Findings Of Fact Petitioner William Huang received training in acupuncture at the Chinese Acupuncture Science Research Foundation in Taiwan, China, and has practiced acupuncture for ten years, seven and a half of which have been in Florida. In August of 1981, petitioner submitted to the Department of Professional Regulation his Application for Acupuncture Examination. The Application form requests the applicant to check one of two alternative methods of qualifying for the examination: by education or by Florida apprenticeship or experience. Petitioner checked the box for "by Florida apprenticeship or experience." As of the dates of the hearing in this proceeding, petitioner had not been notified by the DPR as to whether or not he had been approved as qualified to take the examination. The examination is tentatively scheduled to occur on December 18 and 19, 1981. It was the opinion of Mr. Huang that only ten percent of the practicing acupuncturists today utilize the traditional Oriental method of diagnosis. One of the challenged rules, Rule 21-12.06(4)(a), assigns a thirty-five percent weight to the diagnostic techniques and procedures portion of the practical examination. Prior to 1980, there were no statutes or promulgated rules specifically relating to or governing the practice of acupuncture in Florida. While a rule had never been promulgated with respect to the field of acupuncture, the Florida Board of Medical Examiners had taken the official position that acupuncture is the practice of medicine. Prior to October of 1974, it was this Board's position that the performance of acupuncture should only be done by licensed medical doctors and doctors of osteopathy. Believing that legislation was imminent to allow nonlicensed persons skilled in acupuncture to perform under the direct and responsible supervision of licensed M.D.'s and D.O.'s, the Board of Medical Examiners altered its policy to reflect the same. By memorandum dated October 8,1 974, the Board issued its "Statement on Acupuncture" to be as follows: . . . to allow skilled unlicensed persons to perform acupuncture provided this is done under the responsible and direct supervision of licensed M.D.'s. This means that the non-licensed person who performs acupuncture is employed in the office of the licensed M.D. and is working in the office of the licensed M.D. and the licensed M.D. should be on the premises when acupuncture is performed. This is analogous to the Physician's Assistant who only functions under the responsible supervision of his employing physician. This does not mean that a licensed M.D. should put nonlicensed personnel out in satellite offices away from his main office performing acupuncture. A licensed M.D. should be in each office in which acupuncture is being performed. It must be remembered that the licensed M.D. is responsible for the acts and performances of any unlicensed persons within his office and in his employ regardless of the tasks or procedures performed by the unlicensed person and; therefore, this Board holds the licensed M.D. responsible for seeing that the intent of this ruling on the performance of acupuncture is carried out. . . . Effective October 1, 1980, the practice of acupuncture became specifically regulated by the enactment of Chapter 80-375, Laws of Florida. This was codified as Chapter 468, Part VIII, Florida Statutes (1980), and was amended by Chapter 81-227, Laws of Florida, effective July 2, 1981. In order to become certified to practice acupuncture under the new statutes, the applicant must furnish satisfactory evidence to the DPR that he has either: Completed a two-year program of education in acupuncture in a school or college approved by the Department; or Completed two years in an apprenticeship program . . .; provided that prior to July 1, 1981, a full-time and continuous practice of acupuncture under Chapters 458 or 459 may be substituted on an equivalent basis for all or part of the two-year apprenticeship program approved by the Department. and he must past an examination administered by the Department. Section 468.323(2), Laws of Florida. There being no Board of Acupuncturists established yet, the administration and implementation of Chapter 468 relating to acupuncture is presently being performed by the respondent's Division of Professions. Currently, that office conducts an initial review of the applications to qualify for the acupuncture examination and then the respondent's Office of Investigative Services verifies the information submitted on the application regarding the supervision of the applicant by a licensed physician and the duration thereof. This function was performed by the Office of Investigative Services by requesting the physician named on the application to sign a sworn affidavit that he or she holds a current active Florida license and that From 19 through 1981, the doctor personally knows that the applicant rendered acupuncture treatments to patients and all of these acupuncture treatments were administered under the direct supervision and control of the above-named licensed doctor. Noting that there had been confusion on the part of supervising physicians concerning the term "direct supervision," the investigators performing the function of obtaining affidavits and verifying signatures were instructed by memorandum dated September 24, 1981, as follows: It is necessary that the supervising physician for the purpose of clarification and understanding be informed that as a minimum, direct supervision means that the non-licensed person who performs acupuncture is employed by the licensed M.D. and is working in the office of the licensed M.D. and the licensed M.D. should be on the premises when acupuncture is performed. A licensed M.D. should be in each office in which acupuncture is performed. For the December 1981 acupuncture examination, the respondent received approximately 210 applications. About 125 applicants were determined to have not met the qualifications. At the time of review of these applicants and as of the time of the hearing in this matter, DPR had not yet approved any schools or colleges with programs of education in acupuncture, nor had the Department made a determination that any specific school or college met the criteria for approval of schools listed in its Rule 21-12.08, Florida Administrative Code. Of the some 41 applicants who attempted to qualify by two-years of experience under the supervision of a licensed physician, some 22 applicants have been approved as qualified to take the examination. Those were approved by the respondent on the basis of a completed, verified application form and the affidavit from the licensed Florida physician.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is ORDERED that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Rules 21-12.02(2)(b), 21-12.05 or 21.12.06, Florida Administrative Code, constitute the invalid exercises of delegated authority or that the challenged affidavit constitutes a "rule" within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, the petition seeking an administrative determination of those rules and affidavit is DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 11th day of December 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Jeremy Solomon, Esquire Booth & Conner Building A 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Salvatore Carpino, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation Old Courthouse Squire Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Liz Cloud, Bureau Chief Administrative Code Section Department of State 1802 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael A. Glean Box 3666 St. Augustine, Florida 32084 and Box 28306 Atlanta, Georgia 30328
Findings Of Fact Case History On April 10, 1987, Petitioners filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and for Administrative Determination of Invalidity of a Rule as described in the Issues statement to this Order. On April 20, 1987, Intervenors requested intervention. On April 20, 1987, Respondent Board moved to dismiss the petition filed by the Petitioners and to stay the proceedings. On April 27, 1987, oral argument was held on the petition to intervene, the motion to dismiss, and the request to stay proceedings. On April 29, 1987, an order was entered which granted the intervention, and denied the motions to dismiss and to stay. The case was originally scheduled to be heard on May 5 and 6, 1987. Upon stipulation and agreement of the parties to waive the requirement set forth in Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, calling for the conduct of the final hearing within 30 days of assignment of this matter to a Hearing Officer, the case was rescheduled for hearing to be held on June 11 and 12, 1987. The First District Court of Appeal in Dept. of Professional Regulation, et al. v. William J. Broussard, M.D., et al., Case Nos. 87-238/87-260, issued an order staying the conduct of the hearing to be held on June 11 and 12, 1987. The stay was eventually dissolved as a result of an order entered by the First District Court of Appeal on July 23, 1987, in the aforementioned appellate court cases. The administrative case was then returned to an active status before the Division of Administrative Hearings and scheduled for hearing on dates including October 5 and 6, 1987, the eventual dates for hearing. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Intervenors sought action on a motion to dismiss the Florida Medical Association as a petitioner. That motion was denied. Another preliminary matter related to the September 2, 1987, request for production of documents from the physician petitioners. On October 2, 1987, Petitioners had objected to that request for production. On October 5, 1987, Intervenors had filed a motion to compel physician petitioners to produce certain economic information and financial records related to allegations of standing. Prior to the commencement of the hearing on October 5, 1987, and in the face of remarks by counsel for the Petitioners, it was determined that the physician petitioners did not intend to advance a claim of economic injury in the sense of a change in economic circumstances in their practices with the advent of the licensure of certified optometrists. As a consequence, the requested production became a moot question and the motion to compel was denied. Enabling Legislation In 1986, the Florida Legislature reenacted the Optometry Practices Act, as Chapter 86-289, Laws of Florida. Section 6 of that Act set forth the opportunity for practitioners licensed as certified optometrists to administer and prescribe topical ocular pharmaceutical agents for the diagnosis and treatment of ocular conditions of the human eye and its appendages. The specific provisions which establish the requirements for certification are announced in Section 463.0055(2), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.) as: The board shall issue certification for the administration and prescription of topical ocular pharmaceutical agents in the diagnosis and treatment of ocular conditions to licensed practitioners who have completed the appropriate forms as required by the board and who have submitted proof of fulfilling all of the following requirements: Successful completion of at least 110 hours of approved transcript-quality coursework and clinical training in general and ocular pharmacology, as determined by the board. However, no course in pharmacology shall be approved by the board unless the course is conducted by an institution which has facilities for both the didactic and clinical instructions in pharmacology and which is accredited by a regional or professional accrediting organization that is recognized and approved by the Council on Post-secondary Accreditation or the United States Department of Education. Completion of at least 1 year of supervised experience in differential diagnosis of eye disease or disorders as part of the optometric training or in a clinical setting as part of optometric experience. Successful completion of an examination approved by the board which tests knowledge of general and ocular pharmacology with particular emphasis on the topical applica- tion of pharmaceutical agents for the eye and the side effects of such pharmaceutical agents. A related provision at Section 463.002(9), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), describes "transcript-quality" as follows: (9) "Transcript-quality" means a course which is in conjunction with or sponsored by a school or college of optometry or equivalent educational entity, which course is approved by the board and requires a test and passing grade. Section 463.0055(3), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), pertains to the payment of fees associated with becoming a certified optometrist. It states: (3) The board shall establish by rule an application fee, not to exceed $250, and an examination fee, not to exceed $250, for certification pursuant to this section. Section 463.0055(4), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), establishes a formulary committee which will assist DPR in identifying those topical ocular pharmaceutical agents that may be utilized by the certified optometrist in his or her practice. The decision to enact legislation providing for certification of optometrists to use topical ocular pharmaceutical agents for the diagnosis and treatment of ocular conditions in the human eye was passed in a setting in which optometrists within Florida had historically been involved with the administration and prescription of diagnostic and therapeutic drugs. The overall facts of this case demonstrate that this legislation was designed to specifically set forth the framework for allowing the employment of those pharmaceutical agents or drugs in the future. Adoption of Rule 21Q-10.001, Florida Administrative Code, etc. In an attempt to effectuate the purposes of Section 463.0055(2), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), the Board adopted Rule 21Q-10.001, Florida Administrative Code. The rule was first noticed for adoption in Vol. 12, No. 38 of the Florida Administrative Weekly, published September 19, 1986. The rule was adopted by the Board and filed with the Secretary of State on October 31, 1986. The effective date of Rule 21Q-10.001, Florida Administrative Code, is November 20, 1986. In the issue of the Florida Administrative Weekly described in the previous paragraph, the Board published amendments to the rule pertaining to fees which is Rule 21Q-6.001, Florida Administrative Code. Those amendments were filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on October 31, 1986. They became effective on November 20, 1986. Within that set of amendments on fees, the Board created a $100 application fee "for certification as a certified optometrist" and a $250 examination fee "for certification as a certified optometrist." The text of Rule 21Q-10.001, Florida Administrative Code, states: 21Q-10.001 Application for Certification. To be certified to administer and prescribe topical ocular pharmaceutical agents a licensed practitioner must submit a completed application form provided by the Board, remit the application fee for certification speci- fied in Rule 21Q-6.001(9), and demonstrate compliance with the following requirements: Successful completion of at least 110 hours of Board approved transcript quality coursework and clinical training in general and ocular pharmacology conducted by an accredited institution which has facilities for both didactic and clinical instruction in pharmacology. The institution must document the applicant's successful completion. The Board will accept coursework and clinical training in general and ocular pharmacology received by the applicant during his basic optometric curriculum or at postgraduate courses if this coursework and training was provided by a Board approved school of optometry or equivalent educational entity; Completion of at least one (1) year of supervised experience in differential diagnosis of eye diseases or disorders. The one year of supervised experience shall be received either during optometric training or in a clinical setting as part of optometric experience. The requisite one year of supervised experience in a clinical setting may be obtained in an academic or non- academic environment. For the purpose of this rule, one year of supervised experience in an academic setting is understood to mean three (3) quarters or two (2) semesters and one (1) year of supervised experience in a non-academic setting is understood to mean a twelve month period; Successful completion of a Board approved examination testing knowledge of general and ocular pharmacology with particular emphasis on the topical application of pharmaceutical agents. In order to be approved by the Board, the examination must have been administered in a Board approved school of optometry or at the conclusion of a post- graduate course conducted by a Board approved school of optometry, and the examination must be approved by the Board. Board Activities in Certifying Optometrists In preparation for implementing the statute, in July 1986 Board Chairman Edward K. Walker, O.D., appointed Jon S. Jacobs, O.D., as an ad hoc committee of one to begin gathering information from the schools and colleges of optometry. Dr. Jacobs' mission was to gather information from the schools and colleges to present to the Board so that it could determine whether the level and quality of the education, curriculum, examinations and supervised clinical experience in differential diagnoses received by optometry graduates of the various schools satisfied the criteria contained in Section 463.0055(2), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.). Licensed practitioners of optometry in Florida have been educated at eighteen different schools and colleges of optometry. Dr. Jacobs contacted either the president or dean of each of these institutions in order to obtain information for the Board's consideration. On August 1, 1986, Dr. Jacobs wrote each of the schools and colleges. In his letter Jacobs cited the language of the statute and asked the schools to respond to the different sections of the law by providing the Board with information concerning whether and when graduates of their institution satisfied the statutory criteria. He requested specific information from the schools concerning how many clock hours of coursework in general and ocular pharmacology they required and in what years they required them. He inquired whether or not students had to pass the pharmacology courses in order to graduate. He asked that the schools provide the Board with the pharmacology examinations given to their graduates. Dr. Jacobs also requested that the schools provide the Board with the information which would establish the beginning year in which the institution required of their graduates one year of supervised experience in differential diagnosis of eye disease or disorders. In addition to requesting information concerning the school's basic curricula leading to the O.D. degree, Dr. Jacobs also requested information on postgraduate and continuing education coursework offered by the institutions. The Board interprets the 110-hour requirement as referring to "clock hours" and not to "credit hours." The Board has determined that the accreditation of a school is evidence of its having facilities for both the didactic and clinical instructions in pharmacology. The optometric schools in question are accredited. All of the schools responded with information from which the Board could determine if and when the school met the 110 clock hour requirement and the requirement of one year of supervised experience in differential diagnosis. All of the schools provided information to the Board which indicated that their students were required to pass the pharmacology courses in order to graduate and therefore satisfied the "successful completion of at least 110 hours" criterion. Follow-up correspondence and telephone conversations with the presidents or deans were necessary to clarify the Board's request and verify the school's response. Many of the schools and colleges expressed concern about the confidentiality of the examinations which the Board had requested. The Board assured the schools that it would not be reviewing the exams for any purpose other than complying with its statutory responsibilities. The information was submitted to the Board in various forms by the schools and colleges and included catalogs, lists of pharmacology courses, and narrative or individual curriculum descriptions of pharmacology courses offered by the institutions. All of the schools and colleges submitted examinations to the Board, but not all examinations given in the relevant courses. Some of the schools submitted as many as eight examinations. The exams submitted were administered by the schools at various times. Many of the schools submitted information which indicated that they maintain computerized banks of examination questions from which they draw randomly in constructing examinations. In some instances, the Board received representative examinations because all of the exams the school had ever administered were not available. With the assistance of the Board's executive director, Dr. Jacobs compiled the information he had gathered from the various schools in chart form and presented it to the Board for its consideration. The ad hoc committee of one composed of Dr. Jacobs evolved into a three member certification committee. In August of 1986, Peter Liane, O.D., became chairman of the Board and appointed Dr. Jacobs as chairman of the Board's Certification Committee. Dr. Liane also appointed himself and Dr. Walker to the committee. The mission of the certification committee was to determine the minimum requirements of the statute, further organize the information Jacobs had gathered, and recommend to the Board those who were to be certified or not based upon documentation and evidence of what they deemed to be compliance with the statute. In reviewing the information it had gathered, the Board viewed the statutory criteria as requiring it to answer three questions: (1) Have applicants for certification received the requisite quantity and quality of coursework?; (2) Have applicants obtained the requisite differential diagnosis experience?; and (3) Are applicants safe to prescribe and administer topical ocular pharmaceutical agents based on passage of a Board approved examination which tested their knowledge of pharmacology and the side effects related to topically applied pharmaceutical agents? The Board reviewed the curriculum and the catalogs and information it received from the schools of optometry. The Board was satisfied about the accuracy of the information it received from the schools and colleges based upon the Board's knowledge of the programs in the schools, including experiences of four members of the Board who sit on the boards of trustees of various colleges of optometry. The Board relied upon the information, statements, and representations they received from the deans and colleges concerning when their graduates complied with certain statutory criteria. The Board determined that it would accept education, training, and examinations from the schools and colleges of optometry and other equivalent entities in order to satisfy statutory criteria for certification. When asked to describe in general terms what the Board was looking for in reviewing the exams to determine if the coursework in pharmacology was in compliance with Section 463.0055(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), Board members identified that they reviewed examinations to determine whether the course content, as set forth in the exam instrument, was at least 75 percent related to general and ocular pharmacology. The 75 percent standard was chosen by the Board as an arbitrary number which represented "a substantial portion of the test." A number of courses and their exams were not recommended for approval on the basis that the examinations lacked enough questions related to pharmacology to meet this requirement established by the Board. Although the deans and colleges assured the Board that their school's coursework satisfied the pharmacology criterion, it was the Board's understanding that the Legislature intended for the Board to "approve" the coursework by looking at it to determine the quality and level of that coursework. The Board was of the view that, even though an applicant took a course for the requisite number of hours, unless the Board specifically approved the course and determined that it was of sufficient quality, the course would not satisfy the first statutory criterion. Therefore, the Board reviewed the material each institution submitted on an individual basis, and approved portions of that material as satisfying the criterion for coursework. The Board believed that the best way to evaluate the quality of a course was to look at the examination which was required in that course. The Board reviewed each of the examinations which they received from the schools or colleges. Although the Board did not review each and every exam administered by all schools, it did review exams from all schools. Each Board member received copies of the exams. The exams were reviewed and discussed question by question at public meetings. The Board conducted its review based on the expertise of its members who are practicing optometrists with a knowledge of optometric education and professional practice. The statutory term "successful completion" was determined by the Board to mean successful passage of an examination for the course. The deans of the schools certified to the Board that their graduates were required to have taken 110 hours of coursework in pharmacology and had passed an exam in such coursework. With regard to the "110 hours," the Board determined that even if an applicant indicated that he or she had received that quantity of coursework, at least 75 percent of the 110 hours (83 hours) would need to be satisfied in a core course. None of the exams which the Board reviewed for the 83 hour core courses were "take home" exams. Some examinations for which partial credit was given were of that type. In satisfying the statutory criterion of "transcript-quality coursework," the Board determined whether the coursework was given by a school or college of optometry or equivalent entity, and whether the student had taken and passed an examination on the coursework. The Board also determined that the coursework which was submitted in satisfaction of the 110 hour requirement, in fact, included "clinical training." The Board made this determination by observing that information in the curriculum presented by the various schools and colleges. As to the specific clinical training criterion for certification, Dr. Jacobs assumed that the schools "automatically would have their clinical training in their curriculum." Also, Dr. Jacobs indicated that, because the schools were accredited, "we could then assume that these were the quality schools and, therefore, would be administering quality coursework and quality testing." The courses which were approved by the Board as having satisfied the 110 hours of "pharmacology" criterion were courses which dealt with the properties, chemistry, actions and uses of drugs. The courses approved also dealt with the effects of drugs on the body and on the eye, the diagnostic use of drugs, the therapeutic use of drugs, and the side effects of drugs. The Board also determined that the pharmacology coursework was "conducted by an institution which has facilities for both the didactic and clinical instruction in pharmacology." The Board did not approve courses taught by individuals, but only recognized courses conducted by colleges of optometry with both the physical facilities and faculty expertise in teaching and research necessary to provide didactic and clinical instruction in pharmacology. The Board also determined that each approved course was conducted by an institution accredited by the Council on Post-secondary Accreditation. This information was readily accessible to the Board because of the Board's continuing responsibility to review the accreditation status of various optometry schools in order to enforce the Board's existing requirement that applicants for licensure in Florida be graduates of accredited schools. Accreditation, however, did not mean a school's coursework was automatically accepted as satisfying the statutory criterion. Of the eighteen accredited schools of optometry recognized for licensure purposes in Florida, coursework from only sixteen were approved for certification purposes. Two accredited schools, the University of Montreal and Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, were disqualified because they did not meet the statutory requirements for certification. However, the Board believes that the statutory and rule requirement that approved coursework must be "conducted by" an accredited institution which has facilities for both didactic and clinical instruction in pharmacology does not require that such courses be taken at that institution or at a location that, in fact, has didactic and clinical instruction facilities. The Board also reviewed and approved continuing education courses and postgraduate courses which could be used in partial satisfaction of statutory criterion number one. The Board went through the same process with regard to reviewing and approving the examinations for the continuing and postgraduate courses. However, unlike the groups of representative exams which the Board was sent by schools and colleges, the Board reviewed each and every one of the continuing education and postgraduate examinations. Although the Board had previously reviewed and approved the continuing education course exams when the courses were approved for continuing education credit, the Board reviewed the exams a second time to determine if they satisfied the certification criterion concerning appropriate coursework. The Board has approved approximately forty continuing education, seminar, extension and postgraduate courses. The Pennsylvania College of Optometry continuing education course referred to as "PCO 701" is an example of this type of course approved by the Board. The "PCO 701" course was designed for practicing optometrists. The instructors for the course were Ph.D.s in pharmacology and ophthalmologists from the Jefferson Medical School in Philadelphia. The instructors flew in to several areas of Florida every weekend to conduct the three month continuing education course. As to the requirement of one year of supervised experience in differential diagnosis, the Board has determined that this may be obtained in either an academic or a non-academic environment. In order to determine compliance with the "one year of supervised experience" criterion, the Board requested the schools and colleges to provide it with the year in which the institution required at least one year of clinically supervised training in differential diagnosis of their graduates. The catalogs and curricula submitted by the schools to the Board also indicated that clinical training was provided as part of pharmacology coursework. The third criterion requires an examination approved by the Board. The Board did not prepare or administer an examination in order to determine an applicant's compliance with this criterion. Concerning the requirement of successful completion of an examination which tests knowledge of general and ocular pharmacology, the rule implements the Board's policy decision to not prepare and administer a separate pharmacology exam for certification purposes. The Board has determined that examinations administered in optometry school or in postgraduate courses suffice. In order to determine whether applicants satisfied the third criterion, the Board reviewed and approved the examinations which applicants had been required to pass either at the end of their coursework in optometric school or at the end of their postgraduate education. Since 1972, the Board has tested for the side effects of pharmaceutical agents as required by criterion three on the pharmacology portion in its general licensing examination, to become a "licensed practitioner." The pharmacology portion of the Board's exam is a prerequisite to obtaining licensure in Florida. Part I of the examination tests ocular pathology and pharmacology. Applicants must obtain a score of 70 percent or better in each subject in Part I of the exam in order to obtain a passing grade. Part II of the exam consists of the clinical portion and a pharmacology/ocular disease portion. An applicant must obtain a score of 80 points or better in order to secure a passing grade on the clinical portion of the practical exam. The National Board of Examiners in Optometry Education also tests ocular pathology, ocular pharmacology, and treatment and management of ocular disease. The NBEO exam tests: Clinical science which measures a candidate's application of the fundamental knowledge base to the prevention, diagnosis, management, and treatment of clinical conditions within the scope of optometric practice and consists of the following subject areas: systemic conditions; ocular disease/trauma. The International Association of Boards of Examiners in Optometry examination on the treatment and management of ocular disease (IAB examination) is an examination which must also be passed by Florida applicants in order to obtain general licensure. The IAB examination is designed to assess the cognitive skills deemed essential in utilizing pharmacologic agents for therapeutic purposes. A passing score is 75. The subject areas tested on the IAB examination include selection of the therapeutic regime; dosage and/or duration; contraindications/side effects; and the follow-up prognosis. The Board of Optometry approves the Florida examinations for general licensure. This function includes reviewing all of the examinations, working with DPR staff in the design of those examinations, actual selection of examination questions, and determination of the scope of the exam. The Board has approved all of the general licensure examinations which have been administered subsequent to 1972. Although Board members have been aware that since 1972 applicants for general licensure have been required to pass the Board approved examination in pharmacology which tests for side effects, the Board has never specifically stated or adopted a policy that this examination satisfies the third criterion to become a certified optometrist. While the Board seems satisfied that the post-1972 licensure exam would be sufficient to satisfy that criterion, the Board relied on and approved the exam which the applicant took either in school or at the end of their postgraduate training as the exam which satisfied the third criterion. Eight hundred seventy three (873) optometrists had been certified in Florida at the point of final hearing. Each of the 873 optometrists who have been certified were existing licensed practitioners in Florida at the time they were certified. Paradoxically, though the Board did not rely on the general optometric examinations for certification, it did rely on the 1972 and forward examination results in classifying the successful candidates for certification. The Board related that 570 of the 873 certified optometrists took the Florida licensure exam in 1972 or thereafter. Three hundred three (303) took the Florida licensure exam prior to 1972. Two hundred sixty three (263) of the 303 took and passed the PCO 701 course for which the Board reviewed each examination and determined that it satisfied the third criterion because it tested for the use of topical application of pharmaceutical agents and side effects. Of the remainder of the applicants who were examined for general licensure prior to 1972, 37 took the PCO 750-B course which was another course in pharmacology for which the Board had reviewed exams and found that they satisfy the third criterion. Of the remaining three applicants, one took the New England diagnostic pharmacology course and one took the Indiana DBF course in ocular pharmacology. The Board reviewed and approved each of these exams as having satisfied the third criterion. The lone applicant remaining of the 873 was a 1971 graduate from the University of Houston. The Board did not review the actual exam which the University of Houston applicant took, although the Board reviewed a number of representative exams which were sent by the University of Houston. Based on its review of the representative exams provided by the University of Houston, the Board determined that the one applicant for certification who had taken an examination which tested for side effects, but which actual exam was not approved by the Board, was sufficiently qualified to demonstrate compliance with the third criterion. The Chairman of the Board personally knows the single candidate from the University of Houston and has a personal knowledge of his practice abilities and competence. The Application/Certification Form The application form, which is challenged as an unpromulgated rule, sets out an activity section for the benefit of the Board which would indicate if a candidate has been approved for certification, the assigned certification number if approved, and other items related to this review. The application form contains a place where the applicant sets forth his or her name and the mailing address. The application form identifies the fact that $100 fee for application is required. The form asks that the candidate name the school or college of optometry which he or she attended and the year of graduation, and to provide and 8 1/2 X 11 inch photocopy of the diploma received from that school. The application form provides for the applicant's signature which is to be notarized. The application form in its second page gives further instruction and cites the text of Rule 21Q-10.001, Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 21Q-10.002, Florida Administrative Code. The latter rule deals with the administration and prescription of topical pharmaceutical agents. The application form in its substance, set out in Sections 1 through 4 of the first page, establishes the exact formula for obtaining certification to practice optometry, beyond the payment of fees and other preliminary matters which have been addressed in these factual findings. In effect, there are four alternatives by which a candidate may obtain certification. This has formed the basis for examining the credentials of candidates since the inception of the certified optometrist program within the State of Florida. The only changes that have been made concern the fact that the application form has been expanded upon through the recognition of additional postgraduate courses which could count toward the obtainment of 110 hours of approved coursework in general and ocular pharmacology. The form does not contemplate the idea of independent testing to address the third statutory criterion. The details of the four alternatives are as set forth below: 1. I am applying to become a certified optometrist based on graduation from an approved school or college of optometry which his certified to the Board that graduates received 110 hours of approved coursework in general and ocular pharmacology, including clinical training, and passed a Board approved examination (463.0055(1)(a)(c)). At least one year of supervised experience in differential diagnosis of eye diseases or disorders was included as part of the optometric training for graduation (463.0055(1)(b)). Optometrists who graduated from the following schools in the year listed below, or in subsequent years, have been approved by the Board as meeting all of the requirements of 463.0055(1)(a)(b)(c) F.S. PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX, IF THIS IS YOUR CATEGORY. Univ. of Alabama 1973 Univ. of Houston 1975 U. of CA at Berkley 1977 Illinois College 1976 Southern California 1979 Indiana Univ. 1976 Ferris State College 1979 Univ. of Missouri 1984 Pennsylvania College 1976 Southern College 1976 Waterloo, Canada 1976 New England College 1977 Northeastern State 1983 Ohio State 1972 Pacific University 1977 State Univ., New York 1975 I am applying to become a certified optometrist based on graduation from an approved school or college of optometry which has certified to the Board that graduates received 88 or more hours of approved coursework in general and ocular pharmacology, including clinical training, and passed a Board approved examination. At least one year of supervised experience in differential diagnosis of eye disease or disorders which included as part of the optometric training for graduation. I graduated from the school checked below and have attended the following approved courses, as indicated, to meet the 110 hour requirement for certification. SCHOOLS Univ. of Houston 1966-74 90 hours Illinois College 1974-75 102 hours Waterloo, Canada 1972-76 84 hours COURSES (attach verification of passing the exam) FOA/Univ. of AL-2/7-8/87 10 hours FOA/Univ. of AL-10/83 6 hours FOA/Univ. of AL-10/85 6 hours FOA/Univ. of AL-10/86 6 hours FOA/PA College-5/78 6 hours FOA/PA College-10/84 6 hours I am applying to become a certified optometrist based on 88 or more hours of approved transcript quality courses in general and ocular pharmacology, which included clinical training and passing a Board-approved examination. At least one year of supervised experience in differential diagnosis of eye diseases or disorders was included as part of my optometric training for graduation. The following courses have been approved by the Board as meeting the criteria above: (Check any courses you attended and attach proof of passing the exam.) PA College Course 750B 110 hours Illinois College Courses 1986-87 85 hours PA College Course 701 98 hours PA College Course 701 105 hours Florida Optometric Assoc/ PA College 1/31/87 110 hours If applicable to meet the 110 hours, the following approved courses may be included in your documentation for certification: FOA/Univ. of AL-2/7-8/87 10 hours FOA/Univ. of AL-10/85 6 hours FOA/PA College-5/78 6 hours FOA/Univ. of AL-10/85 6 hours FOA/PA College-10/84 6 hours FOA/Univ. of AL-10/86 6 hours I do not fit into any of the above categories. However, my educational coursework and clinical training meet all three (3) requirements of 463.055(2)(a)(b) and (c). I have attached a detailed report and all required documentation as necessary. Sections 1-4 within the application form are based upon the information gathered by Dr. Jacobs from the schools of optometry and concerning postgraduate coursework. The Certification Committee reviewed the information which Dr. Jacobs had gathered, and made a recommendation to the Board pertaining to how the information should be used. Dr. Jacobs presented a suggested format for the application form to the Board's office based upon the charts he prepared which summarized the information he had gathered. The Board's office modified Dr. Jacobs' suggested format and sent it to the Board members for their approval. After the Board approved both the use of the information gathered and the format of the application, the Board office prepared the application form for printing and distribution. By including the information concerning the school and year attended by the applicant, the Board was able to avoid having to search through existing Board licensure files which already contain this information and also enabled the Board to refer to the data which the Board had already gathered and analyzed, without the necessity to do it for each applicant. The Board did not accept the form alone in its decision-making process. The associated documentation was reviewed by the Board prior too approval for certification. Applicants were disqualified if they did not provide proper documentation. The Certification Committee reviewed all individual applications and made recommendations to the Board. Each application was reviewed individually by two different committee members. If the two committee members disagreed on certifying the applicant, the third member of the committee reviewed the application and cast the deciding vote concerning whether to recommend certification or not to the Board. The Board then voted on the application and decided whether or not to certify the applicant. The form was designed to act as a facilitator. Nonetheless, it is the substantive standard for review in all instances. The application form implements the Board's previous decision to accept the substantive information which it had been provided. Within the form, Section 1 applicants are those optometrists relying solely on their graduation from one of sixteen optometry schools in the United States and Canada on or after the year designated on the form for that school. Section 2 applicants are those optometrists relying on graduation from the University of Houston (1966-1974), Illinois College of Optometry (1974-1975), or University of Waterloo (1972-1976), in conjunction with completion of courses sponsored by the Florida Optometric Association. Section 3 applicants are those optometrists seeking certification based on completion of one post-graduation "core course" of 83 hours or more, and additional continuing education courses necessary to achieve the 110-hour total. Section 4 was created for applicants who may not fit in any of the three previously-described sections, but who may be able to establish their qualification for certification through other means. An example of use of the form is that when an applicant checked Section 1 on the form indicating the school and year of graduation, the Board reviewed the diploma to determine whether the graduation date on it coincided with the date of graduation, and the school checked in Section 1. Having previously determined that graduates of that institution subsequent to the year indicated on the form satisfied the statutory criteria, the Board used the form to confirm the applicant's credentials in the request for certification. The determination as to whether or not to certify the applicant was made after the Board examined the application form and verified that the applicant had graduated from that particular school by checking the diploma, signature, and notary certificate. Section 3 of the form shows eleven courses. As mentioned before, there are other courses that since have been determined by the Board to be acceptable towards the 110 hour total. These courses were not listed on the form because the Board was unaware of them at the time the form was printed. An applicant under Section 3 who wanted to claim credit for courses which were not listed, could write in those courses and send documentation from the school in the form of a letter or transcript which indicated that the applicant had been tested on the course and had passed the exam. The Board would then confirm that the course was given and would review the exam for course quality. With respect to applicant who checked Section 3, the Board also determined satisfaction of the one year of supervised clinical experience requirement by referring back to the information which had been provided previously by the optometry schools. For Sections 2 and 3 applicants, the continuing education courses relied on to supplement optometric school coursework or post-graduation "core courses" were all sponsored by the Florida Optometric Association in conjunction with optometric schools. Section 4 of the application form afforded applicants who did not fit categories 1, 2 or 3 an opportunity to demonstrate that they satisfied the statutory criteria. For instance, one applicant who applied under this category was a pharmacist before he was an optometrist. He did not fit into any of the other categories because his coursework was obtained in pharmacy school, and he wished to rely on that training to satisfy requirements for certification. A review of the minutes of the Board meetings from the amendment of Chapter 463 in June, 1986, through August, 1987, indicates that the certification form was not adopted as a Board rule. Dr. Walker, Board member, in his testimony confirmed that the application form was not adopted as a Board rule. The certification form-was first used by the Board at the first meeting at which it certified optometrists, April 11, 1987. It certified 455 optometrists at that first meeting; 200 more at its May 9, 1987 meeting; 174 more at its July 6, 1987 meeting; and 45 more at its August 28, 1987 meeting. Of the continuing education courses for which information is available, the "smaller courses" of 10 hours or less were offered in a "seminar" setting, with faculty from optometry schools, most notably UAB, Pennsylvania, Southern College, New England, Indiana, and Houston. In addition to the Florida Optometric Association, other non-school entities such as the Southern Council of Optometrists, the American Academy of Optometry, the Southwest Florida Optometric Association, the Northeast Florida Optometric Society, and the Bay Point Anterior Segment Symposium, Inc., sponsored some of these continuing education courses. Some of the approved continuing education courses described in the form were given at resorts, hotels, or meeting centers. Legislative Intent Petitioners' Composite Exhibits Nos. 6 and 7 were offered in an attempt to describe legislative intent related to Senate Bill 3-B, which forms the basis of the amendments to Chapter 463, Florida Statutes, which took place in 1986. This included Section 463.0055, Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.). Having considered those exhibits and the proposed facts of the parties, the intent which the Legislature had in the passage of Section 463.0055, Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.) cannot be gleaned. Therefore, conclusions about the meaning of that legislation must be made based upon a literal reading of its text, together with other provisions within Chapter 463, Florida Statutes. In a related vein, the Board of Optometry and the Intervenors have suggested facts concerning an April 15, 1987, Senate Committee on Economic, Community and Consumer Affairs request for information from the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, on the topic of the Board of Optometry's implementation of the certification process. In particular, reference is made to that committee's request concerning which schools and coursework satisfied the 110 hour and one year of supervised clinical experience requirements contained within the statute. The committee also wanted documentation of the procedures and standards used in approving examinations which satisfied the requirement for examination set forth in the third criterion. The Secretary of DPR requested the Board of Optometry to prepare the report and it was prepared and delivered to the Senate Committee. That report generally describes the activities of the Board of Optometry in its efforts at certification, as announced in the fact findings herein. Because the Senate Committee did not respond to the report made by the Department of Professional Regulation, the Intervenors and the Board urge that the silence by the Senate Committee somehow recognizes the acceptability of the procedures employed by the Board of Optometry in its certification process. Likewise, the Intervenors and the Board of Optometry seem to take some comfort in the fact that no further legislation was passed in 1987 pertaining to Section 463.0055(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), which dealt with the need to have the Board prepare an independent examination document as opposed to the technique which has been employed of using other examination instruments to satisfy the terms of that statutory reference. The exact position of the Senate Committee concerning this dispute and the need for independent testing to address the third criterion is not described in this record, nor can its silence or that of the full Legislature in its 1987 Session be seen as creating any inference about the proper construction to be given the language within Section 463.0055, Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.), and especially Section 463.0055(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.). Standing Ophthalmologists and optometrists who practice their professions in Florida are to a significant extent offering similar health care. In particular, the opportunities provided the certified optometrist for practice coincide with part of the practice available to ophthalmologists. Petitioner, Florida Society of Ophthalmology, is an organization concerned with, among other things, the educational interests of ophthalmologists and the quality of eye and health care delivered to the patients of ophthalmologists. It is also concerned on behalf of its members about the quality of eye care and health care of Floridians treated with medication by optometrists. Petitioner Florida Medical Association has the same concerns, responsibilities and purposes. Petitioner, Tully C. Patrowicz, M.D., is a physician and ophthalmologist practicing in Mount Dora, Florida, since 1972. Dr. Patrowicz is a Board-certified ophthalmologist since 1974, and is also a past officer and president of Petitioner Florida Society of Ophthalmology. He is currently a member of both Florida Society of Ophthalmology and Florida Medical Association. Petitioner, William J. Broussard, M.D., is a physician and ophthalmologist who has practiced in Melbourne, Florida, since 1967. He is a Board-certified ophthalmologist since 1966. Dr. Broussard is also a member and former office of Petitioner Florida Society of Ophthalmology. Florida Optometric Association is a not-for-profit organization with membership comprised of licensed optometrists in Florida. The purpose of Florida Optometric Association is to promote and protect the general public in ensuring the availability of high quality optometric services at affordable prices. Approximately 850 of the 1,100 practicing optometrists in Florida are members of Florida Optometric Association. Approximately 650 certified optometrists are members of Florida Optometric Association. Florida Optometric Association participates in administrative proceedings, legislative activities, and court litigation on behalf of optometry. The president of Florida Optometric Association has authorized retention of counsel for those purposes with the permission of the Executive Board and a vote of the membership. Florida Optometric Association members who are certified optometrists are subject to Rule 21Q-10.001, Florida Administrative Code. Florida Optometric Association participated in the legislative activities which resulted in the Optometric Practice Act of 1986. Dr. Howard J. Braverman, O.D., is President of the Florida Optometric Association and is a certified optometrist engaged in the active practice of optometry in Florida. If the certified optometry rule is invalidated, it will have a significant impact on the practice of certified optometry by Dr. Braverman and by the members of the Florida Optometric Association who are certified optometrists. It would also significantly affect their patients. Petitioner Baxter H. Byerly, M.D., and Intervenor Frank A. Broome, O.D., did not appear at the hearing and no indication was given concerning the exact nature of their claims as petitioner and intervenor, respectively. Respondent State of Florida, Board of Optometry, is an agency of the State of Florida within the Department of Professional Regulation with authority to regulate the practice of optometry. Sections 463.001, 463.003, 463.005, Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.). Activities subject to the Board's regulatory and rulemaking authority include standards of practice of optometry, the administration and prescription of topical ocular pharmaceutical agents, and the certification of optometrists to administer and prescribe such drugs in their practice. See Sections 463.005(1)(a) and (g), and 463.0055, Florida Statutes (1986 Supp.). Respondent State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, is an agency of the State of Florida that generally assists the various professional regulatory Boards, such as the Respondent Board of Optometry, in the examination and licensure of professionals. See Section 455.217, Florida Statutes.
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 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 Petitioner took the podiatry licensure examination administered by the Respondent in July, 1989, receiving a grade of 66.9%, with 241 correct answers. A score of 75%, with 270 correct answers, is required to pass the examination for licensure. This podiatry examination was developed by the Bureau of Examination Services in conjunction with consultants who served as "item writers", and Florida licensed podiatrists. Five Florida licensed podiatrists selected items written by the various consultants from a bank of questions available for the 1989 examination. Competent substantial evidence was not introduced on behalf of the Petitioner to establish that the examination was in any way flawed in its preparation or method of selecting the actual questions used on this exam. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the grades which the Petitioner received on the July, 1989, podiatry licensure examination were incorrect, unfair, or invalid, or that the examination, and subsequent review session, were administered in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grades he received on the July, 1989, podiatry licensure examination. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of May, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2803 Despite waiting an additional seven days until April 25, 1991, as requested by counsel for the Petitioner in his letter filed on April 19, 1991, no proposed recommended order was filed on behalf of the Petitioner. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Melvyn G. Greenspahn, Esquire 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 404 Miami, FL 33137 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Podiatry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to take the acupuncture examination given October 30 - November 3, 1984, but his application was not approved until he provided additional verification of his experience. By the time his approval was granted it was too late for the 1984 examination and he was advised to apply for the July 1955 examination which he did. In 1984 Petitioner was sent Applicant Information for Acupuncture Examination document (Exhibit 5) which indicates copies of Florida Statutes Chapters 389 and 457 and the rules applicable to each chapter are attached. Petitioner acknowledges receiving certain information but does not recall exactly what he received. When Petitioner re-applied to take the 1955 examination he received certain material from Respondent containing the statutes and rules from which the examination questions on Laws and Rules would be taken. Petitioner contends he received only the information contained in Exhibit 3 which consists of Chapter 457 Florida Statutes (1983) and Chapter 21AA Florida Administrative Code. After taking the examination and finding unfamiliar questions in Part I of the examination, Petitioner discovered the documents from which he studied did not have applicable provisions of Chapter 389 and rules pertaining thereto in Chapter 10D-81 Florida Administrative Code. When he subsequently learned he had failed Part I of the examination Petitioner, on October 10, 1985, went to Tallahassee to check on his examination grade and to complain that he did not receive the two pages containing Chapter 389 Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-81 Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 389 Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-81 Florida Administrative Code, which Wang did not study for the examination, consist of two pages with both sides of each page containing information and are pages 643 and 644, Florida Statutes (1981) and pages 525 and 526 Florida Administrative Code. On Part I of the examination Wang missed three of five questions taken from page 643, three out of eight questions from page 644, five out of eight questions from page 525 and four out of ten questions from page 526. Part I consisted of fifty questions and of those fifty questions Wang missed fifteen from the statutes and rules he did not study for the examination. Clearly his failure to study those pages was the primary cause of Wang receiving a failing grade of 66 on Part I of the examination. Ann Mayne is Administrative Assistant to The Board of Acupuncture and two other boards. She is the only one who mails out material to applicants and in her absence requests for such material are held pending her return. In October 1985 when Petitioner went to Tallahassee Ms. Mayne was on vacation. Petitioner first went to the Department of Professional Regulation and was referred to the acupuncture office in an adjacent building. There he contacted a clerk who attempted to help him and gave him the two pages (Exhibit 4) he alleged he did not have. Ms. Mayne sends out all information to applicants for acupuncture license. She prepared the Application Information Sheet (Exhibit 5) and the copies of statutes and rules pertaining to acupuncture. Ms. Mayne keeps this information in a file cabinet with the pages separated so all of the same page are together. When she prepares an information package she goes through the file drawer and takes out one sheet from each of the divisions and thereby compiles a complete package. These sheets are not stapled together but are put in an envelope and mailed to the applicants. In 1985 Wang was not sent a copy of the information sheet (Exhibit 5) but Ms. Mayne put a note in his file that he had been sent the 1985 packet of laws and rules. Because there had been a change in Chapter 457 between the 1984 and 1985 examination she wanted to be sure a copy of these new provisions was sent to Wang. The copy Wang acknowledges he received (Exhibit 3) contains Chapter 457 Florida Statutes and Chapter 21AA Florida Administrative Code. If, as contended by Wang, the packet he received for the 1985 examination did not contain relevant portions of Chapter 359 Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-81, Florida Administrative Code, the packet he received in 1984 did contain those sections and there was no change in those laws and rules between the 1984 and 1985 examinations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the August 24, 1991 Optometry licensure examination. He did exceedingly well on two of the three portions of the examination. His grade on the clinical portion (sections 1 and 2) was 71.5. The minimum passing score was 75.0. Petitioner challenged the behavior of the examiners in section 2 of the clinical portion of the examination, and the grade he received for several individual procedures tested. Petitioner's patient for the clinical examination was his wife, Susan Vazoulas. Mrs. Vazoulas testified that prior to Petitioner entering the examination room for section 2 of the clinical portion of the examination, she overheard the two examiners, one male and one female, discussing material already on their clipboards. The male examiner indicated he had given an "81". The female examiner indicated she had given an "84", but was a "hard liner." Petitioner was not present during this exchange. Mrs. Vazoulas did not see what was on the examiners' clipboards and could not testify with any certainty as to what was being discussed. Every reasonable inference suggests that the examiners' conversation did not apply to Petitioner's section 2 clinical test for the following reasons: The examiners' comments were made before the Petitioner entered the examination room and before he began to take his section 2 clinical examination. The numbers "81" and "84" bear no relationship to any of Petitioner's scores on any portion of his licensure examination. The examiners for section 2 were not the examiners for section 1, whereon Petitioner scored 100%. If anything, had the examiners reached two divergent scores of 81 and 84, respectively, it would more likely suggest the presence of independent judging and the lack of collusion, instead of the presence of collusion and absence of independence as assumed by Petitioner in this instance. The examination room in which section 2 of Petitioner's clinical examination was administered was very small, approximately 8 x 10 feet. During section 2, the two examiners separately viewed each of 16 procedures performed on Mrs. Vazoulas by Petitioner and after each procedure, they individually returned to their respective clipboards to record their scores. The two clipboards were placed on a countertop side by side while not in use. Petitioner and Mrs. Vazoulas each observed the examiners separately marking their respective clipboards but never saw what was written down by either of the examiners. Petitioner and Mrs. Vazoulas felt it would have been hard for each examiner to avoid seeing the score assigned by the other examiner, but neither Petitioner nor Mrs. Vazoulas observed any actual sharing of information or scores during Petitioner's section 2 clinical examination or afterwards. Petitioner and Mrs. Vazoulas testified in terms of the examiners having "the chance" to see each other's clipboard and "the opportunity" for collusion and absence of independence in grading. In this instance, Petitioner considered that identical grades given by both examiners was proof of their collusion and arbitrary and capricious grading. However, similarity of scores is equally susceptible of being interpreted as resulting from each examiner having observed the same performance by Petitioner on each of the 16 procedures and applied the same judging criteria to what s/he saw. The law does not presume illicit behavior without more evidence than that it "could have" happened. Petitioner challenged his section 2 grade for clinical procedures 4-9 for biomicroscopy, alleging that he was graded 17.5 out of a possible 20 points while all parts were checked "yes". In fact, the score sheets show that all parts were not checked "yes" by both examiners. One examiner graded procedure four with "N" for "no". This could result in an "all or nothing" score of zero for that item. Assuming, arguendo, the "yes" and "no" were averaged, Petitioner's score still would not have amounted to the additional 2.5 points Petitioner alleged he was entitled to out of this section of the examination. Respondent's Exhibit 2 is a document titled "Optometry Practical Examination Section 2 - Grading Standards August 1991." The instructions to the examiners state in the second paragraph of that document, "Comment on reason for any NO judgment. Comment if performance was a marginal YES." Thus, examiners could legitimately insert comments even where they responded "yes" in evaluating the performance of the candidate in a given procedure. They did so here. Petitioner challenged his grade on procedure number 15, gonioscopy, stating that partial credit should have been given for the showing of the proper angle. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 2, the grade sheets for section 2, reflect that Petitioner received no credit from either examiner. Both "no" responses have comments recorded next to them. Respondent's Exhibit 2, page 4, states the criteria for a "yes" response on procedure number 15, gonioscopy, as: Must be focused on nasal angle with proper illumination Gives proper response to question Both criteria must be satisfied to receive a "yes" response. Petitioner and Respondent concur that Petitioner correctly demonstrated the angle required in procedure 15, gonioscopy, which satisfied one of the two required criteria to receive a "yes" from either examiner. Petitioner attempted, by extrapolation of procedure 5, to show that the remaining criterion was also met. He was not persuasive in this attempt. The grade sheets reflect that Petitioner failed to satisfy the second criterion: to give the correct response to the question posed. Petitioner made no valid showing that he did answer the question correctly or that the points available from this answer would raise his total score 3.5 points for a passing grade. Petitioner challenged his grade for procedure number 1, binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO). Petitioner admitted that he did this procedure incorrectly by using the 3:00 o'clock position, rather than the 9:00 o'clock position requested by the examiners but felt six points should not have been deducted and it should have been marked "yes, marginal," awarding him a majority of the six lost points. Petitioner did not demonstrate good cause within the grading criteria in evidence why he should have received the "majority," presumably four, points. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning the grading of challenged procedures 11 and 14. As to all of the foregoing, Petitioner's challenge to the effect that he did not understand the grading system was not sufficient to carry his burden of proof to establish that the examination, scoring, and/or grading system was arbitrary or capricious.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a final order ratifying the examination grade previously assigned to Petitioner. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-2205 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2) F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: None filed Respondent's PFOF: 1-6 Accepted except for unnecessary, subordinate on cumulative material. 7-13 Accepted except for subordinate material. It is noted that Petitioner bears the burden of proof herein, not Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 George L. Vazoulas 182C Chestnut Ridge Drive Harrisonburg, VA. 22801 Diane Orcutt, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Optometry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Kuan-Chu Kuo's application to take the acupuncture examination should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact On August 31, 1981, Applicant applied to take the state acupuncture examination administered by the Department. She sought to qualify by reason of her education, indicating that she attended Shanghai Medical College, Shanghai, China, from 1944 to 1950; and that she received her acupuncture education at the Chinese Academy of Medical Science of Jsinan, Shandung, China. (R-1, P-1.) To qualify by reason of education, an applicant must submit a certificate of the dean or director of the acupuncture school which granted the degree. In satisfaction of that requirement, Applicant submitted a certificate, under seal, of the Shanghai Medical College, dated August 11, 1979, which translated under oath reads: Kuo Kuan-Chu, born in Fukien, age 53, was graduated from Shanghai Medical College (6 years curriculum) in 1950. She was with the Shanghai Medical College from Septem- ber 1944 to July 1950. (R-1, P-2.) At Shanghai Medical College from 1944 to 1950, Applicant successfully completed a curriculum including such courses as anatomy, biochemistry, physics, acupuncture, Chinese medicine, surgery, pediatrics, internal medicine, radiology, obstetrics/gynecology, opthalmology, neurology, dermatology, physiology, microbiology, pathology, gross anatomy, epidemiology, and pharmacology. She attended classes six-to-eight hours a day during the first four years; during the last two years of study, she worked in a hospital practicing Chinese medicine, including acupuncture, under the supervision of a resident physician. (Testimony of Kuan-Chu Kuo; P-8.) From 1960 to 1964, she studied at the Academy of Medical Science of Jsinan in Shandung, China. During that five-year program, she investigated the use of acupuncture to treat complications from radiotherapy. She authored several chapters in a textbook on practical gynecology. (Testimony of Kuan-Chu Kuo; R-1.) On February 10, 1982, Applicant supplemented her application by submitting a Certification, dated November 23, 1981, from the president of the Academy of Medical Science of Jsinan. The Certificate states: Dr. Kuo Kuan-Chu had acupuncture education at Jsinan Hospital from 1960 to 1964. She had fulfilled all the Chinese medicine and acupuncture courses and completed her clinical experiences, a thesis was published in Jsinan medical journals. (R-1.) Applicant has been certified by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates as qualified to take an examination which would qualify her to take the Florida medical board exam. To obtain such certification, she was required to show that she completed at least four credit-years at a medical school listed in the "World Directory of Medical Schools." (Testimony of Kuan- Chu Kuo; P-5.) In 1979, Applicant was invited to the United States to observe the operations of the University of Miami's Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. (Testimony of Kuan-Chu Kuo.) According to Jun Wu Xue, M.D., a visiting scholar from China, Shanghai Medical College is one of the most advanced colleges of higher learning in China. He testified that a course of "Medicine of Motherland," including Chinese traditional medicine and acupuncture, is taught at Chinese medical colleges. (Testimony of Jun Wu Xue.) But, Applicant indicated on her application that she received her acupuncture education at the Academy of Medical Science of Jsinan. No detailed information was presented on the courses at the academy, its faculty, and its current accreditation status. On September 22, 1981, the Department wrote Applicant requesting, among other things, an official transcript from her medical school. It relied on Rule 21-12.03, Florida Administrative Code, as providing authority for its request. Chapter 21-12 was filed with the Department of State on September 18, 1981. Applicant has been unable to supply the requested transcript because she attended medical school before the Chinese civil war. Institutional records, such as those kept at medical schools, were lost or destroyed by the war. (Testimony of Kuan-Chu Kuo; R-1.) On September 22, 1981, the Department also wrote the Chinese Academy of Medical Science of Jsinan and asked for their latest catalog of courses and their description, a list of their current faculty members and their curriculum vitae, the name and location of their educational and/or governmental accrediting agency, a copy of their latest accrediting report, and a clearly defined course of study for acupuncture. This request for documentation was made pursuant to the procedure prescribed in Rule 21-12.08 a new rule adopted for evaluating and approving acupuncture schools. As of the date of hearing, the academy had not responded to the Department's request. (R-1.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Kuan-Chu Kuo to take the acupuncture examination be denied. If and when the Department approves the acupuncture school attended by Applicant, she should be allowed to take the examination without further delay. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 23rd day of March, 1982.
