The Issue An amended administrative complaint, dated July 31, 1989, alleges various violations of Chapter 459, F.S., by Respondent. Counts V, VI and VII, relating to Respondent's treatment of patient, R.C., were voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner at the commencement of the hearing. The following allegations are left at issue: That Respondent violated Section 459.015(1)(u), and (y), F.S., by prescribing Percodan and Ritalin, controlled substances, to his wife, G.I., inappropriately or in excessive quantities. That in the treatment of his wife, Respondent failed to practice osteopathic medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar osteopathic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances, in violation of Section 459.015(1)(y), F.S. That Respondent violated Section 459.015(1)(p), F.S., by failing to keep medical records justifying the course of treatment of G.I.; and that of his mother, M.I., for whom he prescribed Demerol.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Donald Iafornaro, D.O., is and has been at all times material to the allegations of the amended administrative complaint, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, with license number OS 0001794. Dr. Iafornaro has a limited osteopathic practice which he conducts from his home at 1802 North Lakemont, Winter Park, Florida. He has about fifty patients, and also treats his large family, including his wife, mother, eleven children and grandchildren. G.I. has been a patient of Dr. Iafornaro for approximately 25 years -- since 1973, as his wife, and prior to that, from 1964, along with the rest of her family in Cleveland, Ohio. Mrs. Iafornaro has had a demanding job caring for the Iafornaro children, her mother-in-law, the house and pets, and has recently been her husband's only staff in his practice. Between May 1985, and April 1987, her husband treated her for a variety of medical problems, including severe allergies, sleep apnea (a mechanical difficulty in breathing during deep sleep), depression, fatigue, a chronic fracture of the foot bone (a fracture which failed to heal), spinal stenosis, an unstable hip, ulcers, angina and various gynecological complaints Between May 1, 1985, and April 11, 1987, Dr. Iafornaro prescribed the following drugs, among others, to his wife: 2,720 tablets of Percodan 900 tablets of Ritalin Percodan is the product name for oxycodone hydrochloride, and Ritalin is the product name for methylphenidate hydrochloride. Both are Schedule II controlled substances and are legend drugs as defined in Section 465.003(7), F.S. With the concurrence of the parties, official recognition was taken of the Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) for the years 1984-1987. Petitioner also presented the testimony of two osteopathic physicians practicing in Dr. Iafornaro's community. The evidence from these authorities established that the prescriptions of Percodan and Ritalin for G.I. were inappropriate or in excessive quantities. Dr. Iafornaro felt that Ritalin was necessary to counteract the sedative effect of the antihistamines his wife had to take for her many allergies. He also prescribed the Ritalin for her depression. Ritalin is a mild central nervous system stimulant. It is indicated for attention deficit disorders (primarily in children) and narcolepsy. It should not be used for severe depression or for the prevention or treatment of normal fatigue. The PDR warns of drug dependence. Ritalin is also contraindicated in patients, such as G.I., who have exhibited anxiety, tension, depression and agitation. Ritalin may cause reactions such as skin rashes, a common complaint of this patient, but a problem which Dr. Iafornaro attributed to her multiple allergies. The Percodan was prescribed by Dr. Iafornaro for his wife's pain in her foot and for other pain in her low back and in her wrist. The PDR warns that Percodan may be habit forming. It contains aspirin, which can aggravate ulcers. It is indicated for relief of moderate to moderately severe pain; it is a depressant; it can cause apnea and respiratory depression in an overdose. Mrs. Iafornaro's statement that she used only about a half a tablet a day is inconsistent with the volume of the drugs prescribed for her over the relevant period. Dr. Iafornaro produced all of his medical records for G.I. for the relevant period. He claims they are incomplete because he also makes notes on odds and ends, writes on the back of a medical journal and keeps a lot of records in his head. (Iafornaro Deposition, p.15) The medical records produced by Dr. Iafornaro do not justify his course of treatment,for this patient, and particularly fail to explain the long-term volume of drugs that he was prescribing. Dr. Iafornaro claims that the probable cause panel previously reviewed his records and found them acceptable. The records were produced in response to charges that he had violated certain terms of an earlier disciplinary action. The issue was resolved with a "no probable cause" finding. That finding, in 1983, was for a different time period than the period at issue in this proceeding. Dr. Iafornaro provided records to the panel covering a limited period in 1983 when he was treating his wife for her foot fracture, a slip and fall accident and other acute conditions. The 1983 records, in contrast to those at issue here, describe the condition and his treatment. The later records provide copious listings of a variety of prescriptions, including the Percodan and Ritalin, with scant examination results, explanation of the condition being treated, or diagnoses of the complaints. Complete written medical records are an essential element of prudent osteopathic practice, particularly when, as here, the physician is treating his family and his objectivity may be questioned. Between January 5, 1987, and March 1, 1987, Dr. Iafornaro prescribed 200 50 mg Demerol tablets to his 84 year old mother, M.I. Demerol is a product name for meperidine hydrocloride, a Schedule II controlled substance, and a legend drug as defined in Section 465.003(7), F.S. The basis for the prescriptions was an episode of right upper quadrant pain felt to be of gallbladder origin. It is cheaper to purchase Demerol tablets by the 100. After M.I. took a few of the first prescription of 100, she lost the bottle and Dr. Iafornaro replaced it with another prescription. The medical records make no mention of the lost prescription, but they marginally justify the use of this drug for the limited period in issue and for the purpose intended. A previous disciplinary case involving allegations of Dr. Iafornaro's improper prescriptions and record-keeping practices was resolved with a stipulation for his one-year probation with conditions. The stipulation was approved by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners in a Final Order entered on December 28, 1982. (DPR Cases #0010979, 0014467, and 0015303)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners enter a Final Order which finds Donald Iafornaro, D.O., guilty of having violated the provision of Subsection 459.015(i)(p), (u) and (y), F.S. and imposing the following penalties: Suspension of license for 90 days and until such time as he appears before the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners and establishes that he has taken and passed the examination conducted by the National Board of Examiners for Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons or the Special Purpose Examination (SPEX) of the Federation of State Medical Boards, as designated by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners in its final order; Upon reinstatement that his license be placed on probation for two years subject to such terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Board, including, but not limited to, restriction of practice, direct or indirect supervision of practice or prescribing of controlled substances and required additional continuing education; That he be permanently restricted from prescribing controlled substances to family members, unless under direct supervision of another osteopathic physician; That a reprimand be imposed; That a fine of $2,000. be imposed. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5277 The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 1. 3.-5. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraphs 6, 8 and 10. Some blood pressure monitoring is found in the records however. Adopted in paragraph 6. Adopted as a conclusion of law and in paragraph 6. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 19. Respondent's Proposed Findings Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph l. Adopted in part in paragraphs 7-10, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 4.-6. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 7.&8. Adopted in paragraphs 15, 17 and 18. 9. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Dept. of Professional Regulation 730 S. Sterling Street Tampa, FL 33609 Sam Murrell, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 1749 Orlando, FL 32802 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rod Presnell Executive Director Osteopathic Medical Examiners Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Prior to and during part of 1983 Dr. Sturdivant practiced as an osteopathic physician. Dr. Sturdivant operated an office in Bradenton, Florida. Sometime during 1983 Dr. Sturdivant met and discussed employment with Dr. Daniel Clark. Dr. Clark operated the Total Health Care Clinic Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Center"), in Ormond Beach, Volusia County, Florida. Dr. Clark had been licensed as a physician in Florida. Dr. Clark's license to practice medicine in Florida was revoked, however, on April 21, 1983. As a result of his discussions with Dr. Clark, Dr. Sturdivant practiced medicine at the Center four days a week during most of 1983. One day a week Dr. Sturdivant continued to work out of his office in Bradenton. Sometime during 1984 Dr. Sturdivant left the Center. He did not return to the Center until 1985. During the early part of 1985 Dr. Sturdivant returned to the Center where he worked full time as the Center's Medical Director. Dr. Sturdivant worked at the Center from at least March 27, 1985 to at least June 22, 1985. During the period of time during 1985 that Dr. Sturdivant acted as the Medical Director of the Center, Dr. Clark's title was Administrator of the Center. During the period of time after April 21, 1983, that Dr. Sturdivant was employed at the Center Dr. Sturdivant knew or had reason to know that Dr. Clark's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida had been revoked. During the portion of 1985 that Dr. Sturdivant was employed as the Medical Director of the Center Dr. Sturdivant was aware that he was responsible for the medical care of patients seen at the Center. Ms. Judy Baxley was seen as a patient at the Center several times beginning in March, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director. Ms. Baxley was treated for asthma and a "yeast" infection. Ms. Baxley was seen by Dr. Clark on some of her visits. She received medical tests and treatments at the direction of Dr. Clark, as evidenced, at least in part, by progress notes signed by Dr. Clark. Ms. Shirley Van Gampler was seen as a patient at the Center on May 8, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director of the Center. Ms. Van Gampler was seen by Dr. Clark as a patient. Dr. Clark's treatment of Ms. Van Gampler included examination, testing and diagnosis, as evidenced, at least in part, by progress notes signed by Dr. Clark. Mr. Douglas Cutsail was seen as a patient at the Center in April, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director. Mr. Cutsail had a history of heart attacks and hypertension. He went to the Clinic in an effort to control his high blood pressure. Dr. Clark treated Mr. Cutsail as a patient, performing tests on Mr. Cutsail and directing chelation therapy treatments of Mr. Cutsail's medical problems. Dr. Clark signed the progress notes on Mr. Cutsail. Dr. Sturdivant also signed the progress notes but his signature was added at a later date after Dr. Clark had already treated Mr. Cutsail. Ms. Eileen Deasy was seen as a patient at the Center in April, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director of the Center. Dr. Clark treated Ms. Deasy as a patient, as evidenced by progress notes signed by Dr. Clark. Ms. Lonna Sloan was seen as a patient at the Center in April, 1985, while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director of the Center. Ms. Sloan, who is now deceased, had breast cancer at the time she was seen by Dr. Clark. Ms. Sloan was treated as a patient by Dr. Clark. The treatment received by Ms. Sloan was substandard treatment. Dr. Sturdivant allowed Dr. Clark to exercise professional medical responsibilities during 1985 while Dr. Sturdivant was the Medical Director of the Center and with knowledge that Dr. Clark was not licensed to carry out those responsibilities.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Sturdivant's license to practice in the State of Florida be suspended for a period of one (1) year. It is further, RECOMMENDED that the recommended suspension of Dr. Sturdivant's license for one (1) year be stayed and set aside and that he be placed on probation for a period of three (3) years in lieu thereof. During the period that Dr. Sturdivant is on probation, he should be required to work under the supervision of an osteopathic physician. He should not work in any supervisory capacity. During the period of his probation, Dr. Sturdivant and his supervisor should submit quarterly written reports of Dr. Sturdivant's employment activities. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Stipulated to by the parties. 2 3. 2 and 4. 5 and 6. 5 6. 6 7. 7 8. 8 9. 9 10. 10 11. 11 12. 12-13 13. This is a conclusion of law. Lonna Sloan's deposition is hearsay. It has been accepted only to the extent that it corroborates the testimony of Dr. Smith and Petitioner's exhibit 3, the progress notes on Ms. Sloan. Summary of testimony. Cumulative and hearsay. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Not supported by the weight of the evidence and irrelevant. The evidence established that Dr. Sturdivant was aware that Dr. Clark's license to practice in Florida had been revoked. Whether Dr. Clark had a license to practice in Georgia is irrelevant. The evidence failed to prove this contention. The evidence did prove that some of the products sold by the Center were nutritional products available in health food stores. The evidence also proved that persons who received nutritional products were treated medically by Dr. Clark. The evidence failed to prove that these nutritional products were prescribed as only for nutritional purposes. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Branson, Esquire William O'Neil, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 David L. Sturdivant, D.O. 800 South Nova Road Suite H Ormond Beach, Florida 32074 Mr. Rod Presnell Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact L. R. Fleming is a chiropractic physician licensed by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners and holds License #1239. Dr. L. R. Fleming caused to be published in the Today Newspaper an advertisement, a copy of which was introduced into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. This advertisement read as follows: CHIROPRACTORS SEEK RESEARCH VOLUNTEERS The International Pain Control Institute in conjunction with the New York Chiropractic College is presently engaged in what is the most extensive research program ever undertaken by the chiropractic profession. This research is directed toward determining the relationship between health problems and spinal misalignments and utilizes a screening process called Contour Analysis. Volunteers are being sought for screening. Contour Analysis enables taking a three- dimensional picture (called Moire photography) of the topography of the surface of the spine to detect spinal stress deviations. This analysis will be correlated with leg deficiency, patient symptomatology, and levels of tenderness. An analysis of this type can reveal such things as normal and abnormal stress patterns, spinal curvature, muscle spasms, muscle imbalance, spinal distortions and scoliosis. There is no charge to participating volunteers, since the doctors are contributing their time, service, and facilities for the program. Final processing and evaluation will be done at the New York Chiropractic College. Anyone wishing to be a volunteer may telephone participating doctors directory for information or an appointment. MERRITT ISLAND TITUSVILLE MELBOURNE (doctor's (doctor's Dr. Lyle name deleted) name deleted) Fleming Phone 254-3343 The advertisement above was published in the Today Newspaper on or about April 1, 1978. Gladys Teate, of Melbourne, Florida, read this advertisement on or about April 1, 1978, and made an appointment with dr. Fleming for contour analysis on April 11, 1978. Gladys Teate kept the appointment on April 11, 1978, and had a contour analysis performed at Dr. Fleming's office. The process of contour analysis consisted of the taking of certain personal data together with symptomatology from Gladys Teate by one of the doctor's assistants. Thereafter, the doctor's assistant took a Moire photograph of Teate's back. Teate was then seen by Dr. Fleming, who performed an elementary examination of Teate's back and explained the Moire photograph to her. Teate had no recollection of the contour analysis, Dr. Fleming's examination, or any subsequent events to include any oral representations made by Dr. Fleming. However, records reflect that x-rays were taken of Teate at Dr. Fleming's office. Thereafter, a thorough chiropractic examination was performed by the doctor, who prepared a written diagnostic recommendation, a copy of which was introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Teate was unclear as to whether she saw Dr. Fleming on one or two (2) occasions; however, she was given a bill for $10 for a chiropractic examination and a bill for $45 for x-rays upon leaving Dr. Fleming's office. There was no charge for the contour analysis. No competent evidence of Dr. Fleming's indicating that further examination and diagnosis was free was presented. No evidence was introduced that the research program described in the advertisement was not a legitimate research program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners take no action against the license of Dr. L. R. Fleming, D.C. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul W. Lambert, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis V. Cianfrogna, Esquire 308 Julia Street Post Office Drawer 6310-G Titusville, Florida 32780 Board of Chiropractic Examiners 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: Respondent, Henry J. Petrillo, D.O., has been licensed to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida since July 1, 1973 and at all times pertinent to these proceedings was licensed by the State of Florida as a Doctor of Osteopath. The Board entered an order dated February 18, 1982, in a prior unrelated case, placing respondent on probation for a period of two (2) years commencing February 18, 1982 with the condition, among others, that the respondent " . . . shall obtain/continue counseling with a psychiatrist or psychologist and shall cause progress reports to be submitted to the Board or probation supervisor every three (3) months." In response to that order, respondent began to visit psychologist Sidney T. Merin, Ph.D. for counseling. Dr. Merin submitted progress reports on the respondent to the Board by letter on April 15, 1982, August 5, 1982, October 25, 1982 and January 24, 1983. No progress reports were submitted by Dr. Merin, or any other psychiatrist or psychologist, on the respondent to the Board after January 24, 1983. Based on Petitioner's Exhibit 1 (letter to respondent from Dr. Merin date stamped received March 25, 1984), Dr. Merin continued to treat respondent until his probation was terminated. But, there was a period of time from January 24, 1983 until November 30, 1983 that respondent did not visit Dr. Merin for counseling. Respondent attended counseling sessions with Dr. Merin on November 30, 1983 and January 9, 1984. Respondent petitioned the Board for early termination of his probation by letter dated February 21, 1983. On June 25, 1983 the Board heard respondent's request. On August 6, 1983 the Board entered its order denying the respondent's "request for termination of probation and full reinstatement of his license to practice osteopathic medicine." The Board's order specifically required that respondent was to "continue to be on probation pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in the final order dated February 18, 1982." The evidence indicated that the Board was aware that respondent had completed counseling with Dr. Merin in January, 1984 and had been "discharged" other than for visits on a "as needed" basis. On June 25, 1983, at the time of respondent's hearing on his request for reinstatement of license and termination of probation, over three (3) months had expired since Dr. Merin's last progress report to the Board on the respondent. Angela Turner was one of respondent's patients. Between May 9, 1983 and July 30, 1983, the respondent saw Angela Turner eight (8) times on a physician-patient relationship. The respondent's medical records and Angela Turner's testimony indicated that she was suffering from a continuing vaginal infection that resulted in a discharge. Angela Turner's last visit with respondent on July 30, 1983 was for the purpose of bringing in a urine sample for a pregnancy test which respondent had requested on Angela Turner's prior visit of July 26, 1983 and for consultation with respondent as to the results of the pregnancy test. Upon arriving at the respondent's office on July 30, 1983, Angela Turner submitted the urine sample to Janaee Brown, a nurse in respondent's office. Later, Angela Turner was taken to the examination room by Janaee Brown who inquired as to how Angela Turner was feeling, Angela Turner replied, "that she was feeling a lot better, but she had slight dizziness and she thought her yeast infection might be coming back." Janaee Brown then left Angela Turner in the examination room. At this point, there is conflicting testimony concerning whether Janaee Brown relayed instructions from the respondent for Angela Turner to disrobe from the waist down and provided a gown for this purpose. The more credible evidence is that Janaee Brown did not instruct Angela Turner to disrobe from the waist down and that Janaee Brown did not give Angela Turner a gown or robe for this purpose. Although there was some evidence that respondent may have deviated, at one time or another, from his office policy of having someone accompany him at all times while consulting with or examining a female patient, the weight of the evidence shows that respondent did have such an office policy and that no exception to that office policy was made during Angela Turner's visit with respondent on July 30, 1983. Angela Turner's testimony was that respondent came into the room alone, reported a negative pregnancy test, asked how she was feeling, examined her vagina without gloves, or lubricant or device to spread vagina, unbuttoned her blouse and moved her bra and examined her breasts. Respondent then kissed each of her breasts, her stomach, her vagina and tried to kiss her lips but she pushed him away. The respondent denies any impropriety with Angela Turner on July 30, 1983. The weight of the evidence shows that respondent consulted with Angela Turner in the presence of his wife, Vida Petrillo, concerning her pregnancy test, prescribed five (5) douches for vaginal infection and discussed something about abortion. The evidence shows that Angela Turner did mention to Janaee Brown something to the effect that the doctor had done something he shouldn't do and asked if that was office policy, to which Janaee Brown replied "no." The evidence shows that Angela Turner did not appear to be emotionally upset at this time. Angela Turner paid her bill, picked up her douches and went outside and called her husband who in turn contacted the police. Counsel for petitioner stipulated that a civil suit for damages had been filed by Angela Turner and her husband against respondent and presently there was an ongoing lawsuit. The evidence fails to establish sufficiently that the respondent conducted a vaginal examination on July 30, 1983 or made any sexual advances toward Angela Turner by kissing her breasts, stomach, and vagina or attempting to kiss her lips.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found not guilty of the violation of Sections 459.015(1)(k), and 459.014, Florida Statutes (1983) and that Count II and Count III be DISMISSED. It is further RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating a lawful order of the Board in violation of Section 459.O15(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1983). For such violation, considering the mitigating circumstances surrounding the violation, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a letter of Reprimand to the respondent. Respectfully submitted and entered this 1st day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Osteopathic Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Grover C. Freeman and David P. Rankin FREEMAN & LOPEZ, P.A. 4600 West Cypress, Suite 410 Tampa, Florida 33607 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times here relevant Theodore S. Brandwein, D.O., held License No. 3259 issued by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. During the calendar year 1977 and for some period subsequent thereto Respondent maintained his office and practice at 18055 Franjo Road, Perrine, Florida under the name of Brandwein Medical Practice, P.A. The sign marking Respondent's office in 1977, when these charges were preferred, is the same sign depicted in Exhibit 6 which is a photograph taken in 1979. It is the sign for which Respondent registered with the Florida Secretary of State as a service mark. In his application (Exhibit 11) for this registration Respondent described this mark as "a stethoscope, binaural in design, lying horizontally on the paper, sign, building, item, or object on which it is emblazoned, the earpieces and connecting piece forming in script the letter 'D' and the tubing and chest piece convoluted to form the 'O'. Taken together, the stethoscope forms the letters 'D. O.'" The application further provided "applicant is the owner of the mark and no other person except a related company has the right to use such mark in Florida, whether in identical form thereof, or in such resemblance thereto as might be, calculated to deceive or confuse". The sign on Respondent's office in 1977 consisted of this mark depicting a convoluted stethoscope which forms the letters "D.O." only after the exercise of a vivid imagination and an appreciation of surrealistic art. In the yellow pages of the 1977 Miami telephone directory Respondent is listed under Physicians and Surgeons MD. (Exhibit 9). He is not listed under Physicians and "Surgeons - DO. (Exhibit 10). Brandwein Medical Practice, P.A., is the Theodore S. Brandwein who is Respondent in these proceedings. Respondent's Florida license is presently inactive.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Board of Dentistry should discipline the Respondent on charges set out in the Administrative Complaint in Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) Case No. 91-011671. The Administrative Complaint charged the Respondent with a violation of Section 466.028(1)(y), Florida Statutes, for incompetence or negligence by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. It alleged: that the Respondent treated a patient identified by the initials V. G. for temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction from August 14, 1986, through July, 1991; that the treatment included maxillary brackets and other orthodontic treatment from August, 1987, through May, 1991; that the patient's TMJ problems recurred during the orthodontic treatment; that the length of time of the Respondent's orthodontic treatment was excessive, resulting in the recurrence of the TMJ problems; that the Respondent utilized an inappropriate circuitous method to accomplish tooth movement (i.e., moving teeth back and forth); that the Respondent's orthodontic treatment had to be corrected by a subsequent treating dentist; and that the "Respondent failed to provide written documentation informing the patient . . . of expected results "
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ralph Garcia, D.D.S., is a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having license number DN000324. On August 14, 1986, a patient identified by the initials V. G. presented to the Respondent with complaints including jaw popping and discomfort in the jaw area. The patient, who was approximately 34 years of age, gave a history of extraction of her bicuspids and subsequent orthodontic treatment in her teen years and extraction of her third molars in her early twenties. The Respondent's examination revealed an impaired range of motion in her mouth. She could only open her mouth 43 millimeters. (Normal is 50.) She also could move her jaw only 7 millimeters to the left. (Normal is 12.) The patient's condition was further complicated by compromised dentition, poorly inclined teeth, unparallel roots, stretched ligaments, and a cervical condition. Transcranial x-rays revealed that, when the patient's teeth were together, both condyles compressed backward in the fossa, compressing tissues and causing pain. The Respondent correctly diagnosed the patient as having mandibular dislocation, myalgia, myofascitis, coronoid tendinitis, stretched ligaments, and headache. These are all conditions associated with temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction. The Respondent's treatment plan was: (1) to use an oral repositioning appliance (a splint) to treat the dislocation; (2) to use physical therapy to treat the myalgia and myofascitis; (3) to use trigger point injections to treat the coronoid tendinitis; and (4) to use orthopedics, orthodontics and possibly prosthetics to achieve functional occlusion. The Respondent's treatment plan was appropriate and met or exceeded minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. It was not necessary at that point to more precisely describe planned tooth movements and mechanics. The Respondent advised the patient of his diagnosis, treatment goals, and proposed treatment plan. He also advised her of treatment options, the plan to use splint therapy in treatment, the plan to treat the patient in phases, and the potential complications of treatment. There was no evidence that minimum standards of performance when measured against generally prevailing peer performance required the Respondent to provide the advice described in the Finding 10 (or 17, below) in written form or to document the advice in writing. It would, however, be prudent to do so to preclude charges that the Respondent did not given the patient informed consent. From August 14, 1986, through July 14, 1987, the Respondent treated the patient's TMJ condition and resulting pain with splint therapy, physical therapy, and trigger point injections. (This was the first phase of treatment.) The splint therapy increased the space in the jaw joint by moving the lower jaw forward. This relieved the pressure on the joint. X-rays taken on July 9, 1987, show that the patient's jaw joint had moved forward on both sides, which decompressed the tissues of the joint. Contrary to the patient's allegations (and the understanding the patient gave to the AHCA expert), the relative positioning of the patient's upper and lower jaw did not create a "bulldog" Class Three Prognathic position (underbite). Rather, the positioning of the patient's upper and lower jaw created an approximate "open bite." (An "open bite" occurs when the front teeth meet.) At worst, the patient's lower jaw was slightly (3.5 millimeters) behind the upper jaw, i.e., in a Class One or Class Two underbite position. It was not proven that this positioning was inappropriate or failed to meet minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. As a result of the first phase of treatment, the patient's TMJ problems were alleviated. In July, 1987, the Respondent discussed with the patient the next phases of treatment. What remained to be done for the patient was more than just realigning her teeth using brackets and wires ("traditional orthodontics"). For one thing, the patient's upper jaw was too narrow and too constricted to provide proper occlusion. This caused the patient to have a cross-bite on the right side of the jaw. The Respondent recommended the use of a four-screw appliance, which he designed, to expand the two halves of the upper jaw, or maxilla. He then planned to use a retainer to hold the expansion. Next, the molars in the patient's lower jaw had to be moved back on the jaw bone through use of a modified splint. Use of the modified splint allowed the jaw to be held in position while the molars were moved so that the benefits of the TMJ treatment could be maintained to the extent possible. The Respondent recommended that the molars be moved slowly and carefully, one at a time, to minimize damage to the roots of the teeth and the jaw bone and to attempt to maintain the improvements in the patient's TMJ condition during treatment. Next, the second bicuspids had to be moved back on the patient's lower jaw through use of a modified Sved appliance. Use of the modified Sved allowed the jaw to be held in position while the bicuspids were moved so that the benefits of the TMJ treatment could be maintained to the extent possible. This, too, had to be done relatively slowly and carefully. Finally, the lower front teeth had to be moved back through the use of brackets and elastics. After the lower teeth were moved into their new positions in the new arch, they had to be "erupted," i.e., pulled up out of the jaw, to meet and have proper functional occlusion with the teeth in the upper jaw in the closed position. An appliance had to be used in conjunction with the brackets and elastics to hold the jaw in position while the lower teeth were being erupted so that the benefits of the TMJ treatment could be maintained to the extent possible. This, too, had to be done relatively slowly and carefully. "Traditional orthodontics" (brackets, elastics and wires) would be utilized for finer adjustments to level, align and position the teeth to close gaps and for aesthetic purposes. The rest of the Respondent's treatment plan was appropriate and met or exceeded minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The Respondent discussed his treatment goals and proposed treatment plan in July or August, 1987. He also advised her of treatment options. He informed her that he would have to proceed carefully and deliberately and that it would be a slow process. He also informed her that the time of treatment would depend on many factors, including the patient's response to and compliance with treatment. The Respondent also discussed the cost of the remaining phases of treatment. To keep the fee for his orthopedic and orthodontic services under $4,000, the Respondent agreed to charge the patient a flat fee calculated based on his normal fee for 18 months of adjustments to appliances ($3,655), plus the cost of the orthopedic appliances. He did not intend to give the patient the impression that the orthopedic and orthodontic phases of treatment would be completed within 18 months. But his way of presenting his fee was potentially confusing and apparently contributed to the deterioration of the relationship between the Respondent and the patient later in treatment. The orthopedic phase of the treatment began with the use of the four- screw appliance in August, 1987. On September 29, 1987, the Respondent began the long, slow process of posteriorizing the molars and bicuspids on the patient's lower jaw. It was not completed until July 28, 1989. This phase of treatment was appropriate and met or exceeded minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The teeth were not moved back and forth in a circuitous method. Between July 28 and November 21, 1989, the Respondent used brackets and elastics to move the lower front teeth back. This phase of treatment also was appropriate and met or exceeded minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The teeth were not moved back and forth in a circuitous method. "Eruption" of the lower teeth was then accomplished between November 21, 1989, and October 22, 1990, using brackets and vertical elastics in a process known as "vertical development." The Respondent's method did not utilize wires, and the AHCA expert criticized the method used as not being "mainstream" orthodontics. But the expert defined "mainstream" orthodontics as being the methods taught in a majority of dental colleges. Under such a definition, a method which is out of the "mainstream" is not necessarily inappropriate. Notwithstanding the one expert's differing opinion as to the best way to erupt teeth, it was not proven that the method used by the Respondent to erupt the patient's lower teeth was inappropriate or that it failed to meet minimum standards of performance when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. When the eruption process ended, "traditional" orthodontics began on October 22, 1990. During this phase, the Respondent placed brackets, bands and wires on the patient's teeth. This phase of treatment was appropriate and met or exceeded minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. During the Respondent's treatment of the patient, the patient's TMJ symptoms recurred from time to time. But TMJ is cyclical in nature. Recurrences during treatment (and even after treatment) are not unusual and do not prove that the Respondent's treatment was inappropriate or that it failed to meet minimum standards of performance when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. In approximately April, 1991, the patient's TMJ symptoms recurred significantly. (They ceased during the course of completion of the treatment.) Although the symptoms were not much different from prior recurrences, by this time the patient was disillusioned with the Respondent due in part to the length of the process (even though, as a result of the flat fee arrangement, it was the Respondent who was "losing money" the longer the process took, not the patient) and in part to the Respondent's chairside manner and demeanor. The patient's "last straw" was when the Respondent ground uneven surfaces of the patient's front teeth (although the evidence was clear that this procedure was appropriate and met minimum standards of performance when measured against generally prevailing peer performance.) Instead of discussing the recurrence of the TMJ symptoms with the Respondent, the patient discontinued treatment with the Respondent on May 30, 1991, and sought the opinion of another dentist, Randy Feldman, D.D.S., on July 17, 1991. Feldman mentioned near the outset of his consultation with the patient that he could identify the patient's dentist without her telling him. Suspecting the worst of the Respondent, the patient thought Feldman was being critical of the quality of Respondent's work and became more convinced that the Respondent's work was below minimum standards of performance. In fact, Feldman only meant to say that he was familiar with the appliances and techniques used by the Respondent from having been invited to observe the Respondent's work in the Respondent's office and from having attended continuing education seminars conducted by the Respondent. Feldman also mentioned at one point during the consultation that the patient was fortunate to have had a flat fee contract for the Respondent's work since he knows patients who have paid thousands of dollars to the Respondent for his treatment. Again, suspecting the worst of the Respondent, the patient thought Feldman was implying that the Respondent's charges were inflated. In fact, Feldman only meant to state the fact that treatment by the Respondent often is complicated and expensive and that the patient seemed to have been fortunate not to have been charged more. Contrary to the allegations against the Respondent, Feldman did not have to "correct" the Respondent's work. He did not have to return teeth to prior positions (in the alleged "circuitous" manner). Rather, he advised the patient that it only was was necessary for her to complete the treatment which the Respondent had been providing. He tried to convince the patient that it would be in her best interest to return to the Respondent and let him finish the treatment, but the patient refused. Feldman did nothing more than finish the treatment which the patient had interrupted by leaving the Respondent's care. (He changed some of the brackets and appliances, but the evidence is not clear why.) Notwithstanding the duration of the Respondent's treatment, it was not excessive for what had to be accomplished. Each phase was a necessary part of the overall treatment, and no phase lasted an excessive period of time. Tooth movement occurs when pressure applied to the teeth and transmitted to the bone in which the teeth are rooted causes the bone to dissolve and allow the teeth to move. Then, the bone structure must reform behind the teeth being moved. This takes time. It takes longer in adults than in children or adolescents. The Respondent's decision to proceed cautiously and conservatively was in the patient's best interest. Trying to go faster would have increased the risk of damage to tooth roots and bone structure. The AHCA expert based his opinion in part on a misunderstanding as to when "traditional" orthodontic treatment began. In fact, it did not begin until October 22, 1990, when wires were attached to wires. Other aspects of treatment also did not last as long as the patient led the expert to believe. Elastics were used without wires starting on July 28, 1989; eruption lasted less than a year, not for "years," as alleged by the patient; teeth were not moved back and forth in a "circuitous" manner. It was not proven that the duration of treatment (whether or not excessive) "caused" TMJ symptoms to recur. See Finding 23., above.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Dentistry enter a final order dismissing the charges against the Respondent in this case. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1142 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-5. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that maxillary brackets were placed as early as August, 1987. Also, a question of semantics whether tooth movement--either along with or independent of movement of the bone in which the tooth is rooted-- through the use of appliances such as the four-screw, modified splint, and modified Sved, is considered orthodontics, orthopedics, or both. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. 8.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11.-14. Rejected as not proven. 15. Accepted and incorporated. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 21.-22. A question of semantics whether tooth movement--either along with or independent of movement of the bone in which the tooth is rooted--through the use of appliances such as the four-screw, modified splint, and modified Sved, is considered orthodontics, orthopedics, or both. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 23.-24. Accepted and incorporated. A question of semantics whether the tooth movement through the use of the four-screw appliance constitutes orthodontics, orthopedics, or both. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 27.-28. Not clear from the evidence whether the patient's upper jaw was expanded or just the bone holding the teeth flared out. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 29.-39. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 40. A question of semantics whether tooth movement--either along with or independent of movement of the bone in which the tooth is rooted--through the use of appliances such as the four-screw, modified splint, and modified Sved, is considered orthodontics, orthopedics, or both. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 41.-48. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 49. Accepted as to "traditional orthodontics" and incorporated. A question of semantics whether earlier methods constituted orthodontics, orthopedics, or both. 50.-63. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Not clear from the evidence necessarily as to all inconsistencies. As to some inconsistencies, accepted and subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated. 66.-69. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but unnecessary. "Well above" not clear from the evidence. "Above" accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Snurkowski, Esquire Chief Attorney Allied Health Section Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0782 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Shear, Newman, Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A. 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Harold D. Lewis, Esquire General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
