The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice medicine based on allegations that Respondent violated the provisions of Subsections 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes, arising from his treatment and care of Patient R.E., as alleged in the Administrative Complaint in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 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 number ME 0057927. Respondent practices primary care and internal medicine. He is board-certified in internal medicine, and has never had disciplinary action taken against his license. Patient R.E., a male who was 78 years old in January 2001, had a history of diabetes, hypertension, heavy smoking, high blood pressure, and circulatory problems. Respondent had first treated Patient R.E. on August 28, 2000, while covering for the physician with whom Respondent shared a practice. Patient R.E. had been a patient of the practice for several years. In August or September 2000, Respondent purchased the other physician's portion of the practice. The other physician remained as an employee of the practice until January 2001, when Respondent assumed the total care of Patient R.E. On January 16, 2001, Patient R.E. presented to Respondent with a complaint of redness and swelling in the right ankle that made walking difficult. Patient R.E. did not have a regularly scheduled office visit, but Respondent "squeezed him in" after Patient R.E. telephoned Respondent's office complaining of a great deal of pain. On January 16, 2001, the complete patient chart from the previous physician was available to Respondent and became part of Respondent's office chart for Patient R.E. Patient R.E.'s chart contained a "problem list" reflecting diagnoses made throughout his treatment at that office. A problem list assists the physician in tracking on- going problems with a patient. Patient R.E.'s problem list included a diagnosis of "PVD," or peripheral vascular disease. Peripheral vascular disease describes reduced blood flow to the extremities. It can be caused by a narrowing of large blood vessels, and exacerbated by diabetes-related small vessel disease. Prior to Respondent's involvement with his treatment, Patient R.E. had been evaluated for peripheral vascular disease, and was referred to a vascular specialist who recommended revascularization by way of bypass surgery. However, Patient R.E. declined the referral and elected to undergo chelation therapy instead. Mainstream physicians do not consider chelation an effective therapy for peripheral vascular disease, though Patient R.E. believed that it relieved his symptoms. After the November 11, 1999, physical exam, Patient R.E. was seen by the previous physician for three-month follow- ups on February 24, 2000, and June 5, 2000, with no particular complaints. As noted above, Respondent first saw Patient R.E. on August 28, 2000. This visit was for shortness of breath, diagnosed as bronchitis and treated with antibiotics and inhalants. Patient R.E. returned to see the previous physician on September 11, 2000, with chest congestion and coughing. This was his last office visit prior to January 16, 2001. The office visit of January 16, 2001, was a complaint- driven visit, meaning that Respondent's exam addressed Patient R.E.'s specific complaint. Such an exam is appropriate where the physician has a chart with a record of a complete history and physical exam. Respondent checked Patient R.E.'s blood pressure and listened to his heart and lungs, which were clear. Respondent then examined Patient R.E.'s right ankle, finding erythema (redness) and tenderness to palpation. Respondent did not perform an examination to address peripheral vascular disease, because he did not consider peripheral vascular disease as the presenting problem and was already aware that peripheral vascular disease was present in this patient. Respondent recorded a diagnosis of "? gout vs. cellulitis." Gout is an inflammation of the joints caused by deposition of uric acid crystals in the joint fluid. Cellulitis is a term given to an infection of the tissue, typically skin and underlying soft tissue. Gout and cellulitis are symptomatically similar conditions, in that both typically present with pain, stiffness, swelling, and redness of the affected area. Respondent prescribed Levaquin, an antibiotic, and Indocin, a medication for gout with some pain-relieving properties. Respondent told Patient R.E. to follow up in ten days, and gave Patient R.E. a quantity of medication for ten days' duration. Respondent's office chart did not clearly indicate instructions for the frequency or duration of the Levaquin prescription. The chart indicated that the Indocin was to be taken three times per day, but did not indicate a duration for taking the medication. On January 17, 2001, Patient R.E. telephoned Respondent's office to request a walker. On January 18, 2001, Respondent ordered a walker through a home health care provider and had it delivered to the patient's home. Respondent heard nothing from Patient R.E. on January 19, 2001. On Saturday, January 20, 2001, Respondent's office was closed. That evening, he received a telephone call from Patient R.E.'s wife, who told him that her husband was in a lot of pain. Respondent told the wife that Patient R.E. had not been on the prescribed medications long enough to cure his condition, and that if his pain became worse she should take him to the hospital emergency room. Shortly after 8:00 p.m., on January 20, 2001, Patient R.E. presented at the emergency room of Oak Hill Hospital complaining of pain and tenderness in his right ankle. There was an intact red blister over the ankle. The emergency room physician performed an examination, ordered blood tests, and confirmed the diagnosis of cellulitis. Patient R.E. was given injections of insulin and of Rocephin, an antibiotic. The emergency room physician instructed Patient R.E. to continue taking the Levaquin, and to stop taking the Indocin for the suspected gout. Respondent consulted with the emergency room physician by telephone. At Respondent's suggestion, the emergency room physician also prescribed Flagyl, another antibiotic, to ensure coverage against all potential anaerobes or aerobes that could cause cellulitis. The emergency room physician told Patient R.E. to follow up with Respondent on Monday, January 22, 2001. The emergency department of Oak Hill Hospital provided Patient R.E. with written discharge instructions for his cellulitis, including the following information: With antibiotic treatment, the size of the red area will gradually shrink in size until the skin returns to normal. This will take 7-10 days. The red area should never increase in size once the antibiotic medicine has been started. FOLLOW UP with your doctor or this facility as directed. If you were not given a specific follow-up appointment, look at the infected area in two days for the warning signs listed below. RETURN PROMPTLY or contact your doctor if any of the following occur: Increasing area of redness Increasing swelling, or pain Appearance of pus or drainage Fever over 100.5 orally Patient R.E.'s wife telephoned Respondent's office on Tuesday, January 23, 2001, to schedule a follow-up visit. The office visit was scheduled for January 26, 2001. On the scheduled date, Respondent examined Patient R.E. and found that his ankle had worsened and begun to develop necrosis. Respondent referred Patient R.E. to Dr. Malik Piduru, a vascular surgeon, for debridement, instructed him to continue taking the prescribed antibiotics, and to soak his foot in soapy water, which would help to debride the necrotic tissue in the interim. On February 1, 2001, Dr. Piduru examined Patient R.E. and noted a blue-black discoloration on the right lateral aspect of the lower right leg. The physical examination notes stated: "On the right lateral aspect of the leg approximately 6 x 4 cm necrotic, gangrenous patch of skin which appeared to be very fluctuant indicating underlying either abscess or hematoma of necrosis. The foot itself does not appear to be acutely ischemic and appears to be pink and viable." Dr. Piduru recommended hospitalization, excision of the necrotic area, and evaluation for further peripheral vascular disease correction. He also discussed the option of amputation if the leg did not heal. The surgeon noted that Patient R.E. understood the options presented to him, and the risks involved, but that Patient R.E. preferred to pursue another course of chelation therapy rather than undergo the recommended bypass surgery to correct the PVD. On February 5, 2001, Patient R.E. was admitted to the hospital for debridement of the right ankle. While in the hospital, Patient R.E. underwent an angiogram that revealed multiple occlusions of the blood vessels of the right leg. Dr. Piduru recommended bypass surgery, though he estimated the chances of success at around 30 percent. After discussion of all the options, Patient R.E. elected to have his right lower leg amputated. Dr. Piduru agreed that this was a reasonable decision in light of all the known factors. Patient R.E.'s right leg was amputated below the knee on February 12, 2001. In March 2001, Patient R.E. suffered an infection of the stump requiring additional hospitalization for debridement. His health continued to decline due to his multiple medical problems, including pain and peripheral vascular disease. On April 14, 2001, Patient R.E. was again admitted to Oak Hill Hospital with cellulitis of the left foot and the right stump. He declined any invasive procedures to restore circulation to his left leg. Patient R.E. was discharged to a hospice on April 20 and died on April 23, 2001. Dr. Patrick Hennessey, Petitioner's expert, testified that he reviewed all of the pertinent medical records concerning the treatment and care provided by Respondent to Patient R.E. and that based upon his review of these records and based upon his education, training, and experience, it was his opinion to within a reasonable degree of medical probability that Respondent deviated from the accepted standard of care in his treatment and care of Patient R.E., which constituted a violation of Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. Dr. Hennessey also testified that in his opinion, Respondent violated Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, in that he failed to compile appropriate medical records reflecting the treatment and care provided to Patient R.E. Dr. Hennessey's opinion as to the standard of care was based on several criticisms of the examination conducted on January 16, 2001. First, Dr. Hennessey opined that Respondent should have scheduled a follow-up appointment within three days to evaluate Patient R.E.'s clinical response to the prescribed medicines. The quick follow-up was indicated because of Patient R.E.'s advanced age, and because Patient R.E.'s diabetes and peripheral vascular disease could cause the cellulitis to progress rapidly. Dr. Hennessey also noted that peripheral vascular disease can reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics, further indication of the need for a prompt follow-up examination. Dr. Hennessey also believed that a three-day follow-up was necessary to definitively rule out the differential diagnosis of gout, if Respondent seriously believed gout was a possibility. Dr. Hennessey testified that Indocin should have provided relief from gout within three days, and that Levaquin should have stopped any increase in swelling, pain, or size of the affected area if Patient R.E. was suffering from cellulitis. In Dr. Hennessey's opinion, a three-day follow-up appointment would have allowed Respondent to determine whether Patient R.E. was obtaining relief and, if not, to try a different antibiotic regime or pursue other avenues of treatment. Dr. Hennessey also believed that Respondent should have tested Patient R.E.'s blood sugar level on January 16, 2001. Dr. Hennessey testified that diabetes has an impact on a person's ability to fight infection, and that the right antibiotic would be inadequate if the patient had uncontrolled diabetes. Thus, Respondent should have assessed Patient R.E.'s current and recent diabetic controls. Finally, Dr. Hennessey criticized Respondent for failing to give Patient R.E. adequate instructions for monitoring his own progress after the January 16, 2001, appointment. Dr. Hennessey testified that the instructions that the Oak Hill Hospital emergency room provided to Patient R.E. on January 20, 2001, set forth in full above, were precisely the kind of instructions Respondent should have given to Patient R.E. on January 16, 2001. Dr. Hennessey could not say whether the amputation of Patient R.E.'s right leg was inevitable, though he conceded it was likely to occur within a year or two even if his preferred course of treatment had been followed. He concluded that, on January 16, 2001, the correct alternative was to undertake an "aggressive evaluation" and to make the case to Patient R.E. that he should undergo surgical re-vascularization immediately, while the skin was still intact. Dr. Hennessey's "best guess" was that this course could have given Patient R.E. "probably fifty percent or better likelihood" of avoiding amputation, though he also conceded that "there's a lot of unknowns in there." Dr. Hennessey concluded that the time lost between January 16 and February 1, when Patient R.E. was seen by Dr. Piduru, the vascular surgeon, made a successful outcome much less likely. Respondent's expert, Dr. Kent Corral, testified that he reviewed all of the pertinent medical records concerning the treatment and care provided by Respondent to Patient R.E. and that based upon his review of these records and based upon his education, training, and experience, it was his opinion to within a reasonable degree of medical probability that Respondent did not deviate from the accepted standard of care in his treatment and care of Patient R.E. Dr. Corral also testified that in his opinion, Respondent did not violate Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to compile appropriate medical records reflecting the treatment and care provided to Patient R.E. Dr. Corral testified that Respondent's examination of Patient R.E. was within the standard of care. The examination was complaint-driven, directed at the immediate presenting problem, a common and acceptable method employed by nearly all physicians in office practice. Dr. Corral testified that gout versus cellulitis is a very common differential diagnosis, especially in a patient with diabetes. Because there was inflammation of the ankle, peripheral vascular disease would fall very low on the list of possible diagnoses. Had Patient R.E. presented with a cold, necrotic foot, then peripheral vascular disease would have been more likely to be the presenting problem. Respondent knew that Patient R.E. had peripheral vascular disease, and it was apparent from the presenting symptoms that peripheral vascular disease was not the acute problem on January 16, 2001. Dr. Corral agreed that setting a three-day follow-up appointment would have met the standard of care. However, Dr. Corral disagreed that it was necessary to do so. He believed that Respondent reasonably elected not to schedule a three-day follow-up, but to follow up in ten days. Based on the information available on January 16, 2001, it was not unreasonable for Respondent to test the ten-day course of the prescribed antibiotics before scheduling a follow-up appointment. Dr. Corral testified that no laboratory tests were necessary to arrive at the differential diagnosis of gout versus cellulitis. He agreed that there was "potentially" some benefit to be derived from testing Patient R.E.'s blood sugar, but did not agree that Respondent's failure to do so amounted to practice below the standard of care. When Patient R.E.'s blood sugar level was checked in the emergency room on January 20, 2001, it was only slightly elevated. Dr. Corral also disagreed that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care in not giving Patient R.E. instructions on monitoring his own progress. Dr. Corral concluded that instructions would have made no difference. In his opinion, the antibiotic therapy was the only essential treatment to pursue on January 16, 2001. Dr. Corral believed that anything beyond the antibiotics would amount to "a hope and a prayer." In summary, Dr. Corral found the examination adequate and the diagnosis correct. He believed that the criticism of Respondent was due entirely to the poor outcome for Patient R.E., and that the poor outcome was not caused by anything Respondent did or did not do on January 16, 2001. In his own defense, Respondent testified that, prior to the January 16, 2001, appointment, he knew he was dealing with a very difficult patient who had a history of declining surgical intervention to resolve his circulatory problems. Respondent testified that his "first and foremost belief" was that Patient R.E. had cellulitis, and that the only other option, given the presenting symptoms, was an acute attack of gout. The potential for gout led him to prescribe Indocin as well as the antibiotics, because the Indocin would control the pain. Respondent noted that the emergency room physician confirmed his diagnosis of cellulitis on January 20, 2001. Respondent did not chart peripheral vascular disease on January 16, 2001, because that was not the presenting problem. Further, Respondent testified that Patient R.E.'s cellulitis was not necessarily related to peripheral vascular disease. Patient R.E. had several other problems, such as his heavy smoking and his diabetes, that could have generated cellulitis independently of peripheral vascular disease. Respondent disagreed with Dr. Hennessey's suggestion that "aggressive evaluation" and immediate surgery might have saved Patient R.E.'s foot, because it would not be prudent to undertake surgery until the cellulitis infection was cleaned up. Immediate surgery would have the potential of infecting the bypass grafts. On January 16, 2001, Patient R.E.'s foot was not gangrenous, and Respondent believed it essential to give Patient R.E. a reasonable trial of antibiotic therapy before sending him for surgical evaluation. Respondent's opinion on this issue was supported by Dr. Malik Piduru, the vascular surgeon who performed the amputation on Patient R.E.'s right leg. Dr. Piduru testified that in a patient with peripheral vascular disease and a diagnosis of cellulitis with no acute gangrenous changes or acute pain, the standard of care is to treat the infection first, then perform the re-vascularization. The weight of the evidence does not support an ultimate finding that Respondent failed to practice medicine with an acceptable level of care in the treatment of Patient R.E. Dr. Hennessey's conclusion that a more "aggressive evaluation" might have improved the chances of saving Patient R.E.'s leg rests on the assumption that Patient R.E. would have agreed to the proposed surgery had it been recommended on January 16, 2001. Patient R.E. rejected bypass surgery on his left leg before he became Respondent's patient, rejected it again in February 2001, and rejected it a third time in April 2001 when his right leg was threatened by cellulitis. There is little reason to assume that his decision would have been different on January 16, 2001. In view of all the evidence, the expert testimony of Dr. Corral was at least as persuasive as that of Dr. Hennessey in regard to the standard of care and Respondent's actions in this matter. Dr. Hennessey believed that the standard of care required a more aggressive approach to Patient R.E.'s presentation from the outset. Dr. Corral agreed that Dr. Hennessey's approach to the case would have met the standard of care, but also concluded that Respondent's approach was unexceptionable. Further, Dr. Hennessey could state with no degree of confidence that his own approach would have changed the ultimate outcome for Patient R.E. Dr. Hennessey opined that Respondent should have taken a blood sugar level and have given Patient R.E. detailed instructions for self-monitoring similar to those he later received at Oak Hill Hospital. Dr. Corral agreed that a blood sugar level might have been helpful, but was not necessary to meet the standard of care given the presentation and differential diagnosis. Dr. Corral believed that the failure to provide instructions was de minimus at most. Given the facts presented, Dr. Corral's opinion on these issues was at least as persuasive as Dr. Hennessey's. The evidence did not support a finding that Respondent took lightly Patient R.E.'s condition, or failed to consider any of the many variables created by Patient R.E.'s complicated history in arriving at a therapeutic approach. Respondent correctly diagnosed Patient R.E.'s cellulitis, and reasonably decided to attempt a course of antibiotic treatment to heal the infection before pursuing surgical options. The evidence presented at the hearing failed to establish that Patient R.E.'s poor outcome could be fairly attributed to Respondent's treatment of Patient R.E. on January 16, 2001. The main evidence submitted in support of the contention that Respondent failed to keep adequate medical records was directly related to the standard of care claim. Dr. Hennessey conceded that Respondent's medical record was minimally sufficient to justify the treatment provided. His chief criticism of Respondent's records for the January 16, 2001, appointment focused on the lack of documentation to explain actions that Respondent did not take, i.e., set a three- day follow-up appointment, order laboratory tests, and provide detailed instructions to Patient R.E. Because it has been found that the standard of care did not require Respondent to take these actions, his medical records cannot be faulted for failure to explain why he did not take them. However, Dr. Hennessey rightly criticized the lack of examination detail noted in the records of the January 16, 2001, examination. It was established at the hearing that Respondent charted by exception, meaning that he noted only positive findings rather than every unremarkable detail of the examination. Dr. Hennessey noted that, while this method of charting is acceptable practice, it was not acceptable that Respondent provided no description of the size or location of the erythema or the extent of the swelling of the ankle. Such detail would be essential to a subsequent treating physician in determining whether Patient R.E.'s condition had worsened. Further, Respondent did not note the frequency or duration of the Levaquin prescription, or the duration of the Indocin prescription, though Respondent credibly testified that he gave Patient R.E. oral instructions as to both medications. Again, a subsequent treating physician would need to know the details of Patient R.E.'s current medications before undertaking treatment. Finally, Respondent's notes were in several places illegible. Petitioner did establish that Respondent's records failed to document the office notes in a completely legible manner. The detail in Respondent's records was sufficient to justify the course of treatment on January 16, 2001, but their illegibility and lack of detail made them of limited use to anyone other than Respondent in assessing Patient R.E. for subsequent treatment. Patient R.E. was not exposed to potential injury because Respondent was consistently available to consult with the other treating physicians, but this fact does not cure Respondent's failure to keep adequate, legible records.
Recommendation Based on all the evidence of record, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order holding that the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent has violated Subsections 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, in his treatment of Patient R.E., and that the evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent has violated Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, in his failure to keep appropriate written medical records regarding his treatment of Patient R.E. and that Respondent be reprimanded for that violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Campbell, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire Burton, Schulte, Weekley, Hoeler & Beytin, P.A. 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 600 Tampa, Florida 33602 Larry McPherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Board of Medicine (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Lazaro Guerra, is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0029249. Respondent is board-certified in orthopedic medicine. From on or about November 22, 1993 through at least October, 1994, Respondent was the supervising physician for Mariano Martinez, a certified physician's assistant, who was accorded clinical privileges at Coral Gables Hospital, a health care facility located at 3100 Douglas Road, Coral Gables, Florida. On one occasion in or about August 1994, while making a routine floor inspection at the hospital, Jan Bennett, Director of Risk Management at Coral Gables Hospital, observed Mr. Martinez wearing a laboratory coat embroidered "Dr. Mariano Martinez, Orthopedic Surgery." Ms. Bennett also overheard a member of the staff address Mr. Martinez as "doctor," without Mr. Martinez's correcting the staff member. Apart from this isolated occurrence, Mr. Martinez was not otherwise observed to have worn such a coat, or to have been addressed as doctor, and there is no proof that Respondent knew, observed, fostered, or condoned Mr. Martinez's behavior. Following the incident in question, Ms. Bennett looked at medical records on the floor, as well as records for patients that had been discharged, to see if Mr. Martinez's written orders had been countersigned by Respondent (evidencing his review) within seven days. According to Ms. Bennett, she did find medical records that had not been countersigned by Respondent within seven days; however, she did not address the number of occasions she found that Respondent had failed to countersign Mr. Martinez's written orders, and she did not produce or identify any such records at hearing. Indeed, the only proof presumatively offered to address such particulars were Physician's Orders for two patients (identified as Patient 1 and Patient 2), received into evidence (without objection) as Petitioner's Exhibit 4, pages 8-10; however, these records were not further discussed or identified at hearing, and the records for Patient 2 relate to an admission in August 1993, a time Respondent was not shown to have been a supervising physician for Mr. Martinez. Under the circumstances, the proof, at best, supports the conclusion that Respondent failed to countersign Mr. Martinez's written orders regarding one patient (Patient 1), within seven days. With regard to such failure, Respondent observed that he certainly never "knowingly fail[ed] to sign or countersign any written patient medical records that were prepared by Mr. Martinez." Rather, Respondent averred that he had an established procedure whereby he would countersign Mr. Martinez's written orders as they made rounds together, or, if Mr. Martinez made rounds on his own, Respondent would make rounds the next day and countersign Mr. Martinez's orders. If the patient had been discharged in the interim, the patient's records were transferred to the Medical Records Section (from the floor) for storage, and the Medical Records Section had an established protocol whereby the staff would flag (mark) the records that required Respondent's countersignature. With regard to Respondent's failure to countersign Mr. Martinez's orders for Patient 1, there is no (known) explanation; however, as likely an explanation as any other is that the Medical Records Section failed to mark the orders and Respondent, therefore (inadvertently) failed to countersign them.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which finds Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count One of the Administrative Complaint, but which withholds the imposition of any penalty for such violation. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order find Respondent not guilty of the violation alleged in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 24th day of September, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry, pursuant to Sections 20.165, 20.42, and Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes and was not a nominal party to the proceedings. Petitioner, John Allison Rowe, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Rowe), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0009364. Petitioner Rowe, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner, Ralph E. Toombs, D.D.S., (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner Toombs), is a Florida licensed dentist having been issued license number DN-0007026. Petitioner Toombs, at all times material hereto, practiced through a professional service corporation, with principal office in the State of Florida. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each employed less than twenty- five (25) employees at the time this action was initiated. Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs each had a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than two million dollars. In or around 1988, and in or around 1989, Respondent received several complaints from insurance companies concerning Petitioner Rowe's treatment, services, and fees charged to patients through the Central Florida Dental Association and/or other entities. Each insurance company had obtained a review of the services, treatment, and fees charged to the patients and had included that information in their complaint to Respondent. As a result, Respondent began a series of investigations into the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, whose name had appeared as the treating or certifying dentist on all health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patients. The insurance companies alleged that Petitioner Rowe's fees were excessive relative to the customary and usual fees charged for the services, that certain diagnostic tests had been provided to the patients although of questionable medical necessity and acceptance in the dental community, and that certain procedures had been performed in excess of the justified needs of the patient. During the course of the investigation, it became necessary for the Respondent to consult with the Probable Cause Panel on the Board of Dentistry on or about July 12, 1989, and on or about October 13, 1989, to obtain certain patient records without patient authorization. The Probable Cause Panel of July 12, 1989, was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer. Each of the panel members at the July 12, 1989, meeting indicated that they had received and reviewed the Department's investigative materials. The July 12, 1989, panel found-reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of the medical necessity for the treatment provided such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek the patient's records by subpoena. On or about October 13, 1989, the Respondent again consulted with panel members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Orrin Mitchell, D.D.S., and Thomas Kraemer to determine if reasonable cause existed to obtain certain patient records as part of its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. Each of the panel members indicated at the October 13, 1989, meeting that he had received and reviewed the investigative materials presented by the Respondent. The October 13, 1989, panel found reasonable cause to believe that there was a question of medical necessity for the treatment provided to the patient such that Petitioner Rowe had practiced below prevailing standards and authorized the Department pursuant to Section 455.241(2), Florida Statutes, to seek patients' records by subpoena. Following completion of its investigation, on or about April 10, 1991, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.W. DBPR Case No. 01-11379 Count II patient E.M. DBPR Case No. 89-02166 Count III patient J.T. DBPR Case No. 89-13187 Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR Case No. 89-02167 Count V patient M.R.V. DBPR Case No. 89-02372 Respondent alleged in the April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.W. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; and Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Patient E.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient J.T. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.Z. (Count IV) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient M.R.V. (Count V) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (Ex-A pgs. 1-18). The April 10, 1991 Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990 Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990 panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel separately took up each investigative report but recommended that the Department consider consolidation of the charges into a single filed administrative complaint The Panel members felt very strongly about the charges as revealed by the investigative reports and consultant's opinions, and in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, the panel recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek and expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, September 11, 1990, September 17, 1990, and September 18, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. As had the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel, Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. The November 2, 1990, panel, composed of the same membership as the June 4, 1990, meeting, expressed similar concerns regarding Petitioner Rowe and an apparent lack of concern for treatment effectiveness. Panel member Robert Ferris, D.D.S. expressed praise for Dr. Lilly's reports noting that they were "excellent." The panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinion. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly found that in some cases diagnostic services had been billed twice on the same day although it was customary in the profession to perform the services in one session, that services had been billed which had not been provided to the patients, records were inadequate to justify those services provided, that treatment was provided without appropriate use of diagnostic information, orthotic devices were mischaracterized as surgical devices, fees greatly exceeded the usual and customary charges for certain services, questionable use of arthrogram studies was employed by Petitioner Rowe, certain other diagnostic studies conducted on the patients were of questionable medical necessity, and Petitioner Rowe had misdiagnosed a patient's condition. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent initiated a second action against Petitioner Rowe, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. Each count of the July 24, 2991 Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Rowe represented a separate Department investigation and a separate case number was assigned to each investigation by Respondent as follows: Count I patient H.D. DBPR Case No. 01-11377 Count II patient R.M. DBPR Case No. 01-11378 Count III patient S.R. DBPR Case No. 01-12140 Respondent alleged in the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint that Petitioner Rowe committed the following violations with respect to each patient: Patient H.D. (Count I) Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence over the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party: Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry or dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Patient R.M. (Count II) Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes, by having engaged in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry of dental hygiene. Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Patient S.R. (Count III) Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; and Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the April 10, 1991, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry. The panel was composed of members Donald Cadle, D.M.D., William Robinson, D.D.S., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the April 10, 1991, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the three investigative reports together and recommended that the Department file charges as a single filed administrative complaint. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek revocation of licensure in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the April 27, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 27, 1990, the department presented the investigative reports to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The Panel expressed concerns about Petitioner Rowe's statements regarding the billing practices at the dental practice and the justification for his treatment and the fees charged for the services. The Panel found that expert review was necessary. On or about December 13, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative reports to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about February 21, 1991, February 27, 1991, and February 28, 1991, Dr. Lilly issued individual detailed reports from review of the investigative materials again noting several areas of concern with each patient's treatment and the billing associated with that treatment. Dr. Lilly again noted that Petitioner Rowe seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and services. Dr. Lilly noted that, despite the verification of completeness of records executed by the records custodian and obtained during the investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe, certain patient records and billing information were clearly missing from some patient files. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendations, the April 10, 1991, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. The investigative reports revealed that Petitioner Rowe delegated responsibility for patient billing to the staff of the dental practice, that he did not see the bills before they were submitted to the insurance carriers or the patients, and that he had given staff the authority to sign the claim forms on his behalf or had signed blank insurance claim forms for use by the staff. Dr. Lilly's findings from review of DBPR Case Numbers 01-11377, 01- 11378 and 01-12140 were not dissimilar from those found in reviewing other investigative reports concerning Petitioner. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Rowe was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patients, Petitioner Rowe, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about December 20, 1990, Respondent initiated an action against Petitioner Toombs, within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(b)(3), Florida Statutes, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint against his license to practice dentistry. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs concerned allegations filed by patient J.T., who had also filed a similar complaint against Petitioner Rowe. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disclaimed any knowledge about the care and treatment J.T. had received from them. Petitioner Toombs claimed that Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Frank Murray were responsible for setting the fees charged for services. Petitioner Toombs claimed that he was aware excessive charges had been incurred by some patients who had seen Petitioner Rowe and that the dental practice was aware of the problem and had ignored the problem. Respondent's investigation of Petitioner Toombs was coordinated with its investigation of Petitioner Rowe. In the Administrative Complaint filed December 20, 1990, Respondent alleged that Petitioner Toombs committed the following violations: Patient J.T. Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes, by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes, by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for the financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep written dental records and medical history records justifying the course of treatment of the patient. The December 20, 1990, Administrative Complaint was filed at the direction of the November 2, 1990, Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry, which had also considered the investigative materials for Petitioner Rowe. The panel was composed of members Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. The investigative reports, including the consultant's opinion for each report, were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting, with the Department's recommendation that an administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Toombs. Each panel member acknowledged that he had received the investigative materials and that he had reviewed the materials that were on the agenda for the November 2, 1990, panel meeting. After brief discussion and receipt of the advice of counsel, the Panel considered the investigative report and recommended that the Department file and administrative complaint against Petitioner Toombs. The Panel members in accordance with Section 466.028(7), Florida Statutes, recommended that the Department seek a suspension, probation, and fine in the disciplinary proceeding. Prior to presentation of the investigative reports for a determination of probable cause, the Department obtained the assistance of Howard L. Lilly, Jr., D.D.S., M.S. to provide an expert opinion of the materials gathered during the investigation. The Department's decision to seek an expert opinion was done with the concurrence of the June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel and pursuant to Section 455.203(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 21-1.012, Florida Administrative Code. On or about June 4, 1990, the Department presented the investigative report to the Probable Cause Panel composed of Robert Ferris, D.D.S., Donald Cadle, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson for purpose of determining the need for expert review. The June 4, 1990, Probable Cause Panel expressed specific concerns about the billing practices and on the care provided to the patient, i.e., the immediate seeking of oral surgery prior to excluding the use of less invasive techniques. The Panel found that expert review as necessary. On or about July 18, 1990, Respondent forwarded the investigative report for Petitioner Toombs, as well as the reports for Petitioner Rowe, to Howard Lilly, D.D.S., M.S., for his review and opinion. On or about August 29, 1990, Dr. Lilly issued his report from review of the investigative materials noting several areas of concern with patient J.T.'s treatment and the billing associated with treatment. Dr. Lilly noted that Petitioner Toombs seemed to disclaim any responsibility for what was taking place in the dental practice, particularly with respect to patient billing and the fees charged for patient treatment and service. Despite lack of detailed discussion about the Department's recommendation for Petitioner Toombs, the November 2, 1990, panel's findings were supported by the investigative reports which contained at least patient records and billing records certified as complete by the records custodian, interviews and statements of Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs, interview and statements from the patient J.T., interview and statements from Frank Murray, D.D.S., recorded statements from a meeting between Petitioner Rowe and Dr. Murray over alleged embezzled funds, and Dr. Lilly's consultant opinions. Respondent's investigation of the allegations against Petitioner Toombs was extensive and included information gathering and interviews with the patient, Petitioner Rowe, Petitioner Toombs, subsequent providers, Frank Murray, D.D.S., and others. On or about July 24, 1991, Respondent amended the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner Toombs without substantially altering the alleged violations committed by Petitioner Toombs. In each case, Respondent was required by Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, to file the administrative complaints at the direction of the Probable Cause Panel for the Board of Dentistry and prosecute the administrative complaints against the Petitioners according to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Both Petitioner Rowe and Petitioner Toombs disputed the allegations of the administrative complaints and the cases were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal hearing. Petitioner Rowe, without objection from Respondent, sought consolidation of DOAH Case Number 91-03213, representing the charges of the April 10, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him, with DOAH Case Number 91- 6022, representing the charges of the July 24, 1991, Administrative Complaint against him. Petitioner Rowe's cases were consolidated into a single proceeding on or about October 2, 1991. On or about October 18, 1991, this Hearing Officer entered an Order to Show Cause why Petitioner Toombs' case should not be heard concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. Respondent did not object to hearing the cases concurrently and an Order was issued on November 4, 1991, setting Petitioner Toombs case for hearing concurrently with Petitioner Rowe's consolidated cases. On or about November 4, 1991, Respondent with the full agreement and consent of Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, requested consolidation of the then existing two proceedings. On or about November 18, 1991, the proceedings against Petitioners Rowe and Toombs were consolidated into a single action by Order of this Hearing Officer. During discovery, Petitioner Rowe obtained the original patient records for the eight patients at issue in the consolidated proceeding from Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe provided the Respondent with copies of the records he had obtained in discovery. Counsel for Petitioner Rowe found that approximately 426 pages of records were then contained in the files of Dr. Murray and/or the Central Florida Dental Association, which had not been previously provided to the Respondent despite certification that the records provided to Respondent were complete. The majority of the records obtained by Petitioner Rowe, subsequent to the original finding of probable causes, were records of billing information not previously contained in the patient records. Based on the additional records, Petitioner Rowe and the Respondent moved this Hearing Officer to permit Respondent to amend the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe, which request was granted by this Hearing Officer. On or about April 9, 1992, Respondent conferred with the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Dentistry for the purpose of amending the administrative complaints against Petitioner Rowe. The April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel was composed of members William Robinson, D.D.S., Faustino Garcia, D.M.D., and Robert Hudson. Prior to presentation of the proposed amended administrative complaint to the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, Respondent obtained the assistance of Reda A. Abdel-Fattah, D.D.S. in evaluating the patient records and in the drafting of the amended complaint. Prior to the Panel's consideration of the investigative materials, the Respondent obtained from Petitioner Rowe approximately 426 additional pages from the patient records of the Central Florida Dental Association and/or Dr. Murray and received additional records and information through supplemental investigation. Before directing that an amended administrative complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe, the panel members at the April 9, 1992, meeting indicated that he had received the investigative materials and reviewed the materials along with the Department's recommendation to amend the complaint. Following receipt of the material and after having the opportunity to inquire of counsel, the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel directed that the proposed Amended Administrative Complaint be filed against Petitioner Rowe. The Amended Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner Rowe, at the direction of the April 9, 1992, Probable Cause Panel, on or about April 22, 1992, and alleged the following violations: Count I Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes by having had a license to practice dentistry acted against by the licensing authority of another state; and/or Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes by having failed to report to the Board, in writing, within 30 days if action has been taken against one's license to practice dentistry in another state. Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1978) by making deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry, Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of Section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonable calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 89-13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint was based on records obtained from the Tennessee Board of Dentistry and had not been previously charged as a violation in this proceeding. Panel Member Donald Cadle, D.M.D., had originally requested in the meeting of April 27, 1990, that the Department included findings as to the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe in its expert review as possible violation of Section 466.0268(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. Dr. Cadle withdrew his request, after discussion with Panel Member Robert Ferris, D.D.S., finding that the previous disciplinary action was too remote in time for the statute to be applicable in Petitioner Rowe's case. The Probable Cause Panel of April 9, 1992, revisited the issue of the Tennessee Board of Dentistry's discipline of Petitioner Rowe and found that it should be included in the current disciplinary proceeding as part of the amended complaint. The panel failed to recognize the effective date of Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes. After considering the additional records provided by Petitioner Rowe and the records obtained in supplemental investigation, the Amended Administrative Complaint dropped the previous allegations that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes by failing to keep adequate written records for each patient. The remaining allegations of the original administrative complaints filed against Petitioner Rowe were included in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the following additional allegations were made for each patient: Count II patient H.W. DBPR No. 01-11379, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Section 466.028(1)(l), Florida Statutes (1987) by making deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representations in the practice of dentistry. Count III patient E.M. DBPR No. 89-02166, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count IV patient M.Z. DBPR No. 89-02167, DOAH No. 91-03213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry. Count V patient R.P.V. [sic, M.R.V.] DBPR No. 89-2372, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(bb), Florida Statutes (1987) through violation of section 766.111, Florida Statutes by ordering, procuring, providing, or administering unnecessary diagnostic tests, which are not reasonably calculated to assist the health care provider in arriving at a diagnosis and treatment of the patient's condition; and Count VI patient H.D. DBPR No. 01-11377, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes (1987) by being guilty of incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standard of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance; and Count VII patient R.M. DBPR No. 01-11378, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987) by making or filing a report which the licensee knows to be false; Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1987) by exercising influence on the patient in such a manner as to exploit the patient for financial gain of the licensee or a third party; Count VIII patient S.R. DBPR No. 01-12140, DOAH No. 91-6022 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Count IX patient J.T. DBPR No. 13187, DOAH No. 91-3213 Section 466.028(1)(u), Florida Statutes (1987) by engaging in fraud, deceit, or misconduct in the practice of dentistry; Section 466.028(1)(jj), Florida Statutes was added as a disciplinary provision for the Board of Dentistry effective July 6, 1990, pursuant to Section 3, Chapter 90-341, Laws of Florida (1990). Section 466.028(1)(n), Florida Statutes was repealed effective April 8, 1992, pursuant to Section 6, Chapter 92-178 Laws of Florida (1992). A formal hearing was held on the charges of the Amended Administrative Complaints beginning on or about November 9, 1992, and ending on or about November 13, 1992. As sanction for his non-compliance with prehearing discovery, Petitioner Toombs was limited at the formal hearing to the cross-examination of witnesses and the ability to object to evidence but was not permitted to call witnesses or enter evidence on his behalf. At the formal hearing, the patient records were found to be inherently unreliable and untrustworthy as evidence, due to the inconsistencies found to then exist in the patient records. At the formal hearing, it was established that Frank Murray, D.D.S. had custody and control of the patient records and that he had full control over patient billing and the fees charged for the treatment or services rendered through the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients who were the subject of the administrative complaints and amended administrative complaints, Petitioner Rowe was an employee and a shareholder of the Central Florida Dental Association. At the time that Petitioner Rowe provided treatment or services to the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding, Frank Murray, D.D.S. made all operational decisions affecting the clinic and its patients. Petitioner Toombs was an associate dentist working for the Central Florida Dental Association and was not a shareholder of the clinic. At the time these cases were investigated, Respondent permitted individuals from whom patient records were sought to copy those records and provide the records to Respondent with an executed verification of completeness of records. For each patient who was the subject of the Respondent's investigation, an employee of the Central Florida Dental Association copied the patient records and submitted the records to the Respondent's investigator with a verification of completeness of records. There was no reason for the investigator to question the accuracy of the executed verification of completeness of records and the patient records appeared generally consistent across patient files. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action finding that Petitioner Rowe had violated Section 466.028(1)(b), Florida Statutes. On or about January 11, 1994, the Board of Dentistry entered a Final Order in the consolidated action dismissing all charges against Petitioner Toombs and the remaining charges against Petitioner Rowe. At the time services were provided to the patients by Petitioners Rowe and Toombs, Section 466.018, Florida Statutes, required that there be a dentist of record identified in the patient record. Section 466.018, Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the dentist of record was presumed responsible for the patient's care and treatment unless otherwise noted in the record. The records maintained for each of the patients at issue in the underlying disciplinary proceeding revealed that either no dentist of record had been charted or that Petitioner Rowe was the treating dentist of record as indicated by the patient medical history form and the health insurance claim forms submitted on behalf of the patient. Absent the identification of the dentist of record in the chart, Section 466.018(2), Florida Statutes (1987) provided that the owner of the dental practice was the dentist of record for the patient, in this case, Frank Murray, D.D.S., Petitioner Rowe, and the other shareholders of the dental practice. Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes provided that a dentist of record could be relieved of his/her responsibility to maintain dental records by transferring records to the owner dentist and maintaining a list of all records transferred. There was no evidence presented during the investigation of the underlying disciplinary proceeding or offered at formal hearing to demonstrate that either Petitioner Rowe or Petitioner Toombs had complied with Section 466.018(4), Florida Statutes in transferring patient records to Frank Murray, D.D.S. or the Central Florida Dental Association, i.e., a written statement signed by dentist of record, the owner of the practice, and two witnesses, that listed the date and the records transferred to either Frank Murray, D.D.S. or Central Florida Dental Association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, ORDERED: That Petitioners' requests for award of attorney's fees and costs are DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARK CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S. Adopted in Paragraph 1. & 3. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in part in Paragraph 64. The charges with regard to influence for financial gain were included in the amended complaint. & 6. Rejected as immaterial. The panel explained in an earlier meeting that its real concern was with the exercise of influence for financial gain. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in Paragraph 54. Rejected as argument that is not supported by the record or immaterial. Adopted in conclusions of law, as to section 57.111, but rejected-as immaterial as to section 120.59(6)(a), F.S. since the agency is not a "nonprevailing party". Adopted in conclusions of law. This finding is, however, disputed by Respondent. Adopted in Paragraphs 2 and 3. Adopted in Paragraph 4 14.-16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 17.-19. Rejected as unnecessary, given the conclusion that the complaints were "substantially justified" at the time they were filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0765 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 George Stuart, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Brooten, Jr., Esquire 660 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Jon M. Pellett, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 458.331(1)(t) and 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1995), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate discipline to impose.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of medicine in Florida, pursuant to Section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has contracted with the Agency for Health Care Administration to provide consumer complaint, investigative, and prosecutorial services required by the Division of Medical Quality Assurance pursuant to Section 20.43(3), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. ME0053370, and is board- certified in orthopedic surgery. Respondent's medical license has never previously been subject to discipline. The Injury and Treatment On March 3, 1995, Patient D.L., then aged 76, fell off a curb and injured her face and right wrist. She presented to the emergency room at Columbia Northside Medical Center in St. Petersburg, Florida, with severe contusions to her face and an aching wrist. Patient D.L. was evaluated by the emergency room physician, who documented the pertinent medical information, including the physical findings, results of diagnostic x-rays taken of Patient D.L.'s wrist, and the recommended treatment plan. She was diagnosed by the emergency room physician as having severe contusions to her face and a wrist fracture, commonly known as a Colles fracture. The physician applied an air splint to Patient D.L.'s arm, ordered a consult with an orthopedic physician to evaluate it, and admitted her into the hospital for observation. The admitting physician documented an admission note on March 3, 1995, noting a history and physical examination, findings, diagnosis, and treatment plan. At 2:00 on the following day, Respondent and his physician's assistant, Paul Russo, examined Patient D.L., pursuant to the consult order and diagnosed her as having a "comminuted, impacted, slightly shortened distal radius fracture with minimal angulation; will need a short arm cast." No further written report of Respondent's initial evaluation or diagnosis exists. On March 6, 1995, Patient D.L. purportedly was experiencing some hallucinations and exhibiting psychotic behaviors, and was ordered to remain admitted to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Respondent was not advised of her condition. Respondent admits that he currently has no specific recollection of Patient D.L. Respondent had a general policy of discussing his findings and diagnosis with his patient, as well as the various treatment options available; however, Patient D.L.'s chart does not reflect such a discussion. Notwithstanding Respondent's written diagnosis calling for a short-arm cast, Respondent placed her wrist in a long-arm cast. While Respondent explains that the long-arm cast was necessary to restrict and limit certain movements of Patient D.L.'s arm, there is no information within Patient D.L.'s chart noting the event or the modification rationale. Respondent explains that it is his policy to instruct each of his patients to follow-up with an appointment in his office within a week to ten days. However, it is clear that Patient D.L.'s chart does not reflect any communication or instructions. Respondent explained that he and his physician's assistant regularly documented various activities in the hospital chart's progress notes as a matter of policy, including the evaluation, findings, diagnosis, and disposition. It is clear, however, that Patient D.L.'s hospital chart contains no written notes made by Respondent relating to her history, physical examination, or disposition. On March 8, 1995, Patient D.L. was discharged to a nursing home with an order by the attending physician to follow- up with Respondent in two weeks. Two weeks later, on March 22, 1995, Patient D.L. presented to Respondent's office for a follow-up appointment. Upon arrival, Patient D.L. completed paperwork, including a Patient Medical Questionnaire, and was evaluated. Respondent's typed progress note indicates that Patient D.L. had extensive arthritis throughout her hand with very limited range of motion of her fingers. There is no patient history or physical in Respondent's note. On that same day, Respondent ordered and reviewed x-rays of Patient D.L.'s wrist which revealed that the fracture had remained in satisfactory position, with essentially neutral angulation of the lateral view and some shortening on the AP view. Respondent's note indicates that he removed Patient D.L.'s long-arm cast and placed her in a short-arm cast. The note indicates that Respondent instructed Patient D.L. to wear the cast for an additional three to four weeks; and thereafter, would likely require splinting and therapy. Respondent was advised that Patient D.L. was relocating to Fort Lauderdale, and Respondent instructed her to seek treatment there. Although Respondent explains that Patient D.L. would have likely been given the x-rays to take to the next orthopedic surgeon, the medical records do not indicate that Patient D.L. received them. On April 4, 1995, Patient D.L. presented to Lewis Eastlick, M.D., in Plantation, Florida. Dr. Eastlick noted that an abutment of the ulna was displaced which caused marked shortening of the radius and resulted in a permanent deformity of Patient D.L.'s wrist. Dr. Eastlick referred Patient D.L. to physical therapy. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's medical records for Patient D.L. were inadequate. Respondent did not sufficiently document, in writing, his evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and patient communication. The testimony provided by Petitioner's experts, relating to documentation, was reasonable and credible. The testimony provided by Respondent's expert, Dr. Wasylik, relating to record keeping was less credible, given the available physical evidence. While Dr. Wasylik opined that Respondent's hospital progress note dated March 4, 1995, and the office record dated March 22, 1995, contain sufficient information regarding Patient D.L.'s condition and Respondent's evaluations and treatment plans, his conclusion was not supported by the evidence. Furthermore, Respondent's suggestion that Patient D.L.'s dictation notes may have been lost by the transcription service lacks credence. Although it is clear that Respondent deficiently memorialized certain information, Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's casting treatment of Patient D.L. fell below the applicable standard of care. In fact, one of Petitioner's own experts, Dr. Averbuch, agrees with Respondent's expert that casting Patient D.L.'s fractured wrist was more appropriate than utilizing more aggressive treatment via an external fixation or open reduction with internal fixation. The experts conclude that the fracture was non-displaced and impacted and in good position, making it more stable and more appropriate for casting. Respondent adhered to the standard of care in treating Patient D.L.'s fractured wrist by placing it in a cast. In addition, Petitioner did not demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent's follow-up care fell below the applicable standard of care. Although it is established that Respondent did not see Patient D.L. until eighteen days after the initial setting of her fracture, the evidence is clear that Respondent regularly requested patients to follow up in his office within one week to ten days. Despite the fact that Petitioner's experts opine that Respondent should have seen Patient D.L. sooner, it is important to note that Patient D.L. was specifically instructed in writing by her attending physician, upon her discharge from the hospital on March 8, 1995, to follow up with Respondent in 14 days, which she did. There is no evidence that Respondent was made aware of Patient D.L.'s new psychiatric condition and extended hospitalization nor that he should have inquired. Patient D.L. was admitted on March 3, 1995, for observation only, treated by the Respondent on March 4, 1995, and formally admitted for mental examination on March 6, 1995. Patient D.L.'s mental status was not at issue until March 6, 1995, two days after Respondent placed her arm in a cast.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Medicine, enter a Final Order finding that Respondent, Clinton Bertrand Davis, M.D.: DID violate Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1995), and is ordered to pay a $5,000.00 fine, to be paid within 30 days, and undergo ten hours of Continuing Medical Education related to medical records documentation within 90 days; and DID NOT violate Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 8th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Lake, Esquire Department of Health Prosecutorial Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Christopher J. Schulte, Esquire Burton, Schulte, Weekley, Hoeler & Beytin, P.A. 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 600 Tampa, Florida 33602 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Larry Mcpherson, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department Of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Should discipline be imposed against Respondent's license to practice medicine for violation of Section 458.331(1)(m) and (t), Florida Statutes (2005)?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: Petitioner is the state department charged with the regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to Chapter 20.43, Florida Statutes; Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is John B. Milton, M.D. Respondent is a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida having been issued license ME 53961. Respondent's mailing address of record is 4702 Van Kleeck Drive, New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32169. Additional Facts: Hospital Records (Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 1) On December 31, 2005, Patient W.C. came to the Bert Fish Medical Center (Bert Fish) in New Smyrna Beach, Florida, at 1:40 a.m. He was 40 years old at the time. He was seen in the Emergency Department at Bert Fish. Triage of the patient took place at 1:43 a.m. The triage record reports that he walked in to the hospital complaining of his throat swelling and difficulty breathing. The record reflects that the patient was experiencing pain of an intensity level seven (7) in his throat. At the time his blood pressure was 153/83. His pulse rate was 88. His respirations were 20. His temperature was 98.2. His 02 sat. was 99. In the heading within the Emergency Department Triage Record, statement of "Previous Surgery/Other Medical Hx (referring to history)" it states "allergic reaction to birds with throat swelling, " According to the Emergency Department triage nursing notes Patient W.C. was first seen by Respondent at 1:55 a.m. on the aforementioned date. Respondent was serving in the capacity of emergency room physician at Bert Fish at the time. Among the nursing note entries in the Emergency Department triage record for Patient W.C. are handwritten nursing notes that state: At 2:05 Rocephin was given; at 2:20 a.m. pt. (patient) states throat closing saO2 98%; at 2:25 a.m. pt. (patient) tubed by Dr. Milton- placement checked tube pulled-(pt.) patient vent 100% O2 via ambu; at 2:31 a.m. crick. (cricothyroidotomy) by Dr. Milton tube inserted 100% 02; at 2:35 a.m. H/R 40's - atropine; at 2:37 a.m. b/p 213/90 P-87 Dr. Milton attempting crick 0249 epi 1 mg IV; at 2:41 a.m. Dr. Schreiber here; at 2:43 pt. (patient) tubed by Dr. Schreiber s/r 0 pulses and at 2:54 a.m. code called by Dr. Milton. The Bert Fish Emergency Physician Record refers to Patient W.C.'s chief complaint as "shortness of breath." It states "pt (patient) seems to have acute severe pharyngitis and difficulty breathing and mild stridor at rest." The degree of the condition is further described in the record as "moderate." An associated symptom is listed under "Pulmonary," as "cough." It is noted in this record that the patient is experiencing a "sore throat." The Emergency Physician Record under the "Social Hx (history)," notes that the Patient W.C. was a "smoker" and occasionally used "alcohol." No reference is made to the use of any other form of drugs. On the patient chart describing a physical exam performed on the patient, the categories of "alert" and "anxious" are checked. The level of distress is described as "NAD." There is a reference to "pharyngeal erythema," associated with that entry a handwritten note states "mild stridor at rest." A reference is made to "lymphadenopathy" both right and left "mild." There was no "respiratory distress" and "breath sounds nml (normal);" Again the condition "stridor" is noted while the patient is "at rest." "CVS" is noted as regular rate rhythm with "no JVD." On the same page as discussed in the preceding paragraph, within the patient record maintained by Bert Fish, under "clinical impression," Respondent notes several things in the overall experience in treating the patient. They are in turn: acute severe pharyngitis/epiglottitis; emergency cricothroidotomy cardio pulmonary arrest and ER death. These entries reflect events at the end of the case. The medication administration record at Bert Fish in relation to Patient W.C. notes administration of Decadron (a steroid) at 2 a.m.; Solu-cortef (a steroid) at 2:02 a.m.; Rocephin (an antibiotic) at 2:05 a.m.; Versed (a sedative) at 2:20 a.m. and Anectine (a paralytic agent) at 2:25 a.m. A separate set of entries is made in the Code Blue Record at Bert Fish, noting the administration of Epinephrine, and Atropine during the Code Blue response prior to Patient W.C.'s death due to his cyanotic condition (lack of oxygen). Nurse's notes on the Code Blue Record for Patient W.C. maintained by Bert Fish state: Upon me entering the room Dr. Milton was doing CPR on pt. Dr. Schreiber, Dr. Milton and the ER staff attending to pt. ER staff busy. I started scribing for them. Note pt. was in PRA throughout the code. Pt. was given 3 ep. & 3 atoprine total = (-)response. Respondent signed the Code Blue Record as physician. The ER Physician's Order Sheet, as signed by Respondent concerning Patient W.C., in a shorthand reference, describes orders for nebulized racemic Epinephrine, which is an aerosol adrenaline agent, together with the Solu-cortef, Decadron and Rocephin. In the records maintained by Bert Fish concerning Patient W.C., there is a handwritten note made by Respondent at 3:35 a.m., on December 31, 2005, following Patient W.C.'s death, which says: S/P IV steroids, Racemic epinephrine PT continued to c/o "getting worse" "can't breath." At times his respirations were gasping. .. I discussed with him fact the he may require intubation & he understood. PT placed in TRI and preparation made for intubation. PT had secure IV site, Respiratory TX in Room to assist. S/P preoxygenation 1HR> 80 PT had IV Versed and Anectine to facilitate intubation. The laryngoscope revealed a massive "beefy" appearance of the epiglottis. Attempted X 2 E 8.0 & 7.5 ET to secure an airway but Ø success. PT had attempts to ventilate E BVM? Ø air movement. PT cyanotic @ this point so a scalpel was used to attempt a crichothyroidotomy. When a ETT was passed thru the incision however attempts to ventilate were again unsuccessful. Dr. Schreiber (gen surgery) had been paged and he responded. He was able to place a ETT in the airway but by now PT had arrested. Monitor-bradycardia at this time ACLS measures were undertaken and PT given repeated doses of atropine/epinephrine/CPR-> ventilated E BVM. PT continued to have Ø response to proper ALS measurers and Resus efforts stopped @ 0254. Patient Care Explained Nurse Haas William Haas, R.N., was working at Bert Fish on the early morning that Patient W.C. was seen. Nurse Haas first saw the patient around 1:55 a.m. He hooked the patient up to a monitor and took his vital signs. None of the readings were considered by the nurse to be abnormal. Those readings were blood pressure 153/83, heart rate 88, respirations 20, temperature 98.2. and O2 sat. 99%. Patient W.C. was taken into treatment room 16 and was seen by Respondent and nurse Haas. Nurse Haas asked Respondent what Respondent thought was wrong with the patient. Orders were given by the Respondent for 8 mg. of Decadron and 100 mg. of Solu-cortef IV. The purpose of these medicines was to reduce inflammation. Both medications were steroids designed for that purpose. At that time Respondent gave an order for the antibiotic Rocephin. Respondent also wanted a racemic Epinephrine treatment. That treatment was to be provided by the respiratory therapist. When nurse Haas first saw the patient, the patient was complaining about difficulty breathing. Nurse Haas did not observe any manifestation of those difficulties. At one point the patient told nurse Haas that he, the patient, was experiencing an allergic reaction to feathers or birds. The patient told nurse Haas by way of history that it happened to him in the past. (None of this was true. He had no allergy to birds. The patient's deception was never discovered by the hospital treatment team, and they all proceeded on the basis that the patient had a bird allergy.) On the evening before arriving at the hospital, the patient explained to nurse Haas that he went to bed about 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. and woke up around 1:00 a.m. with a raspy feeling in his throat and he felt like his throat was closing up. So he came to the emergency room for care. After attending to the patient in treatment room 16, nurse Haas left the presence of the patient. He next saw the patient standing in treatment room 17 talking on the phone. This was around 2:20 a.m. The patient was again placed on a monitor to track his vital signs. Nothing about those vital signs appeared abnormal. At that time Mary Boothe, R.N., told nurse Haas that the patient was going to be intubated. Nurse Haas inquired of Respondent on the subject, and Respondent told nurse Haas that the patient wanted to be intubated and to get ready to perform the intubation. The procedure for intubation that was being utilized by Respondent is referred to as rapid sequence intubation or RSI. Nurse Haas retrieved Anectine and Versed to be administered in the intubation. The patient was told about the procedure for intubation. The patient was laid down. Nurse Haas gave the patient Versed and Anectine. The Versed was designed to, as nurse Haas describes it, "muddle the mind." The Anectine was an agent that would promote paralysis in the area where the intubation would occur. When in treatment room 17, at around 2:20 a.m., the patient said to nurse Haas that the patient felt that his throat was closing. Those remarks were made when the patient was being hooked up to the monitor to measure his vital signs. This was the second time that the patient had mentioned his throat closing. He had made similar remarks when nurse Haas first saw him in treatment room 16. Steve Igrec, R.T., participated in the intubation procedure in addition to nurse Haas, nurse Boothe and Respondent. Prior to the laryngoscope being introduced in the intubation procedure, nurse Haas did not notice any sharp decline in Patient W.C.'s vital signs. When Respondent accessed the airway for Patient W.C., nurse Haas heard Respondent say, "Oh, he's got epiglottitis," while proceeding further with the intubation. Respondent was unable to intubate and removed the ET tube. Another tube was used to try and intubate, again without success. Nurse Boothe Nurse Boothe first encountered Patient W.C. after he had undergone his racemic Epinephrine treatment. He came out of the treatment room and told her that he did not feel that the treatment had worked. Respondent came by and the nurse repeated what the patient had told her. Nurse Boothe did not notice anything about the patient that made her believe that he was having difficulty breathing. He coughed and told her, "Can you hear it?" but he was not gasping for air, nor making gestures about his chest or throat. Respondent then offered the patient the option of being admitted to the hospital and continuing treatments by steroids to address his condition or putting him on a ventilator and letting him have the treatments through the ventilator. The patient elected the latter option. The ventilator option would allow the patient to be released the next day. The patient was told by Respondent that he would "knock him out" and put the tube in and give the patient the medication that way and that the patient's release would come the next day. Nurse Boothe did not hear the Respondent make any mention to the effect of what might happen if there were difficulties in intubating the patient. The attempted intubation was made in the treatment room 17, which is also referred to as CC-1. The patient walked into the room. Once in the room nurse Boothe did not notice anything about the patient that indicated any difficulty breathing. The patient did mention that he was not feeling any better. Nurse Boothe overheard the patient talking on the telephone. On his end of the conversation he told his wife that he did not feel any better and that they were going to "knock him out" and put him on a breathing machine overnight and that he would see her the following day. Nurse Boothe noticed that as the attempted intubation proceeded, the patient began to have trouble with the intubation. The equipment that was in the room for those purposes included the laryngoscope, the intubation tube, and a stylet. Before the tube was introduced the patient was being ventilated with a bag and mask. When difficulties arose concerning the intubation, nurse Boothe left the treatment room to get a scalpel and to get what is referred to as a "cric" kit. That kit is a set-up that has been assembled to aid in providing emergency access to the trachea. The kit is not kept in treatment room 17. It was kept in another room on a respiratory cart. Nurse Boothe observed Respondent utilize the scalpel and the "cric." After the Respondent experienced difficulties in this effort, the on-call surgeon was contacted by a secretary at the hospital. The Surgeon Arrives On December 31, 2005, Dr. Schreiber was the on-call surgeon at Bert Fish. When he was paged by the hospital, he called and was told that he needed to go immediately to the emergency room because of an airway problem. He received the call at approximately 2:30 a.m. He arrived at the hospital at 2:41 a.m. Once at the hospital Dr. Schreiber, took over and performed surgery, insertion of the endotracheal tube, thereby ventilating the patient. That procedure by Dr. Schreiber was quickly performed. Mr. Igrec Mr. Igrec administered the racemic Epinephrine treatment to Patient W.C. Prior to providing the treatment Mr. Igrec visibly examined the patient to see if the patient was using assessory muscles to breathe or if he had any stridor, any wheezing or anything of that nature. He did not observe the patient using any assessory muscles to breathe. He did not notice the patient evidencing stridor, that is to say a high- pitched sound that is made when a person experiences upper airway obstruction. Mr. Igrec provided two of the treatments to Patient W.C. Before the second treatment, he visibly examined Patient W.C. and did not notice the patient having difficulty breathing. Sometime during the course of the treatment, near the end, the patient asked the question, "How long is this going to take to work?" Mr. Igrec told the patient to give it time. The patient appeared anxious. He did not appear short of breath. Mr. Igrec reported to Respondent that he had provided Patient W.C. the second treatment. Following the second treatment, Mr. Igrec suggested to Respondent the use of Decadron to aerosolize Patient W.C. The racemic Epinephrine is a short- acting drug, and Decadron is a steroid that takes longer to work. In response, the Respondent told Mr. Igrec "We may have to intubate." Mr. Igrec was called to treatment room 17 where Respondent told him that they were going to intubate Patient W.C. In preparation, an ambu-bag, mask, intubation tube, pressure cuff, stylet and strap were retrieved. The cuff was used to keep the intubation tube in place during the procedure. The stylet keeps the tube rigid. Once the patient was sedated, Mr. Igrec began to use the ambu-bag with the patient. At that time, there was no difficulty using the bag, squeezing the bag to provide air into the patient's lungs. Mr. Igrec had one hand on the mask over the patient's face and one hand on the ambu-bag. Respondent used the laryngoscope in placing the tube, trying to look while placing the tube. The tube went into the stomach and not the trachea, such that ventilation did not occur. After that, when Mr. Igrec was bagging the patient he had a lot more resistance, to the point where Respondent had to hold the mask while Mr. Igrec bagged the Patient W.C. After a second attempt to intubate the patient, Respondent attempted to establish a surgical airway. Respondent was using a scalpel and palpating the patient to try and find the crichothyroid cartilage to create the necessary incision. An incision was created. There was no success in placing an airway because the tube did not pass through the crichothyroid cartilage. Mr. Igrec understood this because the tube that he had cut down to place and to ventilate the patient could not be used because there was no hole in the trachea. Blood was pooling around the patient. Dr. Schreiber arrived and established the surgical airway. During this time, CPR was provided the patient under Code Blue conditions where the patient's heart had stopped beating. Attempts at reviving the patient were not successful. Respondent and Patient W.C. Prior to the occasion when he intubated Patient W.C., Respondent had vast experience in performing intubations. As he describes it, this is a necessary skill for an emergency room doctor, recognizing that having an unobstructed airway is vital to a patient's survival. When intubating a patient, Respondent believes that you would want to do this before they "crash," before they lose their vital signs and become unconscious. Before his attempt to intubate Patient W.C., Respondent had never had an instance in which he could not intubate the patient, a function that he had performed numerous times without the assistance of a surgeon or an anesthesiologist. By contrast, before the circumstance that was confronted in Patient W.C., Respondent had never performed a crichothyroidotomy. He had been trained to perform that procedure. On December 31, 2005, nurse Haas approached Respondent and told Respondent that he placed Patient W.C. in a treatment room, described as the ortho room, and that the patient was having trouble breathing and that he needed to be seen by Respondent. Respondent inquired of the patient about the duration of his problem. He asked the patient if he had asthma. Had this happened before? The patient told Respondent that he was having an allergic reaction to his wife's bird and that this problem that he was experiencing had occurred once years before. Respondent asked the patient if he was telling Respondent that an hour ago he was fine and that now he was not. Patient W.C. said "absolutely." When listening to the patient's lungs Respondent did not notice any wheezing. There was no fever in the patient and the patient had not been sick. Unlike the other health care providers attending the patient, Respondent observed that Patient W.C. was having trouble getting air in, the patient was having inspriatory stridor. Respondent believed that the presentation by Patient W.C. was that of someone having an allergic reaction, with some airway compromise, he refers to as laryngospasm. Respondent told nurse Haas to start an IV on the patient and get respiratory therapy to provide a racemic Epinephrine treatment. The reasons for this decision was Respondent thought the patient was having an allergic reaction. In particular, Respondent's impression at that moment was that the patient was someone having an allergic reaction to birds. Patient W.C.'s case was comparable to another case that Respondent had with a woman who had experienced an allergic reaction. In the case of the woman, the patient worsened and quickly had to be intubated. The differential diagnosis that Respondent was proceeding with was that of a patient having an allergic reaction. The orders Respondent gave concerning administration of medications were designed to alleviate an airway problem associated with an allergic reaction. Consistent with Respondent's orders, the nurse started the IV and provided medications, and the respiratory therapist came to provide the aerosol treatment. Respondent observed that Patient W.C. was sitting up in bed and did not appear to be doing anything unusual. Respondent received the report on the patient's status. Respondent went to see Patient W.C., who at that time was anxious and restless. He was having trouble getting air in and telling Respondent that he could not breathe and that his airway was closing off. Patient W.C. told Respondent that "you guys ain't helping me at all." Respondent told the patient that the treatment already provided was the normal thing that was done. Respondent got more history from the patient by asking the patient, "You were perfectly fine until an hour ago?" The response was "yes." Respondent asked the patient if he had not been sick at all. Again the response was "no." The Respondent asked the patient if he had a sore throat. The patient said a little bit. Respondent took a tongue depressor and looked in the patient's throat. It looked pretty normal. (The Emergency Physician Record indicated the patient had a sore throat.) The patient had very mild prominent lymph nodes but nothing out of the ordinary. There was still no wheezing. At that juncture, the decision was made to give Patient W.C. another aerosol treatment. In addition, the decision was made to provide antibiotics in case there was some tracheitis, pharyngitis. It was anticipated that the antibiotics would take 24 hours to have any effect. Epiglottitis was a condition at the bottom of the list on the differential diagnosis. Respondent's experience with that condition was that a patient would be sick for a period of time before the condition worsened. Nothing in Patient W.C.'s presentation led Respondent to believe that he had epiglottitis at that point. By way of history, there was no indication from the patient that he had used cocaine within 24 hours of the time of his visit to the emergency room. (Indeed subsequent toxicology studies revealed recent use of cocaine.) Had such use been reported Respondent would have acted differently in treating Patient W.C. In his second encounter with the patient on the night in question, the patient told him several times that his airway was closing off and that he believed that any second he was not going to be able to breathe. In reply, Respondent told Patient W.C. that the normal things to address his condition had been done, but there was one other thing that could be done and that would be to intubate Patient W.C. Respondent explained that it meant that they would lay the patient in a critical care room and render him unconscious and take a breathing tube and put it into his lungs and admit Patient W.C. to the hospital. This would then be followed by 24 to 48 hours of ventilatory support with use of steroids to address swelling. Patient W.C. told Respondent "let's do it quick." Respondent told a nurse to gather the standard rapid sequence medication, which in this instance involved the use of Versed and Anecitine. In the procedure room where the intubation was attempted, the procedure commenced with the patient having a good heart rate. There was a crash cart available in case there were problems. At the moment, Respondent continued to believe that the patient was experiencing an allergic reaction. Although the patient could have been experiencing epiglottitis secondary to infection, the patient did not show any signs or symptoms of that condition, indications of an on-going infection such as a fever. He was not sweating, his heart rate was not rapid. Once in the treatment room where the intubation was attempted, the patient worsened. Patient W.C. was gasping. He closed his eyes a second. The respiratory therapist Mr. Igrec experienced problems bagging the patient. Efforts by Respondent and the respiratory therapist were not succeeding in getting air into the patient. When Respondent looked in, using the laryngoscope, he noticed something that he had not encountered before. Patient W.C.'s epiglottis had the appearance of a "mushroom." It did not appear as normal anatomy. Respondent described it as a "moonscape." When Respondent looked into the patient using the laryngoscope, he describes the "picture" as looking like a scorched airway when viewing the larynx and the epiglottis. Now that he had observed the epiglottitis, Respondent decided to try and "get under it" using the ET tube. He encountered a complete blockage. Respondent then asked for a smaller tube. The smaller tube did not work. Efforts at bagging the patient were not successful. Respondent concluded that he could not intubate the patient and could not ventilate the patient in that manner, leaving him the only choice, in his perception, to deal with the obstruction by establishing a surgical airway. Respondent asked for a scalpel to perform a "cric." Respondent also told someone to call and get the surgeon and indicate that there was an airway emergency and to come immediately, as Dr. Schreiber did. Respondent took the scalpel and located the crichothyroid membrane below the crichothyroid cartilage and made an incision and air bubbled out. Respondent widened the incision, as he had been trained to do in a course dealing with trauma associated with the airway. Respondent took the ET tube that he had been using and inserted it. It went in smoothly and the treatment team was able to bag the patient. Respondent then noticed that the heart rate was dropping and that the "stats" were not coming up. Respondent then observed that the patient's neck was bigger. What had happened was that the tube had slipped out of the incision, tracking anteriorly over the trachea and the air was being introduced into the neck. Once the subcutaneous emphysema was seen in the neck, it occurred to Respondent that the tube was in the wrong place. The patient was bleeding profusely. There was an effort at reintroducing the tube but the neck had become more swollen, and the tube could not be replaced. A nursing supervisor, Tom Frith, went to the next trauma room and took one of the crichothyroidotomy kits and brought it back. Respondent was not trained to use that kit. He had seen the kits used at a demonstration. The kit was opened. Respondent took a needle from the kit and tried to find an airway but was unable to locate the airway that had been created because efforts at aspiration produced more blood. Other equipment in the kit was utilized to try to replace the endotracheal tube back in the patient, but the field would quickly fill with blood and the tube could not be placed into the membrane. When Dr. Schreiber arrived, using the skill of a surgeon, not that of an emergency room doctor, he performed an emergency tracheotomy on Patient W.C. Respondent acknowledges that persons suffering from an allergic reaction have a common presentation where they experience hives and itching. Some people have wheezing. Patient W.C. had none of these symptoms. Nonetheless, the patient appeared to Respondent to be having an allergic reaction involving the airway Respondent describes as laryngospasm. Respondent understood the patient's condition to be one in which he was able to move about and speak but he was unable to get air in. While able to compensate for that condition for awhile, that ability did not last. Respondent had never seen a patient with epiglottitis. Hypothetically, if a patient were perceived as having that condition, Respondent would consult with a surgeon or an anesthesiologist, if he had time. If confronted with classic signs of epiglottitis, Respondent would start an IV, give the patient supplemental oxygen and not attempt intubation unless the case was emergent. Given sufficient time, the patient would be taken to an operating room and an anesthesiologist could attempt intubation, failing which a surgeon would be available to address the obstruction by placing a surgical airway. This case became one of an emergency, and Respondent took the measures he deemed appropriate. Concerning notes made pertaining to treatment provided Patient W.C., that record was provided after Patient W.C. died. Given the volume of patients that were being seen in the emergency room, other patients as well as Patient W.C., five sets of records and tests were being established aside from Patient W.C. As a consequence, Respondent was doing paperwork on those patients and telling nurses what to do for Patient W.C. Only after the attempts at trying to save Patient W.C. were unsuccessful and after talking to Patient W.C.'s family did Respondent turn his attention to the medical records for Patient W.C. Expert Opinion Dr. John Murray is an emergency physician at Central Florida Regional Hospital in Sanford, Florida. He is licensed to practice in Florida and has been since 1983. He is also licensed to practice in Alabama. Dr. Murray attended medical school at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida. He did his residency at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. His residency was in family practice. Dr. Murray practiced in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in emergency medicine, until four or five years ago. He then entered family practice for about three years. Following that time, he returned to practice in emergency medicine. Dr. Murray is board-certified in family practice and emergency medicine. Dr. Murray was received as an expert in emergency medicine to allow him to offer his opinion as an expert. Dr. Murray served as Petitioner's consultant in the case and was presented as its witness at hearing. To prepare himself to testify, Dr. Murray reviewed the Bert Fish hospital records relating to Patient W.C., the autopsy report, the Administrative Complaint, correspondence from Respondent's attorney, Respondent's deposition, the deposition of the nurses who treated Patient W.C. at Bert Fish, the deposition of the respiratory therapist involved with Patient W.C.'s patient care, and the toxicology report pertaining to Patient W.C. Having prepared himself Dr. Murray testified concerning Respondent's performance when measured against the expected "standard of care." In offering his opinion, Dr. Murray conformed to the expectation that Respondent's performance meet what was minimally acceptable in the standard of care. Dr. Murray does not believe that Respondent met the standard of care incumbent upon Respondent. In Dr. Murray's opinion, when a patient is seen in an emergency room the development of the differential diagnosis begins with the worse case scenario. In Patient W.C.'s case, the first consideration in the differential diagnosis should have been epiglottitis, recognizing that the main problem in the condition is inspiratory stridor, the closing of the airway or the upper airway which may cause the patient to die. Therefore, the physician should do everything possible to assure that this does not happen. Dr. Murray believes that the patient was presenting with signs and symptoms of epiglottitis when he arrived at the emergency room at Bert Fish. Dr. Murray believes that when Respondent decided to intubate Patient W.C., it should have been anticipated that there was going to be a very difficult procedure if the patient had acute epiglottitis. Sometimes the intubation fails and there is the need to provide a surgical airway. Because Respondent did not anticipate that difficulty, the intubation procedure was not properly "setup," according to Dr. Murray. That setup would envision dealing with intubation to potentially be followed by the need to provide a surgical airway. Given the possibility that the patient had epiglottitis, it was important to have the most experienced person available to perform the intubation. Dr. Murray believes that would be an anesthesiologist. Beyond that point, if the surgical airway is needed, a surgeon should be available to provide a surgical airway. Dr. Murray believes there was time to have a successful intubation, or if not, the provision of a successful airway by surgery and these arrangements were not made. Notwithstanding the patient's reported history, recognizing the symptoms present, Dr. Murray did not believe that the patient was suffering from an allergic reaction. Nothing in the medical records suggested to Dr. Murray that Patient W.C. was under the influence of cocaine when he was seen at Bert Fish. Commenting on the medical record where the term "pharyngeal erythema" was circled, Dr. Murray explained that pharyngitis is a form of infection either viral or bacterial in relation to the red or sore throat seen in the back of the throat of Patient W.C. when examined by Respondent. Respondent also made reference to lymphadenopathy both right and left, swollen lymph nodes. Patient W.C. was experiencing inspiratory stridor, difficulty in getting air in to his lungs. With inspiratory stridor, swollen lymph nodes and a red and painful throat, Dr. Murray said he would be concerned about Patient W.C.'s having an infection. Dr. Murray was concerned that if Patient W.C. had a lot of inspiratory stridor that the condition might be epiglottitis. With infection and stridor, the airway can close quickly. These circumstances could make intubation of the patient difficult, if not impossible. Dr. Murray acknowledges that epiglottitis was on Respondent's differential diagnosis for Patient W.C. Respondent's orders for use of racemic Epinephrine through nebulization and the provision of steroids, Decadron and Solu-cortef were appropriate in Dr. Murray's view. Repeating the nebulization would have been appropriate in dealing with an allergic reaction which was the number one condition treated by Respondent. Dr. Murray speaks of the use of antihistamines as well. Dr. Murray opined that as long as Patient W.C. was perceived as having an allergic airway problem, the patient would be treated with updraft treatments and antihistamines, if the patient remained stable and did not appear to be "going down hill and crashing." If the patient is "crashing," stops breathing, then a response to the condition would be necessary before the patient had respiratory arrest. However, with epiglottitis most patients would have to be intubated to protect the airway. The condition would be treated as an infection with use of an antibiotics and steroids over time while being cautious about the patient having his or her airway close off. Criticism that Dr. Murray has of Respondent's care was not the basic idea that the patient was intubated to address epiglottitis. It was the expectation that intubation need not be done unless it was absolutely an emergent circumstance, i.e., the patient had stopped breathing. If there is suspected epiglottitis, the physician should not use a tongue blade that may cause spasms or a laryngoscope. The physician should not paralyze the patient. The doctor is going to be confronted potentially with the fact that there is "no hole" to put the tube, in an attempt at intubation and it becomes necessary to "do something and get an airway in." Again the arrangement that needs to be made, in Dr. Murray's opinion, is the double setup to address the intubation and possible surgical airway. Dr. Murray does not believe that Respondent had the needed equipment to address the patient's condition when he began the intubation. In particular, the necessary equipment for the second step in the double setup, that of providing a surgical airway had not been sufficiently arranged by Respondent. Only in the instances where the patient had stopped breathing and Respondent had no time to call in other physicians would it be appropriate to paralyze the patient and attempt the intubation. Dr. Murray does not believe that the patient was dying, and there was the opportunity to call in the surgeon who was available in eight minutes, to provide assistance if one anticipates difficulty. Dr. Murray described three methods of addressing the surgical airway. One is crichothyroidotomy, which was attempted here. The second method is jet insufflation used in pediatrics but also taught for use in adults. The third method is the use of a needle with a catheter. Dr. Murray explained that if using the crichothyroidotomy is a procedure that is comfortable to the physician, then there is no necessity for redundancy beyond the use of that method for providing a surgical airway. Redundancy would be the use of the kit known as Seldinger that causes a small puncture wound. This method is a new technique, an alternative to needle crichothyroidotomy and regular crichothyroidotomy. The Seldinger method is the jet insufflation. Jet insufflation is not a common procedure in adults and is used more in pediatric care. In Dr. Murray's opinion, a reasonably prudent emergency room doctor would know of the availability of that option for ventilating a patient whether the patient is an adult or a child. Dr. Murray criticizes Respondent's medical records for Patient W.C. In his review, Dr. Murray did not find an explanation why it was necessary to intubate Patient W.C. at that moment and by the method employed. The record does not justify attempting a paralytic intubation under the existing circumstances, according to Dr. Murray. Dr. Marlon Priest, witness for Respondent, graduated from the University of Alabama with a degree in chemistry. He attended the University of Alabama School of Medicine from 1974 until 1977. He completed an internal medicine residency. From 1981 through November of 2006, Dr. Priest was on the faculty of the University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, and served as a professor of emergency medicine and director of critical care transport. Over the years, Dr. Priest has had extensive experience in emergency medicine in a hospital setting. He is licensed to practice medicine in Alabama. Dr. Priest was accepted as an expert and allowed to testify concerning his opinion of Respondent's care provided Patient W.C., whether Respondent met the standard of care. Dr. Priest reviewed the Administrative Complaint, the medical records from Bert Fish concerning Patient W.C., Respondent's deposition, the deposition of Thomas Beaver, M.D., and the deposition of Michael A. Evans, Ph.D. to prepare himself to testify. He found the information sufficient to prepare to offer his opinion concerning the care provided Patient W.C. When asked whether Respondent violated the standard of care for failing to consult with or gain the assistance from an anesthesiologist or the on-call surgeon prior to inducing paralysis and attempting RSI, referring to rapid sequence intubation on Patient W.C., fell below the standard of care for an emergency room physician, Dr. Priest indicated that he felt that Respondent met the applicable standards. Dr. Priest believes emergency medicine has evolved to the point where emergency room physicians are able to assess and carryout that form of intubation. In Dr. Priest's experience, on numerous occasions, he has intubated patients without consulting a surgeon or an anesthesiologist. Based upon those insights Dr. Priest does not believe that Respondent was obligated to consult a surgeon or an anesthesiologist before attempting the intubation on Patient W.C. Specific to Patient W.C.'s case, the patient presented with shortness of breath and stridor and having failed to improve following treatment to address a possible allergic reaction, the decision was made to oxygenate the patient prior to some event where the patient could not breathe. Based upon the symptoms of the patient and gravity of the situation, Dr. Priest is persuaded that it was appropriate to attempt intubation. Concerning the allegation that Respondent failed to meet the standard of care by inducing paralysis in Patient W.C., Dr. Priest indicated that RSI is the preferred method of gaining access to a patient's airway where the patient is awake and alert and who might struggle if that method was not employed in an effort to intubate the patient. In his opinion, Dr. Priest makes mention of the progression in the case from having stridor, complaining of not being able to breathe and Dr. Priest's expectation that the airway was becoming smaller over time. Dr. Priest believes that the principal diagnosis in the differential pertaining to Patient W.C., possible allergic reaction was a reasonable diagnosis based upon information in the patient records. Concerning the allegation about Respondent's medical records related to alleged failure to document symptoms in Patient W.C. that would justify paralysis and RSI, as opposed to other less risky forms of securing the airway, Dr. Priest believes that there is sufficient evidence in the medical record to justify the intubation. Related to the second allegation dealing with record keeping by Respondent alleging that Respondent failed to document Patient W.C.'s O2 sat. and cardiac activity during the RSI attempt and subsequent procedures, Dr. Priest believes that this information would have been written down by someone else on the treatment team during the course of the treatment, the attempt to intubate. Even beyond that point, Dr. Priest believes that standard protocol would call upon the respiratory therapist or the nurse to create the record or potentially someone else on the hospital staff, not the Respondent. The inaccurate report by Patient W.C. concerning his past history with bird allergies changes the priorities in the differential diagnosis, in Dr. Priest's opinion. That history meant that allergic reaction was placed at the top of the differential diagnosis, in particular with a physical examination that was consistent with the history. Dr. Priest holds this belief even in the absence of fever, sweating, or questionable vital signs in the patient. When Dr. Schreiber entered the treatment room, he noticed a group including a physician and nurses who were attending Patient W.C. They were trying to resuscitate the patient. The patient did not have an airway. The patient was cyanotic. The patient was bloated and did not have a pulse. An attempt was being made to revive the patient from arrest. A valve bag mask was being used and drugs administered that would support the patient's blood pressure. An effort at gaining a surgical airway had not succeeded. There was a surgical incision on the patient's neck. Blood was on the patient and on the floor. At the moment no attempt was being made to establish a surgical airway. Dr. Schreiber observed that the patient had a protruding tongue that was obstructing this mouth and airway. Dr. Schreiber observed that the Petitioner's upper check and abdomen were bloated. Dr. Schreiber noted that the patient evidenced crepitancy, indicating subcutaneous air in the patient's neck and chest. This would be consistent with the placement of an airway tube into the subcutaneous tissue outside the trachea and air blown into the area. Dr. Schreiber made a nick in the trachea and placed a number 8 ET tube into the trachea. Following the placement of the ET tube in the trachea, Dr. Schreiber observed air movement in the lungs. However, the patient did not regain a pulse or adequate saturation of oxygen. On January 3, 2006, Dr. Thomas Beaver, Chief Medical Examiner and pathologist, performed an autopsy on Patient W.C. As part of his Medical Examiner's report on Patient W.C., special studies had been done, and a comprehensive toxicology analysis performed by AIT Laboratories. Dr. Beaver determined the cause of death as complications of acute epiglottitis and that the manner of death was of natural causes. The complications of acute epiglottitis were explained as a status post crichothyroidotomy. Dr. Beaver also noted atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease involving coronary arteries, mild. In particular, Dr. Beaver found that the epiglottis was swollen to an extent that it obstructed the deceased's airway. The condition observed was not the result of an attempted intubation of the patient, in Dr. Beaver's opinion. The condition observed was a disease process that Dr. Beaver felt was on-going for a matter of hours or perhaps a number of days before the attempted intubation. This type of mechanical obstruction in the epiglottitis would obstruct the airway and disable the patient from breathing, according to Dr. Beaver. The condition of the epiglottitis was not perceived by Dr. Beaver to be in association with some form of allergic reaction. The exact cause was not clear. Dr. Beaver does not believe that the ingestion of cocaine, whose metabolites were in the body caused the death. Marie Herrmann, M.D., is the present Medical Examiner and pathologist in the jurisdiction where Dr. Beaver served. Dr. Herrmann had the opportunity to review Dr. Beaver's autopsy report on Patient W.C. and to examine some evidence available to Dr. Beaver in performing his examination. She too was not persuaded that cocaine was a contributing factor to Patient W.C.'s death. In offering this opinion Dr. Herrmann was aware of the toxicology report from AIT Laboratories. Dr. Herrmann agrees with Dr. Beaver's opinion concerning Patient W.C.'s cause of death. Dr. Herrmann was unable to determine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the efforts by Respondent to intubate Patient W.C. caused the blockage in the airway. Michael Evans, Ph.D., is the founder, president and CEO of AIT Laboratories. He is an expert in toxicology. He testified concerning the findings in his laboratory related to Patient W.C. using established protocols for examination of the samples provided his facility. Based upon his analysis, Dr. Evans believes that Patient W.C. had ingested cocaine as recent as three hours and no longer than 24 hours before his death based upon values found in the blood and urine samples provided. Bruce Goldberger, Ph.D., is an expert in forensic toxicology. He is a professor and director of toxicology at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Departments of Pathology and Psychiatry. He is familiar with the medical examiner's report prepared by Dr. Weaver and the AIT Laboratories' report on Patient W.C. Dr. Goldberger offered the opinion that Patient W.C. could have been using cocaine a day or two before his death. He defers to the medical examiner as to the cause of the patient's death. It is accepted from the findings made in the autopsy report by Dr. Beaver that Patient W.C. died from complications of acute epiglottitis, from natural causes, not as a result of Respondent's attempt to intubate the patient. Having considered the facts and the opinions of experts, clear and convincing evidence was not presented to establish the violations alleged in Count One (Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes) paragraph 27. a). and b). related to consultation with or assistance from an anesthesiologist or the on-call surgeon prior to inducing paralysis in the patient as part of RSI. Likewise, the violation alleged in Count Two (Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes) paragraph 30. a). relating to failure to document symptoms justifying paralysis and RSI was not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Concerning the alleged violation in Count Two (Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes) paragraph 30. b). involving the documentation of Patient W.C.'s O2 sat. and cardiac activity during the RSI attempt and subsequent procedures, the opinion of Dr. Priest is compelling. Based upon that opinion Respondent would not be expected to provide that documentation and maintain the record beyond that point in time. Respondent's Background Respondent received his undergraduate education from the University of Tennessee, earning a B.S. in biology. He attended medical school in Nashville, Tennessee, at Harry Medical College and worked as an emergency physician in Tennessee. He undertook a flexible internship at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, Tennessee. In 1987 Respondent went to Jacksonville, Florida, to do a three-year residency in pediatrics, graduating from that program in 1990. During that time he worked in local emergency rooms in St. Augustine, Palatka, and Tallahassee, Florida. He took courses in Advanced Trauma Life Support and Advanced Cardiac Life Support. Since 1990 Respondent has been a full-time emergency room physician living in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. At present, Respondent works for M. Care Emergency Services in Jacksonville, Florida. Mitigation and Aggravation Respondent has no prior violations related to his license to practice medicine in Florida. Patient W.C.'s Family Patient W.C. was married to F.C. and had two young children. At his death his daughter was approximately two-and- a-half years old and his son was 14 months old. Following Patient W.C.'s death, the family has had a difficult time coping with their loss.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of facts found and the conclusions, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered, which dismisses the Administrative Complaint, as amended. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 14th day of April, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether notice was accorded the patient, as contemplated by section 766.316, Florida Statutes, or whether the failure to give notice was excused because the patient had an emergency medical condition, as defined in section 395.002(8)(b), Florida Statutes, or the giving of notice was not practicable.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Maradiaga was born in Honduras in 1992, where her primary language was Spanish. She moved to the United States in 2005 and attended school here for part of the eighth grade and the ninth and tenth grades. She was taught in English, but did not do well in school because Spanish was her primary language. While in the tenth grade, Ms. Maradiaga became pregnant with Jean Carlos. Ms. Maradiaga went to the health department for prenatal care except for one visit in October 2008 when she went to Central Florida Health Care, Inc. Because she would be required to make monthly payments to Central Florida Health Care, Inc., she decided to remain with the health department for her prenatal care. During her visit to Central Florida Health Care, Inc., on October 20, 2008, Ms. Maradiaga signed an acknowledgement form stating that she had been given information by Central Florida Health Care, Inc., that Dr. Stanton and Corrine Audette were participants in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Compensation program and that she had received a copy of the pamphlet prepared by the Association (NICA pamphlet). The acknowledgement form was written in Spanish. Ms. Maradiaga admits that she signed the acknowledgement form, but denies that she received the NICA pamphlet. Medical Records from Central Florida Health Care, Inc. (Joint Exhibit 15, Bates stamp 69), state that Ms. Maradiaga was given a NICA brochure and the form was signed on October 20, 2008, which is the date that Ms. Maradiaga signed the acknowledgment form. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Dr. Stanton and Ms. Audette provided notice pursuant to section 766.316 on October 20, 2008, via the NICA pamphlet provided by Central Florida Health Care, Inc. Ms. Maradiaga was advised at the health department that she would deliver her baby at Lakeland Regional. During her third month of pregnancy, Ms. Maradiaga was given a form by staff at the health department for pre-registration at the hospital. The form was to be sent to Lakeland Regional. Ms. Maradiaga filled out the form with information such as her name address and telephone number. According to Ms. Maradiaga, she mailed the form to Lakeland Regional during the fourth month of her pregnancy, sometime in August 2008. There is no record that Lakeland Regional received the form. When a patient desires to pre-register for delivery at Lakeland Regional, the patient may receive a form from the patient's doctor or clinic. The form requests basic information such as name, address, and telephone number. The patient sends the form to Lakeland Regional. When the hospital receives the form, the information is entered into the computer and a patient account is created for the patient. The patient is assigned a patient medical record number. Future information concerning the patient will be entered into the patient management computer system using the patient account number. During the pre-registration process, the hospital will contact the patient after the patient account is established and provide information to the patient. Included with the information that is sent to the obstetric patient is the NICA pamphlet and the acknowledgment form. Deborah Newbern is the assistant director of patient access services for Lakeland Regional. She oversees the operations of the patient access areas for all admitting, including pre-registration. Ms. Newbern searched the computer system using Ms. Maradiaga's name and the only account number that appeared for Ms. Maradiaga was the account established when she came to Lakeland Regional on December 27, 2008. If Ms. Maradiaga had been pre-registered, there would be an account number documenting the pre-registration. Ms. Newbern found none. Based on the records of Lakeland Regional, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that the first contact that Lakeland Regional had with Ms. Maradiaga was on December 27, 2008. Petitioners argue that because Ms. Maradiaga's prenatal records from the health department and Central Florida Health Care, Inc., are found in Ms. Maradiaga's hospital records that a professional relationship was formed between Lakeland Regional and Ms. Maradiaga either in August or October 2008 based on a notation in the health department records, which states: Hospital Date Sent Staff Initials LRMC 8/14/08 (illegible) LMRC 10/16/08 (illegible) There was no testimony concerning who made the notation, when the notation was made or when Lakeland Regional received the records. The records from Central Florida Health Care, Inc., contain information dated as late as November 10, 2008. The records from Central Florida Health Care, Inc., state that Ms. Maradiaga had transferred from the health department and that partial records had been received and put in the file to be scanned. At the top of the records from Central Florida Health Care, Inc., is the notation: "PRINTED BY: zLinda LRMC z Hooper on 12/27/2008 at 5:59 PM." The notation leads to the inference that Lakeland Regional received Ms. Maradiaga's prenatal records from Central Florida Health Care, Inc., on December 27, 2008, shortly after Ms. Maradiaga arrived at the hospital. The records from the health department contain entries made after October 16, 2008. For example, entries were made on the prenatal record from October 22, 2008, through December 24, 2008, and a notation was made on the clinical notes dated November 19, 2008. (Joint Exhibit 15, Bate stamp 80-82). Obviously, records made after October 16, 2008, could not have been sent on October 16, 2008. A note in the initial nursing assessment at Lakeland Regional states that the prenatal history has been reviewed and is current. Taking the evidence as a whole, it cannot be concluded that Lakeland Regional had Ms. Maradiaga's prenatal records prior to her visit on December 27, 2008. At approximately 4:40 p.m., on December 27, 2012, Ms. Maradiaga presented to the emergency room at Lakeland Regional complaining of abdominal pains. At the time she came to the emergency room, she had been experiencing contractions since 10:00 a.m. the same day, and the contractions had continued to become stronger and more frequent. She was in early active labor, having good strong contractions every five minutes. She was transferred to the labor and delivery unit, where she was admitted as an inpatient by Angie Rogue, who is a patient access representative for Lakeland Regional. Ms. Rogue does not specifically recall Ms. Maradiaga; however, she follows a set routine for admitting obstetric patients. The routine that she uses to admit in-patients is the same for every patient. The only difference that she would make would depend on the number of forms that she gives the patient depending on whether the patient has private insurance, is on Medicaid or has no insurance. After the patient is transferred to the labor and delivery unit, Ms. Rogue receives an in-patient order form, which lets her know that a patient needs to be admitted to the hospital as an in-patient. She inputs into the computer system that the patient is going to be admitted as an in-patient and prints out a patient summary form. She gathers other forms such as the HIPPA form, the NICA pamphlet, and the NICA acknowledgement form to take to the patient. She also prepares the ID armband, which is placed on the patient. Ms. Rogue goes to see the patient in the labor and delivery unit, introduces herself and explains that she is there to admit them. She asks the patient her name and date of birth to make sure that the information on the armband is correct. She goes through the information on the patient summary form to make sure that it is also correct and gives the patient the HIPPA form to sign, the NICA pamphlet and the acknowledgment form for the patient to sign showing the patient received the NICA pamphlet. If the patient is being transferred from the emergency room, the patient would receive the patient summary, the HIPPA form, and a welcome packet from staff in the emergency room. When a patient is given forms or signs forms, the hospital staff person will note it on the patient notes in the computer system. Each staff member has a badge number, which is entered into the computer when patient notes are entered. In the case of Ms. Maradiaga, the patient notes show that Ms. Maradiaga received a welcome packet, HIPPA information, and the patient summary. The patient notes indicate that Ms. Maradiaga's interaction with a hospital employee for these documents was with a staff member, whose badge number is 15070. The medical records contain a patient summary that is signed by Ms. Maradiaga, witnessed by someone other than Ms. Rogue, and dated December 27, 2008. On December 27, 2008, the emergency room staff did not provide obstetric patients with the NICA pamphlet or have the patients sign the acknowledgement form. The patient notes show that the following entry made on December 27, 2008, by Ms. Rogue, whose badge number is 13763, in Ms. Maradiaga's patient account record: 13763: RCVD ORDER TO ADMIT AS INPT FOR LABOR/SCNND, PT IS FROM ER, PT GIVEN NICA, PT SIGNED NICA, PLACED ARM ON PT, PT IS PENDING BIRTH Ms. Maradiaga signed an acknowledgment form dated December 27, 2008, which stated: I have been furnished information by Lakeland Regional Medical Center prepared by the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, and have been advised that my doctor and all nurse midwives associated with my doctor's practice participate in the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation program, wherein, certain limited compensation is available in the event certain neurological injury may occur during labor, delivery or resuscitation. For specifics on the program, I understand I can contact the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA), 1435 East Piedmont Dr., Suite 101, Tallahassee, Florida 32312, (904)488-8191. I further acknowledge that I have received a copy of the brochure prepared by NICA. Ms. Rouge's signature appears at the bottom of the acknowledgement form as a witness with the date of December 27, 2008. Ms. Maradiaga and Mr. Sordia claim that the only time that Ms. Rogue had any interaction with Ms. Maradiaga was on the morning after Jean Carlos was born, December 28, 2008. According to Ms. Maradiaga, the acknowledgment form had the date of December 27, 2008, entered when she signed it, and she advised Ms. Rogue that the date was incorrect, but Ms. Rogue told her that the date was okay. However, in her deposition, Ms. Maradiaga testified that she signed the acknowledgment form in the emergency room and then stated that she did not specifically recall signing the form because she had to sign a lot of forms just to enter the hospital and she was in a lot of pain. Both Ms. Maradiaga and Mr. Sordia deny that Ms. Maradiaga received a NICA pamphlet. The data that is entered into the patient's computer records is dated on the date that the data is entered. If an amendment or change were necessary, the date that the amendment or change was made would also be entered into the computer records. In other words, an employee could not go into the computer system and change the date that the original entry was made. The date that was entered into the computer records as the date that Ms. Maradiaga received the NICA pamphlet and signed the acknowledgment form was December 27, 2008. Based on the computer records, the signed and dated acknowledgment form, and the credibility of the witnesses, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that Lakeland Regional provided the NICA pamphlet to Ms. Maradiaga and Ms. Maradiaga signed the acknowledgment form on December 27, 2008. Petitioners have argued that Ms. Maradiaga did not have sufficient notice because she does not speak English and was not provided an interpreter. Mr. Sordia was with Ms. Maradiaga at the hospital on December 27, 2008, and he did translate for Ms. Maradiaga. The hospital records are replete with information that had to come from Ms. Maradiaga or from someone who was translating.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner is entitled to repayment of Medicaid reimbursements paid to Respondent, pursuant to section 409.913(11), Florida Statutes; and, if so, the amount of the overpayment to be repaid; the amount of any fine to be imposed against Respondent, pursuant to section 409.913(15)- (17), Florida Statutes; and the amount of any investigative, legal, and expert witness costs to be assessed against Respondent, pursuant to section 409.913(23)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Respondent operates a large group medical practice with a focus upon psychiatric services. Although Respondent serves patients in varied locations, including its offices and patients' nursing homes, all of the recipients in this case were in hospitals when Respondent's physicians rendered the services for which Respondent obtained reimbursement. The audit in question examined all of the claims paid on account of 30 randomly selected recipients to whom Respondent provided services from March 1, 2008, through February 28, 2010. Petitioner duly issued a preliminary audit report and received feedback from Respondent. On July 31, 2012, Petitioner issued the FAR. As distinguished from its challenge to the statistical estimation process, Respondent has not challenged the procedures followed in the preparation and issuance of the FAR, so the Administrative Law Judge infers that it is in compliance with all applicable law. The overpayments that Petitioner found in the 30-recipient sample arise from three sources. Petitioner denied 83 reimbursement claims for a lack of medical necessity and two reimbursement claims for double billing.3/ Petitioner "adjusted" (i.e., reduced) 16 reimbursement claims for upcoding the services provided to recipients. Petitioner's expert witnesses are Dr. Rahul Mehra, who is Board certified in psychiatry, and Dr. Nanette Hoffman, who is Board certified in internal medicine and geriatrics. Respondent's expert witnesses are Dr. Scott Segal, who is the founder of Respondent and Board-certified in psychiatry, and Dr. Tanver Sobhan, who is employed by Respondent and Board- certified in psychiatry. CPT Codes Pursuant to the Florida Medicaid Physician Services, Coverage, and Limitations Handbook in effect during the audit period (Physician Handbook), the coding of claims for Medicaid reimbursement is governed by the Current Procedural Terminology® (CPT). Physician Handbook at 3-1. References to the CPT will be to the 2009 edition.4/ Hospital and office visits are covered in the CPT's "Evaluation and Management Service Guidelines." The CPT identifies seven components of Evaluation and Management (E/M) services: 1) history, 2) examination, 3) medical decisionmaking, 4) counseling, 5) coordination of care, 6) nature of presenting problem, and 7) time. CPT at 3. The first three components are the "key" factors in selecting the correct level of service for an E/M service. The next three components are "contributory" factors. Id.5/ The "extent of the history is dependent upon clinical judgment and on the nature of the presenting problem(s)." Id. at 7. The extent of history may be characterized by any of four levels of service: Problem focused: Chief complaint; brief history of present illness or problem. Expanded problem focused: Chief complaint; brief history of present illness; problem pertinent system review. Detailed: Chief complaint; extended history of present illness, problem pertinent system review extended to include a review of a limited number of additional systems; pertinent past, family, and/or social history directly related to the patient's problems. Comprehensive: Chief complaint; extended history of present illness; review of systems that is directly related to the problem(s) identified in the history of the present illness plus a review of all additional body systems; complete past, family, and social history. Id. The "extent of examination performed is dependent on clinical judgment and on the nature of the present problem(s)." Id. The extent of examination may be characterized by any of four levels of service: Problem focused: A limited examination of the affected body area or organ system. Expanded problem focused: A limited examination of the affected body area or organ system and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Detailed: An extended examination of the affected body areas(s) and other symptomatic or related organ system(s). Comprehensive: A general multisystem examination or a complete examination of a single organ system. For the purpose of these CPT definitions, the following body areas are recognized: head, including the face; neck; chest, including breasts and axilla; abdomen; genitalia, groin, [and] buttocks; back; [and] each extremity. For purposes of these CPT definitions, the following organ systems are recognized: eyes; ears, nose, mouth, and throat; cardiovascular; respiratory; gastrointestinal; genitourinary; musculoskeletal; skin; neurologic; psychiatric; [and] hematologic/lymphatic/immunologic." Id. "Medical decision making refers to the complexity of establishing a diagnosis and/or selecting a management option as measured by: The number of possible diagnoses and/or the number of management problems that must be considered. The amount and/or complexity of medical records, diagnostic tests, and/or other information that must be obtained, reviewed, and analyzed. The risk of significant complications, morbidity, and/or mortality, as well as comorbidities, associated with the patient's presenting problem(s), and/or the possible management options. Id. Four types of medical decision making are recognized: straightforward, low complexity, moderate complexity, and high complexity. To qualify for a given type of decision making, two of the three elements in Table 2 [see below] must be met or exceeded. Comorbidities/underlying diseases, in and of themselves, are not considered in selecting [an E/M level of service] unless their presence significantly increases the complexity of the medical decision making. Table 2 governs determinations of the complexity of medical decisionmaking and provides: Number of Amount and/or Risk of Compli- Type of Diagnoses Complexity of cations and/or Decision Or Manage- ment Options Data to be Reviewed Morbidity or Mortality Making minimal minimal or none minimal straight- forward limited limited low low complexity multiple moderate moderate moderate complexity extensive extensive high high complexity Id. at 8. As for time in a hospital setting, the CPT states: [U]nit/floor time . . . includes the time that the physician is present on the patient's hospital unit and at the bedside rendering services for that patient. This includes the time in which the physician establishes and/or reviews the patient's chart, examines the patient, writes notes, and communicates with other professionals and the patient's family. In the hospital, pre- and post-time includes time spent off the patient's floor performing such tasks as reviewing pathology and radiology findings in another part of the hospital. This pre- and post-visit time is not included in the time component described in these codes. However, the pre- and post- work performed during the time spent off the floor or unit was included in calculating the total work of typical services in physician surveys. Thus, the unit/floor time associated with the services described by any code is a valid proxy for the total work done before, during, and after the visit. Id. at 5. CPT ##99231, 99232, and 99233 cover "subsequent hospital care," which includes "reviewing the medical record and reviewing the results of diagnostic studies and changes in the patient's status (i.e., changes in history, physical condition and response to management) since the last assessment by the physician." CPT #99231 is for subsequent hospital care, per day, of a patient who requires at least two of three of the following components: a problem focused interval history, a problem focused examination, and medical decisionmaking that is straightforward or of low complexity. The patient is usually "stable, recovering or improving," and the physician typically spends 15 minutes at the bedside and on the hospital floor or unit. A psychiatric example of CPT #99231 is: Subsequent hospital visit for a 14-year-old female in middle phase of inpatient treatment, who is now behaviorally stable and making satisfactory progress in treatment. Id. at 503. CPT #99232 is for subsequent hospital care, per day, of a patient who requires at least two of three of the following components: an expanded problem focused interval history, an expanded problem focused examination, and medical decisionmaking of moderate complexity. The patient is usually "responding inadequately to therapy or has developed a minor complication," and the physician typically spends 25 minutes at the bedside and on the hospital floor or unit. CPT #99233 is for subsequent hospital care, per day, of a patient who requires at least two of three of the following components: a detailed interval history, a detailed examination, and medical decisionmaking of high complexity. The patient is usually "unstable or has developed a significant complication or a significant new problem," and the physician typically spends 35 minutes at the bedside and on the hospital floor or unit. Psychiatric examples of CPT #99233 are: Follow-up hospital visit for a teenage female who continues to experience severely disruptive, violent and life-threatening symptoms in a complicated multi-system illness. Family/social circumstances also a contributing factor. Subsequent hospital visit for an adolescent patient who is violent, unsafe, and noncompliant, with multiple expectations for participation in treatment plan and behavior on the treatment unit. Subsequent hospital visit for an 18-year-old male being treated for presumed PCP psychosis. Patient is still moderately symptomatic with auditory hallucinations and is insisting on signing out against medical advice. Id. at 505. CPT ##99221, 99222, and 99222 apply to ascending levels of initial hospital care, meaning that the initial day of inpatient care is billed under one of these codes and subsequent days of inpatient care are billed under CPT ##99231-99233. CPT #99221 requires a detailed or comprehensive history, a detailed or comprehensive examination, and medical decisionmaking of low complexity or that is straightforward. CPT #99222 requires a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decisionmaking of moderate complexity. CPT #99223 requires a comprehensive history, a comprehensive examination, and medical decisionmaking of high complexity. CPT ##99238 and 99239 apply to hospital discharge services. CPT #99238 applies if, on the day of hospital discharge, the physician spends 30 minutes or less with the patient, performing such tasks as a final examination, issuance of discharge instructions, and preparation of discharge records, prescriptions and referral forms. If the physician spends more than 30 minutes on these tasks, CPT #99239 applies. Medical Necessity of Psychiatric Services In this case, all of the denials for a lack of medical necessity pertain to psychiatric services, and all of the reductions for upcoding pertain to medical services that are not psychiatric in nature. (Although psychiatry is a branch of medicine, this recommended order generally6/ will refer to "medical" services to mean nonpsychiatric medical services.) Not raising difficult issues of fact or law, the upcoding issues are straightforward or, at most, of low complexity; Petitioner has prevailed on all but one upcoding claim, and it conceded this claim at the hearing. By contrast, many of the medical necessity issues, which are relatively consequential in estimating the total overpayment,7/ are highly complex, raising difficult issues of fact and law. Respondent has prevailed on most of these claims, in several instances, due to recurring shortcomings in Petitioner's evidence. In general, the expert witnesses offering psychiatric testimony were all highly qualified. Respondent's experts are interested in the outcome of the case. On the other hand, Dr. Mehra's experience over the past three years in treating psychiatric patients has not included inpatient care. By contrast, Dr. Sobhan and Dr. Segal have considerable experience in providing inpatient psychiatric services. Moreover, Respondent's experts, particularly Dr. Segal, have considerable knowledge and experience as to the entire range of local, regional, and state settings for the psychiatric treatment of patients, particularly those sharing the demographic characteristics of the recipients involved in this case. Dr. Mehra's experience does not appear to approach the experience of Drs. Segal and Sobhan in this important respect. Of course, the knowledge and experience of Drs. Segal and Sobhan extend to assessing the suitability of particular patients for particular settings. In addressing medical necessity, all of the psychiatric experts understood that, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, a billed service must be a generally accepted preventative, curative, or palliative service in the diagnosis or treatment of a recipient. All of the psychiatric experts understood that, to meet the definition of medical necessity, a billed service must be needed, not in excess of the recipient's needs, and the least costly, effective service among services that are available statewide. This Recommended Order will refer to services that are provided when no services are needed as Inappropriate Services and services that are provided in excess of the services that are needed as Excessive Services. However, Inappropriate Services and Excessive Services play a minor role in this case. As noted in the Conclusions of Law, the special provision of the rule applying only to inpatient services provides that billed inpatient services are not medically necessary if they could have been appropriately and effectively furnished less expensively on an outpatient basis or in an inpatient facility of a different type. This Recommended Order will refer to services that could have been furnished less expensively in another setting as Costlier-Setting Services. Almost all of the medical-necessity determinations in this case turn on whether certain psychiatric services are Costlier- Setting Services. Unfortunately, the expert psychiatric testimony focused on whether certain psychiatric services could have been appropriately and effectively furnished in a lower level of care--to the exclusion of any consideration of the cost of these services in another setting. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, the burden of going forward with the evidence as to this aspect of medical necessity is on Petitioner, so that the shortcomings of Dr. Mehra's testimony were more consequential than the shortcomings of Drs. Segal and Sobhan's testimony. Exacerbating the shortcomings of the psychiatric testimony as to relative costs, much of the psychiatric level- of-care testimony was vague. Dr. Mehra identified the descending "levels of care" in psychiatric medicine: in order, starting with the highest level of care, these settings are inpatient, residential, partial hospitalization, and outpatient. Dr. Mehra identified specific circumstances that warranted the highest level of care, meaning inpatient psychiatric services.8/ But Dr. Mehra never specified for any recipient what lesser level of care would have been safe at any particular time. Ms. Eddleman identified a number of local behavioral programs--all available in South Florida--with a level of care less than hospitalization or partial hospitalization, but greater than treatment in an office or private residence. Persons at risk of hospitalization may obtain behavioral health day treatment services, which are more intensive than regular outpatient services and bundle psychosocial rehabilitation services to help build skills with individual and family therapy sessions. Persons may obtain mental health targeted case management services, automatically for 30 days after hospital discharge, and, without regard to hospitalization, if the person suffers from a severe and persistent mental disorder. The case manager helps the person obtain services, such as housing and the community behavior services described immediately above, to help stabilize psychiatric symptoms. Separate medication administration programs are also available to try to help persons with mental disorders obtain and take their medications. Ms. Eddleman provided very useful level-of-care testimony. But its utility in this case is limited by its timing. Petitioner obtained the testimony after Dr. Mehra had testified. If the testimony had been available earlier, Dr. Mehra might have been able to add much-needed detail to his level-of-care testimony. Regardless of the timing of Ms. Eddleman's testimony, no evidence links a particular date of inpatient services to a particular community-based behavioral service, so as to support a determination that a lower level of care was suitable on that date. Of course, as a layperson, Ms. Eddleman could not have provided this link. But, again, the larger problem was that the level-of- care testimony provided by Dr. Mehra and Ms. Eddleman was not supplemented by any testimony about relative costs. While requiring that the psychiatric services be appropriate so as to ensure patient safety, the subject audit is a cost audit, not a quality-of-care audit. The only explanation for why the three psychiatrists concerned themselves exclusively with level-of- care issues in addressing Costlier-Setting Services is that they assumed lower levels of care would mean lower costs. As shown below, though, the reimbursement rates do not bear a direct relationship to the level of care of the setting in which the services are provided.9/ A quick look at the CPT's treatment of E/M services reveals an obvious flaw in Dr. Mehra's failure to account for actual costs in his level-of-care testimony: the first and third levels of care in Dr. Mehra's list are combined into a single CPT code for E/M services, as noted above. CPT at 12. So, even if a recipient could have been treated safely on a partial-hospitalization basis, this would not deprive the inpatient services of medical necessity, as Costlier-Setting Services, because the same reimbursement rate applies to services in both of these settings. The larger problem is that the provision of a service in a hospital setting does not command the highest reimbursement rate. In fact, an inpatient service is invariably cheaper than the same level of service provided in the patient's boarding home or private home and is often cheaper than the same level of service provided in a patient's skilled nursing facility or a physician's office. Petitioner Exhibit #17, which contains the reimbursement rates for various CPT codes, reveals the relative costs. In the following table, which is for 2009,10/ "PF" means problem focused, "Ex" means expanded problem focused, "Det" means detailed, "Comp" means comprehensive, "Straight" means straightforward, and "Mod" means moderate. The first reference to any of these descriptors is to the history or interval history, the second reference is to the examination, and the third reference is to the complexity of the decisionmaking. The first numerical reference is to the CPT and the second is to the 2009 reimbursement rate. For each CPT listed below, only two of three criteria must be met. SUBSEQUENT HOSPITAL CARE PF/PF/Straight or Low 99231 $20.36 Ex/Ex/Mod 99232 $36.60 Det/Det/High 99233 $52.45 OFFICE OR OTHER OUTPATIENT CARE: ESTABLISHED PATIENT PF/PF/Straight 99212 $21.84 Ex/Ex/Low 99213 $26.61 Det/Det/Mod 99214 $41.46 Comp/Comp/High 99215 $60.27 NURSING FACILITY SERVICES: SUBSEQUENT NURSING FACILITY CARE PF/PF/Straight 99307 $21.72 Ex/Ex/Low 99308 $32.89 Det/Det/Mod 99309 $43.64 Comp/Comp/High 99310 $64.98 BOARDING HOME: ESTABLISHED PATIENT PF/PF/Straight 99334 $30.33 Ex/Ex/Low 99335 $46.77 Det/Det/Mod 99336 $65.58 Comp/Comp/High 99337 $93.75 HOME SERVICES: ESTABLISHED PATIENT PF/PF/Straight 99347 $28.77 Ex/Ex/Low 99348 $42.86 Det/Det/Mod 99349 $62.25 Comp/Comp/High 99350 $86.33 It is more difficult to compare the cost of inpatient services to the cost of services in an office or skilled nursing facility. But, in the context of this case, as found below, many of the psychiatric inpatient services represented a problem focused history, extended problem focused or detailed examination, and decisionmaking that is straightforward or of low complexity. These components earn a CPT #99231 and a reimbursement of $20.36 in a hospital, a CPT #99308 and a reimbursement of $32.89 in a skilled nursing facility, and a CPT #99213 and a reimbursement of $26.61 in an office or other outpatient setting. Thus, for this very common aggregation of components, the services provided to a recipient in a hospital setting were cheaper than the same services provided to a recipient in a skilled nursing facility, office, or other outpatient setting.11/ Petitioner's proof of Costlier-Setting Services encountered other problems, besides vagueness as to alternative suitable settings and an absence of relative cost data. Neither Petitioner nor Dr. Mehra ever dealt with the issues that, especially given the absence of direct admits in this case, Respondent's physicians had to treat these patients where they found them--in a hospital--and Petitioner has not sought to recover the reimbursements that it paid to the hospitals for the stays at issue in this case. Recipient 1 illustrates these problems. Recipient 1 primarily required detoxification with some psychiatric support during the process. To the extent that detoxification was a medical process, Recipient 1's medical needs required hospitalization. If, somehow, his psychiatric needs could be analyzed in isolation from his medical needs, they perhaps could have been addressed in another setting, and perhaps the reimbursement rate in the other setting might have been lower. But these services could not be isolated from the medical, detoxification process through which nonpsychiatric physicians were guiding him. By contrast, Recipient 2 also required detoxification, but her psychiatric issues were more prominent than Recipient 1's. Recipient 2's abuse of drugs injured herself and her fetus, so her psychiatric needs were necessarily more urgent and her case perhaps more complicated psychiatrically. Compared to Recipient 1, then, the high level of care provided by the hospital setting was clearly appropriate, even considering Recipient 2's psychiatric needs in isolation from her medical needs. Rather than repeat the foregoing findings of Costlier- Setting Services in the following discussions of each recipient, they are incorporated by reference and highlighted or differentiated, as needed, in discussions of specific recipients. Recipients Introduction 39. At issue are Recipients 1, 2, 11, 12, 23, 26, 27, 29, and 30. Based on Attachment C, the parties are litigating five denied claims as to Recipient 1; 16 denied claims as to Recipient 2, one denied claim and seven reduced claims as to Recipient 11; five denied claims and one reduced claim as to Recipient 12; 19 denied claims and seven reduced claims as to Recipient 23; six denied claims as to Recipient 26; five denied claims as to Recipient 27; four denied claims as to Recipient 29; and 24 denied claims and one reduced claim as to Recipient The two denied claims for double billing pertain to Recipient 12. Concessions of the parties first offered during the hearing will be noted in the discussion of the appropriate recipient. Recipient 1 For Recipient 1, a 34-year-old male diagnosed with depressive disorder, only one hospitalization is at issue. From December 2-7, 2009, Recipient 1 was hospitalized at Memorial Regional Hospital for detoxification to treat an opiate dependency. Recipient used heroin on the day prior to the admission, averaged three intravenous injections daily, and worried that he would continue to take heroin if he were not hospitalized. At issue are the following billed CPT codes: December 2: #99223 December 3: #99232 December 4: #99232 December 5: #99232 December 7: #99232 Petitioner denied these psychiatric claims for a lack of medical necessity. Misreading the chart, Dr. Segal testified that Recipient 1 had threatened to kill himself. As pointed out by Dr. Mehra, the medical records clearly disclose that Recipient 1 denied any thoughts of suicide--or, for that matter, homicide. Dr. Segal misunderstood a reported statement of Recipient 1 that he was going to kill himself--more or less inadvertently--through the continued use of drugs. Recipient 1 had been using heroin since he was 26 years old. He had previously completed treatment programs and enjoyed three years' sobriety. On admission, Recipient 1 was already suffering from muscle aches, hot and cold sweats, back pain, diarrhea, and nausea. The medical records state that, on admission, Recipient 1 "was experiencing an exacerbation of psychiatric symptoms," although these symptoms are not detailed in the records. The medical records do not describe in much detail the role of psychiatric services during this detoxification process. At one point during Recipient 1's six-day hospitalization, the medical records state: "The patient reported a reduction of psychiatric symptoms on the current medication regime " But the records do not identify the symptoms or the inpatient psychiatric services--apart from a mention of individual therapy--nor do the records explain how the medications or services may have contributed to a reduction in psychiatric symptoms. In general, the psychiatric notes are vague and provide little, if any, insight into any psychiatric symptoms, diagnoses, or treatments. Dr. Mehra testified that Recipient 1 underwent what was essentially an uncomplicated detoxification process. In hindsight, Recipient 1's detoxification was uncomplicated, but, of course, no one knew in advance that it would be. The possibility of difficulties during detoxification is suggested by the prescription for an anti-seizure medication, should the need have arisen. Dr. Mehra's implication that the hospital setting for this detoxification was an excessive level of care fails to address the medical needs of the recipient during this relatively brief detoxification process. Dr. Mehra contended for a lower level of care based on the absence of any threat of harm to self or others and the absence of any indication of a recent history of treatment failure. Failing to address the issue mentioned in the preceding paragraph, Dr. Mehra never discussed why, under the circumstances, the absence of these threats militates in favor of nonhospitalization, rather than a relatively brief hospitalization, especially as a brief hospitalization appears to have been necessitated by Recipient 1's medical needs in association with his detoxification. Dr. Mehra also failed to identify a lower level-of- care facility at which Recipient 1 could have been safely treated. Recipient 1's past failure to maintain sobriety after three years without heroin use and his well-founded fear that he would resume heroin use if treated on an outpatient basis precluded treatment in a lower level-of-care setting. Dr. Mehra never suggested that the billed psychiatric services were Inappropriate Services or Excessive Services, and Respondent has proved that they were not, notwithstanding the shortcomings in the medical records. Dr. Mehra suggested that the psychiatric services were Costlier-Setting Services, but Petitioner has failed to prove that they were. Petitioner therefore improperly denied these five psychiatric claims for a lack of medical necessity. Recipient 2 For Recipient 2, a 32-year-old female diagnosed as 21 weeks gravid and with depressive disorder, only one hospitalization is at issue. From December 1-18, 2008, Recipient 2 was hospitalized at Plantation General Hospital for detoxification from alcohol abuse, including binge drinking. Actually admitted on November 29, 2008, to the Broward Addiction Recovery Center within the hospital, Respondent's physician initially diagnosed Recipient 2 with Antepartum Polysubstance Dependence.12/ At issue are the following billed CPT codes: December 2: #99232 December 3: #99232 December 4: #99232 December 5: #99232 December 6: #99231 December 7: #99231 December 8: #99232 December 9: #99232 December 10: #99232 December 11: #99232 December 12: #99232 December 13: #99231 December 14: #99231 December 15: #99232 December 16: #99232 December 17: #99232 Petitioner denied these billed psychiatric claims for a lack of medical necessity. Recipient 2 was homeless. She had been working as a prostitute and, at one point during her hospitalization, reported that she had become pregnant while having sex with a customer. Recipient 2 had been treated briefly in 2006, but had relapsed immediately and had enjoyed only one, six-month period of sobriety since the inception of her alcohol addiction in 2001. Recipient 2 had no family support. Her father had been an alcoholic, and her mother had been a crack addict, so her grandmother had raised her from the age of six months. Recipient 2 claimed to have support from her boyfriend, but there is doubt that the boyfriend, with whom Recipient 2 appears to have had no contract during her hospitalization, was much more than Recipient 2's pimp. Dr. Sobhan treated Recipient 2 at the hospital and prepared for her a detailed treatment plan. Dr. Sobhan found that Recipient 2 had "very weak ego strength" and was in a "very fragile mental state." She maintained unrealistic expectations of others and used the defenses of displacement and drugs to deal with her feelings. She had minimal insight and often used inappropriate laughter as a defense. Dr. Sobhan found that Recipient 2's life "has been totally destroyed by her drug addiction," and she "has lost all volitional capacity to abstain from drugs or deal effectively with life on life's terms." Her drug use "has persisted and steadily worsened despite negative consequences in her life." At admission, Dr. Sobhan determined: "A lower level of care at this time would place the patient at risk for relapse, harm to herself and harm to the fetus." Recipient 2 required "stabilization of her mental health," and "[i]npatient services will be needed to prevent regression and restore patient to a state of competence where she can move on to a lower level of care in 21 days but still remain in a residential setting." Dr. Sobhan's treatment plan was for Recipient 2 to work on her substance abuse problems by attending individual and group therapy, meet with a psychiatrist, increase coping skills to prevent relapse and identify triggers to relapse, and begin a 12-step program to rid herself of her addiction. Intra-hospitalization progress notes document the therapeutic work involved in preparing Recipient 2 for a lower level of care. Such work included helping Recipient 2 forgive herself for past failings, find appropriate leisure and recreational activities, develop relaxation techniques (such as meditation and guided imagery), and prepare for the delivery of her baby. Recipient 2 was referred to the hospital by personnel at Gratitude House, which is a residential and day facility for treating women with drug or alcohol addictions. It is not clear whether she was in the residential or day program at Gratitude House immediately prior to her hospitalization, but Recipient 2 was transferred to the residential program at Gratitude House upon discharge from the hospital. The pregnancy addiction program that served Recipient 2 at Plantation General Hospital was once located at Adventura Hospital--under Dr. Segal's administration. At that time, the program called for 45 days of inpatient treatment of the pregnant addict, and Medicaid reimbursed this inpatient treatment. Medicaid reduced its reimbursements to 28 days of inpatient treatment in such a program a few years ago, at which time the program relocated to Plantation General. At all times, Medicaid-required reimbursement conditions provided that a physician must see the recipient daily in the hospital. Dr. Segal testified that the 21-day program to which Recipient 2 was admitted at Plantation General was the only program available for treating pregnant patients with active alcohol or drug addictions. The twin purposes of the program are to provide the pregnant inpatient with medications to assist with detoxification and the psychiatric therapy required to help her conquer her addiction. Dr. Mehra countered, though, that Recipient 2 had not used cocaine since September 2008 and marijuana since October 2008. The medical records also disclose that Recipient 2 reported that she last used Xanax in September 2008. Nothing in the record suggests Inappropriate Services or Excessive Services. Petitioner's theory of a lack of medical necessity rests on Costlier-Setting Services, which is rejected for the above-discussed reasons. From a level-of-care perspective, Recipient 2's hospitalization was bookended by treatment at Gratitude House, and it may be inferred that Gratitude House staff had agreed with the need for an interim hospitalization. Certainly, Respondent's psychiatrists had made this determination. In contrast, Dr. Mehra appears to have had no idea as to what alternative settings would have been appropriate for Recipient 2 and her fetus--let alone the costs of psychiatric services provided in such settings. Petitioner therefore improperly denied these 16 psychiatric claims for a lack of medical necessity. Recipient 11 For Recipient 11, a 26-year-old male diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, only one hospitalization is at issue. From February 17-28, 2010, Recipient 11 was hospitalized at Broward General Medical Center to treat a recent exacerbation of his psychiatric illness. Recipient 11 was brought to the hospital emergency room by someone from his assisted living facility, where he had been residing for only one day and was refusing to take his psychotropic medication. Recipient 11 presented at the hospital with delusional thoughts and anxiety, claiming that his brain was in convulsion, and displaying a bizarre, though cooperative, demeanor. Due to disordered thought, Recipient 11 was unable to give an accurate history on admission. Recipient 11 received a second diagnosis on the second day of his hospitalization: acute hepatitis C. Recipient 11 had undergone a half dozen previous psychiatric admissions. The medical records for the subject hospitalization record Recipient 11's past medical history as follows: "According to the records, positive for human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C, but the recent tests in 2005 was [sic] not confirmatory." The axis II diagnosis on February 17 was thus: "History of questionable human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C. We will repeat laboratories in the morning." On February 18, a physician's report notes that Recipient 11's "laboratory data is normal." From February 18 through discharge, then, Recipient 11 did not bear a diagnosis of either HIV or hepatitis C. At issue are the following billed CPT codes: February 18: #99232 February 21: #99232 February 22: #99232 February 23: #99232 February 24: #99232 February 25: #99232 February 26: #99232 February 28: #99232 Petitioner denied the February 18 psychiatric claim for a lack of medical necessity and downcoded the remainder of the claims, which involve medical services, from CPT #99232 to #99231. At the hearing, Dr. Mehra conceded the medical necessity of the psychiatric services covered by the February 18 billing. (Tr. 284) Petitioner therefore improperly denied this psychiatric claim for a lack of medical necessity. Dr. Hoffman addressed the downcodings. By not later than February 22, any questions about HIV and hepatitis C had been answered in the negative. Dr. Segal testified that Recipient 11's remaining diagnoses were weakness, obesity, and headache. Dr. Segal admitted that the headache resolved during the course of the hospitalization. The February 20 progress note adds that the weakness, too, had at least become stable by that date. The February 21 progress note states that Recipient 11 "feels better physically" and lists as diagnoses only mild obesity and improving weakness. Respondent's upcoding of these medical claims is obvious. As Dr. Hoffman testified, from February 22 through February 28, the medical decisionmaking was straightforward, and the histories were problem focused with no more than a mention of a chief complaint. Dr. Hoffman admitted that the examinations were more intense than problem focused, but she correctly noted that the CPT #99231 requires only that two criteria be met. Here, the history and medical decisionmaking satisfied CPT #99231, not a higher code. Petitioner therefore properly downcoded from CPT #99232 to #99231 the medical claims on February 21-26 and 28. Recipient 12 For Recipient 12, a 19-year-old male diagnosed with bipolar disorder, only one hospitalization is at issue. From May 23-28, 2009, Recipient 12 was hospitalized at Florida Medical Center for treatment of an exacerbation of bipolar symptoms, including manic behaviors, disorganized thinking, loose association, and poor judgment. Respondent had recently moved to South Florida from Tennessee and had not taken his psychotropic medications for one month. At issue are the following billed CPT codes: May 23: #99222 May 24: #99232 May 24: #99232 May 24: #99232 May 26: #99232 May 28: #99232 Petitioner denied the May 23 claim, one of the May 24 claims, and the May 26 claim for a lack of medical necessity; all of these were for psychiatric services. Petitioner denied two of the May 24 claims for double billing. Petitioner downcoded the May 28 medical claim from CPT #99232 to #99231. At the hearing, the parties conceded as to all dates of service except for the double billings on May 24. Respondent's counsel conceded the downcoding of the May 28 claim. (Tr. 488) Dr. Mehra conceded that the psychiatric services on May 23 were medically necessary. (Tr. 232) After hearing a detailed explanation of the psychiatric services, Dr. Mehra conceded that the services on all three dates--May 23, 24, and 26--were medically necessary. (Tr. 240) Petitioner thus improperly denied these psychiatric claims. These concessions leave the only issue for disposition as to Respondent 12 the so-called double billings on May 24. Dr. Segal conceded that Respondent received these double reimbursements. It is equally evident that Respondent did not repay these over-reimbursements to Petitioner prior to their discovery during the audit. These are the crucial facts. Dr. Segal's argument against the extension of these double reimbursements on the ground that Respondent did not double bill them is unpersuasive. Regardless of whether these duplicated items represent double billings and reimbursements or merely double reimbursements, the point is that, prior to their discovery during the audit, Respondent failed voluntarily to repay these unearned sums. There is thus no reason not to include these sampled overpayments in the estimation process by which Petitioner determines the total overpayment. Recipient 23 For Recipient 23, a 57-year-old male diagnosed with depression, six hospitalizations are at issue. From September 8-14, December 12-18, and December 21-24, 2009, and January 10-12, February 6-8, and February 22-23, 2010, Recipient 23 was hospitalized at several facilities to treat his psychiatric illness. Recipient 23 has a history of use of cocaine and marijuana and abuse of alcohol. Not long before the first hospitalization, Recipient 23 had been released from an eight- year term in prison for robbery. At issue are the following billed CPT codes: September 9: #99232 September 10: #99232 September 11: #99232 September 12: #99232 September 13: #99232 September 14: #99238 December 12: #99222 December 12: #99254 December 13: #99232 December 14: #99232 December 14: #99232 December 15: #99232 December 15: #99232 December 16: #99232 December 16: #99222 December 17: #99232 December 17: #99232 December 18: #99238 December 18: #99232 December 23: #99232 December 23: #99232 December 24: #99238 December 24: #99232 January 12: #99238 February 6: #99223 February 7: #99223 February 8: #99233 Petitioner denied all of the claims for a lack of medical necessity except for the downcodings from CPT #99232 to #99231 on December 14-18 and 23-24. The psychiatric denials will be addressed before the medical downcodings. On September 8, Recipient 23 was transported to the hospital from jail by law enforcement officers. He had been exhibiting suicidal and homicidal tendencies while in jail. He presented with hyperverbal speech, bizarre appearance, withdrawn and uncooperative behavior, irritable mood, persecutory and paranoid delusions, auditory hallucinations, and poor judgment. Recipient 23 required 24-hour supervision. His history included the suicide of his mother when he was a young child. Dr. Mehra testified that the progress notes for this hospitalization were vague--failing, for instance, to specify the nature of the delusions. Dr. Mehra faulted the medical records for failing to detail how Recipient 23's psychiatric symptoms were impacting him. For instance, did Recipient 23 require restraints or as-needed administration of antipsychotics? In terms of Recipient 23's suicidal tendencies, Dr. Mehra noted a lack of a plan for suicide. Dr. Mehra also raised the question of whether the patient merely wanted to escape a nonpreferred setting--jail--by admittance to the hospital. Dr. Segal testified that Recipient 23 had been Baker Acted recently on one or two other occasions preceding the September 8 hospitalization. His treatment plan included, among other things, increasing the dosage of Risperdal that he had been taking. During this brief hospitalization of no more than six days, the psychiatrist also increased the patient's Seroquel to control psychiatric symptoms. As soon as Recipient 23 did not seem suicidal, Respondent had him discharged to Second Chance Recovery, a halfway house representing a lower level of care, where he would be followed by another of Respondent's psychiatrists. Dr. Sobhan admitted that, with this kind of psychiatric patient, it is necessary to discharge him as soon as he says that he is doing better and no longer represents a risk of suicide or homicide. Just as Respondent's psychiatrists are concerned about a patient's acting out on suicidal or homicidal ideation, they are also concerned that unnecessarily long hospitalizations will make the patient dependent on the hospital. It is difficult to characterize Dr. Mehra's medical- necessity concerns. They seem equally applicable to Inappropriate Services, Excessive Services, and Costlier-Setting Services. However, Respondent has proved that the psychiatric services during this relatively brief hospitalization were appropriate and not excessive. Presumably aware that inmates would prefer a hospital to a jail and might fake psychiatric symptoms, correctional officers nonetheless felt it necessary to transport Recipient 23 to the hospital due to his suicide threats. Upon arrival at the hospital, Recipient 23 exhibited symptoms consistent with a serious mental disorder. Respondent's psychiatrists treated Recipient 23 until, in fairly short order, he stabilized and was discharged without delay. Nor has Petitioner proved that the psychiatric services were Costlier-Setting Services for the reasons already discussed. The inpatient psychiatric services provided on September 9-14 were thus medically necessary. The next hospitalization took place from December 12-18. At the hearing, Dr. Mehra conceded the medical necessity of the CPT #99222 on December 12. (Tr. 259) But he testified that medical necessity was lacking for the psychiatric services provided from December 13-18. Again, Recipient 23 presented to the hospital with suicidal ideations. His plan was to cut his wrists, as, he claimed, to have done previously. Multiple stressors in his life included homelessness, unemployment, cocaine use, and alcohol abuse. His global assessment of functioning, on a scale of 0-100, was 30, which is, as Dr. Mehra graciously conceded, "on the low side." (Tr. 257) Respondent's psychiatrist gradually increased Recipient 23's Seroquel, but also placed him on Prozac during this hospitalization. Reflecting the seriousness with which hospital staff took Recipient 23's suicidal ideation, they put him on visual observation, followed by a check every 15 minutes. The psychiatric records reveal that, on December 13, Recipient 23 still suffered auditory hallucinations and suicidal ideation. He was still receiving 24-hour supervision. The Seroquel was increased the following day, as well as on December 16, after the patient's symptoms had not improved. After increasing the Seroquel again on December 17, Respondent's psychiatrist discharged Recipient 23 to Second Chance Recovery, although, instead of reporting to this halfway house, Recipient 23 returned to his halfway house in Pompano Beach. It is puzzling why Petitioner denied the December 13- 18 claims for a lack of medical necessity. If anything, Recipient 23 required a longer hospitalization: three days after discharge, he slashed his arm with a razor blade, leaving a 30 cm-long gash. The circumstances of the December 13-18 hospitalization plus the suicide attempt three days after discharge establish the medical necessity of the December 13-18 hospitalization. After slashing his arm, Recipient 23 was involuntarily Baker Acted on December 21 to a receiving facility, where Respondent's psychiatrist treated him. On admission, Recipient 23 revealed a plan to kill himself by running into traffic. Petitioner challenged the medical necessity of only the third and final days of this hospitalization--December 23 and 24. As Dr. Sobhan testified, ten years ago, Recipient 23 would have qualified for long-term commitment to a state hospital under the Baker Act. This was not necessarily the better approach to Recipient 23's mental illness. Because Recipient 23 eats and takes his medicine in the local hospital, he achieves sufficient short-term stabilization that short-term hospitalization followed by outpatient treatment produce a better prognosis than long-term hospitalization. However, as Dr. Segal concluded, Recipient 23's multiple hospitalizations over a relatively short period of time demonstrate the inadequacy of community resources, like halfway houses, whose levels of care are not sufficient for the treatment of Recipient 23's psychiatric symptoms during periods of exacerbation. Somewhat surprisingly, given his testimony that inpatient psychiatric services at local hospitals were not medically necessary, Dr. Mehra did not argue for lower-level-of- care settings, but for an equal or higher level-of-care setting--a state hospital. (Tr. 266) Addressing the patient's "best interest," if not medical necessity, Dr. Mehra opined that past failures of coordination of care in settings with lower levels of care than local hospitals militate against the providing of services in local hospitals. It is unnecessary to resolve the disagreement between Dr. Sobhan and Dr. Mehra about the efficacy of treating Recipient 23 in a state hospital. Petitioner did not prove that the state hospital is a lower level of care or that psychiatric services in this setting are reimbursed at a different rate than those provided in the local hospital. More importantly, both experts implicitly agreed that a lower level-of-care would not have been appropriate for Recipient 23 at the time. In a wider-ranging discussion triggered by the December 23 and 24 claims, but obviously not limited to Recipient 23, Dr. Mehra testified: "my concern has been not even whether the patients need to be in the hospital, but it's just kind of the documentation to kind of communicate that urgency or that need for things. So obviously, that's why on some of these cases where maybe I have overlooked it, I am very much willing to concede those dates that maybe I've missed." (Tr. 270) It seems that Dr. Mehra was approaching a concession as to the psychiatric services on December 23 and 24--and perhaps other dates of service regarding Recipient 23 and even other recipients. With or without his concession, the inpatient psychiatric services on December 23-24 were medically necessary. Recipient 23's next hospitalization took place less than three weeks after discharge on December 24. For the January 10-12, 2010, hospitalization, Petitioner denied, as noted above, the CPT #99238 on January 12. This hospitalization was necessitated by Recipient 23's calling 911 and stating that he was holding a blade wanting to kill himself. Sheriff's deputies disarmed him and transported him to the hospital where he was admitted under the Baker Act, although Recipient 23 later agreed to hospitalization. As before, while hospitalized, Recipient 23 ate, took his medicine, and improved. Dr. Sobhan noted in the medical records a concern that the patient was manipulative, but testified that denying admission to patients such as Recipient 23 is impossible when they appear in emergency rooms threatening to kill themselves and emergency room physicians admit them under the Baker Act. Dr. Mehra sensibly seized on the possibility that Recipient 23 was manipulating the system in order to be hospitalized. Dr. Mehra asked whether physicians were really helping this patient by repeatedly admitting him. With equal logic, though, Dr. Sobhan responded that it is hard to deny admission or discharge a patient who tells everyone that he is suicidal, so that it is well-documented in the records. Dr. Segal stated that, if a patient has a good support system, he does not believe that he must hospitalize such a patient, even if she has voiced suicidal ideas. But Recipient 23 was unstable, lacked outside support, and had recently cut himself badly in a suicide attempt. This is a closer call, but the final day of inpatient hospital services was medically necessary. As Dr. Segal testified, the day of discharge is time-consuming for the treating physicians to try to ensure that the patient will receive continuity of care post-hospitalization and perhaps avoid the need of rehospitalization. This is exactly what the subject CPT code covers. The importance of such efforts is underscored in a case such as Recipient 23, as he was in and out of the hospital repeatedly in a brief period of time. Lastly, as to psychiatric services and their medical necessity, Recipient 23 was hospitalized February 6-8. Petitioner denied each CPT #99223 on February 6 and 7, as well as the CPT #99232 on February 8. Although these dates of service appear on Attachment C, the expert witnesses neglected to discuss these dates of service. Of the 476 pages of medical records for Recipient 23 included in the present record, only pages 2290-91 address this hospitalization. Page 2290 is irrelevant to this case. Dated February 6, page 2291 covers psychiatric services, mentions a treatment plan, and refers to Recipient 23's presenting on that day at the hospital with suicidal ideation, depression, and substance dependence. Given the richly developed record concerning Recipient 23 and the proximity of the February 6 date of service to earlier and later hospitalizations, the spare comments on page 2291 support a finding of medical necessity for February 6, but not February 7 and 8, for which no evidence whatsoever exists. Additionally, even though a different psychiatrist saw Recipient 23 on February 7 than who saw him on the prior day, the February 7 date of service did not qualify for another CPT #99253.13/ Respondent's failure to prove that the February 7 and 8 psychiatric services were not Inappropriate Services or Excessive Services means that Petitioner's denial for a lack of medical necessity is sustained. As noted above, the downcodings involve the medical services provided on December 14-18 and 23-24. At the time of admission on December 12, 2009, Respondent presented medically with hyperlipidemia, hypertension, ademia, localized osteoarthrosis, seborrheic dermatitis, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). On December 14, the progress notes record only dermatitis, a toothache, and a third condition, which is illegible. Dr. Hoffman testified that this was a problem focused interval history, detailed examination, and straightforward medical decisionmaking. She is correct. The skin condition and toothache appear minor, and the patient was "stable, recovering or improving." There was no complexity to the decisionmaking, and the history was no more than problem focused. On December 15, the progress notes record GERD, hypertension, seborrheic dermatitis, and a fourth condition that is illegible. The patient's vital signs were within normal limits. Dr. Hoffman testified that the medical decisionmaking was of low complexity and implied that the history was problem focused. She is correct. On December 16, the progress notes record dental pain over night, hypertension, and seborrheic dermatitis. Dr. Hoffman testified that the medical decisionmaking was still of low complexity, and the history was problem focused. Again, Dr. Hoffman is correct.14/ On December 17, the progress notes record GERD, seborrheic dermatitis, and tooth pain. The tooth pain had decreased, and the dermatitis remained a minor issue, although the hypertension had turned to hypotension. Dr. Hoffman testified that the medical decisionmaking remained of low complexity, and the history problem focused. On December 18, the progress notes record GERD, tooth pain, seborrheic dermatitis, and hypertension. The tooth pain had improved. As Dr. Hoffman testified, the medical decisionmaking remained of low complexity, and the history problem focused. Dr. Hoffman's testimony was correct as to these dates of service. Dr. Segal's rebuttal for the medical claims for this hospitalization occasionally blended the psychiatric services into the medical services. He stressed a more complicated past history, but failed to explain how these potentially complicating components were relevant to the subject hospitalization. Dr. Segal helpfully pointed out the potential complexity of medical decisionmaking in terms of the management of the many medications that Recipient 23 was taking. But ultimately Dr. Segal failed to overcome Dr. Hoffman's testimony about the complexity of the medical decisionmaking. The multiple medications were a complicating factor, but were more than offset by the limited number of possible diagnoses and management options, the lack of complexity of medical records and diagnostic tests, and the absence of risk of significant complications, morbidity, or mortality associated with the relatively minor presenting problems. Obviously, the December 21-24 hospitalization was driven by the patient's psychiatric deterioration, which, as noted above, resulted in a serious wound to the arm during an apparent suicide attempt. As Dr. Hoffman testified, for December 23, the progress notes reveal that the chief complaint was the wound to the arm; without more, this was a problem focused history. Although the examination was detailed, the medical decisionmaking was of low complexity. For December 24, the progress notes state that the wound was healing, and mild hypotension and dehydration were concerns. As Dr. Hoffman testified, this was a problem focused history with medical decisionmaking of low complexity. The downcodings are all correct. Petitioner therefore improperly denied all of the psychiatric claims except for those of February 7 and 8 and properly downcoded all of the medical claims. Recipient 26 For Recipient 26, a 13-year-old male diagnosed with bipolar or depressive disorder, only one hospitalization is at issue. From April 29-May 5, 2009, Recipient 26 was hospitalized at Memorial Healthcare System for treatment of a recurrence of aggressive behavior, including threatening to kill his mother with a butter knife. At issue are the following billed CPT codes: April 30: #99232 May 1: #99232 May 2: #99232 May 3: #99232 May 4: #99232 May 5: #99232 Petitioner denied these claims involving psychiatric services for a lack of medical necessity. At hearing, after a discussion between Dr. Segal and Dr. Mehra as to the care of Recipient 26, Dr. Mehra conceded the medical necessity of April 30 and May 1. The remaining dates still in dispute are thus May 2-5. As Dr. Segal testified, Respondent's psychiatrists are "very careful" about putting children on medications, but, to control Recipient 26's symptoms, it was necessary to put him on four powerful medications: Prozac, Abilify, Trazodone, and Buspar. From April 29 to May 2, Recipient 26 was also on Ativan. Early in the hospitalization, Recipient 26 displayed depression and poor eye contact, and he was nonverbal. He was on elopement precautions during his hospitalization. On May 1, Recipient 26 was also responding to internal stimuli. The lack of improvement in symptoms caused the psychiatrist to establish a rule-out diagnosis of pervasive development disorder. Because Recipient 26 was no longer displaying aggressive behavior that posed a risk to his mother, Respondent's psychiatrist decided to discharge him on May 5. Dr. Mehra's testimony predicated a lack of medical necessity for the final four days of this seven-day hospitalization on the lack of need to continue to observe and stabilize the child. Dr. Segal responded that they were treating a "very sick child" and could not have dealt with the situation, including the introduction of new medications, any faster in the inpatient setting. Recipient 26 had undergone another psychiatric admission on February 18-24, 2009, during which time he was placed on suicide and elopement precautions. For this earlier hospitalization, Recipient 26 had been Baker Acted for assaulting his younger sister. For the entire hospitalization, Recipient 26 had refused to respond to questions during psychotherapeutic sessions, responding instead with gestures. The child's mother had advised, at one time, that he only spoke at home. This hospitalization had concluded with a reference to the Henderson Community Mental Health Center and instructions for the child to attend an aftercare program. The subject hospitalization took place only two months later. Following the subject hospitalization, Recipient 26 was next hospitalized, according to the medical records, in December 2009. Dr. Mehra is right about this case. Neither the documentary record nor Dr. Segal's testimony establishes the medical necessity for psychiatric services after May 1. Notwithstanding the apparent illness of the child, the evidentiary record fails to establish if it was necessary to provide services to monitor the introduction of new drugs or existing drugs in higher doses, to provide services to continue to stabilize the child, or to provide services toward a diagnosis concerning pervasive development disorder. For these reasons, Respondent has failed to prove that the services provided after May 1 were not Inappropriate Services. Petitioner therefore improperly denied the psychiatric claims of April 30 and May 1, but properly denied the remaining psychiatric claims. Recipient 27 For Recipient 27, a 52-year-old male diagnosed with bipolar disorder, depression, and alcohol and cocaine dependence, only one hospitalization is at issue. From August 26-September 1, 2009, Recipient 27 was hospitalized at Broward Health for treatment of an exacerbation of the symptoms of his bipolar disorder and depression. At issue are the following billed CPT codes: August 27: #99232 August 28: #99232 August 29: #99232 August 30: #99231 August 31: #99232 Petitioner denied these claims involving psychiatric services for a lack of medical necessity. Recipient 27 was homeless. He had no support from family or friends. The evidentiary record documents repeated hospitalizations during the audit period. All of the hospitalizations follow a pattern. Recipient 27 fails to take his medications, ingests cocaine and/or large volumes of alcohol, feels hopeless and sometimes suicidal, and is hospitalized for a brief period so that his habitual use of intoxicants can be abated, medications can be reestablished, and psychiatric condition can be stabilized. During these hospitalizations, Recipient 27 receives medical treatment for a variety of conditions, mostly associated with his largely untreated diabetes. According to the medical records, Respondent's psychiatrist ordered an increase in Recipient 27's antipsychotic medication, Seroquel, on August 27. On that day, Recipient 27 continued to demonstrate childlike behavior, poor contact with reality, disorganized thought, and persecutory delusions. Recipient 27's condition was unchanged until August 31, when he exhibited some improvement. Dr. Mehra's main criticisms involved the medical records. For instance, the form prompts the psychiatrist to describe the persecutory delusions, if present, and Respondent's psychiatrist did not do so. Likewise, the form prompts the psychiatrist to supply a chief complaint, but Respondent's psychiatrist did not do so. And the medical records reveal little of what is going on with the patient. Dr. Mehra made a good case for downcoding the CPT #99232 to #99231 for August 27-29 and August 31, but Petitioner has staked its challenge on a lack of medical necessity, not upcoding. In a closer case, the omitted information on the forms might have proved material, but, on these facts, Respondent has proved that the psychiatric services in question were not Inappropriate Services or Excessive Services. Petitioner has failed to prove that they were Costlier-Setting Services. Recipient 27 is a good example of the effects of transportation, motivation, and substance-abuse problems combining with a lack of insight to preclude successful treatment in lower levels of care. Dr. Mehra did not suggest a lower-level-of-care setting, but seemed to focus on what he viewed as the inadequacy of the medical records. Petitioner therefore improperly denied the psychiatric claims of August 27-31. Recipient 29 For Recipient 29, a 33-year-old male diagnosed with schizophrenia, only one hospitalization is at issue. From April 21-30, 2009, Recipient 29 was hospitalized at Broward General Medical Center for treatment of an exacerbation of the symptoms of his schizophrenia. At issue are the following billed CPT codes: April 27: #99232 April 28: #99232 April 29: #99232 April 30: #99238 Petitioner denied these claims involving psychiatric services for a lack of medical necessity. After listening to Dr. Segal's testimony, Dr. Mehra conceded the medical necessity of the inpatient services on April 27-28. (Tr. 300) Dr. Mehra testified, though, that the patient was ready for discharge by April 29. Dr. Mehra did not address the fact that Recipient 29 was readmitted to the hospital on May 9--just 10 days after when Dr. Mehra opined that he had been ready for discharge and eight days after he had been actually discharged. Dr. Mehra did not address that, on readmission, Recipient 29 presented with suicidal and homicidal ideations--both with plans--and command delusions, among other symptoms. At the time of the subject admission, Recipient 29 was hearing voices telling him to hurt himself and others. Reportedly, Recipient 29 had access to a gun. On April 24, Recipient 29 stated that a voice was telling him to kill people. His insight and judgment remained limited. Until April 26, the reason cited in the medical records for continued hospitalization was a need to continue to plan. On April 27, the reason was changed to monitor changes in medications. On April 28, Recipient 29 reported hallucinations of ghosts and asked for an increase in his antipsychotic medication, Trilafon--an unusual request from a psychiatric patient. At that time, lab work indicated that blood levels of Depakote were low, so Respondent's psychiatrist had to increase the Depakote and Trilafon. Although the patient was still childlike, bizarre, irritable, and disorganized of thought, the psychiatrist determined that he could be safely discharged on his newly adjusted medications. The unsettled condition of Recipient 29 on April 28 precluded his discharge the next day. The mental illness and psychiatric symptoms that necessitated this hospitalization amply justified the last two dates of service at issue, as further evidenced by another psychiatric hospitalization eight days after discharge. Recipient 30 For Recipient 30, a 52-year-old female diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder, four hospitalizations are at issue. From August 5-10, October 8-20, October 28-November 3, and December 11-22, 2009, and February 12-17, 2010, Recipient 29 was hospitalized at Broward General Medical Center for treatment of exacerbations of the symptoms of her schizophrenia. At issue are the following billed CPT codes: August 6: #99232 August 7: #99232 August 8: #99232 August 10: #99238 October 17: #99232 October 18: #99232 October 19: #99232 October 20: #99232 October 29: #99232 October 30: #99232 October 31: #99232 November 1: #99232 November 2: #99232 December 17: #99232 December 18: #99232 December 19: #99232 December 19: #99232 December 20: #99232 December 21: #99232 February 12: #99223 February 13: #99233 February 14: #99231 February 15: #99233 February 16: #99233 February 17: #99239 Petitioner denied these claims for a lack of medical necessity, except that it downcoded one of the CPT #99232 claims for services on December 19 to CPT #99231. All of the claims at issue were for psychiatric services, except the downcoded claim was for medical services. At the hearing, after learning that illegible notes pertained to chest pain, Dr. Hoffman conceded that the December 19 medical service was properly billed at CPT #99232. (Tr. 516) The remaining services at issue are psychiatric. At the hearing, Dr. Mehra conceded the medical necessity of the psychiatric services for August 6-7 (Tr. 306-07) and February 12-14. (Tr. 324) The four hospitalizations in this case all took place within seven months; the first three of these hospitalizations took place within five months. The first hospitalization was the result of a Baker Act. Recipient 30 presented at the emergency room with depression, homicidal and suicidal ideation, psychosis, auditory hallucinations, and a history of polysubstance abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol. Lab work subsequently revealed the presence of alcohol, cocaine, and marijuana. She was violent, hitting and biting at hospital personnel, who had to restrain her at the wrists and ankles. On August 6, Recipient 30 continued to be depressed and displayed, among other things, symptoms of alcohol withdrawal, psychotic behaviors, rocking, and flight of ideas. The next day, Recipient 30 continued to display depression, disorganized thinking, and hallucinations. Dr. Segal described the psychiatric services from August 5-7, but he skipped to August 10 in his testimony, explaining the discharge on that date by noting that the patient was on her medications and, with much greater insight, recognized that she was doing better. (Tr. 305) Dr. Mehra likewise skipped the last two days in question from this hospitalization. (Tr. 306-07) The physician's progress note for August 8 states that Recipient 30 was more depressed, but no longer had suicidal or homicidal ideation. Her thought process had improved from a flight of ideas to disorganized thought. Her cognition was grossly intact. There does not appear to be any note for August 9. Respondent has proved that the psychiatric services on August 8 were not Inappropriate Services or Excessive Services, and Petitioner has failed to prove that they were Costlier-Setting Services. However, Respondent has failed to prove that the psychiatric services on August 10 were not Inappropriate Services. The next dates at issue are October 17-20. The start of this hospitalization was October 7, again involuntarily under the Baker Act. Through October 17, Recipient 30 displayed rocking, auditory hallucinations, depression, disorganized thought, and paranoia, according to Dr. Segal and the records. The next day was the first that the patient was not rocking, although she still suffered from paranoia and auditory hallucinations. The rocking returned on October 19, and she exhibited increased suicidal ideation--clear signs of regression, as testified to by Dr. Segal. She exhibited marked improvement on the following day, at which time she was discharged. Dr. Mehra questioned whether the auditory hallucinations were of the command variety, and he dismissed the rocking as justification for continued hospitalization. Dr. Segal responded that Recipient 30 was rehospitalized about one week after this discharge. Through October 20, Dr. Segal reasoned that Recipient 30 was still psychotic, manic, and unsafe for a lower level-of-care setting, such as the assisted living facility at which she resided. Dr. Segal observed that, shortly after discharge on October 20, Recipient 30 was cycling between mania and depression. Dr. Segal noted that Recipient 30 was Baker Acted again on October 28. She was suffering from suicidal ideation and again intoxicated with alcohol, drinking massive quantities of beer daily and consuming cocaine and marijuana. The next day, Recipient 30's mood was less stable, her thinking more disorganized, and her irritability more pronounced. These symptoms continued unchanged through October 30. On October 31, Recipient 30 continued to suffer from hallucinations and delusions, disorganized thought, depression, and poor judgment, but she was no longer entertaining ideas of suicide. On November 1, Recipient 30 was no longer entertaining thoughts of suicide, but she continued to have unspecified delusions and hallucinations. On November 2, Recipient 30 was free of delusions and hallucinations, and she was discharged. Dr. Mehra rightly complained about the documentation for the second October hospitalization. (Tr. 314) Despite the close proximity of these hospitalizations--although the next one was nearly six weeks thereafter--the medical necessity of psychiatric services on October 31-November 2 is absent; Respondent has failed to prove that these services were not Inappropriate Services. Psychiatric services were necessary through October 30, which was the last day of reported suicidal ideation, but not thereafter. By contrast, Respondent has proved that the psychiatric services provided from October 17-20 were not Inappropriate Services or Excessive Services, and Petitioner has failed to prove that they were Costlier-Setting Services. On these days, Recipient 30 continued to display varying levels of symptoms, including suicidal ideation. Worrisome regression had taken place in this brief period. If anything, her discharge on October 20 was premature, as suggested by her readmission eight days later. The next hospitalization started December 11, as Recipient 30 was again Baker Acted with suicidal and homicidal ideations. Her blood alcohol level at admission was .355. She had been living on the streets prostituting herself. She had been participating in the community mental-health services provided by the Henderson Mental Health Center, but Henderson personnel had encouraged her to enter the hospital at this time, evidently due to a recent exacerbation in symptoms. As pointed out by Dr. Segal, the Henderson wraparound services, including mental health targeted case management, were insufficient for Recipient 30. On December 17, Recipient 30 was still in withdrawal from alcohol. Her thinking was disorganized with a flight of ideas. She was depressed. She no longer suffered from suicidal or homicidal ideations. The next day, though, Recipient's suicidal ideation returned. There was a question whether she was suffering from hallucinations and delusions. For the next two days, December 19-21, Recipient 30 continued to exhibit depression with compromised insight and judgment, and she felt hopeless and was unable to agree not to hurt herself, if discharged. Dr. Mehra objected again to the documentation. (Tr. 318) Noting that Recipient 30's symptoms "seem to be pretty consistent, irrespective of whether she says [in the hospital] for three days, five days or ten days," Dr. Mehra agreed that "there's some type of psychiatric condition here that needs some type of treatment. The question beckons, at what level of care . . .?" (Tr. 319) As Dr. Mehra noted, Recipient 30 presented with one or more psychiatric conditions that required treatment during this and all hospitalizations at issue. Dr. Mehra did not contend that the psychiatric services in the December hospitalization were Inappropriate Services and appears not to contend that they were Excessive Services. In either event, Respondent has discharged its burden of going forward as to these issues. The underlying objection of Dr. Mehra seems to be that the psychiatric services from December 17-21 are Costlier- Setting Services. Perhaps exhibiting frustration with the apparent lack of progress with Recipient 30, Dr. Mehra implies that the appropriate setting is at a lower level of care. These claims fail for the reasons discussed above. As to level of care, Dr. Mehra's criticism ignores that, immediately preceding this hospitalization, Recipient 30 was receiving fairly intensive community services, and clearly these services were insufficient. Dr. Mehra's level-of-care testimony also fails to account for the repeated failures of hospital-based psychiatric services. The psychiatric services during the December 17-21 hospitalization were medically necessary. Recipient 30's final hospitalization at issue took place from February 12-17, of which only the last three dates require consideration after Dr. Mehra's above-described concession at hearing. This hospitalization was due to suicidal and homicidal ideation and depression. Recipient 30 had been living in Second Chance Recovery, but had regressed into violent behavior, severe depression, severe anxiety, manic behavior, and auditory and visual hallucinations. After having enjoyed 60 days of sobriety, Recipient relapsed from alcohol abstention. On February 15, Recipient 30 continued to display the features of her manic episode: agitation, loud and pressured speech, and hostility. On February 16, she continued to demonstrate irritability, loose associations, and loud and pressured speech. Respondent's psychiatrist was still waiting for lab work on her Depakote level. On February 17, Recipient 30 was improved. In fact, the progress notes for February 17 as to psychiatry reflect a lined-out entry: "Pt interviewed. Chart reviewed and [discussed with] staff." In the place of this somewhat formulaic note is: "Pt doing better. Improved. No need for further stay." There are some illegible notations, but one note reports the Depakote level at 70.9. (Petitioner Exhibit 30, p. 4591) Dr. Mehra rightly questioned how the patient progressed from February 16 when she suffered from a flight of ideas and loose associations to discharge-ready the following day. (Tr. 324-25) Although he admitted that such an improvement is possible, Dr. Mehra implied that it is likelier that no such sudden improvement ever took place. The consequences that follow this implication require careful consideration. If the sudden-improvement scenario were disregarded, then Dr. Mehra had two options: discredit the notes of the preceding days and credit the cheery note on the day of discharge or credit the notes of the preceding days and discredit the cheery note on the day of discharge. By choosing the former option, Dr. Mehra was able to deny a couple of days of services for a lack of medical necessity. But recent experience with Recipient 30 does not support Dr. Mehra's choice. Recipient 30 had been hospitalized repeatedly for serious psychiatric symptoms. She had had an unusually long 11-day hospitalization in December. In October, she had required rehospitalization eight days after discharge, suggesting, if anything, a premature discharge. On February 17, Respondent's psychiatrist obtained the Depakote level, which apparently was satisfactory. If one had to choose between the manufacturing of symptoms on the February 15-16 records and an optimistic, but selective, effort to justify discharge on the February 17 records, the evidence would favor the latter, as the psychiatrist, perhaps daunted by the prospect of another lengthy hospitalization, may have been tempted to downplay any remaining symptoms to facilitate an early discharge. More relevantly, among the three scenarios--the manufacturing of symptoms, an unduly sunny rendering of symptoms, and a dramatic overnight recovery--the record permits only the finding that February 15-16 records are unlikely to have been inaccurate. This was a sick patient with recurrent, persistent symptoms. It is unnecessary to determine which of the remaining two scenarios explains the February 17 records. Respondent has proved that the February 15-17 psychiatric services were not Inappropriate Services or Excessive Services, and Petitioner has failed to prove that they were Costlier-Setting Services. Petitioner has therefore properly denied the psychiatric claims of August 10 and October 31-November 2 for a lack of medical necessity, but has improperly denied the remaining psychiatric claims. Conclusion As noted above, Attachment C itemizes 83 denials of reimbursements of psychiatric claims for a lack of medical necessity, two denials of reimbursements for double billing, and 16 "adjustments" (i.e., reductions) of reimbursements of medical claims for upcoding. Of the 83 denials, Petitioner has prevailed as to only 10. Of the two denials, Petitioner has prevailed as to both. Of the 16 reductions, Petitioner has prevailed on 15--failing to prevail only as to one reduction that Petitioner conceded at hearing. Statistical Estimation of Total Overpayment In addition to disputing Petitioner's overpayment determinations among the sampled recipients, Respondent has contested the means by which Petitioner has inferred the total overpayment for the population of 2765 recipients from the overpayment determined for the 30 recipients. Each party presented an expert witness to provide statistical evidence supporting or discrediting the process by which Petitioner inferred the total overpayment. Petitioner's expert was Dr. Fred Huffer, and Respondent's expert was Dr. Bruce Kardon. Both experts patiently explained important statistical concepts and applied them to this case. Their testimony has been most useful. Dr. Kardon defined the nomenclature to describe different processes by which one could proceed from the overpayment for the sample to the overpayment for the population. The most accurate method to determine the total overpayment is not inference at all; it is counting. Apart from the time and expense, nothing prevents Petitioner from auditing each of the 2765 recipients and each of the 27,681 claims associated with these recipients, just as Petitioner has done with each of the 30 recipients and each of the 387 claims associated with them. For obvious reasons, Dr. Kardon did not propose this approach. Between counting and its opposite--guessing--is what Dr. Kardon identifies as estimation, which is produced by any statistically valid process by which the determined overpayment from the sample is extended to a total overpayment among the population. Dr. Kardon testified that the estimation process used by Petitioner in this case is invalid. For the reasons set forth below, this testimony has been rejected. In summary, Petitioner's estimation process in this case commenced with the selection of a random sample of 30 recipients. Petitioner determined the sample overpayment after analyzing each of these claims for accuracy. Dividing the sample overpayment total by 387 claims, Petitioner obtained the average overpayment per claim. Multiplying the average overpayment per claim by 27,681 claims in the population yielded the point estimate of total overpayments for the population. Petitioner's estimation process did not stop with the point estimate, though. Petitioner next determined the standard error, which is a measure of how variable the point estimate is. In this case, the standard error was about $99,600. Obtaining the appropriate multiple from statistical tables to derive the 95% confidence interval identified below, Petitioner then calculated a multiple of the standard error, which it then subtracted from the point estimate to arrive at the lower limit of the 95% confidence level. The estimated total overpayment corresponding to this lower limit of the 95% confidence level is the amount of overpayment identified in the FAR. Petitioner's estimation process involved only a few steps. First, Petitioner selected a random sample of recipients from the population. Petitioner routinely selects 30 recipients for each of its samples. Dr. Kardon objected dutifully to the randomness of the sample. But his objection may have been due to the failure of Petitioner to have provided him timely with all of the supporting statistical documentation. In fact, there is no reasonable doubt as to the randomness of the sample. Dr. Huffer testified that Petitioner's database management program contains a suitable random number generator. Dr. Huffer admitted that, some years ago, random number generators sometimes were flawed, but these problems are no longer common. After identifying the recipients to be sampled, Petitioner identified the number of claims per recipient during the audit period. In all audits, Petitioner must determine if the number of claims per recipient is small enough to permit analysis of each claim. If it is, Petitioner proceeds to analyze each claim of each sampled recipient. If the number of claims is too large, Petitioner selects a random sample of claims for each recipient and analyzes these claims, rather than all of the claims of the randomly selected recipients. These two approaches represent the single-stage or two-stage cluster sampling process for estimation. The clusters are the recipients. In this case, the number of claims was small enough to permit analysis of each claim, so Petitioner performed a single-stage cluster sampling. If a sampling of claims had been required to produce a more manageable number of claims for audit, Petitioner would have performed a two-stage cluster sampling. Essentially, Dr. Kardon challenges Petitioner's estimation process on two related grounds: the sample size of 30 recipients is too small, and consequently the sample is unrepresentative of the population.15/ Additionally, Dr. Kardon argues for the use of the unbiased estimator--described below-- to extend the sample overpayment to the population overpayment. Essentially, Dr. Huffer defends these challenges on two grounds: Petitioner invariably uses the same methods for the same sampling conditions to avoid charges of unfairness, and simulations conducted by Dr. Huffer demonstrate the validity-- and fairness--of the methods used by Petitioner to estimate the total overpayment. In all cases involving a one-stage cluster sample, Petitioner uses a ratio estimator to generate the point estimate. This was reflected in the multiplication of the average overpayment per sampled claim by the total number of claims in the population, as discussed above. In all cases involving a two-stage cluster sample, Petitioner uses an unbiased estimator to generate the point estimate.16/ Dr. Kardon's preference for the unbiased estimator for the one-stage cluster sample--or at least Respondent's one- stage cluster sample--not only invites individualized decisionmaking by Petitioner to shape outcomes, but fails to address the suitability of the ratio estimator when applied to monotone relationships. Given the direct relationship between the number of claims and size of the overpayment, the ratio estimator typically provides more accuracy than the unbiased estimator. Dr. Huffer ran several million simulations using a 30-unit cluster sample--some with the ratio estimator and some with the unbiased estimator. For one set of simulations, in which Dr. Huffer scaled the 30-unit cluster to the 2765-unit population, Dr. Huffer demonstrated that the ratio-estimator approach was more "precise"--as in leading to a "much smaller standard deviation for the point estimate." (Id. at p. 22) Dr. Kardon's argument for invalidity based on the nonrepresentative nature of the cluster sample fails to account adequately for the fact that Petitioner's estimation process did not stop with the identification of the point estimate. As noted in the preceding paragraph, his argument for the unbiased estimator is wrong. For one-stage cluster estimations where the number of claims is in direct relationship to the size of the overpayment, Dr. Huffer demonstrated that the 95% confidence interval is narrower using the ratio estimator than for estimations using the unbiased estimator. Dr. Kardon's argument for a greater sample size is stronger. All other factors remaining equal, a larger sample size would produce a narrower 95% confidence interval. But the shortcomings of a smaller sample size are offset--at least with a 30-unit sample size--by a wider 95% confidence interval-- especially, where, as here, Petitioner selects the lower limit of the interval to establish the provider's overpayment liability, rather than the point estimate or some other point within the confidence interval. Obviously, Petitioner's selection of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval is more favorable to a provider than the selection of any other value within the 95% confidence interval, including the point estimate. As Dr. Huffer testified (id. at p. 30), Dr. Kardon's criticisms seem, at times, to fail to give adequate weight to this point. Dr. Huffer's simulations quantify the extent to which Petitioner's selection of the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval favors providers. Based on his work, Dr. Huffer estimated the probabilities of a five percent overcharge at about 1.4% and a 10 percent overcharge at about 0.5%. On average, Petitioner's estimation method undercharges a provider by about 30% of the total, actual overpayment. Overall, Petitioner's estimation undercharges a provider 95% of the time. Based on an illustration provided by Dr. Huffer (id. at p. 29), these probabilities and the magnitude of the consequences of various contingencies can be seen by using an example of a mortgage debt of $100,000. The lender offers all of its borrowers a chance to discharge their debt by paying an amount to be determined randomly, but pursuant to a process that ensures that the randomly generated payoff amount will average only 70% of the outstanding indebtedness and will be less than the outstanding indebtedness 95% of the time; however, 1.4% of the time the randomly generated payoff amount will exceed the outstanding indebtedness by 5%. If a borrower's outstanding indebtedness is $100,000, her offer is that the average payoff will be only $70,000 and 95% of the time the payoff will be less than $100,000, but 1.4% of the time the payoff will be $105,000. Dr. Kardon's argument for a larger sample size requires close consideration. At some point, it would seem, the sample size becomes so small and, correspondingly, the 95% confidence interval becomes so wide as to call into question the utility, if not the validity, of the estimation process.17/ Dr. Huffer's simulations quantify the effect of doubling the sample from 30 to 60 units. Of course, doubling the sample size would produce gains in accuracy, but not much. In the simulations, if all other factors remained equal, doubling the sample size decreased the average underpayment from about 30% to about 20%. (Petitioner Exhibit #24, second volume, p. 104) So, a doubling of the sample size--with a doubling of the effort of the agency and provider in audit and litigation-- would produce only a 33% improvement in accuracy--an improvement in accuracy that almost invariably would come at the expense of the provider. Interestingly, noting the weak relationship between increases in the size of the sample and the size of the estimated overpayment, Dr. Huffer explained Petitioner's apparent largesse in undercharging providers 95% of the time and using a sample of merely 30 recipients: Petitioner can do more audits, using the same resources. (Id.) In other words, Petitioner could audit 60 recipients and, on average, increase the estimated overpayment by 33%--or it could audit only 30 recipients and, with the same resources, conduct a second audit of a different provider, which would go unaudited in the first example. Lastly, Dr. Kardon argued for stratification of the data to produce more accurate results. As noted above, under the estimation process used by Petitioner, more accurate results are not required for statistical validity or basic fairness. Stratifying the sampled data would likely be a case-specific exercise, leaving Petitioner open to challenges that it chose to stratify or chose specific stratification criteria in order to maximize overpayments. So, while properly selected stratification criteria would produce a narrower 95% confidence interval--and likely a higher lower limit--this would be an example of the medical adage that better is the enemy of good.18/
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner shall enter a final order determining the sampled overpayment as set forth in the Findings of Fact and directing a re-run of the statistical estimation process described in the FAR and this Recommended Order to determine the total overpayment; and If, after Petitioner determines the new total overpayment, the parties are unable to agree on costs and fines, Petitioner may remand the matter(s) to DOAH for further proceedings as to either or both of these issues, to which DOAH retains jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 2013 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated sections 458.331(1)(m), (q), and (t), Florida Statutes (2007-2011), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties DOH is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of licensed physicians pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. DOH is pursuing sanctions against Respondent based on her provision of medical care to patients A.M., C.B., and P.A. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent was licensed as a medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 59800. Respondent is board certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine with a specialty in Infectious Disease. Respondent received her medical degree from Christian Medical College in India in 1984. Her medical career, according to her curriculum vitae, includes the following places of employment: 1996 Bay Area Primary Care 1997 American Family and Geriatrics 1998 Faculty appointment at University of South Florida – voluntary 2/99-11/99 Veteran’s Administration (Medical Officer on Duty) 1993-present Private Practice Respondent’s June 30, 2014, deposition testimony was that she is currently working as a medical provider at Fort Tryon Rehab and Nursing Home in New York, and prior to that she was working at a walk-in clinic in Queens, New York. Respondent testified that she currently resides in Pinellas Park, Florida. In 2008, Respondent’s Florida practice, Bay Area Infectious Disease (BAID), was located at 5840 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida, and most recently at 1527 South Missouri Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Each practice location is now closed. Respondent later testified that she had a practice located at 6251 Park Boulevard, Pinellas Park, Florida, which is also closed. Jamie Carrizosa, M.D. (Dr. Carrizosa) is a board- certified internal medicine and infectious disease physician who testified as an expert for DOH. Prior to his retirement in July 2011, Dr. Carrizosa had an active medical practice including hospital privileges. He is currently an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Central Florida, teaching first and second year students in the areas of microbiology and immunology. While in private practice, he treated patients with suspected skin infections, MRSA skin infections, candidiasis and other types of skin diseases. Issa Ephtimios, M.D. (Dr. Ephtimios) is a board- certified physician in internal medicine, infectious diseases and infection control who testified as an expert for Respondent. He is an attending physician at Sacred Heart Hospital, West Florida Hospital, Baptist Hospital, and Select Specialty Hospital in Pensacola, Florida. DOH Case No. 2009-13497 (DOAH Case No. 13-0595PL) On October 8, 2008, A.M. presented to Respondent with complaints of fatigue, headaches, and moodiness, according to a History and Physical Medi-Forms document. A BAID contract for services and an authorization for BAID to disclose protected health information (PHI) were executed on October 8. Within the records there was a diagram that contained pictures of a front and back body diagram and the handwritten words: “fatigue cold sweats fevers headaches.” Neither A.M.’s name nor the date appeared on the diagram, yet Respondent identified the diagram as belonging to A.M. and showing A.M.’s small lesions. On October 9, A.M. executed a Bay Area Infectious Disease and Infusion, PLC, “CONSENT FOR TREATMENT” form. Respondent’s progress notes are generally listed in the S.O.A.P. format.16/ The following appeared on one of A.M.’s October 9th Progress Notes: S: Complaint: MRSA,17/ headecha [sic], she like [sic] to talk W Dr. Pimple on but [sic] 3 rounds Zyvox, [illegible] c/o lethargic, gain wt, fatigue, headaches Pale, feets [sic] not Percocet –[illegible].” O: Exam: Ht 5.6” Wt 172 Age 16 M/F BMI T BP 118/64 P 65 R PO2 99_ Gluc A: General Appearance: WNL/18 HEENT: WNL Neck: WNL Chest: WNL Breast: WNL Heart: WNL Lungs: WNL Abdomen: WNL Genitalia: WNL Skin: WNL + multiple abcees [sic] Spine: WNL Extremities: WNL [All the “WNL” were typed capital letters.] DIAGNOSIS: Skin Abcess- Buttock, leg MRSA – Community Acquired P: PLAN: Vancomycin 1 gr daily [illegible] A second Progress Note for A.M., also dated October 9, contains the same information in the “S” and “O” portions, but at the “A” portion, it has no notations other than the pre-printed “WNL” at the “Skin” section, and it does not contain a “Diagnosis.” Respondent admitted that there were times when she would “complete records later on.” Respondent’s progress notes for A.M. from October 10 through October 16 were in a slightly different SOAP format. A.M.’s October 10 Progress Note reflects the following: S: Complaint: Vanco reaction O: Examination: BP P T R HT WT PO2 Glucose General Appearance; Awake alert,orientedx3 Head: Normocephalic atraurmatic EENT: PERLA, EOMI,Sclera-non-icteric, conjunctiva-pink Neck: Supple, no JVD. No Lymph nodes Heart: S1 S2 normal, murmurs Lungs: clear Abdomen: Soft, no masses, no tenderness, BS+, no hepatomegaly, no splenomegaly Left Lymph-inguinal: WNL Right Lymph-inguinal: WNL Extremities: No clubbing, cyanosis, edema Neurological: Motor-5/5, sensory-5/5, Deep tendon reflexes 2+ Cranial nerves Intact Skin: no rashes + circled Abscess Muskuloskeletal: WNL CLINICAL ASSESSMENT: MRSA, Skin Abcess CVIO PLAN: Zyvox A.M.’s progress notes between October 11 and 31, 2008, reflect various subjective complaints regarding her skin conditions. The physical examinations for each day do not contain consistent information regarding A.M.’s blood pressure, her height, weight, respirations, PO2, and glucose. On two days the “skin” section reflected “no rashes,” yet the clinical assessment reported “Skin Abces – improvely” [sic] or just “skin abcess.” On three progress notes (October 17, 18 and 20, 2008), there is a hand-written notation at the “Heart” section which indicates that A.M. might have a heart murmur, yet in the diagnosis section there is no mention of a heart issue or endocarditis.19/ All other progress notes regarding the “heart” contain the pre-printed “WNL.” A.M.’s IV/IM procedure notes beginning on October 10 and continuing through October 31, each reflect “heart murmur” in the diagnosis section along with “MRSA Skin abcess.” Respondent testified that she felt justified in using IV Vancomycin because A.M. was “doing the heart murmur.” However, Respondent’s initial plan included Vancomycin before any heart murmur was detected or assessed. Vancomycin is a prescription medication used to treat staphylococcal infections, and is usually utilized for more serious infections such as endocarditis. Zyvox is a prescription medication that comes in either an IV or oral form used to treat infections. Respondent claimed that there were missing medical records for A.M. However, with respect to patient A.M., Respondent claimed a progress note (part of the history and physical exam) from October 8 was the only medical record that was missing. Respondent then asserted that A.M. brought in her primary doctor’s referral which reflected A.M.’s treatment, including the medication prescribed; yet those medical records are not present. Respondent further testified that she “usually” puts prior treatment provider records in her patient’s file. Respondent maintained that she kept a lot of A.M.’s medical records on a computer that was bought in January 2001. However, that computer crashed in October 2011. A computer crash is plausible; however, the DOH subpoena was properly issued and served on Respondent on January 28, 2010, more than nine months before the alleged computer crash. Respondent then claimed that she “did not have access to that computer, which later crashed,” followed by her claim that “that practice was closed and when they came here, we only had the old, whatever, paper records.” Respondent’s position on these records was disingenuous at best. Respondent claimed that A.M. was seen and her medical records were at a different location (6251 Park Boulevard) than where the subpoena was served (5840 Park Boulevard).20/ Respondent then claimed the records that were moved from one facility to another facility could not be located. Respondent alluded to a potential police report regarding an alleged theft of medical records and other office items; however, nothing substantiated that, and Respondent’s testimony about possible criminal activity is not credible. Respondent admitted that some of A.M.’s medical records, specifically progress notes, were pre-printed, and that she wrote on some of the progress notes. In the progress notes dated October 10, 11, 13 through 18, 20 through 25, and 27 through 30, the handwriting appears to be the same, except for the change in each date. Further, Respondent confirmed A.M.’s 18 pages of progress notes of Vancomycin administration, yet distanced herself from them by saying “sometimes the charts were completed later on, so it’s possibility that it -- that it -- you know, it’s progress notes for the IV administration, but – um . . . the dates are written by nurses, so I don’t -- I don’t know.” Respondent’s inability or unwillingness to identify who may have written on A.M.’s progress notes and her avoidance in answering direct questions or claiming she did not recall the patient (and then discussing the patient) greatly diminished her credibility. Respondent claimed that there were “some verbal changes” she gave that were in a “set of nursing records,” which were not present. Any “changes” or directions given by Respondent should have been contained within her medical records for the care of A.M. Respondent maintained that her diagnosis of A.M. was based on Respondent’s total clinical picture of A.M., including A.M.’s “symptoms, her presentation, her lesions, her course -- she’d had repeated courses of oral antibiotics, and was getting recurrence.” Yet, Respondent also claimed A.M. “came in with these culture results from the primary, and that’s how the staff . . . it states MRSA, because it was already documented MRSA.” Standard of Care Respondent was required to practice medicine in her care of A.M. with “that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized in general law related to health care licensure.” Based on the credited opinions of Dr. Carrizosa, Respondent’s treatment and care of A.M. violated the standard of care for the following reasons. A reasonably prudent health care provider suspecting a patient has MRSA would observe the abrasion(s), culture the abrasion (MRSA), send the culture out for laboratory confirmation, prescribe oral antibiotics, and if the MRSA does not respond to the oral antibiotics, prescribe and administer IV antibiotics. Dr. Carrizosa noted that Respondent did not provide a description of A.M.’s abscesses, did not indicate that A.M.’s abscesses were drained, incised, cleaned or bandaged, or that Respondent provided any patient education to A.M. Although labs were ordered, there was no request for a bacterial culture or for an antimicrobial susceptibility test to be completed. Dr. Carrizosa expressed concern that young people can eliminate antibiotics within six to eight hours and there is a need for monitoring their medications to ensure they maintain a therapeutic level. Dr. Carrizosa opined that Respondent did not meet the standard of care in her treatment of A.M. The evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent violated the standard of care applicable to an infectious disease practitioner. Respondent presented the deposition testimony of Dr. Ephtimios. Dr. Ephtimios reviewed the same records as Dr. Carrizosa. Dr. Ephtimios admitted he had several lengthy conversations with Respondent during which time she provided additional information to Dr. Ephtimios that was not in A.M.’s written records regarding “the rationale for using the Vancomycin.” Respondent shared additional information with Dr. Ephtimios yet failed to recall or remember the patient during her own deposition testimony. Dr. Ephtimios’ opinion is not credible. Respondent’s deposition behavior lessens her credibility. Medical Records Medical records are maintained for a number of reasons. Primarily, medical records are necessary for the planning of patient care; for continuity of treatment; and to document the course of the patient’s medical evaluation, treatment, and progression through treatment. Further, medical records should document any communications between health care providers, and they serve as a basis for health care providers to be paid by either the patient or another party. See, rule 64B8-9.003. The medical records of A.M.’s contact with Respondent’s office between October 8, 2008, and October 31, 2008, do not meet Florida’s standards for medical records. A.M.’s records do not describe the abscesses, do not indicate if any of the abscesses were drained, incised, or cultured. Respondent failed to provide any assessment of a staph infection or provide any laboratory support for the use of the medication administered. Respondent did not document A.M.’s possible heart murmur, and failed to provide a diagnostic basis for endocarditis. Further portions of the medical record are illegible. There is no clear indication that Respondent provided A.M. with any education on her condition. Inappropriate Drug Therapy Respondent authorized the administration of Vancomycin and/or Zyvox to a 16-year-old female without adequately monitoring A.M.’s condition, or documenting the need for such use. Respondent’s failure to document the need for Vancomycin through appropriate or adequate testing was not in the best interest of A.M. DOH Case No. 2011-06111 (DOAH Case No. 14-0514PL) On February 28, 2011, patient C.B., a 42-year-old female, presented to Respondent with complaints of food allergy issues, and gastrointestinal problems, gas, bloating, and other stomach issues.21/ When she presented to Respondent in February 2011, C.B. did not have any concerns about candida or thrush.22/ Respondent prescribed a Medrol Pak (a steroid) and directed C.B. to have lab tests for the candida antibody and an immune system panel. One week later, C.B. again presented to Respondent. C.B. did not have any of the symptoms for a chronic yeast infection such as vaginal itching or thrush. Respondent advised C.B. that she had a chronic yeast infection and her immune system required treatment. However, Respondent did not prescribe any medication to C.B. at that time. On March 14, 2011, C.B. returned to Respondent’s office and received Immunoglobulin23/ via an intravenous (IV) line. On March 22, 24 and 25, 2011, C.B. received IV Ambisome.24/ Thereafter, C.B. developed a rash on her arm where the IV had been placed and a papule on her stomach. C.B. declined further IV treatments because she did not think the medication was working. On March 29, Respondent prescribed VFEND25/ to C.B. On March 30 and 31 and April 1, 2011, C.B. was a “no show” at Respondent’s office. Yet each of C.B.’s progress notes contained information regarding C.B.’s general appearance. Respondent testified that those progress notes are preprinted forms and would be adjusted upon a patient’s examination. On April 4, 2011, Respondent’s progress note for C.B. reflects “Discuss with patient in detail, patient complains of one papule, advised patient about candidiasis, GI tract not responding to azoles. Complains of diarrhea, abdominal symptoms, wants IV meds.” C.B.’s progress note dated April 5, 2011, reflects under the “S: COMPLAINT: No show - Refused to get PICC line out. Patient walked out yesterday. Patient was told to wait for dressing change. Patient states to receptionist she will come today.” Respondent elected to document on April 5, something that happened on April 4, despite the fact that the progress note for April 4 reflected a discussion with C.B. On April 11, 2011, C.B. presented a request for her medical records to Respondent’s staff. C.B. received copies of her medical records and provided them to DOH. Respondent testified as to C.B.’s 2011 presentation and Respondent’s course of treatment, including what medications were prescribed. Respondent confirmed that an undated “History and Physical” (H&P) for C.B. was C.B.’s “initial history and physical” created from a template. This H&P purports to reflect that C.B. was “discharged [from Respondent’s practice] for misbehavior . . . was in jail. . . [and] begging [for Respondent] to help her.” This H&P also contained Respondent’s physical examination of C.B., which was recorded on a “Progress Note” of the same date. Differences in the two records of the same date exist. C.B. testified that she has never been in jail and that she had not been discharged from Respondent’s practice. C.B. is found to be a credible witness. Respondent’s testimony is not credible. Respondent averred that she discussed C.B.’s vaginal itching with C.B. during the March 7, 2011, office visit, yet Respondent did not prescribe any medications for C.B. C.B.’s first IV immunoglobulin was administered on March 14, a week later. Respondent claims she discussed her care and treatment with C.B. on Wednesday, March 23, 2011. C.B. did not see Respondent on March 23, as C.B. went to Respondent’s office located on Park Boulevard in Pinellas Park and that location was closed. C.B. found out that Respondent was working at an address in Clearwater. C.B. did not have adequate time to get to that Clearwater location before it closed for the day. Thus, C.B. missed the appointment on that day. C.B.’s candid and succinct testimony is credible. Respondent testfied that certain medical records for C.B. were missing: anything that was documented electronic or anything -- any reports or any old records, old reports, it doesn’t contain anything. And she came in for the treatment of a disease that’s been existing since 2006, so a lot of workup that’s done in the prior years for -- which is the relevant basis of the treatment at this point is not there. Respondent was not clear which medical records were missing. C.B. had not been a patient of Respondent for approximately two years. Respondent’s reliance or purported reliance on C.B.’s “old records, old reports” without adequate confirmation of C.B.’s current health issues via appropriate work-ups, laboratory studies and tests falls below the reasonably prudent similar health care provider standard. Standard of Care Respondent was required to meet the same standard of care as outlined in paragraph 25 above. Dr. Carrizosa’s testimony was clear, concise, and credible. He did not appear to have any prejudice against Respondent as a person, but was concerned about how she was practicing medicine. Based on the credited opinions of Dr. Carrizosa, Respondent’s treatment and care of C.B. violated the standard of care for the following reasons. Respondent failed to practice in such a manner as to determine within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that C.B. had systemic candida as was diagnosed by Respondent. Further, the laboratory results were not positive for an antimicrobial sensitivity culture taken from C.B. Additionally, C.B.’s complete blood count (CBC) and the differential count, which included neutrophils and lymphocytes, were normal. The administration of Ambisome, the most expensive of all the drugs available, was not warranted as C.B. did not have systemic candidiasis. Further, the immunoglobulin treatment was inappropriate as there was no evidence that C.B. had an immune dysfunction. Medical Records Dr. Ephtimios also provided an opinion on behalf of Respondent. Dr. Ephtimios had a discussion with Respondent regarding the care and treatment provided to C.B. outside the medical records provided. Dr. Ephtimios admitted that he does not use a Medrol Pak in his practice; he does not feel comfortable practicing immunology (and would have referred C.B. out to an immunologist.) Dr. Ephtimios would not have ordered the laboratory tests that Respondent ordered; his understanding of what candidiasis means may differ from Respondent’s, and he speculated on what he thought Respondent “meant” in several instances. Dr. Ephtimios provided a somewhat exhaustive approach to the various forms of candidiasis; however, he qualified each approach. Each physician practices medicine using their own skill set and different methods of providing clinical assessments and treatment. However, Dr. Ephtimios provided various qualifiers to his opinion which rendered it less credible. The basis for creating, maintaining and retaining medical records is expressed in paragraph 25 above. The medical record of C.B.’s contact with Respondent’s office during this time does not meet Florida’s standards for medical records. C.B.’s records do not reflect an appropriate evaluation, as they fail to analyze C.B.’s main complaints, they fail to analyze the previous evaluations of C.B., and her physical exams were incomplete. DOH Case No. 2011-17799 (DOAH Case No. 14-0515PL) According to Respondent, patient P.A., a 38-year-old female, was “an ongoing patient [of hers] for over ten years.” Respondent saw P.A. between February 2008 and December 2011. Respondent provided medical records to DOH regarding P.A. However, Respondent admitted she did not provide all P.A.’s medical records because “a lot of records were missing,” and Respondent knew “at one point when they were very old records in the 6251 office some of them were also shredded.” Respondent further claimed in response to additional questioning about her shredding statement, [B]ecause the statute says, you know, after three years, so I’m not sure if the -- because I know some of the records were shredded by one of the secretaries. * * * The one [statute] which says once a practice is closed retain records for three years. Respondent identified one of P.A.’s progress notes (dated January 26, 2011) as “our procedure note,” but when asked “What was going on here according to these notes,” Respondent answered: “It’s hard to say. It’s not my handwriting.” Respondent could read the handwriting, but had “no clue” who wrote the progress note. Further, Respondent was unable to state if P.A. was administered either the gentamicin 40 milligrams or the clindamycin 600 milligrams as listed on the progress note. Medical Records The basis for creating, maintaining and retaining medical records is expressed in paragraph 25 above. In this instance, the testimony of Respondent clearly and convincingly proves Respondent violated section 458.331(1)(m) and rule 64B8-9.003. No evidence was presented that Respondent has been previously disciplined.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent, Neelam Uppal, M.D., violated section 458.331(1)(m), (q) and (t), Florida Statutes; suspending her license for six months followed by two years probation with terms and conditions to be set by the Board of Medicine; imposing an administrative fine of $10,000.00; requiring the successful completion of a course or courses to make, keep and maintain medical records; requiring a course in professional responsibility and ethics, and such other educational courses as the Board of Medicine may require; and assessing costs as provided by law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September,2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0867041. At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed by American Nursing Service, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was assigned to work at Broward General Medical Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On July 30-31, 1989, Respondent worked both the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shifts at Broward General Medical Center. She was responsible for 20 patients on that double shift. An hour or two before her double shift ended, she checked the I.V. of a patient near the end of the hall. The I.V. was not running, and Respondent attempted to get it running again by re-positioning the I.V. several times. She then went to the medication room and obtained a syringe to use to flush the I.V. to get it operating again. When she returned to the patient's room, the I.V. was running and Respondent tucked the syringe inside her bra. The syringe was still packaged and unopened. She then continued with her nursing duties. At 7:00 a.m. on July 31, while Respondent was "giving report" to the oncoming nursing shift and making her entries on the charts of the patients for whom she had cared during the double shift she was just concluding, one of the other nurses noticed the syringe underneath Respondent's clothing. That other nurse immediately reported the syringe to her own head nurse who immediately reported the syringe to the staffing coordinator. The head nurse and the staffing coordinator went to where Respondent was still completing the nurse's notes on the charts of the patients and took her into an office where they confronted her regarding the syringe. They implied that she had a drug problem and offered their assistance. Respondent denied having a drug problem and offered to be tested. They refused her offer to test her for the presence of drugs. Instead, they sent her off the hospital premises although she had not yet completed making her entries on the patient's charts. Hospital personnel then went through Respondent's patients' charts and found some "errors." A month later an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation requested that Respondent submit to a drug test on one day's notice. She complied with that request. She asked the investigator to go with her to Broward General Medical Center so that she could complete the charts on the patients that she had not been permitted to complete before being sent away from the hospital. Her request was denied. At some subsequent time, the Department of Professional Regulation requested that Respondent submit to a psychological evaluation. She did so at her own expense and provided the Department with the results of that evaluation. Respondent has had no prior or subsequent administrative complaints filed against her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Second Amended Administrative Complaint with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of November, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 18th day of November, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-1775 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 6, and 8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 7 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 5 has been rejected as being subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of CProfessional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Roberta Fenner, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Christopher Knox, Esquire 4801 S. University Drive, #302 W. Box 291207 Davie, Florida 33329-1207
