The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., committed violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes (2001), alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner on February 25, 2004, in DOH Case Number 2002- 16502, as amended; and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his license to practice as a physician assistant in Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties. Petitioner, the Department of Health (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians and physician’s assistants licensed to practice medicine in Florida. § 20.43 and Chs. 456 and 458, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., is, and was at the times material to this matter, a physician's assistant licensed to practice in Florida, having been issued license number PA 9100713. Mr. Carmouze's address of record at all times relevant to this matter is 6545 Southwest 95th Avenue, Miami, Florida 33173. No evidence that Mr. Carmouze has previously been the subject of a license disciplinary proceeding was offered. Mr. Carmouze's Supervising Physician. At the times relevant Mr. Carmouze worked under the supervision of Dr. Manuel Fernandez-Gonzalez, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, who has practiced emergency medicine, holds Florida medical license number ME 17907. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez currently practices family medicine at 9600 Southwest 8th Street, Miami, Florida. Prior to April 2002, Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez and Mr. Carmouze worked together in Miami, providing emergency room care and seeing patients at a nursing home. The emergency room services were provided pursuant to employment contracts that both had entered into with a company providing emergency room services at the hospital in south Florida where Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez and Mr. Carmouze provided services. Mr. Carmouze's Assignment to Weems Memorial Hospital. The company for which Mr. Carmouze was employed also provided emergency room services for Weems Memorial Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Weems"). Weems is located in Apalachicola, Florida, located in the Florida Panhandle, approximately 520 miles from Miami. Weems is a rural hospital, licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. It does not have 24-hour, on-site ancillary services such as X-ray, laboratory, and respiratory therapy. These services are available to the emergency room on an on-call basis after business hours. At the times relevant, Malvinder Ajit, M.D., a Florida licensed physician, was the Director of the Emergency Department at Weems. Dr. Ajit has not provided any documentation to the Department indicating that he has ever acted as supervising physician of record for Mr. Carmouze. Mr. Carmouze was assigned by the company by which he was employed to work in the emergency room at Weems in April 2002 and again in June 2002. He worked in the emergency room at Weems as a physician's assistant for part of April 2002, and part of June 2002. While at Weems, Mr. Carmouze provided emergency room medical services to more than 100 patients. While working at Weems, Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, who remained in Miami, continued to act as Mr. Carmouze's supervising physician. Mr. Carmouze did not notify the Department that he was practicing as a physician's assistant at Weems in April or June 2002. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze was working for, and thus "employed," by anyone different from the employer that he worked for in Miami. The only evidence on this issue proved that Mr. Carmouze continued throughout the relevant period to work for Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez and the company that provided emergency room services at Weems. Dr. Carmouze's Treatment of Patient A.M. On June 7, 2002, Patient A.M., an 84-year-old female, was brought to the emergency room (hereinafter referred to as the "ER"), at Weems by ambulance. She arrived at approximately 23:24 hours (11:24 p.m.). A.M.'s medical history included congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation. She presented to Mr. Carmouze in apparent respiratory distress (respiratory rate of 36 to 40), had no measurable blood pressure, and a pulse rate of 100 to 108. While being transported to the ER from her home, A.M. was given oxygen by rebreather mask. During her transport, her oxygen saturation level improved from 68% to 91%. Mr. Carmouze assessed A.M.'s condition, obtained her medical history, ordered lab work and other tests, and ordered and initiated nebulizer treatments for her. She was alert, oriented and had a Glasgow score of 15/15, indicating she was responding to verbal and pain stimuli. Mr. Carmouze ordered nebulizer treatments with albuterol and atrovent to assist her breathing. Additionally, A.M. received 100% oxygen through a nonrebreather mask. Mr. Carmouze also determined that A.M. was "dry," meaning that her fluid volume was depleted and, therefore, she was dehydrated. As a result, her blood pressure was low. In an effort to treat this condition, Mr. Carmouze ordered an I.V. with 0.9 normal saline. He also ordered a Dopamine drip to increase A.M.'s heart rate in an effort to increase her blood pressure. Mr. Carmouze appropriately denied a request from a nurse to administer Lasix to A.M., because A.M. was "dry." Lasix is a diuretic used to decrease fluid volume. It opens the arteries and reduces fluids, thereby lowering blood pressure. Lasix was contraindicated for A.M. and contrary to the appropriate efforts initiated by Mr. Carmouze to treat A.M.'s low blood pressure. Despite Mr. Carmouze's treatment of A.M., her condition continued to deteriorate. At or near 23:50 hours (11:50 p.m.), approximately 25 minutes after A.M. had arrived at the ER, an ER nurse contacted A.M.'s primary physician by telephone and obtained an order to administer Lasix to A.M. The Lasix was administered immediately. A.M.'s oxygen saturation level was 81%, down 10 points since her arrival, when the Lasix was administered. Within half an hour, at 0:18 hours (18 minutes after midnight) on June 8, 2002, A.M.'s oxygen saturation level had dropped another 10 points, to 71%. A.M. then "crashed and coded." Mr. Carmouze initiated appropriate emergency measures when A.M. coded, including initiating Cardio Pulmonary Recitation and endotracheal intubation. A.M. was given epinephrine, atropine, and a CVP line was placed. These actions by Mr. Carmouze were appropriate. Mr. Carmouze did not attempt or order that A.M. be intubated prior to 0:18 hours when she coded. A.M.'s primary physician, Dr. Sanaullah, arrived at the ER. Shortly after she coded, Dr. Sanaullah continued the same efforts initiated by Mr. Carmouze. A.M., however, did not recover, expiring at 01:00. The "Standard of Care" for Treating A.M. Four expert witnesses testified in this matter, rendering opinions as to whether Mr. Carmouze's treatment of A.M. was consistent with "that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar [physician assistant] as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. . . " (hereinafter referred to as the "Standard of Care"). The expert witnesses who testified were Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez, Dr. Julio Lora, Dr. Harry W. Lee, and James L. Cary, P.A. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's testimony as to whether Mr. Carmouze treated A.M. within the Standard of Care is rejected for lack of credibility. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's testimony has been found to lack credibility for the reasons explained by Petitioner in paragraph 25 of Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order. That paragraph, except for the last two sentences, is hereby adopted. Additionally, Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez's testimony is rejected because, in the undersigned's judgment, he made too much of an effort to give the answers that he appeared to conclude that Mr. Carmouze wanted him to give. The testimony of Dr. Lora on the other hand is found to be credible. Dr. Lora, testifying as an expert in cardiology and internal medicine, offered convincing explanations as to why Mr. Carmouze did not violate the Standard of Care in his overall treatment of A.M. and, in particular, in not attempting to intubate A.M. earlier than he did. Dr. Lee's testimony, while corroborating Dr. Lora's testimony, was cumulative and of little weight. A.M. was reported to be awake, alert, and oriented. She was breathing, albeit with difficulty, on her own. Therefore, it was appropriate for Mr. Carmouze to attempt the other measures to assist her breathing he instituted. Mr. Cary's testimony, while credible, was not convincing, especially given Dr. Lora's expert opinions. Mr. Cary's testimony was taken during a discovery deposition by Respondent and, as a result, the benefit of his testimony to Petitioner's case was limited. The evidence failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze violated the standard of care: In his treatment of A.M.; By failing "to contact his supervising physician, the ED director, and/or Patient A.M.'s primary physician for assistance in treating Patient A.M."; By failing "to identify a treatment plan for Patient A.M."; and By failing "to consult his supervising physician prior to ordering Demerol, a controlled substance, for Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M." Mr. Carmouze's Treatment Plan and Medical Records for Patient A.M. Mr. Carmouze, as the Department has conceded in Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order, paragraph 13, page 20, did identify a treatment plan for Patient A.M. Having found that Mr. Carmouze did not err when he did not initiate intubation of A.M. earlier than he did, the evidence failed to prove that "he failed to maintain medical records that justified the course of treatment in that he failed to record a reason for not intubating sooner in an attempt to address Patient A.M.'s respiratory distress." There is no indication in Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M. that Mr. Carmouze attempted to contact Dr. Ajit or Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez. The medical records do indicate, however, that A.M.'s primary physician, Dr. Sanaullah, was "notified and arrived for code." While the evidence did not prove who notified Dr. Sanaullah, Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Carmouze was not responsible for Dr. Sanaullah's notification. Mr. Carmouze failed to identify himself by name or professional title in A.M.'s medical records. He also failed to include Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez's name and title in A.M.'s medical records. Mr. Carmouze did not ensure that either the signature of his supervising physician or Dr. Ajit was included on A.M.'s medical records. While the quality of Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M. was correctly characterized as "minimally acceptable" by Mr. Cary, the evidence failed to prove clearly and convincingly that those medical records were not adequate. This finding is based upon the lack of an unequivocal opinion from Mr. Cary concerning the adequacy of the medical records and a comparison of Mr. Cary's opinions with those of Dr. Lee in support of Mr. Carmouze's medical records for Patient A.M. Mr. Cary, on the one hand, made the following negative comments about Mr. Carmouze's medical records for A.M: "[T]he record isn't really clear on what did happen because he did not write down any times on intervention of what he did." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 14; "[W]hen you look at this face sheet here you don't get a picture of what happened and at what time, there's no real times there, no progression of the treatment." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 67. Mr. Cary stated that there was no time noted in Patient A.M.'s history/physical section, and that a portion of that section was illegible. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 21 and 25. On the other hand, Mr. Cary stated that "[the medical record for A.M.] is minimally acceptable, it just doesn't give a good clear picture of the sequence of events." Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1, page 68. Mr. Cary also stated the following when asked if he thought Mr. Carmouze maintained medical records that justified the course of his treatment regarding Patient A.M.: "There were medical records that were there, I think they could have been more complete and more detailed . . . ." These statements, taking into account the fact that Mr. Cary was able to read almost all of Mr. Carmouze's medical record pertaining to A.M. on direct examination by counsel for Mr. Carmouze, reduces the effectiveness of his other opinions. Finally, it is noted that all of Mr. Carmouze's experts, along with Mr. Cary, were able to read Mr. Carmouze's notes, other than a word or two. Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. Patient C.M. On April 23, 2002, Patient C.M., a 20-year-old male presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. C.M. complained of a server headache. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril. Patient J.S. On April 24, 2002, Patient J.S., a 37-year-old female presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. J.S. complained of a burn. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril. Patient B.M. On April 24, 2002, Patient B.M., a 46-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. B.M. complained of a headache of two-days' duration. In pertinent part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 25 milligrams of Demerol administered to B.M. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for B.M. a diagnosis of scabies/headache cluster, severe. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for B.M. Patient R.M. On April 24, 2002, Patient R.M., a 73-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.M. complained of abdominal pain and constipation of several days’ duration. In patient part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril administered to R.M. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for R.M. a diagnosis of abdominal pain, impaction. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for R.M. Patient M.F. On April 25, 2002, Patient M.F., a 34-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. M.F. complained of left-flank pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered 50 milligrams of Demerol and 50 milligrams of Vistaril administered to M.F. at the ER. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for M.F. a diagnosis of left-flank pain, left nephrolithiasis. Patient G.C. On June 7, 2002, Patient G.C., a 20-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. G.C. complained of right-flank pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered two separate doses of Demerol, 50 milligrams each, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams each. Patient G.B. On June 7, 2002, Patient G.B., an 83-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. G.B. complained of wrist, knee, and leg pain, secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered two separate doses of Demerol, 50 milligrams each, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams each. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for G.B. a diagnosis of chest contusion, leg edema, and right Colles' fracture. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for G.B. Patient K.S. On June 8, 2002, Patient K.S., an 18-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. K.S. complained of lower back pain secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for K.S. a diagnosis of intractable back pain, trauma to spine. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for K.S. Patient C.W. On June 8, 2002, Patient C.W., a 46-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. C.W. complained of headache and dizziness. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for C.W. a diagnosis of headache and anemia. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for C.W. Patient M.A.C. On June 9, 2002, Patient M.A.C., a 49-year-old female, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. M.A.C. complained of pain in the lower right abdomen and back. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for M.A.C. a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and abdominal pain. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for M.A.C. Patient R.S. On June 9, 2002, Patient R.S., a 34-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.S. complained of shoulder pain. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for R.S. a diagnosis of right shoulder tendon tear. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for R.S. Patient K.M. On June 11, 2002, Patient K.M., a 52-year-old male, presented to Mr. Carmouze at Weems' ER. R.S. complained of wrist pain secondary to a fall. In relevant part, Mr. Carmouze ordered Demerol, 50 milligrams, and Vistaril, 50 milligrams. Mr. Carmouze noted in the medical record for K.M. a diagnosis of a Colles' fracture. This is the only diagnosis made at Weems' ER for K.S. Facts Common to Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. Mr. Carmouze did not note in his medical records for Patients C.M., J.S., B.M., R.M., M.F., G.C., G.B., K.S., C.W., M.A.C., R.S., and K.M. (hereinafter referred to jointly as the "Pain Patients "), that he had consulted with Dr. Fernandez- Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit prior to ordering Demerol for the Pain Patients. Demerol is a controlled substance. Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez' testimony regarding alleged consultations he had with Mr. Carmouze concerning the Pain Patients and other patients seen by Mr. Carmouze while at Weems is rejected as lacking credibility for the reasons explained, supra. Mr. Carmouze also failed to note in the medical records for the Pain Patients his name and professional title. His name was stamped on the Emergency Room Record he completed for Patients M.A.C., G.M., and R.S. His name was also written into the space under "Time/Initials" on the Emergency Room Record for Patients M.A.C., C.W., R.M., and J.S. None of these records, however, included his title of "physician assistant." Mr. Carmouze failed to identify Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit by name and professional title in the medical records of the Pain Patients. Mr. Carmouze failed to ensure that the signature of Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit was included in the medical records of the Pain Patients. The Other "106 Patients". While at Weems ER, Mr. Carmouze provided medical services, in addition to A.M. and Pain Patients, to 106 other patients at issue in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "106 Patients"). Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4 is a composite exhibit of medical records for the 106 Patients. There are approximately two patients for whom more than one medical record has been included in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 4. The foregoing findings relate to the 108 medical records for the 106 Patients. Mr. Carmouze failed to note in most of the medical records for the 106 Patients his name and professional title. Of the approximately 108 records, Mr. Carmouze's name does not appear in any fashion on 48 of them. The rest either include his name (but not title) either stamped on the record or written into the box titled "Time/Initials." On two of the medical records both Mr. Carmouze's name and "P.A." have been written into the box titled "Time/Initials." Mr. Carmouze failed to identify Dr. Fernandez-Gonzalez or Dr. Ajit by name and professional title in the medical records of the 106 Patients. Mr. Carmouze did not ensure that either the signature of his supervising physician or Dr. Ajit was included on the medical records of the 106 Patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the a final order be entered by the Board of Medicine finding that, Arnaldo Carmouze, P.A., has violated Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and (v), Florida Statutes, as described in this Recommended Order; issuing a reprimand; placing Mr. Carmouze's license on probation for one year; requiring that he pay an administrative fine of $5,000.00; requiring that he perform five hours of CME in a subject(s) determined appropriate by the Board; and suspending his license for six months (with the suspension stayed provided he complies with probation). DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Irving Levine Matthew Casey Assistants General Counsel Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Julie Gallagher, Esquire Greenberg Taurig, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. M. Rony François, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Did Respondent, James Sotrop, M.D. (Dr. Sotrop), violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2007),1/ by committing medical malpractice by failing to adequately assess patient P.A.'s complaints and symptoms? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by committing medical malpractice by failing to order diagnostic imaging studies and laboratory tests for P.A.? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by committing medical malpractice by failing to document a complete patient history and physical examination? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by committing medical malpractice by failing to immediately refer P.A. to the emergency department of a hospital on January 14, 2007? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes by committing medical malpractice by failing to refer P.A. for specialized consultations? Did Dr. Sotrop violate section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes by committing medical malpractice by making an inappropriate diagnosis of P.A.'s condition? Did the Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), fail to properly notify Dr. Sotrop of its investigation and provide an opportunity to respond to the allegations before determining probable cause? If so, do sections 456.073(1) and 458.331(9), Florida Statutes, require dismissal of the complaint?2/
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of medical doctors pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Sotrop was a licensed medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 41092. Dr. Sotrop's address of record with the Department of Health is Post Office Box 1628, Lutz, Florida, 33548. He has used this address for mailing purposes for 10 to 15 years. The Department mailed a copy of the complaint against Dr. Sotrop and its investigation in this matter to Post Office Box 1628, Lutz, Florida, 33548. Dr. Sotrop says the he "believes" that he did not receive it. This testimony is not sufficiently persuasive to establish that he did not receive the notice. Dr. Sotrop completed medical school at the Medical School of Wisconsin and started working with his father’s family medical practice in Lutz, Florida. Florida licensed Dr. Sotrop to practice medicine in Florida in 1982. Although Dr. Sotrop intended to attend a residency program after practicing medicine with his father for a short time, he never left his father’s practice and thus never attended a residency program. Dr. Sotrop is not board eligible in family medicine because he never attended a residency program. Dr. Sotrop assumed his father’s practice and operated as a solo practitioner until he sold the practice to a large group. After working for the group practice for several years, Dr. Sotrop left the group in 2006 and started to rebuild his solo practice. While he was rebuilding his practice, Dr. Sotrop worked part-time for a colleague at the New Tampa Urgent Care walk-in clinic. He started working at the walk-in clinic in early January of 2007. Dr. Sotrop eventually rebuilt his medical practice and stopped working at the walk-in clinic. He currently maintains a solo medical practice. New Tampa Urgent Care utilized an electronic medical record keeping system known as Amazing Charts. This was Dr. Sotrop’s first exposure to an electronic medical record keeping system. Dr. Sotrop is a “hunt and peck” or “two-finger” typist. He had previously maintained only hand-written medical records. The Amazing Charts system requires physicians to enter some of the information regarding patient visits into the system by manually typing. Because of his lack of familiarity with the Amazing Charts system and his poor typing skills, Dr. Sotrop limited the information he included in patient records using the Amazing Charts. January 13th Patient Visit Patient P.A. first presented to the walk-in clinic on January 13, 2007, with a chief complaint of right-sided facial pain and weakness of the face. Dr. Sotrop saw her. P.A. reported a history of right-sided facial pain for two to three days, and right-sided facial droop that started that morning. Her right eyelid was swollen. P.A.’s vital signs were: temperature of 101 degrees; blood pressure of 114 over 70 (which was normal); pulse rate of 138; and respiratory rate of 18. Dr. Sotrop examined P.A., following his routine physical-examination process. The process, as Dr. Sotrop generally described during his testimony, consists of observing the patient’s gait as they walk to look for any abnormalities. He then examines both ears and both nostrils. He examines the patient’s mouth in the traditional method, checks the neck for movement, and palpates the neck and upper body for swollen lymph glands. He listens to the patient’s heart and lungs and, if appropriate for the presentation, asks the patient to lie down so he can perform an abdominal examination. While performing the physical examination, he talks to the patient and asks questions so he can verify whether the patient’s mental status is normal. Dr. Sotrop observed P.A.'s gait, examined her eyes (including a fluorescein and fundus examination of the eyes), and examined her face and mouth which included her ability to swallow and move her jaw normally. Dr. Sotrop documented his physical examination findings for P.A. during the January 13th visit as follows: Rt lower facial droop not involving forehead. HEENT neg. ex sl grn d/c nares and eryhema rtconj, fluoro neg. no rash (yet) neck supple Dr. Sotrop interpreted this entry in the patient’s record during his testimony as follows: The patient had a right-lower facial droop not involving her forehead. The head, eyes, ears, nose and throat examination were negative except for a slight green discharge from the right nares (or nasal passage) and there was redness of the right conjunctiva (the white part of the eye) . . . I did a fluorescein examination of the eye which involves putting a drop in the eye and using a special light and looked at the eye and it was normal, negative. There was no rash on the face, and I put in parentheses, “yet” because I expected one… And the neck was supple. Dr. Sotrop explained that he documented “no rash (yet)” because he believed the patient most likely had shingles and would soon develop a rash consistent with this diagnosis. Dr. Sotrop's records document that the patient’s neck was supple to document that her neck was not stiff or painful. Dr. Sotrop found the patient’s mental status normal. As he noted, she was well enough to drive herself to the office. Dr. Sotrop determined that the patient was suffering from either Bell’s palsy or Shingles. In the medical record under A/P (or assessment and plan), he documented “Bell’s Palsy (351.0), Herpes Zoster of Eyelid (053.20).” Dr. Sotrop selected these possible alternative diagnoses from a drop-down menu from the Amazing Charts program. “Herpes Zoster” is another name for shingles. He selected Herpes Zoster of the Eyelid because that was the only Herpes Zoster diagnosis he could find in the Amazing Charts drop down menu at the time. Dr. Sotrop discussed his impressions with the patient. He told her that he was not sure whether she had Bell’s palsy or shingles. Dr. Sotrop told the patient to call him back or go to the emergency room if her symptoms got worse. He documented this advice in the records using the drop-down menu of the Amazing Charts system: “re check 2-3 days sooner, if worse, discussed natural and expected course of this diagnosis, and need to alert me if symptoms do not follow expected course, or if any worse. Re-check or go to ER if symptoms get worse.” Dr. Sotrop prescribed Prednisone, a steroid for treatment of suspected Bell’s palsy, Vicodin for pain, and Acyclovir, an antiviral drug to treat the patient for suspected shingles. The Department did not question Dr. Sotrop’s prescription of these medications. Dr. Sotrop’s records do not indicate that, on January 13, he considered the possibility that the patient had meningitis. During the January 13 visit, P.A. did not present the typical complete constellation of symptoms for meningitis. A stiff or painful neck and confused mental status are two common signs of meningitis. Dr. Sotrop's records do not indicate that he advised P.A. on January 13 to go to an emergency room for additional testing, such as a CT scan or spinal tap, to rule out or confirm more serious conditions like a tumor, meningitis, or other infection. Dr. Sotrop's demeanor during his testimony and inconsistencies in testimony make his claim that he advised P.A. to go to an emergency room or obtain further testing not credible. The testimony is not logically consistent with the fact that Dr. Sotrop entered in the records the much less significant information that he advised the patient to return or visit an emergency room if her symptoms did not improve. And it is not consistent with his stated beliefs about the uses and importance of records for patient care, insurance, and legal concerns. January 14th Patient Visit P.A. called the walk-in clinic the following day, Sunday, January 14th, and told the nurse that she was still having headaches and that the pain medication was not helping. Dr. Sotrop told the nurse that he wanted the patient to return to the office for further evaluation. P.A. drove herself to the walk-in clinic for the return visit. During this visit, she complained of nausea and vomiting and headache. The patient’s vital signs had improved. Her temperature was now normal, 97.8, and her blood pressure was 124/84. P.A.'s pulse rate had come down to 126, and her respiratory rate was slightly higher, at 20. Dr. Sotrop repeated the physical examination he conducted on January 13th. P.A.'s neck was still supple. And her mental status was normal. The patient’s facial symptoms had significantly improved from the January 13th visit. Dr. Sotrop documented “facial symptoms much better” and “exam shows near full return of facial movement and full closure of eye.” Dr. Sotrop also documented that P.A. still had no rash. Dr. Sotrop tapered the prescription for Prednisone and asked P.A. to hold Acyclovir for 12 hours because headaches are a known side effect of these medications. He also gave her an injection of Phenergan during the visit for nausea. Dr. Sotrop’s records do not indicate that on January 14th he considered the possibility that the patient had meningitis. They indicated, as on the 13th he told the patient to return or got to an emergency room if her condition worsen. A stiff or painful neck and confused mental status are two common signs of meningitis. During the January 14th visit, P.A. did not present the typical complete constellation of symptoms for meningitis. Dr. Sotrop's records do not indicate that he advised P.A. on January 14th to go to an emergency room for additional testing such as a CT scan or spinal tap to rule out or confirm more serious conditions like a tumor, meningitis, or other infection. Dr. Sotrop's demeanor during his testimony and inconsistencies with his other testimony make his claim that he advised P.A. to go to an emergency room or obtain further testing is not credible. The testimony is not logically consistent with the fact that Dr. Sotrop entered in the records the much less significant information that he advised the patient to return or visit an emergency room if her symptoms did not improve. And it is not consistent with his stated beliefs about the uses and importance of records for patient care, insurance, and legal concerns. January 15th Hospital Admission On January 15th, P.A.'s daughter found her unresponsive. P.A. was taken to the University Community Hospital by ambulance and placed in the Intensive Care Unit. Dr. Sotrop was not consulted on this hospital admission. But he did visit the patient after he learned of her admission. P.A. was unresponsive when she was admitted to the hospital. Her condition did not improve. A lumbar puncture showed possible bacterial meningitis. P.A. died about 48 hours after her admission to University Community Hospital. The patient’s final diagnoses included acute bacterial meningitis and “possibly shingles.”
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of laws reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine deny the Motion to Dismiss and enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 July, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (2007-2011), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties DOH is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of licensed physicians pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. DOH is pursuing sanctions against Respondent based on her provision of medical care to patients A.M., C.B., and P.A. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent was licensed as a medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 59800. Respondent is board certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine with a specialty in Infectious Disease. Respondent received her medical degree from Christian Medical College in India in 1984. Her medical career, according to her curriculum vitae, includes the following places of employment: 1996 Bay Area Primary Care 1997 American Family and Geriatrics 1998 Faculty appointment at University of South Florida – voluntary 2/99-11/99 Veteran’s Administration (Medical Officer on Duty) 1993-present Private Practice Respondent’s June 30, 2014, deposition testimony was that she is currently working as a medical provider at Fort Tryon Rehab and Nursing Home in New York, and prior to that she was working at a walk-in clinic in Queens, New York. Respondent testified that she currently resides in Pinellas Park, Florida. In 2008, Respondent’s Florida practice, Bay Area Infectious Disease (BAID), was located at 5840 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida, and most recently at 1527 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Each practice location is now closed. Respondent later testified that she had a practice located at 6251 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida, which is also closed. Jamie Carrizosa, M.D. (Dr. Carrizosa) is a board- certified internal medicine and infectious disease physician who testified as an expert for DOH. Prior to his retirement in July 2011, Dr. Carrizosa had an active medical practice including hospital privileges. He is currently an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Central Florida, teaching first and second year students in the areas of microbiology and immunology. While in private practice, he treated patients with suspected skin infections, MRSA skin infections, candidiasis and other types of skin diseases. Issa Ephtimios, M.D. (Dr. Ephtimios) is a board- certified physician in internal medicine, infectious diseases and infection control who testified as an expert for Respondent. He is an attending physician at Sacred Heart Hospital, West Florida Hospital, Baptist Hospital, and Select Specialty Hospital in Pensacola, Florida. DOH Case No. 2009-13497 (DOAH Case No. 13-0595PL) On October 8, 2008, A.M. presented to Respondent with complaints of fatigue, headaches, and moodiness, according to a History and Physical Medi-Forms document. A BAID contract for services and an authorization for BAID to disclose protected health information (PHI) were executed on October 8. Within the records there was a diagram that contained pictures of a front and back body diagram and the handwritten words: “fatigue cold sweats fevers headaches.” Neither A.M.’s name nor the date appeared on the diagram, yet Respondent identified the diagram as belonging to A.M. and showing A.M.’s small lesions. On October 9, A.M. executed a Bay Area Infectious Disease and Infusion, PLC, “CONSENT FOR TREATMENT” form. Respondent’s progress notes are generally listed in the S.O.A.P. format.16/ The following appeared on one of A.M.’s October 9th Progress Notes: S: Complaint: MRSA,17/ headecha [sic], she like [sic] to talk W Dr. Pimple on but [sic] 3 rounds Zyvox, [illegible] c/o lethargic, gain wt, fatigue, headaches Pale, feets [sic] not Percocet –[illegible].” O: Exam: Ht 5.6” Wt 172 Age 16 M/F BMI T BP 118/64 P 65 R PO2 99_ Gluc A: General Appearance: WNL/18 HEENT: WNL Neck: WNL Chest: WNL Breast: WNL Heart: WNL Lungs: WNL Abdomen: WNL Genitalia: WNL Skin: WNL + multiple abcees [sic] Spine: WNL Extremities: WNL [All the “WNL” were typed capital letters.] DIAGNOSIS: Skin Abcess- Buttock, leg MRSA – Community Acquired P: PLAN: Vancomycin 1 gr daily [illegible] A second Progress Note for A.M., also dated October 9, contains the same information in the “S” and “O” portions, but at the “A” portion, it has no notations other than the pre-printed “WNL” at the “Skin” section, and it does not contain a “Diagnosis.” Respondent admitted that there were times when she would “complete records later on.” Respondent’s progress notes for A.M. from October 10 through October 16 were in a slightly different SOAP format. A.M.’s October 10 Progress Note reflects the following: S: Complaint: Vanco reaction O: Examination: BP P T R HT WT PO2 Glucose General Appearance; Awake alert,orientedx3 Head: Normocephalic atraurmatic EENT: PERLA, EOMI,Sclera-non-icteric, conjunctiva-pink Neck: Supple, no JVD. No Lymph nodes Heart: S1 S2 normal, murmurs Lungs: clear Abdomen: Soft, no masses, no tenderness, BS+, no hepatomegaly, no splenomegaly Left Lymph-inguinal: WNL Right Lymph-inguinal: WNL Extremities: No clubbing, cyanosis, edema Neurological: Motor-5/5, sensory-5/5, Deep tendon reflexes 2+ Cranial nerves Intact Skin: no rashes + circled Abscess Muskuloskeletal: WNL CLINICAL ASSESSMENT: MRSA, Skin Abcess CVIO PLAN: Zyvox A.M.’s progress notes between October 11 and 31, 2008, reflect various subjective complaints regarding her skin conditions. The physical examinations for each day do not contain consistent information regarding A.M.’s blood pressure, her height, weight, respirations, PO2, and glucose. On two days the “skin” section reflected “no rashes,” yet the clinical assessment reported “Skin Abces – improvely” [sic] or just “skin abcess.” On three progress notes (October 17, 18 and 20, 2008), there is a hand-written notation at the “Heart” section which indicates that A.M. might have a heart murmur, yet in the diagnosis section there is no mention of a heart issue or endocarditis.19/ All other progress notes regarding the “heart” contain the pre-printed “WNL.” A.M.’s IV/IM procedure notes beginning on October 10 and continuing through October 31, each reflect “heart murmur” in the diagnosis section along with “MRSA Skin abcess.” Respondent testified that she felt justified in using IV Vancomycin because A.M. was “doing the heart murmur.” However, Respondent’s initial plan included Vancomycin before any heart murmur was detected or assessed. Vancomycin is a prescription medication used to treat staphylococcal infections, and is usually utilized for more serious infections such as endocarditis. Zyvox is a prescription medication that comes in either an IV or oral form used to treat infections. Respondent claimed that there were missing medical records for A.M. However, with respect to patient A.M., Respondent claimed a progress note (part of the history and physical exam) from October 8 was the only medical record that was missing. Respondent then asserted that A.M. brought in her primary doctor’s referral which reflected A.M.’s treatment, including the medication prescribed; yet those medical records are not present. Respondent further testified that she “usually” puts prior treatment provider records in her patient’s file. Respondent maintained that she kept a lot of A.M.’s medical records on a computer that was bought in January 2001. However, that computer crashed in October 2011. A computer crash is plausible; however, the DOH subpoena was properly issued and served on Respondent on January 28, 2010, more than nine months before the alleged computer crash. Respondent then claimed that she “did not have access to that computer, which later crashed,” followed by her claim that “that practice was closed and when they came here, we only had the old, whatever, paper records.” Respondent’s position on these records was disingenuous at best. Respondent claimed that A.M. was seen and her medical records were at a different location (6251 Park Boulevard) than where the subpoena was served (5840 Park Boulevard).20/ Respondent then claimed the records that were moved from one facility to another facility could not be located. Respondent alluded to a potential police report regarding an alleged theft of medical records and other office items; however, nothing substantiated that, and Respondent’s testimony about possible criminal activity is not credible. Respondent admitted that some of A.M.’s medical records, specifically progress notes, were pre-printed, and that she wrote on some of the progress notes. In the progress notes dated October 10, 11, 13 through 18, 20 through 25, and 27 through 30, the handwriting appears to be the same, except for the change in each date. Further, Respondent confirmed A.M.’s 18 pages of progress notes of Vancomycin administration, yet distanced herself from them by saying “sometimes the charts were completed later on, so it’s possibility that it -- that it -- you know, it’s progress notes for the IV administration, but – um . . . the dates are written by nurses, so I don’t -- I don’t know.” Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to identify who may have written on A.M.’s progress notes and her avoidance in answering direct questions or claiming she did not recall the patient (and then discussing the patient) greatly diminished her credibility. Respondent claimed that there were “some verbal changes” she gave that were in a “set of nursing records,” which were not present. Any “changes” or directions given by Respondent should have been contained within her medical records for the care of A.M. Respondent maintained that her diagnosis of A.M. was based on Respondent’s total clinical picture of A.M., including A.M.’s “symptoms, her presentation, her lesions, her course -- she’d had repeated courses of oral antibiotics, and was getting recurrence.” Yet, Respondent also claimed A.M. “came in with these culture results from the primary, and that’s how the staff . . . it states MRSA, because it was already documented MRSA.” Standard of Care Respondent was required to practice medicine in her care of A.M. with “that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized in general law related to health care licensure.” Based on the credited opinions of Dr. Carrizosa, Respondent’s treatment and care of A.M. violated the standard of care for the following reasons. A reasonably prudent health care provider suspecting a patient has MRSA would observe the abrasion(s), culture the abrasion (MRSA), send the culture out for laboratory confirmation, prescribe oral antibiotics, and if the MRSA does not respond to the oral antibiotics, prescribe and administer IV antibiotics. Dr. Carrizosa noted that Respondent did not provide a description of A.M.’s abscesses, did not indicate that A.M.’s abscesses were drained, incised, cleaned or bandaged, or that Respondent provided any patient education to A.M. Although labs were ordered, there was no request for a bacterial culture or for an antimicrobial susceptibility test to be completed. Dr. Carrizosa expressed concern that young people can eliminate antibiotics within six to eight hours and there is a need for monitoring their medications to ensure they maintain a therapeutic level. Dr. Carrizosa opined that Respondent did not meet the standard of care in her treatment of A.M. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent violated the standard of care applicable to an infectious disease practitioner. Respondent presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Ephtimios. Dr. Ephtimios reviewed the same records as Dr. Carrizosa. Dr. Ephtimios admitted he had several lengthy conversations with Respondent during which time she provided additional information to Dr. Ephtimios that was not in A.M.’s written records regarding “the rationale for using the Vancomycin.” Respondent shared additional information with Dr. Ephtimios yet failed to recall or remember the patient during her own deposition testimony. Dr. Ephtimios’ opinion is not credible. Respondent’s deposition behavior lessens her credibility. Medical Records Medical records are maintained for a number of reasons. Primarily, medical records are necessary for the planning of patient care; for continuity of treatment; and to document the course of the patient’s medical evaluation, treatment, and progression through treatment. Further, medical records should document any communications between health care providers, and they serve as a basis for health care providers to be paid by either the patient or another party. See, rule 64B8-9.003. The medical records of A.M.’s contact with Respondent’s office between October 8, 2008, and October 31, 2008, do not meet Florida’s standards for medical records. A.M.’s records do not describe the abscesses, do not indicate if any of the abscesses were drained, incised, or cultured. Respondent failed to provide any assessment of a staph infection or provide any laboratory support for the use of the medication administered. Respondent did not document A.M.’s possible heart murmur, and failed to provide a diagnostic basis for endocarditis. Further portions of the medical record are illegible. There is no clear indication that Respondent provided A.M. with any education on her condition. Inappropriate Drug Therapy Respondent authorized the administration of Vancomycin and/or Zyvox to a 16-year-old female without adequately monitoring A.M.’s condition, or documenting the need for such use. Respondent’s failure to document the need for Vancomycin through appropriate or adequate testing was not in the best interest of A.M. DOH Case No. 2011-06111 (DOAH Case No. 14-0514PL) On February 28, 2011, patient C.B., a 42-year-old female, presented to Respondent with complaints of food allergy issues, and gastrointestinal problems, gas, bloating, and other stomach issues.21/ When she presented to Respondent in February 2011, C.B. did not have any concerns about candida or thrush.22/ Respondent prescribed a Medrol Pak (a steroid) and directed C.B. to have lab tests for the candida antibody and an immune system panel. One week later, C.B. again presented to Respondent. C.B. did not have any of the symptoms for a chronic yeast infection such as vaginal itching or thrush. Respondent advised C.B. that she had a chronic yeast infection and her immune system required treatment. However, Respondent did not prescribe any medication to C.B. at that time. On March 14, 2011, C.B. returned to Respondent’s office and received Immunoglobulin23/ via an intravenous (IV) line. On March 22, 24 and 25, 2011, C.B. received IV Ambisome.24/ Thereafter, C.B. developed a rash on her arm where the IV had been placed and a papule on her stomach. C.B. declined further IV treatments because she did not think the medication was working. On March 29, Respondent prescribed VFEND25/ to C.B. On March 30 and 31 and April 1, 2011, C.B. was a “no show” at Respondent’s office. Yet each of C.B.’s progress notes contained information regarding C.B.’s general appearance. Respondent testified that those progress notes are preprinted forms and would be adjusted upon a patient’s examination. On April 4, 2011, Respondent’s progress note for C.B. reflects “Discuss with patient in detail, patient complains of one papule, advised patient about candidiasis, GI tract not responding to azoles. Complains of diarrhea, abdominal symptoms, wants IV meds.” C.B.’s progress note dated April 5, 2011, reflects under the “S: COMPLAINT: No show - Refused to get PICC line out. Patient walked out yesterday. Patient was told to wait for dressing change. Patient states to receptionist she will come today.” Respondent elected to document on April 5, something that happened on April 4, despite the fact that the progress note for April 4 reflected a discussion with C.B. On April 11, 2011, C.B. presented a request for her medical records to Respondent’s staff. C.B. received copies of her medical records and provided them to DOH. Respondent testified as to C.B.’s 2011 presentation and Respondent’s course of treatment, including what medications were prescribed. Respondent confirmed that an undated “History and Physical” (H&P) for C.B. was C.B.’s “initial history and physical” created from a template. This H&P purports to reflect that C.B. was “discharged [from Respondent’s practice] for misbehavior . . . was in jail. . . [and] begging [for Respondent] to help her.” This H&P also contained Respondent’s physical examination of C.B., which was recorded on a “Progress Note” of the same date. Differences in the two records of the same date exist. C.B. testified that she has never been in jail and that she had not been discharged from Respondent’s practice. C.B. is found to be a credible witness. Respondent’s testimony is not credible. Respondent averred that she discussed C.B.’s vaginal itching with C.B. during the March 7, 2011, office visit, yet Respondent did not prescribe any medications for C.B. C.B.’s first IV immunoglobulin was administered on March 14, a week later. Respondent claims she discussed her care and treatment with C.B. on Wednesday, March 23, 2011. C.B. did not see Respondent on March 23, as C.B. went to Respondent’s office located on Park Boulevard in Pinellas Park and that location was closed. C.B. found out that Respondent was working at an address in Clearwater. C.B. did not have adequate time to get to that Clearwater location before it closed for the day. Thus, C.B. missed the appointment on that day. C.B.’s candid and succinct testimony is credible. Respondent testfied that certain medical records for C.B. were missing: anything that was documented electronic or anything -- any reports or any old records, old reports, it doesn’t contain anything. And she came in for the treatment of a disease that’s been existing since 2006, so a lot of workup that’s done in the prior years for -- which is the relevant basis of the treatment at this point is not there. Respondent was not clear which medical records were missing. C.B. had not been a patient of Respondent for approximately two years. Respondent’s reliance or purported reliance on C.B.’s “old records, old reports” without adequate confirmation of C.B.’s current health issues via appropriate work-ups, laboratory studies and tests falls below the reasonably prudent similar health care provider standard. Standard of Care Respondent was required to meet the same standard of care as outlined in paragraph 25 above. Dr. Carrizosa’s testimony was clear, concise, and credible. He did not appear to have any prejudice against Respondent as a person, but was concerned about how she was practicing medicine. Based on the credited opinions of Dr. Carrizosa, Respondent’s treatment and care of C.B. violated the standard of care for the following reasons. Respondent failed to practice in such a manner as to determine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that C.B. had systemic candida as was diagnosed by Respondent. Further, the laboratory results were not positive for an antimicrobial sensitivity culture taken from C.B. Additionally, C.B.’s complete blood count (CBC) and the differential count, which included neutrophils and lymphocytes, were normal. The administration of Ambisome, the most expensive of all the drugs available, was not warranted as C.B. did not have systemic candidiasis. Further, the immunoglobulin treatment was inappropriate as there was no evidence that C.B. had an immune dysfunction. Medical Records Dr. Ephtimios also provided an opinion on behalf of Respondent. Dr. Ephtimios had a discussion with Respondent regarding the care and treatment provided to C.B. outside the medical records provided. Dr. Ephtimios admitted that he does not use a Medrol Pak in his practice; he does not feel comfortable practicing immunology (and would have referred C.B. out to an immunologist.) Dr. Ephtimios would not have ordered the laboratory tests that Respondent ordered; his understanding of what candidiasis means may differ from Respondent’s, and he speculated on what he thought Respondent “meant” in several instances. Dr. Ephtimios provided a somewhat exhaustive approach to the various forms of candidiasis; however, he qualified each approach. Each physician practices medicine using their own skill set and different methods of providing clinical assessments and treatment. However, Dr. Ephtimios provided various qualifiers to his opinion which rendered it less credible. The basis for creating, maintaining and retaining medical records is expressed in paragraph 25 above. The medical record of C.B.’s contact with Respondent’s office during this time does not meet Florida’s standards for medical records. C.B.’s records do not reflect an appropriate evaluation, as they fail to analyze C.B.’s main complaints, they fail to analyze the previous evaluations of C.B., and her physical exams were incomplete. DOH Case No. 2011-17799 (DOAH Case No. 14-0515PL) According to Respondent, patient P.A., a 38-year-old female, was “an ongoing patient [of hers] for over ten years.” Respondent saw P.A. between February 2008 and December 2011. Respondent provided medical records to DOH regarding P.A. However, Respondent admitted she did not provide all P.A.’s medical records because “a lot of records were missing,” and Respondent knew “at one point when they were very old records in the 6251 office some of them were also shredded.” Respondent further claimed in response to additional questioning about her shredding statement, [B]ecause the statute says, you know, after three years, so I’m not sure if the -- because I know some of the records were shredded by one of the secretaries. * * * The one [statute] which says once a practice is closed retain records for three years. Respondent identified one of P.A.’s progress notes (dated January 26, 2011) as “our procedure note,” but when asked “What was going on here according to these notes,” Respondent answered: “It’s hard to say. It’s not my handwriting.” Respondent could read the handwriting, but had “no clue” who wrote the progress note. Further, Respondent was unable to state if P.A. was administered either the gentamicin 40 milligrams or the clindamycin 600 milligrams as listed on the progress note. Medical Records The basis for creating, maintaining and retaining medical records is expressed in paragraph 25 above. In this instance, the testimony of Respondent clearly and convincingly proves Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(m) and rule 64B8-9.003. No evidence was presented that Respondent has been previously disciplined.
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 that Respondent, Neelam Uppal, M.D., violated section 458.331(1)(m), (q) and (t), Florida Statutes; suspending her license for six months followed by two years probation with terms and conditions to be set by the Board of Medicine; imposing an administrative fine of $10,000.00; requiring the successful completion of a course or courses to make, keep and maintain medical records; requiring a course in professional responsibility and ethics, and such other educational courses as the Board of Medicine may require; and assessing costs as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 17th day of September,2014.
The Issue Whether Respondents violated Sections 458.331(1)(k), (m), (n), and (t), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency), is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Alan K. Roberts, M.D. (Roberts), is and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME 0030398 in 1977. He is a Board Certified family practice physician. Respondent, Peter R. Genovese, M.D. (Genovese) is and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed physician in the State of Florida having been issued license number ME 0013626. He is a Board Certified family practice physician. Roberts and Genovese are the co-owners of Sunshine Medical Center (SMC) which operates three separate offices located in the Miami area at Sunset Drive, Port of Miami, and Port Everglades. Jose R. Menendez, M.D. (Menendez) has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida since 1973. Menendez began working for SMC in 1992 and worked there for approximately six months. Menendez worked at the Sunset Drive and Port of Miami locations. Aside from his salary, Menendez received no other remuneration and had no financial interest in SMC. PATIENT C.W. In 1985, SMC had a contract with the Public Employees Service Company (PESCO) whereunder SMC would perform routine screening physicals on Dade County teachers and administrators. The physicals were called VISTA examinations. Patient C.W., a clerk with the Dade County School System, went to SMC for a VISTA examination on October 16, 1985. She filled out a patient information form indicating her home address, home telephone number, name of employer, and her work telephone number. C.W.'s examination consisted of blood tests, urinalyses, chest x-rays, EKG, hearing function tests and a spirometry. All of the tests were administered by a female employee of SMC. After completion of the tests, C.W. met with a man whom she believed was a doctor, who in her presence, looked at the x-rays. C.W. did not see the x-rays herself. She was advised that "everything looked fine." She was not told that she had a problem with her lungs or that the x-rays showed that she had any suspicious tumors or masses on her lungs. In reality, the x-rays indicated abnormalities in her chest. C.W.'s spirometry test results were abnormal and her white blood cell count was low, but she was not informed of these abnormalities. C.W.'s charts show that she was seen at SMC on October 16, 1985, but do not indicate what doctor was responsible for supervising and administering the tests and what doctor met with C.W. after the tests were completed. There are no physical findings recorded in the clinical data portion of C.W.'s chart and no notes are in the chart as to the results of the tests performed. Neither Dr. Genovese nor Dr. Roberts examined C.W. on October 16, 1985. SMC used a pre-printed form letter to notify its patients of the results of the VISTA examination. The form letter contained the stamped signatures of the Respondents. On October 21, 1985, an undated form letter was sent to C.W. advising her that the results of the VISTA examination were normal and satisfactory and that no medical follow-up was necessary. A handwritten notation on the form letter stated, "Please increase the iron intake. Your blood work show (sic) decrease iron. Also, stop smoking." C.W. received the letter. The form letter contained stamped signatures of the Respondents. On November 4, 1985, the Respondents were conducting a routine review of patients' charts and x-rays, including those of C.W. The Respondents noted the abnormality on C.W.'s x-ray. C.W.'s charts did not mention the abnormality. On November 4, 1985, Respondents sent a second preprinted and presigned form letter to C.W. which advised C.W. that the results of the VISTA examination required a follow up visit. The form letter contained the following handwritten note: Review of our records reveals that your lab reports were omitted from our report of 10-21-85. A copy is enclosed for your family doctor. Also, your chest x-ray is abnormal and you should see your family doctor immediately for a second x-ray and follow-up care. The second letter was sent by first class U.S. mail. C.W. did not receive the second letter informing her of the abnormal x-ray. On November 12, 1985, the laboratory supervisor for SMC placed a telephone call to C.W. at her home but did not get an answer. On November 14, 1985, Genovese placed a telephone call to C.W.'s home but did not receive an answer. On November 19, 1985, Roberts called C.W. at home and received no answer. On November 19, 1985, Roberts called PESCO and advised a PESCO staff member that C.W. had an abnormal chest x-ray. No further attempt was made by Respondents to contact C.W. The purpose of the telephone calls to C.W. was to make certain that she got follow-up treatment for the mass in her lung. After the examination at SMC, C.W. began having a fever and generally felt ill. In February, 1986, C.W. consulted with a doctor and was advised that she had a tumor in her lung. The lower lobe of her right lung was surgically removed; however, the cancer spread to other parts of her body. C.W. died as a result of lung cancer. When the October 21 and November 4, 1985 letters were sent under the Respondents' preprinted signatures, the Respondents became involved in the care of Patient C.W. Patient C.W. was advised by a form letter from Respondents that her examination was satisfactory, when a review of C.W.'s x-ray showed a gross abnormality. To so advise the patient gave the patient a false reassurance that she was physically well except for her anemia. The document did not accurately reflect the test results of the patient. Respondents again involved themselves in the care of Patient C.W. when they reviewed her x-rays and discovered the abnormality in her lung and sent a second letter to notify her that the x-ray was abnormal and that she should see her family doctor. Although the letter was sent first class U.S. mail and was not returned to Respondents, Respondents should have either sent the letter by certified mail or made personal contact with C.W. Failure to do so constituted a level of care and treatment which fell below that level which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. INSURANCE BILLINGS In order to start the billing process for services provided at SMC, each doctor generates a "super bill" which reflects the services provided such as office visit, x-rays, laboratory work and electrocardiograms. The charges are placed on the super bill by clerical staff and returned to the doctor at the end of the day to be checked for accuracy. The super bill is then transmitted to the billing department at SMC where it is encoded by a clerk and an insurance claim form is generated. As part of the encoding process, either a doctor's name or SMC's name is placed on the form. As part of SMC's quality assurance program, the insurance claims are reviewed in batches to check that the diagnoses, procedures and charges are appropriate. It is common for the insurance claims to be backed up for 7 to 10 days in the billing department. The money collected for the insurance billings goes directly to SMC. SMC submitted insurance claims for treatment of the following five patients during March 1993 through May 1993: J.V., R.L., L.W., P.Z., and D.W. SMC submitted a claim form dated March 31, 1993 to Metropolitan for services rendered to patient J.V. on March 25 and 29, 1993. The claim form stated that the physician was J.R. Menendez. Part of the services rendered to on March 25, 1993 was an injection of terramycin. Menendez did not work on March 25, 1993. He has never administered any Terramycin intramuscularly or intravenously to a patient in his professional career. Menendez did not provide any services to patient J.V. on March 25, 1993. The services listed on the claim form were provided to patient J.V. on March 25, 1993, by staff at SMC; however it was by someone other than Menendez. Menendez did provide follow-up services for J.V. on March 29, 1993. SMC submitted an insurance claim form dated March 31, 1993, for services provided to patient R.L. on March 30, 1993. The claim form stated that the physician was J.R. Menendez. Menendez did not work on March 30, 1993 and did not provide any services to patient R.L. on that date. However, the services listed on the insurance claim form were provided to patient R.L. by someone at SMC on March 30, 1993. SMC submitted an insurance claim form dated March 31, 1993, for services provided to patient D.W. on March 31, 1993. The claim form stated the physician was J.R. Menendez. Menendez did not work on March 31, 1993, and did not provide any services to patient D.W. on that date. Someone at SMC, other than Menendez, provided the services to patient D.W. on March 31, 1993. SMC submitted an insurance claim form dated March 31, 1993, for services provided to patient P.Z. on March 31, 1993. The claim form stated the physician was J.R. Menendez. Menendez did not work on March 31, 1993, and did not provide any services to patient P.Z. on that date. P.Z. was provided the services on March 31, 1993, by someone at SMC other than Menendez. SMC submitted an insurance claim form dated March 31, 1993, for services provided to patient L.W. on March 30, 1993. Part of the services rendered to L.W. was an injection of terramycin. Menendez did not work on March 30, 1993, and did not provide any services to patient L.W. on that date. Someone else at SMC provided the services to patient L.W. on March 30, 1993. SMC submitted an insurance claim to Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund for services provided to patient P.W. on February 3, 1993. The claim form stated that the physician was Jose M. Menendez and contained the purported signature of J. Menendez, MD. Menendez did not provide services to P.W. on February 3, 1993, and did not sign the insurance claim form. P.W. was a regular patient of Roberts. Roberts examined and treated on February 3, 1993. As of August 12, 1993, SMC had not received payment from Central States for services provided to P.W. on February 3, 1993. SMC submitted a second claim for the February 3 services, but this time the physician was listed as Dr. Modesto Ordoqui. Some time in April, 1993, one of the Respondents gave Menendez a folder containing some insurance claim forms to review to make sure the services correlated with the diagnoses. After reviewing the files, Menendez concluded that he had not provided services to patients J.V., R.L., L.W., P.Z. and D.W. listed on the insurance claim forms given to him by Roberts. On April 15, 1993, at a dinner meeting with Respondents, Menendez told them that he had not provided the services to the patients on the insurance claims that Roberts had given him to review. The Respondents told him that they did not know what he was talking about. Menendez resigned that evening.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaints in Case Nos. 94-3430 and 94-3757; finding Respondent Dr. Kenneth Alan Roberts guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes in Counts One and Two of Case No. 94-3759, finding Respondent Dr. Peter R. Genovese guilty of violating Counts One and Two in Case No. 94-2142; and imposing the following penalty as to each Respondent: (1) one year probation with terms and conditions to be set by the Board, (2) an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000, and (3) a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2142 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: The second sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted. Paragraphs 3-4: Accepted. Paragraphs 5-8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 10: Accepted. Paragraph 11: The first, second, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 12: The first and fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 13: Rejected as unnecessary based on the finding that Menendez did not work on March 25, 30, and 31, 1993. Paragraph 14: Accepted that Menendez did not work on March 25, 30, and 31, 1993. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 15: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 16: The first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The third and fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The remainder is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 17: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The second sentence is accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the record. The remainder is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 18: The first sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The second and third sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The remainder is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 19: The first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The third sentence is accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The remainder is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 20: The first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The third sentence is accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The remainder is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 21-22: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 23: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 24: The first sentence is accepted. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 25: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 26: Sentences 1-8, 10, and 11 are accepted in substance. Sentences 9 and 12 are rejected as unnecessary. The last sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 27: The second and third sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 28: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 29: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 30: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The billing practices may not have been proper in that the correct treating physician's name was not listed on some of the insurance claims but the evidence does not support a finding that the incorrect billing was anything other than a clerical mistake. The last sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 31: The first two sentences are rejected as unnecessary. The third and fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 32: Accepted in substance that the second billing was a rebilling. The documentary evidence established that the second billing was in Dr. Ordoqui's name. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 33: The last sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraphs 34: The first through the fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The last two sentences are rejected as not supported by the evidence. The remainder is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraphs 35-38: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 39: The second sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts found. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 40: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 41: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 42: Accepted in substance that Respondents met on November 4, 1985 and discovered the abnormality in the x-ray. Paragraph 43: The last phrase of the last sentence is rejected as unnecessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 44: Accepted. Paragraph 45: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 46: The evidence did not establish that Rene Bravo saw Patient C.W. The remainder is irrelevant based on the findings of fact. Paragraphs 47-49: Accepted in substance. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted. Paragraphs 4-6: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 7: The last sentence is accepted. The first sentence is rejected to the extent that the evidence does not establish that either Respondent gave either claim form for P.W. to Menendez. Given that one of the claim forms was not generated until after Menendez resigned, at least one of the forms could not have been given to Menendez. It is accepted that Menendez did not recognize the signature on one of the claims as his. Paragraph 8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: The last sentence is rejected as not necessary. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 10-11: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 12: The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 13: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 14: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 15: Accepted that the second billing was a rebilling for services for which no payment had been received. Based on the bill under Dr. Ordoqui's name, it appears that the first bill was under Menenedez's name and the second bill was under Dr. Ordoqui's name. Paragraphs 16-23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance that neither Respondent examined C.W. on October 16, 1985. Paragraph 25: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 26: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is accepted in substance to the extent that the use of a form per se does not constitute notification below the prevailing standard of care. Paragraph 27: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 28: Rejected as irrelevant since the Respondents adopted that method to inform the patients and by sending it out under their signature became responsible for the care of the patient. Paragraph 29: Accepted in substance that it was customary for the Respondents. Paragraphs 30-31: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 32: Rejected as subordinate to the facts found. Paragraph 33: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 34: The first sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. The second sentence is accepted in substance except as to treated. Paragraphs 35-36: Rejected as not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph A. Garwood, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth J. Metzger, Esquire Agency For Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street allahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold M. Braxton, P.A. Suite 400, One Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7815 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0770 Jerome W. Hoffman, Esquire General Counsel Agency For Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Petitioner on the basis of alleged violations of the Medical Practice Act, Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. In an eight-count Amended Administrative Complaint, the Respondent has been charged with four violations of Section 458.331(l)(m), Florida Statutes, and four violations of Section 458.331(l)(t), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and has been at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physician in the State of Florida. His license number is ME0022079. Facts regarding Patient #1 The Respondent provided medical treatment to Patient #1 from April 20, 1987, through April 12, 1988. During the period of that treatment Patient #1 was approximately 92 years old and was diagnosed as having organic brain syndrome. Respondent obtained a brief past medical history of the patient and failed to document the patient's current complaints or review any prior medical records of the patient. On May 26, 1987, Respondent diagnosed the patient with pedal edema and ordered Hygroton 25 mg., but failed to document in the medical records the number of times per day the patient was to take the medication or the dosage for the medication. On June 6, 1987, the patient presented with shortness of breath and a blood pressure of 110/80. Respondent did not perform any tests or examinations to determine the cause of the symptoms. On July 14, 1987, and September 22, 1987, the patient again presented with shortness of breath and pedal edema and Respondent only recorded the lungs as clear and took her blood pressure. Respondent did not perform any other tests or examinations to determine the cause of the symptoms. On October 26, 1987, when the patient presented with shortness of breath, Respondent noted an arrhythmia and blood pressure of 136/82. However, Respondent did not perform any tests or examinations to determine the course of the symptoms. When the patient presented with arrhythmia, the applicable standard of care 5/ required Respondent to perform an EKG, to check her digoxin levels, and monitor her electrolytes and renal functions. Respondent's medical records for the patient did not meet the applicable record-keeping standards 6/ because the records were incomplete, inadequate, and illegible. Specifically, the records did not have diagnoses, did not have a plan of treatment, and did not include thorough examinations or histories, making it impossible to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient. Facts regarding Patient #2 Respondent provided treatment to Patient #2 from July 11, 1978, until September 13, 1988. Patient #2, a male, was seventy-one years old when such treatment began. The patient had a history of gastric ulcers. Nevertheless, Respondent prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications which exacerbate or increase difficulties with gastric ulcers and bleeding without obtaining a complete history or conducting a full examination. Respondent's medical records did not document whether Respondent assessed the risk to the patient, discussed the risk with the patient, or made any determinations that the risks outweighed the benefits for the patient. In 1978, the patient presented with a chronic cough and chronic bronchitis. However, Respondent did not perform any chest x-rays to determine the origin of the cough or to rule out lung carcinoma. Over the years, the cough persisted and in 1982-1983, the patient experienced shortness of breath and increased ankle edema. Respondent prescribed diuretics without determining the etiology of the edema and without conducting renal status or electrolyte monitoring. In 1985, the patient was hospitalized with severe ankle swelling. Respondent did not aggressively treat the possibility of deep vein thrombosis or cellulitis, nor did he treat the patient with anticoagulants to lessen the risk of a blood clot going to the lung. The applicable standard of care required anticoagulant treatment under these circumstances. In 1987, the patient suffered a severe weight loss with the chronic cough. The Respondent's records do not reveal any attempt to make a diagnosis. On December 15, 1987, the patient complained of abdominal problems, which could have related to the steroidal anti-inflammatory medications prescribed. The Respondent's records fail to document any laboratory tests or examinations by Respondent to determine the cause of the complaints. Respondent breached the applicable standard of care by failing to perform an EKG on the patient when he presented with dizziness, light-headedness or syncopal episodes from September 1987, until July 12, 1988. When the patient presented on August 30, 1988, and September 13, 1988, with very serious complaints of precordial chest pain, shortness of breath, and palpitations, a reasonably prudent physician would have suspected that the patient was having a heart attack. Despite the symptoms, Respondent made a psychiatric diagnosis, rather than fully evaluating the heart and cardiac status. Respondent's medical records for the patient did not comply with the applicable record-keeping standards in that they did not contain thorough examinations or histories, and did not have diagnoses or plans of treatment for the patient. Facts regarding Patient #3 Respondent provided care to Patient #3 from November 17, 1987, until May 16, 1989. Patient #3, a female, was eighty-five years old when such treatment began. Respondent should have been aware from the patient's initial presentation, that the patient did not qualify to reside in an adult congregate living facility and should have taken steps to have her admitted to a skilled nursing facility. Respondent's failure to do so is a breach of the applicable standard of care. Respondent's initial examination of the patient was limited and Respondent failed to conduct an EKG to reveal the origin of the patient's pedal edema or irregular heartbeat. Respondent also failed to diagnose, treat, or refer the patient for a consult to evaluate her vision and hearing loss. Even though the diagnosis was not made in the Respondent's records, it is apparent from the medications prescribed by Respondent that the patient was being treated for congestive heart failure. She also had pedal edema, shortness of breath, and cardiac arrhythmia. Respondent failed to perform or conduct the appropriate tests and examinations to make a diagnosis of the patient's condition or to provide effective treatment. The patient had frequent episodes of high blood pressure for which Respondent prescribed diuretics. Respondent's prescribing of Tenormin violated the applicable standard of care and subjected the patient to serious cardiac risks. Respondent's medical records for the patient were illegible for the most part and in many instances omitted information about the diagnosis and course of treatment. For these reasons the records failed to comply with applicable record-keeping standards. Facts regarding Patient #4 Respondent provided treatment to Patient #4 from April 1985 until January 5, 1988. Patient #4, a male, was seventy-four years old when such treatment began. When the patient originally presented to Respondent, he was on cardiac medications, had complaints of possible arrhythmias, and had a history of organic brain syndrome and tardive dyskinesia. Respondent was required by the applicable standard of care to evaluate the patient's cardiac condition, renal status, and potassium level. Respondent breached the standard of care by failing to conduct these evaluations and examinations. On October 1, 1985, the patient presented with back pain. Rather than conducting a physical exam to determine the source of the pain, Respondent violated the standard of care and treated the pain symptomatically. The patient was prescribed an anti-psychotic drug, Mellaril, and throughout Respondent's care exhibited side effects, including falls with resulting abrasions. Respondent failed to discontinue the drug or take appropriate measures to determine the extent of the patient's condition and implement a course of treatment. On July 23, 1987, Respondent prescribed an amount of Dalmane considered excessive for geriatric patients. These inappropriate prescriptions constitute a departure from the applicable standard of care. Respondent's medical records for the patient were replete with omissions of physical exams, diagnoses, and plans of care, and were inadequate as to patient history and justification for course of treatment. For these reasons the records failed to comply with applicable record-keeping standards. Facts regarding prior discipline Respondent has been the subject of prior disciplinary action by the Board of Medicine. The prior disciplinary action was based on deficiencies in Respondent's record-keeping. The prior disciplinary action does not appear to have improved Respondent's record-keeping in any significant way.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine issue a final order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of four counts of violations of Section 458.331(l)(m), Florida Statutes, and four counts of violations of Section 458.331(l)(t), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Imposing administrative penalties consisting of all of the following: (a) an administrative fine in the total amount of $4,000.00 (representing a $500.00 fine for each of the eight counts); (b) a one-year period of suspension of the Respondent's license; and (c) a one-year period of probation following the suspension, during which probation period the Respondent shall be required to have his records reviewed by a supervising physician approved by the Board, such supervising physician to provide quarterly reports to the Board regarding the sufficiency of the Respondent's record-keeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 2nd day of February 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed medical doctor holding a license to practice medicine in the State of Florida issued by the Board of Medical Examiners, Department of Professional Regulation. The Petitioner is a governmental agency charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and related rules which regulate the licensure standards and status pertaining to medical doctors in the State of Florida, and enforcing the practice standards for licensed medical doctors embodied in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Steven Jones has been employed as a detective in the Narcotics Department of the City of Miami Beach Police Department for approximately three and one-half years. He is a ten-year veteran of the law enforcement profession. In December 1982, an investigation was initiated to determine whether allegations of misprescribing scheduled controlled substances made by a confidential informant against Dr. Ramos, the Respondent, were true. On December 16, 1982, Detective Jones entered the medical offices of the Respondent and asked to see Dr. Ramos. The Respondent's receptionist asked him to fill out a patient information sheet. On this sheet or form he indicated his name was "Steven James." He was then taken to the Respondent's office and met the Respondent. He told the Respondent that he was a construction worker, had recently experienced turmoil in his domestic life, and also suffered from a lumbo-sacral sprain. The Respondent then asked him if he had back pain and, after asking him general questions about his health and whether he suffered from any major illnesses, took out his prescription pad and wrote prescriptions for three medications. Other than the general questions the doctor asked him about his health, no detailed medical history was taken from Mr. Jones and there was no physical examination performed by Dr. Ramos or anyone else, except that his weight and height were recorded. No blood pressure reading was taken. After Dr. Ramos asked Mr. Jones if he had a backache, to which Mr. Jones responded in the affirmative, Dr. Ramos stated that he would prescribe something for the backache and something for stress that caused the backache, and something to sleep at night. Although no blood pressure was taken, Dr. Ramos did ask the patient how his blood pressure was, and the patient answered that it was "fine." The doctor then prescribed 60 tablets of valium, 60 placidyl tablets and 40 darvocet tablets. The only medical history provided in writing to the doctor concerned the name, address and employment, medical insurance information and answers to questions on the form concerning allergies. Additionally, the patient noted that he had been taking "valium" or "valium." Upon receiving the prescriptions, Steven Jones paid Dr. Ramos $40 and left his office. Detective Jones again visited Dr. Ramos' office on February 2, 1983. Upon arriving at the office he was escorted into an examining room by the Respondent's assistant, who was also his wife. While Mr. Jones was seated in the examining room, an assistant placed a blood pressure tourniquet or cuff on the patient's arm, leaving it there four to five minutes, when she ultimately returned to the room and informed Steven Jones that the doctor was ready to see him. The blood pressure tourniquet or arm band was never actually inflated by the Respondent or assistant, and no blood pressure reading was ever taken on this visit. Upon going into the Respondent's office, Mr. Jones was asked by Dr. Ramos about how he was feeling and the "patient" requested stronger pain medication. The doctor refused to do this, saying in effect that the patient, Mr. Jones, would have to be admitted to a hospital before the Respondent could prescribe stronger pain medication. Again, on this office visit no social or medical history was taken, and no physical examination was conducted at all. The Respondent asked the patient if he wanted the same prescriptions he had obtained at his December visit, and the patient answered in the affirmative. There was no discussion between the patient and the Respondent or anyone else concerning the patient's condition or progress between the December visit and this February visit. There was no discussion concerning the need for future treatment. The Respondent simply, at that point, wrote the same prescriptions given at the December visit. The next visit by Detective Steven Jones, a/k/a Steven James, occurred on May 25, 1983, at the Respondent's medical offices. The same medical assistant recognized Jones immediately when he came into the office and asked him if he was there for the same reason, to which he replied in the affirmative. He was then escorted straight to Dr. Ramos' office, who asked him if he wanted the same medication again, to which he assented. There was no discussion at all about his condition and how it may have progressed since the February visit, nor was there any discussions about future prospects for treatment, what treatment if any, was being considered or what it was designed to accomplish. The Respondent simply wrote three prescriptions once again, for valium, placidyl and darvocet, Schedule IV controlled substances. Except for the first visit, there was never any discussion of back pain nor any discussion concerning symptoms of insomnia and nervousness in this patient. Onelia Padron testified for Respondent. She has known the Respondent for many years and has worked for him as a technician for approximately a year. She was working in his office in December 1982, as an x-ray technician and in the performance of blood tests, blood pressure readings and physical therapy. She remembered Detective Jones coming to the office in December 1982, and testified that she did not take a blood pressure reading at the December visit, but did so at the February visit. Her specific memory of taking the blood pressure reading in February was not clear, however. She remembers specifically that his blood pressure was normal at the February visit and testified that she was sure that Dr. Ramos wrote down the blood pressure of the patient in his medical chart for the February visit. The patient medical record of Detective Jones a/k/a James, however, does not reveal that a blood pressure reading was taken at the February visit. Although the witness claims to have taken a blood pressure reading on the patient on his February 1983 visit, the testimony of Detective Jones reveals that no blood pressure reading was taken; although the blood pressure cuff or tourniquet was applied to his arm, it was simply not used. This may account in part for Ms. Padron's mistaken memory of actually taking the blood pressure reading. Her memory may be less than accurate due to passage of time. The testimony of Detective Jones to the effect that no blood pressure reading was taken, when considered with the Respondent's own medical records which do not reveal a blood pressure reading being taken, renders the finding inescapable that no blood pressure reading was taken at the February, 1983 visit and that Ms. Padron, after the passage of over a year, has a less- than-specific, inaccurate memory about the occasion and thus her testimony with regard to this visit is not credible. Rita Ramos, the Respondent's wife, acts as the office receptionist who makes and maintains the medical records for the Respondent. She performs no medical duties, however, she is well acquainted with her husband's handwriting and, of course, her own handwriting, and established that the word "valium" on Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and the word "valium" on Petitioner's Exhibit 6 were not written by her or her husband. She maintains that she specifically remembers the patient (Detective Jones) coming to visit Dr. Ramos on December 16, 1982, and she specifically remembers the doctor conducting a full physical examination and writing at least four lines of notes in the patient's record. She did not take a blood pressure on this patient in either December or February, however, and could not give an adequate explanation of how she could perform all her administrative record-keeping and maintenance duties and still have time to continually watch through the open door of her husband's office to see the physicals performed on approximately 20 patients a day, including Jones, and especially then to be able to remember the details of that one specific patient's visit in December 1982, over a year prior to the hearing. Although this witness supposedly remembered the doctor "always" conducting physical examinations on the first visit by a patient, and specifically conducting a head, eyes and ears examination on the first visit of Detective Jones, given the inherent interest of the patient in this case, the fact that her memory must be suspect regarding a specific patient's visit on a specific date more than a year prior to the hearing, and her own testimony that no irregularity or memorable occurrence happened during the visit of that patient to stimulate her recall, her memory of that event must be deemed less than accurate and therefore her testimony concerning the physical examination cannot be found credible by this Hearing Officer. Dr. Ramos testified on his own behalf. He stated that his standard practice is to interview and examine each patient and that he was especially suspicious of the subject patient who came in wearing earrings and boots. He interpreted his abbreviated notes on the patient's chart to reveal that the patient was 5'8" tall and weighed 145 pounds, had a blood pressure of 120 over 80 and a pulse of 80, and a normal sinus rhythm with no heart murmur and no abnormal respiratory signs. The doctor additionally interpreted his handwritten notes containing his own abbreviations, to reveal that the patient's eyes were normal, neck supple, with normal ears, nose, throat and a fair complexion. Although the patient asked for a stronger medication on at least one of the visits, including quaaludes, the doctor refused, informing the patient that he could not legally prescribe such for him in Florida. The doctor also testified that he remembered that on the second visit in February 1983, Ms. Padron took the blood pressure of the patient. He contends that he did not record the blood pressure reading because it was the same as the first time, that is, the December 1982 visit. No blood pressure was taken or recorded at the December 1982 visit, however, and none is revealed in the doctor's record for that visit. Although the doctor testified that on the February visit he believed that the patient might be trying to trick him and might be an undercover law enforcement officer, he still prescribed the same controlled substance prescribed earlier, with no additional physical examination made nor physical findings recorded in the patient records. He repeated the same instructions as to use of those drugs and the reasons for taking those drugs, but did not record any physical findings related to that visit. By his own admission, he did not ask the patient what had occurred in his medical history between December and February and did not ask questions concerning the success of his previously prescribed course of treatment. If indeed, the Respondent believed that the patient could be an undercover law enforcement officer and thus attempting to trick the doctor into misprescribing drugs for him, one might think that the doctor would take pains to make a thorough physical examination and to thoroughly record his findings and conclusions in the medical records he maintained, instead of failing to document his physical findings and conclusions and continuing to prescribe those drugs over a period of months. Thus, the testimony of Dr. Ramos is not supportive of a finding that a thorough physical examination, including the taking of blood pressure readings at each patient visit and, (in view of the low back pain complaint) straight leg raise tests, tests for impairment of sensation in extremities and other parameter checks, was actually conducted on the patient. Dr. John Handwerker, M.D., testified as an expert witness for the Petitioner. He has served as first chairman of the Department of Family Practice at the University of Florida Family and Community Medicine programs. He is Chairman of the Family Practice Department of Mercy Hospital in Miami, and is assistant professor of pharmacology at the University of Miami. He is knowledgeable regarding generally prevailing and accepted standards of family practice in Dade County and was accepted, without challenge, as an expert in the field of family practice. The drug Darvocet and Darvocet N-100 is a Schedule IV controlled substance, according to the schedule established in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Darvocet is characterized by some habituating influence, together with some problems with withdrawal. Its use is contraindicated with tranquilizers, such as valium, which was also prescribed in conjunction with it by Respondent for the patient involved herein. Valium, which is known generically as diazepam, is also a Schedule IV controlled substance and is a sedative or anti-anxiety drug with a wide variety of potentially adverse drug interactions, including darvocet. It can be mildly addictive, has a depressant effect on the central nervous system and is also a muscle relaxant. Placidyl is a short-term drug used in sleep disorders. It is only indicated for use for a maximum of seven days. It is classed as an oral hypnotic, and is a Schedule IV controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Prior to prescribing any of these drugs, a physician should take a full history from a patient, and perform a thorough physical examination. The history should include the patient's chief complaint with questions from the physician to the patient involving areas of past problems with the nervous system, ears, eyes, lungs, chest, respiratory system, GI tract, and urinary tract. The physical examination should involve all body systems, including blood pressure, examination of the head, neck and chest and back regions. Further, if the patient requests these or other drugs specifically, a check should then be made for "track marks" and other evidence of prior drug abuse or usage. If the patient complains of low back pain, there should be a physical examination specifically involving the low back area before prescribing the scheduled controlled substances at issue. The past history is important to determine the duration of the problem, any previous medical treatment, examinations or tests by other physicians regarding the lumbosacral or low back area. A physical examination should be performed designed to elicit indications of neurological involvement, including straight leg raise tests, impairment of sensation tests in the extremities and other neurological inquiries. Such a full history and a physical examination is necessary prior to initiating a course of treatment involving treatment of chronic pain due to the existence of a wide assortment of other treatment modalities which might treat the root of the problem, rather than merely the pain symptoms. Dr. Handwerker, upon being questioned concerning the December 1982 visit of Detective Jones to the Respondent's office, posing as a 29-year-old construction worker complaining of lower back pain and insomnia, established that if a doctor performed no physical examination of such a patient, or only a cursory one, and took a history which in essence elicited only the complaint of injury (aside from the non-medical personal background information) that it would amount to inappropriate prescribing of the subject drugs if the patient was given these drugs in the manner prescribed to Detective Jones. The Respondent simply made insufficient findings upon which to base the decision to prescribe those drugs. Such prescribing without an adequate physical examination or the obtaining of detailed patient medical history would constitute a failure to conform to the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians under these conditions and circumstances. The continued prescribing of these drugs at the February and May visits of this patient, without any discussion or consideration of the effect the previous course of treatment had had on the patient, other than a simple question by the Respondent concerning how the patient was feeling, also constitutes inappropriate prescribing of scheduled controlled substances and demonstrates a failure to conform to the generally accepted and prevailing standards of medical practice in the Dade County community. It was similarly established that the medical records failed to justify the course of treatment afforded this patient. Especially regarding the lack of a physical examination at each visit, and the failure to elicit any further medical history on the latter two visits. Even if a full physical examination and history was conducted on the first visit in December 1982, which was not the case, there would still be required an interim update and recording of physical findings related to the patient's experience since the December visit. Notes should have been made in the patient records regarding how the medications were affecting the patient and his pain problem, including notes reflecting that a physical examination had been performed, involving all vital signs, which was not the case with this patient. Not only does the generally accepted and prevailing standard of medical practice in Dade County require that an initial, thorough physical examination including the blood pressure and pulse and the eliciting of a detailed medical history be performed, as well as update physical examinations at later visits to check the progress of the patient under the treatment program; the failure to note the findings in the patient records constitutes a failure to conform to generally accepted and prevailing standards of medical practice for the Dade County community. Dr. Alfred March testified as an expert witness for Respondent, but agreed that the same detailed medical history and examination described by Dr. Handwerker is required before the practitioner should prescribe scheduled controlled substances in the same manner as done by the Respondent. Dr. March was unable to ascertain from simply reviewing the medical records of the Respondent, the reason or justification for the prescribing of any of the drugs on the three dates in question, and established that the medical records of the doctor should always justify the course of treatment for a patient. Indeed, Dr. March established that if a patient came in complaining of a backache, then such would be inappropriate prescribing without the performance of x-rays of the affected area and a full neurological examination, neither of which was performed by the Respondent in this case. Dr. Ramos has never been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the past, and his past professional record reveals that his medical practice has been characterized by sincere concern for his patients and the highest respect of his colleagues. The subject drugs involved are Schedule IV controlled substances, which are of the class of drugs characterized by the least serious ramifications for patients, if misused. It is to the doctor's credit that when the undercover detective, Mr. Jones, attempted to persuade him to prescribe more powerful medication such as quaaludes, the doctor vigorously protested such a course of treatment and refused to do so, citing his belief that indeed it was illegal to do so in Florida.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Board of Medicine, was the state agency responsible for the licensing of physicians and the regulation of the medical profession in Florida. Respondent is licensed as a physician in Florida, holding license # ME 0038234. His specialty is orthopedics but he is not Board certified in that field. Respondent practices medicine, specializing in orthopedic surgery with emphasis on the spine, at the Gulf Coast Orthopedic clinic in Hudson, Florida. Among the procedures he has performed at times pertinent to the issues herein are percutaneous lumbar foraminotomy, also known as foraminectomy or foraminostomy, (PLF); percutaneous cervical discectomy, (PCD); and percutaneous cervical foraminotomy, (PCF). A PLF is an arthroscopic surgical procedure wherein instrumentation introduced through a succession of progressively larger cannulae via a posterolateral approach to the lumbar spine is utilized to remove spurs which have formed at the area of the neural foramen. A PCD involves a similar introduction of instrumentation via an anterolateral approach to the cervical spine to remove disc material from a cervical disc for the purpose of decompressing the nerve root at the corresponding level. A PCF involves a similar introduction of instrumentation via an anterolateral approach to the cervical spine to remove spurs which have formed at the area of the neural foramen at the corresponding level. The three procedures referred to above, the PLF, the PCD and the PCF, are not commonly used or widely performed in the field of orthopedic surgery in the United States. Petitioner contends they are experimental procedures. Petitioner contends that a procedure whose safety and efficacy have not been established is experimental. It asserts that physicians performing procedures whose efficacy and safety have not been established must specifically advise a prospective patient on whom such procedure is anticipated to be done of the experimental nature of the procedure as a part of obtaining informed consent prior to the procedure. However, the efficacy and safety of a procedure are not, by themselves determinative of experimentation. PCD's are a logical extension/evolution of techniques that are already in use. They are being done in various places throughout the world, including the United States, and insurance companies have, in the past, paid for both PLDs, conceded by the Board to be non-experimental, and PCDs. The instant procedures in issue, including PLFs, which are done by physicians around the world, and the PCFs are not radical departures from present concepts. Though innovative, they are the natural evolution of existing techniques and procedures. For example, chemonucleolysis, recognized by the medical profession as non-experimental, is a percutaneous procedure in which enzymes are injected into the intervertebral disc in order to dissolve it. There is little difference between this procedure, which has been used for approximately ten years and the PCD, save the injection of the enzyme. Another percutaneous procedure which is widely done is the use of the nucleotome, a reciprocating suction cutter consisting of a steel tube with a spinning blade. This is not considered by the medical profession to be an experimental procedure. To be sure, Dr. Abram, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon with extensive experience in treating spinal pathology, is the only expert witness who practices in Florida. He has, however, by his own admission, not done any percutaneous or arthroscopic procedures involving the back or neck. On the other hand, Respondent's experts, Dr. Gristina, also a Board certified orthopedic surgeon, but who is not licensed in Florida, has extensive experience in orthopedic surgery. He was formerly Associ ate Professor of orthopedic surgery and associate to the chairman of that department at New York University Hospital; he was chairman of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Bowman Gray Hospital at Wake Forest University; and at present he is President and Senior Scientist at the Medical Sciences Research Institute and practices orthopedic surgery in northern Virginia. For the year just prior to this hearing, he was associated with the Northern Virginia Spine Institute, and though he has not been lead surgeon in the near term, he has associated with the director of the institute in the performance of major spinal surgery. Under the circumstances, as a scientist his opinion as to what constitutes an experimental procedure and what is mere innovation is pertinent to the resolution of that issue. Dr. Sherk, testifying for the Respondent, is a Board certified orthopedic surgeon and professor of surgery and chief of the division of orthopedics and rehabilitation at the Medical College of Pennsylvania. He is familiar with and has performed percutaneous procedures on the spine, most specifically chemonucleolysis and laser discectomy, and is familiar with Dr. Bonati and the percutaneous procedures he performs from having heard Respondent's presentations at international conferences on orthopedics. As a practitioner and academician, his opinion regarding the experimental nature of the procedures in issue is pertinent. Dr. Hopkins, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon, came to percutaneous disc surgery through the microdiscectomy process and the percutaneous laser procedure which he still uses. He also has performed in the neighborhood of two hundred percutaneous disc surgeries, about half with the nucleotome and half with laser. He has done percutaneous foraminectomy procedures. Some time ago, while working for a laser company in Minneapolis, he became aware of Respondent's practice in percutaneous disc surgery. As a result, he came to GCOC on two occasions and observed Respondent perform the procedure on both lumbar and cervical discs. He has presented papers on percutaneous disc surgery at international conferences and gave a course on percutaneous procedures at the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery in San Francisco approximately two years ago. Taken together, and with all due respect and credence being afforded the opinion of Dr. Abram, the evidence of the experimental nature of the PLF, the PCD and the PCF is not persuasive and it is found that the procedures, though new and innovative, are logical extensions of and new uses of established procedures and are not experimental. Respondent's records reflect that in each case in issue, written consent was obtained from the patient. The records also reflect that each patient was informed about the surgery, the pathology and the treatment to which the patient had agreed. An informed consent was also obtained by the anesthesiologist. Under the circumstances, it having been found that the percutaneous procedures are not experimental procedures, the informed consent obtained by the Respondent was adequate. Clearly, Dr. Bonati's clinic is very well organized. As explained by Respondent and various members of his staff, once Respondent recommends surgery, the patient is given printed brochures and materials which explain the proposed procedure. If the patient is unclear as to the nature of the procedure or has any questions about it, he or she is given the opportunity to voice his or her concerns either to Respondent or to a nurse, and no further action is taken unless all questions are answered to the satisfaction of the patient. Each patient is also given a video tape describing the procedure to be performed, and once the tape is viewed by the patient, further opportunity to ask questions is afforded. Respondent and a nurse meet with each patient so that he can explain to the patient what the proposed procedure consists of, how it is to be performed and the risk involved. The patient is also advised of alternative methods of treatment which include physical therapy. Each patient is advised that an open procedure is also an alternative to the percutaneous procedure. The patient is under only a local anesthetic during the percutaneous procedure and is aware of what is going on. The patient actually assists the surgeon by reporting feelings and sensations experienced. Respondent claims an anesthesiologist is present in the operating room during the surgery and talks with the patient throughout the procedure. There was no evidence introduced that any patient had ever complained after the procedure that what was done was not what had been explained beforehand. Generally, patients are referred to the in-house physical therapist after surgery, and there was no indication any patient had complained of that either. AS TO THE PATIENT M.A. In August, 1989, Patient M.A., a 21 year old female, presented to the Respondent complaining of neck and back pain. Respondent had the patient undergo an MRI on the area. On September 12, 1989 he informed her that the MRI studies revealed posterior disc bulge at C3/C4 through C6/C7 levels, with the largest bulging at C4/C5 through C5/C6 levels. Additional MRI studies were done of the patient which, on November 17, 1989, Respondent interpreted as showing a grade II bulging at the C5/C6 and C6/C7 levels. On or about December 5, 1989, Respondent performed a PCD on this patient for a grade II bulge at the C5/C6 level on the left. Further MRI studies performed on this patient on or about October 30, 1990, indicated there was no change in the bulge at the C5/CB level as a result of Respondent's surgery. As a result, the Board's expert concluded that the surgery performed on this patient by the Respondent was not needed because the MRI's failed to show a condition requiring surgery and Respondent incorrectly interpreted them to indicate they did. The evidence shows, however, that in her visits to Dr. Bonati, the patient complained of pain in an area associated with the 6th nerve root, and evidence of the emergency room visit she made refers to a diagnosis of possible 6th nerve root involvement. Respondent's medical records for this patient reflect that before he recommended surgery, he waited out a period of conservative non-surgical treatment which included physical therapy. He also had her undergo another MRI on November 17, 1989, before the surgery, which showed a bulge at C5/C6. Respondent believed this bulge could be creating all the symptoms being experienced by the patient. In light of this additional evidence, to which Petitioner fails to refer in its Proposed Findings of Fact, it cannot be reasonably be found that the evidence of record is clear and convincing that Respondent performed unnecessary surgery. AS TO THE PATIENT R.L. On or about May 1, 1990, R.L., a 36 year old male, was seen by Dr. Jeffrey S. Walker, a Board certified neurosurgeon for evaluation of neck and back injuries sustained in a then-recent motor vehicle accident. Dr. Walker had this patient undergo an MRI which was interpreted by a Board certified radiologist as showing no large disc herniations and only minimal posterior bulging of the C4/C5 disc associated with degenerative disc disease. As a result of this test and interpretation, Dr. Walker diagnosed the patient as having severe cervical and lumbar strain with no evidence of radiculopathy or myelopathy. Radiculopathy is disease of the spinal nerve root, and myelopathy is a disturbance or disease of the spinal cord. Dr. Walker concluded that this patient's condition did not require surgery and recommended a conservative, non- surgical treatment. Nonetheless, on June 25, 1990, this patient went to see Dr. Bonati complaining of persistent neck and back pain. On this visit, the patient showed Dr. Bonati the MRI taken for Dr. Walker on May 31, 1990. When Respondent reviewed this MRI he noted a bulging disc at C4/C5 and recommended the patient undergo a PCD at that level. Before any surgery was done, however, another MRI was done on June 26, 1990 which Respondent interpreted as showing a 1 mm posterior disc bulge at L4/L5 and a 2 mm bulge at L5/S1, and as a result, Respondent recommended a PLD also be done. On July 12, 1990, Dr. Bonati performed a PCD on this patient at C4/C5 left, and on July 31, 1990 he also performed a PCD at C4/C5 right. Thereafter, on August 21, 1990, Respondent performed a PLF at L5/S1 on this patient. While the Board claims this was done to decompress the S1 nerve root, both the Board and Dr. Bonati indicate it is impossible to decompress the S1 nerve root by a foramenectomy at that level. The Respondent claims the procedure was done to remove the pressure on the L5 nerve root, and this was deemed possible by the testimony of Dr. Sherk. This would seem to be a more accurate description of what was done. In any case, Dr. Bonati also performed a PLD at L5/S1 right that same day in order to relieve the pressure on the S1 nerve root. In short, taken together, the evidence indicates that the surgery on the left was to relive pain on the left side and that on the right to relieve pain on the right side. There is a discrepancy in Respondent's records relating to the above surgery wherein left side pain is indicated where right side pain was intended. A review of these records, however, reveals that the patient complained of pain on both sides from the very beginning and clearly traces the course of pain from the first visit through the surgeries. The Board contends that Respondent failed to correctly interpret the MRIs done on this patient. It asserts these MRI's, when coupled with the patient's complaints, fail to indicate a need for surgical intervention and that Respondent's subsequent surgery performed on the patient was, therefore, inappropriate. This conclusion was stated by the Board's expert, Dr. Abram, who cited Respondent's own publications to the effect that a PLD is not indicated until a disc bulge is 4 mm or greater. Apparently Respondent had taken the position that a disc bulge of 3 mm or less does not merit surgery. It would appear Respondent's published indications also call for a certain amount of non- operative treatment to be provided, as well. It must be recognized, however, that there can be no hard and fast exclusionary rule regarding bulge size when determining whether surgery should be done. In the instant case, the records show that the patient continued to report pain which increased and diminished in cycles. The size guidelines are but one indicator of the need for surgery and Respondent cannot be faulted for doing surgery on a bulge smaller than that noted in his guidelines when other factors are present which indicate surgery is appropriate. AS TO THE PATIENT E.M. On or about April 4, 1991, Respondent saw patient E.M., a 51 year old male, who complained of pain in the lower back, the hip, groin and sciatic areas. Respondent had the patient undergo MRI studies which he interpreted as showing bulging discs at L4/L5, L5/S1, C4/C5 and C5/C6 levels. As a result of these indications, Respondent recommended the patient undergo both PLD and PCD procedures. Thereafter, on May 9, 1991, Respondent performed a PLF on this patient at L4/L5 left and a PLD at L4/L5 left. On June 19, 1991, he performed a PLF at L3/L4 left. He then performed a a PCD on this patient at C4/C5 left on July 1, 1991, and on July 18, 1991, performed a PLD at L5/S1 left. Finally, on August 6, 1991, he also performed a PCD at C5/C6 right on patient E.M. The bulges at C4/C5 and C5/C6 were categorized by the Respondent as grade II bulges. Respondent has previously stated that grade II bulges are normal pathology for which surgical treatment is not indicated. He performed three PLD procedures on this patient on three separate occasions rather than performing them simultaneously, and he performed the two PCD procedures separately rather than performing them simultaneously. The Board claims that to do this was inappropriate and constituted exploitation of the patient for financial gain. Dr. Gristina, however, indicates an alternative way of looking at the situation. He suggests that Dr. Bonati was following a plan to relieve the patient's symptoms utilizing the least invasive procedure available. Gristina suggests that Bonati's plan was to take the relief step by step, doing only so much surgery as was anticipated by him to be necessary to relieve pain. That a procedure was needed in each of five separate locations is unfortunate but not clearly shown by the Petitioner's evidence to be unnecessary. Petitioner must present evidence to show clearly that Respondent's actions were inappropriate. Petitioner's expert opinion must be considered, however, in light of the expert testimony to the contrary. The Board also notes that whereas this patient's medical records indicate the first procedure to be performed on May 9, 1991 was the PLD at L5/S1, in reality the initial PLD was performed at the L4/L5 level and there is no indication in the record as to why this was done. It also contends that Respondent attributed this patient's continued pain in the right leg to the L3/L4 level, and the performance of a PLD at that level without further diagnostic studies was a failure to practice medicine within standards. Dr. Abram also concluded that in light of the above, the Respondent's medical records for this patient, in failing to reflect the justification and appropriateness of his treatment of the patient, were inadequate. It would again appear that Petitioner has not given a complete reading to Respondent's medical records for this patient. His notes regarding the visits the patient made to the office reveal the patient was complaining of pain in the neck, shoulder and arms on both sides and indicate Respondent's concern that the patient might need surgery at L4/L5 as well as at L5/S1, and consent forms were obtained from the patient relating to both areas. An additional claim of Respondent's misconduct is made in regard to the Respondent's failure to do additional diagnostic studies before performing the PLD at L3/L4. However, Respondent contends that, contra to the importance placed on ancillary tests, he considers clinical examination of the patient and the patient's history as more significant. This position would appear to be supported by the testimony of Dr. Hopkins who opined that where, after a surgery has been done, if the patient is able to describe his or her condition, and nothing happened in the interim to cause the doctor to suspect any other problems, he would proceed without subjecting the patient to additional diagnostic procedures. All matters being considered, this would appear to be the more conservative approach. AS TO THE PATIENT P.H. Respondent first saw Patient P.H. in January, 1989 at which time he ordered an MRI be done which was interpreted as showing disc degeneration at L5/S1. When this was considered along with the patient's history, going back to 1970, of two disc removals, three spinal fusions and a laminectomy without relief, Respondent concluded a less conservative approach was demanded. Thereafter, on January 30, 1989, Respondent performed both a PLD and a PLF on this patient at L3/L4. No evidence was presented to clarify the apparent level discrepancy. The medical records indicate that after this surgery, Respondent prescribed Keflex, an antibiotic, and Colchicine, a gout treatment, for the patient. According to Dr. Abram, neither medication is justified in the medical records. The use of an antibiotic after surgery is not at all unusual nor inappropriate, however, especially in light of the fact that the surgery was done on an outpatient basis and the patient did not remain in the hospital, under observation, for a period of recuperation after the procedure. As to the Colchicine, a careful examination of the records pertaining to this patient reveals that a prior administration of the substance was indicated, and even Dr. Abram admitted that this drug could properly be used to treat back pain. The use of neither substance, therefore, was inappropriate. One year later, the patient again came to Respondent complaining of foot paralysis, and on February 1, 1990, Respondent performed a PLD on the patient at L4/L5. Twenty days later, on February 20, 1990, Respondent performed a repeat PLD on the patient at L4/L5. In the interim between the February 1 and February 20 procedures, notwithstanding Petitioner's contention that Respondent did not perform any diagnostic studies to determine whether further surgical intervention was necessary, the records indicate Respondent had clinical testing of the patient done on February 7, 1990, and a Physical Assessment Test was conducted which showed several anomalies which Respondent correlated to the MRI findings. Petitioner also claims that surgery at the L4/L5 disc space cannot treat the L5 nerve root compression that Respondent's tests showed in this patient. Both Dr. Bonati and Dr. Gristina agree, however, that the surgeon can reach the L5 nerve root from the L4/L5 disc space. This opinion by Dr. Gristina would apply equally as well to arthroscopic surgery as practiced by Respondent as to the more classical and conservative open procedures more widely done. Respondent billed the patient for all three surgeries performed. Evidence introduced at hearing, in the form of the opinion testimony of Dr. Abram, would seem to indicate surgery was not appropriate for this condition, and that the performing of the three surgeries was exploitation of the patient for financial gain. He also is of the opinion that the medical records fail to justify the course of treatment the Respondent rendered this patient. However, the evidence of record tends to indicate that a second surgery at a place where surgery has already been done is not unusual. Symptoms can recur and problems, thought to be resolved, can again surface. The evidence indicates that this patient had very little relief from discomfort and, in fact, the symptoms persisted for three weeks after the initial surgery. When results obtained from surgery do not produce an expected change in the patient's symptomology, Dr. Gristina concludes it is logical to again operate at any time after a procedure has been done. AS TO THE PATIENT M.M. Respondent first saw patient M.M. in July 1990 for symptoms of a back injury which he attributed to the S/1 nerve root and which had been present for over one year. The patient history for this patient reveals that she had approximately fifteen months without relief from pain before seeing Respondent and indicate that after Respondent had treated her for a week to ten days, the symptoms changed which caused Respondent to then attribute the cause to the L5 nerve root. An MRI showed a 4 mm bulge at L4/L5, and on September 6, 1990, Respondent performed both a PLD and a PLF at L4/L5. More than six months later, on May 7, 1991, M.M. went to Dr. Zubillaga, a Board certified neurologist, for treatment of pain running from the head to the sacrum. Dr. Zubillage took a complete patient history and reviewed the MRIs which had been taken by or for the Respondent. His examination indicated to him that no surgical intervention was indicated, and he recommended a more conservative treatment including stretching exercises and physical therapy. Dr. Abram concluded that Respondent's medical records for this patient contain inconsistencies in the examination and diagnostic tests. The patient's symptoms and the findings of diagnostic imaging should match up before the patient is offered surgical treatment. In the instant case, the records indicate a strength deficit of 26 percent at S1 and an L5 deficit of 16 percent, yet the treatment is directed against the L5 nerve root, even though the initial impression is that it was the S1 nerve root that was compressed, and Dr. Abram is of the opinion that is below the acceptable standard of care. Unexplained, it well may be. AS TO THE PATIENT D.R. On or about July 18, 1990, Dr. Bonati performed both a PLD and a PLF at L5/S1 on this patient for back and leg pain but the patient failed to improve after the surgery. Thereafter, on October 24, 1990, Respondent performed both a PLD and a PLF on the patient at L4/L5. Still later, on March 13, 1991, the patient saw Dr. Thomas Freeman, a Board certified neurological surgeon, who reviewed the patient's medical records, the discogram and the two MRI scans which had been done by Respondent both before and after the July 18, 1990 surgery, none of which showed an extruded disc. By the same token, a previous MRI done by a prior treating physician, Dr. Feldman, failed to disclose it as well. According to Dr. Freeman, the two MRI's done by Respondent were essentially identical with no change in the patient's condition following the surgery. Based on his examination of the patient, Dr. Freeman diagnosed the patient as having a large extruded disc at L5/S1 which, he claims, was shown in the MRI's taken by the Respondent. The evidence is in conflict on that point, however. It is Dr. Freeman's professional opinion that extruded discs are normally very difficult to remove by a percutaneous procedure. In fact, Respondent's own publications indicate that a percutaneous procedure is contraindicated in the case of an extruded disc. As a result of his evaluation, Dr. Freeman subsequently performed open back surgery on this patient removing the discs at L4/L5 left and at L5/S1 left and right. It is Dr. Abram's position that Respondent's failure to do an open procedure instead of a percutaneous procedure in this case, especially after the first procedure was unsuccessful, was below acceptable standard. It would appear, however, that none of the physicians who saw this patient were able to make a positive determination that there was an extruded disc. There is a difference between an extruded disc which is still in contact with the annulus and one which has broken free from the annulus and extruded through the posterior longitudinal ligament to enter the spinal canal. It is this latter situation which Respondent's writings denote as contraindication to a percutaneous procedure. The disc had not extruded in the instant case and, therefore, a percutaneous procedure was not necessarily contraindicated. Dr. Abram also asserts that Respondent's medical records for this patient contain a discrepancy between the admissions form and the general rule regarding the gravity and location of the patient's pain, which, he claims, is considered below standard. In fact, the admission form is set up so that the patient can describe the current severity of the leg pain and the back pain independently of each other. It does not attempt to compare them. AS TO THE PATIENT L.Q. Sometime between January and April, 1990, the patient, L.Q. saw Respondent complaining of pain in the neck and arm. Respondent took an MRI of the patient which indicated a grade I impression of the thecal space at both the C4/C5 and the C5/C6 levels. Even though Respondent's own publications regarding the PCD suggest that a grade I impression does not require surgery, Respondent recommended the patient undergo a PCD at C4/C5. Before agreeing to the surgery, however, on April 30, 1990, prior to what was described as the onset of significant pain compromising the 5th nerve root, the patient went to see Dr. Michael Slomka, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon who, without an MRI or CT scan, upon examination, found a normal neurological evaluation and a normal cervical spine x-ray. Based on his findings Dr. Slomka saw no basis for surgery and recommended a program of activity and rehabilitation for the patient. Thereafter, however, the patient returned to Respondent on May 14, 1990 and Respondent did a PCD at C4/C5. While Petitioner claims there was no justification shown for the surgery completed in this case, there is evidence in the patient records that the patient underwent an extended period of constant pain in the shoulder, injections into the shoulder by another physician prior to the visit to Respondent, continued medication for the discomfort claimed, and other symptoms and discomfort in an area consistent with the diagnosis, which were supported by a physical assessment test and consistent with the MRI. These factors may well justify surgery when all else has failed. The Petitioner asserts that Respondent's medical records do not reflect justification for the surgical intervention, but the above information disputes that conclusion. AS TO THE PATIENT R.H. This patient was seen by Respondent several times between July, 1991 and April, 1992 for treatment for neck and shoulder pain. An MRI of the patient ordered by the Respondent was interpreted by him as showing a grade I impression at both C3/C4 and C4/C5, and a grade II impression at C5/C6. On December 4, 1991. Respondent did a PCD on this patient at C5/C6, but the medical records maintained by Respondent on the patient show no improvement following the surgery. The Respondent's medical records relating to this surgery do not reflect he had any discussion with the patient before surgery about the risks or benefits of surgery, the anticipated outcome or alternative treatment options. On May 30, 1992, the patient went to see Dr. Michael Piazza, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon who also took an MRI of the patient. This scan revealed very mild degenerative disc disease at C5/C6 without any evidence of disc herniation or other operable lesion. He could see no indication for or reason to do surgery on the patient. The patient was 54 years old when she was seen by Dr. Piazza. The doctor indicated that approximately 90 percent of the adult population have as much arthritis in the neck by that age as does this patient. Therefore, he recommended non-operative treatment, including therapy, and the patient's condition improved markedly with this regimen. Here again the Respondent contends that Petitioner draws a misleading conclusion from the evidence and attempts to minimize the severity of the patient's long-term complaints of pain, failed conservative treatment and disc bulge which is attributed to arthritis. Respondent also contends that the use of a minimally invasive percutaneous procedure was appropriate in light of the circumstances, especially in light of the fact that there was a four month hiatus between the cited entries in the medical records. These contentions by Respondent are supported by the testimony of his experts. Respondent's records regarding this patient, are less than appropriate, however. They reflect the patient had full range of shoulder motion, albeit with pain, but also contain a diagnosis of frozen shoulder and capsulitis. This would indicate a marked reduction in the patient's range of shoulder motion. The records also indicate a degenerative labral tear in the biceps tendon, but there was no such tear indicated on the MRI. This tear was, however, located by Respondent through a diagnostic arthroscopy. In Dr. Abram's opinion, these inconsistencies rendered the records below acceptable standard. AS TO THE PATIENT O.J.P. This patient was seen at the Respondent's clinic, by Dr. Merken, on April 14, 1992, for an evaluation of the patient's strength related to the neck. The doctor's opinion was that the patient's neck strength was normal though, even as Dr. Abram admits, he found abnormalities of the neck resulting in painful flexion, lateralization and extension. Several days later, the patient underwent several MRIs which covered the left shoulder and the cervical and lumbar spine in which Respondent saw bulges of 2 mm, 3 mm, and 4 mm in the lumbar spine. When, on May 12, 1992, the Respondent discussed the results of the MRI's with the patient he noted a significant weakness in the patient which had not been noted by Dr. Merken earlier. Even though the patient's medical record does not reflect any long-standing weakness or participation in an extensive rehabilitative program, Respondent nonetheless recommended the patient undergo a PCD at C6/C7 left and a PLD at L4/L5 left. The surgery was not done, however. Instead, on July 16, 1992, the patient went to see Dr. Glen Barden, a Board certified orthopedic surgeon, because of persisting neck and back pain. Dr. Barden did an examination of the patient and reviewed Respondent's medical records on her. Dr. Barden's diagnosis was that the patient exhibited mild symptoms of disc disease without neurological deficits. He concluded that surgery was not needed or appropriate for the condition at that time but recognized that surgical intervention to the neck might be required. In fact, Dr. Barden's records show he found " cervical intervertebral disc disease, moderately severe, involving C4-5, C5-6. C6-7 and C7-T1, as well as degenerative lumbar disc disease", among other problems, all of which, Dr. Barden admits, can cause pain and restriction of motion without a neurological deficit. As such, surgery can be justified even where there is no neurological deficit. Notwithstanding Petitioner claims the medical records kept by Respondent on this patient did not reflect any long-standing weakness or conservative care, the patient history clearly reflects numerous complaints of pain and limitations on movement following a 1978 car accident. In addition, the records reflect the patient had been taking medication and received chiropractic treatment in addition to the physical therapy prescribed by Respondent prior to surgery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaints in DOAH Cases 94-1866 and 94-1867, except for Counts Six and Fifteen of Complaint 94-1867, of which Respondent, ALFRED O. BONATI, should be found guilty, be dismissed, and that his license be reprimanded. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of August, 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 21st day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASES NOS. 94-1866 AND 94-1867 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: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. - 7. Accepted and incorporated herein with the addition, as to #7, of the phrase, "in the U.S." 9. - 8. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. & 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14. & 15. Accepted. 16. & 17. Accepted. 18. - 21. Accepted. 22. - 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. Accepted. 26. Rejected as not proven. 27. - 29. Accepted. 30. - 35. Accepted and incorporated herein. 36. - 38. Rejected as not proven by clear and convincing evidence. 39. Rejected except for last sentence which is accepted. 40. Accepted. 41. & 42. Rejected as not proven. 43. - 53. Accepted and incorporated herein. 54. Accepted that surgery was done, but not for the purpose stated. 55. Accepted and incorporated herein. 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. - 62. Rejected as not proven. 63. Rejected as not proven. 64. Accepted as to what record states, but rejected as to the lack of a complaint on the right side, as contra to the weight of the evidence. 65. Rejected as not proven. 66. - 68. Accepted but considered of little probative value. 69. Accepted. 70. & 71. Rejected as not proven. 72. & 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74. & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. 76. - 80. Accepted and incorporated herein. 81. - 84. Rejected as not proven. 85. Accepted. 86. - 92. Rejected as not proven. 93. Accepted. 94. - 97. Rejected as not proven, and 97 is duplicative of 84 and 84. 98. - 104. Accepted and incorporated herein. 105. - 109. Rejected as not proven. 110. Accepted and incorporated herein. 111. Rejected as unproven. 112. & 113. Accepted and incorporated herein. 114. Rejected as unproven. 115. - 117. Accepted. 118. & 119. Rejected as unproven. 120. Accepted. 121. Rejected as unproven. 122. - 128. Accepted and incorporated herein. 129. - 132. Rejected as unproven. 133. Accepted. 134. & 135. Rejected as unproven. 136. - 148. Accepted and incorporated herein. 149. - 152. Rejected as unproven. 153. - 159. Accepted, but 158 is duplicative of 146 160. & 161. Rejected as unproven. 162. - 168. Accepted and incorporated herein. 169. Rejected as unproven. 170. Accepted and incorporated herein. 171. - 175. Rejected as unproven. 176. Accepted. 177. & 178. Rejected as unproven. 179. - 191. Accepted and incorporated herein. 192. - 194. Rejected as unproven. 195. Accepted. 196. & 197. Rejected as unproven. 198. - 208. Accepted and incorporated herein. 209. - 211. Rejected as unproven. 212. Accepted. 213. Rejected as unproven. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 4. & 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 10. Accepted. 11. & 12. Accepted. - 15. Accepted. 16. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. 19. & 20. Accepted. 21. - 23. Accepted and incorporated herein. 24. Accepted. 25. First sentence accepted. Second sentence not proven. 26. & 27. Accepted. 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29. Accepted. 30. - 32. Accepted. 33. Accepted. 34. & 35. Accepted since the contrary was not proven. 36. Accepted as represented. 37. Accepted since the contrary was not proven. 38. Accepted that the treatment and records were within standards. COPIES FURNISHED: Britt Thomas, Esquire Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jonathan W. Lubell, Esquire 750 Lexington Avenue New York, New York 10022 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire 8001 North Dale Mabry Highway Suite 301-A Tampa, Florida 33614 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency for health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
