Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eugene W. Williams, II, is an osteopathic physician licensed in Florida, and was so licensed at all times relevant to this proceeding. His address is 4394 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. On June 21, 1979, Sue Riley presented herself to Respondent for treatment of a fractured left distal radius. Respondent ordered arm elevation and ice bag treatment to reduce the swelling. The next day, he set the arm in a cast and performed a closed reduction. The injured arm was initially x-rayed at the hospital emergency room on June 21, 1979, and was not x-rayed again until July 5, 1979, when Respondent noted that the fracture was not closed. He then referred the patient to an orthopedic specialist. The testimony of Petitioner's expert witness indicated that a second X ray should have been taken after casting rather than two weeks later to insure that the fracture was, in fact, closed. Without such an X ray, Respondent could not be certain that the fracture was closed initially or that it had not reopened. Respondent's testimony and that of two other experienced physicians established that it is not uncommon to omit the X ray immediately after casting. In their view, no X ray is needed for ten days to two weeks provided the fracture appears to have been closed and properly aligned. Respondent's testimony established that all indications were favorable following casting and that he did not believe an X ray was needed for ten days to two weeks.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Second Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED THIS 14th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James B. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 JulieAnn Ricco, Esquire 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 106, Forum III West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint dated November 19, 1998, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Board of Osteopathic Medicine is the entity responsible for imposing discipline on those licensed in Florida as osteopathic physicians. Section 459.015(2), Florida Statutes. The Department of Health is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting disciplinary cases in which a probable cause panel of the Board of Osteopathic Medicine has found probable cause to support the filing of a formal complaint against a licensee. Section 455.621(4), Florida Statutes. Christopher Wayne, D.O., was at the times material to this proceeding, and is currently, a licensed osteopathic physician in the State of Florida, specializing in family practice and certified by the American Osteopathic Board of Family Physicians. Dr. Wayne operated at the times material to this proceeding, and currently operates, a primary care medical practice under the name of Dr. Christopher Wayne, D.O., Incorporated ("Company"). At the times material to this proceeding, the Company's office was located on the fifth floor in a building adjacent to the Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami Beach, Florida. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Wayne and the physicians employed in his practice had staff privileges at several hospitals and medical centers in the Dade County area. However, at the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Wayne did not have staff privileges at Parkway Regional Medical Center ("Parkway"). At least one physician employed by the Company, Agustin Andrade, had staff privileges at Parkway. Dr. Wayne began discussions with Agustin Andrade with respect to his possible employment by the Company as a family practice physician in or around June 1995. Dr. Andrade is a medical doctor who completed a three-year residency in internal medicine and a two-year fellowship in endocrinology at the University of Miami, in Miami, Florida; he is board-certified in internal medicine and endocrinology. Dr. Andrade was also a citizen of Ecuador at the times material to this proceeding. On July 7, 1995, Dr. Andrade signed an Employment Agreement with the Company, and he began working for the Company in October 1996. The delay was attributable to Dr. Andrade's need to obtain legal residency and authority to work in this country. He obtained legal residency and authorization to work in this country in June 1996, and he obtained his green card, representing the permanent right to stay in this country, in February 1997. As part of the process for obtaining a green card, Dr. Andarde completed a HUD J-1 Visa Waiver Policy Affidavit and Agreement in which he agreed to the following conditions: I understand and agree that in consideration for a waiver, . . . I shall render primary medical services to patients, including the indigent, for a minimum of forty (40) hours per week within a USPHS designated HPSA. Such service . . . shall continue for a period of at least two (2) years. I agree to incorporate all the terms of this HUD J-1 Visa Waiver Affidavit and Agreement into any and all employment agreements I enter pursuant to paragraph 3 and to include in each such agreement a liquidated damages clause, of not less than $250,000 payable to the employer. This damages clause shall be activated by my termination of employment, initiated by me for any reason, only if my termination occurs before fulfilling the minimum two year service agreement. Soon after he began working for the Company, Dr. Andrade's professional relationship with Dr. Wayne deteriorated rapidly for a variety of reasons. After two weeks, Dr. Andrade told Dr. Wayne that he wanted a raise because he had learned that the other physician employed by the Company at the time was paid a higher salary than he was paid. Dr. Andrade also accused Dr. Wayne of forcing him to engage in what Dr. Andrade termed "illegalities," of forcing him to see too many patients at too many different hospitals, and of requiring him to see pediatric patients, which he did not feel he was qualified to treat. On January 7, 1997, Dr. Wayne and Dr. Andrade were the only physicians employed by the Company. On the evening of January 7, 1997, medical orders were given by telephone for three of Dr. Andrade's patients hospitalized at Parkway. The physician order forms indicate that the person giving the orders was Dr. Andrade. Dr. Andrade denies giving these orders, and he subsequently refused to accept responsibility for the orders by declining to sign them. At around 8:00 p.m. on January 9, 1997, Dr. Andrade went to Parkway and spoke with the nurses in Parkway's surgical intensive care unit, specifically Ann Bravi, a registered nurse who has been employed at Parkway for twenty-eight years. Dr. Andrade told Nurse Bravi that someone was impersonating him and giving telephone orders for his patients. While Dr. Andrade was standing beside her, Nurse Bravi called Dr. Andrade's answering service regarding one of his patients. The call was returned by someone who identified himself to Nurse Bravi as Dr. Andrade and who told her that there would be "[n]o orders for now." Nurse Bravi cannot recall whether she telephoned the answering service at Dr. Andrade's request or on her own initiative, nor could she recall whether she called the answering service number noted on the patient's chart or called a number that Dr. Andrade gave her. On Friday, January 10, 1997, Dr. Andrade terminated his employment with the Company, accusing Dr. Wayne of having breached the Employment Agreement by impersonating him with the staff at Parkway and by giving telephone orders on Dr. Andrade's patients at Parkway. On Monday, January 13, 1997, Dr. Andrade was distributing business cards indicating that he was practicing medicine with another physician, whose offices were located on the first floor of the building in which the Company's office was located. The Company has sued Dr. Andrade for damages resulting from breach of contract, and Dr. Andrade has sued Dr. Wayne for defamation. At the time of the final hearing, both lawsuits were pending in the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Dade County, Florida. If an osteopathic physician gives medical orders by telephone for a patient who is not his patient and who is hospitalized in a facility at which he does not have medical staff privileges, then that physician has acted in a manner inconsistent with ethics and the standard of care practiced by an osteopathic family physician. The osteopathic physician has further acted in a manner inconsistent with ethics and the standard of care practiced by an osteopathic family physician if that physician gives telephone orders using the name of another physician. The evidence presented by the Department is insufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Dr. Wayne gave telephone orders for any of Dr. Andrade's patients at the Parkway Regional Medical Center or that he identified himself as Dr. Andrade in telephone conversations with staff at the Parkway Regional Medical Center.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Osteopathic Medicine enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Christopher Wayne, D.O. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1999.
The Issue An amended administrative complaint, dated July 31, 1989, alleges various violations of Chapter 459, F.S., by Respondent. Counts V, VI and VII, relating to Respondent's treatment of patient, R.C., were voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner at the commencement of the hearing. The following allegations are left at issue: That Respondent violated Section 459.015(1)(u), and (y), F.S., by prescribing Percodan and Ritalin, controlled substances, to his wife, G.I., inappropriately or in excessive quantities. That in the treatment of his wife, Respondent failed to practice osteopathic medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar osteopathic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, in violation of Section 459.015(1)(y), F.S. That Respondent violated Section 459.015(1)(p), F.S., by failing to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment of G.I.; and that of his mother, M.I., for whom he prescribed Demerol.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Donald Iafornaro, D.O., is and has been at all times material to the allegations of the amended administrative complaint, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, with license number OS 0001794. Dr. Iafornaro has a limited osteopathic practice which he conducts from his home at 1802 North Lakemont, Winter Park, Florida. He has about fifty patients, and also treats his large family, including his wife, mother, eleven children and grandchildren. G.I. has been a patient of Dr. Iafornaro for approximately 25 years -- since 1973, as his wife, and prior to that, from 1964, along with the rest of her family in Cleveland, Ohio. Mrs. Iafornaro has had a demanding job caring for the Iafornaro children, her mother-in-law, the house and pets, and has recently been her husband's only staff in his practice. Between May 1985, and April 1987, her husband treated her for a variety of medical problems, including severe allergies, sleep apnea (a mechanical difficulty in breathing during deep sleep), depression, fatigue, a chronic fracture of the foot bone (a fracture which failed to heal), spinal stenosis, an unstable hip, ulcers, angina and various gynecological complaints Between May 1, 1985, and April 11, 1987, Dr. Iafornaro prescribed the following drugs, among others, to his wife: 2,720 tablets of Percodan 900 tablets of Ritalin Percodan is the product name for oxycodone hydrochloride, and Ritalin is the product name for methylphenidate hydrochloride. Both are Schedule II controlled substances and are legend drugs as defined in Section 465.003(7), F.S. With the concurrence of the parties, official recognition was taken of the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) for the years 1984-1987. Petitioner also presented the testimony of two osteopathic physicians practicing in Dr. Iafornaro's community. The evidence from these authorities established that the prescriptions of Percodan and Ritalin for G.I. were inappropriate or in excessive quantities. Dr. Iafornaro felt that Ritalin was necessary to counteract the sedative effect of the antihistamines his wife had to take for her many allergies. He also prescribed the Ritalin for her depression. Ritalin is a mild central nervous system stimulant. It is indicated for attention deficit disorders (primarily in children) and narcolepsy. It should not be used for severe depression or for the prevention or treatment of normal fatigue. The PDR warns of drug dependence. Ritalin is also contraindicated in patients, such as G.I., who have exhibited anxiety, tension, depression and agitation. Ritalin may cause reactions such as skin rashes, a common complaint of this patient, but a problem which Dr. Iafornaro attributed to her multiple allergies. The Percodan was prescribed by Dr. Iafornaro for his wife's pain in her foot and for other pain in her low back and in her wrist. The PDR warns that Percodan may be habit forming. It contains aspirin, which can aggravate ulcers. It is indicated for relief of moderate to moderately severe pain; it is a depressant; it can cause apnea and respiratory depression in an overdose. Mrs. Iafornaro's statement that she used only about a half a tablet a day is inconsistent with the volume of the drugs prescribed for her over the relevant period. Dr. Iafornaro produced all of his medical records for G.I. for the relevant period. He claims they are incomplete because he also makes notes on odds and ends, writes on the back of a medical journal and keeps a lot of records in his head. (Iafornaro Deposition, p.15) The medical records produced by Dr. Iafornaro do not justify his course of treatment,for this patient, and particularly fail to explain the long-term volume of drugs that he was prescribing. Dr. Iafornaro claims that the probable cause panel previously reviewed his records and found them acceptable. The records were produced in response to charges that he had violated certain terms of an earlier disciplinary action. The issue was resolved with a "no probable cause" finding. That finding, in 1983, was for a different time period than the period at issue in this proceeding. Dr. Iafornaro provided records to the panel covering a limited period in 1983 when he was treating his wife for her foot fracture, a slip and fall accident and other acute conditions. The 1983 records, in contrast to those at issue here, describe the condition and his treatment. The later records provide copious listings of a variety of prescriptions, including the Percodan and Ritalin, with scant examination results, explanation of the condition being treated, or diagnoses of the complaints. Complete written medical records are an essential element of prudent osteopathic practice, particularly when, as here, the physician is treating his family and his objectivity may be questioned. Between January 5, 1987, and March 1, 1987, Dr. Iafornaro prescribed 200 50 mg Demerol tablets to his 84 year old mother, M.I. Demerol is a product name for meperidine hydrocloride, a Schedule II controlled substance, and a legend drug as defined in Section 465.003(7), F.S. The basis for the prescriptions was an episode of right upper quadrant pain felt to be of gallbladder origin. It is cheaper to purchase Demerol tablets by the 100. After M.I. took a few of the first prescription of 100, she lost the bottle and Dr. Iafornaro replaced it with another prescription. The medical records make no mention of the lost prescription, but they marginally justify the use of this drug for the limited period in issue and for the purpose intended. A previous disciplinary case involving allegations of Dr. Iafornaro's improper prescriptions and record-keeping practices was resolved with a stipulation for his one-year probation with conditions. The stipulation was approved by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners in a Final Order entered on December 28, 1982. (DPR Cases #0010979, 0014467, and 0015303)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners enter a Final Order which finds Donald Iafornaro, D.O., guilty of having violated the provision of Subsection 459.015(i)(p), (u) and (y), F.S. and imposing the following penalties: Suspension of license for 90 days and until such time as he appears before the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners and establishes that he has taken and passed the examination conducted by the National Board of Examiners for Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons or the Special Purpose Examination (SPEX) of the Federation of State Medical Boards, as designated by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners in its final order; Upon reinstatement that his license be placed on probation for two years subject to such terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Board, including, but not limited to, restriction of practice, direct or indirect supervision of practice or prescribing of controlled substances and required additional continuing education; That he be permanently restricted from prescribing controlled substances to family members, unless under direct supervision of another osteopathic physician; That a reprimand be imposed; That a fine of $2,000. be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 23rd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5277 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. 3.-5. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraphs 6, 8 and 10. Some blood pressure monitoring is found in the records however. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted as a conclusion of law and in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Respondent's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph l. Adopted in part in paragraphs 7-10, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 4.-6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 7.&8. Adopted in paragraphs 15, 17 and 18. 9. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 730 S. Sterling Street Tampa, FL 33609 Sam Murrell, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 1749 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rod Presnell Executive Director Osteopathic Medical Examiners Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: On or about July 3, 1962, respondent was issued Osteopathic Physician and Surgeon license No. 20A-2834 by the Board of Osteopathic Examiners in the State of California. On July 14, 1962, respondent elected to use the designation "M.D." rather than "D.O.", and thereby submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the Board of Medical Quality Assurance in the State of California. On August 10, 1978, the Board of Medical Quality Assurance in the State of California revoked respondent's California license No. 20A-2834 effective September 11, 1978. By Order dated August 18, 1982, the effective date of that decision providing for revocation was changed to September 17, 1982. A Complaint Analyst with the Department of Professional Regulation, State of Florida, received documentation from the Board of Medical Quality Assurance, State of California, indicating that respondent's license No. 20A- 2834 had been revoked in California. She thereupon forwarded such documents to the legal section of the Department of Professional Regulation. On December 29, 1982, the Department of Professional Regulation filed an Administrative Complaint seeking to "revoke, suspend or take other disciplinary action against the Respondent as licensee and against his license as an osteopathic physician under the laws of the State of Florida." It is alleged that respondent is guilty of having a license to practice osteopathic medicine revoked, suspended or otherwise acted against by the licensing authority of another state, in violation of Section 459.015(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1981). No evidence was presented in this proceeding as to whether the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR) submitted an investigative report to the probable cause panel of a regulatory board. No evidence was presented as to whether a probable cause panel of a regulatory board or the DPR found probable cause to exist. The Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners is not named as a petitioner in the Administrative Complaint. No evidence was presented in this proceeding as to whether the respondent is licensed to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida. Petitioner made no attempt to introduce evidence of any character to demonstrate whether respondent is licensed by the State of Florida to practice osteopathic medicine or any other profession falling within the purview of the Department of Professional Regulation.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the respondent dated December 29, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st day of August, 1983. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Bertram Morris Rettner 998 Via Palo Alto Aptos, California 95003 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Joseph J. Godorov, was licensed in the State of Florida to practice osteopathic medicine, and held license No. 2319. In the course of his practice, Respondent treated a patient known to him as "Cindy Jeffords", who was, in reality, Gail Jackson, an undercover police officer from the City of St. Petersburg Police Department. In a period from April, 1977 through August, 1977, Officer Jackson made a total of nine visits to Respondent's office. These visits occurred on April 27, 1977; May 13, 1977; May 27, 1977; June 14, 1977; June 28, 1977; July 19, 1977; July 26, 1977; August 2, 1977; and August 26, 1977. On each such occasion, Respondent issued a prescription for thirty 300 milligram tablets of a substance known as "Methaqualone", or "Quaalude", a controlled substance by virtue of the provisions of Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. Officer Jackson's first office visit with Respondent occurred on April 27, 1977. At that time, she was required to complete a "registration slip" and sign a "consent for treatment" form. In addition, she was weighed, and Respondent took her pulse, heartbeat, blood pressure, and inquired concerning prior surgery and any allergies from which she suffered. Officer Jackson advised Respondent that she had moved to Florida from Georgia; that she was experiencing trouble sleeping; that while in Georgia she had been taking 10 Quaaludes per week, and had been treated in Stone Mountain, Georgia by a "Dr. Callahan". Each of these statements was untrue. Upon closer questioning by Respondent, Officer Jackson admitted that she wanted Respondent to write a prescription for Quaaludes for her so that she might use them to "get high". She made no specific medical complaint other than that she had experienced "trouble sleeping". Respondent then wrote a prescription for thirty 300 milligram Quaaludes for Officer Jackson. In fact, the physical examination performed on Officer Jackson by Respondent on this first visit, consisting of checking the patient's heartbeat and blood pressure, occurred after he had written the prescription. Officer Jackson later called Respondent's office and arranged a second appointment for May 13, 1977. Respondent again took the patient's heartbeat and blood pressure and wrote a second prescription for thirty 300 milligram Quaaludes. On this second visit, the patient made no physical or medical complaints, and Respondent performed no examination other than to listen to her heartbeat and take her blood pressure. Respondent specifically inquired of the patient whether she was using the medication to "get high", to which she replied in the affirmative. Upon leaving Respondent's office on the occasion of her second visit, Respondent's receptionist, without Officer Jackson's request to do so, arranged a subsequent appointment for her for May 27, 1977. Officer Jackson returned to Respondent's office on May 27, 1977, at which time Respondent again took her heartbeat and blood pressure. Officer Jackson made no medical or physical complaints, and Respondent made no inquiry in this regard. Respondent did, however, write a third prescription for thirty 300 milligram Quaaludes for the patient. Before Officer Jackson left Respondent's office on this occasion, Respondent advised her to stay happy and not to get too high." Officer Jackson next visited Respondent's office on June 14, 1977. Respondent checked her heartbeat and blood pressure and again wrote the patient an identical prescription for Quaaludes, despite the fact that the patient made no complaints of medical problems. Officer Jackson returned to Respondent's office on June 28, 1977. She advised Respondent that she was out of Quaaludes, and, upon being advised that Respondent was going on vacation, told Respondent that she would have to "stock up" since he was going to be out of his office for a couple of weeks. Officer Jackson also advised Respondent during this visit that she had been giving Quaaludes which Respondent had prescribed for her to a friend "to party on", and that she would be sending her friend in to see Respondent to get his own prescription. Respondent then wrote a fifth prescription for thirty 300 milligram Quaaludes for Officer Jackson, despite the absence of any physical complaints. Officer Jackson was again in Respondent's office on July 19, 1977, at which time she advised Respondent that she was out of Quaaludes, and he wrote a prescription for her identical to those written on her earlier visits. Respondent took Officer Jackson's blood pressure and heartbeat, and scheduled her for an appointment seven days later. Officer Jackson returned to Respondent's office on July 26, 1977. Respondent again wrote for her a prescription for thirty 300 milligram Quaaludes. On this visit, Respondent did not inquire whether the patient was out of the drug, or whether she needed additional medication. Again, Respondent took the patient's heartbeat and blood pressure. Officer Jackson's next visit to Respondent's office occurred on August 2, 1977. Respondent took the patient's blood pressure and heartbeat and, when advised that she was out of Quaaludes, wrote another prescription for thirty tablets. During this visit, a conversation took place between Officer Jackson and the Respondent concerning "partying on Quaaludes". The last visit made by Officer Jackson to Respondent's office occurred on August 26, 1977. During the course of this visit, a conversation took place between Officer Jackson and Respondent concerning the use of Quaaludes in heightening her sensitivity during sexual intercourse. Despite the fact that the patient did not request the prescription or make any complaint of illness, Respondent again wrote a prescription for her for thirty tablets of Quaaludes. On August 9, 16 and 23, 1977, a patient known to Respondent as "Jerry Coats" who was in reality George Chapman, an undercover detective with the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, Police Department, visited Respondent's office. During Officer Chapman's initial visit on August 9, 1977, Respondent obtained a cursory medical history, during the course of which Officer Chapman advised him that he was suffering from no medical problems but had been referred to Respondent by a friend in order to obtain a prescription for Quaaludes. Although Respondent checked Officer Chapman's blood pressure, weighed him, and administered an injection for "vitamin deficiency", he wrote a prescription for thirty 300 milligram Quaaludes for Officer Chapman before performing either of these procedures. At no time during this initial visit did Officer Chapman make any complaint to Respondent concerning physical ailments of any nature, although Respondent detected that Officer Chapman's pulse was elevated. As Officer Chapman was leaving Respondent's office, Respondent's receptionist scheduled an appointment for him for August 16, 1977, without any request from the patient for such an appointment. Officer Chapman returned to Respondent's office on August 16, 1977. When Officer Chapman advised Respondent that he hadn't found that the Quaaludes "were that good" Respondent advised him to take an extra one or one-half tablet, or to mix the drug with "a little alcohol" in order to get "sky high". Respondent took the patient's blood pressure, administered another injection, and wrote a second prescription for thirty 300 milligram Quaaludes. Officer Chapman returned to Respondent's office on August 23, 1977. Respondent inquired whether the patient had been to any "wild parties" and then issued a third prescription for thirty 300 milligram Quaaludes, prior to taking the patient's heartbeat and blood pressure. Again, the patient made no complaints of illness. Quaalude is a controlled substance which is classified as a "hypnotic", and is prescribed primarily as a sleeping medication. Under the circumstances present in this case, as reflected in the factual findings herein- above set forth, the issuance of the various prescriptions by Respondent to Officers Jackson and Chapman did not conform to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing osteopathic medical practice in the St. Petersburg, Florida area. This conclusion is based specifically on Respondent's failure to take a detailed medical history of either of the patients; his issuance of the prescriptions notwithstanding the absence of any specific and consistently maintained physical complaints; and the affirmative representations by both patients to Respondent that their only purpose for seeking and using the prescribed medication was to "party" and "get high". Respondent has practiced osteopathic medicine since 1959 and enjoys a good reputation for moral character, truth and veracity, as well as good patient care. In fact, Respondent is held in high esteem by each of those patients called to testify in his behalf at the final hearing. Both Petitioner and Respondent have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact in this proceeding. To the extent that proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
