The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry (Petitioner), against Miranda Smith, D.D.S. (Respondent), are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, the Respondent was a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, holding license no. DN 15873, with an address-of-record at 17020 County Line Road, Spring Hill, Florida 34610, and operating a dental practice identified as "Smiles and Giggles Dentistry." On August 23, 2011, the Respondent performed a dental examination of S.W., a three-year-old female. This was S.W.'s first visit to the Respondent's office. Routine procedures at the Respondent's office included taking radiographs (x-rays) of every new patient. After checking in with the receptionist and waiting for a brief time, S.W. and her mother were called from the reception area by a dental assistant, who accompanied them to a type of x-ray machine called a "Panorex." Patients can remain in a standing position while x-rays are taken with a Panorex, and the images can be produced without requiring the insertion of x-ray film into a patient's mouth. Despite encouragement from her mother and the offer of various enticements by the dental assistant, S.W. refused to stand in the Panorex, and no x-rays were taken. After the attempt to use the Panorex failed, S.W. and her mother were taken into an examination room ("operatory"). Each operatory at the Respondent's practice contained a standard x-ray machine that required the insertion of film into a patient's mouth to produce images. The evidence fails to establish that there was any attempt to obtain images from S.W. using the x-ray machine in the operatory. After S.W. was taken into the operatory and seated, the dental assistant performed a routine cleaning ("prophylaxis") and then left the room. S.W. was cooperative during the prophylaxis. After the prophylaxis was completed, the Respondent entered the room with a different dental assistant and proceeded to perform a comprehensive oral evaluation using routine dental tools. S.W. was cooperative during the examination. The Respondent examined the condition of S.W.'s teeth and verbalized her observations to the dental assistant, who recorded the information by hand into the patient chart. According to the patient chart, the Respondent observed decay in the teeth designated as A, B, I, J, K, L, S and T. After the evaluation was completed, S.W.'s mother was advised that the Respondent had observed "eight cavities" in S.W.'s teeth. The evidence failed to establish whether the mother received the information from the Respondent or from the dental assistant. Thereafter, the dental assistant escorted S.W. and her mother to the "check out" desk, where the mother was advised to schedule a follow-up appointment for dental work related to the Respondent's observations of decay. The follow-up appointment was scheduled for November 17, 2011, and the mother was advised that sedation would be administered at that time. S.W. and her mother then left the Respondent's office. According to the patient chart, the Respondent proposed to treat the observed decay by performing resin-based composite restorations on the teeth. S.W. did not return to the Respondent's office for the follow-up appointment. The Respondent provided no further dental care to S.W. Concerned about the Respondent's evaluation of her child's teeth, S.W.'s mother spoke with a friend who had been employed as a dental assistant, and then decided to seek another opinion regarding the condition of S.W.'s teeth. On or about September 6, 2011, S.W. and her mother went to see Dr. Eva Ackley, a dentist practicing at the Ackley Dental Group, for an evaluation of the child's teeth. Dr. Ackley was aware that S.W.'s mother was seeking a second opinion of the child's dental health. S.W. was cooperative throughout her appointment with Dr. Ackley. S.W. submitted to being x-rayed at Dr. Ackley's office. Dr. Ackley examined the child's teeth and reviewed the x-ray images and observed that, although S.W. had one tooth that required follow-up observation for potential decay, there were no actual cavities requiring treatment. According to S.W.'s mother, the child has been evaluated by two other dentists since 2011, one of whom observed three cavities and the other of whom observed none. According to the mother, neither of the subsequent dentists took x-rays of S.W.'s teeth. At the hearing, the Respondent presented an "expanded functions dental assistant" employed by the Respondent, who testified as to office procedures routinely followed at the Respondent's practice. The witness was not personally involved with S.W. on August 23, 2011. The witness testified that it was sometimes difficult to obtain x-rays from younger patients and that, in such cases, x-ray images would be obtained during a follow-up visit. If required, sedation was administered to calm the patient and obtain the images. The witness testified that during the course of her employment with the Respondent, no restorative treatment had been performed on a patient without x-ray images having been obtained prior to treatment. Her testimony was credible and convincing, and it has been accepted. The witness also testified that, in cases where no x-rays were taken at an initial evaluation, the routine procedure at the Respondent's office was to document the need to obtain x-rays at a follow-up appointment in the patient's file. Although the patient records of S.W.'s evaluation by the Respondent on August 23, 2011, state that the patient "would not do any x-rays," the records do not specify that they were to be taken at the follow-up appointment. The witness testified that the failure to document the need to obtain the x-ray images in the patient records was contrary to routine office procedures.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint at issue in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 3rd day of October, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Dentistry Department of Health Bin C-08 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3258 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A-02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Christopher Claude Torres, Esquire Casey and Torres, LLC Suite 200 1240 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-8707 Adrienne C. Rodgers, Esquire Department of Health Bin C-65 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Schlein was properly graded on the November 1986 practical examination for chiropractic. Preliminary matters At the opening of the hearing, the petitioner, Dr. Stuart Schlein, inquired whether a former member of the Florida Board of Chiropractic Examiners, Dr. Posner, could represent him in this proceeding. After inquiring about Dr. Posner's credentials, Dr. Posner was not accepted as a qualified representative, but Dr. Schlein was permitted to consult with Dr. Posner throughout the proceeding to assist in the presentation of Dr. Schlein's evidence. At the hearing, David Paulson, Ph.D., and Robert Samuel Butler, Jr., D.C., testified on behalf of both parties. Petitioner introduced exhibits 1-14, and respondent introduced exhibits 1 and 2.
Findings Of Fact Stuart Schlein, the petitioner, was a candidate during the November 1986 chiropractic examination. He was exempt from Part I (Basic Sciences Examination) and Part II (Clinical Sciences Examination) because he had already passed the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners' examination. The practical examination consists of three portions, one on x-ray interpretation, one on chiropractic technique, and one on physical diagnosis. There was no dispute with respect to the scoring of Dr. Schlein on the x-ray interpretation portion of the exam, on which he received a grade of 74.2 percent. Dr. Schlein's grade on technique was 75.0 and on physical diagnosis was 72.5, for an overall score on the three portions of practical examination of 73.9 percent. Dr. Schlein would have been eligible for registration for licensure as a chiropractor if his overall grade was 75 percent or better on the practical examination. Rule 21D- 11.003(4), (5), Florida Administrative Code. To conduct the technique and physical diagnosis portions of the practical examination, the Department of Professional Regulation hires examiners who have five or more years experience as licensed chiropractors in Florida who have not been disciplined or investigated by the Board. Rule 21D- 11.007(1), Florida Administrative Code. Pairs of examiners question each candidate. There is a standardization training session for examiners which lasts 2-3 hours the morning of the examination. During that training, the examiners learn the scoring scale to be used; candidates are scored on a scale from 1-4, with scores of four being the maximum. Examiners are told to independently evaluate the candidate's performance and are told how to record their answers on a sheet which can be scanned by computer, and are told the different content areas from which they may ask questions of candidates. For example, in the technique examination, there are four sub-areas to be covered, cervical, thoracic, occipital, and soft tissue. The examiner, individually, determines what he wishes to ask candidates from those subject areas. Both examiners' scores on each test are averaged to produce a candidate's final score for each test. The examiners change partners from the morning to afternoon examination sessions. For approximately 30 minutes before the morning or afternoon sessions, the examiners paired for that session may discuss with each other the questions which they intend to ask. To use a legal analogy, this method of testing candidate's practical knowledge is not much different than placing two examining lawyers in a room to question and evaluate a bar applicant, after merely instructing the lawyers to "ask something about evidence, about constitutional law, and about criminal law." (Transcript 137). There is no assurance that the questions posed by the examiners are at a proper level of difficulty to assess minimum qualifications for practice. There is no requirement that a given pair of examiners ask the same questions of their examinees during a morning or afternoon examination session. There is no assurance that the other examiner in the room even knows the answer to a question posed, yet both examiners are required to assign a grade for the candidate's performance on each sub-area. The Department makes a tape recording of the examination of each candidate for review. Dr. Schlein's grades on the technique and diagnosis portions of the practical examination were as follows: TECHNIQUE Examiner I Examiner 4 1. Cervical 3 4 2. Thoracic 3 3 3. Occipital 4 3 4. Soft Tissue 2 2 12 12 16 16 = 75 percent = 75 percent Average score 75 percent DIAGNOSIS Examiner 1 Examiner 4 Case History 3 3 Chiro. Exam. 2 2 Orthopedic 4 4 Neurological 4 3 Laboratory Diagnosis 3 2 Nutrition 2 [examiner failed to assign a grade] 18 14 24 20 = 75 percent = 70 percent Average score 72.5 percent Technique 75 percent Diagnosis 72.5 percent X-Ray 74.2 percent Final Average 73.9 percent Dr. Schlein objects to the grades he received for cervical and occipital on the technique exam and for neurological and nutrition in the diagnosis exam. With respect to the grade for nutrition, the Department of Professional Regulation could not explain why Examiner 4 failed to assign any grade for the candidate's answer with respect to the questions he was asked on nutrition. Dr. Schlein attempted to impeach the explanation given by Examiner 1, Dr. Butler, for the grades assigned on the four portions of the examination Dr. Schlein challenged by introducing portions of text books used in chiropractic schools which tend to support Dr. Schlein's oral answers. While the matter is not free from doubt, Dr. Schlein's text book excerpts have not convinced the Hearing Officer that the grades given are erroneous. Dr. Schlein was not properly graded, however, with respect to the area of nutrition since examiner 4 (who was not called as a witness) failed to assign any grade and the reason for his failure to do so was unexplained.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Schlein be granted the opportunity to be reexamined on the practical portion of the chiropractic examination, at no cost to him. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of June, 1988. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 1988. APPENDIX The following are my rulings on the proposed findings of fact proposed by the petitioner. Rejected as introduction. Covered in paragraph 1. Covered in paragraph 2. Covered in paragraph 5. Covered in paragraph 6. Covered in paragraphs 1 and 5. Rejected because it is not possible to tell what the effect of the failure of Examiner 4 to give a grade on nutrition was, other than to draw the conclusion expressed in paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law that the examiner did not completely understand the grading instructions. Rejected for the reasons stated in paragraph 8. The finding that the testimony establishes there is no uniform method for grading examinees is implicitly accepted in paragraph 3, the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as argument. The following are my rulings of findings of fact proposed by the respondent. The Department filed no proposed recommended order. COPIES FURNISHED: WILLIAM O'NEIL, ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 STUART SCHLEIN, D. C. 1035 FRANKLING ROAD APARTMENT N-208 MARIETTA, GEORGIA 30667 PAT GUILFORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent medical physician violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances; Subsection 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, by failing to keep medical records to justify the course of treatment of a patient; and/or Subsection 458.33(1)(p), Florida Statutes, by performing surgery at the spinal level of C6-7 without patient consent and without statutory exception.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, through the Board of Medicine, is the state agency which licenses and has regulatory jurisdiction of medical physicians. At all times material, Respondent has been a licensed medical physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license No. ME 0017399. He is board-certified in orthopedic surgery, is a member of many spine-specialized medical societies, and is highly published in the field of spinal surgery. He has devoted 100 percent of his practice to spinal surgery since 1989. On or about August 16, 1991, Patient R.L., then a thirty-two-year-old woman, was referred to Respondent with complaints of neck and shoulder pain due to a work-related accident. On August 16, 1991, Respondent diagnosed R.L. as having cervical spondylosis with radiculopathy, and thoracolumbar scoliosis. He recommended she undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of her cervical spine at North Florida Regional Medical Center (NFRMC). R.L. underwent MRI of her cervical spine at NFRMC on September 20, 1991. The radiologist's report of R.L.'s September 20, 1991, MRI indicated no disc herniation, central stenosis, or foraminal impingement at the C3-4 and C4-5 disc levels or at the C6-7 and C7-T1 levels. The radiologist's report did indicate that at the C5-6 level there was a small abnormal posterior protrusion of disc material, centrally and slightly eccentric towards the right side and that axial images demonstrated a small, right-sided central/right paracentral herniation. The report added that a very mild and early uncontrovertral spurring was noted at this level but was not resulting in impingement for exiting nerve roots. R.L. next saw Respondent on September 24, 1991. On that date, Respondent reviewed R.L.'s cervical spine MRI with her and diagnosed a probable small central and right paracentral herniation at the C5-6 level. Respondent was then of the opinion that the cervical spine MRI did not clearly delineate a disc herniation at R.L.'s C5-6 level. Respondent accordingly recommended that R.L. undergo a myelogram-CT scan. Respondent did not indicate to R.L. that he detected any pathology at C6-7. On October 29, 1991, R.L. underwent a cervical myelogram and CT scan at NFRMC. The radiologist's report indicated an extradural defect at C5-6, which was moderate in size and touched the cord but which did not cause any cord compression. The report also stated that the nerve sleeved well and that there was a very slight posterior subluxaton of C5 on C6 associated with this. The report did not indicate any pathology at C6-7. R.L. next saw Respondent on November 14, 1991. On that date, Respondent reviewed R.L.'s cervical myelogram and CT scan with her, diagnosed a herniated nucleus pulposus at C5-6, and recommended C5-6 anterior cervical fusion with plates. Respondent did not, on that date, indicate to R.L. that he had identified any pathology at C6-7. R.L. testified that before surgery, Respondent did not tell her that he would be removing any disc other than the one at C5-6; that he did not indicate he thought R.L. would need more surgery than the surgery planned at C5-6; or that he might discover something during the planned surgery which would require the removal of any disc different than C5-6. Respondent testified that he did not recall whether he did or did not tell R.L. that C6-7 might some day require an operation or that C6-7 might need work while he was operating on C5-6. His office notes for January 21, 1992, only state She returns today for her preoperative visit. The nature and extent of her surgery has been explained to her and she voices understanding. R.L.'s and Respondent's testimony agree that before surgery, Respondent intended to remove and fuse only at C5-6; that R.L. understood and agreed that Respondent would remove only the disc at level C5-6 and fuse it; and that before surgery, neither of them expected Respondent to operate at a level of R.L.'s cervical spine different than C5-6. Experts for Petitioner and Respondent, (Drs. Gonzalez- Perez and Smith respectively), concurred that if Respondent discussed the proposed procedure, most common and potential risks and complications, and the potential course of rehabilitation with R.L., and if Respondent and R.L. then reached a mutual decision to operate, full disclosure and informed consent had occurred, regardless of whether a written consent form had been filled out and signed. On January 29, 1992, R.L. signed an NFRMC "Authorization for Surgical Treatment and/or Special Procedure" which provided: I, the undersigned, a patient in the below named hospital, hereby authorize Dr. Lowery (and whomever he may designate as his assistants) to administer such treatment as is necessary, and to perform the following operation: anterior cervical fusion and instruments with autolugus and/or bone bank bone and such additional operations or procedures as are considered therapeutic on the basis of findings during the course of said operation. I also consent to the administration of such anesthetics as are necessary with the exception of none. Any tissues or parts surgically removed may be disposed of by the hospital in accordance with accustomed practice. I hereby certify that I have read and fully understand the above AUTHORIZATION FOR SURGICAL TREATMENT, the reasons why the above-named surgery is considered necessary, its advantage and the possible complications, if any, as well as possible alternative modes of treatment, which were explained to me by Dr. Lowery. I also certify that no guarantee or assurance has been made as to the results that may be obtained (Underlined portions were written in; the remainder was pre-printed). The foregoing hospital authorization did not identify the level of the cervical spine where the procedure would be performed. It merely indicated that an anterior cervical fusion would be performed, without stating which of the seven vertebrae were intended to be fused. Dr. Gonzalez-Perez, Petitioner's expert witness, testified that this is not the type of release a reasonable and prudent physician would use for informed consent. Petitioner contends that Respondent's use of the authorization form deviated from the level of care, skill, and treatment recognized by a reasonable and prudent physician as being acceptable under similar facts and circumstances, but even Petitioner's expert, Dr. Gonzalez-Perez, testified that such a form is usually filled-out by a nurse employed by the hospital, and that if Respondent and R.L. went through an informed consent conversation prior to surgery, that would be sufficient, without a written acknowledgement or authorization, for Respondent to have met the standard of care for informed consent and patient pre-authorization for surgery at the mutually understood level of C5-6. On February 3, 1992, Respondent performed an anterior cervical fusion with plates on R.L. at NFRMC, with the intention of operating at the C5-6 level of R.L.'s cervical spine. In doing so, he utilized a portable fluoroscopy unit, intraoperatively, to ascertain the correct level of R.L.'s cervical spine for the anterior cervical fusion with plates. The success of such a procedure depends upon properly identifying the pathological discs. It is critical to correctly ascertain the site where the surgery is to be performed. Failure to correctly identify the location for surgery can result in a failure to perform the intended surgery, a failure to resolve the problem which required the surgery, and/or performing surgery in a location not requiring surgery. The method Respondent used was to palpate the boney structures, make an incision to the vertebral bodies, insert a single needle, take an X-ray, and see if the needle had correctly located where surgery should take place. Respondent's expert, Dr. Smith, and Respondent testified that they prefer the one-needle method utilized by Respondent. Dr. Gonzalez-Perez admitted that use of X-rays, including fluoroscopy in the operating room in order to locate the level of the operation is the "gold standard" of care in this type of orthopedic surgery. He would have used a two- needle technique for locating and checking the location of the surgical site, but even he considered the one-needle method to constitute acceptable medical practice. In R.L.'s case, Respondent placed the single needle at the C7-T1 level, and the fluoroscopic lateral spot films of R.L.'s cervical spine obtained in the operating room showed the needle at the C7-T1 level. Respondent, however, concluded incorrectly that the fluoroscopic lateral spot films showed a needle at the C6-7 level. Respondent miscounted from the vertebra landmark of what he thought was C-2, and removed and fused the wrong disc. On February 3, 1992, after drawing the conclusion that the intraoperative fluoroscopic lateral spot films showed a needle at the C6-7 level of R.L.'s cervical spine, Respondent proceeded with an anterior cervical fusion with plates at what he assumed was the C5-6 level of R.L.'s cervical spine, which, in fact, was the C6-7 level. Respondent, in fact, performed an anterior cervical fusion with plates at the C6-7 level of R.L.'s cervical spine. Respondent surmised in his testimony that he had been confused because on R.L., the C-2 and C-3 structures were very similar. Dr. Gonzalez-Perez maintained that Respondent should have been able to locate the correct level based on the jaw bone and part of the skull being visible in the first and pre-removal X-ray (lower image of P-7). Respondent disagreed that skull and jaw are the best landmarks. Dr. Smith testified that C-2 and C-3 look similar due to their scalloped edges, but either would be an appropriate point from which to begin counting. He, personally, would normally begin counting with C-2, which is a very distinctive- looking vertebra. He opined that even reasonable and prudent physicians can make mistakes in counting and removing the wrong disc. Dr. Gonzalez-Perez felt that Respondent could have and should have involved others in the operating room in counting vertebrae and selecting the surgical location. Respondent disagreed, maintaining that only the surgeon should make such a decision. Dr. Smith testified that he, personally, asks someone else in the operating room to check him after he has counted. Petitioner contends that by failing to correctly identify the level of the spine and to make certain of the operative level before proceeding, Respondent failed to practice with the level of care, skill and treatment which is recognized by a reasonable and prudent medical physician under similar facts and circumstances as being acceptable and that Respondent had the information and should have been able to properly and correctly count the levels of the cervical spine and find the appropriate disc. However, even Petitioner's expert, Dr. Gonzalez-Perez, testified that Respondent met the standard of care up to the point at which Respondent performed the actual operation, and that operating at an unintended level is a known complication of such surgery, as stated in the textbooks. Respondent testified that during the surgery, he found a disc fragment and a tear in the posterior longitudinal ligament (PLL) at the wrong level (C6-7) where he removed the wrong disc, and that during the surgery, he relied upon this discovery as indicative that he was operating at the correct location/level (C5-6). Respondent testified that he removed the piece of disc at C6-7 in one piece, found a rent in the PLL behind it, and believed the pathology he had found corresponded to what he had expected to find at the C5-6 level, based on his preoperative evaluation. Dr. Gonzalez-Perez testified that a rent in the PLL cannot be seen until the disc is removed, so viewing it does not verify the location at which a discectomy should occur. He also stated that although a surgeon tries not to push down, occasionally s/he must dig in and push tissue to the back so as to remove the desired tissue and that portions of the disc may remain in the disc space until they are scooped out. Therefore, the procedure itself can result in a tear of the PLL. In light of the pre-operative tests not showing disc material or a PLL tear, Petitioner urges that the conclusion be drawn that Respondent's surgery itself caused the tear and protrusion at R.L.'s C6-7 level, but Dr. Gonzalez-Perez did not clearly state such a conclusion. Dr. Smith testified that finding such pathology after beginning the disc removal would have been a comforting (re- enforcing) sign to any surgeon that s/he had operated at the correct level, but Dr. Smith acknowledged that such a sign would not identify the correct disc for removal before removal actually began. Due to the superiority of Respondent's and Dr. Smith's cervical spine surgical experience over that of Dr. Gonzalez- Perez, who does only an average of two cervical spine operations per year, and due to Respondent's explanation of how the PLL/annulus structures differ in the cervical spine from the lumbar spine, it is found that even if the Respondent did not see the disc fragment and PLL rent until after he began removal of the C6-7 disc, the pathology at C6-7 reasonably reinforced Respondent's belief that he was operating in the correct location of C5-6 for the duration of the operation. No one clearly testified that the C6-7 removal and fusion was necessary on February 3, 1992, or that it would become necessary at some later date. Likewise, no one clearly testified that the removal and fusion at C6-7 was not necessary on February 3, 1992, or would not have become necessary later. Dr. Smith testified that in his pre-operative discussions with his own patients, they usually tell him to fix any additional unexpected pathology he finds once he begins an operation. The evidence falls short of being clear and convincing that the wrong disc removal and fusion on February 3, 1992, resulted in any subsequent damage to R.L.'s spine. While still in the operating room, Respondent checked his work with a second fluoroscopic image (upper image of P-7). Respondent and both experts agreed that this second image would cause a surgeon who thought he had counted correctly to assume he had removed the correct disc and created a good fusion at the correct level. However, the two experts concurred that there were no clear landmarks whatsoever on this view to show that the operation had occurred at either the correct or the incorrect level. Respondent's operative report for the February 3, 1992, procedure incorrectly described removal of the C5-6 disc space. On February 4, 1992, postoperative X-rays taken at NFRMC showed that the anterior cervical fusion with plates had, in fact, been performed at the wrong level, C6-7, of R.L.'s cervical spine. Copies of the report concerning the X-rays were supplied to Respondent at about that time. About a week later, the radiologist's narrative to the same effect was provided to Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent did not discover his error for nearly six months. After the surgery, R.L. continued to experience pain, presumably because she still had the same uncorrected, pre- operative problem at C5-6. R.L. returned to Respondent on an outpatient basis on February 11, 1992. On that date, Respondent performed a radiographic examination of R.L.'s cervical spine but made no mention to her that the anterior cervical fusion with plates had been performed at the wrong level. He made no such notation in her chart. Respondent told R.L. that he had looked at the X- rays and everything had gone well and everything looked good. R.L. next saw Respondent on March 12, 1992, when he again performed a radiographic examination of R.L.'s cervical spine. At that time, Respondent made no mention of the C6-7 level of the anterior cervical fusion with plates in her chart and again did not tell R.L. that he had removed the wrong disc and fused the wrong location. R.L. next saw Respondent on April 23, 1992, and again Respondent did not reveal his error to R.L., but he did make a narrative note to her chart which stated that R.L. "is now approximately eleven weeks from having an ACF, C6-7." Even so, Respondent did not discover he had operated on the incorrect level until R.L.'s July 23, 1992 visit, at which time, he informed R.L. what had occurred. Respondent's July 23, 1992, narrative note for R.L.'s chart makes the statement that I have explained that there is a discrepancy in her clinical exam and also the intraoperative findings and postoperative x- rays, both to the patient and her rehabilitation counselor, Ms. Terry L. Smith, R.N. Respondent clearly remembered the presence of the nurse on July 23, 1992.1 Dr. Gonzalez-Perez opined that Respondent's performance was acceptable up to the operation itself, but was not up to the acceptable level of care thereafter, because from the first (lower image P-7) fluoroscopy image, Respondent should have been able to tell the needle was on the wrong level by counting vertebrae; because Respondent should have involved others in the operating room in analyzing the X-ray; because Respondent should not have removed the C6-7 disc, based on his own preoperative work-up; and because Respondent should not have relied on the rent and fragmentation at C6-7 to confirm his conclusion that he was operating at the correct level/location. Dr. Gonzalez-Perez faulted Respondent's record-keeping for failing to write in a recommendation; because his records did not justify the removal and fusion at C6-7; and because Respondent did not follow his own initial surgical plan. Ultimately, however, Dr. Gonzalez-Perez testified that it is not "malpractice" to operate at the wrong level, provided the error is discovered at the end of the operation, because one may decide to re-operate correctly. Dr. Smith's opinion was that an acceptable level of care had been met if Respondent informed the patient of his error once he discovered it. There is no dispute that at the July 1992 office visit, Respondent offered to do the C5-6 surgery for R.L. immediately. Respondent has had no prior or subsequent disciplinary actions against him. This event occurred three years after he began to devote himself exclusively to spinal surgery. Eight years have passed since this event. There is no evidence of any other level of practice problem of any kind.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 458.331(1)(m),(p), and (t), Florida Statutes, with mitigating circumstances, reprimanding him for same, and imposing a $750.00 fine. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2000.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, a licensed dentist, should be disciplined based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail allegedly violative of Subsection 464.24(3)(a)(m), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 100-56.637(3) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Max R. McConnell, D.D.S., is a licensed dentist who holds license No. 2743, and as such is authorized to practice dentistry in the State of Florida under the jurisdiction of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes. During times material, Dr. McConnell, Respondent, was engaged in the practice of dentistry and maintained a dental office located at 3606 South Manhattan Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On April 15, 1977, a representative with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services conducted a routine inspection of Petitioner's X-ray equipment. On this occasion, it was discovered that Respondent's X-ray machine, a Weber 6RS/M 6R3967, which is located in the rear room of his dental office, was found to be in noncompliance with the requirements of Chapter 1856, Florida Administrative Code, to-wit, the timer on the machine did not correctly terminate the exposure. Chapter 10D-56.637(3), Florida Administrative Code, provides in pertinent part that: Timers. Means shall be provided to ter- minate the exposure at a preset time inter- val, preset product of current and time, or a preset number of pulses or a preset radiation exposure to the Image receptor. In addition, Termination of exposure shall cause automatic resetting of the timer to its ini- tial setting or to zero. (h) It shall not be possible to make an exposure when the timer is set to a zero or off position if either position is provided. X-ray Control (Exposure Switch) (a) A control shall be incorporated into each x-ray system such that an exposure can be terminated at any time. This switch shall be of the dead-man type. During the April 15, 1977, routine inspection by Petitioner, the Respondent was advised of the nonconformance of the X-ray machine and he agreed to correct the machine within ninety days. Thereafter, during a subsequent inspection on March 9, 1978, the subject machine was again inspected and again found to be in noncompliance because of the faulty timer, and Respondent was mailed a letter dated March 13, 1975, requesting the necessary corrections be completed as soon as possible. Subsequent visits to Respondent's office on October 12, 1978, and April 25, 1979, revealed that the subject X-ray machine was still found not to be in compliance because the timer failed to terminate the exposure as required in Chapter 10D-56.637(3) and (4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent testified that the subject machine was merely used by himself as a supplemental machine and that the primary machine which he uses correctly terminates the exposure as required by the foregoing chapter. In this regard, two of Respondent's former dental aides who were employed during the times in question testified that the Respondent does not always operate the machine and, while it may be true that he knows how to operate the machine in such a manner as to correctly terminate the exposure, the two dental aides testified that they are called upon to utilize the machine at times. For this reason, it is concluded that the Respondent continues to operate an X-ray machine in his office which he knows to be in noncompliance with Chapter 10D- 56.637(3) and(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. I shall so retend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent Max R. McConnell, D.D.S., repair the above-described Weber 6R X-ray machine with Serial Number 6R3967, within ten (10) days of the date of the Board's final order or remove such machine from his office within the above-stated period. Additionally, it is recommended that the Respondent, Max R. McConnell, D.D.S., be issued a written reprimed for engaging in the above conduct. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Haldane Taylor, Esquire 2516 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Max R. McConnell, D.D.S. 3606 South Manhattan Avenue Tampa, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY FLORIDA BOARD OF DENTISTRY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 79-1755 MAX McCONNELL, D.D.S., Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact L. R. Fleming is a chiropractic physician licensed by the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners and holds License #1239. Dr. L. R. Fleming caused to be published in the Today Newspaper an advertisement, a copy of which was introduced into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. This advertisement read as follows: CHIROPRACTORS SEEK RESEARCH VOLUNTEERS The International Pain Control Institute in conjunction with the New York Chiropractic College is presently engaged in what is the most extensive research program ever undertaken by the chiropractic profession. This research is directed toward determining the relationship between health problems and spinal misalignments and utilizes a screening process called Contour Analysis. Volunteers are being sought for screening. Contour Analysis enables taking a three- dimensional picture (called Moire photography) of the topography of the surface of the spine to detect spinal stress deviations. This analysis will be correlated with leg deficiency, patient symptomatology, and levels of tenderness. An analysis of this type can reveal such things as normal and abnormal stress patterns, spinal curvature, muscle spasms, muscle imbalance, spinal distortions and scoliosis. There is no charge to participating volunteers, since the doctors are contributing their time, service, and facilities for the program. Final processing and evaluation will be done at the New York Chiropractic College. Anyone wishing to be a volunteer may telephone participating doctors directory for information or an appointment. MERRITT ISLAND TITUSVILLE MELBOURNE (doctor's (doctor's Dr. Lyle name deleted) name deleted) Fleming Phone 254-3343 The advertisement above was published in the Today Newspaper on or about April 1, 1978. Gladys Teate, of Melbourne, Florida, read this advertisement on or about April 1, 1978, and made an appointment with dr. Fleming for contour analysis on April 11, 1978. Gladys Teate kept the appointment on April 11, 1978, and had a contour analysis performed at Dr. Fleming's office. The process of contour analysis consisted of the taking of certain personal data together with symptomatology from Gladys Teate by one of the doctor's assistants. Thereafter, the doctor's assistant took a Moire photograph of Teate's back. Teate was then seen by Dr. Fleming, who performed an elementary examination of Teate's back and explained the Moire photograph to her. Teate had no recollection of the contour analysis, Dr. Fleming's examination, or any subsequent events to include any oral representations made by Dr. Fleming. However, records reflect that x-rays were taken of Teate at Dr. Fleming's office. Thereafter, a thorough chiropractic examination was performed by the doctor, who prepared a written diagnostic recommendation, a copy of which was introduced as Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Teate was unclear as to whether she saw Dr. Fleming on one or two (2) occasions; however, she was given a bill for $10 for a chiropractic examination and a bill for $45 for x-rays upon leaving Dr. Fleming's office. There was no charge for the contour analysis. No competent evidence of Dr. Fleming's indicating that further examination and diagnosis was free was presented. No evidence was introduced that the research program described in the advertisement was not a legitimate research program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida State Board of Chiropractic Examiners take no action against the license of Dr. L. R. Fleming, D.C. DONE AND ORDERED this 21st day of September 1979 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Paul W. Lambert, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Louis V. Cianfrogna, Esquire 308 Julia Street Post Office Drawer 6310-G Titusville, Florida 32780 Board of Chiropractic Examiners 6501 Arlington Expressway Building B, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
