The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Petitioner meets the requirements for licensure by endorsement pursuant to section 458.313, Florida Statutes (2013), and whether the Board’s interpretation of section 458.311(3), Florida Statutes, is an unadopted rule in violation of section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulations of the parties and the documentary evidence presented, the following facts are found: Petitioner, Leon Rawner, M.D., is a licensed medical doctor in the state of Wisconsin and an applicant for licensure as a medical doctor by endorsement in Florida. The Florida Board of Medicine is the agency charged with the licensing and regulation of allopathic medical doctors pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Applicants for licensure by endorsement must meet the requirements specified in section 458.313. Those requirements include meeting the qualifications identified in section 458.311(1)(b)-(g) (alternative one) or section 458.311(1)(b)-(e), (g), and (3) (alternative two). Petitioner is over 21 years of age, and has submitted a set of fingerprints on a form and under procedures specified by the Department of Health, along with a payment in an amount equal to the costs incurred by the Department of Health. Petitioner has successfully passed the required criminal background screening. Petitioner’s application for licensure by endorsement demonstrates that he is licensed to practice medicine in another jurisdiction, the state of Wisconsin, and that he has been active in the practice of medicine for at least two of the four years immediately preceding the application. Petitioner has a clean record in his current medical practice in Wisconsin and is not under any investigation in any jurisdiction for an act or offense which would constitute a violation under section 458.331, and has not committed any act or offense in any jurisdiction which would constitute the basis for disciplining a physician pursuant to section 458.331. Petitioner has completed the equivalent of two academic years of pre-professional, postsecondary education, as determined by rule of the Board, which included, at a minimum, courses in anatomy, biology, and chemistry prior to entering medical school. Petitioner received a bachelor’s degree from Brandeis University, an accredited United States university. Petitioner has passed the appropriate medical licensure examinations, the United States Medical Licensing Examination, Step-1, Step-2, and Step-3. Petitioner holds an active, valid certificate issued by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) and has passed the examination used by the Commission. In 2006, Petitioner graduated with a degree of Doctor of Medicine from American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine. Petitioner graduated from an allopathic foreign medical school (American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine) which is recognized by the World Health Organization. Petitioner completed all of the formal requirements for graduation from American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine. Petitioner’s application for licensure demonstrates that he has completed the academic year of supervised medical training prior to graduation as required under section 458.311(3)(d). Petitioner did not graduate from an allopathic medical school or allopathic college recognized and approved by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Office of Education. Petitioner did not graduate from an allopathic medical school or allopathic college within a territorial jurisdiction of the United States recognized by the accrediting agency of the governmental body of that jurisdiction. Petitioner is not a graduate of an allopathic foreign medical school registered with the World Health Organization and certified pursuant to section 458.314, Florida Statutes, as having met the standards required to accredit medical schools in the United States or reasonably comparable standards. Petitioner has not completed an approved residency or fellowship of at least two years in one specialty area. Petitioner’s application for licensure demonstrates that he does not meet the postgraduate training requirements under section 458.311(1)(f)3. Petitioner completed one year of residency training in the Internal Medicine Program at Mt. Sinai-Elmhurst Hospital Center, Queens, New York. Besides the residency training program at Mt. Sinai– Elmhurst Hospital Center, Queens, New York, Petitioner has not completed any other residency or fellowship training. Petitioner does not have two years of any residency or fellowship training which can be counted toward regular or subspecialty certification by a board recognized and certified by the American Board of Medical Specialties. Since January 24, 2011, Dr. Rawner has been practicing medicine in Wausau, Wisconsin, as a staff physician with Knee Pain Solutions Center. Accordingly, he has been in the active practice of medicine for the two years preceding his Florida application. Dr. Rawner submitted his application for licensure by endorsement on March 13, 2013. Supplemental documentation was filed with the Board by letter dated March 18, 2013. In that letter, Dr. Rawner expressly stated that he was relying on the second alternative for establishing licensure by endorsement, which does not include the requirements identified in subsection 458.311(1)(f). On April 3, 2013, the Board requested additional information, and in response, Dr. Rawner provided a copy of his undergraduate degree and information related to his one year of supervised medical training. Other information requested in the April 3, 2013, letter was sent directly to the Board office by the appropriate agencies, including an official United States medical examination transcript, indicating that Dr. Rawner passed USMLE Steps I, II, and III; a letter from the residency program director, indicating that Dr. Rawner completed one year of residency training; confirmation from the Wisconsin Medical Board confirming his current, valid medical license in the state of Wisconsin; an American Medical Association (AMA) profile letter; and Dr. Rawner’s fingerprints and clear background check. Program Operations Administrator Chandra Prine notified Dr. Rawner by letter dated June 26, 2013, that he was required to appear before the Credentials Committee of the Board. The purpose of the appearance was to discuss: Failure to meet the training requirement pursuant to section 458.313(1)(a), 458.311(1)(f)3.c., Florida Statutes. Failure to complete an academic year of supervised clinical training pursuant to section 458.311(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Dr. Rawner appeared before the credentials committee of the Board of Medicine on August 1, 2013. The committee recommended that his license be denied. On August 22, 2013, the Board of Medicine issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure, stating that it intended to deny Dr. Rawner’s application because Dr. Rawner did not meet the requirements of section 458.313(1), which requires an applicant to meet the qualifications outlined in either section 458.311(1)(b)-(g) (alternative one), or in section 458.311(1)(b)- (e), (g) and (3) (alternative two). The notice stated that with respect to alternative one, Dr. Rawner did not meet the requirements of section 458.311(1)(f)3., because he had not completed an approved residency or fellowship of at least two years in one specialty area. With respect to alternative two, the Board determined that Dr. Rawner did not meet the requirements of section 458.311(3)(c) because, in the Board’s view, the section was inapplicable to Dr. Rawner because he had completed all requirements of the foreign medical school, with none outstanding, and did not meet the requirement of (3)(d) because he had not completed an academic year of supervised clinical training in a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association. Dr. Rawner filed a Petition for Administrative Hearing with respect to the Notice of Intent to Deny, and the matter was reconsidered at the credentials committee’s meeting on October 3, 2013. The credentials committee voted to reconsider the application based on the issues presented in the Petition. On October 22, 2013, the Board issued an Amended Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure. With respect to alternative two, in the Amended Notice, the Board stated: [t]he application file reveals that Dr. Rawner fails to meet subsection (3) for the reasons set forth below. Subsection (3) provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of subparagraph (1)(f)3., a graduate of a foreign medical school need not present the certificate issued by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates or pass the examination utilized by that commission if the graduate: Has received a bachelor’s degree from an accredited United States college or university. Has studied at a medical school which is recognized by the World Health Organization. Has completed all of the formal requirements of the foreign medical school, except the internship or social science requirements, and has passed part I of the National Board of Medical Examiners examination or the Educations Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates examination equivalent. Has completed an academic year of supervised clinical training in a hospital affiliated with a medical school approved by the Council on Medical Education of the American Medical Association and upon completion has passed part II of the National Board of Medical Examiners examination or the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates examination equivalent. Subpart (3)(c) provides in relevant part all of the formal requirements of the foreign medical school, except the internship or social service requirements, and has passed certain examinations. A plain reading of this subpart is that the foreign medical school has an internship or social service requirement and that the internship or social service requirement has not been completed. The application file demonstrates that Dr. Rawner graduated in June, 2006, with a degree of Doctor of Medicine from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine. Thus, subpart (3)(c) is inapplicable to Dr. Rawner, because the application file reveals that he completed all of the formal requirements of the foreign medical school and there are no outstanding or pending internship or social service requirements. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated that he meets the requirements for licensure by endorsement set forth in Section 458.313(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The Amended Notice no longer listed failure to complete an academic year of supervised clinical training as a basis for the denial of Dr. Rawner’s application. There is no persuasive evidence presented that Respondent’s interpretation of the requirements of section 458.311, Florida Statutes, as it applies to this case, is a statement of general applicability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order approving Leon Rawner, M.D.’s application for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Donna C. McNulty, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Amy W. Schrader, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Allison M. Dudley, Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Health Division of Medical Quality Assurance Boards/Councils/Commissions 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Edward A. Tellechea, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent should be suspended, revoked, or whether the Respondent should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence introduced and the testimony elicited, the following facts are found: Am administrative complaint was filed against Respondent Ponte by the Petitioner, Florida State Board of Nursing, on May 26, 1978 seeking to place on probation, suspend or revoke the LPN License No. 38103-1 held by Respondent Beverly Ceraldi Ponte. The complaint was amended at the public hearing to delete allegation number 5. "Respondent, while being searched at the women's annex of the jail, was found to be in possession of one glass vial of promethazine, a prescription drug." The complaint alleged that the Respondent, on several occasions, signed out for controlled narcotics for patients in her care and failed to properly account for the disposition of said narcotics; that Respondent converted a narcotic controlled substance to her own use and admitted to Dade County Police officers the theft of the drug; and that Respondent had in her possession at the time of her arrest a large quantity of syringes (tubex of from 50-75 milligrams of demerol) consisting of a total of 24, of which 7 were empty. The Respondent Beverly Ponte, a Licensed Practical Nurse, was employed at the Miami Heart Institute on January 16, 1978. On that date she signed out for a controlled narcotic, demerol, the generic term being meperedine, for four patients in her care. The medication sheets for the four patients failed to show that demerol or meperedine had been administered to the patients, and no disposition of the narcotics was shown by Respondent. On or about April 7, 1978 Beverly Ponte, the Respondent, was employed at Palmetto General Hospital in Hialeah, Florida. The evening supervisor, a Registered Nurse, was called at about 10:30 p.m. by one of the staff nurses to examine a narcotic sheet kept for patients under the care of the Respondent Ponte, the medication nurse on the shift that evening. The Vice President and Director of Nursing Service was then called and the police were notified that there was an apparent narcotic problem on the floor of the hospital. The police and the director questioned the Respondent. She was searched and on her person was found 24 syringes (tubexes or pre-loaded syringes) of the type used by the hospital. Respondent admitted that she had taken drugs that evening and could not tell the director which of the patients under her care had had medication. The Respondent was arrested and handcuffed. Thereafter an information was filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida charging Respondent with possession of a controlled substance (meperedine) and charged with a count of petit larceny. The Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendre and was found guilty of possession of controlled substance and petit theft and was placed on probation for a period of eighteen months, beginning May 2, 1978, with a special condition that the Respondent not seek employment where she personally had access to narcotic drugs and to also complete the outreach program which is a drug rehabilitation program. The proposed order of the Respondent has been considered and each proposed fact treated herein. Evidence as to the adherence to the condition of probation, the present employment of Respondent, and whether Respondent should be allowed to sit for nursing license examination is insufficient and no finding is made in regard thereto. No memorandum or proposed order was submitted by the Petitioner.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent Ponte. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Carl L. Masztal, Esquire Suite 806 Concord Building 66 W. Flagler Street Miami, Florida Norman Malinski, Esquire 2825 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Investigation and Licensing Coordinator State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Building B. Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Beverly A. Ceraldi Ponte 3500 S. W. 47th Avenue CASE NO. 78-1142 West Hollywood, Florida 33023 As a Licensed Practical Nurse License Number 38103-1 /
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, Gerardo Hevilla, completed the application for licensure by endorsement and submitted all degrees, test results, certificates, recommendations, and other documents required by law to be considered for licensure by endorsement as a medical doctor in Florida. The degrees, test results, recommendations and other documents submitted by Petitioner are authentic. Petitioner obtained a doctor of medicine degree from the Universidad Nacional De Rosario in Argentina on July 1, 1980. Universidad Nacional De Rosario Medical School (School) is a medical school duly listed by the World Heath Organization. Graduates of the School are eligible to seek medical licensure in Florida by endorsement pursuant to the provisions found in Section 458.313, Florida Statutes, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Board of Medicine (Board). On November 20, 1985, Petitioner satisfied the requirements of the Educational Council on Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) and was issued ECFMG certificate no. 339-394-9. Petitioner obtained a passing score on the Federated Licensing Examination (FLEX) within 10 years immediately preceding his application for licensure by endorsement in Florida. Petitioner successfully completed one year of post- graduate training at Lincoln Medical and Mental Health Center as a resident in general surgery. Petitioner has satisfied all preliminary requirements of the Board to be considered for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner came to Florida in April, 1981. At that time he did not speak English and, therefore, was not able to pass the English portion of the ECFMG examination. In order to learn English, he enrolled at Miami High School. While enrolled at the high school, Petitioner volunteered his services to a clinic located approximately two blocks from the school. Petitioner worked at this clinic, LeGran Familia Clinic (Clinic), from 1982 until 1984, while he attempted to learn English. Since many of the doctors and patients at the Clinic spoke Spanish, Petitioner did not have difficulty. The Clinic had 20-22 licensed physicians on staff during the time Petitioner worked there. During the time Petitioner worked at the Clinic, he was primarily under the supervision of Dr. Mirabal. According to Dr. Mirabal, Petitioner was a brilliant, though ambiguous, physician. Petitioner did not represent himself to patients as a physician but was responsible for taking vital statistics, patient histories, and transcribing Dr. Mirabal's dictation. A licensed physician was present at the clinic at all times during which Petitioner performed these services. Subsequently, the Clinic came under investigation for Medicaid fraud. Petitioner was named as one of several defendants in the criminal prosecution. This charge was later dismissed by the prosecuting State Attorney and is not claimed as a basis for the denial of Petitioner's application for licensure. A second charge, the unauthorized practice of medicine, was alleged against Petitioner in State of Florida v. Gerardo Hevilla, Dade County Circuit Court, Criminal Division, case no. 84-8608. Initially, Petitioner pled not guilty to this charge. On May 3, 1985, Petitioner changed his plea to nolo contendere based upon a representation by the State Attorney to the trial judge that the Department of Professional Regulation had been contacted and had agreed that such plea would not be used against Petitioner in his future licensing efforts. This representation was made on the record and is a part of the plea colloquy. Prior to this presentation, Petitioner had refused, and intended to continue to refuse, to change his plea because of his concern that such a plea would adversely affect his ability to become licensed. The estimated cost to defend the criminal case exceeded $25,000. Petitioner accepted the negotiated plea as a financial concession only after the assurances were given that it would not affect his ability to become licensed. In January or February, 1984, Petitioner became employed at the South Florida Medical and Surgical Center (Center). He remained associated with the Center until June, 1986. While at the Center, Petitioner worked as a surgical assistant and helped the licensed surgeons as they directed. Petitioner did not treat patients independently of the licensed doctors and did not hold himself out as a licensed physician. He told one patient, Zoraida Wong, that he was a student. Petitioner assisted Dr. DeGeronimo and Dr. Alexander at the Center. These doctors found Petitioner to be competent, skilled, and a good worker. In fact, Dr. DeGeronimo was so pleased with Petitioner's work that he employed him at his private office until June, 1986. The work performed by Petitioner at the Center and with Dr. DeGeronimo consisted of setting up the operating area, ordering supplies, assisting in surgery by wiping blood, holding retractors, or cutting stitches, and bandaging wounds. All work was done under a licensed physician's supervision. From June, 1986 until July, 1987, Petitioner performed a one year residency at the Lincoln Medical Hospital. During this period, Petitioner was supervised by Drs. Stahl, the program director, and Kazigo, an associate professor. According to these physicians, Petitioner is qualified for licensure, possesses the requisite knowledge and skill, and successfully completely the residency program. Following the completion of his residency, Petitioner returned to Miami and is employed again as an assistant to Dr. DeGeronimo in his plastic surgery practice. Petitioner did not perform facial plastic surgery on the patient, Zoraida Wong. Petitioner did not withhold facts regarding his criminal plea from the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That The Board of Medicine enter a final order approving Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 30th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER RULINGS ON PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: The first sentence in Paragraph 1 is accepted. With regard to the sentence, that portion which alleges Petitioner took courses at the University of Miami is accepted the rest is rejected as beyond the scope of evidence presented or irrelevant to these proceedings. Paragraph 2 is accepted as to all parts. With regard to paragraph 3A. with the exception of the reference to full-time study of English it is accepted. The record does not conclude whether or not Petitioner was in school full-time, he did enroll at Miami High School to learn English so to that extext it is accepted, otherwise rejected as not supported by the record. Paragraphs 3B-D are accepted. Paragraph 4 is accepted. Paragraph 5A. is accepted. The first sentence and last sentence of the first paragraph of paragraph 5B are accepted; the remainder of the first paragraph is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, not supported by the record or speculation. The second, third and fourth paragraphs of Paragraph 5B are accepted. The first paragraph of SC is accepted. The second paragraph of SC is rejected as irrelevant; the Board has not claimed the allegations relating to the alleged Medicaid fraud were a basis for denial of Petitioner's license. The first three sentences of the first paragraph of Paragraph 6 are accepted. The remainder of the first paragraph is rejected as a recitation of testimony, irrelevant, or unsupported by the record. The second paragraph of Paragraph 6 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, irrelevant, or argument. The third paragraph of Paragraph 6 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, irrelevant, or argument. The fourth paragraph of Paragraph 6 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, irrelevant, or argument. With regard to these paragraphs, see finding of fact which concludes Petitioner did not operate on the patient Wong. Petitioner's testimony, Dr. DeGeronimo's, and Urquiza's testimony were deemed credible. Dr. Garcia-Lavin and Wong were not. The fifth paragraph of Paragraph 6 is rejected as argument, but as to facts therein see explanation in p. 13 above. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: Paragraphs 1-11c are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 12 is accepted. The remainder of paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Petitioner was not eligible to take the residency until he had mastered English to a sufficient level to pass required examinations. Petitioner's explanation for the period was acceptable. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the credible evidence, argument or irrelevant. Petitioner is found to be credible. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the evidence, argument or irrelevant. Paragraph 16 is rejected as irrelevant, unsupported by the credible evidence or argument. Paragraph 17 is rejected as irrelevant or argument. That the Department did not actually pledge to hold Petitioner harmless by reason of the plea is not a disputed issue Petitioner had a reasonable basis for believing that to be the case; however, and was induced to change his plea on that basis. Paragraph 18 is accepted but is irrelevant; see p. 7 above. The first three sentences of paragraph 19 are accepted. The record does not disclose how many licensed physicians may performed surgery at the Center; therefore the fourth sentence is rejected. The record does support a finding that Drs. Alexander, DeGeronimo, and Garcia-Lavin worked there and that the facility only used one surgical room. Paragraph 20 is rejected as irrelevant to the issues of this case. Paragraph 21 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraph 22 is rejected as irrelevant, immaterial, contrary to the evidence or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. The first two sentences of paragraph 23 are accepted, the remainder is rejected as contrary to the credible evidence, irrelevant, or immaterial to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraphs 24-26 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant or immaterial to the resolution of the issues of this case. It is possible that Petitioner remained associated with the Center and also worked for Dr. DeGeronimo. The testimony of the three (Petitioner, Alexander, and DeGeronimo) does not conflict. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney W. Bryson Bryson & Berman, P.A. Suite 219 8525 N.W. 53rd Terrace Miami, Florida 33166 Ann Cocheu Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medicine Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact On August 7, 1984, the Petitioner, Abraham W. Chames, executed an application for examination for licensure as a medical doctor which was filed with the Florida Department of Professional Regulation on behalf of the Board of Medical Examiners, (now Board of Medicine), on August 9, 1984. Among other information required on the application was a section requesting information regarding the applicant's medical education. That question reads as follows: Be specific. Account for each year. List all universities or colleges where you attended classes and received training as a medical student. In response and on each of four lines which required the name of the medical school and location and the dates of attendance, the applicant listed the names of the appropriate universities. These were: Universidad Del Noreste/Tampico, Mexico, from August, 1978 to June 1979. Universidad Del Noreste/Tampico, Mexico, from August 1978 to June, 1979 [sic] CETEC University/Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, from June, 1980 to June, 1981. CETEC University/ Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, from June, 1981 to December 1981. The question immediately preceding the one just described requires the applicant to list all places of residence since initiation of medical training. In response, the applicant listed, Tampico, Tamps, Mexico, from August, 1978 to June, 1980 and on the second line, Miami Beach, Florida from June, 1980 to June, 1982. For the question that requires the applicant to account for all time from date of graduation to present, the Petitioner stated: "Started my residency in family medicine at the University of Miami: June 83 until present." Dr. Chames also indicated on his application that his Doctor of Medicine degree was obtained from CETEC University, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic from which he graduated on December 12, 1981. As a part of the narrative reports submitted with his application and relating to the period of time spent at CETEC University from June, 1980 through December, 1981, Dr. Chames stated: "During this time, I performed all of my required and elective clinical rotations under the auspices of CETEC University and its New York City based office of C.J. Institute. I lived at 1247 West Avenue, Apt No. 1, Miami Beach, Florida." By so doing, he explained the apparent ambiguity between his place of residence and his medical education during the period, June, 1980 through December, 1981. The rotations taken and the dates thereof were thereafter listed immediately below the above-cited statement. It should be noted that all the rotations were completed at hospitals in the Miami, Florida area. It is not at all unusual for situations like this to happen and it is not improper. Along with the application submitted by Dr. Chames was a certification that he had successfully passed the examination of the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates, (ECFMG), which he took on July 21, 1982. On August 20, 1984, Dr. Chames was notified by the Board that it had been advised by the ECFMG that as of March, 1984, that body was withholding verification of its certificates for individuals with medical credentials issued in the name of CETEC University because of alleged irregularities with regard to these medical credentials. The Board requested that Dr. Chames waive the 90 days that it had for approval or denial of his application for licensure, which he did. ECFMG subsequently verified Dr. Chames' certification and this information was sent directly to the Board. On September 18, 1984, the Board advised Dr. Chames that he would be required to appear personally before the Foreign medical Graduate Committee, (FMGC), of the Board when notified. Two days later, on September 20, 1984, the Board advised him that his application was considered incomplete because he had failed to submit a copy of his medical school diploma, (notarized and certified as a true and correct copy) and a certified translation thereof. He was further advised that he had failed to submit an accounting for all of the time between December, 1981 and May, 1983, and a FLEX application with Part A completed. On August 23, 1985, Dr. Chames submitted a notarized affidavit in which he attempts to account for all time from December, 1981 through May, 1983 as requested. On August 15, 1985, Ms. Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director of the Board, notified Petitioner that his application was still considered incomplete because of the failure to submit certain documentation including his diploma and translation thereof, an examination fee, a standard ECFMG certificate, photographs, letters of recommendation, an accounting for all of the time since graduation, and a FLEX application. By letter dated August 23, 1985, Dr. Chames' counsel, Deborah J. Miller, forwarded a notarized copy of the medical school diploma certified by the U.S. Vice-Consul, a notarized copy of the original translation thereof, a notarized copy of the ECFMG clearance, a notarized copy of the original standard ECFMG certificate, an accounting of Dr. Chames' time since graduation, and a comment that the addition application fee requested had been forwarded previously. The two photographs requested were forwarded by counsel on September 3, 1985. In her September 3, 1985 letter, Ms. Miller indicated she understood the ECFMG would contact the Board directly in the event that written verification had not been received by the time Dr. Chames was to appear before the FMGC. On September 27, 1955, the Board, by letter, advised Dr. Chames, (the salutation refers to Dr. Eaton) that he was required to appear personally before the FMGC at Sarasota on October 4, 1985. Dr. Chames appeared as required and was examined verbally by committee members, primarily Dr. Robert Katims, Chairman, on his credentials as a graduate of CETEC. His answers apparently raised some further questions and an extract of the minutes of that committee meeting reflects that Dr. Chames, a candidate for licensure by examination and a graduate of CETEC University, received a... unanimous vote to recommend unfavorably for examination based upon a total lack of credibility, deliberately failed to tell the truth in the application process. It cannot be determined in whose handwriting this notation was made. Dr. Katims, who was Chairman of the FMGC since its founding until just prior to the hearing, examined Dr. Chames from the file maintained by the Committee on foreign medical graduates. The Petitioner's testimony was not of a nature to inspire confidence in his credibility. He was hesitant in his answers and those which he gave were, if not evasive, at least not definitive. While acknowledging he made several mis-statements of fact on his application, Petitioner contended these were made through honest error rather than through design. He was obviously not believed by any committee member. No doubt this antipathy toward the applicant, manifested by the blatant hostility and outrage evidenced by Dr. Katims during his questioning and his threats to carry the matter further, even to the pressing of criminal charges if available, indicates that no matter what Dr. Chames would have said, the likelihood of his being voted upon favorably was remote. The file examined by Dr. Katims and the committee consisted of the application, letters of reference, test scores and other matters relevant to the candidate's suitability for licensure. This file documentation is knows as the Agenda Book. The Agenda Book maintained on Dr. Chames was reviewed by Dr. Katims prior to Petitioner's appearance. In his evaluation of this file, Dr. Katims looked primarily at Petitioner's application to take the ECFMG exam and his attention was drawn to the sites of medical education listed thereon. The file contained several different applications which, when reviewed, reflected that on two, Dr. Chames listed his medical schools as Del Noreste and Dominica and on a third he listed CETEC and Del Noreste. Dr. Katims also noted a different listing for undergraduate education. He did not look so much at the dates listed, though dates are important. At that time, his policy as Chairman and that of the committee, was to look closely at CETEC graduates because of that institution's reputation for fraud in the issuance of diplomas. It was his understanding that several people associated with CETEC, including some applicants, had been jailed in the United States and as a result, CETEC graduates got a lot of scrutiny. In fact, Dr. Katims threatened to "...pursue this beyond the actions of this Board, if it seems appropriate, along the lines indicated by Board Counsel...." The Board's counsel had just previously noted a change in the Florida law to make it a criminal offense to obtain or attempt to obtain a license by knowing misrepresentation. Dr. Katims categorically denies that he felt all CETEC students were trained by this "stink of corruption". In fact, he recalls many CETEC graduates have been voted upon favorably after they had been afforded an opportunity to prove their credentials and discuss their applications before the committee. As a result, Dr. Katims felt he did not prejudge the Petitioner. Dr. Katims has interviewed many applicants during his term in office and this includes many CETEC graduates. Consequently, he looked closely at Dr. Chames' application but it was the discrepancy in the applications and the applicant's failure to clarify it satisfactorily that was the problem here, not the fact that he was a CETEC graduate. Dr. Chames was called before the FMGC because it was felt necessary to have him amplify his file and give greater information on his actual scholastic residence. This was because several applicants had told Dr. Katims their only visit to the CETEC campus was to get their diploma. This is exactly what Dr. Chames stated in his interview. Though enrolled at both (Dominica) Ross and CETEC at the same time, he says he did not attend any classes at either campus, did not ever visit the (Dominica) Ross campus, and in fact visited the CETEC campus only once, in December, 1981, to get his diploma. In short, it appears that neither school required regular on-site educational activities. In substance, the Board considered that Dr. Chames' attendance at CETEC raised a question that required a more detailed examination. However, Dr. Katims, on behalf of the committee, clearly contends that CETEC graduates were held to no more strict standards of qualifications than other graduates of foreign medical schools. With regard to this Petitioner, the Board only looked at the educational discrepancies. Nothing else was looked into by the committee before it's report the next day to the full Board. Dr. Katims felt that Petitioner's story was "incredible." He could not accept Petitioner's story that he simultaneously applied to and attended both CETEC and Dominica (Ross) and concluded that Dr. Chames deliberately falsified his application. The discrepancies regarding the schools attended were not consistent with his explanation, and to this date, Dr. Katims feels the same way. He concludes that Petitioner lied in his applications and may have conspired with unknown others to do so but he has no proof of a conspiracy. The important issue to Dr. Katims was initially the caliber of education available at both (Dominica) Ross and CETEC. It was only when Petitioner testified and his testimony was felt to be "incredible" that the issue became his credibility. Dr. Chames graduated from Miami-Dade Community College with an AA degree; then from Yeshive University in New York with a BA degree and thereafter from Florida International University with a BS degree. He then entered Universidad Del Noreste medical school in Tampico, Mexico where he actually attended classes for two years. At his hearing before the FMGC, he stated that during his fourth semester there, he decided to transfer and looked into two medical schools both located in the Caribbean. They were the University of Dominica (Ross) and CETEC. He contends that he applied to both, took some entrance exams for Dominica which he passed and paid some initial fees to that school. He states, however, that it was CETEC that he stayed with and from which he got his degree. According to Dr. Chames, this was a tumultuous time for foreign medical schools. Many students of these institutions wanted to come back to do their obligatory rotations in the United States. As a result, he enrolled in both schools, though he felt affiliated with Dominica (Ross) and paid it only. CETEC indicated he could pay later. In the fall of 1981, he switched to CETEC because a number of states were determining that students of proprietary foreign medical schools could not do U.S. residencies. CETEC was considered to be a higher quality school and had a greater legitimacy in the Dominican Republic. It was a viable school in disciplines other than medicine and was not categorized as an "offshore" medical school. Dr. Chames was expelled from Dominica (Ross) on July 12, 1982, because he failed to pay for the fourth year of medical school. He had, by this time, transferred his credits to CETEC and had graduated from there in December, 1981. Neither school had a requirement for on-campus participation. Students paid their money and turned in the paperwork, and the rotations--the learning periods spent in active hospitals--which constitute the greatest part of the last two years of medical school, were done in the United States. In reality, Dr. Chames arranged his clerkships and rotations by himself. When asked by the various hospitals to which he applied where he was in school, he would say either Del Noreste, Dominica (Ross), or CETEC depending on the time in question. He claims he considered himself to be a student at both Dominica (Ross) and CETEC at the same time. He gave his clerkship evaluations, however, only to Dominica (Ross) until the end of the fourth year of training, when he also gave one to CETEC. He first started paying fees to CETEC and provided a clerkship evaluation there in the fall of 1981, even though he says he considered himself a student there from the beginning. He intended to graduate in December, 1981. This date was established in the fall of 1981 when he started sending CETEC the evaluations of clerkships he had completed almost two years previously which had already been sent to Dominica (Ross). Dominica (Ross) required the taking of a basic second examination upon starting and a final examination prior to graduation unless one took and passed the ECFMG examination. Petitioner admittedly failed the final at Dominica (Ross). CETEC required no examinations. He took and passed the ECFMG exam long after he graduated from CETEC. Petitioner applied to CJ Institute, CETEC's U.S. affiliate, in November, 1981. He contends that he had applied to CETEC previous to that time, but paid no money to CETEC until approximately two weeks prior to graduation, and he got credit from CETEC for rotations/clerkships performed while enrolled at Dominica (Ross). In reality, what appears to be the fact, and it is so found, is that Dr. Chames was enrolled for by far the greatest majority of the last two years of his medical training at Dominica (Ross). Having failed the final examination and being concerned over the ECFMG examination, he looked around and found another medical school that would grant him a diploma based on work done at his former institution, Dominica (Ross). This he found in CETEC which had no requirements and was willing to give him full credit for all work performed at or under the auspices of Dominica (Ross). It would graduate him, awarding him a medical degree upon payment of the required fees, even though no work was done either in the classroom or in rotations while enrolled at that university. When the applicant subsequently filled out the forms for admission to licensure in Florida, he unfortunately listed only CETEC and not Dominica (Ross) as his medical school, even though the application form instructed him to list all schools and omit nothing. He admits that since he did his rotations, and since CETEC granted him credit for them even though he did them while enrolled at another school, he didn't feel it necessary to list Dominica (Ross) as one of his schools. Notwithstanding the apparent lapse as defined above, Respondent's reputation for honesty is generally good. His wife for almost nine years, who has known him since he was fifteen, considers him a most honorable man who makes no distinction between his personal and business ethics which are high in both categories. Though she is an attorney and notarized at least one of the applications he filled out, she did not discuss them with him. She has no reason to believe that they were not accurate and knows no reason that Petitioner would falsify them as she knows he dearly wants to be a doctor. When he filled out his applications, he did them based on his recollection and not on files or documents. She knows he has a terrible memory for dates and numbers and this may have contributed to his mistake. Mrs. Chames' testimony is not credited highly as to her failure to discuss the applications with her husband, however. Dr. Lynn Carmichael, Chairman of the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Miami Medical School, supervised the Petitioner in the Family Practice service at Jackson Memorial Hospital when Petitioner was a resident there. Petitioner's employment file contains all materials received regarding him including evaluations, letters, applications, etc., and a review of this file reveals that all evaluations rendered on Petitioner over the three years of his residency were above average. At the time Petitioner applied for the residency program in October, 1982, he listed his medical school as CETEC University. While he was in the residency program, Petitioner consistently performed in an outstanding manner in all six criteria considered and his reputation for truth and veracity, a highly important factor in evaluation, is good. Dr. Carmichael became aware of the denial of Petitioner's application for licensure after the fact and is aware now of the reasons therefor. Based on his knowledge of the Petitioner, he does not feel that Dr. Chames is a perjurer, or a liar, or would deliberately falsify an application. He was very surprised at the result of the committee hearing because the facts discussed there did not fit in with his evaluation of Petitioner. In fact, his peers at the University Hospital thought so highly of Dr. Chames, that if he had been licensed, the hospital was going to ask him to stay on for a fellowship, for which a license is required. Dr. Carmichael does not consider the listing of the medical school on the application for as a particularly important factor in evaluating foreign medical graduates for the simple reason that these graduates are required to show ECFMG certification which, in fact, the Petitioner was able to do. Ms. Deborah Miller, an attorney specializing in administrative and governmental law, represented Petitioner in his efforts to apply for licensure in Florida. He was concerned that foreign medical graduates were being unduly scrutinized and discriminated against in the licensing process. In this case, the Board of Medicine had asked Petitioner to waive the 90 days they had to rule one way or another on his application and she looked into this for him. In doing so, she procured the Petitioner's application file and went over it item by item with a representative of the Board. It was after this that Dr. Chames was notified of his requirement to appear before the FMGC, as were most foreign medical graduates and all CETEC graduates. Ms. Miller wrote to the Board just before the meeting to see if there was anything else in Petitioner's file than that of what she had been notified and was told that there was not. However, an AMA profile on Petitioner was in the file which listed both CETEC and Dominica (Ross) medical schools and this document may not have come to her. In the past, it has been Ms. Miller's experience that the Board does not always give a "full" file upon request, at times holding matters back. Based on what she knew, Ms. Miller had no reason to believe Dr. Chames had concealed anything regarding his application. Had Petitioner told her that he had applied to both CETEC and Dominica (Ross), she would have advised him to amend his application to correctly reflect the situation which could have been done at that time. On cross examination, Ms. Miller indicated that Petitioner told her that he applied to CETEC and Dominica (Ross) because he had heard of CETEC and was impressed by its good reputation. When he was accepted at CETEC, he dropped all further dealings with Dominica (Ross). He felt the board was concerned more with the courses and rotations not with which school was listed on the application form. This third story regarding Dr. Chames' reasons for switching from Dominica (Ross) to CETEC, clearly establishes that his application forms were consciously filled out; that he knew what he was doing; that his omission was more-than mere oversight; and that he was not particularly concerned with the accuracy of his application and the requirements for forthrightness contained on the face of it. On all of the reports of rotations and clerkships submitted to Dominica (Ross) during the time he was enrolled there and performing them, Dr. Chames was always highly rated and no adverse comments about his ability, his sensitivity, his patient relationships or his integrity was ever raised. There is no doubt that Dr. Chames possesses the clinical and technical skills necessary to be an excellent physician. He also apparently possesses the sensitivity to patients which separates a healer from a technician. In substance, then, it is found that Dr. Chames was enrolled for the last two years of his medical education at Dominica (Ross) and completed the course work/rotation/clerkships satisfactorily. Unfortunately for him, Dominica (Ross) required the passing of an examination prior to the award of the medical diploma, which Dr. Chames failed once and chose not to taken again. He found another school, CETEC, that would award him his medical degree upon payment of the required fees on the basis of the work done while a student at Dominica and without any work being done under the auspices or supervision of CETEC at all. Thereafter, when he applied for licensure in Florida, notwithstanding the fact that the application form clearly required a listing of all medical schools attended, Dr. Chames neglected to list his enrollment at Dominica (Ross), choosing instead, to list only his graduation from CETEC. It is this failure to list Dominica, coupled with the apparently false listing of the true term of the CETEC enrollment which constitutes the discrepancy of such grave concern to the Board and, the ultimate basis for its denial of Petitioner's application. Notwithstanding the apparent hostility of the Chairman of the FMGC and his predisposition to vote unfavorably on this Petitioner's application, it would appear that the unfavorable vote was justified and appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's current application for examination as a physician in Florida be denied. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 14th day of April, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1438 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. By Petitioner Petitioner failed to number his proposed Findings of Fact. To facilitate identifying them for ruling, I have numbered them consecutively as they appear in the Proposed Recommended Order. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted except for the reason for changing schools which is contrary to the better evidence. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted as to date of filing and schools listed. Rejected as to his reason for failing to list Dominica, Petitioner's different stories as to the point make it impossible to determine why he failed to list Dominica. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted except for words "sting of corruption" which should be "stink of corruption." Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Sentence 1 rejected as comment and not a Finding of Fact. Sentence 2 accepted. Sentence 3 & 4 rejected as speculation. Sentence 5 accepted. Sentence 6 rejected as argument. Sentence 7 accepted. Sentence 8 rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant except for the last sentence which is argument, not Finding of Fact. Sentences 1-3 rejected as argument. Sentence 4 et seq. accepted. By Respondent Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. First sentence accepted, Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Sentences 1 & 2 accepted. Sentences 1 & 2 rejected as recitations of the evidence. Sentence 3 rejected as contrary to the better evidence. Sentence 4 et seq. are recitations of the evidence and not Finding of Fact. Rejected as a recitation of the evidence. Accepted. No numbered paragraph. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Florida Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harold M. Braxtone Esquire Suite 406, Datran Center 9100 South Dadeland Blvd. Miami, Florida 33156 Catherine Lannon, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed practical nurse licensed in the State of Florida and holding license number 0504051. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida and is charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes (1981), related to regulating and enforcing the licensure and professional practice standards for nurses of various categories enumerated therein in the State of Florida. During times pertinent to the allegations of the amended administrative complaint, the Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Ocala Geriatric Center, Inc. On September 16, 1982, the Respondent was the "float nurse" at Ocala Geriatric Center, meaning that she was a nurse assigned to various portions of the Geriatrics Center on an impromptu basis, which assignments to the various wings of the facility would be communicated to her by notations on her timecard which she would receive when she reported to duty for a particular shift. On September 16, 1982, she was previously scheduled by her supervisor to work on the north wing of the Ocala Geriatric Center. When Respondent reported to work for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift for September 16 - September 17, 1982, she was told by her supervisor, Deloris Jamison, to work instead on the east wing of the facility. Respondent, upon learning this, became engaged in a dispute with Mrs. Jamison regarding this assignment, refused to fulfill the assignment and indicated that she preferred to report herself as sick and return home rather than work at her assigned location on the east wing that evening. The Respondent was told to shift her duties from her customary station on the north wing to the east wing that evening due to a shortage of nurses on duty on that shift. The director of nurses of the Ocala Geriatric Center, Ellen Cain, had already arranged for nurse Phyllis Shepard to work half of the 11:00 to 7:00 shift on the north wing of the facility. When nurse Shepard duly reported for duty at the north wing she found the Respondent present at the north wing even though the Respondent had previously been informed that she was to work on the east wing. At this time the Respondent announced her intentions to nurse Shepard to remain on duty at the north wing and not to report to duty on the east wing, contrary to her supervisor's direction. At this point nurse Shepard went to the south wing of the facility and conferred with nurse Jamison regarding the Respondent's assignment and her own assignment, and had the instructions confirmed by supervisor Jamison. Upon nurse Shepard's return to the north wing, the Respondent indicated to her also that she intended to report herself sick and go home rather than work on the east wing. Only upon calling the Director of Nurses, Ellen Cain, at her home and again receiving instructions to work on the east wing that evening, did the Respondent ultimately elect to proceed to her assigned duty station. Patients Whitehurst and Rubright were classified on September 16, 1952 and September 17, 1982, "as critical geriatric patients" inasmuch as they were nasal-gastric or "tube-fed" patients and both had "indwelling" catheters for elimination of urine. On or about September 16, 1982, the Respondent charted a "dash" on the fluid intake and output record of patient Whitehurst, rather than specifying actual fluid, if any, taken in by the patient. This is an improper method of notation of fluid intake and output for such a patient, since this does not accurately reflect any information one way or the other regarding fluid intake or output for that patient for that shift. At best it might lead to a presumption that that patient had received no fluid, which is a potentially serious problem with such a patient since if a catheterized patient does not receive adequate fluid from time to time during the day, then the catheter is at risk of being blocked, with potentially serious health consequences to the patient. On that same date Respondent also failed to chart any information in her nurses' notes for patient Whitehurst. Both nurses Shepard and the Director of Nursing at Ocala Geriatric Center, Ellen Cain, were accepted as expert witnesses in the field of nursing and specifically with regard to minimal standards of professional nursing practice in Florida. It was thus established that the failure to chart in her nurses' notes any information for patient Whitehurst was conduct not comporting with minimal standards of nursing practice, especially in view of the fact that the patient Whitehurst was a naso-gastric tube patient who was also catheterized. It is imperative to note any reason why such a patient does not receive fluid during a single shift or alternatively, when a patient does receive fluid, to note on the chart the amount and type of fluids received. Further, the use of a dash on the nursing chart makes it even more imperative that the nursing notes explain what occurred on that shift regarding the patient's fluid intake, so that the nurse charged with the responsibility of that patient on the ensuing shift would be aware of the patient's fluid status and aware of any abnormality that may have occurred on the previous shift. Although the Respondent may have, in fact, administered the proper fluids to patient Whitehurst on that shift, she failed to record whether or not that duty was performed. On September 16, 1952, the Respondent also charted a for fluid intake on patient Rubright, but again failed to make any notation on the nurses' notes as to why this patient actually received no fluids. This failure to properly chart and make notes regarding the patient's fluid intake and failure to administer fluids without explanation does not comport with minimal standards of nursing practice, especially inasmuch as patient Rubright was also a naso- gastric tube-fed and catheterized patient. The Respondent also failed to chart or record any nurses' notes with regard to patient Lesimby on September 16, 1982. Failure to chart was established to be a violation of federal medicare regulations and a violation of this particular facility's policies with regard to such medicare patients. Although daily charting and notes from each shift for such critical care patients as patients Whitehurst and Rubright is required by minimal standards of professional nursing practice, failure to chart nurses notes for other patients, simply because they are medicare patients, does not necessarily depart from proper standards of nursing practice, although federal regulations require that medicare patients be the subject of daily charting, including recording of vital signs. Compliance with such federal standards is of course, not the subject of the administrative complaint in this proceeding, however. Respondent's failure to properly record fluid intake and output for patients Whitehurst and Rubright, and her failure to properly chart nursing notes for those patients on the above dates, as well as her failure to order medications for patients as required by her position at Ocala Geriatric Center, Inc., could have resulted in serious harm to the oat' ants. It was not established that the Respondent has committed acts or omissions that could have jeopardized safety in the past, however, and it was not shown that any other violations of the nursing practice act or failures to comport with minimal standards of nursing practice have ever been charged or proven with regard to the Respondent's licensure status and nursing practice in the past.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Nursing finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged with respect to Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1981), with the exception of the violation charged with regard to patient Lesimby, and that the penalty of a reprimand and 90-day suspension of her licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th May of July, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Sears Gibson 2003 Southwest Seventh Street Ocala, Florida Helen P. Keefe, Executive Director Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made to supplement the parties' factual stipulations: Petitioner's Pre-Immigration Activities In Nicaragua Petitioner is a native of Nicaragua. He obtained his medical education at the National University of Nicaragua (hereinafter referred to as the "University"). He graduated from the University in 1961 with a Doctor of Medicine and Surgery degree. Petitioner later received a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology from Nicaragua's Central American University. Thereafter, he completed law school in Nicaragua; however, because he was an outspoken critic of the Sandinista government, he did not receive his law degree. Petitioner practiced medicine in Nicaragua for more than 26 years before immigrating to the United States for political reasons 3/ on March 10, 1988. His reputation as a physician in Nicaragua was excellent. Moreover, he provided at his "White Cross" (also referred to herein as "Cruz Blanca") clinic in the city of Managua, which he established in 1972, free medical services to those who were unable to pay for such services. He also volunteered his time and services to various organizations such as the Nicaraguan Professional Boxing Association, of which he was at one time the President, and the Nicaraguan national baseball team. Petitioner's Application For Licensure As A Physician Approximately 19 months after immigrating to the United States, Petitioner submitted to the Board an application for licensure as a physician pursuant to Section 458.311(10), Florida Statutes. On the application form, under the heading "Medical Education," Petitioner indicated that he had studied at the University's Leon, Nicaragua campus from April 1, 1952, to January 30, 1953, and at the University's Managua, Nicaragua campus from April 1, 1958, to January 30, 1959. He provided no other information under this heading. Under the heading "Practice/Employment," Petitioner indicated that from January 1, 1962, to October 30, 1972, he had seen "[p]rivate [p]atien[t]s" at his "[o]wn [c]linic" in Managua and that from November 1, 1972, to February 20, 1988, he had been the "Director of Internal and Famil[y] Medicine" of the "White Cross of Nicaragua" in Managua. He provided no other information under this heading. On December 1, 1989, the Board sent Petitioner written notification that his application was incomplete for the following reasons, among others: The World Directory of Medical Schools indicates duration of studies six years with one year being a rotating internship and one year social service before you are awarded the Doctor of Medicine and Surgery and registration with the Ministry of Public Health you may engage in private practice. In the form of a sworn affidavit please explain or answer the following questions regarding your application: It appears your studies only lasted 18 mos. (4-52 to 1-30-53) and (4-1-58 to 1-10-59). It is not apparent you completed the required 1 yr social service. Application indicates you were in medical school from 4-1-58 to 1-1-59 and in residency at General Hospital from 1-1-59 to 12-1-59. Please explain the apparent discrepancy. . . . 7. Account for the following time: 2-2-88 to the present. . . . Petitioner responded by writing the Board a letter. The Board received the letter, as well as the attachments Petitioner sent along with it, on January 6, 1990. Petitioner's letter provided in part as follows: Following your letter of December 1, 1989, here are my answers to the questions made to me in order to complete my Application No. 88, within the framework of the law No. 458.311, "Licensure by examination." SEE ENCLOSED ATTACH[MENT] ONE (1).- Studies: 4-1-52 to 12-31-58. I enclose evidence on intense medical practice; when I graduated there was not Social Service for graduated medicine students, however, in addition to the rotatory practice I have 2 internship years. See enclosed Attach[ments] two (2) and three (3) Residency General Hospital from 1-1-59 to 12-31-59. See Enclosed attach[ments] (1) and (3). . . . 7. Since 2-2-88 I live in Miami without practicing my profession; presently I am doing some research and writing two recently finished books. From Miami I am also managing the medical institution "CRUZ BLANCA," of which I am the Director - see enclosed Certificate-; the latter, together with other data-evidence confirms my medical professional practice since I graduated. -See Enclosed attach[ments] (4) and (3). . . . I hope I have completed all the information requested; I will be waiting to hear from you for any other point th[at] may arise regarding my request. Thanks. Attachment (1) referred to in Petitioner's letter was a written statement by Petitioner in which he stated the following: The Medical Education in Nicaragua was of seven years and one year of practice in the General Hospital. The Medical School had two locations respectively in Leon and Managua. My Medical Education was from April 1, 1952, to Dec. 31, 1958 = seven years. MEDICAL EDUCATION Name of Medical School: Medical School of the National University of Nicaragua: LEON- Nicaragua From: April 1, 1952 To: January 30, 1953 April 1, 1953 To: January 30, 1954 April 1, 1954 To: January 30, 1955 April 1, 1955 To: January 30, 1956 April 1, 1956 To: January 30, 1957 April 1, 1957 To: January 30, 1958 Managua- Nicaragua From: April 1, 1958 To: December 31, 1958 There are two months of vacations : February and March, every year. Leon and Managua Nicaragua are the same University in different localities. My INTERNSHIP: General Hospital of Managua from 1-1-59 to 12-31-59. On January 10, 1990, the Board sent Petitioner written notification that his application was still incomplete. In this written notification, the Board requested, among other things, that Petitioner have his letter, "retyped in the form of a sworn affidavit." Petitioner complied with this request and resubmitted the letter, in affidavit form, to the Board, along with other materials. Among the other materials he sent to the Board was a certificate from the Secretary of the Board of Directors of Cruz Blanca, which provided as follows: The undersigned Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Cruz Blanca Institution of Medical Social Service, established according to the laws of the Republic of Nicaragua, issues these presents to certify that Dr. Leon Cesar Delgadillo was our founder in the year nineteen hundred seventy-two and that he has acted as our Medical Director and Executive President of the Board of Directors since then, being also in charge of the responsibility of Internal Medicine. Dr. Leon Cesar Delgadillo is a well-known and experienced doctor in the Republic of Nicaragua. He attended seven years of academic studies at the National University of Nicaragua and one year as intern at the General Hospital of Managua which was destroyed by a devastating earthquake in nineteen hundred and seventy-two. He then became an intern at the Social Security Hospital for one more year followed by another year of residency at the Psychiatric Hospital of Managua, Nicaragua. At that time the Medical Social Service did not exist, but Dr. Delgadillo who has a great human sensibility has practiced Social Medicine at Cruz Blanca. His License to practice both private and institutionally as well as his diploma are legally registered at the Ministry of Health. Dr. Delgadillo is also author of "La Dieta Feliz" (The Happy Diet) a best seller in Nicaragua and Central America and presently he has finished writing two books which will soon be published "VIDA Y SALUD CON FISIODINAMIA" (LIFE AND HEALTH WITH PHYSIODYNAMICA) and an educational novel of intense drama about AIDS titled "INFIERNO EN LA TIERRA" (HELL ON EARTH). Due to political reasons, he has lived in the United States since February 2, 1988, but from there he directs our Institution and has been busy there, in the USA, with the abovementioned books of which he is the author. His degree of Medicine was signed by the President of the Republic because that was the law and practice at that time. On February 19, 1990, the Board, having determined that Petitioner had "substantially complied with the requirements set forth in Section 458.311(10)(a), Florida Statutes," and that it was "likely that [Petitioner would] be able to fully comply with all the requirements," issued an order granting "conditional certification of the application of [Petitioner] pursuant to Section 458.311(10)(a), Florida Statutes," thereby authorizing Petitioner to enroll in the University of Miami's Comprehensive Medical Review Program, which was designed to prepare foreign medical school graduates to take the FLEX licensure examination. Petitioner subsequently enrolled in and successfully completed the program. In response to a letter from the Board indicating what he needed to do to "fully comply with all of the requirements of Section 458.311(10)(a), Florida Statutes," Petitioner sent the Board a letter, dated March 26, 1990, in which he stated, among other things, the "corre[c]t date [he] left [his] country [was] 3- 10-88." On July 10, 1990, Petitioner sent another letter to the Board. In his letter, he stated, among other things, the following: My date and port of entry into E.U. is Miami, Mar. 10-86 and the same day arrived [in] San Francisco. I am newspaper reporter. (see page 3 Immigration Statement). Petitioner enclosed page 3 of the "Immigration Statement" to which he referred in his letter. On this page of the "Immigration Statement," Petitioner had indicated that he was a "travelling correspondent of the news radio 'El Momemto de Radio Mundial de Nicaragua.'" On July 26, 1990, the Board sent Petitioner a letter advising him that he had to submit the following material in order to complete his application file: In the form of a sworn affidavit please account for your activities from the date [you] entered the United States until the present[. Y]ou[r] application and other supporting documents contain discrepancies regarding the exact date, port of entry and your activities in the United [S]tates. INS verification indicates date of entry of 3/10/86. Your letter of July 10, 1990 is not acceptable. In response to this letter, Petitioner submitted to the Board a sworn affidavit, dated August 2, 1990, in which he stated the following: Since I entered [t]he United States [o]n 03-10-88, I have been working as a foreign journalist for a Nicaraguan news agency. On this date I entered into the United States by the International Airport in Miami, Florida. This information is in the Declaration signed by me on March 28th of 1988 and filed in your office. Petitioner applied to take the December 1990 FLEX examination. He submitted the completed application and a $500.00 examination fee to the Board. In a letter, dated October 19, 1990, accompanying the fee, Petitioner reiterated that he was working as a foreign journalist for a news agency. On November 7, 1990, the Board sent Petitioner a letter which contained the following advisement: Pursuant to the Final Order dated February 19, 1990 the following material is required to complete your application file. This material must be received in this office no later than November 14, 1990. The Office of Naturalization and Immigration verifies your date of entry as March 10, 1986; but you give your date of entry as March 10, 1988. Please have INS submit to this office a verification of your exact date of entry into the United States. Information requested above must be received in this office on or before 11/14/90 or you will not be allowed to take the December 1990 FLEX EXAM. Petitioner timely furnished the Board with documentation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service verifying that he entered the United States on March 10, 1988. On November 21, 1990, the Board, through its Executive Director, sent Petitioner the following letter: This is to advise you that your application to take the Course developed by the University of Miami as directed in Chapter 89-374, Laws of Florida, is now complete. Based on your demonstration of full compliance with the requirements of Section 458.311(10)(a), F.S., as amended by 89-541, Laws of Florida, your application will be presented to the Board of Medicine for full certification for the Course at a meeting of the Board November 30,- December 2, 1990. You will not be required to be in attendance at this meeting. Should you have any questions whatsoever, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Petitioner took and failed the December 1990 FLEX examination. He contested his failing grade in a letter received by the Board on March 20, 1991. In his letter, he stated that he was a "Medical Doctor, Ps[y]chologist and Lawyer of Nicaragua" and he accused the Board of discriminating against him and infringing upon his civil rights. Petitioner's examination challenge was referred by the Board to the Division of Administrative Hearings, but was subsequently returned to the Board with the recommendation that the Board dismiss Petitioner's challenge. Petitioner's Application For Certification As A Physician Assistant On or about June 21, 1991, Petitioner filled out an Examination Application for Certification as a Physician Assistant (hereinafter referred to as the "Application"). He thereafter submitted the Application, along with a $400.00 application fee, to the Board. The Board received the Application and fee on June 24, 1991. On the first page of the Application, Petitioner indicated, among other things, that he had received his Doctor of Medicine and Surgery degree from the University on August 11, 1961. On the second page of the Application, Petitioner indicated that on July 1, 1990, his place of residence was Miami, Florida. He further indicated that he wished to be issued a temporary certificate. In response to the question on page 2 of the Application, "Did you attend a college or university," Petitioner answered "no." In response to the question on page 2 of the Application, "Did you receive a degree other than an M.D., to include undergraduate degree," Petitioner also answered "no." On pages 2 and 10 of the Application, Petitioner listed "all places of residence (where lived) during all periods of medical school" as follows: Leon, Leon Nicaragua from April 1, 1952 to January 30, 1958 Managua, Managua, Nicaragua from April 1, 1958 to Dec. 31, 1958 Miam[i], Florida from Feb. 24, 1990 to Nov. 20, 1990. February 24, 1990, to November 1990, was the period that Petitioner attended the University of Miami's Comprehensive Medical Review Program. Petitioner further indicated on pages 2 and 10 of the Application that had attended "medical school" at the Leon campus of the University from April 1, 1952, to January 30, 1958, at the Managua campus of the University from April 1, 1958, to December 31, 1958, and at the University of Miami School of Medicine from February 24, 1990, to November 20, 1990. On pages 2 and 3 of the application form, applicants were asked to provide information regarding their "Postgraduate Training" and "Practice Employment." They were instructed as follows: Account for all time from date of graduation from medical school to present. Do not leave out any time. Under "Postgraduate Training" applicants were requested to "[l]ist in chronological order from date of graduation to present date, all postgraduate training (Internship, Residency, Fellowship)." Petitioner indicated that he was in an internship program at the General Hospital of Managua from January 1, 1959, to December 31, 1959, a residency program at the Social Security Hospital of Managua from January 1, 1960, to December 31, 1960, and another residency program at the Mental Health Hospital in Managua from January 1, 1961, to December 31, 1961. Under "Practice Employment" applicants were requested to "[l]ist in chronological order from date of graduation to present date, all practice experience and/or employment." Petitioner indicated that from November 1, 1972, to February 20, 1988, he was the "Director of Familiar Medicine" at the "White Cross of Nicaragua" in Managua. He listed no other "practice experience and/or employment." On page 8 of the application form, applicants were asked to list their "clerkship(s)" and "all places of residence (where lived) during clerkship(s)." Petitioner indicated that he lived in Managua from January 1, 1959, to December 31, 1959, while in a University-supervised internship program at the General Hospital of Managua, that he lived in Managua from January 1, 1960, to December 31, 1960, while in a University-supervised residency program at the Social Security Hospital of Managua, that he lived in Managua from January 1, 1961 to December 31, 1961, while in a University-supervised residency program at the Mental Health Hospital, and that he lived in Managua from November 1, 1972, to December 20, 1988, while he was the "Director of Medicine Familiar" at the "White Cro[s]s of Nicaragua." On August 2, 1991, the Board's Physician Assistant Section (hereinafter referred to as the "Section") sent Petitioner a letter advising him that his Application was incomplete because he failed to submit the following: An accounting of your activities for the following period(s) of time: clerkships from 12/61 to 11/72, 2/88 to 12/88, 12/88 to 2/90, page 3 application practice employment 2/88 to present. page 2 application did you attend a college or university you marked NO explain. page 4 application question 8 you marked NO correct and resubmit. Petitioner responded to this letter by submitting to the Section an affidavit dated August 7, 1991, in which he stated the following: Page 2 application; I attend at the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua, UNAN. [University].- Leon and Managua, Nicaragua April 1, 52 to December 31, 58. Also I attend 5 years Universidad Centro- Americana, UCA [Central American University] degree Psichologist. Clerkships: from 12/61 to 11/72 own private medicine. From 2/88, 12/88 to 2/90, 2/88 to present: In E.U.; don't work in medicine. Question 8, page 4 application question: since I live in E.U. from 2/88 to present don't work in Medicine for do not have license of M.D. On August 26, 1991, the Section sent Petitioner a letter advising him that his Application was still incomplete. The letter further provided as follows: In your affidavit of August 7, 1991 (copy attached) you indicated that you attended Universidad Centro-Americana, UCA for 5 years and obtained a degree in Psichologist. Please submit diploma and transcripts and translations of transcripts, notarized as stated above, dates of attendance and where the university is located. Please resubmit pages 8 and 9 (attached) listing only core clerkships while attending medical school at Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua UNAN. Be specific with dates, location of hospital, institution or individual where clerkship was performed or supervised. List affiliate University/College. We need one additional acceptable source of documentation of Florida residency on July 1, 1990, notarized as stated above. It must verify residency covering the period of July 1, 1990. Please account for your activities for the following periods of time, listing in chronological order from date of graduation to present date, including all practice experience and/or employment or unemployment: From February 20, 1988 to present. Petitioner responded by letter dated August 29, 1991. In his letter, Petitioner argued that it was not necessary for him to provide any additional information regarding his psychology degree because such information was "impertinent or irrelevant." He further contended that he had "sufficiently explained" the "other points [in the Section's August 26, 1991] letter (2,3,4)." In addition, he invited the Section, if it wanted more detailed information about his past, to examine the materials in his physician licensure application file (hereinafter referred to as "File No. 88"). The Section followed Petitioner's suggestion and reviewed his File No. 88. Not having received any response to his August 29, 1991, letter, Petitioner, on September 23, 1991, sent the Section another letter complaining about the "harassment and intimidation" to which, according to him, he was being subjected by the Section. The Section, on October 15, 1991, wrote to Petitioner and advised him that he needed to do the following to complete his Application: In your affidavit of August 7, 1991 and in your "declaration" notarized on March 26, 1990, you stated that you had completed a Bachelors degree in Psychology; and stated that you attended Jesuit University in Nicaragua where you "finished the school of law." Please substantiate these statements with the appropriate documentation and dates of attendance. You have submitted a certificate issued December 15, 1989 from the Nicaraguan Board of Pharmacy indicating your registration in their books. Please send a notarized copy of the license and/or certificate required to prescribe drugs in Nicaragua. In your declaration of March 26, 1990, you state that you are enclosing several documents, none of which were enclosed. Among those documents was a "medical file of U.C. Davis (University of California, Davis) Medical Center of Sacremento of March 19, 1988." Please provide all reports of treatment and/or evaluation from the Medical Center of Sacremento to include diagnosis and prognosis. We need one additional source of information of Florida residency on July 1, 1990, notarized as stated above. It must verify residency covering the period of July 1, 1990. Please resubmit pages 8 and 9 (enclosed) listing only core clerkships and rotations while attending medical school at Universidad Autonoma de Nicaragua. Be specific with dates, location of hospital, institution or individual where the clerkships was performed or supervised. List affiliate University or College. You have failed to respond adequately to questions concerning your activities from the time of your graduation from medical school until the present time. On page 3 of the application form (enclosed) please complete the information under "practice experience" as instructed. List all practice experience and/or employment, including month, day and year of practice and/or employment. Do not leave out any period of time. Your application will not be considered complete until you have adequately explained your activities from graduation until the present. You have reported your date of entry into the United States as a Nicaraguan exile as: March 10, 1986; February 6, 1988; February 23, 1987; February 2, 1988 and March 10, 1988, in letters and affidavits prepared by you. Please explain these discrepancies. Also we have received two conflicting statements from the Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding your date of entry as an exile. It will be necessary for you to request an explanation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to clarify their conflicting documents. Petitioner responded by letter dated October 23, 1991. In his letter, he stated the following: I see you have my file 88 of the Board of Medicine. I am attempting to reconcile your accustomed hostility and for this reason I send you letter Nov. 21/90 of "full compliance from Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director, Florida Board of Medicine. Please, you think, think, think . . . and you don't contradict and the Board of Medicine and its Executive Director. For politeness I send you "personal documents" and I feel you are intimidateing to me or also You are inciteing to me at to lie. Documents: Letter Florida Board of Medicine 11/21/90 Original FPL's Bill Jul. Aug. -Ju Jul. -May. Jun., 90 Medical File of U.C. Davis . . . Sacramento . . . "PRIVATE" Two Verifications of Information from Migration . . . Below Signed for Richard B. Smith (on Yellow) District Director. - You don't have jurisdiction in this. (Abuse of authority). -Bachelors in Psychology and "finihes the school of law" degree is impertinent and irrelevant to Physician Assistant Section and all this in Nicaragua. -I have only certificate from the Nic. Board of Pharmacy. -Clerkship only General Hospital of Managua, Social Security Hospital, and Mental Health Hospital. After private medicine all time. You are harassing to me, intimidateing and abuseing of my civil rights and I will have to go at the Judge; You are having to me damage. 4/ On November 14, 1991, the Section sent Petitioner a letter advising him that his application was still incomplete and repeating the requests made in numbered paragraphs 1, 5, 6 and 7 of its October 15, 1991, letter to Petitioner. The letter, like the previous letters the Section had sent him, was unsigned. Petitioner responded by letter dated November 18, 1991, in which he stated the following: I have full my file by Physician Assistant and please, I don't want "nobody else" your anonymous letter, without signature and full of bureaucratic harassment. My rights I will debate it in the instance of Law that it concern. At the bottom of the letter, under Petitioner's signature, was a "Postscript," dated November 20, 1991, which read as follows: I send you fotocopy of Immigration and Naturalization service; "fast" you will have original from Immigration by mail. You don't have jurisdiction on matter of Immigration and your hostility is it "abuse of authority" and also is illegal. You infringe my civil rights. "We have to avoid the risorgimento of the Nazism and the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in all the sectors," this involve: Racialism, Prepotency, irrationality, intolerance, perversion, terrorism, intimidation . . . etc. and it is crime of hate (Law by crime of hate F.S. 1989) The Section next communicated with Petitioner by letter dated December 17, 1991. The letter advised Petitioner that he needed to do the following to complete his application: Translation of medical school diploma, prepared as instructed: The translation of the diploma is a copy and is not notarized as stated above; the translation does not indicate that it was done by a certified translator. Translations must be done by a certified translator and bear his seal or statement of certification. Please provide the translator with a copy of criteria for translation (enclosed). Translations or transcripts, prepared as instructed: The notary did not affix the seal to the translation of the transcripts. The translation is a copy and as such must be notarized as is stated above. On page 2 of the application under Medical Education your dates of attendance at the University of Nicaragua do not agree with your previous application, (exile file #88). PA Application: Med School: 4/1/52-1/30/58 Exile File #88: " " 4/1/52-1/30/53 and 4/1/58-1/30/59 Please clarify these discrepancies in affidavit form. Please resubmit pages 8 and 9 of the application to indicate your core clinical clerkships only. List specific date(s), type of rotation, and name and location of hospital, institution or individual where clerkship was performed or supervised. List affiliate University/College. An accounting of your activities for the following period(s) of time: 12/31/61 to 11/1/72. List all practice experience and/or employment, do not leave out any period of time. The Aids certificate submitted does not indicate AMA approved category I. Please submit proof of AMA Category I approved training, or request in affidavit form a 6 month extension in order to obtain AMA approved Category I course. Petitioner responded by affidavit dated December 31, 1991, to which he appended various documents, including a revised version of pages 8 and 9 of his Application as requested in numbered paragraph 4 of the Section's December 17, 1991, letter. In the affidavit, Petitioner stated the following: Translation of medical school diploma, prepared as instructed: notarized, the translation was done by a certified translator and it has or bear his seal and statement of certification. There are in Exile file No. 88 and my file for Certification as a Physician Assistant in each one, respective translation of the diploma "full criteria of law for translation." Translations was prepared by a Certified translator of Professional Traslating Services, Inc.- Suite 540, Courthouse Tower Building.- 44 West Flaguer Street.- Miami, Florida 33130 Phone: (305) 371-7887 I ask for please, send to me fotocopy of each one, file No. 88 and PA application, in order to delimitate responsibility. Translations of transcripts, prepared as instructed: The notary affixed the seal to the translation of the transcripts and it was notarized. Please, send to me fotocopy of each one, file No. 88 and PA application to delimitate responsibility. The discrepancies of dates under Medical Education of attendance at the University of Nicaragua was clarified on letter notarized January 19, 1990 in reply letter of December 1, 1989 by William R. Flynn, Senior Clerk, Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medicine, paragraph No. 1 file No. 88 (attached fotocopy) and affidavit of the 7th day of August, 1991 in reply your letter of the august 2, 1991 paragraph No. 1, that have your OK on the left margin (to see attached fotocopy). Confirmation Date: Med. School, April 1, 1952 to December 31, 1958.- Application Physician Assistant Section. These discrepancies are result of mistake in the transcription and dates and numbers at the remote time and distance and it was in opportune moment clarified. But it is more important to appoint that the application for certification as a Physician Assistant of the 21 day of June, 1991 page 2 and 10 they are with its correct dates and that your letter 12/17/91 paragraph 3 are free Objections I am incorporating as pages 3 and 4 in this affidavit the corresponding pages 8 and 9 of the application to indicate my core clinical clerkships; really this question was formulate with confused and ambiguous terms. My application is concrete and certain, page "8" application for certification as Physician Assistant. From 12/31/61 to 11/1/72 own private medicine; See affidavit of the 7th day of August, 1991, attached fotocopy. The AIDS certificate of Miami Dade Community Dade, Medical Center Campus for Allied Health Professions. Attached program; You will receive direct information of the Miami-Dade Community College Med. Center Campus. Petitioner, after receiving the Section's December 17, 1991, letter, also sent a letter to Vytas Urba, an assistant general counsel with the Department of Professional Regulation. In his letter, he accused the Section of acting with "madness and hatred" and claimed that he was the victim of a "conspiracy" to violate his civil rights that had resulted in damages of $99,999.99. By affidavit dated January 14, 1992, Petitioner requested that the Section give him a "6 month extension in order to obtain an AMA, AIDS certificate approved Category I course." Among the documents appended to the affidavit was a translation of his "Medical School Diploma." On January 28, 1992, the Section sent Petitioner a letter, which indicated that "the following [was] necessary to complete [his] application:" While you have stated on several occasions that you have not practiced medicine since arriving in the United States, you have not responded to questions regarding your activity or employment. It is not enough to merely state that you are not practicing medicine, you must account for your activities from 3/10/88 until the present. You have previously stated that you are a correspondent for Nicaraguan newspaper and radio station but have not substantiated this employment with any information. This will be the THIRD REQUEST for you to account for your activities from 3/10/88 until the present. Please complete the enclosed page 3 of the application as instructed. You must identify, by address and location the names of all employers, or state in affidavit form that you have not been employed in any way since 3/10/88. You have previously stated that in the period from 12/61 to 11/72 that you had a private practice in Managua. You have not identified what type of practice this was. What specialty, or field of medicine did you practice during this time. Your affidavit of 7 August 1991 states that you attended for 5 years the Universidad Centro-Americana, and that you received a degree of "Psichologist" from this school. Please provide the location of this school and the dates of your attendance. Your previous response that this information is "irrelevant" is not acceptable. You have voluntarily submitted this affidavit, which conflicts with other statements that you have made regarding your activities and you must verify the location of the school and dates of attendance. The translation of your diploma recently submitted is returned; this document is obviously a copy. Any copy must be notarized as is stated above. Your previous application does not contain a copy of this translation that is notarized as required. Please resubmit a translation of your diploma that is either an original document or properly notarized. The translation of your transcripts was also a copy that was not notarized however there was an acceptable copy in your previous application. With regard to HIV/AIDS training your request for a six month extension is accepted. The instructions provided with the application clearly state that this training must be AMA Category I approved training. This information should be requested of the provider prior to taking any HIV/AIDS course. You may enquire of Miami Dade Community College as to whether they are authorized to provide AMA Category I training. If they can provide you with verification of this course being AMA Category I approved, the training will be accepted upon receipt of this verification. Petitioner responded by affidavit dated February 10, 1992, in which he stated the following: There are in file No. 88 letter January 19, 90 . . . . notarized DOCUMENTS with my activities from 3/10/88 until the present, question 1 and the period from 12/61 to 11/72 my private practice in Managua, question 2 (attached); also affidavit 22th day of August, 1990 and notarized letter January 19, 1990 (attached fotocopy) over-marked on green. Next page I ratify and complement question number 1 and I state that in the period from 12/61 to 11/72 I practiced Familiar Medicine, question number 2. I attended for 5 years at the Universidad Centro-Americana, - from 1969 to 1972, this University in Managua, Nicaragua, C.A. (Re: question number 3). - Psichology School. I resubmit (THIRD TIME) my diploma notarized as required; please send me two previous documents submitted. I requested at the Florida Board of Medicine, Physician Assistant Section through Cecilia Abrahansem (Director) . . . to eliminate the unlawful monopoly with HIV/AIDS AMA Category I course. I am foreign journalist for "El Momento" Nicaraguan news agency, Radioperiodico El Momento, RADIO MUNDIAL, Managua, Nicaragua. This activity until the present. (From 1/30/88 to present) Among the documents appended to the affidavit was a revised version of page 3 of Petitioner's Application, which reflected, in addition to his previously disclosed employment with the "White Cross" as its "Director of Familiar Medicine" from November 11, 1972, to February 20, 1998, his employment as a "Foreign Journalist" with "El Momemto Nicaraguan news agency" from "1/30/88 To: the present." By letter dated June 4, 1992, Petitioner was directed to appear before the Physician Assistant Committee of the Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") at its June 12, 1992, meeting. Petitioner appeared before the Committee at its June 12, 1992, meeting as directed. Inasmuch as he has substantial difficulty understanding, and communicating effectively in, English, the Committee provided Petitioner with the services of an interpreter. Members of the Committee asked Petitioner various questions. The questions were asked in English and translated to Spanish, Petitioner's native language, by the interpreter. Petitioner responded in Spanish. The interpreter translated his responses to English for the benefit of the Committee. Asked when he had arrived in the United States, Petitioner responded, "March 10, 1988." He was then asked when he had last practiced medicine. His initial response was, "in Managua, Nicaragua." After the question was repeated, however, he answered, "before this time." In response to the question of whether he had had any exposure to the practice of medicine since his arrival in the United States, Petitioner stated, "never here in the States." Petitioner told the Committee, in response to their inquiry regarding the matter, that since his arrival in the United States he had been "a writer and a reporter." Petitioner responded in the affirmative when asked if his only exposure to medicine since he had been in the United States was the intensive review course he had taken at the University of Miami from February to November, 1990. Petitioner was asked whether he had gone to law school. After responding in the affirmative, he was asked when he had gone to law school. Petitioner answered that he was unable to give an "exact date," but it had been "about five years before he [had] left the country." He added that he had gone to law school at night. Asked whether he had received a law degree, Petitioner responded that he "couldn't" because it "wasn't possible . . . politically." At no time in responding to the Committee's questions or during any other phase of the application process did Petitioner knowingly provide false information or withhold pertinent information with the intent to mislead or deceive those evaluating his Application about his qualifications to be certified as a physician assistant. Any inaccuracies or omissions in the information he provided was the product of, not an intentional effort to defraud, but rather either inadvertence, carelessness, faulty or limited recall, misunderstanding, limited English language comprehension and communication skills, 5/ or a good faith belief that the information in question was not germane. After questioning Petitioner, the Committee voted to deny Petitioner's Application. On August 15, 1992, the Board issued a written order denying the Application on the following grounds: Your failure to submit a properly completed application. You have demonstrated a lack of good moral character based upon your testimony and inconsistent and evasive answers. The Board has also determined that based upon review of your application and documentation, and due to the extended length of time since you last worked in the field of medicine, and because of the length of time since any significant medical education or training has taken place, you have not established that you are currently able to practice as a physician assistant with reasonable skill and safety to the public. Petitioner's Other Activities Since His Arrival in the U.S. As he attempted to make clear during the application process, Petitioner has not engaged in the practice of medicine in the United States since his arrival in this country. He has studied medicine on his own, as well as performed medical- related research in connection with several books he has written, however. He has also done volunteer work for the Red Cross. Petitioner has continued to direct and administer from the United States the operations of the "White Cross" clinic. Recently, he has started to again visit the clinic on a fairly regular basis and treat patients. The first of these post-March 10, 1988, visits occurred sometime in 1992. Since 1988, Petitioner has not received any compensation for the work he has performed for the clinic. In addition to the foregoing activities, Petitioner has worked as a journalist since coming to the United States as he indicated on the revised version of page 3 of his Application. Petitioner has not lost the ability he demonstrated throughout his many years of practice in Nicaragua before immigrating to the United States to treat patients in a safe and effective manner. He is currently able to practice as a physician assistant with reasonable skill and safety to the public, notwithstanding that he may have had some difficulty in following the instructions he was given (in English) by the Section during the application process and providing the Section with the information he desired. 6/ Furthermore, Petitioner is of good moral character.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order certifying that Petitioner is eligible to take the examination for certification as a physician assistant pursuant to Section 458.347(7)(b), Florida Statutes, and granting him temporary certification pursuant to Section 458.347(7)(b)2., Florida Statutes, pending the results of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 3rd day of June, 1993. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1993.
The Issue The issue in these cases is whether certain rules proposed by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) related to adult interventional cardiovascular services are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation of the parties, all Petitioners and Intervenors in these cases are acute care hospitals licensed in Florida pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes; are substantially affected by the proposed rules at issue in these cases; and have standing to participate in this proceeding. AHCA is the state agency responsible for licensure of hospitals pursuant to Chapter 395, Florida Statutes, and responsible for promulgation of the proposed rules at issue in these cases. This dispute specifically involves proposed rules related to the licensure of adult cardiovascular services in Florida hospitals. Such services include percutaneous cardiac intervention (PCI), also referred to as percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PCTA). PCI involves the insertion of a device placed into an artery and directed to the site of a coronary artery blockage. The device is used to compress or remove the blockage material and restore arterial blood flow to heart tissue. A mechanism called a "stent" may be left in place at the site of the former blockage to reduce the potential for re-blockage ("restenosis") of the artery. The procedure is performed in a cardiac catheterization laboratory ("cath lab"). PCI that is performed on an emergency basis to open an arterial blockage causing myocardial infarction (heart attack) is referred to as "primary" or "emergent" PCI. PCI performed to resolve symptoms of coronary artery disease manifesting in presentations other than through myocardial infarction is referred to as "elective" PCI. Previous law restricted PCI services to those hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery (commonly referred to as "open heart" surgery). Hospitals are required to obtain a Certificate of Need (CON) from AHCA to operate a cardiac surgery program. Accordingly, in order to offer PCI services, a hospital was required to obtain a cardiac surgery program CON from AHCA. As cardiac catheterization procedures have become more widely available and physician training and experience have increased, the relative safety of the procedures has improved. The volume of open heart cardiac surgery has declined as the patient outcomes for non-surgical coronary artery disease treatments have improved, yet Florida hospitals seeking to provide PCI were still operating under the CON-based restrictions. There is an ongoing debate within the medical community related to the issue of whether non-emergent patients should receive PCI services at hospitals which lack cardiac surgery programs. The historic rationale for restricting the availability of elective PCI procedures to hospitals where onsite cardiac surgery was also available was related to the possibility that an unsuccessful PCI would require immediate resolution through surgery. The evidence establishes that PCI-related events requiring immediate access to onsite cardiac surgery have become less frequent, at least in part due to increased training and experience of practitioners, as well as an increased technical ability to resolve some events, such as arterial ruptures or perforations, within the cath lab. Nonetheless, there is also evidence that the outcomes of cardiac catheterization procedures performed in hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery may be superior to those performed in hospitals where onsite cardiac surgery is not available. In 2004, the Florida Legislature adopted two bills that, insofar as are relevant to this proceeding, had an impact on the regulatory process related to adult interventional cardiovascular services. The effect of the legislation was to shift the regulation of PCI programs away from CON-based restrictions and towards a licensing process. Both bills established a two-level classification of hospitals providing adult interventional cardiology services. House Bill 329 limited the provision of PCI at hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery to emergent patients and provided, in relevant part, as follows: In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult primary percutaneous cardiac intervention for emergent patients without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. (Emphasis supplied) Senate Bill 182 did not limit PCI services on the basis of onsite cardiac surgery availability and provided, in relevant part, as follows: Section 2. Notwithstanding conflicting provisions in House Bill 329, Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes, is amended to read: * * * In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. (Emphasis added) Both the House Bill and the Senate Bill were signed into law. The legislation was codified as Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2004), which provided, in relevant part, as follows: 408.0361 Cardiology services and burn unit licensure.-- * * * In establishing rules for adult interventional cardiology services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. Extensive evidence was offered at the hearing to support both sides of the debate regarding the appropriateness of performing elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery, and it is clear that the debate continues. However, the evidence establishes that the Florida Legislature specifically chose not to restrict non-emergent PCI to Florida hospitals with onsite cardiac surgery units and has determined that properly-licensed Florida hospitals may provide PCI services without regard to the availability of on-site cardiac surgery. It is reasonable to assume that had the Legislature intended to restrict provision of adult PCI in hospitals without cardiac surgery programs to emergent patients, the "notwithstanding" language contained in Senate Bill 182 would not have been adopted. There is no credible evidence that the Legislature was unaware of the continuing debate within the cardiology community at the time the legislation was adopted in 2004. The Legislature has acknowledged the distinction between emergent and elective PCI as indicated by Subsection 408.036(3)(o), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides under certain circumstances that a hospital without an approved "open heart surgery program" can obtain an exemption from CON requirements and provide emergent PCI services to "patients presenting with emergency myocardial infarctions." It is reasonable to assume that had the codification of the 2004 legislation been incorrect, the Florida Legislature would have subsequently amended the statute to reinstate the restriction. In fact, the Legislature has revised the referenced statute without substantively altering the relevant language establishing the two-level licensure designation. Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2008), the current statute directing AHCA to adopt the rules at issue in this proceeding, provides, in relevant part, as follows: 408.0361 Cardiovascular services and burn unit licensure.-- Each provider of diagnostic cardiac catheterization services shall comply with rules adopted by the agency that establish licensure standards governing the operation of adult inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization programs. The rules shall ensure that such programs: Comply with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiac Catheterization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories. Perform only adult inpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterization services and will not provide therapeutic cardiac catheterization or any other cardiology services. Maintain sufficient appropriate equipment and health care personnel to ensure quality and safety. Maintain appropriate times of operation and protocols to ensure availability and appropriate referrals in the event of emergencies. Demonstrate a plan to provide services to Medicaid and charity care patients. Each provider of adult cardiovascular services or operator of a burn unit shall comply with rules adopted by the agency that establish licensure standards that govern the provision of adult cardiovascular services or the operation of a burn unit. Such rules shall consider, at a minimum, staffing, equipment, physical plant, operating protocols, the provision of services to Medicaid and charity care patients, accreditation, licensure period and fees, and enforcement of minimum standards. The certificate-of-need rules for adult cardiovascular services and burn units in effect on June 30, 2004, are authorized pursuant to this subsection and shall remain in effect and shall be enforceable by the agency until the licensure rules are adopted. Existing providers and any provider with a notice of intent to grant a certificate of need or a final order of the agency granting a certificate of need for adult cardiovascular services or burn units shall be considered grandfathered and receive a license for their programs effective on the effective date of this act. The grandfathered licensure shall be for at least 3 years or until July 1, 2008, whichever is longer, but shall be required to meet licensure standards applicable to existing programs for every subsequent licensure period. In establishing rules for adult cardiovascular services, the agency shall include provisions that allow for: Establishment of two hospital program licensure levels: a Level I program authorizing the performance of adult percutaneous cardiac intervention without onsite cardiac surgery and a Level II program authorizing the performance of percutaneous cardiac intervention with onsite cardiac surgery. For a hospital seeking a Level I program, demonstration that, for the most recent 12-month period as reported to the agency, it has provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged or transferred at least 300 inpatients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease and that it has a formalized, written transfer agreement with a hospital that has a Level II program, including written transport protocols to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. For a hospital seeking a Level II program, demonstration that, for the most recent 12-month period as reported to the agency, it has performed a minimum of 1,100 adult inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations, of which at least 400 must be therapeutic catheterizations, or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged at least 800 patients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease. Compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Establishment of appropriate hours of operation and protocols to ensure availability and timely referral in the event of emergencies. Demonstration of a plan to provide services to Medicaid and charity care patients. In order to ensure continuity of available services, the holder of a certificate of need for a newly licensed hospital that meets the requirements of this subsection may apply for and shall be granted Level I program status regardless of whether rules relating to Level I programs have been adopted. To qualify for a Level I program under this subsection, a hospital seeking a Level I program must be a newly licensed hospital established pursuant to a certificate of need in a physical location previously licensed and operated as a hospital, the former hospital must have provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations for the most recent 12- month period as reported to the agency, and the newly licensed hospital must have a formalized, written transfer agreement with a hospital that has a Level II program, including written transport protocols to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. A hospital meeting the requirements of this subsection may apply for certification of Level I program status before taking possession of the physical location of the former hospital, and the effective date of Level I program status shall be concurrent with the effective date of the newly issued hospital license. (5)(a) The agency shall establish a technical advisory panel to develop procedures and standards for measuring outcomes of adult cardiovascular services. Members of the panel shall include representatives of the Florida Hospital Association, the Florida Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons, the Florida Chapter of the American College of Cardiology, and the Florida Chapter of the American Heart Association and others with experience in statistics and outcome measurement. Based on recommendations from the panel, the agency shall develop and adopt rules for the adult cardiovascular services that include at least the following: A risk adjustment procedure that accounts for the variations in severity and case mix found in hospitals in this state. Outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance in Level I and Level II adult cardiovascular services. Such standards may include, but shall not be limited to, in-hospital mortality, infection rates, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, length of stay, postoperative bleeds, and returns to surgery. Specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans. Hospitals licensed for Level I or Level II adult cardiovascular services shall participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons. As required by Subsection 408.0361(5), Florida Statutes (2004), AHCA created the TAP, which convened and met over the course of two years at a series of public hearings. The TAP also received written materials and comments from interested parties. Thereafter, AHCA convened rule development workshops to formulate the proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. The proposed rules were initially noticed in the September 28, 2007, Florida Administrative Weekly (Vol. 33, No. 39). Subsequent Notices of Changes to the proposed rules were published in the Florida Administrative Weeklies of November 16, 2007 (Vol. 33, No. 46); March 28, 2008 (Vol. 34, No. 13); and May 9, 2008 (Vol. 34, No. 19). There is no evidence that AHCA failed to comply with statutory requirements related to the rule adoption process. As required by Subsection 408.0361(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), the proposed rules set forth the procedures by which a hospital may apply for licensure as a Level I or Level II provider of adult cardiovascular services without differentiation based on the availability of on-site cardiac surgery. The proposed rules applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level I provider of adult cardiovascular services are set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16). The proposed rules applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level II provider of adult cardiovascular services are set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17). Subsection 408.0361(3)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), establishes minimum volume reporting requirements for licensure as a Level I program. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(16)(a) provides, in relevant part, as follows: 1. A hospital seeking a license for a Level I adult cardiovascular services program shall submit an application on a form provided by the Agency (See Form 1: Level I Adult Cardiovascular Services License Application Attestation; AHCA Form, Section 18(a) of this rule ), signed by the chief executive officer of the hospital, attesting that, for the most recent 12-month period, the hospital has provided a minimum of 300 adult inpatient and outpatient diagnostic cardiac catheterizations or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged or transferred at least 300 inpatients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (defined by ICD-9-CM codes 410.0 through 414.9). Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures are defined as single sessions with a patient in the hospital’s cardiac catheterization procedure room(s), irrespective of the number of specific procedures performed during the session. Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures shall be limited to those provided and billed for by the Level I licensure applicant and shall not include procedures performed at the hospital by physicians who have entered into block leases or joint venture agreements with the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) Subsection 408.0361(3)(c), Florida Statutes (2008), establishes minimum volume reporting requirements for licensure as a Level II program. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(a) provides in relevant part as follows: 1. A hospital seeking a license for a Level II adult cardiovascular services program shall submit an application on a form provided by the Agency (See Form 2: Level II Adult Cardiovascular Services License Application Attestation; AHCA Form , Section 18(b) of this rule ) to the Agency, signed by the chief executive officer of the hospital, attesting that, for the most recent 12-month period, the hospital has provided a minimum of a minimum of 1,100 adult inpatient and outpatient cardiac catheterizations, of which at least 400 must be therapeutic cardiac catheterizations, or, for the most recent 12-month period, has discharged at least 800 patients with the principal diagnosis of ischemic heart disease (defined by ICD-9-CM codes 410.0 through 414.9). a. Reportable cardiac catheterization procedures shall be limited to those provided and billed for by the Level II licensure applicant and shall not include procedures performed at the hospital by physicians who have entered into block leases or joint venture agreements with the applicant. (Emphasis supplied) St. Anthony's asserts that the proposed rule is invalid on the grounds that it fails to provide a clear and reasonable methodology for assessing and verifying the number of diagnostic catheterization procedures performed. St. Anthony's asserts that the exclusion of cardiac catheterization procedures performed within the hospital's cardiac cath lab but not billed by the hospital is arbitrary and capricious, modifies, enlarges, or contravenes the specific provisions of the statute implemented, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decision making, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The evidence fails to support these assertions. Although the phrase "block lease" is undefined by statute or rule, the evidence establishes that insofar as relevant to this proceeding, the term refers to a practice by which a group of cardiologists lease blocks of time from a hospital for exclusive use of a hospital's cardiac cath lab. St. Anthony's has a leasing arrangement with a group of cardiologists identified as the "Heart and Vascular Institute South" ("HAVI South") whereby St. Anthony's leases blocks of time in a cardiac cath lab to HAVI South cardiologists. The facility is located in a privately-owned medical office building physically attached to St. Anthony's hospital building. St. Anthony's leases the medical office building from a developer. HAVI South cardiologists perform cardiac catheterization procedures at the St. Anthony's facility during both leased and non-leased time. St. Anthony's provides personnel to staff the cardiac cath lab regardless of whether the procedure is performed during leased or non-leased time. The HAVI South cardiology group develops the schedule of cardiac catheterization procedures to be performed during the leased time and notifies St. Anthony's of the schedule. The HAVI South cardiology group bills for both their professional fees and the facility charges (referred to as the "technical component") for the cardiac catheterization procedures performed during leased time. St. Anthony's does not bill for cardiac catheterization procedures performed during the leased time. For the cardiac catheterization procedures performed during non-leased time, the HAVI South cardiology group bills for professional fees, and St. Anthony's bills for the technical component. Patricia Sizemore, vice-president for patient services at St. Anthony's, acknowledged that other hospitals could have block-leasing arrangements different from those existing between St. Anthony's and the HAVI South group. The proposed rules would preclude St. Anthony's from including the outpatient cardiac catheterization procedures done by HAVI South during the block-leased time within those procedures available to meet the numeric threshold requirements identified in the statute. The evidence fails to establish that the proposed rule fails to provide a clear and reasonable methodology for assessing and verifying the number of diagnostic catheterization procedures performed. The relevant language of Subsection 408.0361(3), Florida Statutes (2008), identifies the hospital as the applicant and requires that the applicant "provide" the procedures or discharges being reported to meet the specified volume thresholds. The applicable definition of hospital is set forth at Subsection 408.032(11), Florida Statutes (2008), which defines a hospital as a health care facility licensed under Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Subsection 395.002(12), Florida Statutes (2008), sets forth the following definition: (12) "Hospital" means any establishment that: Offers services more intensive than those required for room, board, personal services, and general nursing care, and offers facilities and beds for use beyond 24 hours by individuals requiring diagnosis, treatment, or care for illness, injury, deformity, infirmity, abnormality, disease, or pregnancy; and Regularly makes available at least clinical laboratory services, diagnostic X- ray services, and treatment facilities for surgery or obstetrical care, or other definitive medical treatment of similar extent, except that a critical access hospital, as defined in s. 408.07, shall not be required to make available treatment facilities for surgery, obstetrical care, or similar services as long as it maintains its critical access hospital designation and shall be required to make such facilities available only if it ceases to be designated as a critical access hospital. Physicians are not "hospitals" and are not licensed or regulated by Chapter 395, Florida Statutes. Physicians are not authorized to apply for licensure under the provisions of the statute and proposed rules at issue in this proceeding. Nothing in the statute suggests that entities other than hospitals may apply for licensure of a Level I or Level II adult cardiovascular services program. The rationale underlying the restriction of reportable procedures to those for which the applicant hospital issues bills for payment is based upon AHCA's reasonable intention to validate the procedure volume data submitted by applicant hospitals. Jeffrey Gregg, chief of AHCA's Bureau of Health Facility Regulation and CON Unit, testified that "the only practical, realistic way" for AHCA to routinely verify the accuracy of the procedure volume identified by a hospital's licensure application is through AHCA's ambulatory patient database. The reporting requirements for the ambulatory patient database are set forth at Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59B-9 and include elements such as demographic information, diagnosis codes, and charges. The database provides AHCA with access to patient record documentation and directly allows AHCA to verify the procedure volume identified in the licensure application. Because St. Anthony's has no charges related to the procedures performed by HAVI South cardiologists during the leased time, St. Anthony's has not reported procedures performed during leased time to the ambulatory patient database. St. Anthony's reports far more cardiac catheterization procedures to the local Suncoast Health Council than it does to AHCA's ambulatory patient database and asserts that AHCA could rely on health council data. AHCA has no organizational relationship with the local health council, and the evidence fails to establish that such data is as reliable as that collected by the ambulatory patient database. AHCA asserts that an additional basis to exclude procedures performed by entities other than the applicant hospital is that AHCA has no direct regulatory authority over the non-hospital entity. St. Anthony's asserts that AHCA would have its customary authority over the hospital and, by extension, over the third-party leasing the cardiac cath lab from the hospital. At best, AHCA's authority to obtain records from the non-hospital operator of the hospital's cardiac cath lab is unclear. St. Anthony's position effectively would permit a third-party operator to lease all of the time in a hospital's cardiac cath lab, yet allow the hospital to apply for and receive an adult cardiovascular service license. Nothing in Section 408.0361, Florida Statutes (2008), suggests that the Legislature intended to provide such an option. The proposed rule designating the reportable cardiac catheterization procedures is logical and rational, is not arbitrary or capricious, and does not modify, enlarge or contravene the specific provisions of the statute implemented. The evidence fails to establish that the designation of appropriately reportable cardiac catheterization procedures constitutes a failure to establish adequate standards for agency decision making or vests unbridled discretion in the agency. Subsection 408.0361(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the proposed rules include provisions "that allow for" compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and AHA guidelines for "staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety." Subsection 408.0361(5), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the TAP "develop procedures and standards for measuring outcomes" and that, based thereon, AHCA adopt rules that include a risk adjustment procedure that accounts for variations in severity and case mix, outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance, and "specific steps to be taken by the agency and the licensed hospitals" that fail to meet outcome standards. The statute also requires that licensed hospitals participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The TAP determined that the appropriate method of measuring outcome was to utilize the data available through the clinical outcome reporting systems referenced in the statute. Accordingly, Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a) identifies the guidelines applicable to Level I adult cardiovascular services; identifies the specific provisions of the guidelines with which a Level I hospital must comply; requires that the Level I hospital participate in the statutorily-identified data reporting system; and requires that Level I hospitals document a quality improvement plan to meet performance measures set forth by the data reporting system. The proposed rule provides, in relevant part, as follows: All providers of Level I adult cardiovascular services programs shall operate in compliance with subsection 59A- 3.2085(13), F.A.C., the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) guidelines regarding the operation of adult diagnostic cardiac catheterization laboratories and the provision of percutaneous coronary intervention. The applicable guidelines, herein incorporated by reference, are the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Aspects of the guideline related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. Aspects of the guideline related to the provision of elective percutaneous coronary intervention only in hospitals authorized to provide open heart surgery are not applicable to this rule. Hospitals are considered to be in compliance with the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) guidelines when they adhere to standards regarding staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Hospitals must also document an ongoing quality improvement plan to ensure that the cardiac catheterization program and the percutaneous coronary intervention program meet or exceed national quality and outcome benchmarks reported by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Level I adult cardiovascular service providers shall report to the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry in accordance with the timetables and procedures established by the Registry. All data shall be reported using the specific data elements, definitions and transmission format as set forth by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a) identifies the guidelines applicable to Level II adult cardiovascular services; identifies the specific provisions of the guidelines with which a Level II hospital must comply; requires that the Level II hospital participate in the statutorily-identified data reporting system; and requires that Level II hospitals document a quality improvement plan to meet performance measures set forth by the data reporting system. The proposed rule provides in relevant part as follows: All providers of Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall operate in compliance with subsections 59A-3.2085(13) and 59A-3.2085(16), F.A.C. and the applicable guidelines of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association regarding the operation of diagnostic cardiac catheterization laboratories, the provision of percutaneous coronary intervention and the provision of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The applicable guidelines, herein incorporated by reference, are the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; and ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Aspects of the guidelines related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. Hospitals are considered to be in compliance with the guidelines in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; and in the ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons when they adhere to standards regarding staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Hospitals must also document an ongoing quality improvement plan to ensure that the cardiac catheterization program, the percutaneous coronary intervention program and the cardiac surgical program meet or exceed national quality and outcome benchmarks reported by the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. In addition to the requirements set forth in subparagraph (16)(a)7. of this rule, each hospital licensed to provide Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. The Petitioners generally assert that the proposed rules insufficiently identify or establish the minimum standards identified as "guidelines" and "benchmarks" in the rule. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The guidelines are specifically identified and incorporated by reference within the rule. There is no evidence that the documents identified do not constitute the "most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association" as required by the statute. Hospitals are not obligated to meet all of the requirements set forth in the guidelines. A licensed hospital is deemed to be in compliance when, as specified in the statute, the hospital adheres to the standards related to staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. The Petitioners generally assert that such distinctions between the various compliance elements are unclear. The evidence fails to support the assertion. There is no credible evidence that the guidelines, albeit technical and complex, are not commonly understood by appropriate medical practitioners and hospital administrators. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)5. is vague on grounds that it requires Level I hospitals to operate in compliance with the referenced guidelines while Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. authorizes provision of elective PCI at Level I hospitals. Martin Memorial further asserts that because the proposed rules provide for elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgical programs, the proposed rules enlarge, modify or contravene the enacting statute. Subsection 408.0361(3)(d), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that AHCA include "provisions that allow for" the following: Compliance with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. (Emphasis supplied) Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. provides as follows: Notwithstanding guidelines to the contrary in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214 and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), all providers of Level I adult cardiovascular services programs may provide emergency and elective percutaneous coronary intervention procedures. Aspects of the guidelines related to pediatric services or outpatient cardiac catheterization in freestanding non-hospital settings are not applicable to this rule. (Emphasis supplied) Martin Memorial's disagreement with the proposed rule is premised on the following statement in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update: Elective PCI should not be performed at institutions that do not provide onsite cardiac surgery. (Level of Evidence: C) The statement is contained within subsection 4.3 ("Role of Onsite Cardiac Surgical Backup") within Section 4 ("Institutional and Operator Competency"). The statement is defined as a "Class III" standard, meaning within the "conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful." According to the "Level of Evidence: C" identification, the statement reflects "consensus opinion of experts, case studies, or standard of care." A footnote to the statement provides as follows: Several centers have reported satisfactory results based on careful case selection with well-defined arrangements for immediate transfer to a surgical program (citation omitted). A small but real fraction of patients undergoing elective PCI will experience a life-threatening complication that could be managed with the immediate onsite availability of cardiac surgical support but cannot be managed effectively by urgent transfer. Wennberg, et al., found higher mortality in the Medicare database for patients undergoing elective PCI in institutions without onsite cardiac surgery (citation omitted). This recommendation may be subject to revision as clinical data and experience increase. The guidelines are statements of "best practices" in health care delivery. They are intended to assist practitioners and facility administrators in making appropriate decisions. The cited statement neither prohibits nor requires performance of elective PCI in hospitals without onsite cardiac surgical programs. Whether a practitioner performs elective PCI in a licensed Level I hospital remains a medical decision under the provisions of the enacting statute and proposed rules. The footnote recognizes that elective PCI is available at some hospitals without onsite cardiac surgery through "careful case selection with well-defined arrangements for immediate transfer to a surgical program." The proposed rule specifically establishes staff and transfer requirements designed to facilitate rapid transfer of a patient from a Level I to a Level II facility. There is no evidence that such staff and transfer requirements are insufficient or otherwise inappropriate. Patient selection criteria are those which expressly identify clinical presentations of patients who are appropriate for revascularization through PCI. Section 5 of the referenced ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update, titled "Clinical Presentations" explicitly addresses such criteria and constitutes the patient selection criteria contained within the document. The patient selection criteria do not regulate the location where PCI procedures are performed. As stated previously, the Florida Legislature, presented with the option of limiting the availability of cardiac catheterization services available at Level I hospitals to emergent patients, rejected the limitation. The evidence fails to establish that Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)5. is vague or that Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)9. enlarges, modifies or contravenes the enacting statute. Martin Memorial and St. Anthony's assert that the proposed rule contravenes Subsection 408.0361(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), which provides that AHCA adopt rules that include "at least the following" elements: A risk adjustment procedure that accounts for the variations in severity and case mix found in hospitals in this state. Outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance in Level I and Level II adult cardiovascular services. Such standards may include, but shall not be limited to, in-hospital mortality, infection rates, nonfatal myocardial infarctions, length of stay, postoperative bleeds, and returns to surgery. Specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans. The TAP recommended to AHCA that existing outcome data reporting systems created by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons be utilized for data collection related to licensed hospital adult cardiovascular services programs. Subsection 408.0361(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), requires that hospitals licensed under the proposed rules participate in clinical reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. The requirement was adopted by the 2007 Legislature based on the TAP recommendation. Proposed Rule 51A-3.2085(16)(a)8. requires licensed Level I hospitals to participate in the American College of Cardiology-National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC-NCDR) and sets forth additional directives related to such participation. The ACC-NCDR system is a risk adjusted outcome reporting system that accounts for variation in severity and case mix. It collects approximately 200 data elements and is in use in approximately 2,000 hospitals. Proposed Rule 51A-3.2085(17)(a)6. directs licensed Level II hospitals to participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database (STS database) and sets forth additional requirements related to such participation. The STS database provides information generally similar to the ACC-NCDR database. Although Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)5. states that the Level II hospital must meet or exceed the performance standards identified within the ACC-NCDR, there appears to be no specific requirement in the proposed rules that a Level II hospital participate in the ACC-NCDR system. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)6. contains a citation to Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085 (16)(a)7. The cited paragraph consists of text that is similar to the paragraph preceding the citation. The intent of the reference is unclear. If the reference were intended to incorporate the ACC- NCDR reporting requirements with those applicable to Level II hospitals, the citation in Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)6. should have been to Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)8., where the ACC-NCDR requirements are identified. In any event, the statute requires participation by licensed hospitals in the reporting systems, and, as stated previously, Level II hospitals must document plans to ensure that the cited standards are met; so, it is logical to presume that Level II hospitals will participate in the ACC-NCDR system, in addition to the STS database. Martin Memorial and St. Anthony's assert that the proposed rule does not include the "outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance" required by Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), and that the proposed rules fail to identify the "national quality and outcome benchmarks" referenced therein. The evidence fails to support the assertions. 93. Proposed Rules 59A-3.2085(16)(a)7. and 59A- 3.2085(17)(a)5. require that each licensed hospital must document a "quality improvement plan to ensure" that the specified cardiac services meet or exceed "national quality and outcome benchmarks" reported by the ACC-NCDR and the STS databases. The word "benchmark" is not defined by statute or rule. Merriam Webster's dictionary defines "benchmark" as "a point of reference from which measurements may be made" or "something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured or judged." The evidence establishes that the "national quality and outcome benchmarks" referenced in the proposed rules are the "expected levels of performance" identified through the ACC-NCDR system. Each hospital participating in the ACC-NCDR system receives a detailed quarterly outcome report indicating the particular hospital's performance relative to all other reporting hospitals on a variety of elements associated with cardiac catheterization and PCI provided at the hospital. Accompanying each periodic report is an "Executive Summary" that identifies the relative performance of the hospital receiving the report on ten specific "PCI and Diagnostic Catheterization Performance Measures," including six "PCI Quality Measures," two "PCI Utilization Measures," and two "Diagnostic Quality Measures." The Executive Summary information visually displays the data through a set of "box and whisker plots" that present the range of data reported by all participating hospitals on each specific measure. The summary received by each hospital identifies its specific performance through an "arrow" and numeric data printed on the plot. The plot visually displays "lagging" and "leading" performance levels. The plot identifies hospitals performing below the tenth percentile of all participating hospitals as "lagging" hospitals. The plot identifies hospitals performing above the 90th percentile as "leading" hospitals. The evidence, including review of the ACC-NCDR data reporting system, establishes that the "expected levels of performance" are rationally those levels within the broad range of hospitals which are neither "leading" nor "lagging" according to the data. It is reasonable to assume that a "leading" hospital is performing at a level higher than expected and that a "lagging" hospital is performing at a level lower than expected. By reviewing the plot for each measure, a hospital can determine its performance relative to other participating hospitals on the ten measures included in the Executive Summary. The additional numeric data contained within the quarterly report permit additional comparison between an individual hospital and all other participating hospitals. Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)2., Florida Statutes (2008), does not require that AHCA establish numeric minimal standards, but only requires that the rule identify "outcome standards specifying expected levels of performance." The ACC-NCDR reporting system required by the statute and adopted by the proposed rules sufficiently identifies expected levels of performance. By their very nature, the outcome standards are not fixed. It is reasonable to presume that as hospital practices change, measurements of relative performance will also change. The rule requires only that each licensed hospital include within a quality improvement plan, documentation to ensure that such outcome standards will be met or exceeded, essentially encouraging a pattern of continual improvement by licensed programs. Subsection 408.0361(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2008), requires that the rule include the "specific steps to be taken by the agency and licensed hospitals that do not meet the outcome standards within specified time periods, including time periods for detailed case reviews and development and implementation of corrective action plans." The proposed rule complies with the requirements of the statute. Enforcement of outcome standards requirements applicable to Level I programs is addressed at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(f) which provides as follows: Enforcement of these rules shall follow procedures established in Rule 59A-3.253, F.A.C. Unless in the view of the Agency there is a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients, Level I adult cardiovascular services programs that fail to meet provisions of this rule shall be given 15 days to develop a plan of correction that must be accepted by the Agency. Failure of the hospital with a Level I adult cardiovascular services program to make improvements specified in the plan of correction shall result in the revocation of the program license. The hospital may offer evidence of mitigation and such evidence could result in a lesser sanction. Enforcement of outcome standards requirements applicable to Level II programs is addressed at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(e), which provides as follows: Enforcement of these rules shall follow procedures established in Rule 59A-3.253, F.A.C. Unless in the view of the Agency there is a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients, Level II adult cardiovascular services programs that fail to meet provisions of this rule shall be given 15 days to develop a plan of correction that must be accepted by the Agency. Failure of the hospital with a Level II adult cardiovascular services program to make improvements specified in the plan of correction shall result in the revocation of the program license. The hospital may offer evidence of mitigation and such evidence could result in a lesser sanction. AHCA does not routinely conduct surveys of accredited hospitals. Such surveys are conducted by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO). AHCA generally conducts hospital surveys only during the investigation, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-3.253(8), of a complaint filed against a hospital. AHCA would likely review ACC-NCDR and Society of Thoracic Surgeons data reports associated with the investigation of a specific complaint related to adult cardiovascular services. Assuming that AHCA's review of the data identified a deficiency, the proposed rules provide the licensee a 15-day period to develop a plan of correction acceptable to AHCA, unless the issue poses "a threat to the health, safety or welfare of patients" in which case it is reasonable to expect that a more prompt resolution of a deficiency would be required. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A- 3.253, a hospital could be sanctioned for failing to submit a plan of correction related to an identified deficiency, or for failing to implement actions to correct deficiencies specified in an approved plan of correction. There is no evidence that AHCA's enforcement authority under the proposed rules differs in any significant manner from the general enforcement authority already available to the agency. There is no evidence that the proposed rules would result in any alteration of AHCA's investigative practices. Martin Memorial notes that, while the proposed rule provides a 15-day period for development of a plan of correction, AHCA's general enforcement rules already provide a ten-day period and asserts that the proposed rule is therefore inconsistent, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in the agency. The specific time period set forth in the proposed rule is clearly applicable, and there is no credible evidence of legitimate confusion in this regard. AHCA has suggested that "lagging" hospitals could be specifically regarded as failing to meet the outcome benchmarks identified in the ACC-NCDR data, but the proposed rule makes no specific reference to any systematic classification of hospital performance, and the statute does not require that a minimal performance level be established. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(a)6. is capricious because it requires that "each hospital licensed to provide Level II adult cardiovascular services programs shall participate in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database," but only physicians can participate in the database. The enacting statute requires such participation. Subsection 408.0361(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2008), directs AHCA to adopt rules that require Level I or Level II licensed hospitals to "participate in clinical outcome reporting systems operated by the American College of Cardiology and the Society for Thoracic Surgeons." The proposed rule clearly implements the directive established by the statute. There is no credible evidence that the proposed rule is irrational or that a licensed Level II hospital would be unable to meet the obligations of the rule by requiring that its thoracic surgeons participate in the STS database. Martin Memorial asserts that the requirement that an applicant hospital's chief executive officer attest to compliance with certain guidelines is vague because "it is unclear what guidelines apply and what guidelines will not." The evidence fails to support the assertion. The referenced requirement applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level I facility is set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)2., which provides as follows: The request [for licensure] shall attest to the hospital’s intent and ability to comply with the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-214; and the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention); including guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. The referenced requirement applicable to a hospital seeking licensure as a Level II facility is set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a)2., which provides as follows: The request [for licensure] shall attest to the hospital’s intent and ability to comply with applicable guidelines in the American College of Cardiology/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory Standards: Bashore et al, ACC/SCA&I Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Catheterization Laboratory Standards, JACC Vol. 37, No. 8, June 2001: 2170-2; in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention); and in the ACC/AHA 2004 Guideline Update for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, including guidelines for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(a)6. designates the guidelines applicable to the operation of Level I hospital services. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(a) designates the guidelines applicable to the operation of Level II hospital services. The specific elements of the referenced guidelines are identified in both the statute and the proposed rules. Martin Memorial asserts that the proposed rule is vague as to training requirements applicable for physicians performing elective PCI in Level I hospitals. In making the assertion, Martin Memorial references training requirements established at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b)2. and applicable to Level I physicians performing emergent PCI with less than 12 months experience. There is no credible evidence that the proposed rule is vague. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b), in relevant part, provides as follows: Each cardiologist shall be an experienced physician who has performed a minimum of 75 interventional cardiology procedures, exclusive of fellowship training and within the previous 12 months from the date of the Level I adult cardiovascular licensure application or renewal application. Physicians with less than 12 months experience shall fulfill applicable training requirements in the ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) prior to being allowed to perform emergency percutaneous coronary interventions in a hospital that is not licensed for a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. The rule provides that a physician with less than 12 months experience working in a Level I facility can perform emergent PCI only if applicable training requirements have been met. The proposed rule does not authorize performance of elective PCI in a Level I hospital by a physician not meeting the minimum annual procedure volume requirements. Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(b) clearly identifies the requirements applicable to Level II physicians and in relevant part provides as follows: Each cardiac surgeon shall be Board certified. New surgeons shall be Board certified within 4 years after completion of their fellowship. Experienced surgeons with greater than 10 years experience shall document that their training and experience preceded the availability of Board certification. Each cardiologist shall be an experienced physician who has performed a minimum of 75 interventional cardiology procedures, exclusive of fellowship training and within the previous 12 months from the date of the Level II adult cardiovascular licensure application or renewal application. Martin Memorial asserts that the experience requirements set forth at Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(b)3. (related to Level I hospitals) and Proposed Rule 59A- 3.2085(17)(b)3. (related to Level II hospitals) are arbitrary or capricious. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The text of both proposed rules provides as follows: The nursing and technical catheterization laboratory staff shall be experienced in handling acutely ill patients requiring intervention or balloon pump. Each member of the nursing and technical catheterization laboratory staff shall have at least 500 hours of previous experience in dedicated cardiac interventional laboratories at a hospital with a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. They shall be skilled in all aspects of interventional cardiology equipment, and must participate in a 24-hour-per-day, 365 day-per-year call schedule. Martin Memorial argues that there is no evidence to suggest that 500 hours of experience indicates that appropriate competency levels has been achieved. The evidence establishes that the required experience level was developed by AHCA's hospital licensure unit staff and is the training level currently applicable for hospitals providing emergency PCI services under existing exemptions from CON requirements. The training requirements are not arbitrary or capricious. Martin Memorial asserts that the Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(c)1. is arbitrary or capricious. The cited rule requires that a Level I hospital make provisions for the transfer of an emergent patient to a Level II hospital, as follows: A hospital provider of Level I adult cardiovascular services program must ensure it has systems in place for the emergent transfer of patients with intra-aortic balloon pump support to one or more hospitals licensed to operate a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. Formalized written transfer agreements developed specifically for emergency PCI patients must be developed with a hospital that operates a Level II adult cardiovascular services program. Written transport protocols must be in place to ensure safe and efficient transfer of a patient within 60 minutes. Transfer time is defined as the number of minutes between the recognition of an emergency as noted in the hospital’s internal log and the patient’s arrival at the receiving hospital. Transfer and transport agreements must be reviewed and tested at least every 3 months, with appropriate documentation maintained. Martin Memorial asserts that the rule is arbitrary or capricious because it does not include a requirement that a Level I hospital make provisions for the transfer of an elective patient to a Level II hospital. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. There is no evidence that a patient undergoing elective PCI at a Level I would not be regarded as an emergent patient were circumstances such that an emergent transfer to a Level II hospital warranted. There is no credible evidence to suggest a rationale for transferring a non-emergent patient from a Level I to a Level II hospital. Martin Memorial asserts that the proposed rule enlarges, modifies or contravenes the enacting statute on grounds that, although AHCA is directed to adopt rules to ensure compliance "with the most recent guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiac Catheterization and Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories," the proposed rule provides that "in case of conflicts between the provisions of this rule and the designated guidelines" the rule provisions "shall prevail." Such provisions appear in Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(13)(j), Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(16)(g), and Proposed Rule 59A-3.2085(17)(f). The enacting statute requires that hospitals licensed under the provisions of the proposed rules comply with guidelines "for staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety." To the extent that guidelines that relate to elements other than "staffing, physician training and experience, operating procedures, equipment, physical plant, and patient selection criteria to ensure patient quality and safety," the enacting statute does not require compliance by properly- licensed Florida hospitals. Other than as addressed elsewhere herein, the evidence fails to identify any specific conflicts between the guidelines and the proposed rules and, accordingly, fails to establish that the cited proposed rules enlarge, modify or contravene the enacting statute.
Findings Of Fact The application of Petitioner, John David Young, M.D., for licensure by endorsement initially was filed on March 13, 1991. The initial application was not completed within one year and, under F.A.C. Rule 61F6-22.016, was not acted upon by the Board of Medicine. The Petitioner reapplied on September 1, 1992, and his application was denied by Respondent's Order rendered on November 4, 1993. The basis of denial stated in the November 4, 1993, Order is: You failed to show a medical education as that term is used in Chapter 458 in Sections 458.313(1)(a) and 458.311(1)(f) and have failed to show medical practice as required by Section 458.313(1)(c). Additionally, you have misrepresented your education. Sections 458.313(1)(a) and (7); 458.311(1)(c) and (d); 458.331(1)(a) and (gg), F.S. Medical Education Dr. Young received his Doctorate of Medicine Degree from Grace University School of Medicine, St. Kitts, Nevis, West Indies, June 4, 1986. Grace University is registered with the World Health Organization. Dr. Young began his medical education on May 5, 1981, at the Universidad de Mundial, Dominican Republic, where he completed one year as reflected by the transcripts found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 195. Dr. Young transferred to CETEC, Dominican Republic, because of his concerns that Universidad de Mundial would close within a few years. The transfer to CETEC occurred in late December, 1981. CETEC allowed Dr. Young to take pathology and physiology at the University of Southern California on the condition that CETEC would administer exams on those subjects before they would give him credit. The University of Southern California did not give credit for the courses, which was not a concern to Dr. Young because he was seeking credit from CETEC upon taking the CETEC examination. CETEC attempted to establish a liaison with Orange State University School of Medicine in Southern California whereby students could take courses at Orange State and receive credit by CETEC. Dr. Young completed his basic science course work at Orange State as reflected by the transcript at Joint Exhibit 1, page 193, for which CETEC gave him credit. Melvin A. Shiffman, M.D., was temporary dean at Orange State University and submitted a letter to the Board of Medicine confirming Dr. Young's attendance from May through August, 1982, and that Dr. Young took the CETEC final examinations on all the subjects taught at Orange State for which they gave credit. Dr. Young began his clinical rotations upon completion of his basic sciences as follows: Basic Medicine at Pine Ridge Indian Health Hospital, Pine Ridge, South Dakota, from August 31, 1982 to September 30, 1982; surgery at Oral Roberts University School of Medicine from October 4, 1982 to December 22, 1982; surgery at Fitkin Hospital, Swaziliand, South Africa, in 1983; basic medicine at Pine Ridge Indian Hospital, Pine Ridge, South Dakota, from April 18, 1983 to May 29, 1983. While at Pine Ridge Indian Hospital the second time, Dr. Young was asked to leave by the acting hospital administrator, on the allegation that he was attending CETEC, which was not an approved school, which in fact it was. In shock at being asked to leave based on those allegations, Dr. Young travelled to Kansas City to stay with relatives to study for the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) examination required for all foreign medical graduates. The Petitioner took and passed the ECFMG examination on July 27, 1983. Upon completion of the examination, Dr. Young continued his clinical rotations as follows: Psychiatry at Bay Front Medical Center, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, Florida; medicine at University of Natal, Republic of South Africa, from September 26, 1983 to January 1, 1984; obstetrics/gynecology at Addington Hospital, University of Natal, Republic of South Africa, from January 3, 1984 to March 4, 1984; pediatrics from March 12 to May 13, 1984 at Addington Hospital; University of Natal; and surgery from May 13, 1984 to July 16, 1984 at Addington Hospital, University of Natal. In late May or early June, 1984, while Dr. Young was in the surgery rotation, he learned, upon calling home and speaking to his mother, that CETEC closed as of March 4, 1984. Dr. Young was shocked at learning of the closing, but decided to complete the surgery rotation, since he was working with a well known professor, and to return to the U.S. after that to try to find another medical school. Dr. Young registered at the University of Health Science in Antigua in September, 1984. The University of Health Science required Dr. Young to take their exams for credit of his basic sciences course work, which he took in December, 1984. Because the transcripts from CETEC were not available, Dr. Young produced to the University of Health Sciences cancelled checks showing payment for his tuition, which was accepted. The University of Health Sciences, therefore, required Dr. Young to pass their examinations for the basic science courses in lieu of the CETEC transcript. Dr. Young found the exams to be suspicious in that they seemed to be random photocopies of medical text book pages. Accordingly, Dr. Young went to the U.S. Embassy at Antigua to discuss the medical school and was advised to change schools because of problems they were having with the school. Dr. Young learned later that 30 former students filed suit in federal court against the school for the irregularities. Upon completion of the examinations, Dr. Young continued his rotations. He did a rotation in cardiology at Bay Pines Veterans Hospital, St. Petersburg, Florida from December 18, 1984 to January 31, 1985. He did a rotation in internal medicine at Metropolitan General Hospital, Pinellas Park, Florida from February 1, 1985 to April 30, 1985. He did a rotation in pediatrics with Dr. DeGall at All Childrens Office in St. Petersburg, Florida from May 1 to July 29, 1985. Dr. Young then enrolled in Grace University Medical School, St. Kitts, Nevis, West Indies, in December, 1985. Grace University gave Dr. Young credit for course work done for previous medical schools approved by the World Health Organization, but told him that he would be required to take validation exams for that course work and would probably need to take some additional clerkships. This was explained to the Board of Medicine by the Vice President and CEO of Grace University, J.P. McNaughton-Louden, M.D., by letter dated February 20, 1991, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 103. In that letter, Dr. Louden also confirms that CETEC was approved by the World Health Organization, that CETEC closed while Dr. Young was taking rotations in South Africa, that students at University of Health Sciences in Antigua were advised by the U.S. Consul authorities to transfer because of problems, that Dr. Young would be given credit for studies done at medical schools approved by the World Health Organizations co-validated by examinations at Grace University, and that Dr. Young's clerkships had been accepted and that he graduated on June 4, 1986. The transcripts of Grace University found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 104, shows that Dr. Young was admitted in March, 1984, even though his actual enrollment was December, 1985, because the school dated the admission retroactively to the date that CETEC closed. Dr. Young listed what he considered to be his accurate date of enrollment on his application for licensure as December 21, 1985. Dr. Young did the following additional rotations for Grace University: pediatrics with Dr. DeGall in St. Petersburg, from December 29, 1985 to February 26, 1985; and general medicine and emergency medicine at a refugee camp under the auspices of the United States and Christian Missionary Life from March 3 to April 30, 1985. FLEX Exam Dr. Young took and passed the Federation of State Medical Boards' Licensing Examination (known as "FLEX") on the first attempt in December, 1988. Residency 21 Dr. Young completed one year of residency in internal medicine at Marshall University on January 31, 1989. Maurice A. Mufson, M.D., Dr. Young's professor and Chairman of the Department of Internal Medicine, submitted an evaluation of the residency to the Board of Medicine recommending him as qualified and competent. After completion of the one year residency in internal medicine, Dr. Young realized that in order to fulfill his desire to practice missionary medicine, he would need a broader education. Accordingly, he changed his residency to family practice. Marshall University gave Dr. Young seven months credit from his one year of internal medicine residency towards his family practice residency which was completed in June, 1991. Robert B. Walker, M.D., Dr. Young's professor and Chairman of the Department of Family and Community Health, submitted to the Board of Medicine and evaluation of Dr. Young's family practice residency recommending him as qualified and competent. The AMA physician profile on Dr. Young, submitted to the Board of Medicine by the AMA, shows that Dr. Young completed the family practice residency and one year of internal medicine residency. However, the AMA profile mistakenly shows Dr. Young's internal medicine residency as from 2/87 to 1/88, instead of the accurate dates of 2/88 to 1/89. Dr. Young brought this error to the attention of the AMA which did not correct it. Letters recommending Dr. Young for licensure were sent to the Board of Medicine by: Stephen Petrany, M.D., Dr. Young's former Director of the Family Medicine Residency at Marshall University; and Jack Ditty, M.D., a Board certified dermatologist in Kentucky who was adjunct professor at University of Kentucky and Marshall University (who writes that Dr. Young is of high moral character and has knowledge and experience which would be necessary to practice medicine in Florida.) Post-Residency After completion of his residency in 1991, Dr. Young became licensed to practice medicine in West Virginia. Since his licensure, there have been no complaints or probable cause determinations made against his license, and no malpractice claims have been filed against him. Since completion of his residency, he has served as Assistant Professor of Clinical Medicine at the University of West Virginia and as Adjunct Professor of Medicine at Marshall University School of Medicine. He also has worked as a ship's doctor for a cruise line, worked as Assistant Professor of Medicine at University of West Virginia, moonlighted as an emergency room doctor in Beckley, West Virginia, lectured extensively in the Republic of South Africa on sexually transmitted diseases, and has worked as an emergency room doctor for the U.S. Military in Arizona. ECFMG Certification The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) verifies the medical education of each person to whom it awards a certificate following passage of its examination. The ECFMG's investigation of Dr. Young's medical education took several years, because of allegations involving a Mr. Pedro de Mesones falsifying information from some medical schools in the Dominican Republic, including CETEC, on behalf of some applicants to various state medical boards. Dr. Young never met nor spoke with Pedro de Mesones nor was he involved with him in any way. The ECFMG advised Dr. Young of this investigation by letter dated June 7, 1984, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 167. Further complicating the ECFMG investigation of Dr. Young's medical education was the closing of CETEC. The Dominican Republic government established an agency known as CONES to assist in getting transcripts of students who attended CETEC. Dr. Young wrote to CONES in an attempt to obtain his CETEC transcript from CONES. Even though Dr. Young was unable to obtain transcripts of CETEC from CONES, ECFMG verified all of Dr. Young's medical education, clinical rotations, and residency. The ECFMG investigation of Dr. Young's medical education concluded with no irregularities in his credentials having been found. The ECFMG issued its certificate to Dr. Young on October 13, 1987; it is valid indefinitely. Specialty Board Certification Dr. Young is certified as a diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice for the period of 1992 - 1999. The certificate from the American Board of Family Practice indicates: that Dr. Young met the requirements to be certified as a Diplomate of the Board; that he has completed a 3-year residency; and that the American Board verified Dr. Young's medical education and found it to be authentic. Board of Medicine Investigation As part of the routine investigation of Dr. Young's application for licensure filed with the Board of Medicine, the Board staff wrote to CONES requesting confirmation of the CETEC education and received a response dated March 6, 1992, by letter found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 87, stating that Dr. Young was not found on their lists and that they could not process the Board's request until they had Dr. Young's student registration number. However, an earlier certification by CONES dated May 12, 1987, found at Joint Exhibit 1, pages 9 and 10, shows that CONES did have Dr. Young's student identification number and had a file on him. Paul L. Allyn, M.D. also confirmed to the Board of Medicine by letter dated June 30, 1993, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 88, that Dr. Young did attend CETEC. The transcript of the Credentials Committee Meeting at Joint Exhibit 2 shows that the committee focused on the March 6, 1992, letter rather than the May 12, 1987, letter. The Board staff contacted the University of Health Sciences to confirm Dr. Young's attendance and received a letter from its President dated October 21, 1991, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 99. That letter states that Dr. Young did not receive credit for his previous medical education, that he attended the institution from September 19, 1984 to July 11, 1985, that he did not leave the institution in good standing, and that he was dismissed because he was unable to provide the school with official transcripts from the previous medical school he attended. Dr. Young had not seen that letter until a few months before hearing while reviewing the Board's file on him in preparation for the hearing. Dr. Young takes issue with the statements in the letter because the school did give him credit for the rotations he completed while enrolled at Universidad de Mundial and because he never had been told that he left the institution in poor standing. Dr. Young left the University upon advice of the U.S. Consulate in Antigua. The transcript of the Credentials Committee Meeting at Joint Exhibit 2 shows that the committee focused on this letter rather than Dr. Young's affidavits submitted with his application which contradict the letter. The Board obtained and reviewed the ECFMG file on Dr. Young in considering his application. In the ECFMG file at Joint Exhibit 1, page 230, is a letter to the ECFMG from John Casken, Quality Assurance Coordinator, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, dated May 15, 1985, relating to Dr. Young's second clinical rotation at Pine Ridge Indian Health Hospital in 1983. In the letter, Mr. Casken states: that a closer look at Dr. Young's credentials after he presented himself for the second time showed that he had basically no medical education; that Dr. Young was asked to leave; and that, had they known in 1982 when he appeared for his first rotation what they knew in 1983, they would not have taken on Dr. Young as a m edical student. Dr. Young first saw that letter a few months before the hearing while preparing for trial. Dr. Young disagrees with that letter in that the schools he was attending, Universidad de Mundial, and after that, CETEC, were both approved by the World Health Organization. Further, a letter written on April 18, 1985, by Leonard L. Finger, Hospital Administrative Officer, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, to the ECFMG, found at Joint Exhibit 1, page 231 , verifies Dr. Young's rotation without adverse comment. Further, the ECFMG found no problem with Dr. Young's education or with the rotations at Pine Ridge. The transcript of the Credentials Committee Meeting at Joint Exhibit 2 shows that the committee focused on Dr. Caskin's letter rather than Mr. Finger's letter and the fact that all of Dr. Young's medical schools were approved by the World Health Organization. Board of Medicine Practice and Policy The Board of Medicine has licensed individuals who have attended CETEC. The Board of Medicine and its staff rely upon the ECFMG certifications of applicants as verification of their education. The certification by the American Board of Family Practice complies with the requirement of Rule 61F6-22.004(2) and 61F6-22.018(3)(d). The ECFMG certificate complies with the requirements of Section 458.311(1)(f), (2), and (3), Florida Statutes; There is nothing in the rules of the Board or Chapter 458, and no Board policy or practice, which prohibits an applicant from going to more than one university or medical school, from going to more than one medical school and failing out of one, or from going to a school that later goes out of business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine, enter a final order granting the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of September, 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 30th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7146 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. Accepted and incorporated. 2.-4. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 5.-15. Accepted and incorporated. 16. The pediatrics rotation at Addington Hospital, University of Natal was from March 12 to May 13, 1984, and the surgery rotation was from May 13, 1984 to July 16, 1984. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 17.-30. Accepted and incorporated. 31.-37. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 38. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-4. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. First sentence, rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 7.-8. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 9.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, the lack of a credible Orange State transcript to support the Petitioner's testimony is more a reflection on Orange State's credibility than on the Petitioner's. Orange State was in existence for a short period of time, never was recognized by the State of California, and has been defunct for about ten years. It is understandable why the Petitioner has had difficulty getting a credible response from Orange State. The irregularities in the response from Orange State do not impugn the Petitioner's truthfulness in attempting to describe his unorthodox and circuitous medical education in his application for licensure. Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, it is even more understandable why the Petitioner has had difficulty getting a credible response from CETEC. As with Orange State, CETEC was closed about ten years ago. In the case of CETEC, which was in the Dominican Republic, the closing was under allegations of misconduct and fraud. Records were unavailable for a period of time while the government of the Dominican Republic investigated. Later, records were destroyed. As with Orange State, the irregularities in the response from CETEC do not impugn the Petitioner's truthfulness in attempting to describe his unorthodox and circuitous medical education in his application for licensure. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Respondent did not leave UHSA in good standing. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 14.-16. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Third and fourth sentences, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First two sentences, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 20.-21. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. The city in South Africa was Durban, not Durham. CETEC was the affiliate until it closed in March, 1994. The rest is accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted. The rest is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. 24.-25. Accepted and incorporated. 25. Accepted but unnecessary. (No such finding was made.) COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Watson Lambert, Esquire 2851 Remington Green Circle Suite C Tallahassee, Florida 32308-3749 Gregory A. Chaires Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section PL-01, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Marm Harris Executive Director Board of Medicine Northwood Centre 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
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, as well as the factual stipulations entered into by the parties, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida holding license number PN 0626161. At all times material hereto, Dr. Vladimir Rosenthal owned three clinics in Dade and Broward Counties at which he performed abortions. The clinics were located in Coral Gables (hereinafter referred to as the "Coral Gables clinic"), North Miami (hereinafter referred to as the "North Miami clinic") and Plantation (hereinafter referred to as the "Broward clinic"). All three clinics were licensed under Chapter 390, Florida Statutes. In September and October, 1989, Respondent was employed by Rosenthal and worked full-time as a licensed practical nurse in the North Miami clinic. During this period of time, she had no responsibilities with regard to the other two clinics owned by Rosenthal. Among Respondent's duties at the North Miami clinic during this time period was to prepare, under Rosenthal's direct supervision, packages of medications that Rosenthal gave to his patients, free of charge, to take home with them upon their discharge, a practice that Rosenthal has since discontinued. 6/ On September 30, 1989, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) conducted an on-site inspection at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was not present at the clinic during the inspection. Nor were there any patients at the clinic at the time. Approximately 50 small manilla envelopes containing multiple doses of medications were found in a drawer of a desk in the clinic. The envelopes were labeled to the extent that they indicated the name of the drugs they contained, but they did not provide any information regarding the lot number, expiration date or the name of the manufacturer of the drugs. Carmen Penaloza, one of the clinic workers who was present during the inspection, was asked to demonstrate how these packages were prepared. Penaloza proceeded to take an empty manilla envelope like the ones that had been found in the desk drawer and fill it with medication that came from a large container. In performing this demonstration, she did not use gloves and her bare hands came in contact with the medication. Carlos Arias, a licensed pharmacist and one of the HRS employees who participated in the inspection, advised Penaloza that the technique she had employed was unsanitary and recommended that in the future she use a tray and spatula like pharmacists do to perform such a task. The HRS inspection also revealed that medical devices were being stored in a refrigerator that also contained food items. On October 26, 1989, HRS conducted an on-site inspection of the North Miami clinic. Arias was among the various HRS employees who were on the inspection team. Diane Robie, a medical quality assurance investigator with the Department, accompanied the team members on their inspection. Approximately 30 envelopes containing medications were found during the inspection. They were similar to the packages that had been discovered the month before at the Coral Gables clinic. Respondent was at the clinic when the inspection was conducted. Penaloza was also there. No patients were present, however. Respondent was asked to demonstrate how the packages were prepared. Penaloza was nearby at the time the request was made. She saw Respondent nervously looking around and concluded that Respondent was unable to locate any sterile gloves to use. She therefore told Respondent where such gloves could be found. Respondent then donned the gloves, laid a clean piece of paper on top of the desk where she was situated, placed tablets from a large container onto the paper and pushed each tablet with a tongue blade into a small manilla envelope. 7/ The technique that Respondent used during her demonstration, while it may have been unconventional from the perspective of a pharmacist like Arias, nonetheless was antiseptic and therefore acceptable. Sometime during the inspection Respondent made a statement that led Robie to erroneously believe that Respondent was responsible for packaging medications, not just at the North Miami clinic, but at the Coral Gables clinic as well. A finding of probable cause was initially made in this case on May 14, 1990. An Administrative Complaint was thereafter issued and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Department received the following letter, dated September 4, 1990, from counsel for Respondent concerning settlement of the case: This will confirm our understanding that you will file a notice of dismissal with DOAH of the case now pending against my client and, providing the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and closing order entered by the probable cause panel, that Ms. Echlov will agree not to seek fees against your agency under the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act. In the event the panel does not approve a final dismissal and instructs you to refile the case, neither party will be prejudiced by the present agreement and each party will retain all rights otherwise available to them, including my client's rights to seek fees should the case be refiled. If this does not reflect our understanding, please notify me at once. Otherwise, please fax me a copy of your notice of dismissal so that I can take the final hearing off my calendar. Thank you for your efforts to resolve this matter amicably. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, the following follow-up letter, dated November 6, 1990: You may recall that we reached an agreement in the above-referenced case providing for a voluntary dismissal on your part and promise on mine that my client would not seek attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. You had to take the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and ask them to close it. In order that I can close my file and know that this matter is, in fact, concluded, please let me know whether you have taken the case back before the Probable Cause Panel and, if so, the outcome. If there are documents reflecting same, please, please send me a copy. If the case has not been taken back before the Panel, please let me know when this will be done. Thanks. I'll be looking forward to hearing from you. Counsel for Respondent sent to the Department, and the Department received, a third letter, dated January 14, 1991, the body of which read, as follows: It has now been over four months since we reached our "understanding" that DPR would dismiss the case pending before DOAH (which you did) and that my client would forego her right to seek fees under the EAJA, providing (to quote from my September 4, 1990 letter to you) "that the dismissal is confirmed as a final dismissal and a closing order [is] entered by the probable cause panel." The final part of the bargain has never been performed so far as I know (and, if it was performed, the action was illegal since I requested notification of the date when the matter would be presented to the panel so that I might attend or send a court reporter but never received any). I have not, of course, received any final order of dismissal from the probable cause panel. If, within ten days of the date of this letter, I have not received either: an order of closure from the probable cause panel, or the time, date and place when our agreement will be presented to the panel, I will consider that DPR is in breach of the agreement and pursue all remedies available to my client, including attorneys' fees. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. The probable cause panel met a second time, at which it determined not to reconsider its initial finding of probable cause. 8/ Neither Respondent nor her attorney were notified of this second meeting of the probable cause panel. Following this meeting, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order (1) finding the evidence insufficient to establish that Respondent engaged in "unprofessional conduct," within the meaning of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) dismissing said complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of January, 1992. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1992.
The Issue The issues under consideration in this case concern an administrative complaint placed by the Petitioner against Respondent accusing him of practicing medicine with an inactive license for the period of January 1, 1988 until on or about October 27, 1988. For this alleged activity Respondent is said to have violated Sections 458.327(1) (a) and 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent attended the University of Rochester from 1977 to 1990 and received a B.A. in biology and a B.S. in neuro- science. He then received his medical education at Upstate Medical Center in Syracuse, New York, from 1984 until 1985 and graduated as an M.D. He served surgical internship at Geisinger Medical Center, a general surgery internship, in the year 1985. From 1985 until the point of hearing, he had been receiving training as a resident at the University of Florida Department of Orthopedic Surgery. As such, he is employed by the University of Florida. The residency program in the Department of Orthopedics at the University of Florida is approved by the Council on Graduate Medical Education. His duties as a resident physician include assisting the attending physician and making diagnosis and carrying out treatment, as well as prescribing medication. These duties are performed in Shands Teaching Hospital in Gainesville, Florida, and at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in that same community. In the period January and February, 1988, he was at Shands Teaching Hospital in pediatric orthopedic service. He then served four months at the Veteran's Administration Hospital in the general orthopedic rotation. He then returned to Shands Teaching Hospital as part of the adult reconstructive service. At no time while participating in those programs did he undertake other medical employment. On March 4, 1985, Respondent executed a form provided by the Board of Medical Examiners entitled "Registration Application for Unlicensed Physicians." It may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 3B-1 admitted into evidence. The purpose of this form was to identify his participation as a resident at Shands Teaching Hospital. In response to the questionnaire, Respondent indicated that he did not intend to become licensed in Florida. This form was submitted to the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Florida and was subsequently forwarded to the Department of Professional Regulation. Notwithstanding the lack of intention on the part of the Respondent to practice medicine in Florida as expressed in his application as executed on March 4, 1985, Respondent applied for and was given an active license to practice medicine issued on November 22, 1985. The medical license is no. ME0047478. He took this step at the instigation of his employer the University of Florida who remitted the necessary fees to obtain that license. On January 16, 1986, Shands Teaching Hospital submitted a list of unlicensed physicians participating in programs within the University of Florida College Medicine as of January 14, 1986 and employed by the University of Florida. This list was sent to Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director of Board of Medical Examiners (Board of Medicine). The attached list included the Respondent's name as being among those persons who were unlicensed physicians working at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Shands Teaching Hospital a that time. A copy of the correspondence of January 16, 1986, is found as Petitioner's exhibit 3-C admitted into evidence and the list itself is Petitioner's exhibit 3-D admitted into evidence. A copy of a list dating from July 1, 1986 describing unlicensed physicians at the University of Florida reflects Respondent's name. However, a line is drawn through his name and other identifying data concerning the Respondent. It is unclear from this record who had drawn that line through the name as reported. A copy of that report may be found as Petitioner's exhibit 3- E admitted into evidence. The list of licensed physicians at the University of Florida as of July 1, 1987, submitted to the Board of Medicine did not reflect the Respondent's name. This can be seen in an examination of Petitioner's exhibit no. 3-G admitted into evidence. Likewise, on January 15, 1988, correspondence was directed to Ms. Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director of the Board of Medicine, a copy of which is Petitioner's 3-H, admitted into evidence. A list of unlicensed physicians at the University of Florida was attached. That attachment is Petitioner's exhibit no. 3-I, admitted into evidence and it does not show the Respondent's name. That list reflects the circumstance of unlicensed physicians as of January 15, 1988. The Respondent's initial registration as a resident physician on March 4, 1985, was in an effort to comply with the requirements set forth in Section 458.345, Florida Statutes. The submission of the list of the resident physicians and other physicians by the University of Florida, College of Medicine, in the periods as reported above was in an effort to comply with that institution's obligations under Section 458.345, Florida Statutes. In late October or early November, 1987, Respondent received a notice from the Petitioner concerning the renewal of the medical license which had been issued on November 22, 1985. Following the receipt of that notice, he executed the necessary paperwork and submitted it to the accountant at the University of Florida who was responsible for paying Respondent's fees for the medical license as an employee of the University of Florida, School of Medicine, within the Department of Orthopedic Surgery. Respondent took no further action to assure that his license was renewed until late March or early April, 1988. It was at that point that the Respondent was made aware that the replica of his medical license that he kept in his wallet reflected an expiration of that license. He made this discovery when attempting to use that replica as a form of identification. At that juncture he reported to Ms. Jeri Dobbs, an employee of the University of Florida, who indicated that paperwork associated with this license may have been destroyed in a fire at Johnson Hall where certain records of the Department of Orthopedic Surgery were kept. Ms. Dobbs' responsibility in the relevant time period under question, encompassed money matters within the Department of Orthopedics. This included the payment of license fees for residents in the University of Florida Department of Orthopedics. The technique was to request a check from the University of Florida and send that check along with the requisite forms to the Department of Professional Regulation. Sometime in November or early December, 1987, a fire occurred in Johnson Hall at the University of Florida. Within that building were found invoices to be paid or checks requested and they were lost in the fire. In November, 1987, Ms. Dobbs had originally requested a check from the finance and accounting office at Johnson Hall to pay for the re-licensure of certain physicians. The names of those physicians are set forth in Respondent's exhibit no. 3, admitted into evidence. The package of paperwork on license renewal related to the named physicians was lost in the Johnson Hall fire. Respondent's name is not found in that list. Nonetheless, the circumstance that occurred with the physicians listed there may have well have occurred to the Respondent and in his conversation in late March or early April, 1988 with Ms. Dobbs he was impressed with the idea that his paperwork on license renewal may have been destroyed as was the situation with those other physicians. The physicians whose names are listed on Respondent's exhibit no. 3 would have had their medical licenses expire on December 31, 1987, as was the case with Respondent's license. In March, 1988, through efforts of Ms. Dobbs, the licenses of those physicians set forth in Respondent's exhibit no. 3 were renewed upon the payment of a $50 reinstatement or penalty fee as required by Petitioner. There is no indication that those persons as listed in Respondent's exhibit no. 3, were ever subject to disciplinary action for practicing medicine with an inactive license as has been the fate of Respondent in the present case, even though it can be fairly inferred that they had been participating as physicians at the University of Florida in the period January 1, 1988 through latter March, 1988 while their medical license had not been renewed before expiration on December 31, 1987. In conversations between Ms. Dobbs and someone associated with the Petitioner, she expressed her concern at having to pay an additional $50 late fee in the face of the circumstance in which records had been lost in the Johnson Hall fire. In this conversation she was not lead to believe that there would be any problem with the practice of those physicians who were on that list found in Respondent's exhibit no. 3. In her testimony, although Ms. Dobbs acknowledges that Respondent's name is not on the list of physicians whose licenses were reapplied for, she also indicates that she could not say for an absolute fact that these names were the only ones whose information on license renewal was lost. Being of the belief based upon his conversation with Ms. Dobbs that the necessary paperwork for renewal had been destroyed in the Johnson Hall fire, Respondent took the initiative to ascertain the appropriate method to rectify the situation of his license renewal. To this end, at approximately the same time period as the discussion with Ms. Dobbs, he spoke with Ms. Faircloth. He explained the circumstances to Ms. Faircloth of his renewal and specifically the idea in which he was persuaded that his renewal papers had been burned up in the fire at the University of Florida. Her instructions to him were that the paperwork would be forthcoming, to fill it out as quickly as possible and that he should not worry that this sort of thing happened all the time. He was not told by Ms. Faircloth that he should not continue in his duties as a resident physician, given the status of his license renewal. Having not heard from Ms. Faircloth within the week of his initial contact with her, he called her a second time. At that point she said that he should have received the materials. A month after the second contact, another call was made from the Respondent to Ms. Faircloth because he had not received the materials. She indicated that by that time the materials should have been received and therefore she was going to send another set of those forms for him to fill out. A further call was made to Ms. Faircloth and she indicated to the Respondent that the forms had been sent out, and sometime in late June or early July, 1988, information concerning the obtaining of his renewed license began to be received by Respondent. Documents pertaining to the activity of gaining a new license may be found within Petitioner's composite exhibit no. 2 admitted into evidence, in particular those portions 2D through 2J. Throughout this process Respondent cooperated and made timely responses to what was asked of him to effectuate these purposes. Finally, effective October 24, 1988, Respondent obtained his renewed license. Throughout this endeavor neither Ms. Faircloth in conversations with Respondent nor anyone else associated with Petitioner indicated that the Respondent should cease his practice pending the issuance of the renewed license. None of the materials that were forwarded to the Respondent for purposes of license renewal had any admonition against his carrying forward his duties as a resident of the University of Florida pending the resolution of this license problem. After returning the necessary materials to obtain his license, Respondent had not heard from the Department of Professional Regulation, so he checked with Jeri Dobbs and was told that the necessary cash had been remitted for renewal. He called someone within the Petitioner's organization and that person confirmed that the check in furtherance of his license renewal fee had been cashed and that it was probably still in the computer that the license had been printed, but probably had not been sent in the mail. According to Barbara Kemp an employee of Petitioner, who has responsibility for processing requests for license renewal, the detailed requirements set forth in Petitioner's composite exhibit 2 are utilized in the instance wherein the license was not renewed in the ordinary period for renewal. Respondent's situation was perceived in that way. Ms. Kemp refers to this as the reactivation of a license and describes this exhibit as being an indication of the materials necessary to reactivate. As Ms. Kemp explained in her remarks, typically the renewal packet is dispatched 60 days prior to the expiration of the license. That would correspond in this instance to 60 days before December 31, 1987. That circumstance, unlike the situation reflected in Petitioner exhibit no. 2 admitted into evidence, does not contemplate the need to document compliance with certain requirements related to license renewal. In the reactivation mode, that documentation as evidenced by items set forth in Petitioner's exhibit no. 2 would be necessary. According to Ms. Kemp, in the instance where there is a belief that the practitioner has been practicing medicine without the benefit of an active license, a memorandum is sent to those persons within the Petitioner's organization who are responsible for considering administrative complaints. This does not usually occur within the first couple of months beyond the period of license expiration. In this instance, that would correspond to the first couple of months beyond December 31, 1987. The reason for not reporting tardiness in license renewal is due to the fact that Petitioner is busy trying to renew a high number of licenses and the computer takes time to catch up and conclude that activity. This describes the time necessary for data to be entered in the computer system. In this instance, Ms. Kemp complained to the investigatory arm of her organization about the Respondent's possible practice without the benefit of a license and that complaint was made on September 16, 1988.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact made and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which dismisses this administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts of the parties. Petitioner's Facts Paragraphs 1-8 and all of paragraph 9 save the last phrase are subordinate to facts found. The idea of a supposition by the Board of Medicine that Respondent had withdrawn from the residency program and had become licensed is not crucial to the disposition of this case. Paragraphs 10 and 11 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 12 is contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 13-17 are subordinate to facts found. Respondents's Facts Paragraphs 1-9 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 10 with the exception of the last sentence is subordinate to facts found. The exact whereabouts of the paperwork necessary for renewal was not established with certainty. Paragraphs 11-20 are subordinate to facts found. Copies furnished: Wellington H. Meffert II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Barbara C. Wingo Associate General Counsel University of Florida 207 Tigert Hall Gainesville, FL 32611 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
