The Issue This is a license discipline case in which a medical doctor is charged by administrative complaint with five counts of violations of paragraphs (h), (k), (m), and (t) of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes (1988 Supp.).
Findings Of Fact Findings based on parties' stipulations The Respondent, Vladimir Rosenthal, M.D., (hereinafter "Respondent" or "Dr. Rosenthal") is, and at all material times was, a medical doctor, license number ME 0045574, who practiced at 1320 South Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, Florida. Dr. Rosenthal at all material times owned the business operating as Today's Women Medical Center located at 1320 South Dixie Highway, Suite 1070, Coral Gables, Florida. On or about November 3, 1988, Dr. Rosenthal performed an elective abortion on patient B.F. under general anesthesia. On or about November 3, 1988, Dr. Rosenthal ordered a pathology report of the products of the procedure performed on patient B.F. The pathology report regarding patient B.F. bears the date November 8, 1988. The pathology report revealed no chorionic villi and recommended a "close follow-up" of the patient. Missed abortion and continued pregnancy is a recognized risk of early (first trimester) abortions. Patient B.F. suffered no harm as a result of the November 3, 1988, procedure. On or about December 7, 1988, patient B.F. presented to Dr. Rosenthal. On or about December 7, 1988, patient B.F.'s uterus was examined and found to be enlarged. Subsequently, a repeat pregnancy test was performed on patient B.F., which revealed she was still pregnant. On or about December 10, 1988, Dr. Rosenthal performed a second abortion on patient B.F. with positive results. Patient B.F. suffered no harm as a result of the December 10, 1988, procedure. Findings based on evidence at hearing The Respondent specializes in the area of gynecology, but does not practice obstetrics. In the course of his medical practice he regularly performs first trimester abortions. The Respondent is very experienced in the performance of first trimester abortions. In recent years he has averaged five thousand (5,000) such procedures per year. Patient B.F. normally goes to Dr. Nahid Mansoori for routine treatment of gynecological matters. Patient B.F. was seen by Dr. Mansoori on October 28, 1988, with a history of a missed menstrual period. Dr. Mansoori examined the patient and observed that the patient had an enlarged uterus and appeared to be 5 or 6 weeks pregnant. The patient expressed an interest in having an abortion. Because Dr. Mansoori does not perform abortions, she referred patient B.F. to the Respondent. Dr. Mansoori also referred patient B.F. to Dr. Martin S. Goldstein for an ultrasound examination. Dr. Mansoori referred patients to the Respondent on a regular basis. She did so for several reasons, including the facts that (a) patients she referred to the Respondent uniformly reported back to her that they were pleased or satisfied with the services they received from the Respondent, (b) none of her patients had complained about their treatment by the Respondent, and (c) none of the patients she had referred to the Respondent had experienced any infection or problems. On October 31, 1988, Dr. Martin S. Goldstein performed an ultrasound examination of patient B.F. On the basis of that ultrasound examination, Dr. Goldstein concluded and reported that the "gestational age" of patient B.F.'s pregnancy was 6 weeks, 0 days. Dr. Goldstein also concluded and reported that patient B.F. had an intrauterine pregnancy, thus ruling out an ectopic pregnancy. On November 3, 1988, patient B.F. went to the Respondent's clinic at 1320 South Dixie Highway for the purpose of having an abortion. The Respondent remembers this particular patient because she was a medical professional and her husband was an attorney. Because of their respective professions, the Respondent was extra careful to explain everything involved in the process to both B.F. and her husband. He especially explained to both of them the importance of a post-abortion follow up examination at either the Respondent's clinic or at the office of the patient's regular gynecologist. Patient B.F. said that she would return to Dr. Mansoori, her regular gynecologist, for the follow up examination. When patient B.F. went to the Respondent's clinic on November 3, 1988, she told the Respondent that she had had an ultrasound examination. The Respondent called Dr. Mansoori and Dr. Mansoori told him that the results of the ultrasound examination indicated a "gestational age" 1/ of six weeks and that the ultrasound examination confirmed an intrauterine pregnancy. Dr. Mansoori also mentioned that her clinical examination of patient B.F. indicated a "gestational age" of five or six weeks. Upon manual examination of the patient, the Respondent concluded, and noted in the patient's medical record, that patient B.F.'s uterus was enlarged to a size consistent with a "gestational age" of five weeks. Later that same day, the Respondent performed an abortion procedure on patient B.F. Following the abortion procedure, patient B.F. took antibiotic medication for several days, which medication had been prescribed and/or dispensed by the Respondent. The Respondent ordered a pathology report of the products of the abortion procedure performed on patient B.F. on November 3, 1988. The Respondent does not order pathology reports on all of his patients, but he did so in this case because it was an early pregnancy, and also because he wanted to take extra care in view of the professions of B.F. and her husband. The pathology laboratory is supposed to call Dr. Rosenthal on all "abnormal" reports. Sometimes the laboratory fails to call and sometimes the laboratory fails to send a written report. The Respondent has established office procedures for handling laboratory reports to try to prevent any reports from going astray and to identify those that do go astray so that follow up activity may be taken. Pursuant to the Respondent's established office procedures, all laboratory reports received at the clinic must be seen and signed by the Respondent before being placed in a patient chart. When a patient returns for her follow up visit, the laboratory report is reviewed during the course of that visit. If a laboratory examination has been ordered, but there is no laboratory report in the chart at the time of the follow up visit, the laboratory is called by telephone. The Respondent usually makes these calls himself. Pursuant to the Respondent's established office procedures, missing laboratory reports for patients who do not return for follow up visits or who return to their regular physicians for follow up visits are picked up when monthly reports to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services are compiled and submitted. In order to complete these monthly reports, a log is kept of every patient who has an abortion procedure performed at the Respondent's clinic. The information kept in the log and reported to DHRS includes: the date of surgery, the estimated "gestational age" of the patient, whether a pathology report was ordered, the results of the pathology report, and the date the pathology report was received by the clinic. Such forms were in use at the time B.F. was a patient at the Respondent's clinic. If any pathology reports "fell through the cracks," they were picked up each month when the reports were prepared. The reports are usually prepared on the ninth or tenth of each month. The implementation of these office procedures for the purpose of following up on laboratory reports is sufficient to comply with applicable standards of medical care. The pathology laboratory prepared a report regarding the material removed from patient B.F. during the November 3, 1988, abortion procedure. The written laboratory report was dated November 8, 1988. The most significant finding noted on the laboratory report was "no chorionic villi." Because of this finding, the laboratory report also stated: "close follow up of patient is recommended." The significance of the notation of "no chorionic villi" is that it indicates that the pathology laboratory examination did not reveal evidence of any fetal tissue or other "products of conception." The need for close follow up in this instance is because the absence of chorionic villi can be due to a number of different things. 2/ On November 18, 1988, patient B.F. went to Dr. Mansoori's office for a post-abortion follow up visit. At that time the patient was complaining of a vaginal "yeast" infection, a not uncommon occurrence following a course of antibiotic medication. Dr. Mansoori treated the patient's "yeast" infection with a prescription for Monistat Vaginal Cream. Dr. Mansoori's medical records for that day also include the following notations regarding the patient B.F.: "Had abortion by Today's Woman. Post AB check up O.K." 3/ Dr. Mansoori told patient B.F. to get back in touch with her if the patient missed her next menstrual period. On December 6, 1988, patient B.F. called Dr. Mansoori to report that she had missed her menstrual period. Dr. Mansoori advised her to return to the Respondent and patient B.F. agreed to do so. Dr. Mansoori called the Respondent to advise him that patient B.F. would be returning because she had missed her menstrual period. Dr. Mansoori also arranged for another ultrasound examination to be performed on patient B.F. by Dr. Goldstein. On December 7, 1988, patient B.F. returned to the Respondent's clinic where she was seen and examined by the Respondent. Examination revealed that the patient's uterus was mildly enlarged. A pregnancy test administered that day indicated that the patient was still pregnant. On December 7, 1988, the Respondent realized that he did not have a report from the pathology laboratory, so he called the laboratory and was advised that the most significant finding of the pathology report was "no chorionic villi." The substance of the telephone conversation with the pathology laboratory was noted in the patient's medical record. When he made the telephone call to the pathology laboratory on December 7, 1988, the Respondent had not received the laboratory's written report dated November 8, 1988, 4/ nor had he been otherwise advised of the results of the pathology study of the materials removed during the November 3, 1988, abortion procedure. On December 8, 1988, Dr. Martin S. Goldstein performed a second ultrasound examination of patient B.F. On the basis of the second ultrasound examination, Dr. Goldstein concluded and reported that the "gestational age" of patient B.F.'s pregnancy was 11 weeks, 6 days. This second gestational age was three days older than one would have predicted based on the October 31, 1988, ultrasound examination. In both of the ultrasound examinations of patient B.F., Dr. Goldstein relied upon the "crown rump" measurement as the basis for his estimate of "gestational age." On December 10, 1988, when patient B.F. returned to the Respondent's office for the second abortion procedure, the Respondent conducted a clinical examination of the patient before commencing the procedure. On the basis of his own clinical examination of the patient, the Respondent was of the opinion that patient B.F.'s "gestational age" was 8 or 9 weeks. He reported this on the "Physical Exam" portion of the patient's chart by writing "8-9" beside the entry for uterus. After the patient was anesthetized and the Respondent could examine her while she was more relaxed, the Respondent further examined the patient's uterus and was of the opinion that its size corresponded to a "gestational age" of 8 weeks. He noted this opinion in the "Operative Notes" portion of the patient's chart. It was, and continues to be, the Respondent's opinion that his December 10, 1988, estimates of the patient's "gestational age" were correct. Although he was aware of Dr. Goldstein's ultrasound examination which reported a somewhat older "gestational age," the Respondent had confidence in his own clinical findings and relied on his own clinical findings, which he duly recorded in the patient's medical chart. Relying on his own estimate of "gestational age," the Respondent performed the abortion procedure on December 10, 1988, on patient B.F. with a number eight suction tip. The abortion procedure was accomplished successfully and without any difficulty or complication. A report from a pathology laboratory confirmed that the December 10, 1988, abortion procedure was successful. 5/ The prevailing standards of acceptable care do not require a physician to order a pathology examination of the material removed during the course of a routine first trimester abortion procedure. In an abortion procedure involving a very early pregnancy, a physician may wish to order such a pathology examination in order to be more certain as to the results of the procedure, but it is a matter of physician preference, rather than a requirement. A physician who orders a pathology examination of the material removed during a first trimester abortion procedure has an affirmative duty to follow up on the examination and find out the results of the examination within a reasonable period of time. 6/ The Respondent's follow up on December 7, 1988, on the results of the pathology examination of the material removed from patient B.F. during the November 3, 1988, procedure was reasonable under the circumstances. 7/ The Respondent's delay until December 7, 1988, before following up on that pathology examination was not a departure from applicable standards of medical care. 8/ The Respondent's medical records for patient B.F. justify the course of treatment of the patient. The use of ultrasound examination as a method of estimating "gestational age" is not an exact science and cannot be relied upon to determine an exact "gestational age." As a general rule, "gestational age" estimates derived by means of ultrasound examination are accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus two weeks. 9/ Clinical or manual examination of a patient as a method of estimating "gestational age" is also not an exact science and cannot be relied upon to determine an exact "gestational age." As a general rule, "gestational age" estimates derived by means of clinical or manual examination of a patient are accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus two weeks, if done by an experienced physician. It is not a departure from applicable standards of medical care for an estimate of "gestational age" to vary from the actual "gestational age" by as much as plus or minus two weeks when the estimate is based on the physician's clinical or manual examination of the patient. A reasonably prudent physician who is experienced in clinical or manual examination of patients for the purpose of estimating "gestational age" should rely on his own findings, even if those findings appear to conflict with findings based on ultrasound examination. Such a physician should also note his own findings on the patient's medical records, regardless of what is reported by the ultrasound. There is no great discrepancy between the estimate of "gestational age" reported in Dr. Goldstein's ultrasound report of December 8, 1988, and the Respondent's estimate of "gestational age" on December 10, 1988. The Respondent's notations in patient B.F.'s medical records on December 10, 1988, to the effect that her pregnancy was of a "gestational age" of eight weeks was an honest notation of the Respondent's clinical judgment and was not a statement the Respondent knew to be false. 10/ Similarly, those notations were not deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations. On or about August 3, 1989, the Respondent's clinic, known as Today's Woman Medical Center, located at Suite 1070, 1320 South Dixie Highway, Coral Gables, Florida, was inspected by an employee of the Office of Licensure and Certification of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. 11/ At the time of that inspection the Respondent was not present at the clinic, there were no procedures being performed at the clinic, and there were no patients at the clinic.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case DISMISSING all charges against the Respondent, Vladimir Rosenthal, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1992.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the license to practice medicine of Respondent, Carl Fromhagen, M.D., based on allegations that he violated Subsections 458.331(l)(k),(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in the State of Florida pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been licensed in 1956 and issued License No. ME 0007027. Respondent is board-certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology (1967). He is 74 years old and now has an office- based practice treating only gynecological patients. Patient K. B., a 46-year-old female, first presented to Respondent on September 6, 1990, with menopausal complaints. Her patient's history reflects that she reported a family history of breast cancer. On February 12, 1992, Patient K. B. presented to Respondent with complaints of a mass in her left breast. Respondent palpated a mass in K. B.'s left breast and, although he did not note the size of the mass in his office records, the records contain a diagram showing the location of the mass. Petitioner testified that it was his practice that when he discovered a mass of less than 2.5 centimeters, he did not describe the size because its too hard to identify the exact dimensions smaller than an inch. Respondent ordered a mammogram for Patient K. B. which was performed on February 19, 1992, and was interpreted as revealing no evident neoplasm (cancer). Respondent saw Patient K. B. in his office on the following dates (after the mammogram): March 30, 1992; May 21, 1992; August 31, 1992; April 19, 1993; April 27, 1993; May 4, 1993; May 11, 1993; May 18, 1993; September 21, 1993; and November 16, 1993. In addition, Patient K. B. had telephone contact with Respondent's office staff to have prescriptions refilled and was mailed examination reminder notes. Patient K. B. testified that she and Dr. Fromhagen discussed the breast mass "every checkup, every time I was there." She inquired about a follow-up mammogram and Dr. Fromhagen indicated that she could wait two years. He did not mention a biopsy, excision, or referral to another physician at anytime. Patient K. B. and Respondent agree that Respondent examined and palpated the breast mass during her physical examinations which took place approximately every six months. During civil litigation that preceded the instant administrative hearing, it became apparent that there were two different sets of office records for Patient K. B. Patient K. B. testified that during the civil action she brought against Respondent in 1996, Respondent had produced medical records, purported to be hers that did not accurately reflect her treatment. She recalled that upon comparing the medical records Respondent had produced in the civil action with the records she had obtained from Respondent's office in December 1994, she discovered that Respondent had "augmented" her records, which she reported to her attorney. In May 1994, the offices of Dr. Paul Straub, who became Patient K. B.'s new treating physician as a result of a change in her group health insurance, requested her medical records from Dr. Fromhagen's office. Dr. Fromhagen testified in the instant hearing that "at the time . . . I compared the chart [Patient K. B.'s records] with . . . 'day sheets' and because I felt the records did not reveal everything that Dr. Straub should be aware of, I rewrote certain portions of them to reflect things that were on the day sheets that I hadn't already written down and then [in May 1994] sent the records to Dr. Straub." Patient K. B. testified that, "the night before my surgery" [December 1994] she received a call from Dr. Fromhagen's office asking if they could send her records to Dr. Straub. In the course of that discussion, Patient K. B. advised that she had been diagnosed with breast cancer and was scheduled for surgery. That same evening, shortly after the phone discussion with Dr. Fromhagen's office, Patient K. B. went to Dr. Fromhagen's office and obtained a copy of her medical records. These records did not contain the "rewritten portions" Dr. Fromhagen reported as having been done in May 1994. Dr. Fromhagen testified that he started keeping "day sheets" when he first started practicing in 1960. The "day sheets" (Respondent's Exhibit 2) are essentially a daily calendar organized by time which lists the name of patients to be seen that day and then notes such as "ovarin cyst," "vaginitis," "preg?" These "day sheets" were not mentioned in either of Dr. Fromhagen's depositions taken in 1996 in the civil action. In Petitioner's Exhibit 10, a July 3, 1997, letter to M. S. Sutton, an Agency for Health Care Administration investigator, Dr. Fromhagen attempts to explain his record- keeping practice for patients, Dr. Fromhagen acknowledges rewriting his charts and states, "I would carefully review the chart and address any portions that I felt were not completely explanatory, or that I thought need information to assist the subsequent physician. I now understand that I should have noted the changes as late entries and dated them the date written." No mention was made of "day sheets" in this letter. Dr. Fromhagen testified during a deposition taken in the civil action that his standard practice was "to make entries in the chart right away," that he never put it off, and that he had not done anything different in Patient K. B.'s case. Dr. Fromhagen acknowledged that during a deposition taken in the civil action he had incorrectly testified that he had not made changes in Patient K. B.'s medical record. The following is a comparison of the significant difference between Petitioner's Exhibit 9, Patient K. B.'s original medical record, and Respondent's Exhibit 3, Patient K. B.'s "augmented" medical record. Please note: Patient K. B. became Dr. Fromhagen's patient on September 6, 1990. No changes were made in the "Gynecologic History and Physical Examination" (Patient K. B.'s medical record) on any entry until March 30, 1992. Changes are highlighted. Date: March 30, 1992 Original record: "Mammogram was neg. palpation indicates mass much smaller. Will follow" Augmented record: "Mammogram reported as no evidence of neoplasm. Palpation indicates to me that mass is smaller. Discussed removing it" Date: May 21, 1992 Original record: "Dysuria General Malaise. Pelvic unremarkable. Urine - pus. Rx Macrodantin" Augmented record: "Dysuria. Mailaise. Pelvic unremarkable. Urine - pus. Rx Macrodantin" Date: August 31, 1992 Original record: "Introital lesions. Pelvic area feels congestion and cramping sensation. Pelvic- ulcers-blisters at introitus but very small. Herpes? Rx Zoirax" Augmented record: "Introital lesions. Lower abd cramping. Pelvic - herpetic ulcers at introitus. Rx Ziorax" Date: April 19, 1993 Original record: "Last mammogram revealed no concern. Dysuria. Frequent UTI. Had a cysto before. Rhinorrhea. Vulvar irritation. GenPE. Breasts unchanged. Pelvic - fungus. Rx She has Monistat. Urine - pus Macrodantin. RV Cysto" Augmented record: "Last mammogram revealed no neoplasm but mass still present and I suggested another x-ray now or removal of mass if she wishes. Dysuria. Has frequent UTIs. Had a Cysto before. Rhinorrhea. Vulvar irritation. Gen PE - nasal turbinates swollen. Breasts unchanged. Pelvic-fungus. Rx she has Monistat for fungus. Macrodantin RV Cysto" Date: April 27, 1993 Original record: "Cysto: stricutre. Proximal urethra & trizone inflamed and granules. Bladder capacity - first desire to void at 200 c.c. RV dilations" Augmented record: "Cysto-urethral stricture. Proximal urethra & trizone inflamed & granular. Urethra L46. Bladder capacity - first desire to void at 200 cc. Rx RV dilations" Date: May 18, 1993 Original record: "No urinary complaints now. Sounded #32 irrigated AgNO3. This concludes dilations" Augmented record: "No urinary complaints now. Sounded #32, irrigated AgNO3. This concludes diations. She has not gotten this years mammogram yet" Date: October 11, 1993 Original record: "Rem sent" [entry made by office staff]" Augmented record: "Reminder note sent - Exam due." [entry made by office staff]" Date: November 16, 1993 Original record: "On Premarin.625. Starting to awaken in the middle of the night again Nervous. No flashes. Bladder OK. New glasses. Trouble adjusting to fidders bifocals. GenPE, breasts & pelvic unchanged. Pap change to Premarin 1.25" Augmented record: "On Premarian.625. Starting to awaken in the middle of the night again. Very nervous. No flashes. Bladder OK. Finds it hard to adjust to her new bifocals. Gen PE unchanged. Breasts - mass still present. Again suggested she get a yearly mammogram or have mass excised. She has not arranged for a mammogram as she said she would. Pelvic unchanged. Rx Increased dose of Premarian to 1.25" The entries made in patient K. B.'s "augmented" record (Respondent's Exhibit 3) were not noted to be "late entries" nor were they dated. Both expert witness opined that this fell below the standard of care. Most of the "late entries" made by Respondent in the "augmented" record (Respondent's Exhibit 3) are a self-serving attempt by Respondent to create the impression that he had encouraged Patient K. B. to have follow-up mammograms or to have the breast mass excised. If the "augmented" record (Respondent's Exhibit 3) was a true reflection of the treatment rendered Patient K. B. by Respondent, his treatment could possibly have met the "standard of care." I find that the "augmented" record does not reflect the treatment Patient K. B. received, but that the original record (Petitioner's Exhibit 9) is the more credible document and accurately reflects Respondent's treatment of Patient K. B. Dr. Nelson, who testified as an expert witness, testified that Dr. Fromhagen fell below the standard of care in that (relying on both the original record and "augmented" record) between March 30, 1992, and April 13, 1993, he did not "deal with the breast mass, did not report discussion of treatment options with the patient, did not order a follow-up mammogram within 12 months." Again relying on both records, Dr. Nelson testified that Dr. Fromhagen fell below the standard of care for maintaining medical records when he failed to record his examination of Patient K. B.'s breasts and palpation of the mass which he reported as having been done "every visit she made." Both Dr. Von Thron, who also testified as an expert witness, and Dr. Nelson agreed that the standard of care requires that for any revision of medical records, if a change is made, a line is made through the original so it can be read and then the correction is made and the change is dated and initialed. If an additional statement is entered into the medical record, it should be dated and initialed. Dr. Fromhagen did not date or initial the changes or additions to Patient K. B.'s medical record when he created the "augmented" record. Both expert witnesses testified that this fell below the standard of care for medical record-keeping. Dr. Von Thron, referring to the original record, opined that Dr. Fromhagen did not comply with the standard of care for essentially the same reasons as expressed by Dr. Nelson. He opined that the "augmented" record indicates that Dr. Fromhagen complied with the standard of care.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 458.331(1)(k), (m), and (t), Florida Statutes (1993), and imposing the following: A $1,000.00 fine for each violation, for a total of $3,000.00; and A one-year suspension followed by two years' probation; Ten hours of continuing medical education in ethics; An appropriate medical education course in medical record-keeping. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: George Thomas Bowen, II, Esquire Law Offices of Donald Weidner, P.A. 11265 Alumni Way, Suite 201 Jacksonville, Florida 32246 John E. Terrel, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Tanya Williams, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert W. Fausel, Jr., M.D., is a licensed physician in Florida, holding license number ME0016953. By Final Order dated January 3, 1984, Respondent was placed on five years probation by the Florida Board of Medicine for alcoholism and inappropriate prescribing of controlled substances to patients. Currently, Respondent's medical license remains in a probationary status. In 1984, F.S., a sixty-eight (68) year-old male, was a patient at the Family Practice Center, a health maintenance organization (HMO), in West Palm Beach, Florida. On May 15, 1984, F.S. presented to the Family Practice Center for problems with a hiatal hernia and was seen by Salomin Levin, M.D., one of the physicians on staff at the HMO. During this visit, Dr. Levin explained the physiology of a hiatal hernia and advised F.S. to return to the Center as needed. The patient history recorded by Dr. Levin during F.S.' 1984 visit revealed that F.S. had not been to a doctor in the past four (4) years and had not had a physical during that four year time period. At the time of F.S.' 1984 visit, the standard of care for a male over 40 years of age required that a complete medical history should be gathered and an annual physical examination including a rectal examination be performed, or at the very least have been offered, and either arranged for or refused by the patient. However, the medical records do not reveal that the need for a complete physical was discussed during F.S.' visit or that such a physical was performed. Likewise, the records do not reveal that F.S. was worked up for a complete medical history during his May 15, 1984, visit. On March 4, 1985, F.S., at age sixty-nine, presented to the Family Practice Center with complaints of pain in the hip, thigh and lower back. Respondent, then on staff at the Family Practice Center, saw F.S. during his March 4, 1985, visit and observed a deceptively healthy looking older man. The entry on F.S.' medical records written by Dr. Fausel stated that "The patient lifted an elderly man who had fallen out of bed 3 weeks ago; now has pain in left hip and thigh and low back." Significantly, F.S. did not report that he had any pain in the hip, thigh or back prior to lifting the elderly man. Further, F.S. did not report that he had any urinary symptoms such as difficulty with urination, dysuria, cloudy or bloody urine. 1/ However, other than the history associated with F.S.'s back pain, Respondent did not record any sort of general history, physical or rectal examination of F.S. even though Respondent knew, through a review of F.S.'s medical records, that F.S.' medical records did not reflect that F.S. had been worked up for a complete history or physical during his previous visit in 1984. Respondent did treat F.S. for the primary complaint for which he came to the Center, i.e., pain in the hip, thigh and lower back. Given the history F.S. related regarding his pain, Respondent appropriately suspected that F.S. had suffered a musculoskeletal injury involving the left hip, thigh and lower back and referred F.S. to Dr. Stopek, a chiropractor for further examination of F.S.' condition. F.S. initially saw the chiropractor on March 5, 1985. Thereafter, F.S. saw the chiropractor at least four more times through out the month of March. At some point X-rays were taken of F.S.' left hip, thigh and lower back. Eventually, F.S. was referred back to Respondent with a diagnosis of DJD in the left hip and a recommendation that the patient be given a prescription for the pain medication Feldene, a legend drug. On or about April 4, 1985, F.S. returned to Respondent at the Family Practice Center for his continued pain. Respondent diagnosed F.S. with arthritis in the left hip. Respondent also, at the request of the chiropractor, prescribed Feldene to F.S. for pain relief. Additionally, Respondent began a general physical examination of F.S. with the expectation that the blood and rectal exam would be completed during later visits. In essence, a complete physical examination of F.S. would be accomplished in stages. Following that course of action, F.S. arranged to have a standard blood profile accomplished. The actual blood work was performed on June 4, 1985, and a report of the results was issued. Unfortunately, for reasons due mainly to the operation of the HMO and the assignment of doctors to patients on a daily basis, Dr. Fausel never saw F.S. again and the doctor patient relationship between Respondent and F.S. terminated. A rectal exam was never performed on F.S. by Respondent. However, F.S. was seen by other doctors at the HMO on at least eight occasions throughout 1985 and 1986. These doctors had F.S.' medical records available to them and were aware that those records did not indicate that either Respondent or any of the post-Respondent doctors, prior to December 3, 1986, performed a rectal examination on F.S. These doctors did continue to evaluate F.S.' pain as either some form of arthritis or paget's disease. In 1986, F.S. was referred to an orthopedic surgeon and rheumatologist for further evaluation of his pain. It was the rheumatologist who finally performed a rectal examination of F.S. and noted a hard prostrate, indicating possible cancer. At that point, F.S was referred for blood tests specific to prostate cancer and to an urologist. On October 23, 1986, Jitendra Varma, M.D., the urologist, ordered a prostate biopsy on F.S. which revealed adenocarcinoma. Subsequently, on November 24, 1986, Dr. Varma performed a bilateral orchiectomy on F.S. In this case the Department is attempting to prove a case of malpractice based solely on F.S. medical records which may or not be complete. In fact, the evidence demonstrated that no records custodian from the HMO had custody of F.S.' medical records or that those records were complete. Many of the records submitted into evidence were impossible to read. No testimony from F.S. to fill in important details as to what took place during his HMO visits was presented at the hearing. In short, the Department is attempting to infer from an absence of entries in a patient's medical records that some medical service did not occur or was not offered. However, given the brevity of the medical records from the HMO, the healthy appearance of F.S., the loss of memory due to the age of this case and the lack of testimony from F.S., it is impossible to determine if any malpractice occurred since the absence of an entry from F.S.'s medical records does not mean that the need for a physical and follow-up appointments were not discussed or that Respondent failed to perform an adequate evaluation of F.S. which would have included a medical history. The same can be said for the lack of a rectal exam during the brief two visits Respondent treated F.S. for his primary complaint of pain. Indeed the medical records reflect that on September 14, 1985, someone from the HMO contacted F.S. and that he stated everything had been taken care of. Additionally, the Department's own experts disagreed on whether the "piecemeal" basis of F.S.'s physical examination was inappropriate or that the referral to the chiropractor was inappropriate. Given these facts, the evidence did not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Respondent failed to treat F.S. with an appropriate standard of care by either referring F.S. to a chiropractor, performing a physical exam on a piecemeal basis or by failing to perform a rectal examination on F.S. Given these facts, the Department has failed to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Respondent failed to practice medicine with an acceptable level of care in regard to patient F.S. Indeed, the best that can be said of this case is that Respondent may not have kept adequate medical records. However, Respondent was not charged with such a failure and the matter was not an issue in this hearing. Because of the Department's failure of proof the Administrative Complaint relating to Respondent's care of F.S. should be dismissed. By 1987, Respondent had moved to North Florida and opened a general practice in Century, Florida. Respondent was also on staff at Jay Hospital. From November, 1987, through June, 1989, C. David Smith, M.D., was Respondent's monitoring physician under the terms of Respondent's probation. Additionally by 1989, Respondent had developed a number of serious medical problems as well as some mental difficulties associated with his diabetes and bipolar disorder. One such problem was impotence with a very low libido. On March 20, 1989, Respondent began treating Patient C.C. and admitted C.C. to Jay Hospital under his care for evaluation and treatment of a medical condition. C.C. had a ten (10) year history of psychiatric illness. Some of the symptoms of her mental illness were depression and anxiety. C.C.'s medical condition was not associated with her mental condition. On April 4, 1989, after treatment of her medical condition, Respondent discharged C.C. from Jay Hospital. Respondent's discharge summary for C.C. dated April 4, 1989, included the following: . . . At that point, on 3/23/89, it was noted that the patient was making statements which sounded quite psychotic, referring to delusional material. She stated that she believed her neck and cervical spine in the back of her head and the roof of her mouth were 'rotten' and cancerous. She stated that God had revealed to her the fact that she was going to die of cancer. She stated that God had been quite specific as to the means by which she would die, namely, by the collapse of the roof of her mouth, jaws, and skull, which would then occlude her airway, making her choke to death or die of asphyxiation. She stated that God had revealed to her the fact that she was going to die of cancer. In addition, she stated that she had been dead and had come back to life. She made additional statements which lead me to believe that she was psychotic. I began a series of discussions with the patient, to evaluate her psychosis, and I found that the patient was extremely resistant to the idea of psychiatric evaluation. She felt that she was not psychotic or 'crazy' at all. In addition, she resented anyone implying that she was psychotic or crazy. She stated that her family members had implied in the past that she was crazy or psychotic and this made her very resentful. . . . The patient stated that on May 12, 1984, she heard God's voice warning her that her death was imminent. She added that God had told her that she was going to die of cancer, specifically bone cancer, brain cancer, and cancer of the ears, mouth and jaw bones and neck and spine. She stated that the medical terminology for the type of cancer from which she was going to diet [sic] was a medullablastoma. The patient also stated that she was a prophetess of God, one of five listed in the Bible. She stated that she had been told by God that she was literally going to choke to death and that her time was drawing near. Paramount in her delusion was the idea that she was going to diet [sic] within a very short time. I pointed out to her that she continued to live, in spite of her predictions that she would be dead within 24 hours. She explained this by stating that God gave her small extensions of life, and this was why she continued to live. I noted that she experienced a great deal of anxiety about death and that this anxiety repeated itself on a daily basis. She has a continual fear that her death is very close, and yet insists that she does not fear this death, because she stated that she is a prophetess of God and is going straight to Heaven. In the past, she had been treated with Prolixin, Artane and Lithium Carbonate for her psychotic problems. Conversation with her family indicated that they thought that she was 'crazy', but 'harmless'. My arguments with the patient that there was absolutely no physical evidence for her death were useless. Discussions with her family indicated that she had been hospitalized for psychotic problems in the past. I discussed with the patient the possibility of admitting her to a psychiatric institution, however, the patient was adamantly resistant to this idea. The patient also was extremely resistant to the [sic] idea of taking Prolixin, Lithium Carbonate, and Artane. . . . It was apparent that the patient was frankly psychotic and probably falling into the paranoid schizophrenic category, with religious delusions and auditory hallucinations. . . . At no time did I hear the patient express any suicidal ideation, and she did not seem to be a danger to herself or to other people. Also, at no time did the patient threaten to harm anyone else, or seem to constitute a danger to other people. . . . The evidence did not show that C.C. had any tendency to sexual delusion or sexual preoccupation. On May 17, 1989, Respondent again admitted C.C. to Jay Hospital for treatment of a medical condition not associated with her mental condition. C.C.'s mental illness continued to manifest itself as outlined in the April 4, 1989, discharge summary despite Respondent's assurances that he could not find any evidence of cancer. Again the evidence did not show that C.C. had any sexual delusions or preoccupations. Additionally, the evidence did not show that C.C. desired a psychiatric referral or could have been forced to accept such a referral. Because C.C. had manifested her fixed delusions for such a long time, her friends and family were fed up with her and did not overly concern themselves with C.C.'s condition. C.C. felt very much lost and alone. Because of C.C.'s loneliness, Respondent felt sorry for C.C. and tried to be friends with her. C.C. saw Respondent's attentiveness as a salvation and would call on him when she felt anxious about her personal or medical state. The evidence did not demonstrate that C.C. saw Dr. Fausel in a romantic or sexual way, but only in a friendly Christian love way. Likewise, the evidence did not reveal that Respondent's attempts at friendship with C.C. were for sexual reasons. Indeed, except for one church tent revival, Respondent did not attend any social outings or church functions with C.C. C.C. believed that Respondent felt Christian love for her. On June 20, 1989, Respondent received a telephone call from C.C. C.C. was having severe anxiety and advised Respondent that she was contemplating suicide. Respondent arranged to meet with C.C. later that evening. On the evening of June 20, 1989, after normal business hours, Respondent met C.C. and they went to his office at 8401 North Century Boulevard, Century, Florida. Respondent was seeing the patient as both a friend and a medical doctor. Respondent and C.C. went into a vacant examination room in Respondent's office. The lights in the room were on. Respondent and C.C. sat on the floor. Because Respondent was somewhat obese, Respondent undid the top button of his pants so that he could more comfortably sit on the floor. The office air conditioning was off and it was hot in the room. Respondent and C.C. discussed religious matters and C.C. sang hymns. At one point, both stretched out on the floor facing each other. Just prior to 11:00 p.m., C.C. removed her dress and turned off the lights. She still had on her slip and underwear. C.C. lay back down on the floor within approximately one foot of Respondent. C.C. did not make any sexual advances towards Respondent and her disrobing was not for sexual purposes. Respondent asked her to put her dress back on at least twice. He told her that she looked more saintly fully dressed. Respondent did not make any sexual advances toward C.C. Within a few minutes of C.C.'s disrobing, at approximately 11:00 p.m., Respondent's nurse, Jane Jackson, found Respondent and C.C. on the floor of the vacant room. Nurse Jackson turned on the office lights as she entered the room occupied by C.C. and Respondent. With little conversation, Nurse Jackson left the clinic and reported what she had seen to C. David Smith, Respondent's monitoring physician. Dr. Smith telephoned the administrator of Jay Hospital, Mr. Allen Foster, and arranged a meeting during which Dr. Smith informed Mr. Foster of Nurse Jackson's observations. Dr. Smith and Mr. Foster met with the Respondent to discuss what had transpired. On June 21, 1989, Respondent withdrew from practicing at his office in Century, Florida and voluntarily began treatment for the depression he was experiencing. In essence, the facts of this case do not establish that Respondent used his doctor patient relationship with C.C. for any sexual purpose or that Respondent committed any acts of sexual misconduct involving C.C. The evidence only demonstrated that C.C. had a tendency to act in a bizarre manner by disrobing when she was overheated and that Respondent did not overreact to his patient's inappropriate behavior, but attempted to try to redirect her conduct to more appropriate behavior. Such action by Respondent does not constitute sexual misconduct and the Administrative Complaint charging Respondent with such misconduct should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing both the Administrative Complaints. ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANNE CLEAVINGER 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 3rd day of March, 1993.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2007).1
Findings Of Fact On November 2, 2006, the Department filed with the Board of Medicine a one-count Administrative Complaint against Dr. Thompson, alleging that Dr. Thompson violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003). The Administrative Complaint was based on a probable cause finding by the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine (Panel) on October 27, 2006. The Panel included two physicians. Prior to the meeting of the Panel on October 27, 2006, the members of the Panel received the following materials on the cases to be considered: “the complete case files, including any patient medical records, expert opinions, if any, any materials supplied by the licensee or their counsel” and a draft of the Administrative Complaint. The file on Dr. Thompson included the investigator’s file; the expert opinions of Thomas F. Blake, M.D., F.A.C.S.; Dr. Blake’s curriculum vitae; medical records for the treatment of T.C.; and letters from Bruce M. Stanley, Sr., counsel for Dr. Thompson, along with a draft of the Administrative Complaint. At the Panel meeting, the members indicated that they had received the materials with sufficient time to review and familiarize themselves with the materials. The Panel members did not find any problems with the materials such as missing pages or illegible copies. Additionally, the panel members indicated that they had no conflict of interest or prior knowledge of the cases before them that would make it inappropriate to deliberate and vote on the issues. In the case of Dr. Thompson, the Panel was supplied with expert opinions from Dr. Blake. Dr. Blake was a diplomat certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, a fellow of the American College of Surgeons, and a fellow of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. By letter dated December 20, 2004, Dr. Blake rendered the following opinion concerning the care provided by Dr. Thompson: Thompson, M.D. fell below the standard of care by abandoning a patient under general anesthesia and leaving the facility to attend to another patient. However, there were no complications or injury to either patient. The potential problem would be that he would unexpectedly be confronted with complications in the delivery. This could detain him for a prolonged period of time and place the patient under anesthesia in jeopardy of having to have the anesthesia discontinued and subjecting her to further risks. By letter dated December 29, 2004, the Department requested clarification on the issue of whether there were any identifiable deficiencies or problems with the medical records that were maintained by Dr. Thompson. Dr. Blake sent an addendum to his report dated January 11, 2005, in which he gave the following opinion: Medical records utilized in the treatment of the patient are complete and justify the treatment. There are no identifiable deficiencies or problems with the medical records maintained by the subject. At the Panel meeting, an attorney for the Department summarized the case against Dr. Thompson as follows: Patient T.C. presented to the surgery center for several gynecological procedures. While T.C. was under general anesthesia, the Respondent physically left the surgery center to attend to another patient in another building. Respondent delivered a baby of that other patient. T.C. was left under the care of a certified registered nurse anesthetist. After returning from delivering the child, Respondent finished the gynecological procedure. The Department is charging a violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), for violation of the applicable standards of care by leaving T.C. for several minutes in the middle of surgery and in between procedures while she was under a general anesthesia, by failing to notify the patient that Respondent had left and by failing to note in the medical record that Respondent had left the building. The Panel members discussed the case against Dr. Thompson during the meeting and voted on the case, finding there was probable cause to believe a violation had occurred. The findings of the Panel resulted in the issuance of the Administrative Complaint. The case was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on February 8, 2007, for assignment to an Administrative Law Judge to conduct the final hearing. The Department retained another expert, Jose H. Cortes, M.D., F.A.C.O.G, to provide an opinion concerning Dr. Thompson’s actions relating to the treatment of T.C. By letter dated February 27, 2007, Dr. Cortes opined that Dr. Thompson fell below the standard-of-care while attending T.C. by leaving the operating room and going to another building to attend to another patient. Dr. Cortes was also of the opinion that Dr. Thompson did not adequately maintain the medical records for T.C. by the following actions: The departure from the normal course of surgery such as leaving the operating room was not documented by the attending physician, the outpatient establishment nursing staff, nor the anesthesia attending or nurse anesthetist. A signed consent form not available. * * * As the record documents the evaluation of 07/18/03 and 08/05/03 by the Physician Assistant describes the patient’s complaint and ultrasound study review respectively. The blood count presented from 07/18/03 shows a Hemoglobin of 13.6 gms and Hematocrit of 40.1 percent with normal indices, a pelvic ultrasound which documented fibroids of less than 2.1 cm in size each. With the above findings a conservative management strategy is usually employed initially and the patient is followed prior to recommending any surgical procedure unless declined by the patient. However, all of this has to be documented as recommended by the literature and agencies which review patient care and guidelines such as KePRO. On July 10, 2007, the Department filed a motion to amend the Administrative Complaint, which motion was granted by Order dated July 13, 2007. The Amended Administrative Complaint added a count alleging a violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (2003), alleging that Dr. Thompson: [F]ailed to keep legible medical records justifying the course of treatment by failing to document in T.C.’s medical records that he left the building during the procedures he performed on T.C. on or about September 11, 2003, and/or by failing to document any discussion with T.C. about alternative treatment options such as discontinuing oral contraceptives, a formal dilation and curettage, and/or the use of a Mirena IUD to address T.C.’s problems or concerns. The final hearing was held on July 27, 2007. A Recommended Order was entered on October 31, 2007, recommending that a final order be entered finding that Dr. Thompson did not violate Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (2003), and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint. A Final Order was entered on December 18, 2007, adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Recommended Order and dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against Dr. Thompson. The parties have stipulated to the reasonableness of the fees and costs claimed by Dr. Thompson. Dr. Thompson has incurred $34,851.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. The parties have stipulated that Dr. Thompson is a prevailing small business party and that Respondent is not a nominal party to this action.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed medical doctor holding a license to practice medicine in the State of Florida issued by the Board of Medical Examiners, Department of Professional Regulation. The Petitioner is a governmental agency charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 458, Florida Statutes, and related rules which regulate the licensure standards and status pertaining to medical doctors in the State of Florida, and enforcing the practice standards for licensed medical doctors embodied in Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Steven Jones has been employed as a detective in the Narcotics Department of the City of Miami Beach Police Department for approximately three and one-half years. He is a ten-year veteran of the law enforcement profession. In December 1982, an investigation was initiated to determine whether allegations of misprescribing scheduled controlled substances made by a confidential informant against Dr. Ramos, the Respondent, were true. On December 16, 1982, Detective Jones entered the medical offices of the Respondent and asked to see Dr. Ramos. The Respondent's receptionist asked him to fill out a patient information sheet. On this sheet or form he indicated his name was "Steven James." He was then taken to the Respondent's office and met the Respondent. He told the Respondent that he was a construction worker, had recently experienced turmoil in his domestic life, and also suffered from a lumbo-sacral sprain. The Respondent then asked him if he had back pain and, after asking him general questions about his health and whether he suffered from any major illnesses, took out his prescription pad and wrote prescriptions for three medications. Other than the general questions the doctor asked him about his health, no detailed medical history was taken from Mr. Jones and there was no physical examination performed by Dr. Ramos or anyone else, except that his weight and height were recorded. No blood pressure reading was taken. After Dr. Ramos asked Mr. Jones if he had a backache, to which Mr. Jones responded in the affirmative, Dr. Ramos stated that he would prescribe something for the backache and something for stress that caused the backache, and something to sleep at night. Although no blood pressure was taken, Dr. Ramos did ask the patient how his blood pressure was, and the patient answered that it was "fine." The doctor then prescribed 60 tablets of valium, 60 placidyl tablets and 40 darvocet tablets. The only medical history provided in writing to the doctor concerned the name, address and employment, medical insurance information and answers to questions on the form concerning allergies. Additionally, the patient noted that he had been taking "valium" or "valium." Upon receiving the prescriptions, Steven Jones paid Dr. Ramos $40 and left his office. Detective Jones again visited Dr. Ramos' office on February 2, 1983. Upon arriving at the office he was escorted into an examining room by the Respondent's assistant, who was also his wife. While Mr. Jones was seated in the examining room, an assistant placed a blood pressure tourniquet or cuff on the patient's arm, leaving it there four to five minutes, when she ultimately returned to the room and informed Steven Jones that the doctor was ready to see him. The blood pressure tourniquet or arm band was never actually inflated by the Respondent or assistant, and no blood pressure reading was ever taken on this visit. Upon going into the Respondent's office, Mr. Jones was asked by Dr. Ramos about how he was feeling and the "patient" requested stronger pain medication. The doctor refused to do this, saying in effect that the patient, Mr. Jones, would have to be admitted to a hospital before the Respondent could prescribe stronger pain medication. Again, on this office visit no social or medical history was taken, and no physical examination was conducted at all. The Respondent asked the patient if he wanted the same prescriptions he had obtained at his December visit, and the patient answered in the affirmative. There was no discussion between the patient and the Respondent or anyone else concerning the patient's condition or progress between the December visit and this February visit. There was no discussion concerning the need for future treatment. The Respondent simply, at that point, wrote the same prescriptions given at the December visit. The next visit by Detective Steven Jones, a/k/a Steven James, occurred on May 25, 1983, at the Respondent's medical offices. The same medical assistant recognized Jones immediately when he came into the office and asked him if he was there for the same reason, to which he replied in the affirmative. He was then escorted straight to Dr. Ramos' office, who asked him if he wanted the same medication again, to which he assented. There was no discussion at all about his condition and how it may have progressed since the February visit, nor was there any discussions about future prospects for treatment, what treatment if any, was being considered or what it was designed to accomplish. The Respondent simply wrote three prescriptions once again, for valium, placidyl and darvocet, Schedule IV controlled substances. Except for the first visit, there was never any discussion of back pain nor any discussion concerning symptoms of insomnia and nervousness in this patient. Onelia Padron testified for Respondent. She has known the Respondent for many years and has worked for him as a technician for approximately a year. She was working in his office in December 1982, as an x-ray technician and in the performance of blood tests, blood pressure readings and physical therapy. She remembered Detective Jones coming to the office in December 1982, and testified that she did not take a blood pressure reading at the December visit, but did so at the February visit. Her specific memory of taking the blood pressure reading in February was not clear, however. She remembers specifically that his blood pressure was normal at the February visit and testified that she was sure that Dr. Ramos wrote down the blood pressure of the patient in his medical chart for the February visit. The patient medical record of Detective Jones a/k/a James, however, does not reveal that a blood pressure reading was taken at the February visit. Although the witness claims to have taken a blood pressure reading on the patient on his February 1983 visit, the testimony of Detective Jones reveals that no blood pressure reading was taken; although the blood pressure cuff or tourniquet was applied to his arm, it was simply not used. This may account in part for Ms. Padron's mistaken memory of actually taking the blood pressure reading. Her memory may be less than accurate due to passage of time. The testimony of Detective Jones to the effect that no blood pressure reading was taken, when considered with the Respondent's own medical records which do not reveal a blood pressure reading being taken, renders the finding inescapable that no blood pressure reading was taken at the February, 1983 visit and that Ms. Padron, after the passage of over a year, has a less- than-specific, inaccurate memory about the occasion and thus her testimony with regard to this visit is not credible. Rita Ramos, the Respondent's wife, acts as the office receptionist who makes and maintains the medical records for the Respondent. She performs no medical duties, however, she is well acquainted with her husband's handwriting and, of course, her own handwriting, and established that the word "valium" on Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and the word "valium" on Petitioner's Exhibit 6 were not written by her or her husband. She maintains that she specifically remembers the patient (Detective Jones) coming to visit Dr. Ramos on December 16, 1982, and she specifically remembers the doctor conducting a full physical examination and writing at least four lines of notes in the patient's record. She did not take a blood pressure on this patient in either December or February, however, and could not give an adequate explanation of how she could perform all her administrative record-keeping and maintenance duties and still have time to continually watch through the open door of her husband's office to see the physicals performed on approximately 20 patients a day, including Jones, and especially then to be able to remember the details of that one specific patient's visit in December 1982, over a year prior to the hearing. Although this witness supposedly remembered the doctor "always" conducting physical examinations on the first visit by a patient, and specifically conducting a head, eyes and ears examination on the first visit of Detective Jones, given the inherent interest of the patient in this case, the fact that her memory must be suspect regarding a specific patient's visit on a specific date more than a year prior to the hearing, and her own testimony that no irregularity or memorable occurrence happened during the visit of that patient to stimulate her recall, her memory of that event must be deemed less than accurate and therefore her testimony concerning the physical examination cannot be found credible by this Hearing Officer. Dr. Ramos testified on his own behalf. He stated that his standard practice is to interview and examine each patient and that he was especially suspicious of the subject patient who came in wearing earrings and boots. He interpreted his abbreviated notes on the patient's chart to reveal that the patient was 5'8" tall and weighed 145 pounds, had a blood pressure of 120 over 80 and a pulse of 80, and a normal sinus rhythm with no heart murmur and no abnormal respiratory signs. The doctor additionally interpreted his handwritten notes containing his own abbreviations, to reveal that the patient's eyes were normal, neck supple, with normal ears, nose, throat and a fair complexion. Although the patient asked for a stronger medication on at least one of the visits, including quaaludes, the doctor refused, informing the patient that he could not legally prescribe such for him in Florida. The doctor also testified that he remembered that on the second visit in February 1983, Ms. Padron took the blood pressure of the patient. He contends that he did not record the blood pressure reading because it was the same as the first time, that is, the December 1982 visit. No blood pressure was taken or recorded at the December 1982 visit, however, and none is revealed in the doctor's record for that visit. Although the doctor testified that on the February visit he believed that the patient might be trying to trick him and might be an undercover law enforcement officer, he still prescribed the same controlled substance prescribed earlier, with no additional physical examination made nor physical findings recorded in the patient records. He repeated the same instructions as to use of those drugs and the reasons for taking those drugs, but did not record any physical findings related to that visit. By his own admission, he did not ask the patient what had occurred in his medical history between December and February and did not ask questions concerning the success of his previously prescribed course of treatment. If indeed, the Respondent believed that the patient could be an undercover law enforcement officer and thus attempting to trick the doctor into misprescribing drugs for him, one might think that the doctor would take pains to make a thorough physical examination and to thoroughly record his findings and conclusions in the medical records he maintained, instead of failing to document his physical findings and conclusions and continuing to prescribe those drugs over a period of months. Thus, the testimony of Dr. Ramos is not supportive of a finding that a thorough physical examination, including the taking of blood pressure readings at each patient visit and, (in view of the low back pain complaint) straight leg raise tests, tests for impairment of sensation in extremities and other parameter checks, was actually conducted on the patient. Dr. John Handwerker, M.D., testified as an expert witness for the Petitioner. He has served as first chairman of the Department of Family Practice at the University of Florida Family and Community Medicine programs. He is Chairman of the Family Practice Department of Mercy Hospital in Miami, and is assistant professor of pharmacology at the University of Miami. He is knowledgeable regarding generally prevailing and accepted standards of family practice in Dade County and was accepted, without challenge, as an expert in the field of family practice. The drug Darvocet and Darvocet N-100 is a Schedule IV controlled substance, according to the schedule established in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Darvocet is characterized by some habituating influence, together with some problems with withdrawal. Its use is contraindicated with tranquilizers, such as valium, which was also prescribed in conjunction with it by Respondent for the patient involved herein. Valium, which is known generically as diazepam, is also a Schedule IV controlled substance and is a sedative or anti-anxiety drug with a wide variety of potentially adverse drug interactions, including darvocet. It can be mildly addictive, has a depressant effect on the central nervous system and is also a muscle relaxant. Placidyl is a short-term drug used in sleep disorders. It is only indicated for use for a maximum of seven days. It is classed as an oral hypnotic, and is a Schedule IV controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Prior to prescribing any of these drugs, a physician should take a full history from a patient, and perform a thorough physical examination. The history should include the patient's chief complaint with questions from the physician to the patient involving areas of past problems with the nervous system, ears, eyes, lungs, chest, respiratory system, GI tract, and urinary tract. The physical examination should involve all body systems, including blood pressure, examination of the head, neck and chest and back regions. Further, if the patient requests these or other drugs specifically, a check should then be made for "track marks" and other evidence of prior drug abuse or usage. If the patient complains of low back pain, there should be a physical examination specifically involving the low back area before prescribing the scheduled controlled substances at issue. The past history is important to determine the duration of the problem, any previous medical treatment, examinations or tests by other physicians regarding the lumbosacral or low back area. A physical examination should be performed designed to elicit indications of neurological involvement, including straight leg raise tests, impairment of sensation tests in the extremities and other neurological inquiries. Such a full history and a physical examination is necessary prior to initiating a course of treatment involving treatment of chronic pain due to the existence of a wide assortment of other treatment modalities which might treat the root of the problem, rather than merely the pain symptoms. Dr. Handwerker, upon being questioned concerning the December 1982 visit of Detective Jones to the Respondent's office, posing as a 29-year-old construction worker complaining of lower back pain and insomnia, established that if a doctor performed no physical examination of such a patient, or only a cursory one, and took a history which in essence elicited only the complaint of injury (aside from the non-medical personal background information) that it would amount to inappropriate prescribing of the subject drugs if the patient was given these drugs in the manner prescribed to Detective Jones. The Respondent simply made insufficient findings upon which to base the decision to prescribe those drugs. Such prescribing without an adequate physical examination or the obtaining of detailed patient medical history would constitute a failure to conform to the level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent similar physicians under these conditions and circumstances. The continued prescribing of these drugs at the February and May visits of this patient, without any discussion or consideration of the effect the previous course of treatment had had on the patient, other than a simple question by the Respondent concerning how the patient was feeling, also constitutes inappropriate prescribing of scheduled controlled substances and demonstrates a failure to conform to the generally accepted and prevailing standards of medical practice in the Dade County community. It was similarly established that the medical records failed to justify the course of treatment afforded this patient. Especially regarding the lack of a physical examination at each visit, and the failure to elicit any further medical history on the latter two visits. Even if a full physical examination and history was conducted on the first visit in December 1982, which was not the case, there would still be required an interim update and recording of physical findings related to the patient's experience since the December visit. Notes should have been made in the patient records regarding how the medications were affecting the patient and his pain problem, including notes reflecting that a physical examination had been performed, involving all vital signs, which was not the case with this patient. Not only does the generally accepted and prevailing standard of medical practice in Dade County require that an initial, thorough physical examination including the blood pressure and pulse and the eliciting of a detailed medical history be performed, as well as update physical examinations at later visits to check the progress of the patient under the treatment program; the failure to note the findings in the patient records constitutes a failure to conform to generally accepted and prevailing standards of medical practice for the Dade County community. Dr. Alfred March testified as an expert witness for Respondent, but agreed that the same detailed medical history and examination described by Dr. Handwerker is required before the practitioner should prescribe scheduled controlled substances in the same manner as done by the Respondent. Dr. March was unable to ascertain from simply reviewing the medical records of the Respondent, the reason or justification for the prescribing of any of the drugs on the three dates in question, and established that the medical records of the doctor should always justify the course of treatment for a patient. Indeed, Dr. March established that if a patient came in complaining of a backache, then such would be inappropriate prescribing without the performance of x-rays of the affected area and a full neurological examination, neither of which was performed by the Respondent in this case. Dr. Ramos has never been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in the past, and his past professional record reveals that his medical practice has been characterized by sincere concern for his patients and the highest respect of his colleagues. The subject drugs involved are Schedule IV controlled substances, which are of the class of drugs characterized by the least serious ramifications for patients, if misused. It is to the doctor's credit that when the undercover detective, Mr. Jones, attempted to persuade him to prescribe more powerful medication such as quaaludes, the doctor vigorously protested such a course of treatment and refused to do so, citing his belief that indeed it was illegal to do so in Florida.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefor
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against a licensed medical doctor. By means of a two-count Administrative Complaint, the Respondent is charged with violations of Sections 458.331(1)(m) and 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by allegedly failing to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of a patient, and by failing to practice medicine with the required level of care, skill, and treatment. The Respondent denies the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint, and also asserts that the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed by reason of the Petitioner's failure to timely investigate and prosecute the subject charges.
Findings Of Fact Findings stipulated by the parties4 The Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida. The patient R. C. presented with a history of diabetes and hypertension. The Respondent did not attempt or make any contact with the primary care physician of patient R. C. Brevital was administered intravenously to the patient R. C. without the use of an IV pump. Resuscitative drugs and equipment should always be immediately available. There is no documentation of respiratory monitoring during the administration of anesthetics and the surgical procedure performed on patient R. C. It is well below the standard of care to both administer a general anesthesia and perform the surgical procedure. Findings based on evidence At all times material, the Respondent has specialized in urology. The Respondent is not board certified in urology. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was associated with a clinic named Instituto Latino Americano de Impotencia y Diagnostico (ILAID). One or two days each week, the Respondent would see patients at ILAID that were potential candidates for penile implant surgery. At all times material to this case there were at least two other licensed physicians associated with ILAID who often were the first physicians to see patients who came to ILAID with complaints of impotency. The subject patient (Patient R. C.) went to ILAID for the first time on May 24, 1993. On that day the patient signed a form titled "Patient Information," which contains little more than patient identification information, and a form titled "Patient's Declaration and Agreement."5 The patient probably saw a physician at ILAID on May 24, 1993, because a blood sample was taken from the patient that day and the results of the blood tests were reported back to ILAID on May 25, 1993. However, there is no documentation that the patient was seen by a physician at ILAID on May 24, 1993. Specifically, there is no medical chart documenting that on that day a physician took a history from the patient, examined the patient, evaluated the patient, ordered any tests of the patient, or otherwise treated or cared for the patient. At all times material to this case, the routine practice and procedure of ILAID regarding patients who went to ILAID with complaints of impotency was to have the patients seen by a physician associated with ILAID. It was also the routine practice and procedure at ILAID for the physician who first saw the patient to prepare a-medical record documenting the patient's visit. Such a medical record would routinely document a patient history, an examination of the patient, the physician's evaluation of the patient, and any treatments given or tests ordered by the physician. The impotency patients at ILAID were also routinely put through an evaluation procedure to determine the extent of and the nature of their impotency before implant surgery was recommended or performed. The results of the evaluation procedure were also routinely documented in the patient's medical chart. The Respondent first saw the subject patient on July 13, 1993, at the ILAID facility. On that date there were no patient records regarding the subject patient prepared by any other physician associated with ILAID for the Respondent to review. In the absence of any medical documentation, the Respondent apparently assumed that the patient had been through the normal routine at ILAID and proceeded to go forward on that assumption. On July 13, 1993, the Respondent took a brief, limited history from the patient and conducted a limited physical examination of the patient. The physical examination was limited to the patient's abdomen and urogenital area. Based on that limited history and examination, the Respondent concluded that penile implant surgery was an appropriate course of treatment, subject to the patient receiving medical clearance for the surgery. The Respondent did not perform any objective tests for impotence on the patient. The Respondent did not obtain a detailed medical history from the patient. The Respondent did not obtain a detailed history regarding the nature, extent, or duration of the patient's impotence. The Respondent did not conduct a complete physical examination of the patient. Prior to performing penile implant surgery, a physician should perform objective tests to determine if the surgery is indicated. Two objective tests that should always be performed are blood tests to determine the patient's testosterone level and prolactin level.6 Depending on the details elicited during the patient history, other objective tests may also be indicated. The Respondent failed to have tests done to determine the testosterone level and the prolactin level of the patient. The failure to perform these two objective tests is a departure from acceptable standards of medical care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician. Prior to performing penile implant surgery, a patient's condition must be assessed by a physician to determine whether surgery is indicated. The surgeon does not have to personally perform all aspects of the assessment of the patient's condition, but the surgeon must at least verify that an adequate assessment has been performed by another physician, and that the assessment has been documented in the patient's medical records. Adequate assessment of a patient's condition requires, at a minimum, a detailed medical history, a complete physical examination, and the performance of any objective tests indicated by the history and physical examination. The performance of surgery without either performing an adequate assessment of the patient's condition or verifying that such an assessment has been documented by another physician is a departure from acceptable standards of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician. The Respondent did not obtain a detailed medical history from the patient, did not perform a complete physical examination of the patient, and failed to order at least two objective tests that were indicated by the patient's complaints. The Respondent also failed to verify that documentation existed which showed that any other physician had obtained a detailed medical history from the patient, had performed a complete physical examination of the patient, and had ordered the objective tests indicated by the patient's complaints. If the Respondent had attempted to verify the existence of such documentation, he would have discovered that the documentation did not exist. The Respondent's performance of surgery on the patient without performing an adequate assessment of the patient's condition, or without verifying that such an assessment had been documented by another physician, was a departure from acceptable standards of medical practice. The Respondent made arrangements for additional blood tests and for an EKG to be administered to the patient. The Respondent also believed that he had made arrangements for one of the other physicians at ILAID to medically clear the patient for surgery. Anticipating no problems regarding the medical clearance, the Respondent also contacted the director of ILAID, Rogelio Medel, and asked him to arrange a location for the implant surgery. In view of the patient's financial circumstances and his lack of medical insurance, it was decided that the surgery would be done in an operating room at a physician's clinic, which would be somewhat less expensive than performing the surgery in a hospital operating room. Rogelio Medel contacted Dr. Francisco A. Prado and arranged for the use of one of the operating rooms at Dr. Prado's clinic. Rogelio Medel had made similar arrangements with Dr. Prado twice before. The arrangement with Dr. Prado was that Dr. Prado would provide not only the use of the operating room, but would also provide all necessary supplies (including the anesthesia medications), as well as the services of a nurse anesthetist, Eduardo Perez, who worked for Dr. Prado on a regular basis. The surgery was scheduled for early in the afternoon on July 16, 1993. Unbeknownst to Rogelio Medel and to the Respondent, Eduardo Perez was not a licensed nurse anesthetist. The Respondent did not inquire of Eduardo Perez regarding the latter's qualifications or licensure status. Rather, relying on the representations of Dr. Prado, the Respondent assumed that Eduardo Perez possessed the necessary qualifications and licensure to function as a nurse anesthetist. While it is clear that Eduardo Perez was not licensed as a nurse anesthetist, there is no clear and convincing evidence in the record as to whether Eduardo Perez was or was not trained in the use of anesthetics, was or was not trained in the use of respiratory and cardiac monitoring equipment, or was or was not trained in the use of resuscitative drugs and equipment.7 The Respondent assumed that Eduardo Perez was trained in these matters, based on the assumption that Eduardo was a licensed nurse anesthetist. In view of the representations of Dr. Prado, it was reasonable for the Respondent to make that assumption.8 The Respondent was not trained in the techniques and procedures of advanced cardiac life support. The Respondent was not trained in the use of a defibrillator. The Respondent was not trained in the use of anesthetics. Prior to performing surgery on the subject patient, the Respondent had received a copy of the laboratory results dated July 16, 1993. He had also received a copy of the EKG report prepared by Dr. Freddie Rodriguez. Prior to performing the surgery, the Respondent had not received any written medical clearance for the patient to undergo the planned implant surgery. The Respondent never received any written medical clearance for the patient to undergo surgery, because the patient was never medically cleared. The Respondent did not receive any telephonic verification that the subject patient had been medically cleared for surgery, because no other physician had cleared the patient for surgery.9 Prior to performing surgery, it is the responsibility of the surgeon to verify that the patient has been medically cleared for the proposed surgery. Under similar conditions and circumstances, a reasonably prudent similar physician would not perform surgery without verification that the patient had been medically cleared for the proposed surgery. It is a departure from minimum standards of medical practice for a surgeon to perform surgery without such verification. Early in the afternoon on July 16, 1993, the Respondent performed penile implant surgery on the subject patient. The surgery was conducted in one of the operating rooms at Dr. Prado's clinic, as previously arranged with Dr. Prado. During the surgery the patient was anesthetized with the anesthetic agents Versed and Brevital. These anesthetic agents were administered by Eduardo Perez, who was functioning as a nurse anesthetist. Eduardo Perez was present during the entire surgical procedure, during which time he monitored the administration of the anesthetic agents, monitored the patient's vital signs, and otherwise performed the functions that would be performed by a nurse anesthetist. At all times material, the Respondent believed, based on the representations of Dr. Prado, that Eduardo Perez was a licensed and qualified nurse anesthetist who regularly worked in that capacity for Dr. Prado. When the surgical procedure had been completed, the Respondent left the patient in the care of Eduardo Perez while the Respondent left the operating room to change clothes. When the Respondent left the operating room the patient appeared to be normal. When the Respondent returned to the operating room a few minutes later, he noticed that the patient had become pale and sweaty. The Respondent also noticed that the patient had very little pulse or blood pressure. The Respondent and Eduardo Perez initiated cardiopulmonary resuscitation and also called fire rescue for assistance. The Respondent and Eduardo Perez continued their cardiopulmonary resuscitation efforts until the fire rescue personnel arrived a few minutes later. The fire rescue personnel initiated advanced cardiac life support measures and subsequently transported the patient to a hospital emergency room, where further efforts were made to resuscitate the patient. Shortly thereafter the patient was pronounced dead in the emergency room. Following an autopsy and investigation into the cause of death, the Dade County Medical Examiner was of the opinion that it could not be stated with any degree of medical certainty that the death of the subject patient was caused by the surgery. In order to have medical records sufficient to justify penile implant surgery, a physician must have written medical records that document at least the following matters: (a) a detailed patient history; (b) a complete physical examination of the patient; (c) a consideration of alternative therapy options; and (d) a pre-operative medical clearance. With regard to the subject patient, the Respondent does not have, and never did have, written medical records documenting any of the four matters itemized immediately above. By failing to keep written medical records documenting such matters with regard to the subject patient, the Respondent failed to keep records justifying the course of treatment of the patient.10
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent has violated Sections 458.331(1)(t) and 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, imposing a penalty consisting of the imposition of administrative fines totaling $6,000. 00, and the suspension of the Respondent's license to practice medicine for a period of 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd Day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florid __________________________________ MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of September, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and at all material times has been, a licensed physician, having been issued license number ME 0040551, by the State of Florida. Respondent is a 1979 graduate of the University of Juarez. Respondent performed an internship at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago, Illinois, from 1979 to 1980. Between 1980 and 1982, Respondent performed a two year internal medicine residency at Grant Hospital in Chicago, Illinois. Respondent is "Board-eligible" in the area of internal medicine. Internal medicine involves a non-surgical approach to evaluating multiple organ systems. It involves understanding diseases at a "higher" level and dealing with multiple illnesses. Respondent once has taken, but did not pass, the examination to become Board certified in internal medicine. Respondent has had no other complaints filed against his license to practice medicine in Florida, other than the one at issue in this case. On or about May 2, 1986, Respondent admitted patient L. S. to Clearwater Community Hospital in Clearwater, Florida, because of a possible cerebral vascular accident which occurred 3 days prior to admission. Patient L. S. was a 76-year old male patient who was a member of the "Gold Plus" IMC Health Maintenance Organization. At or about the time of admission of patient L. S. to Clearwater Community Hospital, Respondent obtained a patient medical history from L. S. and performed a physical examination. As a result of the stroke, patient L. S. had speech difficulties at the time of admission to Clearwater Community Hospital. Respondent's initial patient history for L. S. included the following information: With respect to the cerebral vascular accident, the patient had awakened 3 days prior to the admission and had difficulty with speech and difficulty using his right hand. The patient was able to ambulate without difficulty and had noted no improvement or worsening in symptoms in the three days prior to admission. The patient had had intestinal surgery 50 years previously, which, according to Respondent's documented history, resulted in chronic diarrhea. Additionally, the patient had been hospitalized two years earlier for "dysphagia (a difficulty in swallowing) with a negative work-up." According to the patient, the patient had no coronary artery disease, hypertension, peptic ulcer disease or diabetes. The patient's social history provided the information that the patient smoked tobacco, one-half pack per day, and did not drink alcohol. The patient provided information that he was on the following medication: Lomotil p.r.n. (as needed); Lanoxin 0.125 mg. per day; and Quinaglute 100 mg., dose schedule unknown. Respondent performed an appropriate initial physical examination on patient L. S. Of significance was Respondent's finding with respect to the patient's heart: "Irregular, irregular rhythm with no gallops or murmurs appreciated." After completing the initial history and physical examination, Respondent's impression was: Acute CVA, patient now three days post-insult and appears to be stable. He already has good use of his right upper extremities and his speech is intelligible although slurred History of cardiac arrhythmia History of chronic diarrhea secondary to intestinal surgery 50 years ago. As part of his plan for the patient, formulated after obtaining the initial history and physical, Respondent noted, "Will also consider ECHO cardiogram as the heart irregularity may provide the source of the emboli." While patient L. S. was hospitalized during the May 2, 1986, admission, Respondent ordered the following tests which were performed on the patient: a complete blood count; a prothrombin time test; an activated partial thromboplastin time test; a routine urinalysis; a portable upright chest x-ray; a bilateral duplex carotid ultrasound study; a CT scan of head - stroke routine (non contrast study); a Brain CT Scan Stroke Protocol-Post contrast series only; an electroencephalogram (EEG); a blood chemistry profile; and an electrocardiogram (EKG)(the patient was also placed on a telemetry monitor). On admission, Respondent ordered Lomotil, one tablet to be given as needed for diarrhea, Lanoxin 0.125 mg. to be given four times a day, and Quinaglute 100 mg. to be given twice a day. On the same day of admission, Respondent changed the order for Quinaglute to 325 mg. to be taken by mouth twice a day. On admission and again on May 9, 1986, Respondent ordered blood serum levels of digoxin (Lanoxin is a drug containing digoxin). These blood levels revealed that the digoxin level was low on admission (normal laboratory values were listed as between 0.5 to 2.0 - the actual value was 0.1). The repeat digoxin level reflected that the digoxin was within normal limits on May 9, 1986 (the actual value was 1.1). Quinidine levels were also obtained (to determine the level of the drug Quinaglute in the blood), pursuant to Respondent's request. The quinidine level taken on admission was below normal (normal laboratory values were listed between 2.0 and 5.0 - the actual value was .7). The repeat quinidine level performed on May 9, 1986, reflected that the quinidine levels were within normal limits (2.6). Under the circumstances, the Respondent cannot be severely criticized for the initial history he took from the patient. In ideal circumstances, an internist would attempt to get more detail on the patient's smoking history pertinent to possible chronic obstructive lung disease or possible congestive heart failure, on the patient's chronic diarrhea, and on the patient's drug dosages. But the Respondent was dealing with a 76-year old man who came to see him for symptoms of a stroke three days before. The patient had difficulty making his speech understood and had no family or friends available to help him give his medical history to the Respondent. It was within acceptable standards of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar circumstances for the Respondent to take as much history as the patient was capable of comfortably giving at that time. The Respondent was planning on referring the patient to the hospital's stroke team, which over the course of the hospital stay would completely evaluate the effect of the stroke on the patient. The Respondent planned to have blood serum levels done which would establish proper drug dosages. The Respondent's primary concerns were the possibility of an evolving stroke and the possibility of malignant cardiac arrhythmias. Since there were no complaints or symptoms of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or congestive heart failure, it was not necessary to pursue the smoking details on the initial history on this admission. As for the diarrhea, the Respondent was dealing with a 76-year old man who reported chronic diarrhea for 50 years. It may have resulted from intestinal surgery 50 years ago, and it may have been exacerbated by the Quinaglute the patient had been prescribed for his heart arrhythmias. Severe malabsorption problems would show up on the blood screen and the complete blood count the Respondent was planning to have the patient undergo. Otherwise, it was acceptable under the circumstances of this case to concentrate on the two primary concerns and treat the diarrhea symptomatically with Lomotil as needed for the time being. The Respondent should have followed up on obtaining available previous hospital records, especially the local admission for dysphagia two years prior, but that information would not appear in the initial history. While L. S. was in the hospital, the Respondent appropriately and adequately evaluated the patient's heart as a possible cause of the stroke. The evidence suggests that it is fairly debatable among physicians whether to order a $500-$600 echocardiogram in a case such as this; it is not necessary to meet the standard of care. When the Respondent initially examined the patient and heard irregularly irregular heart rhythms, he initially considered an echocardiogram. Irregularly irregular heart rhythms suggest atrial fibrillation which can predispose a patient to heart clots (emboli) which can break off, travel through the circulatory system and cause a stroke. But the results of the CAT Scan indicated that the stroke was not caused by a heart embolus but by a constriction of smaller blood vessels. In addition, the results of the EKG and telemetry monitoring revealed that the patient did not have atrial fibrillation but had significant and possibly malignant premature ventricular contractions (PVCs). While this particular heart beat irregularity is serious and can be fatal, it does not predispose a patient to heart emboli and resulting strokes. With this information, the echocardiogram was no longer necessary. While L. S. was in the hospital, the Respondent appropriately and adequately evaluated his lung function. The chest x-ray and EKG which the Respondent had done for the patient enabled the Respondent to diagnose obstructive pulminary disease (C.O.P.D.) if the patient had it. Milder cases of C.O.P.D. would have required with a pulmonary function test or a blood gas level. The evidence suggests that it is fairly debatable among physicians whether to have done one of those tests in this case; it was not necessary to meet acceptable standards of care recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician under similar circumstances. The patient had no complaint of shortness of breath with exertion that would suggest emphysema. To the contrary, he progressed well in physical therapy during the 10-day hospitalization with no indication of this symptom. Nor did the patient have cyanosis or clubbing that would be symptomatic of chronic bronchitis. Those are the two kinds of C.O.P.D. about which a physician evaluating L. S. would be concerned. Regarding the patient's chronic diarrhea, the Respondent performed some general screening tests which, while non-specific in nature, had potential to provide some information about the patient's nutritional status. The complete blood count (C.B.C.) may provide information about some deficiencies. Generally, in an isolated deficiency of vitamin B12 or folic acid, one would expect to find an elevated M.C.V. (mean corpuscular volume), which would show up on a C.B.C. In this case, however, the C.B.C. provided no real information about the nutritional status of patient L. S. The M.C.V. was only slightly elevated. A prothrombin time test can be done to evaluate vitamin K deficiencies and was done in this case. Additionally, the blood levels of several substances can provide information about malnutrition. In this case, the chemistry profile revealed malnutrition. The blood chemistry profile revealed low albumin levels, low globulin levels and low total protein levels. The possibility exists that patient L. S. suffered from diarrhea which was caused or aggravated by the Quinaglute that the patient was also taking. Quinaglute can cause diarrhea. This was not evaluated by the Respondent. It could not be evaluated by the medication history the patient was able to give (i.e., by determining how long the patient had been taking Quinaglute in relation to the period of time the patient had had diarrhea.) Besides, the Respondent made the decision to stabilize the patient's potentially life- threatening heart arrhythmias using the Quinaglute instead of withdrawing the Quinaglute in an attempt to cure the diarrhea problems with which the patient had lived for 50 years. The Respondent cannot be severely criticized for this decision. On this admission, it was acceptable to treat the patient's diarrhea symptomatically for the time being and further evaluate and treat it after the Respondent dealt with the more serious matters of the C.V.A. and the heart arrhythmias. On or about May 12, 1986, Respondent transferred patient L. S. to Druid Hills Skilled Nursing Center from Clearwater Community Hospital. As reflected in Respondent's discharge summary for patient L. S., Respondent was not able to determine the precise cause of the stroke which patient L. S. suffered prior to discharging the patient from the hospital. The discharge diagnoses reflect: (1) acute cerebral vascular accident; and (2) cardiac arrhythmias with frequent P.V.C.'s. The Respondent kept patient L. S. in Clearwater Community Hospital for ten days, from May 2 until May 12, 1986. Although the evaluation and tests were completed within five days, the Respondent did not want to discharge the patient to his home where he would be by himself, but rather to a nursing home. While waiting for a nursing home bed to become available, the Respondent used the resulting extended hospital stay to continue physical therapy. At the time of transfer from the hospital to Druid Hills, patient L. S. was frail. He was 76 years old, five feet ten inches tall and weighted only 113 pounds. Having just had a stroke, he was far from the picture of health, and this was noted by some of the nursing staff upon transfer to Druid Hills Skilled Nursing Center. He looked and was ill, but he was stable. At the time of admission to Druid Hills, patient L. S. was in essentially the same condition as when admitted to Clearwater Community Hospital, ten days earlier. The patient still suffered from slurred speech and had problems with his right arm. But he was stable and anxious to begin speech and physical therapy. On May 12, 1986, at about 2:00 p.m., Judith Salyer, L.P.N., attempted to contact Respondent in order to confirm routine house orders by "beeping" Respondent. Respondent called the nursing home at 4:30 p.m. on the same day to provide the following admission orders: Lanoxin 0.125 mg. by mouth four times a day ASA by mouth four times a day Persantine 75 mg. by mouth two times a day Quinaglute 325 mg. by mouth every eight hours Lomotil by mouth three time a day for diarrhea Tylenol by mouth four times a day Restoril 15 mg. by mouth at night for sleep as needed Physical Therapy Speech Therapy In addition to slurred speech, on May 14, 1986 (two days after admission to Druid Hills), patient L. S. began to have problems with his eye which was red and draining yellow matter (inaccurately described as "pus" in the nursing notes.) When asked by nursing staff if his eye hurt, L. S. advised them that it did. In all other respects, patient L. S.'s condition seemed essentially unchanged. Respondent was not advised of the change in the patient's eye. On the following date, patient L. S. developed additional symptoms. These included coughing and a runny nose with white mucous. The patient's eyes continued to be pink tinged with a moderate amount of yellow drainage from the eye noted. At 2:20 p.m. on May 15, 1986, Judith Salyer, L.P.N., spoke with Respondent and received the routine house orders which Salyer had called about on May 12, 1986. Salyer did not advise Respondent of the minor cold symptoms. Later on the evening of May 15, 1986, it was noted that patient L. S.'s appetite was poor. On May 16, 1986, at 2:00 p.m., it was noted that L. S. was refusing to eat meals and had a inoderately unsteady gait. On May 17, 1986, it was noted that L. S. informed the nurse on duty that he had had loose stools five times. Additionally, it was noted that the patient was refusing to eat meals. At 9:00 p.m. on May 17, 1986, patient L. S. was noted to be "out of bed." No complaints of diarrhea were noted. Additionally the patient ate 80% of his meal and requested ice cream. In the early part of the day on May 18, 1986, patient L. S. was noted to have "chronic diarrhea" by nursing staff. (Throughout his nursing home stay, the patient was given Lomotil, an anti-diarrheal agent, in an effort to treat the diarrhea.) Between at least 9:30 p.m. on May 18, 1986, and the evening of May 19, 1986, patient L. S. appeared to be doing reasonably well. The patient's appetite was good. There were no complaints of diarrhea. The runny nose, coughing and eye drainage were not noted after May IS, 1986. At 2:00 p.m. on May 20, 1986, Nurse Salyer noted that patient L. S. appeared slightly confused at intervals. The patient had mild congestion and a productive cough. The patient's gait was noted to be unsteady at times. At that time, Salyer "beeped" Respondent in an attempt to advise Respondent of the patient's change in condition. Respondent did not call back on May 20, 1986. A productive cough is a cough which produces "gobs" of mucous. Such a cough can be indicative of a lower (as opposed to upper) respiratory infection or congestion in the chest. The presence of a productive cough is a cause for concern. In a later entry made on May 20, 1986, a Nurse Rooker noted that the patient had remained in bed during the shift. His appetite was 40%. It was noted that L. S. was congested, coughing up large amounts of whitish mucous. On May 21, 1986, at some time before 2:00 p.m., Respondent was notified by telephone of patient L. S.'s stable vital signs, "cold symptoms," that the patient appeared slightly confused at intervals, was refusing to eat, was mildly congested with a productive cough and had an unsteady gait at times. Given this information, Respondent determined that the patient had a "cold" or upper respiratory infection. New orders were received and transcribed. On May 21, 1986, Respondent ordered Ampicillin 250 mg. to be taken every four hours for eight days. Respondent also ordered Actifed to be taken three times a day as needed for "sinus congestion." Respondent gave patient L. S. Ampicillin, which is an antibiotic, for his symptoms as a precautionary or prophylactic measure. Antibiotics should not, as a general rule, be ordered without having a well-grounded understanding why the patient is ill. The cause of the infection should be determined. The most basic reason for not giving an antibiotic without first evaluating the source of the infection is that the antibiotic then can serve to simply hide the symptoms. The antibiotic will cause some improvement, making it appear that the patient is not quite as ill, when in fact the infection persists. Additionally, there is a theory in medicine that the antibiotic can serve to cause a resistant strain of infection. Respondent assumed that, like most other nursing home patients, patient L. S. was suffering from a cold. Respondent ordered no further tests to evaluate the patient and Respondent declined to see the patient on May 21, 1986. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, it was inappropriate for Respondent to prescribe Ampicillin, an antibiotic, without first evaluating the source of the infection. Assuming that L. S. had a "cold" or upper respiratory infection, it was appropriate for Respondent to order Actifed, an antihistamine, for L. S. on May 21, 1986. However, given the presence of a productive cough, chest congestion could have been present. With chest congestion, an antihistamine like Actifed would have been inappropriate. Actifed will dry up the chest. Mucous in the chest which needs to be expectorated, and brought up and out, will remain in the chest. A mucolytic expectorant, not an antihistamine, should be ordered when the chest is congested. Given the facts that patient L. S. was recuperating from a recent CVA, had difficulty in swallowing, and had multiple medical problems, the Respondent could have been more aggressive in either examining this patient, who had a productive cough, or ordering appropriate testing. A reasonably prudent physician, under similar conditions and circumstances, could have personally examined the patient L. S. on May 21, 1986, or soon thereafter. Alternatively, a reasonably prudent physician could have ordered a C.B.C. and a chest x-ray or some other ancillary diagnostic modalities. A C.B.C. is a method by which one can obtain a count of blood cells, particularly white blood cells, in a patient in order to determine whether there is an ongoing infection. The type of white blood cells present (lymphatic cell or a leukocytic cell) can assist in the determination of whether the infection is bacterial or viral in nature. A chest x-ray is necessary to diagnose pneumonia or obstruction in the lungs. Given the history of patient L. S.'s difficulty in swallowing, it is entirely possible that the patient aspirated food or mucous. When such a foreign substance is inhaled into the lungs, it blocks off the bronchials (the airways into the lungs) and causes an obstruction which will lead to pneumonia. Given this patient's condition and history, Respondent could have used a chest x-ray to evaluate the patient to rule out the possibility of aspiration. But it was not necessary for the Respondent to have arranged to personally examine the patient or order tests at this stage. It would be appropriate to monitor a patient with a viral infection (or "cold") or to prescribe antibiotic such as Ampicillin for a bacterial infection. On May 21, 1986, the antibiotic Ampicillin was given to patient L. S. by nursing staff at Druid Hills. This antibiotic was administered as ordered until May 29, 1986, when it was discontinued on the eighth day. On May 22, 1986, Nurse Salyer noted that patient L. S. had diarrhea. Patient L. S. told Nurse Salyer that in the past the patient had taken Ampicillin and that the Ampicillin had caused diarrhea. Salyer further noted on that date that L. S. was coughing up large amounts of yellowish phlegm. On May 22, 1986, at some time prior to 3:00 p.m., Salyer "beeped" Respondent in an attempt to advise Respondent of L. S.'s statement that the antibiotic was causing diarrhea. Respondent did not call Salyer back by the end of her shift on May 22, 1986. On the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift at Druid Hills, on May 22, 1986, Kathy Rooker, L.P.N., was involved in the care of patient L. S. At 4:50 p.m., Rooker noted that Respondent had not returned the earlier telephone call. Therefore, Rooker called the answering service for Respondent again and asked the answering service to "beep" Respondent again. The Respondent did not call Rooker back. On May 23, 1986, Nurse Salyer notified Respondent of L. S.'s statement that the antibiotic that patient L. S. was taking (Ampicillin) had previously caused the patient to have diarrhea. Respondent decided not to change the antibiotic order for patient L. S. Ampicillin is known to cause diarrhea in some individuals. But so do many other antibiotics. A reasonably prudent physician, after having been advised that the patient had diarrhea and that the patient previously had had diarrhea while on the same antibiotic, could either change the antibiotic therapy or wait and see if the diarrhea continued or became a problem. On May 23, 1986, at 2:00 p.m., Salyer noted that patient L. S. continued to experience congestion and a productive cough, and continued to have a poor appetite. The same information was noted on the evening shift on May 23, 1986. This condition persisted on May 24, 1986. Additionally, the patient's temperature was 100 degrees on May 24, 1986. Previously, the patient had had an essentially normal temperature. On May 25, 1986, it was noted that patient L. S. was still congested with a productive cough. Additionally, the patient's temperature continued to be elevated. On May 26, 1986, no entry was made in the nurses' notes as to the status of the patient's congestion and cough. It was noted that the patient's friend, "John," came to request permission to take L. S. out for the day. However, L. S. indicated that he felt too weak to go. Both L. S. and his friend asked that Respondent be called for a leave of absence order in the future. It was further noted that the patient continued to have a poor appetite. In the morning on May 27, 1986, Nurse Salyer "beeped" Respondent for the leave of absence order. Respondent did not return that call during Salyer's shift on May 27, 1986. In the 2:00 p.m. entry for May 27, 1986, Salyer noted that patient L. S.: had bed rest during the shift; suffered from chronic diarrhea with mucous in the stool; was refusing to eat with poor fluid intake; had yellow mucous draining from his eyes; and had continued congestion with a productive cough. At 9:00 p.m. on May 27, 1986, it was noted that the patient's condition as described above had persisted. Additionally, it was noted that Respondent had not returned the telephone call made by Salyer that morning. In fact, it does not appear that Respondent ever returned Salyer's call made on May 27, 1986. On May 28, 1986, it appeared that patient L. S. was improving some in comparison to the patient's condition on previous dates. It was noted that the patient's respirations were "easy." However, it was also noted that the patient still had periods of confusion, still had poor appetite, still was congested and had yellowish drainage from the right eye. On May 29, 1986, the patient's condition further deteriorated. On this date, in the morning, it was noted that the patient remained congested. In the afternoon, a friend of L. S. named Sigfred Ivanicki, came to see L. S. Ivanicki had visited L. S. in Druid Hills twice a week (on Sundays and Thursdays) while L. S. was in the nursing home. When Ivanicki saw L. S. on Thursday, May 29, 1986, in the afternoon (Ivanicki usually visited between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), Ivanicki was very concerned about the deterioration he saw in L. S.'s condition and believed at that point that L. S. was dying. Ivanicki had had an opportunity to see patient L. S. several times before May 29, 1986. Initially, when Ivanicki saw patient L. S. shortly after the admission of the patient to Druid Hills, patient L. S. appeared cheerful and on the road to recovery. Ivanicki would, on each visit, perform tasks of a personal nature for L. S. Thereafter, the patient developed bad congestion with a productive cough and had diarrhea. None of these symptoms appeared too serious to Ivanicki. However, on May 29, 1986, Ivanicki became truly concerned about L. S. After seeing patient L. S. on May 29, 1986, Ivanicki went to see the head nurse at Druid Hills and asked that Respondent be called to come see the patient and transfer the patient to the hospital. At that time, Ivanicki was told that Respondent was very hard to reach. At 6:00 p.m. on May 29, 1986, a nurse Febbo assessed patient L. S.'s condition. Nurse Febbo noted that the patient refused to eat, complained of shortness of breath and had a flushed face. The patient's skin was warm and dry. The patient's vital signs were as follows: pulse 102 beats per minute, temperature 99.8, blood pressure 120/60 and respiration rate 28 per minute. The patient's lungs were clear with decreased breath sounds. The patient was congested and was expectorating thick clear mucous. The patient was incontinent of bowel. On May 29, 1986, at 6:00 p.m., Nurse Febbo noted that she attempted to contact Respondent at 546-5702 unsuccessfully, and had notified Respondent's answering service that she was attempting to contact Respondent. Respondent returned Nurse Febbo's call at 8:00 p.m., on May 29, 1986. The nursing staff advised the Respondent of patient L. S.'s condition as reflected in Finding 52, above. In response, the Respondent provided the following telephone order for the patient: Lomotil three times a day, discontinue betadine to the little finger, and obtain a splint for right hand. Respondent did not order a C.B.C. or a chest x-ray at that point, even though both tests would have been appropriate. Additionally, Respondent did not go see the patient when advised of the patient's condition. Regardless whether the nursing staff had placed a "STAT" call, a reasonably prudent physician, after being advised of the condition of patient L. S., would have either gone in to see the patient or promptly ordered a C.B.C. and a chest x-ray. The vital signs and physical examination results reflect a very sick individual. The decreased breath sounds indicated that pneumonia or a pneumonic process had begun in the patient's lungs. Additionally, the diarrhea had advanced to the stage where the patient was incontinent. Respondent should have either seen the patient (something he had decided not to do up to this date) or should have ordered a chest x-ray and C.B.C. The nurses' notes for 8:00 p.m. on May 29, 1986, reflect that the patient L. S. was given Actifed by mouth for congestion, consistent with Dr. Hayward's orders given on May 21, 1986, and not changed. Given the presence of a pneumonic process in L. S.'s lungs, Actifed was inappropriate. See Finding 36, above. On May 30, 1986, it was noted prior to 9:30 a.m. that the patient L. S. was growing increasingly weak and was coughing up a greenish yellow mucous. The patient's lungs were noisy and appeared to be filled with fluid. The nursing staff had begun attempts to contact Respondent, probably beginning as early as 7:30 a.m. At 9:30 a.m., the nurses' notes reflect that the nursing staff had attempted to call Respondent several times and had paged Respondent at the hospital but had received no return telephone call. At 10:00 a.m., Gold Plus called the nursing staff at Druid Hills. Mr. Ivanicki had contacted Gold Plus to complain about Respondent's failure to transfer L. S. to the hospital for treatment. Gold Plus, after talking to the nursing staff, was also to attempt to contact Respondent. At 10:15 a.m., on May 30, 1986, over two hours after the first telephone calls, Respondent finally called Druid Hills and ordered that the patient be sent to the emergency room at Clearwater Community Hospital. Confusion occurred over the transfer of the patient to the hospital, due to no fault of Respondent. As a result of this delay, the patient was not transported to Clearwater Community Hospital until about 11:45 a.m., on May 30, 1986. However, before the actual transport could occur, the patient partially "coded" or had a cardiopulmonary arrest. At the time of the arrival of patient L. S. at Clearwater Community Hospital, the patient had a cardiopulmonary arrest and resuscitation techniques were successfully used. A chest x-ray performed showed haziness in the lungs which was suspicious for aspiration pneumonia. On June 14, 1986, patient L. S. died at Clearwater Community Hospital. The patient had been in a coma since arrival at the hospital. The immediate cause of death was listed as cardiogenic shock. Respondent's final diagnoses were: (1) cardiopulmonary arrest; (2) aspiration pneumonitis; (3) possible acute myocardial infarction; (4) thrombocytopenia; (5) cardiac arrhythmia with frequent PVCs; (6) hyperkalemia; (7) status post-recent CVA; and (8) severe post-anoxic encephalopathy. It was the practice of nursing personnel at Druid Hills to identify calls to physicians as "STAT" calls when an emergency or critical situation existed. With a STAT call, an immediate response was necessary. Nursing staff at Druid Hills did not consider patient L. S.'s condition to be an emergency or critical until May 30, 1986. The calls to Respondent were not identified as "STAT" calls. It would have been inappropriate for the Respondent to delay his response to telephone calls made by Druid Hills nursing staff pertaining to patient L. S. on May 29 and 30, 1986. A reasonably prudent physician, acting under similar conditions and circumstances, would have returned such telephone calls within an hour unless other emergencies existed. But it was not proved that the Respondent received and delayed his response. The Respondent generally was good about returning telephone calls and was experiencing difficulty both with the Gold Plus switchboard and with his answering service. The Respondent's response to those calls may well have been reasonable under the circumstances. In contrast, the calls on May 20, 22 and 27 were not of any emergency nature and did not require priority response. It was not proved that the Respondent's response to' those calls were delayed unreasonably. (Gold Plus had a policy of not permitting a leave of absence, the subject of the May 27, 1986, call.) Except to the extent that the Respondent's course of treatment was inappropriate, as noted above, the Respondent's records (including the hospital and nursing home records) justify his course of treatment of L. S. Respondent, in his treatment of patient L. S., failed to practice medicine with the level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, as a result of the deficiencies and omissions noted above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine: (1) hold the Respondent, Edward C. Hayward, M.D., guilty of violating Section 458.331(t), Florida Statutes (1985)(Count One of the Administrative Complaint); (2) dismiss the charges in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint (alleged failure to maintain adequate medical records); (3) place the Respondent on probation for two years under such terms as the Board of Medicine deems appropriate; and (4) fine the Respondent $1,000.00. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2568 To comply with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1.-11. Accepted and incorporated. Proposed findings regarding the milk of magnesia order, rejected. It was part of routine orders. The patient never developed constipation so it never was administered. The proposed finding is irrelevant and unnecessary. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 14.-17. Rejected as contrary to facts found. The paragraphs reciting the tests the Respondent had done are accepted and incorporated; the rest is rejected as contrary to facts found. First three sentences, accepted and incorporated; the rest is rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Nurse's description of the patient as "acutely ill" is subordinate to facts found. It is not a diagnosis. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 23.-25. Accepted and incorporated. 26. Except that the use of the word "pus" is rejected as inaccurate, accepted and incorporated. 27.-36. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary and not subordinate. Accepted but subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary and not subordinate. Rejected that the Respondent made no attempt to determine the cause of the patient's illness as contrary to facts found; the rest is accepted and incorporated. Rejected, as contrary to facts found, that Actifed was "inappropriate." What was inappropriate was the failure to properly evaluate whether the patient had chest congestion. 41.-44. Accepted and incorporated to the extent necessary and not cumulative. 45. Rejected as contrary to facts found. 46.-57. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and, to the extent not subordinate, incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and, to the extent not subordinate, incorporated. 61.-68. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted but subordinate to facts found. Rejected as contrary to facts found. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1.-7. Accepted and, to the extent necessary, incorporated. Penultimate sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence; the rest is accepted and incorporated. Accepted, as far as it goes, and incorporated. However, the proposed findings ignore the productive cough that was observed throughout the period May 20-29, 1986, and which was reported to the Respondent on May 21 and 29, 1986. Third sentence, to the extent it implies it states all the symptoms, rejected as contrary to facts found. Fourth sentence rejected as contrary to facts found--temperature was somewhat elevated and both pulse and respirations were up for a patient in bed rest. Sixth sentence rejected as contrary to facts found--the patient was awake at intervals during the night. Rest is accepted and incorporated with some additional facts. First sentence rejected as contrary to facts found--the patient's condition began to worsen seriously on May 29, 1986, and continued to worsen through the night. The nurses were alarmed at his condition on the morning of May 30, 1986, and began trying to call the Respondent at approximately 7:30 a.m. Third sentence, rejected as not proven when the Respondent received the message that the nursing staff was trying to contact him. The rest is accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Richard W. Payant, Esquire 2349 Sunset Point Road Clearwater, Florida 34625 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Is Respondent subject to discipline for his actions in relation to Patient J.N.?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts and Admitted Facts: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.42, Florida Statutes, Chapter 456, Florida Statutes and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. ME0063587. Respondent rendered medical care and treatment to Patient J.N. Additional Facts: As of October 15, 1999, Patient J.N. had been Respondent's long-standing patient. On that date she came to Respondent's office in Perry, Florida, without an appointment. Her principal purpose for the visit was to ascertain whether she was pregnant. Although J.N. had no appointment, she was seen by Wendy Brannen, C.N.A., who worked in Respondent's office. Ms. Brannen administered a pregnancy test. The results were negative. On the subject of the pregnancy test, J.N. had commented to Ms. Brannen that if the results were negative from the pregnancy test, that J.N. was interested in obtaining diet pills to address weight gain not attributable to pregnancy. Her weight on this visit, as confirmed by a weigh-in, was not extraordinary. When Ms. Brannen had concluded her preliminary patient work-up concerning J.N.'s blood pressure, pulse, respiration and temperature, J.N. was taken to Examining Room 5 within the office and left there. The door was open to the examining room and remained open during the time J.N. was there. On October 15, 1999, Respondent saw J.N. in Examining Room 5. While in the room he explained that the results of the pregnancy test that had been administered on that day were negative. He told J.N. that she was not gaining weight. J.N. asked Respondent about diet pills. Respondent told J.N. that she did not need diet pills, that she was not over weight. He also mentioned an existing moratorium from the Board of Medicine on the prescription of diet pills. Contrary to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, the evidence was insufficient to prove that Respondent "pulled J.N. by the arm and started kissing her and then took her left hand and pressed it against his penis" or that Respondent in any other manner engaged in conduct with sexual overtones directed to Patient J.N. on the date in question. This determination is made having in mind the full hearing record, to include the "Williams Rule" evidence from Patient J.F., who had been under Respondent's care in the past.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which dismisses the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of February, 2002.
