Findings Of Fact Lawrence A. Johnson, D.C., is duly qualified and licensed to practice as a Chiropractor in the State of Florida. Dr. Johnson holds a license issued by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. From on or about July 18, 1975 until August 18, 1975, Dr. Johnson treated Mabel-Ann Miller. Ms. Miller had been having pain in her back and legs and was seeking chiropractic treatment in the hope of alleviating the pain. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on approximately twenty occasions during the one month that she was under his care. The testimony from several of the witnesses was understandably somewhat vague with respect to what was said or done on any given visit. It is apparent, however, that during the early consultations with her, Dr. Johnson told her that he could help her, and that more than a year of treatment would be necessary. Dr. Johnson initially represented to her that the cost of treatment would be approximately $200, and that she would be permitted to pay $5 per week and the remainder when she finished her schooling. Dr. Johnson diagnosed a degenerated or herniated disc, a scoliosis or curvature of the spine, and a pelvic obliquity. Dr. Johnson told Ms. Miller that she was loosing fluid from her spine, and that unless she received immediate chiropractic treatment she would require an operation within a year, that the operation would have only a 50/50 chance of success, and that without chiropractic treatment she would stand a very good prospect of spending her life in a wheelchair. Mabel-Ann Miller's boyfriend, Chuck Alexander, had been Dr. Johnson's patient prior to the time that Ms. Miller went to Dr. Johnson. Alexander told Dr. Johnson about Ms. Miller, and prior to Ms. Miller's seeing Dr. Johnson as a patient, Alexander agreed to pay all of her expenses that she could not pay herself. He signed an agreement to this effect (licensee's Exhibit 6). The existence of this side agreement was not revealed to Ms. Miller until her second, third, or fourth visit. Ms. Miller became incensed at the arrangement, and told Dr. Johnson that she would pay her own bills. Dr. Johnson then related to her that the cost of her treatments would exceed $1,000. He told her that he would treat her on a "case fee" basis for $1,060.30. It was agreed that she would pay him a small portion of this case fee until she finished her schooling and was able to pay the entire bill. There after Dr. Johnson endeavored to have Ms. Miller sign a note for the "case fee". He initially requested 7 percent interest on the note, but later changed that amount to 5 percent. A copy of an agreement to pay which Dr. Johnson presented to Ms. Miller was received in evidence as Board Exhibit 6. Ms. Miller never signed the agreement. The testimony respecting Mabel-Ann Miller's condition varied somewhat. Dr. Johnson's diagnosis did not vary to an extraordinary degree, however, from the diagnosis given by other chiropractors, and by Dr. Hobby, a Medical Physician. The most creditable testimony demonstrates that Ms. Miller had a very mild curvature of the spine or scoliosis. She suffered a pelvic obliquity. Her left pelvis was 1.2 centimeters higher than her right pelvis. The pain being suffered by the patient was primarily muscular in nature. Ms. Miller would have benefited from chiropractic treatments, but her condition was not so severe as to require more than a year of intensive chiropractic therapy. Primarily she needed a good exercise program. After leaving Dr. Johnson's care, Ms. Miller submitted to the care of Dr. Hobby, who advised that she use an elevation on her shoe to level the pelvis and engage in an exercise program. She followed Dr. Hobby's advice, and at least up until the time of the hearing her condition improved, and she was no longer suffering pain. As has been said, Dr. Johnson's diagnosis of Ms. Miller's condition was not inaccurate. His statements respecting the severity of the condition were, however, quite exaggerated. Any disc deterioration that Ms. Miller suffered was very slight. Her scoliosis was not so severe as to require intensive chiropractic treatment. Her pelvic obliquity was not a severe problem. Dr. Johnson's statement that she would require surgery if she did not receive immediate chiropractic attention was not true. Neither was it true that she would require more than a year of intense chiropractic treatment. Dr. Johnson frequently utilized the "case fee" system of billing, and he attempted to utilize this system in billing Mabel-Ann Miller. Under the "case fee" system, a patient pays a lump sum for all needed chiropractic treatment rather than a per-visit fee. The testimony revealed that the average per-visit fee for chiropractic services in the St. Petersburg area varied from $8 to $12. Dr. Johnson's quoted "case fee" of more than $1,000 is so out of line with typical fees charged in the St. Petersburg area as to raise suspicions respecting Dr. Johnson's motives. There was no reason to expect that Ms. Miller required so many treatments as to justify such a case fee. Dr. Johnson's exaggerated statements respecting her condition could only have been motivated by his desire to have her contract for a fee far out of line with fees normally charged in the St. Petersburg area, and far out of line with the nature of treatment that Ms. Miller needed whatever fees were charged. Since Ms. Miller never signed a note agreeing to a "case fee" Dr. Johnson rendered her a statement for services on a per-visit or per-service basis. The statement was for $1,411.16. Ms. Miller visited Dr. Johnson's office on fewer than twenty occasions. Although she enjoyed the full range of services available at Dr. Johnson's office during these visits, the treatment and services she received were not remotely worth the amount which Dr. Johnson billed her. Dr. Johnson never had any agreement with the patient which would have justified such a bill which so far exceeds the community standards of the value of chiropractic services. During the time that Ms. Miller was under Dr. Johnson's care she received treatment known as Galvanic treatment in his office. A Galvanic machine renders heat to areas of the patient's body where the pads from the machine are placed. Use of the machine is somewhat risky in that a patient can be burned as a result of errors that are easy to make. Galvanic treatment was rendered to Ms. Miller at Dr. Johnson's office by Barbara Duynslager. Ms. Duynslager was trained in use of the Galvanic machine primarily by Dr. Johnson's wife, who served as Dr. Johnson's office manager. Dr. Johnson witnessed Ms. Duynslager using the machine on two occasions. Generally she was supervised in use of the machine, if at all, by Dr. Johnson's wife. It is normal procedure in the St. Petersburg area for chiropractic assistants to watch from five to ten Galvanic treatments and to be closely supervised on from five to ten more treatments before they are permitted to administer treatments unsupervised. Ms. Duynslager was given less training than that. Given the community standards, and given the risk involved in using the machine, it is apparent that Ms. Duynslager was not adequately trained. During the time that she was being treated, Ms. Miller received a minor burn on her lower back. There was no direct testimony from which it could be concluded that the burn came from the Galvanic machine; however, there is ample circumstantial evidence from which it can be determined that she did receive the burns from the machine. The burns appeared during the time she was receiving Galvanic treatment, the nature of the irritation is consistent with a Galvanic burn, and no other source of such an irritation was known. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that Barbara Duynslager was negligent in using the machine; however, the existence of the burn dramatizes the necessity for careful training on the machine. During late September and early October, 1975, Dr. Johnson consulted Philip W. Settepani, as a patient. Mr. Settepani was experiencing back pains, and he sought chiropractic assistance from Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson showed Settepani x-rays of his back, and described what Dr. Johnson characterized as "spurs" on the x-rays. Mr. Settepani was quite upset at what he saw on the x- rays, and he eventually sought and received chiropractic treatment from a Dr. Tilka rather than Dr. Johnson. Dr. Tilka did not describe Mr. Settepani's condition as "spurs". This led Mr. Settepani to believe that Dr. Johnson either made an erroneous diagnosis or misrepresented the diagnosis in order to scare the patient. Several of the expert witnesses who testified identified Mr. Settepani's condition as spurs . It is apparently the use of that term which caused Mr. Settepani to complain to the Board of Chiropractic Examiners. There is no evidence from which it could be concluded that Dr. Johnson made an erroneous diagnosis of Mr. Settepani, or made any fraudulent or misleading statements to Mr. Settepani. In early February, 1976, Ms. Shirley Sabo visited Dr. Johnson's office as a patient. Dr. Johnson's wife told Ms. Sabo that Dr. Johnson never had a patient he couldn't cure, and that the cure would be quick. There was no evidence from which it could be determined that these statements were authorized by Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson informed the patient that she would require approximately one year of treatment, and that the cost would be $1,000. Ms. Sabo did not continue treatment with Dr. Johnson. She eventually received treatment from another Chiropractor and was billed $160 for x-rays and twelve visits. The fee quoted by Dr. Johnson was far out of line with customary fees in the St. Petersburg area, and is difficult, if not impossible, to justify. Nonetheless, there is no evidence from which it could be determined that Dr. Johnson misrepresented any facts to Ms. Sabo. Dr. Johnson instituted two law suits under the name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. The name Accident & Industrial Injury Clinic, Inc. was recorded in the public records of Pinellas County as a fictitious name for Johnson Chiropractic Clinic. Dr. Johnson performs as a sole practitioner. There was no other evidence respecting any advertising undertaken by Dr. Johnson in the name of a clinic, or any announcements made by Dr. Johnson that his office was a clinic.
Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, the Respondent Karl Cohen was licensed as a chiropractic physician by the Florida Board of Chiropractic. On or about September 5, 1976, Maxine Grebin sustained injuries in a roller skating accident. Mrs. Grebin sought treatment from the Respondent on September 24, 1976, and her treatment continued through December 3, 1976. Thereafter, Mrs. Grebin instituted a civil proceeding against Gold Coast Roller Rink. During the pendency of the civil suit, Mrs. Grebin requested that the Respondent provide her or her attorney an itemized statement of the services rendered for purposes of the damages suit. Mrs. Grebin never received an itemized statement from the Respondent. On February 14, 1977, the Respondent mailed a bill and report to Mrs. Grebin's attorney and copy of the bill to Mr. Joel Grebin, the complainant in this case, on March 11, 1977. When the Respondent failed to receive payment for services rendered by him to Mrs. Grebin, he filed suit in Dade County and after a trial, at which the Grebins appeared, received a final judgment on May 4, 1981, for $388 plus costs. On September 25, 1981, the Respondent was visited at his office by Martin Brandies, a Department investigator. The Respondent furnished Brandies with his entire file concerning Maxine Grebin, and made copies of pertinent documents for him. Subsequently, on June 22, 1982, the Respondent was served with a subpoena by John McDonough, investigator for the Department. The documents requested were virtually identical to the documents previously provided to Brandies. 1/ Since the documents were previously voluntarily provided to the Department, the Respondent did not believe that he was required to furnish a second set of documents, and accordingly, did not comply with the subpoena duces tecum. At the hearing on February 8, 1983, the Petitioner moved to amend Count II of the Administrative Complaint to charge a violation of Section 460.413(1)(n), Florida Statutes, rather than Section 460.413(1)(h), Florida Statutes. The motion to amend was denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Board of Chiropractic enter a Final Order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 460.413(1)(w), Florida Statutes, and imposing a reprimand pursuant to Section 460.413(2), Florida Statutes DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of January 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January 1984.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Health, on February 6, 2003, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving chiropractic physicians licensed to practice in Florida. Respondent, Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been licensed in Florida since 1985. Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice has not been previously disciplined. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Practice. At the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld operated Foundation Chiropractic (hereinafter referred to as "Foundation"), a chiropractic clinic located in West Palm Beach, Florida. Foundation employees three individuals, in addition to Dr. Mitzelfeld's wife, daughter, father, and mother.2 It is, and was at the times material to this matter, Dr. Mitzelfeld's practice to open the offices of Foundation between 5:15 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. each day the clinic was open.3 Dr. Mitzelfeld opened the clinic early in order to see patients who needed adjustments prior to reporting to their jobs. Once Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door at Foundation, the door remained unlocked and open to the public. After Dr. Mitzelfeld unlocked the front door and before staff arrived, whenever anyone arrived at Foundation and opened the front door, a buzzer or bell sounded to announce their arrival. Dr. Mitzelfeld established and maintained an "open- door" policy at Foundation. Pursuant to this policy, the doors to all of the treatment rooms at Foundation remained open at all times and staff were allowed to enter a treatment room at any time. Dr. Mitzelfeld did not as a matter of course, however, have a staff member present whenever he was seeing a female patient. The evidence failed to prove that, even though the front door of Foundation was unlocked at all times relevant to this matter and Dr. Mitzelfeld maintained an open-door policy, Dr. Mitzelfeld could not have from engaged in the conduct described in this Recommended Order. Dr. Mitzelfeld's Treatment of Patient C.H. On or about September 6, 2001 Dr. Mitzelfeld began treating patient C.H. C.H., a female, earned a bachelor's degree in political science in 1992, and was, therefore, in all likelihood in her 30's during the times relevant to this matter. During the period of time that Dr. Mitzelfeld was treating C.H., he was also treating C.H.'s husband.4 From the time that C.H. began coming to Foundation until approximately January of 2002, C.H. was seen by Dr. Mitzelfeld during the afternoon, when staff and other patients were present. Most often, her appointments were at approximately 3:00 p.m. In approximately January 2002 C.H.'s appointment time was moved, at her request, to the early morning, before staff arrived. C.H. began arriving at approximately 6:30 a.m. for treatments and, although on occasion there were one or two individuals in the waiting room, she usually saw no one else at Foundation other than Dr. Mitzelfeld during her appointments. After C.H. began seeing Dr. Mitzelfeld in the early morning, their relationship began to change from that of a purely doctor-patient relationship to a more personal one. Their conversations started to become more personal and, gradually, they became verbally flirtatious. For example, Dr. Mitzelfeld began to tell C.H. that she was pretty and that she looked good in whatever she was wearing. Dr. Mitzelfeld's personal comments were welcomed by C.H. She responded by telling him personal things about her life, telling him that her marriage was "terrible," that her husband no longer slept in the same room with her, and that they no longer had sexual relations. Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments to C.H. continued to become more flirtatious and suggestive. Among other things, he told her that he found her attractive and that he could not understand why her husband did not find her attractive and desirable. He also told her that, if her were married to her, "I would treat you so good and I would definitely be sleeping in the same bed with you and I'd be making love to you every night." Lines 11-14, Page 69, Transcript of June 19, 2003. As C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld became verbally flirtatious, C.H. began to perceive that the manner that Dr. Mitzelfeld touched her was no longer just professional, but more personal and intimate, a change she welcomed. The change in their relationship was not unwelcome to C.H. C.H. believed, without having discussed the matter directly with Dr. Mitzelfeld, that they "had a relationship" and that she "was in love with him and [she] thought he was in love with [her]." Lines 22-24, Page 67, Transcript of June 19, 2003. C.H. naively believed that the physical lust they were experiencing, amounted to something more emotionally meaningful. In approximately February 2002 Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that he wanted to give her a hug after her treatment. They hugged and he kissed her on the cheek. After that, they hugged after each visit. Over time, their hugs became more lasting and intimate, with Dr. Mitzelfeld eventually becoming aroused to the point where he had an erection and "he would rub it all over [C.H.]." Lines 11-12, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. Dr. Mitzelfeld began performing a new treatment on C.H. for her upper back where she held her arms out to the side, he lifted her up from behind, and her body rested against his. Dr. Mitzelfeld would become aroused during these treatments; his penis would become erect.5 The increased intimacy between C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld, was not unwelcome to C.H., because". . . it was very obvious we were very attracted to each other and there was chemistry." C.H. was "happy about it. I mean, I was attracted to him so it didn't bother me at all." Lines 14-15, Page 70, Transcript of June 19, 2003. On May 9, 2002, during a prolonged hug, C.H. kissed Dr. Mitzelfeld on the cheek, then quickly on the mouth, and then passionately on the mouth, a kiss which Dr. Mitzelfeld returned. C.H. continued to naively believe that she was in love with Dr. Mitzelfeld and, although he had not said so, that he was in love with her. She took time prior to each visit to look as good as she could, doing her hair, nails, and make-up, and carefully selecting what she would wear, all in an effort to please Dr. Mitzelfeld and further the relationship she believed they had. On May 13, 2002, C.H. saw Dr. Mitzelfeld for the first time after the May 9th kiss. During this visit, Dr. Mitzelfeld told C.H. that they should not let anything like the kiss happen again "because if it does, [my] hands are going to start traveling and [your] clothes are going to come off." C.H.'s next visit was the morning of May 16, 2002. After receiving her adjustment, C.H. and Dr. Mitzelfeld began hugging and kissing passionately. Dr. Mitzelfeld put his hand down C.H.'s jeans and she began to rub his penis through his clothes with her hand. After a while, C.H. told Dr. Mitzelfeld that she "wanted to do something to him" although she did not specify what. Dr. Mitzelfeld took her by the hand and led her into a bathroom, locking the door behind them. Given the circumstances, Dr. Mitzelfeld correctly assumed that what C.H. wanted to do to him was sexual. Once in the bathroom, they continued to hug and kiss while she attempted to pull down his pants so that she could perform fellatio on him. He eventually pulled his pants down for her and C.H. began to fellate him. While she did, Dr. Mitzelfeld told her to "take it deep, baby." C.H. caused Dr. Mitzelfeld to have an orgasm, after which he told her repeatedly how much he had enjoyed it. She told him that next time she would bring whipped cream. Eventually, Dr. Mitzelfeld, having been sexually satisfied, realized the possible consequences of what had happened and told C.H. that what had just happened should not have; and that he had a great marriage and that he loved his wife. Dr. Mitzelfeld became cold and distant. Dr. Mitzelfeld knew that what had happened was unethical. C.H. left Foundation upset and, because of Dr. Mitzelfeld's comments and cold treatment of her, she spoke with a neighbor and her mental health counselor and told both what had happened. Her mental health counselor told her that what had happened was unethical and that she should report it. C.H., however, was not yet realized that Dr. Mitzelfeld did not have deep emotional feelings for her. By the next morning, May 17, 2002, C.H. had recovered from her concern over Dr. Mitzelfeld's reaction the day before and convinced herself that they indeed had a relationship. C.H. naively believed that Dr. Mitzelfeld had to have feelings for her because they had engaged in a sexual act. She decided to surprise him with an unscheduled visit to his office. C.H. dressed in a black negligee which she covered with a denim dress. She entered Foundation at approximately 6:30 a.m. She did not sign in upon arrival,6 which she normally did when she arrived for a scheduled appointment. She had not come to Foundation that morning for any medical treatment. Dr. Mitzelfeld, who was upstairs in his loft-like office, came downstairs to see who had come in and met C.H.. When he asked what she was doing there that morning, she told him she had something to show him, walked up the stairs to his office, taking off her dress as she went and leaving it on the stairs, and waited for him wearing only the negligee and black high- heeled shoes. She intended to engage in sexual intercourse with him. When Dr. Mitzelfeld came into his office and saw C.H. standing there, he told her that they could not do anything like they had done the day before. Dr. Mitzelfeld had realized that what he had done was unethical and he told C.H. so. He also told her that he could be in trouble for the incident, a prophetic comment. Dr. Mitzelfeld also told her that they could not kiss, hug, or have any other sexual contact again. Dismayed and confused, C.H. dressed, as Dr. Mitzelfeld instructed her, and left the Foundation, never to return. Later the same day, Dr. Mitzelfeld discussed C.H. with a colleague, Dr. Robert McLaughlin. Dr. Mitzelfeld asked Dr. McLaughlin for advice about what he should do about a patient, C.H., who had become agitated when he rejected her sexual advances. Dr. McLaughlin correctly advised Dr. Mitzelfeld that he should discontinue any doctor-patient relationship with C.H., an act which Dr. Mitzelfeld should have taken earlier when his relationship with C.H. started to become more than just a doctor-patient relationship.7 Dr. Mitzelfeld did not admit the events found is this Recommended Order to Dr. McLaughlin. Upset, disappointed, and angry about her May 17, 2002, visit with Dr. Mitzelfeld, C.H. reported the foregoing incidents to the Department on May 22, 2002, after finally realizing that her relationship with Dr. Mitzelfeld was based upon lust and not some deeper emotional feeling. The Department's Administrative Complaint and Dr. Mitzelfeld's Request for Hearing. On February 6, 2003, after investigating C.H.'s allegations, the Department filed a one-count Administrative Complaint against Dr. Mitzelfeld before the Board alleging that he had committed "sexual misconduct" in the chiropractic physician-patient relationship, which is prohibited by Section 460.412 and, therefore, that he had violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), which provides that "[v]iolating any provision of this chapter or chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto" constitutes a ground for disciplinary action. On or about March 18, 2003, Dr. Mitzelfeld, through counsel, filed a Petition for Formal Proceedings, indicating that he disputed the allegations of fact contained in Count I of the Administrative Complaint and requesting a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(a). On March 19, 2003, the matter was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings, with a request that an administrative law judge be assigned the case. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 03-0946PL and was assigned to the undersigned. C.H.'s Legal Name. At the times relevant to this proceeding and up until May 21, 2003, C.H.'s legal name was S.C.H.H. The "C" in her legal name and the last "H" are the same names in "C.H.," the name that she has gone by during the times material to this case and throughout this proceeding. When sworn in during her deposition in this matter on May 13, 2003, rather than stating that her name was S.C.H.H. she stated that her name was C.H. She did so simply because she has always gone by the name C.H. The evidence failed to prove that, because of her technical error, her testimony in this matter was not believable. On May 21, 2003, C.H.'s name was changed to C.S.L. as a result of her divorce. Throughout this proceeding, including when she was sworn in on June 19, 2003, to testify at the final hearing of this matter, she indicated that her name was C.H. Again, it is concluded that her technical error was insufficient to conclude that her testimony in this matter was not believable. C.H.'s Use of Prescription Medicines. At all times material to this matter, C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. The evidence failed to prove why C.H. was seeing a mental health counselor. C.H. was prescribed and has taken Wellbutrin, Adderall, and Serzone. She also was prescribed and took Zolof for a period of two months. While these drugs, taken singly or in combination may have serious side effects,8 including hallucinations, the evidence failed to prove that C.H. had any such side effects. While C.H. admitted taking the drugs in question, the evidence failed to prove that she took them during the times at issue in this matter or, if she did, what dosage she took them in. Finally, while the evidence proved that C.H. has suffered from a number of maladies, the evidence failed to prove whether she was suffering from those maladies between September 6, 2001, and the date of C.H.'s testimony at final hearing or that any of her medical problems affected in any way her memory or truthfulness in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine finding that Charles Leroy Mitzelfeld, D.C., has violated Section 460.413(1)(ff), by violating Section 460.412, as alleged in Count 1 of the Administrative Complaint; suspending Dr. Mitzelfeld's license to practice chiropractic medicine for a period of three months from the date the final order becomes final; requiring the payment of a $1,000.00 administrative fine within a reasonable time after the final order is issued; placing Dr. Mitzelfeld's license on probation for a period of two years; requiring that Dr. Mitzelfeld attend ethics courses relating to the practice of chiropractic medicine as it relates to sexual misconduct, as directed by the Board of Chiropractic Medicine; and requiring the presence of a third person during any examination and treatment by Dr. Mitzelfeld of any female patient during his probation and for a period of not less than ten years thereafter. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 28th day of August, 2003.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing score on the Physical Diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that develops, administers, scores, and reports scores for licensure examinations, such as the examination at issue in this proceeding. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine is created as a part of Respondent by Section 460.404(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 456.013(4), Florida Statutes, this Recommended Order is to be forwarded to the Board of Chiropractic Medicine, which will enter a final order. Section 460.406(1), Florida Statutes, provides that anyone seeking licensure as a chiropractic physician must pass a licensure examination. The Florida Chiropractic Medicine Licensure Examination consists of two portions: (a) a practical examination and (b) a Florida Laws and Rules examination. The practical examination is further subdivided into three areas: (a) interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films (the X-ray portion), (b) physical diagnosis, and (c) technique. A candidate cannot be licensed as a chiropractic physician until he or she has passed all portions of the licensure examination, including the physical diagnosis portion. In May 2001, Petitioner sat only for the physical diagnosis portion, having passed all other portions in a prior examination. The physical diagnosis section is a practical examination that tests a candidate's competency to choose, name, demonstrate, and interpret diagnostic imaging and laboratory reports based on a hypothetical case history. The examination generally presents a case history, including the patient's complaint and vital signs, then asks a series of questions designed to lead to a diagnosis. The examination also asks some separate, stand-alone questions designed to elicit knowledge of specific techniques, such as how to obtain particular diagnostic imaging views. The physical diagnosis section of the May 2001 examination consisted of 26 tasks, for which varying numbers of points were awarded for correct answers. Two examiners evaluated the candidate's performance and independently awarded scores for each task. Petitioner's overall score was the average of the two examiners' scores. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section met the criteria for selection as examiners. An examiner must have been licensed in Florida as a chiropractor for at least five years, must not have had a chiropractic or other health care license suspended, revoked, or otherwise acted against, and must not be currently under investigation by the Department or any other state or federal agency. Rule 64B2-11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department requires each examiner to attend a training session prior to administration of the examination. The training is designed to ensure that scoring standards are uniform and objective among the various examiners. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section had successfully completed the training session. The first series of questions on the physical diagnosis section dealt with a female patient in her early thirties whose main complaint was constant, severe pain in her left calf. The patient's temperature was slightly elevated at 99.8ºF, and she had swelling in her left ankle. Ultimately, the candidate was expected to arrive at a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis, inflammation of a vein in the left calf. Tasks 1 and 2, for which Petitioner received full credit, required the candidate to obtain a case history from the patient and to discuss the physical examination the candidate would perform on the patient. Task 3 asked the candidate to identify what laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, if any, should be used to assist in arriving at a diagnosis. Task 4 asked the candidate to state his reasoning for choosing these tests. The correct answer to Task 3 was that the candidate should order either an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test or a C-reactive protein (CRP) test. The correct answer to Task 4 was that the ESR and CRP assess the inflammatory processes that the candidate should suspect in the patient's left calf. On Task 3, Petitioner responded that he would order a complete blood count (CBC) and a urinalysis. On Task 4, Petitioner responded that he chose these tests because the patient's increased temperature indicated that there might be an infection present, and that a CBC and urinalysis are useful tests for infection. Task 3 was worth a maximum of four points. Task 4 was worth a maximum of three points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 3 and for Task 4. The results of the physical examination, particularly "Homan's sign," or pain in the calf with dorsiflexion of the foot, caused Petitioner to suspect thrombophlebitis. Petitioner knew of no laboratory test that returns a specific positive result for thrombophlebitis. He introduced textbook references to establish that the ESR and CRP tests are not specific to diagnosing thrombophlebitis. Petitioner did not believe that Tasks 3 and 4 gave him the option of ordering no laboratory tests at all, so he chose the most common tests that would at least confirm that no infection was present. Dr. Densmore, Respondent's expert, agreed with Petitioner that a positive Homan's sign is specific for diagnosing thrombophlebitis. However, he disagreed with Petitioner's choice of ordering a CBC and urinalysis. Dr. Densmore admitted that many doctors order these tests as a general standard for all patients, but stated that in this case they would do nothing to narrow the diagnosis. The CBC and urinalysis are useful for identifying infections; thrombophlebitis is an inflammatory disease, not an infectious disease. Dr. Densmore conceded that ESR and CRP are not specific to thrombophlebitis. However, Dr. Densmore believed that Petitioner should have chosen ESR or CRP because inflammation is present in 90 percent of thrombophlebitis cases and therefore those tests would assist the practitioner in arriving at a diagnosis. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for his answer to Tasks 3 and 4 because his answers were not the best answers to those questions. The correct answers set forth by the Department were supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Task 5 dealt with the same patient discussed above, and asked the candidate to indicate which, if any, diagnostic imaging procedures should be performed. The correct answer, worth four points, was "none" or "A-P & lateral leg." "A-P" stands for anteroposterior, or from the front to the back. On the videotape of the examination, Petitioner appeared confused by the question. He said that he would x-ray the "lower leg." One of the examiners asked him to be more specific as to which views he would take. Petitioner stated that he would x-ray the ankle because of the swelling there. Petitioner then mentioned the swelling in the calf, and stated that he would x-ray the "femur." The femur is the thigh bone, extending from the pelvis to the knee. An x-ray of the femur obviously would reveal nothing about the condition of the patient's calf. The examiner, likely sensing Petitioner's confusion, advised Petitioner to read the question again. Petitioner read the question aloud, then reiterated that he would take x-rays of the patient's ankle and femur. Task 5 was worth a maximum of four points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 5. Petitioner contended that he should have received partial credit for his initial response that he would x-ray the lower leg. However, Task 5 required the candidate to identify the specific views of the x-rays he would take. When the examiner asked him to name the specific views, Petitioner identified the femur. The context of the discussion makes it evident that Petitioner must have been thinking of the fibula or the tibia, i.e., the bones of the lower leg, when he repeatedly named the femur in connection with the patient's calf pain. However, the examiners had no choice but to grade Petitioner on the answer he actually gave. Petitioner should not be awarded any points for his answer to Task 5. Task 18 was a stand-alone question dealing with x- rays. The challenged portion of Task 18, worth two points, asked the candidate what he would do to obtain a quality lumbar spine x-ray of a severely obese patient if his office was equipped with a 300/125 x-ray machine. One of the examiners specified that this patient weighs around 500 pounds. The correct answer was that the candidate would use a higher capacity x-ray machine or refer the patient to a facility that has one. Petitioner's answer was that he would collimate close to the area of injury, decrease milliampere seconds (mAs), increase kilovolt peak (kVp) to increase penetration, and use a rare earth screen. Again, Petitioner appeared to be confused by the question. At the hearing, he testified that Task 18 did not ask what specific view he would take of the obese patient, whether of the arm, the chest, or the skull. Petitioner misread the question. Task 18 clearly states that the required view is of the patient's lumbar spine. Petitioner's misreading of the question led him to treat Task 18 as an x-ray physics question, hence his response, intended to demonstrate how he would maximize the clarity of an x-ray using the equipment at hand. Dr. Densmore stated that an x-ray of a patient this size taken on this equipment would simply be a white picture because of the amount of fatty tissue involved. With a patient of this size, the kVp would have to be increased so much that the practitioner would over-radiate the patient. The practitioner would have no choice but to send the patient out for an x-ray on a higher capacity machine. The examiners independently awarded Petitioner zero points for his response to this portion of Task 18. Their scoring was correct, supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Petitioner alleged that the Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) provided him by the Department did not adequately prepare him for format changes that occurred since his first sitting for the examination. Petitioner compared the CIB for the May 2001 examination to that for the November 2001 examination. He found that the detailed sample questions in the November 2001 CIB more closely reflected the examination he took in May 2001, and contended that the May 2001 CIB was outdated at the time it was distributed. All candidates for the May 2001 examination received the same Candidate Information Booklet that Petitioner received. Respondent's psychometrician, Dr. Linda Dean, testified that the passing rate for the May 2001 examination was in the range of 70 percent, consistent with other administrations of the examination. Petitioner's allegation concerning the adequacy of the CIB is not supported by the evidence. Petitioner also alleged that he was placed at a disadvantage by the fact that the examiners appeared to know that he was not taking the examination for the first time. Both Dr. Dean, the psychometrician assigned to the chiropractic licensure examination, and Dr. Densmore, who has served as an examiner many times, testified that examiners are not told the names or the status of the candidates. Dr. Dean testified that nothing is done to segregate first-time candidates from those who are retaking the examination, though an examiner may suspect that a candidate who is sitting for only one section of the examination is retaking that section. Even if Petitioner's allegation were credited, it would not change the result. Petitioner's responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 were incorrect. The examiners properly awarded him zero points for those tasks. Their knowledge that he was retaking the physical diagnosis section had no bearing on Petitioner's incorrect responses to the challenged tasks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order denying Petitioner additional credit for his responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination administered in May 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Allan Niebrugge 4785 Barkley Circle No. 22 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule Subsections 64B2-15.001(2)(e), (i), and (l) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that they exceed Respondent's rulemaking authority or enlarge, modify, or contravene the law the Rule implements.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Michael John Badanek, D.C., is a duly licensed chiropractic physician in the State of Florida. Dr. Badanek actively practices in Ocala, Florida. Dr. Badanek has engaged in and is engaging in, the advertising of professional services to the public. Dr. Badanek is subject to the provisions of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated by Respondent. Dr. Badanek's failure to adhere to the provisions of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder, including the Challenged Rule Subsections, may result in the discipline of his professional license. Dr. Badanek has standing to challenge the Challenged Rule Subsections. The affected state agency is the Board of Chiropractic Medicine (hereinafter referred to as the "Board"), located at 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Tallahassee, Florida. The Board is charged by Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, with the duty of regulating the chiropractic profession in Florida. In carrying out that duty, the Board has adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 64B2. At issue in this matter is the Challenged Rule Subsections of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B2-15.001. The Challenged Rule Subsections provide the following: 64B2-15.001 Deceptive and MisleadingAdvertising Prohibited; Policy; Definition. . . . . (2) No chiropractor shall disseminate or cause the dissemination of any advertisement or advertising which is in any way fraudulent, false, deceptive or misleading. Any advertisement or advertising shall be deemed by the Board to be fraudulent, false, deceptive, or misleading, if it: . . . . (e) Coveys the impression that the chiropractor or chiropractors, disseminating the advertising or referred to therein, posses qualifications, skills, or other attributes which are superior to other chiropractors, other than a simple listing of earned professional post-doctoral or other professional achievements. However, a chiropractor is not prohibited from advertising that he has attained Diplomate status in a chiropractic specialty area recognized by the Board of Chiropractic. Chiropractic Specialties recognized by the Board are those recognized by the various Councils of the American Chiropractic Association or the International Chiropractic Association. Each specialty requires a minimum of 300 hours of post-graduate credit hours and passage of a written and oral examination approved by the American Chiropractic Association or International Chiropractic Association. Titles used for the respective specialty status are governed by the definitions articulated by the respective councils. A Diplomate of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners is not recognized by the Board as a chiropractic specialty status for the purpose of this rule. A chiropractor who advertises that he or she has attained recognition as a specialist in any chiropractic or adjunctive procedure by virtue of a certification received from an entity not recognized under this rule may use a reference to such specialty recognition only if the board, agency, or other body which issued the additional certification is identified, and only if the letterhead or advertising also contains in the same print size or volume the statement that "The specialty recognition identified herein has been received from a private organization not affiliated with or recognized by the Florida Board of Chiropractic Medicine." A chiropractor may use on letterhead or in advertising a reference to any honorary title or degree only if the letterhead or advertising also contains in the same print size or volume the statement "Honorary" or (Hon.) next to the title. . . . . (i) Contains any representation regarding a preferred area of practice or an area of practice in which the practitioner in fact specializes, which represents or implies that such specialized or preferred area of practice requires, or that the practitioner has received any license or recognition by the State of Florida or its authorized agents, which is superior to the license and recognition granted to any chiropractor who successfully meets the licensing requirements of Chapter 460, F.S. However, a chiropractor is not prohibited from advertising that he has attained Diplomate status in a specialty area recognized by the Board, or . . . . (l) Contains a reference to any other degree or uses the initials "M.D." or "D.O." or any other initials unless the chiropractic physician has actually received such a degree and is a licensed holder of such degree in the State of Florida. If the chiropractic physician licensee is not licensed to practice in any other health care profession in Florida, the chiropractic physician must disclose this fact, and the letterhead, business card, or other advertisement shall also include next to the reference or initials a statement such as "Not licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida" or "Licensed to practice chiropractic medicine only" in the same print size or volume. . . . . The authority cited by the Board as its "grant of rulemaking authority" for the Challenged Rule Subsections is Section 460.405, Florida Statutes, which provides: Authority to make rules.--The Board of Chiropractic Medicine has authority to adopt rules pursuant to ss 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this chapter conferring duties upon it. The Board has cited Sections 456.062 and 460.413(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as the "law implemented" by the Challenged Rule Subsections. Section 456.062, Florida Statutes, provides: Advertisement by a health care practitioner of free or discounted services; required statement.--In any advertisement for a free, discounted fee, or reduced fee service, examination, or treatment by a health care practitioner licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 460, chapter 461, chapter 462, chapter 463, chapter 464, chapter 465, chapter 466, chapter 467, chapter 478, chapter 483, chapter 484, chapter 486, chapter 490, or chapter 491, the following statement shall appear in capital letters clearly distinguishable from the rest of the text: THE PATIENT AND ANY OTHER PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT HAS A RIGHT TO REFUSE TO PAY, CANCEL PAYMENT, OR BE REIMBURSED FOR PAYMENT FOR ANY OTHER SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT THAT IS PERFORMED AS A RESULT OF AND WITHIN 72 HOURS OF RESPONDING TO THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE FREE, DISCOUNTED FEE, OR REDUCED FEE SERVICE, EXAMINATION, OR TREATMENT. However, the required statement shall not be necessary as an accompaniment to an advertisement of a licensed health care practitioner defined by this section if the advertisement appears in a classified directory the primary purpose of which is to provide products and services at free, reduced, or discounted prices to consumers and in which the statement prominently appears in at least one place. Section 460.413(1)(d), Florida Statutes, provides the following ground for disciplinary action: "False, deceptive, or misleading advertising." While neither this provision nor any other specific provision of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes, imposes a specific duty upon the Board to define what constitutes "false, deceptive, or misleading advertising," the Board is necessarily charged with the duty to apply such a definition in order to carry out its responsibility to discipline licensed chiropractors for employing "false, deceptive, or misleading advertising."
Findings Of Fact Following the filing of an Administrative Complaint by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, against Respondent, Saul N. Sherman, Dr. Sherman requested a formal Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing. The case was subsequently given to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the final hearing and the hearing was held on February 23, 1983. Respondent is licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida and has continually held that license since September 27, 1975. After beginning his practice in Florida, Respondent, together with other licensed chiropractors in the State of Florida, formed an association known as the Florida Chiropractic Council. On April 7, 1980, Dr. Sherman filed an affidavit under the fictitious name statute indicating the intention of the group to utilize the name Florida Chiropractic Council. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. In 1981, Respondent was the president of the council and held that position at the time of final hearing. During the year 1981, 15 to 20 licensed Florida chiropractors were associated with the council, together with 40 students who were undertaking chiropractic studies. The council collects dues from its members and convenes meetings once or twice a year at which sessions chiropractic functions, chiropractic philosophy, and public education are discussed. In particular, discussion is entered into on the subject of advancing the philosophy of the so-called "straights," chiropractors who do not utilize techniques of physical therapy, nutrition and weight loss programs or diagnostic radiology in conducting their profession. The "straights" limit their involvement to analysis and determination of vertebral subluxation and correction. In 1982, the Florida Chiropractic Council was incorporated in the State of Florida as Florida Chiropractic Council, Inc. A copy of the matters related to the incorporation may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 2. One of the other activities of the Florida Chiropractic Council would be public fairs, at which health related exhibits are displayed and information disseminated to the public on the subject of chiropractic. At these events, member chiropractors answer questions about chiropractic. As a part of this function, brochures, which contain information about chiropractic, are provided to the public. An example of the brochure would be Respondent's Exhibit 1. Members of the Council also conduct free spinal screenings. This involves the touching of the spine to ascertain problems that need attention. If treatment is warranted, the potential patient is referred to a local chiropractor in the area where the potential patient resides. Members of the Florida chiropractic council do not disseminate business cards for the benefit of those individuals being screened, nor in any other fashion attempt to solicit business through this screening process. The essential thrust of the Council's participation in the fairs is that of public education about chiropractic. Members of the council are advised of the upcoming health fairs or other health related fairs. This communication is made by Respondent and through the process, the members know in advance who would be appearing at the various functions, i.e., fairs. Ordinarily, chiropractors would attend the fairs close by their place of practice. Respondent has participated in a number of health fairs, approximately seven in number. He has not participated in three or four other health fair events. One of the health fair events which the Florida Chiropractic Council was involved in was held at the Twin City Mall, North Palm Beach, Florida, beginning on October 22, 1981. In anticipation of that event, an advertisement was placed in the Palm Beach Post, a paper of local circulation. Respondent placed the advertisement. The advertisement offered free chiropractic examination. This advertisement occurred on October 22, 1981, and may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The health fair included participation by other groups, such as dentists, nutritional counselors, American Lung Association, and diet program sponsors, as reflected in the advertisement. Five or six chiropractors within the Florida Chiropractic Council participated, to include Respondent. The names of the chiropractors did not appear in the advertisement. The activities of those chiropractors at the fair are described in the preceding paragraph. When the chiropractors were not available, a lay volunteer handed out literature, namely brochures. See Respondent's Exhibit 2. A similar fair had been held in Tequesta Park, Palm Beach County, Florida, on August 22, 1981, and was advertised in the Daily Journal, a paper of local circulation. A copy of that advertisement may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Again, reference is made to the type of activities previously discussed, related to functions to be performed by members of the Florida Chiropractic Council on the date of the public event. This event was an annual seafood festival. The advertisement was prepared and placed in the paper by one of the participating members of the Florida Chiropractic Council. Respondent was not that individual. Respondent was told that the Council member was going to place the advertisement prior to making that arrangement. Dr. Sherman did not review the advertisement and did not attend the festival and participate in the activities of the Florida Chiropractic Council. Those activities included functions of the type referred to in the general discussion related to the Florida Chiropractic Council's involvement in health fairs.
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed chiropractic physician, holding Florida license number CH 5839. In addition to his chiropractic training, the Respondent has completed a course of study in biomechanics and has received a "Masters of Professional Studies" degree from Lynn University in Human Biomechanical Trauma. He advertised services related to "Human Biomechanical Trauma" to other chiropractic physicians practicing in the same geographic area. On November 29, 2001, a twenty-nine-year-old female (referred to hereinafter as the patient) presented herself to the Respondent's office complaining of back pain of approximately two weeks duration. The patient was a former gymnast with many years of training. Her regular exercise routine included weight lifting, and the onset of her back pain occurred while she was lifting weights. Initially the pain was in the area of her mid-back and during the subsequent weeks had progressed to her lower back, and to her upper back and neck. The patient also had a history of migraine-type headaches unrelated to the weightlifting and for which she had sought previous treatment with limited success from another physician. On November 29, 2001, the Respondent completed a medical history and performed an evaluation of the patient's condition. The Respondent provided treatment and adjustment. During the time the patient received treatment, she removed all clothing but for her underpants, at the Respondent's direction. A robe was provided inside the treatment room for her to wear after undressing and before the treatment was provided. After providing the treatment on November 29, the Respondent referred the patient to another facility for a series of x-rays. On November 30, 2001, the patient returned for additional treatment at which time the Respondent performed an adjustment to the patient's neck and back. After the treatment was completed and the Respondent exited the room, the patient began to dress, at which point the Respondent entered the room holding a digital camera. The patient testified that the Respondent removed her robe, leaving her clad only in her underpants, that the Respondent told her that the photography was a routine office practice, and that he could not continue the treatment unless the photographs were taken. The patient testified that the Respondent was aggressive while the photographs were taken, speaking with a "raised voice" and moving quickly, instructing her on how to pose, and moving her arms and legs into position. The patient testified that during the incident she was scared and in a "dazed state," and that she didn't know how many photos were taken or how much time elapsed during the photo session. She made no attempt to leave the examination room until after the photos were taken. The Respondent denied that he told the patient that the photographic evaluation was a routine office procedure. The Respondent testified that he discussed the photographic evaluation with the patient and that she permitted the photos to be taken. He testified that he both verbally directed and demonstrated by example, the positions in which he sought to photograph the patient. He further testified that some of the positions came from the patient when describing her "activities of daily living." He testified that she participated in the photography willingly and without protest. Other than the Respondent and the patient, no one else was in the room during the time the photographs were taken. The Respondent's offices consisted of a small suite of rooms located in a strip shopping center. Based on the physical structure of the offices described at the hearing, it is unlikely that voices could be raised to the point of "yelling" without others in the office being aware of the situation. There is no evidence that the patient was physically prevented from leaving the office. Although the patient signed a generic release for treatment when she began seeing the Respondent, the patient testified that the release was essentially blank at the time she signed. In addition to the generic consent for treatment form, the Respondent's office had prepared a separate "Consent Agreement Concerning Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation" which provided as follows: Dear Patient: Holistic Healthcare Centers offers Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation for the purpose of specific biomechanic assessment of the patient. The procedure will include some or all of the following: Digital photos of the patient in various positions, movements and activities. These photographs will be taken with the patient partially or completely unclothed, as determined by the physician(s). Processing and analysis of these photographs on computers either on the premises or at another location, to be determined by the physician(s). Reportage to the patient as to the results of the analyses. Restrictions on the use of these photographs include: Photographic data will be kept in password protected locations and will be accessible only by Dr. Scott Baker and Dr. Scott Drizin. Appropriate hard copies of photographs will be kept in the patient's confidential case file, if needed. The photographic data will not be published either in print or electronically without the patient's express written consent. Utilizations of photographs, data and analyses results can be used educationally while protecting the privacy of the patient. I HAVE READ, UNDERSTAND AND CONSENT TO THE ABOVE. Under the conditions indicated, I hereby place myself under your care for those procedures as described above as indicated in your professional judgment. The "Consent Agreement Concerning Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation" provided a space for the signature of the person from whom consent is being sought and for the signature of a witness. The patient did not sign the photographic consent form. At no time did the patient sign any written release specifically allowing the Respondent to take photographs. According to his note handwritten on the "Consent Agreement Concerning Biomechanic Photographic Evaluation," the Respondent became aware at some point that the patient had not signed the photo consent form. A few days after the photos were taken, the patient returned to the Respondent's office and inquired about the photographs. By that time, the digital photo files had been transferred from the camera used to take the photos to a computer located in the Respondent's office. After the patient requested to view the photos, the Respondent went to a computer where the digital photo files were stored. The Respondent and the patient reviewed the photographs for about 45 minutes. During the photo review, the Respondent made comments that could be construed as relating to the patient's posture. According to the patient's testimony, such comments included "you're standing a little to the left on this one and you should be standing more upright on this one" and "see, you're standing crooked, you should be standing straight." During the photo review, the Respondent told the patient that he and his partner, Dr. Scott Baker, were interested in writing a book and pursuing additional medical training. The patient testified that the Respondent may have used the word "biomechanics" during the photo review, but was not certain. After the photos were reviewed, the patient asked for a copy of the digital image files. Initially the Respondent declined to produce the files, but by the end of the appointment, after receiving additional therapeutic treatment and adjustments, the Respondent provided to the patient a disc containing the photo files. According to the patient, the Respondent advised the patient not to show the photographs to anyone. After the patient received a copy of the photo files, she did not again see the Respondent in a therapeutic setting. She cancelled her remaining appointments with the Respondent, obtained her X-rays from the Respondent's practice, and sought treatment elsewhere. After the patient cancelled the appointments, she received at least one call from the Respondent's secretary inquiring as to the reason for the cancellation. During the call, the Respondent spoke to the patient and inquired as to whether there were problems, at which point the patient advised that she would not return to the Respondent for treatment. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Dr. Michael Major, a Florida-licensed chiropractic physician. Although Dr. Major appears to be knowledgeable about biomechanics, he has not undertaken any advanced education in biomechanics. Dr. Major testified one of the reasons to use photography in a chiropractic setting would be to observe structural changes that could occur related to treatment. Dr. Major testified that such photos are generally taken from front, side, or rear perspectives, and utilize spinal or anatomical "landmarks" for purposes of comparing pre-treatment and post-treatment conditions. Dr. Major further testified that he has used digital photography in his practice, generally placing subjects in front of a grid-pattern marked on a wall. Dr. Major's grid system also includes a bilateral scale to identify weight-bearing issues. By using the photo of the subject in front of the grid and on the scale, a chiropractic physician is able to show to a photographic subject various spinal or postural conditions. Dr. Major has used this system in marketing services to prospective clients. Dr. Major termed photos taken from positions other than in front of, to the side of, or from behind a patient as "oblique" angle photos. Dr. Majors testified that such photos had very little analytical value because of the difficulty in accurately reproducing at a subsequent date, the angles from which the original photographs were taken, thus making comparison between the sets of photographs difficult. Dr. Major testified that, when taking a later set of photos, where the angle of camera placement relative to the body is different from the original camera placement by only a few degrees, the later photograph would offer little comparative value because the landmarks would not be located appropriately. A review of the photographs in evidence indicates that the patient was photographed in a routine examination room, posed in various positions, and unclothed but for her underpants. At the hearing, Dr. Major reviewed the photos offered into evidence and opined that although some of the photos taken by the Respondent of the patient provided appropriate diagnostic information, others did not. Dr. Major testified where the photos did not contain appropriate diagnostic information, the Respondent violated the applicable standard of care by not utilizing the best techniques in order to isolate planes of motion sufficiently to provide useful information. Dr. Major also testified that the failure to obtain the patient's consent prior to taking photographs was a violation of the applicable standard of care. Dr. Major opined without elaboration that taking the photographs without the patient's consent also constituted sexual misconduct. According to Dr. Major, the failure to have another female present in the room during an exam was not a violation of the applicable standard of care. The Respondent offered evidence related to his use of photography and the development of a "protocol" that he and his partner were creating to document biomechanical evaluations of certain patients. In addition to the Respondent's testimony, the Respondent presented the testimony of Scott M. Baker, D.C., who was in practice with the Respondent at the time of the events at issue. At some point in the mid-1990's, Dr. Baker and the Respondent became interested in continuing their education in biomechanics, and both completed the additional biomechanics training referenced herein. Part of their interests included conducting research to develop a "protocol" for biomechanical evaluation. Part of the protocol included photographic evaluations of patients. The model apparently being followed referenced radiological studies where multiple X-rays from different angles were taken of a patient during diagnostic testing. However, although the Respondent asserted that the photographs were part of the treatment offered to the patient, Dr. Baker testified that the photos were not actually taken for diagnostic purposes. The alleged purpose of the photos was to educate a patient on existing conditions with the ability to demonstrate at a later date, visible progress though the use of comparative photography. Dr. Baker testified that after the Respondent took the photos of the patient, he and the Respondent reviewed the photos and indexed them by reference to anatomical characteristics. Dr. Baker acknowledged that some of the photos "weren't useful," but that it was preferable to err towards taking too many photos rather than too few, and that the intent was to discard those photos that were not useful. The consent form specific to the photographic study also indicates that the photos may be used for educational purposes with appropriate protection of a patient's privacy. Dr. Baker acknowledged that the protocol was in preliminary stages of development and that greater specificity would be required as development continued. Prior to the patient in this case, only one other chiropractic client had been photographed based on the protocol. When the photographs of the patient were taken, the position from which each photo was taken was not recorded. Dr. Baker testified that when subsequent photos were taken for comparative purposes, the photo subject would have to be repositioned based on the earlier photograph, using an anatomical point of reference. No visible grid pattern was present in the room where the patient's photos were taken and no grid is present in the photos taken of the patient by the Respondent. In order to view the photos, the Respondent planned to use a graphics software program called "Paint Shop Pro" which could allow a grid to be superimposed on a photograph. Whether the computer imposition of a grid pattern on a photo taken subsequently would provide specific anatomical references sufficient to compare the photos is unknown. The asserted reason why the patient wore only underpants in the photos was that wearing a bra would alter the center of gravity being measured. The Respondent further testified that wearing a bra could cause a "cutaneous sensory response" that could lead to a "reflex muscle spasm which would alter the center of gravity." The evidence fails to establish why the same reasoning was not applicable to the underpants that the Respondent directed the patient to leave on.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Chiropractic Medicine, enter a final order finding that Scott Drizin, D.C., is guilty of a failure to practice chiropractic medicine with the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, and imposing a fine of $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 30th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Louis Kwall, Esquire Kwall, Showers, Coleman & Barack, P.A. 133 North Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 Ephraim D. Livingston, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
