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 An administrative complaint dated June 20, 1997, alleges that Respondent, Dr. Jeri-Lin Furlow Burton, committed various violations of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, the Medical Practice Act. The issues in this proceeding are whether those violations occurred and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Dr. Burton is and has been at all material times a licensed medical physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME: 0042559. Dr. Burton is a general practitioner and has been a physician for 21 years. At all relevant times she was practicing in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida. The Department of Health (agency) is the state agency now charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida. Patient J.M. In 1996 J.M. lived in Melbourne, Florida, in an apartment complex frequented by Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton's former husband and a friend, L.V., both lived at the complex and she visited, provided some medical care to them, and sometimes brought them groceries. J.M. knew Dr. Burton was a physician. On February 15, 1996, J.M. awakened feeling awful. At the urging of her boyfriend, J.T., and accompanied by J.T., J.M. visited Dr. Burton at her office. According to Dr. Burton's treatment sheet notes, J.M. presented with complaints of a sore throat and migraine headaches associated with nausea and vomiting. Dr. Burton performed a brief physical examination, but not a neurological examination. J.M.'s temperature and blood pressure are documented, but not her pulse, weight, or respiration. Dr. Burton recorded that J.M. had a history of migraine headaches for years and was sometimes sick in bed for days. Dr. Burton performed a streptococcus screen, which was negative. For a first visit there should have been a more complete history in the records of this patient. Moreover, any complaint of serious headache, and especially a migraine headache, should have prompted Dr. Burton to perform and record a neurological examination. Dr. Burton diagnosed J.M.'s immediate problem as an upper respiratory infection with pharyngitis. Dr. Burton prescribed Inderal to prevent migraine headaches and Bactrim D.S., an antibiotic. Dr. Burton also gave J.M. some samples of Imitrex, which relieves migraine headaches. These prescriptions were appropriate and were justified by the medical record of the February 15, 1996, visit. There were subsequent prescriptions, however, that were not justified by Dr. Burton's medical notes for her patient, J.M. On March 12, 1996, Dr. Burton prescribed 30 Percocet for J.M.'s headache. The office note merely recites the date and the complaint that the headache was not getting relief from the Imitrex which usually produced good results. The next office note is dated March 21, 1996, and states only that patient needs refill of medications for headaches. "Again 'sick' headaches in bed. Written RX Percocet(30)." (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7) On April 19, 1996, Dr. Burton again prescribed a refill of 30 Percocet for J.M. The office note merely reflects this fact. On May 10, 1996, Dr. Burton noted that she gave J.M. samples of Imitrex, 25 milligrams, No. 9. On none of the occasions noted after the initial visit in February 1996 was any examination described. Dr. Burton explained at the hearing that these were occasions when she saw J.M. at the apartment complex, generally in the evenings. Imitrex is a non-narcotic medication that works on progestagen. It is effective in approximately 90 percent of cases. When J.M. complained that it did not work, Dr. Burton did not pursue that complaint further with a neurological examination and detailed history; instead she simply prescribed Percocet, an inappropriate narcotic. (Roxicet, reflected in the pharmacy records for J.M., is a generic substitute for Percocet.) Inexplicably on the final occasion noted in J.M.'s chart, Dr. Burton switched back to Imitrex. The records by Dr. Burton are thoroughly void of any explanation for her course of treatment of J.M.'s headaches. Patient D.W. According to Dr. Burton, D.W., born March 5, 1953, was a long-standing patient, having first seen Dr. Burton in 1990 when Dr. Burton was employed by a walk-in clinic. The records of those visits are not part of the record in this case. The walk- in clinic has closed. The documented chronology of Dr. Burton's treatment of D.W. commences with D.W.'s visit to Dr. Burton's new private practice office in October 1995. D.W. presented to Dr. Burton's office on October 17, 1995, with complaints of Crohn's Disease (an autoimmune disease that affects the intestinal tract and causes severe abdominal pain, inflammation, bleeding, and in some instances infection and perforation of the intestinal tract), headache, and weight loss. There is no documentation of physical examination or an objective finding other than D.W. was in no acute distress (NAD). Dr. Burton prescribed three vials of Stadol NS (nasal spray) with two refills and one hundred tablets of Fioricet. On November 1, 1995, Dr. Turse, a gastroenterologist, evaluated D.W. Dr. Turse reviewed prior records from a Dr. Klein, which dated back to April 1995, revealing an extensive work-up including a normal upper gastro-intestinal endoscopy, bisopsies that were negative, an unremarkable colonoscopy, a normal abdominal and pelvic ultrasound, and a negative sigmoidoscopy. Dr. Turse noted that Dr. Klein suspected that the patient's problem might be psychogenic. Dr. Turse performed two studies, an endoscopy study, and a gastric emptying study. In a report dated November 16, 1995, Dr. Turse indicated that the EGD with mucosal biopsy revealed minimal findings and that he wanted to rule out gastroparesis/gastric motility disorder. Dr. Turse followed up with a gastric emptying study, which was normal. These studies allowed Dr. Turse to rule out Crohn's disease and gastroparesis in this patient. In a letter dated December 4, 1995, Dr. Turse advised Dr. Burton that the EGD was unremarkable and the gastric emptying study was normal, and despite an extensive work-up, there was no explanation for patient D.W.'s chronic recurrent vomiting. This doctor then indicated that his main impression was gastric motility disorder. On November 6, 1995, D.W. presented to Dr. Burton complaining of headaches. The medical records do not reflect a physical examination or that any lab studies were performed. Dr. Burton's "diagnoses" were a headache, Crohn's Disease, and nausea and vomiting. She prescribed Stadol NS No. 20 (twenty), Lortab 7.5 No. 100 (one hundred) and Fioricet No. 500 (five hundred). From December 5, 1995, through December 19, 1996, D.W. presented to Dr. Burton's office multiple times with various complaints of headache, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Dr. Burton continued to diagnose gastroparesis and Crohn's disease without additional testing or consultation. At this time, it is clear that Dr. Burton had Dr. Turse's letter of December 4, 1995. While it was not inappropriate for her to continue with the diagnosis of Crohn's disease or gastroparesis, a general practitioner receiving a patient with Crohn's disease or gastroparesis would perform a physical examination with a minimum of a rectal exam. A stool test should also have been done to determine if the patient was experiencing blood, parasites, or infection in the intestines. These tests were not done. On December 27, 1995, D.W. presented to Dr. Burton with complaints of a headache. She was tearful, upset, and plucking her hair. Dr. Burton diagnosed Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder and prescribed one hundred tablets of Anafranil 5mg, and Buprenex. On March 8, 1996, D.W. presented to Dr. Burton with gastrointestinal complaints. She reported a history of two episodes of anorexia and Dr. Burton's diagnosis reflects "r/o (rule out) anorexia." On July 12, 1996, Dr. Burton prescribed Wellbutrin to D.W. She had already prescribed Prozac to D.W. on June 27, 1996. Documentation of numerous office visits from October 17, 1995, through December 19, 1996, for D.W. do not contain a complete history and physical examination, or physical findings and assessment. Several of the records, such as the July 12, 1996, record, contain no physical findings whatsoever; others contain merely a temperature reading. Dr. Burton continued to indicate Crohn's disease and gastroparesis as the working diagnoses. She continued to prescribe narcotics like Lortab in high doses for this patient and Donnatrol, Lomotil, and Bentyl, all of which will slow down the motility of the digestive tract. D.W. had a motility problem with her digestive tract. To prescribe medications that slow down the digestive tract further is contra-indicated and can make the patient subject to a perforation of the colon or a systemic infection called septicemia which can be life-threatening. Dr. Burton prescribed significant amounts of Lortab and Fioricet, which contain acetaminophen. Large doses of acetaminophen can be toxic to the liver. She did not perform any liver tests on D.W. Dr. Burton prescribed Xanax, a tranqulizer and Wellbutrin, an anti-depressant, to D.W. in a short period of time. It is not appropriate to prescribe a tranquilizer with an antidepressant in a depressed patient. Dr. Burton also prescribed Prozac and Wellbutrin in the same month. Wellbutrin and Prozac can lower the seizure threshold in people and the former can increase the effect of the latter. It is inappropriate to prescribe these drugs together so close in time. Dr. Burton failed to practice medicine within the acceptable level of care in that she failed to perform an adequate or complete history, physical examination, and assessment of D.W. related to multiple complaints. Dr. Burton failed to perform a rectal exam or a stool test; in addition, she failed to perform a liver test. She also fell below the acceptable standard of care by prescribing medications that slow down the digestive tract and are contra-indicated for a patient with either Crohn's disease or gastric motility disorder. She fell below the standard of care by prescribing Stadol, a narcotic antagonist, with the amount of narcotics prescribed for this patient. Dr. Burton failed to keep written records justifying the course of treatment in that she failed to document a detailed history, physical examination, assessment of physical findings, and plan of treatment for D.W. She consistently prescribed controlled substances for Patient D.W. without performing a complete physical assessment to determine need and she prescribed medications that had the potential to exacerbate some of D.W.'s previous known conditions. Patient C.W. C.W., born March 9, 1955, was D.W.'s husband and also a long-term patient of Dr. Burton. The records of his visit commence with his visit to Dr. Burton's office on October 26, 1995, with complaints of backache and headaches. Dr. Burton's records note a history of three back surgeries, one with insertion of Harrington rods (rods surgically placed along the spine to correct curvature) and recent epidural block. Dr. Burton's office records of C.W. do not contain reports of the surgeries, CTs, or Magnetic Resonance Imaging. There is no documentation of a physical examination or findings other than blood pressure. Dr. Burton diagnosed C.W. with headache, back pain, and depression and prescribed multiple medications including but not limited to: two hundred tablets of Lortab 7.5mg, one hundred tablets of Zoloft, one hundred tablets of Xanax 2mg, six units of Stadol NS, fifty tablets of Imitrex 50mg, ten units of injectable Imitrex, and 100 M.S. Contin 30mg, a narcotic. Prior to his visit with Respondent, C.W. was treated by a Dr. Weiss from December 3, 1992, through October 1995. Dr. Weiss' records, the majority of which were not obtained by Dr. Burton until shortly before the final hearing in this case, did substantiate the prior back surgeries and problems. Dr. Weiss also prescribed Lortab, a narcotic analgesic, for this patient. However, Dr. Weiss indicated in his reports that he either dropped the dosage on the Lortabs or he cancelled the prescriptions completely. As an example, in his report of August 31, 1993, it is noted that patient tried again for Lortab No. 60 but Dr. Weiss said it was too soon. Contained in Dr. Weiss' reports is a report from Dr. Hynes. Dr. Hynes treated C.W. on June 28, 1994, and commented that Patient C.W. was on Lortabs for three years and that the patient recognized that there probably was an addiction problem. This doctor strongly recommended an inpatient pain program. Dr. Burton did not have this record from Dr. Hynes or Dr. Weiss' records, other than a note giving C.W. a disability rating, when Dr. Burton treated him. A reasonably prudent physician would not prescribe the amount of narcotics that Dr. Burton has done in this case without documentation establishing the patient's history. During the period of about October 26, 1995, through December 9, 1996, C.W. presented to Dr. Burton on approximately sixteen occasions with complaints of back pain. Dr. Burton diagnosed chronic back pain and "failed back syndrome" and continued to prescribed Lortabs and other narcotics during this time period. There is no documentation of referral for orthopedic or neurological consultation, and inadequate documentation of physical assessment or clinical evaluation for treatment. There is no documentation concerning a referral to a pain management program. In her note of November 6, 1995, Dr. Burton indicated that C.W. took five tablets of MS Contin at once with no relief. Dr. Burton had indicated in her October 26, 1995, report, less than 2 weeks earlier, that she had warned the patient to take only one a day. Based on this history, C.W. was non-compliant with medication and Dr. Burton should have realized there may be a problem. On April 1, 1996, C.W. presented to Dr. Burton with complaints of weight loss and increased sleeping. Respondent prescribed several medications including Wellbutrin. From October 26, 1995, through December 9, 1996, C.W. received the following medications, among others, prescribed by Dr. Burton in the following approximate amounts: Lortab 7.5 1100 tablets Lortab 10 500 tablets Xanax 2mg 30 tablets Ritalin 20mg 10 tablets Imitrex 50mg 100 tablets Fioricet 900 tablets Duragesic 100mg 5 patches Methadone 10mg 40 Despiramine 25mg 30 Stadol NS 60 Vials Dr. Burton failed to practice medicine within the acceptable level of care in that she failed to perform an adequate or complete history, physical examination, and assessment of C.W. related to complaints of chronic back pain. Dr. Burton failed to practice medicine within the acceptable level of care when she failed to refer C.W. for neurological consultation and physical or pain management therapy of any kind. She failed to practice medicine within the acceptable standard of care for C.W. by consistently prescribing controlled substances in excessive quantities that are addictive without documenting the risks and by not attempting to decrease the dosage or detoxify the patient. Dr. Burton failed to maintain medical records documenting a detailed history, complete physical examinations, and assessments of physical findings of C.W. She failed to obtain records of prior surgeries or diagnostic evaluations to supplement C.W.'s record. Dr. Burton's medical records do not justify the course and scope of treatment of this patient. Weighing the Evidence The testimony of Drs. Rafool and Stein on behalf of the agency was competent and credible. Both reviewed all of the medical records provided by Dr. Burton to the agency and pharmacy records obtained independently by the agency. They also received some law enforcement records which have been excluded from this proceeding as hearsay. Both experts relied appropriately and substantially on Dr. Burton's medical records, or lack thereof, in rendering their opinions of her violations. Both experts explained their conclusions with specific examples and discussions of various office visits of the patients at issue. It is difficult to assess the credibility of Dr. Burton's expert witness, Dr. Centrone, a neurosurgeon. Like the other experts, he reviewed Dr. Burton's records, but he also reviewed detailed statements provided to him by Dr. Burton, which were prepared in the course of this proceeding and not contemporaneously with the office notes. Dr. Centrone, without detailing any basis, concluded that Dr. Burton properly treated the patients at issue. The testimony of J.M. regarding finding prescription bottles, in her name and provided by Dr. Burton, among the abandoned possessions of her former live-in boyfriend was unspecific and confusing and an inadequate basis for finding that Dr. Burton illegally provided drugs to the boyfriend, J.T., through prescriptions written to J.M. Likewise, J.M. never plainly contradicted Dr. Burton's explanation of her encounters with J.M. subsequent to the one office visit in February 1996. J.M. insists that she never returned to Dr. Burton's office, but Dr. Burton's notes do not state that she did return. Instead, as Dr. Burton explained, the notes reflect more casual encounters at the apartment complex and Dr. Burton's prescriptions for continued migraine complaints. Although the agency failed to prove alleged fraud by Dr. Burton, it did prove that Dr. Burton failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. For each patient at issue Dr. Burton consistently responded with prescriptions of controlled substances in inappropriate amounts or combinations. Her testimony that the patients had intractable pain, that she often provided free medical treatment to poor or uninsured patients, and that she had many patients, "nuts", that had been "dumped by every doctor in town," is not a valid defense. Moreover, the explanations in Dr. Burton's written statements offered at hearing and in her testimony regarding her treatment do not obviate the serious deficiencies in her medical records for J.M., D.W., and C.W. Those records provide a sketchy statement of complaint, diagnosis (often no more then "headaches," "back pain," or "failed back syndrome"), and a listing of medications prescribed (sometimes as many as 6 for a single visit). Rarely is there any evidence of an examination or any written justification for prescriptions. The agency's evidence, primarily Dr. Burton's own records, clearly establishes that she failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patients at issue. In a Final Order dated June 10, 1995, in DOAH Case No. 93-3096, Dr. Burton was disciplined by the Board of Medicine for failure to maintain appropriate medical records. In a consent order entered in Case No. 96-02493, Dr. Burton agreed to a fine and other conditions, after she was charged with violating the Board's order in the prior case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: that the Board of Medicine enter its final order finding that Respondent violated Sections 458.331(1)(m),(q), and (t), Florida Statutes (1995), and imposing discipline of a 2-year suspension, $2,000 fine and 2-year probation under appropriate conditions to be established by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 17th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: John E. Terrell, Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Health Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 George Ollinger, Esquire 100 Rialto Place, Suite 700 Melbourne, Florida 32940 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast, Bin A023 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a medical doctor should be disciplined for the reasons stated in the administrative complaint, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Bernardo G. Bilang, was a licensed medical doctor having been issued license number 0026846 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine (DPR or Board). He has been licensed by the Board since July 19, 1976. Respondent presently practices medicine at 1201 South Highland Avenue, Suite 11, Clearwater, Florida. His specialty, if any, is not of record. Around 10:45 p.m. on February 2, 1986, N.K., a seventy-four year old female, was transported by ambulance to the emergency room of Morton F. Plant Hospital, Inc. (hospital) in Clearwater, Florida. When admitted, she complained of nausea, diarreah, dehydration, vomiting, fatigue and not feeling well. Also, she had experienced some pain in her back. With the exception of the back pain, which had begun more than a day earlier, all other symptoms had begun on February 2. Doctor Linda L. Shaffer was the emergency room physician on duty on the evening of February 2. Doctor Shaffer initially observed that the patient looked "acutely ill." She examined the patient and found her to be coherent and alert but very weak, as evidenced by her lack of grip strength In slurred speech, the patient answered questions very faintly and generally in one word answers. As might be expected, the patient was dehydrated. Her vital signs at 11:00 p.m. here as follows: rectal temperature - 104.6 degrees; blood pressure 152 over 96; respiration - 24; and pulse - 101. She also had tenderness across the middle of the back on both sides but did not have a stiff neck. After a preliminary physical examination and history were completed, and while the patient remained in the emergency room area for a few hours, Dr. Shaffer ordered a chest x-ray, electrocardiogram, complete blood count, electrolyte panel, chemical profile, two tests of kidney function, blood cultures, and urinalysis. The patient was then placed on a cardiac monitor, had a foley catheter inserted to obtain a urine speciman, and was given tylenol to reduce her temperature. Also, an IV was started. After finding the chest to be essentially clear and the abdominal examination negative, Dr. Shaffer diagnosed the patient as follows: "fever/dehydration - possible sepsis?" The latter diagnosis (sepsis) meant the patient may have had either a bacterial or viral infection in her blood stream affecting her entire system in a "generalized way." For a seventy-four year old patient, sepsis is a serious condition and can be life threatening if not promptly treated. The normal treatment for sepsis is antibiotics, fluids, medicines to elevate the blood pressure and reduce the temperature, and occasionally the use of steroids. It is noted, however, that a viral infection will not respond to antibiotics. If the use of antibiotics is indicated, they must be started immediately to kill the infection. After concluding her examination, Dr. Shaffer ruled out the threat of cardiac arrest and believed the patient, although "seriously ill," was not suffering from a terminal ailment. Nonetheless, she was concerned with the patient's low white blood cell count (3500) which was indicative of an infection, and one more likely of a viral nature. At the same time, she knew that influenza "was quite prevalent at the time" and might produce symptoms like those experienced by N.K. However, she stuck by her preliminary diagnosis of a possible bacterial infection. Respondent was on call the evening of February 2 for patients such as N.K. who were admitted to the hospital but had no personal physician. 1/ He was telephoned by Dr. Shaffer at 1:20 a.m. on February 3 concerning the patient's status. After being told the patient's symptoms, vital signs, available test results (which did not include the blood cultures, urine culture and chemistry profile) and Dr. Shaffer's preliminary diagnosis respondent requested Dr. Shaffer to admit N.K. to the hospital. He then gave telephonic orders to the nurse regarding N.K.'s future treatment. At that point, responsibility for the patient shifted to respondent. Respondent's first orders at 1:25 a.m. were (a) the patient be given nothing by mouth except medications (b) the IV be continued, (c) she be given atrophine and phenergaan intramuscularly if diarrhea occurred, (d) she be given compazine, if necessary, for nausea and vomiting, and (e) she continue to be given ten grains of tylenol every four hours for her fever. The patient was then transferred from a critical care room to a room where more stabilized patients are kept. According to a nurse on duty that evening, she did not consider N.K. to be a "problem" patient who required extra care or attention. It is noted here that the patient records reflect that respondent initially suspected that N.K. might have the flu, a fairly common ailment in the area at that time. At 1:40 a.m., the patient's vital signs were as follows: blood pressure 124 over 80; respiration rate - 24; and pulse - 92. There is no indication that her temperature was taken at that time but the records indicate that an hour earlier, it had droped to 103.1 degrees. At 2:25 a.m., the patient was moved from an emergency room bed to a semi-private room in the general ward. At 3:05 a.m., N.K.'s temperature was again checked and found to be 103.5 degrees. At 4:00 am., the patient's condition had begun to seriously deteriorate. She manifested signs of being "very lethargic," that is, it was difficult to awaken her, and she appeared to be weaker on her left side. According to Dr. Shaffer, such a localized weakness was indicative of "some process" involving the patient's brain and spinal cord. Also, N.K. still had a rectal temperature reading of 103.5 degrees. At 5:40 am., N.K.'s fingers and toes became cyanotic, that is, they turned blue in color, indicating a lack of circulation. Also, she was confused and her lethargy continued. By then, her respiration rate had increased to 32, almost twice the normal rate. Her blood pressure (138 over 70) began dropping which was a sign of sepsis shock, that is, the peripheral blood vessels were dilating causing the pressure to drop and circulation to be impaired. At 6:05 am., the head nurse, believing there to be an emergency situation, spoke with respondent by telephone. She relayed the previous findings from 5:40 a.m. and noted that the patient's temperature had risen to 104.7 degrees while her blood pressure had dropped to 126 over 70. The nurse did not recall whether she was able to reach respondent immediately or if it took a few minutes for him to return the call. In any event, respondent gave telephonic orders that mandol, a second generation antibiotic, be given to the patient intravenously every six hours, and she be given one gram of solu-cortef, a steroid medication, for shock. Also, he ordered an arterial blood gas analysis and that N.K. be given oxygen by nasal cannula when necessary. Although the telephonic orders were given at 6:05 a.m., the drugs had to be requested and obtained (after mixing) from the hospital pharmacy. In some cases, it takes several hours to receive a drug from the pharmacy, particularly during other than normal daytime hours. The steroid IV was eventually started at 6:30 a.m. but the mandol was never received and administered. When the patient's condition did not improve and actually continued to deteriorate, respondent was telephoned again by a nurse at 6:40 a.m. By then, the patient's entire skin had turned a bluish color indicating very poor circulation. After being briefed by the nurse, including the results of the just received blood gas report, but still without knowing the precise cause of N.K.'s ailment, Dr. Bilang issued a "CMO" order. This means "comfort measures only" and that no aggressive steps, such as resuscitative measures, be taken by hospital personnel to prolong the life of the patient. According to Dr. Shaffer, had resuscitative steps been taken at that time, the patient's chances for survival were around "twenty percent, maybe less." The patient expired at 7:13 a.m. The primary cause of death was listed as meningococcial meningitis, a bacterial infection having a 70% to 80% mortality rate, and a "quite uncommon" infection in a seventy-four year old patient. Laboratory results obtained several days after the patient's death revealed she had gram-negative sepsis. Doctor Bilang arrived at the hospital and pronounced the patient dead at 7:20 a.m. This was the first time respondent had seen and examined the patient. Respondent then dictated a history and physical examination which appear in the patient records. These reports were based on information previously provided by others. On February 21, 1986 respondent dictated a discharge summary which indicated a pre mortem physical finding. This report was also placed in the expired patient's records. Several months later, respondent prepared a second physical examination and history for the patient. This was dictated on July 31, 1986 and again was based on the notes of other persons. However, respondent made the following note at the beginning of the physical examination and history: "Disregard above notes. Patient expired prior to my seeing her in the ward." Two medical experts testified on behalf of the Board. They are Drs. Matthew M. Cohen and Laurence Neufeld, both board certified family practitioners in Tallahassee and Tampa, Florida, respectively. A Shreveport, Louisiana board certified internist, Dr. John M. Brady, presented expert testimony on behalf of respondent. In addition, Dr. Linda L. Shaffer, an experienced physician, testified from her perspective as an emergency room physician at the hospital in question. As might be expected, the experts reached differing conclusions regarding respondent's treatment of the patient. Pertinent findings based on the experts' relevant testimony are made below. There was a consensus among the experts that the emergency room doctor's role is to pass on to the admitting physician all the information the doctor has gathered from the examination and tests. It is then the responsibility of the admitting physician to ask the emergency room doctor appropriate questions concerning the patient, order vital signs to be taken at specified intervals, and give other directions to the monitoring staff (nurses) concerning steps to be taken in the event of changes in the patient's condition. The experts also concluded that the primary physician, in preparing a history and physical examination of the patient, should not rely on the emergency room doctor's notes and findings but should personally conduct his own physical and history in a more thorough manner. This is especially true when, as here, the emergency room physician is unable to conclusively establish the cause of the patient's illness. In Dr. Cohen's opinion, respondent should have suspected meningitis at the outset of N.K.'s admission. This was because of her lethargy, high fever and back pain, all being symptoms associated with that infection. Doctor Cohen also noted that respondent was cognizant of Dr. Shaffer's preliminary diagnosis of possible sepsis, knew that pneumonia and urinary tract infection were not the causes of the infection, and still had no idea what caused N.K.'s infection. Given these considerations, Dr. Cohen opined that respondent should have ordered further tests to confirm N.K.'s ailment, such as a lumbar puncture (spinal tap), an X-ray of her abdomen, a reexamination of the abdomen or a head scan. Doctor Cohen further suggested that after those tests were completed, it would have been prudent for respondent to "employ a sort of antibiotic recipe for dealing with a septic, elderly person." In other words, he should have used a group of intravenous antibiotics that would cover most of the possible causes for that type of infection. In addition to the foregoing omissions, Dr. Cohen was of the opinion that Dr. Bilang erred further when, after receiving advice from the nurse at 6:05 a.m. and 6:40 a.m. concerning the patient's rapid deterioration in health, he failed to institute aggressive antibiotic therapy and instead prescribed mandol, a drug Dr. Cohen felt was too little, too late. According to Dr. Cohen, respondent compounded his mistakes by issuing a CMO order when the patient did not have a terminal illness and without consulting the patient's family. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, the expert concluded that respondent did not conform with minimally acceptable medical standards in the community. Doctor Cohen next opined that it was inappropriate for respondent to prepare a history and physical after the patient's death and to base those items on information gathered by others. He labeled these matters "false and misleading" and a deviation from the standard expected of a doctor. Doctor Neufeld initially pointed out that respondent erred by failing to start a broad spectrum (third generation) antibiotic regimen when he assumed responsibility for the patient at 1:20 a.m. According to the witness, such a regimen was called for because respondent was aware of the patient's age, high fever, slurred speech, dehydrated condition, the very strong possibility of sepsis, and his own inability to promptly obtain blood cultures from the laboratory to aid in confirming or ruling out various ailments. Further, respondent had no concrete evidence that the patient was suffering from the flu, an illness he initially thought N.K. might have. Even if respondent was unsure if the infection was viral or bacterial, Dr. Neufeld pointed out that respondent nonetheless should have assumed the patient was septic and started an antibiotic regimen until the cultures were received from the laboratory or the fever subsided. Moreover, even if the patient had a viral infection, the antibiotics would not have harmed her. By respondent waiting until 6:05 a.m., and then ordering mandol rather than a stronger drug, Dr. Neufeld opined that respondent fell below the minimum standard of care for community physicians. Doctor Neufeld stated further that respondent deviated from the same standard of care by issuing a CMO order when the patient did not have a terminal illness. Doctor Neufeld echoed Dr. Cohen's sentiments that the prevailing community standards did not call for a CMO order unless the patient was afflicted with a terminal, irreversible illness and only after a physical examination had been performed by the physician. Doctor Neufeld found the physical examination documented by Dr. Bilang on pages 10 and 11 and the accompanying discharge summary on pages 13 and 14 of the patient records to misleading since both erroneously suggested a pre mortem physical finding. Also, Dr. Neufeld opined that the medical records did not justify the course of treatment to the patient. However, the basis for this opinion is not clearly delineated in the record. Doctor Neufeld conceded that though he would have gone to the hospital at 1:20 a.m. to examine the patient, respondent did not violate the standard of care by evaluating the needs of the patient by telephone. Even so, Dr. Neufeld maintained that respondent should have ordered antibiotics after his consultation with Dr. Shaffer. The expert differed in one respect with Dr. Cohen and agreed with respondent that the records, at least at 1:20 am., did not call for a spinal tap or head scan, and respondent's failure to perform those tests at that time was acceptable. Finally, although he acknowledged that an order for a third generation antibiotic regimen at 6:05 a.m. might not have been mixed and ready for patient use by the time the patient expired, Dr. Neufeld opined that respondent still had a duty to use all available measures to keep her alive until the drugs were received. According to Dr. Shaffer, she observed Dr. Bilang on a day to day basis and considered him a "caring, competent, practicing physician." However, she stated that respondent was sometimes too busy" and overextended" himself. As a consequence, she was "concerned" that he was taking care of too many patients at the same time. Although she did not consider herself qualified to render an opinion, she opined that respondent did not deviate from the minimally acceptable standards for Clearwater area physicians when he failed to initially order antibiotics for N.K. at 1:20 a.m. This was because, if a physician was unsure if a patient had a viral syndrome or a bacterial septic condition, he might wait "a little bit of time" to see what course of treatment was required. Further, the decision to order antibiotics is a "judgment call" by a doctor and depends in part on two "iffy" tests, a lumbar puncture and a gram stain of the blood smear. The latter test result was not available until several days after the patient expired. According to Dr. Brady, respondent's course of treatment and overall conduct, with one exception, fell within the minimal acceptable standards of care for physicians. The exception pertained to respondent's issuance of a CMO order. After reviewing the patient's records, Dr. Brady concluded that respondent could not have known the patient was suffering from a bacterial infection since nothing in the physical examination was suggestive of meningococcemia, the organism affecting the patient. Thus, he concluded that the patient's illness was probably not diagnosable until shortly before she died. This was because the patient did not have a stiff neck (nuchal rigidity), purplish skin rash, or signs of shock, which are the normal indications of meningitis, and because the infection is extremely rare and has an incidence rate of only one case per one hundred thousand persons in a given year. Even so, he conceded that if the disease occurs, its physical signs can manifest in a very short period of time and could have begun shortly after the patient was first examined by the emergency room physician around 11:00 p.m. Once respondent recognized the severity of the patient's ailment, and prescribed mandol at 6:05 a.m., Dr. Brady agreed that mandol would not have had any beneficial effect on the patient even if administered immediately after being ordered. Instead, the witness would have ordered a third generation antibiotic which is more effective in treating gram negative rods. While he characterized respondent's choice of mandol as "not the best thing to do", he nonetheless said "it was not an unreasonable thing to do" given the circumstances. The expert next agreed with the Board experts that a CMO order is appropriate only when the patient has a terminal illness and has requested that no life-sustaining measures be used. In this case, he agreed that the patient records did not justify this action. He added, however, that the patient would probably have expired no matter what resuscitative efforts were undertaken. Finally, while Dr. Brady did not think respondent was attempting to falsify his records by copying the notes of others in preparing the post-mortem physical and patient history, he noted that respondent should have indicated on his February 3, 1986 notes that he was copying the records of others. Having evaluated the testimony of the experts, the undersigned has resolved the conflicts in favor of the Board. Accordingly, it is found that respondent fell below the minimum standard of care by failing to initially recognize the patient's septic condition and prescribing a comprehensive antibiotic regimen, by failing to institute the same regimen at 6:05 a.m. after becoming aware of her critical condition, and by issuing a CMO order at 6:40 a.m. when the patient did not have a terminal illness. Further, respondent filed reports on February 3 and 21, 1986 which he knew or should have known were misleading and false, namely, a patient history, physical examination and discharge summary prepared post mortem which suggested that such reports were based on pre mortem findings by respondent. Finally, it is found that the records maintained by respondent were inadequate to justify the issuance of a CMO order since the patient did not have a terminal illness. By stipulation approved by Board order dated October 30, 1987, respondent was reprimanded by the Board, paid a $1,000 fine, was placed on monitored probation for a year, and agreed to take twenty hours of continuing medical education in the area of prescribing medicinal drugs. Official Board records indicate that respondent's license still remains on a probationary status presumably because of the pending proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of the violations discussed in the Conclusions of Law portion of this Recommended Order, and that respondent's medical license be suspended for two years. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July, 1989.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of, Florida having been issued license No. 0033496. Respondent's address is 133 Darnell Avenue, Spring Hill, Florida 33626. Respondent rendered medical care and treatment to patient B.R. during the period July 11, 1985 to July 15, 1985 while she was a patient at the Oak Hill Community Hospital, Spring Hill, Florida for, among other things, acute transmural myocardial infarction. On or about July 15, 1985, patient B.R. died from acute myocardial infarction after resuscitative procedures were unsuccessful. Patient B.R. was brought to the emergency room at Oak Hill Community Hospital on July 11, 1985 by her husband after complaining of chest pains. Shortly after arrival she suffered a myocardial infarction and "coded." She was resuscitated and placed in the intensive care unit. As the medical services physician on call, Respondent was contacted and assumed the care of patient B.R., a 65 year old female. Respondent is Board-certified in internal medicine and is Board eligible in cardiology having completed a fellowship in cardiology at George Washington University in 1968. B.R. had formerly worked as a licensed practical nurse who suffered a back injury some years ago which resulted in back surgery three times. In 1978, some 10 years before her demise, B.R. suffered a heart attack. She also had a history of diabetes and recently had undergone a thyroidectomy. With this medical history she presented a complex case for care and treatment. With patient presenting the history and symptoms of B.R., a reasonably prudent physician would have ordered daily chest X-rays, had an echocardiagram taken, inserted a Swan-Ganz catheter and consulted with a cardiologist on the treatment of this patient. None of these were done by Respondent. While acknowledging those procedures above listed were clearly indicated, Respondent testified he suggested those procedures to B.R. but, while she was fully competent to understand his recommendation, B.R. refused to be further X-rayed, refused the echocardiagram because she thought it produced some type of nuclear radiation, and also specifically refused to have any tubes inserted in her veins which would result if the Swan-Ganz catheter was inserted. None of the patient's refusals to accept recommended procedures was charted in B.R.'s hospital records. Respondent testified that B.R. specifically directed him to not chart on her hospital record her refusal to undergo the test and procedures recommended by Respondent. Respondent further testified that following her refusal to undergo the test and procedures and under directions to him not to chart those refusals on the hospital chart, he put this history in his office notes. To corroborate thin testimony Respondent presented Exhibit 5, a copy of those office notes containing entries dated July 12, 13, 14, 15, and 23, August 13, September 26, December 13, 1985 and January 29, 1986, comprising 4 typewritten pages. While a patient has a absolute right to refuse treatment or procedures recommended by his/her physician, the patient does not have the right to direct the physician to prepare an incomplete record of his treatment and progress. The principal purpose of the chart is to record medical evidence of the patient's condition, treatment rendered and results obtained to provide a history from which another physician can, if necessary, adequately take over the care of the patient. The record also provides a history of the patient's response to treatment. Respondent's explanation that if he had expected to be away and another physician had to take over the care and treatment of B.R. he would have made the other physician aware of B.R.'s refusal to undergo the recommended procedures totally failed to satisfy the need for a complete record of the patient in one place. To prove the validity of the office notes as a "business record," Respondent testified that for the past 30 years he has maintained office notes in which he has placed information the patient didn't want in the hospital record. An expert witness in the field of questioned documents testified that each dated entry on Exhibit 5 was typed following a new insertion of the paper in the typewriter rather than all entries being typed at the same time or with the same insertion of the paper in the typewriter and this was consistent with what would be expected in normal office procedures. Respondent's office manager and secretary during the times reported on Exhibit 5 testified she was the one who normally transcribed Respondent's dictated notes, that Exhibit 5 was consistent with the normal office practice which would be to date the entries when they were typed, and, although she does not specifically recall typing each entry on Exhibit 5, they were probably all typed by her. Evidence questioning the validity of Respondent's testimony that the office notes were dictated contemporaneously with his treatment of B.R. and typed on the dates indicated included the testimony of the husband of B.R. that B.R. had a zest for life and it would be contrary to her nature to refuse certain procedures or consultations; the fact that on July 14, 1985 B.R. was intubated with the Respondent present; that there was no financial consideration involved as B.R. was adequately insured; the office manager and secretary of Respondent during the period the office notes are alleged to have been prepared is the daughter of Respondent; and the fact that at the peer review committee inquiry into the facts surrounding the death of B.R., Respondent never mentioned the existence of office notes although he was extensively questioned regarding his failure to maintain a more complete medical record in this case. From the foregoing it is found that B.R.'s refusal to submit to the procedures allegedly recommended by Respondent were not contemporaneously recorded in Respondent's office notes and Exhibit 5 was prepared after Respondent appeared before the hospital peer review committee if not also after the administrative complaint was filed in this case.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, the Respondent was a licensed medical doctor in Florida having been issued license number ME 0041256. Respondent was awarded his medical degree by the University of Tennessee in 1977. He came to southwest Florida in January, 1983 starting his practice in August of that year. He thereafter applied for and was granted privileges at Lee Memorial Hospital and practiced in Lee County until January, 1985 when he moved to Collier County. In January, 1985, Dr. Heiss notified Lee Memorial Hospital that he was moving his practice and that he no longer needed privileges at that facility. This was partly in response to a letter from the hospital asking him to resign which was, at least in part, based on his failure to keep his medical records current. He admits that prior to that time, he had received some notices involving incomplete records at the hospital and went in to work on them as best he could. However, due to his own medical problem which involved a prolonged throat infection that left him tired and weak, he could not accomplish much. This medical problem lasted for several months and when he was feeling better, he tried, to the best of his ability, he claims, during the summer of 1985, to complete the incomplete records. He went to the hospital and worked on some of them, but in late 1986, when he checked with clerical personnel in the medical records section, he was told his records were complete, and coincidentally, he stopped getting delinquency notices. Under the procedure in effect at Lee Memorial Hospital for correcting incomplete records in 1984, once a week, Ms. Lindahl, the assistant manager of the records section, would go through the files to determine which records were delinquent. If dictation was needed, the chart would be declared delinquent in 15 days. If only the signature was missing, the doctor was give 45 days to correct it. When the record was declared delinquent, medical records personnel would send a weekly reminder letter to the physician setting a one week suspense for correction and indicating that if the correction was not made, the doctor's hospital privileges could be suspended. These temporary suspensions, however, were not being enforced. According to Ms. Lindahl, in 1985, Dr. Heiss was identified and placed on the delinquent list 35 times. Because of this, he would have been sent 35 letters. In January, 1985, at the time Respondent left Lee Memorial Hospital, he left incomplete 84 charts. Because of the volume of incomplete records left by Respondent, the hospital Medical Records Committee, on May 2, 1985, authorized Ms. Lindahl to transfer these incomplete records to the permanent records section of the archives, a procedure that would not normally have been done with incomplete records. This transfer was accomplished in August, 1985. After Respondent left the hospital, in January, 1985, up to March, 1985, Ms. Lindahl contacted him both at home and at his new office both by phone and by letter on several occasions, and asked him to come in and complete his records. Each of the letters sent indicated those charts, by name, which needed completion. After the charts were transferred to permanent records in August, 1985, until February, 1987, Ms. Lindahl did not make any further effort to contact Dr. Heiss, nor did he contact her. However, she was informed by the Hospital Administrator that Dr. Heiss was to come in and work on the records. Therefore, she pulled these records for him and, in fact, the Respondent did, on some occasions, come in at night to work on them. Ms. Lindahl agreed to pull records for him as needed but advised him that she could not and would not pull all his incomplete records at one time. Charts are placed on microfilm after a period of years. Some of Respondent's charts were microfilmed before he completed them. However, the hospital made arrangements for him to complete these records as well in an effort to accommodate him. Once the records were placed on microfilm, it was more difficult for Dr. Heiss to complete them since, initially, there was no dictating equipment available in the microfilm reading area. However, it could have been done by Respondent taking notes from the film and thereafter dictating those notes in the records room where dictating equipment was available. However, that was not necessary, since the hospital set up a booth with dictating capability in it for him in the microfilm reading area. An Administrative Complaint was filed against Dr. Heiss in October, 1985, because of his incomplete files. The matter was referred to the Board of Medicine in February, 1987, after a stipulated settlement was reached between the Respondent and Counsel for the Board. On February 11, 1987, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order which approved and adopted the stipulation entered into between Respondent and counsel for the Board on December 23, 1986. Paragraph 4 of the stipulated Disposition in this case provided that prior to the stipulation being presented to the Board, Respondent would complete all incomplete hospital records that he was responsible for at Lee Memorial Hospital. Dr. Heiss contends that at that time, he understood his medical records to be complete, based upon his inquiry to personnel in the medical records section at the hospital. He indicates he made several inquiries of at least two separate employees who told him they could find no record of any incomplete files charged to him. Once his incomplete records were transferred to permanent storage, they were deleted from the computer and a routine inquiry would not have disclosed them. However, Ms. Lindahl had in her possession a complete list of his still incomplete records and a simple inquiry to her, the person in charge, would have given him the correct information. Dr. Heiss did not check with Ms. Lindahl, who worked days even though he admits he may have been in the hospital for other reasons on several occasions during the day. He would usually come in during the evenings, and on one occasion, spoke with Mr. Shuler, the night records custodian, who checked the computer and found no record of the doctor's delinquency. Mr. Shuler, however, advised Dr. Heiss to check with Ms. Lindahl. Dr. Heiss states he believed that the Stipulation he worked out with counsel for the Board in response to the initial Complaint, took care of the problem. When he went before the Board in February, 1987, he had checked with medical records at the hospital and had been told his status was clear. This check was not with Ms. Lindahl, however. When he did so, he found he did have unfinished records. It was at that time, after the stipulation was signed, that he began to bring the records current. Dr. Heiss admits that during the period 1985 - 1986, believed there were some medical records that were incomplete but because they had been filed in the permanent records section, he believed his responsibility for them was fulfilled. As a practicing physician, he relies upon the medical records section to tell him what records need to be completed. When he was advised by that agency that he was no longer delinquent, he felt satisfied. This argument is specious and without merit. Respondent admits he did not make any attempt to work on the records from January to July, 1986. He contends that from July, 1986 to January, 1987, he called the hospital several times to check on his records but could get no indication he had files undone. It was not until after the Board meeting in February, 1987, when Mr. Shuler told him to speak with Ms. Lindahl, that he determined he did have some medical records incomplete. Notwithstanding, he knew he had some dictation that was incomplete and some matters were unsigned and in his opinion, it is more a question of semantics, (what the term, "incomplete" meant), and not knowing what he had to do. He contends he dealt in good faith with the hospital and with the Board of Medicine and was surprised to find out that he was not in good standing. This argument as well, is unbelievable. Dr. Heiss contends he relied on what he was told by the people at medical records but at no time until after he entered into the Stipulation with the Board of Medicine in 1987 did he contact Ms. Lindahl even though he knew she was the one who was in charge of delinquencies and was still employed by the hospital. It was incumbent upon him as the physician to contact the person in charge, especially in light of his suspicion that certain records were incomplete, and not rely on phone calls to anyone who answered. This does not constitute reasonably prudent action or the actions of a reasonable man. It cannot reasonably be claimed that Dr. Heiss' actions were based on an honest and reasonable mistake of fact. As a physician, he should have assumed that the Board wanted and required all records to be completed and it was his responsibility to insure that the records were, in fact completed. This he failed to do. On March 20, 1987, Respondent still had 53 charts incomplete of the 84 charts he had left incomplete when he departed the staff of Lee Memorial Hospital. These 53 charts were completed by November, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a medical doctor in Florida be suspended for ninety days and that he pay an administrative fine of $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of January, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2674 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. BY THE PETITIONER 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted 4 - 8 Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contra to the evidence. 11 - 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17 - 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23 & 24. Accepted and incorporated herein. 25. Argument rather than Finding of Fact. 26 & 27. Accepted and incorporated herein. BY THE RESPONDENT No submittal. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director DPR, Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Susan Branson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dan E. Batchelor, Esquire Post Office Box 1899 Bonita Springs, Florida 33923
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry, pursuant to Sections 20.165, 20.42, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes and was not a nominal party to the proceedings. Petitioner, John Allison Rowe, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Rowe), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0009364. Petitioner Rowe, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Toombs), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0007026. Petitioner Toombs, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation, with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each employed less than twenty- five (25) employees at the time this action was initiated. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each had a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than two million dollars. In or around 1988, and in or around 1989, Respondent received several complaints from insurance companies concerning Petitioner Rowe's treatment, services, and fees charged to patients through the Central Florida Dental Association and/or other entities. Each insurance company had obtained a review of the services, treatment, and fees charged to the patients and had included that information in their complaint to Respondent. As a result, Respondent began a series of investigations into the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, whose name had appeared as the treating or certifying dentist on all health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patients. The insurance companies alleged that Petitioner Rowe's fees were excessive relative to the customary and usual fees charged for the services, that certain diagnostic tests had been provided to the patients although of questionable medical necessity and acceptance in the dental community, and that certain procedures had been performed in excess of the justified needs of the patient. During the course of the investigation, it became necessary for the Respondent to consult with the Probable Cause Panel on the Board of Dentistry on or about July 12, 1989, and on or about October 13, 1989, to obtain certain patient records without patient authorization. The Probable Cause Panel of July 12, 1989, was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer. Each of the panel members at the July 12, 1989, meeting indicated that they had received and reviewed the Department's investigative materials. The July 12, 1989, panel found-reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of the medical necessity for the treatment provided such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek the patient's records by subpoena. On or about October 13, 1989, the Respondent again consulted with panel members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer to determine if reasonable cause existed to obtain certain patient records as part of its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. Each of the panel members indicated at the October 13, 1989, meeting that he had received and reviewed the investigative materials presented by the Respondent. The October 13, 1989, panel found reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of medical necessity for the treatment provided to the patient such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek patients' records by subpoena. Following completion of its investigation, on or about April 10, 1991, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.W. DBPR Case No. 01-11379 Count II patient E.M. DBPR Case No. 89-02166 Count III patient J.T. DBPR Case No. 89-13187 Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR Case No. 89-02167 Count V patient M.R.V. DBPR Case No. 89-02372 Respondent alleged in the April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.W. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Patient E.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient J.T. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.Z. (Count IV) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.R.V. (Count V) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Ex-A pgs. 1-18). The April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990 Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990 panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel separately took up each investigative report but recommended that the Department consider consolidation of the charges into a single filed administrative complaint The Panel members felt very strongly about the charges as revealed by the investigative reports and consultant's opinions, and in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, the panel recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek and expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, September 11, 1990, September 17, 1990, and September 18, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. As had the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. The November 2, 1990, panel, composed of the same membership as the June 4, 1990, meeting, expressed similar concerns regarding Petitioner Rowe and an apparent lack of concern for treatment effectiveness. Panel member Robert Ferris, D.D.S. expressed praise for Dr. Lilly's reports noting that they were "excellent." The panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinion. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly found that in some cases diagnostic services had been billed twice on the same day although it was customary in the profession to perform the services in one session, that services had been billed which had not been provided to the patients, records were inadequate to justify those services provided, that treatment was provided without appropriate use of diagnostic information, orthotic devices were mischaracterized as surgical devices, fees greatly exceeded the usual and customary charges for certain services, questionable use of arthrogram studies was employed by Petitioner Rowe, certain other diagnostic studies conducted on the patients were of questionable medical necessity, and Petitioner Rowe had misdiagnosed a patient's condition. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent initiated a second action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the July 24, 2991 Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.D. DBPR Case No. 01-11377 Count II patient R.M. DBPR Case No. 01-11378 Count III patient S.R. DBPR Case No. 01-12140 Respondent alleged in the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.D. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Patient R.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry of dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient S.R. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the April 10, 1991, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Donald Cadle, D.M.D., William Robinson, D.D.S., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the three investigative reports together and recommended that the Department file charges as a single filed administrative complaint. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the April 27, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 27, 1990, the department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about December 13, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about February 21, 1991, February 27, 1991, and February 28, 1991, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials again noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. Dr. Lilly again noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. Dr. Lilly noted that, despite the verification of completeness of records executed by the records custodian and obtained during the investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, certain patient records and billing information were clearly missing from some patient files. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendations, the April 10, 1991, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly's findings from review of DBPR Case Numbers 01-11377, 01- 11378 and 01-12140 were not dissimilar from those found in reviewing other investigative reports concerning Petitioner. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patients, Petitioner Rowe, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about December 20, 1990, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Toombs, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs concerned allegations filed by patient J.T., who had also filed a similar complaint against Petitioner Rowe. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disclaimed any knowledge about the care and treatment J.T. had received from them. Petitioner Toombs claimed that Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Frank Murray were responsible for setting the fees charged for services. Petitioner Toombs claimed that he was aware excessive charges had been incurred by some patients who had seen Petitioner Rowe and that the dental practice was aware of the problem and had ignored the problem. Respondent's investigation of Petitioner Toombs was coordinated with its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. In the Administrative Complaint filed December 20, 1990, Respondent alleged that Petitioner Toombs committed the following violations: Patient J.T. Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry, which had also considered the investigative materials for Petitioner Rowe. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting, with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Toombs. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the investigative report and recommended that the Department file and administrative complaint against Petitioner Toombs. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek a suspension, probation, and fine in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative report to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel expressed specific concerns about the billing practices and on the care provided to the patient, i.e., the immediate seeking of oral surgery prior to excluding the use of less invasive techniques. The Panel found that expert review as necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative report for Petitioner Toombs, as well as the reports for Petitioner Rowe, to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued his report from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with patient J.T.'s treatment and the billing associated with treatment. Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Toombs seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and service. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendation for Petitioner Toombs, the November 2, 1990, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from the patient J.T., interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Toombs was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patient, Petitioner Rowe, Petitioner Toombs, subsequent providers, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent amended the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs without substantially altering the alleged violations committed by Petitioner Toombs. In each case, Respondent was required by Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, to file the administrative complaints at the direction of the Probable Cause Panel for the Board of Dentistry and prosecute the administrative complaints against the Petitioners according to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disputed the allegations of the administrative complaints and the cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. Petitioner Rowe, without objection from Respondent, sought consolidation of DOAH Case Number 91-03213, representing the charges of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him, with DOAH Case Number 91- 6022, representing the charges of the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him. Petitioner Rowe's cases were consolidated into a single proceeding on or about October 2, 1991. On or about October 18, 1991, this Hearing Officer entered an Order to Show Cause why Petitioner Toombs' case should not be heard concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. Respondent did not object to hearing the cases concurrently and an Order was issued on November 4, 1991, setting Petitioner Toombs case for hearing concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. On or about November 4, 1991, Respondent with the full agreement and consent of Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, requested consolidation of the then existing two proceedings. On or about November 18, 1991, the proceedings against Petitioners Rowe and Toombs were consolidated into a single action by Order of this Hearing Officer. During discovery, Petitioner Rowe obtained the original patient records for the eight patients at issue in the consolidated proceeding from Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe provided the Respondent with copies of the records he had obtained in discovery. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe found that approximately 426 pages of records were then contained in the files of Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association, which had not been previously provided to the Respondent despite certification that the records provided to Respondent were complete. The majority of the records obtained by Petitioner Rowe, subsequent to the original finding of probable causes, were records of billing information not previously contained in the patient records. Based on the additional records, Petitioner Rowe and the Respondent moved this Hearing Officer to permit Respondent to amend the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe, which request was granted by this Hearing Officer. On or about April 9, 1992, Respondent conferred with the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry for the purpose of amending the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe. The April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel was composed of members William Robinson, D.D.S., Faustino Garcia, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. Prior to presentation of the proposed amended administrative complaint to the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, Respondent obtained the assistance of Reda A. Abdel-Fattah, D.D.S. in evaluating the patient records and in the drafting of the amended complaint. Prior to the Panel's consideration of the investigative materials, the Respondent obtained from Petitioner Rowe approximately 426 additional pages from the patient records of the Central Florida Dental Association and/or Dr. Murray and received additional records and information through supplemental investigation. Before directing that an amended administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe, the panel members at the April 9, 1992, meeting indicated that he had received the investigative materials and reviewed the materials along with the Department's recommendation to amend the complaint. Following receipt of the material and after having the opportunity to inquire of counsel, the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel directed that the proposed Amended Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. The Amended Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner Rowe, at the direction of the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, on or about April 22, 1992, and alleged the following violations: Count I Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes by having had a license to practice dentistry acted against by the licensing authority of another state; and/or Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes by having failed to report to the Board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one's license to practice dentistry in another state. Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1978) by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonable calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 89-13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint was based on records obtained from the Tennessee Board of Dentistry and had not been previously charged as a violation in this proceeding. Panel Member Donald Cadle, D.M.D., had originally requested in the meeting of April 27, 1990, that the Department included findings as to the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe in its expert review as possible violation of Section 466.0268(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. Dr. Cadle withdrew his request, after discussion with Panel Member Robert Ferris, D.D.S., finding that the previous disciplinary action was too remote in time for the statute to be applicable in Petitioner Rowe's case. The Probable Cause Panel of April 9, 1992, revisited the issue of the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe and found that it should be included in the current disciplinary proceeding as part of the amended complaint. The panel failed to recognize the effective date of Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. After considering the additional records provided by Petitioner Rowe and the records obtained in supplemental investigation, the Amended Administrative Complaint dropped the previous allegations that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes by failing to keep adequate written records for each patient. The remaining allegations of the original administrative complaints filed against Petitioner Rowe were included in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the following additional allegations were made for each patient: Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes was added as a disciplinary provision for the Board of Dentistry effective July 6, 1990, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter 90-341, Laws of Florida (1990). Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes was repealed effective April 8, 1992, pursuant to Section 6, Chapter 92-178 Laws of Florida (1992). A formal hearing was held on the charges of the Amended Administrative Complaints beginning on or about November 9, 1992, and ending on or about November 13, 1992. As sanction for his non-compliance with prehearing discovery, Petitioner Toombs was limited at the formal hearing to the cross-examination of witnesses and the ability to object to evidence but was not permitted to call witnesses or enter evidence on his behalf. At the formal hearing, the patient records were found to be inherently unreliable and untrustworthy as evidence, due to the inconsistencies found to then exist in the patient records. At the formal hearing, it was established that Frank Murray, D.D.S. had custody and control of the patient records and that he had full control over patient billing and the fees charged for the treatment or services rendered through the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients who were the subject of the administrative complaints and amended administrative complaints, Petitioner Rowe was an employee and a shareholder of the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time that Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding, Frank Murray, D.D.S. made all operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. Petitioner Toombs was an associate dentist working for the Central Florida Dental Association and was not a shareholder of the clinic. At the time these cases were investigated, Respondent permitted individuals from whom patient records were sought to copy those records and provide the records to Respondent with an executed verification of completeness of records. For each patient who was the subject of the Respondent's investigation, an employee of the Central Florida Dental Association copied the patient records and submitted the records to the Respondent's investigator with a verification of completeness of records. There was no reason for the investigator to question the accuracy of the executed verification of completeness of records and the patient records appeared generally consistent across patient files. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action finding that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action dismissing all charges against Petitioner Toombs and the remaining charges against Petitioner Rowe. At the time services were provided to the patients by Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, Section 466.018, Florida Statutes, required that there be a dentist of record identified in the patient record. Section 466.018, Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the dentist of record was presumed responsible for the patient's care and treatment unless otherwise noted in the record. The records maintained for each of the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding revealed that either no dentist of record had been charted or that Petitioner Rowe was the treating dentist of record as indicated by the patient medical history form and the health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patient. Absent the identification of the dentist of record in the chart, Section 466.018(2), Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the owner of the dental practice was the dentist of record for the patient, in this case, Frank Murray, D.D.S., Petitioner Rowe, and the other shareholders of the dental practice. Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes provided that a dentist of record could be relieved of his/her responsibility to maintain dental records by transferring records to the owner dentist and maintaining a list of all records transferred. There was no evidence presented during the investigation of the underlying disciplinary proceeding or offered at formal hearing to demonstrate that either Petitioner Rowe or Petitioner Toombs had complied with Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes in transferring patient records to Frank Murray, D.D.S. or the Central Florida Dental Association, i.e., a written statement signed by dentist of record, the owner of the practice, and two witnesses, that listed the date and the records transferred to either Frank Murray, D.D.S. or Central Florida Dental Association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That Petitioners' requests for award of attorney's fees and costs are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARK 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 November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Adopted in Paragraph 1. & 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Paragraph 64. The charges with regard to influence for financial gain were included in the amended complaint. & 6. Rejected as immaterial. The panel explained in an earlier meeting that its real concern was with the exercise of influence for financial gain. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 54. Rejected as argument that is not supported by the record or immaterial. Adopted in conclusions of law, as to section 57.111, but rejected-as immaterial as to section 120.59(6)(a), F.S. since the agency is not a "nonprevailing party". Adopted in conclusions of law. This finding is, however, disputed by Respondent. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4 14.-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 17.-19. Rejected as unnecessary, given the conclusion that the complaints were "substantially justified" at the time they were filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire 660 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Jon M. Pellett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has failed to practice medicine at the level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent, similarly-situated physicians, by allegedly failing to appreciate the nature of a complaint, failing to order a proper diagnostic test, and failing to make a timely referral to an appropriate specialist, as well as whether the Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records documenting a rationale for his diagnosis of the patient, in alleged violation, respectively, of Sections 458.331(1)(t) and 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of medicine and enforcing the licensure and practice standards contained in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and appurtenant rules. The Respondent, at all times material to this proceeding, has been a licensed physician in the State of Florida holding license number ME 0032003. On or about October 3, 1986, Patient #1, a thirty-five year-old male, presented to the Respondent's office with complaints of testicular pain, swelling, and a lump in the vicinity of the left testicle. The patient was seen by Dr. Laski, a physician (M.D.) employed by the Respondent. Dr. Laski examined the patient and diagnosed him as suffering from epididymitis. Epididymitis is an inflammation of the epididymis, which is a series of tubules that runs from the testicle to the vas deferens. The epididymis partially surrounds the testicle but is not actually a part of the testicle itself. The epididymis is part of the scrotal structures, and is attached to and continuous with the testicle, both being located within the scrotum. Patient #1 related that while working at his job as a truck driver, he was straining, trying to lift or move a 427-pound hot tub, when he felt pain and swelling in the left testicle, associated with a small lump. Upon diagnosing epididymitis, Dr. Laski started a treatment regimen of antibiotic and anti- inflammatory medications. He required the patient to return in four to five days. Dr. Laski saw the patient the second time on October 8, 1986 with continued complaints of left testicular pain. Dr. Laski again continued the same diagnosis and treatment. On October 13, 1986, Patient #1 again presented to Dr. Laski with continued left testicular pain with a small mass on the left testicle. Dr. Laski continued his diagnosis of epididymitis and continued the antibiotic and anti-inflammatory medications, although he changed the type of antibiotic prescribed. The patient visited a fourth time on October 17, 1986, and Dr. Laski found a tender nodule over the left testicle but also found that the remainder of the symptoms, consisting of pain and swelling, had disappeared. Dr. Laski found on the patient's first and fourth visits to him, and noted in the medical records, a mass or nodule on the left testicle; however, on the fourth visit, he found that the acute symptoms had disappeared. Dr. Laski still felt the nodule, which he could not ascribe to anything related to the purported accident experienced by the patient. Therefore, Dr. Laski felt that a urologist would be the appropriate person to see, "to take no chances and to make sure that there was not something else." Dr. Laski, accordingly, noted in his records that a referral to a urologist was in order. This was on Friday afternoon, October 17, 1986. The Respondent's office staff apparently made an attempt to refer the patient to a urologist that afternoon but was unsuccessful, due to the inability to contact the urologist's office. Apparently, the patient was instructed to call the Respondent's office the following Monday or Tuesday concerning the referral appointment. The patient maintains that he called the Respondent's office on Tuesday and was told that they could not send him to a specialist until the Respondent himself saw the patient. The Respondent disputes this and states that there is no such policy in his office that he had to see any patient before referral out to a specialist could occur. In any event, on October 22, 1986, Dr. Laski saw the patient again and called in the Respondent, who also examined the patient. The evidence of record does not indicate clearly why the Respondent took over the care and treatment of the patient from Dr. Laski at this point; however, that was apparently the case. When the Respondent initially saw Patient #1 on October 22, 1986, the Respondent did not enter in his medical records information which would either affirm or negate the presence of a mass or nodule, as identified by Dr. Laski. The Respondent testified, however, that he felt something "because, here, I'm palpating something, yes." Because he felt something in the left testicle, the Respondent ordered a urinalysis. The urinalysis was a routine "dipstick" urinalysis without microscopic slide or culture evaluation for bacteria. The Respondent testified that he wanted the urinalysis as diagnostic information because he was "palpating something". He did the urinalysis by dipstick method, such that he was able to evaluate the color, quality, and specific gravity of the urine sample. The results were negative. Dr. Carmichael testified, however, that the Respondent should have gone farther and done a microscopic evaluation in which white blood cells, if present, could have been visualized in the urine sediment. Dr. Carmichael testified that a urine culture could have been performed even though the patient had already been through two different antibiotic courses, because, as it was the Respondent's feeling that the epididymitis had not yet been resolved, there was the possibility of the presence of a type of bacteria which had not been affected by the antibiotics already administered. According to Dr. Carmichael, if the culture grew out of a pathogenic organism, "you would then have a very good likelihood that that is a causative organism, and you could tell what drug to use." The urinalysis, however, as Dr. Carmichael established, would not rule out epididymitis. The microscopic urinalysis, if done, could have been normal and the culture could have been negative; and epididymitis could still have been present. However, the lack of these tests contributed to the Respondent's inadequate assessment of the patient's status. The Respondent had Patient #1 visit a second time on November 5, 1986. On the second visit, the Respondent found, and the medical records showed, that there was a small area of "prominence" (nodule) in the epididymis. The Respondent chose to continue to observe the patient, however, to continue the prescription of the anti-inflammatory medication and ordered the patient to return in one month. Dr. Carmichael opined that another diagnostic procedure could have been used with the patient, presenting in this status at this point in his treatment course, which could have helped differentiate whether there was actually a definite mass present or not. That is, the Respondent could have ordered an ultrasound test, a procedure which uses high-frequency sound waves to outline areas of soft tissue that will not be depicted on x-rays. Dr. Herold, the Respondent's expert witness, acknowledged that ultrasound could be ordered if there is some uncertainty in the doctor's mind about the diagnosis, although he opined that it would not be the usual procedure to order an ultrasound test when the doctor suspects epididymitis to be the problem. Here, the Respondent still felt comfortable with his diagnosis of epididymitis. However, in the face of Dr. Laski's finding on October 17, 1986 that there was some sort of nodule present and that he was uncertain enough to feel the need to refer the patient to a specialist, it was established by Dr. Carmichael that if the ultrasound had been ordered of the genital area, it could confirm the diagnosis of epididymitis or, correspondingly, whether an actual tumor was present at that time. In any event, the Respondent's treatment plan as of November 5, 1986 was to continue observation and order Patient #1 to return in one month. The patient failed to return until January 12, 1987, for unexplained reasons. On that date, the Respondent examined the patient and immediately noted a hard, non-tender mass in the area of the epididymis. The Respondent then immediately referred the patient to a urologist, Dr. Antar, who testified on behalf of the Petitioner. On or about January 19, 1987, Dr. Antar evaluated the patient and determined that surgery was immediately necessary, because his immediate impression was that the mass was cancerous. Blood tests revealed that the tumor markers were very high, and Dr. Antar felt that there was no reason to observe further. Three days later, Dr. Antar performed a radical orchiectomy on the left testicle (removal of the testicle). The testicular tumor was a teratoma. A teratoma is a tumor which appears to be benign but behaves like a malignancy. Moreover, however, a biopsy of a lymph node from the left side of the patient's neck showed three elements of cancer: the teratoma, embryonal cancer cells, and choriocarcinoma cancer cells. Dr. Antar established that all three indications were coming from the left testicle. Thus, the cancer had metastasized from the left testicle to the lymph system. However, Dr. Antar established that through chemotherapy the cancer cells which had migrated were eliminated, since this type of cancer, although it is virulent, is particularly amenable to chemotherapy. The medical records show that the Respondent saw the patient on three occasions; October 22, 1986, November 5, 1986, and January 12, 1987. The patient had also been seen by Doctor Laski independently of the Respondent for the first four visits and in conjunction with the Respondent's initial examination on October 22, 1986. Thus, Dr. Laski, before the Respondent, had seen the patient four times in three weeks. It was Dr. Laski's judgement that the symptoms of the acute problem had gone away but that, because a nodule remained which Dr. Laski could not explain, he should be referred to a urologist. The Respondent then took over his care for unexplained reasons but did not carry out Dr. Laski's recommendations for a urological evaluation by a specialist. The Respondent contended in his testimony that he would always honor another physician's recommendation but did not specifically indicate in his testimony or in the medical record why Dr. Laski's recommendation that a urologist be consulted and see the patient was not carried out. Even though, in fact, the Respondent noted in his subsequent examinations the prominence in the left testicle, he simply continued to diagnose the problem as epididymitis and elected to continue to "observe". The medical record prepared by Dr. Laski included the recommendation that the patient be referred to a urological specialist. Thus, the Respondent should have known of this recommendation whether or not he actually conversed with Dr. Laski about the referral (the record does not indicate whether they actually conversed about this subject or not). In any event, as shown by Dr. Carmichael, the Respondent's notes in the medical record do not provide any explanation or justification for merely continuing to observe the patient. The medical records prepared by the Respondent do not support his decision not to follow up and have the patient actually referred to a urologist and not to conduct further tests or investigation of the left testicle, such as an ultrasound test. Given the course of treatment by the Respondent, consisting merely of continuing to observe for another month, along with the continuing of a prescription for an anti-inflammatory, with the unexplained inconsistent deletion of the prescription for an antibiotic, even though the Respondent believed that the epididymitis was continuing; the medical record kept by the Respondent for the patient did not justify this course of treatment. He did not order any further diagnostic tests and yet, according to the record, ignored the recommendation that a specialist consultation be effected. All three of the medical experts testifying established that such a tumor could have initially presented as epididymitis. Dr. Carmichael opined that when a person has a lump or soreness in the testicle, he frequently tries to relate it to some type of activity, like lifting or straining. He opined that the usual presenting complaint of a testicular tumor would be a lump, with some sort of soreness or discomfort. Dr. Antar, the urologist who ultimately saw the patient and operated, testified that people with testicular cancer can present as having epididymitis. Dr. Antar testified that they need to be treated with antibiotics for two to three weeks, to be rechecked to be sure the epididymitis is dissolved and that the testicle has returned to normal. Dr. Herold also opined that the inflammation of epididymitis can occur as a result of trauma or as a reaction to the presence of a tumor. If the Respondent had such an awareness, as described by these experts, he did not act on it, however. He elected merely to continue the anti-inflammatory medication and part of the course of treatment already tried by Dr. Laski, in spite of the fact that his employee and colleague had already shown, and entered in his medical record, that the rest of the supposed epididymitis symptoms had disappeared, that there still remained a tenderness and small mass on the left testicle and that a consultation with a specialist was in order. Respondent's reaction upon first seeing the patient on October 22nd was that there was a tenderness in the left testicle and a swelling in the epididymitis, as well. The Respondent's testimony and his medical records simply do not explain why he ignored Dr. Laski's recommendation that a specialist see the patient and be consulted, if all he himself was going to do, at least for the ensuing one and one-half months, was to continue the anti- inflammatory therapy the patient had already been given.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Medical Examiners finding that the Respondent has violated Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as found and concluded above, for which a penalty of a $1,000.00 fine and one year's probation should be imposed. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Final Order determine that Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, has been violated, for which the penalty of a reprimand and administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 be imposed. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that, as to both Counts, that 20 hours of continuing medical education in the area of oncology and five hours in the area of risk management, over and above that required for licensure, be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 6th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-930 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-8. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. 11-20. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Respondent did not submit numbered proposed findings of fact and it is, therefore, difficult to rule on the proposed findings of fact specifically. Nevertheless, the first two paragraphs of the proposed findings of fact are accepted. The third paragraph is, for the most part, established by the evidence of record. However, it is rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter to the extent that they differ from the proposed findings of fact in the third paragraph in the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. The fourth paragraph of the Respondent's proposed findings of fact is accepted but not necessarily for the material import the Respondent proposes. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara Whalin Makant, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 James Facciolo, Esquire KENT, HAYDEN, ET AL. 200 West Forsyth Street Suite 1330 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Dr. Marm Harris, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS-0001053 in 1954. According to Respondent's office records for a patient named Barry Belikoff, Respondent saw Belikoff in his office on twenty-five (25) occasions between September 5, 1980, and July 24, 1981, and during this time wrote twenty-four (24) prescriptions for a total of 344 Quaaludes (Methaqualone) with a dosage of 300 mg. each. According to his patient records, Respondent also saw Belikoff on thirteen (13) occasions between October 31, 1981 and June 18, 1982 and wrote four (4) prescriptions for controlled substances, including Talwin, Restoril, and Percodan. Respondent was treating Belikoff for back pains and insomnia. According to expert testimony, the records kept by Respondent of this patient's office visits were inadequate and do not provide the required documentation which would support and explain the controlled substances prescribed in this case. In addition, a proper course of patient care would not include the on-going prescription of Quaaludes over almost a one year period at a rate of over one a day without a record of additional tests, x-rays, or neurological exams during this period. Belikoff's patient records do not show any such additional tests, x- rays or exams. Without such documentation in the patient's records, the prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent for Belikoff were without medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, according to expert testimony. Respondent was treating a patient named Lyndon Ellis during 1981 and 1982. Ellis was hospitalized on four occasions while under Respondent's care, and according to expert testimony the level of care and medical records for this patient, while hospitalized, were excellent. As a result of office visits by Ellis, Respondent wrote thirty-eight (38) prescriptions for controlled substances between April 20, 1981 and September 29, 1982 which included Percocet 5, Demerol, and Fiorinal. Ellis was being treated by Respondent for chronic headaches and pain from accident injuries, and also for a problem with his toe. However, according to expert testimony, the records kept by Respondent on Ellis' office visits were inadequate and do not provide documentation which would support and explain the controlled substances prescribed in this case. The absence of a thorough patient medical history, exam, evaluation, x- rays and lab tests in this patient's office records is explained by Respondent by the fact that this information was available in hospital records for this patient. Nevertheless, Respondent's office records for Ellis are totally inadequate. These office records do reflect that Respondent was aware of Ellis' overuse of controlled substances and the need to detoxify this patient on October 29, 1982. Yet he prescribed Percocet, a controlled substance, on five additional occasions after October 29, 1982. Without adequate documentation in the patient's records, the prescriptions for controlled substances written by Respondent for Ellis were without medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, according to expert testimony. Between July 14, 1980 and April 23, 1982, Respondent treated a patient named Alan Fogler. During this time Respondent wrote twelve (12) prescriptions for a total of 464 Percodan, a controlled substance. Respondent was treating Fogler for headaches, whiplash and a concussion reported by the patient, as well as allergies, but patient records reveal no x- rays, brain scans, lab work or neurological exams. According to expert testimony, patient records in this case are inadequate and do not justify the treatment rendered which consisted primarily of prescriptions for Percodan. Without adequate patient medical records, the prescriptions for controlled substances were without- medical justification, excessive and inappropriate, accordingly to expert testimony. While treating patients Belikoff, Ellis and Fogler, Respondent repeatedly reissued prescriptions for controlled substances without a substantiation of medical reasons in the patients' office medical records. According to expert testimony concerning the standards expected of osteopathic physicians in keeping office medical records on patients, Respondent did not perform with reasonable skill, nor meet the standards expected of physicians in this aspect of their practice. Vicki Cutcliffe, a deputy sheriff with the Broward County Sheriff's Office, saw Respondent in his office on March 30, April 11 and April 25, 1984 using the alias "Vicki Tarra". After taking a brief medical history which revealed that "Tarra" used alcohol daily, Respondent began treating her for situational anxiety by prescribing controlled substances, including Librium and Tranxene. On April 25 "Tarra" told Respondent she wanted some extra pills for her friend named Jo Ann and asked him to write her friend a prescription. Respondent said he could not do that, but did give "Tarra" a prescription for Tranxene and two refills, after initially giving her a prescription which allowed for only one refill. He told her that she could give some of the pills to her friend and then she could refill the prescription twice. Respondent knew that "Tarra" wanted the extra pills for a friend and that she would give them to her friend who was not a patient of Respondent. According to expert testimony, the treatment given to "Tarra" by Respondent, which consisted simply of prescriptions for controlled substances without adequate documentation of the reasons for this course of treatment in the patient's medical records, was totally inappropriate. Increasing a prescription when a patient says they want some extra pills for a friend is never justified and constitutes malpractice, according to expert testimony.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued suspending Respondent's license for a period of two ( 2) years. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 3 2301 (904) 488- 9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 John W. Gaul, D.O. 11360 Tara Drive Plantation, FL 33325 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================ =
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, committed medical malpractice in delivering a baby and/or failed to maintain medical records justifying the course of the mother's treatment; if so, whether Petitioner should impose discipline on Respondent's medical license within the applicable penalty guidelines or take some other action.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Respondent Mark N. Scheinberg, M.D., was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Florida. He is board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. Petitioner Department of Health (the "Department") has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed physicians such as Dr. Scheinberg. In particular, the Department is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint against a physician, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Medicine has found that probable cause exists to suspect that the physician has committed a disciplinable offense. Here, the Department alleges that Dr. Scheinberg committed two such offenses——namely, medical malpractice and failure to keep records justifying the course of treatment——in connection with the vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery of an infant born to Patient L.G. on February 2, 2005, at West Boca Medical Center. The crux of this case (though not the sole issue) is whether, as the Department contends, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg to perform a Caesarean section ("C- section") on L.G. due to the passage of time, instead of allowing her to continue to labor for approximately 13 hours and, ultimately, deliver vaginally. The events giving rise to this dispute began on February 1, 2005, at around 11:00 a.m., when L.G., whose pregnancy was at term, checked into the hospital after having experienced ruptured membranes. At 12:30 p.m. that day, L.G. signed a form bearing the title "Authorization for Medical and/or Surgical Treatment," which manifested her consent to a vaginal delivery or C-section together with, among other things, "such additional operations or procedures as [her physicians might] deem necessary." Immediately above L.G.'s signature on the form is an affirmation: "The above procedures, with their attendant risks, benefits and possible complications and alternatives, have been explained to me " The evidence is not clear as to when, exactly, Dr. Scheinberg first saw L.G., but that fact is unimportant. The medical records reflect that at 8:30 p.m. on February 1, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg gave a telephone order to initiate an IV push of the antibiotic Ampicillin; therefore, he had taken charge of L.G.'s care by that time. The nurses' notes indicate that at 10:00 p.m., L.G.'s cervix had dilated to "rim" or approximately nine centimeters—— meaning that the dilation was complete, or nearly so. At this time, and throughout the duration of L.G.'s labor, an external fetal heart monitor was in place to detect and record the baby's heartbeats and the mother's uterine contractions. An intrauterine pressure catheter ("IUPC")——a device that precisely measures the force of uterine contractions——was not inserted into L.G.'s uterus at any time during this event. The Department argues (although it did not allege in the Complaint) that, at some point during L.G.'s labor, the standard of care required Dr. Scheinberg either to place an IUPC or perform a C-section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 10, ¶36. The Department's expert witness, Dr. John Busowski, testified unequivocally and unconditionally, however, that the standard of care does not require the use of an IUPC. T. 36. The undersigned credits this evidence and finds that Dr. Scheinberg's nonuse of an IUPC did not breach the standard of care. Dr. Scheinberg conducted a physical at around 2:00 a.m. on February 2, 2005, which included taking L.G.'s complete history and performing a vaginal examination. L.G.'s cervix remained dilated to approximately nine centimeters, and her labor had not substantially progressed for about four hours. Dr. Scheinberg noted in L.G.'s chart that the baby was in the posterior position at 2:00 a.m. The Department argues, based on Dr. Busowski's testimony, that as of 2:00 a.m., the standard of care required [Dr. Scheinberg to] choose one of the following options: (1) watch the patient for a few more hours to allow for progress; (2) place an IUPC to determine the adequacy of Patient L.G.'s contractions; (3) start Pitocin without the placement of an IUPC; or (4) perform a C- section. Pet. Prop. Rec. Order at 9-10, ¶ 32. The Department contends that Dr. Scheinberg breached the standard of care by choosing "simply to watch the patient for approximately 10 more hours"—— which was tantamount to "choosing to do nothing." Id. at 10, ¶¶ 33-34. In fact, Dr. Scheinberg chose to watch the patient, which was, according to Dr. Busowski, within the standard of care. Obviously, at 2:00 in the morning on February 2, 2005, Dr. Scheinberg did not choose to wait for 10 more hours, because at that point he (unlike the parties to this litigation) did not know what was about to happen. The nurses' notes reflect that L.G. was under close observation throughout the early morning hours, and that Dr. Scheinberg was following the situation. At 4:30 a.m., L.G. was set up to push and at 4:45 a.m. was pushing well. At 6:15 a.m., the notes indicate that Dr. Scheinberg was aware of the mother's attempts to push. At 6:45 a.m., he reviewed the strips from the fetal heart monitor. At 7:45 a.m., he was present and aware of L.G.'s status. From 7:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m., no contractions were identifiable on the external monitor. At 8:00 a.m., however, L.G. was comfortable and pushing well. She stopped pushing at 8:30 a.m., but remained comfortable. Dr. Scheinberg then ordered the administration of Pitocin, a medicine which is used to strengthen contractions and hasten delivery. Although the Department faults Dr. Scheinberg for giving L.G. Pitocin at this relatively late stage of her labor, Dr. Busowski (the Department's expert witness) admitted being unable to say "that Dr. Scheinberg should have started Pitocin earlier " T. 72. The Department therefore has no clear evidential basis for second-guessing Dr. Scheinberg's professional judgment in this particular, and neither does the undersigned. At 9:10 a.m., L.G. resumed pushing. The baby's fetal heart tones (heartbeats) were stable. L.G. continued pushing, with her family present, until around 11:00 a.m., at which time Dr. Scheinberg discussed the situation with the patient and her family. Dr. Scheinberg explained to L.G. or her husband the risks of, and alternatives to, performing a vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. Either L.G. or her husband gave verbal consent to the use of a vacuum device to assist in the delivery. Between 11:00 a.m. and 11:10 a.m., the fetal heart monitor detected some variable decelerations, meaning a decrease in heart rate that could be a sign of fetal distress. Dr. Scheinberg delivered the baby at 11:23 a.m., using a vacuum device to help pull the infant out of the birth canal. In his post-operative notes, Dr. Scheinberg wrote that his "pre-operative diagnosis" was "+3 station — prolonged second stage 2½ hrs." As a "post-operative diagnosis," Dr. Scheinberg recorded, "same + tight cord." He reported the following "findings": "tight cord cut on perineum[;] mec[onium] aspirated on perineum."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Dr. Scheinberg not guilty of the charges set forth in the Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2011.
