feel it. Immediately after these comments, one of the examiners (Dr. Weiss) can be heard on the video tape telling Petitioner to "trace the path of S1." Dr. Weiss also can be heard asking Petitioner to show the examiners where S1 starts and where it goes. Petitioner performed Task 13 by making a single straight-line motion starting on the back of the leg below the calf, then proceeding downward and under the foot, and ending near the big toe. Petitioner repeated the movement, again ending near or even slightly to the inside (arch side) of the big toe. By making only a single straight-line motion along the bottom of the foot, Petitioner failed to demonstrate the area of the S1 dermatome. At most, Petitioner demonstrated the line separating the S1 dermatome from the L5 dermatome, which is adjacent to the S1 dermatome on the bottom of the foot. As noted above, however, the S1 dermatome extends no further than the mid-line of the foot and therefore the line demonstrated by the Petitioner could not have been the boundary of the S1 dermatome. Even if Petitioner understood the task as "test the S1 dermatome" rather than demonstrate its area, the weight of the evidence shows that Petitioner did not correctly test the dermatome along the bottom of the foot. As discussed above, Petitioner's instrument appeared to travel along the inside (arch) of the bottom of the foot rather than the outside of the bottom of the foot. The S1 dermatome does not extend inward on the bottom of the foot beyond the mid-line and it certainly does not extend to the big toe. The notes written by the examiners on the grading sheets indicate that the "B" grade that Petitioner received on Task 13 was based upon the his tracing of an incorrect area on the bottom of the foot. The notes written by Dr. Weiss, the examiner who testified at the hearing, stated "traced wrong area under foot." The notes written by the other examiner similarly stated "S1 under foot incorrect." The notes were corroborated at hearing by the videotape and the testimony of Dr. Mathis. Because Petitioner failed to properly demonstrate the S1 dermatome, the examiners properly gave him only partial credit on Task 13. Task 14 (Acquilles Reflex Test) Task 14 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 14, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to demonstrate the Achilles reflex test, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 14. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. Petitioner tested the Achilles reflex by lying the patient face down (prone) and then tapping a reflex hammer directly on the Achilles tendon of each foot. Petitioner did not dorsiflex either foot before striking the tendons. The taps elicited a reflexive response which can be clearly seen on the video tape of Petitioner's exam. Had the tap not elicited a response, Petitioner testified that he would have pursued alternative means of testing the reflex. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at the hearing show that there are several alternative ways to test the Achilles reflex, all of which are professionally accepted. One way is to tap directly on the Achilles tendon as Petitioner did. This can be accomplished with or without dorsiflexing the foot. The Department was looking for the candidate to pre-stress the tendon by dorsiflexing the foot prior to striking the tendon with the reflex hammer. The evidence does explain why dorsiflexing the foot would be the preferable method of testing the Achilles reflex under the facts of the case study. Another way to test the Achilles reflex is for the doctor to dorsiflex the foot by pressing his or her fingers against the ball of the patient's foot and then tap his or her fingers with a reflex hammer. Where the ankle is swollen or it is too painful to strike the tendon itself, this method of eliciting the reflex is preferred. The case study on which Task 14 was based indicated that the patient had "severe pain and swelling in the right calf, ankle, and heel." The case study did not indicate that the patient had a ruptured Achilles tendon, but that injury could not be ruled out based on the case study. In such circumstances, the expert testimony and scientific texts indicate that the preferred method of checking Achilles reflex would not be striking the tendon itself. Task 18 (X-Ray of 5-year Old) Task 18 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 18, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the first sub-task. Only the second sub- task, which required the applicant to answer the question of whether he or she would X-ray a 5-year-old child with certain symptoms, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 18. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The question required applicants to answer "yes" or "no." They were not permitted to explain their answer. The question provided only limited information regarding the child and his medical history. The question did not state whether the parent had signed a consent form authorizing treatment of the child. Without parental consent, it would not be proper for the doctor to render any medical treatment to the child. It would have been reasonable for Petitioner to assume that any necessary consent forms had been signed. Petitioner did not request any clarification on this point from the examiners nor did his response during the exam mention the lack of a signed parental consent form. Instead, Petitioner explained that he would not X-ray the child because of the apparent severity of the child's injury and a concern that the child may have an injury "that wouldn't be chiropractic in nature." Based on these concerns, Petitioner stated during his exam that he would refer the child to his family physician. At hearing, Petitioner indicated that his concern regarding the severity of the child's injury was based upon the case study which indicated that the child was holding his neck. Petitioner considered this to be Rust's Sign. Petitioner did not request any clarification from the examiners regarding the manner in which the child was holding his neck. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at hearing indicate that Rust's Sign is most commonly exhibited by the patient supporting his or her head by holding the chin, rather than the neck. The patient holds his or her head to compensate for some muscular, ligament, or disk damage, which causes the neck to be unable to support the head. Even if Petitioner construed the limited case history provided to be evidence of Rust's Sign, the proper course of treatment would not have been to refer the patient to a family physician as Petitioner stated during his exam. Instead, the expert testimony and scientific texts indicate that the proper course of treatment would have been to immediately stabilize the neck with a cervical collar or something similar and immediately perform imaging (e.g., X-ray) to determine the source of the injury. Petitioner is not entitled to additional points for Task 18. Task 21 (Gluteus Maximus Test) Task 21 contained two sub-tasks. To receive full credit for Task 21, the applicant was required to properly complete both sub-tasks. There is no dispute that Petitioner correctly performed the second sub-task. Only the first sub- task, which required the applicant to perform the gluteus maximus muscle test, is at issue in this proceeding. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 21. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The gluteus maximus muscle is the largest muscle in the body and is largely responsible for the shape of the buttock. It extends and laterally rotates the hip joint. The muscle is tested by having the patient lie face down (prone) with his or her knee bent 90 degrees or more. The importance of bending the knee is to isolate the muscle. While the doctor holds the patient's hip to stabilize it and applies downward pressure to the back of the thigh, the patient attempts to raise his or her leg. The video tape of Petitioner's exam shows that Petitioner had the patient in the prone position. Petitioner did not have the patient bend his knee. Nor did Petitioner have the patient lift his leg up. Instead, the tape shows Petitioner pulling the leg outward as the patient attempted to move the leg inward. Petitioner did not rotate the leg. The expert testimony and scientific texts introduced at hearing show that the test performed by Petitioner was the proper test for the gluteus medius or gluteus minimus rather than the gluteus maximus. This evidence corroborates the notation on one of the examiners' score sheet which stated "did gluteus med[ius]?" And see Endnote 1. Indeed, it appears from the video tape that Petitioner misunderstood the task he was to perform. When Petitioner first read the question for Task 21, he correctly read the two tests he was to perform, gluteus maximus and soleus. Petitioner then performed the soleus test. Then, he could be heard saying "gluteus medius" as if to remind himself what test he was to perform. Immediately after that comment, one of the examiners suggested that Petitioner reread the question. He did so, correctly reading "gluteus maximus." Petitioner then set up the table and got the patient situated. Then, one of the examiners asked which muscle test Petitioner was going to perform. He stated "gluteus medius." Petitioner then stood over the patient for a minute or so, apparently thinking to himself, and then performed the test as described above. Any confusion regarding the test to be performed was not a result of the form of the examination or the conduct of the examiners. The examination clearly indicates that the test to be performed is gluteus maximus. The words "gluteus maximus" are in bold type. The examiners attempted to clarify Petitioner's confusion by giving him an opportunity to correct himself after he first misstated the test to be performed. Task 22 (Trendelenburg Test) Task 22 required the applicant to perform two distinct tests and state what he or she is looking for in each test. To receive full credit for Task 22, the applicant was required to properly perform each test and state what he or she is looking for in each test. The only dispute in this proceeding is whether Petitioner's statement of what he was looking for in the Trendelenburg test was the correct response. Both examiners who evaluated Petitioner's performance gave him a grade of "B" on Task 22. Thus, Petitioner received only two of the possible four points for that task. The Trendelenburg test is used to evaluate the ability of the hip abductors, primarily the gluteus medius, to stabilize the pelvis on the femur. The test is performed by having the patient stand facing away from the doctor. The patient then lifts one of his or her legs. A positive sign is where the pelvis/hip of the lifted leg tilts downward instead of rising. Reference to the pelvic/hip tilt was what the Department considered to be a correct answer for Task 22. When performing the Trendelenburg test, the doctor should stand behind the patient with his or her hands on the patient's hips. This placement of the hands serves two purposes. First, it allows the doctor to feel even slight movement of the pelvis/hip in order to detect even a mildly positive sign. Second, it allows the doctor to stabilize the patient in the event that the patient loses his or her balance. The video tape of Petitioner's exam shows that he correctly performed the Trendelenberg test. He was positioned behind the patient with his hands on the patient's hips. He directed the patient to raise his right leg. Then, he stated that if the patient were to fall over, there would be a gluteus medius problem. Dr. Weiss requested clarification from Petitioner, specifically asking him what he was looking for. Again, Petitioner stated that the patient would fall over or lose his balance. Petitioner never used the word "lurch." The Trendelenberg test could cause the patient to lose his or her balance and "lurch" in the direction of the lifted leg or even fall over, but only in cases of severe weakness in the gluteus medius muscle. Such a response would be a positive Trendelenburg sign. The most common positive sign, however, is a downward tilt of the pelvis/hip on the side of the lifted leg. All of the scientific texts, including that offered by Petitioner, identify the tilt as the positive sign which the doctor should be looking for. The tilt is what causes the "lurch" that occurs in more severe cases. If the doctor is looking only for a "lurch," he or she might miss the tilt and thereby miss the most common positive sign of the Trendelenburg test. Because Petitioner stated that he was looking for the patient to fall over or lose his balance, rather than looking for the pelvis/hip tilt, his response to Task 22 was incomplete at best. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to any additional points for Task 22. Disruptive Noise During Petitioner's Examination The physical diagnosis part of the May 2001, licensure exam was administered in several conference-type rooms of a hotel. Approximately five or six applicants were administered the exam in the same room as Petitioner. Several of those applicants went before Petitioner and several went after him. While Petitioner was taking the examination, loud noises could be heard. On the video tape of Petitioner's exam, the noises sounded like loud scraping, scratching, and rumbling of metal, as if a large piece of equipment or furniture was being moved in a nearby area of the hotel. At other points, the noises sounded like thumping or banging. In his testimony, Petitioner described the noise as sounding like a mechanical tool or jack-hammer. Dr. Weiss, one of the Department's examiners who graded Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis part of the exam, testified that he heard the noise as well and described them as construction noises outside of the room. The noise was not continuous throughout the exam. The noise first could be heard on the video tape near the end of Petitioner's performance of Task 1. It was very loud, but lasted only for several seconds before subsiding. It could also be heard at a very loud level during Tasks 2, 4, 7, and 17, again for only a few seconds each time. The noise could also be heard during Tasks 6, 8, and 16, but at a much lower level. Immediately after the noise first occurred during Task 1, one of the examiners asked Petitioner if the noise was bothering him. Specifically, the examiner asked, "Is that distracting you?" To which Petitioner responded "No, it’s okay." Had Petitioner indicated that the noise bothered him, Dr. Weiss testified that the examination would have been stopped until the source of the noise problem could be addressed. Neither Petitioner nor the examiners mentioned the noise during the remainder of the exam. The video tape does not show any significant difference in Petitioner's demeanor during the tasks where the noise could be heard than the remainder of the tasks. Throughout the test, Petitioner looked somewhat uncomfortable, but not any more so than would be expected under the pressure of this type of exam. At most points where the noise could be heard, Petitioner appeared to be oblivious to it because he was so deep in concentration on the task at hand. Petitioner completed the physical diagnosis exam with more than 17 minutes of the allotted 70 minutes remaining. After he completed his exam, Petitioner filled out a Candidate Concern Form on which he stated that the noises made it hard for him to concentrate. The form was provided to Adrian Washington who was the Department employee in charge of administration of the exam. Mr. Washington informed the two examiners who evaluated Petitioner that a concern had been filed and requested that they independently describe the incident. Dr. Weiss' written comments on the incident referred to the noises as "distracting to me." However, Dr. Weiss' comments, as well as the comments of the other examiner, stated that Petitioner was asked during the examination whether the noises were distracting to him and that he said "no." The comments of the other examiner confirmed what the undersigned witnessed on the video tape, i.e., that "he [Petitioner] did not appear to be visually upset during the examination." The examiners comments also noted that even with the distraction from the noise, Petitioner completed the physical diagnosis part of the exam with time remaining. Based upon the responses of the examiners, primarily the fact that Petitioner stated during the exam that the noises were not bothering him, Mr. Washington determined that no further action was warranted with respect to Petitioner's examination. He did notify the hotel staff about the distractions around the testing area. No other candidate or examiner expressed any concern to Mr. Washington regarding noise problems during the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order which denies Petitioner's application for a chiropractic license based upon the failing score that he received on the physical diagnosis part of the May 2001 licensure exam. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 15th day of March, 2002.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for her response to Question 36 or for her response to Question 41 of the X-ray interpretation portion of the Chiropractic Licensure Examination administered in November 2000.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that develops, administers, scores, and reports scores for licensure examinations, such as the examination at issue in this proceeding. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine is created as a part of Respondent by Section 460.404(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 456.013(4), Florida Statutes, this Recommended Order is to be forwarded to the Board of Chiropractic Medicine, which will enter a Final Order. Section 460.406(1), Florida Statutes, provides that anyone seeking licensure as a chiropractic physician must pass a licensure examination. The Florida Chiropractic Medicine Licensure Examination consists of two portions: (a) a practical examination and (b) a Florida Laws and Rules examination. The practical examination is further subdivided into three areas: (a) interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films (the X-ray portion), (b) physical diagnosis, and (c) technique. A candidate cannot be licensed as a chiropractic physician until he or she has passed all portions of the licensure examination, including the X-ray portion. The X-ray portion consists of 60 multiple-choice questions, with each question having four possible answers. A chiropractic or pathology film is displayed for each question. The candidates are instructed to select from four possible answers the best answer to the written question pertaining to the accompanying film. The candidates are given 90 seconds to answer each question. The X-ray portion of the examination tests minimal competency and does not provide the candidates a certification or specialty in the field of radiology. Petitioner received a failing score on the X-ray portion of the examination. A candidate must correctly answer 45 of the 60 scores to pass. Petitioner received credit for correctly answering 44 questions. If Petitioner is awarded credit for correctly answering Question 36 or Question 41, she will be entitled to a passing score on the X-ray portion of the examination as well as the over-all examination. The written portion of Question 36 described certain symptoms being experienced by a 60-year-old female. The X-ray depicted a patient whose trachea was deviated to the left of its usual position. Candidates were asked to select the answer that best responded to the question "what is your impression of the radiograph." The parties agree that two of the four answers were incorrect. The other two answers will be referred to as Answer A and Answer B. Answer A, the answer Respondent considered the correct answer, was that the radiograph showed the trachea was deviated to the left of its usual position. Answer B, the answer selected by Petitioner, is a possible reason the trachea was deviated to the left. Petitioner agrees that the radiograph showed that the trachea was deviated to the left, but argues that because the question asks for the candidate's impression, she should attempt to answer why the body part was deviated. 2/ The written portion of the question and the radiograph do not provide sufficient information for a candidate to determine that Answer B was the reason the trachea was deviated to the left. Additional testing would be required before a practitioner could reach a correct diagnosis for the cause of the deviation. Answer A was the best answer to Question 36. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for her answer to Question 36 because her answer was not the best answer to the question. The written portion of Question 41 advised that the candidate's examination of a patient did not find a reason for the patient's mild back pain. The candidate was required to select the best answer to the question "[w]hat does the X-ray disclose." The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the only correct answer was the answer selected by Respondent as being the correct answer. Petitioner concedes that the X-ray disclosed what Respondent asserted was the correct answer, but chose another answer because Respondent's answer would not account for the patient's pain. Petitioner chose the answer that the X-ray disclosed a bilateral fracture. There was a dispute among the experts as to whether the X-ray contained jagged lines, which would indicate a fracture. Respondent's expert testified that there were no significant jagged areas. Dr. Stern testified that there may be some jagged areas, but that further testing would be necessary to reveal a fracture. Dr. Richard Santo testified that there were jagged areas that disclosed a severe fracture. The conflicting evidence is resolved by finding that the X-ray did not clearly disclose an area that had been fractured and did not disclose a bilateral fracture. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for her answer to Question 41 because her answer was not the best answer to the question. Respondent's psychometrician evaluated the responses to Question 36 and Question 41, and found that both questions performed at an acceptable level. For Question 36, 77% of the candidates who took the examination with Petitioner chose Respondent's correct answer, while 17% of the candidates choose Petitioner's answer. For Question 41, 74% of the candidates chose Respondent's answer, and 24% chose Petitioner's answer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order denying Petitioner additional credit for her responses to Questions 36 and 41 of the X-ray portion of the Chiropractic Licensure Examination administered in November 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2001, 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 (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 11th day of October, 2001.
