Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the August 24, 1991 Optometry licensure examination. He did exceedingly well on two of the three portions of the examination. His grade on the clinical portion (sections 1 and 2) was 71.5. The minimum passing score was 75.0. Petitioner challenged the behavior of the examiners in section 2 of the clinical portion of the examination, and the grade he received for several individual procedures tested. Petitioner's patient for the clinical examination was his wife, Susan Vazoulas. Mrs. Vazoulas testified that prior to Petitioner entering the examination room for section 2 of the clinical portion of the examination, she overheard the two examiners, one male and one female, discussing material already on their clipboards. The male examiner indicated he had given an "81". The female examiner indicated she had given an "84", but was a "hard liner." Petitioner was not present during this exchange. Mrs. Vazoulas did not see what was on the examiners' clipboards and could not testify with any certainty as to what was being discussed. Every reasonable inference suggests that the examiners' conversation did not apply to Petitioner's section 2 clinical test for the following reasons: The examiners' comments were made before the Petitioner entered the examination room and before he began to take his section 2 clinical examination. The numbers "81" and "84" bear no relationship to any of Petitioner's scores on any portion of his licensure examination. The examiners for section 2 were not the examiners for section 1, whereon Petitioner scored 100%. If anything, had the examiners reached two divergent scores of 81 and 84, respectively, it would more likely suggest the presence of independent judging and the lack of collusion, instead of the presence of collusion and absence of independence as assumed by Petitioner in this instance. The examination room in which section 2 of Petitioner's clinical examination was administered was very small, approximately 8 x 10 feet. During section 2, the two examiners separately viewed each of 16 procedures performed on Mrs. Vazoulas by Petitioner and after each procedure, they individually returned to their respective clipboards to record their scores. The two clipboards were placed on a countertop side by side while not in use. Petitioner and Mrs. Vazoulas each observed the examiners separately marking their respective clipboards but never saw what was written down by either of the examiners. Petitioner and Mrs. Vazoulas felt it would have been hard for each examiner to avoid seeing the score assigned by the other examiner, but neither Petitioner nor Mrs. Vazoulas observed any actual sharing of information or scores during Petitioner's section 2 clinical examination or afterwards. Petitioner and Mrs. Vazoulas testified in terms of the examiners having "the chance" to see each other's clipboard and "the opportunity" for collusion and absence of independence in grading. In this instance, Petitioner considered that identical grades given by both examiners was proof of their collusion and arbitrary and capricious grading. However, similarity of scores is equally susceptible of being interpreted as resulting from each examiner having observed the same performance by Petitioner on each of the 16 procedures and applied the same judging criteria to what s/he saw. The law does not presume illicit behavior without more evidence than that it "could have" happened. Petitioner challenged his section 2 grade for clinical procedures 4-9 for biomicroscopy, alleging that he was graded 17.5 out of a possible 20 points while all parts were checked "yes". In fact, the score sheets show that all parts were not checked "yes" by both examiners. One examiner graded procedure four with "N" for "no". This could result in an "all or nothing" score of zero for that item. Assuming, arguendo, the "yes" and "no" were averaged, Petitioner's score still would not have amounted to the additional 2.5 points Petitioner alleged he was entitled to out of this section of the examination. Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a document titled "Optometry Practical Examination Section 2 - Grading Standards August 1991." The instructions to the examiners state in the second paragraph of that document, "Comment on reason for any NO judgment. Comment if performance was a marginal YES." Thus, examiners could legitimately insert comments even where they responded "yes" in evaluating the performance of the candidate in a given procedure. They did so here. Petitioner challenged his grade on procedure number 15, gonioscopy, stating that partial credit should have been given for the showing of the proper angle. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2, the grade sheets for section 2, reflect that Petitioner received no credit from either examiner. Both "no" responses have comments recorded next to them. Respondent's Exhibit 2, page 4, states the criteria for a "yes" response on procedure number 15, gonioscopy, as: Must be focused on nasal angle with proper illumination Gives proper response to question Both criteria must be satisfied to receive a "yes" response. Petitioner and Respondent concur that Petitioner correctly demonstrated the angle required in procedure 15, gonioscopy, which satisfied one of the two required criteria to receive a "yes" from either examiner. Petitioner attempted, by extrapolation of procedure 5, to show that the remaining criterion was also met. He was not persuasive in this attempt. The grade sheets reflect that Petitioner failed to satisfy the second criterion: to give the correct response to the question posed. Petitioner made no valid showing that he did answer the question correctly or that the points available from this answer would raise his total score 3.5 points for a passing grade. Petitioner challenged his grade for procedure number 1, binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO). Petitioner admitted that he did this procedure incorrectly by using the 3:00 o'clock position, rather than the 9:00 o'clock position requested by the examiners but felt six points should not have been deducted and it should have been marked "yes, marginal," awarding him a majority of the six lost points. Petitioner did not demonstrate good cause within the grading criteria in evidence why he should have received the "majority," presumably four, points. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the grading of challenged procedures 11 and 14. As to all of the foregoing, Petitioner's challenge to the effect that he did not understand the grading system was not sufficient to carry his burden of proof to establish that the examination, scoring, and/or grading system was arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a final order ratifying the examination grade previously assigned to Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-2205 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2) F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: None filed Respondent's PFOF: 1-6 Accepted except for unnecessary, subordinate on cumulative material. 7-13 Accepted except for subordinate material. It is noted that Petitioner bears the burden of proof herein, not Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George L. Vazoulas 182C Chestnut Ridge Drive Harrisonburg, VA. 22801 Diane Orcutt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of osteopathic medicine pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Chapter 455, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 459, Florida Statutes. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed osteopathic physician, having been issued license number OS 006021 by the State of Florida. Dispensing practitioner inspections are conducted by Petitioner to evaluate compliance with the legal requirements imposed on dispensing practitioners. The complete legal requirements imposed upon dispensing practitioners are listed on the "Investigative Services Inspection Form for Dispensing Practitioners", with citations to the proper authority. Practitioners subject to inspections are provided with copies of the inspection forms. On July 19, 1991, Jeannie Lewis, a Department investigator, conducted a routine dispensing practitioners inspection of Respondent's office and prepared an inspection form. During the July 19, 1991 inspection, the following violations were discovered and reported: Respondent was not writing prescriptions for dispensed medication; Respondent was not certifying drugs prior to patient receipt; Respondent was not on the premises when dispensing of drugs occurred; Respondent failed to post a generic drug sign; Respondent failed to initial and date all controlled drug prescriptions dispensed; Respondent's controlled substance prescriptions failed to include the patient's address; Respondent's controlled substance prescriptions failed to include Respondent's DEA number; Respondent failed to place dispensed medication in a child proof container; Respondent's controlled substance prescriptions were not properly maintained. Respondent had no prescriptions for controlled substances dispensed. A deficiencies form was issued and signed by Respondent, following the July 17, 1991 inspection. A second inspection of Respondent's office was conducted on December 17, 1992, and a second dispensing practitioners inspection form was completed. During the December 17, 1992 inspection, Investigator Lewis was accompanied by Charles C. Lewis, then Senior Pharmacist for Petitioner. During the December 17, 1992 inspection by Investigator Lewis and Charles C. Lewis, the following violations were discovered and reported: Respondent was not writing prescriptions for dispensed medication; Respondent was not certifying drugs prior to patient receipt; Respondent was not on the premises when dispensing of drugs occurred; Respondent failed to post a generic drug sign; Respondent failed to initial and date all controlled drug prescriptions dispensed; Respondent's controlled substance prescriptions failed to include the patient's address; Respondent's controlled substance prescriptions failed to include Respondent's DEA number; Respondent's controlled substance prescriptions were not properly maintained; Respondent's controlled substance purchase records were not properly maintained or readily retrievable; Respondent's DEA 222 forms were not completed properly and not available. Respondent's nurse refilled and dispensed medications when Respondent was not on the premises. On February 9, 1993, a Final Order of the Board of Osteopathic Medicine was entered in the case of DPR v. Richard Heston Beers, D.O., DPR Case Number 00-95528. This Final Order adopted the provisions of a Consent Agreement signed by Respondent on November 6, 1992, in which Respondent agreed to receive a Letter of Concern, pay a $2,000 fine, attend a Continuing Medical Education course on the ethical prescription of abusable drugs, and to utilize sequentially numbered triplicate prescription forms for a year following the date of the Order. The Consent Agreement, adopted into the Final Order, also provided that copies of the triplicate prescription forms were to be made available to Petitioner's investigators upon request. Following the second inspection of Respondent's office and the issuance of the Final Order, Respondent sent a letter to Lewis dated March 26, 1993, claiming compliance with the dispensing practitioners requirements and inviting her to re-inspect his office at any time. At the request of the Board of Osteopathic Medicine, a third inspection of Respondent's office was conducted on July 7, 1993, and a third dispensing practitioners inspection form was completed. During this third inspection, the following violations were discovered and noted: Respondent failed to properly label medication for dispensing; Respondent was not properly maintaining his controlled substance prescriptions, in that Respondent did not stamp them with a red letter "C" and store them separately from non-controlled drug prescriptions; Respondent's DEA 222 forms were not completed properly (not available). Respondent failed to utilize sequentially numbered triplicate prescription forms when dispensing medications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of violating Sections 459.015(1)(g) and (bb), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that: Respondent shall pay an administrative fine in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to the Board of Osteopathic Medicine within one hundred eighty (180) days of the Final Order of the Board. Respondent shall receive a reprimand from the Board of Osteopathic Medicine. Respondent shall surrender his DEA license for a minimum of two (2) years, and not reapply unless or until he appears before the Board and demonstrates that he can prescribe, maintain, and inventory controlled substances with skill, safety, and within the legal requirements imposed upon dispensing practitioners. Respondent's license to practice medicine shall be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year, including indirect supervision, a review of Respondent's medical records by a monitoring physician, and any additional terms deemed reasonable and necessary by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 September, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 through 20. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Respondent did not submit proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh R. Brown, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Richard Heston Beers, D.O. 7505 Aloma Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32792 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Conclusions ARCA C.I. No.: 05-3603-000 THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a settlement agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached settlement agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. Filed October 14, 2009 2:31 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ORDERED on this the ' day of Odo b-L,-' , 2009, in Tallahassee, Florida. Holly Benson, Secretary / Agency for Health Care Administration AP ARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BYLAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies Furnished to: Scott Wicke EmCare 1717 Main Street Suite 5200 Dallas, TX 75201 Karen Dexter, Assistant General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice) Peter Williams, Inspector General Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice) D. Kenneth Yon, Bureau Chief Medicaid Program Integrity (Interoffice) Finance & Accounting (Interoffice) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to the above named addresses by mail or interoffice mail this ay of (2:/4 2009. Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. 3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 922-5873
The Issue Has Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade he received on the November 1988, chiropractic licensure examination been rendered moot by virtue of his having retaken and passed the examination? If not, should his challenge be sustained?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following Findings of Fact: The licensure examination administered by the Board of Chiropractic Examiners in November 1988, consisted of a written examination on Florida laws and rules and a practical examination. There were three parts to the practical examination: x-ray interpretation; technique; and physical diagnosis. To pass the practical examination, a candidate needed to receive a passing grade on each of the three separate parts of the examination. Mathesie passed the written examination on Florida laws and rules, as well as the x-ray interpretation and technique portions of the practical examination. He received a failing grade, however, on the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination. The physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination is conducted orally. To facilitate review of this portion of the examination, it is videotaped. The videotape of the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination in controversy in the instant case was played during the course of the hearing. Each candidate taking the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination is asked a series of questions by two examiners who also independently grade the candidate's answers. The examiners are experienced chiropractors who have been licensed to practice chiropractic in the State of Florida for at least five years. First-time examiners receive three hours of training in testing and grading procedures and requirements. Examiners who have previously participated in the examination process are given a one or two hour refresher course. In questioning a candidate on the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination, the examiners must cover at least four and no more than six of the following subject areas: case history; chiropractic examination; general physical examination; orthopedic examination; neurological examination; x-ray technique and diagnosis; laboratory diagnosis; nutrition; differential diagnosis; and clinical judgment. In addition, they are directed to ask practical questions designed to test the candidate's ability to function competently as a beginning chiropractor. Within these parameters, the examiners are expected to use their professional judgment in selecting the particular questions to ask the candidate. Examiners are not provided with any specific questions that they are required to pose. The examiners are also expected to exercise their professional judgment in evaluating the candidate's answers to their questions. The grading of these answers therefore is a "subjective" process reflecting the examiners' opinions as to the quality of the candidate's answers. For each of the subject areas covered during the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination, the candidate receives a separate grade from each of the two examiners conducting this portion of the examination. A 4 is the highest grade the candidate can receive from an examiner for a covered subject area. This grade is reserved for answers which reflect exceptional expertise in the subject area. A grade of 3 out of a possible 4 (or 75%) is to be given where no more than adequate expertise is demonstrated. Where the candidate's answers demonstrate expertise that is more than adequate but less than exceptional, a grade of 3.5 (or 87.5%) is to be given. Where the candidate, through his answers, displays inadequate expertise, depending on the extent of the inadequacy, either a grade of 2.5 (or 62.5%), 2.0 (or 50%), or 1.5 (or 37.5%), is to be awarded. The lowest possible score a candidate can receive from an examiner is a 1 (or 25%). This grade is warranted where the candidate's knowledge of the subject matter is so lacking as to present a danger to the public. The candidate's overall average score on the physical diagnosis portion of the practical examination is obtained by dividing the candidate's total number of grade points by two (representing the number of examiners) times the number of subject areas covered by the examiners. To pass this portion of the examination, the candidate's overall average score must be at least a 3 (or 75%). If the candidate fails to attain such a score and contends that the examiners unfairly or erroneously evaluated his performance, the videotape of this portion of the examination is reviewed by other chiropractic experts. Based on the recommendation of these experts, adjustments may be made to the candidate's score. Mathesie was tested on six subject areas on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1988, examination: case history; general physical examination; orthopedic examination; neurological examination; x-ray technique and diagnosis; and laboratory diagnosis. He received a failing overall average grade from the two examiners of a 2.75 (or 68.75%). Following expert review, adjustments were made which raised Mathesie's overall average grade to a 2.875 (or 71.875%). This was still less, however, than the 3 (or 75%) he needed to pass. Mathesie was awarded a 3 by both examiners for his answers pertaining to case history. Both examiners' grades were subsequently increased to a 3.5 after expert review. Mathesie was asked by the examiners "the basic headings and things that [he] would be interested in having in the case history." In responding to the question, Mathesie mentioned that he would do a "general survey of their whole body," but he failed to specify that he would inquire about urinary incontinence or genital problems, specific inquiries that are routinely made by chiropractors. In view of Mathesie's failure to specifically mention these matters, it cannot be said that it was arbitrary or unreasonable to score his answer on case history no higher than a 3.5. Both examiners gave Mathesie a 2.5 for his performance on the general physical examination segment of the test. Neither of their grades was raised following expert review. On this part of the examination, Mathesie was asked to list "the vital signs." He responded, "blood pressure, pulse, respiration rate, and temperature and some sources add height and weight." Mathesie was then asked to take the blood pressure of one of the examiners, a man approaching 40 years of age. He did so and discovered that the examiner's blood pressure was 165 over 70, which Mathesie remarked "is very high blood pressure." When asked what he would tell a patient whose blood pressure remained at this level for three consecutive days, Mathesie replied that he would advise the patient that he "had an elevated blood pressure and that he should be seen by a medical doctor for further evaluation." Blood pressure of 165 over 70 is only slightly higher than normal for a man approaching 40 years of age. Contrary to what Mathesie indicated to the examiners, it is not "very high blood pressure" and, without more, is no cause for alarm. Accordingly, Mathesie's failure to receive a grade higher than a 2.5 on the general physical examination segment of the test was not without reason or logic. On the orthopedic examination segment of the test, Mathesie was awarded a 3.0 by both examiners. Expert review did not result in a change of either of these grades. On this segment of the test, Mathesie was asked to evaluate the right knee of one of the examiners. In conducting his evaluation, Mathesie failed to examine both knees, although during the next segment of the test he did indicate, with some prompting by the examiners, that he "would compare bilaterally all the orthopedic tests." Bilateral examination is a standard, routine chiropractic practice which assists the chiropractor in determining whether the patient has a developmental or pathological problem. Inasmuch as Mathesie did not conduct such a bilateral examination when asked to assess the condition of the examiner's knee, he did not deserve to receive a grade higher than a 3.0 on the orthopedic examination segment of the test. On the neurological examination segment of the test, Mathesie received a 2.5 from one examiner and a 3.0 from the other examiner. After expert review, the 2.5 grade was raised to a 3.0. No change was made to the other examiner's grade. During this segment of the test, Mathesie initially failed to perform the patella reflex test bilaterally as he should have. It was only after one of the examiners suggested that it was necessary to determine a patient's normal reflexive action that Mathesie indicated he would "compare bilaterally all the orthopedic tests, all the neurological tests and reflexes." Mathesie further stated on this segment of the test that, in attempting to neurologically assess the patient, he would administer a cardinal gaze examination during which he would have the patient cover one eye and follow his finger with the other eye. Although a cardinal gaze examination may be administered in this fashion, the better method is to have the patient follow the moving object with both eyes. In view of the foregoing, a 3.0 was not an unreasonably low grade to give Mathesie on the neurological examination segment of the test. Mathesie received a 3.0 from both examiners on the x-ray technique and diagnosis segment of the test. Neither grade was changed following expert review. Mathesie was asked on this segment of the test to "set up a right [anterior] oblique." In describing how he would do so, Mathesie failed to give information concerning the film size and central ray. Given these omissions, Mathesie's failure to receive a grade higher than a 3.0 on this segment of the test was not without justification. Mathesie received a 2.0 from one examiner and a 2.5 from the other examiner on the laboratory diagnosis segment of the test. No adjustments were made to either of these grades. On this segment of the examination, Mathesie was asked what conclusions he would reach concerning the condition of a patient based on the results of blood tests revealing a hemoglobin of 8, a hematocrit of 25, and a RBC of 3.5. As Mathesie should have been aware, such test results reflect that the patient has suffered a severe loss of blood and therefore requires immediate medical attention. Mathesie, however, did not immediately recognize the seriousness and urgency of the matter. Having failed to do so, he cannot persuasively argue that the grades he received on this segment of the examination were unreasonably low. After receiving notification that he had failed the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1988, licensure examination, Mathesie retook and passed the practical examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Examiners enter a final order dismissing Mathesie's challenge to the failing overall average grade he received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1988, licensure examination on the ground that such challenge is now moot. Should the Board decline to dismiss Mathesie's challenge on the ground of mootness, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order rejecting such challenge as without merit and denying Mathesie the relief he has requested. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of September 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 19th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3255 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Mathesie's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance, but not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated by reference; Second sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of legal argument than a finding of fact. Moreover, in order to be qualified as an expert witness in the field of chiropractic, Dr. Ordet did not have to meet the "continuous practice" requirement of Florida Administrative Code Rule 21D-11.007. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that the Department failed to substantially comply with any prehearing discovery order issued by the Hearing Officer or that the Department otherwise engaged in improper conduct prejudical to Mathesie, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it is more in the nature of commentary on the quality of Ordet's testimony than a finding of fact. Furthermore, while it is true that Ordet's opinion regarding Mathesie's performance was necessarily subjective in nature, based on Ordet's credentials and qualifications, it appears that the opinion he gave was an informed and educated one, notwithstanding his failure to cite any specific authoritative writing supporting his opinion. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated by reference (It should be noted, however, that although Ordet "has been out of school [as a student] for many years," he is currently on the faculty of two chiropractic colleges); Second sentence: Rejected because it is more in the nature of commentary on the quality of Ordet's testimony than a finding of fact. Moreover, the Hearing Officer finds no persuasive support for the statement that Ordet "undoubtedly has not kept up with the advances in the chiropractic education." Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the last two sentences, which have been rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the last sentence, which has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except for the last two sentences, which have been rejected because they are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Mathesie should not have had points taken off for indicating that he would tell a patient with a blood pressure reading of 165 over 70 to see a medical doctor, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. First sentence: Rejected because it constitutes a statement of the law rather than a finding of fact; Second sentence: Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated by reference. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Accepted and incorporated in substance. (It should be noted, however, that although Mathesie did state "on the video that all tests would be done bilaterally," he made this statement following the orthopedic examination after one of the examiners suggested, through his questioning, that it was important to determine what was "normal" for the patient.) To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Mathesie should have been awarded a grade higher than a 3.0 on the neurological examination segment of the test, it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. To the extent that this proposed finding suggests that Mathesie should have been awarded a higher overall average grade on the physical diagnosis portion of the November, 1988, licensure examination than a 2.875 (or 71.875%), it has been rejected because it is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a request for relief than a finding of fact. Rejected because it is more in the nature of a request for relief than a finding of fact. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance, except to the extent that it indicates that "[c]ase history was raised to a 2.5 by both examiners." The uncontradicted evidence reveals that Mathesie originally received a 3.0 from both examiners on case history and that both of these grades were subsequently raised, following expert review, to a 3.5. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Accepted and incorporated by reference. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael W. Mathesie 8933 Northwest 51st Place Coral Springs, Florida 33067 E. Harper Field, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Pat Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a candidate for the May 1988, Chiropractic Physiotherapy certification examination. The exam consists of a written and an oral part, covering various areas of chiropractic physiotherapy. The written and oral parts of the exam are graded separately and a candidate must score 75 points on each part in order to pass and be certified in Physiotherapy. Petitioner had previously passed the written portion of the exam and was attempting only the oral portion of the physiotherapy exam. Petitioner claims he was incorrectly graded on the oral exam in the areas of manual, ultrasound and galvanic therapy. At the hearing Petitioner abandoned his claim that he was incorrectly graded on the galvanic therapy portion of the exam and that claim is not considered further for purposes of this recommended order. Petitioner obtained a score of 66.6 on the oral exam. The oral practice exam for physiotherapy certification is graded subjectively according to a candidate's response to questions asked by two grading chiropractors. The graders have been licensed to practice chiropractic for more than five years in Florida and have undergone some grade standardization training prior to examining the candidate for certification. Each grader assigns his or her point score independent of the other grader. A candidate's response therefore has two scores assigned by each grader. The points given by each grader are totalled. The two totals are then averaged together for the overall score on the exam. Some difference in the points assigned often occur. However, the difference between the two scores seldom exceeds 1 point and would therefore not be an unreasonable discrepancy when consideration is given to the effects of grading a subjective test and the effects of averaging the two point scores given by each grader. The grade range is from 1-4 points with one being the lowest score and four being the highest score. A score of 4 points is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested. A score of 3 points is given when a candidate demonstrates minimal competency in the subject area tested. A score of 2 points is given when the candidate's answer is wrong but not dangerous to the patient. A score of 1 point is given when a candidate's response is wrong and dangerous to the patient. Dr. Brennan scored a 1.5 and 2.5 on the manual portion of the exam and a 1.5 and 2.5 on the ultrasound portion of the exam. In both instances Petitioner's answers to the questions covering the manual and ultrasound areas of the exam were wrong. Therefore the scores given by each grader could not exceed 2.9 points. Even if the highest allowable score is awarded for Petitioner's responses the additional points are not sufficient to raise Petitioner's score to a 75. Based on the above facts Petitioner has failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that he should be certified in Chiropractic Physiotherapy. More importantly, however, Petitioner's answer to the ultrasound portion of the exam was wrong and dangerous to the patient. Petitioner was clearly confused by the manner in which the question was asked by the examiner. However, the confusion did not exclude the candidate's ability or opportunity to give the correct answer in order to take the safest course of therapy to the patient. To Petitioner's credit he did demonstrate competency in his responses to the other question pertaining to the ultrasound area. It was the application of that knowledge that Petitioner failed to demonstrate. The explanations given by each grader, justifying a failing score given to the candidate, reflect the above. Therefore, neither of the graders scores on the ultrasound portion of the exam can be said to be incorrect and should remain the same. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the two grader's scores on the manual and ultrasound portion of the exam were devoid of logic or reason for its respective assignment. Petitioner, therefore, failed to demonstrate that he was incorrectly graded on the oral exam and should be certified in Chiropractic Physiotherapy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact acid Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was incorrectly graded on the Chiropractic Physiotherapy exam and should be certified in the area of Chiropractic Physiotherapy. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 5 and 6 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Facts are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian P. Brennan 5828 Rawson Lan Pensacola, Florida 32503 E. Harper Field General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Kenneth Easley Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729 Pat Gilford Executive Director 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32390-0729
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request for authorization for the autologous chondrocyte implantation procedure should be approved pursuant to worker's compensation laws and rules.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's Injury At all times, the Petitioner has been employed as a Ladies Wear Department Manager for K-Mart Corporation. On July 21, 1998, Petitioner, while in the course and scope of her employment, was injured when she fell on a metal ladder as she attempted to hang clothes on a rail. Her left knee struck a metal bar on the second step of the ladder, causing immediate pain. On August 26, 1998, Petitioner consulted Dr. Jeffery Friedman, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, who specializes in knee and shoulder surgery. Dr. Friedman was recognized as an expert in the field of orthopedic surgery. On or about September 4, 1998, Petitioner underwent arthroscopic surgery performed by Dr. Friedman to remove a loose body from the knee. Dr. Friedman found grade III chondromalacia and debrided the area using an arthroscopic shaver. He also found loose articular cartilage at the patella. Dr. Friedman's records describe the area of grade III chondromalacia as "fairly large" and involving " the apex of the patella." However, neither the size nor the shape of the injury is disclosed. Dr. Friedman also debrided flake of articular cartilage from the tibial plateau and removed a calcific loose body from the posteromedial compartment. His post-operative diagnosis was left knee loose body, chrondromalacia, and intracruciate ligament strain. Petitioner returned to work with K-Mart after the arthroscopic surgery, and was placed on light duty. While performing her duties, Petitioner is required to stand most of the time, and is unable to sit. Prior to her injury, Petitioner worked 40 hours per week. After her injury, due to her physical limitations resulting from the accident, Petitioner is only able to work 24 hours per week. Petitioner's pain limits her ability to work 40 hours per week. Petitioner cannot put her full weight down on the left knee while going up steps or a ladder or it causes sharp shooting pains. In addition, continuous walking results in continuous aching pain. The reduction in Petitioner's work hours was due to her injury. Petitioner is now unable to perform all of the duties that were required of her before the injury. Dr. Friedman found Petitioner to have reached maximum medical improvement in December 1998. In early 1999, Petitioner sought treatment for continued pain. An MRI was performed on or about March 5, 1999, which suggested a small defect in the articular cartilage, thinning of the patellar cartilage, and narrowing of the medical femoral tibial joint consistent with the early stages of osteoarthritis. In June, 1999, Petitioner underwent steroid injections for continued pain. In September, 1999, Petitioner returned to Dr, Friedman because of continued pain. Dr. Friedman reviewed a video tape that he had made of the arthroscopic surgery and fount that the Petitioner had a fairly large chondral defect of the patella. Dr. Friedman determined that Petitioner was a candidate for ACI, also known as the Genzyme Carticel Procedure (Genzyme Procedure). Dr. Friedman believed that the ACI procedure would benefit Petitioner by providing long-term symptomatic relief with joint pain and mechanical disturbances and improved joint motion function, eliminating the complaints of grinding and catching, and furthering the goal of returning the patient to regular and even strenuous activity. Petitioner then requested authorization for the ACI procedure. The Employer/Carrier denied the request and referred it to the Agency for Health Care Administration for review in accordance with Florida law. The Agency consulted with the University of Florida Faculty Practice Group, and Dr. B. Hudson Berrey, Chair of the Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, rendered an opinion that the procedure is investigative within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. Dr. Berrey further opined that there was not reliable evidence that ACI would provide significant benefit to the recovery and well-being of the injured employee within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.004(3), Florida Administrative Code. The documents and information forwarded to Dr. Berrey by Respondent included Petitioner's medical records provided by Intervenor, K-Mart carrier. Dr. Berrey did not review any actual MRI films, did not review any films taken at the time of the arthroscopic procedure, and in fact only reviewed certain documentation that was supplied to him by the agency. Petitioner was denied her right to present information to Dr. Berrey prior to his forming his opinion for the agency. This was a violation of Rule 59B-11.003, Florida Administrative Code. The agency rendered a decision based upon Dr. Berrey's opinion, declining to order the Employer/Carrier to provide ACI to Petitioner. Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation The ACI procedure was initially developed in Sweden by Dr. Lars Peterson. ACI is a surgical procedure whereby a sample of cartilage is harvested from another area of the joint. The harvesting of the cartilage is performed during an arthroscopic surgical operation. The sample is sent to Boston to the laboratory of Genzyme Tissue Repair, Inc. ("Genzyme"), the owner of the process. Genzyme uses its proprietary process to culture the cells into an estimated 12 million chondrocytes over a period of approximately two months. Genzyme then returns the cultured chondrocytes to the surgeon. The surgeon then performs an open surgical operation. The surgeon creates a periosteal flap. In addition, the injury is debrided and the chondrocytes are implanted on the wounded cartilage and covered with the periosteal flap. The ACI procedure thus requires two surgical operations, one arthroscopic procedure and one open procedure. The claimed benefit of ACI is that the cartilage that is generated and implanted onto the knee will be hyaline cartilage or hyaline-like cartilage rather than fibrocartilage. Hyaline cartilage is composed both of the cartilage cells of an extra-cellular matrix. It has greater ability than fibrocartilage to withstand compression and shearing forces. ACI has been shown to produce "hyaline-like" cartilage in some patients. However, it does not reproduce the extra- cellular matrix in which the chondrocytes are found in naturally occurring hyaline cartilage. Alternative Treatments Other available treatments for a defect in articular cartilage of the knees include abrasion chondroplasty, arthroscopic microfracture, and arthroscopic drilling. Many patients get relief with one or more of these alternative procedures and do not need another operation. In addition, a surgical procedure to elevate the tibial tubercle and remove some of the weight from the patella might also alleviate the Petitioner's pain and improve her functioning. Dr. Friedman performed an abrasion chondroplasty during the arthroscopic surgery of September 4, 1998. Dr. Friedman did not offer Petitioner either the microfracture or the drilling procedures. Dr. Friedman had considered performing a tibial tubercle elevation but has not recommended that the Petitioner undergo that procedure either before the ACI is approved or independently of the ACI. Dr. Friedman views the primary purpose of this procedure as assuring the best possible results from the ACI. Dr. Friedman indicated there were no appropriate alternative medical procedures, other then the ACI procedure, available for Petitioner's injury. Dr. Friedman opined that the only viable option of putting back normal articular cartilage underneath the kneecap would be with the ACI procedure. In this opinion, the alternative procedures are not appropriate for and would not benefit Petitioner, as they were merely temporary procedures. Moreover, he emphatically stated that the ACI procedure is the procedure which is appropriate for an would benefit Petitioner. The Evidence That ACI Remains Investigative The Agency for Health Care Administration has not promulgated, endorsed, or approved any particular treatment for injuries to the articular cartilage of the knee in accordance with Sections 440.13(15) or 408.02, Florida Statutes; therefore, there was no Agency-approved protocol for Dr. Berrey to consider in rendering his opinion. Dr. Berrey testified that he could find no articles or publications describing controlled studies in which the effectiveness of ACI compared to any other procedure. Dr. Berrey further testified that he could find no articles about the ACI procedure in peer-reviewed journals in which the authors used objective measures of outcome which compared the patients' condition before and after treatment. The use of blinded or controlled studies is important so that possible confounding factors or variables can be controlled or accounted for and the results measured objectively. Dr. Berrey found that the publications cited by the proponents of the procedure discussed research which was funded by Genzyme, the owner of the process by which the chondrocytes were cultured. The funding of the research by the owner of the process was an additional factor in his determination that the evidence supporting the efficacy of the procedure was not reliable. The Cartilage Repair Registry and the results reported therein do not constitute reliable evidence of the benefits of ACI when compared to other available procedures for two reasons. First, the potentially confounding variables are neither controlled nor accounted for. Second, each surgeon evaluates his or her own work, so that there is no objective, independent measurement or assessment of the condition of each patient before and after surgery. Although the premise on which ACI is based is that the patient's implant will consist of hyaline cartilage rather than fibrocartilage, the available data does not indicate that the results are comprised only, or even primarily, of genuine hyaline cartilage. Rather, the evidence is that some patients develop "hyaline-like" cartilage, or cartilage composed partly of hyaline tissue. It cannot be determined whether hyaline or hyaline- like cartilage has filled a patient's defect without performing a biopsy and a histological evaluation of the tissue. The published reports described in the testimony contain discussions of post-surgical histological performed on very small numbers of patients. The published reports concerning the use of ACI to treat defects of the patella show that the results are not as favorable as those claimed for treatment of the femoral condyle. After the proponents of the procedure began to perform other procedures with the ACI to assure that any defects in the alignment of the patella are repaired, improved results were reported. Dr, Friedman testified about the published results of histological evaluations of 37 patients. Of those, seven underwent ACI to treat defects of the patella. Only one of the seven showed the development of hyaline-like tissue. Further, only two of the seven patella patients reported surgical results classified as good or better. Dr. Friedman opined that the histological data resulting from treatment of defects of the patella had improved since the study described in the preceding paragraph. However, he could not give any reference to the basis for his opinion. Dr. Friedman further testified that the more recent articles discussed the results of patients who had been followed from nine to 15 years. However, the articles and presentations from 1997 to 2000 report on follow-up of the first hundred patients between two and nine years after their surgery. Dr. Billings testified that Dr. Peterson's presentation discussed follow-ups of ACI patients occurring as long as 15 years after surgery. Yet, the March 2000 presentation to the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons focused on 40 patients who had been evaluated three or more years after their surgery. The FDA granted an accelerated approval of the Carticel product in 1997. The original accelerated FDA approval was granted for defects of the femoral condyle, the trochlear groove, and the patella. The terms of the approval require that controlled studies be conducted which compare the procedure to other procedures available for the treatment of focal chondral defects, specifically, microfracture and the creation of a periosteal flap without the injection of the cultured chondrocytes. None of the expert witnesses had found in their literature search any published reports of the progress of the controlled studies required under the terms of the accelerated FDA approval. In February, 2000, the FDA approval was modified. Genzyme is no longer permitted to market the ACI procedure or its Carticel product for treatment of defects to the patella. The requirements of Rule 59B-11.004, Florida Administrative Code, differ significantly from those of the accelerated FDA approval process, so that the granting of accelerated approval does not determine the answer to the question whether a treatment is investigative under that rule. The FDA's inquiry addresses the issues of safety and efficacy. However, the accelerated FDA approval process does not address the issues of whether a particular product is more effective than currently existing treatments or is equally cost-effective. Based upon all the evidence, the performance of the ACI procedure on the defects located in the patella is investigative within the meaning of Rule 59B-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code. The Probability That ACI Would be of Significant Benefit in Returning Petitioner to Work Both of Petitioner's expert witnesses testified that if she does not undergo ACI, it is likely that she will need a total knee replacement. However, neither witness testified that Petitioner currently requires a total knee replacement. No testimony was presented as to when Petitioner might require a total knee replacement. Despite the testimony that ACI has been studied for 20 years, the published reports follow patients only for nine years after surgery. From the current state of the research, it is not possible to conclude that patients who undergo ACI avoid the need for subsequent surgery in ten or more years. The published studies of the results of ACI going out nine years from the date of surgery do not state the number of procedures performed on the patella. No witnesses testified regarding any published studies of the effectiveness of ACI that addressed the extent to which patients had been able to return to work as a result of the procedure. There is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that the ACI is more likely to enable the Petitioner to return to her duties that other available procedures. The Likelihood That the Benefits of ACI Would Outweigh the Risks and the Costs The testimony compared the cost and benefit of ACI with chondroplasty, microfracture or drilling, and, to some extent, a Macquet procedure or tibial tubercle elevation. Each of the other procedures requires only one surgical operation. ACI requires an arthroscopic surgical procedure to harvest cartilage, culturing of the chondrocytes at the Genzyme laboratory in Boston, and followed by an open surgical procedure to create a periosteal flap and to implant the chondrocytes. Petitioner's expert testified that the cost of culturing the chondrocytes alone was between $8,000 and $10,000, in addition to the two surgical procedures. Petitioner's expert compared the cost of ACI to that of a total knee replacement. However, that comparison is not appropriate under the rule because there is no evidence that Petitioner currently needs a knee replacement or that a knee replacement is the treatment generally used to treat her current condition. The cost of the abrasion chondroplasty, the microfracture or drilling procedure would approximate the cost of the first stage of ACI, approximately $2,300. Dr. Billings testified that the cost of the second stage of ACI was greater than that of the first stage. The second stage is an open surgical operation rather than an arthroscopic one. The total cost of the ACI procedure, including therapy, is probably close to the $30,000 required for a total knee replacement, including the therapy required for the total knee replacement. Dr. Berrey testified that published reports of the cost of ACI are as high as $37,000. The ACI requires extensive physical therapy; Petitioner presented no evidence as to the extent to which the cost of this aspect of treatment was included in the total cost of ACI. ACI has been established to be safe, so that the benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks. However, there is insufficient evidence from which to conclude that the benefits of ACI outweigh the additional costs.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying approval of the autologous chondrocyte implantation for Petitioner Rebecca Crane. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey J. Bordulis, Esquire 570 Crown Oak Centre Drive Longwood, Florida 32750 Lisa J. Hurley, Esquire Pyle, Jones, Hurley & Hand, P.A. 1069 West Morse Boulevard Winter Park, Florida 32789 Michelle L. Oxman, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Ruben J. King-Shaw, Jr., Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has sufficiently completed the requirements necessary to receive a license to practice orthotic fitting from the Board of Orthotists and Prosthetists and whether the Petitioner has violated section 468.809, Florida Statutes, by practicing orthotics without a license or registration.
Findings Of Fact 1. The two rules governing the requirements for licensure as on orthotic fitter in the state of Florida are found in section 469.803(5)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B14-4.110(1)(b). Section 468.803(5)(c) requires: (c) to be licensed as an orthotic fitter the applicant must pay a license fee not to exceed $500 and must have: A high school diploma or its equivalent; A minimum of 40 hours of training in orthotics education, as approved by the board; Two years of supervised experience in orthotics acquired after completion of the required education, as approved by the board; and Completed the mandatory courses. Petitioner requested information from the Board regarding the requirements for licensure and received a publication containing both chapter 468, Florida Statutes, Part XIV, and rule 64B14. He completed the prerequisite education required by section 468.803(5)(c), on June 22, 2009. However, Petitioner testified that he only reviewed the requirements identified in section 468.803(5)(c) and did not consider the definition of "experience" contained in rule 64B14-4.110(1), for applicants for licensure as an orthotic fitter. Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B14-4.110(1)(b) construes supervised "experience" to require an applicant to complete two years of experience in orthotics under the supervision of a Florida licensed orthotist. The two years of experience may only begin accruing after the applicant has successfully completed the requisite education courses. Petitioner applied for a license in orthotic fitting on November 22, 2010, only 17 months after the completion date of his educational courses. Assuming Petitioner started gaining experience immediately upon completion of his education courses, Petitioner was still seven months shy of the two years of experience required to obtain a license as an orthotic fitter. Petitioner testified at hearing regarding the orthotic experience gained prior to applying for licensure. According to his testimony, his experience consisted of activity more accurately described as assistance than experience. The experience described was limited to helping patients stand up, holding a measuring stick, assisting with paperwork, and explaining paperwork to the patient. Petitioner’s role involved little more than observing and occasionally assisting a licensed physical therapist. This is surely not what is meant by “experience in orthotics under the direct supervision of a Florida licensed orthotist,” as contemplated by rule 64B14- 4.110(1)(b). The assistance provided by Petitioner was performed under the supervision of a licensed physical therapist. While his actions, as described at hearing, did not meet the requirements for supervision specified by rule 64B14-9.110, they also did not rise to the level of unlicensed activity.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Board of Orthotists and Prosthetists denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as an orthotic fitter. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank Edward Maloney, Jr., Esquire Macclenny City Attorney 445 East Macclenny Avenue, Suite 1 Macclenny, Florida 32063-2217 Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6536 Bruce Deterding, Executive Director Board of Orthotists and Prosthetists Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Nicholas Romanello, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for certification as a physician assistant by application dated June 29, 1991. Under the statutory scheme regulating physician assistants, in certain circumstances, the Board of Medicine may grant temporary certification to applicants for licensure. The temporary certification is good only until the applicant receives notice of the applicant's scores received on the first available examination. At its meeting of October 30 through November 1, 1992, the Board approved Petitioner for temporary certification contingent upon his completion of specified requirements prior to such temporary certification and his completion of 25 hours of continuing medical education after issuance of such certification. Petitioner completed the specified requirements for issuance of the temporary certification and was issued a temporary certificate. Petitioner was so notified by letter dated October 4, 1993. Petitioner was first notified of the need to pay a required fee for the licensure examination by letter dated February 27, 1993. That letter set forth that the fee must be paid by March 31, 1993. Petitioner did not pay the fee by that deadline. On June 8, 1993, Petitioner was notified that the deadline for payment of the required examination fee had been moved to June 25, 1993. The extension had been given because the Board was still involved with processing applications for this special licensure program. Petitioner did not pay the fee by that deadline. On October 11, 1993, Petitioner was sent another letter notifying him that the deadline had been extended once again. This time the deadline was set for November 15, 1993. The notice sent to Petitioner specified three times that the required examination fee must be received in the office of the Board by November 15, 1993. It specifically informed Petitioner that a postmark of November 15, 1993, would not be sufficient. Furthermore, the notice informed Petitioner that if he failed to submit the required examination fee in a timely fashion, he would not be eligible to take the licensure examination. Although Petitioner testified that he was confused with regard to when the required fee could be sent, it was established that he could read the letter and that he understood that his failure to timely pay the examination fee would result in his not being permitted to take the licensure examination. Petitioner did not have the money for the required examination fee until November 14, 1993. Petitioner mailed the examination fee from Miami to the Board office in Tallahassee by certified United States mail on November 15, 1993. Although Petitioner testified that he believed the fee would be delivered the same day or the next day, Petitioner did not use any type of special delivery to provide same day or next day delivery at the Board's office. The fee submitted by Petitioner in the form of three Travelers Express Company checks was received in the Board's office on December 22, 1993. Petitioner did not submit the required examination fee in a timely manner for any of the three deadlines set by the Board. With the exception of one case involving an applicant with a heart condition, the Board has uniformly denied any request for the late payment of the required examination fee. If he does not take and pass the first available licensure examination, Petitioner will not be able to receive his permanent certification as a physician assistant. The licensure examination for persons in Petitioner's category has not yet been given by the Board. Therefore, none of the applicants for certification as physician assistants through this special licensure program have yet been tested.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner is not eligible to take the physician assistant examination and that Petitioner's temporary certification is null and void. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of February, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 9th day of February, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-4, 7-9, and 13 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being irrelevant. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being subordinate. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 10-12 have been rejected as being not supported by any evidence. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 18 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Office of the Attorney General PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Alexander J. Alfano, Esquire 45 Southwest 9th Avenue Miami, Florida 33130 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Tom Wallace, Assistant Director Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
