Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Turner has been licensed as a chiropractor in the State of Florida, holding license CH 1454. He has maintained offices as a chiropractic physician at 7650 South U.S. Highway One, Fort Pierce, Florida 34952 since May 19, 1985. Prior Discipline The Board of Chiropractic Examiners has maintained other prosecutions against Dr. Turner. On August 28, 1972 a Final Order was entered revoking Dr. Turner's license for solicitation for prostitution and giving oral medication and injections to a person, but his licensure was reinstated by Order dated September 11, 1974. Thereafter, on July 14, 1977, his licensure was revoked for a second time. Although the Administrative Complaint which had been filed in the second prosecution had alleged sexual misconduct towards patients and staff, those charges were not sustained. The revocation was imposed for obtaining prescriptions for narcotics, stimulants or habit-forming drugs under false pretenses from medical doctors and dentists in an amount so large as to show either drug abuse by Dr. Turner or the offering and administration of drugs to patients, employees, or other persons without lawful authority to do so. Ultimately, Dr. Turner was relicensed, and reestablished his practice in 1985. Alteration of Records The applicable paragraph of the Administrative Complaint alleges that On or about October 25, 1989 a former employee of the Respondent issued a sworn statement, to the State Attorney's Office. In her statement the former employee stated that the Respondent had her change her therapist's notes on a patient to reflect that certain treatments were not being used. The former employee also stated in this interview that the Respondent frequently had her and "other employees" change patient notes in order to mislead future "attorneys" reviewing said notes. Turner hired Debbie Corderre as a therapist and staff member in 1987, and she remained in his employ into 1989. One of the patients to whom she provided therapy was patient E.M. The physical therapists in Dr. Turner's office are not persons who are graduates of a physical therapy school approved for the educational preparation of physical therapists by an accrediting agency recognized by the Council on Post-Secondary Accreditation or who have passed an examination administered by the Department of Professional Regulation to determine fitness to practice as a physical therapist. See Section 486.031 Florida Statutes (1989). Rather, they are persons who have received brief on-the-job training of two weeks or so to provide such therapy as might be ordered by Dr. Turner as part of his office practice. Ms. Corderre testified that Dr. Turner had ordered her to alter the medical records of E.M. to remove diathermy as a therapy given. Diathermy is the heating of body tissues due to their resistance to the passage of high- frequency electromagnetic radiation, electric currents, or ultrasonic waves. (Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 26th Edition 1985). The office therapies included massage, traction, electric muscle stimulation, the use of hot packs and ultrasound treatment. Electric muscle stimulation and ultrasound treatment involved the use of a machine with pads; gel was put on the patient and the pads were attached. Ultrasound was performed using the same machine; lotion was placed on the patient and an instrument attached to the machine was rubbed over the body part being treated. How these treatments differ from diathermy, or what constituted diathermy at Dr. Turner's office, was never adequately explained at the hearing. The office notes maintained for Dr. Turner's patients were broken into four sections, each of which were identical, and permitted notes to be made for four separate visits on one sheet. The notes for each individual visit was made up of five parts. The first included a space for the date and abbreviations for the different therapies next to which a check mark could be placed. These spaces were checked off by therapists for billing purposes. None of these spaces ever were checked in any of the extant records for patient E.M. Below the abbreviations was a larger space for therapists notes, in which the therapist would write the therapy provided to the patient during that visit. Below the therapist's note area was a space of equal size containing the acronym SOAP, in which Dr. Turner would make his notes when he saw the patient, after his therapist had already completed the therapy. The fourth portion of the record of a visit is a line to note any material dispensed to the patient during the visit, and the fifth portion is a line to note any X-rays that may have been taken. In none of the records for patient E.M. have any of the abbreviations for any of the different types of therapy been checked off, even though Dr. Turner maintains that these notes are the source of billing information (Tr. 240-41). It is incomprehensible that from the period October 27, 1987 through April 12, 1988, over a total of 59 visits, that a therapist never correctly filled out the portion of the patient record which another employee would need in order to render a bill for the service provided that day. By way of contrast, however, the records for another patient entered into evidence, B.S., do for the most part, have check marks in that portion of the record for a visit which would be useful for billing. The inference which is drawn from the absence of any billing entries in the records for patient E.M. over so long a period of time is that the records which purport to be the contemporaneous records for E.M. are in fact records generated after the fact by the therapist, Debbie Corderre at the instruction of Dr. Turner. Dr. Turner's contention that Ms. Corderre failed to keep appropriate records is rejected. Ms. Corderre testified that Dr. Turner had instructed her to remove reference to diathermy given to patient E.M. Dr. Turner counters by noting that the insurance claim forms submitted by his office on behalf of patient E.M. to the Workers Compensation insurance carrier for E. M.'s employer never showed that diathermy was administered. Dr. Turner argues that Ms. Corderre's testimony must be wrong, for the insurance billings would have shown a charge for diathermy, if the testimony of Ms. Corderre were correct. Dr. Turner's point is well taken, but it does not negate the core of Ms. Corderre's testimony. Ms. Corderre had told the State Attorney's office before the hearing that she thought Dr. Turner had instructed her to change the records to remove any reference to having provided patient E.M. with ultrasound therapy. Based upon all the evidence I find that the records for patient E.M. were changed by Ms. Corderre in some significant way at the direction of Dr. Turner. Because the original records were necessarily lost, and all that remains are revised records, it is not possible to determine with certainty in what way the records were altered. On this aspect of her testimony the recollection of Ms. Corderre is faulty. Her testimony that she changed all records for patient E.M. is persuasive, and the absence of any entry in the portion of the records used for billing reinforces this conclusion. Why Dr. Turner wanted to have the records changed and the manner in which he told Ms. Corderre to change them are not particularly significant. Dr. Turner regarded the change as sufficiently important to have Ms. Corderre spend almost a full day of filling out the newly created records. He then manufactured what are supposed to be contemporaneous entries of his own in the portion of the records which are his notes (the SOAP notes). Improper Sexual Touching of a Patient Dr. Turner employed Brenda Stanley, who later became Brenda Sika by marriage, during the period August 1988 to 1989. She was trained as a physical therapist at the office. About a month after she was employed, in September 1988, Brenda Sika was injured in an automobile accident, and had gone to the hospital emergency room. She discussed her condition and her need for treatment with Dr. Turner, who agreed to examine her and treat her. Dr. Turner first saw Brenda Sika as a patient on September 13, 1988. Ms. Sika's principle complaints included back pain over the whole back, but which was worse in the lower back; neck pain, and ankle pain, all of which had resulted from the automobile accident. She also had bruising and tenderness of her chest due to the action of her seat belt in the accident. Ms. Sika contends that while she was lying on her stomach in a treatment room on several occasions Dr. Turner had placed his hand on her ankle, and slid it up until his hand was on her buttocks, and that on one occasion he had placed his hands between her legs while she was lying face down, with the inside of his hands on the inside of her legs and his thumb on the outside. She also alleged that on the Sunday following the initial visit on September 13, she sought additional treatment from Dr. Turner, and in the course of that treatment he requested her to remove her bra, remained in the room while she undressed, and afterwards asked her to stretch out her arms, after which he felt her breasts, including placing his hand around the fleshy part of her breasts. Finally, Ms. Sika alleges that while in the X-ray room, Dr. Turner asked to check if her groin muscle had been pulled, and in the process used his thumb and index finger to squeeze or grip her in the groin. It is difficult to accept the contention that Dr. Turner had engaged in inappropriate and unwarranted sexual touching of Ms. Sika's breasts, buttocks or groin area, in view of the continuing employment relationship. Ms. Sika had only recently been hired when she was injured. It seems unlikely that she would have remained in the employ of someone who had engaged in lecherous touching while she was supposedly being treated. She remained an employee of Dr. Stanley for a substantial amount of time, and only left that employment when she went to Michigan for her wedding. What is more significant, however, is that after she returned to Florida following her wedding, she decided to return to employment with Dr. Turner (Tr. 75). Ms. Sika did not tell other employees such as Deborah Coderre or Tammy Prescott that Dr. Turner had engaged in unwarranted sexual advances or made sexual innunendoes to her at the office. With respect to the accusation of fondling of a breast, after the accident Dr. Turner had conducted an examination which included palpation in the area of the rib cage underneath the breast, where there was a bruise caused by the seatbelt in Ms. Sika's car. That sort of touching in an area of complaint is appropriate. The charge with respect to running Dr. Turner's hands from the ankle to the buttocks is unconvincing. Attempting to determine whether there was involvement of a groin muscle would be appropriate, but the description of the examination given by Ms. Sika would have constituted inappropriate conduct, had the examination occurred as described. As stated above, given her continued employment, and reemployment after she had left work with Dr. Tuner at the time of her wedding, the evidence of sexual misconduct is not convincing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order revoking the licensure of Dr. Turner, without right of reinstatement or relicensure. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 9th day of November, 1990. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-5707 Rulings on the proposed findings by the Department: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 9. Recounted in Finding 6, but the testimony that the alteration was to remove diathermy is not accepted. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within in the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected as unnecessary, because not within the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Rejected because the testimony was not sufficiently specific to establish that other medical records were altered. The testimony with respect to patient E.M. is sufficiently specific. Rejected because the testimony was not sufficiently specific with respect to alteration of records other than those of E.M. Moreover, the charge made in paragraph 3 is not one with respect to purposeful mis-billing. See, Finding 3. See, ruling on Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 13. Adopted in Finding 14. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony is recounted in Finding 15. The testimony recounted in Findings 19-27 is rejected for the reasons stated in Finding 16. Included in Finding 14. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Adopted in Finding 2. Rulings on findings proposed by Dr. Turner: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Finding 1. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Rejected as unnecessary, because Dr. Turner's skills are not at issue. Adopted in Finding 12. Adopted in Finding 13. 9 and 10. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as unnecessary. Generally accepted for the reasons given in Finding 16. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 16. Adopted in Finding 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent necessary, adopted in Finding 17. Generally adopted in Finding 17. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. To the extent persuasive, these arguments are covered in Findings 16 and 17. Accepted in Finding 17. Adopted in Finding 4. Generally rejected as a recitation of testimony, and because the argument that Dr. Turner had not required Ms. Corderre to change records of diathermy is accepted, but the argument that Dr. Turner did not instruct Ms. Corderre to make some significant changes in E. M.'s record is rejected. The testimony is recounted in Finding 10. Rejected as unnecessary. What is significant is that Ms. Corderre changed records at the direction of the doctor, the exact nature of the change is not essential. See, Finding 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary; any motivation Ms. Corderre might have had to be untruthful has been considered in evaluating her testimony. Rejected as unnecessary, any motivation Ms. Corderre might have had to be untruthful has been considered in evaluating her testimony. Rejected as unnecessary, any motivation Ms. Corderre might have had to be untruthful has been considered in evaluating her testimony. Accepted in that the only findings made with respect to Dr. Turner's conducts are made with respect to the records of E.M. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected. I have accepted most of the testimony of Ms. Corderre. Rejected as unnecessary. No "Taylor" case is at issue here. Rejected. See, especially Finding 9. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia Guilford, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Chiropractic 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Suite 400 Miami, FL 33156-7115 Donald C. Dowling, Esquire 501 East Atlantic Avenue Delray Beach, FL 33483
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Thomas P. Elliott was licensed in Florida as an osteopathic physician having been first licensed in Florida in 1977 and issued Certificate No. 0003751. He graduated from an accredited osteopathic school of medicine in Kirksville, Missouri in 1952 and was duly licensed in Missouri where he practiced for some 23 years before entering the U.S. Air Force medical corps for two years. He was assigned to Tyndall AFB in Panama City, Florida. Upon his release from the USAF and licensure in Florida, he moved to Largo, Florida in 1977 where he set up a general practice as an osteopathic physician. Jack Bianco was first seen by Respondent on 12/19/B3 complaining of constant back pain. Examination and x-rays showed the degeneration of lower spine which could result in some pain. Bianco gave a history of an accident while in the military in 1966 which required extensive surgery and use of a brace for several years. Respondent acknowledged that if a patient said he had pain, he was given the benefit of the doubt. Although Bianco had received treatment at VA facilities those records were never asked for nor obtained by Respondent. Bianco stated he was allergic to Codeine and refused prescriptions for anti-inflammatory drugs. On this initial visit he was treated by manipulation, high frequency pulse and given a prescription for Dilaudid. Bianco remained a patient of Respondent until September 1984. At each visit, which occurred at approximately one week intervals, Bianco was treated with manipulation, high frequency pulse therapy and issued a prescription for Dilaudid. During the nine months Bianco was a patient he was given prescriptions for 374 Dilaudid, 4 mg. Dilaudid is the brand name for Hydromorphone Hydrochlorite. It is the strongest form of morphine available for oral ingestion and is a Class II controlled substance because of its highly addictive attributes. Extended use of Dilaudid (beyond two or three weeks) is generally deemed suitable only for terminally ill patients suffering from a painful malady such as cancer. Respondent recognized that Bianco was coming for treatment principally to get Dilaudid but he nevertheless continued to prescribe Dilaudid and never referred Bianco to a drug treatment facility. In March 1984, Respondent reduced the number of Dilaudid prescribed at one time to 8 but in July 1984 increased the number to 10. Respondent testified he attempted to take Bianco off the Dilaudid and Bianco did not return for treatment after receiving his last prescription from Respondent September 6, 1984. However, as noted below, Bianco's records (and others) were seized by the Sheriff's Office September 11, 1984. Records maintained by Respondent on Bianco fail to record results of the treatment given. On nearly every visit the same treatment was given followed by the prescription for Dilaudid. Although Respondent testified + + + + shown on the patient record showed that response to the treatment was first class, there is no record that Bianco's condition was improving, remaining constant or getting worse, or that any effort was made to change the medication to a less addictive drug. Respondent was never registered to participate in a detoxification program. Without such registration it is illegal for a practitioner to prescribe maintenance drugs to an addict. Between 1979 and 1984, Respondent also treated Stanley Berry, Lawrence Brainard, Cheryl Morelli, Michael Morelli; Donald Murray, Nicholas Spano, Linda Valentine, Paul Broussard, Lee Coryell, Arthur Gray, Sherri Gray, Raine Troupe, Bruce Flood, Debora Bolte, Leon Clifford, Gail Outlaw, William Ellmore, Horace Maybee, William Noble, Irene Morelli and Ernest Pingatore, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. All of these patients complained of pain, generally back pain, on the first visit. Most reported having been involved in an earlier accident and reinjuring the back recently. The examinations given by Respondent consisted of checking the x-rays if the patient presented one to see if there was any skeletal problem that could cause pain. Otherwise he would palpate the patient to find a potential cause of pain. On these initial visits and throughout the period the patient was treated by Respondent, vital signs (blood pressure, temperature and pulse) were rarely, if ever, taken by Respondent or anyone else at his office. Most of these patients were given manipulation, heat or high pulse frequency treatment and prescriptions for Dilaudid on the first visit. Those who presented records showing they had been given Demerol or Percodan were usually given prescriptions for Demerol or Percodan and a muscle relaxant. Both Demerol and Percodan are Class II controlled substances. These patients' charts, like the chart on Bianco, failed to record what, if any, progress was made as the treatment progressed. Petitioner's expert witnesses, who reviewed the patient records and testified in these proceedings, could not decipher some of the notations made by Respondent on these charts as he used abbreviations, pluses, etc. While it would be very important for a doctor to read the patient record of a patient who had been treated by another physician, there is no specific format or specified abbreviations for maintaining patient records. All of these patients were given prescriptions for Class II drugs with inadequate documentation to justify the use of such drugs in the patient records. They were also given these prescriptions for a much longer time than was indicated for the physical symptoms which could easily lead to addiction, assuming the patient was not already addicted. Many of these patients were referred to Respondent by other patients above named. Those patients with the same surnames were from the same family, generally husband and wife. Respondent testified he gave no significance to the fact that he was prescribing large quantities of Class II drugs to two members of the same family. Frequently drug addicts refer other addicts to a doctor from whom the referrer is able to obtain drugs. Some of these patients were recognized as addicts by Respondent. Nevertheless, he would discuss their dependency with them, continue to prescribe controlled substances for them and never referred any of his patients to a detoxification center. Some of Respondent's patients listed above were given prescriptions for sufficient quantities of Schedule II drugs that they disposed of these drugs on the street. Approximately of those patients above noted were arrested by police for drug related offenses. These practices constitute prescribing controlled substances not in the course of Respondent's professional practice. Donald Murray was a patient of Respondent's from July 1979 through July 1984. During this period he received 198 prescriptions for Dilaudid, 240 prescriptions for Percodan, 16 prescriptions for Tuinol, as well as prescriptions for Tylox and Desoxyn (for narcolepsy). No entry in the patient record justified a diagnosis of narcolepsy for this patient. During the 28-day period between May 18, 1982 and June 28, 1982, Murray was given prescriptions for 72 Dilaudid, 4 mg. and 74, Percodan. In April 1983, Murray was given prescriptions by Respondent for 240 Percodan in less than a 30-day period. Respondent testified Murray needed the drugs to maintain his law practice. Nicholas Spano was a patient of Respondent from July 10, 1980 until September 7, 1984. Between July 19, 1982 and September 7, 1984, Spano received prescriptions for more than 2700 Percodan and prescriptions for 424 Tylox, another Class II drug. At the time these prescriptions were given to Spano, Respondent was aware of a psychiatric report by Dr. Joye dated 3/23/81 that Spano was believed to have a narcotic dependence on Percodan, of Joye's recommendation to discontinue Percodan, and of a report by Dr. Adams dated March 31, 1981 that Spano had been a chronic user of Percodan. In 1982, Detective William Logan in the vice and narcotic squad of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office contacted Respondent regarding a forged prescription to one of his patients. At that meeting they discussed how not to get involved with drugs. Subsequent thereto Logan received complaints from pharmacies in Largo regarding what appeared to the pharmacist as excess prescriptions for narcotics written by Respondent and an investigation was commenced. On March 6, 1984, Respondent telephoned Logan to say he had read that two of his patients had been arrested, viz. Raine Troupe and Bruce Flood. Respondent acknowledged to Logan that he knew these men were addicts and that he was taking them off slowly. Respondent also admitted having other patients who were questionable. By this time Respondent had become a suspect in the criminal investigation and further telephone calls from Respondent were not returned by Logan. Respondent's office was searched on September 11, 1984, pursuant to a subpoena and patient records of the 23 patients above noted were seized. Respondent was subsequently brought to trial in Circuit Court in and for Pinellas County, entered a plea of nole contendere, and on August 25, 1985, adjudication of guilt of unlawful delivery of controlled substance was withheld, Respondent was placed on probation for three years, ordered to pay certain costs, and prohibited from prescribing Schedule II drugs.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the administrative complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida. Respondent holds an active license to practice medicine, license number ME 0030238 (Physician). Respondent's practice is limited to what he has described as "cosmetic" surgery, but which is considered plastic or reconstructive surgery. Typically, Respondent performs elective surgery for cosmetic purposes to breasts, abdomen, buttocks, face (eyes, lips, cheeks), or hips. In August, 1990, the patient, V.A., presented to the Respondent for a pre-operative consultation and examination. At the time, V.A. was interested in having liposuction, breast enlargement, and an abdominoplasty. Due to her medical history, V.A. was an extremely poor candidate for an abdominoplasty. The pre-operative history and physical examination performed by Respondent as reflected in the records maintained by Respondent for the patient, V.A., were inadequate. No records supporting a complete physical examination and history have been provided. The pre-operative medical records maintained for the patient, V.A., do not support the course of treatment proposed for the procedures to be performed. Respondent did not order a pre-operative lab work-up for the patient, V.A. Such lab order would normally consist of a complete blood count, a urinalysis, electrolytes, blood sugar, blood nitrogen test, and a mammogram or breast examination since the breasts were to be augmented. Respondent relied on lab test results for V.A. which were approximately three months old. Respondent believes that the reliance on tests up to six months old would be acceptable since he only performs surgery on healthy patients. Respondent performed no independent examination of V.A. to verify she was "healthy," prior to surgery. Failing to obtain current lab tests of the types described above before performing elective surgery of the nature sought by V.A. constitutes the practice of medicine below the standard of care, skill, and treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would find acceptable under similar circumstances and conditions. On or about August 30, 1990, Respondent performed the following procedures on V.A.: liposuction; breast enlargement; and an abdominoplasty. In order to perform the procedures noted, Respondent used general anesthesia so that V.A. was under anesthesia for six hours. During that time, Respondent opened V.A.'s abdomen, removed tissue, removed adipose tissue from various parts of the patient's body, injected fat tissue into the patient's breasts, cheeks and hands, and closed the abdominal wound with stitches. The surgical or operative notes maintained by Respondent for the patient, V.A., are inadequate to fully describe the procedures performed. The Respondent was released to go home approximately two hours after the surgery. The postoperative notes maintained by Respondent for the patient, V.A., are inadequate to fully describe how the patient was able to be discharged in so short a time after surgery. V.A. returned to Respondent's office numerous times following the surgery. V.A. sustained an infection and complications from the wound to her abdomen that took months to heal. Respondent treated the infection by scraping the wound and attempting to re-stitch it on at least two occasions. V.A. sustained necrosis which is the death of tissue and which complicated the healing of the abdomen wound. The loss of skin from necrosis is much more likely to occur when the patient has scarring. Given V.A.'s medical history (scarring throughout the areas), the necrosis was almost inevitable. Two procedures are available under the circumstances applicable to V.A.: allowing the wound to heal without stitches or to use a skin graft. The procedure used by Respondent (stitching the infected area) fell below the standard of care, skill, and treatment which a reasonably prudent physician would find acceptable under similar circumstances and conditions. Injecting fat tissue for breast augmentation is inappropriate. Since it is common for the fat tissue to die after injection, the injected tissue then appears on a mammograph as a mass of suspicious origin. That is, it is difficult to differentiate from a breast mass that is a medical problem from that of the dead fat tissue. As a result, biopsies may be required to verify the mass content. In fact, V.A. has already had to have such a procedure following the augmentation performed by Respondent. Respondent also conducted a pre-operative interview with a patient, P.T. P.T. was a radio talk show host at the time and suggested that the station, she and Respondent could all benefit from a campaign wherein she would have liposuction, the Respondent would receive her endorsement through advertising, and the station would have advertising paid for by the Respondent's clinic. In an attempt to negotiate the terms of the advertising campaign, P.T., an advertising executive with the radio station, Respondent's office manager, and Respondent met together to discuss the project. Respondent wanted a multifaceted campaign requiring P.T. to undergo more than just the liposuction she sought. Respondent's scope for the campaign included many of the surgeries his clinic offered. While discussions continued for the advertising campaign terms, P.T. underwent pre-operative testing which included a blood test, medical history forms, and photographs. During an office consultation in anticipation of surgery, Respondent requested that P.T. allow him to examine her. Unlike a previous examination which had occurred without incident with someone in the room, Respondent closed and locked his office door and requested that P.T., who was alone with Respondent, stand near his desk. When she complied, he leaned forward and raised her dress over her breasts. Next he unhooked her bra and pulled it over her breasts. Respondent proceeded to poke and prod P.T. across her breasts and abdomen during which time P.T. presumed it was for medical purposes. P.T. became uncomfortable when the prodding which continued became more like a caress. She attempted to presume Respondent was merely checking the texture of her skin but became increasingly uncomfortable with his touch. P.T.'s discomfort accelerated when she realized Respondent had placed his face in her vaginal area and was licking her. She immediately attempted to pull away. Respondent grabbed her on the breast and, as P.T. put it, "in the crotch." P.T. struggled with Respondent who made several sexually inappropriate comments to her. As P.T. attempted to regain her composure and close her clothes, the Respondent's office manager knocked on the door. On hearing the office manager, Respondent released P.T. and went to unlock the door. At the time of the foregoing incident, P.T. was the Respondent's patient. Respondent did not maintain appropriate medical records for the course of treatment proposed for the patient, P.T. Respondent's course of conduct with the patient, P.T., fell below the standard of care a reasonably prudent physician would pursue for treatment of this patient. Respondent attempted to engage a patient in a sexual activity. P.T. did not consent to the activity described above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty of violating Sections 458.331(1)(j), (m), and (t), Florida Statutes, and imposing the following penalties in accordance with the guidelines set forth by rule: revocation of the license together with an administrative fine in the amount of $15,000.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-3609 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are accepted as accurate as to the facts but not necessarily the form for findings of fact. Typically, findings of fact should not recite testimony. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Jerome W. Hoffman General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Kenneth J. Metzger Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration/Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Leon Doyan, M.D. 2817 E. Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.30 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida and holds license number ME 0043566. Respondent has never been the subject of a previous complaint from the Department of Professional Regulation (now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation). No patient involved in this proceeding incurred injury as a result of any procedure performed by Respondent or as a result of any medical record kept by Respondent, nor did any patient claim injury or make a complaint against Respondent. Respondent derived no financial gain from any act or omission alleged in the administrative complaint. All events pertaining to this proceeding occurred in 1987 or 1988. Prior to February 8, 1988, the effective date of Chapter 88-1, Laws of Florida, Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, and test results. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure 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", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Section 25 of Chapter 88-1, Florida Statutes, became effective February 8, 1988, and amended the pertinent provisions of Section 458.311(1), Florida Statutes, to read as follows: The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary action specified in subsection (2) may be taken. * * * (m) Failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including, but not limited to, patient histories, examination results, test results, records of drugs prescribed, dispensed, or administered, and reports of consultations and hospitalizations. * * * (t) Gross or repeated malpractice or the failure to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 768.45 when enforcing this paragraph. As used in this paragraph, "repeated malpractice" includes, but is not limited to, three or more claims for medical malpractice within the previous 5-year period resulting in judgment or settlement and which incidents involved negligent conduct by the physician. As used in this paragraph, "gross malpractice" or "the failure 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", shall not be construed to require more than one instance, event, or act. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require that a physician be incompetent to practice medicine in order to be disciplined pursuant to this paragraph. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner had adopted no rules pertaining to the keeping of records by a licensed physician. Imperial Point Medical Center (Imperial Point) is a hospital located in Broward County, Florida. Unless otherwise indicated, all hospital records referred to in this matter are from Imperial Point. PATIENT #1 (C.S.) On August 8, 1988, Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #1, a male, who was 44 years old at the time of the procedure. This procedure was performed at Imperial Point on an outpatient basis. An upper endoscopy is the viewing of the mouth, the pharynx, the esophagus, the stomach and portions of the duodenum with a fiber optic instrument that allows direct visualization of the lining of these structures and allows therapeutic maneuvers. The records kept of this procedure performed on Patient #1 on August 8, 1988, include an outpatient hospital record entitled "Operative Report". The description of the procedure portion of this report includes the following: ". . . The gastric portion was infiltrated with 1:1,000 adrenaline . . ." Adrenaline, also known as epinephrine, is a vasoconstrictor that can be used to control minor bleeding and oozing. It is used regularly in gastroenterology to treat actively bleeding lesions or ulcers with evidence of recent bleeding prior to performing a more permanent type of hemostasis. Dr. Goldberg testified that epinephrine was usually injected into these areas by a needle. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that epinephrine should not be used in cases of trivial bleeding or oozing or after routine biopsies unless there is an imminent danger of a significant arterial bleed. The testimony of Dr. Cerda and Dr. Singh established that spraying epinephrine over an area that is subject to bleeding is a precautionary technique some gastroenterologists follow. Dr. Singh and Dr. Cerda have both either used this technique, or have observed its use by other physicians. The expert witnesses agreed that the injection by needle of epinephrine into the gastric wall would be a procedure that falls below an established standard of care. There was a dispute among the expert witnesses as to how the term "infiltrated" should be interpreted. Petitioner contends that the term "infiltrated" is synonymous with the term "injected", and that the medical records should be construed to mean that Respondent injected the gastric wall with a needle, and therefore practiced below the standard of care. This contention is consistent with the testimony of Dr. Goldberg. Respondent asserts that the medical record should be construed to mean that Respondent sprayed the gastric wall as a precautionary measure. This contention is consistent with the testimony of the expert witnesses who testified on behalf of the Respondent. This dispute is resolved by finding that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and does not prove that Respondent injected Patient #1's gastric wall with a needle. This conclusion is based, in part, on the definition of the term "infiltrate" and on the context in which epinephrine is sometimes administered by gastroenterologists during this type procedure. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the term "infiltrate" means to pass a liquid or a gas into something through its interstices or to permeate with a liquid or gas passed through interstices. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, Twenty Sixth Edition (Dorland) has a similar definition of the term "infiltrate". According to Dorland, an "interstice" is small interval, space, or gap in a tissue or structure. According to Dorland, the term permeate means to penetrate or pass through, as through a filter. Also according to Dorland, the term inject means the act of forcing a liquid into a part, as into the subcutaneous, the vascular tree, or an organ. Based on these definitions, it is found that the use of the term "infiltrate" is more consistent with the practice of spraying epinephrine onto the gastric wall, and that the use of the term "infiltrate" does not prove that Respondent injected the epinephrine into the gastric wall with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #1 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. A pathology report dated August 8, 1988 contained in the medical file provided a pathological diagnosis as follows: "esophageal brushings: no evidence of malignancy." Brushings are the result of passing a small brush through the biopsy channel of an endoscope, rubbing it over an area of concern that might have either a malignancy or a fungal infection, taking the brush out of the scope, wiping it on a microscopic slide, and sending the slide to the pathologist for cytological examination. The reference to the "esophageal brushings" in the pathology report was error. The brushings taken from Patient #1 during the procedure on August 8, 1988, came from the stomach, a fact obvious to all of the expert witnesses in light of the operative report and operative drawing made by Respondent. Because Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent took esophageal brushings from Patient #1, its charge that he failed to properly document his reasons for doing so must also fail. 1/ Petitioner proved that Respondent's medical records, including his office notes as to Patient #1 failed to contain an adequate medical history for Patient #1 and failed to reflect the findings of any physical examination of Patient #1 by Respondent. Petitioner further proved that such failures fall below an established standard of care as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. PATIENT #2 (R.B.) Patient #2 was a 70 year old male seen by Respondent for a consultation because of the patient's history of hematemesis, which is the vomiting of blood. Respondent prepared a formal consultation note dated September 25, 1988. The consultation note contains a description of the patient's condition, references a rectal exam, which was positive for blood, and indicates that a physical examination of the patient was made. Respondent again saw the patient on September 27, 1988 and performed an upper endoscopy. Dr. Goldberg was critical of the medical records kept by Respondent as to this procedure and was of the opinion that the medical records were inadequate. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedure. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records pertaining to this patient were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. The records kept of this procedure reflect that Respondent "infiltrated" Patient #2 with epinephrine. This is the identical dispute over the meaning of the term "infiltrated" that pertained to Patient #1 as discussed above. For the reasons given in resolving the dispute as it pertains to Patient #1, it is found that the term "infiltrated" does not have the same meaning as the term "injected" and that the use of the term does not prove that Respondent administered the epinephrine by injecting Patient #2 with a needle. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the use of epinephrine was improper or that the manner in which Respondent used the epinephrine during the subject procedure was improper. Since Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent injected Patient #2 with epinephrine, its charge that Respondent failed to document his reasons for doing so must also fail. PATIENT #3 (B.B.) Patient #3, a 65 year old female was admitted to Imperial Point with chest pains by her physician, a Dr. Fanfan. Patient #3 had a history of cancer which included the prior surgical removal of a tumor. On October 3, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy of Patient #3. A colonoscopy is an examination of the colon from the anus to the ileocecal valve using a fiber optic instrument. A colonoscopy is indicated to evaluate abnormal X-rays, changes in bowel habits, evidence of bleeding, suspicions of inflammation, tumors, or polyps. Respondent adequately performed the procedure on Patient #3. The colonoscopy detected that Patient #3 had polyps. Subsequent laboratory results established that these were hyperplastic polyps that required no follow-up. Had the polyp been an adenomatous polyp, which is a true neoplasm with malignant potential, a follow-up for recolonoscopy would have been appropriate in one year. Prior to receiving the pathology reports, on the polyp, Respondent recommended a six month follow-up for the patient. This follow-up recommendation was appropriate at the time it was made. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that a follow-up be performed was below an established standard of care. Petitioner failed to prove that the recommendation that the follow-up for this patient with a history of cancer be in six months as opposed to one year fell below an established standard of care. The barium enema for this patient was originally scheduled by the attending physician, Dr. Fanfan. Dr. Fanfan clearly wrote a note on the same day following Respondent's report of the colonoscopy that the barium enema was pending, yet the attending physician did not cancel the barium enema. There is no disagreement among the experts that the barium enema was unnecessary in light of the findings of the colonoscopy. It is medically unnecessary and inappropriate for both tests to be performed on the same day. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent was responsible for the patient once he began his consultation and that Respondent should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Cerda, Dr. Eberly and Dr. Singh were of the opinion that the attending physician was responsible for scheduling the barium enema and that the attending physician or the radiologist should have canceled the barium enema. Dr. Eberly testified that as the primary care physician, the admitting physician is the "captain of the ship" and has the responsibility to make final determinations with respect to tests of this nature. Because of the conflicting testimony from equally credible expert witnesses, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care by not cancelling Patient #3's enema. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's medical records pertaining to Patient #3 were inadequate. He had several criticisms of the records. Dr. Goldberg opined that there should have been a formal consultation note on Patient #3's chart that included past history, present illness, review of systems, allergies, pertinent laboratories, a thorough organ specific or system examination, an impression, an adequate discussion of the consultant's impression and the consultant's plans. He opined that the indications for Patient #3's procedure were inadequately dictated on the procedure notes and that Respondent's history pertaining to Patient #3 was inadequate because there was no pertinent review of systems or past history, no mention of the previous tumor, no mention of allergies, and an extremely scant examination. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of this patient's medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #4 (E.K.) On October 4, 1988, Patient #4, a 92 year-old female, was admitted to the hospital with an acute onset of vomiting, dehydration, and abdominal pain. Respondent was asked by Patient #4's attending physician to evaluate Patient #4 for a potential small bowel obstruction following an X-ray that was consistent with a small bowel obstruction. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on Patient #4 on October 7, 1988. An obstruction of the intestines is a blockage in the large or small intestine. The bowel behind the blockage may become inflated with fluid or air and may be seen on X-ray. The obstruction may result from a variety of abnormalities. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the upper endoscopy was contra- indicated and potentially dangerous to the patient because of the X-ray indicating a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that an upper endoscopy should be used only under compelling circumstances if there is a partial bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did the right tests on Patient #4, but in the wrong order since he did not first rule out an obstruction. Prior to performing the upper endoscopy Respondent monitored the patient for several days. During that time period, examinations indicated that the patient was having bowel movements. Both the attending physician's notes, Respondent's notes, and the nurse's notes indicate positive bowel signs on October 5 and 6, indicating that there was not a complete bowel obstruction. Respondent ordered a Golytely preparation administered to the patient, which usually consists of one or two liters of non-absorbable solution that basically washes the bowel out. That preparation would have been improper with a complete bowel obstruction. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the use of a Golytely prep in this patient was a gross judgment error. Dr. Singh was of the opinion that there was no contra-indication for using the preparation in this situation. Petitioner failed to prove that Patient #4 had a complete bowel obstruction or that the procedure, including the use of the Golytely preparation, violated an established standard of care. It is found that Respondent was acting within the scope of his discretion as the consulting physician to order the administration of the Golytely preparation and to perform the upper endoscopy. On October 11, 1988, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #4. Respondent stated on the operative report that the colonoscopy was indicated because of diverticulitis. Diverticulitis was not mentioned in any of Respondent's notes concerning Patient #4, and there was no notation as to the reasons Respondent thought the patient had diverticulitis. Although Respondent failed to document why he felt that diverticulitis was an appropriate indication for the colonoscope, there is no dispute that a colonoscope was, in fact, indicated. Further, the colonoscope established that the pretest diagnosis of possible diverticulitis was not incorrect. The colonoscopy revealed areas of colitis, and the pathology report noted an ulcer with acute and chronic inflammation. Respondent's experts testified that they were of the opinion that Respondent violated no established standard by listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscopy. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent practiced below an established level in listing diverticulitis as an indication for the colonoscope. During the colonoscopy, Respondent found several mildly bleeding areas and infiltrated Patient #4 with epinephrine. For the reasons discussed pertaining to Patient #4, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent violated an established standard of care in administering epinephrine to Patient #4. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation report was inadequate. Dr. Goldberg bases his conclusion on the following observations. The report was difficult to read and failed to include any significant historical events concerning Patient #4. In his consultation report, the Respondent failed to note anything about having done a rectal examination on this patient, whether or not the abdomen was distended, and whether there were active or inactive bowel sounds. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that these findings would help to distinguish between an obstruction and an ileus or paralysis of the bowel. Dr. Goldberg was also of the opinion that the patient's records of the upper endoscopy performed October 7, 1998, fail to reveal any significant findings. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate. It is found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records fell below an established standard of acceptability. PATIENT #5 (J.T.) Patient #5, an 89 year-old male, was admitted to Imperial Point with a history of peptic ulcer disease and arthritis. This patient was seen by Respondent on a consulting basis. The patient was vomiting blood and Respondent was asked to see the patient to determine the source of the bleeding. Respondent performed an upper endoscopy on October 13, 1988, and found a significant outlet obstruction. On October 17, 1988, a G.I. series was performed and a repeat upper endoscopy and pyloric dilatation was performed. The procedures performed by Respondent were properly indicated and had a beneficial result to the patient. Back-to-back pyloric dilatations were appropriate and clinical judgment was properly exercised. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the upper endoscopy of October 13, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report failed to document Respondent's findings in detail. Dr. Goldberg testified that an essential endoscopy report that physicians are trained to do should include the following: indications for the procedure, medication used to sedate the patient, identification of instrument used, description of the anatomical landmarks and their condition as visualized by the physician passing the endoscope, the removal of the scope, the physician's impressions and what the physician plans to do about those impressions, how the patient tolerated the procedure and what the patient's condition was after the procedure, and that the patient was sent to the recovery area. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the procedures performed on this patient on October 17, 1988, in that Respondent's operative report did not document Respondent's findings in detail and did not indicate if the scope was passed through Patient #5's dilated pylorus into the duodenum. In Respondent's impressions on the second endoscopy, he noted pyloric stenosis and duodenal ulcer. In his procedure note Respondent does not mention whether he passed the scope into the duodenum or how he knew there was a duodenal ulcer. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent did not properly document what he did. On October 18, 1988, Respondent performed a repeat pyloric dilation on Patient #5. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to record the reasons for the second procedure and to document his findings. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that the third endoscopy note did not adequately detail the examinations of the esophagus and stomach. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that every procedure note stands alone, and that if a physician does an endoscopy on day one and repeats it on day two, the physician still must make that report complete because it is not always going to be part of a document. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's records did not stand alone. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent's handwritten consultation note was sketchy and should have contained a history of allergies because of the need to give the patient medications for sedation. Dr. Goldberg's criticisms of Respondent's medical records do not prove that the medical records kept by Respondent were inadequate as measured by an established standard. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records provided sufficient information to document the procedures and that the records were adequate. While it may be concluded that Respondent's medical records could be improved, it is found that Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. It is further found that Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #6 (D.Y.) From October 19, 1988, until October 22, 1988, Respondent was consulting physician to Patient #6, a 72 year-old male, who was admitted to Imperial Point with rectal bleeding. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to Patient #6 because a formal consultation note was lacking. The medical records which were reviewed by Dr. Goldberg were incomplete when reviewed by him. A specific reference is made to a consultation note that is not contained in the hospital records. Respondent established that other medical records were missing from the hospital records. In light of the specific reference to the consultation note, it is found that the absence of this consultation note from the hospital records is insufficient to prove that there existed no consultation note. On October 20, 1988, Respondent performed an colonoscopy on this patient and a biopsy was taken in the segmental descending colon area. The colonoscopy could not be completed because the colonoscopy could not pass to the patient's cecum. The following recommendation was made by Respondent (the original is in all capital letters): IN VIEW OF NOT REACHING TO THE CECUM, THE PATIENT WOULD NEED BE (this is an abbreviation for barium enema) AND ALSO IF EVERYTHING IS NEGATIVE, RECOLONOSCOPY IN ONE YEAR AND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES IN THE BIOPSY OF THE POLYP, THEN ACCORDINGLY WILL PLAN. On October 21, 1988, the follow-up barium enema was performed by Dr. Nicholas M. Arfaras, a radiologist. The radiology report reflected the following finding: "Also in the sigmoid there is an approximately 1 cm. rounded filling defect identified near the junction with the descending colon. This is felt to be secondary to a polyp." The possible polyp detected by the barium enema should have been followed up. However, it was not established that Respondent was consulted by the attending physician about the results of the barium enema. Dr. Lipton, as the attending physician, would have had the responsibility for following up the recommendations made by Respondent and for bringing Respondent or another gastroenterologist in for further consultations following the barium enema if Dr. Lipton had believed it necessary to do so. This patient was discharged from Imperial Point by Dr. Lipton on October 22, 1988. The final page of the discharge summary for this patient reflected the following notation: "Condition was improved. The patient is to have a follow up in one week in the office with Dr. Lipton and with Dr. Gupta in two weeks." The evidence presented in this proceeding, including Respondent's office notes, does not reflect that Respondent had any involvement with this patient after October 21, 1988, until 1990, when he performed on the patient at North Broward Medical Center a procedure described as a "multiple colonoscopy with multiple biopsies and cauterization." This procedure in 1990 revealed multiple polyps. The polyp removed on colonoscopy in 1988 was an adenomatous polyp, a polyp with significant malignant potential. This patient needed a follow-up colonoscopy in one year. Respondent was the consulting physician and recommended reevaluation of the patient in one year. Follow-up care was not the responsibility of Respondent, but of the treating physician. Dr. Goldberg was of the opinion that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records in that Respondent failed to adequately document the indications for the colonoscopy performed on Patient #6 and why the colonoscope could not be passed to Patient #6's cecum. Dr. Goldberg opined that a physician doing a colonoscopy needs to tell why he did not get to the cecum so that the next physician colonoscoping this patient can take appropriate precautions. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above. PATIENT #7 (C.R.) Respondent was a consulting physician to Patient #7, a 64 year old male who was hospitalized with rectal bleeding. Respondent saw this patient because of a possible colonic fistula, which is a connection with any piece of the intestine and some other structure. Respondent recommended a barium small bowel X-ray and a barium enema, both appropriate clinical recommendations. On November 11, 1987, Respondent performed a colonoscopy on Patient #7. Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to keep adequate written medical records pertaining to the aforementioned procedure in that Respondent failed to document an adequate history as an indication of Patient #7's colonoscopy. This contention is rejected based on the testimony of Dr. Singh. The medical records provide adequate justification for the procedure. Dr. Goldberg was critical of Respondent's records pertaining to this patient and considered the records inadequate. He was of the opinion that the records should have better detailed his findings and should have recorded any follow-up plans for a repeat colonoscopy on the patient. Other, equally credible expert witnesses were of the opinion that the medical records were adequate and provided sufficient information to document the procedures that were performed. Petitioner failed to prove that the medical records were inadequate. Petitioner failed to prove the standard by which the adequacy of medical records are to be judged, other than the pertinent statutory standards set forth above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order which finds that Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to provide a history or physical examination for Patient #1 as alleged in Count Two, which reprimands Respondent for that violation, and which imposes an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00 against the Respondent for that violation. It is further recommended that all other charges against Respondent contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1993.
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 The Respondent Albert Sneij is a licensed medical physician, having been issued license number ME 0034499. The current office address of the Respondent is 125 Fifth Street, Miami Beach, Florida. Dr. John V. Handwerker, a licensed physician was the Petitioner's sole witness. Dr. Handwerker, who has served as an Assistant Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Miami, was requested by the Department to examine the patient records obtained from the Respondent during the course of a Department investigation, evaluate whether the prescriptions contained in the patient records were appropriate or excessive and whether such prescriptions were adequately documented in the patients' clinical records. Dr. Handwerker evaluated the Department's investigative file and the Respondent's clinical records, involving eight patients: Charles Thomas Whitecup, John Marsden, Carole Rosen, Thomas T. Bellamy, John Barbosa, Rex Bridwell, Thomas Sestito and Margaret Lee Baker. Dr. Handwerker's testimony was based solely on his review of the records since none of the patients involved in this case were seen or examined by him. Charles Whitecup's records revealed that he suffered an injury four years prior to his being prescribed Dilaudid by the Respondent. The injury was a gunshot wound to his left leg on which an exploratory laparotomy was subsequently performed. At that time it was discovered that the gunshot had torn the femoral artery and inflicted substantial nerve plexus damage. Upon examination of Whitecup, the Respondent noted weakness and atrophy in the left extremity and numbness in the anterior portion of his leg. Additionally, Whitecup suffered from bursitis in the knee with pain in the knee and patellar ligament. The Respondent diagnosed chronic left leg pain due to femoral nerve plexus damage and asked Whitecup to bring his medical records to his next appointment which as scheduled in ten days. Based on this diagnosis, the Respondent prescribed 30 Dilaudid, 4 milligrams. Thereafter, Whitecup lost his original prescription and a replacement prescription was issued on April 7, 1982. This was the only prescription which was filled and the only prescription recorded in the Respondent's clinical records for this patient. The records of this patient, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(a) and the Respondent's examination justify and document prescribing the Dilaudid for this patient. Additionally, Whitecup specifically requested that the Respondent prescribe Dilaudid since this was the only medication which relieved his chronic pain. John Marsden was issued a single prescription by the Respondent for Dilaudid, 4 milligrams, on March 8, 1982. Although no clinical records exist to justify this prescription, the Respondent remembered Marsden as suffering from a long-standing chronic pain problem. During the time that the Marsden prescription was written, the Respondent was in the process of moving his office and the clinical records for this patient were probably lost during the move. The Respondent wrote two prescriptions for 20 and 25 Dilaudid, 4 milligrams, to Carol Rosen on February 9, 1982 and March 8, 1982, respectively. Both prescriptions were written when the Respondent was located in his old office and like Marsden, were probably among the records lost in the course of moving offices. The Respondent has no recollection of this particular patient. 2/ In response to the missing Marsden and Rosen records, the Respondent has instituted a new record keeping system and detailed records for all patients are now kept. The Respondent wrote six prescriptions for Thomas Bellamy between March and May of 1982, for 171 Dilaudid, 4 milligrams. Bellamy suffered from back and neck spasms for nine years prior to his initial examination by the Respondent. He was Bellamy had ever obtained for pain was when he was prescribed Dilaudid. During a follow-up examination, the Respondent noted that Bellamy's activities were limited and that his pain was primarily centered in the lower back in the area of L-5, S-1, with occasional radiation to the left leg. The Respondent wanted to take an x-ray but did not because Bellamy was unwilling to incur the cost. Although six prescriptions were written by the Respondent based on only two examinations of the patient, the clinical records for Bellamy, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(d), and the Respondent's examinations of the patient justify and document the prescribing of Dilaudid for this patient. The Respondent examined John Barbosa on May 5,1982, and diagnosed an injured disc between L4-5 during the week prior to the exam. This patient demonstrated spinal spasms during the exam with limited mobility. A single prescription of 36 tablets of Dilaudid, 4 milligrams, was written for the patient. This proscription was justified and documented by the clinical records, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(e) and the examination performed by the Respondent on the patient. In January, 1982, the Respondent first examined Rex Bridwell, a double knee amputee. Bridwell consulted the Respondent due to a vascular disease which caused grangrene and resulted in the amputations. Bridwell's legs had not healed and ulcerous lesions were visual at the amputation sites. Bridwell, who had been unsuccessfully treated for the previous six years, was understandably in a great deal of distress and pain as a result of his condition. The Respondent prescribed painkillers, antibiotics, vitamins and discussed with Bridwell alternative therapy including, prayer, hypnosis and meditation. Bridwell was subsequently examined by the Respondent on February 2, 1982 and March 4, 1982. The Respondent prescribed Tuinal on March 3, 1982, 30 tablets, 3 grams; and Dilaudid on March 23, 1982, 40 tablets, 4 milligrams and April 8, 1982, 24 tablets, 4 milligrams, for Bridwell. These drugs were prescribed for Bridwell's severe pain. Bridwell's clinical record, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(f), and the examinations performed by the Respondent demonstrate that these prescriptions were justified and documented. 3/ On January 26, 1982, the Respondent examined Thomas Sestito, a carpenter, who came to the Respondent complaining of severe back aches which resulted from his falling off a roof in 1979 and subsequently reinjuring his back. X-rays from Baptist Hospital confirmed that Sestito suffered a facture at L2. Sestito's pain was at L4 and LB and radiated into his right thigh. The Respondent diagnosed sciatica and prescribed a total of 70 Dilaudid, 4 milligrams, on January 27, 1982, March 7, 1982 and March 11, 1982 and 30 Tuinal, 200 milligrams, on February 10, 1982. 4/ The prescribing of Dilaudid in this case was justified and is documented by the patient's clinical record, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(g) and the Respondent's examination on January 26, 1982. Finally, the Administrative Complaint charges the Respondent with unlawfully prescribing Dilaudid on April 8, 9 and 14, 1982 to Lee Baker. The clinical record, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(h), indicates that two of these prescriptions were written to "Margaret Baker" and only the April 9, 1982, prescription was written to "Lee Baker." Although Margaret Baker's middle name is "Lee", insufficient testimony was introduced to establish that all three prescriptions were written for the same person. Additionally, the Petitioner did not attempt to amend the Administrative Complaint prior to hearing to conform the allegations contained in the Complaint to the evidence which was to be introduced at final hearing. Accordingly, only the prescription written on April 9, 1982, to Lee Baker is relevant to the allegations contained in Counts 29-32 of the Administrative Complaint. Due to the lack of certainty that "Margaret Lee Baker" and "Lee Baker" are the same person, it follows that the clinical record introduced at final hearing, Petitioner's Exhibit 1(h), might contain two sets of records or one set of incomplete records. Under such circumstances, the Petitioner has failed to prove through the introduction of the clinical record of Margaret Lee Baker, that the Respondent unjustifiably prescribed controlled drugs or kept inadequate records concerning Lee Baker.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner Board of Medical Examiners enter a Final Order finding the Respondent Sneij guilty of violating Counts 8 and 12 of the Administrative Complaint, not guilty of violating the remaining counts, and placing him on probation for three months subject to the condition that the Respondent demonstrate to the Board of Medical Examiners the adequacy of his present medical record keeping system prior to the end of this period. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 29th day of September, 1983.
