Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS-0001053 in 1954. According to Respondent's office records for a patient named Barry Belikoff, Respondent saw Belikoff in his office on twenty-five (25) occasions between September 5, 1980, and July 24, 1981, and during this time wrote twenty-four (24) prescriptions for a total of 344 Quaaludes (Methaqualone) with a dosage of 300 mg. each. According to his patient records, Respondent also saw Belikoff on thirteen (13) occasions between October 31, 1981 and June 18, 1982 and wrote four (4) prescriptions for controlled substances, including Talwin, Restoril, and Percodan. Respondent was treating Belikoff for back pains and insomnia. According to expert testimony, the records kept by Respondent of this patient's office visits were inadequate and do not provide the required documentation which would support and explain the controlled substances prescribed in this case. In addition, a proper course of patient care would not include the on-going prescription of Quaaludes over almost a one year period at a rate of over one a day without a record of additional tests, x-rays, or neurological exams during this period. Belikoff's patient records do not show any such additional tests, x- rays or exams. Without such documentation in the patient's records, the prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent for Belikoff were without medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, according to expert testimony. Respondent was treating a patient named Lyndon Ellis during 1981 and 1982. Ellis was hospitalized on four occasions while under Respondent's care, and according to expert testimony the level of care and medical records for this patient, while hospitalized, were excellent. As a result of office visits by Ellis, Respondent wrote thirty-eight (38) prescriptions for controlled substances between April 20, 1981 and September 29, 1982 which included Percocet 5, Demerol, and Fiorinal. Ellis was being treated by Respondent for chronic headaches and pain from accident injuries, and also for a problem with his toe. However, according to expert testimony, the records kept by Respondent on Ellis' office visits were inadequate and do not provide documentation which would support and explain the controlled substances prescribed in this case. The absence of a thorough patient medical history, exam, evaluation, x- rays and lab tests in this patient's office records is explained by Respondent by the fact that this information was available in hospital records for this patient. Nevertheless, Respondent's office records for Ellis are totally inadequate. These office records do reflect that Respondent was aware of Ellis' overuse of controlled substances and the need to detoxify this patient on October 29, 1982. Yet he prescribed Percocet, a controlled substance, on five additional occasions after October 29, 1982. Without adequate documentation in the patient's records, the prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent for Ellis were without medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, according to expert testimony. Between July 14, 1980 and April 23, 1982, Respondent treated a patient named Alan Fogler. During this time Respondent wrote twelve (12) prescriptions for a total of 464 Percodan, a controlled substance. Respondent was treating Fogler for headaches, whiplash and a concussion reported by the patient, as well as allergies, but patient records reveal no x- rays, brain scans, lab work or neurological exams. According to expert testimony, patient records in this case are inadequate and do not justify the treatment rendered which consisted primarily of prescriptions for Percodan. Without adequate patient medical records, the prescriptions for controlled substances were without- medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, accordingly to expert testimony. While treating patients Belikoff, Ellis and Fogler, Respondent repeatedly reissued prescriptions for controlled substances without a substantiation of medical reasons in the patients' office medical records. According to expert testimony concerning the standards expected of osteopathic physicians in keeping office medical records on patients, Respondent did not perform with reasonable skill, nor meet the standards expected of physicians in this aspect of their practice. Vicki Cutcliffe, a deputy sheriff with the Broward County Sheriff's Office, saw Respondent in his office on March 30, April 11 and April 25, 1984 using the alias "Vicki Tarra". After taking a brief medical history which revealed that "Tarra" used alcohol daily, Respondent began treating her for situational anxiety by prescribing controlled substances, including Librium and Tranxene. On April 25 "Tarra" told Respondent she wanted some extra pills for her friend named Jo Ann and asked him to write her friend a prescription. Respondent said he could not do that, but did give "Tarra" a prescription for Tranxene and two refills, after initially giving her a prescription which allowed for only one refill. He told her that she could give some of the pills to her friend and then she could refill the prescription twice. Respondent knew that "Tarra" wanted the extra pills for a friend and that she would give them to her friend who was not a patient of Respondent. According to expert testimony, the treatment given to "Tarra" by Respondent, which consisted simply of prescriptions for controlled substances without adequate documentation of the reasons for this course of treatment in the patient's medical records, was totally inappropriate. Increasing a prescription when a patient says they want some extra pills for a friend is never justified and constitutes malpractice, according to expert testimony.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two ( 2) years. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 3 2301 (904) 488- 9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John W. Gaul, D.O. 11360 Tara Drive Plantation, FL 33325 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================ =
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Medicine, has been the state agency responsible for the licensing of physicians and the regulation of the medical profession in Florida. Respondent was a licensed physician in Florida under license number ME 0039846. On September 23, 1988, Respondent saw Patient #1, a 55 year old female, who presented with a primary complaint of chronic pain in the neck and low back resulting from an automobile accident. The patient history taken by the Respondent revealed a head injury, a back injury and a whiplash injury, all within the previous five years. The patient also had a history of unstable blood pressure, especially in times of stress, and a history of alcohol abuse which had been in remission for the past two years. Respondent examined the patient and found she was suffering from depression but evidenced no suicidal ideations or indications of psychosis. Respondent diagnosed a major depressive reaction and myofacial syndrome of the neck and low back. Dr. Morales treated this patient from September 23, 1988 to February 1, 1990, prescribing various antidepressants and anti-anxiety medications including Limbitrol, Prozac, Valium, Halcion and Tranxene for her. He also prescribed various opiates including Percodan and Percocet. Respondent claims he made a copy of each prescription he wrote for the patient medical records of each patient so that he could keep track of the number of pills he prescribed for that patient. He claims that the quantity of a prescribed medication was kept in a separate area of the patient's chart and not with the clinical notes. Though Respondent claims this procedure was a common office practice and done consistently in every patient's chart, the evidence indicates otherwise. His method of recording medication in the clinical record was inconsistent. At some places in the record he would indicate the exact number of a specific pill prescribed. At other places in the record, he would not. Examples of this practice, as seen from the medical records of Patient #1 available, shows the following entries: October 20, 1988, Rx for Valium for patient #1 but no indication of the amount prescribed is found in the records. March 2, 1989, Rx for Percodan QID (4 times a day), but no indication in records of the amount prescribed. July 8, 1989 Rx for Percodan - 60 tabs. August 2, 1989 Respondent notes to continue with Percoset, but no notation in records as to amount. September 7, 1989 Rx for Percocet but records do not reflect amount prescribed. November 15, 1989 Rx for 60 Percocet. December 6, 1989 Rx for 30 Percocet pills. While Patient #1 was under Respondent's care, she was admitted to the hospital twice. On September 18, 1989 she was admitted to Largo Medical Center for narcotics addiction and was discharged on September 28, 1989. On September 18, 1989, while the patient was in the hospital, Dr. Farullah, a staff physician, called Respondent to discuss the patient with him. This conversation, including the Respondent's name, is itemized in the hospital records for this patient. It is appropriate practice protocol upon the admission of a patient to the hospital for the admitting physician to notify the patient's attending physician about the patient's diagnoses and condition. It would appear this was done here by Dr. Farullah. Nonetheless, Respondent claims he did not know the patient was hospitalized, contending he did not recall the conversation, and noting that the information regarding hospitalization might not have been included in it. Respondent claims he never heard of Dr. Farulla until a subsequent visit from the patient in his office on October 24, 1989. After the patient's discharge from the hospital, she came to Respondent's office for a 30 minute visit on October 4, 1989. Though this visit occurred only 6 days after her discharge from the hospital, Respondent claims the subject of her hospitalization was not discussed. Two days later, on October 6, 1989, the patient returned to Respondent's office for another 30 minute visit and again, the subject of her hospitalization did not come up. This patient was readmitted to the hospital on October 10, 1989 with a diagnosis of, among other things, drug dependency. She was discharged on October 20, 1989, but, again, Respondent claims he did not know of her hospitalization. He saw her on October 24, 1989 for another 30 minute visit during which, he claims, the subject of her hospitalization did not come up. This appears to be a conflict with his previous testimony , noted in Paragraph 8, supra, wherein he stated he never heard of Dr. Farullah until he met with the patient in his office on October 24, 1989. On April 10, 1990, in the course of filing a disability claim with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (DHRS), the patient signed a medical release form. Thereafter, HRS requested the patient's records from the Respondent, but they were not forthcoming. A second request was transmitted to the Respondent who replied that the records requested had been copied but not dispatched because no release form accompanied the request. Respondent indicated that upon receipt of the release form, the records would be forwarded, and on June 4, 1990, they were, in fact, sent by the Respondent. This was approximately 17 months before the burglary of Respondent's office to be discussed, infra. Respondent claims it was his policy, however, in responding to requests for information to the Social Security Administration, (disability claims are paid by Social Security), to provide only clinical notes, initial evaluation, and a medical summary update. Other records, including prescription records, are not sent. Respondent's office was burglarized on November 30, 1991 by one of his former employees. According to Respondent, all the medical records he had were taken during the break-in. Though they were ultimately returned, he claims they were incomplete when returned. However, comparison done by the Department's investigator, of the medical records of Patient #1 which were sent to HRS before the burglary with those taken from Respondent's office after the burglary, indicated they were the same, except for some duplicates. Nonetheless, Respondent claims that some of the records pertaining to Patient #1, including prescription records, were not recovered. This could explain the absence of prescription records in both sets of records, but that is not found to be the case here, however. According to the Board's expert, Dr. Boorstin, a Board Certified Psychiatrist who specializes in addiction psychiatry and opiastic medicine, the benzodiazepins prescribed for Patient #1 by the Respondent, were inappropriate because of her known alcoholism, and he failed to adequately monitor her for possible addiction or dependence. Even though her condition had been in remission for two years, Dr. Boorstin concluded it was below standard practice to prescribe those drugs to this patient. Dr. Boorstin also concluded that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records for this patient and did not justify the less than conservative prescription of anti-anxiety and pain medications to a known alcoholic. A physician must keep track of the drugs being used by a patient to be sure no abuse trends exist. The Respondent should have detailed with exactitude in his records the number of each specific medication. From September 30, 1988 to February 1, 1990, a period of 16 months, he prescribed various opiate-based pain killers to Patient #1, including Tylenol #3, Codeine, Percodan and Percocet. His prescription of the latter two, in Dr. Boorstin's opinion, fell below the appropriate standard of care. The patient's hospital records indicate she was suffering from drug addiction, and if, as the Department claims, Respondent knew of her hospitalizations and the reason therefor, his prescription of liberal amounts of opiate based drugs was inappropriate. The evidence shows the patient was admitted to the hospital on two occasions, both times for, among other problems, drug addiction. Less than one month after her second discharge, Respondent prescribed Percocet for this patient for pain relief at a rate of two tables every six hours. According to Dr. Boorstin, the usual adult dosage is one tablet every six hours. This is outlined in the Physician's Desk Reference, (PDR), a compendium of drugs and medications with manufacturer's recommendations for dosage. Though authoritative in nature, the PDR is not mandatory in application, and physicians often use it as a guide only, modifying strength and dosage as is felt appropriate for the circumstance. On at least one occasion, Respondent's medical records for this patient show he prescribed Percocet but not the amount prescribed. This is below standard. The same is true for the noted prescription for Percodan. Both Percodan and Percocet are Schedule II drugs. A notation in the records for a prescription for Valium also reveals no indication was given as to the amount prescribed. Again, this is below standard. Dr. Boorstin's opinion is contradicted by that of Dr. Wen-Hsien Wu, the Director of the Pain Management Center at the Schools of Dentistry and Medicine of New Jersey, the New Jersey Medical School, who testified by deposition for the Respondent. Dr. Wu claims he has prescribed medications in amounts and dosages far in excess of those prescribed by Respondent and for a much longer period of time. Wu is Board certified in anesthesiology and has published numerous articles on pain management. Dr. Wu contends there is no contraindication for the use of narcotic therapy in Patient #1's alcoholism. The use of narcotics is appropriate if the patient can return to function with careful monitoring. Here, it would appear that Patient #1 was monitored through her frequent visits to the Respondent's office. It is impossible to tell from the Respondent's patient records just how much medication he prescribed for his patient. Because of the failure to indicate the number of pills of each type Respondent was prescribing, it is impossible to form a conclusion as to whether the amount prescribed was appropriate or excessive. Notwithstanding Respondent's claim in his Proposed Findings of Fact that "...there is no indication of drug abuse in the prescribed drug area", the medical records show that on each admission of Patient #1, a diagnosis of drug addiction was made. To be sure, these records do not reflect the drug to which the addiction relates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered herein finding Respondent guilty of all allegations except prescribing in inappropriate amounts. It is also recommended that Respondent be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $3,500 within 90 days of the date of the Final Order herein, be reprimanded, and within one year of the date of the Final Order herein, attend continuing medical education courses at the University of South Florida Medical School in appropriate medical record keeping and in the prescribing of abusable drugs. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 12th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 21. Accepted as a representation by Respondent. Accepted as Respondent's position but not accepted as fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. - 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. & 30. Accepted but repetitive of other evidence previously admitted. 31. & 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 38. Not appropriate Findings of Fact but merely recitations of the contents of records. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 42. Restatement of witness testimony. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 6. & 7. Accepted as testimony of Respondent, but not as probative of any issue. 8. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein 12. & 13. Accepted. 14. - 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. Accepted. 18. & 19. Accepted. 20. Accepted. 21. Accepted. 22. - 24. Accepted. 25. - 29. Accepted and incorporated herein. 30. & 31. Accepted. 32. Accepted. & 34. Accepted as opinions of the witness, but not as the ultimate fact. Accepted as to admissions but rejected as to Respondent not being advised. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven A, Rothenberg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard, Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33617 Grover C. Freeman, Esquire Freeman, Hunter & Malloy 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1950 Tampa, Florida 33602 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue for consideration was whether the Respondent's license as a physician in Florida should be disciplined because of the alleged misconduct outlined in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Moheb Ishad Girgis El-Far was licensed as a physician in Florida under license number ME 0026895, and the Board of Medicine was the state agency responsible for the licensing and monitoring of physicians in this state. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent practiced medicine with a specialty in obstetrics at his clinic located a 401 East Olympic Avenue, Punta Gorda, Florida. Patient 2, C.L., first went to see Respondent at his office in Punta Gorda in January, 1989 because she was pregnant and had heard he was delivering babies in his office. She was referred to the Respondent by the Sarasota Health Department when she indicated she wanted to have her child in a birthing center. During that first visit, the doctor and patient agreed on a treatment plan which would culminate with the baby's being delivered in his office and C.L. paid for this pursuant to their agreement. During the period of the patient's prenatal care with the Respondent, he told her her baby was due on August 30, 1987, and when labor began, she was to come to his office and bring her own sheets. On August 24, 1987, C.L. began her labor and went to Respondent's office as agreed. By the time she got there, she was about ready to deliver and a few minutes after her arrival, she did so in a birthing room with her husband present. At the time of the delivery, both Respondent's wife and Ms. L.'s boss, neither of whom played any part in the proceedings, were standing in the doorway to the birthing room. No nurse was present and C.L. cannot recall seeing any sterilization or resuscitation equipment in the room. C.L. experienced little pain during the delivery, which appeared to go smoothly. Afterwards however, Respondent told her she had sustained an inverted uterus and when Respondent attempted to remove the afterbirth, she started to hemorrhage. When this happened, Respondent gave her a shot and towels with which she was to try to stem the bleeding while he tried to correct the uterine problem. He was unsuccessful and thereafter called the paramedics who came to his office and took C.L. to St. Joseph's Hospital in Punta Gorda for treatment. Respondent did not treat her at the hospital because he had no hospital privileges. While there she required 6 units of blood and 2 units of plasma. At no time during the course of her prenatal care did Respondent advise her to go to the hospital. She fully recovered. C.L. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by Department investigators at some time subsequent to her delivery. With the exception of the fetal monitor which she had seen in his office, the pictures she saw bore little similarity to the condition of the office whenever she was there. Though the office was not as messy as the pictures show, she was, nonetheless concerned about its condition at the time of her delivery. The carpet was dirty and so was the aquarium. She could not do anything about it at that time, however, and it was not so bad as to cause her to feel unsafe. S.K., Patient 1, first went to the Respondent for her pregnancy care in November, 1987 on a referral from a friend. They agreed on a fee of $1600.00 for prenatal care and delivery in his office. During these initial discussions, Respondent did not discuss in detail with the patient the possibility of complications. He stated only that if there were complications, they could probably be treated in the office. S.K. went to Respondent's office about 6 times after that initial visit. During this period, on an early visit, Respondent gave her some medicine samples and a prescription for vitamins. When she asked about the cost, he said he would include the cost of the samples when he billed her insurance company. During these visits, she also saw his personal office, an examining room, and a small room where the patient's blood pressure was taken. She noted that the office was not as clean and orderly as others she had seen, and in fact, was usually in a state of disarray. On one occasion when Respondent examined her, he was wearing a wrinkled shirt with a blood spot on it. The next time she went for a visit, Respondent was wearing the same shirt. S.K. was shown pictures of Respondent's office taken by investigators and several were similar to conditions she observed there. His personal office was not well organized and there was clutter about but not as aggravated as appears in the photos. Based on her experience with other doctors, Respondent's office was far more untidy and in disarray but not necessarily nonsterile or unsafe. On February 5, 1988, S.K. went to Respondent's office because she was having pains and thought she was in labor. When she called him and explained her symptoms, he told her to come in and he examined her when she did. He gave her something to calm her and to try to stop her labor in an attempt to save her baby. He gave her a shot of demerol and put her in an examining room to lie down. She slept there for quite a while with her husband present. When she awoke she again began to have pains but Respondent would not give her any more medicine. After a while, the baby spontaneously delivered while Respondent was sleeping in another room. He was called but by the time he came in, the baby was dead. He asked S.K. if she wanted to see the fetus but she declined. After a period of recovery, she was released to return home. When this patient came into the office that day and it appeared she was going to deliver, her husband asked Respondent if he thought she should be in the hospital. Respondent replied that it was up to her because the baby, if delivered, was too premature to survive. The decision not to go to the hospital was hers. Respondent did not try to dissuade her from going. In fact, in most ways she considered Respondent's treatment of her to have been satisfactory. During the period she was in his office Respondent was in and out of the room checking on her. The only complaint she has relates to his handling of the fetus she delivered. About 2 weeks after delivery she again went to see Respondent at his office where he showed her her baby which he had preserved in a jar of formaldehyde. This was a strange and sad experience for her. Mr. K. basically confirms that testified to by his wife. While she was in labor or sleeping prior to the delivery, he wandered about the building into other parts of the clinic. He also rested in one of the examining or birthing rooms and observed the general state of cleanliness of the facility was poor. For example, the floor and rugs were spotted throughout with a dark stain and the examining table also had a dark stain on it. These stains looked to him like blood. In addition, the hallway carpets were dirty, there were bags off debris laying out, spare pieces of wood were stacked in the halls, and medical instruments were left out in the birthing and examining rooms. In his opinion, many of the pictures shown to him displayed scenes similar to what he saw when he was there with his wife. Both Dr. Borris and Dr. Marley agreed that Respondent's treatment of Ms. K. had no relationship to her miscarriage. By the same token, neither claims that his treatment of Ms. L.'s inverted uterus was inappropriate. Both agree, however, that other factors in Dr. El Far's operation of his practice as regards both patients failed to conform to generally accepted standards of care in providing obstetrical services. Specifically, he failed to have a nurse present during the delivery; he failed to have emergency equipment in the form of resuscitative and lifesaving equipment available to handle potential surgical complications which might have arisen; he had no emergency backup care available; and he had no hospital privileges in Punta Gorda, the area in which he was engaged in an obstetrical practice. Without those privileges, it was not prudent for him to undertake a delivery in the office. While the prenatal care of patient 1 was within standards, the balance of Respondent's practice was below standards because: the patient was not monitored while in the office; if the conditions as appearing in the pictures existed at the time he was seeing patients, he did not meet sanitation standards because of the general disarray.; he attempted a delivery in his office when a hospital was only 1.5 miles away, (not prudent in light of the patient's condition when there was no emergency to justify it); and his records were not complete. The standard of a reasonably prudent physician is the same regardless of the locality. Acceding to the wishes of a patient, when to do so is not in the patient's best interests, is not necessarily acceptable medical care. Mr. Cook, the Department's investigator, inspected Respondent's office on September 16, 1988, in the company of investigator Clyne, as a result of a call he received from an agent of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement who was then on the premises. When they arrived, they observed a female sitting on the couch in the waiting room changing a baby's diaper. From conversation he had with Respondent at the time, Mr. Cook inferred the lady was a patient. In addition to the previously mentioned lady and the state investigative personnel, Cook also noticed two children, who Respondent indicated were his, running freely about throughout the building. Cook examined the patient log maintained by Respondent for that day and noted that two patients were scheduled. Nonetheless, while he was there, there were no nurses, receptionists or office staff present. Though Respondent claims he did not have any patients that day, and though Cook did not see any other than the lady aforementioned, from the patient log and the fact that at least one patient was there, it is found that Respondent was engaged in at least a minimum practice and was available to see patients. Mr. Cook observed conditions in Respondent's office on the day in question that were inconsistent with a proper medical practice. Trash was not contained, food was left open, and dust and dirt were in evidence, all in the area where medical services were or would be rendered. Mr. Cook took photos and a video tape of the condition of Respondent's office. The photos were those shown to the two patients who testified herein and to Mr. K. Though he looked throughout the office, Mr. Cook could find no sterilization equipment, no general anesthesia equipment, no blood transfusion equipment, and no emergency resuscitation equipment. When asked about his sterilization capability, Respondent stated his "heater" was broken and in for repairs. When during a visit to Respondent in October, 1988, Ms. Clyne told him he needed sterilizer equipment, he indicated it had recently been purchased. On that visit, Respondent had a patient in the office. Ms. Clyne again went to Respondent's office on February 15, 1989 and observed it to be still in a state of disarray. Ms. Hampton, another Department investigator, visited with Respondent in his office on January 11, 1989 and found it to be unsatisfactory. The waiting area was cluttered, the carpet was dirty, the walls stained, and magazines were laying around. The clinic area was piled up with mail leaving no counter space. Respondent took Ms. Hampton on a tour through the office during which she observed the computer, patient records, and the typewriter to be unclean. Her examination of the halls, examining rooms, birthing rooms, and the like revealed that in one room, a sink had an unclean speculum in it and others were lying about. The paper on one examining table was soiled and when Respondent saw that, he quickly tore it off. The spread in one of the birthing rooms was soiled and the floor needed sweeping. Trash cans were not lined and needed cleaning. The covering on the baby examining table was soiled and there were bloody cotton balls on a table in the room. She, too, saw no evidence of any sterilization, anesthesia, or emergency resuscitation equipment. On this visit, Respondent indicated he was not seeing any new patients; only those former patients who were still pregnant. Respondent indicates that during the period from July 4 through September 16, 1988 he had closed up his office for an extensive vacation and was living in his office on that latter date. He does not deny that his office was in the condition as depicted in the photos when they were made but contends he has since cleaned it up and put new carpet down. During the period his office was closed, he referred his patients to other doctors and has not been actively practicing while waiting for his malpractice insurance to come through. Respondent also does not deny that the Certificate of Education form he signed and submitted to the Board was in error. He contends, however, that at the time he signed it he believed it to be a certificate of regular continuing education hours, not a certification used for approval for dispensing drugs. He also claims that at no time did he intend to defraud the Board, and when Ms. Clyne brought the error to his attention, he wrote to the Board explaining what had happened. He contends that when he affirmed the statement that he had the appropriate hours, he considered the "a" in "affirm" to be a negative prefix indicating he did not have the required hours. This contention is both ingenuous and unbelievable. It is found that Respondent well knew the meaning and effect of the certification he signed and his affixing his signature thereto was both false and with intent to mislead.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license to practice medicine in Florida be suspended for two years and that he thereafter be placed on probation for an additional period of three years under such terms and conditions as are imposed by the Board of Medicine. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 30th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-1507 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: 1.- 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected in so far as it editorializes on the condition of the clinic. While below standard, there was no evidence of health hazard to patients. 6.-8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 9. & 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. Accepted. For the Respondent: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contra to the weight of expert testimony. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Accepted in so far as it finds that Respondent's performance of medical procedures was within standard. Rejected as to the finding that overall care and practice was within standards. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry G. McPherson, Jr., Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David K. Oaks, Esquire The Professional Center 201 West Marion Avenue Suite 205, Box 3288 Punta Gorda, Florida 33950 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel DPR 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine DPRB 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of charges set forth in a three-count Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with violations of paragraphs (m), (q), and (t) of Section 458.331(1) Florida Statutes.1
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Donald A. Tobkin, M.D., has been licensed, and continues to be licensed, to practice medicine in the State of Florida. His license number is 30942.5 Sometime during the month of December 2004, the Police Department of Hollywood, Florida, (HPD) received information from a confidential informant that the Respondent was soliciting drug-prescribing business and was writing inappropriate and excessive prescriptions for controlled substances. On the basis of that information, the HPD initiated an undercover operation to investigate the information received from the confidential informant. As part of the undercover investigation, on the evening of January 20, 2005, at approximately 9:56pm, an HPD female detective named Nicole Coffin made a telephone call to the Respondent's telephone. The Respondent answered the telephone and identified himself by name. Detective Coffin pretended to be a person named Melissa Beech. She pretended to be a person who was seeking to obtain OxyContin, which is a Schedule II controlled substance. During the entire undercover investigation, Detective Coffin pretended to be a drug-seeker while interacting with the Respondent. On the telephone she told the Respondent that she wanted a prescription for OxyContin and also told the Respondent that a girl somewhere on Federal Highway had given her the Respondent's card and had told her she could call the Respondent if she needed a prescription. Detective Coffin, in her role as Melissa Beech, did not initially describe any medical complaint to the Respondent; she just said she wanted a prescription for OxyContin. In response to the request for a prescription for OxyContin, the Respondent told the make-believe drug-seeker that he could provide the requested prescription, but that they would have to have a "medical reason" for such a prescription. The Respondent then asked the make-believe drug-seeker if she had ever been in an automobile accident. The make-believe drug-seeker answered "yes," because that is the answer she thought would provide a basis for a "medical reason." The Respondent then proceeded to ask the make-believe drug-seeker a long series of leading questions which, if answered "yes," could provide the appearance of a "medical reason" for the requested prescription for OxyContin. This series of questions was for the purpose of establishing a contrived "medical reason" for the prescription sought by the make-believe drug-seeker. There never was, and there never appeared to be, any real "medical reason" for the prescription sought by the make-believe drug-seeker. The sole purpose for the many questions asked by the Respondent, and for the Respondent's written notations related to those questions, was to create the illusion, or the false impression, that there was a "medical reason' for the prescription when, in fact, there was no such reason. The detective who was pretending to be a drug-seeker answered "yes" to all of the leading questions asked by the Respondent. She answered "yes," even when that was not a truthful answer, because she was trying to give the answers she thought the Respondent wanted to hear.6 The Respondent's leading questions included questions asking about such things as whether the make-believe drug-seeker had ever had an automobile accident, whether she had suffered a herniated disk as a result of that accident, whether she had had an MRI, whether she had had any subsequent accidents, whether she had tried any other drugs to relieve pain, whether she had used Oxycontin in the past, and whether in the past the Oxycontin had relieved her pain. During the course of the first telephone conversation between Detective Coffin and the Respondent a number of significant matters were not discussed. The Respondent did not discuss the possibility of surgical treatments to treat the back pain described in response to the Respondent's questions. The Respondent did not discuss the necessity of reviewing the MRI or X-rays that supposedly would confirm the "herniated disc" he had inquired about. The Respondent did not discuss the necessity of obtaining future MRIs, X-rays, or other diagnostic tests to evaluate the "severe back pain" supposedly described by Detective Coffin in her role as Melissa Beech. The Respondent did not mention that she would need to have any follow-up visits with the Respondent. During the course of the first conversation between Detective Coffin and the Respondent, she told the Respondent that she had previously been obtaining Oxycontin "off the street" and that she was seeking a prescription from the Respondent because her street source had "dried up." She also told him that she had previously taken Valium and Percocet. During the course of the first telephone conversation Detective Coffin, pretending to be a drug-seeker, told the Respondent that she suffered from back pain as a result of the make-believe automobile accidents. She did not say that she was currently experiencing pain at the time of that telephone conversation. During the first telephone conversation the Respondent did not ask the make-believe drug-seeker any questions about her menstrual cycle, about whether she was pregnant, or about whether she had had any prior pregnancies or had ever had any children. However, in his written notes the Respondent included notations that purport to be answers to those unasked questions. Similarly, the Respondent did not ask the make-believe drug-seeker any questions about her consumption of alcohol, but included in his notes notations that purport to memorialize the answer to that unasked question. The Respondent's "history" notes also report that he warned the make-believe drug-seeker that OxyContin tablets should not be crushed or broken, even though he did not include any such warning in his telephone conversation with the make-believe drug-seeker. During the first telephone conversation, Detective Coffin was never asked about, and never provided any information about, whether other physicians had either prescribed OxyContin for her or had refused to prescribe OxyContin for her. The only prior sources of OxyContin she mentioned to the Respondent were non-prescription illegal sources on the street. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the possibility or necessity of a more structured medical treatment plan for addiction. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the possibility or necessity of a more structured medical treatment plan to treat a complaint of "severe pain." During the course of the first telephone conversation, the Respondent agreed to provide a prescription to the make- believe drug-seeker for a total of sixty-two 80-milligram OxyContin tablets. It was agreed that the make-believe drug- seeker would pay $100.00 for the first prescription and that the Respondent would provide similar prescriptions in the future for $50.00 per prescription. Towards the end of the first telephone conversation the Respondent told the make-believe drug-seeker that he had another matter to attend to and that she should call him later to arrange the time and place for the two of them to meet later that same evening. During the course of the first telephone conversation, which lasted for approximately 14 minutes, the Respondent made written notes of the answers given by the make-believe drug-seeker. Those notes were prepared in such a manner as to resemble the types of notes customarily made by physicians who are making a medical record of information elicited from a patient. A number of the details recorded in the Respondent's notes of the first telephone conversation were inconsistent with the information provided by the make-believe drug-seeker. Specifically, those notes contained a significant amount of information that was never uttered by the make-believe drug- seeker. The fictitious and false history details memorialized in the Respondent's notes are intentional falsehoods. Later that evening, at approximately 12:20am on January 21, 2005, Detective Coffin, still pretending to be the drug-seeking person named Melissa Beech, placed a second telephone call to the Respondent. She spoke with the Respondent for about three minutes on this occasion. Most of the second conversation consisted of providing the Respondent with information about the location where Detective Coffin would be waiting for him and information about where the Respondent should park when he arrived. Law enforcement officers of the HPD attempted to record both of the telephone conversations between the Respondent and Detective Coffin. Both of those attempts were unsuccessful. There is no recording of either of the telephone conversations. Sometime later that evening, during the early morning hours of January 21, 2005, the Respondent met the make-believe drug-seeker at the motel or efficiency apartment. He entered the room where the make-believe drug-seeker was pretending to be staying. Prior to his arrival, two cameras had been concealed in the room by the HPD police officers. During the entire time the Respondent was in the room the two cameras were attempting to record everything he said and everything he did, as well as everything said or done by the detective pretending to be the drug-seeking person named Melissa Beech. After entering the room, the Respondent spoke with the make-believe drug-seeker and asked her additional questions related to her request for a prescription for OxyContin. He made some written notes that purported to be summaries of her answers. During the course of the meeting with the make-believe drug-seeker the Respondent provided her with a document titled "Patient's Acknowledgement," which she signed, but did not read. That document contained information about the patient-physician relationship, about what was expected of the patient, and also memorialized the patient's informed consent to the treatment she was requesting from the Respondent. The Respondent also conducted a brief physical examination of the make-believe patient and made written notes that purported to be a memorialization of what he had observed during the course of his examination. The Respondent's examination of the make-believe drug-seeker included the following: check of pulse and blood pressure, check of reflex responses at several joints, and check of chest sounds with stethoscope. The Respondent performed a deep tendon reflex test on Detective Coffin by striking her wrists, elbows, and knees with a medical hammer. Detective Coffin's feet remained on the floor during this test. A deep tendon reflex test cannot be performed properly with the subject's feet touching the floor. Such a test performed in such a manner will not produce reliable results. The Respondent indicated in his written notes that he had examined Detective Coffin's head, eyes, ears, nose, and throat. However, the Respondent did not perform any examination at all of Detective Coffin's head, ears, nose, or throat. The Respondent perhaps performed a partial examination of Detective Coffin's eyes, but did not perform an adequate examination of her eyes. The Respondent indicated in his written notes that Detective Coffin's pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation. However, the Respondent did not conduct any examination of Detective Coffin's eyes that was sufficient to support a conclusion that they were equal, round, and reactive to light and accommodation. The Respondent included in his written notes that Detective Coffin's chest and lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. The Respondent did not examine Detective Coffin in a manner that could determine whether her chest and lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. Therefore, the Respondent did not have any basis for writing that the detective's chest and lungs were clear to auscultation and percussion. The Respondent included in his written notes an observation that Detective Coffin's abdomen was soft. The Respondent never touched or otherwise examined Detective Coffin's abdomen. The Respondent had no factual basis for writing that Detective Coffin's abdomen was soft. In his written notes the Respondent indicated that Detective Coffin experienced pain upon lifting her leg thirty degrees. Detective Coffin never raised either leg in the Respondent's presence and never complained of pain in his presence. There was no factual basis for the subject notation. The Respondent never conducted a Rhomberg examination on Detective Coffin, but he included in his written notes an observation that a Rhomberg test was negative. There was no factual basis for such a notation. The Respondent included in his written notes an observation that he had examined Detective Coffin's gait. However, the Respondent never performed an adequate and sufficient examination of Detective Coffin's gait. The Respondent did not conduct a range of motion test of Detective Coffin. The Respondent never asked Detective Coffin to lift her leg towards her chest. Nor did he ask her to touch her toes. The Respondent never asked her to manipulate her body in any way. At no time during the encounter between Detective Coffin and the Respondent did Detective Coffin state that she was experiencing pain. At no time during that encounter did she behave or move in any manner that would suggest she was experiencing pain. To the contrary, Detective Coffin crossed and uncrossed her legs, alternatively slouched and sat up straight in her chair, and made other movements that would indicate to a reasonable prudent physician that she was not experiencing any pain at all. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the necessity of obtaining further MRIs, X-rays, or other forms of diagnostic testing. He never discussed any need to obtain and review any prior medical records. The Respondent never asked Detective Coffin to sign a medical records release document that would have authorized the Respondent to obtain prior medical records. The Respondent's written notations regarding his examination of the make-believe drug-seeker contain false information because, among other things, the notations contain the results of tests and examinations the Respondent did not perform. Such false notations are intentional falsehoods. The Respondent never discussed with Detective Coffin the need for a follow-up appointment. The Respondent never asked Detective Coffin for any form of identification. Under the circumstances presented in this case, a reasonable prudent physician would have performed a range of motion test and a leg-raising test, neither of which were performed by the Respondent. Under the circumstances presented in this case, a reasonably prudent physician would have established a treatment plan that would have included a schedule for follow-up visits, a review of prior medical records, and plans for future diagnostic tests. The Respondent did not establish any type of treatment plan. The prescription provided to Detective Coffin was inappropriate, unjustified, and excessive because the physical examination was inadequate, the medical record was falsified, and the patient never exhibited any sign of being in pain. Under the circumstances presented in this case, the Respondent's act of providing a prescription to a total stranger with no medical justification for doing so was an action taken other than in the course of the Respondent's professional practice. Ultimately, the Respondent wrote and delivered a prescription to the make-believe patient. The prescription was for sixty-two 80-milligram tablets of OxyContin. This was a 31- day supply if the OxyContin was taken as directed; one tablet every 12 hours. The Respondent wrote several warnings at the bottom of the prescription document. The warnings included such things as the fact that OxyContin impairs driving ability and may cause drowsiness, loss of balance, and/or loss of coordination. The Respondent also wrote on the prescription: "Must swallow whole and do not crush or break." Other law enforcement officers of the HPD were listening to and observing the events inside the room. Shortly after the Respondent handed the prescription to the make-believe patient and received the one hundred dollars from her, other law enforcement officers rushed into the room, arrested the Respondent, and seized various items of the Respondent's personal property, including the medical record he had been preparing regarding his care and treatment of the make-believe patient. With regard to obtaining information about the characteristics of, and the proper use of, specific drugs, medical doctors customarily rely on the information contained in the Physician Desk Reference (PDR) and on the information contained in the manufacturer's package insert that often accompanies a drug. The package insert for OxyContin includes the following information: (Following an initial caption reading WARNING) OxyContin Tablets are a controlled-release oral formulation of oxycodone hydrochloride indicated for the management of moderate to severe pain when a continuous, around-the- clock analgesic is needed for an extended period of time. * * * (Following caption reading CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY) Oxycodone is a pure agonist opioid whose principal therapeutic action is analgesia. *** With pure opioid agonist analgesics, there is no defined maximum dose; the ceiling to analgesic effectiveness is imposed only by side effects, the more serious of which may include somnolence and respiratory depression. * * * As with all opioids, the minimum effective plasma concentration for analgesia will vary widely among patients, especially among patients who have been previously treated with potent agonist opioids. As a result, patients must be treated with individualized titration of dosage to the desired effect. The minimum effective analgesic concentration of oxycodone for any individual patient may increase over time due to an increase in pain, the development of a new pain syndrome and/or the development of analgesic tolerance. * * * OxyContin Tablets are associated with typical opioid-related adverse experiences. There is a general relationship between increasing oxycodone plasma concentration and increasing frequency of dose-related opioid adverse experiences such as nausea, vomiting, CNS effects, and respiratory depression. In opioid-tolerant patients, the situation is altered by the development of tolerance to opioid-related side effects, and the relationship is not clinically relevant. As with all opioids, the dose must be individualized . . . because the effective analgesic dose for some patients will be too high to be tolerated by other patients. (Following caption reading WARNINGS) OxyContin 80 mg and 160 mg Tablets ARE FOR USE IN OPIOID-TOLERANT PATIENTS ONLY. These tablet strengths may cause fatal respiratory depression when administered to patients not previously exposed to opioids. * * * Concerns about abuse, addiction, and diversion should not prevent the proper management of pain. The development of addiction to opioid analgesics in properly managed patients with pain has been reported to be rare. However, data are not available to establish the true incidence of addiction in chronic pain patients.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Dismissing Counts One and Two of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of having violated Section 458.331(1)(q), Florida Statutes, as charged in Count Three of the Administrative Complaint; and Imposing a penalty consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and the revocation of the Respondent's license to practice medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 26th day of June, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Dong Hack Koo, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0027494. Koo was so licensed at all times material to the Amended Administrative Complaint. At all times material to this cause, Koo maintained an office at 121 East 8th Street, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206. On July 10, 1985, Diane Rabideau, an Investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, inspected Koo's offices and found them to be unclean, with evidence of roach eggs present under a sink. Rabideau also found a rectal speculum and two vaginal speculums lying on a sink. Koo told Rabideau that the rectal speculum and the two vaginal speculums had been used. No evidence was presented to indicate how long the speculums had been on the sink. If such instruments are not cleaned quickly and properly following use, there is a high chance of spreading infection to the next patient to use the instrument. Such instruments should be placed in a cleansing solution and scrubbed, then wrapped and sterilized. It is the community practice to clean such instruments as soon as possible after use. According to Dr. Rosin, any physician who performs abortions in an unclean office with instruments lying around that have not been properly cleaned, has practiced below the community standard of care. However, no evidence was presented to show that Koo performed abortions under such circumstances. Koo does perform first trimester abortions in his office. It was not disputed that abortions are a medical and surgical procedure which can be dangerous. Emergency situations can arise during abortions and these emergencies require the presence of emergency equipment such as suction and the ability to start an intravenous medication. Koo does maintain suction equipment and intravenous solutions in his office. However, when possible he immediately transfers emergency patients to another facility. Koo does perform abortions in his office without the presence of an assistant to aid in emergency situations. According to Dr. Rosin, the standard of care in the community requires that an assistant be present during an abortion to assist the physician should an emergency situation arise. Additionally, according to Dr. Rosin, a physician who performs abortions without emergency equipment or without an assistant has failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. When Rabideau visited Koo's office on July 10, 1985, she obtained a sampling of drugs kept by Koo for dispensing to patients. The sampling revealed that a majority of the drugs had expired. However, no evidence was presented that this is a violation of Florida Statutes. Rabideau also found that Koo maintained a number of Schedule III, IV, and V, controlled substances in his office which he dispensed to patients. In dispensing these controlled substances, Koo used the instructions for use which are printed on the packaging. He also, at times, taped a small piece of paper to the packaging with his telephone number and the name of the patient. Koo did not completely label these controlled substances, which he dispensed, with his name and address, the date of delivery, directions for use, the name of the patient, and a warning concerning the transfer of the substance. Koo maintains no inventory of the scheduled controlled substances which are kept in his offices and dispensed to his patients. On August 6, 1985, Diane Rabideau again visited Koo's office. While Rabideau waited, a female patient by the name of Mary Green was seen by Koo and left with a prescription. Rabideau then asked Respondent to present the medical records on the patient, Mary Green. Koo was unable to present any medical records for the patient which he had just seen and to whom he had just dispensed medication. Koo's office procedure regarding patient medical records is to record histories and examination results on the patient medical records during the patient's visit. These medical records are kept in individual folders under the name of each patient. When a patient presents for treatment, the medical records for that patient are pulled and given to the doctor. After each visit, the patient's medical records are refiled. On or about March 16, 1986, pursuant to a subpoena from the Department of Professional Regulation, Koo provided the original medical records on ten (10) abortion patients. These original medical records were examined by John F. McCarthy, a questioned documents expert for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. McCarthy's examination by electrostatic detection apparatus revealed that numerous indentations on the records superimposed with information from other records. For example, Exhibit 6 contained indentations from the writing on the face of Exhibit 10. Further, McCarthy found indentations on Exhibit 6 resulting from the writing on Exhibit 8. Thus, Exhibit 8 was on top of Exhibit 6 when it was prepared. Exhibit 8, however, is dated July 24, 1985, and Exhibit 6 is dated May 29, 1985. McCarthy's expert opinion is that at the time the various documents were prepared, they were on top of each other. It is therefore found that Exhibits 1-10, the original medical records on the ten named abortion patients, were not prepared at the time Koo saw the patients, but were instead all prepared at the same time, in response to the subpoena. It therefore must be found that the records were fabricated by Koo in response to the Department's subpoena. Prior to performing an abortion, a physician needs to verify whether the patient has Rh positive or negative blood type. The physician cannot rely on patients' representations that the Rh factor is positive or negative, but most obtain independent verification. This is because patients know that if they have Rh negative blood, they must receive a shot which is expensive. Koo relied on the patients' statements in ascertaining the Rh factor and did not obtain independent verification. In Dr. Rosin's expert opinion, the failure of a physician to obtain independent verification of the Rh factor poses a potential for harm to the patient and such failure is a failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment that is recognized in the medical community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding Dong Hack Koo, M.D., GUILTY of violating Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and therein SUSPEND his license to practice medicine for a period of six (6) months during which he be required to successfully complete continuing education courses in maintaining, controlling, dispensing, labeling, and inventorying controlled substance, and in maintaining adequate patient records to justify the course of treatment. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 26th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1066 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1 (1) ; 2 (2); 3 (3); 4 (4); 5 (4); 6 (4); 7 (4); 8 (5); 9 (6); 10 (6); 11 (9); 12 (7); 13 (8); 14 (9); 15 (10); 16 (11); 17 (11); 18 (12); 19 (13); 20 (13); 21 (15); 22 (14); 23 (14); 24 (16); 25 (16); 26 (16); 27 (16); 28 (17); 29 (18); and 30 (19) That portion of proposed finding of fact 12 which concludes that Respondent does not maintain emergency equipment in his office is rejected as unsupported by the competent substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dong Hack Koo, M.D. 121 East 8th Street, Suite 7 Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive DIRECTOR Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, committed medical malpractice in delivering a baby and/or failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of the mother's treatment; if so, whether Petitioner should impose discipline on Respondent's medical license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Mark N. Scheinberg, M.D., was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida. He is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. Petitioner Department of Health (the "Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physicians such as Dr. Scheinberg. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a physician, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Medicine has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the physician has committed a disciplinable offense. Here, the Department alleges that Dr. Scheinberg committed two such offenses——namely, medical malpractice and failure to keep records justifying the course of treatment——in connection with the vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery of an infant born to Patient L.G. on February 2, 2005, at West Boca Medical Center. The crux of this case (though not the sole issue) is whether, as the Department contends, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg to perform a Caesarean section ("C- section") on L.G. due to the passage of time, instead of allowing her to continue to labor for approximately 13 hours and, ultimately, deliver vaginally. The events giving rise to this dispute began on February 1, 2005, at around 11:00 a.m., when L.G., whose pregnancy was at term, checked into the hospital after having experienced ruptured membranes. At 12:30 p.m. that day, L.G. signed a form bearing the title "Authorization for Medical and/or Surgical Treatment," which manifested her consent to a vaginal delivery or C-section together with, among other things, "such additional operations or procedures as [her physicians might] deem necessary." Immediately above L.G.'s signature on the form is an affirmation: "The above procedures, with their attendant risks, benefits and possible complications and alternatives, have been explained to me " The evidence is not clear as to when, exactly, Dr. Scheinberg first saw L.G., but that fact is unimportant. The medical records reflect that at 8:30 p.m. on February 1, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg gave a telephone order to initiate an IV push of the antibiotic Ampicillin; therefore, he had taken charge of L.G.'s care by that time. The nurses' notes indicate that at 10:00 p.m., L.G.'s cervix had dilated to "rim" or approximately nine centimeters—— meaning that the dilation was complete, or nearly so. At this time, and throughout the duration of L.G.'s labor, an external fetal heart monitor was in place to detect and record the baby's heartbeats and the mother's uterine contractions. An intrauterine pressure catheter ("IUPC")——a device that precisely measures the force of uterine contractions——was not inserted into L.G.'s uterus at any time during this event. The Department argues (although it did not allege in the Complaint) that, at some point during L.G.'s labor, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg either to place an IUPC or perform a C-section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 10, ¶36. The Department's expert witness, Dr. John Busowski, testified unequivocally and unconditionally, however, that the standard of care does not require the use of an IUPC. T. 36. The undersigned credits this evidence and finds that Dr. Scheinberg's nonuse of an IUPC did not breach the standard of care. Dr. Scheinberg conducted a physical at around 2:00 a.m. on February 2, 2005, which included taking L.G.'s complete history and performing a vaginal examination. L.G.'s cervix remained dilated to approximately nine centimeters, and her labor had not substantially progressed for about four hours. Dr. Scheinberg noted in L.G.'s chart that the baby was in the posterior position at 2:00 a.m. The Department argues, based on Dr. Busowski's testimony, that as of 2:00 a.m., the standard of care required [Dr. Scheinberg to] choose one of the following options: (1) watch the patient for a few more hours to allow for progress; (2) place an IUPC to determine the adequacy of Patient L.G.'s contractions; (3) start Pitocin without the placement of an IUPC; or (4) perform a C- section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 9-10, ¶ 32. The Department contends that Dr. Scheinberg breached the standard of care by choosing "simply to watch the patient for approximately 10 more hours"—— which was tantamount to "choosing to do nothing." Id. at 10, ¶¶ 33-34. In fact, Dr. Scheinberg chose to watch the patient, which was, according to Dr. Busowski, within the standard of care. Obviously, at 2:00 in the morning on February 2, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg did not choose to wait for 10 more hours, because at that point he (unlike the parties to this litigation) did not know what was about to happen. The nurses' notes reflect that L.G. was under close observation throughout the early morning hours, and that Dr. Scheinberg was following the situation. At 4:30 a.m., L.G. was set up to push and at 4:45 a.m. was pushing well. At 6:15 a.m., the notes indicate that Dr. Scheinberg was aware of the mother's attempts to push. At 6:45 a.m., he reviewed the strips from the fetal heart monitor. At 7:45 a.m., he was present and aware of L.G.'s status. From 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m., no contractions were identifiable on the external monitor. At 8:00 a.m., however, L.G. was comfortable and pushing well. She stopped pushing at 8:30 a.m., but remained comfortable. Dr. Scheinberg then ordered the administration of Pitocin, a medicine which is used to strengthen contractions and hasten delivery. Although the Department faults Dr. Scheinberg for giving L.G. Pitocin at this relatively late stage of her labor, Dr. Busowski (the Department's expert witness) admitted being unable to say "that Dr. Scheinberg should have started Pitocin earlier " T. 72. The Department therefore has no clear evidential basis for second-guessing Dr. Scheinberg's professional judgment in this particular, and neither does the undersigned. At 9:10 a.m., L.G. resumed pushing. The baby's fetal heart tones (heartbeats) were stable. L.G. continued pushing, with her family present, until around 11:00 a.m., at which time Dr. Scheinberg discussed the situation with the patient and her family. Dr. Scheinberg explained to L.G. or her husband the risks of, and alternatives to, performing a vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. Either L.G. or her husband gave verbal consent to the use of a vacuum device to assist in the delivery. Between 11:00 a.m. and 11:10 a.m., the fetal heart monitor detected some variable decelerations, meaning a decrease in heart rate that could be a sign of fetal distress. Dr. Scheinberg delivered the baby at 11:23 a.m., using a vacuum device to help pull the infant out of the birth canal. In his post-operative notes, Dr. Scheinberg wrote that his "pre-operative diagnosis" was "+3 station — prolonged second stage 2½ hrs." As a "post-operative diagnosis," Dr. Scheinberg recorded, "same + tight cord." He reported the following "findings": "tight cord cut on perineum[;] mec[onium] aspirated on perineum."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Dr. Scheinberg not guilty of the charges set forth in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 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 20th day of June, 2011.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Medicine was the state agency responsible for the licensing of physicians and the regulation of the practice of medicine in this state. Respondent was licensed as a physician in Florida and holds license number ME 0017915. He practices medicine, specializing in psychiatry, in Clearwater, Florida. He is board certified in that specialty. On September 7, 1987, Patient #1, a 55 year old married female, whose husband had recently separated from many years in the armed service of the United States, came to see Respondent at his office, complaining of severe headaches, loneliness, depression, and a lowering of self esteem. She had been referred to him by physicians at the U.S. Coast Guard Station Dispensary. Respondent examined Patient #1 and found her to be of limited intelligence, considerably overweight, anxious, depressed and confused. She was ashamed of her new status in life as a result of her husband's inability to find work and was experiencing difficulties with him and her children. She was suffering from severe insomnia. Respondent's examination of Patient #1 was limited. He was satisfied with the medical work-up which had been conducted by his colleagues at the Dispensary. Because he was consulting psychiatrist for that facility, he knew all the physicians there and was familiar with the caliber of their work. Based on the medical information furnished him from the Dispensary and his own examination, he diagnosed Patient #1 as suffering a major depression and a psychogenic pain disorder manifested by headaches and insomnia. He developed a treatment plan for the patient which included a wide variety of psychotherapy interventions, the first of which was to effect relief of the symptoms. This included clarification of relationships, interpretation of dreams and fantasies, and allowed for catharsis. When Respondent found out that empathy and intervention alone would not work on this patient, and he had established a relationship with her, he started psychotropic medications including Elavil, the drug of choice for this type of condition in 1988. Elavil is a "superb" antidepressant. While the antidepressant factor is "cranking in", the medication also works as a sedative. For this reason, it is normally prescribed for administration at bedtime. Patient #1 responded to this course of treatment and she and the Respondent established a good and friendly working relationship, which he noted in his April 4, 1988 letter and treatment report to the Coast Guard and to CHAMPUS. In that treatment report, however, Respondent noted Patient #1 had a suicidal ideation. The term "suicidal ideation" does not import that the patient was, at that time, seriously considering suicide. Her mentioning suicide was but an overcompensation - more an alerting statement of depression and sadness with emptiness and angst. She never indicated to Respondent any thought of or plan to commit suicide. Patient #1 thrived for many months in Respondent's therapy. She complained often of her impoverished condition, however, and as a result, he wrote prescriptions for her in such a way that they could be filled at the Coast Guard dispensary without charge. This required writing prescriptions for more tablets of a drug at a lower strength which was stocked by the Dispensary. It was a surprise to him to learn, later on, that she was filling her prescriptions at Eckerds. Throughout the period he treated her, Dr. Fireman prescribed psychotropic drugs for Patient #1, which consisted primarily of amitriptyline, (Elavil), and butalbital, (Fiorinal), in varying strengths, and, at times, in compounds with other substances. As was noted previously, Elavil is an antidepressant with sedative effects. The recommended daily dose for a patient in an outpatient setting is indicated as 150 mg by the Physicians' Desk Reference, (PDR), which also recommends suicidal patients not be allowed unrestricted access to it because of the danger of intentional overdose. Other qualified psychiatrists who testified, including Dr. Spreyhe and Dr. El Yousef, indicate up to 300 or even 350 mg/day may be appropriate. As Dr. Spreyhe noted, it is not so much the daily dose on any given day which is pertinent but the aliquot over an extended period. In that regard, he notes, Dr. Fireman's prescriptions for both Elavil and Fiorinal were within recommended maximums and, therefore, within the appropriate standard of care. Fiorinal is a barbiturate anti-anxiety agent and muscle relaxant with habit forming potential. Fiorinal #3 contains codeine, a legend drug and narcotic. Generally, according to Dr. El Yousef, it should be dispensed for use at a rate of between 8 to 12 tablets per day over the short term, but over a 9 month period he would prescribe between 4 and 9 tablets per day. Pharmacy records indicate that over the period he treated patient #1, Respondent gave her numerous prescriptions for both Elavil and Fiorinal which, at first glance, appear to be excessive. For example, the records reflect that on December 29, 1987, Respondent wrote prescription number 390073 for 100 Elavil 25 mg tablets. Though the prescription clearly indicates no refills were authorized, and the back of the prescription form, where refills are noted by the pharmacist, fails to reflect any refills were authorized by the physician, the pharmacy records indicate two additional dispensings by the pharmacy for 100 tablets each on January 11 and April 20, 1988. There is no evidence to indicate how these additional fillings came about; who arranged for them, or who received them. On February 22, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription number 394289 to the patient for 12 Fiorinal #3 tablets. Again the prescription form authorizes no refills and the back of the prescription form indicates but one coordinated refill but the pharmacy records show the prescription was filled twice - once on April 6, 1988 and once on April 23, 1998. Only the latter is annotated. On March 3, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription number 397144 to the patient for 60 Fiorinal tablets. While the doctor's refill note reflects none were allowed, the computer printout sticker for the bottle reflects 2 refills were authorized. The back of the prescription form shows no refills annotated thereon as required, but the pharmacy's computer listing of all prescriptions indicates the prescription was refilled on May 28 and again on June 3, 1988. No further explanation is given. Prescription number 396378, written to the patient by Respondent on March 14, 1988 for 50 Fiorinal tablets, reflects no refills authorized by the physician nor does the reverse of the form bear any refill annotations. Nonetheless, the pharmacy records as shown on the computer printout indicates a refill on March 27 and April 6, 1988 with no explanation therefore. Before the last refill, however, Respondent wrote prescription number 397091 to the patient on March 29, 1988, for 21 Fiorinal #2, later approved for #3's. He also, on April 4, 1988, wrote prescription number 398853 for 35 Fiorinal tablets. Respondent claims he would not authorize a refill of a prior prescription for the same medication for which he is writing a new prescription, and, since neither of the refills of the earlier prescription properly reflect any physician authorization, it is so found. On May 2, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription 399717 for 50 Fiorinal tablets, and prescription 399718 for 100 Elavil 25 mg tablets. Both reflect Respondent's instruction that no refill be given, and neither form bears an annotation for authorized phone refills. Yet, the pharmacy's computer printout indicates that the prescription for Elavil was written on May 31, 1988 even though the bottle sticker shows it was filled on May 3, 1988. On August 1, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription 405572 for 100 Fiorinal and 475573 for 100 Elavil 100 mg tablets. Both were filled the next day but neither form bears any annotation of authorized refill, consistent with the physician's instructions. On August 16, 1988, Respondent prescribed another 100 Fiorinal by Prescription 406536. It was not refilled. On August 29, 1988, Respondent wrote prescription 407201 for 150 Elavil 50 mg tablets to patient #1, and number 407202 for 100 Fiorinal tablets. Both prescription forms clearly reflected no refills, but the back of the forms reflect refills were authorized. The Elavil prescription was refilled on September 10, 1988 by pharmacist Ivan Funkhouser who contends he refilled on the basis either of a call to or from the doctor's office. He cannot recall which. He also, at the same time, refilled the Fiorinal prescription under the same conditions. The Elavil prescription was filled again, this time for 225 tablets, on September 30, 1988, by pharmacist Robert Wivagg who also indicated phone refills made only on the basis of a call to or from the physician's office. In this case, however, he believes that because of the amounts involved, he would have spoken to the physician himself before filling the prescription. He cannot be sure of this, however, and Respondent denies having ever prescribed 225 Elavil tablets, regardless of strength, at one time. Mr. Lewis, the pharmacy expert, indicates that proper pharmacy practice would have allowed the pharmacist to issue fewer tablets than on the prescription but not more without express approval of the physician. The Fiorinal prescription, refilled on September 30, 1988, this time for 150 tablets, is not reflected on the prescription form though it is on the computer printout. Respondent denies that he ever called in prescriptions for Patient #1 because he never had to. She came to his office frequently enough that he was able to provide her with a new prescription for whatever medication she needed. Indeed, his medical office billing records reflect that in June, 1988 he saw her on June 6, 13, 20, and 27; in July, 1988 on July 5, 12, 19, and 26; and in August, 1988, on August 2, 9, 16, and 30. It would appear, therefore, that the refills of prescriptions reflected on the pharmacy computer printout either are in error or were arranged for under some unexplained process not involving Respondent. There appears to be no reason for him having had to authorize refills since he saw the patient so frequently, notwithstanding his comments to Ms. Sutton, during the investigation, that 90 percent of the refill calls are authorized by him personally, and only 10 percent through his secretary. There was no showing that the authorization comment Ms. Sutton recalls was related to this particular patient. Further, according to Ms. Maguire, Respondent's secretary, Respondent frequently refuses to grant refills, and, to her knowledge, he never gives refills to psychiatric patients. Since most, if not all Respondent's patients are psychiatric patients, this does not make sense. Respondent does not deny writing the two prescriptions on August 29, 1988. At that particular time patient #1 was planning a trip to New York to make peace with her dying mother. As a result, and since her headaches had gotten worse, as had her depression, he decided to increase her dosage of Elavil. This was a medical decision which is not in issue here. He admits that Elavil is a drug which is often used to commit suicide and that prescribed at even its lowest strength, a full prescription can be lethal. This became, therefore, an assessment problem wherein Respondent, the physician, had to evaluate the risk of the patient's depression against the benefits to be gained by the use of the drug. Respondent gave patient #1 enough Elavil to hold her through her visit up north. He had previously given her sixty 50 mg tablets to be taken 6 per day for a 300 mg dose at bedtime. He now told her not to use the 50 mg tablets any more and to destroy them. He believed she did. He then gave her a new prescription for one hundred and twenty 25 mg tablets for her trip. He unequivocally states that he never prescribes more than 300 mg/day of Elavil. He admits, however, that while she was on that dosage, he neither hospitalized her nor had blood work done on her. Respondent feels his original treatment plan and diagnosis were sufficient and his records pertaining to those factors were adequate. He uses checkoff forms because he believes they are the most open way of showing how he sees his patient and what he is doing for her. This same conclusion was reached by Dr. Spreyhe, another Board certified psychiatrist who is Clinical Professor of psychiatry at the University of South Florida Medical School, who has served as an expert witness for the Department in the past, and who continues to serve as a contract consultant for it and as a member of the Medical Advisory Committee of the Department. Examination of Respondent's medical records pertaining to Patient #1 indicates that the medical history and treatment plan are in the form of check sheets on which the physician makes no more than minimally worded entries. The Department's witness, Dr. Greener, an expert in the completeness of medical records, is of the opinion that Respondent's records should have reflected an initial detailed assessment of the patient's condition, including the reasons for her referral to him, a complete medical history, and a subsequent detailed mental status examination. This should be followed by a formulation of her problems and a treatment program. After the initial evaluation, according to Dr. Greener, the physician should make regular progress notes as to treatments, communications with others, phone calls received, prescriptions issued, and matters of that nature. This is done to memorialize the particulars for the patient and to keep a tally of which and how much of any drug is given to the patient. This would show over or under use as a possible flag as to how well the patient follows instructions or if the patient develops a use addiction problem. Based on Dr. Greener's review of Respondent's records for patient #1 and the prescription records relevant to her, he concluded those records were "totally inadequate." This conclusion is based on his opinion that the initial evaluation is cursory and without detail and there are few progress notes in the records. Those which are there are inadequate in detail and full of conclusions without the required supporting information such as drug side-effects, the patient's ability to follow instructions, follow-up, changes in dosages, and the like. He complains that Respondent's records do not really outline a plan of treatment designed specifically for that patient. For example, the forms used by Respondent are merely check-off forms even though, during the period, the patient was receiving continuing analgesic medications. From Respondent's records, it was impossible to determine how the patient was doing on the medications prescribed or whether additional medical evaluation was required. It is important to put this information in patient records to memorialize what is done and not just to keep the information in the treating physician's memory. Respondent denies that his initial evaluation and treatment plan, prepared by the use of form check sheets, is below standard. Dr. Spreyhe concluded the use of such check sheets is not inappropriate for the initial work-up of a patient and he opined that Respondent's forms, and the information thereon provide sufficient information for an independent understanding of the patient's situation and are within an appropriate standard of care. It is so found. However, the medical progress notes which make up the bulk of the remaining medical records are not so complete and, in Dr. Spreyhe's opinion are insufficient. Respondent concurs and admits this. It is so found. As to Respondent's prescribing practices, Dr. Greener is far more conservative than Respondent in prescribing Elavil. He starts with a low dose and gradually works up to a therapeutic level dosage depending upon the patient. He would start an average patient out at 25 mg/day and work up to a maintenance dose of 150 mg/day. Elavil is a dangerous drug and the doctor must closely monitor the patient for possible side effects and the direct effect it is having on the patient. It should never be ordered "prn", (as needed) when that designation relates to the amount to be taken. Based on Respondent's records for this patient, it would appear to Dr. Greener that the medication was being used improperly. There appears to have been no monitoring of the amount of the drug the patient was getting and it would appear that the patient was given the prerogative as to dose, which is not a good thing to do. In his opinion, a dose at 300 mg/day of Elavil is very and unnaturally high and he would not use so high a dose. He would do other tests first to see why the medication was not working at the lower dosage. As was seen before, however, other physicians of equal expertise disagree. Fiorinal is habit forming and, according to Dr. Greener, should be used only over the short term. If needed for a longer period, the patient should be reviewed to see why. The doctor must keep in mind the addictive properties of the drug. Here, Dr. Greener is of the opinion that Respondent prescribed excessive amounts of Fiorinal for patient #1. From January 27, 1988 through March 2, 1988, a period of 34 or 35 days, Respondent prescribed 302 tablets and Dr. Greener would be concerned that the patient was addicted. On March 21, 1988 Respondent prescribed another 50 tablets, and on March 27,1988, he prescribed 50 more followed by another 60 somewhat later and more after that. All of these were being prescribed for a patient whose records reflect she was doing "OK", and was "nicely stabilized". To Dr. Greener, this is just too much, especially for a patient who is obviously addicted and who appears to be taking the medication only to prevent withdrawal symptoms. By his prescription regimen, a patient would get no more than 10 tablets a day for no more than 4 to 5 days, and he would prescribe this drug for 9 months, as here, only with support for it in the patient records, including the opinions of other specialists to whom the patient would have been referred. While it is obvious Dr. Greener is more conservative in his approach to medication than is Respondent, the evidence does not clearly show Respondent's approach fell below standards. Dr. Spreyhe is of the opinion that the levels of Elavil and Fiorinal prescribed by Respondent for this patient were appropriate in both dosage and amounts. He has patients of his own who take such doses and he is not swayed by the PDR recommendations for dosage which, he believes, is too conservative. As for the Fiorinal, he would prescribe no more than 8 per day because there is some information that a patient may develop a tolerance for the substance. In any case, the drug is appropriate for the treatment of psychogenic headaches as were suffered by Respondent's patient here. Both W.L.P. and M.J.S. have been patients of Respondent. Both found him to be concerned and available. When patient #1 died, Ms. Sherman was in a therapy group with her. She did not appear to be suicidal and was looking forward to her proposed trip to New York. Patient #1 died on October 8, 1988. The report of the Hillsborough County Medical Examiner reflected her death as suicide from the combined effects of amitriptyline, (Elavil), butalbital, (Fiorinal), and salicylate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued herein, finding Respondent not guilty of all allegations except those relating to his failure to keep adequate medical records regarding Patient #1 as alleged in Count One, of which he is shown to be guilty, and imposing an administrative reprimand and a requirement for continuing medical education in the area of proper record keeping. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-5048 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony but not as a Finding of Fact. 8. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony but not as a Finding of Fact. 9. & 10. Accepted that the medications were dispensed based on prescriptions written under the patient's name. 11. & 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as not a necessary conclusion to be drawn. Accepted. - 23. Accepted as restatements of witness testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 26. Accepted and incorporated herein as pertaining to the dosage level of Elavil used and the balance accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as a restatement of witness testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 32. Rejected as Findings of Fact, and found to be Conclusions of Law. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Accepted and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. & 14. Accepted. 15. & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. & 18. Accepted. 19. & 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. 21. Accepted. 22. This Proposed Finding of Fact is, in reality, a restatement of the evidence presented, in several subparagraphs, some of which are identified by letter and some of which are not. It is, however, accepted as an accurate restatement of the evidence admitted at hearing on this point, except where it becomes argument. 23. & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. First four sentences accepted and incorporated herein. Balance considered only as argument in support of the position taken. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27. Accepted. 28. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law and not a Finding of Fact. 29. - 31. Accepted as basic findings. This does not go to their adequacy, however. 32. & 33. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. & 35. Accepted as the substance of the witness' testimony. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Rothenberg, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 9325 Bay Plaza Boulevard Suite 210 Tampa, Florida 33619 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire Shear, Newman, Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A. Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
