Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a physician authorized to practice medicine in the State of Florida under license number ME 0031424. Respondent has an office located at S.W. 8th Street and S.W. 34th Avenue in Miami, Florida. Delores Prado has worked in Respondent's office for the past ten years. Her duties are primarily administrative in nature. On occasion, however, Prado assists Respondent by administering physical therapy to Respondent's patients. She does so, though, only at the specific directive of Respondent, who provides her with detailed instructions regarding the precise treatment each patient is to receive. Prado never treats a patient when Respondent is not on the premises and immediately available if needed. During her first year of employment with Respondent, Prado received training in the practice of physical therapy. Prado is not now, nor was she at any time material hereto, licensed or certified to render any health care services in the State of Florida, including, but not limited to, those that licensed or certified physicians, registered nurses, practical nurses, physical therapists, and physical therapist assistants are authorized to perform. At all times material hereto, Respondent knew or should have of known of Prado's unlicensed status. On September 2, 1988, Thomas Daniels, an Investigative Specialist II with the Department, visited Respondent's office to investigate a complaint that Respondent was permitting unlicensed individuals to administer physical therapy to his patients. Upon his arrival at the office, Daniels was greeted by a young woman seated behind the reception desk. During the course of his conversation with the woman, Daniels inquired as to whether she had ever administered physical therapy to any of Respondent's patients. She replied in the negative. Daniels then showed her a copy of a letter, addressed to the U.S. Security Insurance Company and bearing her signature, which reflected the contrary. Confronted with this letter, the woman conceded that she and her fellow employees performed physical therapy on Respondent's patients. Respondent, who was nearby in a position where he could overhear the conversation, did not interject and deny the statement that his employee had made to Daniels. Later during his September 2, 1988, visit, Daniels met with Respondent and was shown the office's physical therapy area. He then left. Daniels returned to Respondent's office on September 6, 1988. On this visit, he was greeted by Prado. He asked her if he could speak with Respondent. Prado replied that Respondent was out of the office and she did not expect him back until later that afternoon. Daniels then asked Prado if he could take photographs of the physical therapy area. Prado indicated that she had no objection to him doing so. Daniel thereupon went into the physical therapy area where he observed one of Respondent's patients seated in a chair with "hot packs" on her neck and shoulders. The patient was in the midst of receiving physical therapy administered by Prado pursuant to the specific directive of Respondent. Notwithstanding what Prado had told Daniels, Respondent was in fact on the premises, albeit outside of the physical therapy area and beyond Daniels' view, and was immediately available if needed. Daniels took photographs of the physical therapy area and then concluded his visit. During the ten minutes that Daniels was in Respondent's office on September 6, 1988, he spoke to Prado and no one else. Their conversation was in English and Prado appeared to have little difficulty understanding what Daniels was saying to her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding that Respondent did not commit the offenses charged and dismissing the instant administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of August, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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, 1990.
The Issue Whether the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint have been proven by clear and convincing evidence and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Physical Therapy Practice, (Petitioner or Board) is the state agency that licenses and has regulatory jurisdiction of physical therapists. At the time of the hearing, Respondent Raymond Cralle (Cralle) had practiced physical therapy for three decades and was known to colleagues as a competent and innovative professional. He holds licenses in Florida, Virginia, Iowa, and other states by reciprocity, and also holds a specialized certification in physical therapy for persons suffering from injuries to the brain and spinal cord. Cralle received his academic training from the University of Iowa’s School of Allied Health. Upon graduation, he began a hospital based practice at Good Samaritan Hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida, and thereafter built a large and successful private practice in the Greater West Palm Beach area. Over the years, Cralle was also active in professional activities. In addition to speaking, writing and consulting, Cralle was heavily involved in legislative advocacy work on behalf of his profession. Throughout his career, his clinics have usually had some type of formal or informal relationship with schools of physical therapy, offering opportunities for students to intern or to perform other types of work. By 1992, Cralle was operating 13 clinics. That year, he sold some of his practice to HealthSouth and the rest to Novacare, two publicly traded companies. Not ready to retire, Cralle opened another private practice in Delray Beach, Florida. At the time of the events giving rise to the charges against Cralle, his clinic had space to treat eight patients at a time. In addition to Cralle, three physical therapists, one occupational therapist, and one physical therapy intern were working regularly on the premises. In addition, aides were employed to perform non- professional chores such as setting up equipment, assisting patients in making their way to treatment rooms, draping patients, and the like. For approximately three months in the year 2000, the precise dates of which are not reflected in the record, physical therapy student Helen Mesa (Mesa) was employed as an aide in Cralle’s clinic. When treating patients, Cralle was frequently accompanied by a colleague, either an aide or a more highly trained staffer, who would be asked to enter notes on the patient’s chart. The notes were dictated by Cralle. Cralle used staff this way to avoid having to interrupt treatment in order to document treatment. When accompanied by student interns or aides such as Mesa, the dictation served a teaching function as well. Mesa's brief tenure at Cralle’s clinic is consistent with her pattern of unstable employment. Since she left Cralle’s employ, she has worked in at least three jobs, including one in a supermarket and two involving physical therapy, and each of these jobs lasted roughly three months. Mesa’s instability is further evidenced by the fact that initially she resigned from Cralle’s clinic, saying she could not handle the stress of the job and single motherhood. Cralle hired a replacement while Mesa worked out her notice. Then, Mesa changed her mind and asked to stay. Cralle, having promised her job to another, said no. The circumstances surrounding her departure may or may not be the cause of Mesa’s hostility toward Cralle, but the hostility was unmistakable during her testimony in this case. Her demeanor under oath was prosecutorial. She would volunteer information and argue with defense counsel about what questions he should be asking her. As a student, Mesa was taught a method of documenting patient progress known as SOAP notes. The acronym stands for Subjective-Objective-Assessment-Plan. Under the SOAP methodology, the “S(ubjective)” portion includes everything that the patient says about how he feels. The “O(bjective)” portion states what was done with the patient. The “A(ssessment)” portion states what progress the patient is making toward short or long-term goals. The “P(lan)” portion reflects what is expected by or at the next treatment. Cralle does not like the SOAP form of note-taking and generally does not use it in his practice. No law or rule requires the use of the SOAP format in documenting, or “charting” patient progress. However, when assisted by Mesa, Cralle often used the SOAP format when dictating notes, because it was familiar to Mesa from her studies. Mesa is the only complaining witness. At hearing her claims about Cralle’s charting practices went well outside the boundaries of the amended administrative complaint. She claimed that she worked on patients with no supervision and that some of “her” patients did not have an evaluation sheet in their chart, although such sheets are the most basic tool of physical therapy practice. Mesa also provided the only testimony in support of the Board's primary charge, which is that she wrote entire SOAP notes on charts without any input, let alone dictation, from Cralle or other qualified personnel. In addition, Mesa claimed that none of the patient files in which she wrote notes had been signed by Cralle the next time she worked with that patient. Yet, it is undisputed that of the 103 partial patient charts reviewed by the parties during discovery, all but about 15 percent of the patient entries in Mesa's handwriting had been signed off on by Cralle. Of 17 unsigned notes placed in evidence, at least some reflect a degree of technical knowledge and vocabulary that Mesa did not have. Her claim to have written each of them, entirely on her own, is not credited. There was no evidence as to whether, or under what circumstances, a physical therapist is required to initial patient notes, and none of the allegations of the Amended Administrative Complaint allege errors or omissions with respect to Cralle's signature, initials, of lack thereof. There was no evidence that any or all of the alleged charting deficiencies compromised patient care or safety in any way. Rather, as Petitioner’s attorney stated during the questioning of its only other witness, physical therapy expert Linda Nash (Nash), “As you know, this case is about what duties a physical therapist can delegate to unlicensed personnel . . . what are [a] physical therapist’s responsibilities as far as the record keeping itself?” Nash’s answer was instructive. She replied: Well, we have a responsibility to document everything and, and document it in a form be it SOAP or narrative or any way that demonstrates that that patient, where they were the moment that they came in and how they were continuing to progress. For several reasons. Number one, for your own benefit because if you have to defend yourself in a case you have, you know, notes that are documented as to what went on and what you did for insurance purposes. Insurance companies don’t like to pay if they’re, if the patient is not making progress. And you need to be able to document those kinds of things in the notes. After revealing that her primary interest in good documentation is as a means of covering herself in malpractice litigation or to obtain insurance reimbursement, a theme which would recur again on her cross-examination (in her words, “so that I covered my tail”), Nash eventually turned her attention to issues pertinent to the state’s interest in protecting the public’s health and safety, but provided no testimony indicating that any or all of Cralle's charts constituted a danger to any patient. Nash acknowledged that in her years of experience, she has never seen a "perfect chart." Nash, as well as the experts who testified on behalf of Cralle, agreed that it would be improper to delegate to an unlicensed aide the task of assessing the patient and determining the content of a plan of care. The most that could properly be delegated is the documentation of tasks and activities performed by patients in the presence of the unlicensed person. It was also undisputed among the experts that there is nothing improper about dictating notes to an unlicensed aide. The uncorroborated testimony of Mesa that she was delegated tasks which may be lawfully performed only by a physical therapist is not worthy of belief when evaluated in the context of Cralle’s 30 years as a successful and well-regarded physical therapist. Cralle had a number of associates and employees of long standing whose qualifications were entirely appropriate for all aspects of patient care and record keeping. It is illogical to assume that Cralle would delegate vital functions to a brand new employee with no experience, and there is no credible evidence that he did. Petitioner's expert Nash realized that because the state’s entire case rested upon Mesa’s credibility, it would be important ”. . . to insure that no misrepresentations [were] provided, the office manager as well as the current PT techs and PTs are interviewed for accuracy.” Petitioner did not follow-up on that recommendation. Had those individuals been interviewed, and additional office records been examined, the true circumstances surrounding Cralle's record keeping practices could have been ascertained. In the absence of such evidence and witnesses, there is no clear and convincing evidence of the Rule violations alleged. Mesa claimed that two physical therapists working in Cralle’s clinic instructed Mesa not to write in the charts of their patients, and, further, that these therapists complained to Cralle about his practice of permitting Mesa to write in his charts. Petitioner offered no corroboration for these claims, even though one of the physical therapists to whom Mesa's testimony on this matter referred was present and testifying on behalf of Cralle. A number of notes in Mesa's handwriting included frequent use of phrases such as “patient tolerated treatment well due to no complaints” and “continue with plan of care.” These are not models of informative note writing, but neither are they clear and convincing evidence of improper delegation when viewed in light of the entire record.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Physical Therapy Practice enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Raymond Cralle. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Denise O'Brien, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building Three Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard Willits, Esquire 2290 10th Avenue North, Suite 404 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Physical Therapy Practice Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C05 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 issues in this case are whether Respondent: (a) was convicted of a crime which directly relates to the practice of physical therapy; (b) failed to timely report a criminal conviction to the Board of Physical Therapy Practice; and (c) was terminated from the Medicaid program, as Petitioner has alleged; and, if one or more of these allegations are established, whether the Board should impose discipline on Respondent's physical therapy license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Marly Delis Cueto ("Cueto"), P.T., was licensed as a physical therapist in the state of Florida. Petitioner Department of Health ("Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physical therapists such as Cueto. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a physical therapist, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Physical Therapy Practice ("Board") has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the therapist has committed a disciplinable offense. Exercising its prosecutorial authority, the Department has charged Cueto with three such offenses, namely, being convicted of a crime which directly relates to the practice of physical therapy; failing to report this conviction to the Board; and being terminated from the state Medicaid program. It is undisputed that, on November 5, 2008, in a case styled State of Florida v. Cueto, No. 08-16209CF10A, the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, accepted Cueto's plea of nolo contendere to the single count of grand theft (a third-degree felony) with which she had been charged; withheld adjudication of guilt; and sentenced her to a term of two years' probation with special conditions. The conditions were that Cueto pay the Agency for Health Care Administration ("AHCA") $28,000 as restitution to the Medicaid program, from which she had stolen funds; and that she relinquish her Medicare and Medicaid provider numbers while on probation. Cueto did not explain the reasons for, and circumstances surrounding, her plea of nolo contendere. There is, at bottom, no persuasive evidence in the record upon which to base any findings of an exculpatory nature concerning the underlying criminal charge for which Cueto was sentenced. Where, as here, there is insufficient proof of objectively reasonable grounds for entering a plea of no contest, which are consistent with innocence, the undersigned presumes that the licensee entered the plea because of a guilty conscience or in surrender to overwhelming odds of conviction. Thus, it is determined that Cueto's plea of nolo contendere constituted a conviction. The conduct which gave rise to Cueto's conviction is relevant only for the limited purpose of determining whether the crime directly relates to the practice of physical therapy. In this regard, the undersigned finds that during the period from January 1, 2007 to April 22, 2008, Cueto——who, as a licensed physical therapist, was an enrolled Medicaid provider——knowingly and intentionally submitted multiple claims to the Florida Medicaid program for physical therapy services that she had not actually rendered, on which false claims she was paid at least $28,000 to which she was not entitled. It is determined that Cueto was convicted of a crime which directly relates to the practice of physical therapy. Cueto did not report to the Board that fact that she had pleaded nolo contendere to a crime, as she was legally required to do within 30 days after entering the plea. On September 30, 2009, AHCA entered a Final Order terminating Cueto from participation as a provider in the Florida Medicaid program. AHCA imposed this sanction against Cueto pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59G-9.070(8) (2008)——as it was authorized to do under section 409.913(13), Florida Statutes (2009)——because she had been convicted of grand theft on November 5, 2008. As of the final hearing in this case, Cueto had not been reenrolled as a Medicaid provider.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Physical Therapy Practice enter a final order finding Marly Delis Cueto guilty of the offense described in section 486.125(1)(c), Florida Statutes, i.e., being convicted of a crime that directly relates to the practice of physical therapy; guilty of the offense defined in section 456.072(1)(x), namely failing to timely report a criminal conviction to the Board; and guilty of the offense defined in section 486.125(1)(k), in consequence of having been terminated from the Medicaid program, which latter constitutes a disciplinable offense under section 456.072(1)(kk). It is further RECOMMENDED that the Board impose an administrative fine of $14,000 and suspend Cueto's physical therapy license for two years, to be followed by two years of probation on such reasonable terms and conditions as the Board establishes, which may include the requirement that Cueto pay in full the $28,000 she has been ordered to remit to AHCA as restitution of the stolen funds. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of July, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 19th day of July, 2011.
The Issue Whether the last sentence of Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that "[a]n applicant who has failed to pass the [physical therapist licensure] examination after five attempts, regardless of the jurisdiction through which the examination was taken, is precluded from licensure [by endorsement]," is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," within the meaning of Section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement and clarify the factual stipulations entered into by the parties:3 The "applications for licensure in Florida as physical therapists" that Petitioners filed were applications for licensure by endorsement.4 Their applications were denied because they each had failed the National Physical Therapy Examination (also known as the "NPTE") more than five times before finally passing the examination. Prior to November 11, 2002, the Board's "Licensure by Endorsement" rule, Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, provided as follows: An applicant demonstrating that he or she meets the requirements of Rule 64B17-3.001, F.A.C., may be licensed to practice physical therapy by endorsement by presenting evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant has passed an examination before a similar, lawful, authorized examining board in physical therapy in another state, the District of Columbia, a territory or a foreign country if their [sic] standards for licensure are as high as those maintained in Florida. The standard for determining whether the standards of another state, the District of Columbia, a territory, or a foreign country are as high as the standards in Florida shall be whether the written examination taken for licensure in such other jurisdiction by applicants meeting Florida's minimum educational qualifications was through the national physical therapy examination provider. Effective November 11, 2002, the Board amended Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, to read as follows: An applicant demonstrating that he or she meets the requirements of Rule 64B17-3.001, F.A.C., may be licensed to practice physical therapy by endorsement by presenting evidence satisfactory to the Board that the applicant has active licensure in another jurisdiction and has passed an examination before a similar, lawful, authorized examining board in physical therapy in such other jurisdiction if their [sic] standards for licensure are as high as those maintained in Florida. The standard for determining whether the standards of another jurisdiction are as high as the standards in Florida shall be whether the written examination taken for licensure in such other jurisdiction by applicants meeting Florida's minimum educational qualifications was through the national physical therapy examination provider certified by the Department [of Health].[5] An applicant who has failed to pass the examination after five attempts, regardless of the jurisdiction through which the examination was taken, is precluded from licensure. No subsequent amendments have been made to Rule 64B17-3.003. The version of the rule that became effective November 11, 2002, is still in effect. Section 486.081, Florida Statutes, is cited as the "law implemented" in the current of version Rule 64B17-3.003, Florida Administrative Code, as it was in the pre-November 11, 2002, version of the rule. Florida, along with the other 49 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, use the NPTE (the only national examination of its kind available in this country) to test the competency of candidates for licensure by examination to practice as physical therapists. Florida has used the NPTE since June of 1994, when the examination was certified.6 There is no "Florida-developed examination." The Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy is the "provider" of the NPTE. The NPTE is a "criterion-based," minimum competency examination consisting of multiple-choice questions that is given only in English.7 It is designed to test whether candidates possess core skills basic to the practice of physical therapy, not their knowledge of the English language (although candidates "need a certain proficiency in English to fully understand the questions"). The examination is highly reliable in its measurement of entry-level knowledge in the discipline. "From a psychometric and statistical [perspective], [a] candidate would need to take the examination one time for [there to be] a very accurate estimate of [the candidate's competency]." It is reasonable, however, to permit a limited number of "retakes," in light of the possibility that "luck" or some other factor unrelated to the candidate's competency may have negatively impacted the candidate's test results. Allowing an "[u]nlimited number of retakes [of the NPTE]," though, diminishes the examination's reliability as a consequence of the "practice effect" and "repeat exposure" phenomena. It is contrary to "nationally and generally accepted testing standards" and increases the risk that a candidate lacking the required skills will be able to pass the examination. "[T]he number of times that Florida has set [for a candidate to take the NPTE] . . . is very ample and lenient."
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 486.125(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2004),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of medicine pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 458, Florida Statutes. Mr. Westrope is, and was at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physical therapy assistant in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PTA1170. Beginning in or about September 2004, D.D. was being provided physical therapy services through Girling Health Care, Incorporated (Girling). Girling contracted with Rehab Action, Incorporated (Rehab) to provide home health physical therapy to patients. Rehab contracted with Mr. Westrope to perform the physical therapy in the patients' homes. In or about September 2004, Mr. Westrope was assigned to provide physical therapy to D.D., who had undergone a complete knee replacement. D.D. had been assessed by Mr. Westrope’s supervising physical therapist, Gaspard de Laaf, on September 29, 2004, prior to Mr. Westrope beginning his physical therapy services on September 30, 2004. Mr. Westrope was required by Rehab to complete a visitation slip at the end of each physical therapy session. Mr. de Laaf had provided instruction to Mr. Westrope on how to complete the form. Mr. Westrope would send the completed form to Mr. de Laaf, who reviewed the form and sent it to Girling for reimbursement. When Mr. Westrope provided physical therapy to D.D., she would lie on her bed and perform therapy exercises, and then move into the kitchen where Mr. Westrope would measure the bend in her knee. When each session was over, Mr. Westrope would complete a visit slip for the treatment, and D.D. signed them to verify that she received the services. D.D. is visually impaired and can only see light. In order to sign the forms, D.D. requested Mr. Westrope to place the forms near the end of the kitchen table so that she could align her arm with the table edge so that her signature would be in a straight line. D.D. always signed her signature as "D.A.D." D.D. prided herself on her independence and did not allow anyone else to sign the visit slips for her. Mr. Westrope provided physical therapy services to D.D. on September 30 and October 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, and 22, 2004. Mr. de Laaf evaluated D.D. and provided physical therapy services to her on October 25, 2004. Mr. Westrope provided services to D.D. on October 28, 2004. Mr. Westrope completed and submitted visit slip documentation for physical therapy treatment of D.D., which he claimed to have provided on October 16, 2004; October 18, 2004; October 20, 2004; October 30, 2004; and November 1, 2004. However, Mr. Westrope did not provide services to D.D. on those dates. On or about November 3, 2004, D.D. contacted Girling complaining that she had not received physical therapy from Mr. Westrope in a while. On or about November 4, 2004, Mr. de Laaf was notified by Girling regarding the complaint it received from D.D. Mr. de Laaf then prohibited Mr. Westrope from seeing any Girling patients after Girling indicated that it did not want Mr. Westrope performing any of its services. Mr. de Laaf then resumed the treatment of D.D. On or about November 5, 2004, Tammy Hain, R.N., and Rob Hudson, O.T., who are supervisors employed by Girling, visited D.D. to verify that she had not been receiving physical therapy from Mr. Westrope on October 16, 2004; October 18, 2004; October 20, 2004; October 30, 2004; and November 1, 2004. D.D. verified that she had not received services on those dates. D.D.'s daughter has been assisting D.D. with her financial transactions for 15 years and is familiar with D.D.'s signature. At the final hearing, D.D.'s daughter reviewed for the first time the visit slips submitted by Mr. Westrope for services to D.D. After reviewing the visit slips, D.D.'s daughter concluded that the signatures on the visit slips for October 16, 2004; October 18, 2004; October 20, 2004; October 30, 2004; and November 1, 2004, were not written by D.D. D.D.'s daughter verified that D.D. always uses her middle initial “A” when signing her signature. The signatures on the disputed dates do not contain D.D.'s middle initial and are different in appearance from the signatures on the visit slips on which Mr. Westrope documented services that he did provide to D.D. On five occasions during the time that Mr. Westrope was providing services to D.D., Robert Hudson also provided occupational therapy services to D.D. on five occasions. At the end of the therapy sessions with Mr. Hudson, D.D. signed the visit slips “D.A.D.” The parties stipulated that if Mr. Westrope did not provide the services to D.D. on the dates he indicated on the visit slips, then Mr. Westrope violated the rules of the Department and Subsection 486.125(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Michael G. Westrope, P.T.A., violated Subsection 486.125(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty of a $2,000 fine and a six-month suspension followed by one year of probation with the terms to be set by the Department at the conclusion of the suspension period and requiring Respondent to complete five hours of Continuing Education in physical therapy medical records documentation. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 7th day of April, 2006.
