Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Frederick Norman, is an orthodontist and acupuncturist who is licensed to practice in both disciplines in New York and in Aruba. He is in the process of moving from Long Island to Naples, Florida, and he seeks to become licensed to practice acupuncture in Florida. To this end, the Petitioner took the August, 1982, acupuncture examination in Florida. He passed all parts of this examination except Part IV which he failed. Part IV is the clinical practical portion of the exam, testing needle insertions, manipulation, and removal. In approximately July, 1981, Harriet Williams, employed as an examination development specialist by the Department of Professional Regulation, began the development of the Florida acupuncture examination. She commenced by reviewing the acupuncture statute and rules for the definition of acupuncture, and the general areas to be tested. In order to prepare the examination, Ms. Williams consulted practicing acupuncture experts regarding the scope of knowledge involved in acupuncture, and what activities are critical to the practice, the basic training requirements for the practice, and which skills would have to be demonstrated to show competency and not be dangerous to the public. Ms. Williams then investigated testing feasibility on the different critical areas of acupuncture in order to develop the practical examination. Practical examinations are by definition not referenced to specific textbooks, but are based on the actual practice of a profession. Other states with acupuncture licensure examinations were consulted and, based on the definition in the statute and the practicalities of the situation, it was decided that the Florida acupuncture examination would involve needle insertion into basic common points, and methods of stimulation which are fundamental and basic to the practice of acupuncture, and that the needling would be done on the candidates themselves. Since the State of California had been conducting licensure examinations and had been licensing acupuncturists since 1976, it was decided that examiners would be requested from California for both the December, 1981, and the August, 1982, examinations. Examiners with five years experience, doctorate degrees in Medicine or Oriental Medicine, vast training, California certification, and active acupuncture practices were requested. The regulation of acupuncture is new and unique in Florida because of the State's limited experience with it. In December, 1981, the Department of Professional Regulation gave the first acupuncture examination for licensure in Florida. In August, 1982, prior to the examination which is the subject of this proceeding, California acupuncture licensure examiners were brought into Florida, and were trained to administer the Florida acupuncture licensure performance examination. They were trained extensively as to their responsibilities and the standards which the State of Florida was looking for. The Department did not specify by rule the criteria by which these examiners were to be selected, as required by Section 455.217(1)(b), Florida Statutes. However, the actual qualifications of the examiners were not challenged in this proceeding. The examiners were selected by the Department on the basis of guidelines which required them to be licensed in California and actually treating patients, to have at least five years experience, extensive training in acupuncture, and a degree in Medicine or Oriental Medicine. The examiners were given standards or guidelines to assist them in judging how to grade a candidate's performance, and they administered the practical acupuncture examination August 2-5, 1982, which was taken by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has a fear of needles which he considers a phobia but not a handicap. He could not look at the acupuncture point while he inserted the needle, because of his phobia. Examiners Miles Roberts and Miriam Lee observed the Petitioner's practical acupuncture performance and marked their examination grade sheets accordingly. From one examiner the Petitioner received a barely passing grade on all three points, and from the other examiner, the Petitioner received a barely failing grade on two points and a low failing grade on the third point. Drchi is the needle sensation which indicates that a specific point has been properly stimulated. The Petitioner claimed to have attained drchi on at least two points, but he was not sure on the third one. There is no objective way for the examiners to ascertain whether or not a candidate has achieved drchi. In order to demonstrate acupuncture needling, it is helpful to do it into a human body, and it is necessary to do it into a specific acupuncture point. Angling of the needle with and against the flow of energy, twisting and twirling, lifting and thrusting the needle, and closing the hole or leaving it open for sedation and tonification, are basic fundamental techniques in the practice of acupuncture, but candidates are not penalized for using any auxiliary methods in addition. The grading criteria for the acupuncture examination is contained in Section 21-12.22(5)(a)-(e), Florida Administrative Code. This rule essentially describes how the examiner should reach a decision about how a grade is cast. This particular grading criteria must be applied through the use of expert judgment. The weight for each grading criteria is also given in this rule. The grading criteria are general in nature, rather than specific and detailed, because of the uniqueness of acupuncture as a technique in Florida. The techniques tested by the exam, however, are basic, fundamental, acupuncture techniques which all entry level licensed acupuncturists should know. The examiners agreed on whether a candidate should pass or fail the August, 1982, acupuncture examination on approximately 81 percent of their observations. On their observations of the Petitioner, this agreement was 86 percent. The pass rate for the August, 1982, acupuncture examination was in the range of 30 percent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Frederick Norman for licensure as an acupuncturist be DENIED, based on his failure to achieve a passing grade on the August, 1982, acupuncture examination. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 5th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlos Alvarez, Esquire, and Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mrs. Ann Mayne Acupuncture, Executive Director 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing score on the Physical Diagnosis portion of the May 2001 chiropractic licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 456, Florida Statutes, Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that develops, administers, scores, and reports scores for licensure examinations, such as the examination at issue in this proceeding. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine is created as a part of Respondent by Section 460.404(1), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 456.013(4), Florida Statutes, this Recommended Order is to be forwarded to the Board of Chiropractic Medicine, which will enter a final order. Section 460.406(1), Florida Statutes, provides that anyone seeking licensure as a chiropractic physician must pass a licensure examination. The Florida Chiropractic Medicine Licensure Examination consists of two portions: (a) a practical examination and (b) a Florida Laws and Rules examination. The practical examination is further subdivided into three areas: (a) interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films (the X-ray portion), (b) physical diagnosis, and (c) technique. A candidate cannot be licensed as a chiropractic physician until he or she has passed all portions of the licensure examination, including the physical diagnosis portion. In May 2001, Petitioner sat only for the physical diagnosis portion, having passed all other portions in a prior examination. The physical diagnosis section is a practical examination that tests a candidate's competency to choose, name, demonstrate, and interpret diagnostic imaging and laboratory reports based on a hypothetical case history. The examination generally presents a case history, including the patient's complaint and vital signs, then asks a series of questions designed to lead to a diagnosis. The examination also asks some separate, stand-alone questions designed to elicit knowledge of specific techniques, such as how to obtain particular diagnostic imaging views. The physical diagnosis section of the May 2001 examination consisted of 26 tasks, for which varying numbers of points were awarded for correct answers. Two examiners evaluated the candidate's performance and independently awarded scores for each task. Petitioner's overall score was the average of the two examiners' scores. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section met the criteria for selection as examiners. An examiner must have been licensed in Florida as a chiropractor for at least five years, must not have had a chiropractic or other health care license suspended, revoked, or otherwise acted against, and must not be currently under investigation by the Department or any other state or federal agency. Rule 64B2-11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department requires each examiner to attend a training session prior to administration of the examination. The training is designed to ensure that scoring standards are uniform and objective among the various examiners. The examiners who scored Petitioner's performance on the physical diagnosis section had successfully completed the training session. The first series of questions on the physical diagnosis section dealt with a female patient in her early thirties whose main complaint was constant, severe pain in her left calf. The patient's temperature was slightly elevated at 99.8ºF, and she had swelling in her left ankle. Ultimately, the candidate was expected to arrive at a diagnosis of thrombophlebitis, inflammation of a vein in the left calf. Tasks 1 and 2, for which Petitioner received full credit, required the candidate to obtain a case history from the patient and to discuss the physical examination the candidate would perform on the patient. Task 3 asked the candidate to identify what laboratory tests or diagnostic procedures, if any, should be used to assist in arriving at a diagnosis. Task 4 asked the candidate to state his reasoning for choosing these tests. The correct answer to Task 3 was that the candidate should order either an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) test or a C-reactive protein (CRP) test. The correct answer to Task 4 was that the ESR and CRP assess the inflammatory processes that the candidate should suspect in the patient's left calf. On Task 3, Petitioner responded that he would order a complete blood count (CBC) and a urinalysis. On Task 4, Petitioner responded that he chose these tests because the patient's increased temperature indicated that there might be an infection present, and that a CBC and urinalysis are useful tests for infection. Task 3 was worth a maximum of four points. Task 4 was worth a maximum of three points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 3 and for Task 4. The results of the physical examination, particularly "Homan's sign," or pain in the calf with dorsiflexion of the foot, caused Petitioner to suspect thrombophlebitis. Petitioner knew of no laboratory test that returns a specific positive result for thrombophlebitis. He introduced textbook references to establish that the ESR and CRP tests are not specific to diagnosing thrombophlebitis. Petitioner did not believe that Tasks 3 and 4 gave him the option of ordering no laboratory tests at all, so he chose the most common tests that would at least confirm that no infection was present. Dr. Densmore, Respondent's expert, agreed with Petitioner that a positive Homan's sign is specific for diagnosing thrombophlebitis. However, he disagreed with Petitioner's choice of ordering a CBC and urinalysis. Dr. Densmore admitted that many doctors order these tests as a general standard for all patients, but stated that in this case they would do nothing to narrow the diagnosis. The CBC and urinalysis are useful for identifying infections; thrombophlebitis is an inflammatory disease, not an infectious disease. Dr. Densmore conceded that ESR and CRP are not specific to thrombophlebitis. However, Dr. Densmore believed that Petitioner should have chosen ESR or CRP because inflammation is present in 90 percent of thrombophlebitis cases and therefore those tests would assist the practitioner in arriving at a diagnosis. Petitioner should not be awarded credit for his answer to Tasks 3 and 4 because his answers were not the best answers to those questions. The correct answers set forth by the Department were supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Task 5 dealt with the same patient discussed above, and asked the candidate to indicate which, if any, diagnostic imaging procedures should be performed. The correct answer, worth four points, was "none" or "A-P & lateral leg." "A-P" stands for anteroposterior, or from the front to the back. On the videotape of the examination, Petitioner appeared confused by the question. He said that he would x-ray the "lower leg." One of the examiners asked him to be more specific as to which views he would take. Petitioner stated that he would x-ray the ankle because of the swelling there. Petitioner then mentioned the swelling in the calf, and stated that he would x-ray the "femur." The femur is the thigh bone, extending from the pelvis to the knee. An x-ray of the femur obviously would reveal nothing about the condition of the patient's calf. The examiner, likely sensing Petitioner's confusion, advised Petitioner to read the question again. Petitioner read the question aloud, then reiterated that he would take x-rays of the patient's ankle and femur. Task 5 was worth a maximum of four points. Each examiner independently awarded Petitioner zero points for Task 5. Petitioner contended that he should have received partial credit for his initial response that he would x-ray the lower leg. However, Task 5 required the candidate to identify the specific views of the x-rays he would take. When the examiner asked him to name the specific views, Petitioner identified the femur. The context of the discussion makes it evident that Petitioner must have been thinking of the fibula or the tibia, i.e., the bones of the lower leg, when he repeatedly named the femur in connection with the patient's calf pain. However, the examiners had no choice but to grade Petitioner on the answer he actually gave. Petitioner should not be awarded any points for his answer to Task 5. Task 18 was a stand-alone question dealing with x- rays. The challenged portion of Task 18, worth two points, asked the candidate what he would do to obtain a quality lumbar spine x-ray of a severely obese patient if his office was equipped with a 300/125 x-ray machine. One of the examiners specified that this patient weighs around 500 pounds. The correct answer was that the candidate would use a higher capacity x-ray machine or refer the patient to a facility that has one. Petitioner's answer was that he would collimate close to the area of injury, decrease milliampere seconds (mAs), increase kilovolt peak (kVp) to increase penetration, and use a rare earth screen. Again, Petitioner appeared to be confused by the question. At the hearing, he testified that Task 18 did not ask what specific view he would take of the obese patient, whether of the arm, the chest, or the skull. Petitioner misread the question. Task 18 clearly states that the required view is of the patient's lumbar spine. Petitioner's misreading of the question led him to treat Task 18 as an x-ray physics question, hence his response, intended to demonstrate how he would maximize the clarity of an x-ray using the equipment at hand. Dr. Densmore stated that an x-ray of a patient this size taken on this equipment would simply be a white picture because of the amount of fatty tissue involved. With a patient of this size, the kVp would have to be increased so much that the practitioner would over-radiate the patient. The practitioner would have no choice but to send the patient out for an x-ray on a higher capacity machine. The examiners independently awarded Petitioner zero points for his response to this portion of Task 18. Their scoring was correct, supported by the textbook authorities and expert testimony introduced at the hearing. Petitioner alleged that the Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) provided him by the Department did not adequately prepare him for format changes that occurred since his first sitting for the examination. Petitioner compared the CIB for the May 2001 examination to that for the November 2001 examination. He found that the detailed sample questions in the November 2001 CIB more closely reflected the examination he took in May 2001, and contended that the May 2001 CIB was outdated at the time it was distributed. All candidates for the May 2001 examination received the same Candidate Information Booklet that Petitioner received. Respondent's psychometrician, Dr. Linda Dean, testified that the passing rate for the May 2001 examination was in the range of 70 percent, consistent with other administrations of the examination. Petitioner's allegation concerning the adequacy of the CIB is not supported by the evidence. Petitioner also alleged that he was placed at a disadvantage by the fact that the examiners appeared to know that he was not taking the examination for the first time. Both Dr. Dean, the psychometrician assigned to the chiropractic licensure examination, and Dr. Densmore, who has served as an examiner many times, testified that examiners are not told the names or the status of the candidates. Dr. Dean testified that nothing is done to segregate first-time candidates from those who are retaking the examination, though an examiner may suspect that a candidate who is sitting for only one section of the examination is retaking that section. Even if Petitioner's allegation were credited, it would not change the result. Petitioner's responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 were incorrect. The examiners properly awarded him zero points for those tasks. Their knowledge that he was retaking the physical diagnosis section had no bearing on Petitioner's incorrect responses to the challenged tasks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order denying Petitioner additional credit for his responses to Tasks 3, 4, 5, and 18 of the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination administered in May 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 18th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ken Allan Niebrugge 4785 Barkley Circle No. 22 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing was whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more of questions number 41, 44, 70, or 72 of the National Council for the Certification of Acupuncture, (NCCA), multiple choice examination administered on May 18, 1991.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Aaron Benjamin sat for the May 18, 1991 NCCA acupuncture certification examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation and achieved a passing score on the clean needle technique portion of the examination. However, he received a score of 69 on the written portion of the examination for which a score of no less than 70 was passing. Thereafter, Petitioner challenged four of the written questions on the exam; questions number 41, 44, 70 and 72, alleging that in each case, the question was worded in such a manner as to allow for more than one correct response and that his response, different from the accepted response, was also correct. This allegation was made notwithstanding the written examination instruction that there was "one and only one correct choice for each question." In his challenge, Petitioner also asserted that the examination instructions provided by the NCCA did not limit the textbooks which might be used for preparation for the examination. He claimed that many of these texts encompassed different philosophies of traditional Chinese acupuncture. By the same token, he alleged, the NCCA also did not specify which school of acupuncture should be referenced when answering the challenged questions. There are numerous different acupuncture texts available for reference which are written through different schools of acupuncture and which represent the differing philosophies of acupuncture practitioners. Utilization of differing schools and differing philosophies could affect an examinee's answer choice. Petitioner also asserted as a defect in the examination process the fact that he received his copy of the examination preparation booklet only two weeks prior to the examination rather than the 30 days which should have been provided. He raised these complaints to officials of both the Board of Acupuncture and the NCCA without success. Question 41 in issue reads: If a patient comes to you with a swollen puffy face and complains of scanty urination, which of the Zang-Fu would you first suspect to be disordered? Lung Kidney Spleen Urinary Bladder Petitioner answered this question with "3 - Spleen" while the Department's answer was "1 - Lung." He claims the question does not specify whether the diagnosis of the patient's condition should be from the beginning of the condition or at the time of examination. He asserts, however, that the spleen is an organ with which this condition may be associated since the accumulation of fluid in the interiors causing edema (swelling) is a syndrome of the spleen and incontinence of the urine also relate to that organ. On the other hand, as indicated by the Department's expert, the lung dominates the vital functions of the entire body and greatly influences all its functional activities. It controls and disperses all fluid in the system. The accumulation of water in a patient with a puffy face and scanty urination, therefore, comes from the lung which is responsible for dispersion of water which might, originate from the spleen. Consequently, "Lung" is the correct answer. Question 44 in issue reads: Bouts of dizziness that continue when a patient lies down are attributed to: deficiency excess heat cold Petitioner answered this question with "1 - deficiency", claiming that either excess or deficiency could result in a patient remaining dizzy after lying down. He asserts the wording on the examination question does not provide sufficient information regarding the syndrome to allow the examinee to differentiate whether an excess or deficiency syndrome resulted in the patient's condition. He claims that if an individual suffered from a deficiency syndrome, and the body energy did not stabilize after the patient reclined, the dizziness would continue. The Department's expert notes that the correct answer is "2 - excess" because in a deficiency syndrome, the vital energy, when one lays down, will come back. With an excess, however, even if one lays down, the excess will not go away. Dr. Celpa admits, however, that in western medicine, Petitioner's answer would be correct. However, in traditional Chinese medicine, which deals in philosophy (theory), one has to accept the specifics given by the Chinese. The correct answer, for the purposes of this examination is, therefore, "2 - excess." Question 70 in issue reads: A tight and forceful pulse could indicate: Damp of the Spleen and Stomach. hyperactivity of the Yang of the Heart. penetration of Cold into Liver Channel. Yin deficiency of the Heart. Petitioner answered "1 - Damp of the Spleen and Stomach, while the Department's correct answer was "3 - penetration of Cold into the Liver Channel." He notes that cold is indicated by a slow pulse and penetration of cold into the liver channel is indicated by a deep, wiry and slow pulse. A forceful pulse, he claims, can sometimes mean an accumulation of dampness in the spleen and stomach not allowing the body to metabolize food for distribution to other organs. If one has damp one has an accumulation. Petitioner answered as he did because of the study guide definitions. The study guide directs the examinees to use its definitions and there was no word for forceful included therein. Dr. Celpa, on the other hand, contends "a penetration of cold in the lower channel" is the correct answer as asserted by the NCCA. Most written authorities on the subject indicate that a tight and forceful pulse relates to the liver. Included in these authorities are The Web That has No Weaver; Fundamentals of Chinese Medicine; Acumoxa; and Pulse Diagnosis. Therefore, he concludes that cold in the liver is the closest answer. He asserts, contrary to claims of the Petitioner, that the definition page contained in the examination packet contains all one needs to take the examination. The packet is put together by the Board of Acupuncture and directs definitions outlined in The Web That has No Weaver be used. This gives little room for error. Nonetheless, he admits this question should have more information available in it to assist the examinee and is a poor question. Question 72 in issue reads: Which of the following will cause a foul or offensive smell of the discharge or excretion? Damp disorder combined with Cold. Damp disorder without Cold. Heat disorder of the Xu (deficiency) type. Heat disorder of the Shi (excess) type. Petitioner's answer to this question was "1 - Damp disorder combined with Cold", and the correct answer, as indicated by the Respondent was "4 - Heat disorder of the Shi (excess) type." Petitioner's answer was based on the statement in Traditional Chinese Medicine to the effect that where there is damp there is odor. There is no reference therein to damp heat, so, looking at the remainder of the authoritative statement, he concluded that dampness is associated with odor. On the other hand, Dr. Celpa indicated Petitioner's answer is wrong because damp is not necessary for odor. The heat disorder is the primary one giving an offensive odor. The Shi type adds to it. While damp could have a foul odor, the heat (Shi (excess)) is the only one which gives the discharge. All of the possible answers show something wrong, but the association of heat and excess best meets the test. Consequently, Petitioner's answer could not be correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Acupuncture denying Petitioner's request for additional credit. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-926 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as an accurate description of the thrust of Petitioner's complaint. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as Petitioner's justification for his answer but rejected as appropriate authority. Accepted as an accurate description of Petitioner's answer and the correct answer, and as Petitioner's justification for his answer, but rejected as appropriate authority. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as an accurate description of Petitioner's justification for his answer and as a restatement of Respondent's position, but rejected as appropriate authority. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted as Petitioner's justification for his answer but rejected as appropriate authority. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Arthur J. Springer, Esquire 215 Verne Street, Suite A Tampa, Florida 33601 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Acupuncture 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Lawrence D. Urban was a licensed osteopathic physician in Florida having been issued license number OS 001232. From January 1983 through at least March 17, 1984, Respondent maintained offices in Clearwater and Zephyrhills. He practiced in the Clearwater office on Monday, Wednesday and Friday of each week and in the Zephyrhills office on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Respondent employed Wendell Bloom to work in the Zephyrhills office as a business manager and assistant to Respondent. Bloom had no medically related license such as physician's assistant, nurse, technician, etc. As an assistant to Respondent, Bloom drew blood, performed vascular analyses, mixed IV solutions, and administered IV solutions. He worked at the Zephyrhills office Monday through Friday. Bloom had standing orders from Respondent that if a new patient came in Bloom would draw a blood sample, send it to the lab for analysis and make an appointment for the patient to see Respondent when the results of the blood analysis was received. Respondent described his practice in Zephyrhills as holistic, involving nutrition, chelation, and cancer therapy using laetril. Chelation treatment involves the intravenous injections of solutions containing EDTA (Ethylenadiaminetetracetic acid), vitamins, including B12, B complex and C, and the minerals, calcium and magnesium. On many occasions Bloom commenced IV chelation injections containing EDTA before Respondent arrived at the office and completed some of these after Respondent had left the office. On at least five (5) occasions Bloom injected patients with IV solutions containing EDTA without Respondent being present any time during the procedure. Drawing blood without a doctor present in the office constitutes the practice of medicine. Injecting IV solutions in patients constitutes the practice of medicine without a doctor present. In the Zephyrhills office Respondent referred to Bloom as Dr. Bloom in the presence of patients. No sign or disclaimer was posted in the office that Bloom had no prior medical training and was not licensed in any medically related health professional field in Florida. Respondent knew that patients might believe Bloom to be a medical doctor. In administering an IV solution to a patient there is always a danger of an allergic reaction or an anaphylactic reaction, even if a patient has previously tolerated the treatment. Respondent acknowledged that serious side affects would result to a patient receiving an IV solution containing EDTA if the patient suffered kidney failure. Bloom also operated the vascular analyzer machine in the office. As described by Bloom, by attaching clips from the machine to the fingers and toes the machine will tell you if there is any kind of clotting or obstruction any place within the cardiovascular system. Further, by putting transmission gel on the clip and holding it over an artery, transmissions from the clip with the return echo is transformed onto a chart which will denote the elasticity of the artery. This machine is not universally accepted in the medical profession. By Final Order entered August 26, 1983 (Exhibit 1) the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners found Respondent guilty of filing false reports, fee splitting, and abetting an unlicensed person to practice osteopathic medicine. He was sentenced to a reprimand, placed on probation for six (6) months and directed to report to the Board at the end of the probationary period. If, at this time, Respondent's report on the status of his practice satisfies the Board that the financial aspects of his practice is in accordance with the law, the reprimand will be withdrawn. Terms and conditions of the probation were not delineated. Respondent appeared before the Board at its March 17, 1984 meeting. After Respondent reported that the financial aspects of his practice were poor, but in conformity with the law, one of the Board members inquired if Respondent was working with any non-osteopathic physicians in his practice, which was one of the accusations for which he was reprimanded and placed on probation. At this point Respondent told the Board that he had a helper who was a "non- anything" who was drawing blood, doing vascular analyses of patients, giving IVs to patients undergoing chelation therapy and whatever Respondent told him to do. (Exhibit 2) After hearing these disturbing facts the Board voted to extend the Respondent's probation while an investigation of his practice was conducted. The charges considered at this hearing were those resulting from that investigation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner passed all parts of the acupuncture examination except section one of Part Four, which was the clinical practical segment of the examination. That portion required the demonstration of various needling techniques and was independently graded by two observer-examiners. Respondent then averaged the two grades to arrive at a single score for each technique Petitioner was required to demonstrate. Respondent administered its first acupuncture examination in December, 1981, and its second in August, 1982 (at issue here). The examinations were developed and administered in consultation with California examiners, since that state had the greatest experience in testing and licensing acupuncturists. Petitioner raised no factual dispute with respect to examiner credentials, qualifications tested, or the scoring system. Rather, Petitioner pointed to alleged errors by the examiners in administering and grading certain questions. Additionally, Petitioner contends the reading list given for the written portion of the examination was misleading in that it was not intended to apply to the practical portion. Petitioner points to several questions where he received full credit from one examiner and a much lower grade from the other. Rather than averaging the two grades, Petitioner believes the lower grades should be thrown out as errors. However, Respondent instructed its examiners to give full credit where they failed to observe a specific technique or were otherwise uncertain of the performance. Thus, there was no showing that these diverse grades were other than a result of an examiner's failure to observe (for which Petitioner was not penalized). Petitioner further challenges the instructions given, contending the examiner erred in administering certain questions. Again, however, it is at least as likely that Petitioner misinterpreted instructions which were properly given. Petitioner contends he was misled by the reading list provided in advance of the examination. It was not clear, as Respondent argues, that the reading list was intended only for the written portions of the examination. However, Petitioner did not show that this misunderstanding prevented him from performing satisfactorily on the practical portion of the examination. Petitioner challenges the examiner's "eyeballing" techniques to grade his selection of proper acupuncture points. Respondent concedes this is not a precise method in all cases. However, the tolerance permitted on point location will allow for slight examiner error as well as reasonable candidate error. This was shown to be an acceptable scoring method by the testimony of Respondent's expert witness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying the petition. DONE and ENTERED this 14th of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Clarine Smissman, Esquire 217 North Eola Orlando, Florida 32801 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ann Mayne, Executive Director Board of Acupuncture Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1983.
The Issue The issues for resolution, as provided in an Order Finding Probable Cause dated March 11, 1992, are whether Respondent, as a member of the State Board of Acupuncture: violated section 112.313(7)(a), F.S., by having an employment or contractual relationship with The Healing Center which created a continuing or frequently recurring conflict between his private interest and the performance of his public duties; and violated section 112.3143(2), F.S. by voting on a measure which inured to his or his wife's special private gain without disclosing the nature of his interest in the matter.
Findings Of Fact Harvey Kaltsas served on the Board of Acupuncture from February, 1987 through April 3, 1991. As a member of the Board of Acupuncture, his duties included regulation of the practice of acupuncture, and the promulgation of rules to implement Chapters 455, 457, and 120, Florida Statutes. Mr. Kaltsas has been a licensed acupuncturist in the State of Florida since 1984, and was registered as an apprentice prior to licensure. Since 1989, Harvey Kaltsas has been married to Cynthia O'Donnell, who is the sole officer and shareholder of a business, The Healing Center, Inc., which was incorporated in April of 1989. In addition to providing other health services, The Healing Center, Inc. has sold sterile, disposable acupuncture needles since October, 1990. Gross sales of needles have averaged one to two thousand dollars per month from October 1990 until the present. Harvey Kaltsas was not and is not a shareholder or stockholder in The Healing Center, Inc. Harvey Kaltsas has had no interest in The Healing Center, Inc. At all times pertinent to the complaints at issue, The Healing Center, Inc. was located at 430 North Tamiami Trail, Suite C, Sarasota, Florida 34236. The lease for such property remained in the name of Harvey Kaltsas during this period. Although Harvey Kaltsas was ultimately responsible for lease payments on the property, lease payments were made by The Healing Center, Inc. to the landlord. Harvey Kaltsas, as well as other tenants of the property, paid rent to The Healing Center, Inc. The utilities account for the leased property was in the name of Harvey Kaltsas. Although he was ultimately responsible for utilities payments, such payments were made by The Healing Center, Inc. From April, 1989 through December 1990, Harvey Kaltsas was both a tenant of and an independent contractor with The Healing Center, Inc. As a tenant, Mr. Kaltsas paid rent of approximately $300.00 per month to The Healing Center, Inc. As an independent contractor, Mr. Kaltsas performed thermographic examinations on several patients of The Healing Center, Inc. These services were performed from time to time on an ad hoc basis. For these services, Mr. Kaltsas received $3625.00. No contract existed between Mr. Kaltsas and the Healing Center, Inc., regarding performance of these services. Other individuals provided similar thermographic services. On January 1, 1991, Harvey Kaltsas became a salaried employee of The Healing Center, Inc. At the time he vacated his seat on the Board of Acupuncture in April 1991, he was still a salaried employee of The Healing Center, Inc. On December 14, 1990, Harvey Kaltsas moved for consideration of, and voted for, an amendment to Rule 21AA-8.002, Florida Administrative Code, which would have required all licensed acupuncturists in the State of Florida to use only sterile, disposable acupuncture needles. The matter had been raised in an earlier meeting of the board by Luis Celpa, another acupuncturist member. The proposed amendment to Rule 21AA-8.002, Florida Administrative Code, was noticed and published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 15, 1991 (Vol. 17, No. 7, p.645). The proposed amendment deleted existing language with regard to sterilization procedures and substituted language requiring disposable needles for one-time use only. The proposed ruled was subsequently withdrawn by the Board of Acupuncture and never became effective. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee challenged the authority for the rule since Chapter 457, F.S. provides for resterilization of needles. Prior to voting on the measure to amend Rule 21AA-8.002, Florida Administrative Code, Mr. Kaltsas did not disclose to the Board of Acupuncture his interests in or relationship with The Healing Center, Inc. On or about March 7, 1991, The Healing Center, Inc. mailed a letter signed by Cynthia O'Donnell-Kaltsas to licensed Florida acupuncturists advising them of the proposed rule change requiring the use of sterile, disposable needles and offering such needles for sale at a discounted price. Ms. O'Donnell was aware of the board's action, and the letter was mailed after publication of the proposed rule change in The Florida Administrative Weekly. After the rule was withdrawn Ms. O'Donnell sent a follow up letter stating that the rule did not go through and apologizing for any misinformation. Even though she does not use the husband's name, Ms. O'Donnell signed the letters, "O'Donnell-Kaltsas", as her husband had been president of the Florida Acupuncture Association and she was raising money for the association with a 2 percent contribution from needle sales. There are a significant number of potential vendors offering sterile, disposable needles for sale to Florida practitioners of acupuncture. There are a minimum of at least fifteen such vendors in Florida, as well as a minimum of eleven practitioners who sell needles. In addition, Chinese practitioners have direct access to needle suppliers in China from whom they can purchase needles. Florida practitioners receive solicitations from needle vendors across the country and from needle vendors located in Canada, England, Taiwan and Hong Kong. There are no barriers to interstate sale and shipment of needles into the State of Florida by any company or person. The Board of Acupuncture does not regulate the sellers of acupuncture needles. No barriers to entering this market have been established by the Board of Acupuncture. The Board does not license persons or entities which sell needles, nor does it inspect facilities of such persons or entities. The Board does not regulate the types of needles which can be sold, nor does it subject sellers of needles to any kind of disciplinary action. For all intents and purposes, Mr. Kaltsas and his wife maintain separate financial identities. They maintain separate bank accounts, with the exception of a $30.00 credit union account. They do not have signing privileges on each other's banking accounts. In business transactions involving The Healing Center, Inc., Mr. Kaltsas did not receive any special consideration with respect to the amount of rent or with respect to making of rent payments. Although the couple resides in a house owned by Ms. O'Donnell, Harvey Kaltsas makes payments to her to offset the household expenses. There is no evidence that the vote of December 14, 1990 regarding the proposed attachment to Rule 21AA-8.002, Florida Administrative Code, inured to the special private gain of Mr. Kaltsas or to the special private gain of Cynthia O'Donnell. There is no evidence that any matter came before the Board of Acupuncture on a continuing or frequently recurring basis which created a conflict between Mr. Kaltsas' private interests and the performance of his public duties. The sterile, disposable needle rule was formally addressed on two occasions while Mr. Kaltsas was on the Board; it was approved by the Board on December 14, 1990; and it was subsequently withdrawn by the Board on April 3, 1991. Most acupuncturists use disposable needles already. The low cost of such needles compared to the cost of effective sterilization created a legitimate concern for the safety and welfare of the needle handlers and their patients. This concern, rather than any private interest or benefit motivated Harvey Kaltsas' action as a board member.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Ethics enter its final order and public report finding that Harvey Kaltsas did not violate Sections 112.3143(2), Florida Statutes (1989) and 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged, and dismissing the complaints. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) received a letter of intent (LOI) dated October 21, 1988 from "Ocala Healthcare Associates Joint Venture." That letter of intent provided that the proposed applicant sought to add twenty-five community nursing home beds to its 35 bed facility then under construction, in HRS District 3 in Marion County, Florida. The letter of intent was a prerequisite to filing an application for a certificate of need (CON) authorizing those beds. The October 21, 1988 LOI was accompanied by a "certificate of resolution" of Ocala Healthcare Associates Joint Venture of even date. That resolution was certified by Winston A. Porter. HRS generally does not recognize a joint venture as a legal person or entity capable of applying for and holding a certificate of need, based upon an opinion of its legal counsel and based upon the fact that Chapter 10-5 Florida Administrative Code, at its definition of "applicant" does not include the entity known as a "joint venture." There is no specific prohibition, by statute or rule, against joint ventures holding certificates of need, however, and the Department's witness, Ms. Gordon-Girven also acknowledged that the Department has no specific policy prohibiting issuance of a CON to a joint venture. In any event, on November 23, 1988, "Ocala Healthcare Associates General Partnership" filed an application for a certificate of need pursuant to the previously filed letter of intent. In its letter of December 2, 1988, HRS rejected that application on the basis that "the applicant submitting the application was not the same as the applicant identified in the letter of intent." Upon learning of this, Mr. Winston A. Porter, the owner of the parent entity and chief operating officer of the applicant entity, or general partner, immediately notified HRS that the joint venture named in the letter of intent and the general partnership named in the application were actually one and the same entity and that the use of the term "joint venture" in the letter of intent and resolution was a mere clerical error. In corroboration of this position, in fact, Ocala Healthcare Associates general Partnership (Ocala) had already altered its form from a joint venture to a general partnership by way of "an amendment and conversion of Ocala Healthcare Associates Joint Venture to General Partnership Agreement" entered into and dated December 10, 1987. That conversion agreement had been done at the behest of HRS, based upon its advice to Mr. Porter and Ocala Healthcare Associates, Inc. that the Department did not recognize joint ventures as capable of holding certificates of need. It was thus done to comply with HRS' own requirements. HRS does not license joint ventures to operate nursing homes but does license general partnerships for that purpose. The minimum requirements for the certificate of need application require that the legal name of the applicant and parent corporation be given. Rule 10-5.008(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code quoted below, contains no specific "minimum requirements" regarding how the name of an applicant should be listed on an application nor that it should agree or be the same in all cases as that depicted on the letter of intent. The Rule merely incorporates the application form as to "minimum requirements" by reference. The form, in turn, requires only that the applicant's name be entered, not that the name be the same as that on the letter of intent. Ocala, on its certificate of need application listed its legal name just as it truly is, that is, Ocala Healthcare Associate General Partnership. It, of course, had listed its name by mistake, on the letter of intent as "Ocala Healthcare Associates, Joint Venture." The CON application, however, also indicated that the current general partnership, Ocala Healthcare Associates General Partnership, was indeed the same entity as the former joint venture. Further, HRS was on constructive and actual notice of the change in business form undergone by Ocala at HRS' behest in December, 1987. Be that as it may, however, no rule or policy of the Department specifically states that an application for a CON and the related letter of intent must be filed by exactly the same entity. In fact, however, here the evidence shows that the letter of intent and the application were actually filed by the same entity. The controlling and owning members or partners of Ocala Healthcare Associates General Partnership were listed in the letter of intent, even though it was mistakenly called a joint venture, and were also listed in the application. They were named as, and are, one and the same entities. Further, the minimum requirements depicted in the application form say nothing about the applicant's name and the name depicted in the letter of intent being identical. HRS' position that the letter of intent and the application be identical or filed by the same entity is designed to put potential competitors on notice of who the new attempted market entrant is. Here that purpose was accomplished anyway. Ocala never attempted to mislead anyone by its filing of the letter of intent under the "joint venture" name. The joint venture is owned and controlled by the same entities as the general partnership and the component parts of the joint venture and general partnership are identical. Further, HRS personnel involved with this matter were on notice, both constructively and actually, that the joint venture had been dispensed with and the general partnership had supplanted it. Finally, the agency was not prohibited from notifying Ocala of the apparent discrepancy in the names depicted on the letter of intent and on the application, but it took no such action, even though its certificate of need review personnel were on actual notice that Ocala had altered its business form from that of joint venture to general partnership.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered accepting Ocala's application for a certificate of need for comparative review with other applicants in the November 1988 batching cycle. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 2nd day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-16: Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Rejected as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and as subordinate to the hearing officers findings of fact on this subject matter. Paragraph 8: Rejected as to its' material import and as contrary to the preponderant evidence and subordinate to the hearing officers findings of fact. Paragraph 9: Rejected as not material to resolution of the narrow range of issues in this proceeding. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Bruce McKibben, Jr., DEMPSEY AND GOLDSMITH Post Office Box 10651 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Richard H. Patterson, Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, FL 32308 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner graduated from medical school in China, in 1953. While a physician in China, he had over 25 years experience as an acupuncturist. He came to the United States one year ago. Petitioner applied for licensure to practice acupuncture in the State of Florida and took the acupuncture licensure examination in August 1982. Petitioner failed to obtain a passing grade on Part I of the examination which concerned the statutes and rules regulating the practice of acupuncture in the State of Florida, and also Section 2 of Part IV of the practical examination which concerned sanitary procedures. Petitioner has only challenged his grade on the sanitation part of the practical examination. Harriet Williams, an examination development specialist in Respondent's Office of Examination Services, developed the practical acupuncture examination after consulting with practicing acupuncturists who served as content specialists to determine the critical skills involved in the practice of acupuncture. She determined that the danger of hepatitis and other infections which can be contracted from the use of unclean needles mandated examining applicants for licensure on sanitation and sterilization procedures. She contacted Respondent's counterpart which regulates acupuncture in the State of California to obtain the services of persons experienced in grading the practical portion of that examination. She conducted a standardization process or training session for the examiners to discuss the proper method for marking the uniform grade sheet and evaluating a candidate's performance on the practical portion of the examination. The examiners were instructed to grade independently and to grade based only on their observations. They were instructed to sit three to four feet away from the candidate being examined. They were further instructed however, that if they were not paying attention or could not see the procedure clearly, they were to get up and move closer to the candidate; if they still could not see a procedure clearly, they were to give the candidate credit. When Petitioner took the practical examination, both of the examiners observing his performance marked their grade sheets that he had failed to always handle in a sterile manner the needle which was inserted. Petitioner failed the practical portion of the acupuncture examination due to his failure to maintain proper sterilization and sanitation procedures during that portion of the examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to achieve a passing grade on Part I and on Section 2 of Part IV, and therefore Part IV of the practical examination as an acupuncturist in the State of Florida. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Man Li Ching 19100 Belaire Drive Miami, Florida 33156 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
