Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a chiropractic physician who practices in Daytona Beach, Florida, and is licensed by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners to practice in the State of Florida. The Respondent opened the office where he presently practices in September, 1978. On or about July 10, 1979, Judith M. Matovina telephoned the Respondent's office regarding severe headaches which she had been suffering. She had been referred to the Respondent by a friend, Michael Davis, who was studying to be a chiropractor, and who was also a friend of the Respondent. An appointment was initially made for Thursday, July 12; Ms. Matovina preferred to make an appointment for a time that would not interfere with her job, and an appointment was ultimately made for 10:30 a.m. on Saturday, July 14, 1979. Ms. Matovina arrived at the Respondent's office for her appointment at the scheduled time. She sat in the waiting room for approximately five minutes. Dr. Wagner came out to the waiting room after he treated another patient and introduced himself to Ms. Matovina. He gave her a pamphlet to read regarding the treatment of headaches by chiropractors, and a form to fill out which provided personal background and a description of symptoms. She filled out the form and handed it to the Respondent who escorted her to the examination room. He asked her questions about her headaches and about her personal life. She responded that she did not believe the headaches were tension related. He told her to remove her clothes and put on a gown. He left the examination room. Ms. Matovina removed her bra and blouse, but left her slacks and shoes on. After knocking, the Respondent reentered the examination room. The Respondent thereafter engaged in conduct, a portion of which was legitimate and proper chiropractic examination, treatment and therapy; and a part of which can only be construed as an effort to induce Ms. Matovina to engage in sexual activity with the Respondent. He engaged in conversation about his poor relationship with his wife, his relationships with his girlfriends, and the fact that he had had a vasectomy. Ms. Matovina had not been to a chiropractor before, and she expressed fear as to the nature of some of the manipulations and other treatment which the Respondent performed. He referred to her as "such a baby" in response to her fear. He examined her eyes, and told her that she had pretty blue eyes and that his girlfriends had brown eyes. Ms. Matovina asked him where his receptionist was, and the Respondent responded that he did not have a receptionist on Saturday because that is when he scheduled his pretty patients. During the course of one manipulation in which the Respondent held Ms. Matovina's feet, he told her that she had cute feet. In the course of one manipulation in which the patient stood against the wall with the Respondent's arm around her waist, he told her, "They are playing our song," in response to the music on the office stereo system. He held her hand as if he was going to dance with her. He kissed her twice on the shoulder, moved his hand toward her breast, and brushed his hand across her breast. Several times during the course of the examination, Ms. Matovina said that it would be best for her to leave, but the Respondent kept saying that they should try one more manipulation or therapy treatment. Ms. Matovina protested during the course of much of the treatment, and eventually insisted upon getting dressed and leaving. During the examination, the Respondent on several occasions referred to Ms. Matovina's "pretty blue eyes," to the fact that she was "such a baby," to the fact that he had other girlfriends, and a vasectomy. After she got dressed, the Respondent behaved as though none of these things had happened. Ms. Matovina insisted upon paying for the session at that time rather than the following Monday, when the Respondent wanted to schedule another session. Ms. Matovina then left the office. She was there for approximately two hours. The following week, the Respondent had his office contact Ms. Matovina to schedule further sessions, but she refused to accept or to respond to the phone calls.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade she received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner took the chiropractic licensure examination administered in November of 1997. The examination consisted of four parts: "x-ray interpretation"; "technique"; "Florida laws and rules"; and "physical diagnosis." The minimum passing score for each part was 75. Petitioner passed the "Florida laws and rules" and "technique" portions of the examination. She failed the "x-ray interpretation" and "physical diagnosis" portions of the examination, with scores of 63.20 and 70.50. respectively. As noted above, Petitioner's evidentiary presentation at hearing addressed only the "physical diagnosis" portion of the November 1997 licensure examination. On this portion of the examination, candidates demonstrated their knowledge of physical diagnosis by responding to test questions, in the presence of two examiners, either verbally or, where appropriate, by demonstrating on a "patient." Their responses were independently evaluated and graded by the two examiners. A candidate's final score was the average of the examiners' scores. Prior to the administration of the "physical diagnosis" portion of the November 1997 licensure examination (PD Test), examiners were provided with written instructions (Examiners' Instructions) regarding their role in the examination process and the standards they should follow in grading candidates' performance. In addition, examiners were required to attend a pre-examination organizational meeting at which they were provided with further instructions and training designed to enhance grading standardization. Questions 11 through 13 on the PD Test covered the subject of orthopedics. Candidates were presented with a written case history to which they were to refer in responding to these questions, as well as to all subsequent questions on the PD Test (including those at issue in the instant case). In question 11, candidates were asked to select (from a list) four orthopedic tests which, under the circumstances presented in the case history, were appropriate to administer to the "patient." As Petitioner conceded at hearing, of the four tests she selected, only three were appropriate. The fourth test she selected, Yergason's Test, was not an appropriate test to administer in view of the "patient's" case history. In question 12, candidates were asked to demonstrate on the "patient" how they would administer the tests they selected in response to question 11. Question 12 was worth four points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded four points for selecting and properly demonstrating four appropriate tests; three points for selecting and properly demonstrating three appropriate tests; two points for selecting and properly demonstrating two appropriate tests; and one point for selecting and properly demonstrating one appropriate test. Both examiners awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 12. Although she selected three appropriate tests, she properly demonstrated only two of these three tests. The test she did not properly demonstrate was Tinel's Sign. The "patient's" case history suggested that ulnar nerve, not median nerve, testing needed to be done on the "patient." There are five types of Tinel's Sign tests. One is designed to test the ulnar nerve and involves tapping on the "funny bone." Another is for testing the median nerve and involves tapping on the wrist. Petitioner demonstrated the type of Tinsel's Sign test used to probe the median nerve, when she should have demonstrated the type used to test the ulnar nerve. Because she selected only three appropriate tests and demonstrated only two of these tests properly, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner more than two points for question 12. Question 13 required candidates to state what conditions would be suggested by positive results from the tests selected and demonstrated. Question 13 was worth four points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded four points for selecting four appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive test results; three points for selecting three appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive test results; two points for selecting two appropriate tests and correctly stating, as to each, what condition would be indicated by positive results; and one point for selecting one appropriate test and correctly stating, as to that test, what condition would be indicated by positive test results. Both examiners awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 13. Petitioner did not correctly name the condition suggested by a positive Cervical Compression test, one of the three tests she correctly selected in response to question 11. Because Petitioner selected only three appropriate tests and, with respect to one of these tests (the Cervical Compression test), failed to correctly state what condition would be indicated by positive test results, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner more than two points for question 13. Questions 14 through 16 on the PD Test covered the subject of range of motion. In question 16, candidates were asked to explain the difference and significance between active range of motion and passive range of motion. Question 16 was worth one point. The Examiners' Instructions provided that no partial credit could awarded for answers to question 16. Neither examiner awarded Petitioner any credit for her response to question 16. In responding to the question, Petitioner gave an accurate explanation of the difference between active range of motion and passive range of motion (by noting that the former, unlike the latter, is performed by the patient without assistance), but she did not accurately explain the significance of the difference, as required by the second part of the question. Petitioner incorrectly stated, in attempting to answer this part of the question, that active range of motion is characterized by ligament involvement. Because Petitioner did not correctly answer question 16 in its entirety, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner any points for this question. Questions 17 through 19 on the PD Test covered the subject of neurology and focused upon muscle testing. Question 17 required candidates to name all relevant muscles that that they would test in light of the case history with which they were presented (which reflected that the "patient" had neck pain and numbness radiating down her right arm into her ring finger and little finger). Question 17 was worth two points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points for naming four relevant muscles; one and a half points for naming three relevant muscles; one point for naming two relevant muscles; and a half point for naming one relevant muscle. Neither of the two examiners awarded Petitioner any credit for her response to question 17. There was no connection between the muscles Petitioner named and the nerve root that the symptoms (described in the case history) suggested was the cause of the "patient's" problems. Inasmuch as Petitioner named no relevant muscles, the examiners did not act without reason or in a manner contrary to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions by failing to award Petitioner any points for question 17. Question 18 required candidates to demonstrate on the "patient" how to test two muscles selected by the examiners. Petitioner was asked to test the "patient's "triceps muscle and the interossei muscles of the "patient's" hand. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points (full credit) for correctly demonstrating both tests and one point for correctly demonstrating one of the two tests. One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her demonstration in response to question 18. The other examiner did not award Petitioner any points. Accordingly, Petitioner received one point (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 18. Petitioner tested the interossei muscles of the "patient's" hand in a manner that is unconventional, but nonetheless acceptable. She did not test the "patient's" triceps muscle correctly, however, inasmuch as she did not, during her demonstration, do what was necessary to isolate that muscle. Because she performed only one of the two tests correctly, awarding Petitioner more than the one point she has already received for her response to question 18 would be inconsistent with the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions. To receive credit for question 19, candidates had to explain and interpret a grade level of muscle testing selected by the examiners. (There are six such grade levels: zero through five. The examiners were instructed to select one of these six grade levels.) Petitioner was asked by the examiners to explain and interpret grade level three testing. Question 19 was worth one point. The Examiners' Instructions provided that no partial credit could awarded for responses to question 19. One examiner awarded Petitioner one point for her response to question 19. The other examiner did not award Petitioner any points. Accordingly, Petitioner received a half point (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 19. Petitioner incorrectly stated, in response to question 19, that grade level three testing involves range of motion without gravity. Grade level three testing actually involves range of motion with gravity. Accordingly, pursuant to the scoring guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions, Petitioner should not have received any credit for her response to question 19. Questions 20 and 21 on the PD Test covered dermatomes and sensory testing. Question 20 required candidates to name all relevant dermatome patterns that they would test for in light of the "patient's" case history and to demonstrate one of these tests (selected by the examiners) on the "patient." Petitioner was asked to demonstrate dermatome C5 testing. Question 20 was worth two points. The Examiners' Instructions provided that candidates should be awarded two points for correctly naming all relevant dermatome patterns and correctly demonstrating the selected test, and one point if they correctly named all relevant dermatome patterns or correctly demonstrated the selected test (but failed to do both). One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 20. The other examiner awarded Petitioner one point. Accordingly, Petitioner received one and a half points (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 20. Petitioner correctly named all of the relevant dermatome patterns, but she incorrectly demonstrated dermatome C5 testing inasmuch as she focused upon the trapezium ridge, rather than the lateral aspect of the arm. Accordingly, pursuant to the grading guidelines set forth in the Examiners' Instructions, Petitioner should have received one point for question 20. Question 21 was worth two points. One examiner awarded Petitioner two points for her response to question 21. The other examiner awarded Petitioner one point. Accordingly, Petitioner received one and a half points (the average of the two examiners' point awards) for her response to question 21. Respondent concedes that Petitioner should have received full credit (two points) for her response to question 21, and there is no evidence indicating otherwise.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing grade she received on the physical diagnosis portion of the November 1997 chiropractic licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, should receive a passing grade on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Joellen L. Dreyfus, applied for examination and licensure as a chiropractor and arranged to take the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. She received passing grades on two sections of the examination (Florida Laws and Rules, and X- ray Interpretation) but failing grades in Physical Diagnosis and Technique. During the pendency of this proceeding, it was stipulated that Petitioner should receive a passing grade in Technique, leaving only a failing grade of 74 (with 75 passing) in Physical Diagnosis. Since 75 was passing, Petitioner would pass the examination either if she is given credit for an additional answer, or if a question for which she did not get credit is eliminated. On July 24, 1998, Petitioner telephoned Respondent, the Department of Health, to request that a "review form for Chiropractic" be sent to her address in Dunedin, Florida. On July 30, 1998, Petitioner requested a post-examination review, which provided the same address in Dunedin, Florida. Respondent arranged for the review on September 10, 1998, and attempted to notify Petitioner of the review by letter dated August 21 and postmarked August 25, 1998, and addressed to Petitioner at her address in Dunedin, Florida, certified mail, return receipt requested. Not long after asking for the review, Petitioner moved to Georgia. Petitioner gave the United States Postal Service (USPS) a forwarding address in Cartersville, Georgia, but never notified Respondent of a change of address. When the USPS received Respondent's letter to Petitioner, it placed a postal stamp dated August 30, 1998, on the envelope, bearing the Cartersville address and a request addressed to Petitioner to notify the sender (Respondent) of Petitioner's Cartersville address. The USPS attempted to deliver the letter to Petitioner at the Cartersville, Georgia, address on September 2 and 7, 1998, but could not and had to leave notices for Petitioner to claim the letter. When Petitioner did not claim the letter, the Postal Service "X"-ed out the postal stamp with the Cartersville address and returned the letter to Respondent on September 17, 1998, with a notation that Petitioner had not claimed the letter. The USPS "X"-ed out the postal stamp to signify that the Cartersville address was not a good address. Respondent received the returned letter on September 23, 1998. Because the review notice could not be delivered, Petitioner never received notice. Not having received notice, Petitioner did not appear at the scheduled examination review and was recorded as a "no-show" even though the post office had not yet delivered a return receipt to Respondent. Ten to fifteen percent of the 200 examination reviews a year do not "show." Respondent treats them the same way as it treated Petitioner in this case, which is the same way Respondent treats examination "no-shows." It is not Respondent's practice to attempt to contact either examination or review "no-shows." Petitioner did not re-contact Respondent until August 1999. Initially, Petitioner applied to re-take the Chiropractic Examination in November 1999 but withdrew her application on September 27, 1999, when she realized that her national board part I score expired on December 31, 1998, and her national board scores for parts II and III were going to expire on December 31, 1999. On December 31, 1999, Petitioner attempted to "lock-in" her national board scores but was told that it was too late. When Petitioner realized that there was no way to preserve her national board scores, she renewed her request to review the May 1998 examination. With the assistance of her new attorney, Petitioner persuaded Respondent to agree to an examination review, which was scheduled for February 2000. In its proposed recommended order (PRO), Respondent contended that examination review in February 2000 was "for the sole purpose of preparing for the next examination." (Emphasis in PRO.) Respondent cited no evidence to support this contention, and none is found in the record. Petitioner's examination challenge was filed on March 15, 1998. Respondent also contended in its PRO that Petitioner should be barred from challenging the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination under the doctrine of laches. But not only was laches not raised as a defense in the Joint Response to Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions or at any time prior to Respondent's PRO, there was no evidence that the delay in the examination challenge made it difficult for Respondent to defend against the challenge. Petitioner's examination challenge blamed Respondent for the delay in reviewing the May 1998 examination and for the expiration of her national board scores. It also complained of alleged lack of anonymity and erasure marks on the answer key as well as on "the visceral portion of physical diagnosis." It then challenged two specific physiotherapy questions: one dealing with ultrasound (Question 23); and another dealing with cryotherapy (Question 24). As to the ultrasound, Petitioner essentially complained that she should not have been tested on ultrasound because, as a "straight" chiropractor (as opposed to a "mixer"), Petitioner did not use ultrasound in her practice and did not study it in school. As to the cryotherapy, Petitioner also complained that the answer she gave on the examination was correct and should have received credit. Finally, Petitioner challenged the Technique section of the examination (which Respondent eventually conceded). Like Question 23, Question 24 was worth 5 points on the 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Question 24 consisted of two parts, A and B, each worth 2.5 points. Question 24 dealt with the use of cryotherapy. Part A required a demonstration, which Petitioner clearly failed. (Petitioner did not challenge part A.) After Petitioner attempted her demonstration, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but was somewhat different from the actual first subpart of Question 24B. It does not appear from the evidence that Petitioner herself read the first subpart of Question 24B; she clearly did not read the question aloud. But it does not appear that Petitioner was confused by the way in which the examiner asked the first subpart of Question 24B. Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B varied from (was more conservative than) the accepted answer for time and length of cryotherapy treatment using ice packs. Petitioner testified that she answered conservatively because the hypothetical patient was 60 years old. Petitioner's proposed, more conservative treatment may be appropriate for 60 year-olds with diabetes, fragile skin and blood vessels, or other hypersensitivity to cold due to aging. But for most other 60 year-olds, normal cryotherapy protocol is not contraindicated. Question 24 was silent as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated in the hypothetical patient. During the examination, Petitioner did not ask for clarification as to whether cryotherapy was contraindicated. It could not be ascertained from the videotape of the examination whether Petitioner's answer to the first subpart of Question 24B was adjusted to take into account possible contraindications due to age of the hypothetical patient. The authoritative source for the accepted answer (Applied Physiotherapy, Second Edition, by Jaskoviak and Schafer, p. 249) stated: Cold packs are usually applied for 20-30 minutes when maximum effect is to be achieved. After 30 minutes, the packs lose their necessary degree of therapeutic coolness and must be returned to the refrigerated tank. The point of the authoritative source appears to be that cold packs do not remain cold enough for maximum therapeutic effect for longer than 30 minutes, not that cold packs must be used for 30 minutes for maximum therapeutic effect. It also does not rule out more conservative treatment for a 60 year-old, even assuming no contraindications. Respondent's expert testified persuasively that the authoritative source supported and bolstered his independent knowledge from personal education and extensive experience that the accepted answer was correct, not only generally but also in the case of a 60 year-old female with no contraindications. Petitioner's two experts testified to the contrary. But one had virtually no education, training, and experience in physiotherapy, and the other's education, training, and experience in physiotherapy was far less than Respondent's expert. When Petitioner finished her answer to the first subpart of Question 24B, one of the examiners asked a question that approximated but differed significantly from the actual second subpart of Question 24B. The second subpart of Question 24B asked for a listing of physical sensations related to cryotherapy, in sequential order. But the examiner did not initially ask for them in sequential order. The evidence was clear that Petitioner herself did not reread the second subpart of Question 24B; again, she clearly did not read the question aloud. Petitioner began to answer the examiner's question, naming second and fourth sensations in the sequence. As Petitioner paused in her response, one of the examiners told Petitioner that there were four sensations and that Petitioner was required to name all of them in sequential order. The examiner then repeated the sensation mentioned by Petitioner as the first in the sequence. Petitioner continued her response by repeating only the second sensation in the sequence, adding the third sensation in the sequence, and not repeating the fourth sensation in the sequence. Petitioner never named the first sensation in the sequence. At the end of her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B, she commented: "I'm sorry. That's the best I can do. I guess this is why I should have taken physiotherapy." Petitioner argued that the examiner(s) violated the Examiner Manual for the Chiropractic Examination May 1998 (the Examiner Manual) and, in so doing, may have misled Petitioner into thinking that the first sensation mentioned by Petitioner in her answer to the second subpart to Question 24B was the first sensation in the sequence and may have caused Petitioner to omit the actual first sensation in the sequence. The Examiner Manual stated in pertinent part: During the examination If necessary, remind the candidate to read the questions out loud for the video. Do not read the questions to the candidate or ask the candidate for additional information. (Emphasis in original.) We have agreed on the following solutions to possible problems: * * * The answer is incomplete: ask for a complete answer. * * * Avoid Giving Clues DO NOT ask any additional questions, and DO NOT provide any feedback about the correctness of the answers. When the candidate gives a wrong answer, do not ask the candidate to answer it again. You may think you are doing the candidate a favor, but most of the time candidates do not think that way. While the examiner(s) may have misled Petitioner as to the first sensation in the sequence, Petitioner also never gave the last three sensations in proper order. The evidence did not prove that the examiner(s) misled Petitioner in regard to those sensations. In addition, Petitioner more or less conceded to the examiners that she was guessing throughout her attempted answers to Questions 23 and 24. She told the examiners that she had no education in or knowledge of cryotherapy and did not use it in her practice. While correct guesses count as correct answers, Petitioner's admitted guessing supports the finding that she did not answer the second subpart to Question 24B correctly. Petitioner also argued that she should be given partial credit for her answer to the second subpart of Question 24B. But while partial credit was given for a completely correct answer to either subpart of Question 24B, partial credit was not given for a partially correct answer to a subpart. Petitioner did not prove that the it was arbitrary or unreasonable not to give partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart. To give Petitioner partial credit for a partially correct answer to a subpart of Question 24B would give Petitioner an unfair advantage over other candidates. Question 23 also was worth 5 points on a 100-point grading scale for the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination. Petitioner clearly did not answer Question 23 on the use of ultrasound as physiotherapy. Petitioner asserted that it was unfair and improper for Respondent to ask questions on physiotherapy on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination because she had no education, training, or experience in it. Petitioner learned "straight" chiropractic at Life University in Georgia and practiced "straight" chiropractic for 12 years in Georgia. "Straight" chiropractic is limited to identification and correction of skeletal subluxations by direct manipulation. It does not use physiotherapy techniques, such as ultrasound and cryotherapy (icing). But, contrary to Petitioner's position in this case, it is found that Petitioner did have the opportunity to study physiotherapy during and after college, but she chose not to. Petitioner also asserted that Respondent gave her inadequate notice that physiotherapy questions would be on the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. The Candidate Information Booklet for the May 1998 Chiropractic Licensure and Certification Examination (the Candidate Information Booklet) advised candidates approximately what areas would be covered in the Physical Diagnosis section of the examination, namely: Orthopedic and Neurological 30-35%; Diagnostic Imaging 20-25%; Case History and Physical 15-20%; Laboratory 5-10%; Diagnosis 15- 20%; and Clinical Judgment 5-10%. But it also included the following statement: Based on the Board of Chiropractic's approval of a proposal made by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, starting with the May 1998 examination, the Physical Diagnosis portion of the examination will include questions relating to the practice of Physiotherapy. The inclusion of these questions does not alter the percentage of areas to be tested on the Physical Diagnosis portion [of] the examination, as stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. The only other evidence as to whether inclusion of the physiotherapy questions (i.e., Questions 23 and 24) caused the percentage of areas to be tested to depart from the approximations in the Candidate booklet or the percentages stated in the pertinent Board rule was the testimony of Respondent's psychometric expert. It was her general understanding that inclusion of the physiotherapy questions did not alter the percentages because: "They are covered all through the exam I believe." But she conceded that her expertise does not extend to examination content, and she could not testify specifically as to how inclusion of the physiotherapy questions affected the percentages in the Candidate Information Booklet and in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules. No "content expert" addressed the issue. It is found that the only place where physiotherapy possibly might fit under the Candidate Information Booklet's description of Physical Diagnosis would be under "clinical judgment." If the physiotherapy questions were assigned to "clinical judgment" under Physical Diagnosis, the ten points assigned to those questions would have to be added to the six points assigned to "clinical judgment" on other parts of the Physical Diagnosis examination, for a total of 16 points, which exceeds the maximum percentage in the Candidate Information Booklet. (As reflected in the Conclusion of Law 42, infra, the same holds true for the percentages stated in Chapter 64B2 of the Board Rules.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, the Department of Health, enter a final order that Petitioner passed the May 1998 Chiropractic Board Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 10th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Post Office Box 37094 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-7094 Cherry A. Shaw, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joseph A. Buttacavoli, is a licensed chiropractor, having been issued license number 00335. The Respondent practices chiropractic at 7162 Beneva Road, Sarasota, Florida 33583. (See Prehearing Stipulation.) On July 6, 1981, Jeffrey Goldman responded to the Respondent's newspaper advertisement offering a free examination. (See Prehearing Stipulation; Tr. 15.) On July 6, 1981, Goldman was complaining of pain in the neck radiating into the left shoulder. The pain was recent in origin, having started a few weeks prior to July 6, 1981. Goldman had suffered similar problems during the past 10 or 12 years on an intermittent basis, but this instance was more intense than previously experienced. (Tr. 12, 13.) The Respondent performed a free examination consisting of certain orthopedic and neurological tests. (Tr. 73, 77.) The Respondent did not record in writing the results of this examination. (Tr. 117.) Two of the tests were positive on Goldman's left side. (Tr. 73-77.) After completion of the examination, the Respondent tentatively diagnosed a pinched nerve in the neck and recommended to Goldman that x-rays be taken. (Tr. 78.) Goldman consented to the x-rays and was charged $80 for four x-rays which were taken. (See Prehearing Stipulation.) After the x-ray examination, the Respondent concluded that Goldman had a straightening of the normal cervical spine, some arthritic spurring and disc degeneration at the C4/C5 and C5/C6 level, and several vertebral misalignments. (See Prehearing Stipulation; Tr. 87.) The Respondent advised Goldman that his condition was serious and recommended treatment for 90 days. (See Prehearing Stipulation.) The Respondent told Goldman what the 90 days' treatment would cost and advised Goldman that the cost would be less if paid in advance. The Respondent practices a chiropractic technique known as Grostic or orthospinology. (Tr. 53, 55.) A diagnosis cannot be reached without x-rays using the Grostic technique, and the Respondent takes x-rays in every case except those in which the problem is muscular or x-rays are refused by the patient. (Tr. 115, 116.) The preliminary or free examination is the basis for the Respondent's recommending that x-rays be taken. (Tr. 117.) In the Grostic technique, a complex analysis of x-rays is the basis for a final diagnosis. This requires that x-rays be taken of the patient to apply the technique. (Tr. 59-63, 117-118.) In addition to the x-rays, which were kept by the Respondent as part of the record, Goldman's history/interview form was also maintained. (Tr. 48.) The x-rays on file and the medical history form constitute sufficient justification for the recommendation made by the Respondent to Goldman. The diagnosis of Goldman's problem was based upon his history, a physical examination and x-ray findings. These findings were reviewed by Dr. George Stanford Pierce, who verified the Respondent's suggested course of treatment based upon the records the Respondent maintained. (Tr. 150.) Goldman refused further treatment by the Respondent. (Tr. 26.) No evidence was received that the Respondent practiced chiropractic with less than the required level of care, skill and treatment recognized by reasonably prudent chiropractic physicians as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent, Joseph A. Buttacavoli, be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire 517 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael R. N. McDonnell, Esquire 600 Fifth Avenue, South, Suite 301 Post Office Box 8659 Naples, Florida 33941 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Carolynn Hendricks deserves additional credit for one or more content areas within the physical diagnosis practical section of the chiropractic examination administered in November 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Candidate made a timely challenge to the grade she received on the physical diagnosis/practical chiropractic licensure examination administered in November 1989. She received a score of 73.7%. The minimum passing score was 75%. The Candidate needs a .5 additional raw score points in order to obtain a minimal passing grade. If she receives any additional credit whatsoever from either examiner on any content area, she will obtain a minimal passing grade. The Candidate testified on her on behalf and also called Dr Loretta Bobo, D.C., as her witness. Dr. Albert Welberry, D.C., and David Paulson testified on behalf of the Respondent. The Candidate's petition challenged clinical judgment and neurology. Loretta Bobo, D.C., testified that she is currently licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in four separate states, including Florida. Dr. Bobo also holds a registered nurse's degree and teaches entrance clinical competency and exist clinical competency at Life Chiropractic College. Dr. Albert Welberry, D.C., was first licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in the State of Florida in 1961. He is currently a licensed Florida chiropractor. Dr. Welberry has been an examiner for the Florida Chiropractic Licensure Examination regularly since 1985. Both Drs. Bobo and Welberry are experts in chiropractic. The Department of Professional Regulation's expert, Dr. Albert Welberry, agreed with Petitioner's witness, Dr. Bobo, regarding the clinical judgment and neurologic content areas of the physical diagnosis exam. Regarding clinical judgment, Dr. Welberry testified that the question posed was out of place, was not correctly presented, and therefore candidate should have received a grade of 4. Dr. Welberry stated regarding the neurologic content area of the examination that the comment "disc lesion cervical cannot be upper motor neuron lesion" was a correct response since disc lesion cervical is a lower motor neuron lesion. Dr. Welberry opined that the Candidate should have had a grade 4 for this question. The Candidate proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she was deserving of significantly more than the .5 extra raw score points she needed for a minimally competent overall grade.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner receive a passing grade on the physical diagnosis practical section of the chiropractic examination. ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th of February, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolynn Hendricks 206 Sope Creek Lane No. 102 Marietta, GA 30068 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation, Suite 60 Northwood Centre 1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the chiropractic examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the November 1999 examination for chiropractic licensure. He passed the written part and the technique portion of the practical part. However, Petitioner failed the physical diagnosis and X-ray interpretation portions of the practical part. The physical diagnosis portion of the examination supplies candidates with a brief case history followed by several questions. Score sheets provide standards for the scoring of responses. Question 3 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination requires the evaluators to ask the candidate to demonstrate and describe an abdominal examination and explain the significance of a digital rectal examination on the patient, who has complained of cramping, bloatedness, and distention, as well as alternating stool consistency with an irregular pattern of defacation. The evaluators assigned Petitioner no points for his responses to Question 3. For the demonstration of an abdominal examination, Petitioner failed to ensure that the abdominal muscles were relaxed in order to permit a useful examination. Petitioner attempted to listen to the spleen, prior to performing percussion and palpation, but he was not in the left lower quadrant, which is the location of this organ. Petitioner palpated the abdominal area with his fingertips, rather than his palms, and failed to perform deep palpation. Petitioner also failed to outline the liver in his demonstration. The purpose of the digital rectal examination, for this patient, was to detect blood or a palpable lesion. Petitioner incorrectly responded that the purpose of this examination was to perform a prostate examination. Petitioner's misdiagnosis of diverticulitis, in response to Question 8, reflects his limited insight into this patient's condition, for which the correct diagnosis was irritable bowel syndrome, colitis, or spastic colon. Question 17 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination required a demonstration of the gluteus maximus and peroneus muscles. The evaluators credited Petitioner for the correct demonstration of the gluteus maximums, but not the peroneus. Petitioner incorrectly grasped the patient's calf and ankle, which precluded the isolation of the peroneus. Failing to grasp the metatarsal end of the foot prevented Petitioner from properly isolating the peroneous muscle. At the hearing, Respondent gave Petitioner full credit for his response to Question 24 of the physical diagnosis portion of the examination. Question 3 of the X-ray interpretation portion of the examination required Petitioner to examine two X-ray films, taken two years apart, and render a probable diagnosis. The vast destruction of bone mass suggested a case of neuropathic joint resulting from syphillis, but Petitioner diagnosed post-traumatic joint disease, focusing instead on the patient's physically demanding profession and her age of 37 years. However, the extensiveness of bone destruction over a relatively short period favored the diagnosis of neuropathic joint over Petitioner's diagnosis. Question 5 of the X-ray interpretation portion of the examination required Petitioner to identify the anatomical structures outlined at lumbar-3 on a specific X-ray. Petitioner identified the structures as lamina, but they were the pars interarticulares, which are isthmus between the lamina and pedicle. Question 38 of the X-ray interpretation portion of the examination required Petitioner to explain why the neural foramen, as revealed on an X-ray, appeared enlarged. Rather than cite the nondevelopment of the cervical-6 pedicle, Petitioner incorrectly chose neurofibromatosis, despite the failure of the exposed structures to reveal the angularity characteristic of this condition and the absence of any bony structure subject to the process of deterioration resulting from neurofibromatosis. Despite the concession by Respondent on Question 24 on the physical diagnosis portion of the chiropractic licensure examination, Petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitled to additional credit on the physical diagnosis or X-ray interpretation portion of the chiropractic licensure examination that he should have passed either portion of the examination.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of September, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Chiropractic Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3257 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Gregory W. Stancel 2256 Iris Way Fort Myers, Florida 33905 Cherry A. Shaw Senior Examination Attorney Department of Health General Counsel's Office 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
