Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, respondent Warren B. Mulhollan has been licensed as an osteopathic physician in Florida. His license number is OS 0000896. At some time in the recent past, respondent was placed on probation. One of the terms of his probation was that he acquire continuing education credits. The Order of probation was not offered into evidence. In April of 1985, respondent was working in a Chinese acupuncture clinic approximately two days a week performing physical examinations and preparing patient histories. He was not writing prescriptions. At the time of the hearing, he was not practicing osteopathic medicine and does not now desire to do so, though he does wish to maintain his license. The respondent is 77 years of age. The respondent did suffer a stroke and has had several transient ischemic attacks over the past few years. For a period of time, he was unable to concentrate and his attention span was limited. He communicated this fact to the Department and requested that he be excused from compliance with the continuing education requirements of the Board. Apparently, the Board never excused the respondent from such requirements. Respondent was examined by two psychiatric physicians in the latter months of 1985 and in April of 1986. It was their understanding from discussions with respondent that he did not desire to have the ability to maintain a practice in the traditional setting. Both physicians were of the opinion that if respondent is unable to pursue continuing education and stay current in his field, he should not practice osteopathic medicine. According to the respondent, his former lack of concentration was due to eye strain. He states that after getting a new pair of glasses, he has no trouble concentrating. He does not wish to maintain a practice of osteopathic medicine in a traditional setting. However, he does desire to retain his license because he takes pride in his past accomplishments in the community, and he enjoys lunching and associating with other doctors and attending lectures and seminars at the Suncoast Hospital. He is willing to maintain a probationary- type practice, file monthly affidavits with the Board and comply with continuing education requirements.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be placed on probation for a period of five (5) years, and that the conditions of probation include the requirements that he attend continuing education courses, that any type of practice in which he engages be performed in a supervised, clinical-type setting with other physicians in the immediate area and that he submit to the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners verified, monthly reports setting forth any hours of osteopathic practice engaged in by him, as well as the names of patients and treatment rendered. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Alpert, Josey, Grilli & Paris, P.A. Ashley Tower, Suite 2000 100 South Ashley Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Warren B. Mulhollan, D.O. 2458 Enterprise Road, Apt. 6 Clearwater, Florida 33515 Rod Presnell, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the licensure examination taken by the Petitioner qualifies him under Section 459.007(3), Florida Statutes, for licensure as an osteopathic physician in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lawrence Edward Suess, is an osteopathic physician licensed by the Boards of Medical Examiners in Texas, Alabama, and Kentucky. He seeks licensure in Florida, pursuant to Section 459.007(3), Florida Statutes. He is also licensed in Arizona and Texas as a registered nurse, holds BS and MS degrees in child development and nursing and a Ph.D. in nursing. The Respondent, the Board of Osteopathic Medicine (Board), is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with regulating the admission to practice and the practice and licensure standards of osteopathic physicians licensed or seeking to be licensed in the State of Florida. The Board issued an order, as corrected, on November 9, 1995, granting application of licensure to the Petitioner upon the condition that within one year, he successfully complete Part III of the NBOME examination for purposes of licensure in the State of Florida, and not for diplomate status. The Board found in that order that the Petitioner had not passed all three parts of the NBOME examination and had submitted certification of passage of only Parts I and II. The Board found that the “FLEX” examination was not a substantially-similar examination to the required NBOME examination since the FLEX examination did not contain an osteopathic medicine component. The Board also found that the completion by the Petitioner of a Board certification examination was not substantially similar to the NBOME examination because it tested only a single subject matter and not the broad principles contained in Part III of the NBOME examination. On November 13, 1995, a Petition for Formal Hearing was filed by the Petitioner disputing the decision of the Board which precluded him from obtaining licensure to practice medicine in the State of Florida because of failure to complete Part III of the NBOME examination. He contended that he was outside the time period in which he would be allowed to take Part III. He further contended that the FLEX examination was a substantially-similar examination to the NBOME examination. The Petitioner contends that taking the FLEX examination should be sufficient to justify licensure, although he also acknowledged that Part III of the NBOME examination tests osteopathic philosophy and principle; and he acknowledged that the FLEX examination does not, although he was attempting to testify and argue that the FLEX examination was substantially similar to the NBOME examination. He provided no testimony or evidence, however, to establish that the FLEX examination tests osteopathic philosophy and principle. The Respondent presented the testimony of Joseph Smoley, Ph.D. by deposition. Dr. Smoley holds a Ph.D. in educational measurement and has served for ten of the last eleven years as Executive Director of the NBOME. The NBOME is an organization that develops an examination that is independent of the osteopathic medical schools to evaluate osteopathic physicians who are either currently in undergraduate or in graduate medical programs. The NBOME’s main mission is to provide state licensing examinations with an independent assessment of the knowledge base of candidate osteopathic physicians. Dr. Smoley oversees NBOME policy and supervises educational measurement within the osteopathic profession. His oversight responsibilities include the examination section of the NBOME. He provides a constant review of the process of testing for the Board of Directors. The NBOME developed its examination by having questions drafted by faculty members and osteopathic physicians in independent practice. Faculty members may be D.O.’s or Ph.D.’s in the various basic sciences, and there is a multi-tiered process for preparing and reviewing questions. A copy of the bulletin of information concerning the NBOME examinations was attached to and made part of the deposition. Dr. Smoley testified that typically the candidates take Part I as a sophomore during medical school, Part II as a senior, and Part III as an intern in their first post-graduate year. He established that the purpose behind that examination is “the integration of osteopathic principles and practices as well as the philosophy of osteopathic medicine.” No allopathic physicians are involved in the grading process of that examination. Some allopathic physicians associated with osteopathic colleges may submit questions that, after the review process, may be used on the examination. The purpose of the NBOME examination, as shown by Dr. Smoley, is to make sure that each question integrates osteopathic principles and practices in some way and that the entire examination is reflective of the practice of osteopathic medicine. Dr. Smoley is also familiar with the FLEX examination, as well as the current licensure examination for allopathic physicians, the USMLE. The Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) does not prepare any complete examination or any additional components for its regular examination concerning manipulation or osteopathic practice and principles. According to Dr. Smoley, there has never been an official comparison or analysis between the NBOME examination and the FLEX examination. Based upon his experience and educational measurement, he has determined that if one examination, the NBOME, contains osteopathic principles and practice and the other examination, the FLEX, does not incorporate those principles and practices, then the two examinations could not be considered equivalent. The NBOME examination is more extensive because it integrates osteopathic principles and practice throughout its content. This osteopathic examination is not simply one that tests manipulation. Therefore, it is not asserted to be appropriate for chiropractors or M.D.’s who have been trained in manipulation but only for persons who have received an osteopathic medical education. The Respondent also presented the testimony by deposition of James R. Winn, M.D. He is Executive Vice President of the FSMB. The FSMB assists state medical boards in conducting their evaluation of physicians regarding their fitness to practice medicine. The FSMB developed examinations which are administered by state boards. Dr. Winn serves as the supervisor for the examination services section of the FSMB. Those examinations are developed in cooperation with the National Board of Medical Examiners. The current examination available from the FSMB is the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) used since 1992. Prior to that time, the FSMB administered the FLEX examination, which was for the evaluation of all physicians requesting licensure. The FLEX examination did not have a section on osteopathic practice, as shown by Dr. Winn. The FSMB allows all physicians seeking licensure in the United States to take that examination, including graduates of osteopathic medical schools and graduates of foreign medical schools. With the FLEX examination, unlike the NBOME examination, medical students are not eligible, only graduates of medical schools are eligible to take the examination. Dr. Winn is familiar with the examination of the NBOME and its purpose. He is not aware of any side-by-side comparison between the two examinations to determine equivalency. In his expert opinion, there would have to be such an evaluation in order to determine whether the examinations are equivalent. The testimony of Drs. Smoley and Winn was elaborated upon and corroborated by Dr. Morton Morris. Dr. Morris is a licensed osteopathic physician in the State of Florida and is board certified in osteopathic surgery by the American Osteopathic Board of Orthopedic Surgery. He is also certified by the American Board of Quality Medical Assurance and is a fellow of the American College of Legal Medicine. He is Vice-Chancellor for academic affairs in the health professions division at Nova Southeastern University, a Florida osteopathic medical school. Additionally, Dr. Morris is a licensed, practicing attorney in the State of Florida. He practices in the areas of medical malpractice, general health law and administrative law. Dr. Morris is familiar with the NBOME examination, having served as a test item writer for the NBOME. He recognizes Dr. Smoley as one who helps develop the philosophy of the examinations in question. The philosophy of the NBOME is that content concerning osteopathic practice and principles permeates the entire examination. Even when certain questions on their face are not osteopathically oriented, the evaluation and the grading of the responses is carried out from an osteopathic viewpoint and philosophy. The test item writers are directed to draft test questions which include osteopathic philosophy. In the past, the NBOME has agreed to allow a candidate to take only Part III or an equivalent examination and receive the score from the NBOME. In fact, Dr. Morris represented that person in his capacity as an attorney. He worked out the arrangements whereby that candidate could take and pass Part III of the NBOME examination in order to obtain a Florida osteopathic medical license, as the Petitioner seeks herein, even though, since he would not have taken Part III within the required seven years, he could not receive diplomate status with the NBOME. The Board’s order in this case specifically requires passage of Part III of that examination, but it does not require diplomate status. Such an arrangement would thus seem to provide a means to alleviate the Petitioner’s predicament in the instant situation. The Petitioner, in questioning Dr. Morris upon cross- examination, inquired about the possibility of a person taking all three parts of the NBOME examination, even if he had already taken Parts I and II. Dr. Morris stated that that was possible. Page 7 of the Bulletin of Information, in evidence in Respondent’s Exhibit 1, although stating that the candidate cannot take the examination “to attempt to improve his score”, states nothing to indicate preclusion of a candidate taking the entire examination for any other purpose. Dr. Morris stated that the Petitioner could take Part III of the examination and that the NBOME would make arrangements to allow him to do that, with the understanding that if he passed Part III, he would not be able to receive diplomate status from the NBOME (because of passage of time before taking Part III). In making comparisons between osteopathic medical education and allopathic medical education, Dr. Morris acknowledged that in some cases, osteopathic medical colleges use the same textbooks as used by allopathic medical schools. That does not, however, make them similar professions. Although anatomy and physiology may not be different, the philosophy of treating the whole patient is different. Responding to the Petitioner’s contention that having obtained board certification in his specialty area should count as equivalency to the entry level examination, Dr. Morris pointed out that all that the board certification accomplishes is to show that an osteopathic physician is recognized by his or her peers as competent to practice a specialty. It does not mean that the person is osteopathically oriented enough to be eligible for licensure and to be able to pass a minimum competency examination. The Petitioner contends that having passed Parts I and II of the NBOME examination, FLEX should quality him for osteopathic licensure in the State of Florida, in lieu of taking Part III of the NBOME examination, because anything of an osteopathic nature would have already been tested on Parts I and II. Dr. Morris established to the contrary, however, that Part III is the clinical testing, the testing of how the individual puts to use his clinical evaluation in treatment of patients. It is the ultimate test of whether an individual has developed and is able to apply a philosophy of practice sufficient to show that he is competent to be an osteopathic physician. Parts I and II of the NBOME examination do not test clinical skills. The FLEX does test clinical skills, but it does not test for osteopathic practices as to clinical skills. The NBOME requires that a person take Part III within seven years of having taken Part I, if that person wishes to be a diplomate of the NBOME. There is no apparent preclusion, however, in a person arranging to take only Part III, simply for purposes of state licensure. The record is not clear whether a person could take Parts I, II and III within the period of one year. It does seem apparent, however, that the Petitioner could take Part III within a one-year time period, which is all that is required in the Board’s order. Further, the statute requires that a person take all parts of the NBOME examination or a substantially-equivalent examination. What the Petitioner attempts to do is to take two parts of the NBOME examination and then substitute a different examination (FLEX) for Part III. This does not constitute a substantially-equivalent examination for the above reasons. A substantially-equivalent examination would have to be equivalent to all three parts of the NBOME examination. During discussion of the difference between osteopathic and allopathic schools of medicine, Dr. Morris pointed out that many osteopathic physicians use the same modalities that allopathic physicians use. It is just that they also use osteopathic modalities. He gave the example of a cardiac patient whom an osteopathic physician would treat just as a medical doctor would treat the basic condition with appropriate drugs but then would incorporate osteopathic philosophy, such as the “lymphatic pump”, meaning that the osteopathic physician would incorporate muscle techniques of stretching and passive manipulation in order to help the patient. The osteopathic physician would possibly use manipulative techniques on the lymphatic system and not just use drugs or other allopathic techniques. In the context of the NBOME examination, a question might reference a cardiac patient. Although the question would not mention the lymphatic pump, a proper answer might entail a clinical response that would consider that modality of treatment. In orthopedics, Dr. Morris’ specialty, an osteopathic physician can make significant use of manipulative techniques, as well as general surgery, casting and other modalities normally used by allopathic physicians. Use of the FLEX examination, rather than the NBOME examination, would not lower standards for osteopathic physicians. Rather, the FLEX examination simply embodies a different standard than the one used to test for competency in osteopathic principles and medicine. The Petitioner acknowledged that he could have taken Part III of the NBOME examination but chose not to because it was then more convenient for him to take the FLEX examination to continue his training in the State of Texas which required passage of the FLEX examination for osteopathic licensure. The Petitioner contended that if he applied for a Florida osteopathic medical faculty certificate (MFC), the FLEX examination would be acceptable and he would be eligible. That fact, he contends, by analogy, establishes that he is qualified to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida. He has never applied for such a certificate nor has he been offered an osteopathic medical faculty position in the State of Florida. Thus, determination of that issue is not before this tribunal. Even if it were, there are significant differences between a full license to practice osteopathic medicine indefinitely and a medical faculty certificate. With the MFC, the Petitioner would not be allowed to be engaged in private practice of osteopathic medicine and the MFC would only allow him to practice in the academic realm for only two years. Finally, the statutory requirements for an MFC do not require the passage of any licensure examination. Accordingly, to the extent that the Petitioner’s argument and testimony implies some analogy or equivalency between eligibility for the MFC and eligibility for full licensure, such equivalency is not borne out by the greater weight of the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of the Petitioner, Lawrence Edward Suess, D.O., for licensure as an osteopathic physician, without conditions, is denied on the basis that the FLEX examination has not been shown to be substantially similar to the NBOME examination.DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence E. Suess, D.O., Ph.D. Owensboro Psychiatric Institute 1700 Frederica Street, Suite 106 Owensboro, Kentucky 42301 M. Catherine Lannon, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William H. Buckhalt, Executive Director Board of Osteopathic Medicine Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0757 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32309
The Issue The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, has brought an action by Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., charging that on January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, the Respondent issued prescriptions for a substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, and prescriptions for a substance known as Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation which contains Amphetamines; both types of prescriptions being controlled substances within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The complaint further alleges that the prescriptions were delivered to a patient, George DeBella, also known as George J. Conlon, without good faith and not in the course of the Respondent's professional practice, and, therefore, unlawfully. See Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. Finally, the Administrative Complaint alleges that these acts on the part of the Respondent are prohibited by Sections 893.05 and 893.13, Florida Statutes, and are violative of Subsections 459.14(2)(m) and (n), Florida Statutes, in that the Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and has violated the laws of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Administrative Complaint filed by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners. The Respondent in this cause is George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., who holds license No. 1169 under regulation by the Petitioner. Dr. Frison also held license No. 1169 at all times pertinent to the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint is a six-count document, the general nature of which has been outlined in the issues statement of this Administrative Complaint. The specific contentions of the Administrative Complaint will be addressed in the course of these findings of fact. The proof offered reveals that on January 4, 1978, an officer of the Daytona Beach Police Department, one George Joseph Conlon, went to the office of the Respondent in DeBarry, Florida. At the time of this visit, Officer Conlon was operating under the assumed name of George DeBella. The purpose of Officer Conlon's visit was to ascertain if the Respondent was issuing prescriptions for drugs, not as a part of Dr. Frison's professional practice, but merely to satiate the desires of the ostensible patient and to profit from the encounter by charging the patient for the office visit. When Conlon entered the doctor's office on January 4, 1978, he was initially seen by Dr. Frison's nurse, who took the patient's blood pressure end weighed him and had the patient complete a form medical history data sheet. Conlon was then ushered in to see the doctor and he proceeded to tell Dr. Frison that he was not a "doper" and was not there for the purpose of getting Dilaudids. He explained to Dr. Frison that he had two jobs and that he was taking small black capsules to keep him going, to which Dr. Frison replied as an interrogatory, "Biphetamines?". Conlon explained that he didn't know what the substance was but that he had been paying $3.00 apiece to buy them from dealers and that arrangement was stupid and could he get some from the Respondent. Dr. Frison asked if Conlon meant a prescription and Conlon replied in the affirmative, and Frison said that he could get a prescription. Conlon in turn asked if he needed to provide other information. Frison responded by asking Conlon, "How many do you take?" Conlon indicated that he took one in the morning and one around six o'clock p.m. There was further conversation in which Conlon explained that he worked in a nursery in the daylight working hours and as a bartender from 2:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Conlon also made remarks to the effect that he, Conlon, was not a "freak" and that he was trying to be "straight" with the doctor. Dr. Frison inquired if the small black capsules were the only thing that Conlon took and Conlon, in answering the doctor, indicated he had taken several Quaaludes, which helped to put him to sleep at night and that his frequency of using the drug was three times a week, at most. In response to the comments about Quaaludes, Dr. Frison asked Conlon if he would like a prescription for a few Quaaludes, and Conlon agreed. Frison indicated that he would give him a prescription for the Quaaludes, but not in the quantity of the Biphetamines which he was prescribing. There was further conversation about where the patient lived and in answering the Respondent's question, Conlon acknowledged that he lived in Daytona Beach, Florida. The Respondent asked why he didn't ask for a prescription in Daytona Beach and Conlon said it was because someone had mentioned Dr. Frison. There was a final series of remarks about buying drugs from other sources and paying $3.00 and that terminated the conversation. The only other examination or discussion which the doctor had with Conlon on January 4, 1978, involved the doctor taking the pulse of Officer Conlon during their conference. After this meeting between Dr. Frison and Conlon, Dr. Frison prescribed sixty Biphetamines, which is a mixture which contains Amphetamines and is a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893.03, Florida Statutes, specifically a Schedule II item. Dr. Frison also prescribed thirty Quaaludes, also known as Methaqualone, which is a controlled substance within the meaning of Section 893.03, Florida Statutes, and specifically a Schedule II item. A copy of the prescriptions may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Officer Conlon was carrying a concealed transmitter on his person when this visit and the following visits were made to the Respondent's office, and tapes were made of the office conversations which were recorded from Conlon's transmitter. A transcript of the intelligible parts of the conversations between Conlon and the Respondent and Conlon and the Respondent's nurse, that occurred on January 4, 1978, may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. On January 31, 1978, Conlon returned to the office of the Respondent in DeBary, Florida. Again, the nurse weighed Conlon and took his blood pressure. Dr. Frison saw the patient and asked how the patient had been progressing and inquired about the number of tablets the patient had taken. Conlon responded that he took two or three a day. Dr. Frison indicated that that number was too many. Dr. Frison also noted that it had only been twenty-seven days since the last visit. Dr. Frison then determined to issue new prescriptions, but to postdate prescriptions for Biphetamines and Quaaludes to February 3, 1978. In connection with this, he prescribed sixty Biphetamines and sixty Quaaludes. There was some discussion held about the nature of the Quaaludes and how the patient, Conlon, might become dependent on them, leading to potential addiction. Frison also indicated that addiction to Biphetamines is one of the worst addictions and that Conlon should cut down the use of them. There was a further inquiry by Dr. Frison about why the patient did not get the prescriptions in Daytona Beach, to which Conlon replied that he was nervous about that. Frison terminated the conversation by telling Conlon not to take too many of the tablets and agreeing to write the prescriptions. There was no further physical examination of the patient or other discussion of the patient's condition. A copy of the prescriptions dated February 3, 1978, may be found as the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence and a copy of the transcript of the conversation between Conlon and the Respondent to the extent the conversation was intelligible, may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. Conlon made another trip to Dr. Frison's DeBary, Florida, office on February 28, 1978. He again was weighed and had his blood pressure taken by the nurse. Conlon was seen by Dr. Frison, who checked his pulse and chest. In the course of the visit, the Respondent inquired about Conlon's health and about his job at the bar. Then Frison stated that he would give Conlon prescriptions for that date, but would not be able to give him prescriptions for Quaalude and Biphetamine in the future. He explained to Conlon the reason for termination of the practice was that he was having problems of an unspecified nature. There was some brief discussion about a skin infection which the Patient had and that ended the conversation between the Respondent and Conlon. (Frison did not treat the patient for the skin condition.) Frison prescribed sixty Biphetamines and sixty Quaaludes and copies of these prescriptions may be found as part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. As before, the intelligible parts of the conversation, as transcribed, may be found in the copy of that transcribed conversation which is Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6 admitted into evidence. In view of the events which occurred on January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, involving George J. Conlon, the ostensible patient of the Respondent, the Petitioner has brought the Administrative Complaint. Counts I and II deal with the events of January 4, 1978, and the prescription for Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone; and Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, Count I dealing with the Quaalude and Count II dealing with the Biphetamine. Counts III and IV deal with the events of January 31, 1978, and the prescription for Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone; and Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, Count III dealing with the Quaalude and Count IV dealing with the Biphetamine. Finally, Counts V and VI deal with the events of February 28, 1978, and the prescription for Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone; and Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation containing Amphetamines, Count V dealing with the Quaalude and Count VI dealing with the Biphetamines. In each of the counts, the Respondent is accused of delivering drugs without good faith and not in the course of professional practice and thereby unlawfully distributing and dispensing a controlled substance described in Section 893.03, Florida Statutes. According to the allegations, the acts of the Respondent in those instances are prohibited by Sections 893.05 and 893.13, Florida Statutes, and such acts constitute a violation of Subsections 459.14 (2)(m) and (n), Florida Statutes, in showing that the Respondent is guilty of unprofessional conduct and has violated the laws of the State of Florida. The substantive provisions dealing with disciplinary action against the Respondent are found in Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida Statutes, and Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes. The former provision states: 459.14(2)(m) A finding of the board that the individual is guilty of immoral or unprofes- sional conduct. Unprofessional conduct shall include any departure from, or failure to conform to, the minimal standards of accept- able and prevailing osteopathic medical prac- tice, without regard to the injury of a patient, or the committing of any act contrary to hon- esty, whether the same is committed in the course of practice or not. The evidential facts shown indicate that the substance commonly known as Quaalude, otherwise known as Methaqualone, a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and the substance known as Biphetamine, a material, mixture, compound or preparation which contains Amphetamines, a controlled substance within the meaning of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes; were not prescribed in good faith and in the course of the Respondent's professional practice, as required by Section 893.05, Florida Statutes, if the Respondent is to avoid the penalties of the provisions of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. This lack of good faith constituted unprofessional conduct, in the sense that the Respondent was departing from and failing to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing osteopathic medical practice, set out in Subsection 459.14(2)(m), Florida Statutes. In particular, the departure from and failure to conform to those minimal standards is evidenced by the Petitioner's act of prescribing the controlled substance for Conlon when there was no specific complaint of a physical problem. This finding is made in spite of the witnesses who testified in behalf of the Respondent, who claimed that you could prescribe medication for compassionate reasons, and notwithstanding the Respondent's false entry into the medical chart of the patient, Conlon, indicating that the patient was being treated for the condition of being overweight. The Respondent further violated the standards of his professional community by failing to take an adequate history of the patient's condition on the occasions the patient was seen; failing to make an adequate physical examination of the patient on the occasions when the patient was seen; and by not placing reasonable controls over the drugs that were prescribed for the patient, particularly in his failure to warn the patient not to drive or use heavy machinery while under the influence of the medications. The Physician's Desk Reference manual creates a necessity for these cautionary instructions referred to above, and the Respondent should have warned the patient of the medications' possible effects. The Respondent also violated medical practice by postdating the prescriptions which were issued on January 31, 1978. Finally, the Respondent violated the minimum standards of his profession by prescribing Quaaludes and Biphetamines in combination when these drugs are known to have an antagonistic effect in combination. These findings of violations pertain to each date that the patient was seen; January 4 and 31, 1978, and February 28, 1978, involving both the substances, Quaalude and Biphetamine. The other substantive grounds of a violation alleged by the Petitioner deal with Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: 459.14 (2)(n) Violation of any statute or law of this state or any other state or terri- tory of the United States or any foreign country, which statute or law relates to the practice of medicine. To establish this violation, it would be necessary for a court of competent jurisdiction to have found the Respondent guilty of a violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. This determination cannot be made by an administrative tribunal and in view of the fact that no court of competent jurisdiction has found such a violation, the Petitioner's claim under Subsection 459.14(2)(n), Florida Statutes, has not been sustained.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, suspend the Respondent, George Warren Frison, Jr., D.O., for a period of one (1) year for the violations established in Counts I and II; for one year for the violations established in Counts III and IV, to run concurrently with the penalty imposed for Counts I and II; and for one (1) year for the violations established in Counts V and VI, to run concurrently with the penalty imposed for Counts I and II. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Edward R. Kirkland, Esquire 126 East Jefferson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether the Petitioner committed the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated April 2006, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for investigating and prosecuting complaints against persons holding licenses in the health professions and occupations, including chiropractic physicians. See § 456.073, Fla. Stat. The Board of Chiropractic Medicine ("Board") is the entity charged with the responsible for imposing penalties against chiropractic physicians for violations of Section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes. See § 460.413(2), Fla. Stat. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Whitney was a chiropractic physician licensed to practice chiropractic medicine in Florida, having been issued license number CH 4840. Dr. Whitney's address of record is 1011 North Federal Highway, Unit 106, Hallandale Beach, Florida 33009. Dr. Whitney has been a licensed chiropractic physician in Florida since January 1985 and has never had disciplinary action taken against his license. On or about September 7, 2001, Williston Orthopedic Rehab, Inc. ("Clinic"), opened in Williston, Florida. Dr. Whitney was the medical director of the Clinic; Robert Andrews was the owner of the Clinic. Mr. Andrews had worked with Dr. Whitney in his chiropractic practice for more than 10 years. A sign was erected in front of the Clinic identifying the facility and the services provided. Dr. Whitney's name, "Dr. Robert Whitney," was prominently shown on the sign, and he was identified as "Medical Director." The services provided by the Clinic, as shown on the sign, were as follows: Automobile Accidents - Injuries Work Related Injuries Physical Therapy Alternative Medicine Chiropractic Care Massage On or about September 7, 2001, several photographs were taken of Dr. Whitney and others standing in front of the sign. The photographs appeared in the September 13, 2001, edition of both The Williston Pioneer newspaper and of the Williston Sun Suwannee Valley News newspaper, together with articles about the new Clinic, its staff, and the services offered. Dr. Whitney was identified in one article as a "Doctor of Chiropractic," and Mr. Andrews was identified in the same article as the "practice administrator." Dr. Whitney had no ownership interest in the Clinic and had no role in the administration of the Clinic. His primary duty as medical director was to review charts, and he worked at the Clinic part-time. Mr. Andrews ordered the sign that was placed in front of the Clinic, and Dr. Whitney was not consulted about the information that was to be placed on the sign or asked to approve the contents of the completed sign. Dr. Whitney did not see the sign prior to arriving at the Clinic on or about September 7, 2001, to have his photograph taken for the newspaper stories. As soon as Dr. Whitney saw the sign, he notified Mr. Andrews that it failed to identify him as a chiropractic physician. Dr. Whitney immediately told Mr. Andrews to have the sign modified to include the designation "D.C." after his name. Mr. Andrews agreed to modify the sign, but he failed to have the sign corrected. The sign remained in front of the Clinic for several weeks before it was removed. Dr. Whitney left his position at the Clinic several weeks after he asked Mr. Andrews to correct the sign. The sign in front of the Clinic was misleading in that it did not, in any manner, identify Dr. Whitney as a chiropractic physician. He was identified only as "Dr. Robert Whitney," the "Medical Director" of the Clinic. The inclusion of "chiropractic care" among the services provided at the Clinic is not sufficient, standing alone, to provide notice to the public that Dr. Whitney is a chiropractic physician. Although Dr. Whitney did not disseminate or cause the dissemination of the misleading information in the sign, the sign remained outside the Clinic for several weeks with his apparent acquiescence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine enter a final order finding Robert Whitney, D.C., guilty of having violated Section 460.413(1)(d), Florida Statutes, and imposing a penalty consisting of a $500.00 administrative fine and a letter of concern. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 31st day of July, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license as an Osteopathic Physician in the state of Florida should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed osteopathic physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS 0003822. Respondent's last known address is 1804 Nelson Street, No. 15, Ormond Beach, Florida 32074. From on or about July 17, 1985, until on or about April 28, 1987, Respondent diagnosed patient L.K. as suffering from, and rendered medical care and treatment for, juvenile fibromatosis or fibromatosis colli. Juvenile fibromatosis and fibromatosis colli are conditions characterized by the occurrence of multiple fibromas. Fribromas are benign (non- malignant) neoplasms. On or about July 17, 1985, Respondent executed a letter which was sent to the Exceptional Student Education Services section of the School Board of Volusia County (School Board) wherein Respondent represents that the patient L.K. "is being treated for a malignancy of the neck, etiology undermined." On or about August 22, 1986, Respondent executed a letter intended to allow the patient L.K. to avoid required immunization wherein Respondent represents that patient L.K. "...has a malignancy which was not identified by multiple biopsy." The representations made to the School Board in his letters of July 17, 1985, and August 22, 1986, were made in Respondent's practice of Osteopathic Medicine. Only one biopsy of the patient's neck mass was performed prior to Respondent's letter of August 22, 1986, to the School Board. This biopsy was performed during March of 1980 by Gary Horndeski, M.D. The pathology report concerning this biopsy was not received by Respondent until March 18, 1987. The patient's neck mass had not been subjected to multiple biopsy as represented by the Respondent on August 22, 1986. The Respondent's representations in the August 22, 1986 letter were deceptive, untrue, and fraudulent. The medical records of Respondent fail to document that Respondent performed multiple biopsies on the mass. Respondent has failed to keep written medical records justifying the course of treatment of the patient, including but not limited patient histories, examination results, and test results. Respondent prescribed, dispensed or recommended BHI Regeneration, Polyzyme 022 and Vitamin C 500 mg tablets to patient L.K. On or about November 21, 1986, Respondent executed three separate forms authorizing the administration of BHI Regeneration, Polyzyme 022 and Vitamin C to patient L.K. by school personnel of Volusia County, indicating that he had ordered the administration of these substances as a "part of scheduled med program." BHI Regeneration and Polyzyme 022 are "drugs" as defined by Section 499.003(8), Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to note in patient L.K.'s medical records his prescribing, dispensing or recommendation of BHI Regeneration and Polyzyme 022. Respondent's written medical records fail to document "informed consent" to the drug therapy initiated including medically acceptable alternative procedures or treatments. The preferred course of treatment for a mass of the size and location as existing on patient L.K. would be surgical intervention. Respondent's written medical records fail to adequately document the reason for not following the preferred course of treatment (surgery), that surgery was discussed with the patient's parents, or that the parents declined surgery. Respondent's entry for March 10, 1987, in the medical record of patient L.K. indicates "recommend to get physiotherapy in lieu of surgery." Respondent's medical records fail to justify the course of treatment of the patient, including but not limited to patient histories, examination results, and test results. A reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances would have referred patient L.K. to a specialist or obtained a consultation with a specialist. Respondent failed to do so. A reasonably prudent similar physician under similar conditions and circumstances would not have recommended that patient L.K. not receive standard immunizations nor would such a physician have executed a school form allowing patient L.K. to be exempted from required immunizations. A reasonably prudent similar physician would have obtained and reviewed prior biopsy report or conducted a biopsy on patient L.K. soon after undertaking the care of the patient. Respondent has failed to practice osteopathic medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably osteopathic physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. On or about April 7, 1987, the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum commanding Respondent produce for copying and inspection any and all medical records of patient L.K. On or about May 8, 1987, the aforementioned subpoena was served on Respondent to produce copies of any and all medical records of patient, L.K., on May 10, 1987, at 6501 Arlington Expressway, Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent did not file a challenge or object in any fashion to the subpoena. As a result of the Petitioner filing a petition for enforcement of the subpoena, Respondent furnished to Petitioner what was purported to be the medical records of patient L.K., and did not in any way advise Petitioner that there were certain records pertaining to L.K. that he did not consider medical records. The medical records of patient L.K. submitted by Respondent in response to the subpoena were incomplete. Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine in the state of Florida was disciplined by the Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners (Board) by its final order issued on April 19, 1988, wherein Respondent's license was suspended for one year; to be followed by a three year period of probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 459.015(1)(n), (p), (y) (cc), Florida Statutes (1989), as set forth in Counts I, III, IV and V of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, as amended, and for such violation, considering the guidelines for imposing penalties set forth in Rule 2IR-19, Florida Administrative Code, and the aggravating or mitigating circumstances allowing the Board to deviate from those guidelines set forth in Rule 2IR-19, Florida Administrative Code, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida be suspended for one year subject to the terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate for reinstatement. It is further RECOMMENDED that Count II be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 27th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-0308 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner 1-26. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-26, respectively. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Respondent filed a one page, two paragraph Proposed Findings of Fact and Proposed Conclusion of Law that was an argument consisting of facts and law. To the extent that there are facts contained in his argument, they are either not material or not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Chief Trial Counsel 730 S. Sterling Street Suite 201 Tampa, Florida 32609 David L. Sturdivant, Sr. 1804 Nelson Street, #I15 Ormond Beach, Florida 32704 Rod Presnell Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is licensed by the Board to practice as an osteopathic physician in Florida. The Respondent has been licensed to practice as an osteopathic physician in the State of Pennsylvania. He was criminally charged in the State of Pennsylvania with various violations of 35 Penna. Stat. Section 780- 113(a)(14). After entering a plea of not guilty, he was tried and convicted of three counts of violating the statute. He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced. The Respondent has exhausted all direct appellate remedies in Pennsylvania. He continues to pursue available collateral remedies. The Pennsylvania State Board of Osteopathic Examiners initiated disciplinary action against the Respondent. A hearing was conducted, and the Pennsylvania board concluded that the Respondent was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude and was guilty of unethical conduct. The Board stated: It is clear that the Respondent blatantly disregarded the health and welfare of the citizens of Pennsylvania and the Board can impose a penalty for such disregard. How- ever, the Board has taken into consideration the fact that the Respondent no longer resides or practices osteopathic medicine in Pennsylvania, and therefore, he is presently not a danger to the health, safety and welfare of Pennsylvania. Apparently disregarding the testimony of the Respondent in the record that he did intend to continue practicing osteopathic medicine in Pennsylvania if his license was not revoked, the Board imposed no penalty against the Respondent. The Respondent thus continues to be licensed to practice osteopathic medicine in Pennsylvania. The Respondent is presently engaged in the general practice of osteopathic medicine in Florida. He practices in a black area and is the only doctor who accepts Medicaid patients in the area. During 1976 he turned in his federal license to dispense controlled substances. He is thus not able to prescribe controlled substances in his practice, but he can prescribe other drugs. The Respondent has not been the subject of any other disciplinary proceedings during his many years as a practicing osteopathic physician.
