The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine, license number VM-2404, based on the violations of Section 474.214(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in three separate Administrative Complaints filed against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations in these cases, Respondent was a licensed veterinarian, having been issued license number VM-2404, by the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine. On March 18, 2000, Respondent performed a spay on Rudy, a six-year-old cat owned by Sharon and James Leonard. Respondent discharged Rudy to Sharon and James Leonard on March 18, 2000. On the following day, when Rudy was not feeling well, the family took Rudy to the emergency clinic where she was seen and treated by Dr. Mark Erik Perreault. When seen by Dr. Perreault, Rudy was wobbly and disoriented, and had pale mucous membranes. In addition, Dr. Perreault observed hair sewn into Rudy's incision site. Because the cat was very tender, it was anesthetized, and a careful examination of the incision was made. That examination revealed the incision had been closed with very large suture material. Because of the cat's condition and his observations, Dr. Perreault recommended and received approval to re-open the incision, and conduct an exploratory operation. This surgery revealed Respondent sutured Rudy’s uterine stump leaving approximately one and a half inches of tissue below the suture. This amount of "stump" is excessive and leaves too much material to become necrotic. Respondent had closed the skin and body wall incisions with excessively large suture material. Respondent secured the body wall and skin incisions with only two throws (knots) in each closing suture. Both Dr. Perreault and Dr. Jerry Alan Greene testified regarding standard of care. It is below the standard of care to sew hair into an incision site or allow hair to become sewn into the incision site because it contaminates the surgical site. It is below the standard of care for veterinarians to use oversized suture material to close the incision site because an excessively large suture leads to excessive inflammation as the body absorbs the excessively large suture material. It is below the standard of care for veterinarians to secure the skin and body wall incisions with less than 5 to 6 throws on their sutures to ensure that the sutures do not loosen or become untied. The potential problems of not using enough throws are exacerbated by using larger suture material which is more likely to loosen. It is below the standard of care to leave an excessive amount of "stump" in the body cavity. An excess of necrotic tissue causes excessive inflammation. Pertaining to Rudy, Respondent’s records contain the notation, "0.6 Ket." Respondent testified that this indicated that he administered Ketaset. Respondent’s records do not indicate whether the administration was intravenously, intramuscularly, or subcutaneously. Respondent testified that he administered the Ketaset intramuscularly. It was below the standard of care for Respondent to fail to indicate the amount of medication administered, i.e., milligrams, cubic-centimeters, etc.; and to fail to indicate the method of administration. Respondent is the owner of V.I.P. Baseline clinic, a veterinary establishment located at 505 Northeast Baseline Road, Ocala, Florida 34470. On August 31, 2002, Teresa McCartney presented her male, white Maltese dog, Puffy, to Respondent at V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic for neutering. Teresa McCartney owned no other male, white Maltese dogs. Respondent performed a neuter on Puffy at V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic on August 31, 2002. On August 31, 2002, V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic was not licensed to operate as a veterinary establishment by the State of Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine. Teresa McCartney picked up Puffy from V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic on August 31, 2002. Puffy bled for approximately four days after the neuter was performed. On September 4, 2003, Teresa McCartney presented Puffy to Dr. Mark Hendon for treatment. Upon examination, Puffy was bleeding from the prepuce and from the site of the surgical incision. In addition, there was swelling subcutaneously and intra-dermal hemorrhage and discoloration from the prepuce to the scrotum. The animal indicated pain upon palpation of the prepuce, the incision site, and the abdomen. Dr. Hendon presented the owner with two options: to do nothing or to perform exploratory surgery to determine the cause of the hemorrhage and bleeding. The owner opted for exploratory surgery on Puffy, and Dr. Hendon anesthetized and prepared the animal for surgery. The sutures having been previously removed, upon gentle lateral pressure, the incision opened without further cutting. A blood clot was readily visible on the ventral surface of the penis, running longitudinally the length of the penis and incision area. Dr. Hendon immediately went to the lateral margins of the surgical field, where the spermatic vessels and cord were ligated, and found devitalized and necrotic tissue on both sides of the surgical field which appeared to be abnormal. He explored those areas and debrided the ligated tissues, exposing the vessels and the spermatic cord which he ligated individually. He then proceeded to examine the penis. Dr. Hendon found upon examination of the penis a deep incision into the penis which had cut the urethra, permitting urine to leak into the incision site, causing the tissue damage which he had debrided. Dr. Hendon had not used a scalpel in the area of the penis prior to discovering the incised urethra in the area of the penis, and he could not have been the cause of the injury. Dr. Hendon catheterized Puffy, and closed the incisions into the urethra and penis. Puffy recovered and was sent home the following day. Drs. Hendon and Greene testified about the standard of care in this case. It is below the standard of care to incise the penis or urethra of a male dog during a neuter because neither the penis nor the urethra should be exposed to incision during a properly performed surgery. Respondent’s medical record for Puffy did not indicate the type of gas which was administered to Puffy or that Ace Promazine was administered to Puffy. Respondent's anesthesia logs reflect the animal was administered Halothane and administered Ace Promazine, a tranquilizer. Rule 61G18-18.002(4), Florida Administrative Code, requires that a patient’s medical record contain an indication of the drugs administered to a patient. On September 13, 2002, Department Inspector Richard Ward conducted an inspection of V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic. The inspection revealed that Respondent failed to provide disposable towels. It was further revealed that Respondent provided insufficient lights in the surgical area of the premises. Finally it was revealed that Respondent did not have an operational sink in the examination area of the premises. Rule 61G18-15.002(2)(a)4.c., Florida Administrative Code, requires that all veterinary establishments have sinks and disposable towels in the examination area. Rule 61G18-15.002(2)(b)2.d., Florida Administrative Code, requires veterinary establishments that provide surgical services to provide surgical areas that are well lighted. On September 4, 2002, Elaine Dispoto presented her male cat Cinnamon to Respondent at V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic, located at 505 Northeast Baseline Road, Ocala, Florida 34470. On September 4, 2003, Respondent practiced veterinary medicine at V.I.P. Baseline Pet Clinic by providing veterinary medical services to Cinnamon. On September 4, 2003, V.I.P. Baseline Clinic was not licensed by the State of Florida to operate as a veterinary establishment. Cinnamon was presented to Respondent with complaints of vomiting and dilated eyes. The owner expressed concern that the animal had been poisoned. Respondent apparently accepted that the animal had been poisoned, and formulated a plan of treatment, because he gave the animal an IV and administered one cubic centimeter of atropine to the animal, a common antidote for organophosphate poisoning. Respondent administered subcutaneously the IV's of Ringer's lactate to the cat. The owners picked up Cinnamon from Respondent, having heard a television news report which was unfavorable about Respondent. Respondent gave the cat to Mr. James Dispoto, who observed that the cat was not doing well, although Respondent indicated that the cat was doing better. Mr. Dispoto was sufficiently concerned about the status of the cat that he took the animal immediately to Ocala Veterinarian Hospital. There the cat was examined by Dr. Fleck. Dr. Fleck found that Cinnamon was in extreme distress; lying on his side and non-responsive to stimuli. A cursory examination indicated that the animal was very dehydrated, approximately 10 percent, and passing yellow, mucousy diarrhea, uncontrollably. His pupils were pinpoint and non-responsive. Upon calling Respondent, Respondent told Dr. Fleck that on the first day he had treated Cinnamon, he had given the cat atropine, dexamethasone, and lactated Ringer's subcutaneously. On the second day, he had given the cat another injection of dexamethasone, penicillin, and lactated Ringer's subcutaneously. Based upon her assessment of the animal, Dr. Fleck wanted to get some blood work to establish what kind of state the rest of the body was in and to start an IV. The owner's consented, and blood was drawn and an IV drip started of normal saline at 25 mils per hour. While the blood work was being started, the cat had a short seizure, and within five minutes, had another bad seizure, going into cardiac arrest and died. A necropsy was performed which was unremarkable. The only significant findings were that the cat was dehydrated. There were indications the cat had received fluids along the ventral midline. The bowels were totally empty and there were no substances within the stomach, intestines, or colon. There was slight inflammation of the pancreas. Samples were taken of the pancreas, liver, kidney, and lung. Analysis of these samples was inconclusive. A cause of death could not be determined. The clinical presentation was very indicative of organic phosphate poisoning. Organophosphates are the active ingredient in certain common insect and garden poisons. However, there were no findings that pin-pointed poisoning as a cause of death. Dr. Greene testified concerning his examination of the files maintained on Cinnamon by Respondent. They reflected Respondent administered one cubic centimeter of atropine on the first day and another cubic centimeter on the second day. Dr. Greene's testimony about the administration of atropine is contradictory. He testified at one point that, based on the cat's weight, a proper dose would be about 2.5 cubic centimeters and Respondent did not give enough; however, his answer to a question on cross-examination later indicated that the amount of atropine given was more in line with what was administered. Respondent faced a bad set of alternatives in treating Cinnamon. The cat presented with poisoning symptoms and suggestions of poisoning by the owners. He could run tests and try and determine exactly what was ailing the cat. However, if he did this without treating the possible poisoning, the cat might have died from the poison before he determined what was wrong with the cat. He could begin to treat the cat for poisoning based upon the owner's representations, and perhaps miss what the cat's problem was. He cannot be faulted for treating the most potentially deadly possibility first. It is noted that a full necropsy could not pinpoint the cause of the animal's problem(s). While Respondent may have run additional tests, they would not have been any more revealing. Atropine is the antidote for organophosphate poisoning and is helpful in controlling vomiting. It is clear from the file that Respondent's working diagnosis was poisoning. He treated the cat with the appropriate drug in approximately the correct dosage. Dr. Greene testified that it was a deviation from the standard of care not to administer fluids intravenously to Cinnamon because an ill patient may not absorb fluids through subcutaneous injection. Based upon Dr. Fleck's discussion of the issues involved in administering fluids intravenously, it does not appear nearly so clear cut as Dr. Greene suggests, but is a matter of professional judgment. Dr. Greene testified it was a deviation from the standard of care to administer lactated Ringer's solution to Cinnamon instead of sodium chloride or normal saline. Again, the choice of normal saline versus lactated Ringer's is one of professional judgment and not standard of care. Dr. Greene opined that it was a deviation from the standard of care to administer only 300ml of fluids to Cinnamon because 300ml is an insufficient amount of fluids to treat for dehydration or to even sustain Cinnamon under the circumstances. Dr. Greene assumed that the all of the hydration was via "IV." The testimony was that the cat did take some water orally; therefore, Dr. Green's predicate was flawed. Respondent administered dexamethsone to Cinnamon. Respondent failed to indicate that he administered dexamethasone in Cinnamon’s record. It is a deviation from the standard of care to fail to indicate the administration of dexamethasone in a patient’s record. Respondent administered penicillin to Cinnamon. Respondent’s records for Cinnamon indicate that he administered penicillin-streptomycin to Cinnamon. Respondent's records for Cinnamon indicate that Respondent did not check on the animal frequently, which, given his condition and the multiple problems which the cat was suffering, was a failure to render the standard of care necessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board enter its final order: Finding that Respondent violated the standard of care in treating Rudy, Puffy, and Cinnamon, contrary to Section 474.214(1)(r), and imposing an administrative fine upon Respondent of $2,000 for each violation; Finding that Respondent violated the requirement to keep adequate records with regard to Rudy, Puffy, and Cinnamon, contrary to Section 474.214(1)(ee), and imposing an administrative fine upon Respondent of $1,000 for each violation; Finding that Respondent violated the requirement to obtain a license for a premises, contrary to Rule 61G18- 15.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, which is a violation of Section 474.214(1)(f), and imposing an administrative fine upon Respondent of $2,000; Finding that the record of Respondent's previous violations and the violations found above reflect that he is unqualified and unfit to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Florida, and revoking immediately his license, without leave to reapply; Requiring Respondent to pay costs incurred in the investigation and prosecution of these cases in the amount $5,697.96, plus the costs incurred at the final hearing; and Opposing any effort by Respondent to practice veterinary medicine while an appeal in this case is taken. 28 DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Tiffany A. Short, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Thomas V. Infantino, Esquire 180 South Knowles Avenue, Suite 7 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Sherry Landrum, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 29 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 2399-2202
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, a licensed veterinarian, committed a violation of Section 474.214(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary sanctions should be imposed against his license.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is William R. Dudley, a licensed veterinarian at all times pertinent to these proceedings, holding license number VM 0000626. Respondent's last known address is 613 Westwood Drive, Milton, Florida 32570. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of veterinary medicine pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes; Section 455, Florida Statutes; and Section 474, Florida Statutes. On or about January 5, 1998, Respondent performed declaw surgery on Aladdin, a Chocolate Point Siamese cat owned by Kim Hawkins. The surgery was performed on a fold-down table attached to the back of Respondent’s pickup truck. The truck was outfitted as an agricultural veterinary vehicle. Respondent administered a mixture of Ketaset and Acepromazine to the cat prior to surgery. No other medication was administered to the animal for purpose of either analgesia or anesthesia. The Ketaset and Acepromazine administered to the cat are both controlled substances. These drugs are not anesthetics and served only to immobilize the cat during the operation. After the surgery, Kim Hawkins took the cat home. The animal’s paws continued to bleed. On January 7, 1998, the cat was examined by another veterinarian, Dr. Yehia Ibrahim, who wanted to know “who had butchered the cat.” In a declaw procedure, the animal is first anesthetized and the cat’s claw and the third phalanx of each toe are removed. Each toe has three phalanxes and a claw. While the procedure performed by Respondent involved only the animal’s front paws, Respondent did not remove all of the third phalanx on several of the animal’s toes, and removed the third and part or all of the second phalanx on the animal’s other toes. Respondent removed part of the digital pad on most, if not all, of the toes on both of the cat’s front claws. As established by the evidence at final hearing, Respondent performed the declaw surgery in a negligent manner. Respondent did not make or retain any medical record of the declaw procedure performed on the Hawkins’ cat. Respondent did not have a premise permit for his house or a mobile clinic. Respondent also did not have a record which related to the storing, labeling, or administering of the controlled substances that he utilized during the declaw procedure on the Hawkins’ cat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing and in accordance with Petitioner's penalty guidelines, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts II, III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint; imposing an administrative fine of $1000; and placing Respondent on probation for one year upon reasonable terms and conditions to be established by the Board of Veterinary Medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William R. Dudley, Jr., D.V.M. 613 Westwood Drive Milton, Florida 32570 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John Currie, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Respondent, T. E. Watson, was licensed as a veterinarian in Florida under license number VM 0000957, and the Petitioner, Board of Veterinary Medicine, (Board), was the state agency charged with regulating the practice of veterinary medicine in this state. On February 20, 1986, the Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas entered an Indictment charging Respondent with six counts of mail fraud. The counts relating to Respondent were part of a thirty- three count Indictment of eight defendants. Only six of the counts pertained to Respondent. After trial by jury, on June 19, 1986, Respondent was found not guilty of two counts of mail fraud but guilty of four. In each of these four counts, Numbers 7, 8, 20, & 21, Respondent was found guilty of mail fraud involving a horse. He was sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment in the Federal Prison Camp at Eglin A.F.B., Florida. The mail fraud engaged in by Respondent involved a scheme by him and others to artificially inflate the book value of certain horses, then have the horses destroyed, and collect insurance in an amount in excess of the actual value of the horse. This activity constitutes misconduct which relates to the practice of veterinary medicine and reflects adversely on the Respondent's ability to practice veterinary medicine. On October 25, 1988, the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Examining Board entered Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and an Order finding that Respondent had been found guilty of mail fraud as alleged, supra, and revoked his Doctor of Veterinary Medicine license. While incarcerated, on September 26, 1988, Respondent submitted a letter to the Board in which he outlined the facts and circumstances leading up to his involvement in the misconduct alleged. He contends in this letter, as he did at the hearing, that he was merely an honest horse farmer who purchased several animals from the individuals who thereafter killed them in the furtherance of their fraudulent scheme to defraud the insurance company. Respondent further claims that when he confronted these individuals, they threatened him and his family with bodily harm and even acted out a portion of that threat. Respondent claims he had no one to turn to as the insurance company representatives were involved in the scheme and the local law enforcement officials were inadequate. As a result, he went along with the scheme but did not actively participate. In support of his position, he refers to the account statements he attached to the letter he sent to the Board which purport to show that he made no profit on any of the animals involved in the counts of which he was convicted. Since he made no profit, he claims, he can be found guilty of no crime. This documentation is of little probative value, however, since there is no source material to support its accuracy or authenticity. Respondent claimed at hearing that his conviction was based on "perjured, prejudicial, and impeached testimony" and that the newly discovered evidence he has gathered and submitted to Federal officials will prove his innocence. This evidence was not presented at the hearing, however, and in his letter to the Department of Professional Regulation, he admits to knowingly being a party to the fraud. However, he claims, his participation was neither intentional or willing. The jury which heard his evidence was satisfied he was guilty, however, and nothing has been submitted here which would cause that judgement to be questioned. His request for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence was denied, and the Parole Commission has declined to modify his conviction or sentence. Respondent moved his wife and four sons from Florida to Arkansas in 1974 to follow a lifelong dream to be a farmer. It was only after several years that he got into the horse breeding business which resulted in his difficulties. He has been engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine for 30 years. Numerous individuals including clients, civic officials, colleagues, neighbors, and business people who uniformly describe him as an honest, trustworthy and dedicated veterinarian and individual were surprised and dismayed by his involvement in this matter. Respondent undoubtedly has an excellent reputation in both the geographic and professional communities in which he operates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, T. E. Watson's license to practice veterinary medicine in Florida be suspended for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as are specified by the Board of Veterinary Medicine. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura F. Gaffney, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 T. E. Watson, D.V.M. 5004 7th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34203 Linda Biedermann Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed veterinarian in the State of Florida, having been duly issued license number VM 0002694. In April of 1988 Respondent practiced veterinary medicine from an establishment located in Dade County, Florida, that had not been licensed by Petitioner. Upon receiving a notice of violation, Respondent executed a cease and desist agreement, which he did not violate. Within thirty days of the notice of violation an application for licensure of the establishment was filed with Petitioner. Accompanying the application was a check which included the amount of the application fee and the amount of the late payment. On or about April 22, 1988, Respondent performed surgery on Yahara, a female dog owned by Arcadio Rolon. The purpose of the surgery was to spay Yahara. On or about April 25, 1988, Respondent informed Arcadio Rolon that Yahara had died on April 22, 1988. On April 27, 1988, Arcadio Rolon took the carcass of Yahara to Dr. David T. Wise, Jr., D.V.M., to have an autopsy performed. The autopsy revealed that the dog had recently been spayed. One ligature adjacent to the right ovarian string and artery had been partially attached to fat and was partially free floating. Another ligature was attached to fat mesentery in the caudal abdomen adjacent to the uterine strings and artery. Several sutures had been attached primarily to fat. There was a great deal of clotted blood in the abdominal cavity. The cause of Yahara's death was internal hemorrhaging, followed by shock and eventual death. The internal hemorrhaging was caused by Respondent's failure to properly tie off the severed ovarian and uterine arteries during the spay procedure. Yahara was a healthy dog before the spay procedure. The spay procedure on Yahara was not performed properly by Respondent in view of the standard of care exercised in the practice of veterinary medicine in the State of Florida There was no direct evidence that the premises utilized by Respondent in the practice of veterinary medicine were maintained in an unsanitary condition. The inspection reports were the only evidence that the premises had been kept in an unsanitary condition. These inspection reports were compiled by persons who were not witnesses at the hearing. None of Petitioner's witnesses had observed the premises before the Administrative Complaint was filed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Veterinary Medicine, enter a final order which finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 474.215, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count I of the Administrative Complaint, which finds Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 474.214(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, which finds Respondent not guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 474.214(1)(d), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint, and which further finds Respondent not guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 474.214(1)(v), Florida Statutes, as alleged-in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. For his violation of Section 474.214(1)(o), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of ten days, that Respondent's license be thereafter placed on probation for one year, and that an administrative fine in the sum of $1,000.00 be imposed against Respondent. It is further recommended that there be no additional penalty imposed for Respondent's violation of Section 474.215, Florida Statutes, because of the action taken by Respondent following the notice of violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-642 The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Petitioner are addressed as follows: Addressed in paragraph 1. Addressed in paragraph 2. The proposed findings relating to the inspection reports are rejected because the contents of the inspection reports are hearsay. Addressed in paragraph 3. Addressed in paragraph 4. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. Addressed in paragraph 9. The proposed findings of subparagraphs A., B., C., and E. are rejected as being speculative and as being unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. The proposed findings of subparagraph D. are addressed in paragraph 7 and are subordinate to the findings reached in paragraph 9. The proposed findings of subparagraph F. are rejected because Petitioner failed to establish that the medical record introduced as Petitioner's exhibit 1 constituted all the records kept by Respondent on this matter. Addressed in paragraphs 5 and 6. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. Rejected as being based only on hearsay evidence. Rejected as not being a finding of fact. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of Respondent are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2-4. Addressed in paragraph 2. Rejected as being irrelevant and unnecessary to the conclusions reached. Rejected as being recitation of testimony. 7-9. Rejected as being conclusions of law and as being unnecessary to the results reached. 10. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. 11-14. Rejected. Dr. Wise's report identified the dog upon which Dr. Wise performed the autopsy as being the dog Mr. Rolon brought to him. 15-16. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. 17-20. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. 21-22. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence. Rejected as being unnecessary to the results reached. Addressed in paragraph 2. Addressed in paragraph 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Juan C. Elso, Esquire 1331 Southwest 85th Court Miami, Florida 33144 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Biedermann, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Veterinary Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 ================================================================= AGENCY AMENDED FINAL ORDER ================================================================= DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF VETERINARY MEDICINE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs DPR CASE NUMBER: VM 0098214 DOAH CASE NUMBER: 89-0642 SALVADOR ALDEREGUIA, D.V.M., LICENSE NUMBER: VM 0002694 Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated that the following factual allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint were admitted by the Respondent and were not at issue at the formal hearing. The following findings of fact are based on that stipulation. Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of veterinary medicine pursuant to Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and Chapter 474, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a licensed veterinarian having been issued license number VM 0000231. Respondent's last know address is DBA (sic) Miami Veterinary Hospital, 3520 N.W. 36th Street, Miami, Florida 33142. On or about May 19, 1992, J.F. presented his kitten, aged approximately seven months, to Respondent for shots, a spay, and boarding. On or about May 19, 1992, Respondent noted in the kitten's [medical] records that all of its vital statistics were "ok" or normal. On or about May 20, 1992, Respondent spayed the kitten. 1/ On or about May 21, 1992, Respondent noted in the kitten's records that it had diarrhea and no appetite. 2/ On or about May 22-24, 1992, Respondent noted in the kitten's records that it was treated with antibiotics, fluids, vitamins, and given intensive care (sic) with hand-feeding. On or about May 25, 1992, Respondent noted in the kitten's records that its condition was greatly improved. On or about May 26, 1992, Respondent noted in the kittens's records that its condition was normal. On or about May 27, 1992, the kitten died. 3/ "Spay" is a layman's term which may refer to an ovariohysterectomy. Respondent failed to perform any lab work on the kitten when it became ill during the period after the surgery and until its death. Rule 61G18-18.002(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that medical records shall contain all clinical information pertaining to the patient with sufficient information to justify the diagnosis or determination of health status and warrant any treatment recommended or administered. Respondent had been practicing veterinary medicine in Florida for 48 years at the time of the formal hearing. Respondent testified, credibly, that he has performed a minimum of 10,000 spays during the course of his practice. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the owner and sole practicing veterinarian at Miami Veterinary Hospital in Miami, Florida. On May 19, 1992, James Forney presented his cat named Cathy to Respondent's clinic to be boarded for one week. During that week, the Respondent was to spay Cathy and give her any appropriate shots. "Spay" is a layman's term that may refer to an ovariohysterectomy. The term ovariohysterectomy is generally understood by veterinarians to be a procedure during which the ovaries and both horns of the uterus are removed. On or about May 20, 1992, Respondent spayed Cathy. Respondent placed the cat under anesthesia and made a small incision, which he referred to as a "bottle hole incision". Through this small incision, he removed the ovaries and a portion of both uterine horns. He did not remove the stumps of either uterine horn and he did not remove the uterus. The cat died on May 27, 1992. Dr. James Bogdansky performed an autopsy of Cathy on May 28, 1992, during which he made contemporaneous records of his examination. Dr. Bogdansky observed that Cathy's uterus and portions of both uterine horns were present. The ovaries were not present. There was a dispute in the evidence as to whether the Respondent was negligent by failing to remove all portions of both horns of the uterus when he spayed the cat. The testimony of Dr. Ellison and that of Dr. Diluzio established that the preferred medical practice in performing an ovariohysterectomy is to completely remove through an appropriately placed and sized incision the ovaries, all portions of both horns of the uterus, and the uterus. Dr. Ellison testified that there is no medical benefit to leaving portions of both uterine horns and the uterus and that the chance of a rare, life-threatening infection (pyometritis) increases when the horns of the uterus are not removed. 4/ Dr. Ellison further testified that the portions of the uterine horns not removed may become wrapped around the bladder, causing adhesions or strictures on the bladder. 5/ Dr. Ellison was of the opinion that Respondent was negligent in failing to remove both uterine horns and the uterus. 6/ From the testimony of the Respondent and Dr. Diluzio, it is found that veterinarians in South Florida commonly make a small incision which permits the removal of the ovaries and thereby sterilizes the animal, but does not permit the removal of the two horns of the uterus in their entirety. The practitioner has to exercise clinical judgment to determine how much of the horns of the uterus will be left. The main benefit of using a smaller incision is that the animal suffers less trauma from the surgery. Dr. Diluzio agreed that the method described by Dr. Ellison was the preferred method of performing an ovariohysterectomy. Dr. Diluzio's main concern was that a subsequently treating veterinarian may assume that the Respondent had removed both uterine horns and the uterus, which could lead to a misdiagnosis in the event the cat ever had a uterine infection. Notwithstanding his concern and the concerns expressed by Dr. Ellison, Dr. Diluzio did not believe that the method used by the Respondent was below an accepted standard of care. Dr. Diluzio's opinion is buttressed by evidence as to procedures being followed by practitioners such as the Respondent. It is concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that the procedure Respondent followed in spaying Cathy was below an accepted standard of care. In reaching that conclusion, the undersigned is persuaded by the testimony of Dr. Diluzio that the procedure followed by Respondent in spaying the cat, Cathy, is not an uncommon procedure. Since there was no evidence that he used poor clinical judgment in the procedure he followed, it is found that Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent was negligent or incompetent by his spay of the cat, Cathy. Petitioner asserts that the Respondent failed to adequately look for a working diagnosis of the cause of the cat's illness following surgery. The Respondent was not asked what his diagnosis was for the postoperative illness. From Dr. Diluzio's testimony based on the antibiotics and other treatment administered, it appears that the working diagnosis was infection of unknown etiology. Respondent did not perform any lab work on the cat in the postoperative period to determine the cause of the illness. Instead, Respondent treated the cat symptomatically. The spay occurred on or about May 20, 1992. The medical records noted that the cat had no appetite on May 21, 1992. The scanty medical records note that the cat began to improve on May 25, 1992. The cat's physical condition between the onset of the improvement and the date of improvement is not reflected by the medical records. The evidence established that Respondent closely monitored the cat's condition following the surgery and that he administered treatment to the cat. Except for Dr. Ellison's question as to why the steroid prednisone was administered, Dr. Ellison and Dr. Diluzio found no fault with the treatment actually administered by Respondent. Dr. Ellison was of the opinion that Respondent was negligent in failing to perform basic blood tests, including a complete blood count, because such tests may have determined the cause of the cat's illness or indicated the proper course of treatment. Blood tests could also have helped determine whether the cat was hemorrhaging internally. Dr. Diluzio was of the opinion that it was acceptable practice to treat the cat symptomatically for the first few days after surgery without ordering lab work. Dr. Diluzio opined that since the cat appeared to improve between the onset of the illness and its death, lab work was not necessary in this case. Because of these conflicting opinions, both of which are supported by logical rationale, it is concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent exceeded his clinical judgement or that he practiced below an accepted standard of care in his postoperative treatment of this cat by treating the cat symptomatically instead of ordering lab tests. On May 19, 1992, Respondent began a medical record for Cathy on a form that contained an area for identifying information as to the owner and as to the animal. The form also had spaces to record the findings of a physical examination, a description of any abnormal symptoms, any diagnosis made, any treatment administered, and any appropriate remarks. On May 21, 1992, continuing through May 24, 1992, Respondent noted in Cathy's records that she was treated with antibiotics, fluids, vitamins, and given intensive care with hand-feeding. The medical records should have reflected the Respondent's working diagnosis for the cat's illness so as to justify the treatment administered. The records do not contain a working diagnosis for the cat's illness and failed to justify the treatment administered. The medical records should have reflected the dosages of antibiotics given to the cat. The records do not record the dosages of antibiotics given to Cathy. The medical records should have stated the reason(s) the cat was given one cc. of the steroid prednisone (referred to in the records as "pred"). There were no medical records kept that justified the administration of this steroid. The medical records should have reflected the findings of his physical examinations following the surgery. The medical records kept by Respondent did not reflect the findings of his physical examinations of the cat during that period. He failed to document the physical examinations he made after the cat's operation. He did not record the cat's weight, its daily temperature, or the dosages of the antibiotics administered. Petitioner established that the postoperative care given the cat was not adequately documented by Respondent's medical records. Respondent had never, prior to this proceeding, been the subject of a disciplinary action by the Department. During the course of his practice, Respondent served four years on the Board of Veterinary Medicine for the State of Florida, has served as the president of the South Florida Veterinary Association and as the treasurer of the state association.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. Based on those findings and conclusions, it is recommended that Petitioner find Respondent not guilty of the violations alleged in Counts One and Four of the Administrative Complaint, and guilty of the violations alleged in Counts Two and Three of the Administrative Complaint. For the violations of Counts Two and Three, it is recommended that the Petitioner issue Respondent a formal reprimand and place his licensure on probation for a period of six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1995.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine should be revoked or suspended for alleged violation 474.14(1), 474.15, and 474.31 (1), and (6), Florida Statutes. This case was consolidated by order of the Hearing Officer issued December 5, 1975, with Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine vs. Harold M. McGee, D.V.M., Docket No. 751926 because the cases involve similar issues of law and fact. At the hearing, Respondent was advised of his right to employ legal counsel at his own expense to represent him. He elected to appear in his own behalf. He was then advised of his rights under the Administrative Procedure Act, including the right to testify in his own behalf, if he so desired. He indicated that he understood these rights.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was licensed by the Board of Veterinary Medicine on July 27, 1975 and was not licensed on March 4, 1975. On March 4, 1975 Respondent was employed by Dr. Harold M. McGee, D.V.M., at his place of business located at 3520 Northwest 36th Street, Miami, Florida. On March 4, 1975, Chery Lynn Correa, along with Dr. Calvin Dugas, D.V.M., both employees of the Knowles Animal Hospital in Miami took a Doberman Pinscher to Dr. McGee's clinic. Their visit was prompted by a request of their employer, Dr. Knowles, who had asked them to check a complaint that there were unlicensed veterinarians working for Dr. McGee. Without disclosing their purpose, Correa informed the receptionist that she had brought the dog to get rabies and distemper shots and to have some bumps on its neck checked. She and Dr. Dugas were referred to Respondent in the treatment room. He checked the dog and told them that the bumps were due to an improper diet. He then administered inoculations for rabies and distemper and checked the animal for worms. He also looked at the dog's throat and diagnosed tonsilitis for which he prescribed tetracycline pills. He also procured liquid shampoo called Tergex for a skin problem and gave instructions to bathe the dog once a week. He gave two more injections of antibiotics and cortisone. The receptionist signed Dr. McGee's name to the certificate of rabies vaccination and to a form for issuance of a Dade County dog tag. Respondent signed Dr. McGee's name to a Canine Interstate Health Certificate reflecting the administration of the inoculations. Correa paid the bill of $43.00 and then she and Dr. Dugas departed. During the time they were at the clinic, they did not see Dr. McGee on the premises (Testimony of Correa, Dugas, Petitioner's Exhibit 3). However, Dr. McGee was in the back office at the time in question suffering from a headache and had asked his receptionist to have Respondent give routine shots to animals during the day and only call him if a diagnosis was necessary. In view of Respondent's lack of a Florida license, Dr. McGee did not permit him to diagnose, treat, or incise skin of an animal without supervision. In accordance with these directions, Respondent always checked with Dr. McGee on a diagnosis and the latter would then prescribe the proper treatment. Respondent followed this procedure with respect to the dog brought to the clinic by Correa and received instructions from Dr. McGee as to the treatment that was thereafter performed. Respondent was not licensed by the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine until July 27, 1975. Dr. McGee professed the belief at the hearing that since secretaries could sign distemper and rabies certificates, he felt Dr. Mayo could sign an interstate health certificate although he normally signed such documents himself. Respondent testified that he had worked for the local humane society for over nine years and, during that period, had signed his own name to interstate health certificates by authorization of the board of directors of the society. The receptionist took the interstate health certificate in question to Respondent to sign because he had administered the shots to the animal. She was unaware of the fact that he was unlicensed (Testimony of McGee, Mayo, Uriquize, Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was head of the Veterinary Services of the Cuban rebel army at the time he came to the United States. He has been a veterinarian since 1948. He is active in the Cuban community of Miami and enjoys a good reputation for truth and veracity in the community (Testimony of Mayo, Reboso).
Recommendation That the charges against Cristobal M. Gonzalez Mayo, D.V.M., be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED day of February, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Carlton Building Room 530 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire 101 East College Avenue P.O. Box 1752 Tallahassee, Florida Dr. Cristobal M. Gonzalez Mayo 971-A Southwest 8th Street Miami, Florida 33130
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for renewal of his professional occupational license as a thoroughbred horse trainer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Division is the state agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering in the state of Florida, pursuant to chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2015).1/ At all times material hereto, Mr. Ziadie held a pari- mutuel wagering individual occupational license, number 426775- 1021, issued by the Division. At all times material hereto, Mr. Ziadie raced horses at Gulfstream Park, a facility operated by a permitholder authorized to conduct pari-mutuel wagering. At all times material hereto, Mr. Ziadie was subject to chapter 550 and implementing rules in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 61D-6. Mr. Zaidie applied for renewal of his professional occupational license. That application was denied by the Division by letter dated August 26, 2015. The letter stated that denial was based on Mr. Ziadie's violation of section 550.2415(1)(a)(relating to the racing of animals with restricted drugs) and rule 61D-6.002(1)(holding the trainer of record as an "absolute insurer" of the condition of his horses) on February 6, 2015, April 24, 2015, and May 9, 2015. As stipulated by the parties at hearing, but for the alleged offenses, Mr. Ziadie met all requirements for renewal, and the Division would have renewed his license. Mr. Ziadie will be unable to continue as a thoroughbred horse trainer in Florida if his license is not renewed. He is substantially affected by the Division's intended action. The equine detention barn is the site at each licensed racetrack in Florida where employees of the Division obtain urine and blood samples from racehorses. At all times material hereto, the 2010 Equine Detention Barn Procedures Manual (the Manual) was in effect. The Manual prescribes detailed procedures for collecting blood samples from race horses, spinning the blood in the centrifuge to extract the serum, pouring of the serum into the evergreen tube, sealing of the evergreen tube with evidence tape, and mailing of the specimen to the laboratory for testing. The Division publishes the Manual under the direction of its deputy director and distributes it to every employee that works at a detention barn, including the state veterinarian, the chief veterinary assistant, other veterinary assistants, detention barn security guards, and detention barn supervisors. The Manual is not made available to the general public. The Manual is an official publication of the Division used at all horse racing facilities in the state of Florida and was last updated on June 25, 2010. At all times material hereto, Mr. Ziadie was the trainer of record of the thoroughbred horse "GET CREATIVE." On or about February 6, 2015, "GET CREATIVE" finished in first place in the third race at Gulfstream Park. As stipulated at hearing, a blood sample was taken from "GET CREATIVE" after the race using the procedures described in the Manual. After processing, extracted serum from the blood was numbered as sample number 798044. The lab tested serum sample number 798044 and found that it contained phenylbutazone, an anti-inflammatory and a class 4 drug under the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners International. The concentration of phenylbutazone in sample number 798044 was 3.4 micrograms per milliliter, which is in excess of the 2 micrograms per milliliter threshold established in rule 61D-6.008.2/ The results of the lab's analysis of sample number 798044 were issued to Mr. Ziadie in a report dated February 26, 2015. At all times material hereto, Mr. Ziadie was the trainer of record of the thoroughbred horse "AT LARGE." On or about April 24, 2015, "AT LARGE" finished in first place in the first race at Gulfstream Park. As stipulated at hearing, a blood sample was taken from "AT LARGE" after the race using the procedures described in the Manual. After processing, extracted serum from the blood was numbered as sample number 028949. The lab tested serum sample number 028949 and found that it contained phenylbutazone, an anti-inflammatory and a class 4 drug under the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners International. The concentration of phenylbutazone was 2.3 micrograms per milliliter, which is in excess of the 2 micrograms per milliliter threshold established in rule 61D-6.008. The results of the lab's analysis of sample number 028949 were issued to Mr. Ziadie in a report dated May 6, 2015. At all times material hereto, Mr. Ziadie was the trainer of record of the thoroughbred horse "CREATIVE LICENSE." On or about May 9, 2015, "CREATIVE LICENSE" finished in first place in the seventh race at Gulfstream Park. As stipulated at hearing, a blood sample was taken from "CREATIVE LICENSE" after the race using the procedures described in the Manual. After processing, extracted serum from the blood was numbered as sample number 031421. The lab tested serum sample number 031421 and found that it contained clenbuterol, a bronchodilator and a class 3 drug under the Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances, as promulgated by the Association of Racing Commissioners International. The concentration of clenbuterol in serum sample number 031421 was 8.9 picograms per milliliter. Rule 61D-6.008 does not permit clenbuterol in the body of a racing animal on race day. The results of the lab's analysis of sample number 031421 were issued to Mr. Ziadie in a report dated May 20, 2015. At the time of these races, rule 61D-6.005, effective November 19, 2001,3/ governed the procedures for the taking of urine and blood samples from the horses. Subsection (3) provided in part: The specimen shall be sealed in its container, assigned an official sample number which is affixed to the specimen container, and the correspondingly numbered information portion of the sample tag shall be detached and signed by the owner, trainer, groom, or the authorized person as a witness to the taking and sealing of the specimen. Subsection 4.5 of the Manual describes the sample tag in greater detail: RL 172-03 is a self-adhesive sequentially numbered bar-coded, three part form (blood label, urine label and card) provided by the University of Florida Racing Laboratory that is used to catalog specimens by assigning them "Specimen Numbers." As specimens are collected, information regarding the animal from which the sample was collected is written on the bottom of this form. The top two portions of the form (Blood, Urine) are completed with the Track Number and Collection Date. The applicable top portions of the form are then separated and applied to the urine specimen cup and/or evergreen blood tube. The bottom portion, or Specimen Card is completed and appropriately signed and is sent to the Tallahassee Office of Operations to be filed. The sample tag thus consists of three portions: the numbered portion designated for the blood specimen ("blood label"), the numbered portion designated for the urine specimen ("urine label"), and the numbered portion containing information about the animal and trainer that is to be signed by the witness ("card"). In the sampling procedures followed in this case, the blood label was not affixed to the collection tube. The blood label, from which the card portion was "detached," was affixed to the evergreen blood tube. This was consistent with the governing rule as well as the Manual. The evergreen tube is the specimen container for the serum. The sampling procedures followed on February 6, 2015, April 24, 2015, and May 9, 2015, were in compliance with the procedures set forth in the Manual. As stated in subsection 4.4 of the Manual, "[s]ealing the sample ensures the specimen does not spill during shipment to the laboratory and assures all parties that the sample has not been tampered with." The same purposes are served by sealing the serum specimen. After the blood samples were taken by the veterinarian, they were not "sealed" in the collection tubes. The fact that the collection tubes are air tight prior to and after the taking of the blood and initially contain a partial vacuum to facilitate collection, does not constitute "sealing" of the specimen in its container for purposes of the rule. The three collection tubes are not the specimen container, but the last three digits of the number from the blood label affixed to the specimen container were also written on each blood collection tube with a black "Sharpie" type marking pen to ensure control of the sample. After the blood was centrifuged, and the serum was poured into the evergreen tube, the serum was sealed with evidence tape, as described in subsection 4.6 of the Manual, and the chief veterinary assistant put his initials over the seal. This constituted "sealing" of the specimen in its container. Subsection 4.6 of the Manual provides: Serum is poured into applicable (numbered) "evergreen" tubes. Each "evergreen" tube is immediately properly sealed with evidence tape. Rule 61D-6.005 does not make any reference to spinning the blood in the centrifuge to extract serum, the pouring of serum into an evergreen tube, the sealing of the evergreen tube with evidence tape, or the freezing of the specimen. Subsection 4.6 of the Manual establishes additional Division policies and procedures not contained in the rule. The serum must be separated from the blood because whole blood cannot be frozen without damage that would affect its usefulness in laboratory testing. Centrifuging facilitates the separation of the serum from the whole blood. The transfer of the serum from the glass collection tubes to the plastic evergreen tube saves shipping weight and reduces the incidence of breakage during shipping. As testified to by Mr. Urrutia, a chief veterinarian's assistant, the centrifuged collection tubes are stored in a locked refrigerator, the opening of the centrifuged collection tubes and the pouring of the serum into a correspondingly numbered evergreen specimen container is carefully performed with the intent to avoid cross-contamination, and the sealed evergreen specimen containers remain in a locked freezer until they are shipped to the laboratory. The evidence was clear and convincing that the serum specimens in the evergreen containers with the full "Specimen Number" marked on them were derived from the blood sample tubes bearing the same last three numbers. The serum specimens came from Mr. Ziadie's horses. Dr. Barker's testimony indicated that the "free pour" of the serum was the point at which the specimen was most vulnerable, and that contamination or tampering was possible. He stated he would have preferred more supervision, witnessing, and documentation as to who was doing what, at what time. Dr. Cole concurred that there is always a possibility of contamination when a sample is transferred from one container to another. However, the free-pour method used to transfer the serum from the collection tubes into the evergreen specimen container is one of the better approaches, as opposed to using a pipette or method that would put something into the sample. Contamination from the free pour of the serum is unlikely. There was no evidence introduced to suggest that any tampering with, or contamination of, the specimens was likely or probable. The state veterinarian who took the blood sample from each horse signed PMW Form 504, a Daily Record of Sample Collection, indicating that this was done. After centrifuging the whole blood in the collection tubes, at the end of the day the state veterinarian usually leaves the collection tubes with the chief veterinary assistant, who pours the separated serum from each collection tube into the correspondingly numbered evergreen container and seals it. Sometimes, the state veterinarian stays to observe the transfer of the serum to the evergreen specimen container. There is no signature indicating the time the state veterinarian leaves the samples at the detention barn or the time that the chief veterinary assistant opens the collection tubes and transfers the serum. The custody of the samples remains with Division personnel throughout this process. No transfer of custody takes place until the specimen containers are shipped to the laboratory. In each instance of sampling in this case, the owner's witness signed the card portion of the sample tag (Form RL 172- 03) after the taking of the urine and blood samples. In each instance of sampling in this case, the owner's witness signed the card portion of the sample tag (Form RL 172- 03) after the sealing of the urine specimen in its container, but before the sealing of the serum specimen in its container, the evergreen tube. In each instance of sampling in this case, the owner's witness did not observe the extraction of the serum or the sealing of the serum specimen in its container with the evidence tape. The witnesses could have remained to watch those procedures had they requested to do so. Subsection 4.6 of the Manual states, "the owner, trainer of record or designated authorized witness may leave with the released animal or may elect to witness the conclusion of the collected blood specimen processing and sealing cycle." Two signs posted in the detention barn similarly advise owner's witnesses that they may remain to witness the centrifuge process and sealing of the sample. Mr. Urrutia credibly testified that in the six years he performed the duties of the chief veterinary assistant, no one ever stayed to watch him transfer the serum or sealing of the specimen container. The pouring of the collection tubes into the specimen container takes place at the end of the racing day, after all of the horses have departed from the detention barn. It would be very inconvenient for an authorized witness to remain until the serum specimens were sealed. The procedures that were followed--set forth in the Manual--which allowed the owner's witness to sign the sample tag after witnessing the taking of the blood but before the sealing of the specimen, were not in compliance with rule 61D-6.005(3), quoted above, which required the owner's representative to sign as a witness to both the taking and sealing of the specimen. The posting of signs advising that the owner's representative was allowed to stay and witness the sealing of the specimen container did not bring the procedure being followed into compliance with rule 61D-6.005(3). The requirement that the authorized representative must witness not only the taking, but also the sealing of specimens, is a provision directly related to maintaining integrity in the sample collection process. Such deliberate disregard of the plain language of the rule directly affects the fairness of the entire sampling procedure. The Manual is applicable to every horseracing facility within the state of Florida. It has been in effect in its current form since 2010 and, by its own terms, is mandatory. It provides that veterinary assistants, chief veterinary assistants, detention barn security guards, and detention barn supervisors "study, become completely familiar with, and put into practice" the procedures outlined in the Manual. It describes seven steps in chain-of-custody procedures, three of which are "collecting the specimen, sealing the specimen, and completing the required forms," and describes detailed procedures in this "strict sequence of events that must be followed." Testimony at hearing confirmed that Division employees are required to follow the procedures it sets forth. Although some employees stated that the Manual was a "guideline," to the extent that this testimony was intended to suggest that employees need not comply with the Manual's provisions, it is rejected as not credible. As Ms. Erskine, a detention barn supervisor, testified, employees do not have discretion not to follow the procedures set forth in the Manual. She testified that if employees did not follow the procedures, they would be subject to sanctions. Ms. Blackman similarly testified that the provisions of the Manual are mandatory and that regional managers of the Division had the responsibility to visit racetracks to ensure that each track was following the Manual. This testimony of Ms. Erskine and Ms. Blackman is credited. As Ms. Blackman testified, the sampling procedures set forth in the Manual are important to the Division, to the trainers, and to the public. State Steward Scheen credibly testified that, although he has acted as a judge in hearings before the Board of Stewards in cases alleging violations of section 550.2415 for ten years, he was unaware of the process that was routinely followed to centrifuge blood and extract the serum to create a specimen for shipment to the laboratory. Mr. Stirling credibly testified that in his capacity as executive director of the Florida Horseman's Benevolent and Protective Association, a position he has held for 20 years, he was an advocate for the horsemen. He attended all of the workshops for rules relating to medication overages as one of his primary duties. The centrifuging process, extraction of the serum, and sealing of the serum specimen as described in detail in subsection 4.6 of the Manual were never discussed at a rulemaking hearing. These procedures are not a part of rule 61D-6.005, adopted in 2001. As he testified, Mr. Stirling was not even aware of these procedures until a month or two before the final hearing in this case. Subsection 4.6 of the Manual has not been adopted under the procedures of section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Subsection 4.6 of the Manual is an unadopted rule. Rule 61D-6.005(8) provided: The division may proceed when other evidence exists that an illegal or impermissible legend or proprietary drug, medication, or medicinal compound (natural or synthetic) may have been administered to a racing animal. Otherwise, no action shall be taken unless and until the laboratory under contract with the division has properly identified the legend or proprietary drug, medication, or medicinal compound (natural or synthetic) in a sample or specimen collected pursuant to this chapter. (Emphasis added). As discussed, the serum specimens were not collected pursuant to the requirements of chapter 61D-6. Other than the sample testing, no other evidence was introduced that an illegal drug or medication had been administered to the horses. In the absence of the test results, the Division failed to show even by a preponderance of the evidence that horses trained by Mr. Ziadie were raced with drugs on February 6, 2015, April 24, 2015, and May 9, 2015.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order granting Mr. Kirk Ziadie's application for renewal of his pari-mutuel professional occupational license. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 25th day of November, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence and the factual stipulations entered into by the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent's Licensure and Practice Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a veterinarian authorized to practice veterinary medicine in the State of Florida under license number VM 1797. Respondent is a sole practitioner. He owns and operates the Kendall Lakes Pet Health Care Center in Dade County, Florida. Case No. 90-4549 On or about October 6, 1988, J.C. took his eight year old English Bulldog, 3/ R.C., to Respondent's office. The purpose of the visit was to have Respondent examine a lump that J.C. had discovered under R.C.'s chin while playing with the dog. Respondent had last seen R.C. a few years back when he treated him for an ear infection. Since that time R.C. had not been examined by any veterinarian. Upon approaching the dog in the examining room, Respondent noted a foul odor emanating from the dog's ears indicative of an ear infection. Furthermore, he could see that the dog's teeth had an extraordinary amount of tartar buildup and, more importantly, that the dog's lymph nodes were swollen. After palpating the dog's lymph nodes, Respondent told J.C., who was present during the examination, that it was likely that the dog had cancer 4/ and that he needed to take a blood sample from the dog. An attempt was then made to draw blood from the dog. R.C., however, in obvious discomfort, became unruly. He snarled, showed his teeth and shook his head. J.C. tried to restrain the dog by holding him down, but was unable to do so. As a result, no blood sample could be obtained. Conventional wire muzzles do not fit English Bulldogs because they are a brachycephalic or "smashed face" breed. Accordingly, in an effort to restrain R.C., Respondent tied R.C.'s mouth closed with a hospital lead. English Bulldogs tend to have congenitally small tracheas and anatomical deficiencies in the areas of their nose and throat which lead to difficulty in breathing. Consequently, caution must be exercised when muzzling this breed of dog. The practitioner should make sure that the dog is able to breath satisfactorily through its nose or that the muzzle is loose enough so that the dog can still breathe through its mouth. Unlike some English Bulldogs, R.C. was able to breath through his nose for an extended period of time, as evidenced by the fact that he slept with his mouth closed. As a general rule, tranquilizing is an attractive alternative to muzzling as a means of restraining an English Bulldog because respiratory compromise is less of a risk. The use of this method of restraint, particularly where the dog is in the advanced stages of cancer, is not free of problems, however. Whether tranquilizing or muzzling should be employed in a particular instance is a decision to be made by the practitioner based upon his assessment of the physical characteristics and condition of the dog under his care. It has not been shown that, in exercising his professional judgment to muzzle rather than to tranquilize R.C., Respondent acted in a manner inconsistent with what a reasonably prudent veterinarian would have done under like circumstances or that he engaged in conduct that fell below any minimum standard of acceptable care for veterinarians in the community. After he was muzzled, R.C. continued to struggle. J.C. was holding the dog around the head and shoulders, but was unable to control him. Respondent therefore placed a towel over R.C. to try to subdue the dog. J.C. meanwhile maintained his grip on the dog. Shortly thereafter, R.C. went limp and collapsed. Respondent picked up R.C. and carried him to a treatment table. He took a stethoscope to the dog's chest to listen for a heartbeat. Hearing none, he performed an external cardiac massage, but with no success. Respondent looked down R.C.'s throat and determined that, because R.C.'s lymph nodes were so swollen, it would not be possible to quickly pass an endotracheal tube through the dog's trachea. Respondent therefore had a member of his staff attempt to administer oxygen to R.C. by using a "face mask" device. While this technique, as a general rule, is relatively ineffective with this breed of dog, it was the best means available under the circumstances. Respondent instructed his staff to fill a syringe with epinephrine. They did so and he administered the drug to R.C. Under ideal conditions, epinephrine should not be administered before an ECG is performed to determine if epinephrine is indicated. In the instant case, however, while he had the equipment, Respondent did not have the time to perform an ECG on R.C. Throughout the time that these efforts were being made to revive R.C., an emotionally distraught J.C. was yelling and shouting at Respondent. While Respondent was unsuccessful in his efforts to resuscitate R.C., it has not been shown that these efforts were inconsistent with what a reasonably prudent veterinarian would have done under like circumstances or constituted conduct that fell below any minimum standard of acceptable care for veterinarians in the community. After R.C. was pronounced dead, J.C. did not request that an autopsy be done and therefore none was performed. Accordingly, it is impossible to determine with a high degree of medical certainty the cause of R.C.'s death. A member of Respondent's staff recorded information concerning R.C.'s visit on the dog's chart. The entries made, however, provided very little detail regarding what happened during the visit. There was no indication that a physical examination had been conducted. Furthermore, while there were notes that oxygen and "2 1/2 cc epinephrine" 5/ had been administered, the entries made did not reflect how they had been administered, nor did they indicate what other resuscitation efforts had been made. Also missing was an entry reflecting that an autopsy had neither been requested nor performed. Case No. 90-8113 On or about June 18, 1990, Detective Jerry Rodriguez of the Metro-Dade Police Department, who was working undercover at the time, met with Respondent at the Kendall Lakes Pet Health Care Center. The meeting was arranged by a confidential informant. After he was introduced to Respondent by the confidential informant, Detective Rodriguez entered into negotiations with Respondent to purchase Winstrol-V anabolic steroids. The negotiations culminated in Detective Rodriguez agreeing to buy a bottle of Winstrol-V from Respondent for $1,000. Respondent was led to believe by Detective Rodriguez that these steroids would be used for human consumption. Respondent accepted a $1,000 advance payment from Detective Rodriguez and issued him a receipt. Respondent did not fulfill his end of the bargain, nor did he ever have any intention to do so. He never made any steroids available to Detective Rodriguez, nor did he take any action, including ordering or prescribing the steroids, toward that end. 6/ A subsequent inspection of Respondent's veterinary facility conducted on or about June 18, 1990, revealed the presence of certain prescription medications that were beyond the expiration date or had obliterated labels which were missing lot numbers, manufacturers' names and addresses and expiration dates.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Veterinary Medicine enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of maintaining inadequate medical records, in violation of Section 474.214(1)(f), as charged in the Administrative Complaint issued in Case No. 90-4549; (2) imposing a $1,000.00 administrative fine and placing Respondent on probation for a period of one year for this violation; and (3) dismissing the remaining charges against Respondent set forth in the Administrative Complaints issued in Case Nos. 90-4549 and 90-8113. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 13th day of June, 1991. STUART M. LERNER 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 13th day of June, 1991.
