The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of being convicted or found guilty of a crime directly relating to the ability to practice pharmacy or the practice of pharmacy and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent received his license to practice pharmacy in Pennsylvania in 1962. He has been continuously licensed in Florida since December 31, 1973, through March 28, 1995, when his Florida license was suspended by emergency order of the Board of Pharmacy for the reasons set forth below. His Florida license number was PS0013841. Respondent has not previously been disciplined. Respondent has been employed for many years with a large pharmacy chain. Over the years, he was promoted into positions of increasing managerial responsibility. At one point, he was in charge of the operations of over 25 stores. Sometime prior to the incidents described below, Respondent's responsibilities were reduced, evidently due to corporate restructuring. At the same time, his wife of 15 years had an affair. Respondent suffered other stresses, including a homicide involving someone in a close relationship. Respondent was ill-equipped to deal with these setbacks. He was a hard- working, intense person with no emotional outlets. Two prior marriages had failed in part due to Respondent's lack of emotional insight. Respondent has long defined his role in relationships almost entirely in terms of his income- earning ability. Unable to deal with the stress, Respondent one night picked up a streetwalker in Bradenton and paid her to have sex with him. Respondent identified himself to her. A sexual relationship ensued. The woman had a child, and they lived in squalor. Respondent' initial sexual impulse toward the woman yielded to an impulse by Respondent to rescue the mother and child and serve as their savior or hero. The woman made increasing demands of Respondent. Several times, Respondent tried to end the relationship, but the woman threatened to disclose the relationship to Respondent's wife and employer. Respondent informed her that he had no more money to give her, but she continued her demands. Eventually, Respondent began to steal from the pharmacy store at which he worked. At first, he stole boxes of cigarettes. Later, he stole prescription drugs, including various Schedule III and IV controlled substances. The drugs contained codeine, and Respondent knew that the woman was selling the drugs on the street. At least one of the drugs was popular among drug abusers. About a year after meeting the woman, Respondent was caught in the act of stealing drugs in the early-morning hours at the store. He immediately made a full confession and was prosecuted by federal authorities for the controlled substances and by state authorities for the cigarettes and other miscellaneous merchandise. In Count I of the federal indictment, Respondent was charged with a violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 by knowingly and intentionally combining, conspiring, confederating, and agreeing with the woman and other persons to possess with intent to distribute acetaminophen with codeine and hydrocodone bitartrate, which are Schedule III controlled substances, and diazepam and alprazolam, which are Schedule IV controlled substances. A Schedule III controlled substance has a potential for abuse less than substances contained in Schedules I and II and has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of a Schedule III controlled substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. A Schedule IV controlled substance has a potential for abuse less than substances contained in Schedules I, II, and III and has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of a Schedule IV controlled substance may lead to limited physical or psychological dependence. Respondent pleaded guilty to Count I, which carried a maximum sentence of five years, fine of $250,000, and probation of three years, as well as restitution. The United States noted Respondent's acceptance of responsibility as a factor in mitigation. In the plea agreement, Respondent acknowledged that he began diverting controlled substances, once or twice a week, in September 1993. He had been caught and arrested in April 1994. On February 24, 1995, The United States District Court entered a judgment adjudicating Respondent guilty of Count I, placing him on six months' house arrest, placing him on five years' probation, and ordering restitution to the pharmacy chain of $10,574.84 for the diverted controlled substances. The judge stated her desire that Respondent continue to work as a pharmacist in order to pay for what he had stolen. Respondent's conviction directly relates to his ability to practice pharmacy or to the practice of pharmacy. At the time of Respondent's arrest, the pharmacy chain had fired him. Following the arrest but before the conviction, Respondent worked as a pharmacist for a corporation that supplies licensed replacement pharmacists on a short-term or indefinite basis. Primarily assigned to one client working with terminally ill patients, Respondent was valued as a pharmacist by the clients and his employer for the six months that he was so employed. Respondent's employment as a licensed pharmacist ended when the Board of Pharmacy issued an emergency order suspending his license on March 28, 1995. Respondent has since attempted to find employment, but he has found none. His ability to make restitution has been impeded, although he has made some payments. Respondent has received private psychological counselling since October 1994. The psychologist's diagnosis was that Respondent was suffering from an adjustment reaction with depressed mood. Helping Respondent to analyze his past mistakes and equip himself to deal with stress, the psychologist opines that it is very unlikely that Respondent would repeat this behavior and would not represent a threat to the public safety, health, or welfare if he were to continue practicing pharmacy. Respondent has participated in the PRN since August 1994. The impaired practitioner program typically serves licensees who are unable to practice due to mental illness, substance abuse, or physical disability. The program has determined that Respondent suffers from no chemical dependency, sexual disorder, or psychiatric illness. Rather, at the time of the criminal behaviors, Respondent was under extreme stress. However, the director of the program testified that Respondent is progressing very well, free of all illness, and gaining insight into his difficulties so that he can now express his feelings and handle his stresses. The director also opines that Respondent would not pose a threat to public safety, health, or welfare if he were to continue practicing pharmacy. Respondent has entered into a five-year contract with the PRN. The program monitors Respondent for a lifetime. If at anytime the director were to determine that Respondent is not progressing, such as by failing to renew a contract when asked to do so by the program, the director would file a complaint with Petitioner. It has been almost two years since Respondent began diverting controlled substances to the prostitute and almost a year and one-half since he was caught. This relatively recent behavior was not isolated, but lasted six months. Respondent was caught and did not turn himself in. Respondent's behavior harmed himself, his family and friends, and his employer, which spends considerable resources to develop public trust and employee morale, both of which were damaged by Respondent's actions. Respondent's behavior also harmed the woman, whose squalid circumstances were worsened by Respondent's "generosity." And his criminal behavior threatened the safety, health, and welfare of numerous persons who purchased the controlled substances that Respondent had stolen and given to the woman. On the other hand, Respondent poses no risk to the public. This is the opinion of two mental-health professionals working closely with Respondent. Also, Respondent did not steal controlled substances while working for six months as a temporary pharmacist and while under considerable stress from the criminal prosecutions. Although Respondent did not turn himself in, he did confess immediately and completely. As a practical matter, his ability to make restitution is dependent on his ability to practice pharmacy. Respondent and Petitioner each present numerous final orders of the Board of Pharmacy evidencing past penalties. Petitioner's final orders include Newman, Case No. 94- 20465 (five years' suspension and $2000 fine for state conviction for sale, purchase, or delivery of Schedule IV controlled substance; and Dunayer, Case No. 07300 (revocation for shortage of over 500,000 dosage units of many of the same codeine- containing drugs). Respondent's final orders include Feldman, Case No. 92- 07313 (three years' suspension, retroactive 14 months to when licensee was ordered by court to surrender license, three years' probation, and $3000 fine for federal conviction for distributing and dispensing outside course of professional practice of pharmacy--although some of the same codeine-containing drugs were involved, it appears that considerably greater quantities may have been involved); Swoy, Case No. 93-11716 (two years' suspension, of which 22 months were stayed and several years' probation for state conviction of delivery of one of the same codeine-containing drugs--quantity unclear); and Levine, Case No. 92-04729 (two years' suspension that was stayed and four years' probation for state conviction of impaired practitioner for theft from pharmacy of relatively small quantities of Schedule II controlled substances).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Pharmacy enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 465.016(1)(f), suspending his license for one year from the date of the emergency suspension, imposing a $3000 fine to be paid within 90 days after the end of the suspension, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of five years. ENTERED on August 8, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on August 8, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: John Taylor, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Nancy M. Snurkowski Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Salvatore A. Carpino 8001 North Dale Mabry Hwy. Suite 301-A Tampa, FL 33614
The Issue Did Respondent, Tonya Shrader, R.N. (Ms. Shrader), violate section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ by being unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness or use of alcohol, drugs, narcotics, or chemicals or any other type of material, or as a result of any mental or physical condition? If Ms. Shrader violated section 464.018(1)(j), what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes, charge the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, with the licensing and regulation of nurses. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Ms. Shrader was a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida. She holds license RN 9180605. Ms. Shrader has a complicated history of psychiatric and medical problems that affect her ability to practice nursing with the level of skill and safety to patients required in the State of Florida. Ms. Shrader has suffered from depression since childhood. Ms. Shrader treated her depression with a variety of medications, including: Lithium, Depakote, Pamelor, Elavil, Topamax, Lamictal, and Prozac. In the past five years, Ms. Shrader has not received treatment for her depression. Ms. Shrader also suffers from anxiety. Ms. Shrader is not receiving treatment for her anxiety. In addition to depression and anxiety, Ms. Shrader suffers from chronic severe migraines. The cause has not been determined despite extensive neurological evaluations. Ms. Shrader has been prescribed Tramadol, Fiorcet, and Clonazepam to treat her migraines. At all times material to the Department's complaint, Ms. Shrader was prescribed Fiorcet for her migraine symptoms. Between March 24, 2012, and July 22, 2013, Ms. Shrader complained of multiple neurological symptoms, including double vision, balance and gait instability, and tingling and numbness in her hands. Ms. Shrader elected to undergo extensive neurological testing to rule out demyelinating disease, multiple sclerosis, and palsy. The tests provided no indication that Ms. Shrader's symptoms resulted from a neurological disorder. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Shrader worked as a registered nurse in the Neurological and Psychiatric Unit at Gulf Coast Medical Center (Gulf Coast). On December 20, 2013, Ms. Shrader took an excessive dose of four Fiorcet pills. She told her family that she "plans to keep overdosing until she dies," and that she "predicts that [she] will be dead by the end of the year." Ms. Shrader's family contacted the Emergency Medical Services. Ms. Shrader was transported to Lehigh Regional Medical Center, where she was treated for an overdose. Ms. Shrader was involuntarily admitted to SalusCare, Inc. (SalusCare), for inpatient psychiatric observation and treatment. On December 20, 2013, the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) at SalusCare conducted an in-patient psychiatric evaluation of Ms. Shrader. During the evaluation, Ms. Shrader denied past psychiatric treatments or psychiatric medication. Ms. Shrader also denied that her Fiorcet overdose was an attempted suicide. Her statements during her SalusCare evaluation contradict her medical charting and statements she has made, which indicate that she has an extensive history of psychiatric illnesses. SalusCare discharged Ms. Shrader on December 23, 2013. The director of nursing at Gulf Coast contacted the Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN) about Ms. Shrader. IPN is an impaired practitioner consultant to the Department's Board of Nursing. IPN works with nurses and monitors them for safety to practice issues. IPN contacted Ms. Shrader on January 2, 2014, to discuss her entering the program. Ms. Shrader denied that she was impaired or abused any substances. She admitted that she was depressed. But she said that she stopped her depression treatment approximately five years earlier. IPN asked Ms. Shrader to undergo an evaluation to determine her fitness to practice nursing. Ms. Shrader scheduled an evaluation with Theodore Treese, M.D., an expert in the psychiatric treatment, monitoring, and care of health care practitioners. He conducted the evaluation on January 28, 2014. Dr. Treese diagnosed Ms. Shrader with severe major depressive disorder; alcohol abuse; opioid abuse; sedative, anxiolytic abuse; relational problems, not otherwise specified; and rule-out polysubstance abuse. During the evaluation, Ms. Shrader attempted to hide her in-patient psychiatric treatment at SalusCare. Based on Ms. Shrader's diagnoses, Dr. Treese determined that Ms. Shrader was not capable of practicing as a registered nurse with reasonable skill and safety to patients. Dr. Treese recommended that Ms. Shrader seek treatment at a substance abuse treatment center at a level of at least partial hospitalization. Ms. Shrader did not agree with Dr. Treese's recommendation. IPN gave Ms. Shrader the opportunity to seek a second opinion from another IPN-approved evaluator. IPN informed Ms. Shrader that she needed to either obtain a second opinion or enter the recommended treatment before April 14, 2014; otherwise, IPN would close her intake case file. Ms. Shrader refused to obtain a second opinion or enter into the recommended treatment. IPN closed Ms. Shrader's file on April 14, 2014. On December 2, 2014, Mark Sylvester, M.D., a physician specializing in psychiatry and addiction medicine, evaluated Ms. Shrader pursuant to Department Order. Dr. Sylvester reviewed Ms. Shrader's medical records, the IPN intake case file, and the Department's investigative report. Dr. Sylvester also asked Ms. Shrader to undergo a urine and hair drug screen. Ms. Shrader did not participate in the screens. Dr. Sylvester diagnosed Ms. Shrader with recurrent major depressive disorder, opioid abuse, alcohol abuse, benzodiazepine abuse, nicotine dependence, factitious disorder versus malingering, rule-out hypochondriasis, and rule-out conversion disorder. During the evaluation, Ms. Shrader attempted to conceal her psychiatric history, substance abuse, and symptoms of depression. Ms. Shrader's unwillingness to be forthcoming during her evaluation demonstrated denial of her symptoms and presented a significant barrier to her treatment and recovery. Dr. Sylvester concluded that Ms. Shrader's poor judgment and decision-making detrimentally affected her ability to practice nursing. Specifically, Ms. Shrader's judgment in attempting to practice nursing while impaired, her lack of insight into her illnesses, her inability to follow treatment recommendations, and her disagreement with medical professionals showed poor judgment. Poor judgment can affect decision-making while practicing nursing, especially in a crisis situation. Dr. Sylvester concluded that Ms. Shrader was unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of her depression, use of alcohol, opioids, and benzodiazepines, lack of insight into her symptoms, and poor judgment. In order for Ms. Shrader to be able to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients, she must: undergo treatment at a residential treatment center; enter into an IPN monitoring agreement; and submit to a hair analysis drug screening test. These steps are essential to Ms. Shrader's recovery and to regaining the ability to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients. There is no evidence that Ms. Shrader has taken any of these steps. Ms. Shrader is unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Nursing, enter a final order: finding that Respondent, Tonya L. Shrader, R.N., violated section 464.018(1)(j); requiring her to undergo an IPN evaluation; imposing a suspension of her license until such time as she undergoes an IPN evaluation; requiring compliance with IPN recommendations, if any; requiring the payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00; and awarding costs for the investigation and prosecution of this case, as provided in section 456.072(4) to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 29th day of July, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a medical doctor, licensed to practice in Florida, and holds license number ME 0009310, issued by Petitioner. Respondent specializes in family practice and has been board certified by the American Academy of Family Physicians since 1974. Percodan is the manufacturer's brand name for oxycodone, which is a Schedule II controlled substance pursuant to Chapter 893, F.S. 2/ It is a drug used for the relief of pain, a synthetic analgesic, and is both a physically and psychologically dependent producing drug. It can cause drowsiness, urinary retention, nausea, vomiting, and interacts unfavorably with other sedative drugs, and is considered a depressant. On December 30, 1966, Evelyn Milstead, a 30 year old woman, came to Respondent's office complaining of nausea and a rash in her mouth. Respondent conducted a physical examination, took her medical history and thereafter prescribed tigan for the nausea. Ms. Milstead became a regular patient of Respondent's and he continued treating her for various ailments over a period of years. During the course of Respondent's treatment, Milstead developed a chronic urinary tract infection and kidney condition in which she passed kidney stones. On occasion Milstead was treated by Dr. Gillespie, a specialist in the field of urology for her kidney condition. In 1978, Respondent also referred instead to the Ochsner Clinic for evaluation of her urinary tract and kidney problems. She was evaluated at Ochsner Clinic and received prescriptions for darvocet, a pain medication, and keflex, an antibiotic, and was told that she would continue to have a chronic kidney problem. Over the years, Milstead was hospitalized several times by Dr. Gillespie for treatment of her kidney condition. The testimony of Dr. William H. Nass and Dr. Robert P. Johnson established that Respondent's initial prescriptions of percodan to Milstead were appropriate. However, Respondent's percodan prescriptions to Milstead eventually became inappropriate. Specifically, the prescriptions for 2,668 percodan tablets between August, 1980 and November, 1982, were established as excessive. On July 30, 1977, Bruce White, a 25 year old male, came to Respondent for medical treatment for headaches and thereafter returned to Respondent for treatment of various medical problems. Mr. White's wife, Vicki White, and their children were also seen by Respondent as their family doctor. On May 18, 1981, White came to Respondent complaining of neck and back pain from an automobile accident in which he also fractured his left lower leg. Respondent noted that White had been seen by a neurologist and an orthopedic surgeon for his head and leg. In addition to other medication, Respondent prescribed percodan to White for pain. White had also developed arthritis in his left leg, as a result of the car accident and fracture, and on one occasion was hospitalized for swelling of his left leg. Respondent referred White to Dr. Tippett, a neurosurgeon, concerning his headaches and to Dr. Graybiel, a rheumatologist, concerning his arthritis. However, White continued to see Respondent as his medical doctor because his work schedule on an offshore oil rig would only permit Saturday appointments with his doctor and Respondent's offices are open on Saturday mornings. White also found it difficult to pay the fees charged by specialists. Between May 8, 1981 and September 30, 1982, Respondent prescribed 780 percodan tablets for Bruce White. The testimony of Dr. Nass and Dr. Johnson established that Respondent's initial prescriptions of percodan to White were appropriate. However, the percodan prescriptions to White became inappropriate over time due to their excessiveness. The seriousness of this lapse is underscored by Respondent's failure to try other pain alleviating measures and failure to investigate abuse possibilities. On October 18, 1979, Vicki White, the wife of Bruce White, a 23 year old woman, came to Respondent's office seeking treatment. She complained of migraine headaches and stated that her father was in the hospital with cancer. She also stated that she had seen Dr. Eyser, a neurosurgeon, for her headaches. Respondent prescribed wygesic for her pain. She subsequently returned to Respondent for treatment of various complaints including chronic migraine headaches, colds, and a dislocated right shoulder. Initially, Respondent prescribed norcet for relief of this pain, and on July 31, 1981, first prescribed percodan for her migraine headaches. Respondent prescribed percodan on other occasions in response to her complaints of pain from migraine headaches and back strain. Respondent considered referring her to a neurologist for the headaches but White stated that she could not afford to see a specialist. Respondent prescribed 590 percodan tablets for Vicki White between July 31, 1981 and September 22, 1982. Percodan is an appropriate and acceptable medicine for the relief of migraine headaches, and Respondent's initial prescription of percodan to Ms. White was appropriate. However, his prescriptions became excessive over time since percodan is not to be used for long term treatment of migraine headaches. On September 7, 1982, M. D. Medlen, an Escambia County Deputy Sheriff, went to Respondent's office as an undercover police officer, under the assumed name of Donna Slay. She had been asked by Robert Powers, a narcotics officer with the Escambia County Sheriff's Department and Charles Deckard, an investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation, to go to Respondent's office in an undercover capacity and attempt to obtain a prescription for percodan. Medlen/Slay first gave general information to the receptionist, including identification, in the name of Donna Slay, chief complaint of a backache, previous illnesses, drug allergies, address, social security number, and insurance information. Medlen/Slay was shown to an examination room where her blood pressure and weight were taken by the nurse and a urinalysis was performed. Respondent then came in and asked Medlen/Slay what her problem was. She informed him that she had been pushed into a wall during a fight, and had injured her back. Respondent checked her pulse, did a range of motion test, and checked the alleged injured area by palpation. Each time Respondent pressed on the alleged injured area, Medlen/Slay told him it hurt. Respondent did not visually inspect the alleged injured area but asked Medlan/Slay if there was a bruise and she said no. In order to get the percodan, Medlen/Slay told Respondent that she had injured her back one other time and a doctor in Louisiana had prescribed percodan for that injury. Respondent asked how long ago Medlen/Slay had taken the percodan and she said one year ago. Respondent discussed the dangers of drug addiction with Medlan/Slay and then prescribed 20 tablets of percodan for pain and 30 tablets of indocin to reduce inflammation. Upon leaving Respondent's office, Medlen/Slay did not fill the prescriptions but turned them over to Deckard. Percodan is an acceptable medicine for back and shoulder pain. However, Respondent should have considered the possibility of fracture, visually examined the area to ascertain the presence of a hematoma (blood clot) and listened to the patient's chest to determine the presence of lung injury. Respondent did not perform an appropriate examination prior to prescribing percodan, and the prescription was therefore inappropriate. Respondent used poor judgment in his excessive prescriptions of percodan to the patients discussed herein. However, there is no evidence that Respondent prescribed the percodan for personal financial gain or that any patient was injured by Respondent's prescribing practices. The testimony of the expert witness established that the records maintained on these patients were inadequate. Frequently, the only notation for a given visit was the prescription for percodan, with no evaluation of the patient's condition. Further, Respondent's patient records did not even list all the percodan prescriptions issued. Thus, these records essentially reflect partial inventories of prescriptions issued, and do not justify the course of prescribing, which is important to the safe practice of medicine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order placing Respondent on probation for a period of five years, require that Respondent practice under the supervision of another physician to be named by Petitioner during the initial year of his probation and that Petitioner restrict Respondent's license against prescribing Schedule II controlled substances while he is under such supervision. 4/ DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, 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 24th day of April, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Agency for Health Care Administration is the state agency charged with the responsibility for investigating complaints filed against health care professionals. The Board of Medicine ("Board") is organized within the Agency and charged with determining and issuing final orders in disciplinary cases involving physicians within its jurisdiction. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the respondent was licensed to practice medicine in Florida and holds the license numbered ME 0008667. From 1973 until his retirement in the summer of 1993, the respondent was a staff radiologist at Good Samaritan Hospital in West Palm Beach, Florida. He was a founding member of the group of radiologists now known as Palm Beach Imaging Associates. In December 1990, the respondent was going through a divorce, drinking three to four drinks each evening during the week and more on the weekends, dating several women, and generally "living hard." He was concerned about his lifestyle and intended to spend the month of February 1991, at a spa, resting and getting himself back to his normal condition. Instead, on December 17, 1990, he checked into South Miami Hospital for a five-day evaluation at the urging of Drs. Walter H. Forman and Donald W. Goodwin, his partners in Palm Beach Imaging Associates. Although they had been concerned about the respondent's health and his consumption of alcohol for years, Drs. Forman and Goodwin had been afraid to confront him about it previously. Upon his admission to South Miami Hospital, the respondent's blood pressure was taken and he was sent to the laboratory for a lab work-up and x- rays. He was then given a large dose of librium, which he continued to receive regularly until December 19. On December 19, the respondent was discharged from South Miami Hospital against medical advice because he was dissatisfied with his treatment and with the evaluation procedure. The respondent was diagnosed at South Miami Hospital as suffering from chronic alcoholism. When he left South Miami Hospital, the respondent drove himself to West Palm Beach. He was still heavily drugged and drove off the road twice. When he arrived in West Palm Beach, he learned from his estranged wife that Drs. Forman and Goodman had called and advised her that the respondent needed treatment for alcoholism and that he would lose his medical license if he failed to get it. Dr. Goodman was contacted by the hospital when the respondent was discharged, and the Physician's Recovery Network ("PRN") 2/ was also notified by South Miami Hospital of the respondent's discharge. This was the PRN's first involvement with the respondent. Upon being told that his medical license could be in jeopardy, the respondent immediately made arrangements to be admitted to the Talbott Recovery Systems ("Talbott"), a chemical dependency evaluation and treatment center in Atlanta, Georgia. He was admitted to Anchor Hospital, a part of the Talbott system, on December 20, remaining there for twenty-eight days before being transferred on January 17 to the Talbott Recovery Center. At the Talbott Recovery Center, the respondent lived in an apartment with several other patients and attended counseling sessions several times a day. The treatment was patterned after the twelve-step Alcoholics Anonymous Program. In January 1991, the respondent wrote a letter to three of his partners, Drs. Forman, Goodwin, and Wimbush, as part of the first step in his treatment. In the letter, he admitted that he needed to quit drinking but that he was too addicted to do it by himself, and he acknowledged that he could get himself and the radiology group into trouble if he didn't get his drinking under control. He described the treatment program as "totalitarian" but stated that he knew it would really help him. The respondent completed the twelve steps of the treatment program and was discharged from Talbott on April 13, 1991. Before his discharge, Talbott required the respondent to sign a five-year monitoring contract with Florida's PRN. He signed this contract on April 9, 1991. The terms of the contract required the respondent to attend weekly chemical dependency follow-up group meetings for two years, to submit to random urine and blood testing for two years, and to notify the PRN whenever he was going out of town. The contract also gave the PRN the power to order the respondent to be reevaluated if the PRN received any negative information about the respondent's behavior. After a two-week vacation, the respondent returned to West Palm Beach and, in late April or early May 1991, resumed the active practice of medicine. He rejoined his group, Palm Beach Imaging Associates, and worked as a staff radiologist at Good Samaritan Hospital. The respondent did not begin attending the follow-up meetings required by the PRN contract for several weeks after his return to practice, when he was notified that he must attend the meetings to be in compliance with the contract. The meetings were held at 6:00 p.m. in Stuart, Florida, about an hour's drive from Good Samaritan Hospital. The PRN expected attendance at all fifty-two meetings per year, and a participant who missed a meeting was required to have a good excuse for doing so. In a letter dated June 15, 1993, Gordon S. Bohl, President of Recovery Associates, Inc., wrote to the PRN affirming that the respondent had successfully completed his participation in the follow-up group meetings. As required by the PRN monitoring contract, the respondent submitted to random blood and urine testing for two years following his release from Talbott. He had approximately fifty blood tests and approximately twenty urine tests over the two-year period. He would usually receive a telephone call in the morning telling him to report to the office of a local physician in the afternoon. He never tested positive for alcohol. 3/ From early May 1991 until the end of May 1993, the respondent worked at the diagnostic center run by Palm Beach Imaging Associates in the professional office building adjacent to the Good Samaritan Hospital. The center was a very busy place, and the respondent spent more time working there than any of his partners. He handled the business of the center alone during the mornings, and, in the afternoons, all the partners shared in the responsibility. For approximately one year after his return from Talbott, the respondent did an excellent job. He routinely handled a very large workload, and the quality of his work was outstanding. However, beginning in the summer of 1992 and continuing into the fall, Dr. Goodwin and Dr. Forman noticed that his work habits were deteriorating and his personality changing. He still worked well in the mornings, but he began to take longer lunch hours and would run errands in the afternoons which took longer than seemed reasonable. Although the quality of his work was good, Dr. Forman noticed that the respondent's behavior was reverting back to what it had been prior to his treatment at Talbott. In November 1992, word came to Dr. Forman, and from him to Dr. Goodwin, that a technician had told another Palm Beach Imaging Associates partner, Donald Russell, that a patient had remarked that she smelled alcohol on the respondent's breath as he gave her an injection. Neither Dr. Forman nor Dr. Goodwin learned the name of the patient, and they did not attempt to verify the accuracy of the information conveyed to Dr. Russell by the technician. As a result of this report, as well as the changes they had observed in the respondent's work habits and personality, Drs. Forman and Goodwin decided to confront the respondent regarding their perception that he had resumed drinking and that his drinking might have an adverse effect on his work. In December 1992, Dr. Forman prepared a letter in which he set out the partner's concerns and offered the respondent three career choices: He could retire immediately from the group, undergo evaluation and treatment for his drinking, or work part-time in the diagnostic center for six months at a reduced salary and then retire. When the partners delivered this letter and confronted the respondent, he was furious and refused to accept any of the three alternatives. He told his partners that he was drinking, that he intended to continue drinking, that he was not an alcoholic, and that he would not cause the partners any trouble. In the face of the respondent's angry denials, the partners took no further action at the time, and the respondent continued to work full-time in the diagnostic center. Dr. Forman smelled alcohol on the respondent's breath several times between December 1992 and May 1993 and talked to him about it. The respondent denied any problem, but he continued to take long lunches and to be absent from work for long periods during the afternoons. In May 1993, the partners were told that, on three occasions, the respondent had asked a technologist to perform a procedure that, pursuant to the policies of the Palm Beach Imaging Associates, was to be performed by a radiologist. The partners met again in May 1993 to discuss their ongoing concerns regarding the respondent's behavior. They asked Dr. Goodwin to contact the PRN and ask for guidance in handling the problem. Dr. Goodwin telephoned the PRN and eventually spoke with Dr. Roger A. Goetz, a Florida-licensed physician who is the Director of the Physician's Resource Network/The Impaired Practitioner's Program of Florida, which includes the PRN. During their long professional association with the respondent, Dr. Forman and Dr. Goodwin never observed him in an impaired condition while at work, and they never heard any complaints that the respondent had been observed in an impaired condition while acting in his professional capacity. Dr. Forman and Dr. Goodwin never had reason to criticize the quality of the respondent's work, which they felt was consistently good and sometimes outstanding, and they never heard any complaints from other physicians or from patients regarding the quality of his work. Even so, Dr. Goodwin told Dr. Goetz that, although the partners had no evidence that the respondent had ever been intoxicated on the job or that the respondent had ever made a mistake in his work as a result of the use of alcohol, they were concerned about his behavior. Dr. Goodwin identified the bases for this concern as the respondent's previous history of alcohol abuse and the change in his work habits and behavior; he included the information that a patient had reported smelling alcohol on the respondent's breath. The partners followed up Dr. Goodwin's telephone call with a letter to Dr. Goetz dated May 26, 1993. They also notified the respondent that they had made a report to the PRN. The respondent ceased practicing medicine at the end of May 1993. On the basis of the information received from the respondent's partners, Dr. Goetz requested in a letter dated June 3, 1993, that the respondent present himself for an in-depth evaluation at one of the several PRN- approved facilities listed in the letter. The respondent found these facilities unacceptable because they were affiliated with the PRN, and he proposed three other facilities. Dr. Goetz agreed that the respondent could be evaluated at one of these, but he refused to agree to the respondent's suggestion that the evaluation be conducted without the examining physician having access to his medical history or, alternatively, that the medical history be provided only after the submission of the evaluation report. As a result, the respondent refused to undergo the requested evaluation. In September 1993, the respondent received an order from the Agency compelling him to submit to both a physical and a mental examination. The Agency chose the doctors and told the respondent when to appear for the appointments. On September 9, the respondent was seen at approximately 10:00 a.m. by Dr. Rohit Dandiya, a Florida-licensed physician board-certified in internal medicine. Dr. Dandiya performed a physical examination at the request of the Agency for the purpose of determining whether the respondent could practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety. Tests were run for several blood chemistries, including liver function, and, with the respondent's consent, for alcohol. The blood test results showed that two liver functions were abnormal. In Dr. Dandiya's opinion, the abnormalities could be related to injuries to the liver from the use of alcohol, but they could also be related to injuries to the liver from numerous other sources. The blood test results showed an alcohol level of twenty- seven milligrams per decaliter, which Dr. Dandiya considered very unusual given that the blood was drawn between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. In Dr. Dandiya's opinion, this result indicated that the respondent had consumed alcohol within two or three hours before the blood was drawn. Dr. Dandiya did not receive any information regarding the respondent's medical history from the Agency. The information contained in the report was obtained solely from the respondent, who told Dr. Dandiya that he did not have any problems related to the use of alcohol; that he consumed four to six drinks per day, two to three before going home in the evening and two to three with dinner; that his consumption of alcohol had been at this level for the past twenty years; and that he had been treated at Talbott from January to April 13, 1991, for chemical dependency. Based on the results of the physical examination and on the history provided by the respondent, it is Dr. Dandiya's opinion that the respondent suffers from the disease of alcoholism. Although Dr. Dandiya included in his report to the Agency his opinion that the respondent's ability to practice medicine was questionable, he refused to state an opinion as to whether the respondent can currently practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety, explaining that he had examined the respondent fifteen months previously and had no knowledge of the respondent's current condition. On September 10, 1993, the respondent was seen by Dr. Neville S. Marks, a Florida-licensed psychiatrist with considerable experience in the diagnosis and treatment of alcohol dependency. Dr. Marks conducted the examination of the respondent at the Agency's request and received from the Agency the respondent's records from South Miami Hospital, Anchor Hospital, and the Talbott Recovery Center. Dr. Marks reviewed these records and performed a psychiatric examination in which he took a full history from the respondent, conducted a mental status examination, and performed two psychological tests. At the respondent's request and expense, Dr. Marks interviewed him a second time. The psychological tests administered were the 16PF Test Profile and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The results of both of these tests were in the normal range, although the results suggested that the respondent was dependent and had a need for social approval. Dr. Marks concluded that the respondent had no significant pathology. In the history the respondent gave Dr. Marks, he stated that his father and two relatives on his mother's side were alcoholics and that his daughter had been treated for chemical dependency. He confirmed that, at the time he went into South Miami Hospital, he routinely consumed four to six drinks per day and six to twelve beers on Saturdays and Sundays. He described himself as very sharp and feeling very good for about a year after his release from the Talbott treatment program. He admitted that he likes to drink and that he had been drinking vodka and soda the night before the examination. He stated that he did not experience any effects from the use of alcohol, and he denied that he was an alcoholic. Dr. Marks observed the respondent's physical appearance and demeanor during the interviews, and he telephoned the respondent's partner, Dr. Goodwin, for additional information about the respondent, a normal procedure in evaluations of this type. Dr. Goodwin told Dr. Marks that the respondent had never been impaired on the job but that he had missed certain procedures, could be gruff over the telephone, and shown poor judgment at times. Based upon this information, Dr. Marks is of the opinion that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the respondent suffers from chemical dependency of the alcohol type and that, until he obtains treatment and is motivated to stop using alcohol, the potential exists for him to practice medicine below the acceptable standard. In forming this opinion, Dr. Marks considered it significant that, even though his license to practice medicine was at stake, the respondent stated that he had consumed alcohol the night before his examination, that he had been drinking for many years, and that he wanted to continue to drink. As Director of the PRN, Dr. Goetz provides consulting services to the Agency with respect to impaired physicians, pursuant to the PRN's contract with the Agency. In his capacity as consultant to the Agency, Dr. Goetz, by letter dated September 30, 1995, notified the Agency that the respondent was not in compliance with his PRN monitoring contract and that, in his professional opinion, the respondent posed a serious danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. In making this assessment, Dr. Goetz considered the respondent's medical records, including oral reports from the Agency regarding the results of the examinations performed by Dr. Dandiya and Dr. Marks; the respondent's progress through the follow-up group meetings and the PRN monitoring process as reported by the treatment providers; and the behavioral and attitudinal changes and complaints reported by the respondent's partners. The respondent's medical license was suspended on October 5, 1993. Two letters were written to the respondent by Dr. John J. Purcell, a psychiatrist practicing at the Harvard Medical School, setting out his observations and opinions regarding the respondent's condition. In a letter dated November 23, 1991, Dr. Purcell reported that, based on three one-hour meetings with the respondent, it was his personal opinion that the respondent was merely a heavy social drinker, not an alcoholic. In a letter dated December 4, 1993, Dr. Purcell reported on his November 11, 1993, meeting with the respondent. He expressed his conclusions that the respondent's consumption of alcohol was less than that of a social drinker, that the respondent was being treated unfairly, and that there was no reason the respondent should be prevented from working. On December 20, 1993, the respondent was seen for a three-day evaluation by the staff of the Meninger Foundation in Topeka, Kansas, a well- respected chemical dependency evaluation and treatment facility. In the examination report, dated December 23, 1993, Roy W. Meninger, M.D., a psychiatrist, stated that the examining staff could find no basis for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse at the time of the examination, although they could neither affirm nor negate the earlier diagnoses at South Miami Hospital and Talbott. Likewise, the staff found no basis for concluding that the respondent was not competent to practice medicine or posed a public hazard. On August 19, 1994, the respondent was admitted to St. Mary's Hospital by Dr. William Donovan, with an admission diagnosis of gastroenteritis or hepatitis. Dr. Jeffrey S. Wenger, a gastroenterologist, was asked by Dr. Donovan to consult with regard to the condition of the respondent's liver. When he first examined the respondent, Dr. Wenger had no chronic history and was aware only of the acute history reported by Dr. Donovan that the respondent presented with acute intoxication and that he needed to undergo detoxification. Dr. Wenger's diagnosis on consultation was that the respondent suffered from acute hepatitis, likely alcohol related, and he ordered serologies which eliminated other causes of the liver disease. The respondent was discharged on August 29, 1994, to the Hanley-Hazelton Center for rehabilitation; he was released after four days. When Dr. Wenger spoke with the respondent on August 19, 1994, shortly after his admission, he admitted drinking about three glasses of vodka and soda per day, although the respondent claimed that the amount had decreased over the previous few months. Given his acute intoxication on admission, Dr. Wenger ordered that seventy-five milligrams of librium be administered to the respondent three times per day to prevent delerium tremens; this dosage was decreased incrementally during the respondent's hospitalization. Dr. Wenger has no opinion as to whether the respondent suffers from the disease of alcoholism or whether he is presently capable of practicing medicine with reasonable skill and safety. He is of the opinion that, during his hospitalization at St. Mary's, the respondent was not capable of practicing medicine with reasonable skill and safety. The respondent denies that he is an alcoholic and believes that all of his troubles originated with an incorrect "non-diagnosis" of chronic alcoholism made by a physician's assistant at South Miami Hospital in December 1990. During the summer and fall of 1990, he was having marital problems and was 'living life pretty hard.' Although he was drinking two to four drinks per day, he felt that he did not have a problem with alcohol but that he was just not getting enough rest. The respondent went into the Talbott Recovery System only because Drs. Forman and Goodwin threatened him with the loss of his license to practice medicine. He claims that he was not evaluated when he was in Anchor Hospital, and he believes that the staff at Anchor and Talbott merely accepted the incorrect diagnosis of chronic alcoholism made at South Miami Hospital and forced him to participate in a four-month inpatient treatment program on this basis alone. He felt he never belonged in the Talbott treatment program, so he lied and made things up in order to progress through the program's twelve steps. Specifically, the respondent claims that the January 1991 letter to his partners was written under duress, that his first draft was rejected because he didn't adequately admit his alcoholism, and that the letter he actually sent was essentially dictated to him. He would not have agreed to sign the PRN monitoring contract if it were not a condition of his release from Talbott. The respondent denies each allegation made by his partners in the confrontation of December 1992: He never took -longer than thirty minutes for lunch; he did not ever leave the diagnostic center unattended or for long periods of time; it was impossible for anyone to have smelled alcohol on his breath because at the time he was drinking no more than one or two beers on Saturday after playing golf. He was furious at the accusations and believes that his partners were trying to force him to retire because they knew he would never again submit to the humiliation and degradation of treatment. From December 1992 until May 1993, when his partners contacted the PRN, he settled back into his old pattern of having two drinks with his friends each evening after work. The respondent disputed the validity of the examination performed by Dr. Dandiya. According to the respondent, Dr. Dandiya did a very cursory, five- minute physical examination and took no past medical history whatsoever. The only conversation the respondent claimed he had with Dr. Dandiya was to tell him why he was there and to request that he draw blood to test for alcohol. The respondent testified that Dr. Dandiya drew the blood as requested but that he used an alcohol swab when he did so, thus contaminating the blood and ensuring a positive test result. Dr. Marks likewise did an inadequate psychiatric examination, according to the respondent. The respondent testified that Dr. Marks already had his notes prepared when the respondent arrived, having taken them from the records of his previous hospital admissions and of his time at Talbott. The respondent claims that Dr. Marks spent only fifteen minutes asking him about the things written in his notes; the remaining forty-five minutes of the first visit were spent in the secretary's office taking psychological tests. The respondent told Dr. Marks he thought he had not been evaluated at all and arranged for a second visit. The respondent described the second visit as much like the first, and he insisted that, in the only discussion he and Dr. Marks had, he told Dr. Marks he drank nothing more than an occasional beer. The respondent admits he was extremely ill when he was admitted to St. Mary's Hospital in August 1994. He concedes that he was drinking at that time but that he really wasn't keeping track of how much he was drinking. He did not think, however, that he was drinking enough to cause hepatitis. The respondent testified that, since his release from the Hanley-Hazelton Center, his alcohol consumption has been "almost" nonexistent. He is aware that he cannot drink without becoming seriously ill. The respondent has never been reported by a physician or other health care professional or by a patient as impaired on the job as a result of the use of alcohol or otherwise. None of the physicians for whom he has done work have complained that his work was of less than acceptable quality. Because the respondent has not practiced medicine since May 1993, except for a period of about one week in late September 1993, there is no current evidence regarding his ability to practice with reasonable skill and safety. Alcoholism is a disease characterized by the use of alcohol in an amount excessive for a particular person. This excessive use of alcohol can impair a person's ability to work; it can cause physical damage such as liver damage and brain damage manifested as loss of concentration and memory lapses; and it can adversely affect social and interpersonal relationships. The consumption of alcohol need not be compulsive; a person can decide that drinking will be part of his or her life and then continue drinking as a matter of choice even though it is clear that there are adverse effects and deterioration in the ability to function on a day-to-day basis. After a period of time, the consumption of alcohol becomes a pattern, and the person becomes dependent on drinking, both physically and psychologically. One of the classic symptoms of alcoholism is denial, denial of adverse effects on one's life as a result of continued drinking and denial that it would be physically and emotionally healthier to quit drinking. Alcoholism is a chronic, relapsing condition which, if left untreated, will get progressively worse. Alcoholism can only be treated and controlled. It cannot be cured. The testimony of the respondent, summarized above in paragraphs 41 through 47, is not credible to prove that he is not an alcoholic and that his ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety has never been, is not now, and never will be, affected by his use of alcohol. The respondent accused all of the health care professionals who have diagnosed him as an alcoholic of incompetence, malpractice, and lying; he offered excuses for behavior which his partners considered questionable and denied every allegation they raised in December 1992; he blamed his troubles on conspiracies mounted against him because of greed - the greed of his partners to split his $600,000 annual salary among themselves and the greed of Dr. Goetz and those running state- approved treatment programs to enrich themselves at the expense of professionals like himself, who have been deliberately misdiagnosed as alcoholic. The respondent did not admit to a single fault and even explained away his deteriorated condition in December 1990 as the result of the lack of sufficient rest. Rather than support his assertion that, in spite of his drinking, he is not an alcoholic, this testimony merely confirms the extent of his denial of all signs and symptoms of the adverse effects of his consumption of alcohol. The respondent has shown a consistent pattern of drinking which, since December 1990, has been broken only by the one-year period following his discharge from Talbott in April 1991. He was diagnosed in August 1994 with alcohol-related hepatitis after being admitted to St. Mary's Hospital acutely intoxicated, yet he still drinks alcohol. The letters of Dr. John J. Purcell are not credible evidence to prove that the respondent is not an alcoholic and that his ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety is not affected by his use of alcohol. At best, this hearsay evidence merely supplements the respondent's self-serving testimony that he is nothing more than a social drinker and that he is being treated unfairly. Nor is the Meninger report sufficient to prove that the respondent is not an alcoholic and that his ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety is not affected by his use of alcohol under the standards recognized by the State of Florida. The staff was equivocal about whether the respondent is an alcoholic, concluding only that there was no present evidence of alcohol abuse. The staff's opinion that the respondent was competent to practice medicine was based on the assessment of his condition in December 1993. The evidence is clear and convincing that the respondent suffers from the disease of alcoholism. Even though there have been no complaints regarding the quality of his work and no indication that he has been impaired or intoxicated on the job, the respondent has shown extremely poor judgment regarding his consumption of alcohol in personal life. The evidence is clear and convincing that the respondent is an impaired physician and cannot practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety unless he abstains completely from the consumption of alcohol. This can be assured only if the respondent successfully completes an approved treatment program and keeps his alcoholism in remission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that James P. Bowman, M.D., is unable to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of the use of alcohol and Suspending his medical license until he appears before the Board and demonstrates that he is able to resume the practice of medicine with reasonable skill and safety; Requiring that this demonstration be supported, at a minimum, by satisfactory mental and physical evaluations performed by experts approved by the Board and by evidence of successful completion of an approved alcohol rehabilitation program; Placing Dr. Bowman on probation for five (5) years subject to terms and conditions set by the Board to ensure his continued ability to practice medicine with reasonable and safety, if or when the terms of the suspension are satisfied; Imposing an administrative fine of $3,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 28th day of August 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Newell Jerome Griffith is a licensed physician and, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, was engaged in the practice of medicine at Winter Haven, Florida. (Testimony of Respondent) During the period 1979-1980, Respondent's investigator, Lawrence E. Dodd, Jr., conducted routine audits of pharmacies in the Winter Haven area. The purpose of his audits was to review prescriptions for controlled substances in order to determine if irregularities had taken place in the prescribing and dispensing of such substances by pharmacists and physicians. During the course of these audits, Dodd found that Respondent had issued a large number of prescriptions in preceding years for various controlled substances which fell into the category of Schedule II under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The prescriptions in questions were prescribed for and obtained by Gerald Cooney, Annette Groover, and Peggy Moore. (Testimony of Dodd, Petitioner's Exhibits 1- 9) The following facts relate to each of the above named individuals: Gerald Cooney Respondent has treated Gerald Cooney as a patient since approximately 1974. Medical records reflect that Respondent treated Cooney for a medullary sponge kidney or similar chronic urinary infection, and acute and chronic recurrent infection of the left knee area which originally had been caused by a bicycle injury and was aggravated by shrapnel wounds in the same area during wartime service in 1970. Since that time, he has had multiple problems with his left leg requiring hospitalizations and has had a chronic recurrent cellulitis. Be has never had full use of the extremity since that time and has had recurrent swelling and extreme pain requiring narcotics. To alleviate the pain, Respondent prescribed both oral and injectable Dilaudid. In 1977, Respondent referred Cooney to the University of Florida College of Medicine regarding his renal difficulty. On April 1, 1977, Respondent wrote the Chief, Division of Urology, at the College that Cooney continues to require, and receive oral Dilaudid in amounts greater than I am comfortable with, but see no alternative to prescribing." On April 7, 1977, the Division Chief wrote Respondent that he had been unable to find any reason for Cooney's protracted pain requiring narcotics. In July 1978, Cooney was admitted to the Veteran's Hospital in Tampa for urinary tract infection and underwent a cystoscopy. The patient was discharged with instructions to return to Respondent for treatment of his "narcotic dependency." Respondent's office notes on February 19, 1979, stated that Cooney had been taking from 14 to 24 Dilaudid tablets daily and was able to make a reduction in dosage for a day or two, but then exacerbation of all illnesses recurred. The medical records further reflect a letter written by Respondent on August 17, 1979, "To Concerned Treating Physician or Physicians" which stated that Respondent had been treating Cooney for Dilaudid abuse which had come about because of symptoms associated with his left knee and urinary problems. In September of 1978, Cooney was again admitted to a Veteran's Hospital for a urinary tract infection, sponge kidney, and Dilaudid addiction. The attending physician noted that since Cooney's dependency had not been treated by his private doctor in Winter Haven, after his last discharge, it was decided that it should be treated at that time by withdrawing Dilaudid. Cooney, however, disagreed and was discharged to be treated at a drug center in Orlando. He did not seek such treatment but obtained further prescriptions for Dilaudid from Respondent. During the period November 1976 to June 1979, Respondent prescribed over 12,500 tablets of Dilaudid 4 mg for Cooney. Additionally, Dilaudid was prescribed in injectable form in the amount of 2 mg./cc. 14 x 20 vials. Between July and December 1979, Respondent prescribed over 2500 tablets of Dilaudid 4 mg, and 24 tablets of Dilaudid 2 mg. Between December 1979 and January 1981, Respondent issued prescriptions to Cooney for almost 7500 tablets of Dilaudid 4 mg, and a prescription for 20 1 cc ampules of injectable Dilaudid. Dilaudid is a Schedule II controlled substance listed under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. It is customarily used for pain and has addictive qualities. Respondent is of the opinion that there was no alternative to the treatment which he gave to Cooney. He recognized that the patient was addicted to Dilaudid and attempted to assist him with detoxification in 1976. At one time, Cooney was taking as many as 20 tablets per day and, although Respondent limited him to between 16 to 20 tablets per day, he acknowledged that this amount was excessive. Respondent had prescribed other drugs for the patient, but he had allergic reactions to them. (Testimony of Dodd, Deatsch, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 5, 6, 9, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Annette Groover Annette Groover has been a patient of Respondent's for over 26 years and was once employed by him as a nurse's assistant and receptionist. During this period, Respondent treated her for severe migraine headaches and seizure disorder. During the course of treatment, Respondent referred the patient to neurologist for consultation at various times who placed her on anticonvulsive medication. Respondent had prescribed Talwin for the patient's headaches, but in 1970 he became aware that she had used the drug excessively and for feelings of depression at times rather than for headache relief. In September 1979, Respondent's office notes reflect that Groover had been using a Variety of medications including Talwin, and that she had revealed that if she did not take the drug "her legs start to tremble, nose starts running, and I get jittery." Respondent thereafter counseled the patient regarding drug habituation and she thereafter was successful in withdrawal from Talwin. He then placed her on a regime of injectable Demerol because other drugs did not provide headache relief. In 1977, a consulting neurologist examined the patient and characterized her headaches as a chronic problem which was most likely related to tension. Between November and June 1979, Respondent prescribed for the patient more than 1850 cc. of injectable Demerol, 50 mg./cc. In addition, 12 tablets of 50 mg. Demerol and 100 tablets of Dexedrin Sulphate, 5 mg., were prescribed. Between July 1980, and November 1980, Respondent prescribed 66 2 cc. vials of Demerol, 100 mg./cc. Although Respondent's patient records do not reflect that Respondent examined Mrs. Groover between October 7, 1977 and March 23, 1978, he issued 29 prescriptions for injectable Demerol to her during that period. Respondent maintained at the hearing that his treatment of Mrs. Groover was legitimate and that she has never shown any withdrawal symptoms during periods of several weeks when she has gone without the drug. Mrs. Groover's husband is a medical technician in the Naval Reserve and normally administers her Demerol injections. Although she has tried other drugs, most of them have conflicted with her seizure problem and Demerol does not affect her in that manner. Demerol is a Schedule II controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. It is a central nervous system depressant which relieves pain, but is addictive. (Testimony of Respondent, Groover, Dodd, Deatsch, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2, 7) Mary E. (Peggy) Moore Mrs. Moore is a legal secretary who has been a patient of Respondent for over 20 years. Respondent has treated her primarily for diabetes and pancreatitis. Over a number of years, she was hospitalized several time after referrals by Respondent to gastroenterology specialists. Demerol was prescribed both by Respondent and specialists to control the pancreatitis attacks. Her medical records reflect that she has been subject to episodes of hypoglycemia-- insulin reaction, usually complicated by epigastric pain and vomiting. In December 1979, after Mrs. Moore had been admitted to the Winter Haven Hospital for insulin reaction, the gastroenterologist who treated her stated in his report that the patient takes an appropriate amount of properly monitored narcotics in the form of Demerol at intervals of one to three months when experiencing pain from pancreatitis. Respondent also prescribed Quaaludes for Mrs. Groover in order that she could sleep because she had been under extreme pressure and stress. She took two tablets at night off and on for two to three years. She needed Demerol in the past at particular times when she had pancreatitis attacks. In 1980, Respondent referred her to Emory University Diagnostic Clinic and it was discovered that diabetic neuropathy was causing pain rather than pancreatitis. She is not taking Demerol at the present time and no longer suffers from her former attacks. During the period when she took Demerol, her daughter who was a registered nurse administered the injections and later her husband performed this task. On one occasion in 1978, her Demerol supply was stolen when she was on a trip. During the period when she was using Demerol, her husband destroyed any that she did not use between attacks. Respondent testified at the hearing that Demerol did become a problem with her before she went to Emory University Clinic, but she has not used it since that time. Demerol is a Schedule II controlled substance under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Quaaludes are a sedative and also a Schedule II controlled substance which is suitable periodically for sleep, but the patient is subject to rapid tolerance of the drug. One-half tablet of 300 mg Quaalude is usually sufficient for infrequent users. Mrs. Moore terminated the use of Quaaludes in the summer of 1980. Respondent's medical records concerning Mrs. Moore reflect that he did not examine her during the period May 9, 1979 and October 1, 1979, but continued to issue prescriptions to her for Demerol and Quaalude. Between December 1976 to June 1979, Respondent prescribed for Mrs. Moore in excess of 1400 cc. of injectable Demerol, 50 mm./cc., and 1900 tablets of 300 mg. Qualudes. Between July 1979 through December 1979, he prescribed 400 tablets of Quaalude,300 mg., 277 cc. of Demerol 50 mg./cc., and 230 cc. of Demerol, 100 mg./cc. Between July and November 1980, Respondent prescribed 101 cc. of Demerol, 50 mg./cc., 46 cc of Demerol 100 mg./cc., and 172 cc. of Demerol, 75 mg./cc. (Testimony of Dodd, Deatsch, Respondent, Moore, Petitioner's Exhibits 3-4, 8, Respondent's Exhibit 2) In the opinion of physicians who are experts in the field of drug treatment and internal medicine who reviewed the medical records of Gerald Cooney, Annette Groover, and Peggy Moore, Respondent exercised poor judgment in prescribing known addictive medicine in excessive amounts for prolonged periods to those patients, without properly monitoring their course of treatment. They therefore are of the opinion that Respondent failed to treat those patients in conformity with recognized acceptable standards of medical practice. Specifically, they based their opinions in the case of Cooney upon the fact that Respondent was aware of the patient's addiction to Dilaudid, yet prescribed inordinate amounts of the drug over an extended period of time without taking definitive action to either cut off the patient's supply or to change the medication. A normal dose of Dilaudid would be from four to six 4 mg. tablets a day and never should exceed 12 or 14 during limited time periods for acute pain. Respondent's dosage of 16 to 20 tablets per day on a continuing basis resulted in perpetuation of the patient's addiction. As to Annette Groover's case, the expert testimony reflects the opinion that since the Respondent was aware of the patient's former dependency upon Talwin, he should have prescribed other addictive drugs, such as Demerol, in limited amounts and attempt to use non-addictive medication for the patient's migraine headaches, particularly where, as here, they result from periods of tension. They also are of the opinion that the use of Demerol by the patient reflects a pattern of abuse, but not necessarily addiction. Further, a patient with a history of drug abuse should not have been permitted to administer Demerol by injection at her home, but should have been required to have such treatment administered by a nurse or at a hospital emergency room. The basis of the expert opinion in the case of Peggy Moore is that Respondent prescribed excessive amounts of Demerol and Quaalude for the patient without adequate monitoring of the need for such drugs, and that he permitted home administration rather than at his office, or a hospital site in spite of his expressed concern over the possibility that the patient may have been abusing the use of such drugs. The above opinions are confirmed by the evidence and accepted as a basis for this finding of fact. Other opinions expressed by the expert witnesses during the course of their testimony are not considered to be supported by the evidence. (Testimony of Deatsch, Davenport) Dr. John Smythe, a Winter Haven physician who has known the Respondent for a period of 27 years, is of the opinion that although Respondent's treatment of the patients in question was perhaps "unorthodox," he was dealing with severe chronic patients and perhaps showed too much compassion in prescribing greater drug amounts than he (Smythe) might have prescribed under similar circumstances. Respondent's reputation in the Winter Haven medical community is that of an intelligent, sincere, and conscientious physician who does not hesitate to refer patients to specialists as necessary. (Testimony of Smythe) Dr. William T. Steele, a Winter Haven physician who has known Respondent since the latter has practiced in Winter Haven, is of the opinion that he is an outstanding physician with high moral character who conducts his practice as well as any physician in the community. (Testimony of Steele)
Recommendation That Petitioner suspend Respondent's privilege to prescribe Schedule II controlled substances as defined by Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, for a period of one year, but that the suspension be stayed and Respondent be placed on probation for a like period under appropriate terms and supervision established by the Board to protect the public against inappropriate prescribing of controlled substances. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 13th day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Deborah J. Miller, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Pyle, Esquire Post Office Box 557 Lake Alfred, Florida 33850
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent failed to maintain an accurate medication record relating to narcotic medications in violation of Section 400.419(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 58A-5.0185(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has authority to license assisted living facilities (ALFs) and the duty to enforce all statutes and rules governing such facilities. Respondent is a licensed ALF with a total capacity for 35 residents. Respondent's License No. AL5888 is effective March 20, 2002, through March 19, 2004. On January 31, 2002, Petitioner completed a biennial survey of Respondent's facility. During the survey, Petitioner's staff observed Respondent's staff administering medication to six residents who needed medication assistance. Resident No. 6 received a narcotic medication, in tablet form, that she was supposed to take by mouth three times daily, as needed, for pain. The medication is addictive and may be obtained only by prescription. The prescription bottle at issue here indicated that it was filled on January 21, 2002, with 100 tablets. There is no other evidence regarding the number of tablets in the bottle when it arrived at Respondent's facility. Respondent did not count the tablets in the bottle upon receiving it from the pharmacy. Resident 6's MOR showed that she received the narcotic tablet three times daily, everyday, with no missed doses during the time period at issue here. According to the MOR, Resident 6 received a total of 32 doses of the medication beginning January 21, 2002, at 7:00 a.m. through January 31, 2002, at 12:25 p.m. However, the bottle contained only 54 tablets as of January 31, 2002, at 12.25 p.m. Respondent's staff could not explain or account for the 14 missing narcotic tablets. Under cover of a letter dated February 12, 2002, Petitioner advised Respondent that the biennial survey had identified a Class II deficiency relative to Resident 6's medication administration. The letter requested Respondent to file a plan of correction within ten days. Resident 6's narcotic medication was refilled on February 19, 2002, with 100 tablets. As of March 8, 2002, Resident 6 had 51 pills remaining in the new prescription bottle. On March 8, 2002, Petitioner's staff conducted a follow-up visit to Respondent's facility. The count of tablets in Resident 6's narcotic medication prescription bottle, when compared to the MOR, was correct at that time. Under cover of a letter dated March 15, 2002, Petitioner advised Respondent that the previously cited deficiency had been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Alvin L. Peters, Esquire 25 East Eighth Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent Judith M. H. Bandlow Gioia, R.N. #26105- 2 should be suspended or revoked, or whether Respondent should be put on probation or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact During the period of time from March 1, 1978 through March 13, 1978, while employed as a Registered Nurse at Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital, Cocoa, Florida, Respondent converted to her own use on numerous occasions, a controlled narcotic drug, to wit: Demerol (meperidine) and injected herself with said narcotic on a daily basis. Respondent altered the narcotic control record in order to hide the taking of said drugs noted in the foregoing paragraph and, in some instances, failed to chart the narcotic on the patient's medication sheet or nurses notes. On or about March 13, 1978, on being confronted with the facts stated in the foregoing paragraphs 2 and 3 by the Director of Nurses, Nelda C. Mitchell, R.N., Respondent admitted her guilt and at that time gave Ms. Mitchell four ampules of Demerol 100 mg. which she had in her uniform pocket. Respondent was thereupon discharged from her position on March 13, 1978. The Petitioner, State Board of Nursing, filed an administrative complaint against Respondent on March 27, 1978 charging Respondent with unprofessional conduct and with engaging in the possession of controlled substances contrary to Chapter 464 Florida Statutes. Respondent was notified that unless she requested an administrative hearing the Board would either place the license of Respondent on probation or suspend or revoke her license as a Registered Nurse. Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. Respondent at the hearing admitted allegations one to four (4) of the administrative complaint and conceded such conduct was in violation of Section 464.21(1)(b) and 464.21(1)(d) The Respondent through her attorney, and personally, testified that she requested the hearing, not to refute the allegations of the complaint but to mitigate the action pending by the State Board of Nursing. A deposition entered into evidence by Respondent, without objection from the Petitioner, was taken on behalf of the Respondent. The witness was Cynthia H. Clowes, the therapist of Respondent when she was admitted to the Palm Beach Institute on March 16, 1978. Ms. Clowes stated that if the Respondent were to undergo therapy by a person qualified in giving therapy in addiction that at the end of two years, more or less, Respondent would be ready to be exposed to access to drugs. She did not recommend that Respondent be exposed to drugs at the time of the deposition on August 7, 1978. Ms. Clowes recommended that Respondent regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. It was Ms. Clowes' opinion that Respondent Gioia had the capability to resume her duties as a nurse on a part-time, but not a full-time basis. The parties agreed that Michelle E. Vollard, Out-patient Therapist Substance Abuse Services, Brevard County Mental Health Center, Inc. would submit a statement to the Hearing Officer subsequent to the hearing. The letter was received December 1, 1978 in the office of the Hearing Officer and was signed by Michelle Vollard, Out-patient Therapist Substance Abuse Services and Rene S. Turla, M.D., Team Psychiatrist. The statement recommends that Ms. Gioia continue individual counselling for a period of at least a year and recommended that her access to narcotic drugs be limited, if not totally eliminated, while she is undergoing therapy. It was recommended that the Respondent attend an alcoholic orientation (education group), and an ongoing alcohol group. The Hearing Officer further finds: Subsequent to her discharge from Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital Respondent voluntarily placed herself in the Palm Beach Institute for a period of six weeks. The purpose was to seek treatment for an apparent addiction to Demerol and to alcoholic substances. After leaving the Palm Beach Institute as an impatient she returned on several occasions to consult with her therapist as an outpatient. She has attended meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous in Brevard County and has sought aid of the Brevard County Mental Health Center. Respondent is at present under stress and may take narcotic drugs without a prescrip- tion, and may also drink alcoholic beverages to excess. She should continue treatment to control alcohol consumption. Respondent should have no access to drugs prescribed for patients.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Respondent for a period of no less than two years. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Richard A. Gescheidt, Esquire Amdur Building - Suite 2-D 40 Southeast First Avenue Boca Raton, Florida 33432 Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Investigation & Licensing Coordinator State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B. Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Findings Of Fact George F. Graves is a Doctor of Osteopathy, licensed by the Florida Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, holding License No. 2972. The participants stipulated that dilaudid is a Class II controlled substance as defined by Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. The basic theory of the Board's case, as revealed in the Original Complaint and First Amended Complaint, was that George F. Graves did conspire to obtain and did in fact obtain narcotic drugs under false and fraudulent pretenses and did sell prescriptions for such narcotic drugs in violation of 459.14 (2)(c)(h)(m)(n), F.S. and Rule 21R-3.21 F.A.C. Although Count I of the Second Amended Complaint does not allege any conspiracy, the evidence presented at the hearing was intended to prove a conspiracy existing between George F. Graves and Marian Mullins involving the sale of prescriptions for the drug dilaudid, and to prove that Dr. Graves had prescribed dilaudid in the names of individuals who were not his patients or who he was not at the time treating. The Board's evidence against Dr. Graves relating to the proof of his conspiring to sell prescriptions for dilaudid was based solely upon the testimony of Marian Mullins, who was Dr. Graves' co-conspirator or accomplice. The law in Florida is very clear that the testimony of a co-conspirator or accomplice shall be received with great caution. See Weiss v. State, 120 So 2d 528. The Hearing Officer, having carefully considered the testimony of Marian Mullins, finds several matters which relate adversely to her credibility as a witness in this cause, as follows: Marian Mullins testified that she had never sold drugs. Marcie Loomas, who was a witness for the prosecution and close associate of Marian Mullins, testified that from the very first time that Marian Mullins shared her dilaudid with her, that Marian Mullins had invited Loomas to sell drugs for her. Further Marcie Loomas testified that she had had prescriptions filled in her name which she had received from Marian Mullins, that for having these prescriptions filled she received $50.00 in cash and that for selling a 36 pill prescription on the street she had received an additional $55.00 to $60.00 from Marian Mullins. Marian Mullins testified that she began to acquire dilaudid from Dr. Graves in the spring of 1974. The record of Class II prescriptions issued by Dr. Graves introduced at the hearing and prepared by the police department from a survey of pharmacies in the Pinellas County area indicate that the earliest prescription for dilaudid issued by Dr. Graves from which Marian Mullins received dilaudid was issued on August 29, 1974. Marian Mullins testified that she learned of her impending arrest from Marcie Loomas, after Marcie Loomas had been arrested. Marcie Loomas testified that she did not contact Mullins between the time of her arrest and the time Marian Mullins was arrested. Marian Mullins, upon her first interview by the authorities in February, indicated that she was under Dr. Graves care for heroin addiction. It was only after her arrest in July that she implicated Dr. Graves in any sale of prescriptions for narcotics. Marian Mullins was unable to provide information concerning specific dates, amounts of money and other matters which could be independently verified. She stated that she had difficulty remembering the particulars of the year 1974 because of the level of her narcotic addiction. The Hearing Officer finds no creditable proof of the sale of prescriptions for controlled substances by Dr. George F. Graves. The record of prescriptions for Class II controlled substances by Dr. Graves referred to above indicated that prescriptions for approximately 1,750 four mg dilaudid pills were delivered by Dr. Graves to Marian Mullins in the name of Marian Mullins, Margaret Schreffler, and Sherry Zauner. Dr. Graves admitted having written these prescriptions and having delivered them to Marian Mullins. Except for the first prescription for dilaudid dated August 29, 1974 in the name of Sherry Zauner, Dr. Graves could provide no explanation of why he had prescribed drugs for Marian Mullins in the names of other individuals beyond the fact that Marian Mullins had asked him to do so. Dr. Graves did state that the reason he prescribed dilaudid for Marian Mullins was to treat her addiction by maintaining her on the drug dilaudid until she entered a drug treatment program as she had indicated to him that she would do. Dr. Graves further testified that be had developed a treatment program for Marian Mullins to reduce her dependency on dilaudid in the interim. The record of prescriptions referred to above indicates that Dr. Graves delivered to Marian Mullins prescriptions for 385 four mg dilaudid pills in September, 576 four mg dilaudid pills in October, and 864 four mg dilaudid pills in November. Marian Mullins testified that her level of addiction was between 10-15 four mg dilaudid pills per day. Dr. Graves provided Mullins with an average of thirteen pills per day in September, nineteen pills per day in October, and twenty-nine pills per day in November. This shows a steady increase, not a reduction, in her supply of dilaudid. If one assumes that Dr. Graves was treating Marian Mullins for narcotics addiction and that such treatment falls within the professional practice of osteopathy, the record of prescription and Dr. Graves' testimony indicate that he did not control his patient and institute his treatment plan. Dr. Graves knew or should have known that the quantity of drugs that he was prescribing for Marian Mullins was in excess of that needed to maintain or reduce her level of addiction. Section 893.05, F.S., requires that a practitioner not only prescribe drugs in the course of his professional practice but also in good faith. Good faith is an honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put an individual upon notice to inquire. Under the circumstances, Dr. Graves did not exercise good faith in prescribing quantities of dilaudid in excess of what was indicated as necessary for treatment of Marian Mullins' addiction, and did so in violation of 893.05, F.S. Section 459.14(2)(m), F.S., provides that the State Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners may suspend a license to practice upon a finding by the Board that the individual is guilty of immoral or unprofessional conduct. Unprofessional conduct is defined to include any departure from or failure to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing osteopathic medical practice, without regard to the injury of a patient or the committing of any act contrary to honesty, whether the same is committed in the course of practice or not. Dr. Gravest prescription of gross quantities of dilaudid to Marian Mullins and his failure to require her adherence to his treatment plan does not conform to the minimal accepted standards of osteopathic medical practice. Based upon the evidence presented by the Board and the evidence presented by Dr. Graves relating to his professional and personal character, the Hearing Officer finds that Dr. Graves did not violate 823.05 and 459.14(2)(m) for his personal gain or profit. The Hearing Officer further finds that, except for the findings above, Dr. Graves is a knowledgeable osteopathic physician who has a fine reputation both personally and professionally within his community.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the license of Dr. George F. Graves to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida be revoked but that the Board in its discretion consider the reinstatement of Dr. George F. Graves restricting his practice of osteopathic medicine in such a manner that he may not prescribe any drug which is listed or may be listed in Schedules I through V of section 893.03 of the Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of August, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 904 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire LaFace and Baggett, P.A. 101 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida David Rein, Esquire Forer and Rein 400 Woodward Building 733 15th Street N.W. Washington, D.C. Crockett Farnell, Esquire Nixon and Farnell 521 Oak Avenue Clearwater, Florida
Findings Of Fact Respondent is Paula Kay Spears. She is a licensed registered nurse and holds license number 1435502. At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Lakeland Regional Medical Center in Lakeland, Florida. Caren Hicks worked as a unit coordinator in the cardiovascular surgery unit of the hospital where Respondent was also employed as a registered nurse. Hicks and Respondent worked together for approximately five years. In April of 1988, Hicks witnessed Respondent using for the first time what Hicks believed to be a drug commonly called "crank". Hicks also used the substance on that occasion. Hicks purchased the substance from Respondent on only one later occasion; although she and Respondent engaged in joint use of the substance on several subsequent occasions. They ingested the substance by "snorting" it through the nose. Hicks provided crank on some occasions for the joint use of herself and Respondent. The two used the drug while on duty in the cardiovascular unit to which they were assigned. The last occasion of their joint usage of the drug was September 11, 1988. When she nasally inhaled the drug, Hicks observedthat her pulse rate and energy level increased. While she experienced fatigue when the effects of the drug wore off, Hicks never experienced any sense of confusion. She compared the effects of the substance to that of a drug commonly called "speed". Tommy Smith is the head nurse for the cardiovascular unit where Respondent and Hicks were employed in September of 1988. He confronted Respondent with the accusation that she and Hicks had used crank while on duty. Respondent denied the charge. Smith offered Respondent continued employment in her position, provided she submit to drug screening and rehabilitative treatment for drug abuse. Respondent rejected the offer. Subsequently, Respondent's employment with the hospital was terminated. Later, Smith made the same offer to Hicks. Hicks accepted the offer, attended a drug rehabilitation program and is still employed at the hospital. Expert testimony of Martin Zfaz, M.D., establishes that crank is a form of methamphetamine, a central nervous system stimulant which is regulated in accordance with Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, as a controlled substance and a schedule II drug. Crank, over a period of time, can cause confusion in the user's mental acuity. Depression follows use of the drug when its effects wear off. Usage can lead to dependence, with the possibility of resultant acute psychosis. Poor, impaired or confused judgement in the user can result. The substance is highly addictive, with limited medical use. Medical uses for crank include treatment for narcolepsy and hyper- activity in children. The substance is also prescribed as a balance to phenobarbital medication of epileptic patients. Although it depresses appetite, its usage for this purpose has decreased. Use of crank would have a negative effect on a medical nurse's judgement and performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Nursing finding Respondent in violation of Section 464.018(1)(i) and Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such Final Order suspend Respondent's license pending Respondent's completion of a drug dependency evaluation and provision by her of a report of that evaluation to the Board and demonstration to the Board that she is capable of safely practicing the profession of nursing. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that such Final Order place Respondent's license on probationary status for a period of three years upon satisfaction of the foregoing requirements for termination of license suspension with specific conditions of such probation to include periodic drug dependency reevaluations and reports as may be determined by the Board and payment of an administrative fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings. 1.-2. Accepted. 3. Weight of the evidence demonstrates that Respondent ingested the drug by "snorting" it. Finding rejected. 4.-14. Accepted 15. Rejected. Not consistent with the weight of the evidence. 16.-17. Rejected, unnecessary to result reached. Respondent's Proposed Findings. None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mon), Esq. Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Paula Kay Spears 1240 Sarasota Avenue Lakeland, FL 33805 Kenneth Easley, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation The Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32201
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Respondent possessed Dilaudid without a legitimate purpose, and whether Respondent is unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety, in violation of section 464.018(1), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health, Board of Nursing, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing in the state of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Lisa Michelle Jackson was a licensed registered nurse in the state of Florida, holding license number RN 9375240. Respondent’s current address of record is 2358 York Street, Jacksonville, Florida 32207. On Saturday, November 7, 2015, Respondent left work and picked up her minor son from her parents’ house. She drove home, parked at her front door, and lost consciousness. At some point, Respondent’s parents called her cell phone. The phone was answered by Respondent’s son, who advised them of the situation. Respondent’s parents went to her house, and apparently called emergency medical services. EMS personnel arrived on the scene and administered Narcan to Respondent. Narcan is a medication that blocks receptors for opioid-based drugs, and is used to reverse the effects of opioids. It is commonly used when medical personnel suspect a patient of an opioid overdose. Respondent was thereafter transported to St. Vincent’s Riverside Medical Center (Riverside), and admitted with encephalopathy and acute respiratory failure. Respondent had to be placed on a respirator. A urine drug screen was performed, which returned positive for benzodiazepines and opiates. Riverside related the encephalopathy and respiratory failure to a suspected drug overdose. Respondent denied having taken anything containing benzodiazepines. She did indicate that approximately a year earlier she had undergone a tooth extraction, for which her dentist had prescribed Percocet. She had some left over, and testified that she had taken some for back pain several days before November 7, 2015. Respondent was discharged from Riverside on November 9, 2015, at approximately 11:40 a.m. After her discharge from Riverside on November 9, 2015, but later that afternoon, Respondent was speaking with her mother on the telephone. Respondent’s mother did not like the way she sounded, and came to the house. Respondent’s mother believed that Respondent was lethargic, but Respondent admitted only to being tired from her earlier hospital stay. EMS was called, and Respondent was again transported to Riverside, where she was admitted at approximately 5:45 p.m. Her diagnosis on admission was hypertensive disorder. She self-discharged against medical advice, signing the discharge papers at 6:36 p.m. There was no evidence that Respondent’s admission to Riverside on November 9, 2015, was the result of the use or abuse of any substance. On November 20, 2015, Respondent and Carl Nesmith were at Respondent’s residence. Respondent testified that she was experiencing back pain. At some time during the evening, Respondent took three or more Dilaudid tablets. Respondent testified that the tablets belonged to Mr. Nesmith, though the evidence was not sufficient to support a finding to that effect. Nonetheless, by the time of the arrival of the EMS team and her subsequent admission to Riverside as described herein, the tablets were in her possession. Dilaudid is a brand name of hydromorphone, an opioid. Pursuant to section 893.03(2)(a)1.k., Florida Statutes, hydromorphone is a Schedule II controlled substance that “has a high potential for abuse and has a currently accepted but severely restricted medical use in treatment in the United States, and abuse of the substance may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.” Respondent did not have a prescription for Dilaudid. At some point during the evening of November 20, 2015, Respondent passed out in her bathroom. EMS was called and dispatched to Respondent’s residence. The inference is that Mr. Nesmith called them, but since Respondent was unconscious, and Mr. Nesmith did not testify, the identity of the caller is not known. More to the point, the identity of the caller is not relevant. When EMS personnel arrived, they found Respondent unresponsive on the bathroom floor. Mr. Gorsuch recognized Respondent’s symptoms, including agonal breathing, as characteristic of an opioid overdose, and administered Narcan to counteract the effects of the suspected drug. The Narcan “worked,” and Respondent regained consciousness. EMS personnel discovered a plastic bag with loose pills in Respondent’s purse. The pills were taken with Respondent as she was transported by EMS to Riverside. Respondent was received at the Riverside emergency room shortly after midnight on November 21, 2015. Her condition was described as “drowsy but arousable with slurred speech.” Upon her arrival at Riverside, Ms. Quartano observed that Respondent was clutching a Ziplock-type bag of pills in her hand. How the pills came to be in her hand was not explained. Whether in her purse or in her hand, the pills were in Respondent’s possession. The pills were provided to Dr. McBride Johnson, who identified the pills as Dilaudid based on their shape, color, and markings. Respondent’s diagnosis upon admission was acute encephalopathy; poisoning by unspecified drugs, medicaments, and biological substances, accidental, initial encounter; and altered mental status. Respondent underwent a urine screening, which returned positive for benzodiazepines. Despite the fact that Respondent knew that she had taken “pills” during the evening in question, she denied to hospital personnel that she had taken any drugs or alcohol. As she had on November 9, 2015, Respondent self- discharged against medical advice, signing the discharge papers at 5:30 a.m. Upon her discharge from the hospital, Respondent was taken into custody by Sergeant Coleman from the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. Respondent told Sergeant Coleman that the Dilaudid had been given to her by a friend for back pain, and that she had them for several days. Despite her deposition testimony that she had taken pills allegedly provided to her by Mr. Nesmith, she told Sergeant Coleman that she had taken one of her previously prescribed Percocet tablets, and denied having taken any of the pills given to her by her “friend.” Respondent was then placed under arrest. Respondent’s mother had, for years, taken care of Respondent’s son while Respondent was working, often at night. Between November 2015 and January 2016, Respondent’s parents took over primary care of her son in order to provide him with a more stable environment. There is no evidence that Respondent ever diverted opioids, or any other drugs, from her employer. However, after having been visited by a Department of Health investigator, Respondent’s employer, University of Florida Health - Shands (Shands), first suspended and then, in January 2016, terminated Respondent’s employment as a registered nurse. On February 14, 2016, a Jacksonville Sheriff’s Deputy performed a traffic stop on Respondent after observing her fail to maintain her lane of traffic, stop past the stop bar at a stop light, drive up onto the curb nearly striking a pole, drive onto another curb and nearly onto the sidewalk, and while attempting to negotiate a turn, nearly strike another pole. The deputies called to the scene observed that Respondent had bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, lethargic movements, and that she was unsteady on her feet. She underwent Field Sobriety Exercises but failed to perform them to standard. Respondent testified that she had taken some over-the- counter sleeping medication at least 12 hours before being stopped. She could think of no reason why such medications would have had an effect on her by the time of the stop. Respondent stated that her erratic driving was caused by her vehicle pulling to the right and being difficult to control, which was consistent with her deposition testimony that it was because her car needed an alignment. That explanation was not believable. Respondent was arrested for driving while under the influence. The charges were ultimately reduced to reckless driving, but Respondent was required to attend DUI driving school, attend the DUI Victim Impact Panel, and perform community service. On March 15, 2016, Respondent was walking from her mother’s house to her car when she passed out in her mother’s yard. The Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department responded, arriving at approximately 12:15 p.m. The EMS personnel administered Narcan to Respondent, and transported her to Baptist Medical Center (Baptist). By the time she arrived, she was able to communicate with medical personnel, and attributed the incident to a fight with her mother, and lightheadedness from not eating that day. Respondent testified that “they told me at the hospital that I had morphine in my system, and I had no morphine.” Respondent’s understanding of what she was told is not substantiated by the Baptist medical records. Thus, the evidence is not sufficient to support a finding that Respondent had morphine in her system on March 15, 2016. Respondent was discharged from Baptist at approximately 1:15 p.m., about an hour after her arrival. Beginning “towards the end of 2015,” and extending “maybe up until March or April [2016], maybe a little later,” Respondent went to the Jacksonville Metro Treatment Center where she received daily methadone treatments in an effort to wean herself off of controlled substances. She “somewhat” received counseling, but the substance of her testimony indicates that the methadone was the driving cause of her visits to the treatment center. She stopped attending the treatment center due to the cost. From April 2016, when she stopped receiving methadone treatment at the Jacksonville Metro Treatment Center, until June or July 2016, Respondent received outpatient Suboxone treatment at Merit Health River Region, which accepts Medicaid. Suboxone is like methadone, but it blocks opioid receptors. Respondent stopped going to River Region because it was hard for her to get there due to transportation issues. Respondent did not complete her treatment, and she was not advised that she was in remission or that she should discontinue her treatment. Respondent has received no substance abuse treatment since she stopped going to River Region. On or about March 17, 2016, Dr. Sanchez evaluated Respondent as allowed by section 464.018(1)(j). The evaluation included not only a face-to-face interview with Respondent, but included a review of records, including medical and law enforcement records, related to each of the incidents described herein. During the evaluation, Respondent advised Dr. Sanchez that she had used opioids “opportunistically” for about 10 years, with her usage being sporadic and impulsive. Respondent further advised Dr. Sanchez that she had used a Fentanyl patch three to four days prior to the evaluation. Pursuant to section 893.03(2)(b)9., Florida Statutes, Fentanyl is a Schedule II controlled substance with the same potential for abuse as Dilaudid. Respondent did not have a prescription for Fentanyl. Dr. Sanchez opined that Respondent’s use of Fentanyl that close to the evaluation, with the risk of detection in the toxicology screen, was an indication of the strength of her addiction. Respondent did not tell Dr. Sanchez about the March 15, 2016, incident during which she passed out in her mother’s yard, an incident that occurred only two days prior to the evaluation. She agreed that the incident would have been relevant to Dr. Sanchez’s evaluation. The failure to disclose the incident is indicative of an evasive attitude towards matters that would reasonably be expected to affect Respondent’s ability to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety. Dr. Sanchez noted that Respondent had a history of emergency room visits over extended periods of time with different pain complaints, including back pain, abdominal pain related to gastric bypass surgery, and a broken tooth, all of which resulted in recommendations for short-term opiate therapy. Dr. Sanchez opined that Respondent’s actions suggested drug- seeking behavior. However, the maladies described, including a bulging disc from a car accident, and chronic tooth issues including, at the time of the evaluation, an abscess, were diagnosed by physicians, who prescribed pain management medications, and were not illusory. Regardless of whether Respondent’s use of opioids was initiated as a result of a medically-prudent prescription, the evidence is clear and convincing that Respondent’s use has passed to the stage of addiction. Dr. Sanchez opined that the incident on November 7, 2015, when Respondent took some form of opioid and picked up her child on the way home, ultimately losing consciousness at the wheel of her car, was evidence of a strong compulsion to use opioids. Dr. Sanchez’s opinion that this incident indicated a significant lack of judgment and control is credited. The incident on November 20, 2016, is further strong evidence of a growing and dangerous addition. In light of the other incidents described herein, and Respondent’s familiarity with opioids over the years, both as a patient and a nurse, Respondent’s testimony that she did not understand what she was taking that evening is simply not credible. Dr. Sanchez stated the circumstances surrounding Respondent’s February 14, 2016, arrest for driving under the influence is further evidence that Respondent was “losing control” of her addiction. The suggestion that the incident was the result of poor alignment is not credible, particularly in light of Respondent’s appearance and performance during the stop. Dr. Sanchez determined that Respondent refuses to accept responsibility for her behavior and remains in denial of her substance abuse issues, a conclusion that is supported and accepted. As a result of his evaluation, Dr. Sanchez diagnosed Respondent with severe opioid use disorder. He opined that Respondent has significantly impaired judgment due to her substance abuse, which precludes her from functioning as a registered nurse with the necessary skill and safety to patients. His testimony is credited. Dr. Sanchez further opined that Respondent requires an extended period of continuous supervision with monitoring, substance abuse treatment, random toxicology testing, and an extended period of time of documented abstinence from controlled substances before Respondent would be able to practice nursing with sufficient skill and safety to patients. He recommended that Respondent complete a full course of treatment geared to substance abuse and chemical dependency, initially as inpatient treatment, followed by an intensive outpatient program after a reasonable period of abstinence. Finally, Dr. Sanchez recommended that Respondent execute an Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN) monitoring agreement. IPN is the impaired practitioner program for the Board of Nursing, pursuant to section 456.076. IPN monitors the evaluation, care, and treatment of impaired nurses. IPN oversees random drug screens and provides for the exchange of information between treatment providers, evaluators, and the Department for the protection of the public. Respondent has not entered any form of inpatient treatment, though she indicated that she is currently on a wait- list for inpatient treatment, has discontinued outpatient treatment, and has not entered into an IPN agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, enter a final order: determining that Respondent violated sections 464.018(1)(i) and 464.018(1)(j); imposing a suspension of license number RN 9375240 for one year and thereafter until such time as Respondent personally appears before the Board and can demonstrate the present ability to engage in the safe practice of nursing, with such demonstration to include at least one IPN evaluation in which the evaluator finds Respondent to be able to engage in the safe practice of nursing or recommend the conditions under which safe practice could be attained; requiring compliance with IPN recommendations and contract conditions, as imposed; imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00; and awarding costs incurred in the prosecution of this case to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 29th day of November, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa Michelle Jackson 2356 York Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207-3541 (eServed) Rob F. Summers, Esquire Brynna J. Ross, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) Jody Bryant Newman, EdD, EdS Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
